The San Ramon, Calif.-based company's earnings for 2005's final quarter, released Friday, represented the most it has made in any three-month period since its inception in 1879. The performance edged the $4.13 billion earned during the second quarter of 2004 the early stages of a two-year boom.

Oppenheimer & Co. Fadel Gheit believes Chevron will set yet another new earnings record this year as the company continues to mine crude oil prices that are expected to remain above $60 per barrel. "We are only scratching the surface," Gheit said. "In my view, this company is hitting on all cylinders."

The windfalls that Chevron has been generating aren't unique in its industry. Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest publicly traded oil company, earned nearly $10 billion in the third quarter and may top that performance when it releases its fourth quarter results Monday.

Chevron's latest quarterly profit, translating to $1.86 per share, compared with net income of $3.44 billion, or $1.63 per share, in the comparable 2004 period.

Revenue totaled $53.8 billion, a 26 percent increase from $42.7 billion in the comparable 2004 period.

Despite the robust gains, the quarterly earnings fell 3 cents below the average estimate among analysts polled by Thomson Financial.

Chevron's shares fell 21 cents to $60.01 in midday trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

For all of 2005, Chevron's $14.1 billion profit amounted to $6.54 per share, topping its previous highest annual profit of $13.3 billion, or $6.14 per share, established in 2004. Last year's gains partially reflect Chevron's increased size after completing a $17.8 billion takeover of Unocal Corp. in August.

What if, in the privacy of the Oval Office, The President ordered his political opponents spied upon, swore vengeance on imagined enemies, and commanded attacks on nations that posed no threat to America?

What if the people who surrounded this madman wanted to keep his craziness a secret? What if his political cronies decided -- perhaps in good conscience, or perhaps for nefarious purpose -- to simply cut the deranged president "out of the loop," make decisions without him, and use him only as a camera-friendly figurehead?

These are tough questions, and aren't you glad they're only hypothetical? It would be a real dilemma if it ever really happened, because no matter how stale a fruitcake in the White House became, he would still be The President.

It would make no difference whether he was a Democrat, a Republican, or a Whig. Whatever his politics, the people in his own party would naturally want to overlook his shortcomings, and any outspoken opposition from another party would be portrayed as shrill politics from hypothetical-President-haters.

Why, even if The President sent hundreds of thousands of American troops into wars against a nation or two which presented no danger at all to America, he would still be The President. Even if his needless wars killed thousands of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, The President could just shrug and claim that anyone who wanted to end the wars didn't "support the troops."

And even if his wars without reason left hundreds of thousands of foreigners dead, still, if The President rattled sabers and threatened war against a third nation that couldn't harm America, or maybe even a fourth nation, many Americans would stand behind him.

After all, they would say, we're at war. We have to stand behind our Commander-in-Chief.

Perhaps this imaginary, unhinged President would try to keep more and more of his policies and actions secret, and refuse to allow serious investigations into any aspect of his administration. Perhaps he would sidestep any question by simply saying "national security" is at stake, and refusing to answer.

And many Americans would say, we're at war. We have to stand behind our Commander-in-Chief.

Perhaps this un-named, completely hypothetical but completely insane President would make chilling speeches, explaining that public debate remains acceptable, but harsh criticism is now over the line. It's treasonous to disagree, he could say -- it's aiding and abetting the enemy, and it's lowering the morale of US troops.

And many Americans would agree, enthusiastically. We're at war, they would echo, so we have to stand behind our Commander-in-Chief.

Perhaps a President, hypothetically out of his hypothetical mind, might ignore the Constitution, break laws left and right, and openly claim the power to rewrite or ignore any law. It might be worrisome to imagine it, but hypothetically, a bonkers administration might seize and hold thousands of people in secret prisons, without ever charging them with a crime. The President could even make torture an official US policy, while unblinkingly telling Americans that our nation would never torture.

No matter what an administration of maniacs might do, millions of Americans would still say it's downright un-American to speak against The President while we're at multiple wars. And so the wars would keep coming, wars without any sane purpose, but wars without end.

That's one hell of a catch, that Catch 22. The President gains special powers while we're at war, and it's un-American to question the validity of any war underway, and it's unpatriotic to criticize The President while we're at war ... but the wars never end.

In such a speculative setting, where would you stand? Could you see past your own politics, and recognize a madman when he gives the State of the Union address? Would you remain loyal to your political party's man no matter what -- or would you be loyal to your nation, its laws, its Constitution, its troops, and the freedoms they fought to establish and defend?

Researchers asked staunch party members from both sides to evaluate information that threatened their preferred candidate prior to the 2004 Presidential election. The subjects' brains were monitored while they pondered.

The results were announced today.

"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," said Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory University. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts."

Bias on both sides

The test subjects on both sides of the political aisle reached totally biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted, Westen and his colleagues say.

Then, with their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the areas that deal with negative emotions such as disgust. But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix, Westen explained.

The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making.

"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," Westen said. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones."

Notably absent were any increases in activation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with reasoning.

The tests involved pairs of statements by the candidates, President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry, that clearly contradicted each other. The test subjects were asked to consider and rate the discrepancy. Then they were presented with another statement that might explain away the contradiction. The scenario was repeated several times for each candidate.

A brain-scan technique known as functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI, revealed a consistent pattern. Both Republicans and Democrats consistently denied obvious contradictions for their own candidate but detected contradictions in the opposing candidate.

"The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data," Westen said.

Other relatively neutral candidates were introduced into the mix, such as the actor Tom Hanks. Importantly, both the Democrats and Republicans reacted to the contradictions of these characters in the same manner.

The findings could prove useful beyond the campaign trail.

"Everyone from executives and judges to scientists and politicians may reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested interest in how to interpret 'the facts,'" Westen said.

The researchers will present the findings Saturday at the Annual Conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology.

Brown said he tried to give viewers a balanced diet of light and serious news with NewsNight. "But I always knew when I got to the Brussels sprouts, I was on thin ice," he said.

When NewsNight spent four hours covering the arrest of actor Robert Blake for the murder of his wife, Brown received thousands of e-mails criticizing the amount of time the show spent on the story. Nevertheless, that show, which aired in April 2002, received the highest ratings of any program since NewsNight's coverage of the November 2001 crash of American Airlines flight 587.

"Television is the most perfect democracy," Brown said. "You sit there with your remote control and vote." The remotes click to another channel when serious news airs, but when the media covers the scandals surrounding Laci Peterson, the Runaway Bride or Michael Jackson, "there are no clicks then," the journalist said.

With the departure from the screen of the "titans" — Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings and Dan Rather — who "resisted the temptations of their bosses to go for the ratings grab, it will be years before an anchorman or anchorwoman will have the clout to fight these battles," he said.

Brown has spent most of his 30-year career in television news. He's covered everything from the Columbine High School murders to the aftermath of the space shuttle Columbia disaster. But viewers may remember best his on-the-spot coverage of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.

He's shocked "by how unkind our world has become," he said. E-mail and talk radio appear to have given people the license to say anything, regardless of how cruel or false it may be, he said.

He cited the example of an e-mail faulting what the sender considered to be NewsNight's inadequate coverage of an anti-war protest in Washington, D.C. The note ended with, "I hope the violence visited on the people of Iraq will someday be visited on your children."

Those on the opposite side of the political spectrum are no more tolerant, Brown said. "Any criticism of the administration is regarded as hatred of the president and hatred of the country itself," he said.

Important issues, such as the prosecution of the war in Iraq at home and abroad, are being clouded over by "mud-wrestling" that skirts substance, he said. Consider what he called "the swift-boating of John Murtha," the Democratic congressman whose war record was smeared when he called for an exit strategy in Iraq. "Cable didn't search for the truth, but engaged in mock debates pitting those making the charges against Murtha's defenders," he said.

Many Americans on the left and the right aren't interested in the truth, but simply want news that confirms their viewpoints, he said. "You'd think that it's no more complex than good vs. evil," he said.

Journalists have fallen short in presenting important news in ways that allow viewers to see how it matters in their lives. But viewers must take up the battle as well, he said. "It's not enough to say you want serious news. You have to watch it. It isn't enough to say you want serious debate. You have to engage in it."

It appears that the author may not be an Indian, according to a number of scholars and experts on Native American culture. The alternative newspaper LA Weekly argued in its latest issue that Nasdijj raised the possibility that he was in fact a writer of gay erotica called Timothy Barrus.

The man claiming to be Nasdijj was keeping his silence yesterday. But his publisher, Ballantine Books, said it was "looking carefully at these allegations" and added: "If in fact they are true, we would be very distressed to have published memoirs that may be deliberately inaccurate."

This latest revelation adds to the turmoil among publishers and editors, accused of turning a blind eye to writers who may have defrauded readers by embellishing or faking their life stories. Questions have also been raised about the cult novelist and alleged Hollywood insider J T Leroy, with some doubters saying he may in fact be a composite of several writers.

In a dramatic turn-about, Oprah Winfrey, who sent sales of A Million Little Pieces sky-rocketing late last year when she recommended it on her television show, invited its writer, Frey, back on air on Thursday and tearfully accused him of flat-out deception.

"I feel duped," Winfrey told Frey on the live programme. "More importantly, I feel that you betrayed millions of readers." Frey is accused of grossly inflating details of his story about recovery from addiction. They include claims that he spent 87 days in prison when he was apparently held by police for only a few hours, and that he underwent dentistry without anaesthetic.

Frey acknowledged that he had stretched the truth but still said he considered his book to be a memoir rather than fiction.

Also on Oprah was Nan Talese, the veteran editor at Doubleday, which published Frey's book. She said she only learnt about the inaccuracies when they were highlighted by The Smoking Gun website. Meanwhile, Riverhead Publishing, an imprint of Penguin Books, said it was reviewing a two-book contract it signed with Frey. If they prove to be founded, the allegations surrounding the so-called Nasdijj appear to be more serious still. Andrew Stuart, the literary agent for the writer until 2004, did not dismiss them when contacted by journalists. He said the LA Weekly article appeared "well researched and highly persuasive ... I will be curious to see if Nasdijj produces evidence to the contrary."

An online blog attributed to Nasdijj and his wife, Tina Giovanni, yesterday carried a diatribe against government, publishers and Oprah. "The real scandal is that publishing publishes absolute shit and that publishers make a fortune from it and can't recognise the problem," it said. Nasdijj surfaced in 1999 in an article in Esquire magazine about his adoptive son, Tommy Nothing Fancy, a Navajo Indian, and his alleged death from fetal alcohol syndrome. It launched a career of memoir writing by Nasdijj. He wrote a full memoir in 2000 for Houghton Mifflin, The Blood Runs Like a River Through My Dreams, followed by two books for Ballantine - Geronimo's Bones and The Boy and the Dog are Sleeping, which won a PEN award.

Nasdijj claimed he was born to a violent white cowboy and alcoholic Native American mother on a reservation in 1950. Allegedly, he was shunted between migrant camps after his mother died and as a child was "hungry, raped, beaten, whipped, and forced at every opportunity to work in the fields".

Among those raising the red flag is Sherman Alexie, the popular writer of American Indian novels. "When I first read his work, I almost thought it was some kind of parody by a famous white writer, because he takes so many things from me and other writers," she says.

A press release from July of 2003 shows that the photography studio was awarded a contract with the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign. "We are, of course, extremely pleased about this contract," said Joanne Amos in the press release. "This is an incredible opportunity for our company."

Two years ago, The Washington Post reported that the studio was paid over $140,000.

This link which lists itemized disbursements from the campaign in 2004 shows that the studio was paid $28,520 for photography services on February 26, 2004.

On October 1, 2003 Congressman Tom Davis (Rep-VA) gave a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives in recognition of the "achievments" of Joanne Amos in her 25 years of work in photography (pdf link). Davis also noted her contract with Bush/Cheney 2004.

"Joanne Amos now resides in the 11th district of Virginia; from this base she will be providing event photography for the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign," said Rep. Davis. "This contract was won on the sheer quality of Reflection's reputation and will grant them the opportunity to show they can coordinate nationwide media coverage. Reflections will make full use of their extensive network of photographers and web-based technology to keep pace with the aggressive schedule set by the President's campaign."

A few weeks later, on October 31, Joanne Amos contributed $2,000 to the Bush/Cheney campaign.

Thank God there was a copy of the Kansas City Star near me as my crisis reached its zenith. Plumbing the depths of emotional agony, I sat facing the wall, rocking and banging my head against the textured stucco to punish myself for my acts of betrayal. Out of the corner of my eye, I caught a fleeting glimpse of an all too familiar sight. Charles Krauthammer’s tiny black and white photo on the Op/Ed page was giving me his patented sneer, that malevolent half-smile which I had cursed so many times in the past. Yet today he appeared much less derisive. In fact, he had an avuncular appearance as he kindly beckoned me to imbibe the brilliance emanating from his recently penned piece, which was accompanied by his reassuring image on the slightly yellowed newsprint. Drawn in by Krauthammer’s irresistible Siren’s Call, I halted my self-flagellation and devoured his masterful drumbeat for war against Iran in which he proclaimed his unflinching support for the Bush Regime's War on Terror. In that moment, I came to a stunning realization. Charles Krauthammer is a prophet!

Tears streamed down my face as I realized how many filthy distortions I had written about our great nation. How could I ever redeem myself? True American heroes like Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, and Michelle Malkin courageously risk their lives each day as they deliver the truth about our noble, courageous, and benevolent Homeland. The poor, uneducated masses thirst deeply for enlightenment as they wander in the desert of ignorance in search of the oasis of knowledge tended by these pillars of American society. Savage and his fellow purveyors of truth risk Terrorist attacks with each word they utter or write. Who knows around which corner Osama could be lurking, ready to strike them down with a dash of Anthrax powder to the face or a gash of the carotid with a pair of box cutters. Meanwhile, over the last year, I had written essay after essay in support of silly, idealistic notions like social justice, peace and human rights, even supporting the cause of those evil Palestinians! It takes the breath away. I had been playing right into the hands of the Terrorists. How could I have been so naive? What could I do to make it better?

Desperate, I looked back at the bold countenance of Krauthammer. Through his stern yet conservatively compassionate example, Charles showed me the way. I knew what I had to do. Feeling calm and determined, I began my metamorphosis and flew into action.

Jumping on my computer, I opened a new email and quickly composed a few words. In the subject line, I typed, "America the Beautiful." Opening my address book, I felt a rush of elation as I sent it to virtually all 3,000 of the liberal scourge and repulsive foreigners (associates from what was now a previous life) whose email addresses contaminated my computer. The email read as follows:

"Our intentions are always good. We may kill a few million innocent civilians here and there, but you have to crack some eggs if you want to make an omelette. We Americans are God's gift to humanity and we can do no wrong! It is time that you liberal cockroaches and foreign dogs engage in some serious fear and trembling. Get on your knees and bow before the Almighty USA...."

That felt so good that I posted it on Thomas Paine's Corner, my blog (and direct conduit to the Internet). Almost 150,000 people have visited my humble site since May of last year, and I vowed that future readers would encounter a very different animal. Gone would be the focus on human rights and dignity. War, corporate power, winning at all costs, Social Darwinism, and the spread of America's version of freedom and democracy would breathe new purpose and meaning into my pathetically idealistic site.

Thankfully, George Bush, a man who I now viewed as a hero, was speaking that day at Kansas State University (not far from my home). His presence further strengthened my spirit. Just thinking about his courageous defense of his noble actions to protect us from those vile Terrorists gave me goose bumps. I made a mental note to compose an essay arguing that all Americans need to consider civil liberties a luxury that must be sacrificed in the face of the Terrorist threat. Further, I resolved to write a piece to persuade the American people that Congress and the Supreme Court need to stay out of Bush's way as he pursues evil men like bin Laden. Bush is a man of God and we know that we can trust him to do what is best for our country, our families and for us. Those traitorous Americans who dare to dissent against him deserve to join the captured Terrorists for an indefinite stay at Guantanamo Bay. The Bill of Rights is an impediment to expedient justice and needs to be re-written, or perhaps simply discarded altogether.

(Note to self: Burn the ACLU and Amnesty International Cards and tell the wife to direct future donations to the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society).

Turning my attention to foreigners , which is what we real Americans call those pitiable individuals on whom our Christian God did not bestow the blessing of birth on US soil, I decided to pen a quick discourse for Thomas Paine's Corner explaining to them that Americans are morally superior, smarter, stronger, wealthier, and essentially superior to them:

"Our nation dominates the world, militarily, culturally, and financially, and those of you who do not embrace the McWallStreet Way deserve to wallow in the misery of your limited existence. If you are not going to play the game by our rules, you do not deserve the resources you have. If we do not wrest them from you militarily, we will see to it that our puppets dominate your governments and enable our powerful corporate entities to exploit you through free trade agreements. Learn English (the language we stole from our flunkies across the Atlantic) because we will not bother studying your trivial means of communication. As White Goodman said in the movie Dodgeball:

“We’re better than you, and we know it!”

Having duly informed the foreigners (with whom we so generously share the air we breathe) that they represent mere ants in the afterbirth of our great nation, I decided it was time to remind them to feel appreciative that America allows them to continue in their miserable existence. I wanted to write something that would bring them to the realization that when they arise each morning, it isn't their chosen deity they need to thank for making it to another day; it is the United States. Simultaneously, I wanted to remind my fellow patriots (and those skeptical liberal cowards) why the United States is such a glorious nation on which God continues to bestow bountiful blessings.

Driven by my renewed sense of purpose, and my blazing passion to follow my new-found inspiration, mentor, and idol, Charles Krauthammer, I elected to compile a compelling (yet succinct) detail, an accounting if you will, of the world's debt to America. Men like Charles were born to deliver sight to the blind and knowledge to the ignorant. I took a moment and prayed that one day I would have the strength to carry such a burden, and to do it as well as Charles. Meanwhile, I vowed to press ahead. Realizing that the Project for the New American Century must be implemented, regardless of the human or financial cost, I felt duty bound to quantify the world’s debts to America, which most certainly validate the PNAC:

1. While only representing 3% of the population, Americans consume 25% of the world's resources. We are keeping the other 97% of the population spiritually healthy. Detachment from the material world is critical on the path to enlightenment.

2. We cleared the North American continent of millions of backward, inferior savages to pave the way for the splendor, beauty, and glory of our culture and technology.

3. We civilized millions of savages from the continent of Africa and allowed them to share our continent. We fed and clothed them in return for the work they performed. When that was not enough to satisfy them, we freed them. They did not like a man named Jim Crow, so we got rid of him. We integrated them into our schools. We even put them into token positions of power. There is virtually no end to what we have done for African Americans.

4. We have been instrumental in ensuring a Jewish homeland in the Middle East, and have provided Israel the financial wherewithal to continue in their eradication of those barbaric Palestinians.

5. We had the guts to use atomic weapons to end the war against those bellicose Japanese. Look how many lives we saved by ending the war!

6. We showed those artists and wounded soldiers at Dresden not to mess with the United States.

7. The citizens of Tokyo will not soon forget the lesson we taught them during the fire-bombing.

8. We saved over 100,000 Japanese-Americans from retribution by their fellow citizens as we placed them in protective custody during World War II.

9. We let nature take its course in New Orleans and thereby eliminated an array of problems associated with those animals living in the Lower Ninth Ward.

10. We killed over 3 million Communist-loving Vietnamese, and would have eliminated more if it hadn't been for those pacifist, reefer-smoking Hippies. Don't even get me started on Jane Fonda. I still wonder how she evaded execution for her treason.

11. We create 25% of the greenhouse gasses, providing a plethora of carbon dioxide on which plants and trees can thrive. And who wouldn’t enjoy a warmer climate? Winter is a miserable time of the year anyway. Those very same people who gripe about "Global Warming" are the ones who scream the loudest when we deregulate the utilities (making money is the essence of Capitalism, by God) and cry about their gas bills being too high when it gets cold.

12. Despite having killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (between the Gulf War, the post-war economic sanctions, and the Iraq War), we have eliminated a rogue dictator who we now believe was preparing to acquire weapons of mass destruction. We have also taken the fight to the Terrorists on their own turf. If we weren't fighting them in the Middle East, we would be waging war against them in Pittsburgh or Cleveland or God only knows! Excuse me a moment; I just got a case of the shivers…

13. As the wealthiest nation in the world, we have the intestinal fortitude to allow a significant number of our citizens to suffer homelessness, poverty, and inadequate medical treatment so that the top 1% of our populace can live as royalty. After all, what kind of a civilized society would we be without nobility?

14. We continue cutting unnecessary programs to benefit the poor, minorities, consumers, education, and working people so we can funnel incredible sums to our military industrial complex. We are the arms dealer to the world and our weapons manufacturers make a fortune, boosting the economy. Our powerful military enables us to police the globe and keep America safe!

15. We routinely ignore international law, cutting through nettlesome rules that prevent us from “gittin’ er done”. America is a "can do" nation. We don't have time to trifle with petty laws and rules.

16. We put John Bolton in the UN. He will finally teach those American- hating humanitarian idealists that they can do it our way, or not do it at all.

17. To our credit, those moral abominations known as homosexuals have few, if any, protected rights in our nation. In fact, under the inspired leadership of Bush and his highly competent administration, we are moving closer to eliminating the Bill of Rights for the population as a whole. Those individual liberties just make it too unwieldy to manage the rabble of the poor and working class.

18. We helped our allies impose brutally oppressive terms on Germany after WW I, which created a sociopolitical environment in which Hitler thrived. Despite the ensuing tragedy, misery, and suffering, the horror of WW II marked the ascent of America to its throne atop the world and gave birth to an economy which thrives on perpetual war, a natural and unavoidable aspect of the human condition. Thank God America is here to manage the inevitable wars by manufacturing and selling its implements, waging it, and creating new ways to market it to the public.

19. We implement free trade policies.(Take note of how adroitly we disguise imposition as negotiation—people seldom stop to realize that few of the miniscule nations acquiescing to the free trade agreements would dare say no to a behemoth like us). These free trade agreements are bonanzas for our powerful corporations. Under the "negotiated" terms, they are able to utilize other countries by tapping their resources and paying their people the wages their “free”markets will bear, unfettered by that nonsensical “minimum wage”. In exchange, those ungrateful foreigners get employers who keep their people off the street (and out of trouble) and a small percentage of the profits on their resources, which they were too technologically backward to access anyway. It is all quite fair.

20. We relieved Mexico of half of its territory under the fine guidance of President James K. Polk and it only cost 25,000 Mexican lives. We are to be commended for keeping the body count low.

21. When that ruthless monarch, Queen Liliuokalani of Hawaii, threatened the corporate interests of Dole, we annexed her islands. Her people were far better off living under our democracy than under her despotic rule.

22. We use depleted uranium in our “conventional” weaponry to ensure that there is lasting suffering for our conquered foes in the wake of our wars of necessity.

23. We wrested control of Guam, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Cuba away from those insidious Spaniards (who tainted much of our Hemisphere with their language, which most Americans do not understand or want to understand).

24. We did engage in torture, scorched earth tactics, and the murder of 1,000,000 civilians, but by God we beat those Filipino bastards. We won and held on to what was ours. In the end, that was all that mattered in the Philippines.

25. We cleverly created the “War on Drugs” as a means to maintain our corporate domination of Central and South American countries. Where would those poverty-stricken, Third World nations be without the free market capitalism our corporations inject into their economies? I shudder to think.

26. To act in the best interests of the people (again by protecting our corporations), we sent financing and equipment to military rulers in Guatemala, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Communist peasants (indigenous Mayans). Thank God for the strength Reagan showed in supporting Rios Montt’s Christian campaign, in which he annihilated 20,000 of those Commie bastards and drove another 100,000 out of the country.

27. Reagan showed similar mettle in El Salvador and Nicaragua. Under his leadership, we exterminated another 70,000 subversive Communists.

28. Despite that dreaded Platte Amendment, we held onto Guantanamo Bay. What a stroke of fortune for the world! Our great nation has imprisoned some of the world's most dangerous Terrorists at "Gitmo", and they will not be getting out anytime soon.

29. To punish Fidel Castro for robbing us of our ability to properly utilize Cuban people and resources, we have tried to assassinate or overthrow him on numerous occasions. Castro provided Cubans with education, jobs and health care. We imposed harsh sanctions on the Cuban economy that remain in effect today. Despite our lack of success in removing this Communist scourge from our Hemisphere, Castro's national health care system (which wastes money on indigents and the undeserving) has not infected America. Our capitalist model of health care for profit remains vibrant. We have done well.

30. We project an image of altruism by giving more money in foreign aid than any other nation. However, the American taxpayers need not worry. The reality is that we contribute a mere .15% of our national income, a percentage which is significantly lower than at least twenty other countries. We are miserly with our charity but we look good doing it, and those ingrates around the globe dam well better appreciate it, even if it does not involve true sacrifice on our part.

I would love to have added more to my accounting of the world's debt to our great nation, but Sunday morning rolled around and I needed to run. My wife and children were away, but I still had a big day planned to revel in my rebirth. As I headed to McDonald's to down a few McGriddles, I gassed up my Suburban, which only set me back about $100.00. I made it to the First Cavalry Fundamentalist Church of Christ in time to listen to Pastor Jeremiah McNeil remind his flock that Hugo Chavez is a Terrorist, homosexuals are morally depraved, the End Times are near (but we will be OK because we are Rapture-ready), and that we must stand firm and resolute with our Wartime President. Later, I headed to Wal-Mart to do some serious shopping with my credit cards. Tired of my abstemious existence (foolishly struggling stay debt free), I dropped about $8k on an array of computer and electronics equipment. Now that is the American Way. Play now and pay later! I felt ecstatic to save a few bucks and did not care an iota about the Chinese who had suffered deplorable working conditions to manufacture the goods I was buying. I was indifferent to the poverty level wage the clerk was earning as she rang me up.

As I completed a few more errands, I tuned in to Angry Man's radio and listened to the latest rants against the grave domestic threats posed by liberals and socialists. And I loved it because I felt validated, and because it drowned out the sound of my SUV sucking my gas tank dry. I devoted the rest of my day to manly activities, like watching football and drinking beer (so I could reassure myself of my heterosexuality). Evening descended and I turned on Fox News to ensure I would get "fair and balanced" coverage. They showed Cheney drumming up support for the war against Iran. I found myself nodding emphatic agreement when he said that we had to consider military options because the fundamentalist Islamic government was months away from developing nuclear weapons. War. Must make war. War. Must make war. That little chant ran through my head for several minutes, even after the Cheney segment was over. It had a rhythmic, almost hypnotic quality to it. Goddamn those Terrorists!

Later in the evening, I delved into The Savage Nation for more powerful insight into the leftist cancer eating away at America. After a couple of chapters, mental fatigue set in and I could no longer read. My thoughts wandered to a Website I had recently spotted called Jihad Unspun. I felt the rage welling up inside me. Those filthy Muslims contaminate our minds with their propaganda and threaten our way of life with their Terrorism. That sealed it for me. Tomorrow I would change the name of my blog from Thomas Paine's Corner to Neocon Unspun to counter those bastards. My anger subsided and slowly shifted to joy as I began planning my revamped site format. Finally closing my eyes, I smiled contentedly as I recalled the images of "Old Glory" and Charles Krauthammer, both of which had been indelibly etched into my mind. God bless the USA and thank you for Neoconning me, Charles.

Jason Miller is a 39 year old activist writer with a degree in liberal arts. When he is not spending time with his wife and three sons, researching, or writing, he is working as a loan counselor. He is a member of Amnesty International and an avid supporter of Oxfam International and Human Rights Watch. He welcomes responses at willpowerful@hotmail.com or comments on his blog, Thomas Paine's Corner, at http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/.

Widely viewed as the most successful chairman in the Fed's 92-year history, Greenspan presided over an era of low inflation rates, low unemployment and the longest economic expansion in U.S. history — a decade of uninterrupted growth from March 1991 to March 2001.

Greenspan was a master in handling not only the economy but also the treacherous shoals of politics. He won nominations for the Fed job from four presidents — three Republicans and one Democrat. The occasional critics said he was too political.

Upset over Greenspan's support of President Bush's tax cuts, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Greenspan was "one of the biggest political hacks we have in Washington."

In Greenspan's early days, Wall Street investors also harbored concern that Greenspan, who had advised Republican Presidents Nixon, Ford and Reagan, would lack the iron-willed independence needed to fill the shoes of Paul Volcker.

Volcker conquered a decade-long bout of double-digit inflation by driving up interest rates to levels not seen since the Civil War.

Showing his own inflation-fighting credentials, Greenspan pushed through a half-point rate increase at his first Fed policy meeting. After just two months on the job, the stock market crashed. It was called Black Monday, Oct. 19, 1987; many blamed Greenspan's credit-tightening.

The Fed declared it stood ready to lend freely to distressed institutions. It was a policy that would become a hallmark of Greenspan's tenure. The market stabilized and began rising. So did Greenspan's star.

It was the first of many economic crises that would confront Greenspan.

- From 1989 to 1992, hundreds of savings and loans and banks - more than at any time since the Great Depression - went out of business.

- A global currency crisis began in Asia in 1997 and spread to Russia. Some 40 percent of the global economy was pushed into recession. The U.S. economy seriously was threatened before Greenspan's Fed stepped in with a series of rapid-fire rate reductions in the fall of 1998.

- The stock market bubble burst in 2000, wiping out trillions of dollars in paper wealth.

During Greenspan's 18 1/2 years in office, the country had two recessions. The first was in 1990-91, when oil prices spiked after Iraq invaded Kuwait. The second came in 2001 in the aftermath of the steep plunge in stock prices in the previous year. Both were mild downturns that lasted eight months each.

By contrast, in the 18 years before Greenspan took over at the Fed, the country experienced four severe downturns.

By the numbers, the overall economy has done well during Greenspan's terms.

Consumer inflation soared as high as 13.3 percent in 1979 amid a decade of oil shocks. It was at 3.4 percent last year, even though the country was hit by another oil surge that pushed gasoline prices above $3 per gallon.

Unemployment stands at 4.9 percent after dropping to a four-decade low of 4 percent in 2000. Greenspan was able to convince skeptical Fed colleagues that rising productivity would allow jobless rates to fall without triggering inflation.

"He was the first economist in the United States to perceive what was happening," said Lyle Gramley, a former Fed board member.

Greenspan says he was merely building upon the inflation gains made by Volcker. Greenspan credits factors such as globalization and deregulation of U.S. industries for setting the stage for the country's prosperity.

Private analysts believe Greenspan is being modest.

"Greenspan has had the most successful tenure in Fed history. He kept inflation under very tight control while avoiding any major recessions," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's in New York.

Of course, there were controversies.

Many analysts cite Greenspan's decision to support the current president's tax cuts in 2001. They helped push the federal budget from trillion-dollar surpluses to record deficits.

Greenspan says he would recommend tax cuts again, given projections — which failed to happen — of budget surpluses that would total $5.6 trillion over a decade.

He is also faulted for failing to rein in the high-flying stock market in time. He did famously wonder in 1996 whether investors could be in the grip of "irrational exuberance." But prices kept climbing. When the bubble burst, Greenspan moved to contain the damage by lowering interest rates.

"If Greenspan had been stronger in his views, then the bubble would not have been as large and the subsequent correction not as severe," says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com.

Greenspan's response: To pop the bubble earlier, the Fed would have had to raise interest rates so high that the country would have been pushed into a severe recession.

He worked to transform the Fed from a secretive, poorly understood institution into one that communicates more effectively with the public and investors.

Before his arrival, Wall Street financial houses hired armies of economists to try to determine when the Fed was moving its main interest rate, since there was no public announcement.

In 1994, Greenspan nudged reluctant colleagues to reverse that policy. That has been followed by clearer policy statements signaling future intentions and earlier release of the Fed's minutes.

"Without any question, the Fed is vastly different now in terms of openness and transparency," said economist David Jones, the author of four books on the Greenspan Fed. "Greenspan's theme has been the more markets know, the better."

As his influence grew, Greenspan was called upon to advance opinions on matters beyond the realm of monetary policy. Not only did he lend support to Bush's tax cuts, but eight years earlier he blessed
President Clinton's tax increases to deal with troubling budget deficits.

This has opened him to attacks from both Republicans and Democrats.

By comparison, Ben Bernanke, the former Princeton economics professor selected to succeed Greenspan, says he plans to limit his public advice to areas directly under the Fed's control. Bernanke also has pledged to follow the Greenspan play book when it comes to running the economy.

That may turn out to be Greenspan's most lasting legacy.

RealtyTrac publishes the largest national database of pre-foreclosure and foreclosure properties, with more than 550,000 properties in nearly 2,000 counties across the country, and is the foreclosure data provider to MSN House & Home, Yahoo! Real Estate, AOL Real Estate and HomeGain.com.

“December’s higher US foreclosure rates were almost exactly the same foreclosure rates reported in October, which means that the two months with the highest numbers of foreclosures were both in the fourth quarter of 2005,” said James J. Saccacio, chief executive officer of RealtyTrac. “These rising numbers to finish off the year may indicate that economic factors such as higher interest rates are making it harder for some homeowners stay current on their mortgage payments.”

Texas documented the highest foreclosure rate of any state thanks to a 61 percent increase in new foreclosures in December. The state reported 12,753 properties entering some stage of foreclosure, one new foreclosure for every 631 households and the most new foreclosures reported by any state. Texas accounted for more than 15 percent of the nation’s new foreclosures.

Increasing foreclosures in Ohio and Indiana kept foreclosure rates in those states among the nation’s five highest for the second month in a row. Ohio reported 6,767 properties entering some stage of foreclosure, a 36 percent increase and one new foreclosure for every 707 households. Indiana reported 3,387 properties entering some stage of foreclosure, a 21 percent increase and one new foreclosure for every 746 households.

Foreclosures jumped 30 percent in Nevada and 22 percent in Utah, and foreclosure rates in those states also ranked among five highest nationwide. Nevada reported 1,124 properties entering some stage of foreclosure, one foreclosure for every 772 households, and Utah reported 871 properties entering some stage of foreclosure, one foreclosure for every 882 households.

Foreclosure rates in Colorado, Georgia and Florida dropped out of the five highest nationwide thanks to decreasing foreclosures in December. Colorado reported 1,264 properties entering some stage of foreclosure — a 53 percent decrease — and the state’s foreclosure rate registered below the national average for the first time in 2005. Georgia reported 3,007 properties entering some stage of foreclosure, a 32 percent decrease and one new foreclosure for every 1,030 households. Florida reported 8,050 properties entering some stage of foreclosure, a 9 percent decrease and one new foreclosure for every 908 households.

California reported 7,674 properties entering some stage of foreclosure, a 27 percent increase and the third most new foreclosures reported by any state in December. But with new one foreclosure for every 1,592 households, the state’s foreclosure rate remained below the national average. New York also maintained a foreclosure rate below the national average with 4,500 new foreclosures, a 4 percent decrease from the previous month.

The RealtyTrac Monthly U.S. Foreclosure Market Report provides a graphical map that illustrates foreclosure percentiles by state (appended to this press release or available by request), as well as the total number of homes in some stage of foreclosure nationwide and by state over the preceding month. Data is also available at the individual county level. RealtyTrac’s report includes properties in all three phases of foreclosure: Pre-foreclosures — Notice of Default (NOD) and Lis Pendens (LIS); Foreclosures — Notice of Trustee Sale and Notice of Foreclosure Sale (NTS and NFS); and Real Estate Owned, or REO properties (that have been repurchased by a bank).

Globalization is by definition an opening to the world, an exchange of goods and people, a method of cooperation. It is therefore the opposite of withdrawal and reclusion.

From this point of view, the decision of George Bush - the alleged champion of globalization - to build a separation wall between his country and Mexico, not only surprises but seems out of place. It reminds us of other sinister walls of history. Before being an actual construction, a wall must be built psychologically and mentally. It reveals that state of mind that troubles people and forces them into retreat, at least as far as physical safety is concerned.

The fear of terrorist attacks - which by the way, we denounce severely, no matter what the motivation behind it may be – has become so haunting, that the White House chief has been forced to take action on two levels: externally, by building insurmountable barriers; and internally, by subjecting the American people to all kinds of inspections and surveillance (phone-tapping, e-mail reading, automated cameras …).

The strangest thing is that Mr. George Bush still says he "doesn't understand" why his country is so "hated" and "detested" around the world. On this subject, everyone remembers his famous question: "Why do they hate us. We are such a kind-hearted people?" In reality, the American chief executive simply cannot be unaware of the answer.

The badly stained image of the country of Abraham Lincoln and Jimmy Carter is the result of radical warmongering international policies, now being applied [by Bush] without thought for the six years that he and his cartel of neoconservatives have been in the White House.

Even during the Vietnam War, America never scorned its own values as much as it does today, the same values it wishes to instill in others! Given this situation, it is no wonder that George Walker Bush is erecting towers and barbed wire, rather than bridges and bonds of friendship with the outside world.

This project, which is no different at all from the one in Gaza, has already reached an advanced phase of preparation. On December 16th, Congress voted in favor of the wall by a crushing majority. This steel wall, which is meant to thwart illegal immigration and terrorism, is to be over 1,000 kilometers in length, along the United States border. An actual modern version of the Great Wall of China. This 15-foot-high wall will bristle with watchtowers, be lit with powerful searchlights and scanned by sophisticated video cameras.

The news of the passage of the project by the Congress came as a bombshell in the most directly concerned neighboring countries. State Secretaries from around Central America, including Mexico, Columbia and the Dominican Republic, held an emergency meeting in Mexico to offer a common response to the U.S. decision.

But it is Mexico, with its 3,200 kilometer border with the United States, that will be most penalized by this edifice.

This explains President Vicente Fox's blaze of anger. Even though he usually has moderate reactions to his "friend George's" decisions, he was incredibly harsh when he denounced his "hypocrisy" on this subject: "During the 20th century, it would have been unimaginable for a wall to be built between two border States, two sister nations, two partner nations." he exclaimed. "It is a deeply negative signal, announcing nothing good from a country that prides itself for being a democracy built by immigrants." For the former President of Coca-Cola Mexico, the Congressional vote is "a slap in the face."

According to consulates in the United States, 3,800 Mexican citizens have been killed over the past few years by U.S. border patrol officers, 441 in 2005. It is a slaughter which encouraged the Mexican press to compare this wall to another wall, just as "shameful" and "deadly": the Berlin Wall.

It is a disapproval shared by the most influential American newspapers: "This wall is xenophobic and shameful. It tarnishes the image of the United States" sums up a disappointed "New York Times" editorial …