Jim

I'd have to disagree about the UW recommendation. I had some severe back issues a few years ago. The UW PTs came up with the usual cookie cutter approaches. Finally I said to one of them "You haven't the slightest idea what's going on here do you (this after 4 visits) and she got flustered and admited she did not. I made the rounds and after 5 "sports PTs" I found the group at Olympic PT on Mercer Island to be excellent. They did a very good diagnostic exam that no other PTs did. After a couple visits there was marked improvement and I keep up with the routine they suggested. Sorry, I don't have the PT names here at work, but they also have an office in the U District I believe and said they have some good back specialists there as well.

This is old, old news. Gotta move from the Fox reporting to real life stuff. According to a Senate Committee Report of 1994 [1]: From 1985, if not earlier, through 1989, a veritable witch's brew of biological materials were exported to Iraq by private American suppliers pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Amongst these materials, which often produce slow, agonizing deaths, were: Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax. Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin. Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord and heart. Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs. Clotsridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness. Clostridium tetani, highly toxigenic. Also, Escherichia Coli (E.Coli); genetic materials; human and bacterial DNA. Dozens of other pathogenic biological agents were shipped to Iraq during the 1980s. The Senate Report pointed out: "These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction." "It was later learned," the committee revealed, "that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program." These exports continued to at least November 28, 1989 despite the fact that Iraq had been reported to be engaging in chemical warfare and possibly biological warfare against Iranians, Kurds, and Shiites since the early 80s. Source: "U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Persian Gulf War," Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with Respect to Export Administration, reports of May 25, 1994 and October 7, 1994.

But that is not what is being put forward. The proposed legislation would allow torture, secret evidence you, as the accused, could not see, and restrict any judical review. Those are not just "different" standards, they set a new low. The other examples you floated are all based in common standards for the accused: respectable treatment, no coerced evidence, right to view evidence against you, and judicial review. Creating a new category whereby someone can be picked up in the US or a foriegn country, jailed, tortured, and kept without any recourse or appeal, indefinetly, is un-American. Or so I thought. Hmmm, edited to acknowledge JayB's resonable and logical response.

I partially agree. But once that distinction is made it should not follow that there is no rule of law. There are quite a few stories of people caught up in this web who were innocent, dragged out of line at JFK (for instance) and eventually sent to Jordan and such to get beaten and tortured - all four naught. They were innocent and were released. The rule of law is there to protect all, innocent and guilty. To make sure there is due process. If they are guilty and we can prove it - lock 'em up and throw away the key. If you can't prove it what then? Keep them locked up anyway, just in case? That is not what our country (supposedly) stands for.

This is what I respoded tersely to. This piece of a larger article kinda says it all: At last tally, about 63% of Americans said they don't support the war in Iraq, but are nonetheless (a)pathetically condoning it by refusing to engage democracy, failing to vote, to protest, and to mobilize. I spoke with one of them this summer, when I spent six weeks in Washington, DC, meeting with congressmen and senators, and conducting Operation House Call, a project of Military Families Speak Out. One day, when the heat index soared to 110 degrees, hot enough to melt the tar between the steps in front of the Russell Senate Building, a family passed by our vigil of empty combat boots. The distraught mother of two talked about how upset she was about the war, and asked why more people weren't doing something. When I asked her what she was doing, she replied, "Me? Nothing. I've got responsibilities. I'm on vacation."

I'm glad you said it first. I'd be labled the leftist wanker. Any wonder the populace isn't worried. Oh- Dancing with the Stars is already on!!

Answer: Posting in Spray No. I called my senators and representatives today. I visit each of their offices once a year to discuss current legislation. I go to DC for work a couple times a year and make it a point to stop by with a letter and talk to the aids. I volunteer at two groups - one on environmental resource issues and one on social issues. How about you? If you have some free time email me and I'll put you in touch with some volunteer coordinators. Or you could continue to sit on your hands like most people.

Change it to volvo and McDonalds if you want then. The point (I'll spoon feed you here) is the abundance of apathy of the American public. I'm quite surprised the Republican Senate is drinking this koolaid. Some of them can be pretty good at standing up for individual rights afforded by the Constitution. Not this close to November in a tough election year I guess. Gotta hand it to Rove, he knows timing and how to keep the party in their ranks.

While the referred to statement is a bit dramatic, read the legislation. It is scary and certainly betrays our conutries democratic foundations. But --- no reason to trouble yourself with details. As long as the Hummer is full of gas and the drive in Starbucks is open.

I'd say these are some of the darker days for democratic values in recent memory. And most people will not be able to proudly answer their children in years to come when the ask "What were you doing about all this when it was happening?"

The passivity of the populace on this and related issues is quite astounding. "Well, ok, you can stick a GIS tracking device up my nose if it will help the war on terror" This administration has been hell bent on consolidating executive power from the get go, and the Republican-run Congress has rubber-stamped it all. I'm quite surprised that most of the Republican senators went along with this one thought, it is really out there. The House will pass anything brought to them.

They have painted themselves in a corner with their rhetoric, starting with "War on Terror". Idiots. They are not very sophisticated in world affairs. Why weren't more troops devoted to Afganistan instead of the current half-hearted effort? Obviously because they were planning for Iraq. Now the Taliban is on the rise with poppy production and the government is not functional outside of Kabul. And if Iraq was such a threat, similar to Nazi Germanay, why didn't we impose a draft and expect similar national sacrafice such as a tax to pay for all this? We're stretched, the terrorists know it, and we haven't sufficient forces in either country. Bush will stay the course through his term - which means doing nothing. The next president, Republican or Democrat, will be forced to explain that we have done the best we can (like a bull in a china shop) and withdraw.

Yea - that clears it up!! "BODIES... The Exhibition, relies on documentation from a country with a problematic human rights record. Even at best, its exhibitors say the bodies were not formally donated by people who agreed to be displayed." "But Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, is uncomfortable with the practice. Regardless of the law, the use of unclaimed bodies in human-anatomy exhibits is questionable, Caplan says. "There's a fine line between education and exploitation in these kinds of exhibits. And you only want people to be displayed if you have their consent, not the consent of a third party," he said. Since the bodies are either unclaimed or unidentified, obtaining consent was impossible, Glover said" How convenient.

This exhibit is not without controversy. Google and you can find links to Seattle and NY Times articles regarding the show and the refusal of the exibition owners to produce any death certificates or signature releases to the press. And their links to somewhat shady organizations in China. Fulan Gong is requesting the boycott of this and other types of shows because of their percieved link of missing members and the lack of a paper trail. Despite what the show producers claim, something smells funny here and it ain't formaldehyde. Lots of money to be made on both ends of the market. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5637687

Maybe it's a changing number but CC.com was #13 when I looked. Climbing the charts?

I was born OK the first time, thanks.

Yea. They should take the example of the current crop of conservatives and stick the bill to their grandchildren. Now that's sound fiscal management.

It is very important for the American people to understand that in order to protect this country, we must be able to interrogate people who have information about future attacks," Bush said. "I will resist any bill that does not enable this program to go forward with legal clarity. "If there's not clarity, if there's ambiguity, if there's any doubt in our professionals' mind if they can conduct their operation in a legal way, with support of the Congress, the program won't go forward and the American people will be in danger," Bush said. .......I think there was much spittle assocated with this tirade.

They're the ones giving the orders these days.

Unfortunately I think your signature line says it all.

You must be with Fox News - here's the full quote: President Bush made a rare visit to Capitol Hill on Thursday as key Republican senators who oppose the administration's military tribunal plan for suspected terrorists gained a powerful ally -- the president's former secretary of state.

U.N. Inspectors Dispute Iran Report By House Panel Paper on Nuclear Aims Called Dishonest By Dafna Linzer Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, September 14, 2006; A17 U.N. inspectors investigating Iran's nuclear program angrily complained to the Bush administration and to a Republican congressman yesterday about a recent House committee report on Iran's capabilities, calling parts of the document "outrageous and dishonest" and offering evidence to refute its central claims. Officials of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency said in a letter that the report contained some "erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated statements." The letter, signed by a senior director at the agency, was addressed to Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, which issued the report. A copy was hand-delivered to Gregory L. Schulte, the U.S. ambassador to the IAEA in Vienna. After no WMDs were found in Iraq, the IAEA came under additional criticism for taking a cautious approach on Iran, which the White House says is trying to build nuclear weapons in secret. At one point, the administration orchestrated a campaign to remove the IAEA's director general, Mohamed ElBaradei. It failed, and he won the Nobel Peace Prize last year. Yesterday's letter, a copy of which was provided to The Washington Post, was the first time the IAEA has publicly disputed U.S. allegations about its Iran investigation. The agency noted five major errors in the committee's 29-page report, which said Iran's nuclear capabilities are more advanced than either the IAEA or U.S. intelligence has shown. Among the committee's assertions is that Iran is producing weapons-grade uranium at its facility in the town of Natanz. The IAEA called that "incorrect," noting that weapons-grade uranium is enriched to a level of 90 percent or more. Iran has enriched uranium to 3.5 percent under IAEA monitoring. When the congressional report was released last month, Hoekstra said his intent was "to help increase the American public's understanding of Iran as a threat." Spokesman Jamal Ware said yesterday that Hoekstra will respond to the IAEA letter. Rep. Rush D. Holt (D-N.J.), a committee member, said the report was "clearly not prepared in a manner that we can rely on." He agreed to send it to the full committee for review, but the Republicans decided to make it public before then, he said in an interview. The report was never voted on or discussed by the full committee. Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the vice chairman, told Democratic colleagues in a private e-mail that the report "took a number of analytical shortcuts that present the Iran threat as more dire -- and the Intelligence Community's assessments as more certain -- than they are." Privately, several intelligence officials said the committee report included at least a dozen claims that were either demonstrably wrong or impossible to substantiate. Hoekstra's office said the report was reviewed by the office of John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence. Negroponte's spokesman, John Callahan, said in a statement that his office "reviewed the report and provided its response to the committee on July 24, '06." He did not say whether it had approved or challenged any of the claims about Iran's capabilities. "This is like prewar Iraq all over again," said David Albright, a former nuclear inspector who is president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security. "You have an Iranian nuclear threat that is spun up, using bad information that's cherry-picked and a report that trashes the inspectors." The committee report, written by a single Republican staffer with a hard-line position on Iran, chastised the CIA and other agencies for not providing evidence to back assertions that Iran is building nuclear weapons. It concluded that the lack of intelligence made it impossible to support talks with Tehran. Democrats on the committee saw it as an attempt from within conservative Republican circles to undermine Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has agreed to talk with the Iranians under certain conditions. The report's author, Fredrick Fleitz, is a onetime CIA officer and special assistant to John R. Bolton, the administration's former point man on Iran at the State Department. Bolton, who is now ambassador to the United Nations, had been highly influential during President Bush's first term in drawing up a tough policy that rejected talks with Tehran. Among the allegations in Fleitz's Iran report is that ElBaradei removed a senior inspector from the Iran investigation because he raised "concerns about Iranian deception regarding its nuclear program." The agency said the inspector has not been removed. A suggestion that ElBaradei had an "unstated" policy that prevented inspectors from telling the truth about Iran's program was particularly "outrageous and dishonest," according to the IAEA letter, which was signed by Vilmos Cserveny, the IAEA's director for external affairs and a former Hungarian ambassador. Hoekstra's committee is working on a separate report about North Korea that is also being written principally by Fleitz. A draft of the report, provided to The Post, includes several assertions about North Korea's weapons program that the intelligence officials said they cannot substantiate, including one that Pyongyang is already enriching uranium.

While he was AWOL during the Iraq debate he has come out against the administration's attempt to set aside the Geneva Conventions for prisoners. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/14/congress.tribunals/index.html

Those are colons ding-dong.

Pot:Kettle:Black