Bob Dole Gets 'Nailed to the Wall'

A decade has passed since Bob Dole left the Senate, but his self-deprecating wit remained firmly intact when he returned to the Capitol on Tuesday for the unveiling of his official portrait to hang with those of other former majority leaders.

"Some of my colleagues have been waiting for years to nail me to the wall," Dole deadpanned, as dozens of current and former senators who came to pay tribute erupted with laughter.

He wasn't done.

"When I left this building 10 years ago, I said it was up to the electorate to decide my future address. In their wisdom, they decided they would rather see me in commercials than in the Oval Office," he said, poking fun of his TV ads hawking Viagra and Pepsi after losing his 1996 bid for the White House.

The ceremony in the U.S. Capitol's historic Old Senate Chamber was a mix of praise and fond remembrances of Dole's legacy and his ability to forge friendships with Democrats as well as his fellow Republicans.

"Our democracy is more nearly perfect because of you," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. "America is a better place because of you being here fighting on our side."

The oil on canvas painting by noted New York artist Everett Raymond Kinstler shows a seated, younger-looking Dole, wearing a dark gray pinstripe suit and flashing his trademark grin. He is firmly clasping the ever-present pen in his right hand, which was injured during World War II.

Between the laughs, the 83-year-old Dole briefly fought back tears as he lauded his wife - Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C. - his daughter Robin and his loyal staff.

He also spoke of his humble roots in Russell, Kan., and the people of the state who helped him become a player on the national and global stage.

"You have honored me with your confidence and you have entrusted me with your ideals," Dole said of his Kansas constituents.

Dole became the Senate's majority leader in 1985. He then led the party in the minority from 1987 to 1994, and once again as majority leader from 1995-1996.

Juan Williams Assails 'Phony' Black Leaders

By Ronald Kessler

Fox News contributor Juan Williams comes out swinging against "phony" black leaders and a black "culture of failure" in his new book "Enough."

Williams gave NewsMax his first interview about the book, and he lashed out at leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who create support by focusing on "victimhood."

"That says to an individual, ‘You can't help yourself, you can't help your family, and therefore all you can do is wait for the government to do something for you," said Williams, who is also a senior correspondent for National Public Radio. "I think it is a message of weakness and ineffectual thinking that is absolutely crippling the poor and especially minorities in the United States."

Victimhood Not a Black Tradition

Williams, who is black, decided to write "Enough" after Bill Cosby called upon blacks to stop blaming "the white man" for their problems. "Cosby comes across as a real hero," Williams told NewsMax. "And President Bush comes across as a good guy, because he is one of the people who is demanding accountability from the schools."

In the book, published by Crown, Williams cites a long tradition of black self-reliance. "You had Frederick Douglass, who said, ‘Let's get African-Americans in the Union Army to fight for their own freedom.' Crispus Attucks obviously was shedding black blood for the independence of the country and making the case that black Americans had every right to be full citizens with full obligations and privileges that come with citizenship.

"And you come forward from there to Booker T. Washington, who said, ‘Let's establish trade schools, and let's own land, in order to establish a black economic base that will deal with poverty but will also deal with the whole notion of equality and equal rights in the country.' You come forward from that to Dr. King."

But in recent decades, "That tradition has been abandoned by people who say, ‘What if we portray people as victims? If we have a larger pool of poor people, then we are eligible for a bigger government grant,"' Williams said. "[Black leaders] maintain their positions of power by mismanaging people. They say that the way we get power is by pretending to be so weak and impotent that we have to say, 'It's the result of what the government is doing,and we have to wait for the government to help us.' I just think it's criminal to tell people that kind of sad message."

Leaders or Shills?

Moreover, Williams said, Jackson and Sharpton are paid by competitors to stage phony "civil rights" demonstrations at companies.

"Because one company wants to get access to a cable system, for example, they have these people out there demonstrating as if this is a civil rights issue," Williams said. "They're trying to embarrass [companies] by having people like Jackson and Sharpton pull up in limousines and lead these demonstrators. It is a total farce."

Beyond failed leadership, Williams takes aim at "a culture of failure" among blacks.

"That culture says that you are acting white if you're a good student, that says that going to jail is just a right of passage, or that crime is acceptable in the black community," Williams said. "You know, you celebrate drug dealers and gangs, and you say, 'That's authentically black' when you see criminal behavior. How self-defeating! What a negative image to take on to yourself, but even worse, to put on your children."

The whole notion of victimization is being promoted by "failed leaders, and it's creating a culture of failure that's undermining poor people, it's undermining minorities in this country," Williams said. These leaders "make excuses and want to argue about why there's a heavier penalty for crack cocaine than for powdered cocaine," Williams said.

Rap music only furthers this destructive message, according to Williams.

Education Is the Key

But if black people want to help themselves and break through the culture of victimization, they can look to President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, Williams said. "Here's a president who's actually looking at the fact that these schools that serve an overwhelmingly minority population are failing to properly educate those kids."

And with No Child Left Behind "we're going to know if you're educating your students or not. We're going to know if the black kids are all being routed into some lower-end classes, not being allowed to take tests, and failing and dropping out," Williams told NewsMax. "[Bush] is insisting on accountability. Who does this benefit? Black kids, Hispanic kids, their parents and their community at large. It insists that the school system educate all children."

For too long, Williams added, "Schools were not being held accountable. In part because the Democrats were in the pockets of the [teachers'] unions."

With his Cabinet selections, Bush has set an example of what blacks can achieve, Williams said. He cited two African-Americans as secretaries of state, a secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and a former secretary of Education who are black.

"You know, for all the talk about a cabinet that looks like America under Clinton, Bush has a better record of diversity in his cabinet than Clinton did," he said.

The good news is that the self-defeating culture can be changed. Instead of blaming white society, black leaders should be encouraging African-Americans to get a good education and avoid drugs.

Just Say No

"Bill Cosby said he's never seen the NAACP lead a march against drug dealers," Williams said."You change the culture by getting groups like the NAACP to start admitting that what's really undermining the success of black families and black children is when a crack house opens in the neighborhood and people tolerate and allow that to happen.

"They say 'We can't do nothin' about it,' or 'We're waiting for the police.' You know what? That is a civil rights issue."

Williams, a former Washington Post reporter, said the NAACP and black leaders should be sending the message: "Don't use cocaine. This is something that is highly addictive, it will cripple your family, it will damage your community, don't do it."

And they should be saying, "If you finish high school or go to college, if you make sure that your kids have wonderful experiences instead of sitting in front of the TV, if you teach them to work hard, this is a country that will reward you," Williams said.

"You have too many people who don't understand that if you simply delay having children, don't have children as teenagers, you put yourself in a position to have tremendous success.

"They should know to get married before having children. These are basic steps that almost guarantee that you will not live in poverty in this country." Williams said, "You never hear that message."

In calling the book "Enough," Williams issues this call-to-arms: "Enough of these phony leaders who focus on victimhood and victimization. Enough of this kind of dead-end talk about celebrating criminals and bad behavior. Let's look at what works and how people can lift themselves up."

Charles Barkley Eyes Alabama Gov. Run as Democrat

The Round Mound of Rebound has changed his political uniform from red to blue and is talking again about running for governor of Alabama, possibly in 2010.

"Alabama, that's my home. I'm thinking about running for governor; they need my help," the always quotable Charles Barkley said.

His decision was received warmly by Joe Turnham, Alabama's Democratic Party chairman, but with skepticism by a political observer.

"I say, 'Welcome Charles Barkley.' Charles Barkley has been a Horatio Alger story for many people, not only in sports but in business and broadcasting," Turnham said Wednesday.

Turnham said he plans to contact Barkley and invite him to some events the party has coming up.

Jim Seroka, a political-science professor at Auburn University, said the former Auburn and NBA star is getting ahead of himself by talking about possibly running without first building a base of support or looking at finances.


"He doesn't have any of the bases necessary to run a statewide campaign," Seroka said Wednesday.

Barkley, a Leeds native, has been talking about running for governor of his home state since he was playing with the Phoenix Suns in the NBA. In 1995, he said he was considering running in 1998 as a Republican, but that never materialized.

After that, Barkley continued to identify himself as a Republican until recently, when he switched to the Democratic team.

"I was a Republican until they lost their minds," he said earlier this month at a celebrity golf tournament in Nevada.

"Sir Charles" reinforced that Tuesday while speaking to a convention of public school board members in Destin, Fla.

"What I've said is I'm rich like a Republican, but I'm not one," Barkley said in remarks reported by The Birmingham News.

Barkley said his immediate goal is to get his 17-year-old daughter through high school and into college. Then he plans to decide on his future, including whether to run for governor of his home state.

"I really believe I was put on Earth to do more than play basketball and stockpile money," Barkley said. "I really want to help people improve their lives, and what's left is for me to decide how best to do that."

Alabama's last Democratic governor, Don Siegelman, said Barkley has become a role model for many people and "would make an excellent candidate for high office."

Siegelman noted that Barkley has the personal wealth to stage a strong campaign.

"He's definitely going to be taken seriously," Siegelman said.

In Barkley's remarks in Destin, he was not complimentary of Alabama's past leadership.

"If it wasn't for Arkansas and Mississippi, we'd be dead last in everything. I think we can do better," he said.

Barkley told the school board members that poor children don't have a level playing field with wealthier students, because the poor children have to cope with more problems like crime, drugs and teen pregnancy. But he also admonished some black parents and their children.

"There are too many black kids and their parents who do not value a good education," he said. "There are places where a black kid who is a good student and tries to speak correctly, you hear stuff like, 'He's trying to be white.' Well, I say, if that's true, we need more kids trying to be white."

House Blocks Seizure of Legal Guns

The House voted Tuesday to prevent law enforcement officers from confiscating legally owned guns during a national disaster or emergency.

Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana lawmaker who sponsored the bill, said firearms seizures after Hurricane Katrina left residents unable to defend themselves.

"Many of them were sitting in their homes without power, without water, without communication," he said. "It was literally impossible to pick up a phone and call 911."

The House voted 322-99 in support of the bill. Senators voted 84-16 earlier this month to include a similar prohibition in a homeland security funding bill.

Hillary Fan Trashes Giuliani – Again

An upcoming book seeks to tear apart the heroic legacy of New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani for his actions surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks.

Is there a Hillary Clinton connection here?

"The Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11" will be published by HarperCollins in September to mark the fifth anniversary of the attacks.

It’s written by Wayne Barrett, a longtime Village Voice writer, and Dan Collins, a senior producer for CBSNews.com.

Barrett, you may recall, was the author of a muckraking book about Giuliani, “Rudy: An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Giuliani,” which Barrett wrote as Giuliani was seeking the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate from New York in 2000 – with Hillary his likely Democratic foe.

The mudslinging book was mentioned as a possible motive behind Giuliani’s decision to drop out of the Senate race in May 2000, before the primary he was expected to win.

The Smoking Gun (TSG) Web site noted at the time that Giuliani “was recently running for U.S. Senate against Hillary Clinton, but withdrew from that race following a prostate cancer diagnosis and some serious girl troubles.” (He admitted having an “adult relationship” with a woman other than his wife.) “But TSG thinks poor Rudy was also dreading the July 11 release of Barrett’s detailed examination of the controversial Republican.”

There were whispers that Hillary, who trailed Giuliani by 11 points in an early 2000 poll, might have had something to do with the work by Barrett – who praised Clinton during an appearance on CNN’s “Crossfire.”

Now comes Barrett’s new book – as both Clinton and Giuliani are said to be likely candidates for the White House in 2008.

And once again, Barrett is hardly complimentary about his subject. Contrary to most published accounts that have praised Giuliani’s handling of the World Trade Center attacks, Barrett says then Mayor Giuliani mishandled the city’s terrorism response efforts.

It might be noted that if Clinton and Giuliani were to square off in the 2008 general election, the ex-mayor could pose a serious challenge to Hillary in a blue state considered vital to any Democrat’s White House hopes.

Schwarzenegger Woos Liberal Voters

It seems Arnold Schwarzenegger can’t get enough of the liberals.

From expanded health-care programs at grade school levels to lowering health-care costs and reducing the number of uninsured Californians, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is wooing liberal voters. He has also heaped praise on Al Gore's global warming movie, which should serve the Republican governor well in this otherwise eco-centric, deep blue state.

Facing state Treasurer Phil Angelides, his ultra-liberal opponent in the November election, Schwarzenegger is casting his net in a leftward direction.

The Los Angeles Times reports that Schwarzenegger aides say the governor is seeking to respond to critics who charge him with failing to come up with substantial remedies for his state's health-care problems by such moves as proposing new medical clinics in as many as 500 elementary schools.

The move would add to the 140 campus facilities that are already in place helping uninsured children. His critics are calling his proposal an election-year stunt.

"We have too many uninsured people in California," Schwarzenegger stated at a news conference last Friday. "There are still a lot of children uninsured."

The new clinics would be built on school grounds and offer basic services such as immunizations. Some could also provide mental health or dental services. Bigger clinics could include labs and pharmacies and offer treatment for adults as well as children.

Aides said Schwarzenegger would introduce the idea at a health-care conference that his office organized in Los Angeles.

On Sunday, Angelides told the Times he "welcomed the debate" with Schwarzenegger on health care. But he said the governor has been absent on the issue and "should be charged with political malpractice."

The Times notes that Schwarzenegger's plan could put him at odds with some fellow Republicans, pointing out that religious conservatives, in particular, have opposed school clinics as a potential source of birth control for teenagers.

Lowering health-care costs and reducing the number of uninsured Californians will be top priorities for Schwarzenegger in 2007, if he's re-elected according, to the San Jose Mercury News, which reported that he convened an invitation-only summit today to pick the brains of labor leaders, business executives, and elected officials.

The governor's staff said the gathering at the University of California-Los Angeles won't end with a comprehensive solution for the nearly 7 million Californians who lack health care.

The Mercury News said that critics have dismissed the summit as an election-year stunt from a man they charge has killed a raft of Democrat-sponsored health proposals since taking office in 2003, an allegation his aides dispute, claiming that the governor "cares passionately" about covering more people and lowering health-care costs.

"The intent here is to begin a dialogue," his health secretary, Kim Belshé told the Mercury News. "The summit is not intended to solve a very complicated problem in one day," she added.

On Saturday, Belshé announced that the Schwarzenegger administration now supports a drug-discount plan for 5 million Californians who earn up to three times the federal poverty level, $60,000 for a family of four.

The newspaper said that drug companies that did not volunteer discounts of 40 percent on brand name medicines and 60 percent on generics within five years would risk being shut out of the state's multibillion-dollar Medi-Cal program for the poor.

In the past, the governor has supported only voluntary drug discount plans, as opposed to ones with sanctions. The governor's proposal is similar to a plan liberal legislative Democrats are pushing, except the Democrats would cover more people and slap sanctions on recalcitrant drug companies two years sooner, according to the Mercury News.

In an obvious bow to liberal environmentalists, Schwarzenegger wooed a San Francisco audience last week when he said he "loved" former Vice President Al Gore's controversial movie on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," according to the Sacramento Bee.

He told the Commonwealth Club of California that Gore is right in issuing warnings about global warming, and added that he liked Gore's presentation of facts and figures, adding that he usually falls asleep during movies he watches late at night.

This one apparently kept him awake.

Al Gore's 'Carbon Neutral Lifestyle'

Former Vice President Al Gore said his conscience is regularly challenged by a consumerism that contributes to the global warming he has made it his mission to reverse.

"It is so hard for those of us who want to live according to our values," Gore said Monday at the Chautauqua Institution, during the latest in a series of lectures he has given on global warming.

"We're embedded in a culture that makes it so easy to just go with the flow and support a pattern that's horribly destructive," he said. "And so we need to address this personally."

Gore first lectured on global warming at the western New York think tank in 1990. Since then, the consensus that the planet is in crisis has grown stronger, he said, and the ability to make the point is not cluttered by campaign issues like the economy and health care.

"This is by far the most serious challenge that we face or have ever faced," he said during the 90-minute appearance. "None of the other ones will matter if we don't get this right."

Later, Gore planned to sign copies of his book, "An Inconvenient Truth." The related documentary film was being shown on campus.

Dressed in a navy suit and tie and occasionally wandering from his podium, Gore showed the packed house dozens of slides to make his point that human behavior, if not changed, would destroy the planet.

He pointed to the melting of glaciers and mountain ice caps, bleaching of coral reefs, strengthening of hurricanes and record numbers of tornadoes.

"We're playing with fire here and we have to act quickly," he said. "The good news is we can."

Flyers distributed to attendees urged them to use fluorescent light bulbs, drive less, plant a tree, recycle and avoid products with a lot of packaging to reduce carbon dioxide. Besides the 5,500 people in the auditorium, at least 200 people waited outside during his address.

Gore said he and his wife, Tipper, who was in the audience, had adopted a "carbon neutral lifestyle."

"We've fallen into this pattern of consuming more and more and more and I'm part of it, I understand," he said.

95 Theses of Geek Activism

Geek activism has not taken off yet, but it should. With the gamers recognizing the need for a louder voice, EFF gaining momentum and Linux taking on the mainstream on the one hand and recent severe losses in privacy, freedom of speech and intellectual property rights on the other, now seems to be the best time to rally around the cause.

Geeks are not known to be political or highly vocal (outside of our own circles)- this must change if we want things to improve. So here is my list of things people of all shapes, sizes and sides of the debate need to know. Some of these are obvious, others may not be meant for you. But hopefully, some of these will inspire you to do the right thing and others will help you frame the next discussion, debate or argument you have on these topics.

1)Reclaim the term ‘hacker’. If you tinker with electronics, you are a hacker. If you use things in more ways than intended by the manufacturer, you are a hacker. If you build things out of strange, unexpected parts, you are a hacker. Reclaim the term.

2)Violating a license agreement is not theft.

3)All corporations are not on your side.

4)Keep in touch with everyone you can vote for and make sure you know where they stand on the issues you care about.

5)More importantly, make sure they know where you stand on the issues you care about.

6)Everything will enter the public domain some day- even Mickey Mouse.

7)Read the original 95 theses. Yes, they are irrelevant to these causes. Yes, they are religious- and not even close to my religion. And yes, they are 500 years old. But they do demonstrate how stating your beliefs clearly, effectively and publicly to challenge the status quo can change the world. Of course, I have no delusions of grandeur!

8)Use TOR for privacy and anonymity.

9)Trusted computers must not be trusted.

10)Democrats may seem to be on your side, but keep an eye on them. They may only be the lesser of two evils.

11)Republicans may seem to be the enemy, but that is only because they are in power now. The true enemy is a lack of accountability.

12)Read Eric Raymond’s The Cathedral and the Bazaar.

13)Why do I have to jump through hoops just to get video off my own home movie DVDs?

14)Know the DMCA so you know what you are up against.

15)The true enemy is the line: “If you haven’t done anything wrong, what do you fear?” The problem with that line, as Schneier has said, is that it assumes that the desire for privacy implies wrong-doing.

16)Proprietary data formats must never store public information.

17)Some corporations are on your side- find them and reward them.

18)No one has ever told me where I could play my 45 RPMs. Why are my MP3s any different?

19)The analog hole is not a hole. The world is analog.

20)If you are in the US, let your Senator know what you feel.

21)Treating your customers like criminals- or potential criminals- will turn customers away.

22)This bears repeating, treating paying customers as potential criminals is a losing strategy.

23)Some corporations may seem to be on your side, but are not.

24)Fair use is a good thing.

25)Use multiple operating systems regularly so you truly understand interoperability.

26)Write to your local newspaper- they can shape the opinions of the people do not understand the issues we care about.

27)Do not follow the Electronic Frontier Foundation, participate in it.

28)Read of Thoreau’s words on civil disobedience.

29)Data mining will not stop terror.

30)Express your opinion in public.

31)Blog.

32)The GPL is not gospel, but it comes close.

33)Use multiple MP3/music players so you truly understand interoperability.

34)If you are in the US, let your house representative know how you feel.

35)Those in favor of suspending some liberties for security, answer this: “Who watches the watchers?”

36)Except for extreme cases, the government should not be in the business of parenting our children.

37)When arguing with people who disagree, be polite, but not condescending.

38)RFID is just a technology- its existence does not make us more secure.

39)Now and in the future, presence of encryption implies nothing. In fact, whatever it does imply is none of your business. Without any other probable cause, the user must not bear the burden of explaining reasons for use of encryption.

40)Flame wars help the other side.

41)New technologies to promote and develop media will prosper because of computers and the Internet, not inspite of it.

42)Security is a trade-off- what are you willing to give up?

43)Calling Microsoft evil buys you nothing- it only polarizes the argument.

44)Holding Google to it’s “Don’t do evil” mantra buys us a lot.

45)Read of Gandhi’s actions in civil disobedience. Discover Satyagraha.

46)Use Creative Commons.

47)Understand the difference between civil disobedience and breaking the law.

48)Can’t find anything to watch on network TV? Watch Democracy TV.

49)Frame the argument in terms of the average person, not the edge-case geek. These problems affect geeks first, but will affect everyone in the future.

50)Privacy, civil liberties and civil rights are a slippery slope. The reason we continuously fight for them is not that we all seek a utopian society where doves fly free- in fact, I seek a perpetual ‘tug-of-war’ where the rope gradually slips in the direction of my beliefs.

51)Users do not want the permission to use digital media; they want to own digital media. This means using them as they choose, where they choose, in the device of their choice without fear of litigation or sudden inactivity. These users are customers- treat them with respect.

52)Support the free, public domain archives of information.

53)Undermine censorship by publishing information censored in oppressive countries.

54)And then, there is the 12-step plan for the games industry.

55)Corporations and producers of digital media must trust their own consumers. Sales will reward trust.

56)Breaking the law because you disagree with the current law is not the way to solve the problem in a democratic society.

57)ID cards do not make us more secure.

58)Voicing your views in a Slashdot comment thread is good, in your own blog is better, but in places that non-geeks frequent is best.

59)DRM does not work because the customer/user has the key, cipher and ciphertext in the player. (thanks Cory Doctorow)

60)Bloggers have rights- be aware of them.

61)Find out why electronic voting machines are regulated less than casino gaming machines.

62)Find out about Spimes- they are in your future if things go well.

63)Have a global perspective in ideas of geek civil liberties, intellectual property rights and so forth. Do you like your country’s policies in this respect? Can you help people from another country?

64)Geek activism is not all about extreme positions. There is a gradient- find your position on it.

65)Read the PATRIOT ACT- know what you are really up against.

66)In the US, put a few technologists in power in Washington. Abroad, do the same for your own seat of government.

67)Write to mainstream media- they have more mindshare than they are given credit for.

68)Read what your founding fathers said before taking someone’s word for it. Quote the founding fathers back at them- there were so many of them, and they said and wrote so much, that you will find a quote for each situation. Try this one for starters, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” – Benjamin Franklin. Read more Bejamin
Franklin. Read more cool quotes

69)Read more.

70)Mixed tapes are legal. Time-shifting TV is legal. Regardless of the media.

71)Decide what is offensive for yourself- don’t let the government decide it for you.

72)If you do not, pretty soon, you may only see one side of every argument.

73)Music purchases should not be governed by determining which seller has the most clout among the player manufacturers.

74)We do not lock the door to our bedrooms or bathrooms because we have something to hide. We do not secure our networks, conversations, emails and files because we have something to hide.

75)Make sure that if a vendor locks you in, you lock them out.

76)80% of games are not rated M.

77)You may agree with Richard Stallman, but make sure you understand the opposing point of view.

78)An email tax to certify that it is “legitimate” is an aweful idea.

79)Know your rights and be prepared to defend them.

80)Open source is not free.

81)Free is open source.

82)The ESRB game rating system exists for a reason- so that parents can be parents and the government can get on with more important stuff.

83)Do not allow corporations to get away with assisting oppressive regimes. Let your voice be heard.

84)Linux is no longer a philosophy- it is a good piece of software. Use it because it if it fits your needs.

85)There are reasons based in mathematics that establish the NSA wiretaps and other similar brute data mining ideas do not work.

86)Multiple nag screens that warn us of possible insecurity do not make us more secure.

87)More information available to the most nummber of people is a good thing.

88)There are DRM free alternatives for music you can play anywhere.
Vote.

89)Free as in free lunch is good. Free as in a free people is even better. For software and for everything else.

90)Quoting Schneier’s blog: Cardinal Richelieu understood the value of surveillance when he famously said, “If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged.” Watch someone long enough, and you’ll find something to arrest—or just blackmail—with. Privacy is important because without it, surveillance information will be abused: to peep, to sell to marketers and to spy on political enemies—whoever they happen to be at the time.

91)Read our modern geek philosophers- read Bruce Perens, Cory Doctorow, Bruce Sterling and even Richard Stallman. Read Schneier to find practical reasons why stupid security mechanisms are stupid. Read them even if you disagree with them- it will help frame your point of view.

92)DRM only keeps an honest user honest.

93)You have the right to anonymity on the internet.

94)Be proud of being a geek, a gamer, a privacy advocate, promoter of free speech and an innovator without fear of litigation, of government or restrictions on liberties- a geek activist.

95)Most of all- have fun.

If you disagree with any or all of what I have said- good for you. Let me know how. Let me know why. Let us argue, let us debate. But, in the end, let us get stuff done.

'U.S. Headed for Bankruptcy': Key Fed Member

London's Daily Telegraph is reporting that the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank's Professor Laurence Kotlikoff, a leading constituent of the U.S. Federal Reserve, has announced that the United States is on the path to bankruptcy - if it is not already there.

"To paraphrase the Oxford English Dictionary, is the United States at the end of its resources, exhausted, stripped bare, destitute, bereft, wanting in property or wrecked in consequence of failure to pay its creditors?" he asks, according to the daily.

While the article acknowledges that the U.S. budget deficit is still small compared to those of many European nations, Kotlikoff asserts that: "The U.S. government is, indeed, bankrupt, insofar as it will be unable to pay its creditors, who, in this context, are current and future generations to whom it has explicitly or implicitly promised future net payments of various kinds."

The respected Fed member goes on to say that the only way to examine the solvency of a country is to look at "the lifetime fiscal burdens facing current and future generations." If these exceed those generations' resources, "get close to doing so, or simply get so high as to preclude their full collection, the country's policy will be unsustainable and can constitute or lead to national bankruptcy."

While Kotlikoff admits he is not sure the United States will actually become insolvent, he says many indicators point to such a development.

Especially worrisome is the calculation of the massive long-term gap between anticipated government spending and all future receipts. This gulf "will widen immensely as the Baby Boomer generation retires, and as the amount the state will have to spend on healthcare and pensions soars," the Telegraph reports.

"The total fiscal gap could be an almost incomprehensible $65.9 trillion, according to a study by Professors Gokhale and Smetters."

Says Kotlikoff: "This figure is more than five times U.S. GDP and almost twice the size of national wealth. One way to wrap one's head around $65.9 trillion is to ask what fiscal adjustments are needed to eliminate this red hole. The answers are terrifying."

FBI Investigating 10,000 Terrorism Cases

Besides uncovering a plot to blow up tunnels in New York City, the FBI is currently investigating 10,000 terrorism cases, according to Joe Billy, Jr., the bureau's chief of counterterrorism. The investigations include cases in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, CIA and FBI officials are dumbfounded by quotes attributed to them in Ron Suskind's "The One Percent Doctrine." They say many of the conversations never took place. The FBI took the unusual step of issuing a press release stating that the book was wrong in claiming that, two years before the London subway bombings of July 7, 2005, the CIA had placed Mohammad Sidique Khan, a suspect in the bombings, on the U.S. "No Fly List" and warned British intelligence about him.

What was touted as the book's biggest revelation was that al-Qaida came within 45 days of attacking the New York subway system with cyanide spread by an innovative gas dispersal system. "The plot was called off by bin Laden's No. 2 only 45 days from zero hour," according to a headline over Time magazine's excerpt of the book. But in a NewsMax interview, Joe Billy said that while the plan was discussed by al-Qaida, it was just talk.

"There was never any information acquired that furthered the plot along, that this was in the works," said Billy, who is acting assistant director over the FBI's counterterrorism division and is expected to be named assistant director. "We knew there was discussion, we knew they were thinking about doing it, we had it on good sources, basically. But that was it."

Since 9/11, Billy said, the counterterrorism effort has become broader, with more than a dozen federal agencies working together from the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) based in McLean, Va. The FBI's counterterrorism operations center is now at the NCTC.

At the same time, because Osama bin Laden has been isolated, al-Qaida has morphed into a sort of franchise operation. Inspired by bin Laden, local groups try to emulate his example. While they try to obtain financing and support from al-Qaida, they generally operate on their own. As examples, Billy cited terrorist arrests in London, Montreal, and Miami.

"The London bombings were a concern in the sense that they were homegrown," Billy said. "These individuals were not really on the watch of the U.K. authorities. That caused us to really do an introspective look here at this phenomenon of homegrown extremists." Now that more than two-thirds of al-Qaida's leadership has been rolled up, its ability to launch an attack has been impaired.

"Key planners and facilitators of the organization have been captured or killed," Billy said. "Obviously, you still have No. 1 and No. 2 who are still about, and they still have influence. But their infrastructure and ability to organize and carry out a large-scale attack has been somewhat curtailed . . . I think we've done well, meaning we in the U.S. and our partner countries, have done well to really hinder al-Qaida's abilities to launch a large-scale, multi-pronged attack 9/11-style."

The FBI counts the number of terrorism-related arrests and convictions in the hundreds, but thousands of others are charged with immigration violations, thefts, or cigarette smuggling. While many of those individuals may have been suspected of being part of a terrorist group, there is no way to know for sure if they have committed a terrorist-related crime. Under FBI Director Robert Mueller, the bureau's approach is to prevent the next attack by putting potential terrorists out of commission when they are violating even minor criminal laws.

"You can use the immigration-type laws in a positive way," Billy said. "To say, ‘Look, first of all you're illegal; second of all, you're a member of Hamas.' We have to start looking at it and saying, OK, what can we do to enforce those laws as well?"

Even though al-Qaida is fragmented, it is trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction and could succeed at any moment.

"That's really the race that we're in right now, to prevent the acquisition and use of any kind of type of WMD, to implode a nuclear device or chemical-biological weapon of some type," Billy said. "Hopefully, they're not where they have something like that, but on any given day someone could acquire something through some rogue state and have the means to bring it into the United States and try to use it."

The FBI cannot expect to find and arrest every terrorist, Billy said, any more than it can stop all bank robberies.

"The question for us is which ones do we not know about, which groups right now as we sit here are trying actively to put something together to perhaps harm us today or tomorrow?

"Do we know about all the individuals? I still think it's a small number that have gravitated to this, but nevertheless it doesn't take but one or a small group to wreak havoc on our country and change the dynamics in some way."

Each morning, Billy looks at a briefing book listing three or four threats. The book is as thick as a college dictionary.

"A lot of times, they originate overseas," he said. "Someone walks into the U.S. embassy at some location and provides information, says that I'm aware of these people who are perhaps involved in something, and these individuals are coming to the U.S. or they're in the U.S., and they're part of al-Qaida and they're looking to conduct terrorism on the fifth anniversary of Sept. 11. Another example would be a write-in to a government Web site, putting down information that is of value.

"Another way is an informant who's being operated by another country, by our own intelligence services, either here or overseas. He acquires information, relays that information to their handlers. Their handlers in turn report it; that makes it part of the threat stream."

Many of the leads are bogus. Sometimes ex-spouses or former lovers invent claims to get back at each other. In other cases, apparently suspicious activity may turn out to be innocent.

"Today, you don't avoid anything. Everything is looked at," Billy said. "The Joint Terrorism Task Force [JTTF] in Alabama may send it back to the local police, saying someone's been moving barrels into their garage at three in the morning over the last two nights, and they looked like they were chemical barrels. Or someone just bought a large quantity of . . . fertilizer from a Home Depot in Springfield, Va. He paid cash and bought a truckload of stuff. Is that a threat, or is that somebody with a farm? You just don't know."

In the case of the man loading barrels into his home at night, "The Joint Terrorism Task Force looked into it, and it turned out it was a fellow moving his household goods. He worked for a chemical company and was using clean barrels to load his china and everything else, getting it ready for the move. Completely legitimate, but it had to be at least resolved so there was no concern there . . . You're not going to take everything at face value, but you have to look at it," Billy said.

"That's what makes us work hard because you don't know what is . . . or [isn't] real."

Today, "You should feel safer in a sense because it's very unlikely that someone's going to slip one by us at this point, with everyone working at it," Billy said. "I may not catch it, but another agency is going to catch it, or you're going to catch part of it, and then I'll add to it, and we'll figure it out."

The FBI's successful effort to disrupt the plot against New York tunnels is the latest example.

At the same time, "The biggest piece for us is this homegrown extremist part where people do not have links to overseas camps or al-Qaida members but yet are sort of self-radicalizing, self-supporting, and sort of build capacity just among themselves," Billy said. "To me, that's the new domestic terrorism problem that we're going to have to deal with."

Bill Clinton to Campaign for Joe Lieberman

In a surprise move, former President Bill Clinton will campaign for Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Democrat's closely contested primary race in Connecticut.

Clinton plans to speak on Lieberman's behalf at an event in Waterbury on Monday afternoon, according to the senator's spokesperson Marion Steinfels.

"We are thrilled to have President Clinton come to the state to campaign for Senator Lieberman," said Steinfels. "It is not only a big day for our campaign, but it is a big day for Waterbury and Connecticut."

The latest Quinnipiac University poll reveals that three-term incumbent Lieberman trails millionaire businessman Ned Lamont, who has criticized Lieberman's strong support of President Bush's foreign policy in Iraq, by a margin of 51 percent to 47 percent among likely Democratic voters in the primary.

News of Clinton's support comes as a surprise to election watchers who remember that Lieberman was highly critical of Clinton during the 1998 scandal that lead to Clinton's impeachment.

Lieberman took to the floor of the Senate to condemn the president's infidelity with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

He slammed Clinton for "having extramarital relations with an employee half his age," termed the president's actions "immoral" and denounced as "premeditated" Clinton's efforts to conceal his involvement with Lewinsky.

But as NewsMax reported, Bill Clinton recently defended Lieberman's pro-war stance during a speech at the Aspen Institute, saying: "If we allow our differences over what to do now in Iraq to divide us instead of focusing on replacing Republicans in Congress – that's the nuttiest strategy I ever heard in my life."

Clinton and Lieberman have known each other since then-Yale student Clinton worked on Lieberman's first campaign for the state Senate in 1970, Connecticut's Journal Inquirer reports.

And Steinfels noted that Lieberman was the first senator from outside the South to endorse Clinton in his 1992 presidential campaign.

Lieberman has already filed papers allowing him to petition his way onto the November ballot if he loses the August 8 primary to Lamont. But Clinton won't support a Lieberman run as an independent, spokesperson Jay Carson told the Web site tpmcafe.com.

Said Carson: "He respects the primary process and will support the candidate that wins the Democratic primary and work to help that candidate win."

Earlier this month, Sen. Hillary Clinton announced that she would not back Lieberman's bid for re-election if he loses the Democratic primary and runs as an independent candidate, NewsMax reported.

Columnist Margaret Carlson, writing for Bloomberg.com, opined: "She may have been finally getting back at the Democrat who didn't stand by her man."

Hillary: Don't Inflame Conservatives

Warning Arkansas Democrats to avoid doing things that inflame the state's conservative base, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton advised they seek "consensus on mainstream subjects."

"We do things that are controversial. We do things that try to inflame their base,” Clinton, D-N.Y., told the Arkansas Federation of Democratic Women, according to the New York Times. "We are wasting time.”

Concentrating on contentious issues only brings out the conservative base, she warned, without specifying such hot-button issues as gay marriage that inflame conservatives and drive them to the polls to vote for Republicans.

Turning to the present world situation, Clinton later told a gathering of mostly Democrats: "We just have to turn on the news, don’t we, to see what it’s like going on around the world -- so many conflicts. We need to get back to building partnerships and alliances, to making friends so we can influence decisions that other people make and have people working with us to stem the tide of terrorism and the threats that we confront.”

She added: "If we have to use military power, yes, we have to use it. But use it as a last resort, not as a first resort. Use it after all else has failed.”

The Times recalled that Arkansas supported Clinton's husband when he ran for president in 1992 and 1996, but then went for George W. Bush in 2000. Just 46 percent of Arkansas voted for then-Vice President Al Gore in that election, and four years later the percentage of votes for the Democratic candidate fell, with 44 percent backing Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. Although the state’s two senators are Democrats, Arkansas has been increasingly seen as a Republican stronghold at the presidential level.

Angelina Jolie Snags Jennifer Aniston’s Oscar Role

Hollywood insiders expected Jennifer Aniston to play the widow of slain Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in an upcoming biopic.

Aniston apparently thought she would too.

But now the former “Friends” star is reportedly fuming over ex-hubby Brad Pitt’s latest casting decision.

Pitt has chosen to give the movie role to his present squeeze Angelina Jolie.

It was Aniston who had convinced Pearl's wife to grant the film rights to Pitt and Aniston’s production company, Plan B, in the first place.

Ironically, Aniston had agreed to give Brad the ownership of the company as part of their divorce settlement.

A source told the UK Sun, "She's horrified that Brad has handed the role meant for her to Angelina.

It appears as though Jolie not only appropriated Aniston’s spouse, she managed to obtain a role that had previously been viewed as a potential Oscar shot for Aniston.

The Rogues Strike Back

Robert Satloff

Iran thumbs its nose at Western diplomats and continues nuclear enrichment. Hamas’s chief, speaking from Damascus, boasts about kidnapping an Israeli soldier. Hezbollah launches a cross-border raid, prompting Israeli retaliation in Beirut and a return volley of rockets on northern Israel. Just another bleak week in the hopeless Middle East? Regrettably, no. This one was different. This was the week the Dark Side went on the offensive.

Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah: These are not marginal fringe groups. The first two are sovereign states, the third forms the elected government of the Palestinian Authority, and the fourth holds 25 of the 128 seats in the Lebanese parliament and, effectively, two ministerial portfolios. This was the week that the rogue regimes of the “Old Middle East”—as opposed to the shadowy, faceless terrorist groups of the “New Middle East”—reminded the world that they too have the potential to grab headlines and wreak havoc.

Here’s a recap: On Monday, July 10, Khaled Meshal, head of the political bureau of Hamas, held a news conference in Damascus in which he took full responsibility for the kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, whom he called a “prisoner of war.”

On Tuesday, July 11, Ali Larijani, Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, told European Union envoy Javier Solana that Tehran was in no hurry to respond to a U.S.-European offer of incentives to end its nuclear enrichment program and would not give a formal reply until late August. Larijani then flew to Damascus, where he praised Hamas for its noble resistance to Zionist occupation.

On Wednesday, July 12, militiamen belonging to the Iranian-backed Hezbollah crossed the internationally recognized Israel-Lebanon frontier and attacked an Israeli position, killing eight soldiers and capturing two. This was “an act of war,” said Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, who authorized airstrikes on Beirut airport and Hezbollah facilities. Later that day, the United States and other permanent members asked the U.N. Security Council to compel Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment activities. “We called [Iran’s] bluff today,” a senior State Department official told the Los Angeles Times.

On Thursday, July 13, Hezbollah rockets—supplied by Iran, via Syria—fell on major cities in northern Israel, including Haifa, Safed, Karmiel, and Nahariya, killing two, injuring dozens, and sending thousands to shelters. Israeli shelling shut down all civilian and military air access to Lebanon, as Israel continued bombing Hamas targets throughout Gaza, too. “All operations are legitimate to wipe out terror,” said Israel’s northern front commander Major General Udi Adam.

That’s a lot of tough talk about war, face-offs, and showdowns, even for the Middle East, but what makes this train of events more worrisome than a typical week in the region is that these events—and their perpetrators—are all connected. No, this is not another Middle East conspiracy theory; to paraphrase Henry Kissinger’s line about paranoids, sometimes bad guys shooting at you from all directions just might be in cahoots. In fact, the quartet of Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah constitutes a better oiled, more cohesive unit than the diplomatic quartet of the United States, the U.N., the E.U., and Russia. Indeed, the rogue foursome is linked ideologically and operationally in a much more organic way than the charter members of the Axis of Evil ever were.

The key, it is important to note, is not religion. Iran and Hezbollah are led by Shiite extremists; Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, an international Sunni movement; and Syria is governed by the world’s only remaining Baathist, a secular chieftan of the Alawite sect, which reviles (and is reviled by) Syria’s majority Sunni community. A feverish brand of radical Islamism certainly inspires some of these actors, but what drives them together is politics.

A generation ago, before Hamas and Hezbollah ever existed, Hafez al-Assad’s Syria and Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iran forged an alliance born of their common fear and loathing of Saddam Hussein. When the collapse of the Soviet Union deprived Syria of its superpower patron, leaving it surrounded by NATO-ally Turkey, pro-West Jordan, and the same thug in Baghdad, Assad continued to reach out to Tehran to avoid isolation. For their part, the Iranians exploited the situation, using Syria as the staging ground from which to build Hezbollah into their instrument for exporting the Islamic revolution.

In recent years, Hamas’s success has been manna from heaven to the Iranians, Syrians, and Hezbollahis. Though these Palestinian Islamists fought and won their own battles against the more secular Fatah, Hamas’s partners in the rogue quartet were perfectly happy to reap the benefits of a new front in their proxy war against Israel.

Today, these four—two states, one near-state, and one state-within-a-state—are collectively motivated by opportunity, not fear. The opportunity arises partly because the hated Saddam Hussein is gone, replaced by a weak, terrorist-wracked Shiite-led Iraqi government, propped up by a bleeding America. But each of these actors has its own reasons for exultation and brinkmanship.

Through Iranian eyes, the fact that the West has imposed no price for twenty years of lying about its nuclear program, but instead is still willing to offer ever-greater incentives, must seem remarkable. Only a preening sense of self-confidence can explain Iran’s insouciant attitude toward the U.S.-E.U. offer. Indeed, U.S. and other Western diplomats who were dismayed at Iran’s failure to respond to the package of carrots failed to recognize that Iran did respond, through what Clausewitz would have called diplomacy by other means: upping the ante via Hezbollah. With the threat of any meaningful U.N. sanctions months away, the Iranians took the initiative. Their goal is to make Israel just another item on the nuclear bargaining table with the West.

Through Syrian eyes, the fact that the West, operating through the U.N., appears less likely today than at any point in the past year to impose a price on the Assad family for its role in murdering former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri must seem similarly stunning. Only a robust sense of optimism can explain Syria’s brutal crackdown on secular reformers and liberal dissidents at home and its ongoing efforts to silence critics--like the courageous journalist Gibran Tueni, assassinated in December 2005—in Lebanon next door. Last week, Syria’s accidental president, Assad’s son Bashar, evidently looked at the rising price the West was willing to pay Iran to stop its objectionable behavior and decided he wants to get into the game. But, lacking significant oil revenues, he chose the poor man’s blackmail of terrorism. Hence Syria’s brazen decision to break the fiction of its nonsupport to terrorists by providing Khaled Meshal with a Damascus soapbox to boast of his terrorist deeds.

Through Hezbollah’s eyes, the failure of the West to implement U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559—which demands the disarmament of all militias in Lebanon and calls on the Lebanese government to exercise sovereignty up to the border with Israel—nicely fits its view of the Jewish state as weak, brittle, and impotent. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has likened it to a “spider web.” Only an unswerving sense of ideological purpose can explain Hezbollah’s willingness to ridicule its own role as a Lebanese political party serving in the Lebanese government by taking actions that rain Israeli retaliation down upon the heads of fellow Lebanese.

And through Hamas’s eyes, the fact that the West, including Israel and the United States, permitted a terrorist organization committed to the destruction of the Jewish state to take over the reins of government in the Palestinian Authority—an entity whose only raison d’être is to be an instrument of peacemaking—is surely proof of divine intercession. Hamas’s attack against the Israeli position at Kerem Shalom occurred just before the Europeans were set to launch a humanitarian aid program that would have dulled the impact of the U.S.-led financial quarantine on the PA, and just after Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas fell into the trap of endorsing a political platform, known as the Prisoners Document, that in large respects mirrored Hamas’s own “solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Only a steadfast conviction in the rightness of the battle against the Zionist entity could compel Hamas leaders to forgo these advantages in exchange for the Israeli reoccupation of parts of Gaza.

Virtually overnight, an audacious Hamas raid has metastasized into a crisis that holds the greatest potential for regional conflagration in years. On a strategic level, the rogues’ goal is almost surely to fuse the disparate crises into one—merging either the Hamas or Hezbollah front with Iran’s nuclear standoff with the West, perhaps by the transfer of the captive soldiers to Iranian control, by direct involvement of Iranian Revolutionary Guards in the rocket fire against Israel, or by some other means.

If that happens, then Hamas and its fellow quartet members may achieve what Yasser Arafat was not able to accomplish with two intifadas—to regionalize the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and thereby radically alter the strategic balance. And if Iran is able to exploit this crisis to show that its nuclear program earns it and its allies special treatment on the terrorism front, Tehran will have proven precisely how beneficial the decision to invest in a nuclear program really was. As the Iranian newspaper Kayhan, close to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, editorialized last Thursday, “Nuclear Iran is eradicating the nuclear prestige of Israel.” That’s the sort of rising star to which Syria would like to be hitched.

In Gaza and Lebanon, a battle between Israel and two of its enemies has now been joined. Its spread to two other enemies—Iran and Syria—is a stark and urgent possibility. Let us not mistake this conflict for a local skirmish, a pesky diversion from more serious business, like stopping Iran’s nuclear program or building a free, stable Iraq. On the contrary, it is all of a piece.

Defeat for Israel—either on the battlefield or via coerced compromises to achieve flawed cease-fires—is a defeat for U.S. interests; it will inspire radicals of every stripe, release Iran and Syria to spread more mayhem inside Iraq, and make more likely our own eventual confrontation with this emboldened alliance of extremists. Victory—in the form of Hezbollah’s disarmament, the expulsion of the Iranian military presence from Lebanon, the eviction of Meshal and friends from Damascus, and the demise of the Hamas government in Gaza—is, by the same token, also a victory for U.S. (and Western) interests.

Achieving those successes—and avoiding those setbacks—will take time, persistence, and leadership. While military force is essential, nonmilitary measures are needed too. These include organizing transatlantic consensus on economic and political pressure on Syria, devising a fast-executing international mechanism to disarm Hezbollah, and expediting the Security Council process on Iran. As enervating as it must be to an administration whose policy plate already overflows with tough problems, none of this can happen without America taking the lead.

An illegal market that could save your life

By John Stossel

Who owns your body? You? Or Al Gore?

Many Americans believe it is immoral, if not disgusting, to buy and sell parts of people. Al Gore feels that way, and when he was a congressman, he persuaded his colleagues to outlaw organ selling.

But a free exchange that greatly improves the lives of both parties is a good thing. It's stopping it that's immoral — and deadly.

More than 60,000 people whose kidneys have failed are waiting for transplants. Many survive by enduring hours hooked up to dialysis machines. The machines clean their blood, pinch-hitting for diseased kidneys. But they cannot do it as well as a kidney. Dialysis is painful, exhausting and expensive.

So 60,000 Americans pray for a new kidney. Some get them from friends and family. More get them from strangers who die in accidents.

But accidents and altruists don't provide enough kidneys, so on a typical day, 17 people die waiting for kidneys.

Many dialysis patients are desperate. Ed Lavatelli told us price was no object. "I would pay whatever I had to, really ... because it's indescribable to be a person with kidney failure. It really is."

Tragically, Ed's agony was needless because plenty of people were willing to help him. Ruth Sparrow of St. Petersburg, Fla., wanted money, so she ran a newspaper ad that read: "Kidney, runs good, $30,000 or best offer." She got a couple of serious calls, she said, but then the newspaper warned her she might be arrested.

Why? Why aren't desperate people allowed to use money as a motivator?

Because other people hate the idea, and since some of those people are in government, they get to lock you up for doing what they hate.

I talked with Steve Rivkin, who joined a waiting list for kidneys when it was "just" 30,000 names long. "I don't think that there's anything wrong with paying money for a kidney transplant," he told me. "I just want a kidney that works!"

Dr. Brian Pereira, former president of the National Kidney Foundation, told me he empathized with Rivkin's need. "The good news," he said, "is that this person can continue on dialysis under the current system, which functions extremely well."

Seventeen deaths per day is a system functioning "extremely well"? When I challenged him about that, he said poor people would be vulnerable to "exploitation" if there were an open market for kidneys.

I found pictures of men from the Philippines who'd exchanged a kidney for just $1,000. They posed on a beach, showing their scars. Such pictures make wealthy Americans say, "These poor people were exploited! They risked their lives for just $1,000."

But what gives us the right to decide for them? No one forced them. They wanted the $1,000 more than they wanted two kidneys. To say the poor are too desperate to resist a dangerous temptation is patronizing. Poor people are entitled to run their own lives, too.

Steve posted an ad online, and soon people from all over the world were calling to sell him a kidney. Pereira says sternly, "That's where we have to step in."

No, doctor, that's where you have to step aside. Like many anointed experts, Dr. Pereira thinks he and others like him — "the government, the professional societies who help the government make the right policies" — have to make our decisions for us. But that conceit condemns people to suffer and die — as Steve Rivkin did.

Government and professional societies have no right to do that. They don't own your body. You do.

Al Gore may think that it is moral that if he and enough others who agree with him can get elected, they get to make your decisions. But that way lies death, if you need a kidney — and deprivation if you need anything else he and his comrades don't want you to have. There's a better, truer morality: the morality of the Founders, who held it to be self-evident that each of us had the rights to life and liberty — that each of us owned, and had the right to strive to preserve and enjoy, our own life.

Illegal bits & pieces

Greg Crosby

A news story that was given almost zero play in the mainstream press was the protest march against illegal immigration held in Hollywood last Saturday night by members of the Minuteman Project and other groups in favor of tighter border control. Although it was reported briefly on the LA Times web site, no mention of the march appeared in Sunday's paper (At least not in the Valley edition that I read). If you haven't heard what happened, allow me to give you a brief rundown.

The pro-American marchers — the people against illegal immigration, were low key and civilized. They waved American flags, carried banners in favor of increased border protection, and made their way peacefully along Hollywood Boulevard. Then the pro-illegal immigration crowds began gathering along the sidewalks. Some were illegal aliens, some were clearly gang members. They started shouting inflammatory epithets and slogans at the marchers both in Spanish and English. They carried Mexican flags, upside-down American flags, and threw bottles, rocks, and anything else they could hurl.

The police had to quickly shelter the peaceful marchers from the aggressive illegal alien crowds. Many of the marchers were older citizens and were visibly upset over the attack by non-American illegals. "I can't believe this thing is happening in my country," cried one woman. "This is America!" One police officer was injured and several arrests were made before it was all over. If you don't think this is an invasion, my friends, you're living on another planet. Los Angeles is ground zero for the illegal immigration of millions. And you 'aint seen nothin' yet.

While this was going on, former president Clinton was speaking downtown at the start of a four-day meeting of La Raza, which is the largest Latin American civil rights group in the country. (The name "La Raza" incidentally, literally means "the race." Guess which "race" it stands for. Hint: it 'aint the Tour de France.)

Clinton praised President Bush for his stand on immigration reform. Did you get that? Clinton PRAISED Bush! It's probably the first time in his life that he ever did that. Someone very smart once said that when a politician from one party agrees with a politician form another party, beware! Hold on to your wallet and to your Constitution. But that is exactly the way it has been going with illegal immigration — with very few exceptions, the politicians from both parties support open borders and amnesty for illegals. Other speakers at the La Raza event will include Gov. Schwarzenegger and Karl Rove.

Meanwhile The Washington Times has reported another interesting illegal immigrant story this past week. It seems the Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas has come up with a plan for recouping some of the millions of dollars spent on illegal alien health costs that have gone unpaid — send the bills to Mexico and any other countries of origin of these indigents. Not surprisingly, the plan has brought a negative response from the Mexican government, with a diplomat terming it "an act of discrimination."

County Judge Margaret Keliher said she was not hopeful that other countries would pay up, but, she said, the county commission thought the matter should be made public and bills sent.

"If you're not Dallas County residents, we think where you are from should pay for your indigent health care," Judge Keliher said.

Last year, hospital officials said, Dallas County spent $76.5 million to treat people from outside Dallas. Of that, almost $27 million was not reimbursed. Currently, Parkland is reimbursed by the federal government for treatment of illegal aliens, but Parkland officials said that agreement covers only 48 hours of emergency care and falls far short of what expenses the hospital often incurs.

The hospital has spent more than a week figuring out how many foreign nationals have been treated and how much to bill each of the nations. An estimated 90 percent of those affected are Mexican nationals. (Mexican nationals, by the way, is the term of choice used by the media to describe Mexican citizens who are in this country illegally).

Personally, I don't think the Mexican government will ever pay one peso to reimburse the hospital for its costs in treating their citizens, but I do believe it is worth a try anyway. At least it gets the word out and reminds all of us just how expensive it is to supply medical care to these illegals. Keep in mind, too, that the almost $80 million figure is just for the Parkland Hospital in Dallas — one hospital in one city. Try multiplying that with all our hospitals in all our cities across the country and you can really get sick.

ACLU Doesn’t Want English Signs

The American Civil Liberties Union has asked officials in a Detroit suburb to reject a proposal that would require businesses with foreign language signs to add English translations.

"We write to strongly urge you to abandon the measure as unconstitutional, anti-immigrant and unnecessary," the ACLU wrote to the city Thursday in a letter that was also signed by officials with the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee of Michigan and Latin Americans for Social and Economic Development Inc.

attorney to prepare an ordinance requiring businesses with foreign language signs to have identifiers such as "bakery" included, the Detroit News reports.

Fire Chief John Childs supported the move, arguing that people passing by the site of a fire or other emergency could inform dispatchers about the location more easily if they could read the signs.

He maintained that the issue has nothing to do with race.

"This is about response time," he said.

The city issued a statement Thursday defending the proposed ordinance.

"Any assertion that the city's public safety effort is intended as a restriction on the _expression of cultural diversity is categorically denied," the statement said.

According to the News, Michael J. Steinberg of the ACLU said the proposal is unconstitutional "because it singles out businesses with signs.”

U.S. House passes Internet gambling ban

The U.S. House has overwhelmingly backed a bill to ban most forms of Internet gambling and require banks to block payments to offshore Web sites.

Co-sponsored by Reps. Bob Goodlatte, a R-Va., and Jim Leach, R-Iowa, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act would increase criminal penalties for gambling businesses that settle Internet wagers with credit cards, checks, or fund transfers and would require financial institutions to create systems for blocking payments to gambling sites, IDG News Service reported.

It passed easily by a 317-93 vote Tuesday night and will now go the Senate for debate.

Goodlatte said on the House floor U.S. gamblers were spending over $6 billion a year on the untaxed sites.

The Poker Players Alliance lobbying group criticized the bill and questioned why it doesn't address gambling industries such as horse racing and state lotteries.

Mancow Muller Seeks New Chicago Station

Ratings juggernaut Erich "Mancow" Muller, whose estimated annual revenue impact in Chicago has reached $7 million to $10 million, is seeking a new flagship radio station, he announced Tuesday.

"I am committed to honor my current agreement with Emmis to continue broadcasting 'Mancow's Morning Madhouse' from Q101 through the duration of my contract," said Muller. "However, to expand my audience without interference I need a new partner."

Muller’s departure from Q101 comes as the most recent ratings underscore his dominance among the key demographics of men 18 to 34 and 18 to 49 (according to the Arbitron winter 2006 ratings period, Mancow has a 6.1 share among men 18-49 versus CBS station WCKG-FM’s .07 share).

Muller’s success is particularly significant because industry insiders say between 50 and 70 percent of an FM station’s revenues can often be attributed to a top-rated morning show, both in the show’s drawing power for morning audience and the way giant morning shows are used to monetize the rest of the station’s lower-rated day parts.

As his Chicago competition has stumbled, "Mancow’s Morning Madhouse" is now said to be one of if not the most powerful magnet for FM radio advertisers seeking access to key demographics during Chicago’s morning time slot.

"I wish Emmis management didn’t frown on my relationship with Fox News Channel and my success in national syndication," said Muller, who has been a top-rated regular commentator on the national morning television program "Fox & Friends" for the past seven years. "I’ve enjoyed working with Emmis, but they’ve wanted me to talk only about their narrow music world and related issues despite the fact that my track record and numbers are growing consistently as I broaden the subject matter of the show."

Muller says the national success of his show combined with exponentially increasing local ratings validate his vision of a program that goes beyond just music to include entertainment, pop culture and political satire. "Chicago is my home and I love broadcasting from here," he said. "It is great that, through syndication, the rest of America is sharing in my vision for a positive radio show that touches on topics people care about."

Industry insiders say that with radio advertising sales extremely soft nationwide and stock prices for publicly traded radio companies on a steady decline, a commodity such as Muller and the estimated $7 million to $10 million in annual revenue impact his show represents in the Chicago market alone will be a major financial boon to whatever flagship station he selects.

"Mancow’s track record of success in the top ten markets combined with the fact that his show has become an attractive environment for more than 25 national brand advertisers since 2004 position him favorably to take full advantage of the ratings quagmire created by Howard Stern’s early replacements," said Mark Masters, owner of Muller's syndicator, Talk Radio Network. "With more top markets on the way by year’s end, the Mancow juggernaut is positioned for unprecedented growth."

Whether he's known for having Chicago's No. 1 rated morning show for the past 11 years or one of the highest rated segments on the Fox News Channel, Muller is the hottest thing in radio right now.

Since the start of his career in 1988 on a one-kilowatt AM station in Missouri, Muller has catapulted to the top of the nation's radio marketplace. His show, "Mancow's Morning Madhouse," is fast-paced and listener-driven. In addition to his radio program, Muller has appeared on a variety of television programs including "Politically Incorrect," "Jerry Springer," "David Letterman," "Hard Copy" and others.

Muller is the author of a best-selling book, "Dad, Dames, Demons, and a Dwarf," and has written for Newsmax.com, Playboy and Gear magazine.

Newspaper Drops Ann Coulter Column

A conservative newspaper in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, has dropped Ann Coulter's column, becoming the first paper to take that action since controversy began swirling around the author of the runaway best seller "Godless, the Church of Liberalism."

Neither recent, now-disproved charges of plagiarism nor her controversial book played any part in the paper's decision, the paper's editorial page editor told NewsMax.com.

Coulter says that's nonsense.

"When the entire liberal establishment is out to destroy me, a newspaper does not drop my column just [because] of a rotation policy," Coulter told NewsMax.

According to the July 12 edition of Editor & Publisher (E&P), The Gazette in Cedar Rapids, where her column has appeared for about 14 months, has replaced Coulter with NewsMax.com columnist David Limbaugh, a close friend of Coulter's.

E&P has published a spate of columns attacking Coulter.

Wrote E&P: "Ann Coulter is no stranger to controversy, but her latest adventures have several newspapers questioning whether carrying her syndicated column is worth the trouble. The Shreveport [La.] Times is currently leaving the decision of whether or not to keep Coulter up to its readers. But the first newspaper to officially drop Coulter’s column since the latest uproar began seems to be The Gazette of Cedar Rapids."

Doug Neumann, editorial page editor of the Gazette, expressed puzzlement over why E&P had sought him out about the Coulter matter.

"They called me," he told NewsMax, explaining that he didn't know how E&P, a Coulter critic, knew he had dropped her.

"There have been some complaints about dropping her," he said. "We change columnists all the time - we tweak the lineup to give readers something a little different. Taking Coulter out of the paper [brought about] complaints . . . generally readers call in and say 'I was a big fan of Coulter and they say you are suppressing conservative opinion.'

"I remind them that we are a very conservative newspaper and have always been known as that and I also remind them that we've got David Limbaugh and Jonah Goldberg and Kathleen Parker and very few papers in Iowa have that kind of collection of conservative columnists.

"We made the decision to drop her before the plagiarism charges ever even came to light and not directly at all because of the book - indirectly perhaps because of the book - because ultimately we've always faced a barrage of criticism from liberals about carrying Coulter. No big deal - you'd expect that. Part of what we do as opinion page editors is to take that kind of criticism - that never fazes us at all," he explained.

"When we began talking about whether there might be another conservative voice that would work well on our page was really when we got several calls from conservatives who were angry about some passages of her book and were questioning whether she was in Sync with all of their views and also pointing out that she's not the only columnist out there that represents an extremely conservative point of view.

"So that's when we started looking at a change - not directly because of the book, definitely not because of the plagiarism charges, but because of complaints from conservative readers and also just an opportunity of showing a new voice on the page. I hope nobody overblows it into anything more than that."

AOL Users, You've Got Dan (Rather)

AOL might have a new message for the Internet: You've got Dan.

The Time Warner-owned Internet company is in negotiations with representatives for veteran CBS anchor Dan Rather to play a role in original programming for its online video offerings, sources said.

If a deal is struck, AOL will be just one of several projects Rather has lined up for his post-CBS career. In addition to an announcement he is expected to make Tuesday at the Television Critics Assn. press tour regarding a programming venture with cable network HDNet, he also will make at least two appearances on NBC Universal's syndicated "The Chris Matthews Show."

Rather's camp declined comment. It isn't clear what Rather would do at AOL, though discussions between Rather and AOL have taken place in recent weeks. AOL confirmed late Monday that it had discussions with Rather but wouldn't discuss details.

The prospect of a TV news icon transitioning from broadcast to broadband would mark a milestone for new media, which is beginning to rival mainstream television for eyeballs and advertisers. It also would boost an already robust AOL News division, which under the leadership of Lewis D'Vorkin, an AOL veteran and former senior editor at the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, has built a following on the Web.


Rather's hiring also would be a telling indicator of the future of AOL, which reportedly is repositioning its entire business away from being an Internet service provider and toward establishing itself as a full-fledged advertiser-supported portal in competition with Yahoo! Inc., Google and MSN.

While Internet portals have made more deals for original programming in the entertainment space than with original news coverage, it is not unprecedented. One of Yahoo!'s first video programming efforts featured Kevin Sites, a war correspondent previously of NBC and CNN, traveling to hot spots around the globe. "Kevin Sites in the Hot Zone" has been online since fall 2005.

Following several weeks of vacation after leaving CBS, Rather has been and will continue to be busy. Beyond the AOL and HDNet gigs, Rather will be part of the roundtable discussion on "Chris Matthews" the next two Sundays. Rather will offer analysis and commentary as part of the four-journalist panel.

"Chris Matthews" executive producer Nancy Nathan said Monday that the show was happy to snag the former CBS News anchor. It apparently came up when Matthews ran into Rather at a dinner recently.

"They've been friends for a long time," Nathan said. "Chris is a big fan."

Both episodes will be taped Friday in Washington, as Matthews will be away next week. Rather will get paid scale for his appearances, just like any of the other nearly 30 rotating journalists who appear on the show.

There's no talk of having Rather appear regularly on the show, though Nathan would love to have him come back.

Rather will appear Wednesday on "Larry King Live."

It will be Rather's second appearance on CNN in a week; he was a guest on "Anderson Cooper 360" last Wednesday night in a segment on North Korea. One of Rather's last assignments for "60 Minutes" was a trip to North Korea.

Rather caused a stir when he insisted CNN not identify him as a "former CBS News anchor" or even mention that he had worked at the network where he spent 44 years. It isn't clear whether the same restriction will apply on "Larry King Live."

Nathan said she wasn't sure whether "Chris Matthews" would identify Rather as a former CBS News anchor.

"He and I haven't talked about that. The world knows he's a famous CBS person, but in terms of how we (identify) him on the screen, that hasn't been decided yet," Nathan said.

Rather's HDNet gig would entail hosting a weekly hourlong documentary and interview show on the high-definition channel. An e-mail message to HDNet's Mark Cuban wasn't returned Monday.

To date, AOL News has relied mostly on partnerships with established news organizations including CBS, ABC, CNN, Associated Press and Reuters for video and news coverage.

AOL News is one of the most visited news sources on the Internet, according to data obtained from Comscore Networks. In June, AOL News received 20.9 million unique visitors, a 2 percent decrease from the same frame a year ago. Only Yahoo! News (27.6 million) and MSNBC (27.3 million) reach more visitors than AOL, which ranks higher than CNN (21.1 million).

The online video news category is getting increasingly competitive as well, given that such traditional publishing companies as the New York Times and the Washington Post have ramped up video coverage on their own sites. The Emmys recently inaugurated a broadband news and documentary programming category that was dominated by newspapers.

AOL's overall video programming strategy has relied on a mix of original product, like celebrity news site TMZ.com and performance showcase AOL Music Sessions, with library product like archived TV series available on In2TV.

AOL has proven it can attract mass audiences with video offerings. Its Live 8 concert special in July 2005 was one of the most-viewed online-based programs in Internet history.

Hollywood Filmmaker Lied to FBI About Reagan Gunman

Paul Schrader, the Hollywood filmmaker who wrote “Taxi Driver,” co-wrote “The Last Temptation of Christ,” and directed “American Gigolo,” has admitted that he lied to the FBI concerning an investigation of the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan.

In his twisted desire to gain the attention of actress Jodie Foster, John Hinckley Jr. shot President Reagan in 1981.

Hinckley had become obsessed with Foster after seeing the actress’s portrayal of a child prostitute in the 1976 Schrader penned film “Taxi Driver.”

Immediately after the shooting, the FBI questioned Schrader, asking whether Hinckley had ever contacted him.

The filmmaker told the federal agents that he hadn’t heard from Hinckley, but Hinckley had, in fact, written to Schrader.

Schrader now admits that he lied to the FBI, says a report by the World Entertainment News Network (WENN).

“I've got a lot of respect for the FBI that day because they were really on it. They said, 'Have you heard from him [Hinckley], and if you have, have you heard any other names from him?' I knew that if I told the FBI, 'Yeah, I got a letter from him once but I threw it out,' I would be f***ed, my secretary would be f***ed. We'd have to be endlessly answering questions about a letter we've thrown out and don't remember.” Schrader said.

“So I just said, 'No, I have never heard of him,’” Schrader admitted.

Bono Bashes Hugo Chavez

Bono is creating shock and awe on the left by having the audacity to characterize Venezuela’s dictator Hugo Chavez as what he is.

The lead singer of the rock band U2 used his bucks to invest in a video game that casts the current nation of Venezuela as a banana republic led by a “power hungry tyrant.”

This isn’t sitting well with the left and the base of the Democrat Party who revere Chavez.

Cindy Sheehan, the antiwar crowd’s "mom" face, recently said she would rather live under Chavez than remain in a nation with President Bush at its helm.

And Danny Glover, Harry Belafonte, and Jesse Jackson have heaped praise on Chavez while vilifying our own president.

Evidently, a private investment company set up by Bono provided $300 million in financing to Pandemic Studios, creator of the video game “Mercenary 2: World in Flames.”

Gabriela Ramirez, one of Chavez stooges in the Venezuelan National Assembly, told The Associated Press that the game provides “a justification for an imperialist aggression.”

The Left Coast Report thinks that lefties are really bent out of shape because Bono may make taking down commie thugs cool.

Carlson: Hillary Still Resents Lieberman Over Lewinsky

There could be an additional, unspoken reason behind Sen. Hillary Clinton’s recent declaration that she won’t support Sen. Joe Lieberman if he loses the Democratic primary in Connecticut – payback.

Lieberman, as Hillary well recalls, took her husband Bill to task over the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

As NewsMax reported last week, Clinton said she would support the nominee chosen by Connecticut Democrats in the August 8 primary, even though Lieberman has announced that he plans to run as an independent if he loses.

"I believe we must honor the decisions made by Democratic primary voters,” Hillary said.

But columnist Margaret Carlson, writing for Bloomberg.com, points out:

"You can also interpret Clinton’s swipe at Lieberman as an act of lingering resentment against the man who scolded her husband during impeachment proceedings shortly after his admission in August 1998 that he had been lying to the country for seven months.

"Lieberman took to the Senate floor to slam Clinton ‘for having extramarital relations with an employee half his age . . . in the vicinity of the Oval Office. Such behavior is not just inappropriate. It is immoral.’”

Carlson then opines: "Revenge isn’t an admirable emotion but at least it’s evidence of some emotion from a woman who showed none during one of the most public cases of philandering ever . . . She may have been finally getting back at the Democrat who didn’t stand by her man.”

Carlson is a long time Clinton supporter and Time magazine contributor.

Lieberman is facing a strong primary challenge from millionaire businessman Ned Lamont, and many Connecticut Democrats are unhappy about the senator’s support for the Iraq war.

Kim Jong-il: Wine, women and bombs

He has an expensive taste in cognac, an obsession with films and seeks comfort in the company of his Pleasure Brigade, but as he demonstrated last week, North Korea's dictator still lives for the politics of brinkmanship

By Justin McCurry

It is a measure of North Korea's place in the world that a tiny, desperately poor state, governed in near paranoid secrecy, is led by one of the globe's most recognisable leaders.

Long before Team America: World Police, the 2004 film from the creators of South Park, which pilloried Kim Jong-il as a recluse plotting to destroy the world, we were familiar with images of the chubby dictator. There he was in his trademark Mao suit and oversized Elvis sunglasses, applauding his million-man army, the fourth biggest in the world. But we have also come to know another Kim, the dictator who rules the Stalinist northern half of the Korean peninsula with an iron first and who has a habit of shocking the world into taking him seriously.

Last week, he was up to his old tricks, throwing his toys out of the pram with such disregard for international opinion that even allies in Moscow and Beijing appear to be losing patience with him. With impeccable timing, North Korea chose to mark America's Independence Day with a fireworks display of its own, launching seven missiles into the Sea of Japan. In response, the USS Mustin, a guided-missile destroyer, was deployed to Japan yesterday. Why Kim chose to ignore weeks of warnings from Washington and Tokyo is still a matter for debate.

Second-guessing Kim's diplomatic manoeuvres is a growth industry. His critics condemn the missile tests as the acts of a belligerent madman, but more measured observers say they are another example of impulsive behaviour that, in the long run, brings results. After all, no sooner had the North Koreans said they were withdrawing from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 2003 than China, Russia, the US, South Korea and Japan were inviting them to sit down and talk.

This time, his motive is, apparently, to draw the Americans away from their efforts to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions and concentrate their minds on North Korea's nuclear weapons programme, its desire for security assurances from Washington and its insistence that it will not return to talks until the US ends its (so far effective) crackdown on suspected North Korean counterfeiting and money-laundering operations.

Only the coming weeks and months will tell us whether the Dear Leader's diplomatic skills win him the concessions he craves. If Kim the statesman is tricky to interpret, Kim the man provides enough material to exercise the minds of a busload of psychotherapists.

As hermit-in-chief of the Hermit Kingdom, what little is known about Kim's personality has been pieced together from a combination of official propaganda and testimony from defectors and the exclusive group of outsiders who have spent time in his company.

Kim Jong-il was born on 16 February 1942, the son and heir of a man North Koreans would come to revere as a living god - the country's revolutionary founder Kim Il-sung.

Had Kim the younger not been groomed to succeed his father as ruler of North Korea, he might well have ended up making movies. Indeed, it is his obsession with films and his love of good food that have given us the most satisfying snippets of life chez Kim.

Kenji Fujimoto, a Japanese sushi chef employed by Kim in 1982, wrote of the leader's violent temper and of banquets lasting four days, at which he would order women belonging to his private entertainment detail (the Pleasure Brigade) to dance naked. Fujimoto managed to escape by claiming he needed to return to Japan to buy prized sea urchins; he now wears a disguise because he is convinced Kim's agents are out to kill him.

Other foreign employees weren't afforded the courtesy of an invitation. In 1978, Kim ordered his spies to kidnap Korean film director Shin Sang-Ok, and his actress wife, Choi Eun-Hee, to make propaganda films, including a revolutionary version of Godzilla

Shin spent four years in a North Korean prison being fed grass after numerous escape attempts; the couple made a daring escape during a trip to Vienna in 1986. In a 2003 interview, Shin, who died earlier this year, recalled his time as Kim's personal film-maker-cum-propagandist. 'What a wretched fate,' he said. 'I hated communism, but I had to pretend to be devoted to it, to escape from this barren republic. It was lunacy.'

The lunacy extends to Kim's foibles, namely his gargantuan appetite for food, drink and women. A habitual imbiber, he reportedly spends more than $650,000 a year on Hennessy VSOP cognac (the average annual North Korean wage is $900). He once knocked back 10 glasses of wine during a landmark meeting with South Korean President Kim Dae-jung in 2000.

When he isn't delving into a vast library of films, reputed to number around 20,000, Kim's home entertainment is provided by the Pleasure Brigade, handpicked young women, some from overseas. He is petrified of flying, preferring to travel to Russia and China on his private train, although earlier this year he is thought to have taken his one and only recorded flight, from Pyongyang to Shanghai.

The idolatry surrounding Kim has produced some extraordinary claims. According to the propaganda, not only is he an expert horseman, but he has a photographic memory and superhuman powers of recall, and shot 11 holes in one during his first-ever round of golf.

But Kim has cleaned up his act in one respect: the 64-year-old gave up smoking in 2003 and promptly encouraged his people to do likewise. Smokers, he pronounced, are one of the 'three main fools of the 21st century', along with people ignorant about music and computers.

It comes as no surprise that confusion surrounds the family life of a man rumoured to have fathered 13 illegitimate children. He is estranged from his wife, Kim Young-suk, with whom he had a daughter. Kim Jong-chul, his heir apparent, was born in 1981 to a mistress who reportedly died of cancer in 2004.

The vivid private life can sometimes suggest a comic figure. He is, however, the dictator of one of the world's most illiberal societies, with its grinding poverty, labour camps and relentless pursuit of ideological purity among its 23 million people.

Defectors have accused Kim of involvement in the 1983 attempt to assassinate the South Korean President, Chun Doo-hwan, and in the 1986 downing of a Korean Airlines airliner in which 115 people died. He is also responsible for the deaths of millions of his own people in famines brought on by droughts, their effects magnified by gross mismanagement of the rural economy.

So is he mad? Not according to Jerrold Post, a political psychologist at George Washington University, who said after last week's missile tests: 'He's crazy like a fox, but he does have a very dangerous personality, what I call a malignant narcissism, which means such self-absorption that you can't really empathise with the pain and suffering of others, including the pain and suffering of his own people. He has had millions die and it does not have much impact on him.'

Defectors say Kim is more ruthless than his father ever was, micro-managing just about every facet of the regime, even the size of accommodation for other party officials, while he chooses from among his eight luxury homes, one for each North Korea province.

But signs of internal dissent have never produced the homegrown upheaval many hope for. In April 2004, a huge explosion rocked Ryongchon railway station, killing 54 people and injuring 1,249 others, just nine hours after Kim had passed through on his way back from China. Though some insist it was an assassination attempt gone wrong, others say the evidence points to a coincidental accident.

Last year, hopes that change was in the air rose again after reports that portraits of Kim were being removed from sites in Pyongyang and that the media were no longer referring to him as the Dear Leader. Either there was a deliberate campaign of disinformation or the changes were ordered by Kim himself in an attempt to quell the international ridicule he had learned of during his frequent sessions online. The insurrection never came.

That is not to say that Kim's regime is not in danger. The continuing US crackdown on alleged North Korean financial crimes, the mere mention of UN sanctions and warnings from Japan that it will cut off aid and private remittances if Kim does not change his provocative ways could leave the country vulnerable to a repeat of the catastrophic famines of the 1990s, when an estimated one million people died of starvation.

Yet even the mere suggestion of a conciliatory gesture by the Bush administration will prove what many have long suspected: that behind the potbelly and the bouffant hair, there is, indeed, method in the madness of Comrade Kim.

The Kim Jong-il lowdown

Born: According to his official biography, Kim was born on 16 February 1942, near Mt Paektu in North Korea. His birth, or so the propaganda goes, was foretold by a swallow and as soon as little Kim emerged into the world, a double rainbow appeared over the mountain and a new star formed in the skies. Soviet records show, however, that he was born in the Siberian village of Vyatskoye, near Khabarovsk.

Best of times: His elevation to the position of general secretary of the Korean Workers' party in 1997, the final step before being named ruler of North Korea a year later, four years after the death of his father, Kim Il-sung. It was the first and, so far, only dynastic transfer of power in a communist state.

Worst of times: Seemingly irritating his old friends in China and Russia last week after test-launching seven missiles, including an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the US.

What he says: 'Glory to the heroic soldiers of the people's army!' Kim's only recorded public utterance, made into a microphone during a 1992 military parade.

What others say: 'An illustrious commander, endowed with outstanding commandership art and matchless courage and pluck.' Rodong Shinmun, the official paper of the Korean Workers' party, on the occasion of Kim's 63rd birthday in February 2005.