The Forgotten Man

ON THE CASE OF A CERTAIN MAN WHO IS NEVER THOUGHT OF, By William Graham Sumner The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D.

The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man. For once let us look him up and
consider his case, for the characteristic of all social doctors is, that they fix their minds on some man or group of men whose case appeals to the sympathies and the imagination, and they plan remedies addressed to the particular trouble; they do not understand that all the parts of society hold together, and that forces which are set in action act and react throughout the whole organism, until an equilibrium is produced by a readjustment of all interests and rights. They therefore ignore entirely the source from which they must draw all the energy which they employ in their remedies, and they ignore all the effects on other members of society than the ones they have in view. They are always under the dominion of the superstition of government, and, forgetting that a government produces nothing at all, they leave out of sight the first fact to be remembered in all social discussion--that the State cannot get a cent for any man without taking it from some other man, and this latter must be a man who has produced and saved it. This latter is the Forgotten Man.

The friends of humanity start out with certain benevolent feelings toward "the poor," "the weak," "the laborers," and others of whom they make pets. They generalize these classes, and render them impersonal, and so constitute the classes into social pets. They turn to other classes and appeal to sympathy and generosity, and to all the other noble sentiments of the human heart. Action in the line proposed consists in a transfer of capital from the better off to the worse off. Capital, however, as we have seen, is the force by which civilization is maintained and carried on. The same piece of capital cannot be used in two ways. Every bit of capital, therefore, which is given to a shiftless and inefficient member of society, who makes no return for it, is diverted from a reproductive use; but if it was put to reproductive use, it would have to be granted in wages to an efficient and productive laborer. Hence the real sufferer by that kind of
benevolence which consists in an expenditure of capital to protect the good-for-nothing is the industrious laborer. The latter, however, is never thought of in this connection. It is assumed that he is provided for and out of the account. Such a notion only shows how little true notions of political economy have as yet become popularized. There is an almost invincible prejudice that a man who gives a dollar to a beggar is generous and kind-hearted, but that a man who refuses the beggar and puts the dollar in a savings-bank is stingy and mean. The former is putting capital where it is very sure to be wasted, and where it will be a kind of seed for a long succession of future dollars, which must be wasted to ward off a greater strain on the sympathies than would have been occasioned by a refusal in the first place. Inasmuch as the dollar might have been turned into capital and given to a laborer who, while earning it, would have reproduced it, it must be regarded as taken from the latter. When a millionaire gives a dollar to a beggar the gain of utility to the beggar is enormous, and the loss of utility to the millionaire is insignificant. Generally the discussion is allowed to rest there. But if the millionaire makes capital of the dollar, it must go upon the labor market, as a demand for productive
services. Hence there is another party in interest--the person who supplies productive services. There always are two parties. The second one is always the Forgotten Man, and any one who wants to truly understand the matter in question must go and search for the Forgotten Man. He will be found to be worthy, industrious, independent, and self-supporting. He is not, technically, "poor" or "weak"; he minds his own business, and makes no complaint. Consequently the philanthropists never think of him, and trample on him.

We hear a great deal of schemes for "improving the condition of the working-man." In the United States the farther down we go in the grade of labor, the greater is the advantage which the laborer has over the higher classes. A hod-carrier or digger here can, by one day's labor, command many times more days' labor of a carpenter, surveyor, bookkeeper, or doctor than an unskilled laborer in Europe could command by one day's labor. The same is true, in a less degree, of the carpenter, as compared with the bookkeeper, surveyor, and doctor. This
is why the United States is the great country for the unskilled laborer. The economic conditions all favor that class. There is a great continent to be subdued, and there is a fertile soil available to labor, with scarcely any need of capital. Hence the people who have the strong arms have what is most needed, and, if it were not for social consideration, higher education would not pay. Such being the case, the working-man needs no improvement in his condition except to be freed from the parasites who are living on him. All schemes for patronizing "the working classes" savor of condescension. They are impertinent and out of place in this free democracy. There is not, in fact, any such state of things or any such relation as would make projects of this kind appropriate. Such projects demoralize both parties, flattering the vanity of one and undermining the self-respect of the other.

For our present purpose it is most important to notice that if we lift any man up we must have a fulcrum, or point of reaction. In society that means that to lift one man up we push another down. The schemes for improving the condition of the working classes interfere in the competition of workmen with each other. The beneficiaries are selected by favoritism, and are apt to be those who have recommended themselves to the friends of humanity by language or conduct which does not betoken independence and energy. Those who suffer a corresponding depression by the interference are the independent and self-reliant, who once more are forgotten or passed over; and the friends of humanity once more appear, in their zeal to help somebody, to be trampling on those who are trying to help themselves.

Trades-unions adopt various devices for raising wages, and those who give their time to philanthropy are interested in these devices, and wish them success. They fix their minds entirely on the workmen for the time being _in_ the trade, and do not take note of any other _workmen_ as interested in the matter. It is supposed that the fight is between the workmen and their employers, and it is believed that one can give sympathy in that contest to the workmen without feeling responsibility for anything farther. It is soon seen, however, that the employer adds the trades-union and strike risk to the other risks of his business, and settles down to it philosophically. If, now, we go farther, we see that he takes it philosophically because he has passed the loss along on the public. It then appears that the public wealth has been diminished, and that the danger of a trade war, like the danger of a revolution, is a constant reduction of the well-being of all. So far, however, we have seen only things which could _lower_ wages--nothing which could raise them. The employer is worried, but that does not raise wages. The public loses, but the loss goes to cover extra risk, and that does not raise wages.

A trades-union raises wages (aside from the legitimate and economic means noticed in Chapter VI.) by restricting the number of apprentices who may be taken into the trade. This device acts directly on the supply of laborers, and that produces effects on wages. If, however, the number of apprentices is limited, some are kept out who want to get in. Those who are in have, therefore, made a monopoly, and constituted themselves a privileged class on a basis exactly analogous to that of the old privileged aristocracies. But whatever is gained by this arrangement for those who are in is won at a greater loss to those who are kept out. Hence it is not upon the masters nor upon the public that trades-unions exert the pressure by which they raise wages; it is upon other persons of the labor class who want to get into the trades, but, not being able to do so, are pushed down into the unskilled labor class. These persons, however, are passed by entirely without notice in all the discussions about trades-unions. They are the Forgotten Men. But, since they want to get into the trade and win their living in it, it is fair to suppose that they are fit for it, would succeed at it, would do well for themselves and society in it; that is to say, that, of all persons interested or concerned, they most deserve our sympathy and attention.

The cases already mentioned involve no legislation. Society, however, maintains police, sheriffs, and various institutions, the object of which is to protect people against themselves--that is, against their own vices. Almost all legislative effort to prevent vice is really protective of vice, because all such legislation saves the vicious man from the penalty of his vice. Nature's remedies against vice are
terrible. She removes the victims without pity. A drunkard in the gutter is just where he ought to be, according to the fitness and tendency of things. Nature has set up on him the process of decline and dissolution by which she removes things which have survived their usefulness. Gambling and other less mentionable vices carry their own penalties with them.

Now, we never can annihilate a penalty. We can only divert it from the head of the man who has incurred it to the heads of others who have not incurred it. A vast amount of "social reform" consists in just this operation. The consequence is that those who have gone astray, being relieved from Nature's fierce discipline, go on to worse, and that there is a constantly heavier burden for the others to bear. Who are the others? When we see a drunkard in the gutter we pity him. If a policeman picks him up, we say that society has interfered to save him from perishing. "Society" is a fine word, and it saves us the trouble of thinking. The industrious and sober workman, who is mulcted of a percentage of his day's wages to pay the policeman, is the one who bears the penalty. But he is the Forgotten Man. He passes by and is never noticed, because he has behaved himself, fulfilled his contracts, and asked for nothing.

The fallacy of all prohibitory, sumptuary, and moral legislation is the same. A and B determine to be teetotalers, which is often a wise determination, and sometimes a necessary one. If A and B are moved by considerations which seem to them good, that is enough. But A and B put their heads together to get a law passed which shall force C to be a teetotaler for the sake of D, who is in danger of drinking too much. There is no pressure on A and B. They are having their own way, and they like it. There is rarely any pressure on D. He does not like it, and evades it. The pressure all comes on C. The question then arises, Who is C? He is the man who wants alcoholic liquors for any honest purpose whatsoever, who would use his liberty without abusing it, who would occasion no public question, and trouble nobody at all. He is the Forgotten Man again, and as soon as he is drawn from his obscurity we see that he is just what each one of us ought to be.

Text Copyright Status: Published 1917 Not copyrighted (EXPIRED) in the United States. What Social Classes Owe to Each Other by William Graham Sumner

Image Licensing: was presented in 1997 as a gift to the Department of Economics of Duke University by Professor Warren J. Samuels of Michigan State University. Free use of these portraits in Web documents, and for other educational purposes, is encouraged: users are requested to acknowledge that the images come from The Warren J. Samuels Portrait Collection at Duke University.

Technorati Tags: The Forgotten Man and William Graham Sumner or ON THE CASE OF A CERTAIN MAN WHO IS NEVER THOUGHT OF and Organic semiconductor processing or 4th of July Fireworks San Diego and Apache helicopter Rescue VIDEO

Apache helicopter Rescue VIDEO

B-roll of a helicopter rescue from Task Force Marne. Scenes include aerial footage of the Apache helicopter in flight with Soldiers strapped to a wing of the craft, the crash site and the landing of the helicopter.

Also see " Chief Warrant Officer Purtee" and "Chief Warrant Officer Crist" in the Interview section.

Video Location: IQBaghdad, Unit(s) Involved: • Headquarters 3rd Infantry Division (Ft. Stewart, ) Submitting Unit: Headquarters, 3rd Infantry Division Public Affairs

Filename: 0707/DOD_100005113.wmv, Size (bytes): 1110396 (1.06 MB), Length: 0:47, Date Taken: 07-03-2007

Video: Chief Warrant Officer Burrows and Chief Warrant Officer CianfriniTalk to a Fox reporter about their aircraft being attacked and crashing, being rescued, and their feelings during and after the attack.

Video Location: IQBaghdad, Submitting Unit: Headquarters, 3rd Infantry Division Public Affairs

Filename: 0707/DOD_100005143.wmv Size (bytes): 9382008 (8.95 MB), Length: 5:51, Date Taken: 07-07-2006

Technorati Tags: Chief Warrant Officer Burrows and Chief Warrant Officer Cianfrini or Apache helicopter Rescue and Nanoparticles carry chemotherapy drug deeper into solid tumors or 4th of July Fireworks Washington Monument and Press Briefing Tony Snow 07/03/07 (VIDEO)

Press Briefing Tony Snow 07/03/07 (VIDEO)

Press Briefing by Tony Snow, FULL STREAMING VIDEO. file is windows media format, running time is 31:10. Room 450 Eisenhower Executive Office Building. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow briefs the press and answers questions. 07 03 2007: WASHINGTON, DC: 10:55 A.M. EST.

MR. SNOW: Good morning. Good to see you all. Couple of notes, first on the President's day. The President had his normal briefings in the morning. At 10:30 a.m. he'll have a visit with wounded military personnel at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

He also this morning had phone calls with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the three members -- these were separate phone calls, these were four phone calls total -- the other members of the presidency council: Jalal Talabani, Adil Abd al-Mahdi and Tariq al-Hashimi. All of the conversations were about ongoing political progress and developments within Iraq; the President encouraging all of them to move not only aggressively forward, but also move together on issues of concern.

They do report that they have now transmitted to the council of representatives, their legislature, the oil law, and are hoping quite soon to have a related piece of legislation, one that has to deal with the distribution of oil and hydrocarbon revenues, before the legislature quite soon. The President, nevertheless, encouraged them to keep moving on other areas of political interest, including constitutional and political reform, and to work well with one another.

So that's the tenor, really, that was a common theme of all four conversations today. First phone call began at about 7:00 p.m., the last one -- 7:00 a.m. -- the last one finishes at about 7:40.

There's also going to be a re-enlistment ceremony at Camp Victory in Baghdad tomorrow. At a ceremony, more than 500 troops who were in the fight in Iraq are going to re-enlist in America's Armed Forces. Troops who have served in Iraq, as I've noted many times, continue to re-enlist in high numbers -- higher numbers than throughout the military, generally. In fiscal 2007, so far, more than 140,000 soldiers have enlisted or re-enlisted in the Army. All three components are above the retention goals as of the end of March; overall retention mission is 37,578.

In addition, the 500 re-enlistees will be joined by a hundred comrades who will raise their right hands in the oath of becoming citizens of the United States of America.

And with that, I'll take questions.

Q Is the President's decision to commute the sentence of Scooter Libby -- is that the final word in this case, or does he leave the door open for a pardon later?

MR. SNOW: Well, let me put it this way. The President thinks that he has dealt with the situation properly. There is always a possibility, or there's an avenue open for anybody to petition for consideration of a pardon. As far as we know, that's not been done; we don't know if it's contemplated by Scooter Libby or his defense team. But this is -- the President has put together what he thinks is the proper approach and the proper way of dealing with this case.

Q Tony, did the Vice President weigh in?

MR. SNOW: My guess is that -- I don't have direct knowledge, Ed. But on the other hand, the President did consult with most senior officials and I'm sure that everybody had an opportunity to share their views.

Q Why didn't he consult with Justice Department officials? Officials in his own Justice Department say normally someone would at least serve some jail time before a sentence is actually commuted. Why didn't he consult with his own Justice Department?

MR. SNOW: Well, a couple of things. First, quite often when you're dealing with sentences of this sort, they also have to deal with, as you point out, sentences that are ongoing or sometimes cases that have gotten a bit stale and people are trying to refresh their memories about the particulars of the case. The same would be true of the prosecutor, because they're quite often consulted for the same reason. Here you have a case that's still ongoing in the court system. It's not like people's memories are fuzzy about the details or the circumstances. The Attorney General, himself, was recused, as you know, in this case.

But the answer, Ed, is that it is certainly -- in some cases, people do such consultations. In this case -- and they do it for the reasons I've just cited. These tend to be, can you go back and fill me in on what happened in that case. If you take a look at the rash of pardons and commutations at the end of the Clinton era, a lot of that was people running around trying to find paperwork to figure out what the facts were. So let me just --

Q Well, why no jail time, though?

MR. SNOW: I'm sorry, what?

Q The jail time issue -- normally, somebody at least serves a day in jail, a week in jail, a month in jail.

MR. SNOW: Because the President thought the jail time, in fact, was inappropriate, and therefore, he decided to --

Q I thought he said the jail time was excessive, the sentence was excessive. He didn't say it was inappropriate.

MR. SNOW: Right. No, he said it was excessive, and he thought that any jail time was excessive. And therefore, he did not see fit to have Scooter Libby taken to jail.

Keep in mind that Scooter Libby has been convicted of a felony; that remains the same. He has a $250,000 fine to pay; that remains the same. He's got two years of probation; that remains the same. And a felony conviction has profound impacts on his ability to earn a living as a lawyer because he's not going to be able to practice law. So this is hardly a slap on the wrist, in terms of penalty. It is a very severe penalty.

But the President also believes, for those who were arguing on behalf of a pardon, that you need to respect the jury system. Scooter Libby was tried before a jury of his peers. And it is important to make clear our faith in what really is a pillar of the American justice system, which is everybody's right to be tried before a jury of the peers.

Q Tony, is the President saying --

Q So does that mean --

MR. SNOW: Wait, one at a time, one at a time.

Q So you're not closing the door, then, on a pardon.

MR. SNOW: Look, I think -- the President has done what he thinks is appropriate. The reason I will say I'm not going to close a door on a pardon is simply this, that Scooter Libby may petition for one. But the President has done what he thinks is appropriate to resolve this case.

Q You're saying that he thinks he's done what is enough?

MR. SNOW: He thinks he's done what's appropriate.

Q And that would be it, that he wouldn't do any more?

MR. SNOW: I don't want to read the President's mind, but on the other hand, I do not want to create expectations that somehow there will be more.

Q Tony, does the President think that Scooter Libby did, in fact, lie; that a member of the White House staff was, in fact, guilty of these crimes?

MR. SNOW: What he believes is that he was convicted of a jury of his peers. The President was not sitting in as a fact witness on a very long case, and he does think that it's important to respect what the jury concluded, because the jury really is the group that counts here.

Q Why not respect what the judge said, then?

MR. SNOW: Well, keep in mind that there is still -- he does respect what the judge said, but he also respects what -- I think if you took a look at the trial record, at what the parole commission recommended, that what the parole commission recommended was highly consistent with what the President thought was an appropriate punishment here.

Q Well, no, they talked about 16-plus months.

MR. SNOW: No, that is -- there's a range of -- what you're taking a look -- this gets very complicated. You have obstruction of justice, and then you have mitigating factors that bumps it down. And the bump down gets you, according, again, to the parole commission, to an area where it would be appropriate, it would be within acceptable guidelines to have such things as home detention or probation. Probation is something that is going to be required in this case.

Q Tony, it's my understanding that this administration has advocated allowing judges the discretion to sentence within guidelines, and that this sentence was, in fact, within customary guidelines. So how does the President square that view with his decision to commute the sentence?

MR. SNOW: Look, first, he thinks that -- I would suggest you go back and read some of the trial pleadings, because there is real controversy over what the proper guidelines are. What you're referring to are guidelines under the Espionage Act, which was never brought up as a possible violation by Mr. Libby or anybody there. But I don't want to get into the business of trying to -- I know you're trying to get into the business of having an abstruse legal argument with Patrick Fitzgerald; not going to do it. I will simply tell you that the President, after long consideration, weeks and weeks of consideration, came to the conclusion that 30 months in jail was excessive, and that he is comfortable with the punishment, which is still quite severe, of $250,000, a felony conviction, and two years of probation.

Q And just as a follow-up, can you shed any light on the President's process of deliberations, how he went about thinking about this decision, which you said he considered over weeks and weeks?

MR. SNOW: Only to a very trivial extent, because, as you know, there are -- there's a very important debate going on in Washington about the importance of maintaining the sanctity of deliberations within a White House. I will leave it at this: The President spent weeks and weeks consulting with senior members of this White House about the proper way to proceed, and they looked at a whole lot of options, and they spent a lot of time talking through the options and doing some very detailed legal analysis.

Q Did he consult with anyone outside the White House?

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to -- I'm not going to characterize beyond that.

Q And you know that because he told you so?

MR. SNOW: I know that because he told me so, and also others who were involved.

Q But you were not involved?

MR. SNOW: I was not involved.

Q Was it appropriate for the Vice President to weigh in about the fate of his own friend, and someone who had served him for years --

MR. SNOW: I'm sure that the Vice President may have expressed an opinion, but the fact is, the President understands the -- and he may have recused himself; I honestly don't know.

Q Did he ask for the President to spare his friend?

MR. SNOW: We'd never -- as you know, Kelly -- talk about internal deliberations. Nice try. This is exactly what we're talking about right now before the House and Senate, and we're not going to characterize specifically any kind of advice or plea that somebody may make.

Q But doesn't the public deserve to know if the Vice President asked the President to use this constitutional authority to spare his former aide and longtime friend from prison?

MR. SNOW: Well, let me put it this way. The President does not look upon this as granting a favor to anyone, and to do that is to misconstrue the nature of the deliberations. He spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to maintain the faith in the jury system, and he did that by keeping intact the conviction and some of the punishments. And at the same time, he thought it was important to put together what he thought was a just punishment, in this case, which is what he did. But to think of this as the bestowal of a favor is simply utterly to misconstrue the nature and --

Q Why shouldn't it be thought of as a bestowal of a favor when there are dozens of other people who would probably make the same case that their sentences were too heavy and should have been commuted?

MR. SNOW: Well, I'm not sure that there are dozens of others who were -- every individual -- look, the court said --

Q Martha Stewart.

MR. SNOW: Well, again, there may be people who may have made cases at various junctures, but they're all different. The President looked at this one on its merits.

Q Was the President scared that if Scooter Libby went to jail that he might then talk about some secrets in the White House that would damage the President?

MR. SNOW: No, he thought it was an improper punishment. He thought it was an excessive punishment and, therefore, the proper way to do this was to go ahead and leave intact this -- again, the President's getting pounded on the right because he didn't do a full pardon. The idea is -- but the point of this is that you do not engage in these acts for symbolic or political reasons. You don't do it to make other people happy and say, boy, you showed it to so-and-so. The point here is to do what is consistent with the dictates of justice.

Q So politics did not play into this decision at all?

MR. SNOW: That is correct.

Q A pardon versus --

MR. SNOW: That is --

Q -- wait a minute -- a pardon versus commuting the sentence?

MR. SNOW: That is correct.

Q And also, let me ask you this. The President and other White House press secretaries would not touch this question of Joe Wilson during the height of the investigation. I'm going to ask you now, since the President is now basically saying this is over and he's done what he's done -- Joe Wilson asked for an apology for the American people because of the situation. Is the White House now willing to give the American people --

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to get into --

Q Why not?

MR. SNOW: Because --

Q Why not? It's over now. You didn't want to talk about it then. Let's talk about it now. Do you think the American people are owed something because of the breach?

MR. SNOW: Number one, there is still considerable controversy about the facts of the case, including Joe Wilson's veracity. Number two, there is also --

Q What's in question about his veracity? Detail that, please.

MR. SNOW: There is also -- just, very quickly, you take a look at the Senate reports, his characterization of who sent him over and what he told people when he was in Niger is at direct odds with what he attempted to tell the American public.

Q That has nothing to do with leaking the name of --

MR. SNOW: I'm just --

Q She's making a good point.

MR. SNOW: I'm answering her question, which she raised --

Q But she's making a good point.

Q You're arguing a different case.

MR. SNOW: No, I'm arguing --

Q The apology that the American people may want -- some may want --

MR. SNOW: I understand.

Q -- has to do with the fact that the White House allowed for a breach. And doesn't Libby owe the President an apology?

MR. SNOW: Again, I'm not -- this is -- number one, I believe the investigation found that the White House was not the source of the breach. Number two, the President has said that it is --

Q But it's part of the Bush administration.

MR. SNOW: -- the President has said it is inappropriate to have such breaches, and has apologized for them. So beyond that --

Q When did he apologize?

MR. SNOW: I think he said to the American people -- gave an apology, but --

Q Tony, one point that is not in dispute is that Karl Rove was involved in the leak, in some way he was involved. He talked to at least two reporters who ended up publishing this information. In 2004, the President said -- he didn't talk about convictions or anything -- he said he would fire anyone in this White House who was involved in the leak. We now know Karl Rove was involved; he did not fire him.

MR. SNOW: There are two things to note. We have also said that we do not -- we are not going to make comments in detail until the legal process is over. And it is not; there is still an appeal through --

Q You just put out a two-page statement. He commented --

Q Wait a minute, he just put out this statement, and it's it's over.

Q He commented -- how could you not --

Q Yes, he's commented now, so that's a big -- we can shoot holes in that statement.

MR. SNOW: No, on follow-on issues like this that still may have bearing and an issue that may return to trial, I'm not going to comment on it.

Q How can you stand there with a straight face and say that this is not a political act? What he did was inherently political.

MR. SNOW: It was political in the sense that, as President, he has the authority to do this, but on the other hand --

Q Yes, he chose to do it for this person.

MR. SNOW: On the other hand, if you're doing the weathervane thing, you probably, depending on which constituency you wanted to make happy, you would have done something differently. I am telling you that this President approaches these very carefully as a matter of principle. And the key considerations were, let's figure out what we think is appropriate -- what he thinks is appropriate, in terms of punishment, and let's also do it in a way that does not do violence, but, in fact, shows respect for a system of justice -- not going in and overthrowing the hard work and the verdict of a duly constituted jury. That, to me, demonstrates just the opposite of political consideration. This is an attempt to try to figure out a principled way of dealing with what he thought was a thorny issue.

Q Tony, what's more palatable now? A pardon today, or a pardon at the last day of his presidency? What's more palatable for the American public?

MR. SNOW: You're assuming that there's a pardon.

Q Two-thirds of the American people say that they wanted Scooter Libby to serve this sentence, so the President has not made them happy. Conservatives wanted a full pardon, so the President has not made them happy.

MR. SNOW: Well, apparently, then, he did not do this for political reasons, did he? You have just made my case.

Q Tony, did Libby directly ask the President for --

MR. SNOW: No, there were no direct communications. And the President has not communicated directly with Scooter Libby.

Q What about the Vice President, same question?

MR. SNOW: I have no idea, and I'm -- you'll have to ask the Vice President's office. The notifications that took place yesterday were from White House legal counsel to Judge Walton, to Patrick Fitzgerald, and to Scooter Libby's attorney.

Q Tony, two questions --

MR. SNOW: On this topic, or something else?

Q Yes, on this topic. Among those protesting the President's refusal to allow the Libby imprisonment was Maryland Senator Cardin, who announced that he was "shocked" at what he called the President's "double standard." And my question: Does the White House recall any such expressed Cardin shock at the non-imprisonment of Democrat lawbreaker Sandy Berger, and Marion Barry, as well as no imprisonment for that convicted perjurer Bill Clinton, and his pardon recipient Mark Rich?

MR. SNOW: No, I'm not familiar with that. But perhaps they are waiting to go back and revisit those issues when they have --

Q Could we talk about the two -- trying to have it two ways, saying that we have faith in the justice system, and yet what the judge did was excessive, even though it's within guidelines, according to the prosecutor.

MR. SNOW: What I said was with the jury system. But also, what the President did is also consistent with guidelines. You need to understand the guideline argument better. The question is, what are you using as your baseline? And the parole commission, which does this for a living, had recommended guidelines --

Q But they recommended --

MR. SNOW: I understand that -- the President has the power to commute, and he used it, and he used it in a manner that he saw fit. That's not trying to have it both ways. What the President said is that he is not going to go in and overturn what the jury did. On the other hand, again, he thought that the penalty was excessive. He is certainly permitted to do that. You'll concede that the President does have that power, constitutionally, and furthermore, that this President has done it very carefully.

If he had decided that he wanted to commute the sentence and get rid of all punishment, but still keep intact the felony, he could have done that. But instead what he did was he said that he believes that when somebody is convicted of this punishment, it is worth having -- I mean, of this crime -- it is certainly worth respecting the jury's decision and having significant and severe punishment. And I guarantee you, a quick show of hands how many people in this room think that $250,000 is a wrist slap, or that two years of probation, or, in fact, the loss of your career is somehow a trivial punishment. This is serious punishment.

Q But doesn't he already have a legal defense fund -- that is going to cover --

Q -- $5 million that he's already got --

MR. SNOW: Well, we'll have to see.

Q So it's not really excessive for him, then. Most average Americans couldn't afford $250,000, but most average Americans don't have Fred Thompson raising millions of --

MR. SNOW: Well, on the other hand, he also has legal fees.

Q So the $250,000, though, is really not that much money for him.

MR. SNOW: I don't know, you'll have to find out. Do you think $250,000 --

Q But that's not the case -- you said that it was a lot of money.

MR. SNOW: It is a lot of money.

Q But he has more than $250,000 --

MR. SNOW: You don't know that.

Q Well, in what he's raised.

Q -- there's no shortage of people who would gladly raise -- and have already been doing so.

MR. SNOW: Well, good. Americans are a generous people.

Q How does the President justify this commutation when there are thousands of others in jail with a similar request?

MR. SNOW: I'm not sure that -- thousands in jail with similar requests?

Q Three thousand.

MR. SNOW: Three thousand in jail with similar -- I'm not sure that you can take anybody who has a perjury count and say that they're all the same. Every count has to be considered differently. The President, as you know, looks very carefully at these things. And furthermore, not every one of these cases comes before a President, as you're well aware. Attorneys quite often petition for these and that is one of the procedures by which they do it.

Q Can I follow on that? There are more than 3,000 current petitions for commutation -- not pardons, but commutation -- in the federal system under President Bush. Will all 3,000 of those be held to the same standard that the President applied to Scooter Libby?

MR. SNOW: I don't know.

Q Tony, I'm trying to get a handle on it -- are you saying this White House handled this case in an extraordinary manner, or in a routine manner?

MR. SNOW: I think it handled it in a routine manner in the sense that the President took a careful look. But it is an extraordinary case by virtue of the fact that not only do you have the extreme level of publicity, but also that in many ways, the hand was called by a court decision to go ahead and send Scooter Libby to jail while he was still in the middle of his appeals process.

Q But how could it not be extraordinary to grant something to someone who didn't even ask for it?

MR. SNOW: I just think that's the President, again, using his commutation power to do what he thought was necessary to address what he thought was an excessive punishment.

Q But absent a request, he wouldn't even have known about this case if it didn't involve his former aide.

MR. SNOW: Well, no, I think you probably would have reminded him of it. The fact -- you talk about, if it had not involved a former aide -- this is a thing that has been in the headlines for quite a while.

Q Won't this encourage other members of his administration to obstruct justice?

MR. SNOW: No.

Q Tony, you didn't answer the question about Karl Rove, though. So why wasn't Karl Rove fired?

MR. SNOW: The reason I said that is because you're asking a question that still may be arising -- may be a subject of inquiry and ongoing --

Q How many years is it going to take? I mean, the President made that statement in 2004.

Q Fitzgerald said it's over.

Q Fitzgerald said it's over.

MR. SNOW: Well, Patrick Fitzgerald is not the one responsible for making a final decision on appeals. And I believe that --

Q -- other special prosecutor?

MR. SNOW: I believe that the Libby team, at this point, still has before the court an appeal.

Q The President didn't wait for the appeals.

Q What's the point of the statement --

MR. SNOW: No, no, no, the point was that some of these issues -- it certainly does, because these are things that may come up as questions within the context of further trial.

Q How does this square with the President saying, anybody who leaks in my White House, anybody who doesn't follow the law, is not going to work for me?

MR. SNOW: Well, once we get -- once we get final determination on that, we'll deal with it. By the way, Karl was not accused of breaking any laws. He was not, in fact, indicted on anything. So you've got -- there's a lot of contention in this, but you also need to stick with the fact record.

Q The President set a lower standard first. He didn't say about breaking the law, he said involved in leaking the identity. So you've changed the standard --

MR. SNOW: No, no, no, I was just -- I was responding to that particular question. Again, when we get final clarity on this through the judicial system, I'll answer the question.

Q Thank you, Tony. Former mayor Giuliani, who was involved in more than 1,000 pardons during his tenure at the Justice Department, referred to this, in retrospect, in the overall scheme, as a non-crime, and suggested a full pardon should have come right now. Would you respond to what the mayor said?

MR. SNOW: The President has made it clear that, again, he respects the importance of having a jury system and respecting that jury system, where having listened over a long trial to the facts of the case, a jury of his peers found Scooter Libby guilty of perjury.

Q So he doesn't agree that it's a non-crime, as the mayor said?

MR. SNOW: Again, I'm not going to try to get into parsing all the particulars. The President is not trying to serve as a fact witness in this case, or even one who is trying to analyze the virtues or defects of the case that were presented to the court. What he does know is that a jury reached this verdict. And he is intent on honoring --

Q But doesn't he have to decide that in order to exercise that constitutional authority, just in his own mind to have a view of whether a crime was committed or not?

MR. SNOW: Again, I think what he does is, he understands that he's been convicted, and that to him is sufficient.

Q So he accepts a crime was committed?

MR. SNOW: He accepts that the jury has rendered a verdict and found him guilty of a crime and, therefore, punished him for it.

Q Thank you, Tony. Does the White House have any reaction to the resignation of Japan Defense Minister Kyuma?

MR. SNOW: No, let's -- let's first stay on this topic, and then for those who have other ones -- don't have any reaction to it. Contact NSC later in the day.

Q You were saying to Ken that this is routine, in term of the President's procedure, and routinely, the procedure to consult with the Justice Department. Can I just clarify, did the President talk to Attorney General Gonzales?

MR. SNOW: Again, we're not going to -- we're not going to get into internal deliberations --

Q No, but can you say whether he did not talk to Gonzales at all about this?

MR. SNOW: Well, the Attorney General recused himself from this case. It would have been inappropriate -- it would have been inappropriate to have any conversations with him.

Q Okay, and he did not talk to anybody at Justice?

MR. SNOW: I'm not aware of any, but again, I'm not going to get you -- we still have this strong belief in the importance of the confidentiality of communications.

Q Well, the reason I ask is because the system expects a President to consult. And there would be no harm in saying --

MR. SNOW: Well, no, you -- what you've created is a perception that there is a hard and fast system that operates the same way every time. As I pointed out quite often, what is involved in taking a look at old cases is to go back to the prosecutors who originally did it, have them go back to their files, consult the case, and look at it in that direction. Those are conditions that do not apply in this case. And therefore, you don't have the necessity of going back and saying, will you tell us what went on? I mean, we're pretty well aware of what's been going on and the issues in the case, and we are certainly satisfied that the President spent a lot of time and very careful deliberation about this --

Q But that argues that it got special handling because of who Mr. Libby is. You're making the opposite case, it seems.

MR. SNOW: No, I think when you're trying to -- no, what it's saying is, it gets special handling because of the peculiar nature of the Libby case, which is it's ongoing and highly public. That's what we're talking about here.

Q So he got special handling because of who he is, or was.

MR. SNOW: No, he got special handling because the nature -- because -- look, Ken --

Q A similar case --

MR. SNOW: No, Ken, here's what you're doing. What you're saying is, because Scooter Libby is a public figure, therefore a highly public trial, therefore the facts are well-known. And knowing the facts are well-known, you do not need to do prior consultations the way that you do in the past to try to get those facts available, that somehow all of that is attributable to "who Scooter Libby is." No, it is, in fact, a consequence of the kind of trial that you've got here. This is not something, again, where you have to go back and consult members of the Justice Department about what the facts of the case are or the circumstances surrounding it.

Furthermore, you've got a trial record, and it is still a trial, so it's not the case that you have to go ask the prosecutor and he needs to burnish his memory about it.

Q I just want to follow up. There are some who -- on the right who are very interested in the idea of a full pardon and they are pointing out that a convicted felon can serve in the government. If Vice President Cheney wants to bring Scooter Libby back into his office, would the President support that?

MR. SNOW: I don't have any idea. This is not something that's come up.

Q Tony, I want to go back to the issue of an apology, and I want to stay issue-focused and not blaming. Are there -- is the American people owed some kind of apology from someone in this administration for the leaking of a CIA person's name, personnel's name?

MR. SNOW: Yes, it's improper to be leaking those names.

Q You say it's improper, so you're saying someone in this administration owes the American public an apology?

MR. SNOW: I'll apologize. All done.

Q No, it's not. That's flippant, that's a very flippant way of doing something very serious -- it was a very serious matter. That was very flippant.

MR. SNOW: Well, no, I think in some ways the characterization -- because there are so many complex issues involved in this, including the provenance of it, and furthermore, the fact that in the Washington culture things get leaked all the time. And I'm not aware --

Q Does that make it right?

MR. SNOW: How many of you have apologized for a controversial name appearing under tough circumstances in a news story? I daresay the answer is zero.

Q Tony, does the President believe that prison time for perjury is excessive, per se? And if he does not believe that, what is it about this case, beyond the fact that Scooter Libby worked for this administration, that led him to commute the sentence? What are the factors here?

MR. SNOW: Again, we are not going to get you into the -- I'm not going to delve you into the deep considerations, other than to tell you the President considered it excessive --

Q Does he think prison for perjury is excessive?

MR. SNOW: -- as did a parole board. As did the parole board. So I'm simply telling you that -- what you're trying to do is to set up a false distinction here as -- acting as if this were not the sort of punishment that would be meted out in a perjury case. It is.

Q I'm asking you, if someone else perjures himself --

Q -- say that it was excessive.

MR. SNOW: It said that, in fact, the -- consistent with the guidelines that it talked about, for the general use of guidelines in mitigated circumstances, and it goes in some length into those considerations.

Q I'd like to know, if someone else perjures himself, someone unknown to the President, does the President believe that prison time for that offense is excessive?

MR. SNOW: It depends on the circumstances surrounding the case.

Q And so what is it about these circumstances that --

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to get you -- beyond what we've said, I'm just not going to play the game.

Q But is one day, even one day in prison excessive for this kind of a crime? I mean, people have spent time in prison for --

MR. SNOW: No, no -- this crime. This crime.

Q This crime, yes.

MR. SNOW: Not this kind of crime; this crime.

Q One day is too much for this particular crime?

MR. SNOW: The President decided that it was too much for this one.

Q Why not some jail time served, as was --

MR. SNOW: Tell me why.

Q I'm asking you.

MR. SNOW: No, it sounds to me like --

Q -- obstruction of justice, is why --

MR. SNOW: You don't think --

Q -- convicted of obstruction of justice.

Q For lying, perjury.

Q Perjury.

Q He was convicted of -- am I right? He was convicted of obstruction of justice.

Q He was convicted of perjury. He lied about leaking.

MR. SNOW: -- running high in the press room today.

Q No, you're trying to take the logical and change it around and make -- you're insulting our intelligence.

MR. SNOW: No, I don't think so. What I've tried to do is to insert a little nuance into a conversation that continues to try to create broad generalizations that can be used, frankly, to twist the case out of context.

Q Does Scooter Libby owe the President something now?

MR. SNOW: What Scooter Libby is doing is paying a debt to society.

Q Does he owe the President not to give -- ask for a pardon?

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to try to get into what he owes or doesn't owe. I mean, that's -- ask Scooter Libby what he thinks he owes.

Q Should he just be happy right now that his sentence was commuted, and he should not come back and ask for a pardon?

MR. SNOW: You know, again, I am not going to get in -- tell somebody their business. I will remind you that this is a guy, again, who has a felony conviction, a $250,000 fine, two years probation, and basically has lost the way he has built a living in his entire life. That is pretty significant punishment.

Q Book deal, right?

MR. SNOW: I love the fact that everybody thinks folks get rich off books. I like Scooter, but I'm not sure that's one that's going to go flying off the shelves.

Have we exhausted this, or do we have any --

Q Yes, we're pretty exhausted. (Laughter.)

Q Two questions. One, as far as the immigration bill was concerned, is the President still disappointed, or he has still hope for this immigration bill?

MR. SNOW: The President believes we have to do comprehensive immigration reform. The fact that the Senate decided not to act does not mean that the world will not continue with a situation in which the laws presently on the books are insufficient for providing sufficient punishment to have employers, with due diligence, figure out whether their employees are legal or not. It does not have an encouragement for those who come here legally to identify themselves in such a way that it is possible to track them, to ensure that they're obeying the laws, working, paying taxes, and making constructive contributions to society. It does not allow us, at least at this present juncture, the $4.4 billion that was contemplated to complete the most ambitious border security program in history. It does not allow us to proceed with a temporary worker program that alleviates one of the central fallacies of the 1986 bill, which is the need for people to come in on a temporary basis, to flow in and out of the country, to fill jobs that Americans don't normally fill, but at the same time need filled. And we're already seeing a number of stories out of farm states about real problems folks are facing because they do not have sufficient labor right now to do what they need to do.

All of these are problems, and the question now is, okay, Congress, having said this is a huge problem, it's a top priority, we've got to deal with it -- the question is, what are you going to do? If there is constructive action, we'd love to see it, love to be able to help.

Q Thank you.

Q Second one, please. Is President aware of the food -- quality of food dumped from China now, also tainted food comes to the U.S. and it is costing the U.S. $700 billion or more?

Q I like this one.

MR. SNOW: You took the -- that was Gizzi's question the other day. That was interesting. The President is certainly aware of news reports.

Thank you.

END 12:35 P.M. EDT For Immediate Release July 3, 2007

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Tony Snow and VIDEO, or Scooter Libby and Joe Wilson, or Espionage Act, and A new technique for building nanodevices in the lab or 4th of July Fireworks Happy Independence Day and Grant of Executive Clemency Lewis "Scooter" Libby VIDEO Documentation

Grant of Executive Clemency Lewis "Scooter" Libby VIDEO Documentation

A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America

WHEREAS Lewis Libby was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the case United States v. Libby, Crim. No. 05-394 (RBW), for which a sentence of 30 months' imprisonment, 2 years' supervised release, a fine of $250,000, and a special assessment of $400 was imposed on June 22, 2007;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, pursuant to my powers under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, do hereby commute the prison terms imposed by the sentence upon the said Lewis Libby to expire immediately, leaving intact and in effect the two-year term of supervised release, with all its conditions, and all other components of the sentence.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this second day of July, in the year of our Lord two thousand and seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first.

GEORGE W. BUSH Statement by the President On Executive Clemency for Lewis Libby

# # # For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, July 2, 2007

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald

• Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald on Lewis Libby Indictments Patrick J. Fitzgerald, Special Counsel (10/28/2005) FULL STREAMING VIDEO
• United States Department of Justice: Office of Special Counsel Trial Exhibits in United States of America v. I. Lewis Libby.

Department of Justice FILES IN PDF FORMAT:

• October 28, 2005 Press Release
• October 28, 2005 Indictment
• October 28, 2005 Media Advisory

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Documents in PDF Format

• "United States of America, v. I. Lewis Libby, Defendant": "Order". Criminal No. 05-394 (RBW).
• 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ... Discovery Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Grant of Executive Clemency and Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby and Nanotechnology: consumers must be convinced benefits outweigh risks or Famous People Elvis Presley and Whites Underestmate The Costs Of Being Black

Whites Underestmate The Costs Of Being Black

COLUMBUS, Ohio – How much do white Americans think it “costs” to be black in our society, given the problems associated with racial bias and prejudice? The answer, it appears, is not much.

When white Americans were asked to imagine how much they would have to be paid to live the rest of their lives as a black person, most requested relatively low amounts, generally less than $10,000.

In contrast, study participants said they would have to be paid about $1 million to give up television for the rest of their lives.

The results suggest most white Americans don't truly comprehend the persisting racial disparities in our country, said Philip Mazzocco, co-author of the study and assistant professor of psychology at Ohio State University's Mansfield campus.

“The costs of being black in our society are very well documented,” Mazzocco said. “Blacks have significantly lower income and wealth, higher levels of poverty, and even shorter life spans, among many other disparities, compared to whites.”

For example, white households average about $150,000 more wealth than the typical black family. Overall, total wealth for white families is about five times greater than that of black families, a gap that has persisted for years.

“When whites say they would need $1 million to give up TV, but less than $10,000 to become black, that suggests they don't really understand the extent to which African Americans, as a group, are disadvantaged,” Mazzocco said.

These results also offer insight as to why more than 9 out of 10 white Americans reject proposals to give reparations to the descendants of slaves, said study co-author Mahzarin Banaji, the Cabot Professor of Social Ethics at Harvard University.

“Our data suggest that such resistance is not because white Americans are mean and uncaring, morally bankrupt, or ethically flawed,” Banaji said.

“White Americans suffer from a glaring ignorance about what it means to live as a black American.”

The study appears in the current issue of Harvard's Du Bois Review.

The researchers did a series of studies in which a total of 958 whites of different ages and from different parts of the country were asked variations of the same question: “How much should you be paid to continue to live the rest of your life as a black person?”

In most cases, the participants were told to imagine they were actually black, but had always passed for white. The imagined race change required no physical transformation, just a change in public status.

They were also asked how much they should be paid for giving up television, and how much they should be given to change their officially listed state residency (without having to move). These questions were asked, Mazzocco said, to compare what people requested for relatively trivial changes, like a new listed state residency, as compared to a more life-changing request, like giving up television.

Results suggest white people considered a race change as relatively trivial, along the lines of a change in official state residency, as opposed to the seemingly big sacrifice of giving up television.

In some of the studies, the researchers changed the scenario in order to learn more about what white Americans thought about the costs of racial disparities.

One issue with the previous scenario is that participants may minimize the disparities they would face as a black person, because they had always passed as white. So in one study, whites were told to imagine that they were about to be born as a random white person in America, but they were being offered a cash gift to be born as a random black person. Once again, white participants requested relatively small sums to make a life-long race-change. In addition, some were given a list of some of the costs of being black in America, such as the racial wealth disparity. The result was that whites in this latter scenario requested significantly higher amounts than those in the previous studies – about $500,000.

Finally, some participants were given a similar scenario except all references to blacks, whites and America were taken out. They were asked to imagine they were born into the fictional country of Atria, and were born either into the “majority” or “minority” population. They were given a list of the disadvantages that the minority population faced in Atria (which were identical to the real disadvantages faced by blacks in America). In this case, white participants in the study said they should be paid an average of $1 million to be born as a minority member in Atria.

“When you take it out of the black-white context, white Americans seem to fully appreciate the costs associated with the kinds of disparities that African Americans actually face in the United States,” Mazzocco said. “In this case, they asked for a million dollars, similar to what they want for giving up television.”

Mazzocco said blatant prejudice was not the reason for the findings. Results showed that whites who scored higher on a measure of racial prejudice did not answer significantly differently than others in the study.

The researchers are conducting new studies to examine more closely why whites do underestimate the costs of being black. Mazzocco believes many white Americans have a perception that race bias in the United States has been virtually eliminated, and that blacks are no longer disadvantaged.

“While there has been progress in making racial conditions in American more equal, there's clearly a lot more work to be done,” he said. “Blacks and whites are not experiencing the same America.”

When whites do understand the extent of racial disparities in the United States, they are more likely to support reparations. The findings showed that whites who wanted more money to be publicly recognized as black – suggesting they understood the true costs of racial disparity – were more likely than others to say they would support reparations.

But there are many reasons why nearly all whites oppose reparations. Mazzocco said some whites may believe slavery happened so long ago that slave descendants today don't deserve to be compensated. The researchers examined the “too long ago” rationale in another study.

The researchers asked participants to imagine that their great, great grandfather, a wealthy shipping magnate, had been kidnapped about 150 years ago. The kidnappers demanded and received a large ransom that bankrupted the shipping magnate. That ransom was used to start a successful company that still survives today and is worth $100 million. Participants were asked whether they would be willing to be a part of a large suit against the present-day company that could net them each about $5,000.

In this scenario, 61 percent agreed to have their names listed on the lawsuit. The researchers noted that this is about the percentage of blacks today who support reparations for slave descendants.

“When white Americans find it within themselves to say ‘I must be compensated for a past injustice done to me' but the same logic evaporates when the injustice concerns black Americans, they are staring straight at bias,” Banaji said.

Mazzocco said the results of this research have implications for the fledgling reparations movement in America. “Surveys show that 90 to 96 percent of white Americans are against slave descendant reparations. It is nearly impossible to get that many people to agree on anything, so it is an issue that really deserves attention to see why that is. We wanted to take a heated and emotional issue and look at it through a scientific lens,” he said.

The research was facilitated by a postdoctoral fellowship to Mazzocco from Ohio State's Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity.

Other co-authors of the study included Timothy Brock of Ohio State, Gregory Brock of Georgia Southern University and Kristina Olson of Harvard. #

Contact: Phil Mazzocco, (419) 755-4352; Mazzocco.6@osu.edu
Amy Lavoie, Office of Communications, Harvard University, (617) 496-9982; amy_lavoie@harvard.eduWritten by Jeff Grabmeier, (614) 292-8457; mailto:Grabmeier.1@osu.edu

Technorati Tags: African Americans and black or racial bias and prejudice or Scientists call for global push to advance research in synthetic biology or 4th of July Salute to Florida's Military Heroes and Presidential Podcast 06/30/07

Freedom Calendar 06/30/07 - 07/07/07

June 30, 1910, Estelle Reel (R-WY), first woman in nation elected to statewide office and first woman confirmed by U.S. Senate to a federal post, retires after 12 years as U.S. Superintendent of Indian Schools.

July 1, 1991, President George H. W. Bush appoints Clarence Thomas to U.S.Supreme Court; previously served on U.S. Court of Appeals and as Chairman of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

July 2, 1862, U.S. Rep. Justin Morrill (R-VT) wins passage of Land Grant Act, establishing colleges open to African-Americans, including such students as George Washington Carver.

July 3, 1986. At ceremony rededicating the Statue of Liberty, President Ronald Reagan honors immigrants from all nations who come “to build a new world of peace and freedom and hope”.

July 4, 1867, Republican Party is established in Georgia with racially-integrated state convention.

July 5, 1801, Birth of David Farragut, Tennessee-born Hispanic appointed by President Abraham Lincoln as first U.S. Navy Admiral.

July 6, 1854, First state Republican Party officially organized in Jackson, Michigan, to oppose Democrats’ pro-slavery policies.

July 7, 1981, President Ronald Reagan appoints first woman to U.S. Supreme Court, former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor; as Republican legislator in Arizona, she was first woman to serve as Majority Leader in any state.

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

From section 1 of the 14th Amendment, written in 1866 by Rep. John Bingham (R-OH), one of the founders of the Republican Party.

Technorati Tags: President Bush and Freedom Calendar or Dwight Eisenhower and Republicans or African-Americans and Ronald Reagan or John C. Fremont and Civil Rights or Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass or 40 acres and a mule or Martin Luther King and Influence of a cancer inhibitor on a single DNA molecule or Frederick Douglass The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro and Bald Eagle Soars Off Endangered Species List VIDEO

Presidential Podcast 06/30/07

Presidential Podcast 06/30/07 . In Focus: Renewal in Iraq , Subscribe to Our Podcast feed or online podnova Podcast Channel and receive the weekly Presidential Radio Address in English and Spanish with select State Department Briefings. Featuring full audio and text transcripts, More content Sources added often so stay tuned.

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or the Fourth of July and Independence Day or Influence of a cancer inhibitor on a single DNA molecule or Frederick Douglass The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro and Bald Eagle Soars Off Endangered Species List VIDEO

Bush radio address 06/30/07 full audio, text transcript

bush radio address 06/30/07 full audio, text transcript. President's Radio Address . In Focus: Renewal in Iraq

Subscribe to Our Podcast feed or online podnova Podcast Channel and receive the weekly Presidential Radio Address in English and Spanish with select State Department Briefings. Featuring real audio and full text transcripts, More content Sources added often so stay tuned.

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Next week, Americans will gather with friends and family to celebrate the Fourth of July. I look forward to spending this Independence Day in Martinsburg, West Virginia, with the men and women of the West Virginia Air National Guard.

On the Fourth of July we celebrate the courage and convictions of America's founders. We remember the spirit of liberty that led men from 13 different colonies to gather in Philadelphia and pen the Declaration of Independence. In that revolutionary document, they proclaimed our independence based on the belief that freedom was God's gift to all mankind.

To defend that freedom, the 56 signers of the Declaration pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Their sacrifices built a new Nation and created a future of freedom for millions yet to be born.
Today, a new generation of Americans has stepped forward and volunteered to defend the ideals of our Nation's founding. Around the world, our brave men and women in uniform are facing danger to protect their fellow citizens from harm. In Afghanistan, our military and NATO forces are hunting down the Taliban and al Qaeda, and helping the Afghan people defend their young democracy. And in Iraq, American and Iraqi forces are standing with the nearly 12 million Iraqis who voted for a future of peace, and opposing ruthless enemies who want to bring down Iraq's democracy and turn that nation into a terrorist safe haven.

This week I traveled to the Naval War College in Rhode Island to give an update on the strategy we're pursuing in Iraq. This strategy is being led by a new commander, General David Petraeus, and a new Ambassador, Ryan Crocker. It recognizes that our top priority must be to help the Iraqi government and its security forces protect their population -- especially in Baghdad. And its goal is to help the Iraqis make progress toward reconciliation and build a free nation that respects the rights of its people, upholds the rule of law and is an ally in the war on terror.

So America has sent reinforcements to help the Iraqis secure their population, go after the terrorists, insurgents and militias that are inciting sectarian violence, and get the capital under control. The last of these reinforcements arrived in Iraq earlier this month, and the full surge has begun. One of our top commanders in Iraq, General Ray Odierno, put it this way, "We are beyond a surge of forces. We're now into a surge of operations."

Recently, we launched Operation Phantom Thunder, which has taken the fight to the enemy in Baghdad, as well as the surrounding regions. We're still at the beginning of this offensive, but we're seeing some hopeful signs. We're engaging the enemy, and killing or capturing hundreds. Just this week, our commanders reported the killing of two senior al Qaeda leaders north of Baghdad. Within Baghdad, our military reports that despite an upward trend in May, sectarian murders in the capital are significantly down from what they were in January. We're also finding arms caches at more than three times the rate of a year ago.

The enemy continues to carry out sensational attacks, but the number of car bombings and suicide attacks has been down in May and June. And because of our new strategy, U.S. and Iraqi forces are living among the people they secure, with the result that many Iraqis are now coming forward with information on where the terrorists are hiding.

The fight in Iraq has been tough, and it will remain difficult. We've lost good men and women in this fight. One of those lost was a Marine Lance Corporal named Luke Yepsen. In the spring of 2005, Luke withdrew from his classes at Texas A&M to join the United States Marines. And in October 2006, he deployed to Iraq, where he manned a 50-caliber machine gun on a Humvee. Six months ago, Luke was killed by a sniper while on patrol in Anbar province. Luke's father describes his son's sacrifice this way: "Luke died bringing freedom to an oppressed people. My urgent request is ... finish the mission. Bring freedom to the Iraqi people."

On this Fourth of July, we remember Luke Yepsen and all the men and women in uniform who have given their lives in this struggle. They've helped bring freedom to the Iraqi people. They've helped make Americans more secure. We will not forget their sacrifice. We remember their loved ones in our prayers. And we give thanks for all those from every generation who have defended our Nation and our freedoms.

Laura and I wish you a safe and happy Fourth of July. Thank you for listening. END

For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, June 30, 2007

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or the Fourth of July and Independence Day or Influence of a cancer inhibitor on a single DNA molecule or Frederick Douglass The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro and Bald Eagle Soars Off Endangered Species List VIDEO

Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación 06/30/07

forre el audio de la dirección de radio 06/30/07 por completo, transcripción del texto. (nota de los redactores: ninguna lengua española mp3 lanzó esta semana, apesadumbrada) PODCAST

Suscribir a nuestro canal de Podcast de Odeo o del podnova y recibir la dirección de radio presidencial semanal en inglés y español con informes selectos del departamento del estado. Ofreciendo transcripciones audio y con texto completo verdaderas, más fuentes contentas agregaron a menudo así que la estancia templó.

Buenos días. La próxima semana, los estadounidenses se reunirán con sus amigos y familiares para celebrar el Cuatro de Julio. Estoy deseoso de pasar este Día de la Independencia en Martinsburg, West Virginia, con los hombres y mujeres de la Guardia Aérea Nacional de West Virginia.

El Cuatro de Julio celebramos el valor y las convicciones de los fundadores de Estados Unidos. Recordamos el espíritu de libertad que llevó a hombres de 13 colonias a congregarse en Filadelfia y redactar la Declaración de Independencia. En ese revolucionario documento, proclamaron nuestra independencia basándose en la convicción de que la libertad es el don de Dios a toda la humanidad. Para defender esa libertad, los cincuenta y seis firmantes de la Declaración, comprometieron su vida, su fortuna y su honor sagrado. Sus sacrificios forjaron una nueva nación y crearon un futuro de libertad para millones de personas que todavía no habían nacido.

Hoy, una nueva generación de estadounidenses se ha hecho presente, ofreciéndose voluntariamente para defender los ideales de la fundación de nuestra patria. En todo el mundo, nuestros valientes hombres y mujeres de uniforme arriesgan la vida para proteger a nuestros conciudadanos del peligro. En Afganistán, nuestras fuerzas armadas y fuerzas de la OTAN están yendo tras el Talibán y Al Qaida, y ayudando al pueblo afgano a defender su joven democracia. Y en Iraq, las fuerzas de Estados Unidos e Iraq están de lado de los casi 12 millones de iraquíes que votaron por un futuro de paz en oposición a enemigos inmisericordes que desean destruir la democracia en Iraq y convertir a ese país en un refugio para terroristas.

Esta semana viajé al Naval War College en Rhode Island para presentar un informe actualizado de la estrategia que estamos implementando en Iraq. Un nuevo comandante, el General David Petraeus, y un nuevo embajador, Ryan Crocker, dirigen esta estrategia, que reconoce que nuestra principal prioridad debe ser ayudar al gobierno iraquí y a sus fuerzas de seguridad a proteger a su población, especialmente en Bagdad. Y su objetivo es ayudar a los iraquíes a avanzar hacia la reconciliación y forjar una nación libre que respete los derechos de su pueblo, defienda el estado de derecho y sea un aliado en la guerra contra el terrorismo. Entonces, Estados Unidos ha enviado refuerzos para ayudar a los iraquíes a resguardar a su población, perseguir a los terroristas, insurgentes y milicias que incitan la violencia sectaria y a asumir el control de la capital.

Los últimos de estos refuerzos llegaron a Iraq a principios de este mes, y la estrategia de intensificación ha empezado. Uno de nuestros principales comandantes en Iraq, el general Ray Odierno, lo puso de la siguiente manera: "Ya pasamos el punto de aumento de tropas, y hemos iniciado un aumento de operaciones". Recientemente, lanzamos la Operación Trueno Fantasma que está llevando la lucha al enemigo en Bagdad, así como en las regiones circundantes.

Todavía estamos a inicios de esta ofensiva, pero estamos viendo algunas señales alentadoras. Estamos enfrentándonos al enemigo y eliminando o capturando a cientos. Sólo esta semana, nuestros comandantes informaron haber acabado con dos líderes principales de Al Qaida al norte de Bagdad. Dentro de Bagdad, nuestro ejército informa que a pesar de la escalada en mayo, los asesinatos sectarios en la capital se han reducido significativamente con relación a enero. También estamos encontrando un número tres veces mayor de armas escondidas en comparación con el año anterior. El enemigo sigue llevando a cabo ataques sensacionalistas, pero el número de coches bomba y ataques suicida disminuyó en mayo y junio. Y debido a nuestra nueva estrategia, los soldados de Iraq y Estados Unidos están viviendo entre la gente que resguardan, lo que ha llevado a que muchos iraquíes proporcionen información acerca de los escondites de los terroristas.

La lucha en Iraq ha sido difícil y seguirá siendo difícil. Hemos perdido a valiosos hombres y mujeres en este conflicto. Entre ellos está un cabo de la Infantería de Marina llamado Luke Yepsen. En la primavera del 2005, Luke se retiró de sus clases en Texas A&M para alistarse en la Infantería de Marina de Estados Unidos. Y en octubre del 2006, fue enviado a Iraq, donde estaba a cargo de una ametralladora de calibre .50 montada sobre un Humvee. Hace seis meses, un francotirador mató a Luke mientras estaba de patrulla en la provincia de Anbar. El padre de Luke describe el sacrificio de su hijo de esta manera: "Luke murió mientras llevaba libertad a un pueblo oprimido. Mi pedido urgente es completen la misión. Lleven libertad al pueblo iraquí".

Este Cuatro de Julio, recordamos a Luke Yepsen y a todos los hombres y mujeres de uniforme que dieron la vida en esta lucha. Han ayudado a llevar libertad al pueblo iraquí y han ayudado a que los estadounidenses estén más seguros. No olvidaremos su sacrificio. Recordamos a sus seres queridos en nuestras oraciones. Y damos las gracias por los miembros de cada generación que defendieron nuestra patria y nuestras libertades.

Laura y yo les deseamos un seguro y feliz Cuatro de Julio. Gracias por escuchar. ###

Para su publicación inmediata, Oficina del Secretario de Prensa, 30 de junio de 2007

Etiquetas De Technorati: Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación, y Presidente Bush or Influence of a cancer inhibitor on a single DNA molecule or Frederick Douglass The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro and Bald Eagle Soars Off Endangered Species List VIDEO