Detailed Information about Society And Culture, Sports and More

One of President Bush’s top economic advisers said Sunday that parts of the country probably already are experiencing a recession and it could take a few months before the clogged credit system starts working again.

Many analysts predict the economy could contract over the final three months of this year and in the first 90 days of 2009. That would meet the classic definition of a recession — two consecutive quarters of economic contraction. Some economic analysts say the sagging economy already is in recession.

The White House has been loath to use that word, both because the technical definition has not been met and because it carries such negative weight.

Speaking in a broadcast interview Sunday from California, the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers noted that national unemployment stands at 6.1 percent. Ed Lazear said some parts of the country, such as California, have even higher rates of people out of work.

“We are seeing what I think anyone would characterize as a recession in certain parts of the country,” Lazear said.

The White House and Congress hope a $700 billion rescue plan will inject cash and confidence into the lending industry and recharge the economy. Bush repeatedly has told the nation that it will take a while for credit lines to thaw.

Lazear gave a slightly more specific time frame, saying it would take “a few months before we really see a significant impact.”

“But we’ve seen impacts already,” he said. “What we’re seeing is that banks are now willing to lend to one another. That’s a huge plus for the economy because the big problem has been that banks have been unwilling to trust one another.”

Democratic lawmakers plan to consider a postelection stimulus package that could cost as much as $150 billion. Lazear said some of the ideas being proposed, such as road and bridge projects, are too slow and too focused on one industry to give the economy a boost.

“They may be good policy. That’s something that Congress has to decide,” he said. “But we can’t really think of that as a stimulus that’s going to get the economy turned around in the short run.”

In an escalating war of words, President Bush on Tuesday urged Russia to reconsider its “irresponsible decision” to shower independent status on two breakaway Georgian provinces.

Already rebuffed by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Bush warned Russia to change course and respect the borders of its Georgian neighbor.

“Russia’s action only exacerbates tensions and complicates diplomatic negotiations,” the president said in a statement from Texas, where he is otherwise spending a quiet vacation.

Despite mounting international condemnation, Russia showed no sign of backing down. The U.S. is reviewing its relationship with Russia but has imposed no sanctions.

Medvedev said Tuesday that his country will grant diplomatic recognition to the separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. He said Georgia forced Russia’s hand by trying to gain control by force in the smaller of the two areas, South Ossetia, on Aug. 7.

“This is not an easy choice but this is the only chance to save people’s lives,” Medvedev said Tuesday in a televised address a day after Russia’s Kremlin-controlled parliament voted unanimously to support the diplomatic recognition.

Bush shot back that Russia’s move violates both United Nations resolutions and the six-point cease-fire deal that Russia, under Medvedev’s watch, signed with Georgia to end a war.

“We expect Russia to live up to its international commitments, reconsider this irresponsible decision, and follow the approach set out (in the cease-fire deal),” Bush said.

The White House says the U.S. will use its veto power on the U.N. Security Council to ensure that the two separatist provinces remain part of Georgia in the eyes of the world.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that any push by Russia to do otherwise will be “dead on arrival” at the United Nations.

The rhetoric underscored the stakes of a once-obscure territorial dispute that has mushroomed into a Cold War-style conflict between the United States and Russia.

Russian tanks and troops drove deep into undisputed Georgian territory in a five-day war this month that Moscow saw as a justified response to a military threat in its backyard.

Separately, meanwhile, Medvedev warned Tuesday that his country may offer a military response to a U.S. missile shield in Europe. He said the deployment of an anti-missile system close to Russian borders “will of course create additional tensions.”

“We will have to react somehow, to react, of course, in a military way,” Medvedev was quoted as saying Tuesday by the RIA-Novosti news agency.

The White House sought to emphasize that Russia’s conflict was with the world, not just with the United States. Several foreign leaders criticized Russia’s action on the two provinces.

“Russia is making, I would say, a number of irrational decisions,” said White House spokesman Tony Fratto.

“We hope that they hear the loud voices from the international community and understand that it’s not in their long-term interests to take these kinds of actions,” he said.

Vice President Dick Cheney leaves next week on a trip that includes a stop in Georgia; Fratto said no U.S. officials plan to go to Russia to appeal directly to leaders there.

Bush said the U.S. condemns Russia’s actions; just a day earlier, he had appealed to Medvedev to refrain from recognizing the two provinces as independent, to no avail.

Barack Obama, who will become the Democratic presidential nominee this week, condemned Russia’s move and said the U.S. should convene a Security Council meeting to do the same. He did not say how the Council would do that, given Russia’s status as a permanent member.

Republican John McCain’s wife was in Georgia, visiting refugee centers filled with ethnic Georgians who fled villages and neighborhoods in South Ossetia.

“The only place these people want to be is home, and they can’t go home because of what has happened to them and because of the situation that the Russians have caused,” Cindy McCain said in brief remarks Tuesday outside one of the centers in Tbilisi.

John McCain has been a strong critic of Russia and has proposed expelling Russia from the Group of Eight club of the world’s major developed democracies.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Robert Wood said the U.S. is looking at a variety of options to respond.

“We’re not trying to escalate anything,” Wood said when asked whether disagreement between the West and Russia would jeopardize international cooperation. But, he added, “We obviously can’t allow what Russia’s done to go without there being some consequences.”

He would not provide details about possible punishment the U.S. is considering.

Meanwhile, the United States dispatched a military ship bearing aid to a Georgian port city still patrolled by Russian troops.

Senator Joe Biden may be one of the only U.S. politicians that can get Iraq’s feuding Sunni, Shi’ite and Kurdish politicians to agree. But not in a good way.Across racial and religious boundaries, Iraqi politicians on Saturday bemoaned Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama’s choice of running mate, known in Iraq as the author of a 2006 plan to divide the country into ethnic and sectarian enclaves.

“This choice of Biden is disappointing, because he is the creator of the idea of dividing Iraq,” Salih al-Mutlaq, head of National Dialogue, one of the main Sunni Arab blocs in parliament, told Reuters.

“We rejected his proposal when he announced it, and we still reject it. Dividing the communities and land in such a way would only lead to new fighting between people over resources and borders. Iraq cannot survive unless it is unified, and dividing it would keep the problems alive for a long time.”

Delaware senator Biden unveiled his plan to divide Iraq into a federation of autonomous Sunni, Shi’ite and Kurdish zones at a time when sectarian killing in Iraq was out of control and getting worse.

“The idea, as in Bosnia, is to maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it, giving each ethno-religious group — Kurd, Sunni Arab and Shiite Arab — room to run its own affairs,” he proposed in a May 2006 piece he co-wrote in the New York Times.

“The Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite regions would each be responsible for their own domestic laws, administration and internal security. The central government would control border defense, foreign affairs and oil revenues,” Biden said.

At the time, many Iraqi politicians hinted at a need for communities to be divided. Since then, however, violence has ebbed and nearly all mainstream politicians speak out against such ideas.

“The original ‘Biden plan’ seems less relevant in Iraq today than at any point,” said Reidar Visser, a Norwegian academic and editor of the Iraq-focused website historiae.org. “The trend in parliament is clearly in a more national direction, with political parties coming together across sectarian divides.

“In other words, there is a very strong Iraqi mobilization against precisely the core elements of the Biden plan, and it would be extremely unwise of the Democratic Party to make Biden’s ideas the centerpiece of their Iraq strategy,” he added.

Today, even Kurds who already have their own autonomous enclave in northern Iraq say they oppose the “Biden plan”.

“We don’t support establishing federal regions on a sectarian basis. For example our region is not ethnic, it contains Kurds and non-Kurds. The regions should be established on a geographic basis,” said Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman.

Ezzet al-Shabender, a member of parliament from the secularist Iraqi List of former prime minister Ayad Allawi, actually credited the broad-based disgust triggered by Biden’s proposal for helping Iraqi politicians bury their differences.

“His project was the reason behind the unity of many political blocs that once differed in viewpoints,” he said, comparing it to the Balfour Declaration, a 1917 British note that backed the creation of Israel and is regarded across the Arab world as the ultimate colonial injustice.

“Such a person, if he would assume the vice-presidency post, would not serve to improve Iraq-USA relations.”

Russia and key Western nations remained at odds Thursday over a U.N. resolution aimed at bringing peace to Georgia, with the U.S., France and Britain insisting on immediate withdrawal of Russian troops and a commitment to Georgia’s territorial integrity, according to U.N. diplomats.

Russia put its draft resolution, which restates and endorses a six-point peace plan promoted by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and signed last week by Russia and Georgia, into a final form that can be put to a vote in the U.N. Security Council. But Russia’s U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin did not indicate when he would call for a vote.

“Our draft resolution is a reconfirmation of the six-point agreement, and there’s no territorial integrity in the six principles,” Churkin said after a council meeting Thursday called by Russia. “We believe the six principles are clear and already implemented.”

But the U.S. and its European allies have criticized Russia for remaining in Georgia and performing military operations despite last week’s cease-fire. The agreement says both Russian and Georgian forces must move back to positions they held before fighting broke out Aug. 7 in Georgia’s South Ossetia region, which has close ties to Russia.

The American, British and French envoys made clear Thursday that they won’t accept a resolution that doesn’t include clarifications of the six-point plan including an immediate Russian withdrawal and reaffirmation of Georgia’s territorial integrity.

“What we see on the ground is the result of ambiguity,” U.S. deputy ambassador Alejandro Wolff said. “We have a presence of so-called Russian peacekeeping forces at key Georgian choke points that will control economic life, it will control humanitarian activities … That’s why clarifications are so important.”

Wolff said that if the resolution is put to a vote without such clarifications, “we would be prepared to oppose it.”

“We need clarity on Russian intentions and Russian withdrawal,” Britain’s U.N. Ambassador John Sawers said. “There’s no way that Russian positions can be considered ‘in line’ with the resolution.”

France’s deputy ambassador Jean-Pierre Lacroix said that all parties are determined to work toward a unanimous resolution.

A French draft resolution put forward on Tuesday demands full and immediate compliance with the cease-fire, and the immediate withdrawal of Russian forces to positions prior to the start of the fighting. It remains on the table, and diplomats said there are efforts under way to try to find a compromise acceptable to all 15 council members.

Federal drug safety regulators said Thursday they are investigating whether the cholesterol-lowering drug Vytorin can increase patients’ risk of developing cancer.

However, the Food and Drug Administration said patients should not stop taking Vytorin because the evidence of a cancer link is unclear. While one recent clinical trial indicated higher rates of cancer for patients taking the medication, two studies currently under way have shown no increased risk, the FDA said.

Meanwhile, senior lawmakers in Congress issued a demand for data on the clinical trial that indicated a cancer risk.

Vytorin, a combination of Merck’s Zocor and Schering-Plough’s Zetia, has been heavily promoted as a novel way to reduce cholesterol. Zocor, a statin drug, reduces the amount of cholesterol produced by the liver. Zetia limits the amount of cholesterol absorbed through the digestive system. But the combination became a focus of controversy after a study earlier this year showed it was no better at reducing the buildup of plaque in the arteries than the much cheaper generic, Zocor.

Separately on Thursday, leaders of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee asked the companies for extensive data on the clinical trial that indicated a possible cancer risk for Vytorin. Merck and Schering-Plough said they would cooperate with the panel. The companies defend the drug, saying it is effective at reducing cholesterol_its approved use.

Committee Chairman Rep. John D. Dingell and Rep. Bart Stupak, chairman of its Oversight and Investigations subcommittee, sent a letter to the chief executives of the drug companies, giving them two weeks to supply detailed information. The two congressmen, both Democrats from Michigan, are investigating drug industry safety issues and marketing practices, and have been focusing increasingly on Vytorin.

“Vytorin’s effectiveness has been in doubt, and now its safety is questionable,” Stupak said in a statement.

One question the congressmen want answered concerns discrepancies in the number of cancer cases reported by different researchers in the Vytorin study.

Schering-Plough spokeswoman Mary-Fran Faraji said one study report had more cancer cases because it included a longer period of patient follow-up. She added that the FDA investigation was expected.

The study was originally designed to determine whether Vytorin could help prevent a worsening of heart valve disease, but found that it did not.

Statin drugs lower the levels of LDL-cholesterol, also called ‘bad’ cholesterol because of its role in heart disease. Some previous studies of statins have suggested a link between low LDL levels and a higher risk of cancer. But again, others have not.

Just this week, the Journal of the American College of Cardiology published a new analysis of 15 statin studies including more than 90,000 patients that found statin users were no more likely to get cancer than people given dummy drugs.

“Nobody should avoid taking a statin because of concerns about cancer,” said American Cancer Society epidemiologist Eric Jacobs.

Ironically, statins a few years ago were being studied as a possible prevention for certain cancers; those studies ultimately found no effect on cancer, good or bad.

The FDA anticipates its investigation and analysis will take about 9 months.

The first sisters in Congress, Loretta and Linda Sanchez of California, say they had to fend off propositions and patronizing from men to get there and to stay.

Their joint memoir, “Dream in Color: How the Sanchez Sisters Are Making History in Congress,” being published Sept. 2, traces their paths to Washington, where they found themselves a minority of a minority — Latina women in an institution still dominated by white men.

“Without a doubt, there are certain members of Congress who still believe women don’t belong there, and there are those who see women just as sexual objects,” writes Linda. Without naming names, she recounts being propositioned by older male lawmakers who “won’t take no for an answer.”

Linda, 39, an attorney and former labor organizer, is in her third term. She chairs a House Judiciary subcommittee that recently ruled that former presidential aide Karl Rove broke the law by defying a congressional subpoena. She complains that during hearings, male witnesses were often deferential to male committee members, but patronizing to her.

Linda also aims bile at fellow, unnamed women in Congress, writing that a few of them “try to use their femininity or their good looks to finagle things out of people, and the other members really resent that.”

Loretta, 48, a former financial adviser, is in her sixth term representing an Orange County district that she won in a narrow upset over conservative Republican Bob Dornan. She’s a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee and has made headlines for her advocacy for human rights in Vietnam.

In their book — being published by Grand Central Publishing and written with co-author Richard Buskin — they alternate telling their stories. They both revisit last year’s controversy in which they quit the Congressional Hispanic Caucus after Loretta accused the caucus chairman, Rep. Joe Baca, D-Calif., of calling her a “whore.”

Baca has repeatedly denied saying that.

Linda broadens her complaints beyond Baca to include “a whole cabal of males” in the caucus.

“Male superiority is very deeply ingrained in some Latino men of a certain generation,” Linda wrote. “… And Baca belongs to that camp, although he would certainly deny that.”

“Any claims of male superiority within the Congressional Hispanic Caucus are simply not true,” Baca wrote in a statement to The Associated Press. “We place value on the commitment and hard work necessary to advance the goals of the Latino community, not one’s gender.”

Loretta recalls the 2000 Democratic convention in Los Angeles where she tried to hold a fundraiser at the Playboy Mansion before getting shot down by Democratic party leaders who feared the venue would reflect poorly on candidate Al Gore.

She complains about “really dumb” tactics used by “Gore’s people” who “tried to bully me” through the press. They were just mad because she was trying to raise money for Latino voter registration, not for Gore, she wrote.

An e-mail message seeking a response from Gore sent to his Alliance for Climate Protection was not immediately returned.

Both women recall their upbringing in a family with seven children and reflect with admiration on the values their hardworking immigrant parents instilled in them.

The two are different personalities, with such disparate habits that they refuse to room together in Washington. Both now single, Loretta arises early to go to the gym while Linda likes to stay out late.

But both emerge from their book as determined, strong-willed personalities refusing to take no for an answer and more than able to stand up for themselves against a power structure that discouraged them along the way.

Loretta finds occasion in the book to mention that her IQ is over 160, and although it’s not mentioned in the book, she has toyed with running for governor of California in 2010.

A leading Republican moderate with a foreign policy background endorsed presidential candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday as the Democrat sought to show his appeal to members of both political parties.

Former Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa was among Republicans the Obama campaign said were crossing party lines to support Obama. The Illinois senator’s campaign said he was also being backed by the Republican mayor of Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska, Jim Whitaker. The campaign did not release the names of other GOP supporters or the size of the group.

“I’m convinced that the national interest demands a new approach to our interaction with the world,” Leach, a foreign service officer before being elected to Congress, said in a conference call with reporters.

Leach predicted that many Republicans and independents would be attracted by Obama’s campaign but said his decision to endorse a Democratic presidential candidate for the first time wasn’t easy.

“Part of it is political parties are a distant analog to families and you really hate to step outside a family environment,” Leach told The Associated Press in an interview.

Wendy Riemann, a spokeswoman for Republican candidate John McCain, responded that it was ironic that Leach, who supported campaign finance reform, would back Obama, who has opted out of public financing.

“A single endorsement does not hide the fact that Sen. Obama has no record of achievement beyond the confines of his party,” Riemann said in a statement. “While John McCain has spent his career putting the country first — ahead of personal and party interests — Sen. Obama’s record is a lesson in partisanship.”

Leach, 65, was elected to Congress in 1976 and served 30 years before losing a re-election bid in 2006. As a moderate, he was often at odds with the conservative GOP leadership.

“For me, the national interest comes before party concerns, particularly internationally,” said Leach, who has long been an opponent of the war in Iraq.

“We do need a new direction in American policy, and Obama has a sense of that,” he said. “He recognizes that a long-term occupation of Iraq is not only expensive, it’s extremely dangerous to the American interests.”

Leach said he was attracted to Obama’s call for a dialogue with nations such as Iran that have long been seen as U.S. adversaries.

“He also recognizes that it’s preferable to speak with potential adversaries rather than simply shun them,” Leach said.

Leach’s decision could cause ripples with the group Common Cause, where he serves on the board and which has a policy against political endorsements. Leach said he wasn’t aware of any concerns by the nonpartisan group, which supports accountability in government.

Many Republicans argue that McCain has an edge when the debate turns to foreign policy because of his long experience in dealing with such issues and his record as a career military officer and prisoner of war.

“There’s a distinction between trumpeting issues and realistically looking at effectiveness,” Leach said. “I have never known a time period where the American brand has been in less repair.”

He said most voters instinctively want the U.S. to work with allies, rejecting the go-it-alone approach that has marked the Bush administration.

“If you ask Americans of any political persuasion — conservative, liberal or moderate — whether they’d rather see us lead the world with allies or alone, most people instinctively say we’re better off with allies,” Leach said. “The public does understand that something is not right about our policies today.”

1. Absolutely!!

2. No. The President needs to be intelligent and powerful enough not to be a puppet.

3. Nope.

4. Oh my god no. She is the freakiest person I ever heard of. She makes absolutely no sense when she talks. She speaks in that government speak and does not make any sense. Have I mentioned she makes no sense?

5. Possibly, a black woman being president would be GREAT, but I don’t think there’s a chance she would ever run. She does seem to agree with EVERYTHING Bush does, other than that I think she could handle the job.

6. From what I have seen of her, I would seriously consider her as a viable candidate.

7. I would sooner vote for Condie than for Hillary

8. Helllllllllllllllllllllll Nooooooooooooooooooo!

9. It depends on who she ran against but she is definitely very highly regarded by me.

10. nope…no way …not a frig’n shot, she’s as bad as bush and darth cheney

11. Possibly, yes. IMHO, she’s the most qualified woman in America. However, she has never held an elected position in government. I say that she’d be a good VP running mate for the republican party … that would get Hillary’s and the democrat party’s panties in a bunch!

12. I would vote for her before I would Hillary Clinton. And with the way she handling foreign relations and the mid-eastern peace talks I think she would make a good president.

13. Maybe, depend on the other choice

14. She was so weak as the national security adviser and the Secretary of state that Donald Rumsfeld and the defense department bullied their way in to dictating what state department policy should be.

She would be a weak president.

15. depends on her stances and ideals, but i wouldn’t out right rule it out.

16. You bet. It’s nice to have a leader with class. And she’s tough and is a good speaker.

Joey, what a great idea!

17. No, since I never voted for her in anything in the first place. I want to know who the People get to nominate? All we get is a premade selection of choices that I would never make in the first place.

Liberty is the essential heart of freedom. Liberty means being able to choose one’s own actions, without intrusion by government. Every law that restricts your movement, your actions or your words is one that restricts your liberty.

Privacy is the notion that the government will not intrude upon actions that you intend to be private. For instance, intercepting someones mail violates their privacy, as it is expected that only the recipient of the mail will read it.

Every infringement upon privacy can therefore potentially result in a infringement of liberty. For example, a wiretap could lead to an arrest.

People have a right to privacy, that is, they have a right to expect that the government will do as little as necessary to intrude upon their rights. This right is expressly provided for in the bill of rights. These rules govern due process. This is why the police must obtain a warrant to do a search

Theodore Roosevelt bull moose/republican party.