"The Great City of New Orleans, will be rebuilt." -- President Bush, speaking after Hurricane Katrina.
Facing some pressure to provide another installment of aid for rebuilding the Gulf Coast, which had been stuck on $62 billion (of an estimated $250 billion cost) since the early days after the disaster, Congress ponied up another $29 billion this week. Well, sort of.
Turns out that all except five billion of it came from the FEMA disaster relief fund. This is the fund that has been used to provide housing and pay other expenses for people displaced by the storm. That has never been included as part of the cost of 'rebuilding.'
WASHINGTON - An aid package to help the Gulf Coast rebuild after Hurricane Katrina will be siphoned from a dwindling FEMA disaster fund, leaving agency officials wondering Thursday whether they will need more money to help storm evacuees beyond next spring.
All but $5 billion of the $29 billion aid package, which won final congressional approval Thursday, will come from the Federal Emergency Management Agency's disaster relief fund. The fund had a $34.7 billion balance last week, meaning FEMA will have about $11 billion left to help move thousands of evacuated families from hotels into homes and for other assistance.
"I think we're going to have enough," FEMA Acting Director R. David Paulison told reporters. "We're watching it very closely."
FEMA spokeswoman Nicol Andrews later said President Bush probably will seek more money from Congress early next year to replenish the relief fund, which is chiefly for immediate aid for disaster victims and state and local governments.
Note that word, 'probably.'
This is a Congress which cut funding for New Orleans levees before the storm (Never forget the prescient words of Jefferson Parish emergency management director Walter Maestri when he told the New Orleans Times-Picayune on June 8, 2004, a full year before Katrina: "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us."), and as a result of this kind of reckless budget-cutting (and it now turns out that Katrina was a category III, which the levees were supposed to be designed for, so therefore it may well have been a maintenance problem rather than a design problem), managed to LOSE A MAJOR AMERICAN CITY, and yet is STILL trying to wiggle out from having to actually PAY for the damage.
Robbing the refugees with a promise that they will 'probably' get the help they need in the future is not the way to finance reconstruction.
Friday, December 23, 2005
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Private contractor not covered by government exemption from lawsuits.
A few weeks ago I put up a post entitled, We live in the age of the corporate mercenary army. The post brought up the topic of private 'contractors' who have been hired by the Defense Department to provide security and carry out other duties in Iraq. Of course, because of the nature of the work, it is not surprising that some of these contractors end up in the thick of the fight. Additionally, many of them are well prepared to do so, having undergone a great deal of military training, in fact in many, if not most cases, having already served in the military.
However, the problems that have beset our military, including inadequate planning, lack of support and inadequate armor have also beset the contractors. In one very well publicized incident in April 2004, four employees of Blackwater Security, essentially a mercenary outfit, were attacked and had their bodies burnt and strung up from a bridge in Fallujah. Iraqi police finally responded to the call, thirty-six hours later.
But it turns out that the story doesn't end there. There is a story out today about a lawsuit filed by the families of the four contractors, which if successful could limit the future use of rental troops in combat zones.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An unprecedented lawsuit stemming from the gruesome killing of four American civilians in Iraq is slowly making its way through the U.S. legal system, closely watched by companies estimated to field up to 100,000 contractors alongside the U.S. military.
Lawyers and military experts say the case highlights legal gray zones, a lack of regulation and little oversight of a booming global industry believed to bring in more than $150 billion annually. Civilian military contractors now perform scores of functions once restricted to regular troops, and a trend toward "privatizing war" has been accelerating steadily.
The suit was brought by the families of four civilian contractors shot last year by Iraqi insurgents, who burned their bodies and hung the charred remains from a bridge across the Euphrates river in the city of Falluja.
The four -- Stephen Helveston, Mike Teague, Jerko Zovko and Wesley Batalona -- worked for Blackwater Security Consulting LLC, one of the companies fielding armed civilians in Iraq under contract with the Pentagon. All four had military experience and signed contracts assuming all risks and waiving their right to sue.
The suit against Blackwater says the company broke explicit terms of its contract with the men by sending them to escort a food convoy in unarmored cars, without heavy machine guns, proper briefings, advance notice or pre-mission reconnaissance, in teams that were understaffed and lacked even a map.
"Sending four men out on the security mission instead of the required six essentially took away the team's ability to defend itself," the suit says. "Not having one driver, one navigator and a rear-gunner with a 180 degree field of fire, the team never had a chance...the insurgents were literally able to walk up behind the vehicles and open fire upon them at close range.'
Note that the suit is not against the government, but against Blackwater. However, if successful, it would make it problematical whether in the future, mercenaries hired by private companies could be sent into combat zones, since the cost of lawsuits that could follow as a result would become prohibitive. Of course the Pentagon is expressly protected by U.S. law from being sued because of deaths resulting from combat, but there is no such law protecting private contractors. The suit in this case challenges the disclaimer the men signed since the company for their part was supposed to provide at least a competent support network.
The bottom line is this: War is expensive, and it needs to be fought by the military. Private contractors have their roles in life, but working in combat zones best left to the military. If we need to expand the size of the active duty military (as John Kerry said we did last year, when he proposed adding two new combat divisions plus support divisions) then we shouldn't try to do it on the cheap.
However, the problems that have beset our military, including inadequate planning, lack of support and inadequate armor have also beset the contractors. In one very well publicized incident in April 2004, four employees of Blackwater Security, essentially a mercenary outfit, were attacked and had their bodies burnt and strung up from a bridge in Fallujah. Iraqi police finally responded to the call, thirty-six hours later.
But it turns out that the story doesn't end there. There is a story out today about a lawsuit filed by the families of the four contractors, which if successful could limit the future use of rental troops in combat zones.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An unprecedented lawsuit stemming from the gruesome killing of four American civilians in Iraq is slowly making its way through the U.S. legal system, closely watched by companies estimated to field up to 100,000 contractors alongside the U.S. military.
Lawyers and military experts say the case highlights legal gray zones, a lack of regulation and little oversight of a booming global industry believed to bring in more than $150 billion annually. Civilian military contractors now perform scores of functions once restricted to regular troops, and a trend toward "privatizing war" has been accelerating steadily.
The suit was brought by the families of four civilian contractors shot last year by Iraqi insurgents, who burned their bodies and hung the charred remains from a bridge across the Euphrates river in the city of Falluja.
The four -- Stephen Helveston, Mike Teague, Jerko Zovko and Wesley Batalona -- worked for Blackwater Security Consulting LLC, one of the companies fielding armed civilians in Iraq under contract with the Pentagon. All four had military experience and signed contracts assuming all risks and waiving their right to sue.
The suit against Blackwater says the company broke explicit terms of its contract with the men by sending them to escort a food convoy in unarmored cars, without heavy machine guns, proper briefings, advance notice or pre-mission reconnaissance, in teams that were understaffed and lacked even a map.
"Sending four men out on the security mission instead of the required six essentially took away the team's ability to defend itself," the suit says. "Not having one driver, one navigator and a rear-gunner with a 180 degree field of fire, the team never had a chance...the insurgents were literally able to walk up behind the vehicles and open fire upon them at close range.'
Note that the suit is not against the government, but against Blackwater. However, if successful, it would make it problematical whether in the future, mercenaries hired by private companies could be sent into combat zones, since the cost of lawsuits that could follow as a result would become prohibitive. Of course the Pentagon is expressly protected by U.S. law from being sued because of deaths resulting from combat, but there is no such law protecting private contractors. The suit in this case challenges the disclaimer the men signed since the company for their part was supposed to provide at least a competent support network.
The bottom line is this: War is expensive, and it needs to be fought by the military. Private contractors have their roles in life, but working in combat zones best left to the military. If we need to expand the size of the active duty military (as John Kerry said we did last year, when he proposed adding two new combat divisions plus support divisions) then we shouldn't try to do it on the cheap.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Clearly something isn't right when the judge overseeing the program resigns in protest
There is already secrecy in intelligence cases. But today, a Judge who oversees secret hearings, resigned in protest over the warrentless searches, fearing that it could taint the work of the secret panel of jurists that he serves on.
A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources.
U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John D. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation.
Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work.
It isn't just the judge who is concerned about the warrantless wiretaps.
Word of Robertson's resignation came as two Senate Republicans yesterday joined the call for congressional investigations into the National Security Agency's warrantless interception of telephone calls and e-mails to overseas locations by U.S. citizens suspected of links to terrorist groups. They questioned the legality of the operation and the extent to which the White House kept Congress informed.
Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) echoed concerns raised by Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has promised hearings in the new year.
These three are now joining three Democrats on the committee, in also raising the issue and calling for an investigation.
The whole idea of a warrentless search is absurd. The White House can easily enough arrange for a judge to be on call to authorize a warrant in less than a minute if needs be, and stay within the law. But without a warrant, there is absolutely no safeguard against the process being abused other than the 'good will' of the White House and security agencies. We already know that they monitor every single email sent in the United States, and every single phone call. So, they can in theory spy on anyone anywhere and for any reason. A warrant protects all of us from any abuse of this policy. And right now, given the past abuses which have occurred (for example, I have a friend who apparently ended up on the 'no-Fly' list merely because he has donated money to John Kerry), I'm not convinced that simply the 'good will' of the Bush administration is a very good safeguard.
A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources.
U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John D. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation.
Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work.
It isn't just the judge who is concerned about the warrantless wiretaps.
Word of Robertson's resignation came as two Senate Republicans yesterday joined the call for congressional investigations into the National Security Agency's warrantless interception of telephone calls and e-mails to overseas locations by U.S. citizens suspected of links to terrorist groups. They questioned the legality of the operation and the extent to which the White House kept Congress informed.
Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) echoed concerns raised by Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has promised hearings in the new year.
These three are now joining three Democrats on the committee, in also raising the issue and calling for an investigation.
The whole idea of a warrentless search is absurd. The White House can easily enough arrange for a judge to be on call to authorize a warrant in less than a minute if needs be, and stay within the law. But without a warrant, there is absolutely no safeguard against the process being abused other than the 'good will' of the White House and security agencies. We already know that they monitor every single email sent in the United States, and every single phone call. So, they can in theory spy on anyone anywhere and for any reason. A warrant protects all of us from any abuse of this policy. And right now, given the past abuses which have occurred (for example, I have a friend who apparently ended up on the 'no-Fly' list merely because he has donated money to John Kerry), I'm not convinced that simply the 'good will' of the Bush administration is a very good safeguard.
Dover, PA vs. Darwin update-- CASE CLOSED!
For anyone who has only recently begun reading Deep Thought, this has been an ongoing series of articles, as we followed a the court case, Kitzmiller vs. Dover school board, in which the Dover, Pennsylvania school board had tried to force Biology teachers to teach the so-called theory of Intelligent Design (actually an untested hypothesis) alongside evolution.
Previous posts in this series (chronologically) include:
Has the monkey from the Scopes trial been elected to the school board?
(background post)
Dover, PA vs. Darwin update (about the testimony of Dr. Robert T. Pennock refuting the idea that I.D. qualifies as science, as well as the notes by two reporters who had attended the school board meetings where the decision was made)
Dover, PA vs. Darwin update (II) (about the testimony of Dr. Barbara Forrest about the textbooks chosen for the new curriculum)
Dover, PA vs. Darwin update (III) (about the testimony of Dr. Michael Behe, a proponent of Intelligent Design)
Dover, PA vs. Darwin update (IV) (about the conclusion of the trial). This post includes the phrase, Federal Judge John E. Jones III said he hopes to issue a ruling in January.
Dover, PA vs. Darwin update (NOT) (about all eight of the Republican school board members who had supported the teaching of Intelligent Design being voted out of office by the voters in Dover and replaced by eight Democrats who promised to remove it from the curriculum regardless of the judge's decision).
Well, you will note that Judge Jones had originally promised a decision in January. But, apparently, this case was so clear cut that he didn't even have to take that long. Today, he unequivocably ruled that Intelligent Design is not science and should not be mandated as part of the curriculum in Biology class.
HARRISBURG, Pa. - "Intelligent design" is "a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory" and cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday, ruling in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial.
Dover Area School Board members violated the Constitution when they ordered that its biology curriculum must include the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III (a Republican who was appointed two years ago by President Bush) said.
“We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom,” he wrote in his 139-page opinion. “The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy,” Jones wrote, adding that several members repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs....
The judge made a point of criticizing the school board members and the "breathtaking inanity" of their decision. “It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy," he wrote.
(I guess their religious beliefs allow for lying.)
And, if its not science, then what is it? Jones has the answer:
The plaintiffs challenging the policy argued that intelligent design amounts to a secular repackaging of creationism, which the courts have already ruled cannot be taught in public schools. The judge agreed.
“We conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child," Jones said.
He makes another astute obervation about the disclaimer that was put into textbooks.
The school board policy, adopted in October 2004, was believed to have been the first of its kind in the nation. It required students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement said Charles Darwin’s theory is “not a fact” and has inexplicable “gaps” and referred students to an intelligent-design textbook, “Of Pandas and People,” for more information.
Jones blasted the disclaimer, saying it "singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource and instructs students to forgo scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere."
Exactly. There are certainly aspects of the Theory of Gravity, the Theory of Relativity, the Theory of valence shell repulsion-- which helps determine how chemical reactions take place, and other scientific theories which have not yet been fully explored or explained. And ongoing inquiry is going on with all of these areas. But no one suggests that just because we don't understand yet why gravity even exists, that we should reject the theory or teach that there could be an alternate theory that would allow for objects to fall upwards. Evolution has actually been held to an even higher standard than other theories, and yet no one has succeeded in disproving it despite the countless attempts to do so by generations of people motivated by misguided religious dogma, ever since Darwin first published his work.
And anticipating the always used reaction of the extreme right when things don't go their way, Jones wrote:
“Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge," Jones wrote. "If so, they will have erred. ... Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. ... The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
Right again. Ruling in favor of continuing to teach Biology as science is hardly activism. It was the school board members who were the 'activists,' in this case, trying to change the curriculum to fit their ideas. And as was previously mentioned, Jones is no liberal activist, but a Republican who was appointed to the position by President Bush.
Eric Rothschild, the lead attorney for the families who challenged the policy, called the ruling “a real vindication for the parents who had the courage to stand up and say there was something wrong in their school district.”
And the new school board has it right:
The board members were replaced by a slate of eight opponents who pledged to remove intelligent design from the science curriculum.
They also will likely drop the old plan now that the judge has ruled, new board president Bernadette Reinking said. “As far as I can tell you, there is no intent to appeal,” she said.
Reinking said the new board will likely move the subject of intelligent design into some undetermined elective social studies class. She said the board will need to talk to its attorney before determining specific actions.
That's fine. Discuss it in a theology class, a philosophy class or a civics class (in fact, the recent history of Dover would make it a great topic for a civics class). But not in a science class.
Previous posts in this series (chronologically) include:
Has the monkey from the Scopes trial been elected to the school board?
(background post)
Dover, PA vs. Darwin update (about the testimony of Dr. Robert T. Pennock refuting the idea that I.D. qualifies as science, as well as the notes by two reporters who had attended the school board meetings where the decision was made)
Dover, PA vs. Darwin update (II) (about the testimony of Dr. Barbara Forrest about the textbooks chosen for the new curriculum)
Dover, PA vs. Darwin update (III) (about the testimony of Dr. Michael Behe, a proponent of Intelligent Design)
Dover, PA vs. Darwin update (IV) (about the conclusion of the trial). This post includes the phrase, Federal Judge John E. Jones III said he hopes to issue a ruling in January.
Dover, PA vs. Darwin update (NOT) (about all eight of the Republican school board members who had supported the teaching of Intelligent Design being voted out of office by the voters in Dover and replaced by eight Democrats who promised to remove it from the curriculum regardless of the judge's decision).
Well, you will note that Judge Jones had originally promised a decision in January. But, apparently, this case was so clear cut that he didn't even have to take that long. Today, he unequivocably ruled that Intelligent Design is not science and should not be mandated as part of the curriculum in Biology class.
HARRISBURG, Pa. - "Intelligent design" is "a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory" and cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday, ruling in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial.
Dover Area School Board members violated the Constitution when they ordered that its biology curriculum must include the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III (a Republican who was appointed two years ago by President Bush) said.
“We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom,” he wrote in his 139-page opinion. “The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy,” Jones wrote, adding that several members repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs....
The judge made a point of criticizing the school board members and the "breathtaking inanity" of their decision. “It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy," he wrote.
(I guess their religious beliefs allow for lying.)
And, if its not science, then what is it? Jones has the answer:
The plaintiffs challenging the policy argued that intelligent design amounts to a secular repackaging of creationism, which the courts have already ruled cannot be taught in public schools. The judge agreed.
“We conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child," Jones said.
He makes another astute obervation about the disclaimer that was put into textbooks.
The school board policy, adopted in October 2004, was believed to have been the first of its kind in the nation. It required students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement said Charles Darwin’s theory is “not a fact” and has inexplicable “gaps” and referred students to an intelligent-design textbook, “Of Pandas and People,” for more information.
Jones blasted the disclaimer, saying it "singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource and instructs students to forgo scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere."
Exactly. There are certainly aspects of the Theory of Gravity, the Theory of Relativity, the Theory of valence shell repulsion-- which helps determine how chemical reactions take place, and other scientific theories which have not yet been fully explored or explained. And ongoing inquiry is going on with all of these areas. But no one suggests that just because we don't understand yet why gravity even exists, that we should reject the theory or teach that there could be an alternate theory that would allow for objects to fall upwards. Evolution has actually been held to an even higher standard than other theories, and yet no one has succeeded in disproving it despite the countless attempts to do so by generations of people motivated by misguided religious dogma, ever since Darwin first published his work.
And anticipating the always used reaction of the extreme right when things don't go their way, Jones wrote:
“Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge," Jones wrote. "If so, they will have erred. ... Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. ... The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
Right again. Ruling in favor of continuing to teach Biology as science is hardly activism. It was the school board members who were the 'activists,' in this case, trying to change the curriculum to fit their ideas. And as was previously mentioned, Jones is no liberal activist, but a Republican who was appointed to the position by President Bush.
Eric Rothschild, the lead attorney for the families who challenged the policy, called the ruling “a real vindication for the parents who had the courage to stand up and say there was something wrong in their school district.”
And the new school board has it right:
The board members were replaced by a slate of eight opponents who pledged to remove intelligent design from the science curriculum.
They also will likely drop the old plan now that the judge has ruled, new board president Bernadette Reinking said. “As far as I can tell you, there is no intent to appeal,” she said.
Reinking said the new board will likely move the subject of intelligent design into some undetermined elective social studies class. She said the board will need to talk to its attorney before determining specific actions.
That's fine. Discuss it in a theology class, a philosophy class or a civics class (in fact, the recent history of Dover would make it a great topic for a civics class). But not in a science class.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Why are we given a choice of 'either or?'
Often, when a bill is introduced in Congress that one party doesn't like, but which open opposition without an alternative plan to carries with it a political price, they will rally behind an alternative bill, which affords them cover for voting against the original bill. And occasionally, the alternative includes with it a good idea.
Such is the case with a pair of Senate bills, both of which are sponsored, in fact, by Republicans. S. 471 (sponsored by Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania), seemed to have some momentum moving forward. The bill, called the 'Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act') would rescind President Bush's policy on limited embryonic stem cell research. By this past June 15, it had garnered 41 co-sponsors (of whom 6 were Republicans, so that would have been enough to pass it if all the Democrats came on board-- by June 15, 34 of them in fact had, in addition to Independent Jim Jeffords.)
Republicans however then rallied behind another bill, sponsored by Orrin Hatch of Utah (who is in fact also a co-sponsor of the Specter bill). Its number is Senate Bill S. 1317. Named, the 'Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Therapy and Research Act,' it provide for the collection and maintenance of cord blood units for the treatment of patients and research, and to authorize the Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Cell Transplantation Program to increase the number of transplants for recipients suitable matched to donors of bone marrow and cord blood. It presently is gaining co-sponsors, and as of today it has 34-- eleven Democrats, twenty-three Republicans and Jeffords.
Now, I don't see why the Senate should not consider both of these bills. They both, in separate but not contradictory ways, enhance health care in America. In addition to Senators Hatch and Jeffords, Senators Feinstein, Dodd, Harkin, Durbin, Bayh, Mikulski, Collins, Schumer, Clinton, Reed, and Murray are on board for both. Unfortuately, Hatch and Collins are the only Republicans who are willing to be listed as in support of both bills. But Senators should support both bills. Both support Federal funding for research into techniques that could save many lives. It is mistake to look at one as being a 'substitute' for the other or to play partisan politics with them. In fact, if both pass, then two Republican Senators will be able to point to having been the primary authors of successful bills. So what? If Federal funding is extended to support this research and lives are saved as a result, then who cares who gets credit for that?
Such is the case with a pair of Senate bills, both of which are sponsored, in fact, by Republicans. S. 471 (sponsored by Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania), seemed to have some momentum moving forward. The bill, called the 'Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act') would rescind President Bush's policy on limited embryonic stem cell research. By this past June 15, it had garnered 41 co-sponsors (of whom 6 were Republicans, so that would have been enough to pass it if all the Democrats came on board-- by June 15, 34 of them in fact had, in addition to Independent Jim Jeffords.)
Republicans however then rallied behind another bill, sponsored by Orrin Hatch of Utah (who is in fact also a co-sponsor of the Specter bill). Its number is Senate Bill S. 1317. Named, the 'Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Therapy and Research Act,' it provide for the collection and maintenance of cord blood units for the treatment of patients and research, and to authorize the Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Cell Transplantation Program to increase the number of transplants for recipients suitable matched to donors of bone marrow and cord blood. It presently is gaining co-sponsors, and as of today it has 34-- eleven Democrats, twenty-three Republicans and Jeffords.
Now, I don't see why the Senate should not consider both of these bills. They both, in separate but not contradictory ways, enhance health care in America. In addition to Senators Hatch and Jeffords, Senators Feinstein, Dodd, Harkin, Durbin, Bayh, Mikulski, Collins, Schumer, Clinton, Reed, and Murray are on board for both. Unfortuately, Hatch and Collins are the only Republicans who are willing to be listed as in support of both bills. But Senators should support both bills. Both support Federal funding for research into techniques that could save many lives. It is mistake to look at one as being a 'substitute' for the other or to play partisan politics with them. In fact, if both pass, then two Republican Senators will be able to point to having been the primary authors of successful bills. So what? If Federal funding is extended to support this research and lives are saved as a result, then who cares who gets credit for that?
Howard Stern
This week, all the talk has been about Howard Stern leaving regular broadcast radio for Sirius radio network. Some people both in and out of power have even proposed censorship of satellite based radio (like Sirius).
Now, I've never been a fan of Stern, or his vulgar, offensive and often patently gross material. I certainly would not want to turn on the radio and have my kids get a blast of Howard Stern.
However, I have been a fan of Stern in his ongoing fight against federal regulators and others who want to censor the airways.
Because of Stern and the highly publicized Janet Jackson-Justin Timberlake 'wardrobe malfunction' at the Superbowl two years ago (luckily, in our home we have a rule about not watching TV on Sunday, which saved us a look at 'the nipple,') a bunch of blowhards and demagogues in Congress passed a bill last year to increase FCC fines for local broadcasters for such incidents by a factor of ten! to up to $275,000 per incident. I thought this (called the Decency Enforcement Act) was ridiculous, then and I still do. First of all, we aren't looking at a tidal wave of problems. Stern, as had already been announced before the legislation was passed, already was leaving the broadcast airways because of the pain that the old fines had caused his former syndicates. The Superbowl halftime show, at the time one of the almost extinct 'live' events left on television, is now broadcast with a several second tape delay. In other words, when the few incidents that occur, do occur, the broadcast industry is pretty good at handling it in-house. Increasing the fine by a factor of ten was disproportionate and clearly done for looks, no matter how much this might harm local affiliates (who get hit with the fines but may have had no part in creating the situation). Shame on those members of Congress (and it passed in the Senate 99-1) who chose to 'look tough' or who were so craven about being criticized for (in the typical double speak attack language of the right) 'supporting obscenity on radio and TV' if they dared to oppose the bill on the grounds that the fines as they were two years ago were adequate, and even if they were not, increasing them by as much as they were was a draconian measure.
So now, the same crew that demogogued the issue last year, wants to follow Stern and limit Sirius. I have two problems with this. The first is that customers of Stern now have to pay for the privilege. So the usual stuff about 'what if kids turn it on?' is much more clearly a cover for censorship. The fact that he is allowed to broadcast at all is an irritant from those who want to shut him up, and if they succeed, then they can shut up anyone they want to. The second is that these paragons of 'personal responsibility,' don't want to live by their own rules and tell their kids to turn the radio off, or monitor what they listen to or look up on the internet. We do a good job of monitoring our kids, why can't they do the same, instead of using it to try and impose their personal standards on everyone in the country?
Now, I've never been a fan of Stern, or his vulgar, offensive and often patently gross material. I certainly would not want to turn on the radio and have my kids get a blast of Howard Stern.
However, I have been a fan of Stern in his ongoing fight against federal regulators and others who want to censor the airways.
Because of Stern and the highly publicized Janet Jackson-Justin Timberlake 'wardrobe malfunction' at the Superbowl two years ago (luckily, in our home we have a rule about not watching TV on Sunday, which saved us a look at 'the nipple,') a bunch of blowhards and demagogues in Congress passed a bill last year to increase FCC fines for local broadcasters for such incidents by a factor of ten! to up to $275,000 per incident. I thought this (called the Decency Enforcement Act) was ridiculous, then and I still do. First of all, we aren't looking at a tidal wave of problems. Stern, as had already been announced before the legislation was passed, already was leaving the broadcast airways because of the pain that the old fines had caused his former syndicates. The Superbowl halftime show, at the time one of the almost extinct 'live' events left on television, is now broadcast with a several second tape delay. In other words, when the few incidents that occur, do occur, the broadcast industry is pretty good at handling it in-house. Increasing the fine by a factor of ten was disproportionate and clearly done for looks, no matter how much this might harm local affiliates (who get hit with the fines but may have had no part in creating the situation). Shame on those members of Congress (and it passed in the Senate 99-1) who chose to 'look tough' or who were so craven about being criticized for (in the typical double speak attack language of the right) 'supporting obscenity on radio and TV' if they dared to oppose the bill on the grounds that the fines as they were two years ago were adequate, and even if they were not, increasing them by as much as they were was a draconian measure.
So now, the same crew that demogogued the issue last year, wants to follow Stern and limit Sirius. I have two problems with this. The first is that customers of Stern now have to pay for the privilege. So the usual stuff about 'what if kids turn it on?' is much more clearly a cover for censorship. The fact that he is allowed to broadcast at all is an irritant from those who want to shut him up, and if they succeed, then they can shut up anyone they want to. The second is that these paragons of 'personal responsibility,' don't want to live by their own rules and tell their kids to turn the radio off, or monitor what they listen to or look up on the internet. We do a good job of monitoring our kids, why can't they do the same, instead of using it to try and impose their personal standards on everyone in the country?
Saturday, December 17, 2005
WTO agreements reached on agricultural products.
According to news reports, a tentative agreement to get rid of export subsidies on agricultural products has been reached at the WTO talks in Hong Kong. According to reports, the United States will end export subsidies on cotton, allowing African nations to compete in cotton sales, while the European Union is likely to phase out agricultural export subsidies between 2010 and 2013. Details remain to be negotiated.
Export subsidies are payments that governments pay to farmers to lower the price which they will charge for a product. And not surprisingly, many farmers both in the U.S. and the EU are likely to be very angry about this agreement. I once saw a bumper sticker that read, 'Crime doesn't pay. And neither does farming.' For American farmers to expect to compete in the global marketplace against farmers from countries where people typically get by on a few hundred dollars per year is ridiculous.
At the same time, people who suggest that we should throw away all the free trade agreements that have been signed, are proposing an unrealistic solution. This kind of neo-isolationism is doomed to failure. The world is today an interconnected economy, and the fact is that as time only moves forward, it will become more so, rather than less so in the future. The problem is that under the present framework, only large multinational corporations, which can now move jobs to the countries where they have the least regulation and can pay the lowest wages, or in the case of agricultural products, they can buy from the most exploited of farmers, benefit. Perhaps throw in some corrupt local or national officials in these countries who will gladly enrich themselves in exchange for making sure that even what laws there are, are not enforced.
What is missing in the WTO talks, and what would make a difference, would be to condition these kinds of agreements on environmental, labor and anti-corruption standards similar to those which exist in developed countries.
In the case of pollution, not only is it true that pollution doesn't stop at the border (the recent benzene spill in China which is now wiping out the Amur river fishing industry in Russia is instructive), but pollution caused by lax standards, industrial accidents or inefficient equipment ultimately hurts all of us. The Kyoto accords were a start towards developing a world standard on pollution, but only a start. Although it was a mistake for the U.S. to skip out on the treaty, the Bush administration's point that countries like China and India were not covered is a valid one. Future agreements must cover all countries, and trade agreements must be conditioned on an agreement to adopt and enforce twenty-first century pollution standards.
Labor standards are also important. Free trade can certainly help poor countries develop. It is, for example, certainly true that African countries will benefit a great deal from the end of U.S. export subsidies. However, without proper labor standards, what we will see is literally a return to the bad old days of sweatshops (as we already do see) in many countries. Unfortunately, many large companies have so conditioned consumers in the U.S. (though with much less success in Europe) to not care if the items they are buying are made in a sweatshop, that it is no longer feasible to look to the conscience of individual consumers to solve the problems. A good example is Nike. Some years ago, it was brought up that a pair of tennis shoes that they sold for $150-200 was made for less than $4.00 total, and the majority of that cost was foam and other materials. The share paid to the workers (in a sweatshop in Vietnam) was less than a dollar per pair. And that is among the high end of sweatshops. In places like Haiti and Indonesia, there are sweatshops in which workers earn eleven cents an hour to make clothes sold with designer labels in American stores. It is no secret that Wal-Mart sells a lot of clothes made in sweatshops, but they have done a good enough job of advertising that they bring in consumers. Leaving aside the issue of how people shopping in places like this forces American textile mills to shut down and declare bankruptcy or move overseas themselves in order to compete, in this case, untrammeled free trade has not improved wages globally (if anything, it is lowering them-- some factories that moved to Mexico or other Latin American countries a few years ago are now closing them and moving to even lower wage countries in Asia and Africa). And workplace safety and child labor laws? Dream on. I have read in what I consider reputable sources examples of children as young as six forced to weave all day at a loom, sometimes suffering life-altering injuries or death, and denied the opportunity to go to school, all for literally pennies per day. And of course, products produced by unskilled laborers who are paid dirt low wages are likely to prove of commensurately low quality. For these reasons, when we sign free trade agreements we must insist on labor laws that at least show substantial and continuing improvement towards matching our own.
Lastly, these agreements have to deal with corruption. If a government is corrupt at any level, then any of the preceding agreements are worthless. Laws which are not enforced are, if anything, worse than no law at all, because even the threat of passing more stringent laws can simply be considered as the need to bribe some official to make sure it is not passed, or if passed is ignored. In third world countries, corruption is a long standing problem. Part of it is because of the low standard of living for everyone, as well as the fact that many of these countries have very low taxes (another feature that draws multinationals)-- local officials get paid such a small salary that an amount of money, say $500, that would not buy much influence in the United States, is easily enough to bribe a local official. National officials are more expensive, but the same principle applies. To deal with this, we have to take a two pronged approach. The first part of the approach is that we must establish certain corruption standards that we tie to agreements: an independent judiciary, a professional police force and investigations office that is paid well enough that they don't have to depend on bribery, and evidence of an ongoing effort to root out and punish (as in prison) corrupt officials. This may still not be enough, however. For one thing, the idea of public service as a path towards personal enrichment is a long standing tradition in some countries. So, I would suggest that if evidence is uncovered of any multinational corporation engaging in bribery of local officials in other countries to skirt these laws, then perhaps there should be a mechanism in place whereby the U.S., Europe and other industrialized nations can sanction whoever offered the bribe by not allowing them to operate (as in sell their products) in these nations for a period of time. Hence I would suggest the following: The second part of the approach is to develop a mechanism to sanction businesspersons and their employers if they get caught paying bribes by not allowing them to operate in industrialized countries. Of course, if any U.S. laws were broken in the process, we can also use the U.S. courts to punish the perpetrators.
The WTO in concept is a good thing. But as long as it is exclusively focused on the macro-economics of trade from a corporate and governmental standpoint and not on the social effects and micro-economic standpoint of trade from the individual viewpoint, I think we should be very careful about signing onto any more trade agreements.
Export subsidies are payments that governments pay to farmers to lower the price which they will charge for a product. And not surprisingly, many farmers both in the U.S. and the EU are likely to be very angry about this agreement. I once saw a bumper sticker that read, 'Crime doesn't pay. And neither does farming.' For American farmers to expect to compete in the global marketplace against farmers from countries where people typically get by on a few hundred dollars per year is ridiculous.
At the same time, people who suggest that we should throw away all the free trade agreements that have been signed, are proposing an unrealistic solution. This kind of neo-isolationism is doomed to failure. The world is today an interconnected economy, and the fact is that as time only moves forward, it will become more so, rather than less so in the future. The problem is that under the present framework, only large multinational corporations, which can now move jobs to the countries where they have the least regulation and can pay the lowest wages, or in the case of agricultural products, they can buy from the most exploited of farmers, benefit. Perhaps throw in some corrupt local or national officials in these countries who will gladly enrich themselves in exchange for making sure that even what laws there are, are not enforced.
What is missing in the WTO talks, and what would make a difference, would be to condition these kinds of agreements on environmental, labor and anti-corruption standards similar to those which exist in developed countries.
In the case of pollution, not only is it true that pollution doesn't stop at the border (the recent benzene spill in China which is now wiping out the Amur river fishing industry in Russia is instructive), but pollution caused by lax standards, industrial accidents or inefficient equipment ultimately hurts all of us. The Kyoto accords were a start towards developing a world standard on pollution, but only a start. Although it was a mistake for the U.S. to skip out on the treaty, the Bush administration's point that countries like China and India were not covered is a valid one. Future agreements must cover all countries, and trade agreements must be conditioned on an agreement to adopt and enforce twenty-first century pollution standards.
Labor standards are also important. Free trade can certainly help poor countries develop. It is, for example, certainly true that African countries will benefit a great deal from the end of U.S. export subsidies. However, without proper labor standards, what we will see is literally a return to the bad old days of sweatshops (as we already do see) in many countries. Unfortunately, many large companies have so conditioned consumers in the U.S. (though with much less success in Europe) to not care if the items they are buying are made in a sweatshop, that it is no longer feasible to look to the conscience of individual consumers to solve the problems. A good example is Nike. Some years ago, it was brought up that a pair of tennis shoes that they sold for $150-200 was made for less than $4.00 total, and the majority of that cost was foam and other materials. The share paid to the workers (in a sweatshop in Vietnam) was less than a dollar per pair. And that is among the high end of sweatshops. In places like Haiti and Indonesia, there are sweatshops in which workers earn eleven cents an hour to make clothes sold with designer labels in American stores. It is no secret that Wal-Mart sells a lot of clothes made in sweatshops, but they have done a good enough job of advertising that they bring in consumers. Leaving aside the issue of how people shopping in places like this forces American textile mills to shut down and declare bankruptcy or move overseas themselves in order to compete, in this case, untrammeled free trade has not improved wages globally (if anything, it is lowering them-- some factories that moved to Mexico or other Latin American countries a few years ago are now closing them and moving to even lower wage countries in Asia and Africa). And workplace safety and child labor laws? Dream on. I have read in what I consider reputable sources examples of children as young as six forced to weave all day at a loom, sometimes suffering life-altering injuries or death, and denied the opportunity to go to school, all for literally pennies per day. And of course, products produced by unskilled laborers who are paid dirt low wages are likely to prove of commensurately low quality. For these reasons, when we sign free trade agreements we must insist on labor laws that at least show substantial and continuing improvement towards matching our own.
Lastly, these agreements have to deal with corruption. If a government is corrupt at any level, then any of the preceding agreements are worthless. Laws which are not enforced are, if anything, worse than no law at all, because even the threat of passing more stringent laws can simply be considered as the need to bribe some official to make sure it is not passed, or if passed is ignored. In third world countries, corruption is a long standing problem. Part of it is because of the low standard of living for everyone, as well as the fact that many of these countries have very low taxes (another feature that draws multinationals)-- local officials get paid such a small salary that an amount of money, say $500, that would not buy much influence in the United States, is easily enough to bribe a local official. National officials are more expensive, but the same principle applies. To deal with this, we have to take a two pronged approach. The first part of the approach is that we must establish certain corruption standards that we tie to agreements: an independent judiciary, a professional police force and investigations office that is paid well enough that they don't have to depend on bribery, and evidence of an ongoing effort to root out and punish (as in prison) corrupt officials. This may still not be enough, however. For one thing, the idea of public service as a path towards personal enrichment is a long standing tradition in some countries. So, I would suggest that if evidence is uncovered of any multinational corporation engaging in bribery of local officials in other countries to skirt these laws, then perhaps there should be a mechanism in place whereby the U.S., Europe and other industrialized nations can sanction whoever offered the bribe by not allowing them to operate (as in sell their products) in these nations for a period of time. Hence I would suggest the following: The second part of the approach is to develop a mechanism to sanction businesspersons and their employers if they get caught paying bribes by not allowing them to operate in industrialized countries. Of course, if any U.S. laws were broken in the process, we can also use the U.S. courts to punish the perpetrators.
The WTO in concept is a good thing. But as long as it is exclusively focused on the macro-economics of trade from a corporate and governmental standpoint and not on the social effects and micro-economic standpoint of trade from the individual viewpoint, I think we should be very careful about signing onto any more trade agreements.
The Presidential candidate of the Graft Party.
We know that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is the target of a Federal investigation for his role in the sale of stock which was supposedly held in a blind trust for him, and which was suddenly sold just before information which Frist and a very small number of other people had, became public and caused the price to plummet.
Today, it turns out that Frist's AIDS Charity, World of Hope, Inc. paid nearly half a million dollars in consulting fees to members of Frist's inner political circle. Additionally, the overwhelming source of funds for the charity were just eighteen major donors-- many of whom needed Frist's help with legislation.
WASHINGTON - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's AIDS charity paid nearly a half-million dollars in consulting fees to members of his political inner circle, according to tax returns providing the first financial accounting of the presidential hopeful's nonprofit.
The returns for World of Hope Inc., obtained by The Associated Press, also show the charity raised the lion's share of its $4.4 million from just 18 sources. They gave between $97,950 and $267,735 each to help fund Frist's efforts to fight AIDS.
The tax forms, filed nine months after they were first due, do not identify the 18 major donors by name.
Frist's lawyer, Alex Vogel, said Friday that he would not give their names because tax law does not require their public disclosure. Frist's office provided a list of 96 donors who were supportive of the charity, but did not say how much each contributed.
The donors included several corporations with frequent business before Congress, such as insurer Blue Cross/Blue Shield, manufacturer 3M, drug maker Eli Lilly and the Goldman Sachs investment firm.
World of Hope gave $3 million it raised to charitable AIDS causes, such as Africare and evangelical Christian groups with ties to Republicans — Franklin Graham's Samaritan Purse and the Rev. Luis Cortes' Esperanza USA, for example.
OK. He accepts millions of dollars from corporations who need his help passing legislation (and based on what's been passed this year and last year, seem to have gotten it). He hands out half a million to his cronies, then turns the rest over to other charities (why not just direct the donations to them originally, if his intent was to help AIDS victims, thereby avoiding any 'consulting' fees taken off the top?) And not just any charities at that, but charities that have ties to the Republican party.
So altruistic, he. And given that his 'inner political circle' will be the same crew that is running things in the White House if he becomes President (won't they? That is true of every President), it is easy to see what kind of administration a Frist administration would be.
I admire people who run charities, as a rule. It's a lot of work and often (if the charity is run correctly) a thankless job. But I expect when I give to a charity, that the money doesn't come with strings (nor does any money they get) and that it will be spent where it is intended. For example, today I fished in my pocket and found my change for the Salvation Army bellringer. Now, I don't agree with some things that the Salvation Army does (in particular their discrimination against gay people). However, I have no problem with giving them the few cents (unlike Bill Frist's top eighteen donors, I don't have millions to spread around) because 1) I'm not expecting anything in return (other than maybe a 'Merry Christmas,') and 2) I have every reason to believe, based on everything I've ever heard about the Salvation Army that very little goes to overhead, none for unneeded 'consultants,' and almost all of it to help the homeless or other worthy endeavors.
One still has to wonder though, about the judgement of those Republicans in the Senate who every day continue to trust Mr. Frist as their Majority Leader.
Today, it turns out that Frist's AIDS Charity, World of Hope, Inc. paid nearly half a million dollars in consulting fees to members of Frist's inner political circle. Additionally, the overwhelming source of funds for the charity were just eighteen major donors-- many of whom needed Frist's help with legislation.
WASHINGTON - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's AIDS charity paid nearly a half-million dollars in consulting fees to members of his political inner circle, according to tax returns providing the first financial accounting of the presidential hopeful's nonprofit.
The returns for World of Hope Inc., obtained by The Associated Press, also show the charity raised the lion's share of its $4.4 million from just 18 sources. They gave between $97,950 and $267,735 each to help fund Frist's efforts to fight AIDS.
The tax forms, filed nine months after they were first due, do not identify the 18 major donors by name.
Frist's lawyer, Alex Vogel, said Friday that he would not give their names because tax law does not require their public disclosure. Frist's office provided a list of 96 donors who were supportive of the charity, but did not say how much each contributed.
The donors included several corporations with frequent business before Congress, such as insurer Blue Cross/Blue Shield, manufacturer 3M, drug maker Eli Lilly and the Goldman Sachs investment firm.
World of Hope gave $3 million it raised to charitable AIDS causes, such as Africare and evangelical Christian groups with ties to Republicans — Franklin Graham's Samaritan Purse and the Rev. Luis Cortes' Esperanza USA, for example.
OK. He accepts millions of dollars from corporations who need his help passing legislation (and based on what's been passed this year and last year, seem to have gotten it). He hands out half a million to his cronies, then turns the rest over to other charities (why not just direct the donations to them originally, if his intent was to help AIDS victims, thereby avoiding any 'consulting' fees taken off the top?) And not just any charities at that, but charities that have ties to the Republican party.
So altruistic, he. And given that his 'inner political circle' will be the same crew that is running things in the White House if he becomes President (won't they? That is true of every President), it is easy to see what kind of administration a Frist administration would be.
I admire people who run charities, as a rule. It's a lot of work and often (if the charity is run correctly) a thankless job. But I expect when I give to a charity, that the money doesn't come with strings (nor does any money they get) and that it will be spent where it is intended. For example, today I fished in my pocket and found my change for the Salvation Army bellringer. Now, I don't agree with some things that the Salvation Army does (in particular their discrimination against gay people). However, I have no problem with giving them the few cents (unlike Bill Frist's top eighteen donors, I don't have millions to spread around) because 1) I'm not expecting anything in return (other than maybe a 'Merry Christmas,') and 2) I have every reason to believe, based on everything I've ever heard about the Salvation Army that very little goes to overhead, none for unneeded 'consultants,' and almost all of it to help the homeless or other worthy endeavors.
One still has to wonder though, about the judgement of those Republicans in the Senate who every day continue to trust Mr. Frist as their Majority Leader.
Friday, December 16, 2005
I hate having to make posts like this, but every so often someone needs to say it.
I had a bit of a bummer just now, but it makes it worth reiterating some of the rules of blog etiquette.
What happened is that I discovered when I went to check on the blog of someone who I have really enjoyed reading, and who has a made a lot of thought-provoking posts, that apparently some loser had gone to the point of finding out about them and contacting them personally. This is out of bounds unless you know the person from outside the blogosphere, or the two of you by mutual agreement decide to correspond by email (and then it is limited to email).
As we have seen in a number of recent cases, blogs have sometimes been abused, even to the point of possibly planning for murder as we saw in the ongoing case of two teenagers in Pennsylvania. And it is certainly true that by posting online you do open up the possibility that some nutcake will take an unhealthy interest in you (a remote risk to be sure, and one I am willing to take) but it is still a sad thing when it happens, and something to be prepared for.
Here are some thoughts I have about this:
Common sense would dictate that posters (whether writing the blog or posting on it) do the following: 1) don't post too much personal information on what is a public record. 2) It's OK to talk about your life, but keep in mind that whatever you say is open to anyone who could wander in off the web. 3) I myself never post pictures of my kids or family, or say what their names are, because of the number of sex predators out there (an unfortunate and tragic, but now more widely publicized side of the internet). In the case I am referring to, apparently someone took an unhealthy and unwarranted interest in the blogger(s) and/or their child. 4) It is best to stay pretty topical. One way I avoid too much personal information is that I remember that this is a political blog. So I post on politics. If it were a sports blog, I would post on sports. If it were a poetry blog, I would post on poetry. 5) Even at that, I was once tracked down by some loser who wanted to argue with me about something I wrote. Luckily, he wasn't a stalker, but be aware that it can happen and think through what you plan to say or do if it does. There was also an incident a couple of years ago on a large blog where I contacted the FBI about a threat that someone posted against the President. That person got very angry about being investigated and made death threats against two of us who had turned him in (I still keep the emails I got during that episode in my mailbox just in case they ever become relevant again). But if someone threatens the President, whoever it is, I have no choice as a citizen except to bring it to the attention of the proper authorities.
Blogging is fun. Blogging is healthy. And the miracle of the internet is that it is no longer possible to completely suppress a news story because there are thousands of bloggers out there to put it out there if no one else does. But like anything else in life, exercise due caution when common sense says to do so.
What happened is that I discovered when I went to check on the blog of someone who I have really enjoyed reading, and who has a made a lot of thought-provoking posts, that apparently some loser had gone to the point of finding out about them and contacting them personally. This is out of bounds unless you know the person from outside the blogosphere, or the two of you by mutual agreement decide to correspond by email (and then it is limited to email).
As we have seen in a number of recent cases, blogs have sometimes been abused, even to the point of possibly planning for murder as we saw in the ongoing case of two teenagers in Pennsylvania. And it is certainly true that by posting online you do open up the possibility that some nutcake will take an unhealthy interest in you (a remote risk to be sure, and one I am willing to take) but it is still a sad thing when it happens, and something to be prepared for.
Here are some thoughts I have about this:
Common sense would dictate that posters (whether writing the blog or posting on it) do the following: 1) don't post too much personal information on what is a public record. 2) It's OK to talk about your life, but keep in mind that whatever you say is open to anyone who could wander in off the web. 3) I myself never post pictures of my kids or family, or say what their names are, because of the number of sex predators out there (an unfortunate and tragic, but now more widely publicized side of the internet). In the case I am referring to, apparently someone took an unhealthy and unwarranted interest in the blogger(s) and/or their child. 4) It is best to stay pretty topical. One way I avoid too much personal information is that I remember that this is a political blog. So I post on politics. If it were a sports blog, I would post on sports. If it were a poetry blog, I would post on poetry. 5) Even at that, I was once tracked down by some loser who wanted to argue with me about something I wrote. Luckily, he wasn't a stalker, but be aware that it can happen and think through what you plan to say or do if it does. There was also an incident a couple of years ago on a large blog where I contacted the FBI about a threat that someone posted against the President. That person got very angry about being investigated and made death threats against two of us who had turned him in (I still keep the emails I got during that episode in my mailbox just in case they ever become relevant again). But if someone threatens the President, whoever it is, I have no choice as a citizen except to bring it to the attention of the proper authorities.
Blogging is fun. Blogging is healthy. And the miracle of the internet is that it is no longer possible to completely suppress a news story because there are thousands of bloggers out there to put it out there if no one else does. But like anything else in life, exercise due caution when common sense says to do so.
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Novak breaks his silence-- and with a shock.
For months, we have been waiting for conservative columnist Robert Novak to break his silence about the Valerie Plame outing.
You may recall, that Novak was the columnist who finally, after a half dozen other journalists had refused to, published the name of Plame, a CIA agent, in what was clearly an act of political retaliation against her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, for his calling into question some of the information that the White House had been using to build its case for the war against Iraq. Of course, we know by now that the claim that Saddam Hussein was attempting to purchase yellowcake Uranium from Niger was patently false, so in that regard Wilson has been vindicated.
Novak, however, while testifying before the grand jury about the affair (hint, he never went to jail like Matt Cooper and Judith Miller did, so he must have not done what they did-- that is, refuse to answer the grand jury's questions), has maintained a stony silence in public about the whole matter. When asked directly, he has said that on the advice of legal counsel he would say nothing, and the rest of the time he has gone about his usual venom laced attacks on liberals on every other subject, but avoided any discussion of Plame, Wilson, yellowcake Uranium or the country of Niger the way most people would avoid a rooster known to have the Bird Flu.
This week, however, Novak broke his silence. And what a break it is. This erstwhile paragon of Republican punditry, this attack dog of the right, not only discussed the leak, but pointed a finger-- at none other than President Bush himself.
Novak is quoted in a speech he delivered Tuesday.
Syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, who has repeatedly declined to discuss his role in disclosing the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame, said in a speech this week that he is certain President Bush knows who his mystery administration source is.
Novak said Tuesday that the public and press should be asking the president about the official rather than pressing journalists who received the information.
Novak also suggested that the administration official who gave him the information is the same person who mentioned Plame and her CIA role to Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward in the summer of 2003.
"I'm confident the president knows who the source is," Novak told a luncheon audience at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh, N.C., on Tuesday, according to an account published yesterday in the Raleigh News & Observer. "I'd be amazed if he doesn't."
"So I say, don't bug me. Don't bug Bob Woodward. Bug the president as to whether he should reveal who the source is," Novak said.
Now, keep in mind that President Bush has said the following about the leak:
"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is,..."If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of." -- Feb. 10, 2004
When asked in June 2004 if he would fire anyone who had leaked Plame's name, the President answered, "Yes. (Houston Chronicle, 7/19/05).
So where is it? Since Scooter Libby is already gone, it seems unlikely that Novak is talking about Libby. So there is someone else, and it all seems to lead back to Karl Rove. In fact, according to the New York Daily News on Oct. 19, 2005, the President reportedly chewed out Rove two years ago about the leak. If Novak is right, then he would have chewed him out about the leak knowing who the source was, so ergo Rove was responsible.
Which leads one to question why Novak would come out with this accusation now. Those of us who have watched Novak trash anyone on the left for years and reached for the barf bag every time he is on TV, have to wonder about why he would jump out of his bunker of silence and point a finger at President Bush.
It might be that darn 'legal advice' again. Novak may have answered the questions of the special prosecutor, but since he took the step of actually being the one to publish the name of the agent, it is certainly possible that he could still face charges, and he may be looking out for number one (certainly plausible since he showed less guts in being willing to squeal to the grand jury and Peter Fitzgerald than either Cooper or Miller; he comes across as someone who can dish out a lot of heat, but has a low tolerance for pain when the heat is turned up on him).
It could be that even Novak is getting disgusted at this administration (though I don't believe that to be the case, having listened to Novak on TV for at least a decade and have never seen him to ever be disgusted at anything Republicans were doing, except maybe for when they have done something that wasn't partisan enough for him).
It might be that he has been advised that it will all come out sooner or later and that he had best tell it when things are starting to pick up for the President in the hopes that it will get lost in the rest of the news.
But for whatever reason, he decided to say something about it this week, and what he said was neither a mea culpa, nor a bold attack on the left. No, it was a 'he is culpable,' and a bold attack on the President.
One person can feel relieved at this though. Dick Cheney. The scrutiny is now moving above him, to the next person up the line.
You may recall, that Novak was the columnist who finally, after a half dozen other journalists had refused to, published the name of Plame, a CIA agent, in what was clearly an act of political retaliation against her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, for his calling into question some of the information that the White House had been using to build its case for the war against Iraq. Of course, we know by now that the claim that Saddam Hussein was attempting to purchase yellowcake Uranium from Niger was patently false, so in that regard Wilson has been vindicated.
Novak, however, while testifying before the grand jury about the affair (hint, he never went to jail like Matt Cooper and Judith Miller did, so he must have not done what they did-- that is, refuse to answer the grand jury's questions), has maintained a stony silence in public about the whole matter. When asked directly, he has said that on the advice of legal counsel he would say nothing, and the rest of the time he has gone about his usual venom laced attacks on liberals on every other subject, but avoided any discussion of Plame, Wilson, yellowcake Uranium or the country of Niger the way most people would avoid a rooster known to have the Bird Flu.
This week, however, Novak broke his silence. And what a break it is. This erstwhile paragon of Republican punditry, this attack dog of the right, not only discussed the leak, but pointed a finger-- at none other than President Bush himself.
Novak is quoted in a speech he delivered Tuesday.
Syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, who has repeatedly declined to discuss his role in disclosing the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame, said in a speech this week that he is certain President Bush knows who his mystery administration source is.
Novak said Tuesday that the public and press should be asking the president about the official rather than pressing journalists who received the information.
Novak also suggested that the administration official who gave him the information is the same person who mentioned Plame and her CIA role to Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward in the summer of 2003.
"I'm confident the president knows who the source is," Novak told a luncheon audience at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh, N.C., on Tuesday, according to an account published yesterday in the Raleigh News & Observer. "I'd be amazed if he doesn't."
"So I say, don't bug me. Don't bug Bob Woodward. Bug the president as to whether he should reveal who the source is," Novak said.
Now, keep in mind that President Bush has said the following about the leak:
"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is,..."If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of." -- Feb. 10, 2004
When asked in June 2004 if he would fire anyone who had leaked Plame's name, the President answered, "Yes. (Houston Chronicle, 7/19/05).
So where is it? Since Scooter Libby is already gone, it seems unlikely that Novak is talking about Libby. So there is someone else, and it all seems to lead back to Karl Rove. In fact, according to the New York Daily News on Oct. 19, 2005, the President reportedly chewed out Rove two years ago about the leak. If Novak is right, then he would have chewed him out about the leak knowing who the source was, so ergo Rove was responsible.
Which leads one to question why Novak would come out with this accusation now. Those of us who have watched Novak trash anyone on the left for years and reached for the barf bag every time he is on TV, have to wonder about why he would jump out of his bunker of silence and point a finger at President Bush.
It might be that darn 'legal advice' again. Novak may have answered the questions of the special prosecutor, but since he took the step of actually being the one to publish the name of the agent, it is certainly possible that he could still face charges, and he may be looking out for number one (certainly plausible since he showed less guts in being willing to squeal to the grand jury and Peter Fitzgerald than either Cooper or Miller; he comes across as someone who can dish out a lot of heat, but has a low tolerance for pain when the heat is turned up on him).
It could be that even Novak is getting disgusted at this administration (though I don't believe that to be the case, having listened to Novak on TV for at least a decade and have never seen him to ever be disgusted at anything Republicans were doing, except maybe for when they have done something that wasn't partisan enough for him).
It might be that he has been advised that it will all come out sooner or later and that he had best tell it when things are starting to pick up for the President in the hopes that it will get lost in the rest of the news.
But for whatever reason, he decided to say something about it this week, and what he said was neither a mea culpa, nor a bold attack on the left. No, it was a 'he is culpable,' and a bold attack on the President.
One person can feel relieved at this though. Dick Cheney. The scrutiny is now moving above him, to the next person up the line.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Achieving 'balance' when the situation just isn't balanced.
If you haven't seen Eric Alterman's column, Think Again, Everybody Doesn't Do It, he writes the following:
The New York Times on Wednesday came a little too close for comfort in this arena in a story about Republicans’ attempts to distance themselves from recently resigned California Rep. Randy Cunningham...
But in the Times' account, reporters John M. Broder and Carl Hulse appear to want to add some "balance" to this story of graft. In order to do this, they channel (and paraphrase) the spirit of "some Republican officials" as saying that "Democrats in Congress were equally guilty of questionable behavior, including lobbyist-paid trips and underreporting of campaign contributions, they acknowledged that Republicans, because they control the White House and Congress, are being held to a higher standard by many voters."
It would be naive to think that one political party has a monopoly on bad actors, but it's obvious that this contention is little more than simple obfuscation, in several respects...
Aside from the lack of attribution, or even the number of "officials" who have said this, the Times repeats the claim that Democrats in Congress are "equally as guilty" as Republicans of "questionable behavior." But as Broder and Hulse well know, even if this were so, the number of investigations and indictments handed down against Republicans recently far outweighs those against Democrats.
Now, I have no problem with saying that any Democrat who claims to represent me in local, state or national office who is indicted by any state or Federal court, should step aside from his or her post. I will even contact them and tell them so, speaking as a Democratic activist, when they are indicted. I have zero tolerance for anyone who looks at public office as a way to benefit themselves through bribery or any other form of graft or corruption.
However, to go to some unnamed Republicans and let them take a swipe and Democrats just to make sure that their story on Cunningham was 'balanced' is in fact unbalanced. Cunningham's attorney would have done more to insure balance (note that the Republicans they went to didn't even try to defend Randy, they just said that Democrats are 'just as guilty.') Well, maybe in the era of Rostenkowski, they might have been right (and Rostenkowski went right where he deserved to go-- to prison). But today, that just isn't true. It is Democrats who have instead been pushing for campaign finance and other ethical reforms. It is Democrats who refused to take their seats on the House Ethics committee until Tom DeLay jettisoned his 'reforms' that were designed to de-tooth the committee. That alone should tell you something, since the House Ethics committee is the only non-partisan committee in the House-- with equal numbers from each party, and charged with investigating all ethics violations by house members.
Maybe it means that Republicans under DeLay are in fact just where Rostenkowski and several other Democrats were a dozen years ago. They've been running the show long enough that they think they are lords and rulers over the people who elected them in the first place.
Alterman finishes his column this way:
I know, I know. Imagine how bad it would be if the MSM were not dominated by a liberal conspiracy. But you know guys, to quote the great Steven Colbert, sometimes the facts are just liberally biased.
This is one of those cases.
The New York Times on Wednesday came a little too close for comfort in this arena in a story about Republicans’ attempts to distance themselves from recently resigned California Rep. Randy Cunningham...
But in the Times' account, reporters John M. Broder and Carl Hulse appear to want to add some "balance" to this story of graft. In order to do this, they channel (and paraphrase) the spirit of "some Republican officials" as saying that "Democrats in Congress were equally guilty of questionable behavior, including lobbyist-paid trips and underreporting of campaign contributions, they acknowledged that Republicans, because they control the White House and Congress, are being held to a higher standard by many voters."
It would be naive to think that one political party has a monopoly on bad actors, but it's obvious that this contention is little more than simple obfuscation, in several respects...
Aside from the lack of attribution, or even the number of "officials" who have said this, the Times repeats the claim that Democrats in Congress are "equally as guilty" as Republicans of "questionable behavior." But as Broder and Hulse well know, even if this were so, the number of investigations and indictments handed down against Republicans recently far outweighs those against Democrats.
Now, I have no problem with saying that any Democrat who claims to represent me in local, state or national office who is indicted by any state or Federal court, should step aside from his or her post. I will even contact them and tell them so, speaking as a Democratic activist, when they are indicted. I have zero tolerance for anyone who looks at public office as a way to benefit themselves through bribery or any other form of graft or corruption.
However, to go to some unnamed Republicans and let them take a swipe and Democrats just to make sure that their story on Cunningham was 'balanced' is in fact unbalanced. Cunningham's attorney would have done more to insure balance (note that the Republicans they went to didn't even try to defend Randy, they just said that Democrats are 'just as guilty.') Well, maybe in the era of Rostenkowski, they might have been right (and Rostenkowski went right where he deserved to go-- to prison). But today, that just isn't true. It is Democrats who have instead been pushing for campaign finance and other ethical reforms. It is Democrats who refused to take their seats on the House Ethics committee until Tom DeLay jettisoned his 'reforms' that were designed to de-tooth the committee. That alone should tell you something, since the House Ethics committee is the only non-partisan committee in the House-- with equal numbers from each party, and charged with investigating all ethics violations by house members.
Maybe it means that Republicans under DeLay are in fact just where Rostenkowski and several other Democrats were a dozen years ago. They've been running the show long enough that they think they are lords and rulers over the people who elected them in the first place.
Alterman finishes his column this way:
I know, I know. Imagine how bad it would be if the MSM were not dominated by a liberal conspiracy. But you know guys, to quote the great Steven Colbert, sometimes the facts are just liberally biased.
This is one of those cases.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Brother, can you spare a dime? NO!!
It looks like they will be having Mardi Gras this year in New Orleans. But some people won't be celebrating. People who have been stuck in hotel rooms for months, and whose homes are in no condition to be inhabited, for example.
NEW ORLEANS - Some Hurricane Katrina refugees stuck in hotel rooms and unfamiliar surroundings across the United States are in no mood to party, and they are decrying the city's plans to hold a Mardi Gras celebration in February.
"This is not the time for fun. This is the time to put people's lives back on track," said Lillie Antoine, a 51-year-old refugee stuck in Tulsa, Okla.
City officials announced last month that New Orleans would hold an abbreviated Mardi Gras celebration. Civic boosters say the festivities can help revitalize New Orleans' economy, lift morale and show the world that the city is on its way back.
In addition to scaling the two-week Carnival season to eight days, the cash-strapped city is seeking corporate sponsors for the first time to pay for police overtime and the cleanup along the parade routes and the French Quarter.
Some storm refugees and black organizations say the party preparations are insensitive to the plight of so many displaced New Orleanians.
"I just think it sends the wrong message to have a celebration when people are not back in their houses," said Ernest Johnson, the Louisiana president of the
National Association for Colored People.
At a protest Monday of a few Katrina refugees in Atlanta, where the New Orleans Saints were playing, ChiQuita Simms said reconstruction should take precedence over partying.
"I'm not against Mardi Gras," said Simms, who has been living in an Atlanta hotel with her 14-year-old son. "I'm against their priorities." She added: "What you can do is guarantee me in two months you're going have a Mardi Gras, but you can't guarantee life will be back on?"
Before Katrina struck, the 2005 festivities were going to be one of the most exuberant parties in this party city's history — the 150th anniversary of Carnival parades in New Orleans. Mardi Gras falls on Feb. 28.
The dispute boiled over Saturday at a town hall meeting in Atlanta when Mayor Ray Nagin came under fire from an angry and raucous crowd of refugees for approving a Mardi Gras. Nagin then told the crowd that he had actually been against celebrating Mardi Gras but that tourism leaders forced his hand.
His comments stunned Carnival supporters back in New Orleans.
"He's like John Kerry — he was for it and then he was against it," bemoaned Ed Muniz, the captain of Endymion, one of the city's biggest and most glamorous parades.
Ernest Collins, the city's arts and entertainment director, said that the mayor made his Atlanta comments "in the heat of the moment" and that Nagin knows how important the celebration is.
But three days after the Atlanta meeting, Nagin suggested that during Carnival, hotels should put aside about a quarter of their rooms and an unspecified share of their profits to help bring people back. Hotel and tourism industry leaders were flabbergasted by the suggestion, and accused Nagin of "politicizing" Mardi Gras.
Flabbergasted? Now, I can understand the importance of Mardi Gras to the cultural and municipal heritage of the city, so I believe that resisting the calls to cancel the whole thing is the right decision. But aren't the people more important to a city than any of that? And I don't think that putting aside one quarter of the motel rooms and a portion (which doesn't necessarily even have to be that large) of their profits (a good chunk of which, incidentally would come back on their taxes) would be an unreasonable sacrifice to ask of those who are fortunate enough to 1) be there and 2) be in a position to actually make some money right now, in order to help those of their fellow citizens who have lost everything as a result of the awful events of earlier this year. The extraordinary events of this year in New Orleans are unprecedented, but this latest shows that the 'community leaders' are less interested in making a sacrifice that they could afford (remember, this is only a proposal that they help out with at least a token share of the PROFITS) to help with restoring the community than they are with making sure that they get theirs.
But if those folks are 'flabbergasted' at the thought, then on second thought, maybe it would be wiser to simply cancel the whole thing and spend the money needed to stage it directly on rebuilding and resettlement. Then see if next year they are happy with almost all of their profits.
NEW ORLEANS - Some Hurricane Katrina refugees stuck in hotel rooms and unfamiliar surroundings across the United States are in no mood to party, and they are decrying the city's plans to hold a Mardi Gras celebration in February.
"This is not the time for fun. This is the time to put people's lives back on track," said Lillie Antoine, a 51-year-old refugee stuck in Tulsa, Okla.
City officials announced last month that New Orleans would hold an abbreviated Mardi Gras celebration. Civic boosters say the festivities can help revitalize New Orleans' economy, lift morale and show the world that the city is on its way back.
In addition to scaling the two-week Carnival season to eight days, the cash-strapped city is seeking corporate sponsors for the first time to pay for police overtime and the cleanup along the parade routes and the French Quarter.
Some storm refugees and black organizations say the party preparations are insensitive to the plight of so many displaced New Orleanians.
"I just think it sends the wrong message to have a celebration when people are not back in their houses," said Ernest Johnson, the Louisiana president of the
National Association for Colored People.
At a protest Monday of a few Katrina refugees in Atlanta, where the New Orleans Saints were playing, ChiQuita Simms said reconstruction should take precedence over partying.
"I'm not against Mardi Gras," said Simms, who has been living in an Atlanta hotel with her 14-year-old son. "I'm against their priorities." She added: "What you can do is guarantee me in two months you're going have a Mardi Gras, but you can't guarantee life will be back on?"
Before Katrina struck, the 2005 festivities were going to be one of the most exuberant parties in this party city's history — the 150th anniversary of Carnival parades in New Orleans. Mardi Gras falls on Feb. 28.
The dispute boiled over Saturday at a town hall meeting in Atlanta when Mayor Ray Nagin came under fire from an angry and raucous crowd of refugees for approving a Mardi Gras. Nagin then told the crowd that he had actually been against celebrating Mardi Gras but that tourism leaders forced his hand.
His comments stunned Carnival supporters back in New Orleans.
"He's like John Kerry — he was for it and then he was against it," bemoaned Ed Muniz, the captain of Endymion, one of the city's biggest and most glamorous parades.
Ernest Collins, the city's arts and entertainment director, said that the mayor made his Atlanta comments "in the heat of the moment" and that Nagin knows how important the celebration is.
But three days after the Atlanta meeting, Nagin suggested that during Carnival, hotels should put aside about a quarter of their rooms and an unspecified share of their profits to help bring people back. Hotel and tourism industry leaders were flabbergasted by the suggestion, and accused Nagin of "politicizing" Mardi Gras.
Flabbergasted? Now, I can understand the importance of Mardi Gras to the cultural and municipal heritage of the city, so I believe that resisting the calls to cancel the whole thing is the right decision. But aren't the people more important to a city than any of that? And I don't think that putting aside one quarter of the motel rooms and a portion (which doesn't necessarily even have to be that large) of their profits (a good chunk of which, incidentally would come back on their taxes) would be an unreasonable sacrifice to ask of those who are fortunate enough to 1) be there and 2) be in a position to actually make some money right now, in order to help those of their fellow citizens who have lost everything as a result of the awful events of earlier this year. The extraordinary events of this year in New Orleans are unprecedented, but this latest shows that the 'community leaders' are less interested in making a sacrifice that they could afford (remember, this is only a proposal that they help out with at least a token share of the PROFITS) to help with restoring the community than they are with making sure that they get theirs.
But if those folks are 'flabbergasted' at the thought, then on second thought, maybe it would be wiser to simply cancel the whole thing and spend the money needed to stage it directly on rebuilding and resettlement. Then see if next year they are happy with almost all of their profits.
If you didn't hear it on Rush, it must not be true.
I recently joined another blogging team at The Coalition for a Republican Free America. Of course I am continuing to maintain Deep Thought as well as continuing to be part of the team at Night Bird's Fountain. Now I had planned to simply put up a post about it, but a Republican poster there really gave me a much better topic to post on. I had put up a post on global warming, and in the discussions, it had come up that I had mentioned that sea levels are rising and will continue to rise by anywhere from 1-4 feet in the next century. So, the commentor wrote
you have no facts to back you up just emotional, irrational fears of "seas rising 4 feet" that you regurgitate from greenpeace or wherever you get that crap.
Now, as anyone who has read this blog is aware, I don't make claims like this without being able to back them up (and if I make a mistake I will so acknowledge, as here and here). So, I linked to a couple of government sites (one from NASA and one from EPA) that would constitute evidence (although there are literally hundreds of scientifically supported sites that I could have gone to-- and no, I'm not counting Greenpeace.) But it was very revealing as to what people on the right are thinking and their mindset. They have been brainwashed to the extent that they simply deny even what is reported in virtually every scientific and even government sites on the topic (and when NASA under the Bush administration acknowledges that sea levels are rising at a pace that can be considered rapid in geological terms, that should pretty much end the debate right there). In other words, instead of even bothering with real information anymore, they parrot what they have been told by Rush, Faux News, etc. and others who have an agenda which includes omitting anything that would contradict their ideology (and in fact, on this point in particular, to admit that there was a serious problem, it would be the mother of all flip flops).
Further, since they have not been told the truth about this, they instead follow the strategy of attacking the messenger anytime someone says anything to that effect (probably because they have seen Hannity do it).
Well... at least I know not to invest in any beachfront property, especially in low lying, flat areas.
you have no facts to back you up just emotional, irrational fears of "seas rising 4 feet" that you regurgitate from greenpeace or wherever you get that crap.
Now, as anyone who has read this blog is aware, I don't make claims like this without being able to back them up (and if I make a mistake I will so acknowledge, as here and here). So, I linked to a couple of government sites (one from NASA and one from EPA) that would constitute evidence (although there are literally hundreds of scientifically supported sites that I could have gone to-- and no, I'm not counting Greenpeace.) But it was very revealing as to what people on the right are thinking and their mindset. They have been brainwashed to the extent that they simply deny even what is reported in virtually every scientific and even government sites on the topic (and when NASA under the Bush administration acknowledges that sea levels are rising at a pace that can be considered rapid in geological terms, that should pretty much end the debate right there). In other words, instead of even bothering with real information anymore, they parrot what they have been told by Rush, Faux News, etc. and others who have an agenda which includes omitting anything that would contradict their ideology (and in fact, on this point in particular, to admit that there was a serious problem, it would be the mother of all flip flops).
Further, since they have not been told the truth about this, they instead follow the strategy of attacking the messenger anytime someone says anything to that effect (probably because they have seen Hannity do it).
Well... at least I know not to invest in any beachfront property, especially in low lying, flat areas.
Monday, December 12, 2005
But sir, it's one of the most important pieces of paper ever written upon.
Credit to Barbi over at Night Bird's Fountain for bringing this to my attention.
Turns out that we saw, during a White House debate on the Patriot Act, what President Bush really thinks about the Constitution that he is sworn to defend.
According to Capitol Hill Blue columnist Doug Thompson, Bush at a meeting last month on the Patriot Act got angry and said when told that some of the things he wanted to do might run afoul of the Constitution, "It's just a goddamn piece of paper."
The relevant text from the article is here:
Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.
Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.
GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”
“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”
You may be a liberal. You may be a conservative. But if you believe that President Bush was correct in believing that he could do as he wishes simply because he is the leader and not be constrained by 'the piece of paper' upon which our Republic is built, then it could not be said that you are a friend or defender of our country.
Turns out that we saw, during a White House debate on the Patriot Act, what President Bush really thinks about the Constitution that he is sworn to defend.
According to Capitol Hill Blue columnist Doug Thompson, Bush at a meeting last month on the Patriot Act got angry and said when told that some of the things he wanted to do might run afoul of the Constitution, "It's just a goddamn piece of paper."
The relevant text from the article is here:
Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.
Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.
GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”
“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”
You may be a liberal. You may be a conservative. But if you believe that President Bush was correct in believing that he could do as he wishes simply because he is the leader and not be constrained by 'the piece of paper' upon which our Republic is built, then it could not be said that you are a friend or defender of our country.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
Eugene McCarthy, 1916-2005
It is very unusual for me to do obituary posts. I did one for Simon Wiesenthal a few weeks ago. Then I did my second a few minutes ago for Richard Pryor. This will be the third. In other words, I only do them for people who I really respect and feel that they made a big difference in the world, for the better.
Eugene McCarthy ran for President. He didn't win. He didn't even get nominated. In fact, he got beat in the New Hampshire primary in 1968. Yet it was his effort in losing, that truly shook the nation, caused a President to quit running for re-election, and made it clear that the idea that the war in Vietnam had unlimited support, and the the establishment could count on unlimited patience from the American people, was dead wrong. Later in that year of turmoil that included riots (including at the Democratic convention), the assassination of two great American icons who stood for justice for all, the reactionary Wallace campaign to roll back desgregation, Johnson was succeeded by Richard Nixon-- a President at least as complex and as dishonest as Johnson, but who perhaps ironically, nevertheless saw, after trying and failing to win the war, what Johnson could never see-- that the war was destined to drag on interminably until we left. So, ironically, it was Nixon who finally got us out of there.
But that would not have happened without McCarthy. Had he not run, President Johnson would certainly have won renomination, and very likely re-election (remember that Vice President Humphrey, effectively a 'status quo' candidate who represented Johnson, lost a very close race to Nixon). Then he would have continued his failed policy in Vietnam until a successor (who by that time would very likely have been a Republican, and very possibly Ronald Reagan) was chosen in 1972. The bruises that we as a nation suffered in Vietnam would by that time have become deep and gaping infections. So, the case can be made that McCarthy saved us as a nation from ourselves.
McCarthy ran for President four more times after 1968, but he never again recaptured the lighting that he held for a few brief days in that year, when he inspired and sparked a movement that quickly grew beyond any one person. He didn't need to inspire it anymore. He came along as the right man, with the right message, at the right moment in history.
Eugene McCarthy ran for President. He didn't win. He didn't even get nominated. In fact, he got beat in the New Hampshire primary in 1968. Yet it was his effort in losing, that truly shook the nation, caused a President to quit running for re-election, and made it clear that the idea that the war in Vietnam had unlimited support, and the the establishment could count on unlimited patience from the American people, was dead wrong. Later in that year of turmoil that included riots (including at the Democratic convention), the assassination of two great American icons who stood for justice for all, the reactionary Wallace campaign to roll back desgregation, Johnson was succeeded by Richard Nixon-- a President at least as complex and as dishonest as Johnson, but who perhaps ironically, nevertheless saw, after trying and failing to win the war, what Johnson could never see-- that the war was destined to drag on interminably until we left. So, ironically, it was Nixon who finally got us out of there.
But that would not have happened without McCarthy. Had he not run, President Johnson would certainly have won renomination, and very likely re-election (remember that Vice President Humphrey, effectively a 'status quo' candidate who represented Johnson, lost a very close race to Nixon). Then he would have continued his failed policy in Vietnam until a successor (who by that time would very likely have been a Republican, and very possibly Ronald Reagan) was chosen in 1972. The bruises that we as a nation suffered in Vietnam would by that time have become deep and gaping infections. So, the case can be made that McCarthy saved us as a nation from ourselves.
McCarthy ran for President four more times after 1968, but he never again recaptured the lighting that he held for a few brief days in that year, when he inspired and sparked a movement that quickly grew beyond any one person. He didn't need to inspire it anymore. He came along as the right man, with the right message, at the right moment in history.
Richard Pryor, 1940-2005
Richard Pryor died today from a heart attack. He had suffered for years from multiple schlerosis, and had been out of filmmaking since 1991, aside from a brief stint on the television show, 'Chicago Hope,' which highlighted the difficulties of living with MS, and for which he was nominated for an emmy. But he left a big footprint on the world.
I remember as a kid really enjoying watching his movies. But it wasn't until later that I got to know more about this complex comedian, someone who inspired a generation of other successful comedians.
He was vulgar. He was funny. He lived life on the edge and sometimes fell over it. He succeeded in making movies that could poke fun at segregation in an age when it was still very much a part of America. He could see that there was still racism in America, but also see the progress that was being made.
It's hard to categorize Richard Pryor. His early movies were truly on the edge. The first Pryor film I saw was, 'Greased Lightning,' and it was raucus, in your face and not afraid to confront social issues (in the film, Pryor and a white friend are kicked out of a segregated restaurant, taking their food with them; Later, the plates are returned-- through the front window.) In 1977, he had a television series on NBC in which he threated to cancel the contract because of censors' objections to a skit he was doing in which he appeared in a loin cloth.
His later work became much more bland (like the eighties generally). It turned out that during this time, Pryor was battling drug and alcohol addiction-- an addiction that suddenly became very public when he was severely burned over fifty percent of his body in a flash fire that started while he was freebasing cocaine.
His daughter Rain, also an actress, summed up a lot about Richard Pryor: She said her father "put his life right out there for you to look at. I took that approach because I saw how well audiences respond to it. I try to make you laugh at life."
No question that Richard Pryor was a free spirit. Unlike a lot of celebrities, he didn't mind being the butt of jokes (in fact he even was able to tell jokes about himself that might have been considered over the line if others had told them, for example about the cocaine burning incident). He laughed at himself, he laughed at the world, and he made us laugh.
I remember as a kid really enjoying watching his movies. But it wasn't until later that I got to know more about this complex comedian, someone who inspired a generation of other successful comedians.
He was vulgar. He was funny. He lived life on the edge and sometimes fell over it. He succeeded in making movies that could poke fun at segregation in an age when it was still very much a part of America. He could see that there was still racism in America, but also see the progress that was being made.
It's hard to categorize Richard Pryor. His early movies were truly on the edge. The first Pryor film I saw was, 'Greased Lightning,' and it was raucus, in your face and not afraid to confront social issues (in the film, Pryor and a white friend are kicked out of a segregated restaurant, taking their food with them; Later, the plates are returned-- through the front window.) In 1977, he had a television series on NBC in which he threated to cancel the contract because of censors' objections to a skit he was doing in which he appeared in a loin cloth.
His later work became much more bland (like the eighties generally). It turned out that during this time, Pryor was battling drug and alcohol addiction-- an addiction that suddenly became very public when he was severely burned over fifty percent of his body in a flash fire that started while he was freebasing cocaine.
His daughter Rain, also an actress, summed up a lot about Richard Pryor: She said her father "put his life right out there for you to look at. I took that approach because I saw how well audiences respond to it. I try to make you laugh at life."
No question that Richard Pryor was a free spirit. Unlike a lot of celebrities, he didn't mind being the butt of jokes (in fact he even was able to tell jokes about himself that might have been considered over the line if others had told them, for example about the cocaine burning incident). He laughed at himself, he laughed at the world, and he made us laugh.
Friday, December 09, 2005
English only means you better not even think out loud any other way
People who claim they are in favor of everyone learning English (and that is not a bad idea, so long as it is accomplished with respect and help for people who haven't learned it yet) are in fact intolerant when it comes to people even speaking another language.
Just ask Zach.
KANSAS CITY, Kan. - Most of the time, 16-year-old Zach Rubio converses in clear, unaccented American teen-speak, a form of English in which the three most common words are "like," "whatever" and "totally." But Zach is also fluent in his dad's native language, Spanish -- and that's what got him suspended from school.
"It was, like, totally not in the classroom," the high school junior said, recalling the infraction. "We were in the, like, hall or whatever, on restroom break. This kid I know, he's like, 'Me prestas un dolar?' ['Will you lend me a dollar?'] Well, he asked in Spanish; it just seemed natural to answer that way. So I'm like, 'No problema.'
But that conversation turned out to be a big problem for the staff at the Endeavor Alternative School, a small public high school in an ethnically mixed blue-collar neighborhood. A teacher who overheard the two boys sent Zach to the office, where Principal Jennifer Watts ordered him to call his father and leave the school.
Watts, whom students describe as a disciplinarian, said she can't discuss the case. But in a written "discipline referral" explaining her decision to suspend Zach for 1 1/2 days, she noted: "This is not the first time we have [asked] Zach and others to not speak Spanish at school."
Since then, the suspension of Zach Rubio has become the talk of the town in both English and Spanish newspapers and radio shows. The school district has officially rescinded his punishment and said that speaking a foreign language is not grounds for suspension.
This shows how far over the line these people can get. Zach 1. speaks English perfectly well, 2. was not in class, and 3. was responding to a question he was asked in the language it was asked in.
It's bad enough when adults insist that classes be taught only in English (so that, for example, we will one day have adult citizens voting in elections who understand nothing of American history or government because it was taught to them in a language they don't understand), but now it is to the point where a child is punished for even speaking a TWO WORDS of Spanish on campus OUTSIDE OF CLASS TIME.
In the context of an increasingly global economy (and Spanish is one of only four languages in the world for which the proportion of people in the world who are speakers increases each year rather than decreases-- the others are English, Mandarin and Arabic), it is becoming abundantly clear that the people who run (and profit from) international trade in the future will mostly not be Americans, but people from countries where speaking two languages (as Zach does) is considered a virtue and not something to be attacked and punished for.
Aside from this, one has to wonder if a generalized 'Espanolophobia' might be at work here. I've never heard of, for example, two French speaking exchange students, or two students speaking German or Chinese or Hebrew at school being singled out for punishment. But this is not the first time I have heard of students getting in some kind of trouble (though not suspended) for speaking Spanish in school. I know that in my high school (many years ago, to be sure) there were a group of students from Vietnam who conversed between themselves in Vietnamese. No one batted an eyelid about that. But even then, it was discouraged for students to speak Spanish on campus. Why is Spanish discouraged even above all other non-English languages?
Just ask Zach.
KANSAS CITY, Kan. - Most of the time, 16-year-old Zach Rubio converses in clear, unaccented American teen-speak, a form of English in which the three most common words are "like," "whatever" and "totally." But Zach is also fluent in his dad's native language, Spanish -- and that's what got him suspended from school.
"It was, like, totally not in the classroom," the high school junior said, recalling the infraction. "We were in the, like, hall or whatever, on restroom break. This kid I know, he's like, 'Me prestas un dolar?' ['Will you lend me a dollar?'] Well, he asked in Spanish; it just seemed natural to answer that way. So I'm like, 'No problema.'
But that conversation turned out to be a big problem for the staff at the Endeavor Alternative School, a small public high school in an ethnically mixed blue-collar neighborhood. A teacher who overheard the two boys sent Zach to the office, where Principal Jennifer Watts ordered him to call his father and leave the school.
Watts, whom students describe as a disciplinarian, said she can't discuss the case. But in a written "discipline referral" explaining her decision to suspend Zach for 1 1/2 days, she noted: "This is not the first time we have [asked] Zach and others to not speak Spanish at school."
Since then, the suspension of Zach Rubio has become the talk of the town in both English and Spanish newspapers and radio shows. The school district has officially rescinded his punishment and said that speaking a foreign language is not grounds for suspension.
This shows how far over the line these people can get. Zach 1. speaks English perfectly well, 2. was not in class, and 3. was responding to a question he was asked in the language it was asked in.
It's bad enough when adults insist that classes be taught only in English (so that, for example, we will one day have adult citizens voting in elections who understand nothing of American history or government because it was taught to them in a language they don't understand), but now it is to the point where a child is punished for even speaking a TWO WORDS of Spanish on campus OUTSIDE OF CLASS TIME.
In the context of an increasingly global economy (and Spanish is one of only four languages in the world for which the proportion of people in the world who are speakers increases each year rather than decreases-- the others are English, Mandarin and Arabic), it is becoming abundantly clear that the people who run (and profit from) international trade in the future will mostly not be Americans, but people from countries where speaking two languages (as Zach does) is considered a virtue and not something to be attacked and punished for.
Aside from this, one has to wonder if a generalized 'Espanolophobia' might be at work here. I've never heard of, for example, two French speaking exchange students, or two students speaking German or Chinese or Hebrew at school being singled out for punishment. But this is not the first time I have heard of students getting in some kind of trouble (though not suspended) for speaking Spanish in school. I know that in my high school (many years ago, to be sure) there were a group of students from Vietnam who conversed between themselves in Vietnamese. No one batted an eyelid about that. But even then, it was discouraged for students to speak Spanish on campus. Why is Spanish discouraged even above all other non-English languages?
claim of Iraq-al-Qaeda link based on coerced lie
Are you surprised by this? I'm not. And that is sad, because it means that I've come to expect this kind of stuff anymore:
It turns out that the part of our justification for the war in Iraq that involved links to al-Qaeda, and in particular the claims that they were involved in chemical weapons and explosives training in joint exercises with the Iraqi military, were not only obtained by coercion, but turn out to have been complete fabrications by an al-Qaeda suspect who was sent to Egypt for interrogation, under a policy (since revised) by which terror suspects were 'outsourced' for questioning to countries where the use of torture is legal or is carried out despite laws against it.
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration based a crucial prewar assertion about ties between Iraq and al-Qaida on statements gathered from the controversial U.S. policy of turning suspects over to foreign authorities for interrogation, according to current and former government officials.
An interrogated prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, provided his most specific and elaborate accounts about ties between Iraq and al-Qaida in a process known as rendition.
Libi, handed over to Egyptian custody in January 2002, later said he had fabricated the accounts to escape harsh treatment, according to those officials....
The Bush administration used Libi's accounts as the basis for its prewar claims, now discredited, that ties between Iraq and al-Qaida included training in explosives and chemical weapons.
There is nothing mysterious about what happened here. Mr. Libi was being interrogated by Egyptians using methods that were illegal for the CIA at the time (hence the use of Egyptian interrogators in Egypt), and he said what they wanted him to say in order to end the interrogation. Then the Bush administration used his 'confession' to help build the case for the war in Iraq (which as we know from former Bush cabinet member Paul O'Neill and others, was pretty much decided on as a policy even from the earliest days of the Bush administration, well before 9/11.)
And the bigger irony is this: Even with this experience of resounding failure, they want to 'reserve the right' to still conduct torture.
I guess they want to make more people 'say what they want them to' in order to justify some future action.
It turns out that the part of our justification for the war in Iraq that involved links to al-Qaeda, and in particular the claims that they were involved in chemical weapons and explosives training in joint exercises with the Iraqi military, were not only obtained by coercion, but turn out to have been complete fabrications by an al-Qaeda suspect who was sent to Egypt for interrogation, under a policy (since revised) by which terror suspects were 'outsourced' for questioning to countries where the use of torture is legal or is carried out despite laws against it.
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration based a crucial prewar assertion about ties between Iraq and al-Qaida on statements gathered from the controversial U.S. policy of turning suspects over to foreign authorities for interrogation, according to current and former government officials.
An interrogated prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, provided his most specific and elaborate accounts about ties between Iraq and al-Qaida in a process known as rendition.
Libi, handed over to Egyptian custody in January 2002, later said he had fabricated the accounts to escape harsh treatment, according to those officials....
The Bush administration used Libi's accounts as the basis for its prewar claims, now discredited, that ties between Iraq and al-Qaida included training in explosives and chemical weapons.
There is nothing mysterious about what happened here. Mr. Libi was being interrogated by Egyptians using methods that were illegal for the CIA at the time (hence the use of Egyptian interrogators in Egypt), and he said what they wanted him to say in order to end the interrogation. Then the Bush administration used his 'confession' to help build the case for the war in Iraq (which as we know from former Bush cabinet member Paul O'Neill and others, was pretty much decided on as a policy even from the earliest days of the Bush administration, well before 9/11.)
And the bigger irony is this: Even with this experience of resounding failure, they want to 'reserve the right' to still conduct torture.
I guess they want to make more people 'say what they want them to' in order to justify some future action.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.
Credit to Dorsano for this story:
A very interesting letter appeared today (the 64th anniversary of Pearl Harbor) in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. The letter, written by a career Naval Officer, points out that if the Bush doctrine on pre-emptive war is taken as a basis for starting a war, then the Pearl Harbor attack would have been justified on the part of the Japanese.
The letter reads:
Remembering Pearl Harbor seems doubly -- or even triply -- important today. With that memory comes also the voice (rebroadcast almost every year) of President Franklin D. Roosevelt declaring to Congress and the nation, "Yesterday, December 7, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked ..."
My 31 years of service as an officer in the U.S. Navy were richly satisfying -- in large measure because of the men and women with whom I served. But even more, my satisfaction came from an appreciation for living in and serving a nation dedicated to the principles of freedom and opportunity and justice for all, and of nobody being above the law.
But now, we are living in a country whose administration both declares and acts upon the belief that preemptive strikes are wise foreign policy, are a legitimate use of our military. Was the attack on Pearl Harbor anything other than a preemptive strike?
I ask President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld -- are we now to view Pearl Harbor as the product of a sound foreign policy by a nation with a strong military? Or would we instead be wise to remember that December 7, 1941, is still a date which will live in infamy?
ALAN YOUEL, RICHFIELD
Now, the United States was, as we know, involved in supplying the Chinese (with whom the Japanese were then at war) with arms, had adopted an active military posture, (whether to goad the Japanese into war or not, is debatable, but certainly from their viewpoint it was) and as such had to be considered a threat. In fact, the American military was the only one in the Pacific that actually could stand up to the Japanese. And there is absolutely no question that the United States military in 1941 was more capable of attacking Japan than Saddam Hussein was in 2003 of attacking the United States.
So, the whole idea of a pre-emptive war (a new concept in the history of the United States, developed by the Bush administration) is exactly what we were on the receiving end of on December 7, 1941. Making crass distinctions based on governmental types (i.e. it is OK for a Democracy against a dictatorship, but not by a Monarchy against a Democracy) is weak and won't hold water. Either, as Mr. Youel expounds on, 'preemptive war' is acceptable as a national policy or it is not. But saying something is 'acceptable for us to do, but not when used against us' brings us perilously close to the kind of logic we were fighting against in World War II and in the Cold War which followed it.
Now, I still consider December 7, 1941 to be a 'day of infamy.' Do you?
A very interesting letter appeared today (the 64th anniversary of Pearl Harbor) in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. The letter, written by a career Naval Officer, points out that if the Bush doctrine on pre-emptive war is taken as a basis for starting a war, then the Pearl Harbor attack would have been justified on the part of the Japanese.
The letter reads:
Remembering Pearl Harbor seems doubly -- or even triply -- important today. With that memory comes also the voice (rebroadcast almost every year) of President Franklin D. Roosevelt declaring to Congress and the nation, "Yesterday, December 7, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked ..."
My 31 years of service as an officer in the U.S. Navy were richly satisfying -- in large measure because of the men and women with whom I served. But even more, my satisfaction came from an appreciation for living in and serving a nation dedicated to the principles of freedom and opportunity and justice for all, and of nobody being above the law.
But now, we are living in a country whose administration both declares and acts upon the belief that preemptive strikes are wise foreign policy, are a legitimate use of our military. Was the attack on Pearl Harbor anything other than a preemptive strike?
I ask President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld -- are we now to view Pearl Harbor as the product of a sound foreign policy by a nation with a strong military? Or would we instead be wise to remember that December 7, 1941, is still a date which will live in infamy?
ALAN YOUEL, RICHFIELD
Now, the United States was, as we know, involved in supplying the Chinese (with whom the Japanese were then at war) with arms, had adopted an active military posture, (whether to goad the Japanese into war or not, is debatable, but certainly from their viewpoint it was) and as such had to be considered a threat. In fact, the American military was the only one in the Pacific that actually could stand up to the Japanese. And there is absolutely no question that the United States military in 1941 was more capable of attacking Japan than Saddam Hussein was in 2003 of attacking the United States.
So, the whole idea of a pre-emptive war (a new concept in the history of the United States, developed by the Bush administration) is exactly what we were on the receiving end of on December 7, 1941. Making crass distinctions based on governmental types (i.e. it is OK for a Democracy against a dictatorship, but not by a Monarchy against a Democracy) is weak and won't hold water. Either, as Mr. Youel expounds on, 'preemptive war' is acceptable as a national policy or it is not. But saying something is 'acceptable for us to do, but not when used against us' brings us perilously close to the kind of logic we were fighting against in World War II and in the Cold War which followed it.
Now, I still consider December 7, 1941 to be a 'day of infamy.' Do you?
Saddam Hussein trial.
This week, TV and the internet are saturated with talk about the Saddam Hussein trial.
Now, Saddam Hussein is an evil man (there is no other adjective that you can use to describe him). It is not hard to find literally thousands of Iraqis who can testify truthfully about the horrors of his prisons (and those thousands are just the survivors) so the conclusion is pretty much a given-- he will be found guilty, and that will be a just verdict.
What we see coming from the right, however, is an argument that goes like this: Saddam was bad, so therefore we can't be faulted for a war that removed him.
There are several fallacies with this line of thought. The first is that the war was sold as necessary, not to get rid of Mr. Hussein (at best, the whole 'regime change' argument was thrown in as a secondary justification) but because he had WMD, which was not only not true, but recently more and more evidence has been accumulating (some of which I have blogged on) that many in the White House knew that the intelligence reports on WMD were faulty, and simply cherry picked those reports that buttressed their position. But regardless of this, the White House never claimed that simply getting rid of Saddam was enough justification for invasion. So those who claim that it was now, are rewriting history. And the acid test is this: there is a brutal dictator with secret prisons, where torture is practiced, and who is guilty of many of the same crimes as Saddam, and he is only ninety miles from the United States. But (aside from a few neighborhoods in Miami) you won't find anyone advocating that we go invade Cuba just to get rid of Mr. Castro. Of course, Mr. Castro does not have oil, and no one except John Bolton (on one of his more delusional days) has suggested that Mr. Castro possesses any WMD or has any intention to develop them. So the whole argument that a brutal dictator is reason enough for an invasion is not supported by reality.
And on top of that, the worst of Saddam's crimes occurred before the first Gulf War, and if gassing the Kurds and Iranians didn't justify attacking him in 1988 when it occurred (and when the Reagan White House simply excused the first use of gas in warfare since WWI because at that time Saddam was 'our buddy'), it is hard to say that it justified attacking him fifteen years later. In that context, it was a convenient excuse, nothing more.
Further, Saddam has been out of power for two and a half years now. It has been two full years since American soldiers pulled him out of a 'spiderhole.' So, if that was the reason we were there, why are we still there?
Oh, yeah. It is now to fight his former supporters, as well as the terrorists who predictably flooded the country to fight us. As has been noted in a number of quarters, our presence is now fueling the insurgency as much as it is fighting it.
Now, Saddam Hussein is an evil man (there is no other adjective that you can use to describe him). It is not hard to find literally thousands of Iraqis who can testify truthfully about the horrors of his prisons (and those thousands are just the survivors) so the conclusion is pretty much a given-- he will be found guilty, and that will be a just verdict.
What we see coming from the right, however, is an argument that goes like this: Saddam was bad, so therefore we can't be faulted for a war that removed him.
There are several fallacies with this line of thought. The first is that the war was sold as necessary, not to get rid of Mr. Hussein (at best, the whole 'regime change' argument was thrown in as a secondary justification) but because he had WMD, which was not only not true, but recently more and more evidence has been accumulating (some of which I have blogged on) that many in the White House knew that the intelligence reports on WMD were faulty, and simply cherry picked those reports that buttressed their position. But regardless of this, the White House never claimed that simply getting rid of Saddam was enough justification for invasion. So those who claim that it was now, are rewriting history. And the acid test is this: there is a brutal dictator with secret prisons, where torture is practiced, and who is guilty of many of the same crimes as Saddam, and he is only ninety miles from the United States. But (aside from a few neighborhoods in Miami) you won't find anyone advocating that we go invade Cuba just to get rid of Mr. Castro. Of course, Mr. Castro does not have oil, and no one except John Bolton (on one of his more delusional days) has suggested that Mr. Castro possesses any WMD or has any intention to develop them. So the whole argument that a brutal dictator is reason enough for an invasion is not supported by reality.
And on top of that, the worst of Saddam's crimes occurred before the first Gulf War, and if gassing the Kurds and Iranians didn't justify attacking him in 1988 when it occurred (and when the Reagan White House simply excused the first use of gas in warfare since WWI because at that time Saddam was 'our buddy'), it is hard to say that it justified attacking him fifteen years later. In that context, it was a convenient excuse, nothing more.
Further, Saddam has been out of power for two and a half years now. It has been two full years since American soldiers pulled him out of a 'spiderhole.' So, if that was the reason we were there, why are we still there?
Oh, yeah. It is now to fight his former supporters, as well as the terrorists who predictably flooded the country to fight us. As has been noted in a number of quarters, our presence is now fueling the insurgency as much as it is fighting it.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
This is why short-cutting due process is a bad idea. This might be you.
The ACLU has joined a lawuit filed by Khaled al-Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent, who was illegally snatched by the CIA on Christmas Eve 2003 while on his way to visit relatives in Macedonia, then sent to a CIA prison in Afghanistan (a country where he has no relatives or other connections) where he was held without charges for five months.
Last year, the CIA thought it had an important al-Qaida terrorist in custody. CIA agents secretly detained him in Europe and flew him to a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan, in a so-called "rendition." But now senior U.S. officials tell NBC News that CIA realized early on, it had the wrong man — but kept him in prison anyway. They say he was kept in the primitive prison for more than a month after CIA director George Tenet was informed of the case, while officials tried to figure out a way to fix their mistake.
On New Year’s Eve 2003, German citizen Khaled El-Masri says he was kidnapped in Macedonia, and then flown by U.S. officials to Afghanistan where he was held in secret in harsh conditions until May. The mysterious events were seen as a case study in "renditions," or secret CIA operations to move terrorist suspects to third countries, outside U.S. legal authority.
Al-Masri, which the US admitted falsely imprisoning earlier this year, isn't suing for a great deal of money-- reportedly only $75,000 to cover the lost income and medical bills he has suffered as a result-- so clearly the man isn't trying to profit from this. He would be justified if he sued for a lot more though:
Among the details NBC News has learned:
Macedonian officials arrested El Masri first and told the CIA that El-Masri’s German passport was fake. His name set off bells because it matched someone who had trained in Osama bin Laden’s camps.
A CIA "black renditions" team swept into Macedonia and then flew El-Masri to a prison in Afghanistan nicknamed the "Salt Pit."
In February, CIA officers in Kabul began to suspect he was the wrong man, and they raised the red flag. They sent his passport back to the agency’s headquarters in Langley, Va. In March, sources say, the CIA finally finished checking his passport and found it was not a fake. The Macedonians had been wrong. The CIA realized it had the wrong man, a genuine German citizen, in custody.
El-Masri told NBC News that back in Afghanistan, in the prison, one American was frustrated over what was happening.
"He seemed to get mad about the situation and shouted, 'I don't think you belong here, I will once more call Washington,'" El-Masri says.
But in Washington, sources say, in mid April, officals called a special meeting at the CIA to brief director George Tenet. An officer quotes Tenet as saying, "You’ve got an innocent guy in the Salt Pit?" Tenet said El-Masri should be released.
By May, sources say National Security Council Director Condoleezza Rice learned of the mistake and ordered El-Masri's immediate release. She said as well that the German government should be told of the incident, for diplomatic reasons. But that didn’t end the case. About two weeks later, Rice learned El-Masri was still being held and ordered him released again.
In late May 2003, he finally was freed.
but the more important aspect of the suit are these:
1. It makes it plain that this is happening. Some on the right have said that the idea that people are being sent to secret prisons without a hearing to determine guilt are pure speculation. But now we have someone who it happened to.
2. It makes the case as well as anything could, that due process is necessary. People on the right are always going on about how terror suspects don't deserve due process. But they forget what due process is. Due process is a way to determine whether someone who is accused, is in fact guilty. Without it, you can have people like al-Masri who are innocent and still end up in secret prisons, with no access to legal help, and for as long as our government decides to keep them there. Due process rights are not to 'coddle' the guilty, but to protect the falsely accused, and as we see for example the writ of habeas corpus, an integral part of the law since the middle ages and since the founding of the United States (thereby guaranteeing access to the Federal Courts), about to be jettisoned in the newly revised Patriot Act III, we would do well to remember that. Get rid of due process, and an accusation becomes the foundation for punishment, as happened to Mr. al-Masri.
3. According to the article, George Tenet and Condoleeza Rice both demanded, once they found out that an innocent man was in prison, that he be released immediately. But he was not for several more weeks. If that is accurate, then someone else is exercising more power than the CIA director and the Secretary of State. It might be the President. It might be the Vice President. Or it might be someone you have never heard of. The implications of this are so frightening that it makes me HOPE that this part of the story is false, and that they are only covering up now.
IN THE COMMENTS:
This post originally made reference to torture. However, a reader points out that there has been no evidence offered that Mr. al-Masri was physically tortured while there. Therefore, all references to torture have been expunged (we will follow the trial closely), but the point about due process continues to stand.
Last year, the CIA thought it had an important al-Qaida terrorist in custody. CIA agents secretly detained him in Europe and flew him to a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan, in a so-called "rendition." But now senior U.S. officials tell NBC News that CIA realized early on, it had the wrong man — but kept him in prison anyway. They say he was kept in the primitive prison for more than a month after CIA director George Tenet was informed of the case, while officials tried to figure out a way to fix their mistake.
On New Year’s Eve 2003, German citizen Khaled El-Masri says he was kidnapped in Macedonia, and then flown by U.S. officials to Afghanistan where he was held in secret in harsh conditions until May. The mysterious events were seen as a case study in "renditions," or secret CIA operations to move terrorist suspects to third countries, outside U.S. legal authority.
Al-Masri, which the US admitted falsely imprisoning earlier this year, isn't suing for a great deal of money-- reportedly only $75,000 to cover the lost income and medical bills he has suffered as a result-- so clearly the man isn't trying to profit from this. He would be justified if he sued for a lot more though:
Among the details NBC News has learned:
Macedonian officials arrested El Masri first and told the CIA that El-Masri’s German passport was fake. His name set off bells because it matched someone who had trained in Osama bin Laden’s camps.
A CIA "black renditions" team swept into Macedonia and then flew El-Masri to a prison in Afghanistan nicknamed the "Salt Pit."
In February, CIA officers in Kabul began to suspect he was the wrong man, and they raised the red flag. They sent his passport back to the agency’s headquarters in Langley, Va. In March, sources say, the CIA finally finished checking his passport and found it was not a fake. The Macedonians had been wrong. The CIA realized it had the wrong man, a genuine German citizen, in custody.
El-Masri told NBC News that back in Afghanistan, in the prison, one American was frustrated over what was happening.
"He seemed to get mad about the situation and shouted, 'I don't think you belong here, I will once more call Washington,'" El-Masri says.
But in Washington, sources say, in mid April, officals called a special meeting at the CIA to brief director George Tenet. An officer quotes Tenet as saying, "You’ve got an innocent guy in the Salt Pit?" Tenet said El-Masri should be released.
By May, sources say National Security Council Director Condoleezza Rice learned of the mistake and ordered El-Masri's immediate release. She said as well that the German government should be told of the incident, for diplomatic reasons. But that didn’t end the case. About two weeks later, Rice learned El-Masri was still being held and ordered him released again.
In late May 2003, he finally was freed.
but the more important aspect of the suit are these:
1. It makes it plain that this is happening. Some on the right have said that the idea that people are being sent to secret prisons without a hearing to determine guilt are pure speculation. But now we have someone who it happened to.
2. It makes the case as well as anything could, that due process is necessary. People on the right are always going on about how terror suspects don't deserve due process. But they forget what due process is. Due process is a way to determine whether someone who is accused, is in fact guilty. Without it, you can have people like al-Masri who are innocent and still end up in secret prisons, with no access to legal help, and for as long as our government decides to keep them there. Due process rights are not to 'coddle' the guilty, but to protect the falsely accused, and as we see for example the writ of habeas corpus, an integral part of the law since the middle ages and since the founding of the United States (thereby guaranteeing access to the Federal Courts), about to be jettisoned in the newly revised Patriot Act III, we would do well to remember that. Get rid of due process, and an accusation becomes the foundation for punishment, as happened to Mr. al-Masri.
3. According to the article, George Tenet and Condoleeza Rice both demanded, once they found out that an innocent man was in prison, that he be released immediately. But he was not for several more weeks. If that is accurate, then someone else is exercising more power than the CIA director and the Secretary of State. It might be the President. It might be the Vice President. Or it might be someone you have never heard of. The implications of this are so frightening that it makes me HOPE that this part of the story is false, and that they are only covering up now.
IN THE COMMENTS:
This post originally made reference to torture. However, a reader points out that there has been no evidence offered that Mr. al-Masri was physically tortured while there. Therefore, all references to torture have been expunged (we will follow the trial closely), but the point about due process continues to stand.
Lowering the standard
As we know, talk left has uncovered evidence that when President Bush said,
And I know he's thinking about his late father. Samuel Alito Sr. came to this country as a immigrant from Italy in 1914.
he was wrong. Alito senior was apparently born in New Jersey.
Now, this in itself is a tempest in a teapot, but what it points out is yet another situation where the 'shoot from the hip' Bush administration has failed to do their homework, and jumped into action without proper preparation.
It seems that this administration doesn't feel they need to look at all the information that is available, instead they make a decision and then only look as far as they feel they need to in order to support their decision. Research? For the birds.
These instances of jump in, then test the water have ranged from the minor embarrassment (this) to the major embarrassment (Bernard Kerik) to the tragic (cutting New Orleans flood control levee funding), to the 'pay the price in the future' (ignoring more and more evidence about global warming) and of course the granddaddy of them all, ignoring evidence that ran contrary to the administration claims about Iraq before invading.
Now say what you want about past Presidents, but Clinton, Bush Sr. and even Reagan made sure that they had done their homework before they did something, so that these kinds of embarrassments were rare in their administrations.
But we have now reached a lower standard.
And I know he's thinking about his late father. Samuel Alito Sr. came to this country as a immigrant from Italy in 1914.
he was wrong. Alito senior was apparently born in New Jersey.
Now, this in itself is a tempest in a teapot, but what it points out is yet another situation where the 'shoot from the hip' Bush administration has failed to do their homework, and jumped into action without proper preparation.
It seems that this administration doesn't feel they need to look at all the information that is available, instead they make a decision and then only look as far as they feel they need to in order to support their decision. Research? For the birds.
These instances of jump in, then test the water have ranged from the minor embarrassment (this) to the major embarrassment (Bernard Kerik) to the tragic (cutting New Orleans flood control levee funding), to the 'pay the price in the future' (ignoring more and more evidence about global warming) and of course the granddaddy of them all, ignoring evidence that ran contrary to the administration claims about Iraq before invading.
Now say what you want about past Presidents, but Clinton, Bush Sr. and even Reagan made sure that they had done their homework before they did something, so that these kinds of embarrassments were rare in their administrations.
But we have now reached a lower standard.
Saturday, December 03, 2005
A step in the direction of sanity
Credit to Buzzflash for the story.
The Transportation and Safety Authority will soon be allowing some items that were banned post-Sept. 11, including small pairs of scissors (4 inches or less) and screwdrivers back on board in carry on items. Later, nail clippers are also mentioned as now being allowed in carry on bags. Sharp knives and boxcutters are still not allowed.
And I think this is well overdue. Not only because it was making travel a bigger headache than it had to be:
"We are opening a lot of bags to take away objects that do not pose a great risk," [TSA Deputy Administrator Kip Hawley] said. "We found that a disproportionate amount of our resources go to line-slowing bag searches directed at objects that do not pose a real threat of taking control of an aircraft."
But also, it is a step in the right direction because it makes a great deal of sense. The reason why 9/11 worked was because it was a surprise. The passengers and crew didn't expect it. And at that, once the passengers on the fourth flight learned from cell phone conversations what was going on, they prevented that flight from reaching its target. In a post-9/11 environment, the idea that a few people could take over a plane with four inch scissors, nail clippers and screwdrivers is ridiculous. Modern crew and passengers are well aware of 9/11 and would not simply sit by and let it happen (in addition to new security measures designed to prevent an unauthorized breach of the cockpit.)
In fact, I was a bit embarrassed that the person speaking out against making these changes is a Democrat:
Congressman Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, said he will introduce a bill that would roll back the new TSA changes.
"Mohamed Atta and the other September 11 hijackers used box cutters as a weapon to launch their deadly attack against our country," he said. "TSA should not make it easier for future Mohamed Attas to arm themselves with razor sharp objects and bring down a passenger plane."
But Mr. Hawley said truly dangerous objects will still be banned from planes.
"TSA is not removing items like ice picks, box cutters, or knives of any kind from the prohibited list," he said. "Based on our research and analysis, however, I am convinced that the time now spent searching bags for small scissors and tools can be better utilized searching for the far more dangerous threat of explosives."
Just because something is proposed by some Republicans doesn't automatically make it bad. In this case, Mr. Markey, who hopefully simply bit before looking very closely, is wrong.
September 11, 2001 was a horrible day. And it makes sense to take measures to prevent it from happening again. But all too often, the specter of 9/11 has been invoked to justify actions that in fact have very little to do with fighting terrorists and all too often have everything to do with maintaining or gaining control over the American people. This includes provisions in the Patriot Act authorizing the storing of every single email sent in the United States on a government computer (for how long? Given how much the government is averse to getting rid of information, we can assume it's forever), or authorizing Federal agents to search your home while you are not there and without telling you. It also includes the invasion of Iraq, and the announcement that you will need a passport to get into the United States from Canada or Mexico starting in 2008 (which real terrorists always have their paperwork impeccably in order, so this one is aimed more at forcing Americans who cross the border to buy prescription drugs to pay the much higher prices for the same drugs that the same manufacturers charge when they selectively gouge only Americans).
The Transportation and Safety Authority will soon be allowing some items that were banned post-Sept. 11, including small pairs of scissors (4 inches or less) and screwdrivers back on board in carry on items. Later, nail clippers are also mentioned as now being allowed in carry on bags. Sharp knives and boxcutters are still not allowed.
And I think this is well overdue. Not only because it was making travel a bigger headache than it had to be:
"We are opening a lot of bags to take away objects that do not pose a great risk," [TSA Deputy Administrator Kip Hawley] said. "We found that a disproportionate amount of our resources go to line-slowing bag searches directed at objects that do not pose a real threat of taking control of an aircraft."
But also, it is a step in the right direction because it makes a great deal of sense. The reason why 9/11 worked was because it was a surprise. The passengers and crew didn't expect it. And at that, once the passengers on the fourth flight learned from cell phone conversations what was going on, they prevented that flight from reaching its target. In a post-9/11 environment, the idea that a few people could take over a plane with four inch scissors, nail clippers and screwdrivers is ridiculous. Modern crew and passengers are well aware of 9/11 and would not simply sit by and let it happen (in addition to new security measures designed to prevent an unauthorized breach of the cockpit.)
In fact, I was a bit embarrassed that the person speaking out against making these changes is a Democrat:
Congressman Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, said he will introduce a bill that would roll back the new TSA changes.
"Mohamed Atta and the other September 11 hijackers used box cutters as a weapon to launch their deadly attack against our country," he said. "TSA should not make it easier for future Mohamed Attas to arm themselves with razor sharp objects and bring down a passenger plane."
But Mr. Hawley said truly dangerous objects will still be banned from planes.
"TSA is not removing items like ice picks, box cutters, or knives of any kind from the prohibited list," he said. "Based on our research and analysis, however, I am convinced that the time now spent searching bags for small scissors and tools can be better utilized searching for the far more dangerous threat of explosives."
Just because something is proposed by some Republicans doesn't automatically make it bad. In this case, Mr. Markey, who hopefully simply bit before looking very closely, is wrong.
September 11, 2001 was a horrible day. And it makes sense to take measures to prevent it from happening again. But all too often, the specter of 9/11 has been invoked to justify actions that in fact have very little to do with fighting terrorists and all too often have everything to do with maintaining or gaining control over the American people. This includes provisions in the Patriot Act authorizing the storing of every single email sent in the United States on a government computer (for how long? Given how much the government is averse to getting rid of information, we can assume it's forever), or authorizing Federal agents to search your home while you are not there and without telling you. It also includes the invasion of Iraq, and the announcement that you will need a passport to get into the United States from Canada or Mexico starting in 2008 (which real terrorists always have their paperwork impeccably in order, so this one is aimed more at forcing Americans who cross the border to buy prescription drugs to pay the much higher prices for the same drugs that the same manufacturers charge when they selectively gouge only Americans).
Friday, December 02, 2005
Starting to close in.
Last month the Washington Post revealed that the CIA has been detaining 'suspected terrorist' prisoners captured in Iraq and Afghanistan not only without due process, but at secret detention facilities in eastern Europe where the prisoners have been tortured.
Of course, every country in Eastern Europe denied being the host of such camps, especially after the European Union pledged to enact economic and other sanctions against any country found to have hosted one.
So, which country or countries is it? Well, the Guardian newspaper checked flight logs (here reported via Common Dreams.
It turns out that while the largest number of CIA flights occurred to Britain and Germany, countries which have not been accused (nor is there any reason to suspect) of hosting the camps,
The logs also showed regular trips to eastern Europe, including 15 stops in Prague.
"Only one visit is recorded to the Szymany airbase in northeast Poland, which has been identified as the alleged site of a secret CIA jail," The Guardian reported.
Romania has also been cited.
I hope in particular that the Szymany allegation does not turn out to be true-- it would be bizarrely unfitting to open a torture camp in a country which was the home to Auschwitz and then to more KGB interrogation centers than any other in eastern Europe.
But whoever it is, the noose is starting to close, and it won't be long before we find out for sure which eastern European countries.
Of course, every country in Eastern Europe denied being the host of such camps, especially after the European Union pledged to enact economic and other sanctions against any country found to have hosted one.
So, which country or countries is it? Well, the Guardian newspaper checked flight logs (here reported via Common Dreams.
It turns out that while the largest number of CIA flights occurred to Britain and Germany, countries which have not been accused (nor is there any reason to suspect) of hosting the camps,
The logs also showed regular trips to eastern Europe, including 15 stops in Prague.
"Only one visit is recorded to the Szymany airbase in northeast Poland, which has been identified as the alleged site of a secret CIA jail," The Guardian reported.
Romania has also been cited.
I hope in particular that the Szymany allegation does not turn out to be true-- it would be bizarrely unfitting to open a torture camp in a country which was the home to Auschwitz and then to more KGB interrogation centers than any other in eastern Europe.
But whoever it is, the noose is starting to close, and it won't be long before we find out for sure which eastern European countries.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
What are the odds that all these liberals 'cheated' the system?
Today, "Wicked Witch of the Right" Ann Coulter in her column attacked John Murtha's military record.
Murtha, a retired U.S. Marine colonel who served in Vietnam from 1966 to 1967, received the Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. Coulter questioned Murtha's medals, writing that he "refuses to release his medical records showing he was entitled to his two Purple Hearts."
Of course he hasn't released his medical records. No one has even asked him to. And why is it that the right (correctly, in fact) defends Rush Limbaugh's medical records as 'confidential' between he and his doctor, even in a case where Limbaugh has been accused of a crime and the records are relevant in determining whether a crime was committed, but somehow for a military veteran to consider that they are confidential (really, would YOU want your medical history published in the newspaper) proves something is wrong with them?
Let's not forget that it was Coulter, who last year wrote that triple amputee and former Georgia Senator Max Cleland, who earned a silver star and a bronze star in Vietnam, lost his limbs while playing with a hand grenade while drinking. Of course, as has been widely reported, Cleland lost his limbs while picking up a hand grenade dropped by a fellow soldier while they were disembarking from a helicopter during a mission. But the truth never matters to smear miesters like Coulter (whose outright lies are listened to by millions several times a week on Fox News).
Of course, this is nothing new for the right. We all remember the Swift Boat ads about John Kerry. The right also went after retired four star general Wes Clark last year when he first entered the Presidential race, (remember the term, coined by Peggy Noonan, 'apple-polishing operator who abused the chain of command,' implying that he didn't deserve his rank).
If nothing else, one would hope that thinking conservatives (and no, that isn't an oxymoron, I know quite a few) would wake up to these kinds of attacks and question whether it even makes sense, just according to the law of averages, that SO MANY liberals who were decorated in the military and therefore spoke with some influence about military matters, in fact didn't deserve the medals, promotions or other honors they were awarded. If that were true, then the system would be rotten to the core (meaning that all medals and promotions would be called into question). The other case is that people like Coulter are flat out liars and not ashamed to say or imply anything about anybody.
Murtha, a retired U.S. Marine colonel who served in Vietnam from 1966 to 1967, received the Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. Coulter questioned Murtha's medals, writing that he "refuses to release his medical records showing he was entitled to his two Purple Hearts."
Of course he hasn't released his medical records. No one has even asked him to. And why is it that the right (correctly, in fact) defends Rush Limbaugh's medical records as 'confidential' between he and his doctor, even in a case where Limbaugh has been accused of a crime and the records are relevant in determining whether a crime was committed, but somehow for a military veteran to consider that they are confidential (really, would YOU want your medical history published in the newspaper) proves something is wrong with them?
Let's not forget that it was Coulter, who last year wrote that triple amputee and former Georgia Senator Max Cleland, who earned a silver star and a bronze star in Vietnam, lost his limbs while playing with a hand grenade while drinking. Of course, as has been widely reported, Cleland lost his limbs while picking up a hand grenade dropped by a fellow soldier while they were disembarking from a helicopter during a mission. But the truth never matters to smear miesters like Coulter (whose outright lies are listened to by millions several times a week on Fox News).
Of course, this is nothing new for the right. We all remember the Swift Boat ads about John Kerry. The right also went after retired four star general Wes Clark last year when he first entered the Presidential race, (remember the term, coined by Peggy Noonan, 'apple-polishing operator who abused the chain of command,' implying that he didn't deserve his rank).
If nothing else, one would hope that thinking conservatives (and no, that isn't an oxymoron, I know quite a few) would wake up to these kinds of attacks and question whether it even makes sense, just according to the law of averages, that SO MANY liberals who were decorated in the military and therefore spoke with some influence about military matters, in fact didn't deserve the medals, promotions or other honors they were awarded. If that were true, then the system would be rotten to the core (meaning that all medals and promotions would be called into question). The other case is that people like Coulter are flat out liars and not ashamed to say or imply anything about anybody.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Don't put your faith in Bush, my boy.
A couple of days ago, I blogged on the possibility that George W. Bush might make the right call and call for a withdrawal (with whatever cover he needed) of our troops from Iraq.
Obviously, that optimism was misplaced. Many people in the rest of the GOP might see the need to do that, and even some who have held senior positions in his own White House (I named one last night) but, while his speech did discuss a sudden 'improvement' in the Iraqi forces (which the Slate article I linked to predicted would happen) he said nothing that indicates that we will be out of Iraq any time soon.
I guess we can only hope that the American people have the good sense to elect a Congress that will attach some conditions to any more money they vote for the war, and one of those conditions being a withdrawal plan.
I have come to the conclusion that sitting around and waiting for George W. Bush to make the right call on Iraq is like waiting for the devil to announce that hell is full and is now closed to any new souls.
Obviously, that optimism was misplaced. Many people in the rest of the GOP might see the need to do that, and even some who have held senior positions in his own White House (I named one last night) but, while his speech did discuss a sudden 'improvement' in the Iraqi forces (which the Slate article I linked to predicted would happen) he said nothing that indicates that we will be out of Iraq any time soon.
I guess we can only hope that the American people have the good sense to elect a Congress that will attach some conditions to any more money they vote for the war, and one of those conditions being a withdrawal plan.
I have come to the conclusion that sitting around and waiting for George W. Bush to make the right call on Iraq is like waiting for the devil to announce that hell is full and is now closed to any new souls.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
When even your guys question you.
Sure, Republicans and the Bush administration will always say that their critics, those who accuse them of fudging the intelligence on Iraq are on the left, or somehow the political opposition.
OK, then how about a member of their own administration, someone who as recently as this past January was in a position of authority in the Bush White House?
In a BBC Interview, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, who was formerly a top advisor to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, while focusing on the treatment of prisoners also had this to say:
In the BBC interview, Col Wilkerson also developed his views on whether or not pre-war intelligence was deliberately misused by the White House.
He said that he had previously thought only honest mistakes were made.
But recent revelations about doubts in the intelligence community that appear to have been suppressed in the run-up to the war have made him question this view.
Now, this goes along with Wilkerson's coming to grips that some of the information he got, and gave to Powell, was false. I blogged on Wilkerson and Powell on August 19, Trading honor for a pack of lies and September 10,Righties should pay attention to this Republican. I do. In the August 19 post, I quote Wilkerson (and David Kay) as saying,
How did it happen? Wilkerson gives some hints:
"(Powell) came through the door ... and he had in his hands a sheaf of papers, and he said, 'This is what I've got to present at the United Nations according to the White House, and you need to look at it,'...It was anything but an intelligence document. It was, as some people characterized it later, sort of a Chinese menu from which you could pick and choose."
David Kay, who was once the CIA's chief weapons inspector in Iraq, says it even more bluntly: "In fact, Secretary Powell was not told that one of the sources he was given as a source of this information had indeed been flagged by the Defense Intelligence Agency as a liar, a fabricator..."
So, Wilkerson, a former high official in the Bush state department, has gone from thinking it was just bad intel to thinking it was deliberately manipulated, scarcely ten months after he left the administration.
And his former boss is becoming more vocal as well. Powell blasted the White House for smearing Murtha last week.
Now, I've said before that if I were put on a spot and forced to name a Republican who I thought was most qualified to serve as President, it would be Colin Powell. And I'm glad he is starting to speak out, not as beholden to the Bush administration, but as an independent and reasonable voice that we should all listen to.
OK, then how about a member of their own administration, someone who as recently as this past January was in a position of authority in the Bush White House?
In a BBC Interview, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, who was formerly a top advisor to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, while focusing on the treatment of prisoners also had this to say:
In the BBC interview, Col Wilkerson also developed his views on whether or not pre-war intelligence was deliberately misused by the White House.
He said that he had previously thought only honest mistakes were made.
But recent revelations about doubts in the intelligence community that appear to have been suppressed in the run-up to the war have made him question this view.
Now, this goes along with Wilkerson's coming to grips that some of the information he got, and gave to Powell, was false. I blogged on Wilkerson and Powell on August 19, Trading honor for a pack of lies and September 10,Righties should pay attention to this Republican. I do. In the August 19 post, I quote Wilkerson (and David Kay) as saying,
How did it happen? Wilkerson gives some hints:
"(Powell) came through the door ... and he had in his hands a sheaf of papers, and he said, 'This is what I've got to present at the United Nations according to the White House, and you need to look at it,'...It was anything but an intelligence document. It was, as some people characterized it later, sort of a Chinese menu from which you could pick and choose."
David Kay, who was once the CIA's chief weapons inspector in Iraq, says it even more bluntly: "In fact, Secretary Powell was not told that one of the sources he was given as a source of this information had indeed been flagged by the Defense Intelligence Agency as a liar, a fabricator..."
So, Wilkerson, a former high official in the Bush state department, has gone from thinking it was just bad intel to thinking it was deliberately manipulated, scarcely ten months after he left the administration.
And his former boss is becoming more vocal as well. Powell blasted the White House for smearing Murtha last week.
Now, I've said before that if I were put on a spot and forced to name a Republican who I thought was most qualified to serve as President, it would be Colin Powell. And I'm glad he is starting to speak out, not as beholden to the Bush administration, but as an independent and reasonable voice that we should all listen to.
Some stories, there just isn't much you can say about them.
There are times when something so tragic and stupid happens that it takes my breath away. I would like to find some big political story that goes with this but there really isn't one. Just a really sad story that leaves me shaking my head.
A couple in Miami tried to get their baby daughter to sleep by giving her massive doses of vodka. Her father called 911 after she was unresponsive, but she was prononced dead at the scene.
I can't imagine giving alcohol to a three month old.
Small quantities of alcohol have historically been used to quiet crying babies, but authorities said the amount fed to Makeisha was extreme.
The Broward County Medical Examiner's Office determined that the infant had a blood alcohol level of 0.47 percent. The legal limit for drivers in Florida is 0.08 percent.
Former Medical Examiner Dr. Ronald Wright said that for a baby to ingest that much alcohol would be the equivalent of a 160-pound adult drinking 18 beers.
Now I understand that parenting is a learned, not a born skill, and that some people have never learned how to be parents. It took me quite a few years, and there are some days I still question whether I'm any good at it. But common sense would dictate that this would be at best very risky. Even if the baby survived, it's hard to imagine what kind of effects this would cause on her still developing body.
In fact, the autopsy pinpoints the cause of death:
According to a police report, the final autopsy showed that the child had been fed fatal doses of alcohol shortly before her death and her liver indicated severe buildup of excess fat due to alcohol consumption.
I'd like to be angry at the parents, but this story just drained me to the point that I am just shaking my head, at a loss for words.
A couple in Miami tried to get their baby daughter to sleep by giving her massive doses of vodka. Her father called 911 after she was unresponsive, but she was prononced dead at the scene.
I can't imagine giving alcohol to a three month old.
Small quantities of alcohol have historically been used to quiet crying babies, but authorities said the amount fed to Makeisha was extreme.
The Broward County Medical Examiner's Office determined that the infant had a blood alcohol level of 0.47 percent. The legal limit for drivers in Florida is 0.08 percent.
Former Medical Examiner Dr. Ronald Wright said that for a baby to ingest that much alcohol would be the equivalent of a 160-pound adult drinking 18 beers.
Now I understand that parenting is a learned, not a born skill, and that some people have never learned how to be parents. It took me quite a few years, and there are some days I still question whether I'm any good at it. But common sense would dictate that this would be at best very risky. Even if the baby survived, it's hard to imagine what kind of effects this would cause on her still developing body.
In fact, the autopsy pinpoints the cause of death:
According to a police report, the final autopsy showed that the child had been fed fatal doses of alcohol shortly before her death and her liver indicated severe buildup of excess fat due to alcohol consumption.
I'd like to be angry at the parents, but this story just drained me to the point that I am just shaking my head, at a loss for words.
Monday, November 28, 2005
It's about time that the White House sets the right course on Iraq-- OUT!
I've always said that George W. Bush was the last one in town to know when he is stubbornly pushing forward on a lost cause. Hence, he was the last one to still be pushing for Social Security Privatization or Harriet Miers, to name a couple of lost causes from earlier this year. But sooner or later he wakes up and gets of the ship before it goes under.
So that is one reason why I really hope the article in Slate today is true:
Brace yourself for a mind-bog of sheer cynicism. The discombobulation begins Wednesday, when President George W. Bush is expected to proclaim, in a major speech at the U.S. Naval Academy, that the Iraqi security forces—which only a few months ago were said to have just one battalion capable of fighting on its own—have suddenly made uncanny progress in combat readiness. Expect soon after (if not during the speech itself) the thing that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have, just this month, denounced as near-treason—a timetable for withdrawal of American troops.
Hey, if it gets us out of there, then that's just fine with me. We don't need to be pouring any more American lives and dollars down this rathole. Even the Pentagon can see that. And if George Bush wants to take credit for whatever happens in Iraq, that is fine with me too. I've always given Richard Nixon credit for getting us out of Vietnam (whatever other transgressions the man may committed, he deserves credit for being the one with the good enough sense to pull the plug on that war.) Now granted, Nixon inherited a war and Bush would be getting us out of a war that he started, but right now that is still good enough for me.
President Bush would declare his mission complete and begin to pull out—this, despite his public pledge to "stay the course" until the insurgents were defeated.
This theory explains Bush's insistence that the Iraqis draft and ratify the constitution on schedule—even though the rush resulted in a seriously flawed document that's more likely to fracture the country than to unite it. For if the pullout can get under way in the opening weeks of 2006, then the war might be nullified as an issue by the time of our own elections.
Well, there are benefits to our political system. Our Founding Fathers were wise enough to schedule national elections every two years so if someone goes too far off the deep end against the will of the public then political pressure will be enough to make them change their direction. Or, as the New York Times put it in discussing the same story,
But in private conversations, American officials are beginning to acknowledge that a judgment about when withdrawals can begin is driven by two political calendars - one in Iraq and one here
Jefferson, Adams and Hamilton knew what they were doing.
UPDATE: Word out today is that the President won't announce a pullout tomorrow, although he will set parameters that will lead to one by next year whether the insurgents are gone or not. Still an improvement and a concession to reality on his part, but not as good as it looked at first.
UPDATE #2 (11/30): The President gave his speech today, and while he did say that American troops would be taken out of cities (the sites of most encounters) he did not say that a withdrawal was forthcoming. My optimism was premature, but I do believe that by next year, political pressure will cause us to begin to get out.
So that is one reason why I really hope the article in Slate today is true:
Brace yourself for a mind-bog of sheer cynicism. The discombobulation begins Wednesday, when President George W. Bush is expected to proclaim, in a major speech at the U.S. Naval Academy, that the Iraqi security forces—which only a few months ago were said to have just one battalion capable of fighting on its own—have suddenly made uncanny progress in combat readiness. Expect soon after (if not during the speech itself) the thing that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have, just this month, denounced as near-treason—a timetable for withdrawal of American troops.
Hey, if it gets us out of there, then that's just fine with me. We don't need to be pouring any more American lives and dollars down this rathole. Even the Pentagon can see that. And if George Bush wants to take credit for whatever happens in Iraq, that is fine with me too. I've always given Richard Nixon credit for getting us out of Vietnam (whatever other transgressions the man may committed, he deserves credit for being the one with the good enough sense to pull the plug on that war.) Now granted, Nixon inherited a war and Bush would be getting us out of a war that he started, but right now that is still good enough for me.
President Bush would declare his mission complete and begin to pull out—this, despite his public pledge to "stay the course" until the insurgents were defeated.
This theory explains Bush's insistence that the Iraqis draft and ratify the constitution on schedule—even though the rush resulted in a seriously flawed document that's more likely to fracture the country than to unite it. For if the pullout can get under way in the opening weeks of 2006, then the war might be nullified as an issue by the time of our own elections.
Well, there are benefits to our political system. Our Founding Fathers were wise enough to schedule national elections every two years so if someone goes too far off the deep end against the will of the public then political pressure will be enough to make them change their direction. Or, as the New York Times put it in discussing the same story,
But in private conversations, American officials are beginning to acknowledge that a judgment about when withdrawals can begin is driven by two political calendars - one in Iraq and one here
Jefferson, Adams and Hamilton knew what they were doing.
UPDATE: Word out today is that the President won't announce a pullout tomorrow, although he will set parameters that will lead to one by next year whether the insurgents are gone or not. Still an improvement and a concession to reality on his part, but not as good as it looked at first.
UPDATE #2 (11/30): The President gave his speech today, and while he did say that American troops would be taken out of cities (the sites of most encounters) he did not say that a withdrawal was forthcoming. My optimism was premature, but I do believe that by next year, political pressure will cause us to begin to get out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
