U.S. Suits Multiply, but Fewer Ever Get to Trial, Study Says:
"On television and in the popular imagination, lawsuits and prosecutions end in trials, in open court before a jury. In reality, according to a new study, trials have become quite uncommon. "
In 1962, the study says, 11.5 percent of all civil cases in federal court went to trial. By last year, that number had dropped to 1.8 percent. And even though there are five times as many lawsuits today, the raw number of civil trials has dropped, too. They peaked in 1985 at 12,529. Last year, 4,569 civil cases were tried in federal court.
"What's documented here," William G. Young, the chief judge of the Federal District Court in Boston, said in a telephone interview, "is nothing less than the passing of the common law adversarial system that is uniquely American."
The percentage of federal criminal prosecutions resolved by trials also declined, to less than 5 percent last year from 15 percent in 1962. The number of prosecutions more than doubled in the last four decades, but the number of criminal trials fell, to 3,574 last year from 5,097 in 1962.
The study, based on data compiled by the federal court system, was prepared by Marc Galanter, who teaches law at the University of Wisconsin and the London School of Economics, for the American Bar Association.
"This is a cultural shift of enormous significance," said Arthur Miller, a law professor at Harvard.
Opinions vary on whether the shift is a positive one. Negotiated settlements may satisfy both sides in a way a win-or-lose trial cannot, and pretrial dismissals of cases by judges may avoid needless trials of frivolous claims. Both of these alternatives to trial are less cumbersome, less expensive and more efficient.
On the other hand, some studies suggest that individuals suing companies fare considerably better before juries than they do in settlements and before judges, meaning that a decline in the number of trials may hurt plaintiffs with valid claims.…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/14/national/14TRIA.html?pagewanted=all&position=
Sunday, December 14, 2003
Saturday, December 13, 2003
Security Pipeline | News | Spam-Virus Marriage Seen As Leading 2004 Internet Threat:
"The use of viruses to commandeer personal computers on the Internet for relaying spam is a trend that started this year and is expected to escalate in 2004, an e-mail security company said Friday.
In the last six months, MessageLabs Inc. has seen a steady rise in the use of spam and virus techniques in sending out junk e-mail hawking drugs, pornography and sexual enhancements. "
The Minneapolis-based company, which filters corporate e-mail for spam and viruses, intercepts about 27 spam messages a second today, up from two per second at the same time last year. Sixty-six percent of those messages are generated from PCs that have been taken over by spammers without the knowledge of the computers' owners, Mark Sunner, chief technology officer for MessageLabs, said.
The number of PCs commandeered by spammers is expected to increase next year. "Spammers are taking advantage of the flaw in traditional anti-virus software people are running on their desktops today," Sunner said.
Traditional anti-virus software requires users to download code capable of detecting a virus after it's released on the Internet.
Until this year, people seeking a thrill from the chaos they could cause on the Internet accounted for most of the viruses. The malevolent code is hidden in an e-mail attachment that the sender tries to trick a person into opening by pretending the message is from a legitimate vendor or someone who can be trusted, like a friend.
Spammers are now using the same techniques to get PC users to unknowingly install applications that allow the machines to be used later to relay spam. The pre-eminent example of this kind of malevolent code was the Sobig.F virus, which had such an effective mass-mailing engine that it managed to shut down some corporate and government networks.
"The authors behind Sobig were definitely spammers using the virus to harvest lots of machines to blast spam," Sunner said.
Relaying spam through other computers enables spammers to remain anonymous and avoid law enforcement agencies. In addition, by hiding the original source of the mass-mailings, spammers can avoid black lists used by filtering software to separate spam from legitimate messages.…
http://informationweek.securitypipeline.com/news/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=F1K3ID3UJ3UQIQSNDBCSKHQ?articleId=16600263
"The use of viruses to commandeer personal computers on the Internet for relaying spam is a trend that started this year and is expected to escalate in 2004, an e-mail security company said Friday.
In the last six months, MessageLabs Inc. has seen a steady rise in the use of spam and virus techniques in sending out junk e-mail hawking drugs, pornography and sexual enhancements. "
The Minneapolis-based company, which filters corporate e-mail for spam and viruses, intercepts about 27 spam messages a second today, up from two per second at the same time last year. Sixty-six percent of those messages are generated from PCs that have been taken over by spammers without the knowledge of the computers' owners, Mark Sunner, chief technology officer for MessageLabs, said.
The number of PCs commandeered by spammers is expected to increase next year. "Spammers are taking advantage of the flaw in traditional anti-virus software people are running on their desktops today," Sunner said.
Traditional anti-virus software requires users to download code capable of detecting a virus after it's released on the Internet.
Until this year, people seeking a thrill from the chaos they could cause on the Internet accounted for most of the viruses. The malevolent code is hidden in an e-mail attachment that the sender tries to trick a person into opening by pretending the message is from a legitimate vendor or someone who can be trusted, like a friend.
Spammers are now using the same techniques to get PC users to unknowingly install applications that allow the machines to be used later to relay spam. The pre-eminent example of this kind of malevolent code was the Sobig.F virus, which had such an effective mass-mailing engine that it managed to shut down some corporate and government networks.
"The authors behind Sobig were definitely spammers using the virus to harvest lots of machines to blast spam," Sunner said.
Relaying spam through other computers enables spammers to remain anonymous and avoid law enforcement agencies. In addition, by hiding the original source of the mass-mailings, spammers can avoid black lists used by filtering software to separate spam from legitimate messages.…
http://informationweek.securitypipeline.com/news/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=F1K3ID3UJ3UQIQSNDBCSKHQ?articleId=16600263
Iraq Army Desertions Force Pay Review:
"The U.S.-led coalition will reconsider the pay scale for members of the new Iraqi army after about half of the recruits deserted, the U.S. general in charge of Iraqi military operations said Saturday.
Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, speaking at a news conference, said the major reason for the defections was pay, specifically allowances for married soldiers who were struggling to support their families on $60 a month."
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq.html
"The U.S.-led coalition will reconsider the pay scale for members of the new Iraqi army after about half of the recruits deserted, the U.S. general in charge of Iraqi military operations said Saturday.
Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, speaking at a news conference, said the major reason for the defections was pay, specifically allowances for married soldiers who were struggling to support their families on $60 a month."
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq.html
Friday, December 12, 2003
U.S. Draws on Israeli Methods for Iraq:
"In fighting insurgents in Iraq, the United States is drawing on some of Israel's methods and experiences in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, including running checkpoints and tracking militants with drone aircraft, Israeli officials say."
Israeli and U.S. security experts have met repeatedly in recent months to discuss urban warfare and Israel's lessons from its grueling three-year fight against Palestinian militants.
In public comments, Israeli and U.S. officials acknowledge ``strategic cooperation'' and confirm high-level meetings, the most recent one last week in Tel Aviv. However, they play down the contacts as routine, apparently for fear the Arab world will be outraged.
Recent U.S. methods in Iraq increasingly mimic those Israel uses in the West Bank and Gaza -- setting up impromptu checkpoints, keeping militants on the defensive with frequent arrest raids and, in at least one case, encircling a village and distributing travel permits.
An Israeli security official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Israel has briefed the U.S. military on its frequent use of drones, or unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, which allow officers at Israeli military headquarters to watch operations in real time.
Israel uses drones to monitor targeted killings, often helicopter missile attacks on fugitives' cars. Israel has killed at least 117 terror suspects and 88 bystanders in targeted attacks.
The Israeli security official said Israel has taught the U.S. military how to make use of intelligence information within minutes to attack a moving target. The U.S. military has not formally adopted targeted killings, though some wanted Iraqis have been killed in arrest raids.
A U.S. Army officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, said U.S. troops try to stay clear of methods that look like collective punishment. Israel routinely demolishes the family homes of Palestinian attackers in hopes of deterring future attacks.
The British newspaper The Guardian recently reported Israeli advisers are training U.S. soldiers at Fort Bragg, N.C.
Lt. Col. Hans Bush, of the U.S. Army's Special Operations Command, said there are no Israeli forces ``currently teaching Army Special Operations Command forces at Fort Bragg.''
Last week, a large delegation from the Army Training and Doctrine Command in Fort Monroe, Va., visited Israel. Harvey Perritt, the command's civilian spokesman, said the meeting was routine, but would not elaborate.…
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Israel-Iraq.html
"In fighting insurgents in Iraq, the United States is drawing on some of Israel's methods and experiences in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, including running checkpoints and tracking militants with drone aircraft, Israeli officials say."
Israeli and U.S. security experts have met repeatedly in recent months to discuss urban warfare and Israel's lessons from its grueling three-year fight against Palestinian militants.
In public comments, Israeli and U.S. officials acknowledge ``strategic cooperation'' and confirm high-level meetings, the most recent one last week in Tel Aviv. However, they play down the contacts as routine, apparently for fear the Arab world will be outraged.
Recent U.S. methods in Iraq increasingly mimic those Israel uses in the West Bank and Gaza -- setting up impromptu checkpoints, keeping militants on the defensive with frequent arrest raids and, in at least one case, encircling a village and distributing travel permits.
An Israeli security official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Israel has briefed the U.S. military on its frequent use of drones, or unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, which allow officers at Israeli military headquarters to watch operations in real time.
Israel uses drones to monitor targeted killings, often helicopter missile attacks on fugitives' cars. Israel has killed at least 117 terror suspects and 88 bystanders in targeted attacks.
The Israeli security official said Israel has taught the U.S. military how to make use of intelligence information within minutes to attack a moving target. The U.S. military has not formally adopted targeted killings, though some wanted Iraqis have been killed in arrest raids.
A U.S. Army officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, said U.S. troops try to stay clear of methods that look like collective punishment. Israel routinely demolishes the family homes of Palestinian attackers in hopes of deterring future attacks.
The British newspaper The Guardian recently reported Israeli advisers are training U.S. soldiers at Fort Bragg, N.C.
Lt. Col. Hans Bush, of the U.S. Army's Special Operations Command, said there are no Israeli forces ``currently teaching Army Special Operations Command forces at Fort Bragg.''
Last week, a large delegation from the Army Training and Doctrine Command in Fort Monroe, Va., visited Israel. Harvey Perritt, the command's civilian spokesman, said the meeting was routine, but would not elaborate.…
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Israel-Iraq.html
Dispatches: The Military: Marines Plan to Use Velvet Glove More Than Iron Fist in Iraq:
"No force has a tougher reputation than the United States Marines. But the marines who are headed to Iraq this spring say they intend to avoid the get-tough tactics that have been used in recent weeks by Army units. "
Marine commanders say they do not plan to surround villages with barbed wire, demolish buildings used by insurgents or detain relatives of suspected guerrillas. The Marines do not plan to fire artillery at suspected guerrilla mortar positions, an Army tactic that risks harming civilians. Nor do the Marines want to risk civilian casualties by calling in bombing strikes on the insurgents, as has happened most recently in Afghanistan.…
The increase in guerrilla attacks on American troops in Iraq has prompted Army units in the so-called Sunni triangle in central Iraq to adopt a hard-nosed approach — and spawned a behind-the-scenes debate within the American military about the best way to quash the insurgents.
While some Army commanders insist the hard-nosed tactics have been successful in reducing enemy attacks, other military officers believe they are alienating Iraqis and thus depriving American commanders of the public support and human intelligence needed to ferret out threats.
In an interview at his headquarters at Camp Pendleton, General Conway was careful not to criticize the Army. Still, he indicated that he plans to pursue a very different strategy.
"I don't want to condemn what people are doing," General Conway said. "I think they are doing what they think they have to do. I'll simply say that I think until we can win the population over and they can give us those indigenous intelligence reports that we're prolonging the process."
The Marines, General Conway says, will try to design their raids to be "laser precise," focused on the enemy with a maximum effort made to avoid endangering or humiliating Iraqi civilians.
After American forces invaded Iraq last spring, United States marines fought some of the fiercest battles of the war at Nasiriya and at a mosque in eastern Baghdad. After Saddam Hussein was ousted, the Marines assumed the responsibility for stabilizing south-central Iraq, where most of the inhabitants are Shiite Muslims who were persecuted under Mr. Hussein and were glad to see him gone. In contrast to the Army's experience, no marine was killed in action after mid-April.
The Marines insist their success also reflected their energetic efforts to work with the local population, an effort guided by their "Small Wars" manual, which derives from their 20th-century interventions in Central America.
There were several parallels between the Marine experience in southern Iraq and how the Army's 101st Airborne Division has approached northern Iraq — and many differences from the aggressive tactics of the Army's Fourth Infantry Division and other Army units in the Sunni triangle.
On their return to Iraq now, the Marines will be dealing with a much more challenging area which includes restive towns like Falluja, west of Baghdad.
In that region, American military units have come and gone so often that they have had little time to understand their surroundings. Falluja was initially occupied by the 82nd Airborne Division, which was soon replaced by the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment, which was in turn replaced by the Second Brigade of the Army's Third Infantry Division. In early summer, the Third Infantry Division had some success in helping to establish the local police. But it returned to the United States, handing the town back to the Third Armored Cavalry, which was soon replaced by the 82nd Airborne.
In Iraqi society, which emphasizes personal relationships, the constant rotations have made a difficult job that much harder. So have some tactics: in April, soldiers from the 82nd Airborne based themselves in Falluja and were fired on during an anti-American demonstration. The troops fired back. Iraqis say 17 people were killed and more than 70 wounded, many of them civilians who never fired on the American troops. The 82nd Airborne has disputed that account.…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/12/international/middleeast/12MARI.html?pagewanted=all&position=
"No force has a tougher reputation than the United States Marines. But the marines who are headed to Iraq this spring say they intend to avoid the get-tough tactics that have been used in recent weeks by Army units. "
Marine commanders say they do not plan to surround villages with barbed wire, demolish buildings used by insurgents or detain relatives of suspected guerrillas. The Marines do not plan to fire artillery at suspected guerrilla mortar positions, an Army tactic that risks harming civilians. Nor do the Marines want to risk civilian casualties by calling in bombing strikes on the insurgents, as has happened most recently in Afghanistan.…
The increase in guerrilla attacks on American troops in Iraq has prompted Army units in the so-called Sunni triangle in central Iraq to adopt a hard-nosed approach — and spawned a behind-the-scenes debate within the American military about the best way to quash the insurgents.
While some Army commanders insist the hard-nosed tactics have been successful in reducing enemy attacks, other military officers believe they are alienating Iraqis and thus depriving American commanders of the public support and human intelligence needed to ferret out threats.
In an interview at his headquarters at Camp Pendleton, General Conway was careful not to criticize the Army. Still, he indicated that he plans to pursue a very different strategy.
"I don't want to condemn what people are doing," General Conway said. "I think they are doing what they think they have to do. I'll simply say that I think until we can win the population over and they can give us those indigenous intelligence reports that we're prolonging the process."
The Marines, General Conway says, will try to design their raids to be "laser precise," focused on the enemy with a maximum effort made to avoid endangering or humiliating Iraqi civilians.
After American forces invaded Iraq last spring, United States marines fought some of the fiercest battles of the war at Nasiriya and at a mosque in eastern Baghdad. After Saddam Hussein was ousted, the Marines assumed the responsibility for stabilizing south-central Iraq, where most of the inhabitants are Shiite Muslims who were persecuted under Mr. Hussein and were glad to see him gone. In contrast to the Army's experience, no marine was killed in action after mid-April.
The Marines insist their success also reflected their energetic efforts to work with the local population, an effort guided by their "Small Wars" manual, which derives from their 20th-century interventions in Central America.
There were several parallels between the Marine experience in southern Iraq and how the Army's 101st Airborne Division has approached northern Iraq — and many differences from the aggressive tactics of the Army's Fourth Infantry Division and other Army units in the Sunni triangle.
On their return to Iraq now, the Marines will be dealing with a much more challenging area which includes restive towns like Falluja, west of Baghdad.
In that region, American military units have come and gone so often that they have had little time to understand their surroundings. Falluja was initially occupied by the 82nd Airborne Division, which was soon replaced by the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment, which was in turn replaced by the Second Brigade of the Army's Third Infantry Division. In early summer, the Third Infantry Division had some success in helping to establish the local police. But it returned to the United States, handing the town back to the Third Armored Cavalry, which was soon replaced by the 82nd Airborne.
In Iraqi society, which emphasizes personal relationships, the constant rotations have made a difficult job that much harder. So have some tactics: in April, soldiers from the 82nd Airborne based themselves in Falluja and were fired on during an anti-American demonstration. The troops fired back. Iraqis say 17 people were killed and more than 70 wounded, many of them civilians who never fired on the American troops. The 82nd Airborne has disputed that account.…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/12/international/middleeast/12MARI.html?pagewanted=all&position=
Thursday, December 11, 2003
Bush Defends Policy on Awarding Contracts to Rebuild Iraq:
"White House officials declined to say how Mr. Bush explained the Pentagon policy to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, President Jacques Chirac of France and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany. France and Russia were two of the largest creditors of Saddam Hussein's government. But officials hinted, by the end of the day, that Mr. Baker might be able to show flexibility to countries that write down Iraqi debt.
'I can't imagine that if you are asking to do stuff for Iraq that this is going to help,' a senior State Department official said late Wednesday."
Under the Pentagon rules, only companies whose countries are on the American list of "coalition nations" are eligible to compete for the prime contracts, though they could act as subcontractors. The result is that the Solomon Islands, Uganda and Samoa may compete for the contracts, but China, whose premier just left the White House with promises of an expanded trade relationship, is excluded, along with Israel.
Several of Mr. Bush's aides wondered why the administration had not simply adopted a policy of giving preference to prime contracts to members of the coalition, without barring any countries outright.
"What we did was toss away our leverage," one senior American diplomat said. "We could have put together a policy that said, `The more you help, the more contracts you may be able to gain.' " Instead, the official said, "we found a new way to alienate them."
In public, however, the White House defended the approach. Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said "the United States and coalition countries, as well as others that are contributing forces to the efforts there, and the Iraqi people themselves are the ones that have been helping and sacrificing to build a free and prosperous nation for the Iraqi people."
He said contracts stemming from aid to Iraq pledged by donor nations in Madrid last month would be open to broad international competition.
Richard A. Boucher, the State Department spokesman, said Wednesday that while the bidding restriction applied to prime contracts, "there are very few restrictions on subcontractors."
He also said the World Bank and International Monetary Fund "may have different, or their own, rules for how they contract."
When the committee was drafting the policy, officials said, there was some discussion about whether it would be wise to declare that excluding noncoalition members was in the security interests of the United States. As a matter of trade law, countries are often allowed to limit trade with other nations on national security grounds.
"The intent was to give us the legal cover to make the decision," one official said.
But the phrase angered officials of other nations because it seemed to suggest they were a security risk.…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/international/middleeast/10CND-PREX.html?hp=&pagewanted=all&position=
"White House officials declined to say how Mr. Bush explained the Pentagon policy to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, President Jacques Chirac of France and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany. France and Russia were two of the largest creditors of Saddam Hussein's government. But officials hinted, by the end of the day, that Mr. Baker might be able to show flexibility to countries that write down Iraqi debt.
'I can't imagine that if you are asking to do stuff for Iraq that this is going to help,' a senior State Department official said late Wednesday."
Under the Pentagon rules, only companies whose countries are on the American list of "coalition nations" are eligible to compete for the prime contracts, though they could act as subcontractors. The result is that the Solomon Islands, Uganda and Samoa may compete for the contracts, but China, whose premier just left the White House with promises of an expanded trade relationship, is excluded, along with Israel.
Several of Mr. Bush's aides wondered why the administration had not simply adopted a policy of giving preference to prime contracts to members of the coalition, without barring any countries outright.
"What we did was toss away our leverage," one senior American diplomat said. "We could have put together a policy that said, `The more you help, the more contracts you may be able to gain.' " Instead, the official said, "we found a new way to alienate them."
In public, however, the White House defended the approach. Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said "the United States and coalition countries, as well as others that are contributing forces to the efforts there, and the Iraqi people themselves are the ones that have been helping and sacrificing to build a free and prosperous nation for the Iraqi people."
He said contracts stemming from aid to Iraq pledged by donor nations in Madrid last month would be open to broad international competition.
Richard A. Boucher, the State Department spokesman, said Wednesday that while the bidding restriction applied to prime contracts, "there are very few restrictions on subcontractors."
He also said the World Bank and International Monetary Fund "may have different, or their own, rules for how they contract."
When the committee was drafting the policy, officials said, there was some discussion about whether it would be wise to declare that excluding noncoalition members was in the security interests of the United States. As a matter of trade law, countries are often allowed to limit trade with other nations on national security grounds.
"The intent was to give us the legal cover to make the decision," one official said.
But the phrase angered officials of other nations because it seemed to suggest they were a security risk.…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/international/middleeast/10CND-PREX.html?hp=&pagewanted=all&position=
Wednesday, December 10, 2003
In Ethiopia's Malaria War, Weapons Are the Issue: "
With a major malaria outbreak sweeping Ethiopia, an international doctors' group working there contends that outdated drugs are being used to fight it and may even worsen the epidemic.
Unicef, the United Nations agency providing the drugs, defended the choices it made in consultation with the Ethiopian government. The older drugs are still effective, it said, and changing policy midepidemic for a health system as battered as Ethiopia's can be disastrous.
But an internal World Health Organization memo from Dec. 3, obtained by The New York Times, disagrees and 'strongly recommends' that a new but more expensive drug be used."
The struggle illustrates problems confronting the makers of world health policy. Drug-resistant strains can evolve faster than new drugs can be discovered, and new cures are inevitably more expensive, forcing choices between costly drugs that work and cheap ones that may not.
The W.H.O. expects Ethiopia's epidemic to spread to 15 million of its 65 million population — triple the normal rate.
The aid group arguing for newer drugs, Doctors Without Borders, says that in the two Ethiopian areas where it runs clinics, up to 60 percent of patients have strains that appear resistant to the first-line treatment that Unicef and Ethiopia picked, a two-drug cocktail of chloroquine and sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine, better known by its initials, SP, or the brand name Fansidar.
The doctors' group said the second-line treatment, hospitalization for five days of quinine, was inaccessible for many patients and hard on malnourished children. Ethiopia is a mountainous country, where many people live far from clinics or are nomadic.
Doctors Without Borders wants to introduce artemisinin, a chemical that Chinese herbalists first derived 30 years ago from the sweet wormwood plant. It has become the latest wonder drug against malaria. But it is relatively expensive. Even at the prices drug companies offer to the poorest countries, cocktails that use it cost $1 to $2.50 an adult treatment. A typical treatment of chloroquine and SP costs about 20 cents.
The artemisinin program also requires taking pills for three days instead of one.
Nonetheless, the W.H.O., which usually provides treatment guidance, strongly endorses artemisinin cocktails, which are being used in several African countries, including Burundi, Liberia and South Africa. Because resistance to chloroquine is widespread, the W.H.O. discourages its use.
Dr. Kevin Marsh, a malaria expert working in Kenya, called chloroquine "a failed drug" and said health authorities were foolish to spend money on it.
Heavy rains this year ended five years of a drought that starved and weakened people in wide swaths of Ethiopia. The rains were accompanied by unusually hot weather that let mosquitoes breed at higher altitudes.
Malaria surged. United Nations relief agencies are calling the outbreak the worst since 1998 and the country's "single biggest health problem."
But malaria death rates in some villages are five times the normal rate, said Dr. Pauline Horrill, an emergency coordinator for Doctors Without Borders.
Across the world, malaria kills three children a minute.…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/09/health/09MALA.html?pagewanted=all&position=
With a major malaria outbreak sweeping Ethiopia, an international doctors' group working there contends that outdated drugs are being used to fight it and may even worsen the epidemic.
Unicef, the United Nations agency providing the drugs, defended the choices it made in consultation with the Ethiopian government. The older drugs are still effective, it said, and changing policy midepidemic for a health system as battered as Ethiopia's can be disastrous.
But an internal World Health Organization memo from Dec. 3, obtained by The New York Times, disagrees and 'strongly recommends' that a new but more expensive drug be used."
The struggle illustrates problems confronting the makers of world health policy. Drug-resistant strains can evolve faster than new drugs can be discovered, and new cures are inevitably more expensive, forcing choices between costly drugs that work and cheap ones that may not.
The W.H.O. expects Ethiopia's epidemic to spread to 15 million of its 65 million population — triple the normal rate.
The aid group arguing for newer drugs, Doctors Without Borders, says that in the two Ethiopian areas where it runs clinics, up to 60 percent of patients have strains that appear resistant to the first-line treatment that Unicef and Ethiopia picked, a two-drug cocktail of chloroquine and sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine, better known by its initials, SP, or the brand name Fansidar.
The doctors' group said the second-line treatment, hospitalization for five days of quinine, was inaccessible for many patients and hard on malnourished children. Ethiopia is a mountainous country, where many people live far from clinics or are nomadic.
Doctors Without Borders wants to introduce artemisinin, a chemical that Chinese herbalists first derived 30 years ago from the sweet wormwood plant. It has become the latest wonder drug against malaria. But it is relatively expensive. Even at the prices drug companies offer to the poorest countries, cocktails that use it cost $1 to $2.50 an adult treatment. A typical treatment of chloroquine and SP costs about 20 cents.
The artemisinin program also requires taking pills for three days instead of one.
Nonetheless, the W.H.O., which usually provides treatment guidance, strongly endorses artemisinin cocktails, which are being used in several African countries, including Burundi, Liberia and South Africa. Because resistance to chloroquine is widespread, the W.H.O. discourages its use.
Dr. Kevin Marsh, a malaria expert working in Kenya, called chloroquine "a failed drug" and said health authorities were foolish to spend money on it.
Heavy rains this year ended five years of a drought that starved and weakened people in wide swaths of Ethiopia. The rains were accompanied by unusually hot weather that let mosquitoes breed at higher altitudes.
Malaria surged. United Nations relief agencies are calling the outbreak the worst since 1998 and the country's "single biggest health problem."
But malaria death rates in some villages are five times the normal rate, said Dr. Pauline Horrill, an emergency coordinator for Doctors Without Borders.
Across the world, malaria kills three children a minute.…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/09/health/09MALA.html?pagewanted=all&position=
High Payments to Halliburton for Fuel in Iraq:
"The United States government is paying the Halliburton Company an average of $2.64 a gallon to import gasoline and other fuel to Iraq from Kuwait, more than twice what others are paying to truck in Kuwaiti fuel, government documents show.
Halliburton, which has the exclusive United States contract to import fuel into Iraq, subcontracts the work to a Kuwaiti firm, government officials said. But Halliburton gets 26 cents a gallon for its overhead and fee, according to documents from the Army Corps of Engineers."
The cost of the imported fuel first came to public attention in October when two senior Democrats in Congress criticized Halliburton, the huge Houston-based oil-field services company, for "inflating gasoline prices at a great cost to American taxpayers." At the time, it was estimated that Halliburton was charging the United States government and Iraq's oil-for-food program an average of about $1.60 a gallon for fuel available for 71 cents wholesale.
But a breakdown of fuel costs, contained in Army Corps documents recently provided to Democratic Congressional investigators and shared with The New York Times, shows that Halliburton is charging $2.64 for a gallon of fuel it imports from Kuwait and $1.24 per gallon for fuel from Turkey.
A spokeswoman for Halliburton, Wendy Hall, defended the company's pricing. "It is expensive to purchase, ship, and deliver fuel into a wartime situation, especially when you are limited by short-duration contracting," she said. She said the company's Kellogg Brown & Root unit, which administers the contract, must work in a "hazardous" and "hostile environment," and that its profit on the contract is small.
The price of fuel sold in Iraq, set by the government, is 5 cents to 15 cents a gallon. The price is a political issue, and has not been raised to avoid another hardship for Iraqis.
The Iraqi state oil company and the Pentagon's Defense Energy Support Center import fuel from Kuwait for less than half of Halliburton's price, the records show.…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/10/international/middleeast/10GAS.html?pagewanted=all&position=
"The United States government is paying the Halliburton Company an average of $2.64 a gallon to import gasoline and other fuel to Iraq from Kuwait, more than twice what others are paying to truck in Kuwaiti fuel, government documents show.
Halliburton, which has the exclusive United States contract to import fuel into Iraq, subcontracts the work to a Kuwaiti firm, government officials said. But Halliburton gets 26 cents a gallon for its overhead and fee, according to documents from the Army Corps of Engineers."
The cost of the imported fuel first came to public attention in October when two senior Democrats in Congress criticized Halliburton, the huge Houston-based oil-field services company, for "inflating gasoline prices at a great cost to American taxpayers." At the time, it was estimated that Halliburton was charging the United States government and Iraq's oil-for-food program an average of about $1.60 a gallon for fuel available for 71 cents wholesale.
But a breakdown of fuel costs, contained in Army Corps documents recently provided to Democratic Congressional investigators and shared with The New York Times, shows that Halliburton is charging $2.64 for a gallon of fuel it imports from Kuwait and $1.24 per gallon for fuel from Turkey.
A spokeswoman for Halliburton, Wendy Hall, defended the company's pricing. "It is expensive to purchase, ship, and deliver fuel into a wartime situation, especially when you are limited by short-duration contracting," she said. She said the company's Kellogg Brown & Root unit, which administers the contract, must work in a "hazardous" and "hostile environment," and that its profit on the contract is small.
The price of fuel sold in Iraq, set by the government, is 5 cents to 15 cents a gallon. The price is a political issue, and has not been raised to avoid another hardship for Iraqis.
The Iraqi state oil company and the Pentagon's Defense Energy Support Center import fuel from Kuwait for less than half of Halliburton's price, the records show.…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/10/international/middleeast/10GAS.html?pagewanted=all&position=
Tuesday, December 09, 2003
Time Warner to Use Cable Lines to Add Phone to Internet Service:
"Time Warner Cable said yesterday that it had signed a deal with Sprint and MCI to help it send telephone calls over lines once used only to deliver television programming. The move escalates the clash between the cable and the traditional telephone industries, and shows how quickly cable companies are transforming themselves into all-purpose telecommunications providers."
Internet technology has made it possible for the cable companies to use their lines — which reach nearly every American home — to deliver telephone service, as well as high-speed Internet connections. Time Warner said it intended to offer telephone service by the end of next year in major markets in most, if not all, of the 27 states it serves.
Several cable companies already offer phone service using an older technology, though worldwide the number is fewer than eight million subscribers combined.
The newer technology, known as voice over Internet protocol, sends phone calls as digital data over the Internet. Customers using the service would plug regular phones into modems connected to the cable wire in their homes. They would be able to keep their existing phone numbers, and the Internet-based calls could be received on regular phones. Refinements of this technology over the last year allow cable companies to offer phone service in more markets more quickly.
In addition to Time Warner Cable, the cable giants Comcast, Cox Communications and Cablevision have started deployment of Internet phone services, with plans to expand those services in 2004.…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/09/technology/09PHON.html?pagewanted=all&position=
"Time Warner Cable said yesterday that it had signed a deal with Sprint and MCI to help it send telephone calls over lines once used only to deliver television programming. The move escalates the clash between the cable and the traditional telephone industries, and shows how quickly cable companies are transforming themselves into all-purpose telecommunications providers."
Internet technology has made it possible for the cable companies to use their lines — which reach nearly every American home — to deliver telephone service, as well as high-speed Internet connections. Time Warner said it intended to offer telephone service by the end of next year in major markets in most, if not all, of the 27 states it serves.
Several cable companies already offer phone service using an older technology, though worldwide the number is fewer than eight million subscribers combined.
The newer technology, known as voice over Internet protocol, sends phone calls as digital data over the Internet. Customers using the service would plug regular phones into modems connected to the cable wire in their homes. They would be able to keep their existing phone numbers, and the Internet-based calls could be received on regular phones. Refinements of this technology over the last year allow cable companies to offer phone service in more markets more quickly.
In addition to Time Warner Cable, the cable giants Comcast, Cox Communications and Cablevision have started deployment of Internet phone services, with plans to expand those services in 2004.…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/09/technology/09PHON.html?pagewanted=all&position=
U.S. Programmers at Overseas Salaries - TechUpdate - ZDNet:
"cMarket had been pursued, as many business owners are these days, by an intermediary who promised he could cut cMarket's programming costs significantly by outsourcing his needs to India. So last spring, when cMarket signed an agreement with the national Parent Teachers Assn. (PTA) to handle online auctions for its 20,000-plus local chapters and, simultaneously, began taking on charity auctions from Boston to Miami, Jon knew he had to rapidly expand cMarket's capabilities. He had his IT director call the intermediary and tell him that cMarket needed four programmers, pronto. Jon knew the numbers for experienced American programmers doing the specialty work he required: $80,000 a year, with benefits adding an additional $5,000 to $10,000 per programmer. The intermediary came back with the number for the services from India: $40,000 per programmer. "
It seemed like a cut-and-dried decision, the kind U.S. executives are making every day without hesitating, but for some reason Jon hesitated. Much as he likes the idea of having projects completed at the lowest possible cost, and as responsible as he feels to investors, he didn't like the feeling of becoming someone who callously pushes jobs to other countries. "I'm in the entrepreneurial economy," where competition around both costs and revenues is very intense, he says. "But I was personally very uncomfortable. This situation brought me face-to-face with how easy global disintermediation is being made for folks, to the point where it is almost inevitable."
TOUGH CALL. As he thought more about his decision, Jon realized he had a valid business reason to hesitate: As the head of a startup that had been going for less than a year, he wasn't at all certain he should take the risk of having essential work done at a far-off location by people he didn't know, and with whom he could communicate only via e-mail and phone. Still, there was that matter of nearly $200,000 in annual savings. Each time he hesitated about making his decision, various confidantes reminded him about the big money at stake.
And then Jon had a brainstorm. What if he offered Americans the jobs at the same rate he would be paying for Indian programmers? It seemed like a long shot. But it also seemed worth the gamble. So Jon placed some ads in The Boston Globe, offering full-time contract programming work for $45,000 annually. (He had decided that it was worth adding a $5,000 premium to what he'd pay the Indian workers in exchange for having the programmers on site.)
The result? "We got flooded" with resumes, about 90 in total, many from highly qualified programmers having trouble finding work in the down economy, Jon says. His decision: "For $5,000 it was no contest." Jon went American. And the outcome? "I think I got the best of both worlds. I got local people who came in for 10% more (than Indians). And I found really good ones."
In the interim, Jon has promoted two of the programmers to full-time employees, at standard American programming salaries, rather than risk losing them to the marketplace. And he is convinced that having people working onsite gives him control over quality and timing that he wouldn't have enjoyed if he had subcontracted overseas.
While cMarket has solved its immediate challenge, the implications of Jon's approach are potentially mind-bending. What if other companies begin taking the same approach -- offering Indian-style wages to American workers? On the positive site, we could begin to solve our job-creation problems. But on the negative side, America's standard of living would inevitably decline. There's only one way to find out for sure how it all might shake out, and that is for other executives to replicate Jon's experiment.…
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/US_Programmers_at_Overseas_Salaries.html
"cMarket had been pursued, as many business owners are these days, by an intermediary who promised he could cut cMarket's programming costs significantly by outsourcing his needs to India. So last spring, when cMarket signed an agreement with the national Parent Teachers Assn. (PTA) to handle online auctions for its 20,000-plus local chapters and, simultaneously, began taking on charity auctions from Boston to Miami, Jon knew he had to rapidly expand cMarket's capabilities. He had his IT director call the intermediary and tell him that cMarket needed four programmers, pronto. Jon knew the numbers for experienced American programmers doing the specialty work he required: $80,000 a year, with benefits adding an additional $5,000 to $10,000 per programmer. The intermediary came back with the number for the services from India: $40,000 per programmer. "
It seemed like a cut-and-dried decision, the kind U.S. executives are making every day without hesitating, but for some reason Jon hesitated. Much as he likes the idea of having projects completed at the lowest possible cost, and as responsible as he feels to investors, he didn't like the feeling of becoming someone who callously pushes jobs to other countries. "I'm in the entrepreneurial economy," where competition around both costs and revenues is very intense, he says. "But I was personally very uncomfortable. This situation brought me face-to-face with how easy global disintermediation is being made for folks, to the point where it is almost inevitable."
TOUGH CALL. As he thought more about his decision, Jon realized he had a valid business reason to hesitate: As the head of a startup that had been going for less than a year, he wasn't at all certain he should take the risk of having essential work done at a far-off location by people he didn't know, and with whom he could communicate only via e-mail and phone. Still, there was that matter of nearly $200,000 in annual savings. Each time he hesitated about making his decision, various confidantes reminded him about the big money at stake.
And then Jon had a brainstorm. What if he offered Americans the jobs at the same rate he would be paying for Indian programmers? It seemed like a long shot. But it also seemed worth the gamble. So Jon placed some ads in The Boston Globe, offering full-time contract programming work for $45,000 annually. (He had decided that it was worth adding a $5,000 premium to what he'd pay the Indian workers in exchange for having the programmers on site.)
The result? "We got flooded" with resumes, about 90 in total, many from highly qualified programmers having trouble finding work in the down economy, Jon says. His decision: "For $5,000 it was no contest." Jon went American. And the outcome? "I think I got the best of both worlds. I got local people who came in for 10% more (than Indians). And I found really good ones."
In the interim, Jon has promoted two of the programmers to full-time employees, at standard American programming salaries, rather than risk losing them to the marketplace. And he is convinced that having people working onsite gives him control over quality and timing that he wouldn't have enjoyed if he had subcontracted overseas.
While cMarket has solved its immediate challenge, the implications of Jon's approach are potentially mind-bending. What if other companies begin taking the same approach -- offering Indian-style wages to American workers? On the positive site, we could begin to solve our job-creation problems. But on the negative side, America's standard of living would inevitably decline. There's only one way to find out for sure how it all might shake out, and that is for other executives to replicate Jon's experiment.…
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/US_Programmers_at_Overseas_Salaries.html
News: Worm hits Windows-based ATMs:
"An unknown number of ATMs running Windows XP Embedded were shut down during the spread of the so-called Nachi worm, said executives at Diebold, which made the ATMs and refused to name the customers affected.
The Nachi worm, also dubbed 'Welchia,' was written to clean up after the MSBlast, or Blaster, worm. Instead it crippled or congested networks around the world, including the check-in system at Air Canada. Both worms spread through a hole in Windows XP, 2000, NT and Server 2003. "
"It's a harbinger of things to come," said Bruce Schneier, chief technical officer of network monitoring company Counterpane Internet Security.
"Specific-purpose machines, like microwave ovens and until now ATM machines, never got viruses," said Schneier, author of "Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World." "Now that they are using a general purpose operating system, Diebold should expect a lot more of this in the future," he said.
John Pescatore, an analyst at Gartner, agreed.
"It's a horrendous security mistake," he said of specific-purpose machines like ATMs running Windows, which is written for general-purpose computers and for which Microsoft releases security fixes on a regular basis. "I'm a lot more worried about my money than I was before this."
Diebold switched from using IBM's OS/2 on its ATMs because banks were requesting Windows, said Steve Grzymkowski, senior product marketing manager at Diebold.
To help prevent future problems Diebold is shipping ATMs with firewall software designed to block out viruses and other attacks, he said.
"As far as it happening again, I wouldn't want to speculate on that," Grzymkowski said.
Schneier and Pescatore said they were worried about the security of other Windows-based Diebold appliances--voting machines, which run Windows CE.…
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117285.html
"An unknown number of ATMs running Windows XP Embedded were shut down during the spread of the so-called Nachi worm, said executives at Diebold, which made the ATMs and refused to name the customers affected.
The Nachi worm, also dubbed 'Welchia,' was written to clean up after the MSBlast, or Blaster, worm. Instead it crippled or congested networks around the world, including the check-in system at Air Canada. Both worms spread through a hole in Windows XP, 2000, NT and Server 2003. "
"It's a harbinger of things to come," said Bruce Schneier, chief technical officer of network monitoring company Counterpane Internet Security.
"Specific-purpose machines, like microwave ovens and until now ATM machines, never got viruses," said Schneier, author of "Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World." "Now that they are using a general purpose operating system, Diebold should expect a lot more of this in the future," he said.
John Pescatore, an analyst at Gartner, agreed.
"It's a horrendous security mistake," he said of specific-purpose machines like ATMs running Windows, which is written for general-purpose computers and for which Microsoft releases security fixes on a regular basis. "I'm a lot more worried about my money than I was before this."
Diebold switched from using IBM's OS/2 on its ATMs because banks were requesting Windows, said Steve Grzymkowski, senior product marketing manager at Diebold.
To help prevent future problems Diebold is shipping ATMs with firewall software designed to block out viruses and other attacks, he said.
"As far as it happening again, I wouldn't want to speculate on that," Grzymkowski said.
Schneier and Pescatore said they were worried about the security of other Windows-based Diebold appliances--voting machines, which run Windows CE.…
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117285.html
Chicago Tribune | Congress shrinks away from war responsibilities:
"Louis Fisher, the authority on congressional-executive relations at the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, is one who argues that the failure was not personal but institutional. While joining those who challenge the intelligence the Bush administration used to justify the pre-emptive attack on Saddam Hussein's regime, Fisher is even more critical of the lawmakers who sanctioned the action.
In the fall issue of Political Science Quarterly, he writes: 'Month after month, the administration released claims that were unproven' about weapons of mass destruction and links between Iraq and al Qaeda. 'For its part, Congress seemed incapable of analyzing a presidential proposal and protecting its institutional powers.'"
"The decision to go to war," he concludes, "cast a dark shadow over the health of U.S. political institutions and the celebrated system of democratic debate and checks and balances. The dismal performances of the executive and legislative branches raise disturbing questions about the capacity and desire of the United States to function as a republican form of government."
That may seem to you, as it does to me, too sweeping an indictment. But Fisher throws down an important challenge when he zeros in on a pattern of congressional behavior that has seen legislators sidestep the question of peace or war.
He quotes from the House International Relations Committee report supporting the Iraq resolution: "The committee hopes that the use of military force can be avoided. It believes, however, that providing the president with the authority he needs to use force is the best way to avoid its use."
As Fisher notes, that has become a common pattern in dealing with possible conflict. He likens it to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964, which Lyndon Johnson used as authority for the escalation in Vietnam.
The problem, he says, is that such legislation "would decide neither for nor against war. That judgment, which the Constitution places in Congress, would now be left in the hands of the president."
Some may say that presidents, with all of their national security apparatus, are better positioned to make the call than 535 members of Congress. But the Constitution says otherwise, that collective wisdom is to be preferred. Because this situation is likely to recur, this is not a personal or partisan question. Congress needs to reassert its role and step up to its responsibility.…
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/oped/chi-0312090337dec09,1,1473899.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed
"Louis Fisher, the authority on congressional-executive relations at the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, is one who argues that the failure was not personal but institutional. While joining those who challenge the intelligence the Bush administration used to justify the pre-emptive attack on Saddam Hussein's regime, Fisher is even more critical of the lawmakers who sanctioned the action.
In the fall issue of Political Science Quarterly, he writes: 'Month after month, the administration released claims that were unproven' about weapons of mass destruction and links between Iraq and al Qaeda. 'For its part, Congress seemed incapable of analyzing a presidential proposal and protecting its institutional powers.'"
"The decision to go to war," he concludes, "cast a dark shadow over the health of U.S. political institutions and the celebrated system of democratic debate and checks and balances. The dismal performances of the executive and legislative branches raise disturbing questions about the capacity and desire of the United States to function as a republican form of government."
That may seem to you, as it does to me, too sweeping an indictment. But Fisher throws down an important challenge when he zeros in on a pattern of congressional behavior that has seen legislators sidestep the question of peace or war.
He quotes from the House International Relations Committee report supporting the Iraq resolution: "The committee hopes that the use of military force can be avoided. It believes, however, that providing the president with the authority he needs to use force is the best way to avoid its use."
As Fisher notes, that has become a common pattern in dealing with possible conflict. He likens it to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964, which Lyndon Johnson used as authority for the escalation in Vietnam.
The problem, he says, is that such legislation "would decide neither for nor against war. That judgment, which the Constitution places in Congress, would now be left in the hands of the president."
Some may say that presidents, with all of their national security apparatus, are better positioned to make the call than 535 members of Congress. But the Constitution says otherwise, that collective wisdom is to be preferred. Because this situation is likely to recur, this is not a personal or partisan question. Congress needs to reassert its role and step up to its responsibility.…
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/oped/chi-0312090337dec09,1,1473899.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed
Chicago Tribune | U.S. Repulses 2 Suicide Bombers in Iraq:
"Near Fallujah, 30 miles west of the capital, witnesses said guerrillas hit a U.S. reconnaissance helicopter with a rocket-propelled grenade, forcing it to make a hard landing. The two crew members walked away, the military said. "
The attack on this base 30 miles north of Mosul occurred at 4:45 a.m. when an explosives-packed car drove to the base gate. Guards there and in a watchtower opened fire on the vehicle. Moments later it exploded, leaving a large crater just outside the base gate.
Col. Michael Linnington, commander of the 3rd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, which controls the Mosul region and the area west to the Syrian border, said the attacker's remains were "all over the compound."
Maj. Trey Cate, spokesman for the 101st Airborne Division, said 59 soldiers were injured.
"Eight soldiers were medically evacuated, of which four were sent to Baghdad," Cate said. The other 51 soldiers were slightly injured by debris and flying glass, he said.
Several Iraqis were injured, including a translator at the base. The blast damaged nearby homes. A 2-year-old girl was among many civilians hurt by flying glass.
Later Tuesday, the second suicide attacker blew himself up outside a U.S. Army compound near Baghdad, slightly injuring two soldiers, the military said.
A man acting suspiciously walked toward the gates of the base in Husseiniya, 15 miles northeast of Baghdad, said Maj. Josslyn Aberle, a U.S. military spokeswoman. When military police opened fire after the man refused to stop, he blew himself up.
Suicide attackers in Iraq have seldom, if ever, attempted attacks with explosives attached to their bodies. Vehicle bombs have been the norm.…
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/iraq/sns-ap-iraq,1,4003789.story
TALAFAR, Iraq -- The U.S. military repulsed two suicide attacks on American bases Tuesday -- one here in the far north and a second in Baghdad -- thwarting bombers with stepped-up defenses after a series of deadly suicide attacks stretching back to August.
"Near Fallujah, 30 miles west of the capital, witnesses said guerrillas hit a U.S. reconnaissance helicopter with a rocket-propelled grenade, forcing it to make a hard landing. The two crew members walked away, the military said. "
The attack on this base 30 miles north of Mosul occurred at 4:45 a.m. when an explosives-packed car drove to the base gate. Guards there and in a watchtower opened fire on the vehicle. Moments later it exploded, leaving a large crater just outside the base gate.
Col. Michael Linnington, commander of the 3rd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, which controls the Mosul region and the area west to the Syrian border, said the attacker's remains were "all over the compound."
Maj. Trey Cate, spokesman for the 101st Airborne Division, said 59 soldiers were injured.
"Eight soldiers were medically evacuated, of which four were sent to Baghdad," Cate said. The other 51 soldiers were slightly injured by debris and flying glass, he said.
Several Iraqis were injured, including a translator at the base. The blast damaged nearby homes. A 2-year-old girl was among many civilians hurt by flying glass.
Later Tuesday, the second suicide attacker blew himself up outside a U.S. Army compound near Baghdad, slightly injuring two soldiers, the military said.
A man acting suspiciously walked toward the gates of the base in Husseiniya, 15 miles northeast of Baghdad, said Maj. Josslyn Aberle, a U.S. military spokeswoman. When military police opened fire after the man refused to stop, he blew himself up.
Suicide attackers in Iraq have seldom, if ever, attempted attacks with explosives attached to their bodies. Vehicle bombs have been the norm.…
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/iraq/sns-ap-iraq,1,4003789.story
Monday, December 08, 2003
Foes of Bush Enlist Google to Make Point:
"Earlier this year, Google started a widely used news service. Last week, it looked to some users of the Google search that the site had started to editorialize.
Anyone searching on Google for the phrase 'miserable failure' was sent to the official White House biography of President Bush."
Google executives say they have no corporate opinion of the Bush presidency. Instead, the episode is another example of a form of cyber-graffiti known as "Google bombing."
It is a group prank. If enough Web pages link a certain Web page to a phrase, the Google search engine will start to associate that page with the phrase - even if, as in the case of Mr. Bush's official biography, the phrase does not occur on the destination Web site.
Beginning a few months ago, for example, the No. 1 search result on Google for the term "weapons of mass destruction" has been a satiric Web page made to look like a Microsoft error message.
Inspired by this and stirred by his objections to Mr. Bush's policies, a computer programmer, George Johnston, created a Google bomb to tie Mr. Bush's official biography to the phrase "miserable failure," watchwords of the presidential campaign of Richard A. Gephardt. (Mr. Johnston, who lives in Bellevue, Wash., said he had no association with the Gephardt campaign and in fact preferred another Democratic candidate, Dennis J. Kucinich.)
In the middle of October, Mr. Johnston created links on his blog (oldfashionedpatriot.blogspot.com) tying the phrase to the Bush biography and began to send messages to the writers of other blogs with an anti-Bush tilt telling them of his project. Many not only added the catch phrase to their own sites but urged readers to do the same.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/08/technology/08google.html
"Earlier this year, Google started a widely used news service. Last week, it looked to some users of the Google search that the site had started to editorialize.
Anyone searching on Google for the phrase 'miserable failure' was sent to the official White House biography of President Bush."
Google executives say they have no corporate opinion of the Bush presidency. Instead, the episode is another example of a form of cyber-graffiti known as "Google bombing."
It is a group prank. If enough Web pages link a certain Web page to a phrase, the Google search engine will start to associate that page with the phrase - even if, as in the case of Mr. Bush's official biography, the phrase does not occur on the destination Web site.
Beginning a few months ago, for example, the No. 1 search result on Google for the term "weapons of mass destruction" has been a satiric Web page made to look like a Microsoft error message.
Inspired by this and stirred by his objections to Mr. Bush's policies, a computer programmer, George Johnston, created a Google bomb to tie Mr. Bush's official biography to the phrase "miserable failure," watchwords of the presidential campaign of Richard A. Gephardt. (Mr. Johnston, who lives in Bellevue, Wash., said he had no association with the Gephardt campaign and in fact preferred another Democratic candidate, Dennis J. Kucinich.)
In the middle of October, Mr. Johnston created links on his blog (oldfashionedpatriot.blogspot.com) tying the phrase to the Bush biography and began to send messages to the writers of other blogs with an anti-Bush tilt telling them of his project. Many not only added the catch phrase to their own sites but urged readers to do the same.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/08/technology/08google.html
New Medicare Bill Bars Extra Insurance for Drugs:
"Medicare beneficiaries will not be allowed to buy insurance to cover their share of prescription drug costs under the new Medicare bill to be signed on Monday by President Bush, the legislation says.
Millions of Medicare beneficiaries have bought private insurance to fill gaps in Medicare. But a little-noticed provision of the legislation prohibits the sale of any Medigap policy that would help pay drug costs after Jan. 1, 2006, when the new Medicare drug benefit becomes available. "
This is one of many surprises awaiting beneficiaries, who will find big gaps in the drug benefit and might want private insurance to plug the holes — just as they buy insurance to supplement Medicare coverage of doctors' services and hospital care.
Congress cited two reasons for banning the sale of Medigap drug policies. Lawmakers wanted to prevent duplication of the new Medicare benefit. They also wanted to be sure that beneficiaries would bear some of the cost. Health economists have long asserted that when beneficiaries are insulated from the costs, they tend to overuse medical services.
Gail E. Shearer, a health policy analyst at Consumers Union, said she had mixed feelings about the prohibition.
"I don't want a return to abuses of 1970's and 80's, when lots of confusing Medigap policies were sold to vulnerable seniors," Ms. Shearer said. But she added: "Many seniors and disabled people will face a huge gap in drug coverage. In a bill that's marketed as providing choice to consumers, comprehensive drug coverage is not really an option. That's a disappointment."
The new drug benefit would be the biggest expansion of Medicare since creation of the program in 1965. But patients would still face substantial costs.
Under the standard Medicare drug benefit, the beneficiary would be responsible for a $250 deductible, 25 percent of drug costs from $251 to $2,250 and all of the next $2,850 in drug costs. Private Medigap policies could not cover any of those costs.
Congress began regulating the Medigap market in 1990, as a way to protect consumers, many of whom had bought duplicative policies. The federal government and state insurance commissioners developed 10 standard policies, to replace thousands then on the market.
Three of the 10 Medigap policies cover drugs. Under the legislation, an old policy with drug benefits could be renewed — but only by a person who chose to forgo the new Medicare drug benefit. A person who enrolls in the new program could not buy or renew a Medigap policy to help defray drug costs.
Nearly 12 million retirees have drug coverage and other health benefits from former employers. If those retirees sign up for the Medicare benefit, the employers can help pay the beneficiaries' share of drug costs. But those payments would not count toward the $3,600 limit on out-of-pocket spending.
Under the bill, low-income elderly people eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid, the federal-state program for low-income people, would receive their drugs through Medicare. Medicare drug plans will almost certainly cover fewer drugs than Medicaid now covers, state officials say. But the bill generally prohibits Medicaid programs from supplementing the Medicare drug benefit.
If state officials wanted to supplement the new Medicare drug benefit, they would have to pick up the entire cost of the extra coverage. States would not get the discounts and rebates they now receive from manufacturers under Medicaid.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/07/politics/07MEDI.html
"Medicare beneficiaries will not be allowed to buy insurance to cover their share of prescription drug costs under the new Medicare bill to be signed on Monday by President Bush, the legislation says.
Millions of Medicare beneficiaries have bought private insurance to fill gaps in Medicare. But a little-noticed provision of the legislation prohibits the sale of any Medigap policy that would help pay drug costs after Jan. 1, 2006, when the new Medicare drug benefit becomes available. "
This is one of many surprises awaiting beneficiaries, who will find big gaps in the drug benefit and might want private insurance to plug the holes — just as they buy insurance to supplement Medicare coverage of doctors' services and hospital care.
Congress cited two reasons for banning the sale of Medigap drug policies. Lawmakers wanted to prevent duplication of the new Medicare benefit. They also wanted to be sure that beneficiaries would bear some of the cost. Health economists have long asserted that when beneficiaries are insulated from the costs, they tend to overuse medical services.
Gail E. Shearer, a health policy analyst at Consumers Union, said she had mixed feelings about the prohibition.
"I don't want a return to abuses of 1970's and 80's, when lots of confusing Medigap policies were sold to vulnerable seniors," Ms. Shearer said. But she added: "Many seniors and disabled people will face a huge gap in drug coverage. In a bill that's marketed as providing choice to consumers, comprehensive drug coverage is not really an option. That's a disappointment."
The new drug benefit would be the biggest expansion of Medicare since creation of the program in 1965. But patients would still face substantial costs.
Under the standard Medicare drug benefit, the beneficiary would be responsible for a $250 deductible, 25 percent of drug costs from $251 to $2,250 and all of the next $2,850 in drug costs. Private Medigap policies could not cover any of those costs.
Congress began regulating the Medigap market in 1990, as a way to protect consumers, many of whom had bought duplicative policies. The federal government and state insurance commissioners developed 10 standard policies, to replace thousands then on the market.
Three of the 10 Medigap policies cover drugs. Under the legislation, an old policy with drug benefits could be renewed — but only by a person who chose to forgo the new Medicare drug benefit. A person who enrolls in the new program could not buy or renew a Medigap policy to help defray drug costs.
Nearly 12 million retirees have drug coverage and other health benefits from former employers. If those retirees sign up for the Medicare benefit, the employers can help pay the beneficiaries' share of drug costs. But those payments would not count toward the $3,600 limit on out-of-pocket spending.
Under the bill, low-income elderly people eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid, the federal-state program for low-income people, would receive their drugs through Medicare. Medicare drug plans will almost certainly cover fewer drugs than Medicaid now covers, state officials say. But the bill generally prohibits Medicaid programs from supplementing the Medicare drug benefit.
If state officials wanted to supplement the new Medicare drug benefit, they would have to pick up the entire cost of the extra coverage. States would not get the discounts and rebates they now receive from manufacturers under Medicaid.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/07/politics/07MEDI.html
Tough New Tactics by U.S. Tighten Grip on Iraq Towns:
"As the guerrilla war against Iraqi insurgents intensifies, American soldiers have begun wrapping entire villages in barbed wire.
In selective cases, American soldiers are demolishing buildings thought to be used by Iraqi attackers. They have begun imprisoning the relatives of suspected guerrillas, in hopes of pressing the insurgents to turn themselves in.
The Americans embarked on their get-tough strategy in early November, goaded by what proved to be the deadliest month yet for American forces in Iraq, with 81 soldiers killed by hostile fire. The response they chose is beginning to echo the Israeli counterinsurgency campaign in the occupied territories."
In Abu Hishma, encased in a razor-wire fence after repeated attacks on American troops, Iraqi civilians line up to go in and out, filing through an American-guarded checkpoint, each carrying an identification card printed in English only.
"If you have one of these cards, you can come and go," coaxed Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman, the battalion commander whose men oversee the village, about 50 miles north of Baghdad. "If you don't have one of these cards, you can't."
The Iraqis nodded and edged their cars through the line. Over to one side, an Iraqi man named Tariq muttered in anger.
"I see no difference between us and the Palestinians," he said. "We didn't expect anything like this after Saddam fell."
The practice of destroying buildings where Iraqi insurgents are suspected of planning or mounting attacks has been used for decades by Israeli soldiers in Gaza and the West Bank. The Israeli Army has also imprisoned the relatives of suspected terrorists, in the hopes of pressing the suspects to surrender.
The Israeli military has also cordoned off villages and towns thought to be hotbeds of guerrilla activity, in an effort to control the flow of people moving in and out.
American officials say they are not purposefully mimicking Israeli tactics, but they acknowledge that they have studied closely the Israeli experience in urban fighting. Ahead of the war, Israeli defense experts briefed American commanders on their experience in guerrilla and urban warfare. The Americans say there are no Israeli military advisers helping the Americans in Iraq.
Writing in the July issue of Army magazine, an American brigadier general said American officers had recently traveled to Israel to hear about lessons learned from recent fighting there.
Underlying the new strategy, the Americans say, is the conviction that only a tougher approach will quell the insurgency and that the new strategy must punish not only the guerrillas but also make clear to ordinary Iraqis the cost of not cooperating.
"You have to understand the Arab mind," Capt. Todd Brown, a company commander with the Fourth Infantry Division, said as he stood outside the gates of Abu Hishma. "The only thing they understand is force — force, pride and saving face."
…the town of Abu Hishma is enclosed in a barbed-wire fence that stretches for five miles. Men ages 18 to 65 have been ordered to get identification cards. There is only way into the town and one way out.
"This fence is here for your protection," reads the sign posted in front of the barbed-wire fence. "Do not approach or try to cross, or you will be shot."
American forces have used the tactic in other cities, including Awja, the birthplace of Saddam Hussein. American forces also sealed off three towns in western Iraq for several days.
"With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects, I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them," Colonel Sassaman said.
In Abu Hishma, residents complain that the village is locked down for 15 hours a day, meaning that they are unable to go to the mosque for morning and evening prayers. They say the curfew does not allow them time to stand in the daylong lines for gasoline and get home before the gate closes for the night.
But mostly, it is a loss of dignity that the villagers talk about. For each identification card, every Iraqi man is assigned a number, which he must hold up when he poses for his mug shot. The card identifies his age and type of car. It is all in English.
"This is absolutely humiliating," said Yasin Mustafa, a 39-year-old primary school teacher. "We are like birds in a cage."
Colonel Sassaman said he would maintain the wire enclosure until the villagers turned over the six men who killed Sergeant Panchot, though he acknowledged they may have slipped far away.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/07/international/middleeast/07TACT.html?pagewanted=all&position=
"As the guerrilla war against Iraqi insurgents intensifies, American soldiers have begun wrapping entire villages in barbed wire.
In selective cases, American soldiers are demolishing buildings thought to be used by Iraqi attackers. They have begun imprisoning the relatives of suspected guerrillas, in hopes of pressing the insurgents to turn themselves in.
The Americans embarked on their get-tough strategy in early November, goaded by what proved to be the deadliest month yet for American forces in Iraq, with 81 soldiers killed by hostile fire. The response they chose is beginning to echo the Israeli counterinsurgency campaign in the occupied territories."
In Abu Hishma, encased in a razor-wire fence after repeated attacks on American troops, Iraqi civilians line up to go in and out, filing through an American-guarded checkpoint, each carrying an identification card printed in English only.
"If you have one of these cards, you can come and go," coaxed Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman, the battalion commander whose men oversee the village, about 50 miles north of Baghdad. "If you don't have one of these cards, you can't."
The Iraqis nodded and edged their cars through the line. Over to one side, an Iraqi man named Tariq muttered in anger.
"I see no difference between us and the Palestinians," he said. "We didn't expect anything like this after Saddam fell."
The practice of destroying buildings where Iraqi insurgents are suspected of planning or mounting attacks has been used for decades by Israeli soldiers in Gaza and the West Bank. The Israeli Army has also imprisoned the relatives of suspected terrorists, in the hopes of pressing the suspects to surrender.
The Israeli military has also cordoned off villages and towns thought to be hotbeds of guerrilla activity, in an effort to control the flow of people moving in and out.
American officials say they are not purposefully mimicking Israeli tactics, but they acknowledge that they have studied closely the Israeli experience in urban fighting. Ahead of the war, Israeli defense experts briefed American commanders on their experience in guerrilla and urban warfare. The Americans say there are no Israeli military advisers helping the Americans in Iraq.
Writing in the July issue of Army magazine, an American brigadier general said American officers had recently traveled to Israel to hear about lessons learned from recent fighting there.
Underlying the new strategy, the Americans say, is the conviction that only a tougher approach will quell the insurgency and that the new strategy must punish not only the guerrillas but also make clear to ordinary Iraqis the cost of not cooperating.
"You have to understand the Arab mind," Capt. Todd Brown, a company commander with the Fourth Infantry Division, said as he stood outside the gates of Abu Hishma. "The only thing they understand is force — force, pride and saving face."
…the town of Abu Hishma is enclosed in a barbed-wire fence that stretches for five miles. Men ages 18 to 65 have been ordered to get identification cards. There is only way into the town and one way out.
"This fence is here for your protection," reads the sign posted in front of the barbed-wire fence. "Do not approach or try to cross, or you will be shot."
American forces have used the tactic in other cities, including Awja, the birthplace of Saddam Hussein. American forces also sealed off three towns in western Iraq for several days.
"With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects, I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them," Colonel Sassaman said.
In Abu Hishma, residents complain that the village is locked down for 15 hours a day, meaning that they are unable to go to the mosque for morning and evening prayers. They say the curfew does not allow them time to stand in the daylong lines for gasoline and get home before the gate closes for the night.
But mostly, it is a loss of dignity that the villagers talk about. For each identification card, every Iraqi man is assigned a number, which he must hold up when he poses for his mug shot. The card identifies his age and type of car. It is all in English.
"This is absolutely humiliating," said Yasin Mustafa, a 39-year-old primary school teacher. "We are like birds in a cage."
Colonel Sassaman said he would maintain the wire enclosure until the villagers turned over the six men who killed Sergeant Panchot, though he acknowledged they may have slipped far away.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/07/international/middleeast/07TACT.html?pagewanted=all&position=
Chicago Tribune | Study: Terror-Related Cases Often Fizzle:
"The Justice Department has sharply increased prosecution of terrorism-related cases since the Sept. 11 attacks but many fizzled and few produced significant prison time, a new study finds."
About 6,400 people were referred by investigators for criminal charges involving terror in the two years after the attacks, but fewer than one-third actually were charged and only 879 were convicted, according to government records reviewed by Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.
The median prison sentence was just 14 days, said the study by clearinghouse co-directors David Burnham and Susan P. Long, lealeased Sunday. Only five people were sentenced to 20 years or more.
Critics seized on the numbers to question whether Attorney General John Ashcroft and other top law enforcement officials have been overstating the success of their anti-terrorism efforts. Nearly every time Ashcroft talks about the subject, he reads a long list of statistics on arrests and convictions to buttress his contention that great progress is being made.
Sen. Charles Grassley, a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee with oversight of the FBI and Justice Department, said the report "raises questions about the accuracy of the department's claims about terrorism enforcement."
"This report shows that despite the focus on terrorism-related crimes, most of the people accused of terrorism involvement are getting little jail time, if at all," said Grassley, R-Iowa.…
In other words, for every would-be "shoe bomber" such as Richard Reid -- serving a life sentence for trying to light an explosive on a Paris-to-Miami flight last year -- there are many more suspects such as the group of Yemeni-Americans from Lackawanna, N.Y., who were convicted of supporting terrorism by briefly attending al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan.
"This administration's strategy of preventing terrorism has helped protect American for over two years," Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said.
According to the study, about 874 cases were pending as of Sept. 30, including some that might produce longer sentences. In October, for example, two members of an Oregon group were sentenced to 18 years each in prison for attempting to travel to Afghanistan and fight U.S. forces there.
Still, critics of Justice Department anti-terrorism policies say the study lifts the veil on what they consider large-scale government deception aimed at reassuring an American public fearful of more attacks.
"This punches a huge hole in the hype the Justice Department has been engaged in," said Timothy Edgar, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "They are calling people terrorists, on a massive scale, who aren't terrorists."
According to the study, charges were filed against 2,001 of the 6,400 people recommended for prosecution since the attacks. Authorities declined to prosecute 1,554. Some 2,845 of the referrals were pending as of Sept. 30.
Of the 879 people convicted, 373 went to prison and 506 did not. Of those sentenced to prison, 250 got less than a year, 100 got less than five years and just 23 were sentenced to five years or more.
During the two years before Sept. 11, 2001, 24 people were sentenced to five or more years in prison on comparable terror-related offenses, the study said.
The study also found that:
* Prosecutions of individuals suspected of ties to one category, international terrorism, jumped from 142 in the two years before Sept. 11, 2001, to 748 in the two years after. Yet only three people in that category since the attacks have drawn sentences of five years or more, compared with six during the earlier period.
* More than 260 people convicted since Sept. 11 of terrorism-related offenses were sentenced to the time that had already spent in jail awaiting disposition of their case.
* About 35 percent of criminal referrals made by investigators were declined by prosecutors because of lack of evidence or no obvious federal crime had been committed.
TRAC report: http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/terrorism/report031208.html
Justice Department: http://www.usdoj.gov
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-terrorism-prosecutions,1,7624659.story
"The Justice Department has sharply increased prosecution of terrorism-related cases since the Sept. 11 attacks but many fizzled and few produced significant prison time, a new study finds."
About 6,400 people were referred by investigators for criminal charges involving terror in the two years after the attacks, but fewer than one-third actually were charged and only 879 were convicted, according to government records reviewed by Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.
The median prison sentence was just 14 days, said the study by clearinghouse co-directors David Burnham and Susan P. Long, lealeased Sunday. Only five people were sentenced to 20 years or more.
Critics seized on the numbers to question whether Attorney General John Ashcroft and other top law enforcement officials have been overstating the success of their anti-terrorism efforts. Nearly every time Ashcroft talks about the subject, he reads a long list of statistics on arrests and convictions to buttress his contention that great progress is being made.
Sen. Charles Grassley, a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee with oversight of the FBI and Justice Department, said the report "raises questions about the accuracy of the department's claims about terrorism enforcement."
"This report shows that despite the focus on terrorism-related crimes, most of the people accused of terrorism involvement are getting little jail time, if at all," said Grassley, R-Iowa.…
In other words, for every would-be "shoe bomber" such as Richard Reid -- serving a life sentence for trying to light an explosive on a Paris-to-Miami flight last year -- there are many more suspects such as the group of Yemeni-Americans from Lackawanna, N.Y., who were convicted of supporting terrorism by briefly attending al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan.
"This administration's strategy of preventing terrorism has helped protect American for over two years," Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said.
According to the study, about 874 cases were pending as of Sept. 30, including some that might produce longer sentences. In October, for example, two members of an Oregon group were sentenced to 18 years each in prison for attempting to travel to Afghanistan and fight U.S. forces there.
Still, critics of Justice Department anti-terrorism policies say the study lifts the veil on what they consider large-scale government deception aimed at reassuring an American public fearful of more attacks.
"This punches a huge hole in the hype the Justice Department has been engaged in," said Timothy Edgar, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "They are calling people terrorists, on a massive scale, who aren't terrorists."
According to the study, charges were filed against 2,001 of the 6,400 people recommended for prosecution since the attacks. Authorities declined to prosecute 1,554. Some 2,845 of the referrals were pending as of Sept. 30.
Of the 879 people convicted, 373 went to prison and 506 did not. Of those sentenced to prison, 250 got less than a year, 100 got less than five years and just 23 were sentenced to five years or more.
During the two years before Sept. 11, 2001, 24 people were sentenced to five or more years in prison on comparable terror-related offenses, the study said.
The study also found that:
* Prosecutions of individuals suspected of ties to one category, international terrorism, jumped from 142 in the two years before Sept. 11, 2001, to 748 in the two years after. Yet only three people in that category since the attacks have drawn sentences of five years or more, compared with six during the earlier period.
* More than 260 people convicted since Sept. 11 of terrorism-related offenses were sentenced to the time that had already spent in jail awaiting disposition of their case.
* About 35 percent of criminal referrals made by investigators were declined by prosecutors because of lack of evidence or no obvious federal crime had been committed.
TRAC report: http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/terrorism/report031208.html
Justice Department: http://www.usdoj.gov
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-terrorism-prosecutions,1,7624659.story
Saturday, December 06, 2003
A Lynching Memorial Unveiled in Duluth:
"Among the nightmares that had faded from public memory in the United States until recently, none are more ghastly than the campaign of racial terror that gripped this country from the 1880's to the 1930's, when thousands of black Americans were hanged, mutilated, burned alive or dragged to death while huge crowds looked on. "
Sometimes called "lynching bees" or "Negro barbecues," these events were cast as macabre carnivals, which drew crowds with children and picnic baskets from miles around. The victims' bodies were sometimes photographed for postcards, which were used as instruments of terror until mailing such postcards was barred in the early 20th century. Lynching was not always just random violence. It was sometimes semiofficial violence, directed by whites who feared business competition from emerging black entrepreneurs and who hated the crusading newspapers of the Negro press, which began pressing aggressively for full citizenship for black people around World War I.
Americans who know of the violence of this period at all tend to believe that it was confined to the segregationist South. But the fact that lynchings took place in many parts of the country was underscored recently in the northern Minnesota city of Duluth when the city unveiled a moving memorial commemorating the deaths of Elmer Jackson, Elias Clayton and Isaac McGhie, three young black men who were lynched in Duluth in 1920 while a mob of 10,000 looked on.…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/05/opinion/05FRI3.html
"Among the nightmares that had faded from public memory in the United States until recently, none are more ghastly than the campaign of racial terror that gripped this country from the 1880's to the 1930's, when thousands of black Americans were hanged, mutilated, burned alive or dragged to death while huge crowds looked on. "
Sometimes called "lynching bees" or "Negro barbecues," these events were cast as macabre carnivals, which drew crowds with children and picnic baskets from miles around. The victims' bodies were sometimes photographed for postcards, which were used as instruments of terror until mailing such postcards was barred in the early 20th century. Lynching was not always just random violence. It was sometimes semiofficial violence, directed by whites who feared business competition from emerging black entrepreneurs and who hated the crusading newspapers of the Negro press, which began pressing aggressively for full citizenship for black people around World War I.
Americans who know of the violence of this period at all tend to believe that it was confined to the segregationist South. But the fact that lynchings took place in many parts of the country was underscored recently in the northern Minnesota city of Duluth when the city unveiled a moving memorial commemorating the deaths of Elmer Jackson, Elias Clayton and Isaac McGhie, three young black men who were lynched in Duluth in 1920 while a mob of 10,000 looked on.…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/05/opinion/05FRI3.html
Hospitals Say They're Penalized by Medicare for Improving Care:
"By better educating doctors about the most effective pneumonia treatments, Intermountain Health Care, a network of 21 hospitals in Utah and Idaho, says it saves at least 70 lives a year. By giving the right drugs at discharge time to more people with congestive heart failure, Intermountain saves another 300 lives annually and prevents almost 600 additional hospital stays.
But under Medicare, none of these good deeds go unpunished.
Intermountain says its initiatives have cost it millions of dollars in lost hospital admissions and lower Medicare reimbursements. In the mid-90's, for example, it made an average profit of 9 percent treating pneumonia patients; now, delivering better care, it loses an average of several hundred dollars on each case."
Medicare's top official is quick to agree that the payment system needs to be fixed. "It's one of the fundamental problems Medicare faces," said Thomas A. Scully, who as the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has encouraged better care by such steps as publicizing data about the quality of nursing home and home-health care and by experimenting with programs to reward hospitals for their efforts.
But the steps taken so far have been small, and many experts say that rather than paying for more studies, Congress should start making significant changes to the way doctors and hospitals are paid.
"They're splashing at the shallow end of the pool," said Dr. Arnold Milstein, a consultant for Mercer Human Resource Consulting and the medical director for the Pacific Business Group on Health, an association of large California employers. He would like to see as much as 20 percent of what Medicare pays doctors and hospitals linked to the quality of the care they provide and their efficiency in delivering treatment.
Two decades ago, Medicare led a revolution in health care. By setting fixed payments for various kinds of treatment — a coronary bypass surgery or curing a pneumonia or replacing a hip — rather than simply reimbursing doctors and hospitals for whatever it cost to deliver the care, it encouraged shorter hospital stays and less-expensive treatments.
But today, many health care executives say, Medicare's payment system hinders attempts to improve care. Dr. James, the Intermountain executive, said that he wrestled with the situation every day.
By making sure its doctors prescribe the most effective antibiotic for pneumonia patients, for example, and thereby avoiding complications, Intermountain forgoes roughly $1 million a year in Medicare payments, he estimated. When a pneumonia patient deteriorates so badly that the patient needs a ventilator, Intermountain collects about $19,000, compared with $5,000 for a typical pneumonia case. And while it makes money treating the sicker patient, Dr. James said, it loses money caring for the healthier one.…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/05/business/05UTAH.html?pagewanted=all&position=
"The health care system is perverse," said a frustrated Dr. Brent C. James, who leads Intermountain's efforts to improve quality. "The payments are perverse. It pays us to harm patients, and it punishes us when we don't."
"By better educating doctors about the most effective pneumonia treatments, Intermountain Health Care, a network of 21 hospitals in Utah and Idaho, says it saves at least 70 lives a year. By giving the right drugs at discharge time to more people with congestive heart failure, Intermountain saves another 300 lives annually and prevents almost 600 additional hospital stays.
But under Medicare, none of these good deeds go unpunished.
Intermountain says its initiatives have cost it millions of dollars in lost hospital admissions and lower Medicare reimbursements. In the mid-90's, for example, it made an average profit of 9 percent treating pneumonia patients; now, delivering better care, it loses an average of several hundred dollars on each case."
Medicare's top official is quick to agree that the payment system needs to be fixed. "It's one of the fundamental problems Medicare faces," said Thomas A. Scully, who as the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has encouraged better care by such steps as publicizing data about the quality of nursing home and home-health care and by experimenting with programs to reward hospitals for their efforts.
But the steps taken so far have been small, and many experts say that rather than paying for more studies, Congress should start making significant changes to the way doctors and hospitals are paid.
"They're splashing at the shallow end of the pool," said Dr. Arnold Milstein, a consultant for Mercer Human Resource Consulting and the medical director for the Pacific Business Group on Health, an association of large California employers. He would like to see as much as 20 percent of what Medicare pays doctors and hospitals linked to the quality of the care they provide and their efficiency in delivering treatment.
Two decades ago, Medicare led a revolution in health care. By setting fixed payments for various kinds of treatment — a coronary bypass surgery or curing a pneumonia or replacing a hip — rather than simply reimbursing doctors and hospitals for whatever it cost to deliver the care, it encouraged shorter hospital stays and less-expensive treatments.
But today, many health care executives say, Medicare's payment system hinders attempts to improve care. Dr. James, the Intermountain executive, said that he wrestled with the situation every day.
By making sure its doctors prescribe the most effective antibiotic for pneumonia patients, for example, and thereby avoiding complications, Intermountain forgoes roughly $1 million a year in Medicare payments, he estimated. When a pneumonia patient deteriorates so badly that the patient needs a ventilator, Intermountain collects about $19,000, compared with $5,000 for a typical pneumonia case. And while it makes money treating the sicker patient, Dr. James said, it loses money caring for the healthier one.…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/05/business/05UTAH.html?pagewanted=all&position=
Friday, December 05, 2003
Pentagon and Bogus News: All Is Denied:
"Early last year Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld disbanded the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence after it became known that the office was considering plans to provide false news items to unwitting foreign journalists to influence policymakers and public sentiment abroad.
But a couple of months ago, the Pentagon quietly awarded a $300,000 contract to SAIC, a major defense consultant, to study how the Defense Department could design an 'effective strategic influence' campaign to combat global terror, according to an internal Pentagon document. "
Sound familiar?
Senior Pentagon officials said Thursday that they were caught unawares by the contract and insisted its language was a "poor choice of words" by a low-level staffer. They said the work did not reflect any backdoor effort to resurrect the discredited office and was merely a study to understand Al Qaeda better and find ways to combat it.
"We are not recreating that office," said Thomas O'Connell, the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict, the policy arm of the Pentagon that deals with the military's most secretive operators and whose staff wrote the document.
But some critics of the former office voiced skepticism, saying that the contract amounted to a veiled attempt to create a low-budget copy of its ill-fated predecessor. A spokesman for SAIC referred all questions to the Pentagon.…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/05/politics/05STRA.html
"Early last year Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld disbanded the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence after it became known that the office was considering plans to provide false news items to unwitting foreign journalists to influence policymakers and public sentiment abroad.
But a couple of months ago, the Pentagon quietly awarded a $300,000 contract to SAIC, a major defense consultant, to study how the Defense Department could design an 'effective strategic influence' campaign to combat global terror, according to an internal Pentagon document. "
Sound familiar?
Senior Pentagon officials said Thursday that they were caught unawares by the contract and insisted its language was a "poor choice of words" by a low-level staffer. They said the work did not reflect any backdoor effort to resurrect the discredited office and was merely a study to understand Al Qaeda better and find ways to combat it.
"We are not recreating that office," said Thomas O'Connell, the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict, the policy arm of the Pentagon that deals with the military's most secretive operators and whose staff wrote the document.
But some critics of the former office voiced skepticism, saying that the contract amounted to a veiled attempt to create a low-budget copy of its ill-fated predecessor. A spokesman for SAIC referred all questions to the Pentagon.…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/05/politics/05STRA.html
News: Antispammers again targeted by worm:
"Antispam organizations are the target of a new Internet worm outbreak that tries to knock them offline with a crippling data barrage, computer security experts said Tuesday.
Virus experts believe the worm, W32/Mimail-L, is the work of a vengeful spam e-mail peddler bent on paralyzing organizations that try to deal with spam, the torrents of get-rich-quick schemes and body-enhancement deals that clog in-boxes daily.
'It's the third Mimail variation to come after us, except this one is trying to do more,' said Steve Linford, founder of The Spamhaus Project, a British-based group that singles out spammers. Spamhaus was hit by Mimail late Monday. "
According to anti-virus and spam-filtering company Sophos Plc, the Mimail-L program comes as an attachment to an e-mail purporting to be from a woman named Wendy who details an erotic encounter and then offers naked photographs.
Clicking on the attachment activates the virus. Once triggered, the worm forwards itself to other e-mail users.
The worm can also turn the affected PC into a "zombie," which can then be remotely commanded to bombard one of a select group of targets, such as Spamhaus, with a disabling blizzard of data--a so-called denial-of-service attack.
In a new twist, a follow-up e-mail is sent to the infected user stating that an order for a CD containing images of child pornography will be delivered to their postal address.
To stop the order, the e-mail advises, they should respond to what appears to be an e-mail address for billing complaints, but which is actually an e-mail for one of the eight targets.…
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5112997.html
"Antispam organizations are the target of a new Internet worm outbreak that tries to knock them offline with a crippling data barrage, computer security experts said Tuesday.
Virus experts believe the worm, W32/Mimail-L, is the work of a vengeful spam e-mail peddler bent on paralyzing organizations that try to deal with spam, the torrents of get-rich-quick schemes and body-enhancement deals that clog in-boxes daily.
'It's the third Mimail variation to come after us, except this one is trying to do more,' said Steve Linford, founder of The Spamhaus Project, a British-based group that singles out spammers. Spamhaus was hit by Mimail late Monday. "
According to anti-virus and spam-filtering company Sophos Plc, the Mimail-L program comes as an attachment to an e-mail purporting to be from a woman named Wendy who details an erotic encounter and then offers naked photographs.
Clicking on the attachment activates the virus. Once triggered, the worm forwards itself to other e-mail users.
The worm can also turn the affected PC into a "zombie," which can then be remotely commanded to bombard one of a select group of targets, such as Spamhaus, with a disabling blizzard of data--a so-called denial-of-service attack.
In a new twist, a follow-up e-mail is sent to the infected user stating that an order for a CD containing images of child pornography will be delivered to their postal address.
To stop the order, the e-mail advises, they should respond to what appears to be an e-mail address for billing complaints, but which is actually an e-mail for one of the eight targets.…
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5112997.html
Wednesday, December 03, 2003
The New York Review of Books: Iraq: What Went Wrong:
By General Wesley K. Clark
"The decisive phase of the American campaign to invade Iraq and seize Baghdad was remarkably successful. Basically, the operation succeeded because of the competence of the fighting units, especially the men and women handling weapons and equipment. Without the edge their abilities gave us, the air forces could not have hit the Iraqi forces effectively on the ground; nor could the ground forces have advanced through the Republican Guards so quickly and with such light casualties. The US commanders' role was to shape that competence and apply it to the situation at hand. This they did brilliantly."
But there were also problems that should not be ignored. First, the military plan took unnecessary risks, because it skimped on the forces made available to the commanders. And while the level of forces proved adequate for defeating the Iraqi military, the central idea in military operations is effectiveness, not efficiency. Military operations should not be run like businesses, which have predictable requirements and aim to minimize the costs of meeting them. Combat, especially land combat, is one of the most unpredictable of human activities. It is inherently risky, with the risks usually resulting from factors that are improbable or cannot be foreseen. Therefore, sound logic dictates the need to minimize foreseeable dangers before beginning any military operations.
Additional forces were available— they were even under orders to prepare for combat in Iraq. One more combat division, an additional force for securing the supply lines, more trucks and supply units to provide the redundancy that the inherent inefficiency of military operations requires—each would have reduced the risks. Some of the planners knew this; whether these forces would be used was the issue at the heart of the continuing tensions during the planning process. But they weren't deployed until it was too late.
In early March, by the time it became clear that Turkey wasn't going to permit the passage of US troops, it was too late to position a fourth combat division in Kuwait. But at least the 2nd Cavalry Regiment or additional military police units could have been airlifted into Iraq. Instead their arrival was delayed until after the crisis along the supply lines five days after the war began. It is difficult to believe that additional forces along the supply route would not have helped to prevent the kind of mistake that cost some of the soldiers of 507th Maintenance Company their lives.
The war plan's excessive risk became clear in the postcombat stage, and here the US forces and capabilities were unequal to the task. It was the planners' job to have anticipated the various contingencies and to make adequate provision for them, including the possibility of postwar Iraqi resistance to US occupation. The "rolling start" philosophy of the top commanders, which seemed to emerge as much from continuing deployment problems as from any strategic calculus, made this impossible. The result, at the end of major combat, was a US force that was incapable of providing security, stopping the looting and sabotage, and establishing a credible presence throughout the country—even within Baghdad. The ensuing disorder vitiated some of the boost in US credibility that was won on the battlefield, and it opened the way for deeper and more organized resistance during the following weeks.…
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16650
By General Wesley K. Clark
"The decisive phase of the American campaign to invade Iraq and seize Baghdad was remarkably successful. Basically, the operation succeeded because of the competence of the fighting units, especially the men and women handling weapons and equipment. Without the edge their abilities gave us, the air forces could not have hit the Iraqi forces effectively on the ground; nor could the ground forces have advanced through the Republican Guards so quickly and with such light casualties. The US commanders' role was to shape that competence and apply it to the situation at hand. This they did brilliantly."
But there were also problems that should not be ignored. First, the military plan took unnecessary risks, because it skimped on the forces made available to the commanders. And while the level of forces proved adequate for defeating the Iraqi military, the central idea in military operations is effectiveness, not efficiency. Military operations should not be run like businesses, which have predictable requirements and aim to minimize the costs of meeting them. Combat, especially land combat, is one of the most unpredictable of human activities. It is inherently risky, with the risks usually resulting from factors that are improbable or cannot be foreseen. Therefore, sound logic dictates the need to minimize foreseeable dangers before beginning any military operations.
Additional forces were available— they were even under orders to prepare for combat in Iraq. One more combat division, an additional force for securing the supply lines, more trucks and supply units to provide the redundancy that the inherent inefficiency of military operations requires—each would have reduced the risks. Some of the planners knew this; whether these forces would be used was the issue at the heart of the continuing tensions during the planning process. But they weren't deployed until it was too late.
In early March, by the time it became clear that Turkey wasn't going to permit the passage of US troops, it was too late to position a fourth combat division in Kuwait. But at least the 2nd Cavalry Regiment or additional military police units could have been airlifted into Iraq. Instead their arrival was delayed until after the crisis along the supply lines five days after the war began. It is difficult to believe that additional forces along the supply route would not have helped to prevent the kind of mistake that cost some of the soldiers of 507th Maintenance Company their lives.
The war plan's excessive risk became clear in the postcombat stage, and here the US forces and capabilities were unequal to the task. It was the planners' job to have anticipated the various contingencies and to make adequate provision for them, including the possibility of postwar Iraqi resistance to US occupation. The "rolling start" philosophy of the top commanders, which seemed to emerge as much from continuing deployment problems as from any strategic calculus, made this impossible. The result, at the end of major combat, was a US force that was incapable of providing security, stopping the looting and sabotage, and establishing a credible presence throughout the country—even within Baghdad. The ensuing disorder vitiated some of the boost in US credibility that was won on the battlefield, and it opened the way for deeper and more organized resistance during the following weeks.…
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16650
Op-Ed Columnist: Hack the Vote:
"You don't have to believe in conspiracy to worry that partisans will take advantage of an insecure, unverifiable voting system.
Inviting Bush supporters to a fund-raiser, the host wrote, "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." No surprise there. But Walden O'Dell — who says that he wasn't talking about his business operations — happens to be the chief executive of Diebold Inc., whose touch-screen voting machines are in increasingly widespread use across the United States.
For example, Georgia — where Republicans scored spectacular upset victories in the 2002 midterm elections — relies exclusively on Diebold machines.
To be clear, though there were many anomalies in that 2002 vote, there is no evidence that the machines miscounted. But there is also no evidence that the machines counted correctly. You see, Diebold machines leave no paper trail.
Representative Rush Holt of New Jersey, who has introduced a bill requiring that digital voting machines leave a paper trail and that their software be available for public inspection, is occasionally told that systems lacking these safeguards haven't caused problems. 'How do you know?' he asks.
What we do know about Diebold does not inspire confidence. The details are technical, but they add up to a picture of a company that was, at the very least, extremely sloppy about security, and may have been trying to cover up product defects."
Early this year Bev Harris, who is writing a book on voting machines, found Diebold software — which the company refuses to make available for public inspection, on the grounds that it's proprietary — on an unprotected server, where anyone could download it. (The software was in a folder titled "rob-Georgia.zip.") The server was used by employees of Diebold Election Systems to update software on its machines. This in itself was an incredible breach of security, offering someone who wanted to hack into the machines both the information and the opportunity to do so.
An analysis of Diebold software by researchers at Johns Hopkins and Rice Universities found it both unreliable and subject to abuse. A later report commissioned by the state of Maryland apparently reached similar conclusions. (It's hard to be sure because the state released only a heavily redacted version.)
Meanwhile, leaked internal Diebold e-mail suggests that corporate officials knew their system was flawed, and circumvented tests that would have revealed these problems. The company hasn't contested the authenticity of these documents; instead, it has engaged in legal actions to prevent their dissemination.…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/02/opinion/02KRUG.html
"You don't have to believe in conspiracy to worry that partisans will take advantage of an insecure, unverifiable voting system.
Inviting Bush supporters to a fund-raiser, the host wrote, "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." No surprise there. But Walden O'Dell — who says that he wasn't talking about his business operations — happens to be the chief executive of Diebold Inc., whose touch-screen voting machines are in increasingly widespread use across the United States.
For example, Georgia — where Republicans scored spectacular upset victories in the 2002 midterm elections — relies exclusively on Diebold machines.
To be clear, though there were many anomalies in that 2002 vote, there is no evidence that the machines miscounted. But there is also no evidence that the machines counted correctly. You see, Diebold machines leave no paper trail.
Representative Rush Holt of New Jersey, who has introduced a bill requiring that digital voting machines leave a paper trail and that their software be available for public inspection, is occasionally told that systems lacking these safeguards haven't caused problems. 'How do you know?' he asks.
What we do know about Diebold does not inspire confidence. The details are technical, but they add up to a picture of a company that was, at the very least, extremely sloppy about security, and may have been trying to cover up product defects."
Early this year Bev Harris, who is writing a book on voting machines, found Diebold software — which the company refuses to make available for public inspection, on the grounds that it's proprietary — on an unprotected server, where anyone could download it. (The software was in a folder titled "rob-Georgia.zip.") The server was used by employees of Diebold Election Systems to update software on its machines. This in itself was an incredible breach of security, offering someone who wanted to hack into the machines both the information and the opportunity to do so.
An analysis of Diebold software by researchers at Johns Hopkins and Rice Universities found it both unreliable and subject to abuse. A later report commissioned by the state of Maryland apparently reached similar conclusions. (It's hard to be sure because the state released only a heavily redacted version.)
Meanwhile, leaked internal Diebold e-mail suggests that corporate officials knew their system was flawed, and circumvented tests that would have revealed these problems. The company hasn't contested the authenticity of these documents; instead, it has engaged in legal actions to prevent their dissemination.…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/02/opinion/02KRUG.html
A Miracle Revisited: Gains in Houston Schools: How Real Are They?:
"As a student at Jefferson Davis High here, Rosa Arevelo seemed the 'Texas miracle' in motion. After years of classroom drills, she passed the high school exam required for graduation on her first try. A program of college prep courses earned her the designation 'Texas scholar.'
At the University of Houston, though, Ms. Arevelo discovered the distance between what Texas public schools called success and what she needed to know. Trained to write five-paragraph 'persuasive essays' for the state exam, she was stumped by her first writing assignment. She failed the college entrance exam in math twice, even with a year of remedial algebra. At 19, she gave up and went to trade school."
In recent years, Texas has trumpeted the academic gains of Ms. Arevelo and millions more students largely on the basis of a state test, the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills, or TAAS. As a presidential candidate, Texas's former governor, George W. Bush, contended that Texas's methods of holding schools responsible for student performance had brought huge improvements in passing rates and remarkable strides in eliminating the gap between white and minority children.
The claims catapulted Houston's superintendent, Rod Paige, to Washington as education secretary and made Texas a model for the country. The education law signed by President Bush in January 2002, No Child Left Behind, gives public schools 12 years to match Houston's success and bring virtually all children to academic proficiency.
But an examination of the performance of students in Houston by The New York Times raises serious doubts about the magnitude of those gains. Scores on a national exam that Houston students took alongside the Texas exam from 1999 to 2002 showed much smaller gains and falling scores in high school reading.
Compared with the rest of the country, Houston's gains on the national exam, the Stanford Achievement Test, were modest. The improvements in middle and elementary school were a fraction of those depicted by the Texas test and were similar to those posted on the Stanford test by students in Los Angeles.
Over all, a comparison of the performance of Houston students who took the Stanford exam in 2002 and in 1999 showed most did not advance in relation to their counterparts across the nation. More than half of them either remained in the same place or lost ground in reading and math.…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/national/03HOUS.html?pagewanted=all&position=
"As a student at Jefferson Davis High here, Rosa Arevelo seemed the 'Texas miracle' in motion. After years of classroom drills, she passed the high school exam required for graduation on her first try. A program of college prep courses earned her the designation 'Texas scholar.'
At the University of Houston, though, Ms. Arevelo discovered the distance between what Texas public schools called success and what she needed to know. Trained to write five-paragraph 'persuasive essays' for the state exam, she was stumped by her first writing assignment. She failed the college entrance exam in math twice, even with a year of remedial algebra. At 19, she gave up and went to trade school."
In recent years, Texas has trumpeted the academic gains of Ms. Arevelo and millions more students largely on the basis of a state test, the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills, or TAAS. As a presidential candidate, Texas's former governor, George W. Bush, contended that Texas's methods of holding schools responsible for student performance had brought huge improvements in passing rates and remarkable strides in eliminating the gap between white and minority children.
The claims catapulted Houston's superintendent, Rod Paige, to Washington as education secretary and made Texas a model for the country. The education law signed by President Bush in January 2002, No Child Left Behind, gives public schools 12 years to match Houston's success and bring virtually all children to academic proficiency.
But an examination of the performance of students in Houston by The New York Times raises serious doubts about the magnitude of those gains. Scores on a national exam that Houston students took alongside the Texas exam from 1999 to 2002 showed much smaller gains and falling scores in high school reading.
Compared with the rest of the country, Houston's gains on the national exam, the Stanford Achievement Test, were modest. The improvements in middle and elementary school were a fraction of those depicted by the Texas test and were similar to those posted on the Stanford test by students in Los Angeles.
Over all, a comparison of the performance of Houston students who took the Stanford exam in 2002 and in 1999 showed most did not advance in relation to their counterparts across the nation. More than half of them either remained in the same place or lost ground in reading and math.…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/national/03HOUS.html?pagewanted=all&position=
Tuesday, December 02, 2003
West Bank Outposts Slowly Diggin In:
"Just six months after Israel committed to a peace plan requiring it to dismantle scores of illegal Jewish settlement outposts, an Associated Press inspection of 18 of the encampments found the settlers have expanded significantly.
New roads, additional trailer homes and construction on stone villas were among the striking signs of permanence."
The creation of the outposts -- many of which began with only an antenna, a water tower or a few trailers on a hill -- mirrors the birth of some older West Bank settlements, which began decades ago as unauthorized homesteads of a few trailers before the government legitimized them, gave them financial aid and installed public utilities.
The outposts -- none of which house more than a few dozen families -- are so far unauthorized, and are widely viewed as a separate issue from the 150 established West Bank and Gaza Strip settlements where some 220,000 Israelis live.
At Mitzpeh Danny, six miles from the Palestinian town of Ramallah, residents easily smuggled four large trailer homes into their burgeoning community over the last four months, well after the U.S.-backed ``road map'' peace plan was accepted.
The trailers were brought into the outpost under the cover of darkness -- not out of fear the government would stop them, but as part of an effort to avoid protests and unwanted attention, resident Reuven Gafni said.…
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Seeds-of-Settlements.htm
"Just six months after Israel committed to a peace plan requiring it to dismantle scores of illegal Jewish settlement outposts, an Associated Press inspection of 18 of the encampments found the settlers have expanded significantly.
New roads, additional trailer homes and construction on stone villas were among the striking signs of permanence."
The creation of the outposts -- many of which began with only an antenna, a water tower or a few trailers on a hill -- mirrors the birth of some older West Bank settlements, which began decades ago as unauthorized homesteads of a few trailers before the government legitimized them, gave them financial aid and installed public utilities.
The outposts -- none of which house more than a few dozen families -- are so far unauthorized, and are widely viewed as a separate issue from the 150 established West Bank and Gaza Strip settlements where some 220,000 Israelis live.
At Mitzpeh Danny, six miles from the Palestinian town of Ramallah, residents easily smuggled four large trailer homes into their burgeoning community over the last four months, well after the U.S.-backed ``road map'' peace plan was accepted.
The trailers were brought into the outpost under the cover of darkness -- not out of fear the government would stop them, but as part of an effort to avoid protests and unwanted attention, resident Reuven Gafni said.…
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Seeds-of-Settlements.htm
Bush Aides Say Attacks Won't Scare Allies Into Leaving Iraq:
"But all was not smooth on Monday after the latest attacks, and officials said the United States was not especially pleased with the latest move by the United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, in setting up a meeting in New York on Iraq with Security Council and Arab diplomats."
Secretary Powell has been stepping up the pressure on Mr. Annan to appoint a special personal representative in Iraq to replace Sergio Vieira de Mello, who was killed last summer. But United Nations diplomats say they doubt that Mr. Annan will move quickly, in part because of anxiety in the United Nations ranks.
The fear at the United Nations, said one diplomat there, is that the attacks against the latest targets — coming on top of earlier attacks against Jordanian, Italian and United Nations offices — appeared well organized, as if they were an extension of the defense of Iraq by Saddam Hussein.
"You may have toppled the statue, but you didn't take out the wiring that he set up to organize these attacks," said one diplomat, referring to Mr. Hussein.
Some diplomats cautioned that although leaders of the nations fighting with the United States in Iraq were standing firm, the same could not be guaranteed of the people in their countries, where the attacks have had a huge and devastating psychological impact.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/02/politics/02DIPL.html
Meanwhile, a toy gun can shut down congress. A radar glitch, the White House
"But all was not smooth on Monday after the latest attacks, and officials said the United States was not especially pleased with the latest move by the United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, in setting up a meeting in New York on Iraq with Security Council and Arab diplomats."
Secretary Powell has been stepping up the pressure on Mr. Annan to appoint a special personal representative in Iraq to replace Sergio Vieira de Mello, who was killed last summer. But United Nations diplomats say they doubt that Mr. Annan will move quickly, in part because of anxiety in the United Nations ranks.
The fear at the United Nations, said one diplomat there, is that the attacks against the latest targets — coming on top of earlier attacks against Jordanian, Italian and United Nations offices — appeared well organized, as if they were an extension of the defense of Iraq by Saddam Hussein.
"You may have toppled the statue, but you didn't take out the wiring that he set up to organize these attacks," said one diplomat, referring to Mr. Hussein.
Some diplomats cautioned that although leaders of the nations fighting with the United States in Iraq were standing firm, the same could not be guaranteed of the people in their countries, where the attacks have had a huge and devastating psychological impact.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/02/politics/02DIPL.html
Self-Appointed Israeli and Palestinian Negotiators Offer a Plan for Middle East Peace:
"'Our critics say that officials should make such agreements, not representatives of civil society,' Mr. Rabbo said. 'We could not agree more. But what can we do if officials do not meet, if governments do not negotiate? We can't wait and watch as the future of our two nations slides deeper into catastrophe.'
[The full text of the Geneva Accord is available at www.nad-plo.org/cigeneva.php or www.heskem.org.il/Heskem_en.asp] "
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/02/international/europe/02PEAC.html?pagewanted=all&position=
"'Our critics say that officials should make such agreements, not representatives of civil society,' Mr. Rabbo said. 'We could not agree more. But what can we do if officials do not meet, if governments do not negotiate? We can't wait and watch as the future of our two nations slides deeper into catastrophe.'
[The full text of the Geneva Accord is available at www.nad-plo.org/cigeneva.php or www.heskem.org.il/Heskem_en.asp] "
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/02/international/europe/02PEAC.html?pagewanted=all&position=
U.S. Sees Lesson for Insurgents in an Iraq Battle:
"Accounts of a three-hour battle fought in the alleys and streets of Samarra on Sunday diverged radically, with Iraqis saying only eight people had been killed, several of them civilians.
At the morgue, Adnan Sahib Dafar, 52, an ambulance driver, pointed to a dead woman on a steel tray. The woman, Mr. Dafar said, had worked at the city's big pharmaceutical factory and had walked into the crossfire between American forces and Iraqi guerrillas that began with an attempted ambush of an American military convoy.
'Is this woman shooting a rocket-propelled grenade?' he demanded, standing over the body. 'Is she fighting?' There was only one other body, that of a gray-bearded old man, in the morgue."
Speaking in Brussels at a NATO defense ministers' meeting, Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, portrayed the fight here, apparently the most deadly since Saddam Hussein was ousted in April, as a grim lesson for America's foes.
"They attacked, and they were killed," General Pace said of the insurgents. "So I think it will be instructive to them."
Speaking at the same meeting, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said such attacks were being mounted by "a limited number of people who are determined to kill innocent men, women and children." They are "being rounded up, captured, killed, wounded and interrogated," he said.
But on the streets of Samarra, an hour's drive north of Baghdad and just down the road from Tikrit, the hometown of Mr. Hussein, the lessons of the battle, and even its precise nature, seemed far from clear.
It appeared from the anger among Iraqis in Samarra that America faces a fundamental dilemma: As it steps up the pressure on the insurgents who are killing Americans and Iraqis in growing numbers, the very Iraqis they are trying to win over may be alienated.
"If I had a gun, I would have attacked the Americans myself," said Satar Nasiaf, 47, a shopkeeper who said he had watched two Iraqi civilians fall to American fire. "The Americans were shooting in every direction."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/02/international/middleeast/02IRAQ.html?pagewanted=all&position=
"Accounts of a three-hour battle fought in the alleys and streets of Samarra on Sunday diverged radically, with Iraqis saying only eight people had been killed, several of them civilians.
At the morgue, Adnan Sahib Dafar, 52, an ambulance driver, pointed to a dead woman on a steel tray. The woman, Mr. Dafar said, had worked at the city's big pharmaceutical factory and had walked into the crossfire between American forces and Iraqi guerrillas that began with an attempted ambush of an American military convoy.
'Is this woman shooting a rocket-propelled grenade?' he demanded, standing over the body. 'Is she fighting?' There was only one other body, that of a gray-bearded old man, in the morgue."
Speaking in Brussels at a NATO defense ministers' meeting, Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, portrayed the fight here, apparently the most deadly since Saddam Hussein was ousted in April, as a grim lesson for America's foes.
"They attacked, and they were killed," General Pace said of the insurgents. "So I think it will be instructive to them."
Speaking at the same meeting, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said such attacks were being mounted by "a limited number of people who are determined to kill innocent men, women and children." They are "being rounded up, captured, killed, wounded and interrogated," he said.
But on the streets of Samarra, an hour's drive north of Baghdad and just down the road from Tikrit, the hometown of Mr. Hussein, the lessons of the battle, and even its precise nature, seemed far from clear.
It appeared from the anger among Iraqis in Samarra that America faces a fundamental dilemma: As it steps up the pressure on the insurgents who are killing Americans and Iraqis in growing numbers, the very Iraqis they are trying to win over may be alienated.
"If I had a gun, I would have attacked the Americans myself," said Satar Nasiaf, 47, a shopkeeper who said he had watched two Iraqi civilians fall to American fire. "The Americans were shooting in every direction."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/02/international/middleeast/02IRAQ.html?pagewanted=all&position=
Score one for the spammers: CAN SPAM bill to become law - TechUpdate - ZDNet:
"For the umpteenth time: Anti-spam laws are a bad idea as long as they're written by those out of touch with the underpinnings of Internet e-mail. For example, writing into law anything that ventures down the path of 'opting out' (short-hand for 'optioning out,' deselecting, or unsubscribing yourself from membership in a mailing list) --- which CAN SPAM does --- creates a virtually unenforceable law since there are a million and one reasons (most of which would not be due to negligence on behalf of mailing list operators) that an opt-out mechanism may not work at some given point in time. Before opt-out language can be included in a law, there needs to exist an opt-out standard under the guise of what I call a relationship termination protocol over which dissimilar email clients and servers can interoperate. "
Perhaps you think I'm on the lunatic fringe, an ultraconservative who refuses to see the good in legislation that clearly has the welfare of the spam-afflicted in mind? OK ignore me. But don't ignore the following warning, reported in a recent CNET News.com story about the CAN SPAM bill, that was sent from the National Association of Attorneys General to Congress: "The bill creates so many loopholes, exceptions, and high standards of proof, that it provides minimal consumer protections and creates too many burdens for effective enforcement...We respectfully request that you not move forward."
Lack of enforceability has been my main point all along and it's refreshing to see the very folks chartered with upholding the CAN SPAM bill saying to Congress "Hey, you're all off your rockers if you move forward with this law." Still not convinced? Assuming that the law's effectiveness is dependent on the fact that all evil spammers fall within its jurisdiction (a very bad assumption considering the mounting tide of spam from China and South Korea), then you, as a concerned Netizen, should consider its definition of spam. To the relief of e-mail marketers everywhere, spam will not be the first unsolicited commercial email you get from someone you consider to be a spammer. It's one of the subsequent ones. That's right. It's the second, third, fourth, or later one and it is only such if, after receiving the first one, you issued an objection according to a method the sender, not you, says you are permitted to do so (the vaulted "opt-out" for which no standard method exists and no auditable test for proven functionality has been created).
Are you getting ill yet?
Despite the fact that the Attorneys General will be reluctant to expend the resources necessary to prosecute given the loopholes it envisions, Senators Burns and Wyden cited the financial implications in their declarations of victory. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said that "when this bill takes effect, the big-time spammers who up until now have faced virtually no penalties will suddenly be at risk of criminal prosecution, (Federal Trade Commission) prosecution and million-dollar lawsuits." Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., said: "In cases where e-mail marketers don't comply with the CAN-SPAM bill, the penalties are very severe...Spammers are actually on the hook for (per e-mail) damages, with a cap of $2 million."
Newsflash. The big time spammers --- at least the ones who are intentionally sidestepping all sense of Internet decorum in order to invade the sanctity of your inbox --- have about a hundred dollars in their checking accounts--collectively. It was only about six months ago, at the now infamous Federal Trade Commission three-day workshop on spam, that we heard from several Attorneys General and Internet Service Providers about how their investments in certain investigations, indictments, prosecutions, and lawsuits were disproportionate to the final outcome: one or two bad apples (out of an ocean-sized apple orchard) with little or no money to their names shut down. My inbox didn't notice. Did yours? Despite efforts to publicly draw, quarter, flog, and hang the offenders, the rest of the orchard didn't appear to flinch. It may have yawned, though. We'll never know. They're a secretive bunch. It's not like they have offices on Madison Avenue.
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/Score_one_for_the_spammers.html
"For the umpteenth time: Anti-spam laws are a bad idea as long as they're written by those out of touch with the underpinnings of Internet e-mail. For example, writing into law anything that ventures down the path of 'opting out' (short-hand for 'optioning out,' deselecting, or unsubscribing yourself from membership in a mailing list) --- which CAN SPAM does --- creates a virtually unenforceable law since there are a million and one reasons (most of which would not be due to negligence on behalf of mailing list operators) that an opt-out mechanism may not work at some given point in time. Before opt-out language can be included in a law, there needs to exist an opt-out standard under the guise of what I call a relationship termination protocol over which dissimilar email clients and servers can interoperate. "
Perhaps you think I'm on the lunatic fringe, an ultraconservative who refuses to see the good in legislation that clearly has the welfare of the spam-afflicted in mind? OK ignore me. But don't ignore the following warning, reported in a recent CNET News.com story about the CAN SPAM bill, that was sent from the National Association of Attorneys General to Congress: "The bill creates so many loopholes, exceptions, and high standards of proof, that it provides minimal consumer protections and creates too many burdens for effective enforcement...We respectfully request that you not move forward."
Lack of enforceability has been my main point all along and it's refreshing to see the very folks chartered with upholding the CAN SPAM bill saying to Congress "Hey, you're all off your rockers if you move forward with this law." Still not convinced? Assuming that the law's effectiveness is dependent on the fact that all evil spammers fall within its jurisdiction (a very bad assumption considering the mounting tide of spam from China and South Korea), then you, as a concerned Netizen, should consider its definition of spam. To the relief of e-mail marketers everywhere, spam will not be the first unsolicited commercial email you get from someone you consider to be a spammer. It's one of the subsequent ones. That's right. It's the second, third, fourth, or later one and it is only such if, after receiving the first one, you issued an objection according to a method the sender, not you, says you are permitted to do so (the vaulted "opt-out" for which no standard method exists and no auditable test for proven functionality has been created).
Are you getting ill yet?
Despite the fact that the Attorneys General will be reluctant to expend the resources necessary to prosecute given the loopholes it envisions, Senators Burns and Wyden cited the financial implications in their declarations of victory. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said that "when this bill takes effect, the big-time spammers who up until now have faced virtually no penalties will suddenly be at risk of criminal prosecution, (Federal Trade Commission) prosecution and million-dollar lawsuits." Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., said: "In cases where e-mail marketers don't comply with the CAN-SPAM bill, the penalties are very severe...Spammers are actually on the hook for (per e-mail) damages, with a cap of $2 million."
Newsflash. The big time spammers --- at least the ones who are intentionally sidestepping all sense of Internet decorum in order to invade the sanctity of your inbox --- have about a hundred dollars in their checking accounts--collectively. It was only about six months ago, at the now infamous Federal Trade Commission three-day workshop on spam, that we heard from several Attorneys General and Internet Service Providers about how their investments in certain investigations, indictments, prosecutions, and lawsuits were disproportionate to the final outcome: one or two bad apples (out of an ocean-sized apple orchard) with little or no money to their names shut down. My inbox didn't notice. Did yours? Despite efforts to publicly draw, quarter, flog, and hang the offenders, the rest of the orchard didn't appear to flinch. It may have yawned, though. We'll never know. They're a secretive bunch. It's not like they have offices on Madison Avenue.
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/Score_one_for_the_spammers.html
Monday, December 01, 2003
Op-Ed Contributor: The State of Health Care, in One Easy Number:
"Most people are familiar with the economic misery index, which is calculated by adding the percentage of Americans out of work to the general inflation rate. It was devised by Arthur Okun, an adviser to Jimmy Carter during the 1976 presidential election campaign, and was used to demonstrate how troubled the economy had become under President Gerald Ford. Okun felt that presenting inflation and unemployment figures separately did not give a very broad picture of the economy, because one indicator can rise while the other falls. Jointly rising unemployment and inflation, however, definitely make all people miserable."
In a similar fashion, I have compiled a misery index for health care, going back to 1960. As the measure, I took the percentage of Americans without health insurance and added to it the "excess" health care inflation rate — that is, the percentage by which annual increases in medical costs have exceeded general price inflation. As with combined inflation and unemployment, when both of these health care evils simultaneously increase, people are collectively made worse off.
In compiling the index, I got the insurance figures using past enrollment lists from the Health Insurance Association of America, figures from Medicare and Medicaid, and the Census Bureau's published data on the ranks of the uninsured (making careful adjustments to eliminate possible double-counting). Annual numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics supplied the figures on medical price inflation.
The resulting chart shows the fluctuations in health care misery over the last 43 years, and helps us put today's figures in historical perspective. Clearly, in the early 1960's the index was excessively high. While costs of medical care were largely contained in those days, the problem was that many poor and elderly Americans lacked health insurance (Medicaid and Medicare had yet to be enacted).
From the mid-60's through the 70's the index consistently declined, and for several reasons. In addition to the new government entitlement programs, the percentage of Americans with private insurance rose. This was largely because, as personal income tax rates increased, tax-exempt, employer-sponsored health insurance became more attractive to workers. Also, many commercial insurers that had shunned health insurance markets entered them. They were enticed by a relatively new innovation called "experience rating" — which allowed them to calculate an individualized per-person rate for a company or a small group rather than basing each person's rates on society as a whole. Experience rating allowed these companies to offer consumers lower premiums than the historically dominant carrier, Blue Cross.
The health care misery index bottomed out in 1979 at 5.6 percent. Stagflation may have cost Jimmy Carter the presidency, but it did have one useful byproduct: declining real prices for medical care at a time when a relatively small number of people lacked insurance.
Throughout the Reagan boom, however, the health care misery index rose continually. First, the costs of medical care were rising more rapidly than general price inflation. Second, private enrollment in health insurance plans declined relative to population, in part because President Ronald Reagan slashed marginal tax rates, giving employees and employers less incentive to participate in tax-exempt, employer-sponsored insurance. People began to take on themselves the risks of high medical costs. By 1986, the misery index stood at its highest level since 1969.…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/01/opinion/01SANT.html
"Most people are familiar with the economic misery index, which is calculated by adding the percentage of Americans out of work to the general inflation rate. It was devised by Arthur Okun, an adviser to Jimmy Carter during the 1976 presidential election campaign, and was used to demonstrate how troubled the economy had become under President Gerald Ford. Okun felt that presenting inflation and unemployment figures separately did not give a very broad picture of the economy, because one indicator can rise while the other falls. Jointly rising unemployment and inflation, however, definitely make all people miserable."
In a similar fashion, I have compiled a misery index for health care, going back to 1960. As the measure, I took the percentage of Americans without health insurance and added to it the "excess" health care inflation rate — that is, the percentage by which annual increases in medical costs have exceeded general price inflation. As with combined inflation and unemployment, when both of these health care evils simultaneously increase, people are collectively made worse off.
In compiling the index, I got the insurance figures using past enrollment lists from the Health Insurance Association of America, figures from Medicare and Medicaid, and the Census Bureau's published data on the ranks of the uninsured (making careful adjustments to eliminate possible double-counting). Annual numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics supplied the figures on medical price inflation.
The resulting chart shows the fluctuations in health care misery over the last 43 years, and helps us put today's figures in historical perspective. Clearly, in the early 1960's the index was excessively high. While costs of medical care were largely contained in those days, the problem was that many poor and elderly Americans lacked health insurance (Medicaid and Medicare had yet to be enacted).
From the mid-60's through the 70's the index consistently declined, and for several reasons. In addition to the new government entitlement programs, the percentage of Americans with private insurance rose. This was largely because, as personal income tax rates increased, tax-exempt, employer-sponsored health insurance became more attractive to workers. Also, many commercial insurers that had shunned health insurance markets entered them. They were enticed by a relatively new innovation called "experience rating" — which allowed them to calculate an individualized per-person rate for a company or a small group rather than basing each person's rates on society as a whole. Experience rating allowed these companies to offer consumers lower premiums than the historically dominant carrier, Blue Cross.
The health care misery index bottomed out in 1979 at 5.6 percent. Stagflation may have cost Jimmy Carter the presidency, but it did have one useful byproduct: declining real prices for medical care at a time when a relatively small number of people lacked insurance.
Throughout the Reagan boom, however, the health care misery index rose continually. First, the costs of medical care were rising more rapidly than general price inflation. Second, private enrollment in health insurance plans declined relative to population, in part because President Ronald Reagan slashed marginal tax rates, giving employees and employers less incentive to participate in tax-exempt, employer-sponsored insurance. People began to take on themselves the risks of high medical costs. By 1986, the misery index stood at its highest level since 1969.…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/01/opinion/01SANT.html
Op-Ed Contributors: An Accord to Remember:
"Today, civic leaders from across the Israeli and Palestinian political spectrum are gathering here to publicize what has become known as the Geneva Accord — a negotiated but unofficial framework for reaching a permanent peace between our two peoples after years of bloodshed and lost and shattered lives.
The accord lays out, for the first time, what a credible and negotiable Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement could look like. In the process, it addresses all the major differences between the parties, including security arrangements, the shape of permanent borders, the status of Jerusalem, the future of West Bank settlements, the rights of refugees and access to holy places."
The initiative dates to January 2001, when the last official talks between Israel and the Palestinians ended at Taba. As participants in the negotiations, we both were left with the feeling that we could have reached an agreement had we been given a few more weeks.
Unfortunately, our Israeli and Palestinian colleagues in the negotiations felt that the gaps were too large to be bridged. After the Israeli elections of 2001, when Ehud Barak lost to Ariel Sharon, the two of us agreed to try to complete the work at Taba — as private citizens. We wanted to find common ground and demonstrate to both Israelis and Palestinians that despite all the frustration, disappointment and, most of all, violence, we could keep meaningful discussions going.
Our path was filled with obstacles. During this period, Israelis were forbidden from entering the Palestinian territories; Palestinians, meanwhile, found it difficult to obtain permission to enter Israel and to travel abroad. Thus, sometimes we would meet at checkpoints, where we negotiated in a car. On other occasions, the Swiss government made it possible for us to meet abroad.
To support our effort, we built broad coalitions. On the Israeli side were people who identified with the Likud, Shinui, Labor and Meretz parties as well as retired senior officials, economists and intellectuals. On the Palestinian side were officials from Yasir Arafat's Fatah faction, parliamentarians and leading academics.
Finally, in October, we were able to put on the table a 50-page agreement, including detailed maps. The document is complicated and thus difficult to summarize, but its central idea is that in exchange for peace with Israel, the Palestinians would at last gain a nonmilitarized state. The Palestinians would also get sovereignty over the Temple Mount, though Jewish access to the holy spot would be guaranteed by an international security force. In addition, Israel would have the opportunity to keep some West Bank settlements, including many of the new Jewish communities constructed on the Arab side of Jerusalem.…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/01/opinion/01BEIL.html
"Today, civic leaders from across the Israeli and Palestinian political spectrum are gathering here to publicize what has become known as the Geneva Accord — a negotiated but unofficial framework for reaching a permanent peace between our two peoples after years of bloodshed and lost and shattered lives.
The accord lays out, for the first time, what a credible and negotiable Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement could look like. In the process, it addresses all the major differences between the parties, including security arrangements, the shape of permanent borders, the status of Jerusalem, the future of West Bank settlements, the rights of refugees and access to holy places."
The initiative dates to January 2001, when the last official talks between Israel and the Palestinians ended at Taba. As participants in the negotiations, we both were left with the feeling that we could have reached an agreement had we been given a few more weeks.
Unfortunately, our Israeli and Palestinian colleagues in the negotiations felt that the gaps were too large to be bridged. After the Israeli elections of 2001, when Ehud Barak lost to Ariel Sharon, the two of us agreed to try to complete the work at Taba — as private citizens. We wanted to find common ground and demonstrate to both Israelis and Palestinians that despite all the frustration, disappointment and, most of all, violence, we could keep meaningful discussions going.
Our path was filled with obstacles. During this period, Israelis were forbidden from entering the Palestinian territories; Palestinians, meanwhile, found it difficult to obtain permission to enter Israel and to travel abroad. Thus, sometimes we would meet at checkpoints, where we negotiated in a car. On other occasions, the Swiss government made it possible for us to meet abroad.
To support our effort, we built broad coalitions. On the Israeli side were people who identified with the Likud, Shinui, Labor and Meretz parties as well as retired senior officials, economists and intellectuals. On the Palestinian side were officials from Yasir Arafat's Fatah faction, parliamentarians and leading academics.
Finally, in October, we were able to put on the table a 50-page agreement, including detailed maps. The document is complicated and thus difficult to summarize, but its central idea is that in exchange for peace with Israel, the Palestinians would at last gain a nonmilitarized state. The Palestinians would also get sovereignty over the Temple Mount, though Jewish access to the holy spot would be guaranteed by an international security force. In addition, Israel would have the opportunity to keep some West Bank settlements, including many of the new Jewish communities constructed on the Arab side of Jerusalem.…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/01/opinion/01BEIL.html
Thwarted Ambush Was Highly Coordinated, U.S. Officials Say:
"American military officials said today that a pair of ambushes of American forces in central Iraq on Sunday reflected a level of planning, scale and coordination not seen among guerrilla forces since the regime of Saddam Hussein was ousted last spring."
American forces killed 54 people in the intense firefight in the town of Samarra after soldiers delivering Iraqi currency to two banks were bombarded with small-arms and antitank-grenade fire, General Kimmitt, a senior military spokesman, said. He added that 22 attackers had been wounded and that one had been detained. On Sunday, the military put the number of Iraqis killed at 46.
A military statement said that "many of the dead attackers were found wearing fedayeen uniforms," a reference to the militias loyal to Mr. Hussein that put up some of the fiercest resistance to the American-led invasion last spring.
American military officials said that the attackers had been moving in cars, had split their force of 30 to 40 people into smaller groups at each bank, and had set up ambush points on routes into and out of the city.
"It is our belief that this was a coordinated effort," Col. Frederick Rudesheim told reporters at a news conference outside Samarra today. He said the attackers had launched the ambush with small-arms fire, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars.
The Associated Press quoted residents in Samarra as saying that American forces had responded by firing at random, prompting civilians to get guns and join the fight. The news agency said many civilians had expressed bitterness about recent American raids in the night.
Military officials said the clash was the largest battle in the country since coalition forces toppled the Hussein government last spring. They originally reported that at least 18 of the attackers had been wounded and 11 had been captured. General Kimmitt did not explain the discrepancies in the figures given on Sunday and today. No American deaths were reported.…
The soldiers, members of the Fourth Infantry Division, met simultaneous ambushes on two convoys rolling separately through Samarra, about 60 miles north of Baghdad, according to a division spokesman, Master Sgt. Robert Cargie.
The convoys were delivering new Iraqi dinars to two banks and were guarded by about 100 American soldiers. When the shooting began, the Americans responded with automatic-rifle fire, Bradley fighting vehicles and other weapons, officials said.
Afterward, large shell casings, rocket-propelled grenades and Kalashnikov rifles were strewn across the field of battle. So were dozens of bodies, apparently all Iraqi, many clad in the ninja-like black uniforms of fedayeen paramilitary fighters loyal to the overthrown Hussein government, according to Sergeant Cargie. Five American soldiers and one civilian traveling with one of the convoys were wounded.
Coalition firepower overwhelmed the attackers, Sergeant Cargie said.
The American display of firepower was among the most deadly for Iraqi fighters since the occupation began. But residents and police officers in Samarra said that less than a dozen Iraqis had been killed and contended that many of the wounded were civilians, The A.P. reported from the scene. The residents were clearly incensed at the immense firepower used by the Americans.…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/01/international/middleeast/01CND-IRAQ.html?pagewanted=all&position=
"American military officials said today that a pair of ambushes of American forces in central Iraq on Sunday reflected a level of planning, scale and coordination not seen among guerrilla forces since the regime of Saddam Hussein was ousted last spring."
American forces killed 54 people in the intense firefight in the town of Samarra after soldiers delivering Iraqi currency to two banks were bombarded with small-arms and antitank-grenade fire, General Kimmitt, a senior military spokesman, said. He added that 22 attackers had been wounded and that one had been detained. On Sunday, the military put the number of Iraqis killed at 46.
A military statement said that "many of the dead attackers were found wearing fedayeen uniforms," a reference to the militias loyal to Mr. Hussein that put up some of the fiercest resistance to the American-led invasion last spring.
American military officials said that the attackers had been moving in cars, had split their force of 30 to 40 people into smaller groups at each bank, and had set up ambush points on routes into and out of the city.
"It is our belief that this was a coordinated effort," Col. Frederick Rudesheim told reporters at a news conference outside Samarra today. He said the attackers had launched the ambush with small-arms fire, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars.
The Associated Press quoted residents in Samarra as saying that American forces had responded by firing at random, prompting civilians to get guns and join the fight. The news agency said many civilians had expressed bitterness about recent American raids in the night.
Military officials said the clash was the largest battle in the country since coalition forces toppled the Hussein government last spring. They originally reported that at least 18 of the attackers had been wounded and 11 had been captured. General Kimmitt did not explain the discrepancies in the figures given on Sunday and today. No American deaths were reported.…
The soldiers, members of the Fourth Infantry Division, met simultaneous ambushes on two convoys rolling separately through Samarra, about 60 miles north of Baghdad, according to a division spokesman, Master Sgt. Robert Cargie.
The convoys were delivering new Iraqi dinars to two banks and were guarded by about 100 American soldiers. When the shooting began, the Americans responded with automatic-rifle fire, Bradley fighting vehicles and other weapons, officials said.
Afterward, large shell casings, rocket-propelled grenades and Kalashnikov rifles were strewn across the field of battle. So were dozens of bodies, apparently all Iraqi, many clad in the ninja-like black uniforms of fedayeen paramilitary fighters loyal to the overthrown Hussein government, according to Sergeant Cargie. Five American soldiers and one civilian traveling with one of the convoys were wounded.
Coalition firepower overwhelmed the attackers, Sergeant Cargie said.
The American display of firepower was among the most deadly for Iraqi fighters since the occupation began. But residents and police officers in Samarra said that less than a dozen Iraqis had been killed and contended that many of the wounded were civilians, The A.P. reported from the scene. The residents were clearly incensed at the immense firepower used by the Americans.…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/01/international/middleeast/01CND-IRAQ.html?pagewanted=all&position=
Chicago Tribune | Google breaks link with illegal pharmacies:
"Google, the popular Internet search engine, will stop accepting advertising from unlicensed pharmacies that have used cyber-space to sell prescription drugs without medical supervision, company officials said.
The action comes after the company was contacted by the father of a teenager in suburban Chicago who said his son had used the search engine to locate and order Vicodin from an Internet site in Florida."
Google's step follows decisions last month by Yahoo Inc. and Microsoft Corp.'s MSN service to stop accepting such advertising. Its move also comes as regulators and members of Congress shift their focus from the illicit pharmacies to the legitimate Web portals, credit card companies, shippers and banks that facilitate the sales.
"These legitimate businesses are an important but faceless part of the supply chain for these dangerous drugs," said Carmen Catizone, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, which has lobbied such companies as Google to stop accepting ads from rogue Web sites.
Health care represented about 5 percent of the total online advertising sales in October, according to the Nielsen/NetRatings. No one knows how many come from the rogue sites.…
http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-0312010145dec01,1,7703088.story?coll=chi-news-hed
"Google, the popular Internet search engine, will stop accepting advertising from unlicensed pharmacies that have used cyber-space to sell prescription drugs without medical supervision, company officials said.
The action comes after the company was contacted by the father of a teenager in suburban Chicago who said his son had used the search engine to locate and order Vicodin from an Internet site in Florida."
Google's step follows decisions last month by Yahoo Inc. and Microsoft Corp.'s MSN service to stop accepting such advertising. Its move also comes as regulators and members of Congress shift their focus from the illicit pharmacies to the legitimate Web portals, credit card companies, shippers and banks that facilitate the sales.
"These legitimate businesses are an important but faceless part of the supply chain for these dangerous drugs," said Carmen Catizone, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, which has lobbied such companies as Google to stop accepting ads from rogue Web sites.
Health care represented about 5 percent of the total online advertising sales in October, according to the Nielsen/NetRatings. No one knows how many come from the rogue sites.…
http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-0312010145dec01,1,7703088.story?coll=chi-news-hed
Chicago Tribune | U.S.: Iraq Insurgency Highly Coordinated:
"An ambush and shootout that killed dozens of Iraqis represented a new level of coordination in the anti-coalition insurgency, U.S. officials said Monday.
The U.S. military said 54 Iraqis were killed Sunday in the northern city of Samarra as U.S. forces used tanks and cannons to fight their way out of simultaneous ambushes while delivering new Iraqi currency to banks. "
Residents said the casualty figure was much lower and that the dead were mostly civilians. But by the American account, the battle was the bloodiest combat reported since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime in a U.S.-led invasion.
The U.S. military said attackers in Samarra, many wearing uniforms of Saddam's Fedayeen paramilitary force, struck at two U.S. convoys at opposite sides of Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad.
Capt. Andy Deponai, whose tank was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade, said the guerrillas had deployed about 30-40 men near each of the two banks where the new currency was being delivered.
"It was a large group of people," said Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt. "Are we looking at this one closely? Yes. Is this something larger than we've seen over the past couple of months? Yes. Are we concerned about it? We'll look at it and take appropriate measures in future operations."
Deponai said he was surprised by the scale of the attack.
"Up to now you've seen a progression -- initially it was hit and run, single RPG shots on patrols, then they started doing volley fire, multiple RPG ambushes, and then from there this is the first well-coordinated one," he said.
"Here, it seems they had the training to stand and fight," Deponai said.
At the U.S. base, half a dozen suspects were seen with bags over their heads and their hands bound by plastic cuffs.
Many residents said Saddam loyalists attacked the Americans, but that when U.S. forces began firing at random, many civilians got their guns and joined the fight. Many said residents were bitter about recent U.S. raids in the night.
"Why do they arrest people when they're in their homes?" asked Athir Abdul Salam, a 19-year-old student. "They come at night to arrest people. So what do they expect those people to do?"
"Civilians shot back at the Americans," said 30-year-old Ali Hassan, who was wounded by shrapnel in the battle. "They claim we are terrorists. So OK, we are terrorists. What do they expect when they drive among us?"
Many residents said the Americans opened fire at random when they came under attack, targeting civilian installations. Six destroyed vehicles sat in front of the hospital, where witnesses said U.S. tanks shelled people dropping off the injured. A kindergarten was damaged, apparently by tank shells. No children were hurt.
"Luckily, we evacuated the children five minutes before we came under attack," said Ibrahim Jassim, a guard at the kindergarten. "Why did they attack randomly? Why did they shoot a kindergarten with tank shells?"
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-iraq,1,7982944.story
"Why did they attack randomly? Why did they shoot a kindergarten with tank shells?"
"An ambush and shootout that killed dozens of Iraqis represented a new level of coordination in the anti-coalition insurgency, U.S. officials said Monday.
The U.S. military said 54 Iraqis were killed Sunday in the northern city of Samarra as U.S. forces used tanks and cannons to fight their way out of simultaneous ambushes while delivering new Iraqi currency to banks. "
Residents said the casualty figure was much lower and that the dead were mostly civilians. But by the American account, the battle was the bloodiest combat reported since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime in a U.S.-led invasion.
The U.S. military said attackers in Samarra, many wearing uniforms of Saddam's Fedayeen paramilitary force, struck at two U.S. convoys at opposite sides of Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad.
Capt. Andy Deponai, whose tank was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade, said the guerrillas had deployed about 30-40 men near each of the two banks where the new currency was being delivered.
"It was a large group of people," said Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt. "Are we looking at this one closely? Yes. Is this something larger than we've seen over the past couple of months? Yes. Are we concerned about it? We'll look at it and take appropriate measures in future operations."
Deponai said he was surprised by the scale of the attack.
"Up to now you've seen a progression -- initially it was hit and run, single RPG shots on patrols, then they started doing volley fire, multiple RPG ambushes, and then from there this is the first well-coordinated one," he said.
"Here, it seems they had the training to stand and fight," Deponai said.
At the U.S. base, half a dozen suspects were seen with bags over their heads and their hands bound by plastic cuffs.
Many residents said Saddam loyalists attacked the Americans, but that when U.S. forces began firing at random, many civilians got their guns and joined the fight. Many said residents were bitter about recent U.S. raids in the night.
"Why do they arrest people when they're in their homes?" asked Athir Abdul Salam, a 19-year-old student. "They come at night to arrest people. So what do they expect those people to do?"
"Civilians shot back at the Americans," said 30-year-old Ali Hassan, who was wounded by shrapnel in the battle. "They claim we are terrorists. So OK, we are terrorists. What do they expect when they drive among us?"
Many residents said the Americans opened fire at random when they came under attack, targeting civilian installations. Six destroyed vehicles sat in front of the hospital, where witnesses said U.S. tanks shelled people dropping off the injured. A kindergarten was damaged, apparently by tank shells. No children were hurt.
"Luckily, we evacuated the children five minutes before we came under attack," said Ibrahim Jassim, a guard at the kindergarten. "Why did they attack randomly? Why did they shoot a kindergarten with tank shells?"
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-iraq,1,7982944.story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
