The GOP is at it again

This is nothing new for the GOP. FactCheck.org debunked a similar claim the GOP made against Senator Kerry back in 2004. Back the claims ran all over TV but the lies and misleading parts of that claim were never properly exposed at the time.

The President misled voters and reporters in a March 20 speech when he claimed that Kerry “voted over 350 times for higher taxes on the American people” during his 20-year Senate career. Bush spoke of “yes” votes for “tax increases.”

But in fact, Kerry has not voted 350 times for tax increases, something Bush campaign officials have falsely accused Kerry of on several occasions. On close examination, the Bush campaign’s list of Kerry’s votes for “higher taxes” is padded. It includes votes Kerry cast to leave taxes unchanged (when Republicans proposed cuts), and even votes in favor of alternative Democratic tax cuts that Bush aides characterized as “watered down.”

They are using the same technique this time to try to make it look like Senator Obama has voted to increase taxes every time he has had the chance. Just like in 2004, the math used is not remotely accurate and takes huge stretches of one’s imagination to come up with the inflated “94 votes” they claim.

From FactCheck.org

The McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee both claim that Obama has voted 94 times “for higher taxes.” We find that their count is padded.

After looking at every one of the 94 votes that the RNC includes in its tally, we find:

• Twenty-three were for measures that would have produced no tax increase at all; they were against proposed tax cuts.
• Seven of the votes were in favor of measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals.
• Eleven votes the GOP is counting would have increased taxes on those making more than $1 million a year – in order to fund programs such as Head Start and school nutrition programs, or veterans’ health care.
• The GOP sometimes counted two, three and even four votes on the same measure. We found their tally included a total of 17 votes on seven measures, effectively padding their total by 10.
• The majority of the 94 votes – 53 of them, including some mentioned above – were on budget measures, not tax bills, and would not have resulted in any tax change. Four other votes were non-binding motions related to conference report negotiations.

It’s true that most of the votes the GOP counts would either have increased taxes for some, or set budget targets calling for such increases. But by repeating their inflated 94-vote figure, the McCain campaign and the GOP falsely imply that Obama has pushed indiscriminately to raise taxes for nearly everybody. A closer look reveals that he’s voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper-income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers. That’s consistent with what he’s said he’d do as president, which is to raise taxes only on those making more than $250,000 a year.

ShareThis

• Forget the fact that the US invasion of Iraq reduced its oil exports.
• Forget that our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan has introduced far more instability to the energy rich Persian Gulf region than was present when Bill Clinton left the presidency.
• Forget the fact that a 1997 provision in the U.S. tax code (Section 179) provided small businesses with a tax write-off of up to $25,000 for a vehicle weighing more than 6,000 pounds- used 50% of the time for work purposes and only a $7,000 deduction for smaller, more fuel efficient cars.
• Forget that in 2003, the Bush administration proposed increasing the tax deduction to $75,000 but the Republican legislators in Congress responded by expanding it to a whopping $100,000 as part of the $350 million tax cut package.
• Forget that Jimmy Carter warned us 30 years ago that over reliance on foreign sources of energy makes the US economy as a whole subject to market spikes like the one we are all living through now.
• Forget that Vice President Dick Cheney said “conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy” and refused to use his position as head of the President’s Energy Task Force to include conservation and higher efficiency standards as part of the task force’s recommendations.

Its much easier instead to blame OPEC. After all, they are the ones with the oil and we need that oil. Doesn’t that mean they must pump as fast as they can to keep up with the ever growing demand from the US and China and India and Europe and everyone else who wants it? Saudi Arabia did not play a role in the “Green Revolution” in which we turned over vast portions of our food supply chain to industrial farming that is so dependent on petroleum and natural gas that corn wheat, and rice are hitting record highs when oil prices are doing the same.

Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez may call our president names, but help expand the “Hummer Loophole” in the US tax code that encouraged Americans to buy the biggest, heaviest, and most inefficient behemoths that Detroit could conceive.

OPEC nations are not huge recipients of non-military US foreign aid. Our “aid” to Saudi Arabia involves congress giving them permission to pay our defense contractors vast sums of money. Knowing all this, why do we feel entitled to dictate how quickly other soveriegn nations sell off a natural resource that is often their only source of wealth?

OPEC is not the US’s biggest source of oil. For that we need to look to our parters in NAFTA. Despite the vilification of OPEC in the news, they are not our biggest supplier. The problem right now is that NON-OPEC oil exporting nations are going to fail to keep supplies up with demand for the foreseable future as noted in the Financial Times story below.

Non-Opec producers face stalling output

By Carola Hoyos in Madrid and Javier Blas in London
Published: Jul 02, 2008

Countries outside the Opec oil cartel will barely be able to increase their production of crude oil over the next five years for the first time in the industry’s history, the western countries’ energy watchdog warned yesterday.

The International Energy Agency’s dim forecast to 2013 suggested record oil prices have yet to balance sluggish supply with relatively robust demand.

“Structural demand growth in developing countries and ongoing supply constraints continue to paint a tight market picture over the medium term,” the IEA said in its Medium-Term Oil Market Report.

Despite billions of dollars of investment, the challenge of pumping ever more oil out of ageing fields is proving so great that non-Opec countries will, in the next five year, have to rely on bio-fuels, such as corn-based ethanol, for 50 per cent of their growth in overall fuels.

The IEA said annual non-Opec supply growth, including biofuels, would slow to 0.5 per cent between 2008 and 2013. But demand, supported by rising incomes in developing countries such as China, would grow by 1.6 per cent a year.

Analysts warned the new forecast meant the world economy would rely more on Opec and oil prices were likely to remain elevated.

“Poor supply-side performance . . . in the face of strong demand pressures from developing countries has forced oil prices up sharply to curb demand,” said the IEA.

Crude oil prices moved more than $3 higher to $143.33 a barrel as the market digested the forecast. The IEA said that current prices, which hit a record high this week of $143.67 a barrel, were “justified by fundamentals”.

The fast decline of fields - especially in the North Sea and Mexico, where production is shrinking by more than 20 per cent each year - means that 14.8m of the 16m barrels of new supply from non-Opec countries over the next five years will only go to make up for losses from old fields producing less each year. Stagnant oil output in Russia is another key factor in lower non-Opec supply growth.

Nobuo Tanaka, executive director of the IEA, said in an interview: “In non-Opec countries we want to see more access to resources and more transparency of the legal system because we believe that . . . the underground resource is still there; the problem is above ground.”

Opec, meanwhile, is also struggling, with project delays constraining its ability to add new capacity. The IEA substantially downgraded its expectations for Opec crude capacity from 2008-2013, cutting earlier forecasts by 1.2m b/d.

The IEA said it believed Saudi Arabia was having bigger problems than the kingdom, the world’s largest exporter, was willing to admit to.

These fluctuations in oil supply come as demand growth is continuing, especially in the developing countries, whose oil needs are expected to have almost caught up with those of the rich world by 2013.

ShareThis

John McCain may like to talk tough on the campaign trail, but for over two decades he has failed to deliver for the law enforcement community.

MCCAIN VS. THE COPS PROGRAM:

2005: McCain Voted For Corporate Tax Breaks Instead of $1 Billion for COPS. In 2005, McCain voted against providing $1 billion for the COPS program, offset by closing corporate tax loopholes. [2005 Senate Vote #70, 3/17/2005]

2003: McCain Voted Against $500 Million For Local Law Enforcement To Help Fight Drug-Related Crime. McCain voted against providing $500 million for local law enforcement grants that provide money to rural law enforcement agencies to fight violent and drug-related crime. [2003 Senate Vote #6, 1/17/2003]

1995: McCain Voted To Eliminate the Successful COPS Program. In 1995, McCain voted for the Republican Commerce-Justice spending bill which included a plan “to dismantle [the] cops-on-the-beat program” [COPS] and replace it with a “block grant program giving local governments control over how to spend crime-fighting money.” [1995 Senate Vote #591, 12/7/1995; Chicago Tribune, 12/8/1995]

MCCAIN VS. FIRST RESPONDERS AND HOMELAND SECURITY:

McCain Voted To Eliminate A $100 Million Fund For Emergency Communications Equipment. McCain voted to support an amendment that eliminates $1 billion Commerce Department interoperability grant program and transfers funds to Department of Homeland Security for an uncreated interoperability grant program; and eliminates $100 million fund for strategic reserves of communications equipment designed for deployment in event of major disaster. [2007 Senate Vote #66, 3/7/2007]

MCCAIN VS. 1994 CRIME BILL:

McCain Voted Against the Landmark $30.2 Billion 1994 Crime Bill. In 1994, McCain voted against the Crime Bill which has authorized $30.2 billion over six years for crime related programs, including the hiring of additional police officers, prison building, helping communities prevent crime, and an assault weapons ban. [1994 Senate Vote #295, 8/25/1994]

McCain Said The Crime Bill Was “Ineffective” and “Ill-Conceived.” McCain repeatedly criticized the 1994 crime bill, calling it “an ineffective, ill conceived and pork laden piece of legislation.” He said he voted against final passage of the bill because of “the unfair allocation formulas and excessive spending that were added to the bill in conference and the weakening in conference of the tough law enforcement provisions that were included in the original bill adopted by the Senate.” [Arizona Republic, 8/26/1994]

After casting himself as a “Maverick” in 2000, the new John McCain is walking in lockstep with President Bush, pandering to the right wing of the Republican Party, and embracing the ideology he once denounced. On the campaign trail McCain has callously abandoned many of his previously held positions, even contradicted himself, in a blatant attempt to remake himself into a candidate Republicans can accept in 2008. So just who is the real John McCain? The Democratic National Committee will present a daily fact aimed at exposing the man behind the myth.

You can find the other McCain Mythbusters at the DNC’s press release archive.

ShareThis

“You and I are about to change the world,” Olivia Wilde announces at the top of the video. Her video statement is a bold, impassioned, and personal commentary, emphasizing the importance of the upcoming election and urging young voters to make a difference by registering, getting involved, and voting. “The stakes are really high this year,” says Wilde. “Decisions will be made by the next President that will affect our generation’s future for decades to come. It has never been more important to get involved now.”

18 in ‘08: Olivia Wilde

The PSAs also highlight the nonpartisan nature of political engagement and why young voters must get involved. Notes Peter Sarsgaard: “You have choice. You can sit around and wish the world were different or you can listen to the different ideas, think about which one appeals to you most, vote for that person and it will change.”

18 in ‘08: Peter Sarsgaard

David D. Burstein, Executive Director of 18 in ‘08 and director of the documentary film of the same name, pointed out: “Our whole movement is based on peer-to-peer communications. It makes a special impact when young film and television stars — who are widely respected as serious, thoughtful voices of their generation-speak out on the importance of youth voting. Olivia and Peter, and the young leaders we will feature in future PSAs, are underscoring the theme that the 2008 election will have major impact on our generation collectively.”

The PSAs and will be available starting Wednesday, July 2, across the web, as well as at www.18in08.com. Additional video PSAs featuring celebrities from entertainment and sports, as well as young activists engaged in a variety of causes, will be released over the next few months, leading up to the November election.

ShareThis

This week, in Paris, regulators from Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) voted to radically change the way Top Level Domains are created.

A Top Level Domain (TLD) is the final segment of a domain name. For example, my blog’s URL is blog.techfun.org. That name tells us that blog is a host within the techfun domain which is within the ORG Top level domain.

Everyone knows about the earliest TLD’s including COM, NET, ORG, EDU, MIL, and GOV. Over the years that has expanded to a total of 21 TLD’s not including specific national TLD’s like US for the United States or DE for Germany. Some of those national TLDs have become popular due to the nation’s abbreviations similarity to English language words and abbreviations including Tuvalu’s “.tv”. The Federated States of Micronesia’s “.fm”, Djibouti’s “.dj” and Tonga’s “.to”.

More recently, ICANN introduced the BIZ TLD but adoption has been extremely slow. When the new BIZ TLD went live I was working for an Internet Service Provider and part of my job included maintaining our spam filters. The first thing I noticed in the weeks and months following was the sheer number of bogus and spamtastic BIZ domains flooding in to our servers.

In the early days of combating spam, a feature common on many mail servers was the ability to check to see if the domain portion of a sender’s email address was valid. Our servers used that, so if someone wanted to spam us from doctorsex@cheapbluesexpills.com they actually had to register the domain name “cheapbluesexpills.com”. Back then this was more expensive than it is now.

When the BIZ TLD was introduced, many registrars - like GoDaddy.com - offered very big discounts on the BIZ domains. This opened the door to spammers registering thousands and thousands of domain names to be used for a single mailing and then discarded. That poisoned the BIZ TLD for many folks and to this day I still let Spamassassin slightly bump up the spam score on any email I receive with a BIZ extension.

The new change that ICANN describes as the “Biggest Expansion to (the) Internet in Forty Years” takes the use of TLD’s to a whole new level. This new change will allow companies and people to apply to create their own TLD. For example, Coca-Cola can register a TLD of “COKE”. This would allow the use of mail addresses like webmaster@mail.coke or the creation of websites like http://www.coke or http://coupons.coke.

ICANN mentioned that there is already interest from various cities including New York City that want to create their own TLD - in that case, a site like http://mayor.nyc would be a possibility. Individuals, organizations, and corporations will all be able to apply for these new bits of Internet real estate.

The approval committees at ICANN will do its best to protect registered trademarks so there is no doubt who will end up owning .coke and .pepsi, but who is likely to get .cola or .soda? Company’s that wish to can submit objections to other applications but unless you have a retainer with an intellectual property law firm you may be out of luck when your small home business has a name that some bigger corporation decided it wants to own.

I wish I could articulate better why this whole idea disturbs me. I feel like the Internet has always been a kind of funky global neighborhood where a fetish shop might be ‘next door’ to an evangelical church. This kind of parceling off of the common Internet namespace feels like that neighborhood is at risk of being put in the shadow of huge custom condos that will block out the sun.

There is one bright side for non-English speaking nations:

“One of the most exciting prospect before us is that the expanding system is also being planned to support extensions in the languages of the world,” said Peter Dengate Thrush, ICANN’s Chairman. “This is going to be very important for the future of the Internet in Asia, the Middle East, Eastern Europe and Russia.” The present system only supports 37 Roman characters.

Internet address suffix choice expanded
By Rob Minto in London
Published: June 27 2008 03:00 - Financial Times.

Businesses will be free to choose any suffix they please for their internet addresses after a decision yesterday to expand the choices beyond current staples such as “.com”, “.co” and “.org”.

The decision by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) to liberalise the online naming system - allowing the creation of customised domain names - follows a three-year project.

“What we are now considering is a global equivalent of people moving to liberalised telecommunication markets or electricity markets,” Paul Twomey, Icann’s chief executive, said at the organisation’s meeting in Paris.

Icann, a non-profit body that co-ordinates the naming system, plans to accept the first round of applications for new domain names in April or May next year. It expects the cost of registering a new suffix to be at least $100,000 (€64,00, £50,000) - far higher than the current price of a “.com” name, which is as little as $14.

Some analysts worry that the changes could yield more costs for businesses operating online as they try to protect their presence on the web.

The last large-scale domain launch - of “.biz” in 2001 - did not reduce the popularity and dependency on the “.com” suffix. Registrations for “.biz” have lagged far behind “.com”, with fewer than 2m names in use compared with more than 77m for “.com”. A 2002 Harvard Law School study found that about 30 per cent of “.biz” registrations were made by organisations that already owned the “.com” version of their name.

The new move is unlikely to cause an immediate surge in the number of customised domain names online.

Icann hopes the high cost and a rigorous application process will deter any “domain squatters”, who purchase company-related domain names and try to sell them back to the company for a profit.

Any disputes over names would be referred to an independent arbitrator, who would consider existing trademarks and intellectual property rights.

However, Alex Burmaster, an analyst at the internet research company Nielsen Netratings, said fraudsters and “domaineers” - who buy up groups of domain names - were likely to benefit from the changes.

“We could see an exponential rise in dispute cases,” he said. “The two biggest losers will be businesses and customers. It will be a big cost for companies, and confusing with all the potential domains.”

Jonathan Robinson, chief operating officer of NetNames, a consultancy and registration company, said he feared that the move “would dilute online brands, putting them at risk. I’m not convinced this is being done in the right way”.

ShareThis

“… In short, biology is amoral; it offers no help distinguishing between right and wrong.  Only people, guided by their values and beliefs, can decide what is moral and what is not.  My own guiding principle is simple.  Everyone has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.  From my point of fiew, this and this alone is the proper perspective from which to judge the morality of sexual orientation or any other aspect of human behavior.”

ShareThis

While it was in exceedingly bad taste and showed a lack of judgment on the part of Charlie Black, I suspect Mr. Black was dead on target when he said another terrorist attack on U.S. soil would be provide “big advantage to him” (him being Candidate McCain).

Polling data and the narrative coming out of the main stream media throughout the this election has left everyone, myself included, with the feeling that the Republican candidate would be a shoe in this fall if voters focused on nothing but national security and terrorism. It’s been hammered into the American consciousness to the point where we don’t even think about it anymore.

We know that Bush’s top approval ratings came immediately after the September 11th attacks in Washington and New York and part of that approval rating stemmed from his hard line stance on Islamic extremism and his promises to bring the perpetrators to justice.

It’s going on seven years now and Osama Bin Laden is still at large and even Bush and House and Senate Republicans accept that Iraq has become a magnet and prime recruiting ground for al-Qaeda and similar idealogical militant groups.

This all brings me back to the idea behind Charlie Black’s quote:

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an “unfortunate event,” says Black. “But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who’s ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us.” As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. “Certainly it would be a big advantage to him,” says Black. (From the current

From The evolution of John McCain in Fortune Magazine

President Bush and members of his party controlled virtually the entire Federal government for the five years following the attacks of 9/11. Ordinary citizens accepted changes to their personal liberty in the passage of the Patriot Act and many people accepted the Bush administrations contention that deposing Saddam Hussein in Iraq was an integral part of making Americans safe in their homes.

So my question is, WHY would another attack be good for McCain’s candidacy?  A Republican president with a Republican majority in both houses of Congress could not bring the leader of the terrorist group that killed Americans to justice in the five years they were in charge.  Why do we accept the idea that  a new Republican president with a Democratic house and senate would make us safer?

ShareThis

I admit I have thought the same thing Charlie Black said.  I’m a cynic and I think September 11th was used by some people to further political goals.  I do not think that the events of 9/11 were planned and condoned by people in our government, but I do think people in office exploited the fears and confusion of millions of Americans in order to advance policies and agendas that would not have been possible just a few weeks before.

I am a bit relieved to see that someone so involved in the McCain campaign recognizes that when people are afraid and looking for security they will make choices that are not in their best interest.

Earlier tonight, the Financial Times reported this story: McCain aide hits nerve with remarks on terror by Edward Luce and Andrew Ward in Washington

John McCain’s right-hand man hit a raw nerve on Monday when he said another terrorist attack on US soil would prove a “big advantage” to the Republican nominee’s general election chances.

The comments by Charlie Black, who is arguably Mr McCain’s most experienced adviser, put into words what many Republicans and Democrats have privately been stating for months.

Mr Black, 60, who is a veteran of every Republican presidential campaign since the 1980s and served in the Reagan and Bush Senior administrations, immediately apologised for his remarks, which were published in an interview with Fortune Magazine.

Mr McCain, whom opinion polls show is trailing Barack Obama, his Democratic rival, by between six and 15 points, said: “I cannot imagine why he would say it. I strenuously disagree . . . It’s not true. I have worked tirelessly since 9/11 to prevent another terrorist attack on America.”

The Obama campaign said: “The fact that John McCain’s top adviser says that a terrorist attack on American soil would be a ‘big advantage’ for their political campaign is a complete disgrace and is exactly the kind of politics that needs to change.”

ShareThis

The kingdom also promise to expand production capacity, noting that it expects to achieve 12.5 million barrels per day next year and could add an additional 2.5 million barrels - if needed - with a program of massively expensive and technically advanced system improvements.

Despite the promises from Saudi Arabia, that increase in production will have no real effect on the fundamental supply of oil available to market. This week has seen attacks on the oil production infrastructure in Nigeria that has cost the African nation its position as the top oil producer in Africa. It is now #2, after Angola.

The fires resulting from oil production in the Niger River Delta can be seen from space. If you click the photo you can see other flare sites throughout the Delta.

Nigeria now pumps less than 1.5 million barrels a day, its lowest level in 25 years, rather than the 2.5m b/d it has the ability to produce, according to officials at the meeting in Jeddah. A long history of problems arising from the corruption in the Nigerian government and massive pollution. Unlike drilling in most of the Persian Gulf region where the oil fields are not replacing viable argicultural land or displacing people, the drilling in the Niger Delta is taking place on top of an ecosystem thats been home to tribal people for longer hundreds of generations.

The Niger Delta contains the 3rd largest contiguous mangrove forest in the world. Once rich in biodivesity and teeming with marine life, the area is now being rapidly degraded by petroleum production. The entire region is engulfed in what might be called a Petroleum War - a war fueled by the uncontrolled development by multinational oil conglomerates and their cronies and mafia-style henchmen in government.

Check out Marcus Bennasson’s photos of Oil spills in Niger Delta. Since the discovery of oil in Nigera over 50 years ago, the amount of oil spilled has represented the equivalent of one Exxon Valdez disaster per year.

ShareThis

While considerable media attention has focused on Florida Governor Charlie Crist’s reversal of his position on the issue, nearly every other coastal governor remains opposed.

“Coastal governors know that offshore drilling is bad news for the environment and for tourism,” said Mike Daulton, Director of Conservation Policy for the National Audubon Society. “It makes no sense for states to put our important beaches, fisheries and coastal habitats and multi-billion dollar tourism economies at such risk for so little gain.”

The statements from the coastal governors follow.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R): “California’s coastline is an international treasure. I do not support lifting this moratorium on new drilling off our coast.” US News and World Report

Washington Governor Christine Gregoire (D): “For 26 years, our coasts have been protected by that moratorium and I believe that it should remain in place in perpetuity. With soaring gas prices, there is no better time to end our dependence on oil. As a country, we should be pursuing clean energy sources and investing in alternative energy technologies.” Seattle Post-Intelligencer

North Carolina Governor Mike Easley (D): “It’s just too much squeeze for the juice when you’re looking at the real estate market that’s on the coast, recreational fishing, the tourism and other economic interests that would be adversely affected by some problem that could easily arise from off-shore drilling.” MSNBC

New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine (D): “Our $35 billion economy is driven by tourism and the use of the shore.” Associated Press

Oregon Governor Theodore Kulongoski (D): Lifting the ban would be “a short-sighted response to a long-term issue of creating a sustainable and secure domestic energy economy.” Associated Press

Maine Governor John E. Baldacci (D): “We need an energy policy that looks to the future for answers, not to the past,” Democratic Gov. John Baldacci’s spokesman, David Farmer, said in a statement. “We need to cut consumption and develop renewable, clean sources of energy.” Morning Sentinel (Maine)

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford (R): Sanford spokesman Joel Sawyer said “We would certainly have some hesitation just based upon tourism and the natural beauty along the coast. We certainly wouldn’t want to do anything that would kill the goose that laid the golden egg.” Greenville News

Source: National Audubon Society

ShareThis