NATIONAL & WORLD DIGEST November 18, 2007

**IF YOU CAN'T ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE, CONTACT US AT rays.list@comcast.net and we'll be happy to send the full article.


=

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/washington/18nuke.html?hp

U.S. Secretly Aids Pakistan in Guarding Nuclear Arms

By DAVID E. SANGER and WILLIAM J. BROAD
November 18, 2007

WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 - Over the past six years, the Bush administration hasspent almost $100 million on a highly classified program to help Gen. PervezMusharraf, Pakistan's president, secure his country's nuclear weapons,according to current and former senior administration officials.

But with the future of that country's leadership in doubt, debate isintensifying about whether Washington has done enough to help protect thewarheads and laboratories, and whether Pakistan's reluctance to revealcritical details about its arsenal has undercut the effectiveness of thecontinuing security effort.

The aid, buried in secret portions of the federal budget, paid for thetraining of Pakistani personnel in the United States and the construction ofa nuclear security training center in Pakistan, a facility that Americanofficials say is nowhere near completion, even though it was supposed to bein operation this year.

A raft of equipment - from helicopters to night-vision goggles to nucleardetection equipment - was given to Pakistan to help secure its nuclearmaterial, its warheads, and the laboratories that were the site of the worstknown case of nuclear proliferation in the atomic age.

While American officials say that they believe the arsenal is safe at themoment, and that they take at face value Pakistani assurances that securityis vastly improved, in many cases the Pakistani government has beenreluctant to show American officials how or where the gear is actually used.

more . . . . .



=

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/opinion/18rich.html?ref=opinion

Op-Ed Columnist

What 'That Regan Woman' Knows

By FRANK RICH
November 18, 2007

NEW Yorkers who remember Rudy Giuliani as the bullying New York mayor, notas the terminally cheerful "America's Mayor" cooing to babies in NewHampshire, have always banked on one certainty: his presidential candidacywas so preposterous it would implode before he got anywhere near the WhiteHouse.

Surely, we reassured ourselves, the all-powerful Republican values enforcerswere so highly principled that they would excommunicate him because of hisliberal social views, three wives and estranged children. Or a firewallwould be erected by the firefighters who are enraged by hisself-aggrandizing rewrite of 9/11 history. Or Judith Giuliani, with herlong-hidden first marriage and Louis Vuitton 'tude, would send red-statevoters screaming into the night.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. But how quickly and stupidly we forgot about theother Judith in the Rudy orbit. That would be Judith Regan, who disappearedlast December after she was unceremoniously fired from Rupert Murdoch'spublishing house, HarperCollins. Last week Ms. Regan came roaring back intothe fray, a silver bullet aimed squarely at the heart of the Giulianicampaign.

Ms. Regan filed a $100 million lawsuit against her former employer, claimingshe was unjustly made a scapegoat for the O. J. Simpson "If I Did It" fiascothat (briefly) embarrassed Mr. Murdoch and his News Corporation. But forthose of us not caught up in the Simpson circus, what's most riveting aboutthe suit are two at best tangential sentences in its 70 pages: "In fact, asenior executive in the News Corporation organization told Regan that hebelieved she had information about Kerik that, if disclosed, would harmGiuliani's presidential campaign. This executive advised Regan to lie to,and to withhold information from, investigators concerning Kerik."

Kerik, of course, is Bernard Kerik, the former Giuliani chauffeur and policecommissioner, as well as the candidate he pushed to be President Bush'sshort-lived nominee to run the Department of Homeland Security. Havingpleaded guilty to two misdemeanors last year, Mr. Kerik was indicted on 16other counts by a federal grand jury 10 days ago, just before Ms. Regan letloose with her lawsuit. Whether Ms. Regan's charge about that unnamedMurdoch "senior executive" is true or not - her lawyers have yet to revealthe evidence - her overall message is plain. She knows a lot about Mr.Kerik, Mr. Giuliani and the Murdoch empire. And she could talk.

more . . . . .



=

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/opinion/18friedman.html?ref=opinion

Op-Ed Columnist

Channeling Dick Cheney

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
November 18, 2007

I have no idea who is going to win the Democratic presidential nomination,but lately I've been wondering whether, if it is Barack Obama, he might wantto consider keeping Dick Cheney on as his vice president.

No, I personally am not a Dick Cheney fan, and I know it is absurd to evensuggest, but now that I have your attention, here's what's on my mind: AfterIraq and Pakistan, the most vexing foreign policy issue that will face thenext president will be how to handle Iran. There is a cold war in the MiddleEast today between America and Iran, and until and unless it gets resolved,I see Iran using its proxies, its chess pieces - Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria andthe Shiite militias in Iraq - to stymie America and its allies across theregion.

And that brings me back to the Obama-Cheney ticket: When it comes to howbest to deal with Iran, each has half a policy - but if you actually putthem together, they'd add up to an ideal U.S. strategy for Iran. Dare I say,they complete each other.

Vice President Cheney is the hawk-eating hawk, who regularly swoops down anddeclares that the U.S. will not permit Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.Trust me, the Iranians take his threats seriously. But Mr. Cheney's Dr.Strangelove imitation is totally wasted with President Bush and Secretary ofState Condi Rice. Because the president and secretary of state have neverbeen able to make up their minds as to what U.S. policy toward Iran shouldbe - to bring about regime change or a change of behavior - it's impossibleto have any effective diplomacy.

If she were taking advantage of Mr. Cheney's madness, Secretary Rice wouldbe going to Tehran and saying to the Iranians: "Look, I'm ready to cut adeal with you guys, but I have to tell you, back home, I've got Cheney on myback and he is truly craaaaazzzzy. You guys don't know the half of it. Hethinks waterboarding is what you do with your grandchildren at the pool onSunday. I'm not sure how much longer I can restrain him. So maybe we shouldhave a serious nuke talk, and, if it goes well, we'll back off regimechange."

more . . . . .



=

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/opinion/18sun3.html?ref=opinion

Editorial

A Loud Legal Voice on Warming

November 18, 2007

While Washington's politicians dither, the federal courts have becomeincreasingly active in the debate over global warming, aggressively pushingthe White House and Congress to regulate greenhouse gases or explain whythey cannot. These rulings add the force of law to the demands for actionfrom scientists, a growing number of business leaders, and many stategovernors.

On Thursday, a federal appeals court in California invalidated the Bush administration's year-old fuel-economy standards for light trucks and sportutility vehicles because they failed to take into account the economic risksof climate change. This is the third federal court decision in seven monthsasking regulators to consider climate change when they set standards forindustries that emit pollutants contributing to global warming.

In April, the Supreme Court rejected the Bush administration's argument thatit had no authority to regulate carbon dioxide from motor vehicles and, ineffect, ordered the Enviromental Protection Agency to come up with a planfor doing so. In September, a federal judge in Vermont delivered anotherrebuff to the administration when he ruled that states had the authority torestrict carbon dioxide emissions from cars and trucks, meanwhiledemolishing every argument advanced by industry as to why it could notcost-effectively improve automobile efficiency.

Now comes the California decision, with the added imperative that theTransportation Department, which sets mileage standards, must now assess theeconomic impact of tailpipe emissions on climate change when calculating thecosts and benefits of any new rules. The court said the department hadviolated federal law by assigning a zero benefit to reducing emissions eventhough many studies have said that the costs of unchecked global warmingcould be very high.

The court further ruled that the department had failed to supply a plausibleexplanation for treating light trucks and S.U.V.'s more leniently thanordinary cars.

more . . . . .



=

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/opinion/18gates.html?ref=opinion

Op-Ed Contributor

Forty Acres and a Gap in Wealth

By HENRY LOUIS GATES Jr.
Cambridge, Mass.
November 18, 2007

LAST week, the Pew Research Center published the astonishing finding that 37percent of African-Americans polled felt that "blacks today can no longer bethought of as a single race" because of a widening class divide. FromFrederick Douglass to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., perhaps the mostfundamental assumption in the history of the black community has been thatAmericans of African descent, the descendants of the slaves, either becauseof shared culture or shared oppression, constitute "a mighty race," asMarcus Garvey often put it.

"By a ratio of 2 to 1," the report says, "blacks say that the values of poorand middle-class blacks have grown more dissimilar over the past decade. Incontrast, most blacks say that the values of blacks and whites have grownmore alike."

The message here is that it is time to examine the differences between blackfamilies on either side of the divide for clues about how to address anincreasingly entrenched inequality. We can't afford to wait any longer toaddress the causes of persistent poverty among most black families.

This class divide was predicted long ago, and nobody wanted to listen. At aconference marking the 40th anniversary of Daniel Patrick Moynihan'sinfamous report on the problems of the black family, I asked theconservative scholar James Q. Wilson and the liberal scholar William JuliusWilson if ours was the generation presiding over an irreversible,self-perpetuating class divide within the African-American community.

"I have to believe that this is not the case," the liberal Wilson respondedwith willed optimism. "Why go on with this work otherwise?" The conservativeWilson nodded. Yet, no one could imagine how to close the gap.

more . . . . .



=

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/opinion/18kagan.html?ref=opinion

Op-Ed Contributors

Pakistan's Collapse, Our Problem

By FREDERICK W. KAGAN and MICHAEL O'HANLON
Washington
November 18, 2007

AS the government of Pakistan totters, we must face a fact: the UnitedStates simply could not stand by as a nuclear-armed Pakistan descended intothe abyss. Nor would it be strategically prudent to withdraw our forces froman improving situation in Iraq to cope with a deteriorating one in Pakistan.We need to think - now - about our feasible military options in Pakistan,should it really come to that.

We do not intend to be fear mongers. Pakistan's officer corps and rulingelites remain largely moderate and more interested in building a strong,modern state than in exporting terrorism or nuclear weapons to the highestbidder. But then again, Americans felt similarly about the shah's regime inIran until it was too late.

Moreover, Pakistan's intelligence services contain enough sympathizers andsupporters of the Afghan Taliban, and enough nationalists bent on seizingthe disputed province of Kashmir from India, that there are grounds for realworries.

The most likely possible dangers are these: a complete collapse of Pakistanigovernment rule that allows an extreme Islamist movement to fill the vacuum;a total loss of federal control over outlying provinces, which splinteralong ethnic and tribal lines; or a struggle within the Pakistani militaryin which the minority sympathetic to the Taliban and Al Qaeda try toestablish Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism.

All possible military initiatives to avoid those possibilities are daunting.With 160 million people, Pakistan is more than five times the size of Iraq.It would take a long time to move large numbers of American forces halfwayacross the world. And unless we had precise information about the locationof all of Pakistan's nuclear weapons and materials, we could not rely onbombing or using Special Forces to destroy them.

more . . . . .



=

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/18deter.html?hp

Does Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate

By ADAM LIPTAK
November 18, 2007

For the first time in a generation, the question of whether the deathpenalty deters murders has captured the attention of scholars in law andeconomics, setting off an intense new debate about one of the centraljustifications for capital punishment.

According to roughly a dozen recent studies, executions save lives. For eachinmate put to death, the studies say, 3 to 18 murders are prevented.

The effect is most pronounced, according to some studies, in Texas and otherstates that execute condemned inmates relatively often and relativelyquickly.

The studies, performed by economists in the past decade, compare the numberof executions in different jurisdictions with homicide rates over time -while trying to eliminate the effects of crime rates, conviction rates andother factors - and say that murder rates tend to fall as executions rise.One influential study looked at 3,054 counties over two decades.

"I personally am opposed to the death penalty," said H. Naci Mocan, aneconomist at Louisiana State University and an author of a study findingthat each execution saves five lives. "But my research shows that there is adeterrent effect."

more . . . . .



=

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/science/earth/18climatenew.html?hp

U.N. Chief Seeks More Climate Change Leadership

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
November 18, 2007

VALENCIA, Spain, Nov. 17 - Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, describing climatechange as "the defining challenge of our age," released the final report ofa United Nations panel on climate change here on Saturday and called on theUnited States and China to play "a more constructive role."

His challenge to the world's two greatest greenhouse gas emitters came justtwo weeks before the world's energy ministers meet in Bali, Indonesia, tobegin talks on creating a global climate treaty to replace the KyotoProtocol, which expires in 2012.

The United States and China are signatories to Kyoto, but Washington has notratified the treaty, and China, along with other developing countries, isnot bound by its mandatory emissions caps.

"Today the world's scientists have spoken, clearly and in one voice," Mr.Ban said of the report, the Synthesis Report of the United NationsIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "In Bali, I expect the world'spolicymakers to do the same."

He added, "The breakthrough needed in Bali is for a comprehensive climatechange deal that all nations can embrace."

more . . . . .



=

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Bangladesh-Cyclone.html

Over 2, 200 Die in Bangladesh Cyclone

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 5:58 a.m. ET
November 18, 2007

DHAKA, Bangladesh (AP) -- The death toll from a cyclone that devastatedBangladesh has surpassed 2,200, officials said Sunday, while rescuersstruggled through blocked paths to reach hundreds of thousands of survivorsawaiting aid in wrecked homes and flooded fields.

The government deployed military helicopters, naval ships and thousands oftroops to join international agencies and local officials in the rescuemission following Tropical Cyclone Sidr. The U.S. and other countries alsooffered assistance.

At least 2,206 people have died since the storm struck Bangladesh onThursday, said Selina Shahid of the Ministry of Food and DisasterManagement. The toll could rise still higher as more information comes infrom battered regions.

Disaster Management Secretary Aiyub Bhuiyan met Sunday with representativesfrom the United Nations and international aid groups to discuss the massiverelief effort.

''The donors wanted to know about our plan and how they can come forward tostand by the victims,'' Bhuiyan told reporters. ''We have briefed them aboutwhat we need immediately.''

more . . . . .



=

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/18michigan.html

Immigrants Could Face Tighter Rules in Michigan

By CATRIN EINHORN
November 18, 2007

Several Michigan lawmakers, frustrated with the defeat in Congress of animmigration law overhaul, are proposing state laws to punish employers whohire illegal immigrants.

The lawmakers, all Democrats from the state House, offered a package ofbills late last week intended to crack down on employers, making it a felonyto hire an illegal immigrant knowingly. Violation could mean fines of up to$250,000 and as much as five years in prison for repeat offenders.

The sponsors said the legislation would be formally introduced this month inthe House. "We have no legal weapons right now in the state of Michigan,"said State Representative Kate Elbi, one of the sponsors. "What we're doingis giving our state the tools that we need."

Adrian Vazquez, who works for the Michigan Organizing Project, an immigrantrights group, said such a plan would destroy the lives of people who hadraised their families in Michigan and contributed to the economy. Illegalimmigrants, Mr. Vazquez said, should not have to pay for a brokenimmigration system; the federal government should fix it.

A proposed change of federal immigration law was defeated in June. But atleast 20 states have enacted laws this year addressing the employment ofimmigrants. But the rush of state laws has also spurred a series of legalclashes with federal law.

more . . . . .



=

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/technology/18ping.html

Ping
English, Algebra, Phys Ed ... and Biotech

By G. PASCAL ZACHARY
November 18, 2007

MORE than a decade ago, after George Cachianes, a former researcher atGenentech, decided to become a teacher, he started a biotechnology course atLincoln High School in San Francisco. He saw the class as way of marryingbasic biotechnology principles with modern lab practices - and insights intohow business harvests biotech innovations for profit.

If you're interested in seeing the future of biotechnology education, youmight want to visit one of George Cachianes's classrooms. "Students aremotivated by understanding the relationships between research, creativityand making money," he says.

Lincoln has five biotech classes, each with about 30 students. Four otherpublic high schools in San Francisco offer the course, drawing on Mr.Cachianes's syllabus. Mr. Cachianes, who still teaches at Lincoln, divideshis classes into teams of five students; each team "adopts" an actualbiotech company.

The students write annual reports, correspond with company officials andlearn about products in the pipeline. Students also learn the latest labtechniques. They cut DNA. And recombine it. They transfer jellyfish genesinto bacteria. They purify proteins. They even sequence their own cheek-cellDNA.

Cool, eh? And very, very important.

more . . . . .



=

The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701681.html?hpid=topnews

FBI's Forensic Test Full of Holes
Lee Wayne Hunt is one of hundreds of defendants whose convictions are inquestion now that FBI forensic evidence has been discredited.

By John Solomon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 18, 2007; A01

Hundreds of defendants sitting in prisons nationwide have been convictedwith the help of an FBI forensic tool that was discarded more than two yearsago. But the FBI lab has yet to take steps to alert the affected defendantsor courts, even as the window for appealing convictions is closing, a jointinvestigation by The Washington Post and "60 Minutes" has found.

The science, known as comparative bullet-lead analysis, was first used afterPresident John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963. The technique usedchemistry to link crime-scene bullets to ones possessed by suspects on thetheory that each batch of lead had a unique elemental makeup.

In 2004, however, the nation's most prestigious scientific body concludedthat variations in the manufacturing process rendered the FBI's testimonyabout the science "unreliable and potentially misleading." Specifically, theNational Academy of Sciences said that decades of FBI statements to jurorslinking a particular bullet to those found in a suspect's gun or cartridgebox were so overstated that such testimony should be considered "misleadingunder federal rules of evidence."

A year later, the bureau abandoned the analysis.

But the FBI lab has never gone back to determine how many times itsscientists misled jurors. Internal memos show that the bureau's managerswere aware by 2004 that testimony had been overstated in a large number oftrials. In a smaller number of cases, the experts had made false matchesbased on a faulty statistical analysis of the elements contained indifferent lead samples, documents show.

more . . . . .



=

The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111700839.html?hpid=topnews

Musharraf Ties Pose Dilemma For Bush

By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 18, 2007; A01

Even before he walked through the door at the Waldorf-Astoria in New Yorkfor his first face-to-face meeting with President Bush in 2001, PervezMusharraf was something of a hero within the administration for his decisivestand against the Taliban and al-Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terroristattacks.

Over the course of a dozen private meetings and numerous phone conversationssince then, the savvy and well-spoken Pakistani president has made a pointof cementing his personal relationship with Bush. Musharraf has regaled theU.S. president with stories of his youth in Punjab, his empathy forrank-and-file soldiers and his desire to reform the education system inPakistan, according to individuals familiar with those conversations.

"I think [the president] took an instant liking to Musharraf," former deputysecretary of state Richard L. Armitage said. "At a key moment for us, wegave Musharraf a very tough series of choices, and he came down on our side.He is blunt, and Bush likes that."

Bush's personal investment in the Pakistani president, once seen as an assetin the administration's "global war on terror," is now seen as a liabilityfor both leaders in Washington and Pakistan, where Musharraf's assumption ofemergency powers and crackdown on opponents have triggered a politicalcrisis in one of the United States' most important allies.

In the two weeks since emergency rule was imposed, Bush has made clear he isstanding by Musharraf, offering only muted criticism of his actions andrefusing to consider any significant cut in U.S. assistance, which hastotaled more than $10 billion since 2001. Bush has described Musharraf as "astrong fighter against extremists and radicals" even as he has urged him tolift the state of emergency and hold elections.

more . . . . .



=

The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/16/AR2007111601613.html

Debates in Need of Rescue

By David S. Broder
Sunday, November 18, 2007; B07

During Thursday night's Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas, NewMexico Gov. Bill Richardson was given a chance to answer the question aboutoffering driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

Before CNN's Wolf Blitzer turned to him, several of Richardson's rivals hadwrestled with the question that had thrown Sen. Hillary Clinton for a loopin the previous debate, triggering two weeks of complaints that she wasbeing dodgy.

Clearly intent on setting that notion to rest, she answered this time with a
monosyllable, "No." Her governor, Eliot Spitzer, had abandoned the plan aday earlier, so she was joining the retreat.

Instead, it was Sen. Barack Obama who seemed flummoxed. At first, heacknowledged that he had voted as an Illinois state senator to requireundocumented aliens to "get trained, get a license, get insurance to protectpublic safety." But a moment later, confusingly, he said, "I am notproposing that that's what we do." And finally he said, "Yes."

Former senator John Edwards objected to the question, then said, "No, but .. . anyone who's on the path to earning American citizenship should be ableto have a driver's license."

more . . . . .



=

The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/16/AR2007111601765.html

Iraq's Narrow Window

Iraqis, and the Bush administration, risk squandering the politicalopportunity created by the surge.

Sunday, November 18, 2007; B06

THE EVIDENCE is now overwhelming that the "surge" of U.S. military forces inIraq this year has been, in purely military terms, a remarkable success. Byevery metric used to measure the war -- total attacks, U.S. casualties,Iraqi casualties, suicide bombings, roadside bombs -- there has been anenormous improvement since January. U.S. commanders report that al-Qaeda hasbeen cleared from large areas it once controlled and that its remainingforces in Iraq are reeling. Markets in Baghdad are reopening, and the curfewis being eased; the huge refugee flow out of the country has begun toreverse itself. Credit for these achievements belongs in large part to U.S.soldiers in Iraq, who took on a tremendously challenging newcounterterrorism strategy and made it work; to Gen. David H. Petraeus, thearchitect of that strategy; and to President Bush, for making the decisionto launch the surge against the advice of most of Congress and the country'sforeign policy elite.

It is, however, too early to celebrate -- as Gen. Petraeus and hiscommanders in Iraq are the first to point out. The principal objective ofthe surge was not military, but political. It aimed to create conditionsthat would encourage Iraq's Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish politicians tocompromise over such issues as the terms for a federal system of governmentand the distribution of oil revenue. By that measure, there has been noprogress since January. Iraq's national government seems all but paralyzed,its leaders unable to set aside sectarian agendas despite the ebb ofsectarian warfare. Though U.S. officials point to local progress and talk ofreforms "from the ground up," these can advance only to a limited degreewithout breakthroughs at the national level. Laws spelling out the authorityof provincial governments and authorizing local elections, for example, areamong those caught in the gridlock.

Though casualties in Iraq are still falling this month, U.S. forces may beapproaching the limits of what can be achieved. The American troop levelwill begin to decline next month and will probably return to pre-surgelevels by next summer. No wonder a number of U.S. officers recently told ThePost's Thomas E. Ricks that the Iraqi government is in danger of missing theopportunity bought with the sacrifices of U.S. troops. "It's unclear howlong that window is going to be open," said Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno,commander of day-to-day U.S. military operations.

more . . . . .



=

The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701304.html

Posturing and Driver's Licenses

Illegal immigrants already drive. The real question is whether to promotesafety.

Sunday, November 18, 2007; B06

LISTEN TO the fumblings and bumblings of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama,two otherwise canny and articulate senators, and you can hear a pair ofcandidates who probably know that granting driver's licenses to illegalimmigrants is smart public policy but maybe not such smart politics. BothMr. Obama, who supports the idea, and Ms. Clinton, who now says she doesnot, have come in for derision by seeming to straddle an issue that isbecoming a surrogate for the broader, unresolved problem of illegalimmigration.

Eight states already grant licenses to undocumented residents, fromWashington and Utah in the West to Maine and Maryland in the East. Alladopted the stance for clear and convincing reasons of public safety and inmany cases at least partly at the behest of law enforcement officials. Nonehas come to tragedy because of it.

At least 12 million illegal immigrants live in America, and many of them,probably millions, are already driving regularly or periodically. They driveto jobs, to schools, to hospitals, to shopping malls and to grocery stores.By making licenses available to them, states are not enabling them to drivemore; they are encouraging them to get the insurance and training that willallow them to drive safely. Deny them licenses, and be prepared to pay theconsequences.

A report prepared for the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety gives a sobering assessment of those consequences. The report, based on data collected in the1990s, says that unlicensed drivers are almost five times more likely to beinvolved in a fatal crash than drivers with valid licenses and that 20percent of all fatal accidents involve at least one driver without a validlicense. Such drivers are also more likely to operate vehicles under theinfluence of alcohol.

While the Democratic front-runners have equivocated, New Mexico Gov. BillRichardson, who signed legislation allowing illegal immigrants to belicensed four years ago, was lucid about his reasons. Speaking at theDemocratic forum held Thursday in Las Vegas, Mr. Richardson, who may feelthat he has less to lose by his honesty than the equivocating Democraticfront-runners, put the matter succinctly: "When we started with thisprogram, 33 percent of all New Mexicans were uninsured. Today it's 11percent. Traffic fatalities have gone down. It's a matter of public safety."

more . . . . .



=

The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701623.html?hpid=sec-business

After Chávez Exhorts OPEC to Flex Political Muscle, Saudis Object

By Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 18, 2007; A23

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, Nov. 17 -- To the annals of peculiar diplomatic andcultural moments, add Saturday's ceremony opening the summit of theOrganization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.

The meeting was held in an ornate royal conference center, with Corinthiancolumns and carved archways worthy of ancient Rome or the Venetian doges.The OPEC leaders were led to a room with 11 giant crystal chandeliers,marble floors, 20-foot doors of inlaid wood and gold trim, cavernousceilings with carved patterns painted powder blue, eggshell white and pink,and enough cushy seats for 2,000 people.

After the chanting of an opening prayer from the Koran about God's "sublimelight that reflects on mankind," Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez took thestage, crossed himself, invoked Jesus and launched into a 24-minute rallyingcry to reenergize what he called OPEC's "revolutionary" battle against"exploitation" and to do more to alleviate poverty.

But after Chávez spoke, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah said that "oil is atool for construction and prosperity . . . and it should not be a means fordisputes or serving whims."

For the past four days, OPEC and Saudi officials have been trying to portraythe oil cartel almost as a public service organization, scrutinizing figureson consumption and production to find a balance that would moderate wildswings in prices for the benefit of consumers and producers alike.

more . . . . .



=

Boston Globe

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/17/analysis_clinton_hits_boys_in_debate/

Analysis: Clinton hits 'boys' in debate

By Beth Fouhy, Associated Press Writer
November 17, 2007

LAS VEGAS --Hillary Rodham Clinton showed she knows how to use theroughhouse tactics of the political boys club.

Two weeks after a rocky presidential debate performance where she appearedat times both defensive and evasive, the New York senator came intoThursday's Democratic forum poised, confident and ready to rumble.

For the first time, she directly challenged the records of her top rivals,Barack Obama and John Edwards. She even chided Edwards, her fiercest criticin this debate and others, for "throwing mud" Republican-style.

Spectators inside the debate hall appeared to echo that criticism,repeatedly booing Edwards and occasionally Obama when they criticizedClinton.

And after days of torturous contortions on whether she supported grantingdriver's licenses for illegal immigrants, Clinton was able to stand by andwatch as Obama was tripped up on the issue this time.

"To the degree she might have been stumbling in the last debate, sheregained her footing tonight," Democratic strategist Garry South said. "Itwas a very impressive performance by Hillary Clinton. She showed she couldbattle back criticism very well."

more . . . . .



=

Miami Herald

http://www.miamiherald.com/851/story/310595.html

What McCain reveals by ignoring insult

By LEONARD PITTS
Posted on Sun, Nov. 18, 2007

''So,'' the woman asked, ''how do we beat the bitch?'' And Sen. John McCainlaughed.

It was, he said, an ''excellent'' question. Yes, he went on to expressrespect for Hillary Clinton, to whom the woman referred. But not once whileanswering that question at a campaign stop in South Carolina recently did hesuggest that it wasn't appropriate to call Clinton a ``bitch.''

Can you imagine if the Democratic front runner were Sen. Joe Lieberman andthe woman said, ``So, how do we beat this Hebe?''

Can you imagine if it were Gov. Bill Richardson and the woman said, ``So,how do we beat this spic?''

Can you imagine if it were Sen. Barack Obama and the woman said, ``So, howdo we beat this coon?''

I guarantee you, McCain would not have laughed and if he had, we would nowbe writing his political epitaph.

But the woman asked, ''How do we beat the bitch?'' and McCain did laugh andnow shrugs off any suggestion that he should have done more.

He's wrong.

I get that many people don't like Clinton. I don't like her much myself, andmy reasons echo the consensus. She seems cold, calculated, brittle.

Here's the thing, though. I find that I can't name a single female nationalpolitical figure I do like -- not respect, not agree with, but like. Oh, Ican name many men who, their politics aside, strike me as likable: McCain,Bill Clinton, John Edwards, even cranky old Bob Dole.

But women? Not so much. Nancy Pelosi, Janet Reno, Condoleezza Rice,Madeleine Albright . . . I cannot see myself -- we are speakingmetaphorically here -- cuddling up to any of them. They all seem formidable,off-putting, cold.

Which suggests the problem here is not so much them as me. And, if I may beso bold, we. As in, we seem unable to synthesize the idea that a woman canbe smart, businesslike, demanding, capable, in charge, and yet also, warm.

Consider one of the many anti-Hillary smears now circulating online. Itpurports to be a compendium of profane, ill-tempered tirades she hasunleashed upon subordinates. Your first thought is, what an unlikeableperson. Your second is, or should be, wait a minute. Does George Bush neveruse potty language? Was Bill Clinton never brusque? Does Dick Cheney alwayssay thank you and please?

But it's different, isn't it, because she's a woman? With the men, toughnessreads as leadership, authority, getting things done. With her it reads as''bitch.'' There is a sense -- and even women buy into this -- that a womanwho climbs too high in male-dominated spheres violates something fundamentalto our understanding of what it means to be a woman. Indeed, that she givesup any claim upon femininity itself.

Nor is that assessment only perception. To the contrary, it has beenquantified in a number of scholarly studies and papers. For example, inFormal and Informal Discrimination Against Women At Work: The Role of GenderStereotypes, a research paper published this year, authors Brian Welle andMadeline E. Heilman report that the woman who succeeds at what hastraditionally been men's work -- and what is a presidential campaign if notthat? -- risks being seen as ``hostile, abrasive, pushy, manipulative andgenerally unlikeable.''

Sound like anyone you know?

We demand certain ''feminine'' traits from women -- nurturing, caring,submission -- and the woman in whom those traits are either not present orsubordinated to her drive, ambition and competence will pay a social price.

''How do we beat the bitch?'' the woman asks. She asked it without blinking,without a second thought, righteously. And John McCain laughed.

That's telling. The ostensible purpose of a campaign is to reveal thecandidate. Hillary Clinton's campaign, it seems, is revealing a whole lotmore.



=

Miami Herald

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/story/309807.html

Nicaragua after Felix

Posted on Fri, Nov. 16, 2007

The death and destruction left in Nicaragua by Hurricane Felix lastSeptember is now being compounded by a political disaster: the growingcomplaints that the Sandinista government is distributing relief aid basedon party loyalty.

Those rumblings should worry President Daniel Ortega. Nicaraguan governmentshave botched responses to a natural calamity before. He should know. The1972 earthquake that destroyed Managua was the beginning of the end ofAnastasio Somoza's dictatorship. Accusations that he distributed aid topartisans and skimmed millions of dollars of donated aid stoked support forthe Sandinistas. When Mr. Somoza was ousted in 1979, Mr. Ortega tookcommand.

This time around Mr. Ortega has been elected into office. Ideally, themillions of dollars of donated disaster aid should go to the people who needit, not just those who are politically connected. But devastated communitiesclaim that the relief hasn't reached them, and complaints are growinglouder.

The loudest protests come from areas that opposed and suffered abuses nderSandinista rule in the 1980s. Among them are the Miskito Indian communities,which were ripped by Felix. One complaint is that local Sandinista groupsare using aid to recruit new party members.

The anger is starting to boil over. Last month hundreds of Miskito Indiansseized airport warehouses looking for relief aid. Yet the Sandinistagovernment has yet to directly respond to the complaints.

more....



=

Sun-Sentinel.com

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/sfl-forum18cablesbnov18,0,3882023,print.story

Competition will create better product

By Miryam Knigge
November 18, 2007

Media conglomerates bundle their stations together and we receive and payfor all of them.

Watch business news on CNBC? Then you must also pay for Bravo, SciFi, USAand another dozen cable networks owned by NBC. Want football on ESPN? Notuntil you pay Disney for ABC Family and Lifetime. Your kids wantNickelodeon? Then pay Viacom for its anti-family programming like MTV, VH-1or its gay-lifestyle network Logo.

How about the Logo subscribers who are forced to pay for an unwantedchildren's network like Nick? They shouldn't have to.

Today, unless a network is owned by one of the major media conglomerates,they are unlikely to get carriage at all. There is no room for the diversityof networks the cable industry claims are a perk of the current system.

Unbundling will allow more niche networks to reach the market. And thosewith quality programming at a fair price will succeed.

more . . . . .


=


[Send your comments about articles to rays.list@comcast.net]
#####