Pavano has two broken ribs following car accident

Monday, August 28, 2006

---

Associated Press

	Pavano

NEW YORK -- Yankees pitcher Carl Pavano has a pair of broken ribs, sustained in a mid-August car accident that the oft-injured right-hander didn't tell the team about until last weekend. Pavano, who hasn't played in the major leagues since June 27, 2005, due to shoulder, back, buttocks and elbow injuries, is scheduled for a medical checkup Tuesday and remains on track to make his final rehabilitation start Wednesday for Triple-A Columbus at Durham.

"Of course I'm angry. ... I've got an army of people here that we provide to put our players in the best position possible to succeed, and I don't want anybody to sabotage that by holding back. And clearly here, for a period of time that took place."

-- Brian Cashman

Yankees general manager Brian Cashman was unusually pointed in his remarks about Pavano, who signed a $39.95 million, four-year contract with the Yankees as a free agent before the 2005 season and went 4-6 with a 4.77 ERA in 17 major league starts before going on the disabled list. "I think it's obviously frustrating, disappointing. There's a lot of words which would come to mind," Cashman said. "Of course I'm angry. ... I've got an army of people here that we provide to put our players in the best position possible to succeed, and I don't want anybody to sabotage that by holding back. And clearly here, for a period of time that took place." New York had hoped Pavano possibly would be able to rejoin its rotation this week, filling the spot opened when Mike Mussina "I needed a doctor's opinion on what kind of treatment I needed," he said. "I figured the best thing to do was come clean with it and get the right treatment." went on the disabled list last week with a strained right groin. Pavano and Cashman both expressed hope that this latest injury wouldn't keep Pavano from rejoining the major league team when rosters expand this week. "I still want to pitch and get through this," said Pavano, who has been trying to come back from surgery on May 25 to remove a bone chip from his right elbow. Pavano said he was hurt early Aug. 15 in West Palm Beach, Fla., when on a rainy night his car hit a puddle, spun out of control and hit a truck that was at a stop sign. "There was no ambulance or anything. I was able to walk away from it," Pavano said. "I had my seat belt on. I think that's the area where maybe I got injured, is where the seat belt was." Pavano lives in West Palm Beach and had permission to go home, Cashman said. Pavano said his lack of performance with the Yankees led to his decision not to initially inform the team. "It's been pretty frustrating for not only the city, the team, my teammates, myself, management," he said. "It just seems like it's one thing after another. I'm not impervious to this because I make a lot of money and I play baseball." After the accident, Pavano pitched four shutout innings that night for Class A Tampa at Brevard County, the first of three rehab starts. "It just seems like there's a lot of distractions that are caused by me that go around with the team, and I figured that, at the time, it was something I could get through," he said. "I felt all right. I knew something was wrong, I didn't know the extent of it, but I figured that I'd pitch through it and it would get better. I just didn't seem to get better, and that's the only reason why I really went to the team." Pavano pitched six innings for Columbus last Friday and told the Yankees of the accident the following day. A scan then revealed the injury. Cashman rejected the notion that Pavano told the team then because he didn't want to pitch again at the major league level. He said Pavano threw a side session Monday. "We have had players play with this issue before," Cashman said.

This guy just needs to wrap himself in a bubble and not leave his bed.....he can't take two steps without hurting himself.
Link

Gore lashes out at media consolidation

Gore lashes out at media consolidation

By JILL LAWLESS, Associated Press WriterMon Aug 28, 7:03 AM ET

Former Vice President Al Gore said Sunday ever-tighter political and economic control of the media is a major threat to democracy.

Gore said the goal behind his year-old "interactive" television channel Current TV was to encourage the kind of democratic dialogue that thrives online but is increasingly rare on TV.

"Democracy is under attack," Gore told an audience at the Edinburgh International Television Festival. "Democracy as a system for self-governance is facing more serious challenges now than it has faced for a long time.

"Democracy is a conversation, and the most important role of the media is to facilitate that conversation of democracy. Now the conversation is more controlled, it is more centralized."

He said that in many countries, media control was being consolidated in the hands of a few businesspeople or politicians.

Gore said in Italy much of the media is owned by former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. In Russia, President Vladimir Putin has stifled dissent on television, and in South Africa, Gore said, dissent "is disappearing, and free expression is under attack."

In the United States "the only thing that matters in American politics now is having enough money to put 30-second commercials on the air often enough to convince the voters to elect you or re-elect you," he said. "The person who has the most money to run the most ads usually wins."

Gore lost the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush in disputed circumstances. Current TV was launched last year amid much skepticism, but anticipated the tide of user-generated content now sweeping the media world.

His long-standing warnings about the threat from global warming have reached a mass audience thanks to "An Inconvenient Truth," a slick, stark movie that has become one of the most successful documentaries in U.S. history.

Gore's renewed popularity, and his high-profile book and movie tours across the United States, have spurred speculation of a White House run in 2008. He denied it again Sunday.

"I don't have any plans to be a candidate, I don't expect to be a candidate," he said. "I really do not expect ever to be a candidate again."

Gore said there was a link between control of the media and a lack of political action to control climate change.

"Questions of fact that are threatening to wealth and power become questions of power," he said. "And so the scientific evidence on global warming — an inconvenient truth for the largest polluters — becomes a question of power, and so they try to censor the information."

Link

Carter says Blair subservient to Bush

Carter says Blair subservient to Bush

Mon Aug 28, 7:00 AM ET

Former President Jimmy Carter accused Tony Blair on Sunday of being "subservient" to the White House, saying the British prime minister failed to constrain America on Iraq.

"I have been surprised and extremely disappointed by Tony Blair's behavior," Carter said in an interview with The Sunday Telegraph newspaper.

"I think that more than any other person in the world, the prime minister could have had a moderating influence on Washington — and he has not," added Carter, who opposed the war in Iraq. "I really thought that Tony Blair ... would be a constraint on President Bush's policy toward Iraq."

Blair has been Bush's closest international ally on Iraq, and Britain has the second most troops there after America.

Carter said in many countries he has visited, people equate U.S. and British policy.

"It's a shameful and pitiful state of affairs, and I hold your British prime minister to be substantially responsible for being so compliant and subservient," Carter said.

Blair committed Britain to the war even though public opinion was strongly against it. He was re-elected last year — but with a sharply reduced Parliamentary majority, and the war has damaged his credibility among Britons.

Some speculated when the war began that Blair had decided to back Bush publicly in order to maintain his behind-the-scenes influence on Washington. But he has always denied suggestions that he committed to the invasion of Iraq for any reason other than that he believed it was the right thing to do.

Link

Daily Show - Double VIsion

The perfect portrayal of American Media.

London Bombings (Daily Show from 7/11/05)

Crude Awakening

8/8/06

Jon Stewart Elaborates on Bush's Moral Hypocrisy

From July 22 2006 I believe

Colbert Report: 'Knowledge of War is Bad for You'

From May 16th 2006

The Word: Hell, Yes!

From the broadcast of December 2005 in response to Hugo Chavez's offer of discount heating oil for New York and other US cities.

Bush vs Bush

This is from The Daily Show....it was on some time in the Summer of '05 I believe.

Link

The Colbert Kid (Have I mentioned how great YouTube is?)

Link 1



Link 2

'Democracy is under attack': Gore

Sun Aug 27, 3:50 PM ET

Former US Vice-President Al Gore warned an audience at the Edinburgh International Television Festival that "democracy is under attack".

The former presidential candidate said television networks in the world's biggest and most powerful democracies must do more to foster debate, which he said was crucial for democracy to flourish.

"In my country and others around the world democracy is under attack," the 58-year-old said.

Gore, who was also in Edinburgh partly to promote his film and book about climate change, both titled "An Inconvenient Truth", continued: "There's a feeling in the US on the part of many that the way democracy operates today is very different from the system we learned about in school."

He said that democracy, which he described as a "conversation", was now "more controlled and centralised", and that the most important role of the media was to facilitate democracy.

Gore said American politicians were spending their time raising funds at small gatherings and cocktail parties because, "the only thing that matters in American politics now is having enough money to put 30-second commercials on air to persuade the voters to elect or re-elect you."

The Internet, however, "offered the promise of recreating a meritocracy of ideas" and while not yet creating the wave of change that has been anticipated, had been "creeping into the TV domain".

Commenting on the US-led war in Iraq, increasingly opposed both by American politicians and grass-roots activists, Gore said: "It's been a long time since the US Senate or members of the House of Representatives had a feeling that what was said made any difference at all."

Questioned as to whether he thought US President George W. Bush, who defeated him in the 2000 presidential elections, was stupid, Gore replied: "I don't think he's unintelligent at all. He's incurious ... there's a puzzling lack of curiosity

Link

Ann Coulter gets owned......again.

Ann Coulter gets her freak on

By: John Amato on Thursday, August 24th, 2006 at 7:31 PM - PDT

Whenever Ann is faced with the reality that Osama hasn’t been caught yet by this administration–well–Poor Ann. Kirsten Powers actually responds to Coulter’s ridiculous line that Afghanistan is going swimmingly and brings up the fact that Osama is still alive and well. Coulter then plays her usual Clinton card and freaks. "Sean, help me–Sean, where are you? Sean, these mean people are talking…I can’t get my 10,000 words of Liberal hate speech in…I’m melting." Michael Brown didn’t mind that Hannity talked over him during the segment..

Video-WMP Video-QT

Credit to Crooks and Liars

Some fun stuff from theonion.com

War-Torn Middle East Seeks Solace In Religion

JERUSALEM—Millions of Middle Easterners are turning to one thing to make sense of the seemingly endless violence between Israelis and Arabs: religion.

U.S. Dedicates $64 Billion To Undermining Gates Foundation Efforts

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Tankers carrying millions of vials of the AIDS virus departed for Africa today as part of an effort to stop the charitable organization's onslaught of relief.

Ken Griffey Jr. Diagnosed With Hamstring Cancer

CINCINNATI—Just days after the Reds centerfielder learned that his father Ken Sr. has prostate cancer and his mother Birdie would be...

Randy Johnson Asks Chien-Ming Wang For Some Pitching Advice For A Pitcher Friend Of His

NEW YORK—Yankees pitcher Randy Johnson asked his teammate and fellow pitcher Chien-Ming Wang Tuesday for some pitching advice that was...

$18 Payment To Sponsored Child Withheld To Teach Child A Lesson

FAIRFAX, VA&mdashSave-A-Child father Gene Anderson says Mtumbe needs to learn to save for his future and not spend money on every childish little whim.

Outgoing Commissioner Tagliabue Expected To Pardon Dennis Miller Before Leaving Office

NEW YORK—Although Paul Tagliabue will not address speculation concerning possible forgiveness of former color commentator Dennis Miller's...

Experts: 'Derek Jeter Probably Didn't Need To Jump To Throw That Guy Out'

BRISTOL, CT—Baseball experts agreed Sunday that Derek Jeter, who fielded a routine ground ball during a regular-season game in which the...

CNN website to replay Sept. 11 coverage

Last Updated Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:37:35 EDT

American cable news network CNN will mark the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks by replaying their coverage of that day's events on the internet.

Viewers will be able to watch how the events unfolded starting at 8:30 a.m. ET, minutes before the first reports of an airplane hitting the World Trade Center. The feed will run in real time, matching the broadcast of five years ago, until midnight.

CNN is making its online video service, CNN Pipeline, free for the day. Normally viewers pay $2.95 US a month or $24.95 US a year for four separate video feeds.

In order to prevent an online viewer from accidentally clicking onto the coverage, the replay feed for the attacks will be covered with a notice instructing users to enter only if they wish to watch. Another feed on the site will feature live coverage of memorial services.

"They have the power to determine the best way for them to remember the anniversary," said David Payne, senior vice-president and general manager of CNN.com.

The Sept. 11 attacks are not the only American tragedy to be replayed in the next month.

CNN and the major networks are planning extensive coverage next week to commemorate the Hurricane Katrina disaster last year. Among the programs are NBC's Katrina: The Road Long Back, which airs on Monday, and Fox News Channel's blanket coverage, titled America's Challenge: Rebuilding the Gulf, beginning on Saturday.

Filmmaker Spike Lee's four-hour HBO documentary, When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts, will also air in its entirety on Tuesday, Aug. 29, the date Katrina made landfall.

With files from the Associated Press

Link

Inquiry Opened Into Israeli Use of US Bombs

Link to Original

Inquiry Opened Into Israeli Use of US Bombs
By David S. Cloud
The New York Times

Friday 25 August 2006

Washington - The State Department is investigating whether Israel's use of American-made cluster bombs in southern Lebanon violated secret agreements with the United States that restrict when it can employ such weapons, two officials said.

The investigation by the department's Office of Defense Trade Controls began this week, after reports that three types of American cluster munitions, anti-personnel weapons that spray bomblets over a wide area, have been found in many areas of southern Lebanon and were responsible for civilian casualties.

Gonzalo Gallegos, a State Department spokesman, said, "We have heard the allegations that these munitions were used, and we are seeking more information." He declined to comment further.

Several current and former officials said that they doubted the investigation would lead to sanctions against Israel but that the decision to proceed with it might be intended to help the Bush administration ease criticism from Arab governments and commentators over its support of Israel's military operations. The investigation has not been publicly announced; the State Department confirmed it in response to questions.

In addition to investigating use of the weapons in southern Lebanon, the State Department has held up a shipment of M-26 artillery rockets, a cluster weapon, that Israel sought during the conflict, the officials said.

The inquiry is likely to focus on whether Israel properly informed the United States about its use of the weapons and whether targets were strictly military. So far, the State Department is relying on reports from United Nations personnel and nongovernmental organizations in southern Lebanon, the officials said.

David Siegel, a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy, said, "We have not been informed about any such inquiry, and when we are we would be happy to respond."

Officials were granted anonymity to discuss the investigation because it involves sensitive diplomatic issues and agreements that have been kept secret for years.

The agreements that govern Israel's use of American cluster munitions go back to the 1970's, when the first sales of the weapons occurred, but the details of them have never been publicly confirmed. The first one was signed in 1976 and later reaffirmed in 1978 after an Israeli incursion into Lebanon. News accounts over the years have said that they require that the munitions be used only against organized Arab armies and clearly defined military targets under conditions similar to the Arab-Israeli wars of 1967 and 1973.

A Congressional investigation after Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon found that Israel had used the weapons against civilian areas in violation of the agreements. In response, the Reagan administration imposed a six-year ban on further sales of cluster weapons to Israel.

Israeli officials acknowledged soon after their offensive began last month that they were using cluster munitions against rocket sites and other military targets. While Hezbollah positions were frequently hidden in civilian areas, Israeli officials said their intention was to use cluster bombs in open terrain.

Bush administration officials warned Israel to avoid civilian casualties, but they have lodged no public protests against its use of cluster weapons. American officials say it has not been not clear whether the weapons, which are also employed by the United States military, were being used against civilian areas and had been supplied by the United States. Israel also makes its own types of cluster weapons.

But a report released Wednesday by the United Nations Mine Action Coordination Center, which has personnel in Lebanon searching for unexploded ordnance, said it had found unexploded bomblets, including hundreds of American types, in 249 locations south of the Litani River.

The report said American munitions found included 559 M-42's, an anti-personnel bomblet used in 105-millimeter artillery shells; 663 M-77's, a submunition found in M-26 rockets; and 5 BLU-63's, a bomblet found in the CBU-26 cluster bomb. Also found were 608 M-85's, an Israeli-made submunition.

The unexploded submunitions being found in Lebanon are probably only a fraction of the total number dropped. Cluster munitions can contain dozens or even hundreds of submunitions designed to explode as they scatter around a wide area. They are very effective against rocket-launcher units or ground troops.

The Lebanese government has reported that the conflict killed 1,183 people and wounded 4,054, most of them civilians. The United Nations reported this week that the number of civilian casualties in Lebanon from cluster munitions, land mines and unexploded bombs stood at 30 injured and eight killed.

Dozen of Israelis were killed and hundreds wounded in attacks by Hezbollah rockets, some of which were loaded with ball bearings to maximize their lethality.

Officials say it is unlikely that Israel will be found to have violated a separate agreement, the Arms Export Control Act, which requires foreign governments that receive American weapons to use them for legitimate self-defense. Proving that Israel's campaign against Hezbollah did not constitute self-defense would be difficult, especially in view of President Bush's publicly announced support for Israel's action after Hezbollah fighters attacked across the border, the officials said.

Even if Israel is found to have violated the classified agreement covering cluster bombs, it is not clear what actions the United States might take.

In 1982, delivery of cluster-bomb shells to Israel was suspended a month after Israel invaded Lebanon after the Reagan administration determined that Israel "may" have used them against civilian areas.

But the decision to impose what amounted to a indefinite moratorium was made under pressure from Congress, which conducted a long investigation of the issue. Israel and the United States reaffirmed restrictions on the use of cluster munitions in 1988, and the Reagan administration lifted the moratorium.

Credit to truthout.com

GOP Candidate Says 9/11 Attacks Were a Hoax

Link to Original story

GOP Candidate Says 9/11 Attacks Were a Hoax
By Albert McKeon
The Nashua Telegraph

Thursday 24 August 2006

A Republican candidate for this area's congressional seat said Wednesday that the U.S. government was complicit in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

In an editorial board interview with The Telegraph on Wednesday, the candidate, Mary Maxwell, said the U.S. government had a role in killing nearly 3,000 people at the World Trade Center and Pentagon, so it could make Americans hate Arabs and allow the military to bomb Muslim nations such as Iraq.

Maxwell, 59, seeks the 2nd District congressional seat. The Concord resident opposes the incumbent, Charles Bass of Peterborough, and Berlin Mayor Bob Danderson in the Republican primary Sept. 12.

Maxwell would not specify if she holds the opinion that the government stood by while terrorists hijacked four domestic airliners and used them as weapons, or if it had a larger role by sanctioning and carrying out the attacks.

But she implicated the government by saying the Sept. 11 attacks were meant "to soften us up ... to make us more willing to have more stringent laws here, which are totally against the Bill of Rights ... to make us particularly focus on Arabs and Muslims ... and those strange persons who spend all their time creating little bombs," giving Americans a reason "to hate them and fear them and, therefore, bomb them in Iraq for other reasons."

She said this strategy "would be normal" for governments, citing her belief that the British government - and not the Germany military - sank the Lusitania ocean liner in 1915. The deaths of Americans on the cruise liner helped galvanize U.S. support to enter World War I, and benefited England, she said.

In turn, the Sept. 11 attacks "made the ground fertile" for more stringent laws, such as the Patriot Act, and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, Maxwell said.

Near the end of the interview, Maxwell pounded her fist on the table and asked editors of The Telegraph why they weren't publishing more stories about the government's role in the terrorist attacks or proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Maxwell has no political experience. She lived abroad for the past quarter-century with her husband, George, a pediatrician, and only recently returned to the U.S., she said.

In the hour-long interview, Maxwell spoke at length about Constitutional law, U.S. law, nuclear weapons proliferation, and other domestic and foreign policy issues.

Maxwell said the U.S. should withdraw from Iraq. She also questioned whether Congress authorized the war and said its members can't explain that 2002 vote. (Congress authorized the use of force to defend this country's security and enforce United Nations resolutions on Iraq.)

"Legally, we shouldn't have gone to Iraq if Congress can't explain why," she said.

Maxwell described herself as a strict Constitutionalist, a candidate who wants to bring the country "back to basics." The Constitution grants more power to the legislative branch than the other two branches, but Congress has allowed the executive and judicial branches to diminish its influence, she said.

She also said the U.S. shouldn't immerse itself in the international community by signing trade and security pacts. These agreements have weakened national sovereignty, she said.

Credit to truthout.com

Jon Stewart vs. Rockey

August 25th, 2006

Jon Stewart vs. Rockey

By: Jamie Holly @ 9:38 AM - PDT

Jon Stewart took a good look at Rockey, the Katrina survivor who met with Bush this week, on The Daily Show last night.

Video - WMV Video - QT

Stewart: "Wow, ‘Mission Accomplished’! You got the President to meet with you, his arch friend. Wow! All you news folks were right. He is just like Cindy Sheehan, except a life-long Republican"

As Attytood points out, Rockey is a Republican and even a former GOP candidate:

(Read the rest of this story…)

Link

Stewart Slams Bush's "Desperate Soundbites" At Press Conference...

Veradictum | Posted August 24, 2006 03:36 PM

READ MORE: George W. Bush

From veredictum.com/

Must watch piece from Keith Olbermann

George Bush and the Politics of Terror

By Larry Johnson

Wed Aug 16th, 2006 at 04:41:58 PM EDT :: Bush

As George Bush said, "Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me --- you can't get fooled again." Or, how about the old saying, "if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's a duck." Why the snark? Just watch the Keith Olbermann's brilliant presentation - which shows conclusive, indisputable evidence that George Bush and his minions have used bogus terrorist threats to distract public attention from embarrassing political news - and you too will become a member of the reality-based community (thanks to John Amato at Crooks and Liars for posting this up).

Ten. Count em. Ten separate incidents where the Bush administration issued public warnings of imminent attacks that subsequently turned out to be non-existent or misleading. George Bush is the boy who cried Wolf, Wolf, Wolf, Wolf, Wolf ... and no end is in sight.

Olbermann deserves an Emmy and a Pulitzer for this report. He's done a public service. He has blazed a trail the rest of the media, print and electronic, ought to follow. Just as Edward R. Murrow confronted the red-baiter Senator McCarthy, Olbermann has performed a similar service to America by standing up to the fearmongering of Bush. Please ensure your friends and relatives see this piece.

Larry Johnson has his own blog, NoQuarter: www.NoQuarter.typepad.com

Bush Contemplates Rebirth of Dictatorship for Iraq

Bush Contemplates Rebirth of Dictatorship for Iraq

By Matthew Rothschild

August 17, 2006

There was a big clue planted at the bottom of the very long lead article in The New York Times of August 17.

That story noted the alarming rise in insurgent attacks against American and Iraqi forces.

The number of IEDs in July was 2,625, just about twice what it was back in January, when Zarqawi was still prowling around.

Clearly, his death did nothing to slow the pace down or snuff out the insurgency.

The shelf life of Bush propaganda is only about one week these days.

Maybe Chalabi is waiting in the wings still—or some other Saddam wannabe.

Bush appears to be taking applications.

But back to the clue.

The last three paragraphs of this story revealed that “senior administration officials . . . are considering alternatives other than democracy,” according to a military expert who was just briefed at the White House.

Hmmm, “alternatives other than democracy.”

My, what can those be?

Monarchy? Dictatorship?

In that same edition, The New York Times ran a headline about the death of the brutal Paraguayan strongman Alfredo Stroessner, proclaiming him to be a “colorful dictator.”

That’s an obscenity. According to Amnesty International, “During Stroessner's military dictatorship, gross and systematic violations of human rights occurred. Amnesty International repeatedly expressed concern to the Paraguayan Government about long-term prisoners of conscience and allegations of torture, ‘disappearance’ and death in custody of political prisoners, as well as reports of prolonged detentions of political opponents.”

(For a glimpse at the horrors he committed, go to http://www.amnestyusa.org.)

The Bush Administration may be looking for an Iraqi Stroessner, or another, more reliable Saddam.

That may have been what Cheney and Rumsfeld had in mind all along. From the very beginning, they wanted to install in power Ahmad Chalabi and his groups of exiles roosting in the Iraqi National Congress, writes George Packer in his book The Assassin’s Gate. When the situation in Iraq began to deteriorate, Cheney blamed those in the Administration who refused to go along with this plan.

“In the fall of 2003, Dick Cheney approached his colleague Colin Powell, stuck a finger in his chest, and said, ‘If you hadn’t opposed the INC and Chalabi, we wouldn’t be in this mess,’ ” Packer reports.

Maybe Chalabi is waiting in the wings still—or some other Saddam wannabe.

Bush appears to be taking applications.

Link

Bush Eyes Iran at Press Conference

Bush Eyes Iran at Press Conference

By Matthew Rothschild

August 22, 2006

At Bush’s press conference Monday, he made two things clear. First, there’s no way he’s getting us out of Iraq.

“We’re not leaving, so long as I’m the President,” he said.

As part of his ever-changing justification for being in Iraq, he did mention the dirty little three-letter word oil, interestingly enough.

This was Bush the Deluded speaking, the messianic militarist who believes he’s writing the final history of the region, or at least transcribing God’s wishes for it.

Here’s what he said: “A failed Iraq . . . would give the terrorists and extremists an additional tool besides safe haven, and that is revenues from oil sales.”

I guess he thinks it’s OK to refer to Iraq’s vast oil supplies now, three and a half years after launching the war, whereas it would have been too crass to mention them before.

But it makes little sense to suggest that Iraqi nationalists would hand over their oil to Al Qaeda, which is blowing up innocent people. If the U.S. leaves, the Iraqis—Sunnis and Shiites alike--are more likely to go after Al Qaeda, not less.

That likelihood doesn’t fit into Bush’s script, though.

But attacking Iran does, and that was the second ominous noise that Bush made on Monday.

Bush warned a couple times of the “danger of a nuclear-armed Iran.”

Asked about Tehran’s influence, he said, “Iran is obviously part of the problem. They sponsor Hezbollah. They encourage a radical brand of Islam. Imagine how difficult this issue would be if Iran had a nuclear weapon.”

He called Iran “a central part of creating instability, trying to stop reformers from realizing dreams.”

Then he fused Iran and Iraq together, joining the Islamic state and the failed state into one single enemy.

In broken syntax, he laid it out: “The question facing this country is will—do—we, one, understand the threat to America? In other words, do we understand that a failed, failed states in the Middle East are a direct threat to our country’s security? And secondly, will we continue stay engaged in helping reformers, in working to advance liberty, to defeat an ideology that doesn’t believe in freedom? And my answer is, so long as I’m the President we will.”

In response to a question about Tehran’s growing influence, despite his efforts to curb it, he said, most threatening of all: “The final history in the region has yet to be written.”

This was Bush the Deluded speaking, the messianic militarist who believes he’s writing the final history of the region, or at least transcribing God’s wishes for it.

And his transcription machine is an F-16.

Link

Wrong War, Wrong Word

Click here to return to the browser-optimized version of this page.

This article can be found on the web at
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060911/pollitt

---

Subject to debate by Katha Pollitt

Wrong War, Wrong Word

[from the September 11, 2006 issue]

If you control the language, you control the debate. As the Bush Administration's Middle Eastern policy sinks ever deeper into bloody incoherence, the "war on terror" has been getting a quiet linguistic makeover. It's becoming the "war on Islamic fascism." The term has been around for a while--Nexis takes it back to 1990, when the writer and historian Malise Ruthven used "Islamo-fascism" in the London Independent to describe the authoritarian governments of the Muslim world; after 9/11 it was picked up by neocons and prowar pundits, including Stephen Schwartz in the Spectator and Christopher Hitchens in this magazine, to describe a broad swath of Muslim bad guys from Osama to the mullahs of Iran. But the term moved into the mainstream this August when Bush referred to the recently thwarted Britain-based suicide attack plot on airplanes as "a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists." Joe Lieberman compares Iraq to "the Spanish Civil War, which was the harbinger of what was to come." The move away from "war on terrorism" arrives not a moment too soon for language fussbudgets who had problems with the idea of making war on a tactic. To say nothing of those who wondered why, if terrorism was the problem, invading Iraq was the solution. (From the President's August 21 press conference: Q: "But what did Iraq have to do with September 11?" A: "Nothing." Now he tells us!)

What's wrong with "Islamo-fascism"? For starters, it's a terrible historical analogy. Italian Fascism, German Nazism and other European fascist movements of the 1920s and '30s were nationalist and secular, closely allied with international capital and aimed at creating powerful, up-to-date, all-encompassing states. Some of the trappings might have been anti-modernist--Mussolini looked back to ancient Rome, the Nazis were fascinated by Nordic mythology and other Wagnerian folderol--but the basic thrust was modern, bureaucratic and rational. You wouldn't find a fascist leader consulting the Bible to figure out how to organize the banking system or the penal code or the women's fashion industry. Even its anti-Semitism was "scientific": The problem was the Jews' genetic inferiority and otherness, which countless biologists, anthropologists and medical researchers were called upon to prove--not that the Jews killed Christ and refused to accept the true faith. Call me pedantic, but if only to remind us that the worst barbarities of the modern era were committed by the most modern people, I think it is worth preserving "fascism" as a term with specific historical content.

Second, and more important, "Islamo-fascism" conflates a wide variety of disparate states, movements and organizations as if, like the fascists, they all want similar things and are working together to achieve them. Neocons have called Saddam Hussein and the Baathists of Syria Islamo-fascists, but these relatively secular nationalist tyrants have nothing in common with shadowy, stateless, fundamentalist Al Qaeda--as even Bush now acknowledges--or with the Taliban, who want to return Afghanistan to the seventh century; and the Taliban aren't much like Iran, which is different from (and somewhat less repressive than) Saudi Arabia--whoops, our big ally in the Middle East! Who are the "Islamo-fascists" in Saudi Arabia--the current regime or its religious-fanatical opponents? It was under the actually existing US-supported government that female students were forced back into their burning school rather than be allowed to escape unveiled. Under that government people are lashed and beheaded, women can't vote or drive, non-Muslim worship is forbidden, a religious dress code is enforced by the state through violence and Wahhabism--the "Islamo-fascist" denomination--is exported around the globe.

"Islamo-fascism" looks like an analytic term, but really it's an emotional one, intended to get us to think less and fear more. It presents the bewildering politics of the Muslim world as a simple matter of Us versus Them, with war to the end the only answer, as with Hitler. If you doubt that every other British Muslim under the age of 30 is ready to blow himself up for Allah, or that shredding the Constitution is the way to protect ourselves from suicide bombers, if you think that Hamas might be less popular if Palestinians were less miserable, you get cast as Neville Chamberlain, while Bush plays FDR. "Islamo-fascism" rescues the neocons from harsh verdicts on the invasion of Iraq ("cakewalk...roses...sweetmeats...Chalabi") by reframing that ongoing debacle as a minor chapter in a much larger story of evil madmen who want to fly the green flag of Islam over the capitals of the West. Suddenly it's just a detail that Saddam wasn't connected with 9/11, had no WMDs, was not poised to attack the United States or Israel--he hated freedom, and that was enough. It doesn't matter, either, that Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites seem less interested in uniting the umma than in murdering one another. With luck we'll be scared we won't ask why anyone should listen to another word from people who were spectacularly wrong about the biggest politico-military initiative of the past thirty years, and their balding heads will continue to glow on our TV screens for many nights to come. On to Tehran!

It remains to be seen if "Islamo-fascism" will win back the socially liberal "security moms" who voted for Bush in 2004 but have recently been moving toward the Democrats. But the word is already getting a big reaction in the Muslim world. As I write the New York Times is carrying a full page "open letter" to Bush from the Al Kharafi Group, the mammoth Kuwaiti construction company, featuring photos of dead and wounded Lebanese civilians. "We think there is a misunderstanding in determining: "'Who deserves to be accused of being a fascist'!!!!"

"Islamo-fascism" enrages to no purpose the dwindling number of Muslims who don't already hate us. At the same time, it clouds with ideology a range of situations--Lebanon, Palestine, airplane and subway bombings, Afghanistan, Iraq--we need to see clearly and distinctly and deal with in a focused way. No wonder the people who brought us the disaster in Iraq are so fond of it.

Republicans to Spy Agencies: Make Iran Scarier

Republicans to Spy Agencies: Make Iran Scarier

Posted on Aug 24, 2006

Senior Bush officials and other top Republicans are apparently angry that U.S. intelligence agencies aren’t issuing more ominous threats about Iran. The GOP’ers, marred by (but unrepentant for) their Iraq debacle, are eager to use their lethal Tonka Toys once again—this time in Iran.

Check out an intelligence expert at AMERICAblog who argues that Iran poses no imminent threat to the U.S.

N.Y. Times:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 — Some senior Bush administration officials and top Republican lawmakers are voicing anger that American spy agencies have not issued more ominous warnings about the threats that they say Iran presents to the United States.

Some policy makers have accused intelligence agencies of playing down Iran’s role in Hezbollah’s recent attacks against Israel and overestimating the time it would take for Iran to build a nuclear weapon.

The complaints, expressed privately in recent weeks, surfaced in a Congressional report about Iran released Wednesday. They echo the tensions that divided the administration and the Central Intelligence Agency during the prelude to the war in Iraq.

Link

AJ at AMERICAblog:

... Iran is simply not an imminent threat, nor is it a threat to vital U.S. interests in ways that would necessitate an aggressive response (supporting anti-U.S. terrorist action, for example). For intelligence analysts to state those facts isn’t being “gun shy,” as Rep. Holt (D-NJ) unfortunately put it, rather it’s a simple reflection of accurate assessments based on the facts available. The House intel committee is right to say that we don’t have enough information on Iran, but analysts have to work with what they have, not politicized conjecture. There’s a difference between connecting and explaining the dots and creating new ones to reach a preordained conclusion.

Further, despite some assumptions to the contrary, intelligence agencies have a natural (and wholly understandable) predisposition towards warning. Rarely do analysts downplay potential problems because there’s generally a much higher price to pay for underestimating a threat than overestimating it. Certainly intelligence agencies got Iraq’s WMDs wrong, but the march to war was led by political leadership, not by the agencies and certainly not by analysts.

Link

Scarborough: “Fake News Versus FOX News”

Scarborough: “Fake News Versus FOX News”

By: Jamie Holly on Wednesday, August 23rd, 2006 at 4:30 AM - PDT

Last night Scarborough covered the little feud going on between Fox and Comedy Central (for those late comers to the party you can see part one here and part two here).

Video - WMV Video - QT

Scarborough seems to think that Stewart gets a free pass because he is left of center. Anyone who watches TDS knows that Stewart will take the opportunity to point out mistakes made by any politician, right or left. It just so happens that we have a government totally controlled by the right and they happen to make very easy targets right now.

Scarborough Probes the Stewart - O’Reilly Feud

Scarborough Probes the Stewart - O’Reilly Feud

Email Print

Posted on Aug 24, 2006

From MSNBC

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough asks whether Bill O’Reilly has a point when he argues that Jon Stewart isn’t really running a “fake news” show. (great clips included)

As a primer:

Jon Stewart’s first appearance on “The O’Reilly Factor”

Bill O’Reilly’s subsequent appearance on “The Daily Show”

Bush says: “Iraq Had ‘Nothing’ To Do With 9/11″

Karl Rove and Dick Cheney are not happy campers today that’s for sure. He admits he was wrong about WMD’s in Iraq and now this.

Video-WMP Video-QT

QUESTION: A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn’t gone in. How do you square all of that?

BUSH: I square it because imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein, who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who had relations with Zarqawi.

You know, I’ve heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived [in Iraq] and — you know, the stir-up-the-hornet’s- nest theory. It just doesn’t hold water, as far as I’m concerned.

The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were …

QUESTION: What did Iraqi have to do with that?
BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

QUESTION: The attacks upon the World Trade Center.

BUSH: Nothing. . . . .Except for it’s part of — and nobody’s ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September the 11th is: Take threats before they fully materialize,

I seem to remember Dick Cheny, Condi and Bush trying link Iraq to 9/11 way back when:

Russert: Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?

CHENEY: Well, what we now have that’s developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that’s been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack

Martini Republic: So, to sum up, we had to invade Iraq because Saddam didn’t have any WMDs and didn’t have any connection to 9/11. And his handlers reportedly cannot understand why his approval ratings remain in the toilet.

Some Comics thanks to truthdig.com

Black ‘Daily Show’ Reporter: GOP’ers Aren’t Racist Enough

Posted on Aug 23, 2006

From Comedy Central

Jon Stewart’s “senior black correspondent” Larry Wilmore said that Republicans like Tony Snow and Va. Sen. George Allen are giving real racists like Strom Thurmond a bad name.

Wilmore: How am I supposed to be pissed off about ‘macaca’? That’s weak. Racism today is in sorry shape, and we need it more than ever.

Wilmore then went on to propose an ingenious new way to defuse black/white racism. Watch it:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=114198&title=race-is-the-word/

60 Minutes: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sits down in Tehran for an interview with CBS' Mike Wallace.

http://throwawayyourtv.com/2006/08/60-minutes-iranian-president-mahmoud.html

Red Sox Obit?

How the hell can you lose 5 straight games to one team? Not saying that the division race is done because that is exactly what people said in 2004 after the insane game at Yankee Stadium but.....this was just bad.

Credit to ESPN.com's Page 2 for the Obit.

MLB Predictions

I just realized that I hadn't put my MLB Predictions down on paper online anywhere as of yet so here they are. Some of them already seem a little shaky...but they are what they are.

AL East
Toronto
Boston
New York
Tampa Bay
Baltimore

AL Central
Detroit
Minnesota
Cleveland
Chicago
Kansas City

AL West
Los Angeles
Oakland
Seattle
Texas

MVP - 1) Vernon Wells 2) Vladmir Guerrero 3) David Ortiz
Cy Young - 1) Roy Halladay 2) Johan Santana 3) Josh Beckett
Rookie of the Year - 1) Franciso Liriano 2) Justin Verlander 3) Ian Kinsler
Manager of the Year- 1) Jim Leyland 2) John Gibbons 3) Joe Maddon

NL East
New York
Philadelphia
Atlanta
Florida
Washington

NL Central
Houston
St. Louis
Cincinatti
Pittsburgh
Chicago
Milwaukee

NL West
San Francisco
Colorado
Los Angeles
Arizona
San Diego

MVP - 1) David Wright 2) Albert Pujols 3) Ken Griffey Jr.
Cy Young - 1)Pedro Martinez 2) Roy Oswalt 3) Dontrelle Willis
Rookie of the Year - 1) Jeremy Hermida 2) Prince Fielder 3) Matt Cain
Manager of the Year- 1) Felipe Alou 2) Willie Randolph 3) Phil Garner

Playoffs
Angels over Red Sox in 5
Jays over Tigers in 4

Mets over Astros in 4
Giants over Cardinals in 5

Angels over Jays in 6
Mets over Giants in 5

World Series
Angels over Mets in 6

Middle East Times Bush loses poetic tribute in Pakistan schoolbooks By AFP Middle East Times Published December 6, 2005 Education officials in Pakistan have dropped a poem from a school textbook after discovering that it secretly contained the name of US President George W. Bush. At first sight the anonymous 20-line ode entitled The Leader, which was taught to Pakistani students aged between 15 and 18, appears merely to list the qualities of the ideal statesman. But closer inspection reveals that the first letter of each line spells out the American president's title and name. Bush's surname appears in the following lines: "Bracing for war, but praying for peace / Using his power so evil will cease. / So much a leader and worthy of trust, / Here stands a man who will do what he must." "The poem triggered controversy. It has been deleted from the book," senior education ministry official Tariq Qureshi said. He said that the ministry was investigating how the poem slipped by the officials who monitor textbooks, but added that it had been downloaded from the Internet by a committee of subject specialists while revising the syllabus in 2004. The decision to cut the poem was taken at a high-level meeting chaired by education minister Javed Ashraf Qazi and curriculum experts here on Monday. "The matter is over now," Qureshi said. But the incident has raised eyebrows in this conservative Islamic country, where military ruler President Pervez Musharraf is often accused of slavishly supporting the US-led "war on terror". Qureshi said that the education minister had warned all those involved against further negligence and said that a new English language textbook will be included in next year's syllabus. The poem in full: P atient and steady with all he must bear, R eady to meet every challenge with care, E asy in manner, yet solid as steel, S trong in his faith, refreshingly real. I sn't afraid to propose what is bold, D oesn't conform to the usual mould, E yes that have foresight, for hindsight won't do, N ever backs down when he sees what is true, T ells it all straight, and means it all too. G oing forward and knowing he's right, E ven when doubted for why he would fight, O ver and over he makes his case clear, R eaching to touch the ones who won't hear. G rowing in strength he won't be unnerved, E ver assuring he'll stand by his word. W anting the world to join his firm stand, B racing for war, but praying for peace, U sing his power so evil will cease, S o much a leader and worthy of trust, H ere stands a man who will do what he must. Copyright © 2005 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved. I think I'm gonna throw up

Facebook

Facebook Me

Update

Yeah, it is that time of the year again when I promise that I'll start updating this thing and then forget again. Or maybe this time will be different.

Let's see presently I'm occupied following the Pakistan/England series. Annoyed at the way my Angels lost to Chicago. No idea what to think of my Raptors.....I hope all the idiots who wanted VC gone are satisfied. Still getting used to the new NHL. There are far too many goals for my liking but this hockey is better then no hockey. What can I say about the 9ers? It looks like we're gonna miss out on Bush too.


Oh yeah, the Canadian Elections are coming on January 23rd. Remember to vote NDP.

QB-desperate Jets agree to deal with Testaverde

Obviously Joe Namath wasn't available. All kidding I side it's a decent signing for the Jets. Who else is really out there for them right now?

Palmeiro turns in teammate?

Manager: It might be best if Palmeiro does not return this season
By RONALD BLUM, AP Sports Writer
September 22, 2005

NEW YORK (AP) -- Rafael Palmeiro's season with the Baltimore Orioles might be over.

Orioles interim manager Sam Perlozzo said that if the first baseman had disclosed the name of a teammate who supplied him with the substance that led to Palmeiro's suspension for steroid use, it probably would be best that Palmeiro not return to the team this year.

The Sun in Baltimore, citing unidentified sources, reported Thursday that Palmeiro had identified a teammate by name when he testified before baseball's arbitration panel in an attempt to overturn the suspension, which followed a positive test for stanozolol.

``If in fact that was true, then it probably would not be a good idea'' for Palmeiro to return, Perlozzo said Thursday before the Orioles played the New York Yankees. ``It's all speculation as far as I know.''

Congressional investigators have been interviewing the Orioles following Palmeiro's 10-day suspension, which began Aug. 1. Palmeiro went 2-for-26 with one RBI after his return, and was sent home by Baltimore on Sept. 5 for rehabilitation on his right knee and left ankle.

``I know that he still would like to come back,'' Perlozzo said. ``He doesn't want to be a distraction and all that. I pretty much told him that as far as I was concerned, it was an organizational decision.''

Orioles executive vice president Jim Beattie said no decision would be made until Friday at the earliest.

``We're talking to Raffy right now about that,'' Beattie said in a telephone interview. ``Rather than comment on hearsay -- I don't think it's a proper thing for me to do -- we'll wait and see when we get into the office.''

Perlozzo didn't discuss with Palmeiro what he may or may not have disclosed.

``I did not ask him,'' he said. ``I didn't think that was my job.''

Perlozzo understood that if Palmeiro was questioned by investigators, he was bound by the rules if the inquiry.

``I would think if you're under oath, you tell the truth,'' Perlozzo said. ``Isn't that what you're supposed to do?''

Palmeiro's situation is complicated, so Perlozzo wanted the front office to make the decision.

``A lot of things factor in,'' he said. ``Is he going to play or is he not going to play? How much is he going to play? And is it worthwhile to take that chance?''

Arn Tellem, Palmeiro's agent, did not return a telephone call seeking comment. House Government Reform Committee spokesman Dave Marin declined comment.

Palmeiro, who turns 41 on Saturday, is batting .266 with 18 homers and 60 RBIs. He got his 3,000th hit on July 15, joining Hank Aaron, Willie Mays and Eddie Murray as the only players with 3,000 hits and 500 homers. Palmeiro's 569 homers rank him ninth on the career list.

Baseball has not said when the positive test occurred.

Updated on Thursday, Sep 22, 2005 6:55 pm EDT

No idea on who the possible teammate could be but obviously people are gonna jump all over Sosa.

The new NHL

These high scoring games are kind of depressing me. Now I'm all for a wide open fast game but these 8-6 games are gonna get boring fast. Hopefully it tunes as the season progresses.

Gotta go?

Some photographer with too much time on his hand.

NHL talks ongoing; deal to be done today

TSN.ca Staff

7/13/2005 9:27:13 AM

The NHL's long awaited new CBA will be completed today, sources close to the talks told TSN Wednesday.

An extended session between the NHL and NHL Players' Association, which started at Noon et on Tuesday, is apparently continuing and should soon produce the agreement that would be the catalyst to ending the 301-day labour dispute, the longest in the history of North American professional sports.

It has become painfully evident that the two sides have had to do more than dot i's and cross t's and satisfy legal requirements in the last few days. Mind you, there has unquestionably been a lot of that to do. But there has also been back and forth negotiations on some final unresolved issues.

Sources say there's nothing left on the table that is likely significant enough to derail the entire process, which is now in its final hours, but more time is required to finish off these items to the satisfaction of the league and the union.

Today is the 10th consecutive day the two sides have been engaged in marathon talks and the appearance seems to be that they are now prepared to meet for as long as it takes to get an agreement.

The wait should be over before the end of the day.

Stay tuned.

All I can say is.....it's about damn time.

House Approves Flag-Burning Amendment

House Approves Flag-Burning Amendment

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer 1 minute ago

WASHINGTON - The House on Wednesday approved a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to ban desecration of the American flag, a measure rejected twice by the Senate in the past decade but expected to get a closer vote this year.
ADVERTISEMENT

By a 286-130 vote — eight more than needed — House members approved the amendment by the required two-thirds majority after a debate over whether such a ban would run afoul of the Constitution's free-speech protections.

If approved by a similar two-thirds majority in the Senate, the amendment would then move to the states for ratification. It would have to be approved by three-fourths, or 38, of the 50 state legislatures to become the 28th amendment to the Constitution.

Sixty-three senators, four short of two-thirds needed, voted for the amendment in 1995 and again in 2000. With Republicans increasing their majority in last fall's election, activists on both sides of the issue said the amendment has its pass chance ever of passing this year. But a rough count by The Associated Press shows 34 — one more than needed to defeat it — either as having voted against the amendment in the past or committed publicly to opposing it.

Supporters said the measure reflected patriotism that deepened after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and they accused detractors of being out of touch with public sentiment.

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."

But Rep. Jerrold Nadler (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., said, "If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents."

The measure was designed to overturn a 1989 decision by the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 that flag burning was a protected free-speech right. That ruling threw out a 1968 federal statute and flag-protection laws in 48 states. The law was a response to anti-Vietnam war protesters setting fire to the American flag at their demonstrations.

The proposed one-line amendment to the Constitution reads, "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." For the language to be added to the Constitution, it must be approved not only by two-thirds of each chamber but also by 38 states within seven years.

Each time the proposed amendment has come to the House floor, it has reached the required two-thirds majority. But the measure has always died in the Senate, falling short of the 67 votes needed.

But last year's elections gave Republicans a four-seat pickup in the Senate, and now proponents and critics alike say the amendment stands within a vote or two of reaching the two-thirds requirement in that chamber.

By most counts, 65 current senators have voted for or said they intend to support the amendment, two shy of the crucial tally. More than a quarter of current senators were not members of that chamber during the last vote.

The Senate is expected to consider the measure after the July 4th holiday.

_

The amendment is H.J. Res 10.

_

On the Net:

House of Representatives: http://www.house.gov

Senate: http://www.senate.gov

Ofcourse it's that time of the decade again. The House just passed this legislation today. I really don't see it passing through the senate but this should be a heated debate over the next couple of weeks.

Report: NHL, NHLPA agree on cap formula

Report: NHL, NHLPA agree on cap formula

TSN.ca Staff with CP, Globe and Mail files

6/8/2005 2:06:13 PM

The Globe and Mail reports that the NHL and NHL Players' Association have agreed on a formula for a salary-cap system based on team-by-team revenue.

The salary-cap issue was seen as the biggest hurdle in talks for a new collective bargaining agreement.

According to the Globe's league and player sources, a salary floor and cap will based on a percentage of each NHL team's revenue. The paper adds that in the first year - based on revenue projections by both sides - the salary cap will range from $34 million to $36 million US, with the floor from $22 million to $24 million US.

The Globe also reports that the formula calls for a dollar-for-dollar luxury tax to kick in at the halfway mark between the floor and the cap. If the floor of the lowest team is $22 million US and the cap on the highest team is $36 million US, then the 'tax level' will be $29 million US.

The formula would allow wealthier teams to spend a bit more money, but would also bridge the large gaps in spending between higher payroll teams and lower payroll teams.

Small group labour talks between both sides ended late Tuesday night and resume today in New York with a larger group meeting.

Both sides have carried over the momentum from last week when 34 hours of talks were described as 'progressive' from both sides.

There are several issues to iron out, but sources in both camps believe there's a chance a deal could be done before July. Still, both sides also concede there are potential pitfalls that could prevent an agreement from being reached.

Today's session is the 21st meeting between the two sides since the season was cancelled Feb. 16.

NHL vice-president and chief legal officer Bill Daly and NHLPA senior director Ted Saskin declined to confirm or deny anything to The Globe and Mail.

Files from CP and The Globe and Mail were used for this report.

Bob Goodenow is a damn fool. I wanna see how quickly he gets the axe after these negotiations end. They could've agreed to the $42 million in January and we'd have had ourselves something to watch.