THE WALLS ARE CRUMBLING

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S DENIALS ON IRAQ ARE BEING CHISELED AWAY BY TIME, REALITY AND INSIDERS. IT'S TIME FOR SOME HONESTY, TRUTH AND OBJECTIVITY.

As the U.S. prepares to mark the third anniversary of the war in Iraq, which still has no end in sight, the national debate is squarely focused on how soon our troops can get out. After all, this is an election year. How can the U.S. military make a dignified exit without appearing weak and without appearing to give up?

But with an ever-brewing civil war growing daily, one that would likely rage out of control without a U.S. military presence, the wisdom of the initial U.S. intervention has to be questioned. It isn't politically correct to ask such questions, but it is reasonable to wonder whether U.S. interests were really served by deposing Saddam Hussein and whether things are truly better in Iraq since then.

The sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites plays itself out in an orgy of daily killings and bombings, which simply result in even more reprisal killings. Nothing seems to be sacred or off limits; mosques are frequent targets.

Sure there have been three elections in Iraq, but none of them would have occurred without the U.S. military presence. The parties involved were too busy killing each other to have initiated and carried out those elections without U.S. prompting and assistance. To what end those elections will ultimately result in is anybody's guess.

Anyone who sees a budding democracy in Iraq is blithely, if not naively, optimistic. Furthermore, the valuable counterbalance to Iran has been lost in the Middle East. That poses a whole new set of challenges for the U.S.

The question is, how did it come to this? How did the outcome of the war go so badly? Three years out, its fair and reasonable to start asking those questions, and to be seeking the answers to them. Didn't anyone in charge see this coming?

The answer is, yes. There were adequate warnings from the U.S. intelligence community, but those warnings of instability in Iraq — the power vacuum that would be created in the absence of Saddam — were flatly ignored by the Bush Administration.

Because of key revelations, it is now known that the Bush Administration had an agenda for Iraq and that intelligence was ignored. or even fixed, because of that agenda.

But policy decisions are not supposed to be decided by an agenda, but rather by facts — or at least a well informed, reasoned and objective assessment of intelligence. Clearly, that did not happen.

There have been numerous and repeated accusations and criticisms leveled at the Bush Administration by former insiders, confidants and advisors. Among them are former White House counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke, former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill, and former U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer.

And the hits just keep on coming. In yet another embarrassing public revelation for the President and his advisors, a critical member of the national intelligence team from the start of the Iraq war has made more damning charges.

Before retiring last October, Paul R. Pillar was the national intelligence officer responsible for the Middle East from 2000 to 2005. Specifically, Pillar had provided the C.I.A. with intelligence assessments on Iraq. And he has now accused the Bush administration of ignoring or distorting the prewar evidence on Iraq to justify the American invasion of 2003.

Echoing the criticisms of Clarke and O'Neill, Pillar charges the administration with using selective intelligence regarding Iraq's unconventional weapons, and the chances of postwar chaos in Iraq.

In an article for the March-April issue of Foreign Affairs, Pillar wrote, "If the entire body of official intelligence on Iraq had a policy implication, it was to avoid war — or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath. What is most remarkable about prewar U.S. intelligence on Iraq is not that it got things wrong and thereby misled policymakers; it is that it played so small a role in one of the most important U.S. policy decisions in decades."

Pillar continued, "The most serious problem with U.S. intelligence today is that its relationship with the policy making process is broken and badly needs repair. In the wake of the Iraq war it is clear that official intelligence analysis was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions that had already been made, that damaging ill will developed between policy makers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized."

Pillar, now a professor at Georgetown University, said he was not contacted by the Bush Administration for an assessment on post-war Iraq until a year after the war began.

From his standpoint, there are valuable lessons to be learned and what is most important now is to, "Look at the whole intelligence-policy relationship and get a discussion and debate going to make sure what happened on Iraq doesn't happen again."

Pillar's rebukes are just the latest in a string of such accusations from insiders. Yet, the Administration attack machine has attempted to disparage most of them by impugning their credibility.

O'Neill, who sat on the National Security Council, had extraordinary access to the President. He says that in the very first Bush Cabinet meeting in January 2001, part of the agenda was for a post-Saddam Iraq.

Even in those early days, deposing the Iraqi leader was already on the mind of the President and some of his advisors.

O'Neill describes a White House poised to overinterpret intelligence:

"From the start, we were building the case against Hussein and looking at how we could take him out and change Iraq into a new country. And, if we did that, it would solve everything. It was about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The President saying, 'Fine. Go find me a way to do this.'"

The events of 9/11 gave them the opening they were hoping for.

O'Neill offers the most skeptical view of the case for war ever put forward by a top Administration official.

"In the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction," he told TIME. "There were allegations and assertions by people. But I've been around a hell of a long time, and I know the difference between evidence and assertions and illusions or allusions and conclusions that one could draw from a set of assumptions. To me there is a difference between real evidence and everything else. And I never saw anything in the intelligence that I would characterize as real evidence."

And in his book "Against All Enemies," Clarke revealed that President Bush and senior administration officials wanted to bomb Iraq after 9/11 even though they knew that it had no connection to al Qaeda, and that al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks.

Then, in May of 2005, the Times of London printed the classified minutes of a British cabinet meeting, referred to as the "Downing Street Memo." The memo revealed that, long before the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration was determined to go to war, intentionally distorting intelligence and lying to the American people.

Taken from a July 23rd, 2002 cabinet meeting — a full eight months before the war — the revealing memo quotes high level British officials discussing recent conversations with the Bush Administration on their decision to invade Iraq, and the manipulation of intelligence to back it up.

Two key excerpts:

Sir Richard Dearlove, Director of the British foreign intelligence service (MI6), reported on his recent meetings in Washington:

Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

Later British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw added:

It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

The British government did not dispute the authenticity or accuracy of the memo.

What the Bush administration told these foreign officials is the exact opposite of what the President repeatedly told Congress and the American people about his decision before the invasion, and what he continues to claim — that he was trying to avoid a war America did not want, and that intelligence about the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was clear and compelling.

The Bush administration continues to peddle falsehoods about the rush to war and intelligence manipulation, despite overwhelming evidence from former administration officials, and now from our closest allies. Last May, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told troops stationed in Iraq, "This war came to us, not the other way around."

Then, last August, George Washington University obtained a State Department memo — issued a month before the start of the Iraq war — that warned military planners about "serious planning gaps" for the post-war period.

The document, dated February 7, 2003, noted that a lack of focus and preparation for adequate policing after the invasion could have negative consequences. Specifically, State Department officials warned that, "A failure to address short-term public security and humanitarian assistance concerns could result in serious human rights abuses, which would undermine an otherwise successful military campaign, and our reputation internationally."

The memo's authors said they had "raised these issues with top CENTCOM officials" and offered to help the military "develop plans for accomplishing these goals." Obviously their appeals went unheeded and they were ignored.

Finally, Paul Bremer, a critical member of the Bush team in the war's early days, agrees that the war planning was flawed from the start. Bremer said "horrid" looting was occurring in May of 2003 when he arrived in Baghdad to head the U.S.- led Coalition Provisional Authority.

"We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," Bremer said. "We never had enough troops on the ground."

Earlier, Bremer had said the U.S. could have planned better. "The single most important change ... would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout."

Bremer claimed he "raised this issue a number of times with our government," but allowed that he "should have been even more insistent."

Last fall, Virginia's John Warner, the Republican Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called a meeting with 10 battalion commanders to get an honest portrayal of the situation in Iraq. The Marine and Army officers were quite frank in their assessments.

Contradicting the Pentagon's repeated claims, the commanders said they not only needed more manpower, but that they had also repeatedly asked for it — as recently as last August. Each time, they said, they were denied.

So, it's hard to imagine the withdrawal of U.S. forces from a war in which there have never been enough forces to begin with. Of course there will be vigorous arguments both for and against, just as there have been up to this point, but it will get really interesting, and perhaps even more ugly, in an election year.

These multiple inside accounts are representative of the cavalier and nonchalant attitude that marked the planning and execution of this war from the start.

Pillar's article merely provides the latest example of the irresponsibility and negligence of our war planners.

There has been a total lack of accountability from the outset, and that sort of attitude and behavior is entirely unacceptable. It's time for accountability. It's time for heads to roll. The public should demand it.

With the notable exception of Gen. Eric Shinseki, the former Army Chief of Staff who was wrongly dismissed for having the courage to tell the administration that they didn't have enough troops to successfully fight the war, no key players in the war effort have been fired to date. The General has since been vindicated, but it's too little, too late.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who has mishandled and misjudged this war from the outset, still has his job and that isn't building confidence in anyone — except, perhaps, the equally inept and irresponsible who have managed to keep their jobs as well.

The bungled charade that is the war in Iraq has resulted in the loss of nearly 2300 Americans lives — and there will be more to come. The death toll countinues to mount on an almost daily basis and it is important to remember that the President declared that major combat operations had ended in May of 2006 — just six weeks after the start of the war.

In a time of war, the counry needs — and deserves — more than platitudes and banality. We deserve honesty and truth.

Copyright © 2006 The Independent Report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the author's consent.

Will You Have Enough To Retire?

Last August, the U.S. government reported that the national savings rate is now 0%. It seems incredible, but it's true.

The last time the annual rate was this low was 1934 — during the Great Depression. As recently as 1994 the savings rate was nearly 5 percent, and double-digit savings rates were the norm 25 years ago.

The question is, where did all the savings go? The answer; home purchases. And since household real estate assets have risen by just over two-thirds since 1999, Americans now view their homes almost like ATM machines, using home equity loans and refinancing to pull out cash and support their spending.

In this materialistic and consumer driven society that America is today, people are actually spending more money than they make. So there's nothing left to save.

Every time there is a marginal uptick in incomes, there is a commensurate, or greater, increase in spending. Though this is the height of irresponsibility, it's been the engine for a growing U.S. economy.

In fact, Americans need to keep spending at this frenzied pace just to maintain our economy. Experts say that if everyone were to start saving, the economy would slow considerably — potentially to the point of recession. This is an obvious problem.

Yet, the savings rate will be driven down further when Baby Boomers start retiring and drawing on their retirement savings and the nation will need greater savings to fund the onslaught.

The report about the savings rate is particularly bad news news right now because, coupled with other developments, the retirement future of the average American doesn't look bright. For anyone who thought they could rely on a corporate pension, think again.

Corporate pensions appear to going the way of cassette players and rotary phones.

IBM just opted out, telling employees last month that their pension benefits will be frozen in 2008. And they aren't alone; lots of reasonably healthy companies — Verizon, NCR, Lockheed Martin, Hewlett-Packard, and Motorola, to name a few — already did the same.

It won't be long before most other American corporations follow suit and relieve themselves from their pension burdens. There's been widespread speculation that GM could be next.

As it stands, there have been a few dramatic cases of companies going bankrupt and defaulting on existing pension commitments, such as United Airlines. The problem has gotten lots of press, but that won't change a thing. It's a trend that's been underway for many years.

Defined-benefit pension plans, under which workers receive fixed monthly benefits based on their salaries and tenure, declined from 95,000 in 1980 to 30,000 in 2004 as companies either stopped offering plans or switched to 401(k)-type programs.

For the last two decades, more and more corporations have shifted to 401(k)s that automatically set contribution percentages and investment choices for employees.

Under the guidance of investment professionals (who aren't employed by for-profit mutual fund companies or brokerage firms), employees can determine how much money to set aside and how to invest it.

But while 401(k)s may be fine for younger workers, they don't work for older workers nearing retirement.

That said, we are entering a period in which workers and corporations will battle over the demise of pensions, long the primary source of retirement income for many Americans. But the fight will also involve governments at all levels, regulators, accountants and taxpayers. And these battles will be heated because everyone involved has so much to lose.

The primary problem is an aging population that is living ever longer. Pension costs have sky rocketed due to millions of longer-living retirees, and the problem will only worsen in coming years.

In 1950, when pensions first became common, American life expectancy was just 68. But it has now grown by an additional ten years. Meanwhile, American workers, many of whom are union members, are watching as employers dump or cut their pensions at a time when there's reasonable concern about the future of Social Security. For these workers, retirement security is non-negotiable.

But the pension problem is even worse than most American realize.

Public-employee pensions have never been accounted for like those run by private employers. Governments aren't required to reveal their pension liabilities the way a corporation is, on the theory that governments can simply raise taxes to pay retirees.

But the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, which sets the rules for the public sector, has finally decided to change its regulations. State and local governments will now have to reveal their pension liabilities, which may be underfunded by $1 trillion or more. Gulp.

And the private sector has a mess on its hands as well. Its pension funds are underfunded by $450 billion. Right now, 44 million Americans are relying on these private pensions and they have reason for genuine concern.

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which insures the defined-benefit plans for all those people and takes over the plans of bankrupt companies, reported a deficit of $22.8 billion at the end of the 2005 fiscal year. It was the fourth consecutive year that a shortfall had been reported. And the PGBC predicted that its troubles would continue well into the future.

The PBGC had to assume responsibility for the pension benefits of an additional 235,000 workers and retirees in 2005, raising the total to 1.3 million. It also paid benefits of $3.7 billion last year, up from $3 billion in 2004.

When United Airlines and US Airways filed for bankruptcy last year, they forced a combined $9.6 billion in pension liabilities onto the PBGC. Delta Airlines and Northwest Airlines , which both filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in September, could follow suit.

And then there's the greatest pension crisis of all: Social Security. The hard truth has been hidden by the so-called trust fund, where the plan's annual surpluses are sent to be invested until future need. But since those surpluses are required to be invested in government bonds, they've simply been handed over to the U.S. Treasury and spent by Congress.

The trust fund is a myth. When Social Security's annual surpluses are exhausted in just six or seven years, there will be a panicked struggle over how to cover the plan's obligations.

And the ugly truth about pensions has also remained undisclosed for decades. Now, as the first baby-boomers turn 60, that reality must finally be confronted — and it will get ugly.

Many financial experts see pensions as an inherently unstable, unfair and economically unrealistic means of providing for retirement.

Though they've existed since the 19th century, the corporate pension became a retirement staple in the United States following World War II. But American corporations didn't foresee pension commitments becoming such a heavy burden for companies dealing with stiff foreign competition and longer living retirees.

Many economists argue that if companies had invested in individual retirement accounts for their employees in previous decades, instead of putting that money into pension plans, they wouldn't be facing this problem. Though IRAs and 410(k)s didn't exist until the 1970's, the general point is true.

The problem with pension plans is that they promise a specific benefit in the future without knowing the affordability of those benefits at that time. In essence, pensions are a contract between current and future generations, much like Social Security. And, as with Social Security, those future generations aren't represented at the bargaining table.

As a result, the current generation of workers are guaranteeing the retirement income of older Americans with no guarantee of anything in return.

When succeeding generations are smaller than the ones whose retirements they are helping to fund, they face tremendous and unfair burdens. As a result, the Social Security system and American corporations are facing similar difficulties.

But there are many more Americans with no pension, no 401(k) and no savings to speak of. And without that additional support, no one will survive on Social Security alone. The American retirement system is crumbling, and not nearly enough is being done to rectify it.

IRAN'S GROWING THREAT

After claiming that it would not tolerate any more nations becoming nuclear states, the Bush Administration has found itself in a bit of a pickle. On Bush's watch, North Korea announced the development of nuclear weapons, and now Iran is apparently attempting to join the atomic community as well.

The problem is that the U.S. has lost much of its prestige, not to mention its credibility, with the rest of the world in the wake of the ill-planned, and some would say ill-advised, invasion of Iraq. Around the world the invasion is widely considered illegal, and the toppling of a sovereign government viewed as as yet another example of imperial hubris. The American presence in Iraq is seen by many, including a majority of Iraqis, as nothing more than an occupation by a bullying superpower. In essence, the U.S. has developed quite a PR problem with much of the rest of the world.

If the U.S. was looking for a foothold in the Middle East, a place to launch a democracy in lieu of a totalitarian government known to have sponsored terrorism for years, and admittedly developing an ambitious nuclear program, then the Bush Administration might have picked the wrong country. Perhaps Iran would have been a better choice.

Seventy percent of Iran’s population is under 30, and the median age of an Iranian is just 24. Young people in Iran are fairly pro-Western and are fascinated by its culture. They are known to favor more freedom of all kinds, having repeatedly clashed with their authoritarian, ultra-conservative Islamic government in recent years. And, for the most part, they are ethnically and religiously united. They seem like exactly the kind of people who would favor a chance at democracy and a government of, and for, the people.

But the current Iranian government has continued to frustrate the West. On Tuesday, Iran removed some U.N. seals from its main uranium enrichment facility to resume research on nuclear fuel -- including some small-scale enrichment. And now Iran has threatened to end surprise inspections and to stop cooperating with the U.N. nuclear watchdog if it is referred to the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear program.

Britain, France and Germany have spent the past 2 1/2 years futilely negotiating with Tehran over its nuclear program. The three European nations, in conjunction with the U.S., may refer Iran to the Security Council due to its intransigence. They could call for economic sanctions, such as restricting oil and gas sales, but such action would have a negative impact on the world economy.

For that reason, they face resistance from China, which imports 300,000 barrels of oil a day from Iran and holds veto powers at the Security Council. China said it opposes putting Tehran before the world body for possible sanctions. Other nations may feel similarly for the same reasons. Japan imports more than half a million barrels of oil a day from Iran. Russia, another Security Council member with economic ties to Iran, has given mixed signals on how it would react to such a move.

While Iran insists its program is peaceful, intended only to produce electricity, much of the West is skeptical. An OPEC member's claim that it needs nuclear energy is laughable given that Iran controls 10 percent of the world's oil reserves and has the second largest gas reserves, after Russia. Yet, Iran insists it has the right to conduct uranium enrichment, a process that can produce reactor fuel or material for a nuclear bomb.

And with the U.S. bogged down in Iraq, Iran seems to believe that it can get away with continuing its program. They've seen the Bush Administration talk tough with North Korea regarding it nuclear program, but do nothing about it. They may be further emboldened because the U.S. is currently grappling with a nearly three-year-old war in Iraq. The Iranians may be betting that the U.S. is unwilling, or unable, to simultaneously engage in another conflict.

The United States, Britain, France and Germany all fear that Iran aims to develop nuclear weapons. And they have good reason to be concerned.

Hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran would not bend before the threat of sanctions.

''Iran is not frightened by threats from any country and it will continue the path of production of the nuclear energy,'' state-run radio quoted him as saying. ''Iranian people do not allow foreigners to block their progress.''

The ultra-conservative President has made a series of outrageous statements in recent months that have provided perfect examples of why many nations are deeply concerned about the possibility of Iran going nuclear.

In October, Ahmadinejad quoted the Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, saying that Israel "must be wiped out from the map of the world."

He insisted that a new series of attacks will destroy the Jewish state, and lashed out at Muslim countries and leaders that acknowledge Israel. "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury," he boldly proclaimed.

Ahmadinejad said the "new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine, and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world, would in no time wipe Israel away."

The president concluded by saying: "And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism."

Most recently, in December, he described the Holocaust as "a myth" and suggested that Israel be moved to Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska.

Mark Regev, the spokesman for Israel's Foreign Ministry, responded by saying: "The combination of a regime with a radical agenda, together with a distorted sense of reality that is clearly indicated by the statements we heard today, put together with nuclear weapons -- I think that's a dangerous combination that no one in the international community can accept."

The international community doesn't seem to want to accept it, but they may not be willing to anything substantive about it. Iran's regional neighbor Israel, on the other hand, would find its security jeopardized if Iran came into possession of nuclear weapons. According to media reports, before his recent stroke, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ordered Israel's military to be prepared for possible air strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran as soon as March.

While on the Fox News Channel last year, Sharon warned, "Israel — and not only Israel — cannot accept a nuclear Iran. We have the ability to deal with this and we're making all the necessary preparations to be ready for such a situation."

Right now some European nations appear reluctant to even refer Iran to the Security Council, much less threaten them with military consequences for their actions. They seem to be as concerned with escalating the current war of words as with the advancing nuclear program in a country that has an unpredictable firebrand for a president. Ahmadinejad has the backing of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and the Council of Guardians, the ultra-conservative religious leaders with the ultimate authority in the country.

So it may fall to Israel to do something about the potential Iranian nuclear menace. In the wake of Iraq, the U.S. might find too politically risky to move unilaterally against Iran with a military strike. Israel, on the other hand, has never been politically popular and seems to have given up trying to curry favor with the rest of the world. Their number one concern, for good reason, is their own national security. And with a nuclear Iran, that security would indeed be threatened.

Copyright © 2005 The Independent Report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the author's consent.

THE AMERICAN DIABETES EPIDEMIC

During recent years, doctors have grown alarmed by the explosive rise of diabetes in the U.S. Local, state and federal officials share that concern. Diabetes is growing quickly, even as other scourges such as heart disease and cancers are stable or in decline.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that nearly 21 million Americans are believed to be diabetic, and the ranks of diabetics have swelled by a staggering 80 percent in the last decade.

Everyday, 4,100 people are diagnosed with the disease. This sharp rise in diabetes cases over the past decade has led the CDC to describe the situation as an epidemic.

According to the American Diabetes Association, approximately 6.2 million people are presently undiagnosed.

Yet, this problem will only worsen. Another 41 million Americans are prediabetic; their blood sugar is high and could reach the diabetic level if they do not alter their living habits.

In 2002, diabetes followed heart disease, cancer, stroke, chronic respiratory diseases and accidents as the leading causes of death in the U.S.

The American Diabetes Association says the disease could actually lower the average life expectancy of Americans for the first time in more than a century. Diabetes is thought to shave 5-10 years off a life.

But the death rate isn't the only concern. The degenerate quality of life associated with diabetes is of equal concern. A diabetic's final years can be downright miserable and agonizing.

As alarmed as health officials are about the present, they worry more about what's to come.

Doctors fear that, within a generation or so, a huge wave of new cases could overwhelm the public health system and engulf growing numbers of the young, creating a nation where hospitals are swamped by the effects of the disease.

Schools could be scrambling for resources while trying to accommodate diabetic children and the work force could abound with the blind and the infirmed.

It's predicted that in coming years there will be too few hospitable beds for diabetics and the disease will place unsupportable drains on Medicaid and Medicare.

Right now, on any given day at certain New York hospitals, nearly half the patients are there for some illness related to diabetes.

One in three children born in the United States in the year 2000 are expected to become diabetic in their lifetimes, according to a projection by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The forecast is even bleaker for Latinos: one in every two.

Type 2 diabetes, the predominant form of the disease, which accounts for 90%-95% of all cases, is creeping into children, something almost unheard of two decades ago.

Diabetes has no cure. It is progressive and often fatal, and even while the patient lives, the assortment of medical complications it sets off can attack every major organ.

People typically have diabetes for 7-10 years before it is even diagnosed, and by that time it will often have begun to set off a series of grievous consequences.

Many of the chronic problems related to diabetes arise from damage to the blood vessels. Among the disorders that plague diabetics are vision loss or blindness.

Other maladies include infection and gangrene — which sometimes require limb amputation — kidney failure, heart disease and stroke.

In fact, diabetes is the most common cause of adult kidney failure, amputation and blindness among non-elderly adults in the U.S.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, diabetics are 2-4 times more likely than others to develop heart disease or have a stroke, and three times more likely to die of complications from flu or pneumonia.

Most diabetics suffer nervous-system damage and poor circulation, which can lead to amputations of toes, feet and entire legs; even a tiny cut on the foot can lead to gangrene because it will not be seen or felt.

Each of these symptoms is extremely expensive to treat. Diabetes is enormously burdensome for healthcare systems and governments.

Nationwide, the disease's cost just for 2002 — from medical bills to disability payments and lost workdays — was conservatively put at $132 billion by the American Diabetes Association.

All cancers, taken together, cost the country an estimated $171 billion a year.

The forces that are driving diabetes nationally are an aging population, a food supply riddled with sugars and fats, and a culture that promotes overeating and discourages exercise.

Type 2 diabetes has grown commensurately with obesity, and America is becoming fatter. Fully two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese.

A federal program studied people around the country on the high risk of getting diabetes and concluded that 58 percent of new diabetes cases could be postponed by shifts in behavior — most notably, shedding pounds.

Since Type 2 is spurred by obesity and inactivity, it can possibly be prevented by eating less and exercising more. But doctors say that getting millions of people to change their behavior will require some kind of national crusade.

By all indications, such a crusade needs to begin immediately.

According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, about half of all deaths in the U.S. can be attributed to largely preventable behaviors and exposures. Tobacco use, poor diet and physical inactivity account for the majority of preventable deaths.

Doctors anticipate that poor diet and physical inactivity may soon overtake tobacco as the leading cause of death in the U.S.

Unfortunately, resources for fighting diabetes have been largely diverted to other, less urgent diseases.

For years, public health authorities around the country have all but ignored chronic illnesses like diabetes, focusing instead on communicable diseases, which kill far fewer people.

For example, New York has just three people and a $950,000 budget to outwit diabetes, a disease soon expected to afflict more than a million people in the city.

On the other hand, Tuberculosis, which infected about 1,000 New Yorkers last year, gets $27 million and a staff of almost 400.

Apathy and ignorance, combined with powerful lobbying by the food industry, are the confluence of forces that have allowed the scourge that is diabetes to flourish.

It will require the dedicated and joint efforts of the medical community, schools, insurance companies, legislators, and even churches, to inform and persuade the public of the risks at hand.

Our nation's economy will be burdened as tax dollars that should be allocated elsewhere are directed toward diabetes treatment in coming years.

And the human costs are exceptionally high as well.

People don't die quickly from diabetes; they can linger for years, dying a long, slow death. The burden of caring for them often falls on their loved ones.

So even those not directly afflicted are still affected. That means there is something for everyone in this effort.

There is much to gain, and even more to lose, for the entire nation.

SHOULD THEY STAY OR SHOULD THEY GO?

Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, prominent a Democratic hawk, began a spirited political debate when he said it was time for U.S. troops to start coming home from Iraq.

The retired Marine colonel delivered an emotional statement in November, saying he had concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq was counterproductive because they'd become a magnet for insurgent violence and that they should be redeployed over a period of six months.

That set off a firestorm in Washington in which many Republicans lambasted Murtha for his position, questioning his integrity and his mettle.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan compared the congressman to anti-war filmmaker Michael Moore.

McClellan said it is "baffling that [Murtha] is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party."

The White House also accused Murtha of wanting to "surrender to the terrorists."

Rep. Jean Schmidt, a Republican from Ohio who was obviously unaware of Murtha's combat record, venomously accused the war veteran of being a "coward."

To his credit, Murtha, earned two Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry from the South Vietnamese.

It was just days later that President Bush, after initially criticizing Murtha's proposal, made an incrdible about face by suggesting the possibility of withdrawing some U.S. troops from Iraq in 2006. The change of heart was convenient because 2006 is an election year.

Yet in a confusing contradiction, Vice President Dick Cheney later forcefully argued that early withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq would be "unwise in the extreme" and increase the risk of terrorist attacks in the United States and other nations.

So what's the story? Could there really be a troop reduction in the new year?

On his most recent trip to Iraq, Rep. Murtha found that U.S. "commanders are truly discouraged" and clearly angry. The following may illustrate why.

Virginia's John Warner, the Republican Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called a meeting with 10 battalion commanders to get an honest portrayal of the situation in Iraq. The Marine and Army officers were quite frank in their assessments. Contradicting the Pentagon's repeated claims, the commanders said they not only needed more manpower, but that they'd also repeatedly asked for it -- as recently as this past August. Each time, they said, they were denied.

The commanders said they don't have enough troops to keep insurgents out of cities that have initially been cleared and secured. They also complained of lacking enough personnel to effectively deal with the problem of roadside bombs, the leading cause of U.S. casualties.

So it's hard to imagine the withdrawal of U.S. forces from a war in which there have never been enough forces to begin with. Of course there will be vigorous arguments both for and against, just as there have been up to this point, but it will get really interesting, and perhaps even more ugly, in an election year. At this point the administration can't even get its position straight.

But the ones truly suffering through this debate are our forces fighting in Iraq. I'm inclined to side with the commanders who've said they don't have enough numbers to be truly effective -- or at least as effective as they otherwise could be if they had our government's backing in their valiant effort to defeat this stubborn insurgency. Our troops are worthy of at least that much. That would genuinely be "supporting our troops."

Copyright © 2005 The Independent Report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the author's consent.

JURY PUNISHES WAL-MART

Last week, an Oakland, California jury awarded $172 million to thousands of Wal-Mart employees who claimed they were illegally denied lunch breaks.

The news is just the latest blow to the world's largest retailer, which has been repeatedly stung by negative publicity regarding the manner in which it treat its workers.

Wal-Mart was ordered to pay $57 million in general damages and $115 million in punitive damages to about 116,000 current and former California employees for violating a 2001 state law that requires employers to give 30-minute, unpaid lunch breaks to employees who work at least six hours.

The practice is hardly uncommon. According to the New York Times, one week of time records from 25,000 employees in July 2000 found that there were 60,767 missed breaks and 15,705 lost meal times.

The class-action lawsuit is just one of more than 40 nationwide alleging workplace violations by Wal-Mart, and was the first to go to trial. The company had already settled a similar lawsuit in Colorado for $50 million. However, the company doesn't seem to have learned its lesson or changed its ways. But the latest award will hardly hurt the Arkansas-based retailer, since it earned $10 billion last year.

Fred Furth, the attorney who brought the case on behalf of the workers, seemed satisfied that the jury "held Wal-Mart to account."

Naturally, Wal-Mart's attorney said the retailer would likely appeal the jury's verdict, which was reached after nearly three days of deliberations and four months of testimony. His basis for appeal? That state law can only be enforced by California regulators, not by workers in a courtroom. An interesting, though dubious strategy. He also added that Wal-Mart did not believe the lunch law allowed for punitive damages.

Apparently Wal-Mart just doesn't get it. The company is so huge, and so powerful that it thinks it can just ignore the law. It's been caught denying employees fair treatment under the law, yet its corporate governors think that it's appropriate to simply begin following the law now, albeit by court mandate, without any punishment. They are indignant at notion that they should actually be punished for their illegal and unethical actions.

"We absolutely disagree with their findings," attorney Neal Manne said of the jury's verdict. He conceded that Wal-Mart made mistakes in not always allowing for lunch breaks when the 2001 law took affect, but he said the company is "100 percent" in compliance now.

Oh, so now they get it. Finally. I wonder what it took. Could it be the tens of millions in punitive damages? I'll be that had something to do with it. Fines can be somewhat motivational.

The verdict could hardly have come at a worse time for Wal-Mart. The company is waging an intense public-relations campaign to counter critics who are attempting to stop the retailer's expansion and make it boost workers' salaries and benefits.

Wal-Mart was so concerned about Robert Greenwald's new film, Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, that they hired a "war room" of public relations people to fight back. Apparently their efforts haven't paid off very well: a Zogby poll showed that Americans don't approve of Wal-Mart's worker-unfriendly policies.

Paul Blank, campaign director for WakeUpWalMart.com, an union-affiliated advocacy group that believes Wal-Mart's policies over wages, health benefits and other issues harm families and communities, said he was delighted by the verdict.

"It is a sad day when Wal-Mart provides these so-called low prices by exploiting their workers and even the law," Blank said.

In 2003, sales associates, the most common job in Wal-Mart, earned on average $8.23 an hour for annual wages of $13,861. The 2003 poverty line for a family of three was $15,260, while the national median family budget in the United States for a two-person family (one parent and one child) in 1999 was $23,705.

This year, Harper’s Magazine reported that Wal-Mart employees were eligible for $2.5 billion in federal assistance in 2004. Yet, a national report documented at least $1 billion in subsidies to Wal-Mart from state and local governments.

But an analysis of Wal-Mart's 2005 annual report reveals that the company could cover the cost of a dollar an hour wage increase by raising prices a half penny per dollar. For instance, a $2.00 pair of socks would then cost $2.01. This minimal increase would annually add up to $1,800 for each employee.

After an internal memo surfaced that showed 46 percent of Wal-Mart employees' children were on Medicaid or uninsured, the company decided to add lower-cost health insurance this year. Wal-Mart has generally been content to let the government - meaning taxpayers - pay it's employees healthcare costs.

And Wal-Mart's President and CEO Lee Scott doesn't deny it. In fact, he admits that public health care assistance may be a “better value” than Wal-Mart's own employee healthcare program. Despite $10 billion in profits, Scott said, "In some of our states, the public program may actually be a better value - with relatively high income limits to qualify, and low premiums."

It's repugnant for a mullti-billion dollar company, the number one employer in the US, to shamelessly pass the buck like that.

According to the Wall Street journal, Wal-Mart’s average spending on health benefits for each covered employee was 27% less than the industry average and 37% less than the national average.

And a federal lawsuit is pending in San Francisco that accuses the company of paying men more than women. The beat goes on, and on.

Earlier this year, the PBS series Frontline aired a documentary called "Is Wal-Mart Good for America?" The answer from almost all of those interviewed was unequivocally, no.

Copyright © 2005 The Independent Report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the author's consent.

IMMIGRATION AT RECORD HIGHS

According to a new report by the Center for Immigration Studies, both legal and illegal immigration are reaching record levels while Congress has done little to control America's borders. The report found that nearly 8 million people moved to the United States in the past five years, the highest five-year period of immigration on record.

Deriving its findings from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey from March, the report reveals that there are 35.2 million foreign-born people presently living in the United States. That's about 12.1 percent of the current U.S. population, and according to Census figures, the highest percentage since 1920.

The report also said an estimated 9 million to 13 million are here illegally, and that immigrants, on average, are less educated and more likely to live in poverty than people born in the United States.

"The 35.2 million immigrants living in the country in March 2005 is the highest number ever recorded -- two-and-a-half times the 13.5 million during the peak of the last great immigration wave in 1910," said the report by Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates tougher policies on illegal immigration and favors attracting immigrants with needed job skills.

Camarota said the U.S. should work harder to expel people who are in the United States illegally.

"The obvious thing is to enforce the law, at the border and at the work site, and to deny access to bank accounts and driver licenses," Camarota said.

Those are key requisites to enforcement. People in the U.S. illegally shouldn't be able to obtain bank accounts, driver licenses, or anything else that helps ease or legitimize their status. Otherwise, how can the U.S. meaningfully enforce its laws?

Audrey Singer, an immigration fellow at the Brookings Institution, said, "There's no doubt that we are at a high in immigration to the United States." Singer says that immigrants come to the U.S. due to economic reasons, and because of social ties to people already living here.

"Look at places where people come from, these are places with very limited economic opportunities," Singer said.

Not surprisingly, Mexico is the largest contributer of immigrants to the United States, followed by East Asia, Europe, the Caribbean, Central America and South America, according to the report.

Some immigrant rights activists argue that the American economy would collapse without the cheap labor provided by undocumented workers. Angela Kelley, deputy director of the National Immigration Forum, is one of them. She says it would be impossible to deport as many as 11 million illegally immigrants, who make up about 5 percent of the U.S. work force.

"There isn't fairy dust that is going to make the 11 million people go away," Kelley said. "It would be far more sensible to have them come out into the light of day ... and give them a chance to join the American family on a permanent basis."

But it's truly hard to imagine the U.S. economy collapsing due to the loss of 5 percent of its workforce.

For various reasons -- be they egalitarian, political, or economic -- members of both parties have ignored this issue for years, and polls show that Americans are fed up with their representatives lack of action. That frustration may finally be getting through.

A divided House Judiciary Committee approved a bill last week that would enlist military support for border surveillance and set new mandatory minimum sentences on smugglers and people convicted of re-entry after removal. Illegal presence in the country, now a civil offense, would become a federal crime. That would surely boost the U.S. prison population quite considerably.

Hopefully, the report will inspire the House as it considers a bill that would curb illegal immigration by boosting border security and requiring workplace enforcement of immigration laws. The full House is expected to take up the measure this week, before it adjourns for the year.

The bill doesn't include President Bush's proposed guest worker program, which would allow illegal immigrants to stay in the country temporarily to fill jobs unwanted by Americans. The great mystery is what exactly would compel a guest worker to leave the U.S and go back home after a three year stay, and how immigration officials would find them to enforce the law. It would be very easy for these workers to go back 'underground', as many illegal immigrants presently are.

Experts contend that the only way to enforce the law is to mandate employers to comply under the threat of stiff penalties. At present, those laws are almost entirely ignored and go unenforced. That's the root of the problem. As long as there is a demand in the workplace for illegal immigrants, there will be an endless supply of them willing to come to the U.S. to take those jobs.

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 2020

While the recent energy bill passed by the Republican controlled Congress did little to lower gas prices or make us less energy dependent, the Democrats have announced an "Energy Independence 2020" plan to reduce our reliance on foreign oil over the next 15 years. They claim their plan will "create innovative new jobs and build a cleaner, greener, and stronger America."

The plan is highlighted below:


ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 2020
FOR A CLEANER, GREENER, AND STRONGER AMERICA

Democrats believe the Federal government can and must do a better job of protecting consumers, businesses, and farmers burdened by today's skyrocketing energy prices. We must break our country's dangerous reliance on foreign energy. We believe our leadership and vision can help ensure low cost supplies of sustainable energy to improve American competitiveness and the security of our nation. That's why Democrats have a strategy to make America energy independent by the year 2020. We plan to:

Launch an Apollo Project for Energy
- Create a massive commitment to support research and development necessary to develop alternative energy sources to free us from foreign oil by 2020.

Diversify and Expand Our Energy Supplies
- Increase dramatically the production of domestically grown biofuels - Institute a national renewable portfolio standard
- Enhance incentives for energy production from solar, wind, and geothermal
- Utilize existing domestic oil and gas leases' for environmentally compatible extraction
- Encourage construction of the Alaskan natural gas pipeline
- Support the development of a hydrogen economy
- Increase the deployment of advanced clean coal technology like integrated gasification and coal-to-liquids, in conjunction with carbon capture and storage approaches

Protect Consumers and the Environment
- Prevent oil company price gouging, market manipulation, and disaster profiteering
- Increase energy market transparency and consumer choice at the pump
- Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit to cover increased household energy costs
- Provide car buyers with accurate fuel economy information
- Protect pristine public lands from short-sighted oil and gas exploitation
- Enhance funding for weatherization and low-income energy assistance needs in all climates

Improve Energy Security and Prevent Price Volatility
- Create geographically diverse strategic gasoline and jet fuel reserves
- Streamline fuel specifications while maintaining state clean air protections
- Encourage the development of a smarter and more distributed electricity system
- Leverage trade relationships to maintain competitiveness of energy-intensive U.S. manufacturers

Reduce Demand for Oil and Natural Gas
- Lower petroleum use in the federal fleet and improve government conservation efforts
- Provide consumers with more fuel efficient vehicle choices
- Develop renewable substitutes to replace natural gas use in the petrochemical industry
- Improve infrastructure and electricity options for hybrids and plug-in hybrids
- Increase mass transit use and incentivize transit-oriented development
- Advance air traffic management to shorten flight times
- Reduce tractor trailer fuel needs by improving aerodynamics, logistics, and idling

Invest in Energy Efficiency and American Jobs
- Update efficiency standards for appliances and small engines
- Invest in math and science education for the next generation of energy engineers
- Ensure access to worker training and retraining in advanced energy technologies

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY NEEDS AN APOLLO MISSION

When President Kennedy addressed Congress on May 25, 1961, he said the following:

"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind ... and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish.

I believe we possess all the resources and talents necessary. But the facts of the matter are that we have never made the national decisions or marshalled the national resources required for such leadership. We have never specified long-range goals on an urgent time schedule, or managed our resources and our time so as to insure their fulfillment.

This decision demands a major national commitment of scientific and technical manpower, material and facilities, and the possibility of their diversion from other important activities where they are already thinly spread. It means a degree of dedication, organization and discipline which have not always characterized our research and development efforts. It means we cannot afford undue work stoppages, inflated costs of material or talent, wasteful interagency rivalries, or a high turnover of key personnel.

New objectives and new money cannot solve these problems. They could in fact, aggravate them further — unless every scientist, every engineer, every serviceman, every technician, contractor, and civil servant gives his personal pledge that this nation will move forward, with the full speed of freedom, in the exciting adventure of space."

For the last five years, President Bush and Congress have missed the opportunity to do something truly meaningful and historical with regard to our nation's energy policy. But there are still three years remaining in the President's second term, and it's not too late too act.

Following the example of President Kennedy's Apollo Moon Mission, the current President and Congress should make a pledge to dedicate all national resources — funding, research, technology, and manpower — toward the goal of developing viable, cost-efficient, renewable energy sources for the US.

These alternatives to oil and other fossil fuels would keep the US from remaining dependent on Middle East oil, and held hostage to the demands and whims of OPEC.

The rewards could be enormous in manifold ways.

Alternatives fuels would also be kinder to our environment and could potentially create millions of jobs and whole new industries. But it will require the same national will that drove the space program in the '60s.

Only the President has the pulpit, power and prestige to marshall this requisite will, as well as the necessary commitment of resources, toward the realization of this goal.

It may not be realized in his term, or even by the end of this decade, but it should be pursued with all determination and vigor nonetheless.

Copyright © 2005 The Independent Report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the author's consent.

THE VATICAN'S SEXUAL "INSTRUCTION" MANUAL

The Vatican's recently released document, "Instruction," reiterated its long-standing policy against gay priests. However, it does allow those who have "clearly overcome" homosexual tendencies to begin the process of becoming a priest.

Unfortunately, the Vatican didn't define how they could tell if a candidate for the priesthood had "clearly overcome" their homosexual tendencies. Priests can't date or marry women. That might be a good clue.

Church officials made a distinction between deep-seated homosexual tendencies and what they called "the expression of a transitory problem." In other words, the Vatican believes that some gays can just 'get over it.'

According to the document, "The Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the Seminary and to Holy Orders those who practice homosexuality, present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies or support the so-called gay culture."

But the document said when "homosexual tendencies are only the expression of a transitory problem ... these must be clearly overcome at least three years prior to deaconate ordination." So those who aspire to be priests have three years to prove that they're not gay. Ready, set, go.

The highly anticipated 21-paragraph document, which advises bishops and seminary rectors on how to deal with potential gay priests entering the church, doesn't spell out how the "transitory problem" can be overcome, or how a potential priest can prove he no longer has such tendencies.

Reportedly, the new document reaffirms the church teaching that homosexual acts are "grave sins" which are intrinsically immoral and contrary to natural law. "Therefore, in no case can they be approved," it says.

"If a candidate practices homosexuality or presents deeply rooted homosexual tendencies, his spiritual director, like his confessor, have the duty to dissuade him in conscience from proceeding towards ordination," it said.

The document is sure to create controversy in the church. Some will argue that it will root out homosexuality in the priesthood, while others will claim that it will cause gay priests to go underground -- which some say was one of the factors that led to the sex abuse scandal in the first place.

The Roman Catholic Church's policy against homosexual priests goes back to a 1961 document which proclaimed that homosexuals should be barred from priesthood. But the Vatican felt compelled to issue updated guidelines because of the 2002 sex abuse scandal, which involved the abuse of teenage boys by priests.

The scandal had an enormous financial cost and deeply embarrassed the US church. Its reputation and integrity may have been irreparably harmed. In 1972 49% of Catholics reported attending church weekly; in 2000 a mere 26% did. It could be a long time before the Church recovers -- if it ever fully does. Surely the sex abuse scandal wasn't the sole reason for the decline, but it didn't help reverse the trend.

In responding to one of the most sensitive issues facing the Church, the document did not mention men who are already priests but only those entering seminaries to prepare for the priesthood.

That's because beggars can't be choosers.

The number of annual vocations to the priesthood has halved from around 1000 in 1965 to around 500 today. The number of men and women entering religious orders, primarily as nuns or monks, has declined by over 50% since 1965. And as the priesthood has become older, it has also become sparser; there were just under 59,000 priests in 1965, compared to around 45,000 today. The priest shortage is greatly affecting churches around the country; the number of parishes without a resident priest has increased from around 550 in 1965 to well over 3000 today. Apparently, fewer men are hearing "the calling" these days.

That's why church officials in the US allowed the sex abuse problem to fester for so long. They have a shortage of candidates and few other good options. So they just prayed for the predators, hoping their deviant ways would magically go away. Well, all the prayers in the world aren't turning gay people straight either.

Rev. Donald Cozzens, an author of "The Changing Face of the Priesthood," estimates that the number of gays in U.S. seminaries and the priesthood ranges from 25 percent to 50 percent. But other estimates have ranged from as low as 10 percent to as high as 60 percent.

The flamboyantly gay 70s group, The Village People, wrote campy songs that made light of the places that gay men might like to meet other men - the YMCA and the Navy. They could have just as well written a song called "In the Seminary."

It's little surprise that gay men have flocked to seminaries over the years. Some have tried to hide their sexuality. Becoming a priest would end the tedious, "When are you going to get married?" questions from family and friends. Others surely thought that they could just pray their sexuality away. Clearly that hasn't been working; the Church feels that it has a major problem on its hands. And still others chose to lead a cloistered life that provides lots of male companionship -- and sexual opportunities.

The answer is for the Church is to end the celibacy requirement for priests. Think of all of the worthy and wonderful candidates that are shut out because they want to be sexual beings who can have a wife and children. Married priests could raise other priests. It could become a family business, so to speak. Fathers are often their sons best role models. Priests, well....not exactly these days.

Celibacy leads nowhere -- except to unhappiness and declining numbers. The Vatican may eventually be forced to rethink its policy -- out of necessity.

Celibacy for priests wasn't even required until the Twelfth Century. The rule grew out of concerns for protecting Church property from inheritance. Pope Pelagius I made new priests agree that offspring could not inherit Church property. Pope Gregory then declared all sons of priests illegitimate (daughters couldn't inherit anyway). In 1022 Pope Benedict VIII banned marriages and mistresses for priests, and then in 1139 Pope Innocent II voided all marriages of priests and made all new priests divorce their wives.

The Vatican has always had issues with sex. But it's important to remember that it's comprised of men who aren't sexually active -- and some who never have been. Its hierarchy often seems overly rigid, out of touch, and hypocritical. While the Church teaches that sexual intimacy is designed for procreation (hence the restriction on contraception), infertile couples are still allowed to marry and post-menopausal spouses are allowed active sex lives. And the Church's ban on contraception is leaving many third world countries permanently in the third world, while contributing to the spiraling AIDS rate.

So the Church can issue documents, reaffirm old teachings, and do whatever else it wishes, but that isn't going to get at the root of its problems. They have a priest shortage that is only getting worse, and steadily declining numbers of parishioners. Allowing heterosexual priests to marry might just reverse both trends. Catholics would probably love a less rigid, more open-minded Church. It would certainly increase the pool of qualified, interested candidates to the priesthood. That'd be a great start. Rebuilding their reputation might take a little longer, but that would be another benefit of a much needed change.

Copyright © 2005 The Independent Report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the author's consent.

TIME TO ACT

Illegal immigration has become such an urgent and critical problem that in August the governors of Arizona and New Mexico were prompted to declare states of emergency along their borders.

It's estimated that 4,000 illegal aliens cross the 375-mile border between Arizona and Mexico every day. Last year, more than half of all illegal aliens apprehended were caught in Arizona. For every person the border patrol picks up, at least three slip into the country safely. Most obtain phony identification papers, including bogus Social Security numbers, to create new identities and mask their unlawful presence.

Transporting illegal immigrants requires fleets of stolen cars, which explains why Arizona ranks No. 1 in cars stolen per capita, with 56,000 vehicles ripped off in 2003.

In September, the commissioner of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Robert C. Bonner, resigned in frustration over US policy after four years on the job. It was obvious to him just how impotent US border control efforts are.

Bonner had clashed with the Bush administration over his support for the use of civilian "minutemen" along the U.S.-Mexico border to assist border patrol agents. President Bush, who's disregard of the problem forced concerned civilians to act in the first place, has equated the volunteer group with "vigilantes."

Saying that he was not asked to resign, Bonner indicated that it was just "a good time to move on."

His departure left three of the top positions within the Department of Homeland Security vacant: the chiefs of Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Having vacancies at the top positions in the departments that oversee immigration and border control just make a bad situation worse.

The government recently announced that the U.S. Latino population has increased 17% in the past four years. Latinos now number 41 million people in the US, or one out of every seven people. And presently, Latinos account for fifty percent of all US population growth, a percentage they are expected to maintain for the next 20 years.

No one knows exactly how many illegals are living in the U.S., but estimates run as high as 15 million.

Experts contend that 3 million illegal aliens flooded into the U.S. last year alone. It was roughly three times the number of immigrants who came to the U.S. legally. And at least 4 million people who arrived in the U.S. legally on work, tourist or education visas have decided to ignore immigration laws and stay permanently.

Many Americans are upset that illegal aliens often receive government-funded health care, education benefits and subsidized housing, and public-opinion polls show that Americans overwhelmingly favor a crackdown on illegal immigration.

But Latinos appear conflicted in their views of illegal immigration. A TIME Magazine poll found that 62% of US Latinos think illegal immigration is a "very" or "extremely" serious problem. Yet, 62% think that illegal immigrants should be able to get a US driver's license.

Other Americans think that the problem has clearly gotten out of hand. And situations like the following only fuel the fire.

In August, a US court granted two illegal El Salvadoran immigrants a civil judgment that gave them possession of a 70 acre Arizona ranch owned by a "vigilante" leader who they claim threatened them with a gun in March 2003 when he caught them sneaking into the US.

Mexican President Vicente Fox has done nothing to help the US with this problem, in fact he may have encouraged it. In 2000, Fox made his position clear when he called for a fully open border within 10 years, with "a free flow of people, workers" moving between the two countries. That free flow would quite clearly move in just one direction.

Under U.S. immigration law, illegal immigrants can be imprisoned after the second offense, but that almost never happens no matter how many times they're caught. The U.S. legal and prison systems would be completely overwhelmed.

While proponents of illegal immigration contend that illegals take jobs that Americans won't, evidence suggests that it is low wage rates, not the type of job, that American workers reject. The greatest impact of illegal immigration is on unskilled American workers at the bottom of the wage scale.

Of the 400,000 illegal aliens who have been ordered to be deported, 80,000 have criminal records—and the agency in charge, the Homeland Security Department, has no idea where any of them are, including those from countries that support terrorism.

Most illegals, including those with arrest records, are not jailed while awaiting a hearing. That's because Congress has failed to appropriate enough money to build sufficient holding facilities. Rather, the immigrants are released on their promise to return. But they don't.

As for illegals already serving time in U.S. jails, state law-enforcement authorities are not permitted to keep prisoners beyond their original sentence. When Homeland Security agents fail to show up promptly, which is often, the alien convicts are released back into the community.

There are two competing bills in the Senate that would deal with the illegal immigration problem. A number of Republican Congressman have told the White House that stronger enforcement is their top priority this Fall, and Tom Delay has said that President Bush has privately admitted making a mistake in how he's dealt with the issue in the past.

Experts contend that if the government simply issued a counterfeit proof Social Security card with an embedded photograph, and if all U.S. employers were mandated to require it under penalty of law, the illegal immigration problem could be solved.

Hopefully things will soon change. The time for our government to get serious about this problem is long since overdue.

ANWR Leases To Be Sold

Despite being set aside for protection 44 years ago, the Senate approved requiring the Interior Department to begin selling oil leases for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska refuge within two years.

Though past attempts had failed, this time drilling supporters attached language ending the ban on drilling in the refuge to a budget measure that is immune from filibuster.

It is estimated that 10.5 billion barrels of oil lie beneath the coastal tundra of northeastern Alaska. At present, the US uses about 7.3 billion barrels of oil a year.

Do the math: that's less than a year-and-half's supply.

Experts predict that oil will not flow from ANWR for 10 years and, according to the Energy Department, peak production of about 1 million barrels a day isn't expected until about 2025.

Currently, the United States uses about 20 million barrels of oil a day and consumption is expected to increase an additional 32 percent by 2025.

It's hard to see how ANWR will make any difference at all. The leases are clearly a giveaway to oil interests.

Environmentalists have cited a report by DOE's Energy Information Administration that concluded that ANWR oil would only slightly affect gasoline prices and marginally lower the growth of imports by 2025, when imported oil would account for 64 percent of U.S. demand instead of 68 percent without ANWR's oil.

How about that for energy independence -- a whopping 4 percent decrease in foreign oil reliance. Wow, let's celebrate!

The provision in the budget bill assumed $2.5 billion in federal revenue from oil lease sales over the next five years. Alaska would get a like amount, as well as half of future oil royalties from the refuge.

That's one reason Alaska's senators have fought for years to approve oil exploration in the refuge, which was set aside in 1961 for special protection.

SENATE BILL FIXES PENSION SHORTFALLS

In an effort to shore up deficits in the pension plans that cover 44 million Americans, the Senate voted Wednesday to force companies to make up underfunding estimated at $450 billion and live up to promises made to employees.

The Senate legislation, which passed 97-2, would compel companies with defined-benefit plans to live up to their funding obligations, preventing them from abandoning the retirement benefits of millions of Americans. The near unanimous support for the bill, an anomally in Washington these days, reveals the importance of this issue to both parties.

The vote came a day after the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which insures the defined-benefit plans of 44 million people and takes over the plans of bankrupt companies, reported a deficit of $22.8 billion at the end of the 2005 fiscal year on Sept. 30, and predicted a troubled future. A shortfall has been reported in each of the last four years.

The PBGC said it assumed responsibility for the pension benefits of an additional 235,000 workers and retirees in 2005, bringing the total to 1.3 million, and paid benefits of $3.7 billion, up from $3 billion in 2004.

Premiums per participant, paid by companies, totaled $1.5 billion. In an effort top offset some of the deficit, those premiums would increase from $19 to $30 a year under the Senate bill.

The Senate legislation, unlike the House version, would also extend special relief for debt-ridden airlines. Bankrupt steel and airline companies have been a significant reason for the PBGC's mounting financial woes. But the White House, while saying it supports most of the bill, opposed including extended relief for the airline industry.

Earlier this year, United Airlines and US Airways filed for bankruptcy and forced their employee pension liabilities -- a combined $9.6 billion -- onto the PBGC. Delta Airlines and Northwest Airlines , which both filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in September, could follow suit.

PBGC-covered single-employer defined-benefit plans, under which workers receive fixed monthly benefits based on their salaries and tenure, declined from 95,000 in 1980 to 30,000 in 2004 as companies either stopped offering plans or switched to 401(k)-type programs.

Exxon Mobil's Corporate Greed Revealed

Prepare yourself for this one.

Exxon Mobil hauled in a remarkable $100 billion in just three months, and $10 billion of it was pure profit.

Astonished? Well consider this; Exxon Mobil's profit actually exceeded Microsoft's first-quarter sales. And how about this mind-boggling nugget; the company earned $4.48 million an hour -- in profit -- during the quarter.

The oil company's third-quarter revenue and profit were both records for any publicly traded company. Given the current climate of high gas prices, the company's gains were so gigantic that even Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Republican, called for hearings on the higher fuel prices.

The company is quite concerned that Congress will level a windfall profit tax on the industry, which would spoil the party. In an effort to fend off the likely political backlash, not to mention the PR mess that will surely ensue, the company took out full page ads in newspapers claiming that its profit is not all that different from other industries.

You buying that?

Exxon Mobil's reported earnings were up 75 percent from the same quarter a year ago.

Feeling gouged?

With gas prices exceeding $3 per gallon in many states, it's little surprise if you are. The Exxon Mobil earnings report destroys the argument that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita were the sole reasons for the severe gas price hikes that followed in their aftermath. Apparently Exxon Mobil, and perhaps other oil giants as well, was the primary reason.

Providing a fine example of Wall Street's schizophrenic nature and obsession with expectations, despite this eye-popping earnings report, Exxon Mobil's stock price actually fell 1%. That's because the $1.32 per share earnings were below the $1.38 per share that had been anticipated. Go figure. But I'll bet the execs aren't complaining.

Copyright © 2005 The Independent Report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the author's consent.

WAITING FOR THE HAMMER TO FALL

Texas Congressman Tom Delay has faced so many legal problems over the past few years that he actually set up a legal defense fund to take contributions for his legal bills. Like many politicians, Delay loves contributions - and that's what's gotten him inso much trouble...again.

Already facing two indictments for violating Texas campaign laws, Delay has now acknowledged that he failed to comply with House rules which require him to disclose all contributions to his defense fund . According to Delay, $20,850 contributed in 2000 and 2001 was not reported.

The "Hammer", as he is known, did remember to include another $17,300 in the defense fund's quarterly report, but he forgot to list it in his 2000 annual financial disclosure report -- a separate requirement. Other donations were understated as totaling $2,800, when the figure should have been $4,450.

All of this occurred during a period when DeLay was the subject of several House ethics investigations. During such a period, one would expect a government official to be squeaky clean while avoiding all legal and ethical troubles or any potential conflicts of interest.

But not Delay. His sense of entitlement and grandiosity are remarkable even in the world of American politics. Now facing two felony charges, Delay's current legal woes forced him to step down from his position as the powerful House Majority Leader.

And those aren't all of of Delay's problems.

The House Ethics Committee is also reviewing allegations that Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a man Delay once described as "one of my closest and dearest friends," may have paid, or arranged payment for, some of DeLay's overseas travel expenses - a violation of House rules. Abramoff raised more than $100,000 for President Bush's 2004 re-election campaign, and thousands more for DeLay and other Republican members of Congress. One hand washes the other.

Delay's "close and dear friend" Abramoff is also facing bank fraud charges alleging that he and his business partner, New York businessman Adam Kidan, 36, used a fake wire transfer to defraud two lenders out of some $60 million. The money was to be used to finance the purchase of a fleet of gambling ships from entrepreneur Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis in September 2000. But the deal soon fell apart when the parties became involved in a bitter legal battle over the sale.

Five months later, Boulis was shot to death in what police described as a hit. Last month, three men were charged with his gangland-style murder. Court papers allege that, for unspecified reasons, Kidan - Abramoff's partner - paid $240K to two of the accused killers. That doesn't sound good, but maybe there's a perfectly good explanation. I'm sure Kidan is working on one right now, and I wonder if it involves Congressman Delay's dear old pal.

But that's not all. Abramoff is also under federal investigation by a Washington grand jury looking into whether he and a lobbying partner overcharged Indian tribes by millions of dollars for their work.

Abramoff's extraordinary access to Washington power brokers, like Delay, earned him millions for his work on behalf of groups as disparate as Indian Tribes, Fortune 500 companies, and foreign governments. Power and money always seem to go together like hand and glove, and Delay was the hand doing much of the back room dealmaking and manipulating that allowed Abramoff to operate so freely and smoothly in Washington.

Like a moth to a flame Delay seems to be drawn to scandal.

Last year, Delay was rebuked by his House colleagues three times in one week for ethical reasons. And in 1999 he was rebuked by the same House panel for threatening a Washington trade association that planned to hire a Democratic lobbyist. Delay is widely viewed as a bully, hence his nickname - the "Hammer."

It was just a year ago that Delay's colleagues chastised him for facilitating and participating in an energy company golf fundraiser that benefited his political action committees. Delay had the audacity to hold the event as House and Senate negotiators were about to meet in conference on major energy legislation in June of 2002. Say what you will, but the man's got balls.

Delay is so megalomaniacal that he apparently believes he's beyond reproach, and that he's untouchable. But like many who came before him, Delay may soon find out that he is indeed accountable to the people, his colleagues, and the legal system. He's made a mockery of his office and his duties as a lawmaker because he sees himself as being above the law. He hasn't chosen his friends very wisely either, and all of this may soon come back to haunt him - in spades.

Copyright © 2005 The Independent Report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the author's consent.

IN IRAQ: 2K KIA

Though the caskets have been ordered hidden from view by a White House desperate to diminish the affects of war, today marked a sad passing with the announcement that 2000 U.S. military personnel have now been killed as a result of fighting in Iraq. Though the U.S. military does not publish a cumulative tally of war deaths, news outlets have kept their own records.

According to the Defense Department, more than 15,000 American service members have been wounded since the start of the war in March 2003.

President Bush responded to the deaths by saying, "We've lost some of our nation's finest men and women in the war on terror.... each of these patriots left a legacy that allowed generations of their fellow Americans to enjoy the blessings of liberty."

Many of us had no idea that our liberty was actually being defended in Iraq, or that it ever needed to be defended there in the first place.

Actually it's been quite disheartening to hear key military leaders say that the U.S. presence is actually fueling the insurgency and drawing foreign fighters from throughout the Muslim World. Insurgent attacks have swelled to as many as 80 a day.

The war shows no signs of ending any time soon. Even with U.S. elections looming next year, the Bush Administration says it is poised to stay the course.

At last week's Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice insisted that rebuilding the entire Middle East has been the Bush Administration's mission ever since 9/11. That's a very noble goal, though perhaps quite unrealistic. It's especially odd given that the President spearheading this very effort is the same man who said, during the 200 Presidential campaign, that he was opposed to "nation building." Well region building dwarfs nation building in the same way that rebuilding New Orleans dwarfs rebuilding a few houses. As a result, the mission in the Middle East appears quite open-ended.

The Bush policy in Iraq has been an abject failure. Current and former intelligence officials have concluded that the Administration clearly didn't anticipate or adequately prepare for the insurgency, sent soldiers into combat with insufficient resources, and never put enough troops in Iraq to win the war from the beginning. That's still the case.

If that's the best this administration could do up until now, just imagine how much worse it could get with the amount of pressure now building on the White House from so many angles. Presently, the White House is dealing with the CIA leak investigation, the looming Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination hearings, and the ire of disappointed conservative leaders, groups and publications. That's not to mention the eventual fallout from the federal deficit, the trade deficit, the health care problem, the exporting of millions of jobs overseas, rising interest rates and the subsequent weakening of a housing market that has sustained the economy for the past few years.

No key players in the war effort have been fired, with the exception of Gen. Eric Shinseki, the former Army Chief of Staff who had the courage to tell the administration that they didn't have enough troops to successfully fight the war. He's since been vindicated, but that surely wasn't what he was hoping for. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who has bungled and misjudged this war from the outset, still has his job and that isn't building confidence in anyone, except for those who are equally inept and hoping to keep their jobs as well.

Now that the alleged Sadddam / al-Qaeda link has been dispelled, and the Administration seems to have "cooked the intelligence" on Saddam's alleged nuclear weapons program, people are asking the obvious question: why have 2000 of our military people died in this escapade? As of today, the appropriate qustion might be Y2K?

It's like the blind are leading the blind in this war, and we Americans have never been given an honest account of the war's true costs in both dollars and lives. That's shameful and reprehensible. It's hard to know who to trust or believe in our government. But one thing we should all count on is that things will continue to get worse in Iraq before they get better. If they ever get better.

Copyright © 2005 The Independent Report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the author's consent.

The Clock Is Ticking

According to an Oil Daily report issued prior to Hurricane Katrina, the ten major oil companies are on pace to post an astounding $100 billion plus in profits in 2005.

While the oil companies are reaping record profits, Americans are paying 50% more at the pump than they did one year ago. That's called price gouging.

In a free market economy, prices are directly correlated to supply and demand. As demand increases, supply must keep pace or else prices will inflate.

In the past four years, the worldwide demand for oil has increased by 8.6%. Meanwhile, worldwide production has essentially kept pace, increasing 8.3%. Despite this, crude oil prices have spiked an incredible 242% during the same period. Again, that's price gouging.

While some Americans might believe that the U.S. gets almost all of its crude oil from overseas, that is not the case. The U.S. produces 42% of its own oil and our neighbors Canada and Mexico are tied as our number one sources, each providing 11% of U.S. oil imports.

By contrast, Saudi Arabia is the number two exporter to the U.S., accounting for just 9% of U.S. oil.

Our appetite for oil seems to be nearly insatiable. Presently, the U.S. consumes 21 million barrels of oil each day, or 400 million gallons. That's a quarter of all the oil used around the world each day. And experts predict that U.S. consumption will increase 32% by 2025.

But we are not alone in our demand for oil. China and India, each with populations of over 1 billion people, are home to two of the world's most rapidly developing economies. And, as such, the demand for oil in those countries is also developing rapidly.

China's oil consumption is projected to rise 119% by 2025. But even then, they'll still be using only about half as much as the U.S. will be. At that time, it's anticipated that worldwide oil usage could increase to 120-130 million barrels a day, up from 85 million barrels today.

The question most experts ask is, where will all of that additional oil come from? Many have supposed that Saudi Arabia's giant oil fields would account for much of the supply.

But according to Matthew Simmons, the author of "Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy," that's highly unlikely.

Simmons believes that Saudi Arabia, now producing around 9 million barrels a day, may soon begin to lose production capacity. According to his research, the Saudi oil fields have matured, leading to their inevitable decline.

As a result, Simmons concludes that worldwide oil production has peaked and instead of increasing to 120 million barrels a day by 2025, it could in fact be half that rate — meaning less than what it is today.

Some have concluded that the U.S. must, in the effort to achieve oil independence, begin drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. But unfortunately, experts have countered that such a tactic would result in 250-800 million barrels a year, the amount the U.S. currently consumes in just 12-38 days.

Obviously, that's not the answer.

Simmons asserts that the world needs to considerably reduce its consumption of transportation fuels to fend off a potential crisis, a contention other experts in the field support.

Since 70% of the world's oil is used as transportation fuel, new forms of fuel are required, as well as a reduction in the number of people and goods moved by cars and trucks. Simmons calls for an increase in the use of trains and ships to make shipping more efficient and to reduce worldwide oil consumption.

Obviously, the U.S. oil industry has a huge stake in seeing to it that American consumers do not decrease the gluttonous consumption of their product. But if Simmons is correct, the clock is ticking on world oil supplies, and the time to act is now.

Biodiesel, which is manufactured from vegetable oils, recycled cooking greases and oils, or animal fats, is one possibility. It can be used in any diesel engine, usually without any engine modifications, and is the safest of all fuels to use, handle, and store. It's also non-toxic, biodegradable, and free of sulphur.

Soybeans, one of the largest and most abundant U.S. crops, are one of the principle sources. And believe it or not, biodiesel is already being used in busses and other municipal vehicles in numerous U.S. cities such as St. Louis, Phoenix, Cincinnati, Portland, Oregon and Lexington, Kentucky.

The Department of Energy calls biodiesel the fastest growing alternative fuel in the nation, as it's use has increased 5000% since 1999.

One way or the other, it's time to start exploring alternatives to crude oil for a variety of reasons: its limited, and perhaps dwindling, supply; various environmental factors; and the economic prospects from a new industry, including jobs.

There are lots of good reasons to wean ourselves from our dependence on foreign oil, not the least of which is our national security, so we shouldn't let U.S. oil companies stand in our way. In fact, if they're wise they'll recognize the opportunities at hand and lead the way themselves.

Copyright © 2005 The Independent Report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the author's consent.

IN A RACE AGAINST TIME

Between 1347-1350, a time known as the Middle Ages, approximately 20 million people, a third to half of Western Europe's population, died in what became know as the Black Plague or Black Death.

That calamity had an enormous impact on the European economies. It created a widespread morass of dread and futility, inspired long-lasting fear and panic, and forever changed European history. It took hundreds of years for European population levels to recover.

Yet, the last century saw three separate pandemics, or worldwide epidemics.

The 1957 outbreak began in China and was a hybrid of a human and an avian, or bird, flu. Because humans had no immunity for a bird virus, the strain was particularly lethal, killing approximately 2-4 million people worldwide.

Then, in 1968, another hybrid virus emerged from China and killed about one million people around the globe.

While the latter two events paled in comparison to the Black Death of the Middle Ages, that epidemic pales in comparison to the Spanish Influenza outbreak of 1918. That particular outbreak created panic, prompting widespread quarantines.

Nonetheless, the pandemic ended up killing as many as 50 million people worldwide.

Those infected during the 1918 outbreak died very quickly, usually within two to four days of the onset of symptoms. People without symptoms could be struck suddenly and be rendered too feeble to walk within hours; many would die the next day.

That virus was closely related to the kind of influenzas that infect swine, suggesting that it entered the human population through pigs.

The Spanish Influenza is estimated to have infected up to one billion people — half the world's population at the time — and to have killed more people than any other single outbreak of disease, surpassing even the Black Death.

Now scientists around the globe are concerned about another possible pandemic. They are particularly concerned that it could be triggered by a strain of the avian flu called H5N1.

At present, H5N1 is mostly passed directly from bird to human, but health experts have warned that it is just a matter of time before it mutates into a form that is easily transmissible between people. When that happens, it could result in as many as 150 million human deaths.

So far, the virus has only killed about 60 people — mostly poultry workers — because as of now it doesn't spread easily from person to person. The fear is that H5N1 will mutate to spread easily, which would be catastrophic. Because it is so different from annual flu strains, humans have no natural immunity to it.

Whereas the global mortality rate from the 1918 outbreak was estimated at 2.5 percent–5 percent of the population, the avian bird flu presently has a 50 percent mortality rate.

World heath officials appear to be genuinely concerned.

This week President Bush commented on the worrisome potential of H5N1. Then Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, the administration's top health official, said that "no one in the world is ready" for a potentially catastrophic outbreak of Avian bird flu. He added that U.S. officials and their counterparts around the globe recognize that a pandemic is possible and are working hard on ways to protect people from it.

Apparently the world is taking this threat seriously. More than 65 countries and international organizations participated in discussions on Thursday at the State Department about preparations for the possibility of an outbreak of bird flu.

According to a federal plan, U.S. health officials would rush overseas to wherever a bird flu outbreak occurred and work with local officials to try to contain it. If that fails, the plan calls for closing schools, restricting travel and other old-fashioned quarantine steps, depending on how fast the super-strain was spreading and the degree of its virulence.

Unfortunately, Leavitt says that state and local authorities aren't prepared to deal with the prospect of a quarantine — isolating the sick and closing large gatherings where diseases might spread.

To prepare for a potential outbreak, last month HHS began spending $100 million for the first large-scale production of a bird flu vaccine. But the department has been criticized because there isn't nearly enough of the anti-flu drug Tamiflu to treat the potential threat.

Tamiflu is the primary antiviral drug that countries around the world are now stockpiling to fend off the looming threat. Last week, the Senate passed legislation that would increase those purchases by $3 billion. Presently, U.S. health agencies have about 2 million doses of Tamiflu — enough to treat only about one percent of the population.

Leavitt cautioned that while there is a vaccine for H5N1, officials do not currently have the ability to mass produce it or get it to people quickly. Officials are concerned about a lack of ability to quickly create a vaccine to match whatever pandemic flu strain erupts.

That process currently takes months. If an outbreak were to occur, such an amount of time would be disastrous. Whereas AIDS killed 25 million in its first 25 years, the Spanish flu may have killed an equal number in just 25 weeks, beginning in September 1918.

Leavitt says the government's new plan will focus on refining vaccine production to speed the process.

There is also a real concern that as the virus mutates, the vaccines may continue to lose their effectiveness. Already a strain of the H5N1 virus is showing resistance to Tamiflu. Two reports in The Lancet medical journal this month said that resistance to anti-flu drugs was growing worldwide. In places such as China, drug resistance exceeded 70 percent.

Drug manufacturers are being urged to make more effective versions of an inhaled antiviral called Relenza, which is also known to be effective in battling the much feared H5N1.

In an effort to help them better understand and develop defenses against the threat of a future worldwide epidemic, scientists have made from scratch the Spanish flu virus that caused the 1918 worldwide outbreak. It is the first time an infectious agent behind a historic pandemic has been reconstructed.

Scientists hope their efforts will lead to effective vaccines that can thwart a global catastrophe.

Officials around the world share that hope, but many fear that they are in a race against time.