Friday, October 07, 2005

Gotcha! Tried to pull another fast one, did you, Shrub? It might not be so easy from now on. We're not the only ones watching anymore.   Court Rejects EPA Air Pollution Revision By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer 43 minutes ago A federal appeals court Friday rejected what it called a Bush administration attempt to "pull a surprise switcheroo" by weakening the government's authority to monitor air pollution from power plants, refineries and factories. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia annulled the Environmental Protection Agency's revisions of air pollution monitoring requirements last year. The court's action returns for the time-being a stricter, Clinton-era standard that allows EPA and states to require more monitoring from plants when they renew their operating permits every five years. Writing for a three-judge panel, Judge David Sentelle said an EPA settlement last year with the utility and other industry groups on monitoring requirements contradicted the agency's 2002 interpretation of the Clean Air Act. "The upshot of EPA's final interpretation ... is that state permitting authorities are now prohibited from adding new monitoring requirements," wrote Sentelle, who was appointed to the court by President Ronald Reagan. "This flip-flop complies with the (law) only if preceded by adequate notice and opportunity for public comment." EPA spokeswoman Eryn Witcher said the agency was "pleased that the court is allowing EPA to address the procedural flaw in the rule, by providing an opportunity for additional public comment on the agency's approach to monitoring requirements." The court's ruling was in a suit brought by three environmental groups — the Environmental Integrity Project, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Earthjustice — challenging EPA's new interpretation. Eric Schaeffer, a former EPA civil enforcement chief who heads the Environmental Integrity Project, said the Bush administration had "abandoned the authority" that federal and state agencies had to require improved monitoring to find pollution that often escapes detection. He said the court's restores citizens' right to demand constant monitoring of pollution from local power plants, refineries and factories "that allows you to know whether they're complying with the law." "If you can't tell whether someone's violating the Clean Air Act, then what good is the law?" Schaeffer said. "It's as if you put a cop on the road every 5 years to see if people are speeding — it's that big of a problem." Representatives for industry groups with knowledge of last year's settlement with EPA couldn't be reached immediately for comment. Sentelle said the court can't allow EPA to justify limited public input by claiming its final regulations merely were a "logical outgrowth" of an earlier rulemaking process. "Thus, we have refused to allow agencies to use the rulemaking process to pull a surprise switcheroo on regulated entities," he wrote. ___ On the Net: U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C.: http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/internet.nsf EPA: http://www.epa.gov Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press 9:56:50 PM    comment []

Quote of the Day   "The American Christian right has hijacked Jesus Christ. It has made him into a brand, a logo, a bumper sticker. It celebrates his suffering on the cross, but largely neglects what he had to say. It prefers an Old Testament God, a "Jealous God, visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children." It elevates success to proof of God's favor, and washes its hands of responsibility for the poor. It combines a self-righteous vision of Americans as the chosen people with shrill intimations of imminent apocalypse, to justify indifference to the rest of the world and to the planet itself. It sticks to the letter of the Bible with arbitrary selectiveness, so that it can endorse creationism and condemn homosexuality while acknowledging that (contrary to Old Testament wisdom) the earth is in fact round, and slavery is not OK. It's a twisted, schizophrenic form of religion that mirrors the most reactionary form of Islam. Not by chance, both the Christian right and conservative Muslims are at odds with women's rights, and fiercely homophobic." --Alessandro Camon, from the article "Rescuing Jesus", on Salon.com 6:25:45 PM    comment []

Down               Down                        Down He Goes. . .                                Where He Bottoms. . .No One Knows!     Poll: Bush's Job Approval Remains Low - - - - - - - - - - - - By WILL LESTER Associated Press Writer October 07,2005 | WASHINGTON -- President Bush's job approval is mired at the lowest level of his presidency, and public feelings about the nation's direction have sunk to new depths in an Associated Press-Ipsos poll. People are anxious about Iraq, the economy, gas prices and the management of billions of dollars being spent for recovery from the nation's worst natural disaster. "There is a growing, deep-seated discontentment and pessimism about the direction of the country," said Republican strategist Tony Fabrizio, who believes that pessimism is not always aimed at the president and his policies. Only 28 percent say the country is headed in the right direction and two-thirds, 66 percent, say the country is on the wrong track, the AP-Ipsos poll found. Those most likely to have lost optimism on that score include several groups that supported Bush in his re-election: white evangelicals, down 30 percentage points; Republican women, down 28 points; Southerners, down 26 points, and suburban men, down 20. Americans' confidence in the nation's direction has been shaken on several fronts. Consumer confidence is near the lowest level in two years. Most people are unhappy with the president's handling of the economy, gas prices and hurricane recovery. Just over a third approve of his handling of Iraq. Six in 10 are unsure whether billions of dollars for hurricane relief will be spent wisely. Bush's job approval was 39 percent in the poll, about where he's been for the three months. "We've lost focus on where we're supposed to be going and not able to respond to the crises that affect the people of this country," said David Ernest, a Republican from San Ramon, Calif., who is angry about the government's response to Hurricane Katrina. "We're mired in a Middle Eastern adventure and we've taken the focus off of our own country." Four of five Republicans say they approve of Bush's job performance, close to the level of support he's had from his base for months. But the enthusiasm of that support has dipped over the last year. Almost two-thirds of Republicans strongly approved of the job done by Bush in December 2004, soon after his re-election. The AP-Ipsos survey found that just half in his own party feel that way now. "It's very difficult for him because he is trying to get more support generally from the American public by seeming more moderate and showing he's a strong leader at the same time he has a rebellion within his own party," said James Thurber, a political scientist at American University. "The far right is starting to be very open about their claim that he's not a real conservative." Fiscal conservatives are complaining about huge budget deficits and plans to spend billions on hurricane recovery. Social conservatives are alarmed about his choice of a relatively unknown lawyer, Harriet Miers, as a nominee for the Supreme Court. Miers, Bush's longtime personal attorney, has most recently served as White House counsel. Bush's has tried to reassure conservatives about Miers. He's also trying to counter critics of the war by tying U.S. efforts in Iraq to the larger war against terrorism. And he's made frequent trips to the areas devastated by hurricanes Katrina and Rita to offset criticism of the government's initial response to Katrina. Even those efforts get viewed with suspicion by some. "I just think the president is doing things for political reasons, not what's right for the people," said Traci Wallace, a Democrat from Tallahassee, Fla. "Every time he makes a trip to the hurricane zone, he's blowing a million dollars." Of all the problems facing the country, the continuing war in Iraq is the one that troubles some Bush supporters the most. "I approve of what the president is doing, but it's a mixed decision," said Richard Saulinski, a Republican from Orland Park, Ill. "We should get out of Iraq. It seems like there's no light at the end of the tunnel. I just think we're dealing with a culture we don't really understand." The poll of 1,000 adults was conducted by Ipsos, an international polling company, from Monday to Wednesday and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. --__ AP manager of news surveys Trevor Tompson contributed to this story. --__ On the Net: Ipsos: http://www.ap-ipsosresults.com Salon provides breaking news articles from the Associated Press as a service to its readers, but does not edit the AP articles it publishes. © 2005 The Associated Press. Poll: Bush Ratings Hit New Low NEW YORK, Oct. 6, 2005 This CBS News Poll finds an American public increasingly pessimistic about the economy, the war in Iraq, the overall direction of the country, and the president. Americans' outlook for the economy is the worst it has been in four years. Most expect the price of gas to rise even further in the next few months. A growing number of Americans want U.S. troops to leave Iraq as soon as possible, rather than stay the course, and the highest percentage ever thinks the United States should have stayed out of Iraq. When given a set of options for paying for rebuilding the hurricane-racked Gulf Coast, only one — taking money from the Iraq War — gets majority support. President Bush's overall job approval rating has reached the lowest ever measured in this poll, and evaluations of his handling of Iraq, the economy and even his signature issue, terrorism, are also at all-time lows. More Americans than at any time since he took office think he does not share their priorities. The public's concerns affect their view of the state of the country. Sixty-nine percent of Americans say things in the United States are pretty seriously off on the wrong track — the highest number since CBS News started asking the question in 1983. Today, just 26 percent say things are going in the right direction. DIRECTION OF THE COUNTRY Right direction Now 26% 9/2005 31% 5/2004 30% 3/2003 52% 11/1994 30% Wrong track Now 69% 9/2005 63% 5/2004 65% 3/2003 41% 11/1994 65% Majorities of the public have consistently said the U.S. is off on the wrong track since January 2004. In May 2004, shortly after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal came to light, 65 percent were negative. In November 1994, just as Republicans took control of both houses of Congress for the first time in decades, 6 percent of Americans said the country was off on the wrong track. PRESIDENT BUSH President Bush's job approval rating has fallen to his lowest rating ever. 37 percent now approve of the job he is doing as president, while 58 percent disapprove. Those in his own party are still overwhelmingly positive about his performance (nearly 80 percent approve), but the president receives little support from either Democrats or Independents. And while views of President Bush have lately not changed much among Republicans or Democrats, his approval rating among Independents has dropped 11 points since just last month, from 40 percent to 29 percent now. PRESIDENT BUSH'S JOB APPROVAL Approve All 37% Reps. 79% Dems. 14% Inds. 29% Disapprove All 58% Reps. 13% Dems. 84% Inds. 64% President Bush also receives his lowest ratings ever on his handling of the economy and Iraq, with only a third approving of either. Here as well, there has been a drop in approval among Independents since last month in both of those areas, although his ratings among Independents were low last month as well. PRES. BUSH JOB APPROVALS Overall Now 37% 9/2005 41% 8/2005 41% Terrorism Now 46% 9/2005 50% 8/2005 54% Iraq Now 32% 9/2005 36% 8/2005 38% Economy Now 32% 9/2005 35% 8/2005 37% Hurricane Katrina Now 45% 9/2005 44% 8/2005 54% Recent hurricanes Now 46% 9/2005 n/a 8/2005 n/a And for the first time in this poll, fewer than half the public approves of the way he is handling the campaign against terrorism. 46 percent now approve, but 46 percent disapprove. Approval of Bush's handling of Hurricane Katrina is about the same as last month, and now stands at 45 percent. Overall evaluation of how he has managed all the recent hurricanes in the Gulf Coast is 46 percent. Since earlier this year, the President has been viewed as out of touch with Americans. Only 32 percent now think he shares their priorities for the country, while twice as many think he does not. At earlier points in his presidency, more Americans felt he shared their goals. DOES PRES. BUSH SHARE YOUR PRIORITIES FOR THE COUNTRY? Yes Now 32% 5/2005 34% 4/2003 48% 1/2002 59% No Now 65% 5/2005 61% 4/2003 46% 1/2002 32% On this question too, the President maintains the support of Republicans (69 percent of them feel he shares their priorities), but finds little among either Democrats or Independents. President Bush receives less credit for empathy than he has in previous polls. 52 percent of Americans think he cares about people like them at least somewhat, the lowest figure ever. There are continued questions about his leadership abilities: 52 percent now say they have a lot or some confidence in the President's ability to handle a crisis, and 45 percent see him as a strong leader, down significantly from views at previous points in his presidency, and the lowest number ever in this poll. DOES PRESIDENT BUSH HAVE STRONG QUALITIES OF LEADERSHIP? Yes Now 45% 9/2005 53% 9/2004* 64% 9/2001 83% No Now 52% 9/2005 45% 9/2004* 34% 9/2001 14% *among registered voters A sizable number of Americans express skepticism about whether President Bush has chosen qualified people for positions in his administration. 52 percent have at least some confidence in his choices, but almost as many, 47 percent, have little or no confidence. CONFIDENCE IN BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION APPOINTEES? A lot All 22% Reps. 50% Dems. 6% Inds. 17% Some All 30% Reps. 37% Dems. 27% Inds. 28% A little/none All 47% Reps. 13% Dems. 66% Inds. 53% Half of Republicans express a lot of confidence in President Bush's choices, while most Democrats and Independents have little or no confidence. THE ECONOMY AND PERSONAL FINANCES The public continues to hold negative views of the nation's economy; and the percentage saying the condition of the economy is good is the lowest since September 2003, more than two years ago. Now, 43 percent say the economy is in good shape, and 55 percent say it is fairly or very bad. VIEWS OF THE ECONOMY Good Now 43% 9/2005 49% 10/2004 55% 9/2003 43% Bad Now 55% 9/2005 50% 10/2004 45% 9/2003 56% In addition, the outlook for the economy is even more pessimistic than it was last month. More than half — 54 percent — think the economy is getting worse — the highest figure since September 2001, just after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Only one in ten says the economy is getting better. ECONOMY IS GETTING: Better Now 10% 9/2005 13% 1/2005 25% 9/2001 8% Worse Now 54% 9/2005 47% 1/2005 29% 9/2001 55% Same Now 34% 9/2005 38% 1/2005 45% 9/2001 35% Even Americans' evaluations of their own financial situation are not very positive. Few say they are better off than they were a year ago. One in three says their family's financial situation is worse today, and half say it is about the same. Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say their financial situation is worse today than it was a year ago. Looking ahead, the public is a little more hopeful as to what the future holds. 30 percent think their family's financial situation will be better a year from now, and 42 percent think it will not change much. 23 percent think their financial situation may be worse a year from now. FAMILY'S FINANCIAL SITUATION Compared to a year ago Better 18% Worse 32% Same 50% A year from now Better 30% Worse 23% Same 42% The economy remains one of the most important issues Americans want the government to address, outranked only by the war with Iraq. These two issues are followed by gas and oil prices, specific critical mentions of George W. Bush, and terrorism. U.S. MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM War in Iraq Now 18% 9/2005 13% Economy and jobs Now 16% 9/2005 14% Gas/oil crisis Now 5% 9/2005 9% President Bush Now 5% 9/2005 5% Terrorism Now 4% 9/2005 6% GAS AND OIL PRICES Recently, President Bush asked Americans to conserve gasoline by driving less and car-pooling. Despite his announcement, the public is skeptical. 50 percent say President Bush thinks the government's priority is not encouraging conservation but increasing the production of petroleum, coal and natural gas. 36 percent think his view of the government's priority is encouraging conservation. GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES FOR ENERGY Increase production Bush's view 50% Your view 37% Encourage conservation Bush's view 36% Your view 49% Americans' own views on this issue are slightly different. 49 percent think the priority for the government should be to encourage people to conserve energy, while 37 percent think the priority should be to increase the production of petroleum, coal and natural gas. In fact, 64 percent of Americans say they have cut down on the amount of driving they do because of the price of gasoline. Most Americans don't see any relief in sight when it comes to high gas prices. 61 percent expect the price of gas will go up over the next few months. IN NEXT FEW MONTHS, EXPECT PRICE OF GAS TO: Go up 61% Stay the same 21% Go down 15% American oil companies get the most blame for rising gas and oil prices, with 44 percent placing a lot of blame on them. Another 35 percent say oil companies share some of the blame. But many also blame the Iraq war and the hurricanes that recently hit the Gulf Coast region. A quarter places a lot of blame on the war in Iraq, and an additional four in 10 blame the war some. 27 percent place a lot of blame on the recent hurricanes, and another 50% say the hurricanes share some of the blame. BLAME FOR RISING GAS AND OIL PRICES? American oil companies A lot 44% Some 35% Not much/none 19% War in Iraq A lot 24% Some 41% Not much/none 33% Hurricanes A lot 27% Some 50% Not much/none 20% HURRICANES KATRINA AND RITA In addition to perceptions of a worsening economy and higher gas prices, Americans now face the costs of paying for the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. When given several possibilities for that, a majority accepts only one option — reducing spending on the war in Iraq. Other proposals, some even now being seriously discussed in Congress, get much less support. 62 percent of Americans say that reducing spending on the war in Iraq would be an acceptable way of paying for recovery and rebuilding on the Gulf Coast. Fewer than half would accept cutbacks in the highway program, and only a third would be willing to increase the federal budget deficit or raise taxes. Even fewer would favor postponing the new Medicare prescription benefits. ACCEPTABLE WAYS OF PAYING FOR HURRICANE REBUILDING Cut spending in Iraq 62% Reduce highway spending 46% Increase budget deficit 35% Raise taxes 31% Postpone Medicare drug benefits 28% Three in four Democrats and 68 percent of Independents want to cut spending in Iraq, but only a third of Republicans do. Last month, in the immediate wake of Hurricane Katrina,CBS News and The New York Times asked Americans a different question — whether or not they would personally be willing to pay more in taxes for hurricane relief. A majority then said they would. The Gulf Coast hurricanes continue to take a toll on confidence in the government's ability to protect Americans from terrorism, although there has been some improvement since September. In August, 72 percent of Americans had confidence in the government's ability to protect the country from terrorism. That dropped to 59 percent in September, and stands at 63 percent today. 37 percent still have little or no confidence. CONFIDENCE IN GOVERNMENT'S ABILITY TO PROTECT FROM TERRORISM Great deal Now 16% 9/2005 19% 8/2005 18% Fair amount Now 47% 9/2005 40% 8/2005 54% Not very much Now 30% 9/2005 30% 8/2005 21% None Now 7% 9/2005 10% 8/2005 5% Similar percentages express confidence (or lack of it) in the government's ability to deal with natural disasters. Although it now seems that dealing with the recovery from Katrina and Rita may involve large government programs, there is little public enthusiasm for increased government activity. Just 38 percent now say that government should do more to solve national problems, little different from what has been the case for years. Hurricane Katrina affected more Americans than just those in the hurricane zones. 27 percent say they personally have a close friend or relative affected by the storm. That figure is even higher in the South, where more than a third knows someone affected. One thing that has changed is that Americans are more optimistic about the rebuilding of New Orleans than they were last month. One in four now expects that the city will be back as a working city in the next year or two, up from 17 percent last month. IRAQ More than half of Americans — 55 percent — think the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq (the highest figure to date), while 41 percent think taking military action there was the right thing to do, and a growing number of Americans want U.S. troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. Now, 59 percent want U.S. troops to leave, up from 52 percent last month and 40 percent earlier this year. Only 36 percent think troops should stay as long in Iraq as long it takes for that country to become stable. U.S. TROOPS IN IRAQ SHOULD… Stay as long as it takes Now 36% 9/2005 42% 2/2005 55% 6/2004 54% Leave as soon as possible Now 59% 9/2005 52% 2/2005 40% 6/2004 40% CONGRESS AND TOM DELAY 31 percent of Americans now approve of the job Congress is doing, and 57 percent disapprove. Approval of Congress has never been high, but since March it has been especially low, at about a third. And while most Americans view neither the Democrats nor the Republicans positively, Democrats fare slightly better. Republicans receive more criticism than Democrats when it comes to their ethics. Although a majority of Americans think members of both parties share the honesty and integrity of most people, 37 percent think the Republicans in Congress are less likely to have those qualities, compared to 28 percent who say that about the Democrats. Fewer than one in 10 Americans think members of Congress — of either party — have more honesty than Americans in general. HONESTY AND INTEGRITY COMPARED TO MOST AMERICANS Democrats More 9% Less 28% Same 58% Republicans More 5% Less 37% Same 53% Republicans may have been hurt by the recent indictments of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Still, most Americans don't have an opinion of DeLay. 7 percent are favorable, and 21 percent are unfavorable, about the same as opinions in May. VIEWS OF TOM DELAY Favorable Now 7% 5/2005 6% Not favorable Now 21% 5/2005 18% Undecided/Haven't heard enough Now 71% 5/2005 75% As for other Congressmen and women, 43 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the Democrats in Congress, and 46% have an unfavorable opinion of them. Views of the Republicans in Congress are a bit more negative; 37 percent have a favorable opinion, while more than half, 53 percent, have an unfavorable view. VIEWS OF THE PARTIES IN CONGRESS Favorable Democrats 43% Republicans 37% Not favorable Democrats 46% Republicans 53% Party loyalty plays a role: Democrats tend to see Democrats in Congress favorably, while Republicans see members from their party that way. Independents see both parties in a negative light, but more hold unfavorable views of Republicans than Democrats. This poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 808 adults, interviewed by telephone October 3-5, 2005. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus four percentage points. For detailed information on how CBS News conducts public opinion surveys, click here. ©MMV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.     2:36:08 PM    comment []

Merck Gets Something Right! Merck: Cervical Cancer Vaccine Effective By LINDA A. JOHNSON AP Business Writer October 06,2005 | -- An experimental vaccine to prevent the most common forms of cervical cancer proved 100 percent effective in a two-year test on more than 10,000 girls and women, drug maker Merck & Co. says. Merck is hoping to win Food and Drug Administration approval for the vaccine, Gardasil, and put it on the market as soon as late 2006. It would be the first vaccine to prevent cervical cancer, a disease caused almost exclusively by a highly common sexually transmitted virus called the human papilloma virus, or HPV. Doctors expect the vaccine to be routinely offered to girls -- and boys, too, because they can spread the virus to their partners -- before they become sexually active, though the practice is certain to run into opposition from conservatives and religious groups. "I see this as a phenomenal breakthrough," said Dr. Gloria Bachmann, director of the Women's Health Institute at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, N.J. Worldwide, cervical cancer is one of the most common cancers among women. It kills nearly 300,000 a year, including about 3,700 in the United States. About 20 million Americans have some form of HPV, which in addition to cervical cancer can cause painful genital warts. The genetically engineered vaccine prevents cervical cancer by blocking infection from the two strains of HPV that cause 70 percent of all cases of the disease. The study included 10,559 sexually active women ages 16 to 26 in the United States and 12 other countries who were not infected with either of the two virus strains, called HPV 16 and 18. Half got three vaccine doses over six months; half got dummy shots. Among those still virus-free after the six months, none of those who received the vaccine developed either cervical cancer or precancerous lesions during two years of follow-up, compared with 21 of those who got dummy shots. "To have 100 percent efficacy is something that you have very rarely," said Dr. Eliav Barr, Merck's head of clinical development for the vaccine. "We're breaking out the champagne." The study, which was funded by Merck, will be presented Friday at a meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. A second analysis showed that after just one dose, the vaccine was 97 percent effective. Barr said the 97 percent rate was more "real world," given that patients sometimes miss or delay follow-up shots. Barr also noted that a small number of women in the study developed dangerous precancerous lesions caused by HPV types other than 16 and 18. The immune system clears most HPV infections in a year or two, but several types of HPV can persist, cause cervical cancer or trigger other cancers in the genital area. There is no cure for HPV, but the cancers can be treated and an improved Pap test is catching more cases of cervical cancer before it spreads. Bachmann said that to fight the disease, students would have to be vaccinated in high school, middle school, even elementary school, before they become sexually active. Merck, hammered by slumping profits and facing roughly 5,000 lawsuits over its withdrawn painkiller Vioxx, is seeking to beat rival drug maker GlaxoSmithKline to market with the first cervical cancer vaccine. GlaxoSmithKline is still enrolling patients in final-stage tests to determine whether its vaccine prevents cancer, and does not expect to have initial data until late next year. Spokeswoman Danielle Halstrom said earlier research showed it has a 100 percent success rate in blocking two virus strains, HPV 16 and 18. The Merck vaccine was also found to reduce infection from two other HPV strains that cause 90 percent of genital warts cases. Merck is continuing research on Gardasil and will soon report on four years of follow-up on the women in this latest study. The company also will explore whether the vaccine's effectiveness wanes over time. In addition, Merck has been studying Gardasil's effectiveness in boys 9 to 15. Merck stock fell 6 cents to $26.83 in trading on the New York Stock Exchange. Salon provides breaking news articles from the Associated Press as a service to its readers, but does not edit the AP articles it publishes. © 2005 The Associated Press   "What wonderful news!" you might say. "A fabulous new life-saving vaccine!" you might say. Well hold on there a minute, Missy, don't be poppin' that there French Champagne just yet. Not until you've read the latest installment of: The Wingnut Report. . . My occasional unearthing of web articles chronicling the ongoing malevolence of  Evangelical Christendom, Corporate Fascism, Faux News, Rush Limbaugh and His Shittoheads, and other Toadstools of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy: subject to debate by Katha Pollitt Virginity or Death! This article can be found on the web at http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050530/pollitt [from the May 30, 2005 issue] Imagine a vaccine that would protect women from a serious gynecological cancer. Wouldn't that be great? Well, both Merck and GlaxoSmithKline recently announced that they have conducted successful trials of vaccines that protect against the human papilloma virus. HPV is not only an incredibly widespread sexually transmitted infection but is responsible for at least 70 percent of cases of cervical cancer, which is diagnosed in 10,000 American women a year and kills 4,000. Wonderful, you are probably thinking, all we need to do is vaccinate girls (and boys too for good measure) before they become sexually active, around puberty, and HPV--and, in thirty or forty years, seven in ten cases of cervical cancer--goes poof. Not so fast: We're living in God's country now. The Christian right doesn't like the sound of this vaccine at all. "Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful," Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council told the British magazine New Scientist, "because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex." Raise your hand if you think that what is keeping girls virgins now is the threat of getting cervical cancer when they are 60 from a disease they've probably never heard of. I remember when people rolled their eyeballs if you suggested that opposition to abortion was less about "life" than about sex, especially sex for women. You have to admit that thesis is looking pretty solid these days. No matter what the consequences of sex--pregnancy, disease, death--abstinence for singles is the only answer. Just as it's better for gays to get AIDS than use condoms, it's better for a woman to get cancer than have sex before marriage. It's honor killing on the installment plan. Christian conservatives have a special reason to be less than thrilled about the HPV vaccine. Although not as famous as chlamydia or herpes, HPV has the distinction of not being preventable by condoms. It's Exhibit A in those gory high school slide shows that try to scare kids away from sex, and it is also useful for undermining the case for rubbers generally--why bother when you could get HPV anyway? In 2000, Congressman (now Senator) Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who used to give gruesome lectures on HPV for young Congressional aides, even used HPV to propose warning labels on condoms. With HPV potentially eliminated, the antisex brigade will lose a card it has regarded as a trump unless it can persuade parents that vaccinating their daughters will turn them into tramps, and that sex today is worse than cancer tomorrow. According to New Scientist, 80 percent of parents want the vaccine for their daughters--but their priests and pastors haven't worked them over yet. What is it with these right-wing Christians? Faced with a choice between sex and death, they choose death every time. No sex ed or contraception for teens, no sex for the unwed, no condoms for gays, no abortion for anyone--even for that poor 13-year-old pregnant girl in a group home in Florida. I would really like to hear the persuasive argument that this middle-schooler with no home and no family would have been better off giving birth against her will, and that the State of Florida, which totally failed to keep her safe, should have been allowed, against its own laws, to compel this child to bear a child. She was too young to have sex, too young to know her own mind about abortion--but not too young to be forced onto the delivery table for one of the most painful experiences human beings endure, in which the risk of death for her was three times as great as in abortion. Ah, Christian compassion! Christian sadism, more likely. It was the courts that showed humanity when they let the girl terminate her pregnancy. As they flex their political muscle, right-wing Christians increasingly reveal their condescending view of women as moral children who need to be kept in line sexually by fear. That's why antichoicers will never answer the call of prochoicers to join them in reducing abortions by making birth control more widely available: They want it to be less available. Their real interest goes way beyond protecting fetuses--it's in keeping sex tied to reproduction to keep women in their place. If preventing abortion was what they cared about, they'd be giving birth control and emergency contraception away on street corners instead of supporting pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions and hospitals that don't tell rape victims about the existence of EC. David Hager (see Ayelish McGarvey's stunning exposé, and keep in mind that unlike godless me she is a churchgoing evangelical Christian) would never use his position with the FDA to impose his personal views of sexual morality on women in crisis. Instead of blocking nonprescription status for emergency contraception on the specious grounds that it will encourage teen promiscuity, he would take note of the six studies, three including teens, that show no relation between sexual activity and access to EC. He would be calling the loudest for Plan B to be stocked with the toothpaste in every drugstore in the land. How sexist is denial of Plan B? Antichoicers may pooh-pooh the effectiveness of condoms, but they aren't calling to restrict their sale in order to keep boys chaste. While the FDA dithers, the case against selling EC over the counter weakens by the day. Besides the now exploded argument that it will let teens run wild, opponents argue that it prevents implantation of a fertilized egg--which would make it an "abortifacient" if you believe that pregnancy begins when sperm and egg unite. However, new research by the Population Council shows that EC doesn't work by blocking implantation; it only prevents ovulation. True, it's not possible to say it never blocks implantation, James Trussell, director of the Office of Population Research at Princeton, told me, and to antichoice hard-liners once in a thousand times is enough. But then, many things can block implantation, including breast-feeding. Are the reverends going to come out for formula-feeding now? "It all comes down to the evils of sex," says Trussell. "That's an ideological position impervious to empirical evidence."   In other Wingnut News, The Republican Scumbucket of the Week Award Goes to. . . Filmmaker Sues Kerry, Campaign Aide Filmmaker Sues Former Presidential Candidate John Kerry, Campaign Aide Over Vietnam Documentary By MARYCLAIRE DALE The Associated Press PHILADELPHIA - A filmmaker has sued Sen. John Kerry and a one-time campaign aide, saying they defamed him as they sought to block the broadcast of an anti-Kerry documentary during the 2004 presidential election. The lawsuit, filed this week on behalf of producer Carlton Sherwood and a Vietnam veterans group, is the latest salvo in the battle over the documentary "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal." The film contends that Kerry's anti-war activities when he returned from Vietnam caused further harm to captured U.S. soldiers. The Sinclair Broadcast Group, which as of last year owned 62 TV stations that reached a quarter of all U.S. households, canceled plans to air the documentary during the razor-close Bush-Kerry race last fall and instead showed only portions of it as part of a broader program. The Democratic National Committee had complained that "Stolen Honor" amounted to an illegal in-kind contribution to President Bush's campaign, and Kerry's campaign asked for equal time. Sherwood's suit alleges that Kerry directed the DNC to issue a statement that falsely said the film was produced and funded by "extreme right-wing activists." The film was funded only by Vietnam veterans from Pennsylvania, according to Sherwood, a Harrisburg resident who served in Vietnam. He and a combat veterans group called the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation filed the federal suit in Philadelphia on Monday. The suit charges that Anthony Podesta, who ran Kerry's campaign in Pennsylvania, called Sherwood "a disgraced journalist" and "Bush hack" in a widely circulated e-mail. A Kerry spokesman suggested the suit was designed as a fund-raising tool for the veterans foundation and others. "This is simply more of the same smears and sleaze against a decorated Vietnam veteran from more of the same serial liars who disgraced themselves in 2004," spokesman David Wade said. "It's too bad the truth doesn't matter to the right wing when there's a chance to fund-raise based on outright falsehood and slander," he said. Podesta did not immediately return a message seeking comment. In July, the Federal Elections Commission rejected a complaint filed by the DNC, ruling that Baltimore-based Sinclair had not violated federal election law by running parts of the documentary. Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. 11:06:47 AM    comment []

Six Marines Killed in Iraq Bomb Attacks By SAMEER N. YACOUB, Associated Press Writer Bomb blasts killed six Marines in western Iraq, and U.S. forces killed 29 militants in U.S. offensives aimed at uprooting al-Qaida insurgents ahead of the country's vote on a new constitution, the military said Friday. The American deaths brought to 1,950 the number of U.S. troops who have died since the beginning of the war in 2003, according to an Associated Press count. In southern Iraq, British troops detained 12 militiamen loyal to a radical Shiite cleric in the city of Basra, accusing them of carrying out recent attacks on British and U.S. troops, officials said Friday, amid charges Iran is helping fighters carry out deadlier bombings. Eight days before Iraqis were to go to the polls to approve or reject the new constitution, officials across the country were still waiting to get copies of the document to pass out to voters. Distribution began in a few Baghdad neighborhoods, but did not appear to have begun elsewhere. Some shopkeepers in Baghdad refused to hand out the document and some people refused to take it, fearing reprisals by militants determined to wreck the crucial Oct. 15 referendum. "Some people are excited to take it. Others are refusing to touch it," said Mohammed Ali, a shopkeeper in the western Baghdad neighborhood of Saydiya who handed out about 150 copies Friday. "I know some merchants who have refused to accept copies for distribution because they fear retaliation by the insurgents," Ali said in an interview at his shop. Al-Qaida in Iraq and other Sunni-led insurgent groups have launched a wave of violence that has killed more than 290 people the past two weeks, many of the Shiites in brutal bombings and shootings at a mosque, a bus and a school. Al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has declared war on Iraq's Shiite Muslim majority. The Pentagon said Friday the military in Iraq had intercepted a letter from the second in command of al-Qaida, Ayman al-Zawahri, to al-Zarqawi, urging him to avoid bombing mosques and slaughtering hostages to avoid alienating the masses. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the letter also demonstrates "detailed planning and intent on the part of the insurgents in Iraq to one day control that country and to really try to extend their extremism to neighboring countries." The U.S. military is waging two large offensives in western Iraq — operations "Iron Fist" and "River Gate" — to oust al-Qaida in Iraqi militants from a half-dozen towns along the Euphrates River valley. Two Marines were killed Thursday by a roadside bomb that hit their patrol outside the town of Qaim, the region near the Syrian border where Iron Fist is being waged, the military said. Their deaths bring to six the number of U.S. troops killed in Iron Fist and River Gate, launched Oct. 1 and Tuesday, respectively. Apart from the offensives, four Marines were killed Thursday by a roadside bomb in Karmah, near the town of Fallujah, 40 miles west of Baghdad, the military said. On Thursday, warplanes dropped four precision-guided bombs on an abandoned three-story hotel seized by militants in the town of Karabilah, near the Syrian border, the focus of the Iron Fist assault. Twenty militants were killed in the bombardment, the military said. Seven more insurgents were killed when planes destroyed three buildings from which gunmen were firing on Marines, and two gunmen were killed in fighting in Karabilah. The 29 deaths raised the insurgent death toll in Iron Fist to 71. At least six insurgents have been reported killed in River Gate offensive, taking place some 80 miles southeast down the Euphrates. The British raid in Basra targeted a house and netted 12 members of the al-Mahdi militia, the armed force loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, said British military spokesman Maj. Steven Melbourne. Britain's Ministry of Defense confirmed the raid. On Thursday, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said his government suspects that Iran and Lebanon's Hezbollah might be supplying technology and explosives to Shiite Muslim militant groups operating in Iraq, but he provided no proof. Sheik Khalil Al-Maliki, a member of the al-Mahdi militia, told the AP that British soldiers and tanks raided the home of police officer Ali Eliwi late just after midnight in the early hours Friday, detaining Eliwi and 11 other Iraqis there and seizing their weapons. "I think the reason is the recent British claim about Iranian interference in Iraqi affairs," Al-Maliki said. British and U.S. forces have been attacked in recent months by roadside bombs packed with "shaped charges," which are much more deadly than conventional roadside bombs. Such attacks have killed six British troops since July. Late last month two U.S. soldiers were killed when a bomb exploded near their vehicle in Shaibah, a town near Basra. Iran rejected Blair's accusations as "baseless," saying it "has no motive for intervening in the domestic affairs of Iraq." Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said in a statement read on state television Friday that "Blair is accusing others to cover up Britain's failure to provide security in Iraq." In Beirut, Hezbollah denounced Blair's accusations as "lies." The arrests in Basra on Thursday night could increase tensions between the 8,500 British troops in Iraq and the provincial government and people of Basra, Iraq's second-largest city. Last month, British forces used armored vehicles to storm a Basra jail and free two of their soldiers who had been arrested by police. During the raid, British forces learned that Shiite Muslim militiamen and police had moved the men to a nearby house. The British then stormed that house and rescued them. At least five Iraqi civilians were reported killed in the fighting, and Basra's provincial government responded by suspending all cooperation with British forces. It also demanded the return of the two British soldiers, but Britain's government has refused. In new violence in Baghdad, at least seven Iraqi civilians were killed in shootings around the city, and at least two bodies were found dumped in the capital. Sunni Arabs held a funeral for 22 Sunnis who were abducted in Baghdad nearly two months ago and whose bound and bullet-ridden bodies were found a week ago near the Iranian border. The mourners accused government-allied militiamen of killing them. Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press 10:15:24 AM    comment []

The Noose Tightens. . .? If the prick isn't indicted after all this, it'll be like spending a month thinking you're getting a bike for Christmas, then wind up with socks and underwear.   Rove's return to the grand jury: Whatever it is, "It can't be good" When it comes to Karl Rove's return visit to the grand jury investigating the outing of Valerie Plame, it seems that almost everyone has a source willing to speculate about what's really going on -- and everyone else has an opinion about what it all means. Here's the rundown from today's papers: What's it all about? The Los Angeles Times says that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is investigating, among other things, whether White House officials, including Rove and Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney's chief of staff, were "fully forthcoming with investigators about their knowledge of Plame and how her name became public." The New York Daily News, relying on a CIA official familiar with the investigation, says there are contradictions between's Rove's testimony and Libby's. The Washington Post says there's a conflict between Rove's testimony and that of Time reporter Matthew Cooper: Rove told the grand jury that the two men talked mostly about welfare during their telephone call on July 11, 2003; Cooper says they talked mostly about Joseph Wilson. What is Patrick Fitzgerald up to? While one Rove friend tells the New York Daily News that Rove's invitation to return to the grand jury is merely a "pro forma development by a prosecutor tying up loose ends before deciding whether to bring charges," other sources offer other suggestions. The New York Times says that Fitzgerald has talked in recent days with lawyers for several administration officials, casting "a cloud over the inquiry" and "sweeping away the confidence once expressed by a number of officials and their lawyers who have said that he was unlikely to find any illegality." Sources tell the Times that additional White House officials are likely to be invited back for more testimony in coming days and that Fitzgerald may be considering new legal theories. Among them: the possible use of a provision in the federal espionage and censorship law that makes it a crime to "willfully" provide classified information about national defense matters to someone not entitled to receive it. What does this mean for Karl Rove? Nobody knows for sure, but as one Justice Department official tells the Los Angeles Times, "It can't be good." A source close to Rove tells the Post that Rove and his lawyers are now "genuinely concerned" that Rove could face criminal charges. Solomon Wisenberg, a former deputy to independent counsel Ken Starr, tells the Daily News that it would cause him "great concern" if one of his clients were called back to testify for a fourth time. "It sounds like Rove may be closer to being indicted," Wisenberg said. "There's no way somebody in Rove's position would go in a fourth time unless he was trying to save his own professional skin." What's the risk in testifying again? As we said yesterday, the main risk is that Rove might introduce inconsistencies in his testimony. E. Lawrence Barcella Jr., a former federal prosecutor, tells Bloomberg News: "Imagine you're the guy sitting up on top of a barrel of water, only in this case, the barrel is filled with something much worse. Usually you don't volunteer to get back up on top of that barrel." What does Rove's lawyer say? Not much. In an interview with Newsday, Robert Luskin declined to discuss the likelihood that Rove will be charged with a crime. "It is what it is," he said. "I don't want to comment on the chances. I'm not going to start grading this thing at, say 30 percent or 40 percent like the president's approval rating." Luskin said yesterday that his client hadn't received a letter notifying him that he was a "target" of Fitzgerald's investigation, leading us to wonder if he might have received such notification in some other fashion. Luskin now seems to have ruled that out, telling Bloomberg that his client hasn't received any "notification" that he's a target. And what is the New York Times saying? Times editor Bill Keller has promised previously that the paper will report fully -- and soon -- on the Judy Miller story, but he now says that effort may be delayed. There's a possibility that Fitzgerald will want to speak with Miller again, and Keller says the reporter has been warned by her lawyers not to discuss the substance of her testimony until she's sure that the grand jury is done with her. "We have launched a vigorous reporting effort that I hope will answer outstanding questions about Judy's part in this drama," the Times quotes Keller as saying. "This development may slow things down a little, but we owe our readers as full a story as we can tell, as soon as we can tell it." -- Tim Grieve, salon.com Report: Rove to testify Friday about inconsistencies, contacts Karl Rove will testify before Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury Friday morning, sources tell journalist Murray Waas. And as we've suggested, Waas' sources say that Fitzgerald and his team of prosecutors will be concerned about inconsistencies in Rove's story: The first time Rove met with FBI agents investigating the outing of Valerie Plame, he somehow failed to mention that he had discussed Plame with Time reporter Matthew Cooper. Waas' sources say that Rove will also be questioned regarding his interactions with other administration officials, including Scooter Libby and then-Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, during the week before Robert Novak outed Plame in his column on July 14, 2003. Rove has been identified as one of two sources for Novak's column. The other source -- a "senior administration official" Novak has described as "no partisan gunslinger" -- still has not been identified, at least not publicly. -- Tim Grieve, salon.com 9:55:00 AM    comment []