Of course,

no one can be shocked that BushCo pays for good news. However, it is getting harder to accept their claims that they are “shocked” by

behavior that is clearly inspired by the highest ranks. BushCo is full of PR and advertising flunkies. What’s shocking is how bad they

are at their jobs. mjh

Military Says It Paid Iraq Papers for News By Josh White and

Bradley Graham, Washington Post Staff Writers

The U.S. military command in Baghdad acknowledged for the first time yesterday that

it has paid Iraqi newspapers to carry positive news about U.S. efforts in Iraq, but officials characterized the payments as part of a

legitimate campaign to counter insurgents’ misinformation.

In a statement, the command said the program included efforts,

“customary in Iraq,” to purchase advertising and place clearly labeled opinion pieces in Iraqi newspapers. But the statement suggested

that the “information operations” program may have veered into a gray area where government contractors paid to have articles placed in

Iraqi newspapers without explaining that the material came from the U.S. military and that Iraqi journalists were paid to write positive

accounts. …

Officials said one unanswered question they have is whether the Lincoln Group intentionally misled newspapers by

presenting the articles as freelance journalism, obscuring the fact that the material came from U.S. armed forces.
—–

Press Briefing by

Scott McClellan

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we’ve seen the reports. We first learned about it when we saw the reports yesterday….

Q But this administration also has a history of having some questions made about paying columnists and having packaged news made

available.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the President made very clear what his views were on those issues, and some of the practices

that had occurred were stopped, and steps were taken to prevent that from happening again.
—–

class="mine">Remember Armstrong Williams, one of many people paid by BushCo to sell the administration’s view? mjh

mjh’s Dump Bush weBlog: Government Control of the Media

mjh’s Dump Bush weBlog: Fox in the Chicken

Coop

Muted Support for GOP Change Grows By Jonathan Weisman,

Washington Post Staff Writer

Amid Scandals, Some Republicans Push to Permanently Replace DeLay as Leader

Abramoff’s

interactions with DeLay and his staff — including lavish trips to the Northern Mariana Islands and the famed golf course of St. Andrews,

Scotland — has created considerable trepidation among rank-and-file lawmakers, House members and GOP aides say.

In addition,

DeLay was ferried three times in 2003 and 2004 on corporate jets owned by the company of Brent Wilkes, a California defense

contractor who allegedly made illicit payments to Cunningham in exchange for legislative favors. Neither DeLay nor the company

has disclosed the purpose or destination of the trips, which were billed to one of DeLay’s PACs at a commercial flight rate as permitted

under election law.

“The Scanlon thing, the Cunningham thing, I think you have more people waiting for the other shoe to drop,”

said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.).

Justice Department investigators are trying to link campaign contributions to official legislative

actions. Nobody knows how wide a net the investigators will cast, a DeLay adviser conceded. Such charges of quid pro quo are extremely

difficult to prove but very easy to level, in light of the large amounts of lobbyist money sloshing around Capitol Hill.

Even if

DeLay is never implicated, his return to the majority leader’s post would create political “havoc,” said one Republican House member,

who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The lawmaker pointed to DeLay’s decision in October to fly to Texas ahead of his first

courtroom appearance aboard a corporate jet owned by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

“The fact that he flew down on a corporate

jet for his mug shot, and not just any corporate jet but Big Tobacco’s corporate jet, that’s a double whammy,” the lawmaker said. “A

number of my colleagues say he just doesn’t get it. He doesn’t understand how this plays.”

site:www.mjhinton.com DeLay – Google Search

You probably already know

about Congressman Richard W. Pombo’s (R-CA) efforts to “modernize” the ridiculously outdated 1872 Mining Patents Act. Many people agree this act does not

charge enough for the resources one can grab through it. So, to his credit, Pombo wants to charge more — up to $1000 / acre, instead of

pennies — though probably not what the minerals or land are really worth.

My gripe is the underlying assumption — widely held in

the GOP — that the public should own less land. They regularly sneer at all the land “the government owns.” Wrong! You and I own that

land and it serves many uses, including just sitting there for the hell of it. It is neither necessary nor healthy to require every acre

of the earth to belong to someone and “produce” something.

Read through these 4 articles (two by the same author); the third one

attempts to refute the concerns raised by the others.

Our own Saint Pete may be a key player here. Let him know what you think

about this. mjh

Write Your Representative – Contact your Congressperson in the U.S.

House of Representatives.

U.S. Senate: Senators Home
—–

ABQjournal: Plan for Selling Public Lands Worries Govs. By Jennifer

Talhelm, The Associated Press

Six Western governors, including New Mexico’s Bill Richardson, and a growing number of senators say

they fear a congressional plan allowing the sale of millions of acres of public lands could do permanent harm to everything from

agriculture and the environment to the ski industry.

“It’s got implications for hunters, sportsmen, people who use lands for

grazing and basically anybody who uses public lands,” said Angela de Rocha, a spokeswoman for Colorado Sen. Wayne Allard, one of a

handful of Republican senators expressing concern about the proposal.
—–

House Stealth Measure Sells Off Public Lands BY

MIKE DOMBECK AND JACK WARD THOMAS, Former chiefs, U.S. Forest Service

Sometime around 1 a.m. Nov. 18, the House of Representatives

passed the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 by a vote of 217-215. Buried in the 680-page
bill was language that lifts an 11-year

moratorium on the patenting, or sale, of public lands to mining companies, and appears to pave the way for the sale of public lands to

mining companies and other development interests for as little as $1,000 per acre.

These public lands are a birthright that

should not be gambled on legislation passed in the dark of the night with an essential absence of any public notice or scrutiny. …

There are few decisions that Congress makes that have irreversible consequences. Selling off our public land legacy is one that does.

…

Some believe that something so valuable should not be owned by all U.S. citizens but should instead be devolved into other

ownership or corporate control. To be certain, it is the prerogative of members of Congress to change laws as they see fit in the best

interest of their constituents. And it is our duty as citizens to ensure they know our views before they vote. Legislation that has the

potential to remove public lands from public hands should only be brought to a vote after a full and vigorous debate. …

But that

debate, and the debates to follow, can and will occur only so long as public lands remain in public ownership. Within the next few weeks,

the public land sales provisions that passed the House of Representatives will be considered in a conference between the Senate and the

House. Members should be urged to strip out the provisions of the House-passed bill that allows for the sale of our public lands — the

heritage of future generations. Then, by all means, let the debate relative to the provisions of the 1872 Mining Act began in the full

light of public scrutiny.
—–

New land rush? Not so fast! by Editor Hering

First,

the person must hold a valid mining claim open to actual mining, having completed all the required state and federal paperwork. Then the

claim must be contiguous to claims where mining has been or is being done. And finally mining on the claim itself must be taking place.

The committee sums things up by citing as fiction: “Real estate speculators, oil and gas companies, foreign mining corporations

or anyone who is willing to pay as little as $1,000 per acre could buy the land and develop it any way they wanted.”

“The

statement,” the committee answers, “fails to pass the laugh test. Unless real estate speculators, oil and gas companies and the like want

to enter the mining industry and begin staking mining claims and developing hardrock minerals, they would not qualify under the

provisions of this bill to purchase lands.”

If you want more or to check yourself, be my guest. The site is resourcescommittee.house.gov.

A few things about the

preceding defense of the proposed changes. First, how many times have we heard “trust us” only to find out later that, oops, we didn’t

realize this might happen. Second, what an odd tone from a congressional committee — the “laugh test”?! Sounds like it was written by

some corporation that has spent millions already and has no intention of letting anything spoil the deal. Finally, if this is such a

noble effort, why is it buried in a 600+ page budget bill? mjh

—–

Greedy

grab for public land

There are plenty of examples of how companies have used the 1872 mining law to get their hands on public

resources. In 1970, Frank Melluzzo “patented” — bought — public land near Phoenix for $150. Ten years later, he sold it for more than

$400,000. Today, the Pointe Hilton Hotel in Phoenix sits on this mining claim. …

Now a few folks in Congress want to turn back

the clock. The results of these policies will be a fleecing of taxpayers and a cheating of future generations of public land.

Roosevelt said: “The nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation

increased, and not impaired, in value.”