Officials race to head off a bird flu pandemic


Maybe it's just media influence but I am fucking scared about this. Why is the world always ending? I'm sick of worrying. I don't even know what to say about the 20,000 human beings that were killed by this monstrous earthquake. What can you say when life in the U.S. is so normal right now and we can't even grasp that level of death? How could we anyway? I just don't know how to reconcile by day-to-day life with the catastrophes of the world. What's more important?




Officials race to head off a bird flu pandemic
By Steve Sternberg, USA TODAY
Health officials from all over the world are scrambling to figure out how to ward off a global outbreak of deadly flu. President Bush, fresh from reading a 546-page tome on his vacation about the 1918 "Spanish flu" outbreak, has been consulting with the heads of vaccine companies, and he warns that the military might be used to enforce quarantines. His administration's flu battle plan reportedly predicts that almost 2 million Americans could die in a major outbreak. (Related: Tracking a deadly virus)
Disinfectant is sprayed at a chicken farm in Yeoncheon, north of Seoul. South Korea is advising farmers to take precautions against a potential bird flu outbreak.
By Ahn Chung-hwan, AP

The dire projections are prompting new anxiety among Americans already reeling from hurricane disasters. But the experts have been warning for years about a possible flu pandemic. Why suddenly are all the government's alarm bells going off? Are there real reasons to be frightened now? And if there is a flu pandemic, how bad could it be?

Two recent, unrelated events have put the possibility of a flu pandemic into sharp focus:

•An avian flu that had largely been confined to Southeast Asia has spread to Europe and Turkey.

•Two back-to-back hurricanes in the Gulf demonstrated nature's potential for devastation.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Michael Leavitt was visiting hurricane emergency shelters after Katrina and Rita when it hit him just how bad a flu pandemic could be. "What if it weren't just New Orleans" struck by catastrophe, Leavitt recalls thinking. "What if it were Seattle, San Diego, Corpus Christi, Denver, Chicago, New York? Make your own list."

Unlike a hurricane that's confined to a specific area over a short time, a pandemic flu strikes everywhere and can last a year or more, says Leavitt, who left Saturday on a fact-finding trip to flu-stricken regions of Southeast Asia. Waves of illness would shutter schools and businesses, swamp hospitals and send tens of thousands to overflow medical shelters and early graves.

"The big lesson I learned from Hurricane Katrina is that we have to be thinking about the unthinkable," Leavitt says, "because sometimes the unthinkable happens."

The unthinkable has become all too real in Vietnam, Thailand and other Asian countries where an especially deadly flu virus, influenza A/H5N1, has been spreading through millions of birds for the past two years. The virus recently has shown up in birds in Romania, Russia and Turkey.

So far, the virus has infected 117 people, killing 60, a death rate of nearly 50%. Most people have been infected through close contact with infected poultry. In rare cases, the virus is believed to have spread among family members through close contact. If the virus learns to spread readily from person to person through the air, it could cause a pandemic that rivals the worst.

No one can predict when a killer flu will strike, how bad it will be or even whether the virus will sustain its virulence after it begins to spread widely among humans. "It's clear the warning signs are troubling, but there is no certainty," Leavitt says.

The 'ugly truth'
A SCARY SCENARIO
The last flu pandemic, the Hong Kong flu, struck in 1968-69 and killed 1 million people worldwide and 34,000 people in the USA. A strain three times more lethal could kill more than half a million in the USA and send 2 million people to the hospital. Projected numbers of dead, hospitalized and cases:
State Dead In hospitals No. of cases
Ala. 8,886 38,591 1,079,789
Alaska 886 4,558 152,328
Ariz. 9,223 39,675 1,138,742
Ark. 5,350 22,660 630,705
Calif. 60,875 273,090 8,067,075
Colo. 7,192 32,978 973,161
Conn. 7,054 29,932 817,465
Del. 1,507 6,560 182,895
D.C. 1,155 4,974 132,241
Fla. 35,737 142,386 3,663,486
Ga. 13,655 62,912 1,871,561
Hawaii 2,446 10,571 296,651
Idaho 2,279 10,157 302,558
Ill. 23,720 103,738 2,973,962
Ind. 11,817 51,711 1,466,027
Iowa 6,233 26,090 713,106
Kan. 5,373 22,946 654,335
Ky. 7,930 34,748 977,031
La. 8,334 37,148 1,087,942
Maine 2,651 11,333 310,513
Md. 9,958 44,500 1,273,572
Mass. 13,136 56,038 1,529,313
Mich. 19,622 86,005 2,443,473
Minn. 9,304 40,786 1,171,387
Miss. 5,362 23,531 682,625
Mo. 11,274 48,240 1,350,515
Mont. 1,804 7,787 219,703
Neb. 3,441 14,697 414,218
Nev. 3,243 14,455 419,202
N.H. 2,333 10,301 293,177
N.J. 16,980 72,791 2,013,212
N.M. 3,244 14,504 432,438
N.Y. 37,701 162,490 4,534,307
N.C. 14,987 65,637 1,856,296
N.D. 1,371 5,795 160,221
Ohio 23,197 99,979 2,796,583
Okla. 6,833 29,376 829,273
Ore. 6,724 29,047 810,872
Pa. 27,185 112,658 3,004,915
R.I. 2,234 9,263 246,857
S.C. 7,474 32,983 940,045
S.D. 1,559 6,599 184,493
Tenn. 10,875 47,678 1,342,050
Texas 35,124 160,648 4,859,834
Utah 3,393 15,906 514,787
Vt. 1,185 5,213 147,245
Va. 13,104 58,872 1,683,499
Wash. 10,910 48,610 1,402,591
W.Va. 4,049 17,014 453,947
Wis. 10,620 45,842 1,292,419
Wyo. 915 4,086 119,936
Note: Numbers are based U.S. Census data, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention computer program and a 25% infection rate.
Source: The Trust for America's Health, a non-profit public health advocacy group

Health experts agree that a pandemic is inevitable sometime, that the best defense is preparedness and that the world isn't ready. Katrina laid bare America's inability to deal with a massive emergency.

"We're not prepared. It's the ugly truth," says Shelley Hearne, executive director of Trust for America's Health, a non-profit public health advocacy group. "If our emergency response failed so badly for a Category 5 hurricane, imagine what would happen if a Category 5 viral storm hit every state."

Among other things, she says, there is no human vaccine against the avian flu virus, the U.S. government has stockpiled enough anti-viral drugs to treat only 1% of the population, and the hospital system couldn't handle the overload if flu victims flooded emergency rooms.

Health experts such as Hearne have been sounding the alarm about a possible flu pandemic for at least two years, but their cries went largely unheeded until now.

Katrina hit just days after Bush finished John M. Barry's The Great Influenza: The Epic Story of the Deadliest Plague in History during his August vacation on his ranch, White House spokesman Scott McClellan says.

Apparently motivated by the frightening tale of the 1918 epidemic, which killed an estimated 150,000 people in the USA and 50 million worldwide, Bush said last week that the military might be needed to enforce quarantines.

Michael Stebbins of the Federation of American Scientists and others challenged the suggestion as unworkable. "It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of public health emergencies," he says. "I would be fascinated to see whether the president has a plan to quarantine a city like Washington, D.C., New York or Boston with so many roads in or out. Is he going to send in tanks and armed men?"

Assistant Secretary of Defense William Winkenwirder declined to comment on the president's statement but said the military is often called upon for logistical and medical support in emergencies.

Scientific reports released on the heels of Bush's statement increased the nation's anxiety. In one, Jeffery Taubenberger of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology and his team said in the journal Nature that the 1918 pandemic began when the virus leapt from birds to humans, a scenario that mirrors what is happening in Asia today.

In a bid to contain the current epidemic, officials in Southeast Asia have slaughtered 140 million birds. That has not stopped the virus from spreading.

Bush met last week with the chief executives of four vaccine companies to determine how he can help them boost production enough to safeguard the population. The State Department on Friday convened a meeting of health officials from 80 countries to map out plans to arrest the flu's spread.

The administration's plan

The administration is putting the finishing touches on its long-awaited pandemic plan to be released after Leavitt returns from his trip. A draft version, dated Sept. 30 and leaked to The New York Times, reportedly predicts a major outbreak might kill up to 1.9 million people and make half the country sick.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, says he learned of the administration's prediction on Sept. 28 in a top-secret meeting in a secure room in the Capitol. He and a few other senators met with Leavitt; Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; and Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The administration, Harkin says, predicts U.S. deaths from pandemic flu could range from 100,000 to 2 million, and as many as 10 million might be hospitalized. Up to 100 million might become sick. Seasonal flu epidemics kill about 36,000 people each year in the USA.

The briefing prompted Harkin to push for $4 billion in supplemental funds. "We saw what happened when you're not prepared," he says. The money will bolster surveillance, increase stockpiles of anti-virals, increase the vaccine supply, and help state and local health officials prepare for epidemics.

Fauci says the scary statistics resonate at the White House: "The president has taken a strong personal interest in getting this country prepared for pandemic flu."

Soon after he gets back from Asia on Oct. 18, Leavitt will unveil the administration's pandemic plan. He offered few details, but he sketched out the administration's aims:

•Improving the global network to detect disease outbreaks. The United States is working with China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia and others to strengthen surveillance.

•Heightening vigilance at home. Among other things, CDC is sending avian flu test kits to a network of labs.

•Stockpiling anti-viral medications. Leavitt has entered into negotiations with companies that make anti-virals, seeking enough to treat 20 million people.

•Increasing vaccine capacity. The United States wants to rebuild the vaccine market to give drug makers appropriate incentives to end shortages.

"A major part of our domestic plan needs to be domestic capacity, because in a pandemic, the emergency will be managed across the globe," Leavitt says. "Anyone with a supply produced in their country will want to keep it there."

Vaccines are less profitable than drugs, and drug makers worry about liability issues, such as those that arose when swine flu vaccine, produced in 1976 to avert an epidemic that never materialized, caused a nerve disease. The administration seeks to solve both problems by providing vaccine makers with a stable market and protection against lawsuits.

Hearne says health officials hope the administration's plan will be enough to deal with a flu pandemic. "The reality is that if a pandemic hits, it's not just a health emergency," she says. "It's the big one. It requires big thinking to make sure all those dots are connected. Katrina was a wake-up call."



Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-10-10-avian-flu-cover_x.htm

Chávez taunts US with oil offer


Robertson's such a jackass. I'm more angry that white Americans in power still think they can rule the entire world. It this type of covert political tactics that has created America's notorious reputation around the planet. I'm not an expert on Chavez's administration so far but I do know that he's had massive popularity with the the working masses of his country and they voted him in freely. They also worked to keep him in power when a coup threatened Chavez. I feel that we need more socialism and definitely progressive politics in the mainstream and I know that this level of capitalism cannot last that much longer. Capitalism must be modified to benefit the working people of this country and not the rich. I support people who are not afraid of speaking out against American policy that constantly puts profits over humans. This country is great but it's government needs systemic changes. I would never advocate violence and I hope we find nonviolent means to changing this American capitalist enterprise.


Chávez taunts US with oil offer

Venezuelan president hits back at assassination remarks with offer of cheap petroleum for poor Americans
Duncan Campbell
Thursday August 25, 2005

Guardian
President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela hit back vigorously at calls by an ally of President George Bush for his assassination by offering cheap petrol to the poor of the US at a time of soaring fuel prices.

In a typically robust response to remarks by the US televangelist Pat Robertson, Mr Chávez compared his detractors to the "rather mad dogs with rabies" from Cervantes' Don Quixote, and unveiled his plans to use Venezuela's energy reserves as a political tool.

"We want to sell gasoline and heating fuel directly to poor communities in the United States," he said.

Mr Robertson's remarks have threatened to inflame tension between the US and one of its main oil suppliers.

Yesterday the religious broadcaster apologised for his remarks.

"Is it right to call for assassination? No, and I apologise for that statement. I spoke in frustration that we should accommodate the man who thinks the US is out to kill him," he said.

In a TV broadcast on Monday, he said: "If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it."

Yesterday Mr Robertson initially said his comments had been misinterpreted, but went on to add that kidnapping Mr Chávez might be a better idea.

"I said our special forces could take him out. Take him out could be a number of things, including kidnapping."

The Bush administration tried to distance itself from Mr Robertson's views without upsetting the large Christian fundamentalist wing which the veteran evangelist represents.

A State Department spokesman said assassination was not part of government policy. "He's a private citizen," Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, said of Mr Robertson. "Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time."

But Mr Robertson's remarks are seen as an embarrassment at a time when the US is calling for a united front against terror.

Democrats have challenged the Bush administration to be more outspoken in its response to Mr Robertson's remarks on the Christian Broadcasting Network.

Venezuela's ambassador to the US, Bernardo Alvarez, said: "Mr Robertson has been one of this president's staunchest allies. His statement demands the strongest condemnation by the White House."

The Venezuelan government is asking for assurances from the US government that Mr Chávez will be adequately protected when he visits New York for a special session of the UN next month.

Venezuela's vice-president, José Vicente Rangel, said the possibility of legal action against Mr Robertson for incitement to murder should also be considered.

Venezuela, the world's fifth largest crude exporter, supplies 1.3m barrels of oil a day to the US. It remains unclear how poor Americans might benefit from the cheap petrol offer, but Mr Chávez has set up arrangements with other countries for swapping services in exchange for oil. Cuban doctors are working in the poorer areas of Venezuela in exchange for cheap oil going to Cuba.

Jamaica yesterday became the first Caribbean country to reach an agreement with Venezuela for oil at below-market terms. The Petrocaribe initiative is a plan to offer oil at flexible rates to 13 Caribbean countries. Jamaica will pay $40 a barrel, against a market rate of more than $60.

Mr Chávez said oil importers such as the US could expect no respite from the oil market, predicting the price of a barrel would reach $100 by 2012.

Trials & Tribulations of One Firebrand Chicana


Doves, silence for A-bomb victims
Hiroshima recalls day 60 years ago that changed face of war


I've got a lump in my throat.
I can't believe this took place... why?



Doves, silence for A-bomb victims
Hiroshima recalls day 60 years ago that changed face of war

HIROSHIMA, Japan (CNN) -- Hundreds of doves were released in Peace Memorial Park in Hiroshima Saturday as tens of thousands of people gathered 60 years after the world's first atomic bomb was dropped on the city, killing nearly half of its residents.

At 8:15 a.m. (11:15 p.m. GMT Friday) -- the moment when the bomb detonated on Aug. 6, 1945 -- the crowd was hushed for a minute of silence in tribute to the more than 140,000 people who died either instantly or not long after the attack.

Thousands more suffered severe burns and the effects of radiation sickness, and many of these people also did not survive.

The park surrounds the closest building to survive the blast.

On August 9, 1945, three days after the Hiroshima attack, another atomic bomb was dropped on the Japanese city of Nagasaki. Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba, who each year issues a Declaration of Peace for the anniversary, described it as "a time of inheritance, of awakening and of commitment ... to the abolishment of nuclear weapons and the realization of genuine world peace."

"No one else should ever suffer as we did," said Akiba, quoting the "hibakusha" warning from the bombing survivors. He urged nuclear powers to abandon their arsenals.

During the Hiroshima ceremonies, dignitaries placed wreaths and flowers at the base of the monument. Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi also paid tribute to the bombing victims, saying Japan has vowed "never to repeat the tragedies in Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

"We also will take the lead in the international community to promote ... nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation and do our best to abolish nuclear weapons," Koizumi added.

The anniversary comes as North Korea disarmament talks continue in Beijing.

Negotiations have reached an impasse over Washington's insistence that Pyongyang should not be allowed to have any nuclear program that might be converted to making weapons.

North Korea insists it has the right to developing nuclear power for peaceful means.

One of the Hiroshima survivors is Hiroko Yamashita, who was home alone when the bomb went off.

"I remember the figure of my little brother coming home from our neighbor's house, silhouetted in a white flash," she said.

Yamashita was 18, he was 6, and their parents had asked her to watch him.

Their house was about 800 meters (yards) from where the bomb exploded. Their three-story home collapsed, but she and her brother found each other.

"We're OK is all we could say, over and over."

She told CNN she saw survivors with burned skin hanging from bodies."I still remember the voices of the dying calling, 'help, help us,' but we could not help them."

Yamashita suffered gaping wounds that exposed her bones and went to a nearby airfield, where co-workers found her and re-united her and her brother with their parents.

She thought her brother was fine. But he collapsed, bleeding from his nose, and his hair fell out. He died at a medical facility, in the bed next to her.

Yamashita said she still suffers from recurring cancer from the bombing.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/08/05/japan.hiroshima/

"Disastrous" bill would cut public-broadcasting service

I am horrified about the new Congressional bill to cut funding for PBS and NPR! What the hell is wrong with our "elected" officials who are supposed to advance the public interest?? There is no other public and free institution like PBS or NPR that is open to all. Their funding should pretty much be endless in my opinion. Does Congress realize how vital these outlets are for public education and knowledge? With all the budget cuts that public schools and colleges get all the time PBS and NPR are often the only form of receiving increasingly missing information. I feel really strongly about this. If the government consistently chooses to overspend on things like the military and not education, then they really should keep their hands off funding for public broadcasting. Period. Man, I really need to run for Congress so that the public interest remains vital there... those well educated representatives have little to worry about if public broadcasting is in trouble but what about the rest of the working public and citizens?? I've already filled a part of the petition sponsored by MoveOn.org.... I suggest everyone do the same RIGHT NOW. Thanks!

http://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/


Kay McFadden
"Disastrous" bill would cut public-broadcasting service

If you can't join 'em, lick 'em. That seems to be the Republicans' final solution for public broadcasting.

Last Thursday night, the House Appropriations Committee approved a 2006 fiscal spending bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, it would cut 23 percent of funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which gives money to PBS, NPR and member stations.

The proposed bill rolls back a 2004 appropriation and reduces CPB's budget by $87 million, to $300 million. It also would eliminate all money for PBS stations to convert to digital and for PBS' "Ready to Learn" early-learning service for children.

Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, the committee's ranking Democrat, told Congressional Quarterly that the proposal was "disastrous for public broadcasting as we know it."

Closer to home, Seattle's KCTS-TV and Tacoma's KBTC-TV are holding a joint press conference at 10 a.m. today to call attention to the impending plight of local stations.

Bill Mohler, president and CEO of KCTS, said the loss is most likely to hurt production and local outreach for children's shows, which get less corporate underwriting despite their critical acclaim and hallowed place in PBS programming.

"This is very, very troubling to me," said Mohler. "I can't believe that people would want to strike out like this. It's really punitive, especially to reach into an appropriation approved by a prior Congress."

Hard to believe, maybe, but not hard to conceive. In 1995, Republican and then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich led an unsuccessful effort to ax funding for CPB.

There are significant differences this time around. GOP conservatives have been savvier in conducting a multi-pronged assault on public broadcasting, from attacks on PBS and NPR content to attempts to install their own leadership at CPB.

Rep. Ralph Regula, R-Ohio, the Appropriations chairman, said last week that the cuts had nothing do with targeting public TV or radio. He pointed out that the entire bill — which includes spending for labor, health and human services and education — contains reductions.

Sure. While we're in the counting House, it's worth noting that the present CPB budget costs American citizens just over $1 apiece a year.

Whatever Regula's intentions, the bill comes after months of mounting criticism from conservatives that have often had an orchestrated appearance — even as poll after poll shows that public television has some of the highest credibility ratings with the public.

The first target was Bill Moyers' allegedly liberal tilt on "Now." Moyers departed in December. Then a pair of lesbian moms on "Postcards from Buster" drew outrage. Next it was two "Frontline" broadcasts in which U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq used naughty words.

PBS tried to accommodate.

Instead of airing the disputed "Buster" episode, it left the choice to individual stations. It aired expurgated versions of the "Frontline" programs, again leaving it to local stations to choose the original version. (Note: KCTS ran "Buster" and the nonbleeped "Frontlines.")

PBS President Pat Mitchell went further. She gave shows to conservatives Tucker Carlson and Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Paul Gigot. She announced public television would hire an ombudsman to address the issue of balance.

While all this was going on, the CPB board was being reshaped by Republican hands — to an extent that even CPB's board apparently didn't realize.

Last Monday, The New York Times broke the story that CPB Chairman Kenneth Tomlinson, a Republican elected by the board in 2003, secretly hired an outside consultant to monitor Bill Moyers' "Now" for "anti-Bush," "anti-business" and "anti- (House Majority Leader) Tom DeLay" bias.

Wisconsin's Obey and Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., have called for an investigation by CPB Inspector General Kenneth Konz.

They also want Konz to check out reports that Tomlinson told members of the Association of Public Television Stations at a meeting of TV and radio executives last November that they needed to include the November election mandate in programs.

CPB is supposed to be apolitical. The 1967 law that established it says so.

Now that Tomlinson has been caught maneuvering, it's hard to resist speculation that Republicans are using financial hardball to get public broadcasting to toe the line, or die.

They've timed their actions shrewdly.

The explosion in viewing choices since 1995 has made PBS vulnerable to critics who say that it's no longer vital or unique. Cable channels now crowd the field with quality offerings in traditional PBS bastions like children's shows and British imports.

Ratings and corporate funding also have declined since 1995, forcing public television to carry more "sponsorship spots" and dilute its identity as noncommercial. That's alienated some of PBS' staunchest viewers.

Still, PBS owns the claim to being independent of corporate interests. Its news and information programs — "Frontline," "American Experience," "American Masters" and "Nova" — have virtually no equal.

Many a parent still would rather plop his or her child in front of an afternoon of PBS programming than roll the dice with commercial alternatives.

Transcending these considerations is the democratic vision of a level viewing field. For people unable to afford cable, PBS is the only oasis of mostly commercial-free quality.

At the local level, value goes beyond the screen.

On $45,000 a year, KCTS' "Ready to Learn" program teaches parents and educators to support children's school readiness, promotes literacy and distributes thousands of free books to poor kids.

That could all go away under the proposed elimination of that program.

It's discouraging in this supersized financial era to have to fret over such piddling amounts. Being head of a public-TV station must really suck some days.

More depressing is the spectacle of PBS turned into a political football. Bias probably creeps into all forms of media as a matter of human nature. Yet how can anyone fault the service that public broadcasting has rendered for decades?

If public TV is killed, it'll be interesting to see what happens to that suddenly available broadcast spectrum. I expect sums far greater than $45,000 will be tossed around.

The appropriations bill moves to a full vote Thursday in the House. In July, the House and Senate conferees expect to meet to reconcile budget legislation.

Don't sit on your hands. Check out kcts.org, moveon.org, reclaimthemedia.org and commoncause.org for starters. E-mail your political representatives. Stop watching TV — just this once.

kmcfadden@seattletimes.com

Latino mayor for Los Angeles after 133 years

I'm so dead tired right now so all I can say about this news story is "Yes!!!" ;) Never mind!
"L.A. Elects 1st Hispanic Mayor Since 1872"
Since 1872!!! Well, it's about fucking time again!



Dan Glaister in Los Angeles
Thursday May 19, 2005

Guardian
Los Angeles has a Latino mayor for the first time since 1872 after a victory at the polls for Antonio Villaraigosa over the incumbent, Jim Hahn.

The 59%-41% victory for the Mexican-American city councillor was being heralded yesterday as a political breakthrough for the growing Latino population in the US.

Mr Villaraigosa captured 80% of the Latino vote in the city and 60% of the white vote on a turnout of about 30% of registered voters.

At a victory rally on Tuesday he told supporters: "We are all Angelenos tonight. You all know that I love LA, but tonight, I really love LA."

Standing with his family in front of a giant Stars and Stripes and preceded by a mariachi band, Mr Villaraigosa sought to put the acrimony of the campaign behind him.

"It doesn't matter whether you go to work in a fancy car or on a bus, or whether you worship in a cathedral or a synagogue or a mosque," he said. "We are all Angelenos, and we all have a difference to make."

The 2000 census showed that Latinos make up 46% of Los Angeles's 3.7 million population, but only 22% were eligible to vote.

Both candidates were from the Democratic party and the campaign focused on style as much as policy.

Mr Hahn, who was attacked for his underwhelming style, admitted to reporters on Tuesday that he suffered from "charisma deficit disorder".

His challenger portrayed himself as a dynamic figure who would ably represent the second biggest city in the US nationally and internationally.

Mr Villaraigosa campaigned through the night before polling day, cajoling voters at late-night food stalls across the city. His team sought to contrast that strategy with the incumbent, who went home to bed.

But negative campaigning alienated many voters. Even local news media downplayed the result. The only television channels to carry Mr Villaraigosa's victory rally live were local Spanish ones. The lengthy campaign - Tuesday's vote was a run-off following a primary won by Mr Villaraigosa in March - saw both candidates accusing each other of corruption. Mr Hahn also sought to portray Mr Villaraigosa as soft on gang crime, a key issue in the city. But the collapse of the mayor's coalition from four years ago of suburban whites and urban blacks left him facing an impossible task.

Mr Villaraigosa became the fifth Latino mayor of a big city in the US, following Miami, San Antonio, San Jose and Dade County.

As a second generation Mexican-American, he faced a linguistic handicap: he had to learn Spanish as an adult.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005


Another good article here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0519/p01s01-uspo.html

Ideological filibuster clash expected to begin Wednesday



BY DICK POLMAN

Knight Ridder Newspapers

PHILADELPHIA - (KRT) - At the dawn of the American experiment, James Madison envisioned the creation of a U.S. Senate that would operate with "wisdom" and "stability." It would be impervious to the emotions of the masses, "an anchor against popular fluctuations." It would build "a necessary fence" against majority will, by protecting minority rights.

But Madison's formula, largely honored in practice, may be imperiled by the showdown over President Bush's judicial nominees, an ideological clash slated to begin Wednesday - and potentially end next week with a historic vote that could fundamentally alter the role and character of the institution itself.

Reputedly "the world's greatest deliberative body," the Senate is on the verge of being engulfed by the political passions it was designed to withstand. A chamber that once valued compromise and moderation now appears hostage to the well-heeled ideological interest groups, on the left and right, whose partisans will accept nothing short of total victory.

The majority Republicans are poised to change Senate rules and erase the Democrats' ability to block pending Bush nominees.

But if GOP senators vote to erase the filibuster - a time-honored tactic that allows dissidents to conduct extended debate to prevent a vote - many analysts believe over time the Senate will mirror the House of Representatives, a place designed to favor majority rule over minority rights. Therefore, Madison's "fence" would be trampled.

Senate Republicans say, however, that they won't alter the chamber's character, that they intend to eliminate the filibuster (the "nuclear option," as coined by Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi) only when used against judicial nominees. They argue Bush's stymied nominees should be sent to the floor for a final vote, in accordance with the constitutional proviso that senators "advise and consent" on a president's choices.

But since Democrats see that argument as part of a plot to pack the courts with "extremist" judges, odds seem slim that a nuclear showdown can be averted.

In the words of legal commentator Stuart Taylor Jr., the warring Senate camps, rather than stressing civility, are now behaving "like testosterone-crazed teenage drivers locked in a game of chicken."

That's because, unlike their Senate forebears, these lawmakers are more closely attuned to the passions of their activists. It's noteworthy that whenever the few remaining moderate senators have floated compromises, the interest groups have reacted with scorn.

On the left, Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, told the Associated Press, "You cannot back down from bullies." On the right, Concerned Women for America sent out e-mail Tuesday warning against "soft-centered sellouts."

Ross Baker, a Senate expert who has worked in the chamber, said if the GOP nixes judicial filibusters, "the Senate would become a vastly inferior institution that would not reflect what the Framers had in mind.

"Among other things," said Baker, a political analyst at Rutgers University, "the fallout from the nuclear option - and fallout is the right word, because it would be toxic - will hurt relations between senators. It would be tougher for them to deal with each other across party lines, make it tougher to get things done."

Steven Smith, a Senate expert at Washington University in St. Louis, and an author on six books about congressional politics, sees the nuclear option as "a potentially dangerous precedent" that would encourage future senators to eliminate a minority's right to filibuster on a whole range of issues.

"Nobody in leadership, on either side, is taking the high road," Smith said. "Pure power politics are dictating their positions, and they're willing to just let the next generation of senators come in and pick up the pieces. ... The Senate was not designed to allow a majority to simply get its way."

It would be wrong to imply that the Senate has always been a rarified haven of wisdom, far from the "madding crowd." The dominance of communist-hunter Joseph McCarthy during the early 1950s argues against that.

And the passions of the day have literally intruded on occasion; in 1856, Sen. Charles Sumner, a foe of slavery, was beaten senseless on the Senate floor by a cane-wielding Southerner (it was a visiting House member, but he was applauded by the Southern senators who witnessed his attack).

But civility and compromise have generally been the norm. As recently as 1995, chamber experts counted 17 senators in both parties who often crossed over to vote with the other camp. That number was even higher for most of the last century, and few lawmakers felt compelled to resort to filibusters. The Senate averaged only one a year during the 1950s, 4.6 a year during the `60s and 11.2 a year during the `70s.

But Wednesday's showdown over judges and filibuster rules is essentially a product of the widening partisan divide.

The demise of Southern conservative Democrats and Northern moderate Republicans has tilted the Democrats leftward and the Republicans rightward.

A generation ago, it would have been unthinkable for the Democratic leader to call the president a "liar" and a "loser" (as Harry Reid has done) and for the Republican leader to stump for the defeat of his counterpart in the other guy's state (as Bill Frist did in South Dakota last year, against Tom Daschle).

"You end up with two senatorial parties that are personally distant from each other," Smith said. "Members are developing fewer friendships with each other, across party lines, and that makes it easier for their rhetoric to get out of hand" - which, in turn, provides fresh fodder for the special-interest groups that continually stoke their partisan supporters with e-mails and Internet ads. On the judicial showdown, the traffic has been particularly heavy.

Still, the fate of the nuclear option - and the future of the chamber - may well hinge on the small band of uncommitted Republicans. Some are moderates; others are traditionalists who have questioned the wisdom of altering Senate rules.

But if they're looking for guidance from moderate Americans, they may wait in vain, because the latest polls show that roughly two-thirds of the people aren't paying attention.

"It's still a highly esoteric debate," said Baker, "conducted entirely for the activists on the left and right who have a big stake in the outcome."

And it's the activists who will vote most heavily in the 2006 elections - yet another reason why lawmakers, employing hot rhetoric in the days ahead, may well test Madison's admonition that "coolness" shall prevail in the U.S. Senate.

---

© 2005, The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Visit Philadelphia Online, the Inquirer's World Wide Web site, at http://www.philly.com

Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.

Feminist Scholar Andrea Dworkin Dies at 58

Her ideas have challenged me more than any others as a young feminist. The strength she had to have to be so vocal and public must have been extraordinary. RIP.

Feminist Daily News Wire
April 11, 2005

Feminist Scholar Andrea Dworkin Dies at 58

Andrea Dworkin, a feminist icon and scholar, died on Saturday at the age of 58. Her cause of death was not known, but her agent Elaine Markson told the Guardian that she had become frail in the last week and had a series of falls. Dworkin was the author of over a dozen books, and was known best for her writings on pornography and violence against women, as well as her theories on how these issues contributed to sexual inequality.

“The women’s movement, domestically and globally, has lost one of its most moving, brilliant, and clear voices,” said Robin Morgan, a noted feminist author (her books include Sisterhood Is Powerful and Sisterhood Is Global) and former editor-in-chief and current Global Editor of Ms. magazine. “Andrea Dworkin was a fine writer, had a fierce intellect, and was an uncompromising feminist.”

Dworkin, together with feminist lawyer Catharine MacKinnon, wrote a law defining pornography as a violation of women’s civil rights, enabling women to sue those who produce and distribute pornographic materials. The law was passed in Indianapolis in 1983, but was overturned by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals two years later.

The works of Dworkin on sexual inequality and to end pornography have been highly controversial. The Guardian described Dworkin in 2001, saying, “Dworkin is a threat, of course, to exactly the extent that radical feminists have always posed a threat – pointing out unapologetically the degree to which violence against women and children by men remains rampant.”