Luke_Wilbur

Hail to the Redskins, This week looks a little brighter for our team. Former offensive lineman Ray Brown has re-joined the Redskins organization and his primary role will be to help the team's younger players adjust to the NFL. Brown, a 20-year veteran who played nine years with the Redskins, does not have a title or specific responsibilities. Brown was brought in primarily to be a positive influence, according to head coach Joe Gibbs. Ray Brown "What we are doing is bringing someone in the organization that started out as a Redskin, played 20 years, has been through thick and thin--and right now we are having a tough time," Gibbs said on Wednesday. "I talked to him about being around the players, being back, and just being someone that young players can go to and talk to. Many times they are wide-eyed and still trying to figure out what the NFL is all about. "What Ray can do there, not from a coaching standpoint, is talk to young guys about how to become successful here. It is one thing for me to say something to them. They are not going to pay a lot of attention to me. They are going to pay a lot of attention to Ray Brown because he played 20 years." Brown told Washington, D.C., reporters earlier this week that he expects to be a resource for the team. In the past, Brown has indicated an interest in coaching in the NFL. This new role with the Redskins could be a good transition for him. "It's really unique to get a chance to come in at this point of the season," Brown told reporters. "I think I have something to offer. I think I know football, and now it comes to finding out how I can get it through to the guys so it will help them." Gibbs indicated that Brown will be relied on to help the team through tough times. In 2005, when the Redskins were struggling at 5-6, Gibbs relied on Brown as a locker room leader. Brown helped set a tone that led to a five-game winning streak and a postseason berth. "He knows how to help you get out of [tough situations]," Gibbs said. "He has played his way out of them and been a part of a team that has played its way out of them. He was here last year when we had tough times and he was a big part of the leadership role." Brown has been present on the Redskins' practice field this week and he has spent time along-side assistant head coach-offense Joe Bugel working with offensive linemen. "Ray adds a lot with his presence on the field and in the locker room," Bugel said. "He attends all of the meeting and he understands our [coaching] language. It gives young players a chance to see what a 20-year veteran looks like. I'm glad he's doing this." To build your spirits up I did a gallery of some photos of last year's victory win over the Cowboys http://dcpages.com/gallery/view_album.php?...-Dallas-Cowboys

The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) has received internal emails circulated among U.S. Department of Energy officials emails that show the British Embassy is demanding answers for news reports claiming, “The secrets of Britain’s Trident nuclear deterrent are feared stolen” from the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The article appears in the Sunday, October 29 edition of Britain’s Daily Express and relates details of the October 17 drug raid that turned up classified materials from LANL. The article goes on to report “. . . MI6 [british Military Intelligence] and the CIA –– both involved in the FBI-led investigation –– want to know if the woman stole the material to feed a drug habit, or if she was working for a terror group or a foreign intelligence service.” According to the emails, officials at DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration received phone calls from Robin Pitman of the British Embassy indicating, “U.K. newspapers are reporting that U.K. nuclear weapons information may have been part of the information that was found in the drug raid…… He [Pitman] is under some pressure to provide something before the end of the day U.K. time.” John Harvey, Director, Policy Planning Staff of the National Nuclear Security Administration; William Desmond, Associate Administrator for Defense Nuclear Security, and Desmond’s deputy Cheryl Stone exchanged the emails on Monday, Oct.30. “To fix this problem isn’t rocket science – or even nuclear science,” said POGO Executive Director Danielle Brian. “As POGO recommended in 2001, the entire weapons complex should have gone media-less immediately by removing the capacity of classified computers to copy data onto disks of any kind. There is simply no excuse for Los Alamos to continue to have this vulnerability.”

What is Neurofibromatosis Type 1?

This race is on! We are 6 days out from the election and an independent poll confirms that the race is in a dead heat. Today, The Baltimore Sun reported a poll by Potomac Inc. that shows the momentum is with Governor Ehrlich. O'Malley leads among black voters, 74 percent to 9 percent, while Ehrlich leads among whites, 53 percent to 40 percent. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal...0,1219927.story

If you put as much enthusiasm into what is wrong with our city like you do on one man, District residents might listen to your position.

Human, How would you approach reforming Congress? Age minimum should be raised? But, what about the lobbyist? How would you deal with them?

Lobby groups will not like the promises Nancy Pelosi is making to Americans. The real question is whether she will keep them. BAN LOBBYIST GIFTS AND TRAVEL Prohibit the receipt of gifts, including gifts of meals, entertainment and travel, from lobbyists. Prohibit travel on corporate jets. CLOSE THE REVOLVING DOOR Close the revolving door between the Congress and lobbying fi rms by doubling (from one year to two) the cooling-off period during which lawmakers, senior Congressional staff , and Executive Branch officials are prohibited from lobbying their former offi ces. Eliminate floor privileges for former Members of Congress and offi cers of the Senate and House who return to lobby. TOUGHEN PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYIST ACTIVITY Expand the information lobbyists must disclose - including campaign contributions and client fees. Require them to file disclosure reports electronically and increase the frequency of those fi lings. Require lobbyists to certify that they did not violate the rules and make them subject to criminal penalties for false certifi cations. SHUT DOWN PAY-TO-PLAY SCHEMES LIKE THE “K STREET PROJECT” End eff orts like the “K Street Project,” created by Republicans to pressure corporations and lobbying firms on whom to hire in exchange for political favors. DISCLOSURE OF OUTSIDE JOB NEGOTIATIONS Require lawmakers to disclose when they are negotiating private sector jobs and require Executive Branch officials who are negotiating private sector jobs to receive approval from the independent Office of Government Ethics. PROHIBIT “DEAD OF NIGHT” SPECIAL INTEREST PROVISIONS Require that all conference committee meetings be open to the public and that members of the conference committee have a public opportunity to vote on all amendments. Make copies of conference reports available to Members and post them publicly on the Internet 24 hours before consideration (unless waived by a supermajority vote). Disclose all earmarks. ZERO TOLERANCE FOR CONTRACT CHEATERS Restore accountability and openness in federal contracting by subjecting major contract actions to public disclosure and aggressive competition; criminally prosecute contractors who cheat taxpayers, with penalties including suspension and debarment; impose stiff criminal and civil penalties for wartime fraud on government contracting; prohibit contractors with confl icts of interest from conducting oversight or writing contract requirements they could bid on; mandate full disclosure of contract overcharges; create tough penalties for improper no-bid contracts; and close the revolving door between federal contract offi cials and private contractors. PROHIBIT CRONYISM IN KEY APPOINTMENTS End rampant cronyism by requiring that any individual appointed to a position involving public safety possess proven credentials and expertise in areas relevant to the position. Attached are all the Democrat promises being made. I am interested on how many are kept if they get into power. thebook.pdf

I think it was interesting listening to what U.S. Rep. Joel Hefley, R-Colo Issues Statement Regarding the Race to Succeed Him. This broke Ronald Reagan's famous Eleventh Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican." Joel Hefley took these words to his heart on what is happenning in Colorado. In the August GOP primary to succeed him, Hefley backed his long-time aide, former administrative director Jeff Crank, who lost in a contentious six-way race to State Senator Doug Lamborn. Hefley was incensed at the tactics used in the election, particularly a mailed brochure from the Christian Coalition of Colorado associating Crank with "public support for members and efforts of the homosexual agenda." Hefley said that he "suspected, but couldn't prove, collusion between Lamborn's campaign, which is managed by Jon Hotaling, and the Christian Coalition of Colorado, which is run by Hotaling's brother, Mark." Hefley called it "one of the sleaziest, most dishonest campaigns I've seen in a long time," and, as a result, refused to endorse Lamborn Joel Hefley joined the Ethics Committee in 1997 and became its chairman in 2001. Joel Hefley is known for his devotion to former President Ronald Reagan. Joel Hefley was part of the 1994 Republican revolutionaries that pledged not to be seduced by the corrosive culture of Washington. But the 1994 Republicans, like the Democrats before them, were seduced by their newfound power, and became desperate to keep it. Eventually, even the leader of the Republican revolution, Newt Gingrich, was shoved aside. And Tom DeLay became the power broker on Capitol Hill. DeLay installed, as House speaker, Dennis Hastert. And Hastert leads by the principle that he can forget about the opposition. Only Republican ideas matter. In the 1960s and '70s, Congress met an average of 161 days a year. In the '80s and '90s, that number dropped to 139 days. This year, Congress will probably end up working just about 100 days. Republicans pledged to put the brakes on the reckless spending. According to CNN, the amount of pork has tripled since Republicans took over, from about 4,100 projects in 1994 to over 14,000 now. A river of money flows largely from the lobbying industry on K Street. There are over 30,000 lobbyists in Washington, a number that's ballooned since Congressman Jim Cooper's first tour of duty in the 1980s. When Speaker Dennis Hastert threw Hefley off the committee, for having the temerity to permit the ethics committee merely to admonish disgraced, departed and now indicted House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is the day I looked differently at the Republican party. Speaker broke his vow to tighten the rules in response to these scandals Hastert reconstructed the committee, appointing Representative Doc Hastings of Washington as its chair -- the same Hastings who will serve on the ethics subcommittee investigation of the Foley affair. Resident Scholar, Norman J. Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute stated, "It is time for House leaders to think outside the box when it comes to restoring ethical standards and public confidence in Congress. Joel Hefley is not going to go off half-cocked on a prosecutorial crusade, nor will he conduct partisan vendettas. He will do the job fairly and firmly. Think about what a signal it would send to the country about the willingness of a new team to transcend the bitter bickering we have now to clean up the culture of corruption." The Ethics Reform Act of 2006 would have provided increased investigative ability to the House Ethics Committee and ensure greater protections for committee members and staff. The bill would also improve disclosure requirements for gifts and private travel.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thanks. Please be seated. I'm pleased that you all are here to witness the signature of the Secure Fence Act of 2006. This bill will help protect the American people. This bill will make our borders more secure. It is an important step toward immigration reform. I want to thank the members of Congress for their work on this important piece of legislation. I welcome you here to the White House. I'm looking forward to signing this bill. I appreciate the Vice President joining us today. I thank the Deputy Secretary, Michael Jackson, of the Department of Homeland Security. Rob Portman -- he happens to be the Director of OMB. I want to thank Ralph Basham, who is the Commissioner of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. David Aguilar is the Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol. I appreciate the fact that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has joined us, as well as House Majority Leader John Boehner. I appreciate them coming in from their respective states as I sign this piece of legislation. I want to thank Congressman Peter King, who's the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee in the House of Representatives. I appreciate you being here, Peter. Ours is a nation of immigrants. We're also a nation of law. Unfortunately, the United States has not been in complete control of its borders for decades and, therefore, illegal immigration has been on the rise. We have a responsibility to address these challenges. We have a responsibility to enforce our laws. We have a responsibility to secure our borders. We take this responsibility seriously. Earlier this year, I addressed the nation from the Oval Office. I laid out our strategy for immigration reform. Part of that strategy begins with securing the border. Since I took office we have more than doubled funding for border security -- from $4.6 billion in 2001 to $10.4 billion this year. We've increased the number of Border Patrol agents from about 9,000 to more than 12,000, and by the end of 2008, we will have doubled the number of Border Patrol agents during my presidency. We've deployed thousands of National Guard members to assist the Border Patrol. We've upgraded technology at our borders. We've added infrastructure, including new fencing and vehicle barriers. We're adding thousands of new beds in our detention facilities so we can continue working to end catch and release at our southern border. During the course of my administration we have apprehended and sent home more 6 million people entering our country illegally. And I thank the Border Patrol for their hard work. The Secure Fence Act builds on this progress. The bill authorizes the construction of hundreds of miles of additional fencing along our southern border. The bill authorizes more vehicle barriers, checkpoints and lighting to help prevent people from entering our country illegally. The bill authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to increase the use of advanced technology, like cameras and satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles to reinforce our infrastructure at the border. We're modernizing the southern border of the United States so we can assure the American people we're doing our job of securing the border. By making wise use of physical barriers and deploying 21st century technology we're helping our Border Patrol agents do their job. The Secure Fence Act is part of our efforts to reform our immigration system. We have more to do. Meaningful immigration reforms means that we must enforce our immigration laws in the United States. It is against the law to hire someone who is here illegally. We fully understand that most businesses want to obey that law, but they cannot verify the legal status of their employees because of widespread document fraud. So we're creating a better system for verifying documents and work eligibility, and in the meantime, holding people to account for breaking the law. We must reduce pressure on our border by creating a temporary worker plan. Willing workers ought to be matched with willing employers to do jobs Americans are not doing for a temporary -- on a temporary basis. We must face the reality that millions of illegal immigrants are already here. They should not be given an automatic path to citizenship; that is amnesty. I oppose amnesty. There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic pass to citizenship for every illegal immigrant and a program of mass deportation. And I look forward to working with Congress to find that middle ground. The bill I'm about to sign is an important step in our nation's efforts to secure our border and reform our immigration system. I thank the members of Congress for joining me as I sign the Secure Fence Act of 2006. (The bill is signed.) END 9:40 A.M. EDT

Address by Foreign Minister of Israel, Tzipi Livni ******************************* His Excellency Ambassador Rizzo, Deputy Secretary General of NATO, Professor Uzi Arad, Director Institute for Policy and Strategy, Prof. Amnon Rubinstein, President IDC Herzliya Distinguished Guests and Participants, Opening Words I would like to welcome to Israel Ambassador Rizzo, Deputy Secretary General of NATO, as a close ally. NATO’s role in the past We are in a world of unfolding and diverse challenges. In meeting these challenges, Israel and NATO are natural allies and partners. NATO was established in the early days of the Cold War to defend democracy and to secure the freedom of the western world. As NATO played a key role in meeting the threats during the Cold War, so today NATO can lead the way in meeting the current threats. NATO’s current role and strategy Today, nearly two decades after the end of the Cold War, we face new threats – from Islamic radicalism, through global terrorism, to the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. NATO has to identify the up to date threats on the international agenda, make the necessary adaptations in order to play a significant role in meeting these threats and defend the values of the free world. Diplomacy and the use of force – the correct strategy The wise and just strategy was always a correct balance between the use of force and the encouragement of positive processes. Diplomacy without the willingness to use force – in order to defend these values – is perceived as weakness, by those who use power to promote their ideology. The new strategic threats threaten our values, our lives and the future of human society as we believe it should be. From Nationalism to Extremism Transformations in the world have influenced the types of threats which face us. Traditionally, camps were divided by nationalistic trends and aspirations. Today, we can identify a common denominator which unites entities, which in the past were perceived as separate and even opposing sides. The Hezbollah, El-Kaida and the Hamas – organizations which uphold extreme ideological views - and States founded on radical ideologies - like Iran - pose a threat not only to Israel – but to a wide range of countries including Islamic and Arab states. In this context we must see the global terrorism phenomena. The ongoing terrorist attacks around the globe, from Cairo to Amman, from Bali to New York, all prove the fact that this battle is a global one, between the extremists and the moderates. In this context, we must also understand the confrontation in the Middle East. In contrast to the accepted opinion, the tension in the Middle East is not due to a local dispute about territories or borders. The confrontation comes as a result of this extreme ideology, and not a cause of it. The most recent developments demonstrate that conflicts and threats cross borders and nations. In addition to the threat of terror, we are threatened by a reality of rogue states seeking weapons of mass destruction and supporting terrorism, and failed states which harbor terrorism and lack responsibility. Rogue and failed states The rogue states, founded on extreme ideologies, also operate terrorist organizations as messengers of their radical ideology, just like Iran and the Hezbollah. There are those who perceive the Iranian nuclear threat as a single isolated problem. That is not the case. The Iranian threat will have a domino effect. A compromising attitude will increase the tendency, and we will find other states seeking nuclear weapons as a deterrence factor, and in order to defend themselves against the Iranian threat. This will lead to further proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organizations. Yet, with rogue states we do have an address. With failed states the situation is even more complex. The failed states lack the basic responsibility of a state – thus allowing evil elements to grow and prosper. The objective of the confrontation in Lebanon was to create the conditions for Lebanon to exercise its full authority on its entire territory. So also, Israel’s premise [or ambition] regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is to create a responsible state. A state has responsibility for what occurs in its territory. States which renounce terrorism and accept the existence of other fellow nations are legitimate members of the family of nations. The world cannot accept a situation by which a terrorist organization is regarded as a legitimate political partner, part of the governing entity of that country, while continuing its involvement in terror. The address must be clear. This is true for the Palestinian Authority, for Lebanon and for other countries around the world which lack this responsibility. We must establish a new system of cooperation – a system based on the cooperation of states. Perhaps we could call it a “state method of defense”, based on the states which share our values and principles, and take full responsibility over their territory. Collective Security Approach Israel’s traditional long term policy has been one of self reliance. In facing the challenges and threats of the new world, Israel believes also in a strategy of collective security. The current threats necessitate international cooperation and multilateralism. It should be said that a multilateral approach has its advantages and disadvantages. In the most recent confrontation between Israel and the Hezbollah in Lebanon, Israel was faced with this dilemma. Israel decided to cooperate with the international community in bringing stability and security to the region. This is a test case for the success of the multilateral approach. Israel decided in favor of the international path, as part of its broader foreign policy to bolster Israel’s multilateral diplomacy. Israel should be far more engaged in global and Western institutions and international policy-making. In this regard, It is also no secret that Israel preferred the involvement of the forces of NATO in Lebanon. In meeting these strategic threats, NATO is most essential. NATO specifically has a leading role, due to its just value system, its special ability to adapt rapidly to the current strategic threats, and also due to its unique approach of diplomacy combined with the use of military force, when necessary. NATO and Israel The alliance between NATO and Israel is only natural, due to Israel being the one and only successful democracy in the Middle East. As also, Israel and NATO share a common strategic vision. In Israel’s vision, the cooperation between Israel and NATO should be based on two pillars. The first being - our bilateral relations. The second – the Mediterranean dialogue and regional cooperation. Our bilateral relations have been further empowered by the most recent signing of the ICP (Individual Cooperation Program) between Israel and NATO. Israel is looking forward to an upgrading of our bilateral relations, such that will reflect our common visions, values and threats. In looking toward the future, Israel will be glad to cooperate and participate in positive NATO regional and local initiatives, among them: the Mediterranean dialogue; the like minded global partnership; and the inclusion of Israel in the PFP (Partnership For Peace) NATO program. Israel’s efforts to enhance relations with NATO are part of its broader foreign policy to enhance Israel’s multilateral diplomacy. It is our hope that a broad international alliance will serve in meeting our strategic threats, and bring about a better world and a better future for us all. These threats, aimed at Israel and the western-valued moderate community, position Israel more then ever before on the Euro-Atlantic side. In many ways, Israel is the front line defending our common way of life. Thank You.

Emergency teams from NATO and Russia tackled the consequences of a simulated “dirty bomb” attack in Italy in exercise “Lazio 2006”, which ended on 26 October. From 23 October, emergency response teams from Italy, Hungary, Romania, the Russian Federation as well as Austria and Croatia, practiced managing the consequences of a simulated terrorist attack with a “dirty bomb” or radiological dispersal device. Following the ‘explosions’ on the first day of the exercise, Italian firefighters and medical teams moved in to deliver the first assistance to the victims. They were then followed by the teams from the other countries, which came to assist with monitoring, detection and decontamination. NATO’s Deputy Assistant Secretary General Ambassador Maurits Jochems called the exercise a very good example of cooperation among emergency response teams. He also said that very valuable lessons had been learned, which will help to improve the joint capability to respond to radiological terrorism. Exercise “Lazio 2006” is the third in a series of consequence management exercise conducted under the responsibility of the NATO – Russia Council (NRC).

What locations do you cover?

This was emailed to me by RT ******************************************** Emery was selected as a "Beating the Odds", school by Superintendent Janney. Only two schools in DCPS received this honor. As part of this selection we had to prepare a presentation speak before the board last evening. The reception was overwhelming. The planned presentation was suppose to be only 10mins it ended up lasting more than a half-hour. We had teachers, students, parents and leadership staff speaking on our success. Be sure to watch for it on channel 99 in the District next week! Here is a presentation by Ted McGinn, Emery LSRT Chairperson and Proud Parent of an Emery Student *********************************************** Mr Taylor feels very strongly that the manner in which the school is run must be transparent. Teachers, Parents and the Community must be "in the loop" and share ownership of our school. One person can't run a school on their own, Mr Taylor has built an incredible team at Emery. Mr.Abubakar Senghor our Dean of Student handles behavior issues at the school. He deals with the students and their families to ensure that we have an environment where Teachers can teach and Students can learn. We had 160 suspensions in 2004, last year we had 28 and so far this year only 3 and none of them were for fighting. Since Mr.Taylor and Mr. Senghor came to Emery there has only been one complaint that couldn't be resolved at the local school level and went to DCPS. We follow the mandated rules of conduct set down by the School Board but we are not a school "ruled by the stick" as much as "ruled by the carrot". Mr Taylor tells the kids all the time "if you make my job easy I'll make your school fun" and to that end at Emery you can be written up by any staff member for being good, then be sent to see the Principal (for rewards). Each day we announce the classes that have perfect attendance or 100% school uniforms. At the end of the week the classes with the best records may get pizza or ice cream (bet you wish you went to school here). Mr Senghor and Mr Taylor greet every student at our front doors each morning then lead the entire student body in our school pledge. " My heritage is one of greatness. I know that I can do more, but I must never do less then those that came before" What my mind can conceive and my heart can believe I can achieve". I still get goose bumps whenever I hear our kids shout out these words to start their day! We try every day to reduce distractions to learning by having same sex classrooms grades 4 through 6 and 100% school uniforms. Mr. Senghor has done his job so well that he has undertaken the role of Chief Officer of Heritage sharing stories of the past instilling pride in our young people empowering them to believe that there is no limits to what they can achieve in school and life. Mr Taylor brought Senghor to the Board Meeting together with Ms Gwendlyn Robinson our Standards Specialist, Mr. Brown 3rd grade teacher for last years young men, Ms Barthelus 6th grade teacher for our young women, and three emery Students. Ms Robinson helps to train our teachers to teach to the new DC standards for each subject, she runs our writers workshop program, holds a weekly Club for student to Explore creating science based projects. Ms. Robinson also helps to run our after school program that is learning based and not just a tax dollar paid for babysitting service. Mr Brown's young men blew away the new DC Standards test (DC-CAS) that replaced the Stanford 9 with 91% of his class ranked as Proficient! Ms Barrthelus and her 6th grade young ladies beat the mean scores for the city by 10 points in both reading and math helping us beat the odds and surpass AYP under No Child Left Behind for the Second year in a row! Please remember that Emery is only one of 25 schools public to make AYP and Hyde Leadership school didn't make the grade. Our last and most important presenters to the Board were the two 6th grader and one 4th grader. They wrote their own speachs and yes handwriting is still an art form we teach. The kids spoke from the heart and I couldn't have been more proud of them or their teachers. Our teachers don't just punch the clock; no one at Emery does. We are a family and you can feel it every time you walk into school. Our presentation was only ten minutes long but the Board kept us there 20 minutes longer with questions. Tommy Wells wanted to know about our community partnerships so I got to share a little about City Year and the Young Heroes program. Mr Taylor had talked about the role Eckington and Edgewood have had in supporting us. Board member Carrie Thornhill asked about our staffing patterns and how could we "clone" Emery as a model for other schools. Towards the end the questioning Superintendent Jenney shared a conversation he had with Ron Taylor at a Principals Train Session the day before during a lunch break. The Superintendent asked what plans Mr Taylor and his team had for Emery's future. Mr Taylor shared our desires to add 7th and 8th grade over the next two years to create a PreK-8 program. Dr. Jenney loved the idea suggesting that we might look into a IB program grades 6-8 and become a true feeder school to McKinley Technical High School which is currently a 800 student magnet school. Board President Peggy Cooper Cafritz voiced strong support for the ideal sighting the failure of Hype Public Charter School to fill that role. Every Board member at the meeting likewise voiced support. The LSRT and PTA will be working with Mr Taylor and the Staff of Emery to make this dream come true. We need the active support of our Civic Associations, the ANC, City Council members and all of you to make this happen.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) increased its estimate of the flu vaccine supply for this season but said many healthcare providers don't have their full supply yet because of distribution issues. At a press conference today, Jeanne Santoli, MD, MPH, deputy director of the CDC's immunization services division, said about 115 million doses of flu vaccine will be available this season, which is 15 million more than the agency's September projection. She said 40 million doses were distributed by the end of the second week of October, and that 75 million doses would be distributed by the end of the month. "That's 15 million more than last October," Santoli said. The CDC's revised estimate follows the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) Oct 5 approval of another flu vaccine, ID Biomedical's FluLaval. The CDC had said in September that licensing of FluLaval could boost the US supply for this year to 115 million doses. The CDC has received some complaints from heathcare providers who have received only partial shipments of the vaccine they ordered, Santoli said. Also, the American Academy of Pediatrics said this week that most doses of the only flu vaccine approved for use in children aged 6 months to 3 years, Sanofi's Pasteur's Fluzone, won't be available until at least November. Sanofi announced last week that delivery of the vaccine would be about 3 weeks later than last year. Though some vaccine manufacturers said earlier this year that they had trouble with a slow-growing strain of one of the viruses used in this season's vaccine, Santoli said the companies have told the CDC that they've since overcome those problems. "The most important thing is how many doses, and 75 million in October is a lot of vaccine," she said. "To us, it feels like the vaccine will get out there when it's needed." Because flu vaccine sales and distribution are handled by private companies, the CDC can't control the flow of the product to customers. Many vaccine distributors voluntarily submit product tracking information to the CDC, but the distribution status is often unclear. "It's hard to predict when orders will be delivered, and this uncertainty presents providers a challenge in planning vaccine activity," Santoli said. "There's no mechanism to know how many doses providers have received," she said. Vaccine distributors take a phased approach to product delivery, so that all customers receive some of their doses early in the season and can begin immunizing high-risk patients and their household contacts, Santoli said. The CDC is making a point of not calling distribution issues a delay, she said. When that language was used last year, it "caused people to step aside and not get the vaccine," she said, adding that the CDC wants to give providers as much information about distribution as possible so they can plan their immunization activities accordingly. Also, the CDC is not recommending that high-risk people be immunized first this year. "With the large amount available, we want as many people as possible to be immunized," she said. Administering the flu vaccine in November, December, January and beyond is consistent with federal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations, Santoli said, noting that flu cases often peak in February or later. Santoli said the 3-week delay of Fluzone should not impair the benefits of vaccination for young children, and she advised parents to continue seeking the vaccine from their children's' healthcare providers. In June, federal health officials recommended that toddlers aged 2 through 4 years be immunized against influenza each year, adding millions of people to the groups included in flu vaccination recommendations.

That is pretty intense. I had a chest virus last week and was taking vicks nyquil and dayquil religiously. Without cough syrup I would have been in really bad shape.

Mr. Rees, I spoke with Gary of DCWatch. First, the P.S. you added and is completely false. Second, I am seeing this whole topic you started as a red herring. In which, your goal is to build a logical fallacy to attack your opponents. Gary matched "Joe DeLuth's" IP address to You. You attempted to convince Gary that "Joe DeLuth" was really Joe Steinlieb. You attempted to convince me that "Joe DeLuth" was Martin Austermuhle. P.S. The sad part is that you waste community resources and volunteered time to play this stupid game to build a name for yourself.

I am sure the Party of Lincoln (Republican Party) would never endorse that type of Rhetoric. You might want to read this ****************************************************************************** Among tiny corps of openly gay Republican politicians, a mix of dismay and hope The Associated Press Published: October 19, 2006 NEW YORK They are members of a most exclusive club — a district attorney and a mayor from California, a legislator from Minnesota, a few of others scattered across the country. They are elected officials who are Republican and openly gay. "People think it's an oxymoron — how can you be gay and be in the Republican Party?" said the Minnesota state senator, Paul Koering. Sexual orientation has moved to the political forefront in recent weeks because of the congressional scandal involving Republican Mark Foley, who resigned from Congress after being confronted over suggestive messages he sent to male teenage assistants, called pages. He later acknowledged he was gay. Recent polls show the scandal has hurt Republican prospects in the Nov. 7 elections for Congress and for state and local offices across the country. Subsequently, there has been much debate about the presence of closeted gays in the Republican Party, but little focus on the party's persistently tiny number of openly gay officeholders. The only openly gay Republican in Congress, Representative Jim Kolbe, is retiring, and his final months of service may be clouded by an investigation of a camping trip he took with former pages in 1996. According to the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, which supports gay candidates, there are about 350 openly gay elected officials nationwide — up from about 50 in 1990. Of those elected on party tickets, 140 are Democrats and 11 are Republicans, according to the fund; it said that of 57 openly gay state legislators (out of a total of 7,382 seats), Koering is the only Republican. Victory Fund president Chuck Wolfe said many gays who once found the Republican Party appealing had become disenchanted as religious conservatives expanded their influence and made opposition to same-sex marriage a high-profile issue in the 2004 election. Instead of an all-welcoming "big tent," Wolfe said, the party "has chased out more and more gay Republicans." Among those determined to stay is Peter Hankwitz, a TV producer and talent manager who is the Republican nominee challenging incumbent Democrat Brad Sherman for a congressional seat in California's San Fernando Valley. Hankwitz is an underdog, without funding from national Republican committees, yet state Republican officials have been supportive, even posing for pictures with Hankwitz and Julian Trevino, his domestic partner since 1997. Hankwitz resents what he calls "single-issue social politics" — including the campaign against gay marriage — and wishes he could get to Congress to help moderate his party's stance on such issues. "Unfortunately, we're influenced by the people on the extreme right and extreme left," he said. Southern California already has openly gay Republicans in office — including San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis and Redondo Beach Mayor Mike Gin. Gin says he has no qualms about remaining Republican. "I believe in the basic tenets — limited government, individual rights, a strong economy and national defense," he said. "It's important to me to provide a more moderate voice." Likewise, Koering — who opposes abortion and gun control — wants to keep working within the Republican Party. He recently survived a tough primary challenge against a conservative whose campaign stressed "moral values." "It would be easy for me to go to the Democrats — they court me on a daily basis," Koering said. "But I still believe my home is in the Republican Party. I'm not going to let the people who have a radical agenda kick me out." Nationally, Republican officials have voiced no concern about the scarcity of openly gay officeholders. Tara Wall of the Republican National Committee and Alex Johnson of the Republican Legislative Campaign Committee said it wasn't a priority issue. "We look for good candidates who believe in our message," said Johnson. "If they happen to be gay, it's their prerogative." On the religious right, some leaders make clear they would welcome a Republican Party without gay-rights supporters, whether they are gay or not. "The issue is not their sexual orientation," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. "It's whether they support pro-family policies." Democratic leaders generally have embraced gay-rights causes — same-sex partnership rights, for example — even while disagreeing on gay marriage. Gay Democratic candidates have won seats even in seemingly inhospitable territory — scoring breakthroughs recently in legislative races in Oklahoma, Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina and Georgia. Perkins said Republicans shouldn't worry about losing votes of gays — arguing their numbers are dwarfed by the ranks of Christian conservatives. He predicted that any Republican presidential candidate deemed a gay-rights supporter, such as former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, would fail to get the 2008 nomination. The Rev. Louis Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition urged the Republican Party to abandon the concept of a "big tent" welcoming gays. Sheldon predicted that Republican organizers, because of the Foley scandal, would be more aggressive in asking prospective candidates if they were gay. The president of the largest national gay rights group, Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign, suggested Republicans had reached a significant crossroads. "A majority of Americans believe both parties ought to be open and inclusive," he said. "So you've got the Republican leadership in a quandary: how do you balance that public sentiment. ...with the powerful voting bloc of the radical right?" For nearly 30 years, a group called Log Cabin Republicans has been lobbying to make the party more open to gays and gay rights. Its executive vice president, Patrick Sammon, is optimistic that anti-gay politicking will lose effectiveness. "The anti-gay Republicans want a narrow agenda that only 25 to 30 percent of Americans actually agree with," Sammon said. "Republican officeholders are shrewd enough to understand that's a losing strategy, that the party risks being on the wrong side of history." NEW YORK They are members of a most exclusive club — a district attorney and a mayor from California, a legislator from Minnesota, a few of others scattered across the country. They are elected officials who are Republican and openly gay. "People think it's an oxymoron — how can you be gay and be in the Republican Party?" said the Minnesota state senator, Paul Koering. Sexual orientation has moved to the political forefront in recent weeks because of the congressional scandal involving Republican Mark Foley, who resigned from Congress after being confronted over suggestive messages he sent to male teenage assistants, called pages. He later acknowledged he was gay. Recent polls show the scandal has hurt Republican prospects in the Nov. 7 elections for Congress and for state and local offices across the country. Subsequently, there has been much debate about the presence of closeted gays in the Republican Party, but little focus on the party's persistently tiny number of openly gay officeholders. The only openly gay Republican in Congress, Representative Jim Kolbe, is retiring, and his final months of service may be clouded by an investigation of a camping trip he took with former pages in 1996. According to the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, which supports gay candidates, there are about 350 openly gay elected officials nationwide — up from about 50 in 1990. Of those elected on party tickets, 140 are Democrats and 11 are Republicans, according to the fund; it said that of 57 openly gay state legislators (out of a total of 7,382 seats), Koering is the only Republican. Victory Fund president Chuck Wolfe said many gays who once found the Republican Party appealing had become disenchanted as religious conservatives expanded their influence and made opposition to same-sex marriage a high-profile issue in the 2004 election. Instead of an all-welcoming "big tent," Wolfe said, the party "has chased out more and more gay Republicans." Among those determined to stay is Peter Hankwitz, a TV producer and talent manager who is the Republican nominee challenging incumbent Democrat Brad Sherman for a congressional seat in California's San Fernando Valley. Hankwitz is an underdog, without funding from national Republican committees, yet state Republican officials have been supportive, even posing for pictures with Hankwitz and Julian Trevino, his domestic partner since 1997. Hankwitz resents what he calls "single-issue social politics" — including the campaign against gay marriage — and wishes he could get to Congress to help moderate his party's stance on such issues. "Unfortunately, we're influenced by the people on the extreme right and extreme left," he said. Southern California already has openly gay Republicans in office — including San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis and Redondo Beach Mayor Mike Gin. Gin says he has no qualms about remaining Republican. "I believe in the basic tenets — limited government, individual rights, a strong economy and national defense," he said. "It's important to me to provide a more moderate voice." Likewise, Koering — who opposes abortion and gun control — wants to keep working within the Republican Party. He recently survived a tough primary challenge against a conservative whose campaign stressed "moral values." "It would be easy for me to go to the Democrats — they court me on a daily basis," Koering said. "But I still believe my home is in the Republican Party. I'm not going to let the people who have a radical agenda kick me out." Nationally, Republican officials have voiced no concern about the scarcity of openly gay officeholders. Tara Wall of the Republican National Committee and Alex Johnson of the Republican Legislative Campaign Committee said it wasn't a priority issue. "We look for good candidates who believe in our message," said Johnson. "If they happen to be gay, it's their prerogative." On the religious right, some leaders make clear they would welcome a Republican Party without gay-rights supporters, whether they are gay or not. "The issue is not their sexual orientation," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. "It's whether they support pro-family policies." Democratic leaders generally have embraced gay-rights causes — same-sex partnership rights, for example — even while disagreeing on gay marriage. Gay Democratic candidates have won seats even in seemingly inhospitable territory — scoring breakthroughs recently in legislative races in Oklahoma, Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina and Georgia. Perkins said Republicans shouldn't worry about losing votes of gays — arguing their numbers are dwarfed by the ranks of Christian conservatives. He predicted that any Republican presidential candidate deemed a gay-rights supporter, such as former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, would fail to get the 2008 nomination. The Rev. Louis Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition urged the Republican Party to abandon the concept of a "big tent" welcoming gays. Sheldon predicted that Republican organizers, because of the Foley scandal, would be more aggressive in asking prospective candidates if they were gay. The president of the largest national gay rights group, Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign, suggested Republicans had reached a significant crossroads. "A majority of Americans believe both parties ought to be open and inclusive," he said. "So you've got the Republican leadership in a quandary: how do you balance that public sentiment. ...with the powerful voting bloc of the radical right?" For nearly 30 years, a group called Log Cabin Republicans has been lobbying to make the party more open to gays and gay rights. Its executive vice president, Patrick Sammon, is optimistic that anti-gay politicking will lose effectiveness. "The anti-gay Republicans want a narrow agenda that only 25 to 30 percent of Americans actually agree with," Sammon said. "Republican officeholders are shrewd enough to understand that's a losing strategy, that the party risks being on the wrong side of history." http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/19/...licans_Gays.php

Shi Yinhong is the director of the Centre for American Studies at Renmin University in Beijing. An expert on international relations, he discussed with Aljazeera.net how North Korea's announcement that it detonated a nuclear bomb will impact the region and the likelihood of finding a solution to the crisis. What effects will Monday's detonation have on the security of East Asia? Shi Yinhong: It is very serious. First of all it greatly raises existing antagonism between North Korea and the United States. There is the possibility the US will now take a much more severe line in its actions and policies against North Korea. The US is now pushing for sanction resolutions against North Korea, and the US and its allies - especially Japan - are trying to expand their individual sanctions into a collective United Nations sanction. The current situation will also further encourage the Japanese nationalist movement to expand Japan's armed forces and the mission function of those forces. Although it is currently a minority opinion, North Korea's actions will strengthen those who want to discuss the nuclear option in Japan. And this is also happening in South Korea. South Koreans may now even have to abandon the Sunshine Policy. Now, China's relations with North Korea have reached a point where there is severe tension between China and North Korea. In the past China was able to encourage North Korea to act responsibly, but if relations continue to deteriorate then this might only contribute to North Korea's parochial behaviour. And with North Korea facing increased international isolation, not only from US and Japanese economic and financial sanctions but also from China and South Korea - who will also have to reduce their economic aid to the country - this will all increase the opportunity of malfunction or even a collapse of the regime. How likely is this scenario of regional nuclear armament? I don't think South Korea or Japan can go nuclear in a short time. Pro-nuclear opinion in both countries will increase but over time. Why has North Korea done this? The primary cause is that over the past few months North Korean domestic policy has changed. After the US launched financial sanctions I think any moderate elements in their policy ended. Extreme hardliners now have 100% control over policy making and they have enormous political determination to launch their missiles, test their bombs and direct their nuclear arms programme for the purpose of, in their eyes, having a decisive weapon to protect themselves. Now they feel they have a stronger position to talk to international society and force the US to make substantial concessions to them, including abandoning financial sanctions and agreeing to bilateral talks. By possessing nuclear weapons they can also show to their own people and army that they are strong and this can help solidify their domestic support. China is supposed to be North Korea's closest ally and yet asked Pyongyang repeatedly not to test nuclear weapons. What does Monday's explosion say about the state of this relationship? It is now at the lowest point in many years. Because China is now threatening economic sanctions the tension between the two countries will only develop in the future. There is the possibility that our relations with North Korea will reverse. What is the next step? Because of North Korea’s very particular and difficult nature and also because of various strategic values that all concerned powers hold, the problem has become very difficult. I don't believe sanctions alone can solve the problem. I also don't think the incentives and soft approach taken by China and South Korea in the past will solve the problem. I don't see any assured way to solve the problem of achieving a denuclearised North Korea. What UN sanctions will China agree to? They will agree to sanctions that are not too severe and leave open the prospect of dialogue. They also want to avoid sanctions that might create a collapse. China will propose a limited sanctions resolution that takes a gradual, long-term approach. Why does China not want North Korea to collapse? Firstly, because millions of refugees would flow into China. Secondly, a collapse might mean China would have to send troops into North Korea and Sino-American strategic tension and suspicion would only increase. It would destabilise the whole peninsula. China has a policy of non-inference in affairs of other countries but is it in Beijing's interests to have the current North Korean government in place? I think China's policy of non interference in other countries internal affairs is correct but North Korea's nuclear issue is another problem that belongs to another category. This is an international issue. Under the 1961 of mutual co-operation and defence is China not duty bound to defend North Korea? Legally, this treaty is still here, but the treaty itself stipulates that if North Korea is attacked by other countries then China will respond. But now the situation is different. This is a provocative act taken by North Korea itself so this is not a situation where China would have to enact this treaty. Is it possible to return to the six-party talks? If we are realists and consider how severe the situation is now and especially if we consider North Korea demands that the US would have to end financial sanctions against them as a condition for returning to six party talks. When we consider all these factors, I don't think the resumption of the six-party talks in the near future is something we can expect to happen.

Chef Geoff's Downtown is the spot this Halloween for a spooktacular event to benefit Elephant Trails, the National Zoo's Asian elephant conservation efforts. Enjoy wicked live entertainment by the folk rock band Mercy Creek and happy hour drink and food specials all night long. Show up in a frightful frock to win prizes. You must be 21 or older to attend this event. Date: Tuesday, October 31 Time: 9 p.m. Location: Chef Geoff’s Downtown, 13th Street between E and F Streets, across from the Warner Theatre Price: $15, which includes one beer from our sponsor Magic Hat Brewery (No tickets necessary. Just pay at the door.)

Growing evidence shows that the dinosaurs and their contemporaries were not wiped out by the famed Chicxulub meteor impact alone, according to a paleontologist who says multiple meteor impacts, massive volcanism in India and climate changes culminated in the end of the Cretaceous Period. The Chicxulub impact may have been the lesser and earlier of a series of meteor impacts and volcanic eruptions that pounded life on Earth for more than 500,000 years, say Princeton University paleontologist Gerta Keller and her collaborators Thierry Adatte from the University of Neuchatel, Switzerland, and Zsolt Berner and Doris Stueben from Karlsruhe University in Germany. A final, much larger and still unidentified impact 65.5 million years ago appears to have been the last straw, said Keller, exterminating two-thirds of all species in one of the largest mass extinction events in the history of life. It's that impact - not Chicxulub - that left the famous extraterrestrial iridium layer found in rocks worldwide that marks the impact that finally ended the Age of Reptiles, Keller believes. "The Chicxulub impact alone could not have caused the mass extinction," said Keller, "because this impact predates the mass extinction." Keller is scheduled to present that evidence at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America (GSA) in Philadelphia, on Tuesday, October 24, 2006. "Chicxulub is one of thousands of impact craters on Earth's surface and in its subsurface," said H. Richard Lane, program director in the National Science Foundation (NSF) Division of Earth Sciences, which funded the research. "The evidence found by Keller and colleagues suggests that there is more to learn about what caused the major extinction event millions of years ago, and the demise of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous." Marine sediments drilled from the Chicxulub crater itself, as well as from a site in Texas along the Brazos River and from outcrops in northeastern Mexico, reveal that Chicxulub hit Earth 300,000 years before the mass extinction. Microscopic marine animals were left virtually unscathed, said Keller. "In all these localities we can analyze their microfossils in the sediments directly above and below the Chicxulub impact layer, and cannot find any significant biotic effect," said Keller. "We cannot attribute any specific extinctions to this impact." The story that seems to be taking shape, according to Keller, is that Chicxulub, though violent, actually conspired with the prolonged and gigantic volcanic eruptions of the Deccan Flood Basalts in India, as well as with climate change, to nudge species towards the brink. They were then pushed over with a second large meteor impact. The Deccan volcanism released vast amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere over a period of more than a million years leading up to the mass extinction. By the time Chicxulub struck, the oceans were already 3-4 degrees warmer, even at the bottom, Keller said. "On land it must have been 7-8 degrees warmer," she said. "This greenhouse warming is well-documented. The temperature rise was rapid over about 20,000 years, and it stayed warm for about 100,000 years, then cooled back to normal well before the mass extinction." Where's the crater? "I wish I knew," said Keller.

PAK GIL YON (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said that his country totally rejected resolution 1718 and found it unjustifiable. It was “gangster-like” for the Security Council to adopt such a coercive resolution against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, while neglecting the nuclear threat posed by the United States against his country. It was a clear testament that the Council had completely lost its impartiality and was persisting in applying double standards to its work. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was disappointed that the Council was incapable of offering a single word of concern when the United States threatened to launch nuclear pre-emptive attacks, reinforced its armed forces and conducted large-scale military exercises near the Korean peninsula. He said that, on 9 October, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had successfully conducted underground nuclear tests under secure conditions, as a way of bolstering the country’s self-defence. His country’s nuclear test was entirely attributable to United States threats, sanctions and pressure, and every possible effort had been expanded to settle the nuclear issue through dialogue and negotiation. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea indeed wished to denuclearize the Korean peninsula, he said; yet, the Bush Administration had responded to his country’s patient and sincere efforts with sanctions and blockades. His country had, therefore, felt compelled to prove its possession of nuclear weapons to protect itself from the danger of war from the United States. Also, although his country had conducted a nuclear test -- due to American provocation -- it still remained unchanged in its will to denuclearize the Korean peninsula through dialogue and negotiation, as that had been President Kim Il Sung’s last instruction. He said the test did not contradict the Joint Statement of the six-party talks to dismantle nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programmes. Rather, it constituted a positive measure for its implementation. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had clarified more than once that it would have no need for even a single nuclear weapon as long as the United States dropped its hostile policies towards his country, and as long as confidence was built between the two countries. Instead, the United States had manipulated the Security Council into adopting a resolution pressurizing Pyongyang. He said the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was ready for both dialogue and confrontation. If the United States persisted in increasing pressure upon his country, it would continue to take physical countermeasures, considering it as a declaration of war.

SECURITY COUNCIL CONDEMNS NUCLEAR TEST BY DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1718 (2006) Action Prevents Provision of Nuclear Technology, Large-Scale Weapons, Luxury Goods to Country; Permits Inspection of Cargo to Ensure Compliance Expressing the gravest concern over the claim by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) that it had conducted a nuclear weapon test, the Security Council this afternoon condemned that test and imposed sanctions on the DPRK, calling for it to return immediately to multilateral talks on the issue. Acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, but barring automatic military enforcement of its demands under the Charter’s Article 41, the Council unanimously adopted resolution 1718 (2006), which prevents a range of goods from entering or leaving the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and imposes an asset freeze and travel ban on persons related to the nuclear-weapon programme. Through its decision, the Council prohibited the provision of large-scale arms, nuclear technology and related training to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, as well as luxury goods, calling upon all States to take cooperative action, including through inspection of cargo, in accordance with their respective national laws. The Council stressed that such inspections should aim to prevent illicit trafficking in nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, as well as their means of delivery and related materials. Regarding the freezing of assets, the Council provided specific exemptions for the transfer of monies to meet various financial obligations and humanitarian needs, specifying humanitarian exemptions for the travel ban, as well. To monitor and adjust the sanctions imposed on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Council decided to establish a committee consisting of all 15 members of the body, which would provide a report every 90 days, beginning with the passage of the resolution. Following the vote, several members of the Council condemned what many called an irresponsible step by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, stressing the importance of the Council’s swift and decisive action and emphasizing that, should the country implement the provisions of the new resolution, the sanctions could be lifted. The United States representative said the test posed “one of the gravest threats to international peace and security that this Council has ever had to confront”. The resolution adopted today would send a strong and clear message to North Korea and other would-be proliferators that they would meet with serious repercussions should they choose to pursue the development of weapons of mass destruction. Further, it would send an unequivocal and unambiguous message for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to stop its procurement programmes and to verifiably dismantle existing weapons of mass destruction programmes. “All of us find ourselves in an extraordinary situation, which requires the adoption of extraordinary measures”, the representative of the Russian Federation said. Today’s text contained a set of carefully considered and targeted measures, aimed at resolving the main issue: to make the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea reconsider its dangerous course, come back to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and resume, without preconditions, its participation in the six-party talks. That could be done only through political and diplomatic means. He insisted on the Council’s strong control over the measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and noted that the resolution reflected concern over the humanitarian consequences of strict measures. China’s representative agreed that the Council’s actions should both indicate the international community’s firm position and help create conditions for the peaceful solution to the DPRK nuclear issue through dialogue. As the resolution adopted today basically reflected that spirit, his delegation had voted in favour of the text. However, sanctions were not the end in themselves. China did not approve of the practice of inspecting cargo to and from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and urged the countries concerned to adopt a responsible attitude in that regard, refraining from taking any provocative steps that could intensify the tension. China still believed that the six-party talks were the realistic means of handling the issue. It also firmly opposed the use of force. Japan’s representative said that the combination of ballistic missile capability and, now, the claim of nuclear capability in the hands of a regime known for reckless irresponsible behaviour, created nothing less than a grave threat to peace and security. He not only supported the Council’s sanctions, but also outlined a set of national measures undertaken by his country, including closure of Japanese ports to DPRK vessels; denial of imports from the DPRK; and prohibition of entry for DPRK nationals into Japanese territory. The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, however, “totally rejected” the text, saying that it was “gangster-like” of the Security Council to adopt such a coercive resolution against his country, while neglecting the nuclear threat posed by the United States against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. It was a clear testament that the Council had completely lost its impartiality and was persisting in applying double standards to its work. JOHN BOLTON ( United States) said that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s (DPRK) proclamation that it had conducted a nuclear test had posed the gravest threat to international peace and security that the Security Council had ever had to confront. The resolution just adopted would send a strong and clear message to the DPRK and other would-be proliferators that they would meet with serious repercussions should they choose to pursue the development of weapons of mass destruction. Further, it would send an unequivocal and unambiguous message for the DPRK to stop its procurement programmes and to verifiably dismantle existing weapons of mass destruction programmes. He said resolution 1695 (2006) had demonstrated to North Korea that the best way to promote the livelihood of its people and end its isolation was to stop playing games of brinksmanship, comply with Security Council demands, return to the six-party talks and implement the terms of the joint statement from the last round of those talks. But sadly, the regime in Pyongyang had chosen a different path, answering the Security Council’s demands with an announcement that it had conducted a successful nuclear test. North Korea had thus broken its word, provoking a crisis and denying its people a better life. He said that, three months ago, the United States had counselled other Member States to prepare for further action in the event that the DPRK failed to comply with resolution 1695. His country was pleased, therefore, that the Security Council was united in its condemnation today, proving that it was indeed prepared to meet threats to international security with resolve. Acting under Chapter VII, the Council would impose punitive sanctions on Kim Jong Il’s regime. By today’s resolution, Member States would also agree not to trade in materials that would contribute to nuclear weapons -- and other weapons of mass destruction -- programmes, as well as to ban the trade in high-end military equipment. In doing its part to implement that provision of the resolution, the United States would rely on a number of control lists already in place, as published by the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Missile Technology Control Regime and the Australia Group. He said the resolution would prevent the travel of officials known to be involved in weapons of mass destruction efforts, as well as target the way Kim Jong Il financed his related weapons programmes, including through money-laundering, counterfeiting and selling narcotics. By the resolution, Member States were bound to take action against those activities and freeze the assets of involved entities and individuals of the DPRK. It would provide for an inspections regime to ensure compliance with its provisions, building on the existing work of the Proliferation Security Initiative. It would impose strict demands on the DPRK not to conduct further nuclear tests or launch ballistic missiles, he said, as well as to abandon all weapons of mass destruction programmes, whether nuclear, chemical or biological, in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner. The Council would lift the measures imposed by the resolution if the DPRK complied fully with all its provisions and resumed the six-party talks. However, Member States must be prepared if the country again ignored Security Council demands; in that event, measures must be strengthened and Member States must return to the Council for further action. As the United States pursued a diplomatic solution, it was also reassuring its allies of its commitment to security, he said. It would seek to increase its defence cooperation with allies, including on ballistic missile defence and cooperation to prevent the DPRK from importing or exporting nuclear missile technology. The goals were clear: a nuclear-free Korean peninsula, and to work with other countries to ensure that the DPRK faced serious consequences if it continued down its current path. The resolution provided a carve-out for humanitarian relief efforts in the country, however, because the concern was with the regime and not the starving and suffering people of the DPRK. Hopefully, the country would implement the resolution so its people could enjoy a brighter future. JEAN-MARC DE LA SABLIÈRE ( France) said that the Council, by adopting resolution 1718 today, had provided a firm reply to the announcement last Monday of a nuclear test by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. That reply voiced the international community’s unanimous condemnation of that extremely grave act, and unanimous determination in the face of Pyongyang’s behaviour. Adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter, the resolution contained a number of strong measures, in particular regarding missile and weapons of mass destruction programmes. It also contained provisions to prevent exporting and importing of products associated with those programmes by the DPRK. It was necessary to ensure the effectiveness of those measures by proceeding under international law with inspections of cargo to and from the DPRK, he said. Given the challenge posed by North Korea, it was essential for the international community to be united and extremely firm. The Council had clearly demonstrated that the behaviour of North Korea would not be tolerated. His delegation also understood that full compliance with the resolution by the DPRK and successful resumption of six-party talks would prompt the Council to lift the sanctions imposed by the resolution. WANG GUANGYA ( China) said that, on 9 October, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had flagrantly conducted a nuclear test in disregard of the common opposition of the international community. China’s Foreign Ministry had issued a statement on the same day, expressing firm opposition to that act. Proceeding from the overall interests of brining about denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and maintaining peace and stability there and in North-East Asia, China supported the Council in making a firm and appropriate response. The action of the Security Council should both indicate the firm position of the international community and help create enabling conditions for the final peaceful solution to the DPRK nuclear issue through dialogue. As the resolution adopted today basically reflected that spirit, his delegation had voted in favour of the text. He reiterated that sanctions were not the end in themselves. As stipulated in the resolution, if the DPRK complied with its requests, the Council would suspend or lift sanctions against the country. At the same time, China did not approve of the practice of inspecting cargo to and from the DPRK, and he had reservations about related provisions of the resolution. China strongly urged the countries concerned to adopt a prudent and responsible attitude in that regard, and refrain from taking any provocative steps that could intensify the tension. China’s Government had committed itself to brining about denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and to maintaining peace and stability both on the peninsula and in North-East Asia, he said. It had always advocated seeking a peaceful solution to the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula through diplomatic means. China had made enormous and unremitting efforts towards that end, initiated the six-party talks and pushed parties concerned to implement the Joint Statement of September 2005. Though there had been the negative development of the DPRK’s nuclear test, those policies remained unchanged. China still believed that the six-party talks were the realistic means of handling the issue. He also firmly opposed the use of force. China noted with satisfaction that, in condemning the DPRK nuclear test, the parties concerned had all indicated the importance of adhering to diplomatic efforts. Under the current circumstances, it was necessary to “unswervingly stick” to the objective of denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, oppose nuclear proliferation, adhere to the general direction of resolving the issue through peaceful dialogue and negotiations, avoid any acts that might cause escalation of tension and maintain peace and stability on the Korean peninsula and in North-East Asia. That was in the common interest of all the parties concerned. All the parties should take vigorous and positive action towards that end. China was ready and willing to strengthen consultations and cooperation with other parties concerned, so as to ensure a cool-headed response, push forward the six-party talks and continue to play a constructive role in realizing denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and North-East Asia. EMYR JONES PARRY ( United Kingdom) welcomed the strong signal sent to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, saying the Council had acted decisively and quickly under Chapter VII to ask for an end to that country’s provocative and irresponsible act. The resolution was important because it reiterated the international community’s condemnation of such actions, and made clear to the DPRK and all States concerned that they had a legal obligation to carry out its provisions. He said the United Kingdom condemned the 9 October test as an irresponsible act, because it had raised tensions both regionally and internationally. Despite the repeated urging of its neighbours, the DPRK had contravened its commitments under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and had ignored resolution 1695 (2006). Indeed, the test had been a direct provocation to the international community and constituted a threat to peace and security. As such, the Council had duty to condemn the act, and had done so by sending a strong message to Pyongyang. The resolution contained robust terms, he said, but its purpose was to bring about a stop to the DPRK’s weapons of mass destruction and missile programmes and to change the behaviour of the leaders in Pyongyang, not to hamper the lives of people who were already suffering. The United Kingdom would lift the measures imposed today if the DPRK returned to the six-party talks. It was that country’s choice to flout or accept the obligations contained in it. VITALY I. CHURKIN (Russian Federation) said that, even before the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s statement of its intention to conduct a nuclear test and then following that irresponsible step, his country had emphasized that such actions could complicate the settlement of the nuclear problem on the Korean peninsula, pose a threat to international peace and security and undermine the non-proliferation regime. His country had always advocated a strong, but carefully vetted, response from the Council, aimed at preventing further escalation of tension. He could only regret that North Korean authorities had ignored the warnings contained in the Council’s presidential statement of 6 October about the negative consequences that would flow from a nuclear test, primarily for the DPRK itself. “All of us find ourselves in an extraordinary situation, which required adoption of extraordinary measures,” he said. Having supported the text -– a result of tense negotiations, in which all members of the Council had participated –- he noted that the resolution reflected concern over the humanitarian consequences of strict measures. At the same time, as a matter of principle, it was necessary –- as envisioned by relevant decisions of the United Nations –- to carefully weigh such consequences on a case-by-case basis. Any sanctions introduced by the Council should not go on indefinitely and should be lifted upon implementation of the Council’s demands. In that connection, he also emphasized that sanctions unilaterally adopted by States did not facilitate resolution of such problems, when the Council was working on joint approaches, with the participation of all relevant parties. He added that today’s text contained a set of carefully considered and targeted measured, aimed at resolving the main issue: to make the DPRK immediately review its dangerous course, come back to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and resume, without preconditions, its participation in the six-party talks. That could be done only through political and diplomatic means. The measures against the DPRK must be implemented under strict control of the Council and its Sanctions Committee set up by today’s resolution. It was very important that, under the text, full implementation of its provisions by the DPRK would lead to the lifting of the sanctions. He hoped Pyongyang would adequately understand the collective position of the international community and take practical steps to achieve denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, as well as peace and stability in North-Eastern Asia. The Council’s President, KENZO OSHIMA ( Japan), speaking in his national capacity, welcomed the resolution adopted today as one of the most important decisions the Council had taken in recent times. It was essential that such an important decision be taken by a unanimous vote, and that was a welcome outcome. The resolution strongly condemned the irresponsible act on the part of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which had proceeded to conduct a nuclear test in total defiance of the calls to refrain from doing so by all its immediate neighbours and, indeed, by the entire world. That was unacceptable behaviour, which deserved to be met not only with a strong admonishment, but also with necessary measures prescribed in Chapter VII of the Charter. Under the circumstances, the Council had acted in the discharge of its responsibilities by responding to the grave situation created by the DPRK, swiftly and in unity. The situation created by the DPRK had caused widespread and deep concern in East Asia and beyond, he continued. The danger presented by Pyongyang’s total disregard of the non-proliferation regime was clear and present. Last July, when the DPRK had resorted to the launching of ballistic missiles, the Council had unanimously adopted resolution 1695, condemning that action. It had also unequivocally urged the DPRK not to go forward with the test, through a strong presidential statement. Only two days after the Council’s call, however, the DPRK had claimed that it had conducted a nuclear test. The combination of ballistic missile capability and, now, the claim of nuclear capability in the hands of a regime with a record of known and reckless irresponsible behaviour, created a situation that was nothing less than a grave threat to peace and security. Japan also regretted that the DPRK’s actions were in contravention of the Japan-DPRK Pyongyang Declaration, the Joint Statement of the six-party talks and several other agreements. Along with other concerned countries in the region, Japan expected that the DPRK would act as a responsible Member of the United Nations, by implementing this and other Security Council resolutions and decisions, including resolution 1695, in good faith. At the same time, the security issue was not the only point of contention between the DPRK and the international community. The resolution underlined the importance for the DPRK to responding to the humanitarian concerns of the international community, which included the abduction issue. He demanded that the issue be resolved as soon as possible. He said that, on 11 October, his Government had announced that it would take a set of national measures in strong protest against the claimed nuclear test, recognizing the need to take firm measures in response. Those measures included denial of permission to enter Japanese ports to all DPRK vessels; denial of import of all items from the DPRK; and denial, in principle, of entry by DPRK nationals into Japanese territory. Japan would also implement in good faith the measures under the resolution. The resolution contained strong measures, he added, but sanctions were not invoked for the sake of sanctions. The goal of the resolution was to remove the threat to international peace and security, by ensuring discontinuation of the DPRK’s nuclear testing and ballistic missile launchings, as well as the abandonment of its nuclear and missile programmes. It was up to the DPRK whether that opportunity would be utilized. That country’s compliance with the resolution and addressing the concerns of the international community would open the way for the international community to consider actions for the benefit of the DPRK as made clear in paragraph 15 of the resolution. Japan had not closed the door on dialogue and urged the DPRK to respond sincerely for a diplomatic solution to the issues between the two countries.

B. Frank has stated to me that he is not Martin.

On the DC1st web site it states that Austermuhle lives on the eastern end of Capitol Hill? You are stating that by Austermuhle coming out of Sam Brooks home verified what you heard from the bartenders at Remingtons and the The Fireplace that the two men were lovers. Because of the relationship Austermuhle would use his position at DC1st to destroy your campaign. Is this correct? Do you remember the bartenders names so I can verify what they stated? How did you find out about Austermuhle’s criminal record in the USA and Costa Rica and his involvement with the Communist Party USA?

I still do not understand where and why this feud started. Rees you claim you met Martin Austermuhle at 4:00 am on Wisconsin avenue while passing out campaign media. Correct? Was the day you met Mr. Autermuhle Sunday, March 12, 2006? Were you wearing an the orange shirt and blue jeans at the time? Was it at this point Martin Austermuhle mocked your looks and made a comment about the way you entered into buildings. Did any other conversation transpire between You and Martin Austermuhle during this meeting? Did you have any other bad encounters with anyone else between 4 and 6 in the morning?