Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Below is a link and excerpt of an op-ed offered by David Broder from the Washington Post last Thursday that is highly critical of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. A few posts back, this blog offered a criticism of a Washington Post article and I noted it annoyed me and that was WaPo’s right and I had a right to point out my disagreement with the article. This time I am offering support of the WaPo article identified here as a reasonable appraisal of what is wrong with Senator Harry Reid. His statement that the ‘war is lost’ is reason enough to lodge such a criticism. David Broder merely expands on that theme with more reasons for the criticism.

The Democrats’ Gonzales

By David S. Broder
Thursday, April 26, 2007; A29

Here’s a Washington political riddle where you fill in the blanks: As Alberto Gonzales is to the Republicans, Blank Blank is to the Democrats — a continuing embarrassment thanks to his amateurish performance.

If you answered ” Harry Reid,” give yourself an A. And join the long list of senators of both parties who are ready for these two springtime exhibitions of ineptitude to end.

The Dems and their supporters appear to be angry about the Broder op-ed. And people like Paul Begala have resorted to Marcottesque rants to express their disdain. And the Senate leaders or Dem caucus and whoever else claimed to be 50 in number have expressed their dissatisfaction with Broder in a letter to the Washington Post.

These are the same Dems who have spent nearly their entire time in this session as the majority party criticizing and bashing the President while at the same time claiming they have accomplished so much since the midterms. When someone in the press expresses criticism of a Democrat, they send a letter repeating their claims of ‘great strides’ in legislation that still has not been completed. They further state Harry Reid has ‘accomplished all of this’ and I ask, all of what?

Below is the complete letter sent by the Dems to the Washington Post in response to the David Broder op-ed:

April 27, 2007

Sen. Reid’s Fine Leadership

The Senate Democratic Caucus sent a letter to the Washington Post to contest the attack on Senator Harry Reid’s Leadership by David S. Broder in his April 26 column, “The Democrat’s Gonzalez.”

The letter was signed by Sen. Reid’s 50 colleagues in the caucus:

Sen. Reid’s Fine Leadership
Washington Post
Letter to the Editor
Friday, April 27, 2007; A22

We, the members of the Senate Democratic Caucus, contest the attack on Sen. Harry Reid’s leadership by David S. Broder in his April 26 column, “The Democrats’ Gonzales.”

In contrast to Mr. Broder’s insinuations, we believe Mr. Reid is an extraordinary leader who has effectively guided the new Democratic majority through these first few months with skill and aplomb.

The Democratic caucus is diverse, and Mr. Reid has worked tirelessly to make sure that the views of each member are heard and represented. No one ideology dominates the caucus, so that a consensus can be reached and unity achieved. It is hard to imagine a better model for leadership.

Because Mr. Reid has the support of members of the caucus, is a good listener and has an amazing ability to synthesize views and bring people together, the Senate has accomplished a great deal during his time as majority leader. Armed with his years of service in the Senate and with a mastery of procedure, Mr. Reid has led the chamber with a slim majority and a minority that is, at times, determined to stop legislation with which it disagrees.

In the first 100 days alone, we made great strides under his leadership on long-neglected legislation concerning stem cell research, the Sept. 11 commission’s recommendations and the minimum wage, to name three. In addition, under Mr. Reid’s leadership, we have fulfilled our obligation, left uncompleted by last year’s Republican-led Senate, to fund the federal government. He has accomplished all of this in the face of stiff opposition and with a commitment to giving ideas full opportunity for debate.

Finally, in this age of scripted politicians speaking only to their base or claiming that they “don’t recall” anything, the fact that Mr. Reid speaks his mind should be applauded, not derided. His brand of straight talk is honest, comes from the heart and speaks directly to the people.

THE MEMBERS

OF THE SENATE

DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS

Washington

In the subsequent article below, offered today, David Broder continues to defend his position. It is important to point out that the original op-ed not only criticized Harry Reid but included AG Alberto Gonzales and the President’s support of him as an equally indefensible position and examples of what is wrong in Washington.

Broder Tells ‘E&P’ That He Stands By His Blast At Harry Reid

By Dave Astor
Published: April 30, 2007 12:30 PM ET

NEW YORK David Broder said he wouldn’t change anything in his April 26 column, which angered many readers and caused 50 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus to write a letter criticizing Broder in Friday’s Washington Post.

Last but not least are some excerpts and links to various expressions of opposition to the Broder piece. And of course , I for one, do not agree with those who attack the op-ed from David Broder. But then, I’m not a Democrat.

Paul Begala: David Broder Is a Gasbag

Yahoo! News -Apr 26, 2007

David Broder’s Shameless Screed Against Harry Reid

Think Progress, DC - Apr 26, 2007

Democratic Caucus Puts Smackdown on David Broder

Huffington Post, NY - Apr 27, 2007

David Broder: Wrong Again

23 Apr 2007 by BarbinMD
For those of you who can’t get enough of the “dean” of the Washington press corps, David Broder took his particular brand of idiocy on the road today in an interview on XM radio (from Think Progress): …

On a related note I would like to emphasize that Senator Harry Reid as well as Speaker Nancy Pelosi are guilty of bad judgment at the very least by their most outrageous actions since the session began. To undermine the executive branch with ‘diplomatic trips’ to Assad in Syria as well as mistakes in speaking for the leader of Israel and calling out that the ‘war is lost’ in Iraq are doing more harm than the Dems have the ability to see or understand.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, Mark My Words, Big Dog’s Weblog, The Pet Haven Blog, DragonLady’s World, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Pursuing Holiness, Pet’s Garden Blog, Rightlinx, third world county, Stageleft, , stikNstein… has no mercy, The Right Nation, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wake Up America, Dumb Ox Daily News, A Blog For All, The Random Yak, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, Maggie’s Notebook, basil’s blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao’s Blog, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Faultline USA, Allie Is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, CORSARI D’ITALIA, High Desert Wanderer, Gone Hollywood, and OTB Sports, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

crossposted at Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog

Here comes the first of another series of reviews on what politicians post at The Hill’s Congress Blog at blog.thehill.com. You have to fall within blog.thehill.com’s criteria for worthy commenters or your comment will not get published. But we are ok with that because, one, we’re not sure we want to fit that criteria and, two, it gives us an excuse to post our comments as we see fit.

Any trip we take to this particular blog in search of blog fodder starts at the most recent post and works back. When we have had our fill and found enough to post, the most recent entry gets to go first here. It’s fascinating how politicians avoid talking to constituents as much as possible, refuse to engage the press or media unless stringent controls are in place and flatly dodge the media when in trouble. Rather than actually doing something to get the job done, they spend a great deal of time publishing press releases and making speeches designed to criticize others for why the work is not getting done or done correctly. Rep. Charles Boustany, Jr, MD is a case in point.

Partisan Squabbling Does Nothing to Help Our Troops

(Rep. Charles Boustany)
April 28th, 2007

It gives me no pleasure to vote against a bill that includes many programs I have been advocating since Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. In the end, the restrictions this bill places on our men and women in uniform, and the process that was abused to buy its passage, gave me no other choice. I cannot vote for a bill that ties the hands of our troops in the field.

Everyone on the planet should know that the current majority party is the Democrats. In addition, it is also common knowledge that the Dems have spent this short majority history doing nothing but bashing and attempting to undermine the President of the United States, claiming everyone in America is for cut and run and also loading their cut and run legislation proposal with pork to get enough votes to override the President’s veto pen.

So GOP Rep Charles Boustany, Jr, MD, please stop putting lipstick on this pig and admit you are voting party line because you were elected in 2004, re-elected in 2006 and are quite comfortable being a rookie Congressman doing what you are told. So what have you done in the two plus years you have been in office?

From his campaign website, a detailed and still vague endorsement that characterizes typical political rhetoric designed to make candidate look good without any substance. Saving your wetlands how, exactly? Working to reduce dependency on foreign oil how, exactly? Yes, you are not going to tell us. Exactly.

Nov 6, 2006 - Daily Advertiser Endorses Boustany

Article published Nov 6, 2006 in The Daily Advertiser, Lafayette, LA
We endorse Boustany’s candidacy
When we endorsed the candidacy of Charles Boustany Jr. in October 2004 - his first campaign for public office - our support was based on his carefully crafted plan to strengthen our area and make better the lives of our people - his “Prescription for Prosperity.”

We don’t know how or why Rep Boustany would claim to be interested in weaning us off of oil with all the energy related business in his part of the country. But he sure has done well pushing money to the state of LA. Of the $13.2 Billion for 700 water resources projects, including flood related, $3 billion is going to his state.

As said earlier about putting lipstick on the pig, a rookie Congressman explaining his reason for voting party line as other than voting party line, while he gets 3 billion for his state in water resources and flood money and looks to gain road construction money while he sits on the appropriate committee. This smells like politics, not an honest concern about which way to vote on a party split appropriations Democrat cut and run bill.

And as a side note, Louisiana is reported to favor Edwards in 2008 while Boustany, understandably endorses a GOP candidate and his official choice is Giuliani. And Boustany’s campaign finances as reported by the Center for Responsive Politics (opensecrets.org) is about evenly split between individuals and PACs at a total near $1.5 million. Some of the money is from single issue PACs.

The following is Rep Boustany’s lone bill introduction that does not seem to cover those items the previously mentioned endorsement included as a reason to vote for him.

H.CON.RES.54
Title: Expressing the support of Congress for the creation of a National Hurricane Museum and Science Center in Southwest Louisiana.
Sponsor: Rep Boustany, Charles W., Jr. [LA-7] (introduced 2/5/2007) Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: S.CON.RES.8
Latest Major Action: 2/7/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands.

This post is not a disapproval or approval of this Congressman overall. The reason is because this was not an exhaustinve investigation but some basic research to support some commentary about his post on Congress Blog.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Welcome to Blog @ MoreWhat.com’s Open Trackback

Secure the Borders Linkfest

This is an open trackback linkfest. The Secure the Borders theme is held over another day. We have no reason to think it is necessary to provide any disclaimers, warranties, discounts or warnings. If you have any suggestions, criticisms, questions or just feel the need to communicate, trackback or let us know in the comments. Please donate a minute of your time for the QotD, you can answer the question of the day in the comments section.

Stanford Matthews and C. Harris
MoreWhat.com

JIHAD stands for Jesus I Have A Deathwish.
.
.

Question of the Day: What penalties should apply to employers hiring illegal immigrants?

(you can post your answer in comments)

We suggest using the Linkfest Haven Deluxe Trackback pinger for ease of use and time savings to catch all the festive linking activities today. Or, if you have done this less than we have, the permalink for this Open Trackback is the title link and the trackback is located near the bottom of the permalink page for this post. Just poke around, you’ll find it.

links in the sidebar

It is often helpful to look back from time to time and view the opinions and positions as well as public statements of our elected officials. We offer a copy of a press release from about a year and a half ago. This is from Senator Chuck Schumer and includes a letter to President Bush regarding the Iraq war. Although Senator Schumer’s understanding of war hasn’t seemed to improve since then, the passages highlighted in red are certainly interesting and a contrast to Democratic leadership in 2007.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 11, 2005

Schumer Urges Bush To Appoint Distinguished Delegation Of Former Military Leaders To Examine Iraqi Troop Training/Deployment And Report To Public

Today Sen. Chuck Schumer will send a letter to President Bush urging him to immediately appoint a distinguished delegation of retired military leaders to go to Iraq, examine the failures in troop training and deployment, and make a public report to the Congress and American people quickly. Schumer suggested that former military leaders like General Tommy Franks, General Norman Schwarzkopf, and Secretary Colin Powell should go to Iraq to make a first hand assessment about why the President’s troop training plan is not going well. From all reports there is only one single battalion out of 97 that are ready to fight on its own in Iraq - that is only 750 troops.

Schumer said, “The lynchpin in the President’s plan for victory is training enough Iraqi troops so that they can stand up and the U.S. forces can finally stand down – so it is critical to know what is going wrong. A distinguished delegation of former military leaders like General Tommy Franks, General Norman Schwarzkopf, and Secretary Colin Powell should be sent by the President to report back to the American public as soon as possible so we can fix these serious problems.”

Schumer’s letter to the President follows:

December 11, 2005

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Bush:

As you know, the training and deployment of Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) capable of defending Iraq from outside influences and policing against domestic insurgents is a key objective of our ongoing efforts in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and one that must be completed before we can end our military presence. Like you, I recognize that America must succeed in Iraq and in order to accomplish that goal I steadfastly support the establishment of a competent and capable ISF.

I am troubled by recent reports that the establishment of such forces is not moving forward as well as was hoped, and by the continuing inability to obtain a definitive assessment of the current status and abilities of the ISF. These matters lie at the very heart of the length and success of American military involvement in Iraq, and it is important for the American people to fully understand how much progress we have made in helping to establish the ISF.

I am deeply concerned that the lack of this information will make it increasingly difficult to chart a proper course in Iraq and may ultimately serve to undermine our chances of success. In order to give America the best chance for lasting victory in Iraq, I urge you to appoint a senior delegation of distinguished retired military leaders to travel to Iraq, assess the situation for themselves, and issue a public report of their findings.

As you have often said yourself, “As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.” Unfortunately, information available on the training and readiness of the ISF makes it difficult to predict when this will occur. For instance, in October it was revealed that out of over ninety ISF battalions, the number of fully independent, or “Category One” ISF battalions was revised down from three to one. The fact that two battalions were apparently downgraded would appear to be a significant step backward. In order to prevent any further regressions, it is important to have full and clear accounting of the situation on the ground and an explanation as to how this occurred.

There are also important and unanswered questions as to the actual size and cohesiveness of the ISF. As of mid-November the Department of Defense indicated that there were 211,700 members of the ISF, only about 65% of the number hoped to be reached by August of 2007. If we are to be successful in Iraq, we must clearly understand whether it is possible to complete training those already enlisted, as well as recruit and train the remaining personnel before the deadline.

Similarly, information from the GAO would indicate that there is a significant chance that possibly tens of thousands of those in the police component of the ISF may have deserted. Concerns also abound that the ISF is still 18-24 months away from operational independence and lack a sufficient command structure, and are a target for insurgent infiltration. Obviously, we need to get to the bottom of whether or not the ranks of the ISF are stable and cohesive before we can certify that they have been fully trained and are ready to assume independent responsibility for Iraq’s security.

I agree with you that the stakes in Iraq and that the United States must succeed in its work there. By providing an unvarnished analysis of ISF numbers, capability, and cohesion the delegation I am asking you to appoint could provide the American people with an honest assessment of our progress, inform the Administration and Congress of the best path to take forward, and allow us to move toward the shared goal of bringing our troops home and out of harms way. I urge you to appoint this delegation as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Schumer
United States Senate

It is not often that I take exception to something written in the Washington Post. And those of you who rightly pound on the main stream media on a regular basis should not get the idea that I ever blindly defend the news media. But I do feel that the Washington Post frequently does a reasonable job. But this time they’re annoying me. And that’s their right.

It is also my right to point it out. It comes from the article titled, ‘Democratic Hopefuls Show Political Heft.’ To say that the Democratic field of candidates match the quality of any in decades is preposterous. The same could be said of the Republican field of candidates. This does not mean they are not necessarily unworthy of the right to run. It may be more accurately described as this is what is available.

The minimum number of decades considered to be plural would be two. Obviously it is 2007. In 1987, George Herbert Walker Bush was the default GOP candidate of a successful two-term President by the name of Ronald Reagan. And if limited to Democratic candidates whether nominated or not in the last two decades the WaPo author may have a point. But if there are no shining examples of worthy Presidential candidates in a particular time frame, defining the current field as matching the quality is at best misleading.

If merely being elected to the office of governor, congressman or senator distinguishes a candidate with some laudable quality than the bar has been set way too low for vetting candidates. Hillary Rodham Clinton represents New York in the Senate. Could it be the Democratic party determined this one time Republican could win in a big ‘D’ district and have the GOP concur by providing only a sacrificial lamb as an opponent to her re-election? Why else would Hillary Rodham Clinton be a Senator from New York. Check the success of the other candidates and see if their stories are not similar.

Before the over-hyped Democratic debate that was refused to Fox News in favor of MSNBC, Brian Adams was on David Letterman’s show dissin’ the notion of the entire thing and debates essentially being a joke. For the author of the WaPo piece to express any positive impressions over their responses to ‘debate’ questions is also meaningless. Why do so many place such importance on what candidates say before an election? Have we not learned of the legions of campaign experts, professionals, gurus and the like employed by candidates to have them stay on message and do what they are supposed to in achieving the desired result. And how about the well established criticism of American election politics that have rendered it a mere game of ye who raises the most money wins?

Quality candidates would be a laughable description if the absence of a quality field of candidates was not so pathetic a reminder of this important component of governing that has gone AWOL from American politics.

The other article source with this post is simply provided as a reminder on what the quality of the Democratic field of candidates for President as well as the party leadership focus all their attention. Bashing the President rather than lending a hand to allow this country to succeed. And offering valueless proposals for the country’s future that pander to a clueless voting demographic is equally reprehensible.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Democratic Hopefuls Show Political Heft

ORANGEBURG, S.C., April 26 — In the final minute of Thursday night’s televised Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware was asked by NBC’s Brian Williams if he saw anybody on stage, aside possibly from himself, who could lead the party to victory next year.

Candidates Unite in Criticizing Bush

ORANGEBURG, S.C., April 26 — Democratic presidential candidates largely set aside their differences here Thursday and presented a united front of opposition to President Bush and his Iraq policy, urging the president not to veto newly passed legislation that sets a timetable for beginning the wi…

MIT has an impressive record as an academic institution of higher learning and leading edge research organization. But since we don’t really mind having fun at someone else’s expense from time to time, a recent pair of press releases from MIT got our attention for just such a purpose. While MIT has quite the reputation for academic excellence and research, there is a chance their ‘human resources’ department may have been asleep at the wheel for a few decades.

So for a little weekend humor we offer you one of the shortest press releases we ever remember seeing, followed by the shortest PR we ever remember seeing. The person who is the subject of both press releases may be able to salvage a career in a new cottage industry showing people how to pad their resume successfully for nearly three decades.

Dean of admissions resigns

April 26, 2007

Marilee Jones, dean of admissions, has resigned effective immediately, after it was confirmed that she had “misrepresented her academic degrees to the Institute,” Dean for Undergraduate Education Daniel E. Hastings announced in an e-mail to the MIT community today.

Stuart Schmill has been named interim director of admissions, effective immediately, and a search process for a permanent head of admissions will begin shortly, according to Hastings.

“This is a sad and unfortunate event,” said Hastings. “But the integrity of the Institute is our highest priority, and we cannot tolerate this kind of behavior.”

Hastings noted in his statement that the MIT admissions process is built on the dedication of dozens of faculty and staff who commit themselves to the selection of MIT’s undergraduate students.

“The process of admitting the incoming class continues without disruption,” Hastings said.

Jones issued a separate statement following her resignation.

Statement by Marilee Jones

April 26, 2007

“I have resigned as MIT’s Dean of Admissions because very regrettably, I misled the Institute about my academic credentials.

“I misrepresented my academic degrees when I first applied to MIT 28 years ago and did not have the courage to correct my resume when I applied for my current job or at any time since.

“I am deeply sorry for this and for disappointing so many in the MIT community and beyond who supported me, believed in me, and who have given me extraordinary opportunities.

“I especially apologize to the Institute’s leadership and to my extraordinary staff, whom I have every confidence will continue to deliver on the Institute’s mission.

“This is the only public comment I wish to make at this personally difficult time and I hope my privacy will be respected.”

In reply to the former Dean of Admissions request, we will respect her request for privacy beyond this publicly released, well, press release. You decided to pad your resume. You chose not to tell the truth then or for the last 28 years and my guess is, someone finally noticed. No sympathy here especially when you enjoyed the ill gotten gains for nearly three decades with a shortage of remorse, not courage, to tell the truth. Shame on you. There lies (pun intended) the justification for a little humor in this post at your expense. Do you suppose that is her real name? Ok, we’re done now.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, Big Dog’s Weblog, Shadowscope, The Pet Haven Blog, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, Pet’s Garden Blog, Rightlinx, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Stageleft, , stikNstein… has no mercy, Pirate’s Cove, The Right Nation, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, A Blog For All, 123beta, Maggie’s Notebook, Adam’s Blog, basil’s blog, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, CORSARI D’ITALIA, and OTB Sports, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Professor Stephen Hawking Experiences the Freedom of Weightlessness During Historic Zero-Gravity Flight Out of Kennedy Space Center

Flight Raises More Than $144,000 for Charitable Organizations Serving Children, the Disabled, and Science and Space; Momentous Flight Sponsored by Space Florida and The Sharper ImageCAPE CANAVERAL, FL — (MARKET WIRE) — April 26, 2007 — Zero Gravity Corporation (ZERO-G®), and its sponsors, Space Florida and The Sharper Image, successfully flew world-renowned physicist, cosmologist, and best-selling author Professor Stephen Hawking into weightlessness today, performing eight parabolas, even though he only planned for one. It was the first time Professor Hawking, the world’s leading expert on gravity, had an opportunity to experience zero gravity. The ZERO-G Experience™ flight with Professor Hawking took off from the Shuttle Landing Facility at the Kennedy Space Center in Central Florida.

“It was amazing. The zero-g part was wonderful,” said Professor Stephen Hawking. “I could have gone on and on — space here I come!”

Hawking added, “I recommend the experience to everyone and I hope that many will follow me and experience weightlessness. There are a few people and organizations I would like to thank. First I’d like to thank Zero Gravity Corporation, The Shaper Image and Peter Diamandis for arranging this for me. Second, I’d like to thank Space Florida and the NASA Kennedy Space Center for being my host. The Space Shuttle Landing Facility is the first step to the moon and Mars. It is very special for me, to fly into weightlessness from here.”

(Click here for details)
Professor Stephen Hawking experiences the freedom of
weightlessness during historic zero-gravity flight out of Kennedy
Space Center, Cape Canaveral, FL, April 26, 2007.

“Professor Hawking’s expression said it all — the grins of sheer joy and excitement he displayed were unmistakable and no different than the giddiness and fun that all of our flyers experience,” said Dr. Peter H. Diamandis, CEO and Co-Founder of ZERO-G. “For me personally, and for all of us at ZERO-G, it has been a complete honor and thrill to give Professor Hawking this opportunity to fulfill one of his lifelong dreams.”

Professor Hawking did not fly with his wheelchair; rather, he was placed flat on his back, on the specially padded floor in the center of the large open cabin at the start of each parabola. He then floated up into the center of the cabin. ZERO-G co-founders Dr. Peter H. Diamandis (pictured right), and astronaut Byron Lichtenberg were positioned alongside of Hawking as he floated weightless (pictured left) with the assistance of nurse practitioner Nicola O’Brien, then carefully guided him slowly back down to the floor during the return to normal gravity. The onboard flight’s crew and staff included four physicians, two of which are members of Hawking’s own medical team.

The Hawking flight was also organized as a benefit for several charitable organizations, namely Easter Seals (www.easterseals.com); the Starlight Starbright Children’s Foundation (www.starlight.org); the X PRIZE Foundation (www.xprize.org) and Augie’s Quest (www.augiesquest.org). ZERO-G donated two seats aboard the Hawking flight to each group, for them to then auction off. Altogether, the charities raised $144,000, which included $75,000 raised by the Starlight Starbright Children’s Foundation for the two tickets it auctioned on eBay. In addition to the flight itself, the donors and other passengers that participated also enjoyed a Space Florida-sponsored dinner and lecture by Professor Hawking at the JW Marriott in Orlando on Wednesday evening, April 25.

In preparation for the actual flight, Zero Gravity Corporation scheduled a training flight yesterday, Wednesday, April 25, 2007. The flight included Professor Hawking’s personal staff, medical team, a Hawking body-double and ZERO-G’s coaching team. Space Florida, the organization charged with promoting commercial space tourism in the state of Florida, served as the flight’s education sponsor and selected a Florida teacher and student to participate in this experience.

Ted Straight, an 8th grader at Stone Middle School in Melbourne, FL of similar height, weight and build as Professor Hawking, had the prestigious honor of serving as Hawking’s stand-in, or body-double, on yesterday’s training flight. Susan Harris, a teacher at Hill-Gustat Middle School in Highlands County, FL, participated in both the training flight and the flight with Professor Hawking, during which she served as a flight coach. Harris is recording and sharing her experience on the Hawking flight via a blog on the ZERO-G site — www.gozerog.com.

Said Steve Kohler, Executive Director of Space Florida, “We are proud to be a part of this unique event, as well as the sponsor of last night’s pre-flight dinner and lecture by Prof. Hawking. Florida has been the aerospace leader in the past and through our partnerships with innovative companies like ZERO-G, we will continue to be the global leader in space research, development, exploration and commerce.”

The Sharper Image, who co-sponsored this flight, recently announced that it will be selling ZERO-G flights commercially through its 187 retail locations nationwide. Individuals interested in purchasing seats can do so by visiting The Sharper Image stores or website, or by going to www.gozerog.com.

Prof. Hawking’s best-selling books, “A Brief History of Time” and “Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays,” examine the basic laws, history and future of the universe. Hawking is known for his contributions to the fields of cosmology and quantum gravity, especially in the context of black holes. He has also made public his interest in experiencing weightlessness, and the importance of space as the next frontier for human population.

The ZERO-G Experience consists of a brief training session for flyers (ZERO-G passengers) followed by a 90-minute flight aboard G-Force One, during which parabolic maneuvers are performed. The controlled ascent and descent of the plane allows flyers to experience gravity on Mars (1/3-gravity); the moon (1/6-gravity); and in zero-g space. Since launching its service to the general public in September 2004, the company has conducted more than 100 weightless flights and flown more than 2,500 passengers, including celebrities and personalities, corporate charters, science and math teachers, and individuals age 12 to 85.

G-Force One is a specially modified, 35-passenger Boeing 727-200, and The ZERO-G Experience™ is the only FAA-approved weightless flight experience available to the general public. The weightless flights are similar to those conducted by NASA for more than 40 years to train its astronauts. ZERO-G was recently granted FAA approval to fly individuals with disabilities. ZERO-G operates under the highest safety standards as set by the FAA (Part-121) with its partner Amerijet International. Aircraft operations take place under the same regulations set for commercial passenger airlines.

About ZERO-G

Zero Gravity Corporation (www.GoZeroG.com) is a privately held space entertainment and tourism company whose mission is to make the excitement and adventure of space accessible to the public. ZERO-G is based in Florida and Las Vegas, Nevada, and is the first and only FAA-approved provider of weightless flight to the general public, as well as the entertainment and film industries; corporate and incentive market; non-profit research and education sectors; and government. For more information about ZERO-G, please visit http://www.GoZeroG.com or call (800) ZERO-G-800.

Hillary Rodham Clinton does not know how to speak the truth. The excerpt and link below are another indication of her willingness to spin every action to what she believes is a positive light and further indication of Democrats and their supporters to allow it by not calling her on it. Had a Republican or other non-Democrat put on a fake Southern accent while addressing the same audience as did Hillary Rodham Clinton, they would have been verbally impaled for some trumped up charge of being insensitive, not PC, a racist or a bigot.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Hillary Clinton Defends Southern Accent on Campaign Trail

Friday, April 27, 2007
GREENVILLE, S.C. — Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday she sees her sometimes Southern accent as a virtue.
“I think America is ready for a multilingual president,” Clinton said during a campaign stop at a charter school in Greenville, S.C.
The New York senator — who said she’s been thinking about critics who’ve suggested that she tried to put on a fake Southern accent in Selma, Ala. — noted that she’s split her life between Arkansas, Illinois and the East Coast.
Clinton added a Southern lilt to her voice last week when addressing a civil rights group in New York City headed by the Rev. Al Sharpton.

The recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Gonzales v Carhart, a press release by the ACLU and actions by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and others have presented a reason for this writer to reconsider a position of favoring what may be called a pro-choice stance on abortion.

More accurately, my personal view toward pro-choice was primarily governed by a reluctance to support the complete elimination of any choice a person can reasonably select especially when the public is largely divided on the topic. Allowing a woman to abort a pregnancy that resulted from rape, incest or one which threatened her own life did not seem to me to be unreasonable. And in general, choosing to abort shortly after conception, while not a choice to be advocated, may prove reasonable under some circumstance.

I never believed it was proper to perform an abortion on a whim or as a convenience or as contraception for dummies. And under no circumstance do I believe a partial birth, late term, 2nd or 3rd trimester abortion or whatever you choose to call it, is an acceptable abortion choice.

The Supreme Court decision to uphold a ban on what may be characterized as late term abortions, as defined in the majority opinion of Gonzales v Carhart (click here to download pdf file), the reaction to the opinion by what appears to be most pro-choice advocates and a redundant legislative proposal supported by Senator Barbara Boxer and others has caused me to reexamine my position on this topic.

If the details of ‘ending fetal life’ as discussed in Gonzales v Carhart are not sufficient to convince every person as to the barbaric nature and unnecessary selection of this particular ‘medical’ procedure and that no one should be allowed to make this selection, the ability of our species to advance beyond our current condition is severely limited.

While many arguments could be presented to compare and contrast my conclusion in the preceding paragraph, how anyone can defend the use of the procedure described above is beyond my ability to understand. Therefore, I honestly submit that the ACLU, Senator Barbara Boxer and others are entirely and completely misguided in opposing the Supreme Court ruling in Gonzales v Carhart. And even if it were put to a public vote as to whether or not Roe v Wade should be upheld or discarded solely based on late term abortions I would have to agree with it being discarded. And that comes from a largely pro-choice advocate.

Of the many other viewpoints and arguments available, I would like to add that there are many other issues within this topic that need to be addressed. A brief example would be that if men are to held liable for the care and well-being of any child for which they are the biological father, then allowing the woman to have complete control and rights over whether to complete or terminate a pregnancy is largely flawed. If two people are responsible for a pregnancy, then both should share the responsibilities and rights for the consequences of their actions. This of course addresses what might be described as a ‘normal’ pregnancy and not one caused by rape, incest or other situation that complicates the point. I know I just added to all the potential criticism with this last set of statements, but I trust that most readers will understand what has been expressed.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The press release from the ACLU is presented below as well as references to proposed legislation intended to circumvent the Supreme Court decision.

ACLU Applauds Introduction of the Freedom of Choice Act (4/19/2007)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today expressed its strong support for the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer (D - CA) and Representative Jerrold Nadler (D - NY). This legislation would preserve women’s health and reproductive rights by protecting their right to privacy and ability to make their own reproductive choices.

This new legislation is especially important in light of yesterday’s Supreme Court decision upholding a federal ban on certain abortion procedures over the strong objections of the medical community, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, an organization representing 90 percent of the country’s OB-GYNs.

“This latest attack on women’s reproductive health shows once again the pressing need for legislation keeping personal medical decisions in the hands of doctors and their patients,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, we still believe that doctors, not politicians, are most qualified to determine the safest course of treatment for their patients. The Freedom of Choice Act will protect women’s relationships with their doctors from political intrusion.”

The Freedom of Choice Act would restore critical protections for women’s health, a core principle of Roe v. Wade that was undercut by yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling. It would protect the right of women, in conjunction with their doctors, to make personal medical decisions and prohibit the government interfering in those decisions.

Said Fredrickson, “At a time when the core protections of Roe v. Wade are under attack, FOCA is essential to guarantee reproductive freedom in federal law for future generations of American women. The ACLU strongly supports this important legislation and urges Congress to lend the bill its support.”

2. [110th] H.R.1964 : To protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman’s freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] (introduced 4/19/2007) Cosponsors (71)
Committees: House Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 4/19/2007 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

3. [110th] S.1173 : A bill to protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman’s freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] (introduced 4/19/2007) Cosponsors (15)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 4/19/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

H.R.3719
Title: To prohibit, consistent with Roe v. Wade, the interference by the government with a woman’s right to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] (introduced 1/21/2004) Cosponsors (87)
Related Bills: S.2020
Latest Major Action: 3/1/2004 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

S.2020
Title: A bill to prohibit, consistent with Roe v. Wade, the interference by the government with a woman’s right to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] (introduced 1/22/2004) Cosponsors (17)
Related Bills: H.R.3719
Latest Major Action: 1/22/2004 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.ALL ACTIONS:

1/22/2004:
Introductory remarks on measure. (CR S186-187)
1/22/2004:
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, Big Dog’s Weblog, The Pet Haven Blog, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, Rightlinx, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein… has no mercy, , Pirate’s Cove, The Right Nation, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, A Blog For All, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, basil’s blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao’s Blog, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie Is Wired, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, and High Desert Wanderer, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

CAGW Disputes Sen. Dorgan’s Remarks on Net Neutrality

WASHINGTON, April 27 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Citizens Against
Government Waste (CAGW) today challenged Sen. Byron Dorgan’s (D-N.D.)
comments on the issue of net neutrality and warned against enacting any
type of legislation that would hurt growth and the free market on the
Internet.
Sen. Dorgan held a conference call with reporters on April 26, the
occasion of pro-net neutrality group SavetheInternet.com’s one year
anniversary. Sen. Dorgan said, “The Internet became a robust engine of
economic development by enabling anyone with a good idea to connect to
consumers and compete on a level playing field. The marketplace picked
winners and losers, not some central gatekeeper. That freedom — the very
core of what makes the Internet what it is today — must be preserved.”
“If net neutrality is enacted, Congress itself will become the
gatekeeper by imposing restrictive and unnecessary controls. Any attempt to
regulate the Internet would create an unneeded layer of government
bureaucracy on a technology that has thrived precisely because regulations
have been absent,” said CAGW President Tom Schatz.
In January, Sen. Dorgan reintroduced the misnamed Internet Freedom
Preservation Act (S. 215) in the Senate. Net neutrality would mandate that
Internet service providers carry every single piece of content and every
service available, regardless of cost or need. Content providers have
expressed concern that the ISPs would either block content or create
different tiers of online services. Such differential pricing occurs in
virtually all forms of commerce, such as charging more for faster delivery
of packages by UPS or Federal Express. Should net neutrality become law and
traffic on the Internet continue to skyrocket, the delivery of important
content, such as medical information, will receive the same treatment as
spam.
Editorial voices on op-ed pages as diverse as those of the New York
Times and Wall Street Journal have criticized net neutrality as a false
issue. Last June, the Washington Post editorialized, “The weakest aspect of
the neutrality case is that the dangers it alleges are speculative. It
seems unlikely that broadband providers will degrade Web services that
people want and far more likely that they will use non-neutrality to charge
for upgrading services that depend on fast and reliable delivery, such as
streaming high-definition video or relaying data from heart monitors.”
“Net neutrality is nothing but a solution looking for a problem. This
kind of aggressive law-making would violate the principles of both the free
market and common sense. Stepping in now could adversely affect taxpayers
and consumers by stifling the development of the high-speed Internet
services America needs to keep its economy growing and nation competitive,”
concluded Schatz.
Citizens Against Government Waste is a nonpartisan, nonprofit
organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and
mismanagement in government.

SOURCE Citizens Against Government Waste

Internet Freedom Coalition Responds to Moveon.org’s Resurrected ‘Net Neutrality’ Agenda

WASHINGTON, April 26 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Jason Wright, co-founder of the Internet Freedom Coalition, today released the following statement in response to Moveon.org and their “Save The Internet” 1st anniversary conference call with reporters:

“The inappropriately named ‘Save the Internet’ coalition is back at it, celebrating their first year of existence - a year that only has served to threaten innovation. Today’s call with reporters was more of the same. Their goal is to cripple innovation and saddle the world’s freest market - the Internet - with government regulation. Why has this group failed to get their agenda passed? Because they have dreamt up the perfect regulation in search of a complaint. They offer a solution to what is only a hypothetical problem.

“Look at their track record. They lost the federal fight to install network neutrality in 2006. Backers of net neutrality legislation in Maryland this year reversed their support and voted the bill down. The bill in California was pulled over public outcry against this onerous, unproductive call for fixing a problem that doesn’t exist.

“Consumers are winning. Access to broadband in America continues to grow as competition in the marketplace has driven prices down, making high speed broadband more affordable to a cross section of America. The number of applications utilizing these information networks has thrived: online education, telemedicine and shopping from the comfort of your own home - to name only a few. All without government meddling or intervention. If Moveon.org succeeds in regulating the Internet, it will have the effect of creating real problems - like freezing innovation in time - while ’solving’ a non-existent one.”

ABOUT IFC:

The Internet Freedom Coalition is a group of more than 30 like-minded free-market, limited government non-profit associations, individuals and think-tanks including: Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, Black America’s Political Action Committee, Catholic Citizenship, Center for Freedom and Prosperity, Center for Individual Freedom, Citizen Outreach, Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Cornerstone Policy Research, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, Ethan Allen Institute, Frontiers of Freedom, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Illinois Policy Institute, Independent Women’s Forum, Institute for Liberty, Iowa Association of Scholars, Kansas Taxpayers Network, Media Freedom Project, National Taxpayers Union, Ohio Taxpayers Association & OTA Foundation, Public Interest Institute, Reason Foundation, RightMarch.com, TechPolicyWatch.com, The Maine Heritage Policy Center, Tennessee Center for Policy Research

CAGW Tells Congress to Keep Their Hands off the Internet

WASHINGTON, April 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Citizens Against
Government Waste (CAGW) today urged Congress to say no to a national
broadband policy and government intrusion of the Internet. After the
release of a world-wide broadband usage report, Senate and House Committees
held hearings today to examine the need for further government involvement
in broadband service in light of other countries’ policies.
“The Internet has thrived in America precisely because it has been free
from government interference. The implementation of burdensome regulations,
wasteful subsidies, and complicated tax breaks that other countries are
imposing will only stifle growth and innovation,” said CAGW President Tom
Schatz. “Competition and the free market must be allowed to continue to
work.”
The Organization for Economic Co-Operation & Development (OECD)
Broadband Statistics to December 2006 report was released on April 23.
While finding that the U.S. has the most total broadband subscribers of the
30 studied countries, it ranked the United States 15th in
broadband-deployment penetration. The survey does not disclose how it
obtained its numbers and does not take into account population density or
supply and demand.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is an example of an ineffective
government program charged with increasing broadband access. Besides the
more than $30 million in broadband loans that have gone into default, the
program has lost its focus on serving rural America. The RUS has been
subsidizing private companies to provide broadband in suburban
neighborhoods that would have received service anyway. Instead of allowing
the free market to work, efficient private sector forces are crowded out by
government subsidies.
According to a September 2005 audit by the USDA Inspector General (IG),
“RUS has not exclusively served those rural communities most requiring
Federal assistance to obtain access to broadband technologies. Because RUS’
definition of ‘rural area’ is too broad to distinguish usefully between
suburban and rural communities, the agency has issued over $103.4 million
in grants and loans (nearly 12 percent of $895 million in total program
funds) to communities near metropolitan areas.” The IG report noted “one of
the more highly publicized cases, [where] RUS issued loans to a company
providing broadband access to affluent suburban communities a few miles
outside of Houston, Texas.”
“Instead of increasing government control, Congress should remove
barriers to the further flourishing of Internet usage and access by
rejecting net neutrality, continuing the Internet tax ban, and protecting
intellectual property,” concluded Schatz.
Citizens Against Government Waste is a nonpartisan, nonprofit
organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and
mismanagement in government.

SOURCE Citizens Against Government Waste

Universal Service for the 21st Century Act (Introduced in Senate)

S 711 IS 110th CONGRESS 1st Session

S. 711

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to expand the contribution base for universal service, establish a separate account within the universal service fund to support the deployment of broadband service in unserved areas of the United States, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 28, 2007

Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. DORGAN, and Mr. PRYOR) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to expand the contribution base for universal service, establish a separate account within the universal service fund to support the deployment of broadband service in unserved areas of the United States, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Universal Service for the 21st Century Act’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) The preservation and advancement of universal service is a fundamental goal of the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

(2) Access throughout the Nation to high-quality and advanced telecommunications and information services is essential to secure the many benefits of our modern society.

(3) As the Internet becomes a critical element of any economic and social growth, universal service should shift from sustaining voice grade infrastructure promoting the development of efficient and advanced networks that can sustain advanced communications services.

(4) The current structure established by the Federal Communications Commission has placed the burden of universal service support on only a limited class of carriers, causing inequities in the system, incentives to avoid contribution, and a threat to the long term sustainability of the universal service fund.

(5) Current fund contributors are paying an increasing portion of their interstate and international service revenue into the universal service fund.

(6) Any fund contribution system should be equitable, nondiscriminatory and competitively neutral, and the funding mechanism must be sufficient to ensure affordable communications services for all.

SEC. 3. UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND CONTRIBUTION REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Inclusion of Intrastate Revenues- Section 254(d) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254(d)) is amended–

(1) by striking `Every’ and inserting `Notwithstanding section 2(b) of this Act, a’;

(2) by striking `interstate’ each place it appears; and

(3) by adding at the end `Nothing in this subsection precludes a State from adopting rules or regulations to preserve and advance universal service within that State as permitted by section 2(b) and subsections (b) and (f) of this section.’.

(b) Universal Service Proceeding-

(1) PROCEEDING- The Federal Communications Commission shall initiate a proceeding, or take action pursuant to any proceeding on universal service existing on the date of enactment of this Act, to establish a permanent mechanism to support universal service, that will preserve and enhance the long term financial stability of universal service, and will promote the public interest.

(2) CRITERIA- In establishing such a permanent mechanism, the Commission may include collection methodologies such as total telecommunications revenues, the assignment of telephone numbers and any successor identifier, connections (which could include carriers with a retail connection to a customer), and any combination thereof if the methodology–

(A) promotes competitive neutrality among providers and technologies;

(B) to the greatest extent possible ensures that all communications services that are capable of supporting 2-way voice communications be included in the assessable base for universal service support;

(C) takes into account the impact on low volume users, and proportionately assesses high volume users, through a capacity analysis or some other means; and

(D) ensures that a carrier is not required to contribute more than once for the same transaction, activity, or service.

(3) EXCLUDED PROVIDERS- If a provider of communications services that are capable of supporting 2-way voice communications would not contribute under the methodology established by the Commission, the Commission shall require such a provider to contribute to universal service under an equitable alternative methodology if exclusion of the provider from the contribution base would jeopardize the preservation, enhancement, and long term sustainability of universal service.

(4) DEADLINE- The Commission shall complete the proceeding and issue a final rule not more than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 4. INTERCARRIER COMPENSATION.

(a) Jurisdiction- Notwithstanding section 2(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 152(b)), the Federal Communications Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction to establish rates for inter-carrier compensation payments and shall establish rules providing a comprehensive, unified system of inter-carrier compensation, including compensation for the origination and termination of intrastate telecommunications traffic.

(b) Criteria- In establishing these rules, and in conjunction with its action in its universal service proceeding under section 3, the Commission, in consultation with the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, shall–

(1) ensure that the costs associated with the provision of interstate and intrastate telecommunications services are fully recoverable;

(2) examine whether sufficient requirements exist to ensure traffic contains necessary identifiers for the purposes of inter-carrier compensation; and

(3) to the greatest extent possible, minimize opportunities for arbitrage.

(c) Sufficient Support- The Commission should, to the greatest extent possible, ensure that as a result of its universal service and inter-carrier compensation proceedings, the aggregate amount of universal service support and inter-carrier compensation provided to local exchange carriers with fewer than 2 percent of the Nation’s subscriber lines will be sufficient to meet the just and reasonable costs of such local exchange carriers.

(d) Negotiated Agreements- Nothing in this section precludes carriers from negotiating their own inter-carrier compensation agreements.

(e) Deadline- The Commission shall complete the pending Intercarrier Compensation proceeding in Docket No. 01-92 and issue a final rule not more than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF BROADBAND ACCOUNT WITHIN UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND.

Part I of title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 254 the following:

`SEC. 254A. BROADBAND FOR UNSERVED AREAS ACCOUNT.

`(a) Account Established-

`(1) IN GENERAL- There shall be, within the universal service fund established pursuant to section 254, a separate account to be known as the `Broadband for Unserved Areas Account’.

`(2) PURPOSE- The purpose of the account is to provide financial assistance for the deployment of broadband communications services to unserved areas throughout the United States.

`(b) Implementation-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The Commission shall by rule establish–

`(A) guidelines for determining which areas may be considered to be unserved areas for purposes of this section;

`(B) criteria for determining which facilities-based providers of broadband communications service, and which projects, are eligible for support from the account;

`(C) procedural guidelines for awarding assistance from the account on a merit-based and competitive basis;

`(D) guidelines for application procedures, accounting and reporting requirements, and other appropriate fiscal controls for assistance made available from the account; and

`(E) a procedure for making funds in the account available among the several States on an equitable basis.

`(2) STUDY AND ANNUAL REPORTS ON UNSERVED AREAS-

`(A) IN GENERAL- Within 6 months after the date of enactment of the Universal Service for the 21st Century Act, the Commission shall conduct a study to determine which areas of the United States may be considered to be `unserved areas’ for purposes of this section. For purposes of the study and for purposes of the guidelines to be established under subsection (a)(1), the availability of broadband communications services by satellite in an area shall not preclude designation of that area as unserved if the Commission determines that subscribership to the service in that area is de minimis.

`(B) ANNUAL UPDATES- The Commission shall update the study annually.

`(C) REPORT- The Commission shall transmit a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce setting forth the findings and conclusions of the Commission for the study and each update under this paragraph and making recommendations for an increase or decrease, if necessary, in the amounts credited to the account under this section.

`(3) STATE INVOLVEMENT- The Commission may delegate the distribution of funding under this section to States subject to Commission guidelines and approval by the Commission.

`(c) Limitations-

`(1) ANNUAL AMOUNT- Amounts obligated or expended under subsection (c) for any fiscal year may not exceed $500,000,000.

`(2) USE OF FUNDS- To the extent that amounts in the account are not obligated or expended for financial assistance under this section, they shall be used to support universal service under section 254.

`(3) SUPPORT LIMITED TO FACILITIES-BASED SINGLE PROVIDER PER UNSERVED AREA- Assistance under this section may be provided only to–

`(A) facilities-based providers of broadband communications service; and

`(B) 1 facility-based provider of broadband communications service in any unserved area.

`(d) Application With Sections 214, 254, and 410-

`(1) SECTION 214(e)- Section 214(e) shall not apply to the Broadband for Unserved Areas Account.

`(2) SECTION 254- Section 254 shall be applied to the Broadband for Unserved Areas Account–

`(A) by disregarding–

`(i) subsections (a) and (e) thereof; and

`(ii) any other provision thereof determined by the Commission to be inappropriate or inapplicable to implementation of this section; and

`(B) by reconciling, to the maximum extent feasible and in accordance with guidelines prescribed by the Commission, the implementation of this section with the provisions of subsections (h) and (l) thereof.

`(3) SECTION 410- Section 410 shall not apply to the Broadband for Unserved Areas Account.

`(e) Definitions- In this section:

`(1) BROADBAND-

`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `broadband’ shall be defined by the Commission in accordance with the requirements of this paragraph.

`(B) REVISION OF INITIAL DEFINITION- Within 30 days after the date of enactment of the Universal Service for the 21st Century Act, the Commission shall revise its definition of broadband to require a data rate–

`(i) greater than the 200 kilobits per second standard established in its Section 706 Report (14 FCC Rec. 2406); and

`(ii) consistent with data rates for broadband communications services generally available to the public on the date of enactment of that Act.

`(C) ANNUAL REVIEW OF DEFINITION- The Commission shall review its definition of broadband no less frequently than once each year and revise that definition as appropriate.

`(2) BROADBAND COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE DEFINED- The term `broadband communications service’ means a high-speed communications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video communications using any technology.’.

SEC. 6. IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 254A.

The Federal Communications Commission shall complete a proceeding and issue a final rule to implement section 254A of the Communications Act of 1934 not more than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

FAIRFAX, Va., April 20 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — PoliticalDerby.com
today released the latest edition of the 2008 White House Power Rankings.
Rudy Giuliani continues to hold his lead in the top spot among republicans.
Mitt Romney has jumped into second and John McCain finds himself in third,
his lowest ranking of the year. Two candidates not yet running, Fred
Thompson and Newt Gingrich, fall in at numbers four and five, respectively.
On the democratic side Barack Obama has moved into a tie with longtime
frontrunner Hillary Clinton. John Edwards is steady at third with upward
momentum. Bill Richardson is fourth and Chris Dodd rounds out the top five.
For the complete rankings from one to ten in both parties, visit:
http://politicalderby.com/powerrankings
Excerpts:
Obama: Welcome to the lead, Barack Obama. For the first time ever,
Hillary has company at the top of the rankings. Obama’s Q1 fundraising
totals and ever-improving poll numbers indicate he’s got better legs than
Haley Scarnato. He’s closed to just 5 points in one poll and across the
board is averaging just an 8-point deficit to Senator Clinton. Not bad for
a guy who three years ago was wearing political Pull-Ups. (previous
ranking: #2)
Clinton: There’s only one question on the mind of ‘08 watchers. Does
the Senate health plan cover political grief counseling? Hillary has
officially lost the title of presumptive nominee. The race she thought
would be more coronation than perspiration has developed into a political
junkies dream. She can boast all she wants about finishing the first
quarter with the most cash- on-hand, but her support wasn’t nearly as deep
as her co-leader. (previous ranking: #1)
Gore: Al Gore had a window of opportunity leading up to and immediately
after the Oscars, but that window is now closing faster than a Quentin
Tarantino film. It doesn’t help that no one can hear his global warming
message, what with all those hats and ear muffs we’re having to wear this
spring. (previous ranking: #5)
Giuliani: In any other year Rudy Giuliani’s first quarter numbers would
have been like an overdose of Viagra to the political world. But he
finished fourth overall and has watched his lead shrink in the most recent
polls. Plenty of pundits and bloggers are wondering how long Mr. Teflon II
can deflect controversy and bridge his deep ideological gap with the GOP
base. Will he be known as a Sanjaya or a Melinda? Only time will tell.
(previous ranking: #1)
Romney: Mitt Romney led the GOP field with a whopping $23 million
raised in the first quarter. Then he went right out and spent nearly half
of it on Caffeine Free Diet Coke and name ID. He’s doing well on the ground
in places like South Carolina, winning a surprising number of county straw
polls, but he needs to start seeing a return on that Q1 investment quickly
in the national polls that make the 6:00 news. (previous ranking: tied for
#2)
Hunter: Calling Duncan Hunter’s early fundraising numbers anemic would
be a disservice to anemia sufferers everywhere. He raised enough to keep
the electricity on, but his campaign better hope for a mild summer.
(previous ranking: #7)
The complete rankings and summaries are available at
http://www.politicalderby.com/powerrankings

SOURCE PoliticalDerby.com

Senator Clinton Calls Wal-Mart ‘Mixed Blessing’

WASHINGTON, April 27 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Last night, in one of
the strongest reflections of how Wal-Mart has become an increasingly
important national political issue, the debate about whether or not
Wal-Mart is good for America was raised during the first Democratic
presidential debate on MSNBC. The debate, which included questions on a
variety of pressing topics, including Iraq, Terrorism, Health Care, Gun
Control, and Abortion, brought Wal-Mart to the center stage when NBC
Nightly News anchor Brian Williams asked Senator Hillary Clinton the
question, “Is Wal-Mart a good thing or bad thing for the United States of
America?”
In the debate, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a poignant response,
answered that Wal-Mart is a “mixed blessing.” Senator Clinton went on to
explain that as Wal-Mart “grew much bigger, though, they have raised
serious questions about the responsibility of corporations and how they
need to be a leader when it comes to providing health care and having safe
working conditions and not discriminating on the basis of sex or race or
any other category.”
The entire transcript of Senator Clinton’s response on the Wal-Mart
question is attached below.
Interestingly, tonight’s question is similar to one asked in a national
Zogby poll commissioned by WakeUpWalMart.com in November 2005.
In the poll, 56 percent of American adults agreed with the statement –
“Wal-Mart was bad for America. It may provide low prices, but these prices
come with a high moral and economic cost.” In contrast, only 39 percent of
American adults agreed with the opposing statement — “I believe Wal-Mart
is good for America. It provides low prices and saves consumers money every
day.”
Following the presidential debate, post-analysis discussion on Wal-Mart
continued with MSNBC Host Chris Matthews and commentator Tucker Carlson
discussing Senator Clinton’s response and how Wal-Mart has emerged as an
important political issue for the national debate.
The following is a statement by Paul Blank, Campaign Director for
WakeUpWalMart.com.
“As we have long argued, the campaign to change Wal-Mart is not a
debate about one company, it’s a debate about what kind of America we want
to live in. Last night, during the MSNBC presidential debate, we saw the
power our movement has with over 370,000 supporters to make Wal-Mart not
only an important social issue, but an important political issue.
As we witnessed during our incredible nationwide bus tour where
countless Democratic leaders, like Senator John Edwards, Gov. Bill
Richardson, Senator Joe Biden and others spoke out to last night’s debate
where Senator Clinton called Wal-Mart a ‘mixed blessing,’ the debate about
whether Wal-Mart is good or bad for America is front and center.
In our belief, though, as we look forward, the emergence of Wal-Mart as
a defining political issue has only just begun. In the coming weeks and
months, WakeUpWalMart.com will unleash one of the most exciting phases of
our grassroots campaign to change Wal-Mart into a more responsible employer
and company. So in the spirit of last night’s debate, we are more excited
than ever about taking this campaign and the debate about Wal-Mart from one
corner of America to another.”
Debate Transcript Attached Below:

MSNBC Democratic Presidential Debate

Orangeburg, SC

April 26, 2007
BRIAN WILLIAMS: Senator Clinton, overall, is Wal-Mart a good thing or a
bad thing for the United States of America?
SENATOR CLINTON: Well, it’s a mixed blessing.

WILLIAMS: How so?
SENATOR CLINTON: Well because when Wal-Mart started, it brought goods
into rural areas, like rural Arkansas where I was happy to live for 18
years. And it gave people a chance to stretch their dollar further. But as
they grew much bigger, though, they have raised serious questions about the
responsibility of corporations and how they need to be a leader when it
comes to providing health care and having safe working conditions and not
discriminating on the basis of sex or race or any other category. Brian,
this is all part, though, of how this Administration and corporate America
today don’t see middle class and working Americans. They are invisible.
They don’t understand that if you’re a family that can’t get health care,
you’re really hurting. But to the corporate elite and to the Administration
and the White House, you’re invisible. If you can’t afford college, you’re
invisible. So I think we need to get both public sector and private sector
leadership to start stepping up and being responsible and taking care of
people.
WILLIAMS: Senator, thank you.

SOURCE WakeUpWalMart.com