More Late Breaking News:  Top Stories

© Copyright 1876-2004 By The Daily Republican Newspaper. All rights reserved

© Copyright 1876-2004 By The Daily Republican Newspaper. All rights reserved.

    IRVINE, CA -- Secretary of State Colin Powell declared this weekend that "The United States does not support either the elimination or the exile of Mr. Arafat." His reasoning? "There would be rage throughout the Arab world the Muslim world, and in many other parts of the world."
     By that reasoning we should not have attacked Afghanistan, nor Iraq; nor should we try to kill Hussein, bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership.
     In fact, if we accept Powell's reasoning, we should immediately stop our war on terror--we don't want to further enrage those peaceful Islamic terrorists and their supporters, do we?

   [Editor's Note: Click here to obtain more background info about the Ayn Rand Organization. ]

Comment

© Copyright 1876-2004 by The Daily Republican Newspaper. All rights reserved.

September 5, 2003
Briefing from Camp Victory, Baghdad
Donald H. Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense

Rumsfeld: I had a good visit with Jerry Bremer, and then went over and visited with General Sanchez, and then we visited the people around the building we've known over the years who are helping out.

And then we had a dinner with the British ambassador and the senior team that Jerry Bremer and General Sanchez have. It ran about an hour and 20 minutes longer than it was supposed to, but it was excellent. We were able to talk the broad scope of what's taking place in this country. It's truly amazing the amount of progress that's been achieved in whatever its been - four or five months, depending on whether you start before the war or after the war. If one looks at any other timeline - the timeline in Germany, the timeline in Japan, the timeline in any number of other countries. The progress here has been notably better, faster, and at least to my eyes really impressive. If you think of the political side -- the work that's been done to get the city councils going all across the country, the standing up of a government council, the first reasonably representative thing that's happened in this country nationwide in decades. The announcement more recently of the appointment of ministers to deal with the overwhelming majority of the ministries. There are important steps yet ahead and they're in pretty much in the hands of the Iraqi people and the Governing Council.

The next step presumably would be that they will fashion some sort of a date and an approach to a constitutional convention or populace to produce the drafting of a constitution. After that, there needs to say, there will have to be a ratification or approving of that constitution and the constitutional process by the Iraqi people, and after that, one would think they would be provided for in the constitution and opportunity for people to elect officials depending on how the constitution ends up being crafted. They have accomplished three or four steps and have three of four to go, but it's been enormously impressive progress. If you think of our country, it was sometime in 1776 until I think 1789 before we had a system in place that everyone agreed to. The amount of time in Germany, Jerry Bremer mentioned today that it took something like three years; I believe he said, to get a currency arranged in Germany. That was done in the first two or three months here in Iraq. So there are truly impressive accomplishments. It is understandable that with so much analysis and so much observation, and so much scrutiny as to what's going on here that the emphasis turns to be on the things that are unfortunate, where somebody is killed or somebody is wounded, or some building is blown up, or someone is critical of the government council, or critical of the coalition. And that's what happens in a free country. That's what happens when people are free to write what they want, say what they want, and so what they want. On the other hand, it tends to create an impression, an imbalance in public perception that is unfortunate.

These young men and women that are here are doing work that is enormously important. It's important to the Iraqi people who are free for the first time. It's important to the region and offers the prospect for something that can happen here that can affect the behavior politically in neighboring economic circumstances of the people of the entire region.

A peaceful recovering Iraq will make an enormous difference that can be (Inaudible.) of each of the neighboring countries. It's also important to the world. We've got an awful lot of people in this world who are teaching people that the thing to do is strap bombs on themselves and go kill people -- innocent women and children. We need more people who are teaching in schools that it's important to learn math, and to learn languages, and to learn the kinds of things that will enable them to provide for themselves and their families.

And if you think of the damage that Stalin and the Soviet Union did to the people of Russia and the people of the Soviet republics and the occupied Warsaw Pact countries and what happened to their infrastructure over those many decades, what happened to the lost opportunities, the effects on their lives, the education they didn't get. And then you think about what happens in a system that's rooted in fear. What happens to people psychologically if they know that their only opportunity is to acquiesce in that repressive system, their only way they can provide for their families is to be a part of a system that is corrupt, that is vicious, that is picking people up in the night without charges, throwing them in jail and killing them, and yet, to survive and succeed, they have to become a part of that apparatus. In Russia, they called it the nomenclature -- in the Soviet Union.

In other countries, here in this country it was the Ba'athists that were privileged, and needless to say that with the wonderful success that the armed forces have here -- the coalition forces -- those opportunities for the Ba'athists ended and there's a lot of them still around and they're unhappy about it and they're trying to destroy the infrastructure of the Iraqis. They're trying to kill Coalition people and drive them out. You ask yourself what's the future hold. Seems to be the future's pretty clear. The future is that these folks are going to be successful here and this country of ours and the Coalition is going to stay here for as much time is as necessary and not any longer. We have no desire to have any role in Iraqi oil, or Iraqi resources -- they belong to the Iraqi people, and our task is to try and create an environment that is hospitable for the Iraqi people to fashion a new way of governing themselves and be on our way. It is tough work. It's dangerous work. I stopped over in the tent where some of the folks that were wounded just in the last 48 hours were. It's dangerous needless to say, but it's getting better every day. I can certainly see a change since I was here. You can see a change since you were here.

I'm rambling. I'd be happy to respond to questions.

Q: The last time that you didn't spend the night in Iraq. Is the fact that you are this time dictated by the number of things you want to do or are you (Inaudible.).

Rumsfeld: No, I'm trying to get to bed. (Laughter.) It's a long way down to Kuwait and my problem with staying here last time was that -- I don't believe the war had even ended -- it hadn't. When I’m around, it's a problem. It takes a lot of people to guard me and to look out for you, and my feeling was that they had a lot of hard work to do and it was better for me to get out and not to put them into danger. Today's situation is very different. You've got folks here doing a wonderful job -- a lot of people helping the Coalition and Provisional Authority and the circumstance is such that I'm not putting -- I hope I’m not putting a lot of people out and certainly not that I would have --

Q: Under the heading of getting better every day, do you think that is true for the security situation? Or is it in fact getting worse or not getting better?

Rumsfeld: If you look at the data and look at the number of attacks and at the number of incidents, it tends to go up and down in waves and it is you know, it depends on what you baseline is and when you mark it. But at the moment, the last thing I saw it went like this and it came down and it went up a little, and it came down, and it has held fairly steady ion the last period. So it's down from where it was here, but it's been fairly level in recent weeks.

Q: The number of casualties, or number of (Inaudible.)

Rumsfeld: Those are attacks.

Q: What about the number of casualties, successful casualties, for instance, if you look at the number of car bombs in the last few weeks, it appears to be rising.

Rumsfeld: I'll have to go back and look. There are casualties every week. We know that.

Q: The larger question is if you're balancing the positive that you've just noted in the many things that have been stood up with the negatives in the instability in the security situation, is that threatening to outweigh the positive?

Rumsfeld: I'm sure there are people who will say that, but the answer is no, not at all. The number of reconstruction projects that have been done Jerry talked about is 6,000 -- 6,000 individual activities that the military and civilian effort in this country by the Coalition has accomplished. They have touched the lives of millions of Iraqis. They've seen the progress. They've seen things happen.

Schools are open. Universities are open. You look at right over here see what's going on in terms of entrepreneurial activities and people in the street selling things, buying things, bartering things, doing things -- walking out relatively freely. A key measure -- Pat Kennedy from the State Department who works with Jerry Bremer said the thing that he finds impressive, which General Sanchez agreed with -- is the growing number of Iraqis who are walking up to the forces -- civilian and military, U.S., Coalition, and to the Iraqi forces, and telling them where caches are, where people are who should be arrested, telling them what they ought to be looking our for -- that there's a bomb there. There's no way to capture that in a metric. That the people here, if you take them aside and ask them will tell you that they can feel the Iraqi people responding and being helpful. How do you compare it?

Q: Is it a (Inaudible.) security problem?

Rumsfeld: No it's not. It's a problem that has to be dealt with. It's a problem that ultimately the Iraqi people are going to deal with as well -- with the help of the Coalition forces. It's all interconnected. Progress on the political side will contribute to progress on the economic side and progress on the security side. Progress on the economic side will contribute to progress on the security side. Progress on the security side contributes to progress on the economic side. We've got to try to find a way to continue to put sufficient pressure on those that don't believe in a representative system for this country -- the people who want to go back to a dictatorship, the people who are coming across the borders because they want a Jihad, they want to engage in a terrorist act of some kind. We've got to put enough pressure on them that the good people of this country win.

Q: Have you been given any indication on whether it was foreigners who came across the borders or whether it was Ba'athists who are behind the truck bombs?

Rumsfeld: No.

Q: You don't know which ones they are?

Rumsfeld: I don't happen to know. I haven't looked, but some have been caught and some haven't. Some have been killed and some weren't. It varies. We've got every size and shape and nationality you can imagine that have been killed or captured. The mixture that I've characterized -- it isn't one single thing.

Q: Is it time for the Administration to tell Congress and the American people how much more money is going to be needed to sustain operations here for the next year? What's your best ballpark estimate?

Rumsfeld: I think very likely the Administration is pulling that together from the different departments and agencies and from Jerry Bremer and from DoD and State, and all the people that are involved.

Q: What's your best ballpark estimate?

Rumsfeld: I'm not going to prejudge what the president decides. He'll end up taking all of that and putting it together and making a judgment, and make an announcement at some appropriate time.

Q: Do you think American troops are threatened by forces in this country who may not be al Qaeda, who may not be Ba'athists -- who just don't --

Rumsfeld: There are certainly threats from the two you described. There are also threats from criminals who do these things -- that's what they do. And then there's undoubtedly those who are unemployed who are doing things they shouldn't be doing or doing something for money, but are not ideologically motivated. It really runs across the spectrum, but the circumstance of this country is so much better today than it was in April.

It's going to be so much better down the road -- another three or four months and the things you read where people say are "chaos" and "getting worse" and all of that. It seems to me they tend to be focused in Baghdad and tend to focus in the central region where the bulk of activity is going on. In the west or the south or the north, it's a relatively different circumstance. And it tends to be repeated and repeated and repeated in a way that people begin to walk away with the impression that it's deteriorating and that simply isn't the view that I get from Jerry Bremer or from General Sanchez and certainly not the impression that Larry or I or others who have been here before see by way of comparison.

I think people who come here and stay over a sustained period of many, many months see the improvement. People who come in and look at it with balanced eyes on an intermittent basis see the improvement. That is not to say that people aren't going to get killed. That is not to say it isn't dangerous. It is. And it's not to say that there won't be difficulties prospectively. Undoubtedly there undoubtedly will, but it seems to be the trajectory we're on is a good one.

Q: Did Mr. Bremer ask you for additional measures that the military should take to enhance security measures here? Did he ask you for specific additional measures?

Rumsfeld: We talk almost every day. So if you asked in this meeting today if he asked me for additional that he doesn't have, no, not that I recall. We talked about the importance of military police. We talked about the importance of trainers -- people. We talked about the growth in the Iraqi capability going from zero three or four months ago up to somewhere around 55,000 today, if you add up police, former Guard, militia, army, facilities protection -- now amazing that increment to go from zero to 55,000 Iraqis with weapons providing, assisting and providing security in this country. Now, it's a country of 23 or 4 million people, so it isn't where it stops. It's got to continue to go up as I said on the airplane for those that were there -- the Iraqi side.

Q: Can you give us a little more clarity on -- talking about --

Rumsfeld: I've had so many questions. I'm here to get educated, to learn and to test and taste what's taking place here. And I had six, eight, ten people around the table who live here and who are engaged in it and who care about it and who are doing everything humanly possible on the military and civilian side and they gave me the opportunity to ask them questions on a variety of different subjects.

Q: What about the U.N. role? Was that discussed and if things are going so well, does it make sense to have a larger U.N. role or is a larger U.N. role here desirable so that it doesn't appear to be such an American operation?

Rumsfeld: I don't want you to say that things are going so well as though I'm Pollyanna. I'm not. I said. This is a tough business. It's dangerous, and it's difficult, and it's going to take time. What I said is that there has been measurable progress. And that is not a Pollyannaish comment. And it is not (Inaudible.). It's truthful. And it would be wrong to begin your question that way. And I'm shocked that you did it, Jim! I can't believe you would do that! (Laughter.)

Q: What about the U.N. role? Is there a need for a larger --

Rumsfeld: We discussed it. And that's being negotiated now with the president and Colin. They're working with the Security Council members to try to figure out there's a dozen different models that have been used over the last decade. There are three or four that are currently being used that are different. And we're going to figure it out. Does it make sense to have a larger U.N. role? We think so, otherwise we wouldn't be in there requesting it and suggesting it.

Q: One of those models actually in Kosovo has NATO commanders in charge in sectors that we (Inaudible.) -- Do you think that's a possibility that the United States -- (Inaudible.)

Rumsfeld: I don't want to prejudge it.

Q: But how do you feel personally?

Rumsfeld: Personally I give my advice in discussions in National Security Council meetings and privately to the president and Secretary of State. He will negotiate that and figure out how to do it and which model makes the most sense and he comes back and says here's what people think and -- and at some point we'll have one. My guess is we'll end up with a somewhat larger role, although the U.N. has been involved from the beginning. The president went to the U.N. and got a resolution. The U.N. sat down (Inaudible.) --

Q: But do you envision a larger and maybe joint (Inaudible.) --

Rumsfeld: I envision exactly what I said. The president said from the beginning that "the U.N. should have a vital role," I think was his phrase. Right? And that's been evolving and we'll see what evolves. Who wants to guess? I don't have to be in the guessing business.

Q: General Sanchez -- he didn't ask for any more troops, did he?

Rumsfeld: Absolutely not. This is really a fixation people have. If he wanted more troops, he would have them, believe me. And I would send them. He has said he has about the right number of forces. We have all said it is healthy and good to enlarge the number of international forces, so we have for four months now been all across the globe been talking to something in excess of eighty or ninety countries and we now have 29 physically involved. And we want more. And we think that's a good thing. But mostly what we want, and what General Sanchez wants and want Jerry Bremer wants is more Iraqi forces. We want more force protection, more site protection, more border protection, more police protection in cities by Iraqis. This is their country. The security of their country, and the political future of their country, and the economic advancement of their country is going to be done by Iraqi people. It is not going to be done by nation builders. It is not going to be done by people coming in and fashioning a template and saying "here's how we do it, and therefore you must do it." They're going to figure it out.

Looks like this will be the last question.

Q: Do you think that will happen faster than anything out of the U.N.? Will we get more forces out of the indigenous population before you will out of the U.N.?

Rumsfeld: "Before" is the word that bothers me about your question. If you think about it, in three months we've gone from zero to 55,000 Iraqis, and in three or four months -- which one should I be using? [Mr. Di Rita in background: May 1, four months]. Ok. In four months we've got plus or minus 22,000 international troops, and we hope and our looking to get an additional increment from the four, five, six or eight countries, that we're currently in discussions and negotiations with, a few of which are interested in what the resolution looks like out of the U.N. and how that works. So, that answers your question. My guess is you're going to see the 55,000 Iraqis go up to 75.000, or 100,000 over some period of time. Why? Because it’s their country.

Q: By the end of the year?

Rumsfeld: No, come on. I don't do deadlines.

Q: You have a goal, though?

Rumsfeld: And my goal is to always exceed the goal and to do it (Inaudible.) better.

Q: (Inaudible).

Rumsfeld: That's a fair question. I think it helps the Iraqi people. I think it helps the neighboring countries. I think it helps some non-neighboring countries feel that it is a truly international effort. I think it tends to belie the argument that these countries are there to get the Iraqi or these countries are going to stay forever. People in the United States don't want to stay here forever. The people in the United States have isolationist impulses. Our first choice is to not be doing that. And to have our folks at home. So the (Inaudible.) of international forces is a helpful thing I believe. Always have. That's why we started before the war started trying to get other countries involved. In fact we even started before the war started and the liaison teams down at CENTCOM were working with the Brits and the Aussies in case a war started to get them involved . Thanks a lot.

Comment

© Copyright 1876-2004 By The Daily Republican Newspaper. All rights reserved.

August 7, 2003
CAN’T RECALL A MORE EXCITING ELECTION
by Sean Carter

    CHINO HILLS, CA -- As a political humorist (i.e., someone too lazy to pursue gainful employment), I’ve been longing for political turmoil. It didn't have to be anything earthshaking, like Camryn Manheim doing high-impact aerobics; just something that could compete with that ridiculous Queer Eye for the Straight Guy show on NBC. Well, I believe my prayers have been answered in the form of the California gubernatorial recall election.
    Ever since California courts certified the recall effort, the news from Sacramento has gotten weirder and weirder (and it was bizarre to begin with). Within days, hundreds of political unknowns announced their candidacies for governor of the nation’s most populous state. For example, three enterprising men named Gray Davis have filed to have their names placed on the ballot in an apparent attempt to win the governorship through name confusion.
     However, perhaps even more strange are the celebrities who have thrown their hats into the ring. For instance, Gallagher has announced his candidacy. This will be a much needed career boost for the comedian who believes that smashing a watermelon with a sledgehammer qualifies as humor. In addition, Larry Flynt, the publisher of Hustler magazine, is running under a “pro porn” platform.
    As for politicians entering the race, we have former spouses Michael and Arianna Huffington running. Likewise, Gary “I Didn’t Kill That Woman … Ms. Levy” Condit is considering running as a Democrat.
     On the Republican side of the aisle, the situation is even more bizarre. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan are locked in a battle of “You go first. No, you go first.” Apparently, Riordan is interested in running only if the Terminator doesn’t also run. On a side note, Schwarzenegger should be running from the millions of fans who paid $8.50 to see the latest movie in the Terminator series, T3: Rise of Your Popcorn.
     So where does this leave California voters? It leaves them with the most interesting election ever. On October 7th, California voters may be faced with a ballot with up to 500 names on it. By comparison, the infamous butterfly ballot used in Florida in 2000 will seem like child’s play. In fact, the instructions for NASA’s Lunar Landing Module will be simple in comparison. In short, chances are excellent that this recall effort will be the greatest political debacle since Admiral Stockdale’s “What am I doing here?”
speech at the 1992 Vice Presidential Debate.
    This has led many Democrats in California to oppose the recall. They claim that recall is a Republican attempt to “steal” the governorship. Furthermore, they claim that the recall procedure will create chaos. However, I couldn’t disagree more. In fact, I’m saddened that the party that calls itself “Democratic” has a problem with democracy in its purest form.
    The simple truth of the matter is California’s recall election closely resembles the Founding Father’s view of an election. In the first presidential election, the electoral vote was split between twelve candidates.
    In those days, you didn’t need the endorsement of a major political party to run for President. You simply needed courage, a good family name and a newly-sanded set of wooden teeth. Nowadays, things are not that simple. To even consider running for dog catcher in most counties, you need the endorsement of a major party (and not many other job prospects).
   As a result, our political candidates have become as bland as the chicken at a Rotary Club luncheon (only not nearly as tough). This seems particularly true of the Democratic Party, which has nominated such “wild men” as Al Gore, Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale.
    However, in the California recall election, we aren’t going to have pre-packaged candidates with years of grooming and training in the art of obfuscation. We are going to have “real” Americans running for office – pornographers, adulterers and basically anyone who can come up with the $3,500 filing fee.
    In fact, if there is any drawback to the California recall process, it’s the process for getting on the ballot. To run for governor in this election, a candidate only needs to collect 65 signatures and pay the filing fee. Perhaps, we should increase the signature requirement by a factor of 10. After all, you can get 65 signatures at a single house in some neighborhoods in Los Angeles.
     In any event, it wouldn’t take more than an hour to get these signatures by just standing in front of a donut shop. Obviously, it should require more than an hour of preparation to mount a campaign for the second most important elected position in America.
    Nevertheless, the recall is going to be great for democracy. We are going to learn that not all candidates need to be boring (or even sane). Furthermore, we will have real choose in this election. And perhaps, most importantly, Arnold Schwarzenegger will be too busy to work on T4: Another $8.50 Down the Drain.

        [Editor's Note: Sean Carter may be reached at www.lawpsided.com].

Comment

© Copyright 1876-2004 by The Daily Republican Newspaper. All rights reserved.

August 6, 2003
A California Sport
The Politics of Surprise!
By R.D. Skidmore, Contributor

    LANCASTER, CA -- Politics is an exciting spectator sport! California has amassed their gladiatorial teams of candidates, lawyers, pundits and media representatives under political party banners and are moving around the playing field on all fronts.
     First the recall of Gov. Davis was not supposed to be successful, yet it did
qualify. Fear and speculation arose whether Secretary of State Kevin Shelley and Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante could manipulate the process to postpone a recall of Gov. Davis, but they were met with legal challenges and forced to follow California’s constitution.
     Next hope is the courts. Can the California courts be used as a delaying
tactic while the NAACP and the Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund run an interference pattern.
     Regina Chen, writing for the Daily California, a Berkeley CA. paper, reports that lawsuits have been filed in every court imaginable – state and federal. One lawsuit by the NAACP claims that the Recall Gray Davis effort will disenfranchise minority voters who won’t know where to vote on Election Day or would have further to travel because of consolidated precincts.
     MALDEF is suing because the racial privacy initiative, proposition 54, will
be placed on the same ballot. Proposition 54 asks voters to prohibit the state
government from collecting racial data. California statute requires that when a ballot issue is qualified, it is to appear on the next statewide ballot, only this time it is with Gov. Davis’ recall. Maybe MALDEF doesn’t want Californians to be too discriminating?
     Both NAACP and MALDEF have filed identical claims in both state and federal courts and are also claiming that the amount of time before the recall
election is not sufficient for information about the initiative to be gathered and disseminated to voters.
     Until then, even Gov. Davis jumped in the fray. The governor has petitioned the same court to rule that he can run as a candidate to succeed himself if he is recalled. The governor sees it as enormously unfair that he should not be allowed to also be a candidate to replace himself if the recall effort receives a majority of votes on Election Day.
     Of course, he is the candidate and he is on the ballot. His candidacy is under “Shall the Governor be recalled? Yes or No. If the No’s win, Davis
wins by a no.
     However, Rescue California, the recall committee, says that should Gov.
Davis’ name be allowed to appear on the ballot it would give Davis the
opportunity to lose twice in the same election.”
     It has been reported more than 2,000,000 Californians already signed recall petitions but that doesn’t hinder the governor! Davis says that if a majority of voters opt to remove him from office (and the latest polls show the recall is ahead by 15-20%) he should be allowed a “second chance” by being on the ballot a second time as a candidate to replace himself: Political legal handicappers say Davis' suit, smacks of Florida-style chaos, and needs to be taken seriously.
     Davis also asks the justices to postpone the balloting by five months --
until March -- to avoid a slapdash polling process that lawyer Robin
Johansen said would "make Florida look like a cakewalk."
     Their suit claims that the scheduled Oct. 7 recall vote means there will be
insufficient voting places and trained poll workers, as well as breakneck
deadlines to print and process both sample and actual ballots in up to seven
languages.
    The suit predicts the biggest potential problems in six counties, including
San Francisco and Los Angeles, were Democrat voters are huge majorities,
plan to use decertified punch card voting machines because replacements
won't be ready in October.
     Reporting in the Sacramento Bee, said Daniel Lowenstein, a UCLA elections law specialist, says "There are circumstances when it doesn't matter what the law says. You just can't have an election, " questioning, whether the
justices would have time to size up the "fact-intensive" situation.
     Surely before the October election, someone will file a suit claiming inconsistencies that violate the 14th Amendment’s anti-discrimination provisions!
     Finally, Gov. Davis gained enthusiastic union endorsement from the AFL-CIO to keep other prominent Democrats out of the recall election. It does not
matter that California’s left leaning legislators and the Gov. have lowered
average worker earnings by endorsing illegal aliens being employed in Calif.
Gov. Davis now wants to approve issuing valid California Drivers Licenses to illegal aliens.
    Still the nation's largest labor organization, in endorsing Gov. Davis, warns other party members not to put their names on the ballot. Davis asked the union to pledge $10 million to his campaign — half of the $20 million he told them he would need to fight the recall.

    [Editor's Note: R.D. Skidmore is a professor at Pierce College in Woodland Hills, Ca. His e-mail address: rskidmor49@excite.com].

Comment

© Copyright 1876-2004 by The Daily Republican Newspaper. All rights reserved.

    SAN ANTONIO, TX -- "It's mine!" says a three-year old. "He'll break it," says a nine-year old. "If he breaks it, you'll just have to buy me another one," says a teenager. The older the child, the more sophisticated the argument for why they don't want to share a toy. People learn that in order to get what they want, they must present a case that is not centered around their own needs, but rather, around someone else's needs.
     It's one thing for a congressman to risk his own life, but it's another for him to risk yours. These words stuck with me. It was a radio campaign paid by the pharmaceutical industry to keep foreign prescription drugs out of America. They argue that foreign-made drugs are unsafe and they urge all Americans to call their congressional representatives to stop the bill from passing.
     But is the powerful pharmaceutical industry really looking out for little brother? Or, like a child who doesn't want to share a toy, are they just protecting their turf?
     Arguments and actions of the pharmaceutical industry are sophisticated, calculated, measures to hold on to their monopoly. By using millions of dollars to lobby Congress and buy expensive media space to "educate" consumers, they demonstrate just how rich and powerful they have become on the backs of the consumers they claim to want to protect.
     Clearly their ability to pay for commercials and ads and to make political contributions of more than $20 million to the past election, is symbolic of a powerful industry. And it is in their best interest to hold on to that power.
     But as a nurse, almost daily I witness the devastation of a healthcare system that is itself diseased on many levels. For instance, on examining an elder patient, I noticed his face grimace as he took a few unsteady steps. When I asked him why he wasn't taking his medicine, the elder said, "Oh honey, I can't afford to get that arthritis medicine that works so good."
     But is allowing foreign prescription drugs into our country the solution? The U.S. through the FDA has imposed very high standards of our pharmaceutical industry to produce and distribute safe products. Having worked a short time in a pharmaceutical research company, I experienced the overwhelming demands by our federal government to keep us safe from
harmful drugs.
     There is no doubt in my mind that U.S. drugs are much more safe than anything produced abroad. But is safety the real issue?I believe the issue is choice. American consumers should be allowed the freedom to choose
between a costly U.S.-made drug, or a cheap foreign one.
     Consumers should clearly understand the risk they take by electing to use foreign-made drugs. With lax foreign production oversight of drugs, Americans may be risking their health and even their lives.
     Too often, cost is the only obstacle to obtaining a medication. This often causes a patient to choose between purchasing food or purchasing medicine. This choice can leave an unhealthy individual no choice but to live a life of pain.
     Depression caused by chronic illness, physical impairment, unrelieved pain, and financial stress are among the top reasons why someone 65 years and older commits suicide every 90 minutes. Perhaps a second-class cheap medication can offer hope to many in this group. This is a choice that should be given to consumers - not the federal government.
     As these debates are argued in Congress one must not lose site of the real issue: the health of American citizens. And as bills move toward our President, I hope he bases his decisions on what is best for Americans - freedom of choice, rather than be manipulated by sophisticated arguments to protect the turf of special interest groups.

Comment

© Copyright 1876-2004 by The Daily Republican Newspaper. All rights reserved.

Late Breaking Bulletin: (07/27/03) Bob Hope died Sunday night at the age of 100, at his home in Toluca Lake, California. The announced cause of death was pneumonia. He was surrounded by members of his family, including Dolores, his wife of 68 years. At a press conference Monday, his daughter Linda said, "Dad had an amazing sendoff. All of the family was together with him, and he died very peacefully."

May 28, 2003
Hope Over Darkness
By Aaron Hanscome, Contributor

    PACIFIC PALISADES -- Judging from my regal bowl cut, I must have been about ten years old when the photograph was taken. I’m seated a couple of rows behind third base close to where a few years later I’d witness a lame Kirk Gibson hobble to the plate and put the finishing touches on an improbable Cinderella Season. Unlike on that magical night, there are no ecstatic fans around me. Only Kevin, another shaggy lad, is at my side. Kevin’s well-connected father had allowed him to choose one lucky friend to join him for this Dodger pre-game interview. The two of us were going to offer up the valuable insights we’d attained after a full decade on the planet. I’d have to wait another decade to realize how profound and prescient I had in fact been during my first and only brush with fame. ...More!

March 26, 2003
The Pentagon's
New Asymmetrics
By Mark C. Clark, Staff Writer

    WASHINGTON, D.C. -- According to Robert Steele, at the Strategic Studies Institute, both the Cold War threat paradigm and the Cold War intelligence paradigm are dead. A new integrative paradigm for achieving asymmetric advantage in the face of nontraditional threats is needed in the face of both nontraditional threats and nontraditional sources and methods.
     This can be done by devising and exploiting new intelligence sources and methods.  The Cold War threat paradigm emphasized strategic nuclear and conventional force development and deployment over time. They were employed in accordance with well-understood rules of engagement and doctrine, were relatively easy to detect in mobilization, and were supported by generally recognizable intelligence assets.
     The new threat paradigm, in contrast, is generally nongovernmental (or a failed state), nonconventional, dynamic or random and nonlinear in its emergence, with no constraints or rules of engagement.
     It has no known doctrine, is almost impossible to predict in advance, and is supported by an unlimited 5th column of criminals, terrorists, drug addicts, and corrupt individuals. It is, in a word, asymmetric.
    The old intelligence paradigm relied heavily on secret and very expensive technical strategy deployed against one main target, the Soviet Union.
    Such information-sharing relationships as existed within the national and military intelligence communities have been both secret and on a bilateral basis.
    This new craft of intelligence requires that four quadrants of knowledge be fully developed, in an integrated fashion. Only one of these quadrants is secret.
    The first exploits the lessons of history; the second develops web-based means of sharing the burden of achieving global coverage; the third harnesses the full distributed intelligence capabilities of the entire Nation; and the fourth
utilizes spies and secrecy to great effect.
    With the new craft of intelligence well in hand, with a new strategy that understands the continuum of personnel skills needed from homeland defense to overseas power projection, the Army may be ready to consider radical
changes in how it recruits, trains, equips, and organizes the active, reserve, and National Guard forces.
    If we have entered a period of total war, with no front lines, it may be
that the Army should devise a new total force concept for asymmetric operations on the homefront and overseas with establishment of a homeland defense intelligence program, including a homeland defense analysis center and community intelligence centers in each state; a digital history and captured document project and processing center; and four major regional open source activities responsive to both the theater commanders and general national security needs.
    Additional initiatives include a web-based global information-sharing consortium to reduce the cost and time associated with global coverage activities of threats of common concern, and especially nontraditional asymmetric threats; and, close collaboration with Joint Forces Command to create a generic analytic workstation and a generic open source intelligence training program suitable for homeland and overseas partners. The attack of September 11, 2001, has brought to the fore the importance of strategic balance or diversification.
    We must have balance between our homeland defense and overseas defense capabilities; between domestic counterintelligence and foreign intelligence; and between symmetric and asymmetric concepts and doctrine and forces.
    In this monograph, the author reviews the global nontraditional threat situation, briefly updates the prospects for intelligence reform, and then lays out the details for the new craft of intelligence that is comprehensive, reliable, swift, and relevant to both the immediate and the longer-term threats.
    The new craft of intelligence must be held accountable for explaining the
threat in compelling terms. One means of doing so is by issuing public intelligence estimates and public intelligence warnings.
    None of the traditional threats that our military understands have diminished indeed, the attacks of September 11 demonstrate that our world is perhaps twice as dangerous as we might have imagined. America is very much on its own and whatever new craft of intelligence it may adopt, we must be able to achieve an asymmetric advantage over every threat to our national security and our national prosperity.

[Editor's Note: to access the complete report click on THE NEW CRAFT OF INTELLIGENCE: ACHIEVING ASYMMETRIC ADVANTAGE IN THE FACE OF NONTRADITIONAL THREATS.]

    IRAQ -- There's a saying in military circles -We always fight the last
war. It means that too much focus on past enemy behavior can easily lead
to misjudging an enemy capability in the future.
So I asked myself today which war will this be Desert Storm or
Somalia?
In 1991, we had four ironclad prerequisites for war with Iraq (1) a clear
political end state (2) overwhelming force to achieve a quick and decisive
victory (3) a viable Arab coalition to avoid empowering Arab extremists,
and (4) absolutely no Israeli involvement to avoid a global holy war...More!

    WASHINGTON -   The George W. Bush administration has apparently begun moving along a broad front to pound Iraq with a deadly first strike that may cast the world into major economic disruption by early next week.
     The Bush offensive plans to open a northern front against Baghdad. But, word reached our bureau by late last night that Turkey has not signed-on with the Bush offensive. And, this just in, US troop deployments will run US taxpayers in excess of $100 billion dollars for...More!

© Copyright 1876-2004 By The Daily Republican Newspaper. All rights reserved.

     WILLIAMSBURG, VA -- Remember that slogan, "It's the economy, stupid"? I couldn't agree more. Oui, oui, mon ami - the green stuff is center stage once again. Only this time, the forum is the indebted and oil-rich nation of Iraq.
     Of late, Germany, France, and Russia have led the anti-war movement on the international stage. Of particular interest are France and Russia. What, indeed, are their motives for promoting such an agenda with regard to Iraq? Is it true pacifism, or is it something else? Could it be a coincidence that the French company...More!

        One of the Republican party's most respected foreign policy gurus yesterday appealed for President Bush to halt his plans to invade Iraq, warning of "an Armageddon in the Middle East".

        The outspoken remarks from Brent Scowcroft, who advised a string of Republican presidents, including Mr Bush's father, represented an embarrassment for the administration on a day it was attempting to rally British public support for an eventual war...More!

    AGANA, Guam -- This nation needs Guam and Guam needs economic expansion.  Homeland security policies by the Bush Administration mean increased strategic activity, and raises the importance of Guam as a military staging area for operations in the Gulf now, as in World War II, Korea and Vietnam. These wartime conditions put living quarters, housing, apartments and real estate in play as economic fuel for Guam's important role in the new victory at sea.
    This is why Guam should be moving forward. Instead, it appears to this writer that Guam is still treading water. Remember September 11. Remember Pearl Harbor. Remember Guam. It's still part of the USA, the last time I checked.
    The official line is sustainable economic growth. The real truth is that Guam's overall economy is artificially restricted, by special interests who want to retain control of government and business at all costs.
    Denial of the individual's economic freedoms is inexcusable. The rights to land and its fruits thereof are the freedom we as Americans foster, and defend proudly. Not Here.
     On Guam, publicly owned open space is locked up and kept off the real estate market by local interests. Normal give and take in the real estate market is essential for the economic expansion that Guam needs for its survival. Under all is the land.

         
WASHINGTON -   You are taking no chances when you assert that Americans usually make good soldiers. They are truly a warlike race. They are not eager for war, but they are eager and earnest in war.
    No decent citizen of the United States doubts that for the preservation of the honor of our country it became necessary for us to strike back at Germany because she made hostile invasion upon rights which we were bound to maintain. Every intelligent man knows that we are now fighting to save the liberty-loving peoples of the earth from mastery by a tyrannous and brutal power.
    The opportunity to fight as a soldier for freedom, which now presents itself to every physically fit voting man in our country, is strongly attractive to all of them who have the right kind of blood in their veins. ...More!

Tuesday, January 21, 2003

Remembering
Taking War To Iraq
By Stephen R. Shalom

    WASHINGTON - The war between Iran and Iraq was one of the great human tragedies of recent Middle Eastern history. Perhaps as many as a million people died, many more were wounded, and millions were made refugees. The resources wasted on the war exceeded what the entire Third World spent on public health in a decade...More!

    WASHINGTON -- President Bush says the focus of the new year will be on security, winning the war on terrorism, and improving education.
     In a New Year's message Tuesday he says his administration will continue efforts to create new jobs and ensure the economic security of all Americans.
     The president also encouraged Americans to reaffirm their commitment to helping people around the world achieve peace and freedom.
     Mr. Bush praised 2002 as a year of progress and renewed hope for the American people, and said Americans will embrace both the challenges and the opportunities that lie ahead in the year 2003.

© Copyright 1876-2004 By The Daily Republican Newspaper. All rights reserved.

    BERLIN - Iraq's arms report to the United Nations shows that more than 80 German companies have done business with Baghdad since the 1970s and that some have contravened a UN embargo, according to...More!

© Copyright 1876-2004 By The Daily Republican Newspaper. All rights reserved.

    WASHINGTON -- Henry Kissinger - Nobel Laureate and the most famous diplomat of his generation - also an international business and foreign policy consultant to President George W. Bush, and some undisclosed foreign interests, has abruptly resigned his 911 Commission chair set up to investigate intelligence and security failures related to the September 11 terrorist attacks.
    Dr. Kissinger cited "conflicts of interest" when asked to disclose the names of his clients, which include many...More!

© Copyright 1876-2004 By The Daily Republican Newspaper. All rights reserved.  

Friday December 13, 2002
Lott's Choice
An American Tragedy
By Howard Hobbs PhD Editor & Publisher

      WASHINGTON -- President Bush on Thursday openly denounced Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, for intemperate comments that shocked and may have cost the Republican majority in Congress the goodwill of the nation.
     Bush's censure came as calls for the Mississippi senator to resign his congressional leadership post rang out at the Capitol.
    President Bush angrily told reporters...More!

© Copyright 1876-2004 By The Daily Republican Newspaper. All rights reserved.

© Copyright 1876-2004 By The Daily Republican Newspaper. All rights reserved

December 10, 2002
Information Transmission Theory:
Daily Republican Newspaper's Secret
By Thomas Hobbs, M.S., Howard Hobbs Ph.D.

    PALO ALTO - Publishers of this newspaper were writing the program code for publishing our newspapers through the medium of GUI technology on the Internet. It was 1993, and the Internet was an ASCII jungle.
    While searching for graduate research papers at Stanford University in 1993, we came across a 1948 research study describing a programmer's theory on how applications for the collection, storage, and, dissemination of information might theoretically be stored and distributed on demand along network lines.
     We found Shannon's theoretical work to be of practical value in explaining and identitifying...More!

© Copyright 1876-2004 By The Daily Republican Newspaper. All rights reserved

    WASHINGTON - Many combinations of unanticipated events will come back to haunt governments in the Middle East region and beyond. The economist George Perry, spoke of the unintended economic impacts of disruptions of world oil supplies, for example.
     His study mostly focused on the underlying economic world crises from the oil reduction in supply the supply of food and heating fuels, world wide.
    His worst case scenario is an outcome which assumes a decline in world oil production of seven million barrels per day. Some of this deficit might be provided by US strategic oil reserves of about 2 1/2 million barrels per day.
    In the event of an OPEC boycott, oil production might be reduced to less than 20 percent.
    Such impacts would readily drive up oil prices to around $75 per barrel or more. Perry estimates that gasoline prices would skyrocket overnight to more than $3 per gallon.
     The Bush administration assumes the negative effects...More!

© Copyright 1876-2004 by The Daily Republican Newspaper. All rights reserved

December 5, 2002
Puritan Revolution
Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau
By Amy Williams, Staff Writer

    WASHINGTON -- Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed theories on human nature and how men govern themselves. With the passing of time, political views on the philosophy of government gradually changed.
     Despite their differences they became three of the most influential political theorists in the world. Their ideas and philosophies spread all over the world influencing the creation of many new governments.
     These philosophers all recognize that people develop a social contract within their society, but have differing views on what exactly the social contract is and how it is established.
     Each developed differing versions of the social contract, but all agreed that certain freedoms had been surrendered for society’s protection and that the government has definite responsibilities to its citizens.
     These philosophers point to prehistory, before man came to govern themselves, they all existed in a state of nature. The state of nature is the condition men were in before political government came into existence, and what society would be if there was no government.
     Hobbes introduced the revolutionary concept of the state of nature. He did not believe government should be organized through the Church, therefore abandoning the idea of the divine right theory, where power of the King came directly from God. Starting from a clean slate, with no organized church, they needed a construct on what to build society on.
     The foundation of society began with that original view of the state of nature. Hobbes’ perception of the original state of nature is what would exist if there were no common power to execute and enforce the laws to restrain individuals.
     In this case, the laws of the jungle would prevail where only the fittest survive. Man’s desires are insatiable. Since resources are scarce, humankind is naturally competitive, inevitably creating jealousy and hatred, which eventually leads to war.
     This constant state of war is what Hobbes’ believed to be man’s original state of nature that put natural limitations on freedom and inalienable rights.
     Hobbes lived in the 17th century, and wrote during the time of the English Civil War. His political views were influenced by that war.
     John Locke believed the original state of nature was a form of perfect freedom.   Every man had the liberty to arrange his life in the manner he chose, except that no man has the right to kill himself.
     Unlike Hobbes’ nature of constant war, Locke’s state of nature is peace seeking, an assumption by Locke that men do not want to risk their lives by constantly fighting.
     Man, according to Locke, is governed by reason in the state of nature. The war caused Locke to dislike violence and extremes. Stability was the central assumption of his thinking.
     Hobbes’ theory of social institutions began with the premise that man was naturally at war with everyone else and with nature for his survival.
     The original state of nature, according to Rousseau, was the perfect state for man, where he is free and exercises just relationships with others and with nature. In that original state, man was naturally virtuous.
     He maintained that men were truly happy in the state of nature. Only when man become sociable, they become wicked. In Rousseau’s Social Contract, man is depicted as having no reason nor conscience in contact with others.
     Possessions begin to be claimed, but the inequality of skill lead to inequality of fortunes. Just the idea of claiming possessions excites men’s passions, which provoke conflict, leading to war.
     Rousseau believed men are not perfect in their original state, but had the ability to live in a more perfect society with guidance of laws. Rousseau had the perception that when people believe they are part of the government, they will work, fight, and build the state in the belief that what helps the good of all people is going to be beneficial to them.
    Rousseau acted on the belief preservation of mankind is the law of nature described by both Hobbes, Locke. In order to abide by the law of nature, man enters into an unspoken agreement, forming the social contract between man, nature and the state.
     That social contract is the basis of the theory of morality and the obligations of the state to its citizens. It is an underlying agreement by which men are said to have abandoned the “state of nature” in order to form the so-called ordered society in which they now live.
    Hobbes argued that man surrenders his independence and submits himself to the absolute authority of the state for mutual protection and self-preservation though the delegated absolute power of the sovereign.
     Locke positioned himself on the fringe of Hobbes thinking by qualifying the power delegated to the sovereign as on that which is necessary to secure the protection of individual rights with the government to be a function of representative of the people.
     Rousseau went along with Hobbes and Locke to the extent that the state should enter into a social contract where the individual must accommodate his personal freedom to the general will, he sum of all private interests.
     In Rousseau’s social contract, government serves the common good of the people.
     Today we see the social consequences of Rousseau's social contract model in the coordinated effort of all forms of government toward redirection of the economy, planned community, exploited environment, and a ruthless self-perpetuation by expansion of its local state and international governance.

    [Editor's Note: An increasing body of literature concerns Rousseau's philosophy applied to information asymmetries and information costs, bargaining, collective good problems. Some of Rousseau's most puzzling social proposals (on theater, women, music, etc.) can be explained by his well-argued conviction that an optimal economy demands a high social morale, a communicative morale. He proposes an economic philosophy for the most important properties of richness -- such as experiencing the unique, and being free although dependent on others (empowerment). It is for the adult capable of true deliberation, not for the trifle of the innocent child. He develops a concept of richness that is close to the Aristotelian capability-concept, later explored by Amartya Sen. Rousseau's economic philosophy has not been treated in a monograph before. The book should be rewarding to those interested in social theory, the history of social and economic thought, problems at the margins of market exchange, e.g. cultural economics, environmental economics, students of Rousseau and the thought of the 18th century, welfare economic theory in the direction of Arrow or Sen, and and others' theses about the transition from self-sufficiency to market.]

© Copyright 1876-2004 by The Daily Republican Newspaper. All rights reserved.

November 27, 2002
John Rawls' Death
Moral Imperative Lives On
By Howard Hobbs PhD, Editor & Publisher

   WASHINGTON -- Dr. John Rawls 82, an American original and erstwhile political theorist died on Sunday at his home in his own bed on Sunday in Lexington, Mass.
     The cause was heart failure. Margaret Rawls, his wife told reporters, he had been ill since suffering a stroke in 1995.
     His book "A Theory of Justice" published in 1971 stimulated a revival of attention to moral philosophy.  
     In it, Rawls set out...More!

© Copyright 1876-2004 by The Daily Republican Newspaper. All rights reserved.

November 26, 2002
West Wing Honors
By Amy Williams, Staff Writer

   WASHINGTON -- Emmy Award winners Aaron Sorkin, Thomas Schlamme, John Wells and NBC gave reporters this behind-the-scenes glimpse into the Oval Office as seen through the eyes of its eclectic group of...More!

© Copyright 1876-2004 by The Daily Republican Newspaper. All rights reserved.

Omaha Beach, June 6, 1944

"We will always remember.
We will always be proud.
We will always be prepared,
so we may always be free."

[President Ronald Reagan's remarks at Omaha Beach, June 6, 1984]

Monday, November 25, 2002
Lest We Forget
The Normandy Invasion

Supreme Commander--General Dwight D. Eisenhower
Allied Expeditionary Naval Forces--Admiral Sir Bertram Ramsay
21st Army Group--General Sir Bernard L. Montgomery
Allied Expeditionary Air Forces--Air Marshal Sir Trafford Leigh- Mallory

United States Army United Kingdom Land Forces

First Army Second British Army
V Corps 1st British Corps
VII Corps 30th British Corps
1st Infantry Division 3rd British Infantry Division
4th Infantry Division 6th British Airborne Division
29th Infantry Division 50th British Infantry Division
82nd Airborne Division 3rd Canadian Infantry Division
101st Airborne Division

Air Forces