HeidiAllen.com

Evidence is now coming out that a former State Department official appointed by President Bush may have been involved in a scheme to sell nuclear weapons secrets to Turkey. While this has been largely ignored in the US press, it’s received quite a bit of attention overseas. In part, this is because Valerie Plame was part of the team investigating the case before it was abruptly shut down. As it turns out, Marc Grossman, the State Department official, is the man who originally circulated the classified document identifying Plame as a covert agent.

The White House has clearly been paying attention. On January 23rd, President Bush issued a press release announcing the proposed Agreement for Cooperation between the United States of America and the Republic of Turkey Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy. Despite the new evidence to the contrary, Bush says,

“U.S. agencies received … information implicating Turkish private entities in certain activities directly relating to nuclear proliferation. … My Administration (is) confident that the pertinent issues have been sufficiently resolved and that there is a sufficient basis (as set forth in the classified annexes, which will be transmitted separately by the Secretary of State) to proceed with congressional review of the Agreement and, if legislation is not enacted to disapprove it, to bring the Agreement into force.”

Unless Congress acts to stop it, this agreement will go into force on April 21st or 22nd. It will provide all the cover needed to sell not only nuclear information and technology to Turkey, but materials as well. Let us not forget that Turkey aided A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani physicist, in selling nuclear hardware and information to Libya, North Korea and Iran.

I urge you to contact your Senators and Representative and ask them to stop the next round of nuclear proliferation before it starts… by killing this agreement. Thanks in advance for your efforts.

So… you’ve been romantically involved with someone for years now, and the relationship is serious and solid. For whatever reason (and there are many!), you don’t want to get married. Now that you’ve achieved the sought after “long-term, committed relationship”, how do you refer to eachother?

You could just let people call you husband and wife, but if that’s what you wanted, you’d be married.

The same goes for “fiance”.

You could confuse people with “common law husband/wife”, but that’s unwieldly and stiff sounding.

You could call eachother boyfriend and girlfriend, but that sounds like a casual fling or just plain juvenile. It can also cause real problems with people who assume that the playing field is still open.

You could put knots in your tongue with “significant other” or shorten it to “SO”, but the term has become dated and laughable to many. It also becomes tiresome explaining to people what it means.

You could refer to eachother as “my partner”, but if you have a business partner, things get confusing fast. If you say “life partner”, you assume that you’ll be together for your whole lives, and frankly, that’s unlikely.

You could say “soul mate”, but many people find that phrase too new-agey, or inappropriate for formal situations. The same goes for “lover”.

You could say “my better half”, but that’s sort of dodging the issue, isn’t it? And I hate to say it, but what about situations where it’s just not true?

“Other half” is a bit better, but personally, I like to think that my “partner” and I are discreet individuals.

What we need is a term that meets all these requirements:

* Short
* Obvious in its meaning
* Appropriate for both casual and formal situations
* Can be used by both males and females

With all the creative talent out there, this should be doable. Post your suggestions!

Here’s an email being sent around by supporters of the Iraq war:

Here’s a sobering statistic:

There has been a monthly average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,112 deaths.

That gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 persons for the same period. That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capital than you are in Iraq .

Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington

Let’s assume for a moment that the statistics supplied are correct:

160,000 troops / 100,000 = 1.6

2,112 / 1.6 = 1,320 deaths per 100,000 troops

Versus 80.6 per 100,000 in DC

So, right away, one must wonder how this email continues to be offered by so many as support for their pro-Iraq war position. I mean, really, the conclusions are staggeringly wrong. But let’s see if the statistics themselves are correct:

The email says, “The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 persons for the same period.”

Acccording to the FBI’s Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report, there were 35.4 murders per 100,000 DC residents in 2005 and 29.06 per 100,000 residents in 2006.

The email says, “There has been a monthly average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,112 deaths.”

According to GlobalSecurity.org, (and with a boost to account for the recent troop surge), the average number of troops in Iraq over the last 22 months is actually closer to 155,000.

According to the Iraq Coaltion Casualty Count, between 6/14/05 and 8/14/07, there have been 2,490 “field of operation” deaths among coalition troops. This includes troops who died in hospitals in Germany and the US. Of those, 524 were the result of weapons fire. Most died as the result of IED attacks.

So… There are 2 ways we could figure this:

1. 155,000 troops / 100,000 = 1.55524 soldier gunfire deaths / 1.55 = 338 deaths by gunfire per 100,000 coalition troops.
2. 2,490 total coalition troop deaths / 1.55 = 1,606 deaths per 100,000 coalition troops.

Now, my math isn’t great, but if my numbers are correct, no matter how you slice it, our troops would be much, much safer in DC than in Iraq.

Back in 1994, when the internet was new and government agencies were still relatively clueless about network security, I unwittingly stumbled into the Department of Energy’s nuclear power plant accident database. What I discovered was that every nuclear plant in the country had filed dozens (often hundreds) of accident reports.

While most of the accidents didn’t endanger anyone, a number did. Any release of highly radioactive isotopes increases the risk of cancer, birth defects and unforeseen consequences within the environment. The trick (and the fact that plant builders and operators depend on) is that the cause is nearly impossible to prove.

On their website, Texas’s largest retail energy provider, TXU, claims “Nuclear power plants have a record of safety excellence”. This may be true, relatively speaking. Every plant, nuclear or not, has accidents. The problem with nuclear is that accidents pose a far greater risk for a far, far greater length of time.

Plutonium-239 is one of the constituents of nuclear power waste. It can be used to produce nuclear weapons, which makes it highly sought after by terrorist groups and rogue nations. It has a half-life of 24,110 years.

Uranium-238, the most prevalent isotope in uranium ore, has a half-life of about 4.5 BILLION years.

Does anyone really think it’s possible to ensure safe storage and handling of these materials for even a tiny fraction of that time? The former Soviet Union was under that delusion, and now their nuclear arsenal has been dispersed to questionable sources worldwide.

Nuclear is not an option, not even to create power.

TXU is moving ahead with plans to build 2-5 new nuclear power plants in Texas. Friends of the Earth has a page that will enable you to easily send an email to the decision makers involved. I urge you to take action on this issue:

Friends of the Earth TXU action page

We have three cats, and it’s apparently a big deal for them when we finally get up in the morning. Each one wants to get the first/most attention, and this has resulted in each cat giving a lot of thought as to how to best achieve this.

Orange was the first to put her plan into action. She’d wait for hours at the edge of the scat mat in front of the bedroom door (which gives a tiny electric shock to kitties who step on it), then leap over it and up onto the bed when the door opened.

Puddytat countered by wedging herself into the corner closest to where the first crack of open door would appear, then beating Orange to the bed. Orange fought back by figuring out a way to actually sit on the scat mat (a surface charged with static electricity). We still haven’t figured out how she’s doing this without getting zapped.

Mr. White got into the act by lying in front of the bathroom door, knowing that would be our next move. Since Orange had retaken the bed, Puddytat outmaneuvered Mr. White by sleeping on the bathroom counter. He responded in typically male fashion, by forcibly commandeering the counter away from her.

Orange, patient woman that she is, decided to sit next to the toilet all night, a position that enabled her to be the first to rub against the toilet user’s legs. This left the bed wide open, which Puddytat quickly took advantage of.

Mr. White wasn’t going to play second banana to anyone. He spent the next night opening up the under-sink cabinets and knocking out enough bottles to hide inside. When I entered the next morning, he sprang out, chasing Orange away from my legs and taking me prisoner. Orange was visibly upset.

Made overconfident by his success, Mr. White spent the next morning trying to figure out how to beat Puddytat through the bedroom door. He was unsuccessful. He’s wary of the bedroom, because it’s the “girls’ room”, where they work together to repel him. His hesitation gave Puddytat the advantage.

All this enabled Orange to sneak into the bathroom, pry open the shower door far enough to get inside and wait until she had me alone before climbing out again. Mr. White realized his error too late and cried piteously outside the door.

I can’t wait to see what they come up with tomorrow.

(cross-posted to the Daily Kos)

On February 12th, 1999, Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison gave a closed-door statement on her reasons for voting to impeach then-President William Jefferson Clinton. As you might expect, she listed perjury as a primary reason, but she listed many others, including a forceful argument for presidential impeachment without an indictable crime.

Early on she says, “I was reminded as well, however, that the laws of our Country are applicable to us all, including the President, and they must be obeyed.” I’ll assume that this includes laws dealing with government surveillance of civilians, as well as those applicable to outing an undercover CIA agent.

While describing Clinton’s deposition, she says, “…the Judge and participating counsel for the parties, either knowingly or unknowingly, formulated a definition of the meaning of the words ’sexual relations’ to exclude certain forms of human contact that in their commonly accepted meaning would be included.”

And what of changing the words “covert operative” to exclude their commonly accepted meaning?

She goes on, “It was alleged, among other things, that the President coached, manipulated, and influenced false testimony of witnesses…”.

It is alleged that Vice-President Cheney did all this in preparation for the Scooter Libby trial.

“…engineered the hiding of gifts and evidence that was subject to subpoena…”

As opposed to Rove using the RNC email server so that a subpoena wouldn’t turn up evidence against him?

“While under oath before the Federal grand jury, the President gave perjurious testimony before the grand jury…”

Yet, when discussing the Scooter Libby trial, Senator Hutchison said, “…I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn’t indict on the crime…”

In her 1999 statement, Hutchison says, “…engaging personally and through his subordinates and agents in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony…”

Perhaps the Senator has forgotten that she engaged in that behavior herself, with the help of Karl Rove.

But then, my friends, Senator Hutchison makes one of the most interesting arguments for Presidential impeachment that I’ve read:

“I do not hold to the view of our Constitution that there must be an actual, indictable crime in order for an act of a public officer to be impeachable. It is clear to this Senator that there are, indeed, circumstances, short of a felony criminal offense that would justify the removal of a public officer from office, including the President of the United States. Manifest injury to the Office of the President, to our Nation, and to the American people, and gross abuses of trust and of public office clearly can reach the level of intensity that would justify the impeachment and removal of a leader.”

Well said, Kay.

I’ve recently become friends with a Tibetan Buddhist monk/doctor. He’s rapidly learning English, but conversation can still be difficult. The other day, we were having a vegetarian meal with a number of people when he began to tell a story about the “rough, but good” people of far northwestern Tibet (the Kekexili region).

He said that the extreme cold, dryness and lack of soil makes it nearly impossible for them to grow fruits or vegetables. This (among other things) has led to a culture that’s quite different from that of southern Tibet, where most of the population lives.

He spoke a few more sentences that I only vaguely understood… something to do with northwestern Tibetans traveling to southern Tibet. The story ended with “…because they eat only meat!”

He laughed heartily, but then saw the confused looks on our faces. “That is a kind of a joke.”, he explained.

Then it dawned on me. Even Tibetan monks have Polack/Aggie/blonde jokes. It seems we humans have an innate need to poke fun at other groups of people whom we see as less sophisticated or intelligent than ourselves, even if we do it in a gentle, loving fashion. I wonder why that is?

I just got off the phone with someone from Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. They were looking for donations, volunteers, or at very least, a signup for their mailing list. I refused to give them any of these things.

A few days ago, my brother tried mightily to get me to admit that Obama would win the presidency in 2008. I refused.

Why am I so obstinate?

First of all, the filing deadlines for running for President of the United States, which vary by state, are generally between September 2007 and January 2008. In other words, we still have at least another 7 months to see who comes forward to run. I’m not picking a candidate until I know who the candidates are. Reasonable?

Second of all, most of the candidates who have already declared are serving in elected positions right now. Rather than criss-crossing the country trying to appeal to black voters or the religious right, they should be doing their jobs. We’re in a critical political period, and we need all hands on deck. I am NOT impressed by people who ignore the public office they currently hold in favor of doing early campaigning for a higher one.

Third of all, pointless news about the presidential candidates is already obliterating coverage of far more important stories, and that’s wrong. We get precious little reporting on real news as it is.

However, since it seems that the candidates are bent on this whole “early lead” concept, (how quickly they forget Howard Dean), I ask just one thing. If you’re going to stump, at least pledge to do something instead of speechifying.

You can’t prove that you care about civil rights by waxing poetic on historical moments of the past. You prove it by telling people how you intend to reduce the unemployment rate among African Americans, or what you plan to do about the still-worrisome Patriot Act.

You don’t convince people that you give a damn about blue-collar workers by endlessly pointing out your parent’s blue-collar roots. You do it by listing the steps you’ll take to keep jobs right here in the US and to create new ones. You do it by pledging to re-negotiate our free trade agreements as fair trade agreements, thus stemming the flow of jobs overseas (and stemming the tide of illegal immigrants over our borders).

Lastly, you can’t ride Al Gore’s coattails on the environment by using phrases like, “Someday, our cars will run on hydrogen.” You convince people that you’re serious by promising to help fund the California hydrogen corridor initiative, making California’s fuel standards apply nationwide and promoting cool roofs.

I have no patience for speechifying. I don’t care how pretty your words are or how many emotional buttons you can push. Until you’re willing to tell me something concrete that you intend to do, leave me alone.

I’m a pragmatic sort. In the course of brainstorming what could be done with a President who won’t heed Congress or the people, I was reminded of the crowd that gathers in front of the Houses of Parliament at the end of the film ‘V For Vendetta’. Unfortunately, masks cost money and take some effort to order, meaning that most Americans will never get around to owning one. So I made a free printable version. More here.

‘US Hails Chile For Surviving Pinochet’

From the AP article:

The White House on Sunday marked the death of former Chilean dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet by calling his rule a “difficult period” and commending the country for establishing a free society.

Oh yeah, Chile, good job surviving that CIA orchestrated military coup. Sorry about the assasination of your ex-foreign minister by our CIA operative (who was also in charge of Pinochet’s notorious detention centers).

And of course, we feel real bad that our current president, George W. Bush (otherwise known as “Junior”) undercut your recent case against Pinochet because he wanted to protect his dad from being implicated.

When was that? Oh yeah, in September. But ya’ know, things move fast nowadays. That was a long time ago. So when Junior congratulates you on your ability to survive our government’s contribution to your history, give us a smile!