What Caught My Eye Today

CIA - The Bush administration was under court order not to discard evidence of detainee torture and abuse months before the CIA destroyed videotapes that revealed some of its harshest interrogation tactics. Normally, that would force the government to defend itself against obstruction allegations. But the CIA may have an out: its clandestine network of overseas prisons. While judges focused on the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and tried to guarantee that any evidence of detainee abuse would be preserved, the CIA was performing its toughest questioning half a world away. And by the time President Bush publicly acknowledged the secret prison system, interrogation videotapes of two terrorism suspects had been destroyed. The CIA destroyed the tapes in November 2005. That June, a U.S. District Judge had ordered the Bush administration to safeguard "all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay." At the time, that seemed to cover all detainees in U.S. custody. But Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the terrorism suspects whose interrogations were videotaped and then destroyed, weren't at Guantanamo Bay. They were prisoners that existed off the books — and apparently beyond the scope of the court's order. While this might be enough of a legal loophole to let some officials off the hook, I doubt if this will do much to quell criticisms that the U.S. knowingly conducted interrogations of terrorism suspects using techniques that could arguably be considered as torture.

U.S. Budget - Republicans say it's OK not to cover the $50 billion in revenue losses from Congress' annual alternative minimum tax fix to save millions of families from higher taxes — even as the GOP president counts on revenues from that higher levy to reduce the red ink in his budget. Democrats look at it as smoke-and-mirrors budgeting, the kind that has allowed the federal debt to swell to more than $9 trillion. The AMT, which disallows most exemptions and deductions, was initiated in 1969 to catch some 155 super-rich people who weren't paying any taxes. But unlike several other taxes, Congress opted not to index the AMT for inflation. Consequently, every year more people are subject to it. The number was 4 million in 2006 and that could grow to 25 million, many in the $75,000 to $200,000 income range, if Congress doesn't act. The average increase for each of those taxpayers would be about $2,000. The problem is that the administration must adhere to current law in drawing up it long-term budgets. That means a steady growth of AMT revenues that will contribute to its goal of balancing the budget by 2012. The White House did include an AMT fix in this year's budget proposal, but assumes more than $500 billion in AMT revenues through 2012. So if I understand this correctly, the AMT that was originally conceived to make sure that 155 super-rich people paid their fair share of taxes is now expected to impact some 25 million people? And furthermore, Congress is at an impasse because Republicans and Democrats cannot agree on how to make up the shortfall in revenues. Is it possible, that we are overly complicating the issue? If this AMT deal served its original purpose back in 1969, can we not just recalibrate it to the present day. I'm not saying that the top 155 wage earners will make up for the $50 billion revenue shortfall, but surely there must be some sort of middle ground between 155 and 25 million. Alternatively, we could put a moratorium on funding for the war on terrorism. Given the current outlays, I'm thinking a month or two would cover that $50 billion.

Health - For the first time in nearly 50 years, the average cholesterol level for U.S. adults is in the ideal range, according to a new government report. Results from a national blood test survey found the average total cholesterol level was 199. Doctors like patients to have total cholesterol readings of 200 or lower. The growing use of cholesterol-lowering pills in people 60 and older is believed to be a main reason for the improvement. The survey collects data in two-year intervals. The new results are based on a national sample of about 4,500 people 20 and older from 2005-06. The new 199 level compares with 204 in 1999-2000. When the survey first began in 1960, the average cholesterol was at 222. Researchers also found that the percentage of adults with high cholesterol, of 240 or higher, dropped to 16 percent, down from 20 percent in the early 1990s. Good news to be sure, though I'm not exactly sure that we should be cheering from the rooftops just yet. We just barely made it under the threshold. And another thing. I don't want to sound like a killjoy, but this finding seems somewhat at odds with the fact that a growing segment of the U.S. population is considered obese and that life expectancy rates are expected to decrease for the first time.

Language - Here is another example of the decline of Western civilization as we know it. "W00t," a hybrid of letters and numbers used by gamers as an exclamation of happiness or triumph, topped all other terms in the Merriam-Webster's online poll for the word that best sums up 2007. The dictionary publisher said "w00t" was an ideal choice because it blends whimsy and new technology. Gamers commonly substitute numbers and symbols for the letters they resemble creating what they call "l33t speak" — that's "leet" when spoken, short for "elite" to the rest of the world. The 2006 pick, "truthiness," also has its roots in pop culture. It was popularized by Comedy Central satirical political commentator Stephen Colbert. Some also-rans in the 2007 list: the use of "facebook" as a verb to signify using the Web site by that name; nuanced terms such as "quixotic," "hypocrite" and "conundrum"; and "blamestorm," a meeting in which mistakes are aired, fingers are pointed and much discomfort is had by all. So like I'm a little confused here. If I go out and buy myself a new dictionary, will "w00t" appear as an actual word. I'm not exactly an expert linguist, but I've been operating under the assumption that words tend to consist mostly of letters. I have a hard enough time spelling my words correctly just using letters. If they start adding numbers to the mix, I'll really be in a bind.