************************************************************

PLEASE VOTE! PLEASE VOTE! PLEASE VOTE!

Whether or not you agree with this party’s philosophy, vote!
Our country is based on a TWO-party system of government. We
must restore that basic precept. Vote NOW! It is NOT too late.

************************************************************

Nota Bene

Dot Calm would like to remind all Americans of the 12th of the previously posted 15 signs of an impending fascist state:

12. Elections Stolen
Fraudulent elections -- in the disordered time as fascists are rising to power, the electoral arena becomes increasingly confusing, corrupted, and manipulated.

There is rising public cynicism and distrust over what are widely believed to be phony elections manipulated by moneyed influence, obvious media bias, smear campaigns, ballot tampering, judicial interference, intimidation, or outright assassination of potential opposition. Fascists in power have been known to use this disorder as the rationale to delay elections indefinitely.

Voting in America

David Brancaccio on PBS’s NOW reports from New York on the way we record and count votes. Election day 2000 failed in this process. New machines are in place in Oakland County, Michigan, where there are more than a million wealthy voters. On primary day in August this year, Broncaccio looked to see how the voting machines were doing. Seems a couple of election officials ran into a problem...one of the machines to help disabled people vote failed. The county bought a bunch of machines from ES&S, said to be the largest supplier of voting machines. ES&S also provides software to most of the country. Here is what Mr. Brancaccio reported:

Americans like to share our values of democracy with the rest of the world, but the rest of the world may do well to avoid one key part of our democratic system: the way we record and count votes on election day.

It's been nearly six years since election day 2000: a tight presidential race, voting machines that failed to do the job and a recount system that was sketchy at best.

Enter congress, which ordered new voting technology nationwide, a.s.a.p.

In most places, the new machines are in, but whether they're up to their crucial task remains a troubling question after what we witnessed on one recent primary day.

Our story begins in Michigan, but as we'll see, what happened in Michigan could be coming to a polling place near you. Michelle Smawley produced our report.

BRANCACCIO: Oakland County Michigan. It's a wealthy enclave--with the highest per capita income in the state. It's made up of a patchwork of small cities and townships. More than a million people live here--this one county has more people than some entire U.S. states.

We paid a visit to Oakland County on Primary Day in August to see new electronic voting technology in action--fulfilling a requirement set by Congress. We were curious to see how it was working out.

It was a slow day, roughly a third of the normal turn out--but election officials told us it was the perfect occasion to put the new machines through a test drive of sorts. But just a few minutes after our arrival, it became clear that things were off to an interesting start.

RANCELLI: I'm not sure why this is happening

BRANCACCIO: A couple of election officials have run into a snag with one of the new voting machines. It's called the Automark and was designed specifically to help disabled people vote.

The two workers try to run a few test ballots but can't get the machine to work.

LARRY: "Print validation failed."

RANCELLI: That's because your ballot jammed again coming out.

BRANCACCIO: In the end, no luck. Going into the Primaries, election officials had been apprehensive about this machine. The county bought a bunch of them from Election Systems & Software, or ES&S. There are four primary manufacturers that provide the new technology to the entire country, and ES&S is said to be the largest.

That was not much help on this primary day in Oakland County. The ES&S Automark machines were not doing what they should, and the election staff's apprehension has turned into frustration.

LARRY: We come in here, we have this new machine, the Automark. We think, ah, it's great, it's going to assist the voter with the voting procedure. But today, it didn't assist us at all because we couldn't even get through a test ballot.

BRANCACCIO: These election workers are struggling with what has become a challenge nationwide. In 2002, the president signed the Help America Vote Act, which divided 3.1 billion dollars among all 50 states to update their voting systems.

For the first time in the history of the Republic, that act of Congress required all states to overhaul their election process. The goal: never again with the hanging chads and so forth in Florida or anywhere. But the new machines are also troubled...a look at their track record shows they are making mistakes like over or under counting votes, not working altogether, or suffering from programming glitches that have altered the outcome of elections.

Back in Oakland County, Michigan, we found that the brand new Automark machines were hardly being used.

Curious, we asked a precinct supervisor to show us how they're supposed to work.

TIM: And right now, it’s going to scan the ballot and mark the ballot. OK, it rejected this ballot and asked me to try again with another blank ballot. So I am going to pull this ballot out.

It sounds different than the last time we put it in. It sounds like it might be working, but I don't know yet. So in this case, it rejected it again--unable to identify ballot type--and, frankly, I don't understand why that is. I'll try to one more time. So, again, we get an error that says unable to identify the ballot type and I don't know enough about the error code to fix it myself.

BRANCACCIO: After the 5th attempt, Donovan is finally able to get the Automark to accept a test ballot.

TIM: Oh, it looks like its printing. It looks like its working. Ellen, can you confirm 3,396 registered voters for Lathrip Village?

BRANCACCIO: Once the polls closed, we were invited back to the County Clerk's office where election workers were tabulating the primary results.

FEMALE WORKER: Ellen, can you confirm 3,396 registered voters for Lathrip Village?

BRANCACCIO: The county bought a new system from ES&S--to help tally up all the votes from the precincts--at an estimated cost of more than $150,000. But on this night, the election staff told us a programming glitch rendered the new system virtually useless, and they were forced to bring in the results via email.

RUTH: Okay, well thank you all for coming. I know a lot of you have gone without sleep.

BRANCACCIO: The next day, Ruth Johnson, the county clerk who is ultimately in charge of elections, meets with her staff to debrief.

RUTH: Tracy, can you give us an update?

TRACY: We talked to one Northern Township. They had a problem with a machine jamming in precinct one. At four o'clock when I talked to them, they were still using the machine, but they believed that votes might have been double counted so they had to go back and check that. Another Northern Township: they had an auto mark machine that had jammed up to five times they were still trying to get it to work.

RUTH: We call it our ER room for a couple reasons. But it's an Electronic Recording Room.

Our biggest problem right now is it was delivered in May. And the company seems to be so busy that the programming wasn't done properly. And that was probably the biggest disappointment for me.

TRACY: They had time to do this if they had been here when they were supposed to be here, though. That's what ticks me off about this whole thing. They were scheduled to install it. They cancelled three times. I mean, who else would put up with this, for god's sake? It's ridiculous. I mean, how many thousands of dollars worth of equipment is up there that we haven't been able to use?

BRANCACCIO: In the end, Johnson and her staff documented more than 100 problems that took place during the primary.

We asked ES&S if we could interview a company rep about all of this--they sent us a written response instead.

On questions about that new tabulation system that couldn't be used, ES&S wrote:

"Due to a limitation created by the program, a procedural change was necessary.... This issue has already been addressed in advance of November."

And as for those machines that were rejecting ballots? The company says it was human error, adding that

"There were a few situations in certain polling locations in which ballots were apparently bent during storage."

The Primary in Oakland County was a test case, and they are using what industry analysts tell us is some of the best technology in the country. So how could a sleepy summer Primary still cause this many headaches? According to published reports, roughly half of the states that have held primaries so far this year have experienced problems with the new voting technology. It is called the Help America Vote Act, but critics ask, when you take a closer look, to what extent is it really helping?

In Texas, a programming error was blamed for an extra 100, 000 votes recorded but never cast.

In perennially challenged Ohio, an independent audit found that 1 in 6 electronic voter tallies did not match the paper trail and, because of computer malfunction or human error, 10% of the paper trail was destroyed, blank, illegible, or missing.

This year, in a local Iowa election, officials noticed something weird when a college student was leading the race over a political veteran with 23 years experience.... Turns out a ballot counting malfunction with the new technology was to blame.

In response to these types of issues, groups of voters in at least 12 states have filed lawsuits seeking to replace the new voting technology.

After an intense public outcry New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson has pledged to replace the state's current crop of electronic voting machines with a system that creates a paper trail.

And there is another issue that critics say needs attention—security. That's a particular concern any time the machines are adjusted; in fact, election workers in Michigan were given a script to read so that voters would understand when they opened up the unit that there was no funny business going on.

LARRY: "Members of Precinct 8, in accordance with state law MCL-1658.79782, two election inspectors of different political parties are rearranging voted ballots so that the M100 may operate properly."

BRANCACCIO: Concerns about security are real--and those issues made their way back to Congress. In July at a House hearing to evaluate the machines, expert witnesses testified about the vulnerabilities of the new devices.

WAGNER: A single person may be able to switch votes on a large scale, possibly undetected, and potentially swing a close election.

BRANCACCIO: Avi Rubin has been studying this for years. He is a computer science professor at Johns Hopkins University, and he is considered one of the foremost experts on electronic voting technology. Rubin says it is quite possible to rig an election.

RUBIN: I don't think it would be that hard to do. I've done back-of-the-envelope calculations on what it would take to do something like that, and if I or one of my graduate students were working for a primary vendor in the right place at the right time, we know that we could do it.

BRANCACCIO: Rubin says he first became concerned about electronic voting when he was asked to analyze the computer source code used by Diebold, another of the major manufacturers of electronic voting machines. That code is the secret ingredient, equivalent to the formula for Pepsi or Coke, only one with more implication for our democracy.

RUBIN: We wrote a report that highlighted a lot of security problems, and we recommended that these machines not be used in elections.

BRANCACCIO: The same week Rubin issued the report, his home state of Maryland purchased thousands of the Diebold machines--meaning Rubin now has to cast his vote on the very units he finds insecure.

Diebold dismissed Rubin's study saying that his sampling of their software was either "inaccurate or incomplete."

There is something else that worries Rubin. Maryland as well as 23 other states do not require a paper trail as a back up in cases where electronic voting results are questioned.

RUBIN: a lot of people who support these machines say, "Look. We had the election and nothing went wrong. It worked." But we don't know that.

BRANCACCIO: Rubin ultimately decided to do something about it. He applied for a 7.5 million dollar grant and now runs a lab where a team of scientists are working on developing more secure technology that he wants to share among the manufacturers of voting machines.

Deforest Soaries is the former Chairman of the Election Assistance Commission. He was appointed by the White House. The Commission was created as the first federal body to watch over voting issues.

SOARIES: It's now 2006, and we are no more certain today than we were in 2000 that we will not have an embarrassing moment and a tragic outcome in this year's election.

BRANCACCIO: Soaries says that, during his tenure at the EAC, he became frustrated with the government's lack of foresight and attention regarding the implementation of the Help America Vote Act.

BRANCACCIO: So you come to this job full of optimism. If memory serves, things got off to a slow start over there.

SOARIES: To say that it got off to a slow start is really to compliment the process. This was a tragedy. Right after we were confirmed, the four of us discovered that there was no operating budget for the commission itself.

There were no offices. There were no telephones. I literally went to Washington on the first Monday of January and had no place to report for work.

BRANCACCIO: I asked Soaries a question that was brought up by every state election official we spoke to: why didn't his federal commission order up real research it could share with the states before requiring them to buy all this new equipment?

SOARIES: We had zero dollars for research year one of the EAC. What I wanted was enough money--and we suspected that $10 million would do it--to create a prototype. We have prototypes for toasters. We have prototypes for microwaves. Electronic equipment in this country is assumed to have passed the muster of some standard. And it has except in the area of voting.

BRANCACCIO: So things got very frustrating for you on that commission?

SOARIES: I hung in there until after the election. And right after the election, I notified the White House that I was leaving. I've got 16 year old sons. And I'd rather spend time with them at their basketball games than to work in Washington with a Congress and a White House that is not really committed to this task which I thought was fundamental to our democracy.

BRANCACCIO: Paul DeGregorio is the current Chairperson of the Election Assistance Commission and served along side Soaries for a time. DeGregorio acknowledges that the commission got off to a slow start but says there has been progress and that the new technology offers unprecedented advantages.

SOARIES: I have visited eight states this year to observe primary elections, and I've seen in many cases disabled voters, voting for the very first time, in private, and secretly. And one woman told me it was the first time in her life that her husband didn't know how she was casting her ballot

BRANCACCIO: DeGregorio maintains that it's to be expected the country will experience some growing pains as America continues to upgrade its voting systems. He says that each election will help the EAC and election officials refine the process--in fact he's given it a timeline of sorts.

SOARIES: It may take until 2010 before we may see a leveling off in the problems that we've seen in previous elections.

BRANCACCIO: 2010--a sobering assessment and another presidential election gone by. DeGregorio's estimate brings up a fundamental question: how much of a work in progress should we expect our elections to be? And to what extent should the public worry about their vote counting?

Soaries says he has pondered these questions alot.

BRANCACCIO: What are you worried about specifically that might happen this fall during the election cycle?

SOARIES: Oh, something's gonna happen (SIC). There's gonna be a power outage, where some machines don't work. And there's no contingency plan. There's gonna be a close race, where there's an inability to do a recount that satisfies everyone's needs.

There's gonna be an accusation of tampering that can't be disproved

BRANCACCIO: But do you worry that just this discussion is gonna stop people from voting? Gonna throw up their hands hearing us?

SOARIES: What we don't need is for people not to vote. What we need for people to do is to vote and insist on answers to questions about the machine. We need people to show up. We need the public not only to engage in voting but to engage in the process of holding the elections administration accountable.

BRANCACCIO: For more on those new voting machines and other issues facing voters this fall, go to our website at PBS-dot-org.

What Caused Building 7's Collapse?

This question would appear to be the greatest in engineering history. In over 100 years of experience with steel frame buildings, fires have never caused the collapse of a single one, even though many were ravaged by severe fires. Indeed, fires have never caused the total collapse of any permanent steel structure.

What was done to answer this most important question? The only official body that admits to having investigated the curious collapse of Building 7 is FEMA's* Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT), which blamed fires for the collapse but admitted to being clueless about how fires caused the collapse.

People who have seen buildings implode in controlled demolitions are unlikely to be as challenged as FEMA's team in understanding the cause of Building 7's collapse. They will notice, upon watching the videos, that Building 7's collapse showed all of the essential features of a controlled demolition.

Despite having the appearance of a controlled demolition, is it possible that Building 7 could have been destroyed by some combination of damage from tower debris, fuel tank explosions, and fires? Let's consider the possible scenarios.

The evidence does not support the idea that Building 7 was damaged by fallout from the tower collapses, nor that there were diesel fuel tank explosions. Fires were observed in Building 7 prior to its collapse, but they were isolated in small parts of the building and were puny by comparison to other building fires. Let's imagine, contrary to the evidence, that debris from the tower collapses damaged Building 7's structure, that diesel fuel tanks exploded, and that incredibly intense fires raged through large parts of the building. Could such events have caused the building to collapse? Not in the manner observed. The reason is that simultaneous and symmetric damage is needed to produce a collapse with the precise symmetry of the vertical fall of building 7. This building had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. In order to cause the building to sink into its footprint all of the core columns and all of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second.

Any debris from the towers impacting Building 7 would have hit its south side, and any columns damaged by it would almost certainly be perimeter columns on its south side. Any fuel tank explosion would only be able to damage nearby structure. The rapid fall-off of blast pressures with distance from the source would preclude any such event from breaking all of the columns in the building.

Building 7 was about 5 times as tall as it was deep. (Furthermore the very idea of a tank of diesel fuel exploding taxes the imagination, since diesel fuel does not even begin to boil below 320º F.) Fires have never been known to damage steel columns in high rise buildings, but if they could, the damage would be produced gradually and would be localized to the areas where the fire was the most intense.

No combination of debris damage, fuel-tank explosions, and fires could inflict the kind of simultaneous damage to all the building's columns required to make the building implode. The precision of such damage required to bring Building 7 down into its footprint was especially great given the ratio of its height to its width and depth. Any asymmetry in the extent and timing of the damage would cause such a building to topple to one side rather than drop vertically onto its own footprint.


*FEMA? Of Hurricane Katrina fame??? Is this some cruel joke?

Fires Versus Steel Buildings

The official explanation that fires caused the collapse of Building 7 is incredible in light of the fact that fires have never caused a steel-framed building to totally collapse, before or after September 11th, 2001.

Steel-framed high rises (buildings of fifteen stories or more) have been widespread for over 100 years. There have been hundreds of incidents involving severe fires in such buildings, and none has led to complete collapse, or even partial collapse, of support columns.

Recent examples of high rise fires include the 1991 One Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia, which raged for 18 hours and gutted 8 floors of the 38 floor building, and the 1988 First Interstate Bank Building fire in Los Angeles, which burned out of control for 3-1/2 hours and gutted 4 floors of the 64 floor tower. Both of these fires were far more severe than any fires seen in Building 7, but those buildings did not collapse. The Los Angeles fire was described as producing "no damage to the main structural members."

Research indicates that even if a steel frame building were subjected to an impossible super fire, hundreds of degrees hotter and far more extensive than any fire ever observed in a real building, it would still not collapse.

References
1. One Meridian Plaza, SGH.com
2. Interstate Bank Building Fire Los Angeles, California (May 4, 1988)
3. Fire Resistance of Steel Framed Car Parks, corusconstruction.com

The Destruction of Building 7's Remains

Engineering is a science that melds theory and experience to create robust structures. Unintended structural failures are rare events that warrant the most careful scrutiny, since they test engineering theory.

That is why the NTSB carefully documents aircraft crash scenes and preserves the aircraft remains, frequently creating partial reconstructions in hangars. If an investigation reveals a mechanical or design fault, the FAA usually mandates specific modifications of equipment or maintenance procedures system-wide, and future aircraft are designed to avoid the fault.

Unintended structural failures are less common in steel frame high rises than in aircraft. Being the only such building in history in which fire is blamed for total collapse, Building 7's remains warranted the most painstaking examination, documentation, and analysis.

Building 7's rubble pile was at least as important as any archeological dig. It contained all the clues to one of the largest structural failures in history. Without understanding the cause of the collapse, all skyscrapers become suspect, with profound implications for the safety of occupants and for the ethics of sending emergency personnel into burning buildings to save people and fight fires.

There was no legitimate reason not to dismantle the rubble pile carefully, documenting the position of each piece of steel and moving it to a warehouse for further study.

No one was thought buried in the pile, since, unlike the Twin Towers, Building 7 had been evacuated hours before the collapse.

The pile was so well confined to the building's footprint that the adjacent streets could have been cleared without disturbing it.

Yet, despite the paramount importance of the remains, they were hauled away and melted down as quickly as possible. The steel was sold to scrap metals vendors and most was soon on ships bound for China and India. Some of the smaller pieces and a few token large pieces of steel marked 'save' were allowed to be inspected at Fresh Kills landfill by FEMA's BPAT volunteers.

This illegal evidence destruction operation was conducted over the objections of attack victims' family members and respected public safety officials. Bill Manning, editor of the 125 year old Fire Engineering Magazine, wrote in an article condemning the operation: Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the happy land social club fire? ... That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center. The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.

Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer, an associate professor in the Fire Protection Engineering Department at the University of Maryland, was quoted in The New York Times as saying: I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling.

Officials running the "cleanup operation" took pains to make sure the structural steel didn't end up anywhere but in blast furnaces. They installed GPS locater devices on each of the trucks hauling loads from Ground Zero at a cost of $1000 each. One driver who took an extended lunch break was dismissed.

References
1. Firefighter Mag Raps 9/11 Probe, New York Daily News
2. Experts Urging Broader Inquiry in Towers' Fall, New York Times, 12/25/01
3. GPS ON THE JOB IN MASSIVE WORLD TRADE CENTER CLEAN-UP, securitysolutions.com

Iraq death toll higher than 9-11

Excerpt:
While Bush spent the day exploiting the memory of those we lost five years ago, the nation overlooked a grim milestone: More Americans have now died in Iraq than died on 9/11. Iraq didn't attack us on 9-11, and our misguided policy there has now taken more American lives than al Qaeda.

Here are the numbers: 3,015 Americans have died in Iraq as of September 9.
2,666 of these were military deaths, and 349 were civilians.

The Republicans are fond of playing cheap number games with Iraqi casualty figures, and one of the ways they do it is by listing the deaths of military personnel only. They're hoping that a lazy press and an indifferent public will overlook the civilian losses, and to a large extent, they've been right so far.

I think somebody predicted this would happen.
Wasn't too hard to see coming, tho...

Today’s Installment of the Federalist Papers

The existence of these papers was noted in an earlier post. All 85 papers will be published on this blog. They are worth our consideration since our Constitution is based on their precepts. The short paragraph appearing below applies to all 85. The one appearing after this brief description was written by John Jay.

The Federalist Papers were written and published during the years 1787 and 1788 in several New York State newspapers to persuade New York voters to ratify the proposed constitution. They consist of 85 essays outlining how this new government would operate and why this type of government was the best choice for the United States of America. The essays were signed PUBLIUS. The authors of some papers are under dispute, but the general consensus is that Alexander Hamilton wrote fifty two, James Madison wrote twenty eight, and John Jay contributed the remaining five. The Federalist Papers remain an excellent reference for anyone who wants to understand the U.S. Constitution.

To the People of the State of New York:

IT IS not a new observation that the people of any country (if, like the Americans, intelligent and well informed) seldom adopt and steadily persevere for many years in an erroneous opinion respecting their interests. That consideration naturally tends to create great respect for the high opinion which the people of America have so long and uniformly entertained of the importance of their continuing firmly united under one federal government, vested with sufficient powers for all general and national purposes.

The more attentively I consider and investigate the reasons which appear to have given birth to this opinion, the more I become convinced that they are cogent and conclusive.

Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their SAFETY seems to be the first. The SAFETY of the people doubtless has relation to a great variety of circumstances and considerations, and consequently affords great latitude to those who wish to define it precisely and comprehensively.

At present I mean only to consider it as it respects security for the preservation of peace and tranquillity, as well as against dangers from FOREIGN ARMS AND INFLUENCE, as from dangers of the LIKE KIND arising from domestic causes. As the former of these comes first in order, it is proper it should be the first discussed. Let us therefore proceed to examine whether the people are not right in their opinion that a cordial Union, under an efficient national government, affords them the best security that can be devised against HOSTILITIES from abroad.

The number of wars which have happened or will happen in the world will always be found to be in proportion to the number and weight of the causes, whether REAL or PRETENDED, which PROVOKE or INVITE them. If this remark be just, it becomes useful to inquire whether so many JUST causes of war are likely to be given by UNITED AMERICA as by DISUNITED America; for if it should turn out that United America will probably give the fewest, then it will follow that in this respect the Union tends most to preserve the people in a state of peace with other nations.

The JUST causes of war, for the most part, arise either from violation of treaties or from direct violence. America has already formed treaties with no less than six foreign nations, and all of them, except Prussia, are maritime, and therefore able to annoy and injure us. She has also extensive commerce with Portugal, Spain, and Britain, and, with respect to the two latter, has, in addition, the circumstance of neighborhood to attend to.

It is of high importance to the peace of America that she observe the laws of nations towards all these powers, and to me it appears evident that this will be more perfectly and punctually done by one national government than it could be either by thirteen separate States or by three or four distinct confederacies.

Because when once an efficient national government is established, the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but also will generally be appointed to manage it; for, although town or country, or other contracted influence, may place men in State assemblies, or senates, or courts of justice, or executive departments, yet more general and extensive reputation for talents and other qualifications will be necessary to recommend men to offices under the national government, especially as it will have the widest field for choice, and never experience that want of proper persons which is not uncommon in some of the States. Hence, it will result that the administration, the political counsels, and the judicial decisions of the national government will be more wise, systematical, and judicious than those of individual States, and consequently more satisfactory with respect to other nations, as well as more SAFE with respect to us.

Because, under the national government, treaties and articles of treaties, as well as the laws of nations, will always be expounded in one sense and executed in the same manner, whereas adjudications on the same points and questions, in thirteen States, or in three or four confederacies, will not always accord or be consistent; and that, as well from the variety of independent courts and judges appointed by different and independent governments, as from the different local laws and interests which may affect and influence them. The wisdom of the convention, in committing such questions to the jurisdiction and judgment of courts appointed by and responsible only to one national government, cannot be too much commended.

Because the prospect of present loss or advantage may often tempt the governing party in one or two States to swerve from good faith and justice; but those temptations, not reaching the other States, and consequently having little or no influence on the national government, the temptation will be fruitless, and good faith and justice be preserved. The case of the treaty of peace with Britain adds great weight to this reasoning.

Because, even if the governing party in a State should be disposed to resist such temptations, yet as such temptations may, and commonly do, result from circumstances peculiar to the State, and may affect a great number of the inhabitants, the governing party may not always be able, if willing, to prevent the injustice meditated, or to punish the aggressors. But the national government, not being affected by those local circumstances, will neither be induced to commit the wrong themselves, nor want power or inclination to prevent or punish its commission by others.

So far, therefore, as either designed or accidental violations of treaties and the laws of nations afford JUST causes of war, they are less to be apprehended under one general government than under several lesser ones, and in that respect the former most favors the SAFETY of the people.

As to those just causes of war which proceed from direct and unlawful violence, it appears equally clear to me that one good national government affords vastly more security against dangers of that sort than can be derived from any other quarter.

Because such violences are more frequently caused by the passions and interests of a part than of the whole; of one or two States than of the Union. Not a single Indian war has yet been occasioned by aggressions of the present federal government, feeble as it is; but there are several instances of Indian hostilities having been provoked by the improper conduct of individual States, who, either unable or unwilling to restrain or punish offenses, have given occasion to the slaughter of many innocent inhabitants.

The neighborhood of Spanish and British territories, bordering on some States and not on others, naturally confines the causes of quarrel more immediately to the borders. The bordering States, if any, will be those who, under the impulse of sudden irritation, and a quick sense of apparent interest or injury, will be most likely, by direct violence, to excite war with these nations; and nothing can so effectually obviate that danger as a national government, whose wisdom and prudence will not be diminished by the passions which actuate the parties immediately interested.

But not only fewer just causes of war will be given by the national government, but it will also be more in their power to accommodate and settle them amicably. They will be more temperate and cool, and in that respect, as well as in others, will be more in capacity to act advisedly than the offending State. The pride of states, as well as of men, naturally disposes them to justify all their actions, and opposes their acknowledging, correcting, or repairing their errors and offenses. The national government, in such cases, will not be affected by this pride, but will proceed with moderation and candor to consider and decide on the means most proper to extricate them from the difficulties which threaten them.

Besides, it is well known that acknowledgments, explanations, and compensations are often accepted as satisfactory from a strong united nation, which would be rejected as unsatisfactory if offered by a State or confederacy of little consideration or power.

In the year 1685, the state of Genoa having offended Louis XIV., endeavored to appease him. He demanded that they should send their Doge, or chief magistrate, accompanied by four of their senators, to FRANCE, to ask his pardon and receive his terms. They were obliged to submit to it for the sake of peace. Would he on any occasion either have demanded or have received the like humiliation from Spain, or Britain, or any other POWERFUL nation?

PUBLIUS.

The Path to 9/11

By now, everyone has seen or heard of the ABC “mock-u-drama.”

This two-day attempt to change the opinion of Americans by interpreting the events of that terrible day included a one-two punch to drive the “facts” home. First, the president appears during intermission on the airing of the second day and delivers a speech nationwide. Then, Scholastic attempts to offer material to high school aged children to further drive home this interpretation.

That is what the neo-fascists planned. It is not what happened.

First, knowledgeable Americans urged parents to boycott Scholastic, an education publishing powerhouse. Many of us Americans voiced opinions by calling ABC, thereby further pressuring Scholastic to pull out of this impending train wreck.

Scholastic should never have allowed themselves to get mixed up in the despicable business of distorting history in the first place. Furthermore, Scholastic should have refrained from using the fifth anniversary of this tragedy to get involved in the business of exploiting people’s grief.*

As for me, Dot Calm, soft music wafted through the rooms and tears rolled down my cheeks as I thought of the survivors, especially the children, and prayed for worldwide peace and understanding.

* Why get our bloomers in a wad? The Washington Redskins played opposite the second night of the mockudrama, clearly placing the importance of this rot in proper perspective.

And this from Keith Olbermann

This hole in the ground

Half a lifetime ago, I worked in this now-empty space. And for 40 days after the attacks, I worked here again, trying to make sense of what happened, and was yet to happen, as a reporter.

All the time, I knew that the very air I breathed contained the remains of thousands of people, including four of my friends, two in the planes and -- as I discovered from those "missing posters" seared still into my soul -- two more in the Towers.

And I knew too, that this was the pyre for hundreds of New York policemen and firemen, of whom my family can claim half a dozen or more, as our ancestors.

I belabor this to emphasize that, for me this was, and is, and always shall be, personal.

And anyone who claims that I and others like me are "soft,"or have "forgotten" the lessons of what happened here is at best a grasping, opportunistic, dilettante and at worst, an idiot whether he is a commentator, or a Vice President, or a President.

However, of all the things those of us who were here five years ago could have forecast -- of all the nightmares that unfolded before our eyes, and the others that unfolded only in our minds -- none of us could have predicted this.
Five years later this space is still empty.

Five years later there is no memorial to the dead.

Five years later there is no building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards and criminals.

Five years later this country's wound is still open.

Five years later this country's mass grave is still unmarked.

Five years later this is still just a background for a photo-op.

It is beyond shameful.

At the dedication of the Gettysburg Memorial -- barely four months after the last soldier staggered from another Pennsylvania field -- Mr. Lincoln said, "we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

Lincoln used those words to immortalize their sacrifice.

Today our leaders could use those same words to rationalize their reprehensible inaction. "We cannot dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground." So we won't.

Instead they bicker and buck pass. They thwart private efforts, and jostle to claim credit for initiatives that go nowhere. They spend the money on irrelevant wars, and elaborate self-congratulations, and buying off columnists to write how good a job they're doing instead of doing any job at all.

Five years later, Mr. Bush, we are still fighting the terrorists on these streets. And look carefully, sir, on these 16 empty acres. The terrorists are clearly, still winning.

And, in a crime against every victim here and every patriotic sentiment you mouthed but did not enact, you have done nothing about it.

And there is something worse still than this vast gaping hole in this city, and in the fabric of our nation. There is its symbolism of the promise unfulfilled, the urgent oath, reduced to lazy execution.

The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support.

Those who did not belong to his party -- tabled that.

Those who doubted the mechanics of his election -- ignored that.

Those who wondered of his qualifications -- forgot that.

History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government by its critics. It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation's wounds, but to take political advantage.

Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.

The President -- and those around him -- did that.

They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, "bi-partisanship" meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused, as appeasers, as those who, in the Vice President's words yesterday, "validate the strategy of the terrorists."

They promised protection, and then showed that to them "protection" meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken, a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated al-Qaida as much as we did.

The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had 'something to do' with 9/11 is "lying by implication."
The impolite phrase is "impeachable offense."

Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space, and to this, the current, curdled, version of our beloved country.

Still, there is a last snapping flame from a final candle of respect and fairness: even his most virulent critics have never suggested he alone bears the full brunt of the blame for 9/11.

Half the time, in fact, this President has been so gently treated, that he has seemed not even to be the man most responsible for anything in his own administration.

Yet what is happening this very night?

A mini-series, created, influenced -- possibly financed by -- the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis, continues to be televised into our homes.

The documented truths of the last fifteen years are replaced by bald-faced lies; the talking points of the current regime parroted; the whole sorry story blurred, by spin, to make the party out of office seem vacillating and impotent, and the party in office, seem like the only option.

How dare you, Mr. President, after taking cynical advantage of the unanimity and love, and transmuting it into fraudulent war and needless death, after monstrously transforming it into fear and suspicion and turning that fear into the campaign slogan of three elections? How dare you -- or those around you -- ever "spin" 9/11?

Just as the terrorists have succeeded -- are still succeeding -- as long as there is no memorial and no construction here at Ground Zero.

So, too, have they succeeded, and are still succeeding as long as this government uses 9/11 as a wedge to pit Americans against Americans.

This is an odd point to cite a television program, especially one from March of 1960. But as Disney's continuing sell-out of the truth (and this country) suggests, even television programs can be powerful things.

And long ago, a series called "The Twilight Zone" broadcast a riveting episode entitled "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street."

In brief: a meteor sparks rumors of an invasion by extra-terrestrials disguised as humans. The electricity goes out. A neighbor pleads for calm. Suddenly his car -- and only his car -- starts. Someone suggests he must be the alien. Then another man's lights go on. As charges and suspicion and panic overtake the street, guns are inevitably produced. An "alien" is shot -- but he turns out to be just another neighbor, returning from going for help. The camera pulls back to a near-by hill, where two extra-terrestrials are seen manipulating a small device that can jam electricity. The veteran tells his novice that there's no need to actually attack, that you just turn off a few of the human machines and then, "they pick the most dangerous enemy they can find, and it's themselves."

And then, in perhaps his finest piece of writing, Rod Serling sums it up with words of remarkable prescience, given where we find ourselves tonight: "The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men.

"For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own -- for the children, and the children yet unborn."

When those who dissent are told time and time again -- as we will be, if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public chorus -- that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of it, we are somehow un-American...When we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11"... look into this empty space behind me and the bi-partisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me:

Who has left this hole in the ground?

We have not forgotten, Mr. President.

You have.

May this country forgive you.
Sept. 11, 2006 | 3:19 p.m. ET

Thank you, Keith. Thank you for speaking truth to power for all of us. -- Dot Calm.

Do you know...

President Truman proposed national health care? However, he was unsuccessful in getting a program in this country, even though both Germany and Japan enjoyed national health care.

A professor from Brigham Young University was sanctioned for writing about the steel used in the World Trade Center?

The United States borrows $2,000,000,000 daily? Japan and China hold our debt.

The war in Iraq costs $1,500,000,000 weekly?

Exxon Mobil profits were $36,000,000,000 last year?

*************************************************************
FUN--THE REPUBLICAN WAY

Catch Illegal Immigrants and Fun With Guns are just two of the negative campaign tactics planned to kick-off the fall season by the RNC. Yes, it will open with a Shoot an Illegal Immigrant Day using bb guns or paint guns. Do these activities seem un-American and violent? Nah. just some horseplay the Republican way. Why does this not surprise me? A jewel of a guy named Morgan Wilkins is in charge of the festivities.
*************************************************************

Bigs on Boondoggles Thanks to Big Pharm

This article comes from my new favorite site: International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). Just look what the “bigs” have been up to as the rest of us attempt to eke out a living. -- Dot Calm.

Drug Makers' “Dime” Funds Congressional Travel
Pharmaceutical Companies and Affiliated Trade Groups Spent More than $600,000 on Trips

By Robert Brodsky and Kaitlin Hasseler

WASHINGTON, August 30, 2006--Members of Congress and their aides accepted more than $600,000 in free travel from pharmaceutical interests during a 5½-year period in which drug company profits climbed, in part due to federal legislation favorable to the industry.

Dozens of the trips were approved by lawmakers, who had significant personal interests in the pharmaceutical industry or later worked with drug-makers. Almost all of those same legislators voted in favor of the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Act, which led to a windfall of profits for the industry.

"It's been a highly profitable trade-off" for pharmaceutical companies, said James Love, a drug industry critic and the director of the nonprofit Consumer Project on Technology. "They give out some free perks, hand out some rides on private jets, sponsor some trips and give some campaign donations. And in return, they make billions."

Katrina Update

This week marks the beginning of the second year of efforts in New Orleans and on the Mississippi Gulf Coast to rebuild after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina on August 29th, 2005. There is still a great need for support at many levels, including health, housing, and education.

So there, fellow Americans, read it and weep.