NSA--Tip of the Iceberg

The Attorney General has been commenting on the NSA eavesdropping and saying that only a "limited" number of Al Qaeda suspects were having their overseas to U.S. communications intercepted. That may be true but that is only the "tip" of the iceberg, with many more intercepts being made that aren't being mentioned or "explained". If only a few suspects are being intercepted why all the secrecy? Doesn't make sense. What makes sense is the old "dodge" of letting out a little "wrong-doing" at a time, as more and more is learned, thus lessening the bad effects of a sudden and total impact on the public.
The administration will propagandize, lie, hide, justify, block, obfuscate, distract, mislead, all they can to get out from this bad spot they are in. Claiming that it is "legal" is now their main "dodge" that helps to confuse the public into thinking "he only made a legal misjudgement", so it is ok to break the law. If they can't justify their actions based on a "legal mistake" they'll get around it by "changing" the law after-the-fact, thus "legalizing" their breaking the law, thus avoiding impeachment. If there wasn't lock-step unity in the Republican ranks the Congress would be calling for impeachment on two grounds--starting a war without real justification and transgressing the Fourth Amendment--both impeachable offenses in my view.

Eliminating Terrorism

If the U.S. wants to eliminate the threat to itself from terrorism the solution is simple--get out of the Middle East and stop being partisan in its dealings between the Arabs and Israel. Bush keeps saying the terrorists are attacking us because they hate freedom. That is a crock and if he actually believes that then we are in a lot of trouble.
He made the statement, in a recent speech, that one of the ways to protect the American people is to understand the intentions of the enemy and the way to do that is to monitor their phone calls. He must think they (and us) are really stupid if he figures they are going to reveal their plans over the telephone or e-mail. Ever hear of encryption Mr. President?
He is real loose in the use of the words "protect the American people". He does a lot of "protecting" when he is constantly on the road trying to do a "sell job" on everyone. "Protecting" should be a full-time job, I'd think, yet he spends a lot of time flying AirForceOne around the country, especially to Texas, giving speeches. It would be interesting to compare his air time to Clinton's, or his father's. But back to the Middle East and terrorism.
I notice that Israel has had many fewer terrorist attacks since they put up their wall. Something the U.S. should make note of to deal with its own border problem. We can afford to give the Israelis 2-3 billion dollars a year so they can put up fences and make nuclear bombs. I'd think we could scrape up a like sum to put up our own wall (fence) to keep out illegals, drug dealers, criminals, and terrorists.
However, back to terrorism--we have a terrorist threat because of--? Bush says the idea of freedom just drives jihadists crazy and makes them want to fly airplanes into our buildings and kill thousands of us. If freedom is the issue why don't they go after France, Italy, Germany as well, they have Freedom and are a lot closer and easier to bomb. Maybe it is the statue of Liberty that drives them crazy--she is a woman after all.
Or is the terror threat driven by our arrogant politics and bullying of OPEC? The jihadists have repeatedly made statements that the reason they are doing their terrorist thing is because we have troops on "their land" and support unpopular Arab dictators and support Israel.
Has Bush got it all wrong? Naaw! He is never wrong--look at why we went into Iraq--to save the Iraqi people from a "madman" and cruel tyrant, to give them Freedom! Didn't they throw flowers before our advancing troops? Never mind the chemical weapons, the biological weapons in trailers, and nuclear facilities--all not found.
We have plenty of money to spend, that is why we give tax breaks to the wealthy. We have a lot of suprlus cash around to cover such disasters such as Katrina. Didn't the Democrats warn that tax breaks would eliminate a surplus that might be needed to cover hurricanes and such? Naw, Bush is never wrong.

Bush's "Terrorist Surveillance Program"

What a "crock". The same old propaganda techniques the administration has been engaging in since it was voted in. Euphemisms, slogans, half-truths, media manipulation--and the media gives it a wide berth. Would Bush let a select partisan few in on the secret if he wasn't on the up-and-up? Damn right he would, and it is called "cover your ass", rear-guard action, and downright deception. The Republican administrations are adept at it, Reagan lied about Iran-Contra until he was pinned down, then came out boldly about it, just like G.W. Bush has. He can't deny it but he can throw up a lot of smoke to cover up what he actually did. In the Iran-Contra affair Colin Powell lied to Pentagon Generals about Congress being notified that arms were being procured by the CIA to be used to trade for hostages. Congress was "informed" later at the 12th hour, at the last legal minute, about the arms. Republicans are great at giving out "half-truths" and putting up a bold patriotic front when they engage in illegal activities.
You don't have to be a lawyer to deduce that the President did a no-no and that there is a lot more going on than listening in on Al Qaeda terrorists from abroad. If that were the true case there wouldn't be a need for subterfuge.
Where are the "news hounds", the Woodward's and Bernsteins? Where is the journalistic killer instinct? Has this Administration been able to immasculate the great freedom loving First Amendment protecting American Press? Or are they too busy obsessing about journalistically "safe" disasters, mysteries, and crimes?
When this administration gets into trouble it goes on the road and lies, lies, and lies. It uses propaganda--and if that word doesn't mean anything to you there are plenty of internet sites that are capable of enlightening you. With it the administration sold a war that was not legitimate, cowed dissent and debate on it, and sold the stupid idea that not taxing the wealthy is better than "taxing" the middle class.
The economy is "strong" because of low interest rates and run-amok borrowing, not because we have a healthy economy brought on by not taxing the economic elite. When the public can not borrow any longer, and the debts pile up to where they cannot pay them, the bubble will burst and the true nature of the economy will be revealed.
No, this adminstration is a house of cards, built up with lies, half-truths, bullying, and arrogance. It is a magnificent con-job.

Catholic Church and the Border Issue

The Catholic Church is arguing that the reason it is interjecting itself into U.S. politics is because of "human rights" transgressions by the U.S. and that it is practicing its First Amendment Rights when it does so, that it is not interferring with the "political " process.
Everyone has the right to speak out on issues, that is what Democracy is all about, but their "human rights" argument doesn't hold water and I don't know of any other churches that have ambassadors to the UN.
The question is, how is the U.S. transgressing human rights by enforcing existing well-known immigration laws? Aliens to this country who enter it by sneaking across our borders know they are taking a chance that they will be discovered and deported and that they are breaking our laws when they do so. They what the consequences of that will be. Actually the consequences are slight; they do not have to spend time in jail, or are beaten, or abused physically and mentally by the "system". Where then is the abuse?
The reactions to the border enforcement issue clearly shows who the activist groups and individuals are: who have been working behind the scenes for many years to promote an illegal "invasion" of this country. They are now showing their true colors as their hysterical arguments are being aired out in the open.
There is no civil rights abuse issue here--aliens take their chances by breaking our laws, and their illegal entry does not obligate us, the American People, to change our laws to single them out for special treatment. If I choose to stick my finger in a fire I can't blame the person who made the fire for my actions. So too Americans can't be blamed if some "harm" is done because of someone else's deliberate and illegal actions.

Beating Dead Horses

This blog means not to minimize, trivialize, disrespect those who have suffered losses in lives and property but is criticizing those media shows that minimize, trivialize, and show disrespect for those who have suffered losses in property and lives by carrying the "news" coverage to extremes and ridiculousness. Day after day, night after night, for weeks and yes even months Anderson covers catastrophes, Nancy and Greta cover crimes, Bill sex offenders and Jackson; and it goes on and on. They do not serve the audience but in my opinion their own selves--hunting for TV media awards maybe? They are beating a dead horse to get it to go all the while their potential audience tunes out--at least I do. They seek comments and opinions from anyone it seems, for most of their guests have little knowledge on the subject, or have only their feelings to express.
Then there is the never ending "press conferences"; where the speakers congratulate everyone and then say they have little to give at this time, ask questions but we can't answer them because an investigation is on-going.
Then there is the never ending "view" of the catastrophe--like watching water boil. They all need to go back to school and learn how to find and present the news. For the most part it is uninformative, opinionated, boring, and non-newsworthy.
Larry King had a panel on the other night about the NSA eavesdropping affair--the one person who knew something was asked very few questions--questions which would have clarified and pointed to the culpability of the Bush Administration--his answers just acknowledged that, yes he "outed" the program to the media. The rest of the panel, aside from David Gergin, gave partisan opinions that didn't amount to much. So much for searching for the truth!
Lou Dobbs has, in my opinion, the best fact presenting show on television--it is timely, pertinent, non-partisan, and thorough. Keep up the good work Lou, no one else seems to be doing so.

What Is the Terrorist Threat?

The Bush Administration keeps referring to the danger of "terrorism" to the American people as justification for the war on Iraq, NSA authorization, etc. The Administration continually points out that Al-Qaeda, for instance, wants to do us harm, to nuke us, or spread germs about, and kill many thousands of "Americans". Aside from the fact that such a feat is almost impossible to accomplish, even with the most well designed weapons, bringing in such weapons into the U.S. is very difficult; even as wide-open as our borders are, and plane cockpits are locked now. How many terrorists are there that could potentially "attack" the U.S., and realistically, with what? How about some specifics about numbers and methods to back up Administration claims?
The President makes a big deal about how "he" is protecting the American people, all the while he does all he can to prevent the shutting off of the stream of illegal aliens entering this country, many of whom end up "terrorizing" whole communities of Americans, fill our prisons, and cost us billions of dollars in medical bills and other governmental services. Some "protecting" of the American people!

Bombs Are Good For Winning Friends Etc.

How does this administration hope to win the propaganda war when their military has an obvious problem of directing bombs on hoped-for targets and killing what they euphamistically refer to as "collateral damage". A child blown to bits is more than "collaterally damaged"; more like brutally damaged. Understandably we have a difficult job to accomplish, finding a very small needle in a very large haystack and are hindered by regional politics but it is now obvious that our administration, and the military it controls, has a run-amok policy of "the ends justifies the means"; disregarding civilian casualties in hopes of killing the Al-Qaeda leadership.
A one-time occurance might be laid to "accident" but it has happened numberous times and if I can pick up on it our friends and others can deduce it as well.
The total disregard for innocent life does not win others to our cause and we are judged more by what we do, or not do, than what Condee Rice says.

NSA--Like a Black Box

Nothing that Bush says adds up about the NSA affair. Like a "Black Box" in a physics lab you can tell a lot by just a few knowns. We know that "eavesdropping" went on without using warrants. If there were just a "few" Al Qaeda involved why not get warrants--before or after doing the eavesdropping? Using secret methods or technology would not have prevented that, for the Courts are not interested in the technology of how the government wiretaps.
Just a "few" terrorists doesn't seem plausible either--not over a period of several years. So then it is more likely that a "few" suspects were wire-tapped. How many is more than a few? If much more than a few we are getting into wide-spread infringements on our privacy, and that would be difficult to get warrants for.
So what are the numbers? The numbers are important for they would tell us just how "legal" the program was. Large numbers would mean an "infringement of our Constitutional rights", low numbers would place the whole issue in a gray area. I deduce from what facts are known that the numbers are large.
The administration in any case will try to "fudge" the numbers, by pointing to the number of suspects "found" and ignoring the large number of people that were "scanned" to derive the smaller number of "suspects". In other words the administration will lie about the numbers involved.
If, as I suspect, large numbers of citizens were "screened" others than the government would be involved--communications companies like AT&T etc. Anyone with radio equipment can listen to communications sent through the air but communications sent over land-lines can only be intercepted by technical means; i.e., high-tech wire-tapping. A good technician could do that on a few people but for the numbers likely involved here only a telecommunications company could do so.
If the government colluded with American companies to use their equipment to eavesdrop on American citizens that would clearly be an infringement of civil liberties, an infringement of the Fourth Amendment. That is tantamount to doing block searches of peoples homes without a clear cause. Something the FISA court would not tolerate, which is probably why no warrants were requested.
If we are to sustain our Democracy, as envisioned by our Founding Fathers, the people must not give into arguments that would abrogate our freedoms and weaken our laws.

The Nazis Had the Reichstag

The Nazis had the Reichstag and the Republicans have the Twin Towers as symbols of outrage used to inflame and justify the abrogation of our Constitution. When I see Lindsay Graham sit there and casually suggest that a President has the "power" to do as he sees fit to "protect" the American people I shudder. Where does this "power" end? Suspending a little bit of the Constitution is giving it all away eventually for once precedent is made it justifies other actions. Whats next--breaking down doors in the middle of the night?
Besides the "precedent" issue there is a question of judgment that this President does not have. He has made serious blunders while in office and even though I can't "prove" that he lied about going to war I can make a good "case" that he did lie--and his Vice-President continues to lie; which in itself is good evidence that both lied before the Iraq war, since Bush hasn't "corrected" what Cheney has been saying.
The argument that Al-Qaeda presents a "serious" threat raises the question, "does Al-Qaeda present more of a danger than the former Soviet Union did? I don't remember Presidents pushing the Constitution aside during the Cold War--so why now?
The destruction of the Twin Towers was a result of negligence and bad luck. Could it happen now? Not likely, since cockpit doors are being locked and there is a little more security placed at airports and in the planes themselves. So why all the hype?
Its good politics. Like preachers preaching about "sin" to keep their flocks coming to church politicians and parties must have something to rally around to keep up "interest". It also justifies spending that benefits their friends. If anyone wants to know who is benefiting look at where all the new spending is going.

And Alito Makes It Five

What is significant about the number 5? The number 5 represents the "majority" on the U.S. Supreme Court. When Alito is placed on the Supreme Court there will be five Catholics sitting on the Bench, constituting a Catholic majority. A good-bad thing? I don't know but it makes me leery for the following reasons.
Ordinarily a judge's religion doesn't matter (protestant, Jewish etc.) but the last Presidential election raised some doubts in my mind as to the "neutrality" of the Catholic church regarding U.S. politics and its laws. The Catholic church is unique in that it is a political as well as religious power; the Vatican is a dictatorship of sorts, whose dictates are binding on all who "belong" to it. The members aren't thrown in jail when they don't agree or break the Church's mandates, but their souls are punished, which to some might be a worse fate.
The Catholic Church is very active in secular affairs; attempting to censor written and aired material, pushing for laws that support their moral and political agendas--in other words trying to make society over in their image.
With so much power potentially being in their hands (majority on the Court) the temptation will be great to use it as they have done so many times in the past.
They pulled out all the stops in the fight against Communism--unreasonably so. Might we have lost and taken fewer lives, cost less money, and accomplished more if reason had prevailed? We will never know for the media today is run by large numbers of Catholics who aren't likely to criticize the Church.
The question boils down to--can we have a free independent Supreme Court if a foreign power can dictate how it votes? A power which also dictates to millions of our citizens as well?
When a Supreme Court judge is appointed he/she is appointed for life, which equates to 20-30 years or more. A lot of mischief can be done in that length of time. Now the problem is compounded by the number 5. Getting one judge out is hard--getting five off the court would be an impossibility, and being a majority can control our country's laws.
We are looking at the "potential" downfall of law as we know it. It "could" happen, but not necessarily will it happen.
However, bringing up the subject for debate helps to guarantee the it wont happen. Those that might abuse our trust are then on notice that the people are "aware" and "watchful". However, thee is no guarantee about anything regarding power, for the Abramoff case is an example of the public being aware of potential wrong doing and yet abuses on large scale were perpetrated.

Education--School's Fault?

All the time you hear how it is the school's fault that Johnny or Sally isn't learning anything in school, that teachers aren't teaching the kids anything, that they are failing tests. The old adage--"you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it" applies here.
It is not an academic problem entirely, but a cultural-social one. To find the answer all one has to do is find out what the kids do know--they know plenty--but it isn't stuff taught in school curriculums. Ask a kid about Pop stars, movies, sports, MTV, songs, clothes, iPods, and a lot of other things that I'm out of touch on, and he/she could tell you a lot about those subjects, but not about history, english, math, geography and the like.
Our society (U.S.) has "channeled" learning to what "it" feels is important, and you can lay the blame mostly on "corporate America" propaganda for that. We are constantly being bombarded with the "message" that to be "cool" you got to buy the latest line of clothes, gadgets, drinks, food, deodorant, lip-stick, car and... you get the idea. The "heroes" of our society are basketball, football players, actors, actresses, singers--all non-academics. Academics are nerds, egg-heads, or generally way down the line for someone to be. But how to solve the problem of kids not "knowing" what they are supposed to know?
Giving teachers more money, testing, buying more computers, etc. is not going to "solve" the problem. Somehow the "desirable" image we want our kids to be needs to be turned around--from the now jerky iPod wearing freak to a more serious sedate intellectual image maybe? The real heroes of our society have been people like Dr. Salk, who has saved millions by the Polio vaccine, A. Einstein, E=mc2, and the like.
Our society ignores the real heroes, who work tirelessly behind the scenes, yet lauds the frivilous "non-heroes", rewarding them with riches and acclaim way beyond what they deserve.
To "see" where the "emphasis" lies in our lives check out what symbols people wear on their shirts, caps, jackets, and the like. These things are what we really hold dear to our hearts--and it isn't "education".
By placing importance on frivilous things we are ignoring and not placing emphasis on math, history, english and the like.
Other cultures, who do place importance on education, do not have the problems that we do in getting kids to learn. They teach more with much less. In fact even in our own country those ethnic groups, such as Asians and East Indians, do much better than other groups. Genetic? No, cultural. You can't blame it all on "bad-neighborhoods" either. Are the libraries full--or the basketball courts in those neighborhoods? Kids have plenty of time on their hands; they just aren't using it right.

What One Believes is a Matter of Judgement

People believe all sorts of things, some pretty fantastic and not "true", some fantastic and "true". What people believe, and the strength of that belief (conviction) are good indicators of those persons ability to make judgements in other areas of belief. But what is "judgement".
judgment is the innate ability, that a person has, in selecting facts that are relevant, from a set of facts, that would support or produce a valid conclusion. Premises, inferences, and conclusions if you will.
A lack of judgment is that the innate ability to discriminate correctly those facts is somehow corrupted so that valid conclusions are not possible.
Case in point--the astrologer versus the astronomer. The astrologer says that the gravity of far-off astral bodies influence and determine peoples lives. The astronomer contends that gravitational effects of astral bodies are so weak that the conclusion made by an astrologer could not be true, that gravitational effects by terrestrial bodies, such as an automobile going by, would be much more significant. In this case, and many other's, it is a question of picking the "right" set of facts in order to produce the "right" conclusions.
An emotional component derails many "judgments" by causing a person to "emotionally" select a set of facts to support a particular conclusion, which in many cases is pre-chosen.
If the facts are, or premises, invalid the conclusion made from them will likely be invalid. Methodology, logic, plays an important part too, but that is a subject for another time.
The conclusions that a person comes up with, and his/her choices of facts, are good indicators of a persons "innate" ability at making judgments in general; i.e., if he/she has strong convictions about a questionable belief then he/she may be side-tracked from the truth in other areas.
In most cases strong convictions reflect a person's need for emotional security. People are often "intellectually blind", unable to draw correct conclusions, because of emotional needs. If this is so, their strongly held convictions should be noted, not only for what they believe, but for why they need to believe. Seems a simple and logical observation, but we choose people to represent us, to look out for our interests, without evaluating their abilities to make rational judgments.
Take the case of Judge Alito for an example. He may be our next Supreme Court judge. He is said to be a devout Catholic. Catholics cannot freely interpret for themselves moral issues, these are determined and interpreted by the Pope and clergy.
Alito will be potentially at logger-heads with the Church regarding moral issues if he follows a "secular" course in his legal determinations. Will Alito be the "astrologer" or the "astronomer"?

A Third Party Anyone?

Middle-of-the-roaders like me have a tough time choosing between our two parties because it amounts to, on the one hand, choosing to vote for candidates who represent the wealthy class, religious crack-pots and abrogators of the Constitution; while on the other hand, we have those who represent the third-world's down-trodden, illegal aliens, anti-gun advocates, and who knows what else?
Some choice! (Both are taxers, so I didn't single out either party for that one)
Many of the moderates of both parties stand fairly close together on most issues, but being a large minority, are left out of the mainstream politics of their parties.
The logical thing to do, it seems to me, would be to shuck off party affiliations and join together to form a more representative party--one less controversial and one more representative of the people, one that the people could truly identify with. Until that happens it is up to the electorate to tell their parties "start representing them. or hit-the-road."
An issue that is representative of the problem of non-representation is the illegal immigration issue. Sixty percent of American are against illegal immigration and amnesty programs. Howard Dean has attempted to muddy the issue by making claims that the Republcians are "scapegoating" the "immigrants". The Republicans that are against illegal immigration, and others on the other side, are not "scapegoating" the issue as Dean claims. The problems that arise out of illegal immigration are real. We don't need more people in this country, especially those who sneak in; and "working hard" is no rationale for allowing illegal aliens to stay in this country. We don't need more poor illiterates in this counry. We can't even properly educate our own citizens let alone taking on the burden of educating Mexico's throw-aways. We don't need to "legalize" them to find out who and where they are. That is a "no-brainer" yet that is one of the arguments that the pro-illegal alien lobby uses to argue their case.
If the Democrats try to "push" their pro-illegal alien agenda they'll lose--"big-time".
On the other hand, an issue that will lose for the Republicans is their "back-door" attempts to create a "Theocracy" in America. Their attempts to do so will back-fire on them for their source of "inspiration" (The Bible) is grossly flawed. (See my website essay, "Was Jesus the Messiah" on tiltingatsacredcows.com).
The religious "right" have been hanging onto the coat tails of Republican Elite (the corporate and wealthy class) who barely tolerate them, hoping that power will be delivered in their hands so that they can "save" America from sin. Talk about an "unholy alliance"--on the one hand "money is their God" and on the other "God provides the money". Its your vote--you decide.

Whistle-Blowing -- The Patriotic Thing To Do?

This Administration will do its best to demonize the person, or persons, who "leaked" (blew the whistle) about the illegal eavesdropping operation that the Bush Administration authorized the NSA (and others?) to do.
This is an obvious attempt at "shifting the blame" on the whistle-blower to lessen the culpibility of the Administration. When you label someone the "bad-guy" and point the finger at him, why that makes you the "good-guy"; right?
The administration so far has brought up the argument that "leaking" harmed National Security. In reality the "leaking" helped preserve National Security, be revealing an administration's abuse of power, its abrogation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution--as well as the Administration's lying to the American people about the "innocence and need" for the program.
The "whistle-blower" should get a Medal of Freedom for his courageous action. Anyone pointing out governement bad behavior should be labeled "Super Patriot" and "hero" instead of being branded a "traitor".

Ignorance of the Law is No Excuse

It is obvious what the strategy of the Bush administration is, and will be, regarding the NSA eavesdropping authorization; where thousands of American citizens had their civil rights abused.
Bush has tried to pass it off as a program aimed at a "few" nimble Al Qaeda suspects that were calling from abroad to the U.S., but that explanation can be discounted on common sense grounds. Now comes the rational--a la Iraq (the evolution of excuses)--that the security of the American People was at stake: "besides the law says I can--the Attorney General told me so". Never mind that the Attorney General is a personal friend and hand picked by Bush for the job of AG. It is kind of like the school yard excuses teachers hear on school play grounds.
If the Administration can sell the public the idea that their "welfare" was the reason for abrogating the Constitution, that the threats of terrorists trumps the Constitution, why then the Administration will likely get away with it--especially when you have Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and a slew of Republicans hitting the air waves with propaganda in an effort to cover the President's tracks.
The Conservatives have been hypocritical for many years regarding civil rights and the Constitution. They carry on about how wonderful Democracy is, yet are quick to trample on it when it comes to implimenting their own right-wing agendas. They have been very good about covering their rear-ends; i.e., Ronald Reagan, H.W. Bush, Oliver North, Casper Weinberger, Linda Tripp, just to name a few who got away with breaking the law and getting off "scot-free". Its nice to have partisan judges and friends in high places.
The Conservatives make big spiels about how some liberal activist judges are subverting the law, making "interpretations"; yet conservative judges in the past have made "worse" partisan interpretations; remember Florida?
Wait till we have a Conservative Supreme Court, which is coming soon folks, when corporations rule and our Democracy becomes a Theocracy. You can kiss the good ol' Constitution good-bye--we got to be protected from the terrorists you know. But there may be some hope.
The Conservatives have been so blatantly arrogant in their policies that even a complacent public is beginning to take notice. That spells bad news for the Conservative movement, who has made great gains in recent years, by means of a well designed and implemented propaganda campaign, thanks to a dysfunctional media.
Once the public wakes up and realizes that they have been had, that their "welfare" is not being looked after, the conservative movement will come crashing down like the fabled "Tower of Babel" and individual politicians will be scurrying around dodging the falling bricks.

The Bird Flu--A Money Making Scam?

Why all of a sudden is there a concern about a pandamic a la World War I? There have been many flu outbreaks over the years aand though there was concern it wasn't hyped up to the extent that it is now; people talking about millions dying and a campaign promoting spending billions of dollars for research to produce a vaccine that may, or may not, prevent an epidemic.
The general rule of thumb people should apply is; anytime G.W. Bush proposes something you can be sure the greater benefit will go to an industry or corporation who just happens to be large political contributors of his.
Who would benefit in this case? Why the pharmeceutical industry of course. Why hasn't anyone in politics, or the media, public, picked up on this?
Probably because of the propaganda ploy "fear appeal". When fear is propagated critical thinking shuts down.
The "media" is mostly to blame for all of the hype that has gone on about the "bird flu epidemic, for they "obsess" about every catastrophe, large or small, that comes their way. They are hardly a discriminating bunch.
There are billions and billions of dollars out there just waiting to be snapped up by doctors, researchers, pharmeceutical corporations, as well as our politicians.
Any time this administration campaigns for anything follow the money.

Bush's New Year Resolution--I will not lie to the American People

I will not lie about Saddam Hussein having WMDs, I will not lie about Saddam Hussein being part of 9/11, I will not lie about my National Guard service, I will not lie about insider trading, I will not lie about the NSA authorization, I will not lie about the CIA leak, I will not lie about the "terrorist threat", I will not lie about taxing the middle class, I will not lie about Social Security.... now if only he can keep that resolution.