On Closer Examination

The Little Gay Men Behind The Curtain

2006-10-16T10:40:00.000-04:00

Americablog has posted some excerpts from Frank Rich's column about the outing of the Republican party in the aftermath of the Mark Foley debacle. I can't read the article itself because I would have to subscribe to some ridiculous New York Times service called TimesSelect, which I won't do on principle. Avrovosis quoting Rich:

"First, gay people did not “infiltrate” the party apparatus — they are the party apparatus. Rare is the conservative Republican Congressional leader who does not have a gay staffer wielding clout in a major position. Second, any inference that gay Republicans on the Hill conspired to cover up Mr. Foley’s behavior is preposterous."

This all reminds me of a story my father told me, when he got back from a trip to Poland in the 1990s. He said that there are only about 5,000 Jews left in Poland, but that there were still people in Poland who believed that the Jews were responsible for everything that went wrong there.

Today, Family Values Republican legislators say there is no place for homosexuality in public life while hiring homosexuals on the public dime. And the Family Values Republican base responds by saying that the problems in Congress are because of the homosexual infiltrators, the secret Gay Republican Network.

As for me, a Gay civil libertarian, I'm simply shocked to find out that there are so many Gay Repblicans. I truly believed that Gay Republicans were the intellectual equivalents of Jews For Jesus, and that they would forever be on the outside of the party looking in. It simply never dawned on me that there were Gay Republicans on the inside.

I guess the reason I'm shocked is that, for a very long time now, I've understood that staying in the closet is participating in your own subjugation.

But Gay Republicans don't agree. They believe that homosexuality is not a strong enough basis on which to form a community, and sometimes I agree. They feel a stronger kinship with financial and moral conservatives than they do with the over-whelmingly liberal gay community, and sometimes I agree. They believe that the gay community, if there is such a thing, has bcome so paralyzed by political correctness (gltb = gay lesbian transgender bisexual) that we have trouble finding an intellectual justification for excluding pedophiles from our midst (National Man Boy Love Association).

And so, they allign themselves with conservative Republicans instead of the liberal glbt community. And sometimes I agree.

But where we part ways is the closet. Because, apparently, in order to find a home in the conservative Republican community, gay people have to stay in the closet. OK, maybe not the closet, since their friends and colleagues know they are gay. But since the constituents for whom they work do not know they are gay, it's still a closet. A walk-in closet, maybe with a dressing table and a telephone, but a closet.

Why is this such a big deal? Because if these Gay Republicans would openly demand a seat at the table as Gay Republicans, if the country knew how many Gay Republicans are working in Congress, then the Karl Roves of the world would not be able to demonize gay people for the purpose of winning elections.

To my way if thinking, Gay Republicans are responsible for the Karl Rove strategy of getting out the base by making gay marriage a campaign issue, and gay adoption a campaign issue. Because they are best positioned to stop it, and they refuse to do so for the sake of their own personal gain.

And no, I don't mean that Gay Republicans have to be in favor of gay marriage or gay adoption simply because they are gay. I just mean that Gay Republicans should not help other Republicans take advantage of gay people for political means.

But I don't have to worry about this for much longer. The Republican base, in a collective imitation of Claude Rains, is shocked, shocked to learn that there are homosexuals in Congress. The closet is going bye-bye.

So now where are the Gay Republicans going to hide?

How Close Is Remarkably Close?

2006-10-12T11:41:00.000-04:00

This is an excerpt from a Washington Post story written by Jonathan Weisman:

"With House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert denying personal knowledge of former representative Mark Foley's activities, investigators for the House ethics committee are bearing down on three senior members of Hastert's staff to determine when they learned of Foley's actions and whether they passed on their knowledge to the speaker.

The three -- chief of staff Scott Palmer, deputy chief of staff Mike Stokke and counsel Ted Van Der Meid -- have formed a palace guard around Hastert (R-Ill.) for years, attaining great degrees of power and unusual autonomy to deal with matters of politics, policy and House operations. They are also remarkably close. Palmer and Stokke have been with Hastert for decades. They live together in a Capitol Hill townhouse and commute back to Illinois on weekends."

Palmer and Stokke live together. Is it possible that the Speaker of the House has a gay couple as two of his top three aides?

Now, normally, I'd say it's no one's business if Palmer and Stokke are gay. But in this story, it does matter whether or not someone's sexual orientation is known. Weisman writes:

"In brief, awkward conversations, the source said, Fordham would tell Foley: 'I just got a call from Jeff Trandahl. And Mark, you just need to be conscious of appearances. Everyone knows you're gay. You're being held to higher standards than everyone else. They see the stereotype -- a gay man going after kids.'"

So, if Palmer and Stokke are gay, and if that fact becomes public knowledge, then they too will be held to a higher standard. I guess.

It just creeps me out.

Today Is National Coming Out Day

2006-10-11T14:06:00.000-04:00

I'm gay.

See, Republican closet queens? It's easy.

E-

A Chill Runs Through The Republican Closet

2006-10-11T09:54:00.000-04:00

Stephanie Griffith, writing for Agence France Presse (AFP), reports that "Gay Repubilcans find chill climate in Washington after sex scandal".

Really. Does that mean the climate was balmy for gay Republicans before the scandal?

According to Griffith:

"Washington's community of gay Republicans includes at least one US lawmaker, Representative Jim Kolbe . . . of Arizona, who disclosed his sexual orientation in 1996, after a gay magazine threatened to out him."

"Washington's gay Republican scene is also reported to include dozens of high-ranking congressional aides, current and former White House staffers, advisers to the Pentagon, press strategists, well-known journalists and influential lobbyists -- most of whom choose not to make their sexual orientation known for professional and personal reasons."

I have to say, I don't get it. DC is filled with homos who felt compelled to stay in the closet before the Foley scandal broke. But the Foley scandal has "hurt their efforts for greater acceptance within their own party".

Color me lavendar, but I think what's "hurt their efforts for greater acceptance within their own party" is that they're still in the freaking closet.

Why?

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, a man who in any civilized nation would be reduced to rambling on a soap box in the public square, has this to say about the Foley scandal, according to Griffith:

"The Foley scandal shows what happens when political correctness is put ahead of protecting children. . . This is the end result of a society that rejects sexual restraints in the name of diversity. . . Maybe it's time to question: when is tolerance just an excuse for permissiveness? . . They discounted or downplayed earlier reports concerning Foley's behavior -- probably because they did not want to appear 'homophobic'."

As an aside, I could write an entire treatise on Perkins' choice of the phrase "sexual restraints". Just play safe and choose a safety word.

But, the point is, members of an out and proud gay Republican DC community, who had invested the time in establishing themselves as loyal Republicans and as gay citizens, could credibly respond to Tony Perkins by saying:

"House Speaker Denny Hastert and Representative HJohn Reynolds have made anti-gay initiatives a cornerstone of this Congress and of this and recent campaign seasons. To suggest that they are motivated in the slightest by 'political correctness' or by not wanting to be accused of 'homophobia' flies in the face of reality. No, this was a case of politics trumping the needs of children --the need to brush Foley's behavior under the carpet to continue to appease the religious right to maintain a Republican majority and personal power."

But, alas, there is no one in Washington to say this to Tony Perkins. Because all the gay Republicans have swept themselves under the rug by staying in the closet. So as to maintain a Republican majority and their own personal power.

Three Writers I Have Embraced Since 9/11

2006-09-03T10:40:00.000-04:00

I was watching Chris Matthews this morning and Lawrence Wright was one of the speakers. He is a correspondent for the New Yorker, and he wrote the 1998 film "THE SIEGE", which I recently re-watched and recently urged everyone to watch.

So it got me to thinking about the three authors I have learned about since 9/11, and the three books I plan to read in the very immediate future as my personal rememberance of 9/11.

I've already written about Lawrence Wright, whose history of Al-Qaeda is out now. It is called "THE LOOMING TOWER: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11". After hearing Mr. Wright speak articulately and intelligently on the motivations of Al-Qaeda and how America has consistently played into Osama bin Laden's strategic plans, on its strengths and its weaknesses, I am determined to read his book, which he has researched for five years.

I've also recently written about Vali Nasr, professor at the Post-Graduate Naval Academy in Monterrey. I recently saw Mr. Nasr on Real Time With Bill Maher, and found his discussion of the differences between Sunni and Shia sources of power and political agendas illuminating. Mr. Nasr's "THE SHIA REVIVAL: How Conflicts Within Islam Will Shape The Future" is also on my reading list.

Finally, some time ago I spoke about George Lakoff's "DON'T THINK OF AN ELEPHANT: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate -- The Essential Guide for Progresives". Mr. Lakoff's discussion of the paternalistic model behind the political strategy of President George W. Bush and the impact it has on his conservative base went a long way to helping me understand how the President ever came to be the President, and was re-elected as the President. Before I read Mr. Lakoff's book, I truly thought half of the country was insane. This book fundamentally altered my view of the American political landscape.

Mr. Lakoff has a new book, :WHOSE FREEDOM: The Battle Over Americas' Most Important Idea". I'm adding it to the list.

I'll report back on these books as I read them.

The Siege

2006-08-31T14:28:00.000-04:00

This is the title of a 1998 film starring Denzel Washington, Annette Bening, Bruce Willis and Tony Shalhoub. It's about a terrorist cell operating in Brooklyn. The film was written by Lawrence Wright, with Ed Zwick and Menno Meyjes. Mr. Wright's history of Al Qaeda "The Looming Tower" was published by Alfred A. Knopf.

I've seen this film many times, and each time I find something new in it. It is frightening to realize that so many events fictionalied in 1998 have since come to pass.

Do yourself a favor and watch this film.

34%

2006-08-25T14:31:00.000-04:00

Today's Wall Street Journal includes an article on Plan B by Anna Wilde Mathews and Barbara Martinez.

The article includes a quote pulled from the web site of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, in the US, 34% of teenage girls get pregnant at least once before turning 20.

34% of teenage girls. Get pregnant at least once.

When Rosie turns 13, I'm getting me a big ol' dog and a big ol' gun.

WSJ Buys Republican Spin On Fallout Of UK Bomb Plot

2006-08-11T09:38:00.000-04:00

The title of today's page 3 article by John D. McKinnon is "Foiled Plot Swings Voters Attention to Terror War".

The sub-title: "Focus Shifts From Iraq Woes, Democrat's Central Issue, To a Republican Strength".

The first sentence: "The foiled British bombing plot is likely to benefit President Bush and the Republican Party, at least in the short term, by reminding voters of national-security concerns and the war on terror -- two areas where the president and his party have earned high marks from US citizens."

But the article itself does not live up to the hype. It takes Republican spin as fact, and ignores significant evidence cited within itself that suggests exactly the opposite.

The opening of the article is dictated by two sources -- the very conservative Brookings Institution and a senior White House official.

Says military analyst Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution: "The foiled plot takes some wind out of the sails of the Democratic Party's liberal wing." Moderate Democrats who oppose a quick pullout from Iraq "probably feel a little more like the news is back on our side of the argument."

A "senior White House official" who "took the unusual step of speaking on background to reporters on Air Force One about the politics of the war on terror" said that voters were coming around to the administration's view that the global war on terror must be won despite the high costs . . . "So, if you have Lamont Democrats who who say, "Bring 'em home, turn away, and it will all be over," the American people say, "You're kidding yourself. We're in a war, and the only way you walk away from a war is as a victor, defeating the enemy."

So that's the spin. Lamont Democrats want to cut and run, leaving the enemy to strike again.

The rest of the article contradicts itself.

First, the article quotes Ned Lamont's actual views. "We need to change course, and that means standing up to this administration and fighting for security in a rational, serious way rather than being bogged down in a war [that] is harmful to our security."

Then, the article goes on to note that "many other Democrats kept the focus squarely on Iraq, hopeful that, over time, the problems there will outweigh any short-term benefit to Republicans from the foiled terror attack."

Harry Reid is quoted as saying: "This latest plot demonstrates the need for the Bush admnistration and the Congress to change course in Iraq and ensure that we are taking all steps necessary to protect Americans at home and across the world."

David Wade, a John Kerry spokesman said "Americans are sick and tired of Ken Mehlman, Karl Rove, and the masters of misdirection who got us bogged down in Iraq with no end in sight, and who have failed to kill Osama bin Laden. If these Republicans were half as good at fighting the war on terror as they are at misleading the public, we'd be a lot safer than we are today."

The article goes on to say that "Political observers cautioned that the benefit for Mr. Bush and his allies could prove short lived, noting that last year's London subway bombing provided little noticeable long-term benefit to the President."

So, what is this article saying? Republicans are trying to spin the Connecticut election and the recent terror plot as saying that Americans now realize that they need to see the Iraq war through. Democrats are saying we need to change tactics in Iraq so we can be more successful there and elsewhere in the global war on terror. Which argument is the stronger?

Clearly the article chooses the Republican spin over the Democratic. However, the article site a WSJ/ NBC July poll showing 29% of respondents ranked the war in Iraq as the government's top priority, up from 22% a month earlier, and only 14% of respondents said terrorism is government's top priority.

Without any reference or basis, the article claims that the UK terror plot will move terrorism up on the list, at least for a while.

So, simply put, Mr. McKinnon chose the Republican spin over the Democratic spin without any empirical basis for doing so.

I guess Mr. McKinnon thinks Americans are too stupid to remember that the Bush administration has been equating the war in Iraq with the war on terror for over three years now, so that it's not unreasonable for people to think that if we are losing the war in Iraq we are losing the war on terror. Why else would this article now suggest that the war on terror is a winning proposition for Republicans but the war in Iraq is a losing proposition?

Oh, right. We're supposed to forget about Iraq and start worrying about Iran. Iran, our new Cold War partner/ adversary. You have to read between the lines to get that one, because Mr. McKinnon does not connect the dots for you.

In a related front page article in today's WSJ by Carrick Mollenkamp, Chip Cummins, David Cranford and Robert Block, it is noted that the UK terror plot bears a resemblance to a 1995 terror plot code-named "Bojinka". That plot included a plan to crash a plane into CIA headquarters in Langley, VA.

The article does not connect the dots to note that, in 2001, then-National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice stated that no one could have forseen that terrorists would fly airplanes into buildings. Despite the fact that a plan to do just that had been foiled six years earlier.

Simply put, the WSJ is drinking the Bush administration Kool-Aid without question. And it makes reading WSJ coverage of the war on terror laughable, as the inability of WSJ reporters to connect the dots rivals the FBI's.

Dots like these: Dot 1 -- The Bush Administration has been fighting the war on terror for five years. Dot 2 -- Terrorists came very close to pulling off a coordinated strike that would have dwarfed 9/11. Dot 3 -- And we're still not sure we have stopped "the big one" we are all expecting. Connection -- So, the Bush Adminstration is doing a crappy job of fighting the war on teror.

OK, I'll say it. "Hey, Wall Street Journal, Emperor Bush has no clothes."

Further Thought On The Big Picture

2006-08-10T14:18:00.000-04:00

I've heard plenty of pundits say that Hezbollah would not have attacked Israel and taken two Israeli soldiers hostage without the approval of Iran. I've also heard it said that Iran nudged Hezbollah to attack because Iran wanted to get it's nuclear program out of the world limelight. And because Iran wants to expand its influence by pulling Lebanon into its orbit.

What I don't hear anyone saying is that Israel would not have retaliated against Hezbollah by attacking and invading Lebanon without the approval of the US. The US is desperate to get its failed Iraq war out of the world limelight, and it wants to expand its presence in the Middle East.

So the US is all too happy to arm Israel to fight a proxy war against Iran, destablize Lebanon and create a perceived need both for a Western presence in Lebanon and an opportunity for US companies to pick up contracts for repairing Lebanon's infrastructure.

Iran and the US are getting pretty much exactly what they want without any Iranian or US casualties -- a Middle East Cold War, with Iran and the Shiite nations filling the Soviet role. Iran will become a nuclear superpower, Iran and the US will fight proxy wars pitting Iranian Shiite clients against Israel and US Sunni clients, the neo-cons will frighten everyone into keeping them in power all around the world. So they can get richer.

Maybe The True Goals Of Our Mid-East Policy Are In Sight

2006-08-09T16:23:00.000-04:00

Two articles on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, one August 4 and one August 8, paint a picture of what the Administration truly hopes to accomplish in the Middle East.

Peter Waldman wrote an article on Vali Nasr, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterrey. Mr Nasr lectures on what he sees as a Shiite revival in the making. Iran, the dominant Shiite country, is gaining influence both in central Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. A majority of Iraqis are Shiite, and about 45% of Lebanon is Shiite. Although a majority of Palestinians are Sunni, Iran has a client relationship with Hamas.

Most of America's allies in the Middle East are Sunni countries -- Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan.

An August 8 article by Neil King Jr. and Yasmine el-Rashidi discusses how this Shiite revival is forcing America to review its stated goal of spreading democracy. It seems that the three places America has tried to build democracy -- Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories -- have become highly unstable and violent, and have increased their ties to Iran. So America is strengthening its ties with the autocratic Sunni governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan.

And so, piecing these articles together, and looking at the probable outcomes of the unrest in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, I begin to get a sense of what the Bush Administration end game is.

I think Iraq will separate into three entities: A Kurdish nation in the north, a Sunni nation in the south and west, and a Shiite nation in the center and east. In exchange for withdrawing any claim to Iraqi oil, the Shiite center will be allowed to annex to neighbor Iran.

The Kurdish north will pay the US to defend it against Turkey, which would seek to annex the territory to quell Kurdish nationalism within its borders. The Sunni west and south will pay the US to defend them against neighbors Syria and Iraq. The US will require the Kurds and the Sunnis to buy US treasuries with money earned from oil sales, and then commit the interest on those treasuries to hiring US companies to manage the oil resources and other infrastructure projects, and to buy private security services.

I think the bottom 20 miles of Lebanon will be a de-militarized zone policed by an international force, probably led by the French. And the French and the US will provide security to Lebanon, and cut of the supply routes between Iran on one side and Hezbollah and Hamas on the other. At a cost. The US has to cut the French in to make up for shutting them out of the market for "re-building" Iraq.

I think that Israel will complete its unilateral separation from the Palestinian territories, and that Hamas will be cut off from Iran because it will have no Shiite-controlled neighbor. Jordan won't help. Lebanon won't help. Egypt won't help. Iran and Syria will be out of reach.

And I think Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt will be paying US companies in petrodollars to provide security and infrastructure.

So, that's the picture. Pit Shiite against Sunni and get the autocratic Sunni governments to pay the US in petrodollars to protect them from the Shiites. Not only will the US gain control of Middle Eastern oil, since the unity requried for an embargo will be impossible, but the US will actually be paid for taking control of the oil.

To tell you the truth, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to find out that Iran and the US worked this deal out together. Both are getting exactly what they want in the Middle East. Iran is now a regional power, and it will probably develop nuclear capabilities and become a superpower. And the US will have a boogyman to get everything it wants out of the Sunnis and about a terrified American population.

I keep saying, the Bush Administration is not incompetent.

Personal Tragedies and Heroism

2006-06-26T20:19:00.000-04:00

For some inexplicable reason, yet another cable news television show is putting Ann Coulter on tonight to discuss why the 9/11 widows who have become politically active should just take their money and shut up.

Ann says people should not use their personal tragedies for political advantage. They should not be making campaign commercials.

It's a strange concept to me, because most of my personal heroes are people who have publicly overcome personal tragedies to change the world.

Tops on the list -- Christopher Reeves. An actor known for a vigorous physical presence who became a parapalegic. I'm sure he got a big insurance payment, but he didn't just take the money and go home. He became a tireless advocate for medical research.

Honorable mention in the Christopher Reeves category: Michael J. Fox.

Next on the list -- Rock Hudson. A romantic leading man, in the face of his impending death from AIDS he renounced a lifetime of denial. He announced his illness, and in the process came out of the closet. Mr. Hudson could have gone quietly into that good night, but instead he went public and put a personal, famous face on a nascent epidemic. He brought the reality of AIDS into the mainstream consciousness in this country.

My next heroes are tied -- Elizabeth Glaser and Ryan White. Both acquired HIV through tainted blood infusions; both died of AIDS. But both became public advocates for the needs of AIDS patients, even testified before Congress. Ms. Glaser lent her talents, energy and name to the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, which helps afflicted children across the world. Young Mr. White lent his advocacy and name to a government program that helps HIV+ people access life saving medicines in this country.

I have many such heroes. Mr. and Mrs. James Brady. Elie Wiesel. Nelson Mandela.

I put the Jersey Girls, the four or five New Jersey widows who forced the Bush Administration into launching an investigation into exactly what went wrong on 9/11, in the same category. They are not asking for more money, they are not seeking personal aggrandizement, they are using their personal losses to raise public awareness about a persistent problem -- this country's lack of a coherent and accountable plan for the public defense and welfare.

As for Ms. Coulter, she says she has never seen people enjoy the deaths of their husbands more than the Jersey Girls. Perhaps if Ms. Coulter had ever married, or ever had a meaningful conection with someone other than herself, she would understand how truly stupid her comments are.

Perhaps Ms. Coulter will use her public drubbing for her inability to recognize true patriotism and her complete lack of compassion to become a champion for the treatment of those addicted to the sound of their own voices.

Liberal Or Progressive?

2006-06-26T14:31:00.000-04:00

According to George Lakoff, framing is the key to everything. Once you frame the terms of a debate, you win the debate. Like how Republicans framed the Estate Tax as a Death Tax. Or framed anti-abortion as Pro-Life. I think it's fair to say that Republicans and conservatives have done a much better job of framing issues in the past several electoral cycles than have liberals, progressives and Democrats.

So it fascinates me that the left cannot quite make up its mind whether it should be called liberal or progressive. Or, for that matter, what the difference between the two is.

Janeane Garafaolo is fond of saying that Air America Radio is liberal talk, not progressive talk. She seems to feel that progressives are liberals who have allowed conservatives to shame them out of their identities.

There is no clear destinction between liberals and progressives, as far as I can see.

Take, for example, David Sirota's article on Barack Obama in the June 26 "The Nation." First, Sirota observes that Obama has legitimate liberal bona fides. He has "supported increased funding for healthcare and education and wrote bills to publicly finance judicial campaigns and create a state earned income tax credit."

But then Sirota notes that many believe there is a difference between a liberal and a true progressive. Sirota uses as an example Obama's "healthcare for hybrids" proposal, which would alleviate auto manufacturers' retiree health care costs in exchange for a greater commitment to develop hybrid cars.

Says Sirota: "The goals are unassailable, but the policy reflects the liberal carrot of appeasing a powerful industry rather than the progressive stick of forcing that industry to shape up by simple mandating higher fuel-efficiency standards."

So, mandating increased spending for healthcare and education-- proof of liberalism. Except these are sticks, and sticks are for progressives. Campaign finance reform, paying candidates to forego private campaign funds; and the earned income tax credit, encouraging people to work -- carrots. Definitely liberal.

Paying corporate America to do the right thing in the health for hybrids plan-- carrot. Liberal. Not progressive, not mandated.

In the same issue of The Nation, William Greider's use of the words progressive and liberal would seem to make them relative synonyms. Or, perhaps more accurately, that progressive is the new liberal.

Greiner notes at the outset of his article that economic liberalism foundered in the 1970s. As postwar prosperity dwindled, so did liberal politics. "[T]he bottom fell out of liberal doctrine thirty years ago, " states Greiner.

First, Greiner observes that "a liberal-progressive program [will not] emergs miraculously if the Democratic Party shoyld somehow regain power in the next few years, since many Democrats in Congress have internalized the market ideology and collaborate with the right."

Greiner goes on to note that Republicans have backed themselves into an economic corner and conservatives have no option but to hope that the economy will somehow work work itself out of its weakness. "Progressives should get busy now developing alternative ideas for the major shift that must follow," writes Greiner.

Grainer moves on to note the following: "The heart of the problem is the deterioration of work and wages. There are many other elements damaging the pursiot of life and liberty; but as old school liberals always understood, if wages and working conditions are not moving in the right direction, you won't accomplish much toward healing other social injuries or disorders."

So, to re-cap, Sirota says there is a difference between progressives and liberals: liberals use the carrot and progressives use the stick. But both exist today. Greiner says liberalism is dead, has been for thirty years, but that liberal thought should form the foundation for a progressive response to foundering neo-conservativism.

Oh, and that liberal-scented progressive platform? Repair wages (make the government the employer of last resort, mopping up surplus labor and increasing wages); deregulate labor (i.e., free labor from regulation by eliminating the NLRB); tax corporate behavior (i.e., initiate universal health care; increase all corporate taxes to 45%, letting corporations earn reductions in the rate by adhereing to high social standards); and develop an industrial policy for esential needs (insure the availability of the things everyone needs using a franchise method, where firms accept government-imposed obligations in exchange for limited competition and an assurance of moderate profits).

Now, both of these guys are obviously better versed in liberalism and progressivism than I am. But Sirota says the carrot of corporate appeasement is liberal and the stick is progressive.

The plan to repair wages sounds an awful lot like a carrot -- encouragine people to work, encouraging companies to raise wages. But there is not corporate interest being appeased here, at least not directly. And there's a government mandate. Seems a carrot/stick hybrid.

Eliminating the NLRB sounds insane to me, but there's no corporate interest being appeased and no mandates being imposed on a powerful interest. Carrot or stick? You be the judge.

But increasing corporate taxes is a stick, it's just forcing companies to comply by passing a law. But it has a carrot attached, in the form of lower taxes for higher standards, so maybe it's another liberal progressive hybrid.

As for the industrial policy for essential needs, that sounds a lot like how Halliburton got no-bid contracts for services in war-torn and storm-damaged areas. Is that a carrot, a stick or a phallus of a different color?

So, the carrot/ stick thing isn't working for me. The liberals are progressives 30 years later approach does smell of defeatism, as Ms Garafaolo suggests.

See, I need something short and sweet. Like, I say I'm a feminist because I believe in a woman's right to choose and I believe in equal pay for equal work.

I want to be able to say "I'm a liberal because I believe x."Or "I'm a progressive because I believe a, b and c." A clear, concise, broad statement that most Americans will recognize as their own views.

Maybe "I am a liberal because I believe that society is best served by a level playing field for all people."

Maybe "I'm a progressive because I believe government is responsible for providing a safe, level playing field for all people."

You know, liberalism is the philosophy, and progressivism is the means to realize that philosophy.

Keep it simple.

And until we can do that, get it that simple, then we let the Karl Roves and the Bill O'Reilly's say what liberal and progressive mean.

Loser.

The Successful Bush Tax Plan

2006-05-30T21:15:00.000-04:00

The May 20-21 Wall Street Journal includes a front page story written by Deborah Solomon on the apparent vindication of the Bush tax plan. Solomon writes: "As America's rich get richer, the taxes they pay on their increasing income is yielding a windfall for the US Treasury. . . [E]ven opponents of the tax cuts ackowledge that the surge in unanticipated revenue is coming from the rich."

Exactly why the surge is "unanticipated" is unclear, as this is what the President said would happen. Maybe it's just that nobody believed him.

The article contains numerous unambiguous citations from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. The CBO says the deficit this year should be much narrower than $350 billion, down from its previously estimated $371 billion. Corporate income tax receipts are up almost 30%, or about $40 billion.

Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow is quoted as saying that "[t]he results are in, and they are clear: Economic growth has led to a surge of tax revenues and shrinking deficits. Despite the cries from our critics, it cannot be denied that low taxes truly are consistent with rising federal revenues, which of course bring the deficit down."

Data from the CBO and projections by a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institute known as the Tax Policy Center show that the top 10% of income earners (with income above $251,400) will pay 56.2% of all federal taxes this year, up from 52.2% in 2000. The same segment of the population is expected to receive 44.7% of all "household cash income" this year, up from 40.6% in 2000.

So, this seems to be a pretty compelling argument in favor of the Bush tax plan. The very rich pay 56.2% of all federal taxes, but receive 44.7% of "household cash income."

Except "household cash income" is not defined. All we learn from the article about "household cash income" is a statement that this income total does not include all income received by the very rich.

So, maybe these numbers are not telling the whole story.

Ms. Solomon strngly suggests this by including certain quotes. Other statements in the article do add some detail to the rosy picture painted solely by looking at the deficit figures.

Rudolph Penner, a former CBO director now at the Urban Institute, is quoted as saying that "we are getting a flood of tax revenue from the hyper rich . . . [which] may raise some worries socially, but . . . certainly is good for the economy."

Raises worries socially? What worries?

Says Issac Shapiro of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal advocacy group, is quoted as saying that "it's a good thing for the federal Treasury, [yet] the rich are getting richer but the middle is not benefitting."

So what does this mean, the middle is not benefitting?

Reading between the lines, what exactly are we talking about? The tax revenue increase came from non-withheld taxes -- non-payroll taxes. And from corporate profits. The tax cuts being discussed are on capital gains, investment income -- not wages. This surge in tax revenues is from increased investment income and non-wage compensation (stock options), not increased wages. As Ms. Solomon notes, most Americans have the bulk of their taxes withheld from their wages, not incurred in connection with investment income or stock options.

So, when Shapiro and Penner are talking about the questionable social values of this tax policy, and talk about how the middle class is not benefitting, what they are saying is that this tax policy is helping people rich enough to make money off of investments and stock options make more money, but since the bulk of Americans pay their taxes on wages, not investments and stock options, the bulk of Americans are not able to take advantage of the tax policy to make more money.

So, before we can truly say that the Bush policy has been vindicated, we should say what that policy is. The Bush tax plan says that wages should be taxed higher than unearned income. And by creating a business environment where corporations can make record profits (hello, Exxon) with a number of measures, including lower capital gains taxes that make buying and selling stock and other investments attractive (as opposed to buying and holding investments like rental properties and art), they are making more income by taxing those encouraged investments.

What are those other measures, the other things the Bush Administration is doing to create a positive business environment for corporate profits and capital gains? Aside from creating perpetual war, awarding no-bid contracts to friends of the administration, outsourcing most government functions to private companies (many of them faith based organization) and pursuing a foreign policy that has tripled the price of oil, we can't really know. That's a matter of national security. Vice President Cheney's secret energy policy and all that. I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

But it's an overall policy and this tax plan is just a piece of it.

Now, where would we be if we said working Americans should keep more of their income and unearned income should be taxed more heavily? If we inverted the tax plan, and created in incentive to earn wages rather than take profits? Where would the deficit be then?

An economic policy that valued wages over investment income would, I don't know, increase the minimum wage, punish companies that export jobs to low wage shops in the Marianas Islands or China, and punish companies that hire illegal aliens and pay them below minimum wages under the table (tax free). Require transparency and accountability in government contracting. Punish price gouging oil and pharmaceutical companies which overly burden working class Americans, the sick and the elderly.

And provide universal health care, universal child care and all the other things necessary to create a level playing field for the working poor and the middle class.

Where would we be if we took the $400 million retirement payment paid to the CEO of Exxon and used it to provide low-income loans to small inner city businesses to create jobs, stability and opportunities in at-risk communities? Or to fund head start programs?

Unfortunately, this is just a hypothetical discussion. A pipe dream. A fantasy.

Because there is no possible way that anyone with this value set could get elected dog catcher in this country.

But what is not a hypothetical questions is where will this country be when its middle class is eliminated -- the ultimate goal of the Bush tax policy.

Sure, we probably won't have a deficit, but then we won't have a democracy, either.

But, in the meantime, credit where credit is due, congratulate the Bush adminstration for a job well done. In 8 years, it will have undone the social contract it took this country 224 to develop.

Now that's an accomplishment

The Hole At The Center Of The World

2006-05-16T13:26:00.000-04:00

In his May 16 Wall Street Journal column Thinking Global, Frederick Kempe observes that "Central Asia Emerges As Strategic Battleground."

Kempe writes that Central Asia has oil, and so has become the obect of desire for the three world powers. Yes, we are now in a tri-polar world with China, Russia and the US as the players.

Kempe describes the "realpolitik" going in in Central Asia. He reports that Dick Cheney visited Kazakhstan to shore up support for a trans-Caspian pipeline as a countermeasure to Russia's growing tendency to use access to its oil and gas resources as a negotiating chip. And also as a counterweight to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which includes Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan (but excludes the US). Apparently, China's game is to cooperate with Russia but win the "hearts and minds" of the other governments with red carpet treatment.

The "New Great Game" for the US, writes Kempe, is less about winning and more about not being marginalized by Russia and China. "Bush administration officials have decided the stakes are too high for Puritan values," writes Kempe. Which explains why the US is willing to depart from its "democratic missionary work" to deal with Kazakh leader Nursultan Nazarbayev. Notes Kempe, Nazarbayev suppresses opponents and appropriates resource wealth, but grows the economy by 9-10% annually.

So, according to Kempe, Washington believes we are in a tripolar world and Central Asia is a jewel to be plucked by the poles.

What is astonishing is the complete lack of a sense of the history of Central Asia. When the only means of trade between Europe and Asia was by land, Central Asia was the center of the world, where the trade routes met. Tashkent, Samarkand and Bukhara were cities which flowered under the constant influx of merchants and cultures. The region never fully recovered from invasion by the Mongols, but still retains a strong cultural identity.

Despite years of occupation by the Soviet empire, there are still over 160 languages spoken in Central Asia, most of them of Turkic origin. The southern borders of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan have always been porous with Iran and Afghanistan. Soviet Russia was never able to stop nomadic peoples from crossing back and forth.

Why? Primarily because these central Asian countries are artificial. Just as Czechoslovakia was an artificially formed state combining ethnic groups which hated each other, the Central Asian republics were created by the Soviets and imposed on indigenous populations. Now, these "countries" can only be maintained by force, not by democracy. Because the people see more in common with Istanbul and Tehran than they do with Moscow, Beijing or Washington.

So, the three poles think they will divide Central Asia? What about the fourth pole? What about radical Islam? Kempe doesn't mention it, doesn't describe it as part of the new world order, but I'm betting the peoples of Central Asia are aware of it.

I'm sure Nazarbayev in Kazakhstan is aware of the proximity of Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq. I'm sure China sees that Iraq is becoming more aligned with Iran than Washington, and that the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan.

So are we truly to believe that Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, which have a common histories with the peoples of Central Asia, will sit quietly by as China, Russia and the US claim ownership of Central Asian oil? Or should we suspect that radical Islam will target US, Russian and Chinese oil interests in a bid to gain control over the "realpolitik" oil prizes?

To me, the most realistic outcome of this "realpolitik" three pole game is that Russia, China and the US will pay to develop oil economies in countries which will then fall victim to uprisings fueled by radical Islamists.

How can it be that the Bush administration can continue to underestimate the power of radical Islam to thwart its attempts to grab oil around the globe? Like our "realpolitk" relationships with the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, Muamar Qaddafi or the Saud family have not all gone horribly awry.

How can a critique of administration policy in Central Asia fail to even mention the history of the region and its cultural ties to countries which are fast becoming anti-Western Islamic regimes?

Even "realpolitik" imperialists have to take into account the ethnicity of their subjects.

Crime Pays When The State Does It

2006-04-24T11:33:00.001-04:00

OK, this time the crime is theft through nationalizing privately held assets, and the state is Russia. But for those of you who think it couldn't happen here, just harken back to the Supreme Court's recent expansion of the right of eminent domain.

So, in the April 18 WSJ, Gregory L. White, reports on a pending initial public offering (IPO) of OAO Rosneft, the state-owned company that owns one of Russia's biggest oil reserves. White reports that this will not just be a financial triumph, it would also "be a resounding endorsement of the Kremlin's drive to retake control of the strategic energy sector in a country that is the world's top producer of natural gas and No. 2 in oil."

Exactly what form did that drive take? Rosneft was formed in 1993 as Russia converted the Soviet Ministry of Oil into private companies. During the privatization drive of the 1990s, most of Rosneft's prize assets were auctioned off to business tycoons. One of those tycoons, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, owned a company named Yukos which purchased Rosneft's asset Yuganskneftegaz (Yugansk for short). Yugansk is an immense crude oil deposit.

In 2003, Vladimir Putin started his "drive to retake control" of Russia's oil and gas industry, most especially Yugansk. How did he do it? First, the Kremlin imposed $6 billion in back taxes on Yukos, in a move "widely viewed as a politically motivated attempt to scotch Khodorkovsky's political ambitions." Then, President Putin jailed Mr. Khodorkovsky on charges of fraud and tax evasion. Yukos was hit with additional back taxes, totalling nearly $30 billion, in what many viewed as "a politicized example of selective prosecution."

Authorities broke up Yukos and put its assets up for sale to satisfy the back taxes claim. Foreign investors lost about $6 billion.

After President Putin's attempt to have state gas monopoly Gazprom acquire Yugansk was scuttled by a US bankruptcy filing on the part of Yukos, Rosneft moved to reacquire the asset it had lost a decade before. The acquisition left Rosneft deeply in debt and squabbling with its creditors.

And so, the idea of an IPO of Rosneft was born. What else do you do when you have a valuable asset, considerable debts and a need for operating capital? Everybody wins.

Everybody, of course, except Mikhail Khodorkovsky. He sits in prison in Siberia, where he has been in and out of solitary confinement. As of ApriL 19, he was back in solitary confinement after being slashed in the face by a fellow inmate.

So here is the strategy which is being "endorsed" by public reception of the Rosneft IPO. Have the government steal a strategic asset by taxing it and imprisoning its owner. Then sell the asset.

And it's not like anybody is kidding themselves about what's going on. Quoting from White's WSJ article, "Effectively, they have just repackaged Yuganskneftegaz," says Agne Zitkute, a fund manager at Pictet Asset Management in London. "I do have a moral problem with that, but does that mean we're not going to look at the investment? No."

In recognition that this deal needs a "Western" stamp of approval, President Putin offered a position on Rosneft's board to Donald Evans, -- yes, US commerce secretary and chairman of President Bush's 2000 Campaign Donald Evans.

Come on, you knew there would be a Bush connection somewhere in this gas and oil story. And, of course, it comes in the form of legitimizing illegal activity on the part of the state to make money off of oil and gas and imprisoning political figures in far away places on trumped up charges.

Funny thing is, Khodorkovsky may end up with the last laugh. Yukos has been valued at 3 times the $9.4 billion Rosneft paid for it. This presents 2 problems. First, it gives the impression that the sale of Yukos was not an arms length transaction. Second, "because of an apparent oversight before the 2004 auction," Yukos still owns 23% of Yugansk. Which, after the IPO, would make Yukos one of Rosneft's largest shareholders.

According to White, "That, according to people close to the deal, was unacceptable to the Kremlin."

Everyone expects the deal to move forward, and for certain problems to be "glossed over."

One can only hope that those investors lining up for this IPO will once again lose their investment when those "glossed over" problems come to light.

As GM Sows, Main Street Reeps

2006-04-12T10:40:00.000-04:00

Today's Wall Street Journal includes an article by Yoshio Takahashi about GM's decision to sell it's stake in Isuzu to two Japanese companies with pre-existing ties to Isuzu. This follows GM's recent sale of its interest in Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd., maker of Subaru cars. Subaru has now begun working with Toyota.

I love my Subaru, by the way.

The article reports that "[s]addled with debt and losing market share in the US to Toyota Motor Corp. and other Asian rivals, GM has been trying to restructure its unprofitable North American operations."

The article also notes that, in a separate matter, GM is shifting work from its top US supplier Delphi to other suppliers, i.e. Japan's Denso Corp. and NGK Spark Plug Co., as well as Honeywell International Inc., Germany's Beru AG and Siemens AG unit Siemens VDO Automotive Corp. Delphi is exiting several business lines and is operating under the auspices of the bankruptcy courts, which necessitated GM's switch of suppliers.

So, GM is having trouble in the US market because of Asian competition. On the one hand, it is selling Asian assets to raise money. One can assume that GM is hardly in a position to demand top dollar under such circumstances -- kind of the way when you go to a pawn shop you take what they offer or walk.

On the other hand, GM is starting to buy more parts from outside the US, including in Japan. Because its primary US supplier, Delphi, can't stay in business anymore.

What I can't figure out is why anyone would call these two acts on the part of GM unrelated. GM is trying to restructure its unprofitable US business by sending both assets and business abroad. In fact, apparently, the only thing GM is not sending abroad is cars.

And liabilities. GM is leaving its liabilities right here. Specifically, it's pension and health benefits liabilities -- the press has been awash in stories about the automotive industry and its inability to meet its health and pension obligations. Delphi, which used to be owned by GM, will probably go into bankruptcy and try to get out of its employee pension and health obligations. Which used to be GM iabilities, by the way. And GM is already saying that it cannot afford its own pension and health care liabilities.

So those liabilities are not leaving the country; no, those liabilities will become the problem of the US taxpayer.

Connecting the dots Mt. Takahashi calls unrelated or just doesn't see, GM is seeking to restructure its operations by selling assets overseas to reduce its debt, sending business overseas to reduce its costs, and spinning off its pension and health obligations at its former Delphi unit, if not at GM itself, to the US taxpayer.

For you and me, that would be like selling your family heirlooms on e-bay, hiring an illegal immigrant at below market rates to watch your kids so you could get a second job, which has to be off-the-books so that your taxes don't go up.

Extending the logic here, does this mean that GM and the rest of us are all learning to compete with low-cost foreign competition? Is the same issue sweeping through corporate America and Main Street America?

Well, not exactly. GM and corporate America need cheap labor because of foreign competition. So GM and corporate America need Main Street to be sucker-punched by foreign competition, so corporate labor costs go down.

I think this can best be understood by looking at the typical Delphi employee. His job is going overseas, his pension and health benefits are going bye-bye and he now has to go out and get a new job in a market where wages are being kept artificially low by foreign competition within and without the United States.

Those are the dots WSJ cannot or will not connect.

Is this why hundreds of thousands of Americans have taken to the streets? Because this country is making it easier for GM to address foreign competition by undermining Main Street's ability to deal with foreign competition? By refusing to raise the minimum wage, by allowing undocumented workers to be denied health and pension benefits, effectively undermining wages even more?

Is this why the President's immigration plan allows for this cheap foreign labor to continue? To continue to erode the status of the American labor force?

And if so, has anyone made this connection? Does anyone have a plan?

Democrats? Republicans? Just raise your hands.

OK, anyone other than China.

Anyone have a plan?

Katie Couric

2006-04-06T23:26:00.000-04:00

I recently had the chance to see the very fine film "Good Night And Good Luck". It made me sad, because the only experience I have had in my lifetime with an impassioned journalist occurred through a work of fiction.

And now Katie Couric is anchoring a network news broadcast.

I have a lot of respect for Katie Couric. When her husband died of colon cancer at a very young age, I felt for her. When she had a colonoscopy on-air, I felt she was a person of depth and substance.

But she's not a journalist. She is not a news gatherer. She is a television personality, and a wonderful one. And that is no insult, she is a legitimate talent.

I've read a number of news reports on Ms. Couric's career change from a number of sources, and the entire discussion about her move to the CBS anchor chair centers on ratings, and not on the quality of the journalism at CBS. Which pretty much says it all.

"Network news" is now an oxymoron, like "military intelligence", "journalistic integrity" and "Presidential authority."

Good Night And Good Luck, indeed.

If It Quacks Like A Death Squad . . .

2006-03-30T13:49:00.000-05:00

Today's Wall Street Journal has a brief front page entry which reads as follows:

"Iraqi gunmen attacked a Bagdhad business, some dressed in police uniforms, lining up and shooting 14 employees, killing eight. It was the third such attack in as many days made to look like the handiwork of a government death squad. Elsewhere, attacks killed 26 Iraqis and two U.S. soldiers."

No more information on this story is provided.

What does "made to look like the handiwork of a government death squad" mean? Does it mean it looked like a government death squad because it was a government death squad, or does it mean it looked like a government death squad but it wasn't a government death squad? Or is it just unclear whether or not it was a government death squad?

If it was a government death squad, then just write "An Iraqi government death squad attacked a Bagdhad business . . ."

If it wasn't a government death squad, then just write "Iraqi gunmen, posing as an Iraqi government death squad, attacked a Bagdhad business . . ."

If it's not clear, then just write "Iraqi gunmen, possibly an Iraqi government death squad, attacked a Bagdhad business . . ."

Perhaps I should have started this article by saying "Today's Wall Street Journal has a brief front page entry, made to read like deliberate government disinformation, . . ."

Because it would seem that someone wants us to believe what looks like an Iraqi government death squad may very well be someone trying to frame the Iraqi government. Now, who would go to all that trouble other than the US government? Really, who has a more extensive track record of telling the US public to ignore the obvious?

So I guess my only real question is, did the Wall Street Journal simply not realize that they were writing a confusing entry, or did it simply parrot a press release from the US military in Iraq without question? Is this incompetence or complicity?

The Return Of The Elders Of Zion

2006-03-28T20:38:00.000-05:00

I've always considered myself a liberal. Not a progressive, a liberal. OK, a radical left wing nut job.

But I'm going to have to reconsider. I'm getting the sense that to be a liberal today means supporting the Palestinian cause. And I just can't do it under this government. Just as I couldn't do it under the previous government.

The first step in my awakening was an editorial in The Nation about Richard Rogers, Lord Rogers of Riverside. Seems Lord Rogers agreed to host the inaugural meeting of a group called Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine, which group called for a boycott of the Israeli construction industry to protest Israeli treatment of Palestinians.

In the space of five paragraphs, Lord Rogers went from being famous for his "progressive politics" (in the view of The Nation) to being a weak and craven capitalist "caving" to McCarthyism on the basis of a single transaction. Anytime someone rises and falls so quickly, I think someone is playing fast and loose with their arguments. So I did some independent fact checking.

Here's what I can gather. Lord Rogers was threatened with losing a big contract for the expansion of the Jacob Javits center in New York because he had helped to form an organization that wanted to boycott Israel. The Nation is careful to point out that while a boycott of firms or architects who worked on the planned wall separating Israel from Palestine, or on West Bank settlements, had been discussed, no decisions were made at the London meeting.

But there were subsequent meetings. And a simple Google search will yield numerous news reports on the group's call for a boycott. I'm not sure why The Nation would want to gild this particular lilly, but it seems a tad manipulative.

Anyhoo, Rogers faced losing the deal because of his connection to a group either discussing or actively promoting boycotts. Why? The Nation strongly implies some tacit Jewish influence. We are told that Rogers' father is Jewish; the British organizer of the architects' group in question is Jewish. Why is their religion relevant? The irony, of course.

And in case you didn't catch that irony, the piece is entitled "An American Inquisition?", referencing the Church's program of torturing suspected Jews. And, of course, ended up torturing a fair number of their "innocent" (i.e., un-Jewish) friends and neighbors in the process. Get it -- Jews are now attacking anyone with a hint of support for Palestinians, even fellow Jews -- it's a new Inquisition. Just like "innocent" non-Jews got caught up in the Inquisition, "innocent" pro-Palestinian Jews are getting caught up in this new Inquisition. Which is funny because Jews should be spared under a Jewish Inquisition the same way Christians should have been spared under a Christian Inquisition. Get it? Isn't it a scream?

You see, according to the Nation, Rogers was the victim of McCarthyites claiming to speak for all American jews.

Yes, that was the problem. A powerful cabal of Jews.

The news reports said that Rogers was at risk of losing the job because state and Federal laws prohibit doing business with anyone who supports economic boycotts against Israel. And because Jacob Javits was a strong supporter of Israel.

But that wasn't the issue. No. It was not a question of US law, or even US policy supporting a country surrounded by Arab countried which had been economically sanctioned by every Arab country.

It was McCarthyites. A secret cabal of Jews claiming to speak for all Jews.

It was the Elders of Zion.

The funniest part of the entire article for me is where The Nation writes that "Palestinians have become such pariahs that even to appear sympathetic to their cause is dangerous to one's career." See, that's bad. But being subjected to a global boycott because you accept an Israeli government contract, apparently that's not so bad.

Isn't there some justice in saying that you give up your right to say you should not be sanctioned for your political views when you seek to sanction others because of their political views?

But that didn't happen here. No, it was the Elders of Zion.

Now, I would have blown this off the same way I blow off virtually every Wall Street Journal editorial I read, but in the same issue of The Nation there was a story (the cover story, actually) , written by Philip Weiss, discussing a play about Rachel Corrie.

Rachel Corrie seems to have been an exemplary human being. She was a person of strong conviction who lost her life at the age of 23 when she was run over in Gaza by a bulldozer being operated by the Israeli army. The Israeli's were bulldozing Palestinian homes to make way for a security wall, Ms. Corrie stood in front of the bulldozer, wearing an orange vest, and . . . The Israeli army investigation found no wrongdoing. The article strongly suggests that this finding is in error.

Long story short, Ms. Corrie's writings have been turned into a play which has been very well received in the UK. Plans were made to bring the play to the New York Theatre Workshop. But the NYTW backed out, in large part because of its perceptions of the reaction within New York's Jewish community. A significant consideration was the Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections and Hamas' subsequent refusal to recognize the right of the state of Israel to exist.

And now, I will quote the article:

"Jen Marlowe . . . A Jewish activist . . . says," I don't want to say the Jewish community is monolithic. It isn't. But among many American Jews who are very progressive and fight deeply for many social justice issues, there's a knee-jerk reflexive reaction that happens around issues related to Israel."

"Questions about pressure from Jewish leaders morph quickly into questions about funding. Ellen Stewart, the legendary director of La MaMa E.T.C., which is across East 4th Street from the Workshop, speculates that the trouble began with its "very affluent" board. . . (About a third appear to be Jewish, as am I). This is of course a charged issue. The writer Alisa Solomon, who was appalled by the postponement, nonetheless warns, 'There's something a little too familiar about the image of Jews pulling the puppet strings behind the scenes.'"

You see, it can't be anti-Semitic, because Jen Marlowe is Jewish, the writer is Jewish, and we're told that the writer is being cautious not to raise the specter of the Elders of Zion. So there's nothing wrong in saying that questions about Jews quickly become questions about money. Oh, come one, that's not what the author meant -- don't go there. McCarthyite.

So, you see, they are the Good Jews. The Progressive Jews. They are against censorship. They're not the Bad Jews pulling the puppet strings with their money, the Elders. The McCarthyites claiming to speak for all Jews who pulled their little, invisible purse strings and forced the NYTW to postpont its production. The Zionists.

So, it seems pretty clear where The Nation stands on Zionists like me. I'm for civil rights, but I don't believe in negotiating with terrorists.

Oh, wait, that brings my the the final piece of my day. I'm listening to Air America Radio, the Majority Report with Sam Seder and Jeaneane Garafolo. And Jeaneane is talking about how the Palestinians are victims of poltical and economic oppression at the hands of Israel. And how you can call Hamas terrorists or freedom fighters, depending on your point of view.

But, Jeaneane notes a few minutes later, anyone who believes Reagan ended communism has no sense of history, context, nuance or reality. Now, I don't believe that Reagan ended communism, but I accept that there's a legitimate world view that could support that interpretation of history. In fact, I can accept that interpretation of history a lot more easily than I can accept an interpretation that calls Hamas or Fatah "freedom fighters."

Because it wasn't freedom fighters who killed those Israeli athletes in Munich. It wasn't freedom fighters who threw wheelchair bound Leon Klinghoffer over the side of the hijacked ship Achille Lauro and then joked that he was trying to swim for it. Those were terrorist acts against non-combatants. To provide a little history, context, nuance and reality for Ms. Garafaolo's world view.

And so, it dawned on me. I'm not buying it. I'm not buying any of it. There was no McCarthyite plot against Lord Rogers, there was no Zionist plot against the Rachel Corrie play at New York Theatre Workshop.

And, sorry Jeaneane, it's OK to say Hamas is a terrorist organization and not a freedom fighter organization. Anyone who has stood at Sharm El Sheik when it was Israeli land and then seen it given back to Eqypt for peace; anyone who sees a country continually ceding territory for peace; anyone who sees a country which has been at war for sixty years against a people who want to push them into the sea; anyone who remembers how the Palestinians danced in the streets when Saddam Hussein bombed Israel -- "Mr Saddam Hussein, we are loving ou too much;" anyone who has seen all that has just a little too much of a sense of history, context, nuance and reality to embrace Hamas as freedom fighters.

I don't believe that Rogers' political views should have threatened his ability to work in New York, I don't believe that Rachel Correy deserved to die and I recognize Hamas as the elected government of Palestine.

I'm just not buying these conspiracy theories citing nameless and faceless McCarthyites and "very affluent" Jews and Jewish progressives who have lost their way.

I'm not buying the Elders of Zion thing.

I don't think that the problem is within the Jewish community at all. I think that neither Lord Rogers nor New York Theatre Workshop has the courage of their convictions. Maybe the irony here is that Lord Rogers could have learned a thing or two about convictions from Jacob Javits and NYTW could have learned a thing or two about convictions from Rachel Corrie.

But, since it seems to be a key ingredient of the progressive Kool-Aid to support the Palestinian cause and buy into some Elders of Zion Jewish conspiracy theory, and since I can't do that under this government, as I could not under the previous Palestinian government, I guess I'm part of the problem. A McCarthyite. An Elder.

So, I'm hanging up my liberal moniker and identifying myself as a civil libertarian.

Which means, in my book, I don't have to agree with what you say, but I do support your right to say it.

Even you, Jeaneane.

You ignorant slut.

Cheney Shoots Himself In The Foot

2006-02-16T09:47:00.000-05:00

OK, so the news media is awash in coverage about Vice President Dick Cheney's accidental shooting of 78 year old Harry Whittington.

Truth be told, my first inclination was to give the Vice President a break. He did a bad thing to one of his own, and I'm sure he feels guilty about it. It's not like doing a bad thing to Iraqis or Afghans or residents of New Orlean's Ninth Ward or American veterans, this was a bad thing to someone who matters to the Vice President. And I'm sure he's very upset.

So, this was an accident, no big deal. But then there was the cover-up.

Now, Mr. Cheney says he thought it was a good idea to keep the story secret for 22 hours, and then let his hostess report the incident to a local Texas newspaper on Sunday afternoon. You know, after the Sunday morning talk shows were done for the day.

There are a lot of people questioning the logic of this decision, I don't need to dwell on this, other than to say that I see no logic here.

I pretty much had nothing to say until I read John D. McKinnon's and Greg Hitt's report in the February 15 Wall Street Journal. The article quotes Carlos Valdez, the district attorney who would bring charges if charges were to be brought, as saying that he sees no indication of criminal wrongdoing on Mr. Cheney's part. Criminal wrongdoing under these circumstances would be recklessness or criminal negligence, says Mr. Valdez.

But then the story concludes with this timeline from the Secret Service. The shooting occurred at 5:50 pm. Mr. Whittington was loaded into an ambulance already on standby at the ranch at 6:20, and then sent to a local hospital. The Secret Service notified the local sherrif of the shooting between 6:50 and 7:00.

My first question is, why did it take half an hour to get poor Harry into an ambulance that was already on the ranch? A half an hour is a very long time when someone is lying on the ground with birdshot holes in his face, head and neck. What was going on during that time?

My second question is, why did it take an hour to call the local sherrif? By the time the sherrif was even called, the victim had been treated and removed from the scene. Major pieces of evidence gone. Other people may have been able to come and go. And people could have gotten their stories straight. Isn't there some kind of obligation to preserve the crime scene, preserve the evidence?

I'm thinking, if I had shot poor Harry, my first call would have been to 911. If I waited an hour to call 911, my next call would be to my lawyer because I would be guilty of obstruction of justice. I would have made it impossible for an independent examination of the evidence, because the evidence would have been destroyed.

My third question is, why isn't District Attorney Valdez asking Mr. Cheney my first two questions? Because all the witnesses say it was an accident? All the witnesses, who had plenty of time to be coached, are saying the same thing? And that's enough? Even though the witnesses also say that poor Harry was partially at fault for not announcing his presence to the other hunters, when apparently proper hunting ettiquette would impose no such obligation on Harry? Doesn't that kind of suggest that a story has been coordinated -- when a bunch of people all say the same dumb thing?

So there you have it. If I were the District Attorney, I would be exploring obstruction of justice charges against everyone who failed to preserve the crime scene and notify the proper local authorities, including Mr. Cheney.

The shooting was accidental. The cover-up was deliberate. And that's the crime.

Democracy and Religion

2006-02-13T17:03:00.000-05:00

Today's Wall Street Journal includes two stories about Western-style democracies facing challenges brought forward by religious interest groups.

Andrew Higgins writes of a divide in Denmark between Imam Ahmed Abu-Laban, a Palestinian religious leader who decries the assimilation of Muslims into Western society; and Naser Khader, an elected lawmaker of Syrian-Palestinian descent. This rift has gained global attention through the Imam's distribution of cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed, some of which were published in a Danish newspaper.

In the same issue, Karby Leggett writes about an internal Israeli struggle. Regligious parties object to ceding land to Palestinians which they believe belong to the Jewish people based on religious teachings. Secular parties want to make what they see as a pragmatic decision to cede some of these lands in order to ensure that Israel has secure borders, if not actual peace.

And in this country, religious parties have gained control of the Executive and Legislative branches of the government; they may, in fact, control the Judical branch as well.

In this country, we say that religion has no place in government or politics. The rest of the world's western-style democracies seem to know something Americans do not: separation of church and state does not mean banishing religion from the halls of government. It means something else entirely.

So, what does it mean, this separation of church and state? Perhaps there is no one answer. But, as a civil libertarian, as a card carrying member of the ACLU, I am coming to the realization that I have assumed that separation of church and state meant no religion in government, and that in so doing I have been out of step with the vast majority of experience in western democracies.

And I begin to believe that unless and until civil libertarians and liberals find their own balance between their faith and their politics, they will forever be at a disadvantage against religious groups which enter the political fray.

Food for thought, at any rate.

My New Conspiracy Theory: The Future Of The Gulf Coast

2006-01-31T10:22:00.000-05:00

To tell you the truth, I had really thought about retiring this blog. The mainstream media seemed to be getting more of a backbone, the Adminstration wasn't even bothering to lie about breaking the law and violating the Constitution. And I've been focused on writing a play about adopting my daughter.

But I was reading an article by Michael Klare in The Nation, and my blood ran cold. The article, entitled "The Geopolitics of Natural Gas", provides, in relevant part:

The United States is becoming increasingly dependent on natural gas. This country now relies on natural gas for approximately one-fourth of its total energy supply, more than any source other than oil. As a result, the economy has become more and more vulnerable to fluctuations in gas supply and pricing . . .

At present, however, it is impractical to build gas pipelines beneath a large ocean like the Atlantic or Pacific, so gas traveling from the Middle East or Africa to the United States or Japan must go by ship . . .

Qatar has [used] its gas reserves to establish close ties to Washington and to insulate itself beneath a US defense umbrella. Under a $10 billion, twenty-five year agreement, ExxonMobil will build the world's largest [liquid natural gas] facility in Qatar. Much of the resulting liquid will go to the United States to be converted back into gas. The will entail construction of new LNG terminals at ports on the US Gulf Coast, a major undertaking.

If the United States is to boost its imports of natural gas significantly, it will need many more LNG terminals in US harbors (there are only four now operating), and this prospect has already aroused considerable opposition from local authorities and environmentalists, who worry about the risk of explosions and other calamities. In a move little noticed by the American press or the public, Congress voted in July (as part of a new energy bill) to give the government the power to override local governments in the placement of future LNG terminals, a step that could lead to the contruction of many more facilities on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and a sharp growth in US reliance on imported gas."

OK, so here goes my conspiracy theory. Back in 2001, Dick Cheney held secret meetings with energy industry interests, including ExxonMobil, about the Administration's energy policy. And that energy policy included the following things:

1. Invade Iraq and install a Western leaning government, to insure US access to Iraqi oil.

2. Leave the Gulf Coast vulnerable to the elements, so that in the event of natural disaster there will be ample real estate available for the construction of LNG terminals, necessary if the US is going to secure access to natural gas.

So, the President started building a case for war with Iraq. He deliberately ignored evidence of a coming terrorist attack on US soil, because he needed another Pearl Harbor to function as cover for going into Iraq.

And, the President started dismantling FEMA, so that the federal government would not be able to prevent damage from Gulf Coast hurricanes. Hurricanes we knew were inevitable, based on all the environmental evidence pertaining to global warming. Damage we knew was inevitable, based on all the studies of New Orleans and its environs.

How else to explain the mounting evidence that the Administration knew about the devastation about to be visited on New Orleans and deliberately failed to act? This Administration is not incompetent -- when it leaves devastation in its wake, it is part of a deliberate stategy.

So it is part of a deliberate strategy that the US chased the Taliban into the hinterlands of Afghanistan and then let the country become a narco-state, a heroin exporter. Because it plans to cut deals with Afghani druglords to keep them at each others throats and to keep the country ungovernable (i.e., free for use by the US as a launching pad for covert ops and for military surveillance); and it plans to send heroin into Iran to undermine the country's stability.

So it is part of a deliberate strategy that the US will leave Iraq without sufficient infrastructure to survive. Because Iraq will then turn to US contractors like Halliburton to provide that infrastructure. Why not hire the guys who are there already? Leaving Halliburton and its ilk in charge of Iraqi infrastructure and oil.

And it was part of a deliberate strategy to leave the Gulf Coast in general and New Orleans in particular in shambles. New Orleans, perhaps the country's biggest shipping port. Unless I miss my guess, the Federal government will be overruling local attempts to rebuild New Orleans and bring back its largely impoverished minority population. No the Federal government will claim that land for LNG terminals.

Now, tonight, the President will give his State of the Union Address, and he will spend some time talking about alternative fuels. When he does, I will know that he is talking about natural gas. And I will know that the President deliberately allowed people to die, communities to die, countries to die, as part of his Administration's secret energy policy.

My friends, we are in the presence of true evil. We are governed by true evil. Not incomeptence, evil. And evil speaks tonight.

An Undue Burden

2005-11-30T14:41:00.000-05:00

Today's WSJ has a front page article on Americans United For Life, a "little-known Chicago-based organization . . . which for some 30 years has been guiding the effort to chip away at Roe v. Wade."

Jeanne Cummings reports that Americans United carries a lot of clout, and counts some heavyweights on its board. Such as C. Everett Koop, Surgeon General under Ronald Reagan.

There's so much in this article that fascinates me, but I want to pull a few highlights.

First, as of 2004, more than 30 states have passed so-called parental notification laws which require minors to tell their parents when they get an abortion. Many of those laws are based on the boilerplate statute drafted by Americans United.

Second, as of 2004, 20 states have seperate so-called "informed consent" laws advocated by Americans United which require doctors to tell patients the health risks of abortion.

I was staggered by these numbers -- I had no idea that more than half of the states in the Union required parental notification.

These laws, advocated and written by Americans United, are part of a conscious effort to co-opt the strategies of the civil rights movement. Much as civil rights lawyers chipped away at the edges of "separate but equal" until the doctrine fell under its own weight, Americans United hope to topple Roe v. Wade by chopping away at the edges of abortion rights until there is nothing left.

In moving towards its goal, Americans United works with sympathetic lawmakers to get laws passed for the sole purpose of having the laws challenged in court. The idea is to get a continuous stream of legal decisions limiting abortion rights.

To me, this is astonishing. I have to say, this strategy simply never occured to me. I mean, I would sometimes hear about a law being passed and say to myself, "What were they thinking? There's no way that law will stand up in court." But in striking down the laws, the courts set the parameters about what is acceptable and what is not.

So in 1977, Mayer v. Roe upheld a state ban on public funding for abortion; in 1980, Harris v. McRae upholds a ban on federal funding for abortion; in 1981 H.L. v. Matheson upheld parental notification; in 1983, Planned Parenthood of Kansas, MO v. Ashcroft upheld a law requiring either parental notification or judicial consent; in 1992, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey upheld a law mandating a 24 hour waiting period for abortions; and in 2000, Stenberg v. Carhart overturned a ban on late-term abortions because there is no exception for the health of the mother.

So, yes, women have a Constitutional right to abortion, but the state doesn't have to pay for it, the federal government doesn't have to pay for it, and there are an increasing number of procedural hoops women must jump through to get them, especially minors.

The strategy is working. Without overturning Roe v. Wade, abortions are becoming less and less available.

It's fascinating. I just never saw the big picture before.

Now, the next battleground appears to be over the exact meaning of "undue burden". The Supreme Court's 1992 Casey decision said that states can regulate abortion as long as the restrictions don't impose an "undue burden" on women.

Americans United has been encouraging states to pass more aggressive informed consent laws. The goal is both to get an expansive list of restrictions which are deemed not to be an undue burden, and also to establish a burden of proof as to what is sufficient evidence of an undue burden. It could take years to gather enough evidence of an undue burden, and during those years the law in question would remain on the books.

Now, here's where my spine starts to shiver. Samuel Alito has been nominated to the Supreme Court. He has a very controversial abortion decision in his background, one in which he wrote that plaintiffs had not proven that a Connecticut law requiring women to notify their husbands when they have an abortion was an undue burden on women.

Alito wrote that most women who get abortions are not married; most married women who get abortions do so with their husbands knowledge; meaning that only a small proportion of women would be negatively impacted by the law. And without actual proof of harm, the plaintiffs had not proven that the law presented an undue burden on women.

So it would seem that Judge Alito has a judicial philosophy tailor-made to the latest attack on abortion rights being waged by Americans United.

What a coincidence.

And no wonder the religious right was furious about Harriet Miers' nomination. They have been planning for, anticipating, praying for someone with Alito's philosophy for a very long time.

Oh, how we pro-choicers have slept on our rights. It's only now, in the end-game, that we begin to understand to scope of the effort to turn back Roe v. Wade. And while we may be able to salvage the basic tenet that women have a right to abortion, it will be a long time before we can unwind the damage to abortion rights which has been carefully inflicted in a calculated, coordinated campaign.

And brilliantly so. I have to admit, I am in awe.

Wish I had thought of it.

Cautiously Optimistic

2005-11-20T22:11:00.000-05:00

OK, I watched the Sunday morning talk shows today, and the overwhelming sentiment is that Rep. Murtha's heartfelt and emotional statements this week mark a turning point. Withdrawal from iraq is not only inevitable, it is responsible. The sensation of reason sweeping through the minds of the country is almost palpable,as if we are all awaking from a long sleep filled with nightmares, demons, evil without a face.

The only frightening part of my morning is that I'm sure a saw a sign of the apocaplypse - Maureen Dowd actually tried to be cute on national television. Right there on the Chris Matthews show.

Positively chilling.

A sign that evil does live on.

US WMD

2005-11-16T13:42:00.000-05:00

Agence France Presse, or AFP reported today that the US has confirmed and defended its use of white phosphorus munitions against Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah last year.

White phosphorus is a yellow substance which erupts spontaneously when exposed to air, releasing a dense white smoke. Burning particals of white phosphorus devices cause deep, painful chemical burns when they come into contact with skin.

AFP quotes Bryan Whitman, Pentagon spokesman, as saying "[White phosphorus] is part of our conventional weapons inventory. We use it like any other conventional weapon." Whitman continued on to say that "[w]e don't target any civilians with any of our weapons, and to suggest US forces were targeting civilians with these weapons would be wrong. . . .We don't target civilian populations. We go to great lenghts to do everything possible to prevent civilian casualties, and collateral damage to property."

So, exactly how was white phosphorus used in Fallujah? The army journal Field Artillery is quoted as stating "[w]e used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE (high exlposives) . . .We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."

So, white phosphorus was used only against insurgents. "Insurgents" is the US word for the Iraqis and foreign nationals fighting US troops in Iraq. The bizarre thing about this statement is that it assumes that it is obvious who the insurgents are and who the civilians are. That it's possble to target only the insurgents.

But the entire reason we can't defeat the insurgents is because we can't tell them from the general population. So to say we only targeted insurgents is to claim an ability we don't have.

We can't tell the insurgents from the civilians.

So, white phosphorus was used in "screening missions". What exactly is a "screening mission"? Whitman's statements suggest that a screening mission is used to create smoke screens in battle and to mark targets with white smoke.

But Whitman also confirmed that white phosphorus was used against insurgents directly. Lieutenant Colonel Barry Venable confirms white phosphorus was used as an incendiary agent. And Field Artillery states that white phosphorus was used against people in hiding places.

But the vast majority of the civilian population of Fallujah was in hiding places during this campaign. If you can't see who's in the hiding places, but only know that among the people in the hiding place are insurgents, how do you know you haven't targeted civilians caught in the crossfire? Civilians firing back in self defense? Civilians being used as human shields?

But here's my favorite part. The article cites "another Defense Department spokeman" as saying that white phosphorus has been used by armies around the world for the past century.

The US HHS web site has this to say about white phosphorus:

"In the military, white phosphorus is used in ammunitions such as mortar and artillery shells, and grenades. When ammunitions containing white phosphorus are fired in the field, they burn and produce smoke. The smoke contains some unburnt phosphorus, but it mainly has various burned phosphorus products. In military operations, such smoke is used to conceal troop movements and to identify targets or the locations of friendly forces. White phosphorus munitions are intended to burn or firebomb the opponents, in other words, to effectively produce widespread damage but not kill the enemy."

It's interesting to note that the HHS web site discusses the health effects of ingesting white phosphorus, but very little about the risks of direct exposure to unburnt phosphorus.

So, it's true, white phosphorus has been used by our military and other militaries. One of the uses is to "produce widespread damage but not kill the enemy."

"Produce widespread damage."

Now, how do you produce widespread damage while carefully targeting insurgents intermixed with a civilian population?

And another thing -- how do you use white phosphorus as a potent psychological weapon? Perhaps shielding US troop movements was a psychological weapon. Perhaps identifying insurgent strongholds was a psychological weapon. But wait -- no -- those are screening missions. And screening missions are listed separately from the use of white phosphorous as a psychological weapon.

And, accoring to HHS, use as a psychological weapon is not one of white phosphorus' customary military uses. Nope, those customary uses are in munitions, in screening missions, and creating widespread damage without killing the enemy.

Which leaves me with the question -- were these psychological uses of white phosphorus intended to cause wide spread damage without killing the enemy?

And if so, is it possible that in attempting to create widespread damage by firing white phosphorus into hiding places, the US inadvertently targeted, or at the very least impacted, civilians hiding from the fighting? Civilians who may or may not have been readily distinguishable from "insurgents", or US defined legitimate targets?

But the big question in my mind is that how does the use of white phosphorus as a psychological weapon and as a means of causing widespread damage differ from the actions of Saddam Hussein and Chemical Ali? Is it because Saddam Hussein used weapons which caused minimal damage to property but widespread damage to people? Because I thought one of his tactics was to destroy a region's food supply and then leave the people to starve.

All in all, recent US statements leave me with more questions than answers, but also with the knowledge that the US has used explosive munitions in a manner that forseeably could cause deep, painful chemical burns, if not death, to the Iraqi nationals we allegedly liberated from a man who stands accused of using WMD against those same people.

Tell me, ain't there no one wearing a white hat in this occupation?

Is Cheney Now Pro-CIA?

2005-11-10T13:35:00.000-05:00

A number of media sources have reported on Senator McCain's bill to mandate the humane treatment of prisoners and detainees. Most of those sources have also reported that Vice President Cheney is lobbying the Senate to exempt the CIA from the bill. In other words, Cheney wants the CIA to be able to torture people.

But it strikes me that Cheney is an odd choice for a CIA advocate. I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's National Security Advisor and Chief of Staff, recently resigned when he was indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice. Those charges pertain to alleged lies Mr. Libby told a grand jury investigating the leaking of a covert CIA agent's name to the press by someone in the White House.

What has emerged from Mr. Libby's indictment and the press coverage surrounding it is that, among other things, Vice President Cheney does not like the CIA. In fact, we have heard evidence that Cheney would regularly head over to the CIA and berate any analysts whose research did not support the President's case for war in Iraq. The same kind of stuff John Bolton was accused of doing that kept the Senate from confirming him as Ambassador to the UN.

The Vice President's antipathy for the CIA is so strong that there has been open speculation that he participated in the leaking of a CIA agent's name as pay-back for a CIA-sponsored trip which undermined the now-famous 16 words in the President's 2003 State of the Union Address. The ones which said Saddam Hussein was trying to get yellowcake in Niger. The words which Cheney echoed when he said on "Meet The Press" that we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

So, Dick Cheney has been no friend to the CIA. But now he is their champion on Capitol Hill.

Odd.

It strikes me as almost Rovian. Dick Cheney is out there saying the CIA tortures people. The President is out there saying "we do not torture". Kind of makes you wonder whether the President includes the CIA in "we". Or maybe the administration is just trying to distance themselves from the torture issue, saying it's not the President that authorizes torture, it's the CIA that tortures people in secret without the President's knowledge. At secret prisons out of the country.

But I'm just not buying that Dick Cheney suddenly feels the need to come to the rescue of the CIA because he has such respect for the organization.

Alito: Is There Such A Thing As MacroJurisprudence?

2005-11-01T13:48:00.000-05:00

Today's New York Law Journal has a very informative piece on Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

Interestingly, the article cites decisions the judge has made which can be seen both as progressive and conservative. Former law clerk Nora Demleitner says that Alito is "no originalist . . . I don't see him saying, 'As the Framers said in 1789,' the way Scalia does in his opinions.

As is usually the case, the actions of a person who defines him or herself as something other than a progressive or a conservative will allow either side to see that person as one of their own.

But I do think that the most telling insight into who Judge Alito is comes from his now famous dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. As described by Professor Edward Hartnett of Seton Hall School of Law, Judge Alito's dissent was not about abortion per se, but rather, was a philosphical argument about the best way to apply a law.

Says Professor Hartnett: "A big piece of what's going on here is what sort of judicial perspective you apply to a statute. Do you look at it on its face or how it is applied to a particular person? If you focus on the broad sweep of potential people to whom the statute could apply, you can't see much burden at all."

And indeed, Judge Alito's dissenting opinion does seem to follow this line of thought: "[I]t appears clear that an undue burden may not be established simply by showing that a law will have a heavy impact on a few women but that instead a broader inhibition must be shown."

The Law Journal article, written by T.R. Goldman (no relation), elaborates that, since most women seeking an abortion are unmarried, and since the vast majority of married women would have no problem notifying their husbands they were having an abortion, the question becomes one of which aspect of the law do you focus on: the broad sweep or the exception -- the woman for whom spousal notification would indeed be an undue burden.

To my way of thinking, this is the legal version of macroeconomics. In macroeconomics, the focus is on economies as a whole. Microeconimics focuses on the individual purchaser. So macroconomics says that markets are efficient, and when the supply of jobs dries up in one geographical area or economic field, labor will move to another area or field. Microeconomics says that when labor is forced to move, either geographically or professionally, there are costs and discruptions in the marketplace.

So, when Judge Alito says a law should not be invalidated because it only affects a small minority, he's taking a broad view of the population. And when his critics say that the rights of the small minority should be protected, they are taking an individualistic view of the population.

OK, this has all been very abstract, so maybe I can bring this home. I see a lot of sense in parental notification when a teenager seeks an abortion. When I was growing up, I can remember girls in my high school having multiple abortions, two, three, four, before they were 18 years old. I think unfettered access to abortions for teenagers can be harnful.

And, as a parent, I don't want the state stepping into my house and saying what medical procedures my child can or cannot have. The state can't consent to medical procedures for my daughter without my consent, except under the most extreme circumstances. Why should abortion be any different?

But, here's the thing. Not every parent is like me, and not every duaghter is like my daughter. And I know that if girls are forced to get their parents' permission for an abortion, then somewhere out there the daughter of strict Catholics will be forced to bring an unwanted baby to term, against her will and probably against her religious beliefs. And somewhere out there an incest victim will get beaten to death by the father who impregnated her for wanting to abort a baby.

Now, when the stakes are that high, that extreme, I'm willing to run the risk that the state will allow my daughter to get an abortion without my knowledge. Because I am free to build the type of relationship with my daugher where I would be the first person she would come to if she had a problem like an unexpected preganancy. I have the ability to let her know she would be safe and loved if she told me, and that we would solve the problem together. OK, and that she would be grounded until menapause, but, still, we'd work it out.

So, in the final analysis, I have to say that a decision about a law restricting access to abortion that says that preventing some women from getting an abortion is OK is most definitely a decision about abortion, all respects to the esteemed uterus challenged Professor Hartnett. And if Judge Alito thinks his decision was not about not about abortion rights, then I have a problem with him

Turning to my beliefs as a lawyer, I cannot agree with Judge Alito's views on Constitutional rights. The Constitution was drafted to protect the minority. It runs everywhere through the document, from the checks and balances on the Legislative, Executive and Judical branches of government to the right to bear arms. The very first change made to the Constitution was to protect the minority's right to free speech and freedom of religion -- popular speech and popular religions need no such special protection.

So when Judge Alito says you should not invalidate a law just because the law will have a heavy impact on a few people, he puts forth a point of view which is at odds with my views as a parent and as a lawyer, and at odds with my understanding of the intent of the framers of the Constitition. Judge Alito's legal assistant is right -- he is no originalist. He appears to lack the fundamental respect for individual civil liberties that the Framers held sacrosanct. OK, OK, maybe he does have the proper respect for the civil liberties for white property owning men, but I'd like to think we've evolved the concept since then.

To be fair, macrojurisprudence may not always be inappropriate. In some circumstances, respect of the needs of the many is a damn good thing. We'd have a lot less pollution, a lot less speeding on the highways, a lot more respect for our communities and neighborhoods. As Mr. Spock says in Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." But of course, Mr. Spock was talking about a value that guided his individual actions, that informed his individual choices and sacrifices, not a value he hoped his government would impose upon him.

So, while I can understand Judge Alito's form of macrojurisprudence, I find it misguided and at odds with the rights of the individual at the core of our Constitional values. Because it appears that Judge Alito would sacrifice the individual civil liberties of a few to benefit the majority. As such, in my view, his judicial philosophy is at odds with the fundamental tenet upon which this country was built -- that the individual should be free from undue intrusion by the state, not vice versa.

So who is Judge Alito? By all reports, he is a thoughtful and deliberate man, temperate in his demeanor and scholarly in his approach to the law. There is a lot to commend in this judge. As a lawyer, I'm impressed with his credentials. But the grounds of his "macrojurispridence" judicial philosophy, I find Judge Alito an inappropriate choice for the Supreme Court.

Now, just to play devil's advocate, I didn't object to John Roberts nomination to the court. OK, he was replacing a conservative Chief Justice, not a swing vote. But the truth is, Judge Alito is more qualified in terms of experience to sit on the Court than is now Chief Justice Roberts. It's only because he has a track record and a paper trail that I am able to find fault with him.

My head is now spinning. I respect the guy, but I don't want him on the court because of his judicial philosophy, but at least he has a judicial philosophy.

Guaranteed, if he doesn't get on the court, the next choice won't even be this good.

OK, I have now decided that everything about this sucks.

Enough Cindy Sheehan Already

2005-10-27T20:27:00.000-04:00

OK, OK, maybe I just need more fiber in my diet, I certainly seem to be finding a lot of fault with progressives this week, but Cindy Sheehan is getting on my last f*#!ing nerve.

First, I recognize that Ms. Sheehan has been forced to make a sacrifice no parent should have to make. She was forced to surrender the life of her child to the state for an unjust, illegal war. As a parent, I cannot imagine anything worse.

And I was truly, deeply moved by her vigil in Crawford, and overwhelmed by the pilgrimage of concerned citizens she inspired.

I will forever be grateful to Cindy Sheehan for the Crawford vigil and the role she played in mobilizing the anti-war movement in this country.

But Ms. Sheehan's appeal for me was in her role as grieving parent who accidentally found herself at the center of a groundswell of anger against the war. She was apolitical to me, without a long term agenda. She was a mom.

So when Cindy Sheehan comes out against Hilary Clinton, because Senator Clinton did not oppose the war strenuously enough, I feel betrayed. And when I hear that she has been arrested twice for civil disobedience in Washington DC, I feel like I've been fooled.

These are not the actions of a grieving mother and accidental hero. These are the actions of a political activist with a long term agenda. I feel something good and noble has been sullied. I feel that I have been manipulated by my love for my child to support a woman who has not been straightforward about her intentions.

I feel like Cindy Sheehan was never who I thought she was.

And that makes me sad.

Because I could truly use a hero right now, someone with pure, clear, selfless motives and no hidden agenda. I find it hard to relate to Ms. Sheehan now that I know she is making a career out of her grief. The bloom is off the rose for me, and I have a true sense of loss.

I'm The Grinch Who Stole Fitzmas

2005-10-26T12:14:00.000-04:00

For those of you living under a rock or who spend most of your time wondering whether Jessica and Nick are really breaking up, this may come as a surprise, but at any minute Patrick Fitzgerald is going to hand down grand jury indictments against members of the Bush Administration for leaking the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame to the media.

I've heard this event called Fitzmas many times. You know, the day the Santa Claus brings a present to the American people in the form of indictments.

But White House indictments don't make me merry. They don't put me in a festive mood.

Constitutional crises are not fun.

How bad is the Constitutional crisis? The Republican Senate Majority Leader Sen. Dr. Bill Frist is under invesitgation by the SEC for insider trading. The Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay had to relinquish his post because he was indicted for money laundering and campaign finance law violations in Texas. President's Bush's most recent nominee for the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers, has sparked a revolt by the Religious Right because she's not "one of them". And because she is such a blank slate that she is devoid of any obvious qualification to sit on the highest court in the land.

So, the Senate leadership, the House leadership, the Supreme Court, and now the White House -- all under a cloud. The Executive and Legislative branches stand accused of breaking the law, and the Supreme Court nominee stabds accused of being insufficiently knowledgable about the law.

None of this puts me in a festive, holiday mood. Maybe some are too young to remember what it's like to live through a Constitutional crisis like the resignation of the President in the face of certain impeachment, like having a President who wasn't elected. But some of my earliest memories are of Agnew, Ford, Nixon -- living under a White House gone awry.

The fact that the CIA leak investigation has been called PlameGate andTraitorGate speaks to the indelible stain on the national psyche that is the memory of the President of the United States authorizing the burglary of a psychiatrist's office in the Watergate.

I remember the Viet Nam veterans who came home to an angry, ungrateful nation. I remember how OPEC was formed and took advantage of a weakened US. I remember how the 70s, a period of disillusionment and disco gave way to the 80s, Boy George, Duran Duran and the worship of material goods and personal wealth as never before seen on this planet. I'm a child of Watergate, and I know what growing up disillusioned with the public institutions at the core of a democracy does to a generation.

It creates a generation without patriotism, without civil pride, without respect for the public good, without a sense of being a part of something bigger than themselves, something good and pure and noble.

It creates yuppies and dinks and McMansions.

It creates people who think a Constitutional crisis is a party. Because they don't value the Constitution to understand that a Constitutional crisis is a time for mourning.

So, of course, follow the events unfolding in Washington, the stumbling and bumbling of the Bush Administration and the Republican party in every branch of the Federal government. Just don't act like any of it is going to be fun.

Bah Humbug.

FEMA To Stand Aside More Efficiently In Future

2005-10-20T16:00:00.000-04:00

Over the past two days, the Wall Street Journal has published what at first glance may seem to be unrelated facts pertaining to FEMA and St. Louis. But when you connect the dots, you get a pretty good picture of where FEMA is and is not headed, and what the Federal government has and has not learned from Katrina.

In today's Wall Street Journal, Robert Block and Amy Schatz report on Michael Chertoff's testimony before Congress this week. Chertoff stressed the need for FEMA to work more effectively with state and local governments, and to learn the lessons of Katrina.

"Mr Chertoff called the hurricane a 'crash course' on the limits of the country's ability to manage massive disasters. . . . He also said his department was working with federal, state and local officials to review emergency operations plans for every major city. He said that included 'kicking the tires' of state and local plans and taking a 'hard, realistic look' at planning for evacuations necessitated by everything from earthquakes to hurricanes. Mr. Chertoff also said the department was going to establish 'emergency reconnaissance teams' that could go immediately to a disaster area and report back on the situation. He said the lack of communications and 'real ground truth' after Kartina had impeded a coordinated response."

OK, let's put aside for the moment that this is complete and total horseshit. Reporting for the Associated Press, Hope Yen reports that the first FEMA official to arrive in New Orleans was completely ignored by then-FEMA director Michael Brown. Marty Bahamonde, a FEMA regional director, testified to Congress that as early as August 28, the day before Katrina made landfall, he began to tell Brown's office that urgent action was needed. And his warnings fell on deaf ears.

So we already have emergency reconnaissance teams. We already have the ability to get "real ground truth" back to FEMA. What we lack is the desire to step in and act in what FEMA views as primarily a state and local area or responsibility. Chertoff was pretty precise about this -- FEMAs job is to help state and local governments to prepare state and local plans for responding to emergencies, and to facilitate communication among state, local and Federal players. But not to actually respond to emergencies.

If FEMA and Homeland Security haven't already been working with state and local governments to generate workable evacuation plans, what the hell have they been doing? As someone who lived through 9/11 and the NYC blackout of August 2003, I could have told you years ago NYC needed a workable evacuation plan. How come Chertoff and FEMA are just figuring that out now? Where ya been, guys?

Anyhoo, in the same issue of the Wall Street Journal, Jeff Opdyke reported that FEMA has notified Louisiana officials that it will not fund a plan to help displaced New Orleans voters participate in local elections currently scheduled for February. Further, FEMA says it won't tell Louisiana where FEMA is housing Louisiana residents so that Louisiana can help them vote.

And in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, David Rodgers reported that the White House has commited to spending $1.6 billion to restore the New Orleans to the condition they were in before Katrina. However, the White House has declined to provide the additional $5 billion it would cost to strengthen the levees so that they could withstand a Category 5 hurricane.

So what's the picture being painted? Chertoff wants us to think that FEMA will be a more efficient partner with state and local governments. But what he doesn't say is that the Bush administration remains committed to its views on what is and is not FEMAs responsibility, and what is and is not the Federal government's responsibility, and what is and is not state and local government's responsibility.

Elections are a state and local responsibility. Don't ask FEMA for help.

Levees are a state and local responsibility. Don't ask the Federal government for help.

The problem is, the White House made a great effort in its approach to Rita to convince the American people that it had changed its views on the relative responsibilities of state, local and Federal actors. The Federal government was much more pro-active in planning for Rita than it was in planning for Katrina. The President left the golf course and went to New Orleans. Condi stopped buying shoes and went back home.

But it was all PR. Nothing has changed. And nothing brings that home more clearly than the White House decision to leave the levees in New Orleans incomplete -- and leave the city vulnerable in the face of another Category 5 storm. Except maybe FEMAs decision that it doesn't care whether New Orleans residents get to exercise their constitutional right to vote.

Anyone think FEMA might be more cooperative if the election in question wasn't in a heavily Democratic area? Maybe if it was an election in Florida or Texas, FEMA might be more willing to lend a hand. I have no reason to think this, other than my general penchant for paranoia, but I do wonder.

I'm also wondering if anyone is feeling safer after Mr. Chertoff's testimony. 'Cause I'm not.

Condoleeza Rice Tells The Truth

2005-10-16T15:48:00.000-04:00

Condoleeza Rice appeared on MEET THE PRESS today. When questioned by Tim Russert about waning US support for the war in Iraq, the Secretary of State laid out her reasons why the war was a good idea.

I'm paraphrasing, but the gist of the Secretary's comments were that after 9/11, the adminsitration had a choice. It could respond solely against Al-Qaeda, and get the specific perptrators of this specific act of terrorism. Or it could go beyond and fundamentally alter the Middle East into a region that was no longer a breeding ground for terrorism. The Administration went for the second option, and thus was laid the groundwork for the war in Iraq.

I think she's telling the truth.

I also think this means that none of the other reasons given for going to Iraq were true. We did not go to Iraq over the issue of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. We did not go to Iraw because Saddam violated UN resolutions on weapons inspections. We did not go to Iraq because Saddam was a brutal dictator.

We went to Iraq to transform Iraq into a Western-friendly country which would serve as a launching pad for transforming the Middle East. And the decision may have been made as early as 2001.

Now, on a certain level, I can understand the logic. Create a constitutional democracy in Iraq, and add it to a constitutional democracy in Afghanistan, and the desire for democratic freedoms would spread through Iran, Syria, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and beyond.

Of course, it evidences the same level of understanding of the Middle East as the view that we would be welcomed as liberators in Iraq.

But the worst part is that overthrowing the government of a sovereign nation simply because you want a different nation there violates every concept of national sovereignty I can think of. It casts the US not as liberators or saviors but at conquerors.

But at least Secretary Rice told us the truth. Finally.

I should note that Tim Russert let this comment go by as if nothing had happened. Secretary Rice hadn't just confirmed every suspicion that we went to war for unstated reasons, she hadn't confirmed that the President had lied about why he made the choices he had made. No, it was just an off-the-cuff remark. Not nearly as interesting as pressing Secretary Rice on whether or not she would accept a spot on the 2008 GOP ticket.

That Tim Russert has a nose for news, I tell ya.

A Hidden Victim Of Katrina: Economic Productivity

2005-09-13T16:29:00.000-04:00

Monday's Wall Street Journal reports that manufacturers are gearing up for a surge in demand for all kinds of products after the storm. Timothy Aeppel reports that certain manufacturers are stockpiling raw materials such as steel, plastic resins and cardboard boxes. In addition to shortages in raw materials, manufacturers anticipate trouble finding craftsmen because so much of the labor pool will be drawn into reconstruction.

Aeppel credits Henning N. Kornrekke of Gibraltar Industries, Inc. with saying that Katrina firmed Mr. Kornrekke's view that Gibraltar needs to have more finished goods in inventory, even after the rebuilding boom is past, in order to meet fluctuations in customer demand.

Now, the Federal Reserve has been telling us that improvements in productivity have been driving the US economic expansion. When productivity increases, output can increase without costs increasing.

If memory serves, productivity increased at a rate in excess of 4% a year for the past ten years or so, since about 1993 -- I think it was about 4.4% in 2003. But there has been a decrease in the rate at which productivity has been improving for the past year or so -- I believe we are down below 2%, which I believe is the unofficial "minimally acceptable rate of increase in productivity" within the Federal Reserve. Which, in any event, is a sign of a weakening economy.

I've frequently maintained that productivity and worker's quality of life are inversely proportional, since increased productivity frequently means rising output with flat wages. So workers work harder for no more money. The essence of the jobless recovery.

But to imply, as I have done, that wages are the only factor in productivity is an error. I've focused on it as part of a whole "tax cuts for the rich with no benefit to the rapidly disappearing middle class" kind of slant.

But productivity also involves efficiency in production. I can remember when the concept of "just in time" delivery first became all the rage. As I recall the story, Japanese manufacturers don't maintain large stockpiles of raw materials. They maintain a supply chain that delivers materials just in time for their use in the manufacturing process. It cuts down on storage costs, it cuts down on financing costs, it cuts down on manpower needs.

"Just in time" supply spread throughout the US economy. For example, the boom in temporary employment we saw in the 1990s was in large part because companies realized they did not need to maintain a work force at the level required when they were the busiest; they could maintain a smaller permanent workforce and add labor for surges in activity temporarily and "just in time". Saved a lot on overhead.

But now, manufacturers are seeing a need to stockpile. They fear shortages in raw materials, shortages in manpower. So this may be the beginning of the end of "just in time" manufacturing. Which may lead to an even lower increase in the productivity rate.

So, perhaps, we are seeing early signs that Katrina will change business practices in the US such that we will no longer be able to rely on constantly improving productivity driving the economy. Which might mean we will have to do something drastic, like reduce the freaking defecit and restore some financial order to the Poor House That Bush Built known as the US economy.

Conspiracy Theorists, Start Your Engines

2005-09-13T14:20:00.000-04:00

Monday's Wall Street Journal reports that the Bush administration is awarding no-bid contracts on a cost-plus basis for the Katrina clean-up effort, which Yochi J. Drazen calls "the largest and costliest rebuilding effort in US history".

No bid contracts awarded on a cost-plus basis form the core of the re-building efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. And they have been at the center of a great deal of controversy. While the government maintains that cost-plus contracts allow it to mobilize private parties quickly, critics say such contracts remove any incentive for efficiancy and accountability. Critics also fault the decision to allow FEMA to administer the contracts, since FEMA has no experience administering a project of this scale.

So, many predict that the US Gulf reconstruction will be marred by the inefficiency, fraud and outrights embezzlement now being discussed in connection with the re-construction of Iraq.

Who is getting these no-bid cost-plus contracts for Katrina clean-up? A fair number of contract recipients are the same cast of characters working in Afghanistan and Iraq. For example, Halliburton's Kellogg Brown & Root is doing repair work at Marine facilities under a pre-existing contract. Fluor Corp. amd Bechtel National Inc. have each received $100 million contracts for Katrina re-building efforts.

Now, it would be perfectly reasonable to say that we have three un-related events, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq and the hurricane in the Gulf, but that these unrelated events all ended with a need for a re-construction effort. And that companies like KBR, Fluor and Bechtel are leading players in the re-construction business. And that no-bid cost-plus contracts are not in of themselves inefficient, but in fact the most efficient way to get private industry to undertake work before the full cost of that work can be known, i.e., before realistic estimates of the cost of re-construction can be established and a competitive bidding process can take place.

And I have no doubt that this will be the official, mainstream "truth". It will in the history books next to the stories about how Columbus discovered America and how the US won the Viet Nam war.

Of course, if companies like KBR, Bechtel and Fluor make their living off of government re-construction contracts, I'm thinking they probably could put a rough dollar amount on this work. They're the experts, right? I'm also thinking these companies would still bid for the work under a competitive system, since this work is the reason these companies exist. But, I'm not in government and maybe it's more complicated than that.

But for conspiracy theorists, there are these annoying coincidences. The re-constructions projects in Afghanistan, Iraq and the US Gulf are all related in some way to Bush administration decisions. President Bush elected to attack Afghanistan after 9-11. President Bush elected to attack Iraq, and no one can definitively say when that decision was made.

And President Bush elected to leave the US Gulf vulnerable to a storm which was inevitable. Sources from the Times-Picayune to the Senate Record document how many times the Bush administration was asked to finish building the levies in New Orleans and finish disaster planning for a major storm in the Gulf. But the Bush Adminstration pro-actively chose to eliminate funding for those efforts, and to reduce the role of FEMA from a stand-alone agency to a sub-division of Homeland Security.

So, Afghanistan, Iraq and the US Gulf all share a common factor: Bush Adminsitration policy. They also share a second factor: oil.

Part of the reconstruction of Afghanistan involves the construction of an oil pipeline the Bush Administration wants completed. Oil plays a significant role in the Iraqi re-construction effort. And the US Gulf was this country's primary oil producing and refining region.

So, either as a direct or indirect result of Bush Administration policy, three regions of the world with important oil-related resources have been reduced to rubble, and the re-construction of those areas has been out-sourced to politically-connected companies on a no-bid, cost-plus basis.

It kind of makes me wonder whether there wasn't a conscious choice made here. Maybe those energy policy meetings Dick Cheney had before 9/11 -- you know, the ones that generated the records that the White House sued to keep secret -- maybe those energy policy meetings discussed how to get a significant number of oil-producing assets out of the control of state governments and foreign governments, and under the control of a small group of private companies owned by people who had financed President Bush's campaign. And had financed President Bush's previous, failed business efforts. And were business partners with the Bush family and the Cheney family and the rest of the so-called "neo-con death cult".

Now, I'm no conspiracy theory advocate (although I do think the FBI and the mob killed JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcom X and Marilyn Monroe), but I don't like coincidences. And when we keep ending up at the same place, control of regions with oil resources being awarded on a no-bid, cost-plus basis to companies which are at the core of the President's power base, I have to stop and think.

Katrina Throws Bush Philosophy Into Harsh Light

2005-09-06T12:59:00.000-04:00

I know it's not fair to pick on someone's mother, but when that mother is former First Lady Barbara Bush I think it's OK to highlight a recent statement.

APs Doug Simpson quotes Mrs. Bush as saying: "What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is that [former Louisiana residents] all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the [Houston Astrodome] here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them."

So the former First Lady, mother to the sitting President, seems to feel that poor Louisiana residents are grateful to have been plucked from poverty by God and the Federal government and relocated. It's a good deal for them.

It's easy to dismiss this as nothing more than an insensitive statement from a wealthy woman. And it's easy to dismiss the President's delayed response to the devastation of Katrina as incompetence.

But what we are seeing are not mistakes. What we are seeing is evidence of the Bush family and administration's philosophy on a number of topics, from federalism to personal responsibility.

The President believes that responding to natural disasters is primarily a state issue. It is not the responsibility of the Federal government to shore up Louisiana wetlands to keep New Orleans from falling below sea level. It is not the Federal government's responsibility to complete a levee in New Orleans to protect the city and the region from hurricanes. That job belongs to the state of Louisiana. And it's not the Federal government's job to evacuate residents who have no means to respond to pleas for them to evacuate.

That's why the President demoted FEMA from a stand alone agency to a sub-division of Homeland Security.

When the President says he wants a smaller Federal government, that's what he means. A Federal government that does less.

And since the primary responsibility is that of the states, the President sees no need to stop playing golf while the states take care of their own problem. Condoleeza Rice sees no need to give up her tickets to the Broadway show SPAMALOT or curtail her shoe-buying activities.

Because it's not their job and it's not their problem.

It's a state issue.

As for the fate of the people who did not or could not evacuate in the face of the storm, while Mrs. Bush and President Bush and the Secretary of State may seem indifferent to the suffering of tens of thousands, in their minds they have no responsibility for people who made the choice to remain vulnerable. Made the choice to live in dangerous areas, made the choice to remain below the poverty line, made the choice to live without the means of escape.

Because it is not the job of the Federal government to save you from your own mistakes, or to take responsibility for you if you do not take responsibility for yourself.

So, Barbara Bush did not misspeak when she said Louisiana poor people rightly consider themselves lucky that the Federal government are giving them three hots and a cot in the Astrodome. And the fact that Condi even stepped foot in her native Alabama is more than she is obligated to do. So what if it was in new Manolo Blahnik strappy sandals?

Because, in the Bush world, if you're poor and vulnerable it's your own damn fault.

By the way, I heard on the Randi Rhodes show that Halliburton is being hired to rebuild devastated areas.

Yet Another Reason To Stay In Iraq

2005-08-23T16:36:00.000-04:00

The Associated Press reported on a speech the President gave yesterday about the war in Iraq.

Darlene Superville reported that the President claimed America has to stay in Iraq because we owe it to the Americans who have already died there.

"We owe them something. We will finish the task that they gave their lives for . . . by staying on the offensive against terrorists, and building strong allies in Afghanistan and Iraq that will help us win and fight -- fight and win the war on terror."

Superville also reported that the President repeatedly cited the September 11 attacks, saying "The only way to defend our citzens where we live is to go after the terrorists where they live."

So, apparently, it doesn't matter that all of the reasons the President gave for going to war in Iraq were wrong -- there was no connection between Iraq and September 11, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and Iraq had no active nuclear weapons development programs. Forget all that. Now, we have to stay simply because we went in the first place.

The President seems to be suggesting that if we leave Iraq now, we will be saying that the war was a mistake. That Americans and Iraqis died for no reason.

But if that's the only reason we have left for staying in Iraq, then it's obvious that the war was a mistake and that Americans and Iraqis have died for no reason.

Obvious to everyone but the President and his speech writers, anyway.

And as for attacking the terrorists where they live -- they live in Saudi Arabia, they just commute to Iraq for work by means of Syria and Iran. The majority of the September 11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

As for being safer here because we're fighting terrorists there, Osama Bin Laden attacked the US because the US occupied territory in Saudi Arabia. So it seems to me that establishing a permanent presence in Afghanistan and Iraq will make us less secure here -- you know, occupy more territory, piss off more terrorists, get blown up more.

So, now I'm wondering how many more people have to die at home and abroad because our President just can't admit that he made a mistake and blew up the wrong country?

BTW, is anyone else thinking about parallels to LBJ? He committed more troops to Viet Nam because he wouldn't be the first American President to lose a war? And he declined to run for re-election because his party told him they wouldn't support him, because he lied about the war?

Or is that just me?

Does God Hate The Boy Scouts?

2005-08-03T15:19:00.000-04:00

The AP reported today on a third incident of death by electrocution within the ranks of the Boy Scouts.

On July 24, four Scoutmasters were eletrocuted when a metal tent pole they were attempting to erect hit an electrical wire. July 28, an assistant Scoutmaster and a 13 year old Scout were killed by lightning in Sequoia National Park.

And today, a Scout was killed by lightning at a Boy Scout Camp in Utah.

I feel like calling Jerry Falwell and asking if he thinks that God has withdrawn his protection from the Scouts the way he did Manhattan, permitting the 9/11 tragedy? Have the Boy Scouts been promoting a hedonistic lifestyle at odds with traditional Christian values? Have the Scouts been supporting feminists and gay marriage and the ACLU?

Oh, no, that's right, the Boy Scouts don't allow gay Scouts. And they keep getting sued by the ACLU because they discriminate against gays and promote religion on Federal lands.

Maybe God is punishing the Scouts because they have turned a blind eye to child molesters. But, no, that can't be it. There are no more child molesters in the Scouts than in the Church, so that can't be the reason God is so pissed. I mean, molesting priests haven't been fried by the hand of God. No lightning strike there.

I guess it's true, the Lord moves in mysterious ways.

Meanwhile, if nothing else, we have another reason to keep our kids out of the Scouts.

Bush Supports Intelligent Design,Intelligence Leaks and Willful Ignorance

2005-08-02T11:15:00.000-04:00

The Associated Press reports today on a roundtable interview the President held with reporters from five Texas newspapers. Bush was more than willing to discuss intelligent design, but much less willing to discuss his administration's intelligence leaks and willful ignorance of information.

On the issue of intelligent design, while declining to discuss his personal views, the President did say students should learn both the theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design.

"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."

Of course, the President has made clear through word and deed that if an idea involves a condom, it has no place in our public schools. Oh, wait, I'm sorry, only accurate information about condoms is verbotten, inaccurate information about condoms included in abstinence-only programs is kosher.

So I'm wondering, is it OK to teach the idea that the Holocaust never happened? It's an idea that has a certain number of adherents. It's a school of thought. How about the idea that HIV does not cause AIDS? Or the idea that you can cure AIDS with garlic and lemons?

Shouldn't some irresponsible ideas be off limits in our public schools, Mr. President? Or are the only ideas that are off limits those that piss off the Christian conservative base Karl Rove has courted so successfully?

And of course, the President fails to note that education is a matter reserved to the states, so he really shouldn't be trying to influence what goes in in schools anyway. Any good Republican with a respect for state sovereignty would know that.

But Bush isn't a Republican, he's a neo-con.

Anyhoo, the AP article goes on to discuss an idea that the President thinks has no place in public schools, let alone public discourse. The idea that Karl Rove is a traitor who outed a covert CIA operative in furtherance of the neo-con holy grail of a US presence in the middle east.

"Karl's got my complete confidence. He's a valuable member of my team."

And finally, the AP article reaches one more idea that the President doesn't think should be part of public discussion, whether or not his Supreme Court nominee John Roberts believes Roe v. Wade was correctly decided. The article said the President did not ask his nominee about his views on the decision which legalized abortion at the federal level within certain bounds.

The President feels that John Robert's views on Roe v. Wade are intelligence best kept secret, unlike the name of covert CIA operatives.

Now, I'm a lawyer, and I'm paid to promote my clients' points of views. I'm a paid advocate. But I have turned down jobs and internships where I would be forced to defend views I found personally distasteful. Yes, I turned down a Constitutional law internship with a conservative organization that opposed abortion rights. Yes, I turned down insurance defense work. So that whole argument that lawyers don't necessarily support the views of their clients doesn't hold water when a lawyer seeks empolyment which will require him or her to support well known Constitutional positions.

So if John Roberts took a job where he knew he would be obligated to attack Roe v. Wade, it's an indication of his personal views. And that's exactly what he did.

And the President knows that. So he doesn't have to ask Robert's views on Roe v. Wade.

Just like how the President declined to discuss his personal views on the origin of life while coming out in support of the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. Do we really need to ask what the President's personal views are?

I'm guessing the President has more than enough of an indication of his nominee's views. It's probably in the papers from Robert's White House days the President is refusing to release on the grounds of executive privilege. Unless he's relying on a one-page summary from Attorney General Gonzalez.

So, "yes" to discussing intelligent design, "no" to discussing potentially treasonous acts within his administration and "no" to discussing whether or not he is trying to undermine access to safe, legal abortion.

And apparently, "no" to showing any respect for the intelligence of the American people.

A New Economic Order

2005-07-25T21:40:00.000-04:00

Today's Wall Street Journal yielded four pieces of information that caught my eye.

First, Nanjing Auto is buying the British company MG Rover. Apparently, competitive pressures in China are forcing Chinese auto companies into overseas deal.

Second, the UAW has hired a team to analyze GM's finances because GM is pressuring the union for health care concessions. Apparently, competitive pressures are forcing GM to reduce its obligations to pensioners.

Third, a Chinese company is investing in bicycle maker Huffy, fearing plant closings in China.

And finally, the AFL-CIO is fragmenting. The Teamsters, Unite Here, the Service Employees International Union and the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union left the coalition, and others may follow.

So, what does this mean? The Chinese automotive industry is thriving such that it needs to expand to survive, while the US automotive industry is struggling, cutting jobs and manufacturing capacity and losing market share. Chinese companies can expand to avoid plant closings while US companies cut manufacturing capacity to maintain competitiveness.

Now, some people will look at this picture and say, see, the US can't compete against cheap Chinese labor. China is thriving largely on the basis of cheap labor and an undervalued currency. So US companies have to get concessions from labor in order to survive.

And others look at this picture and see another story. They see that Chinese workers get their health care from the state, that Chinese workers aren't dependent on corporate pensions. So while companies pay less to employees, the state picks up some slack. No, I'm not saying that Chinese health care and Chinese retirement standards are better than those in the West (although, in truth, they may be, I really don't know).

But this other picture sees the rise of a new economic order, a partnership among corporations, workers and the state.

So the AFL-CIO is splitting up because of different interpretations of the new economic order. Some say that US companies are right when they say the only way to compete is for labor to make concessions. Others say that this approach scapegoats labor, that labor can only concede so much before they are reduced to a third world standard of living, and that what is truly needed is a reallignment of the responsibilities of companies, the government and labor.

It's a fascinating debate, one with real world consequences. Organized labor has formed the backbone of the Democratic party for generations. With Labor in disarray, the Democratic power base is fractioned. And with the Republican party's ability to get people to vote against their best interest (take a patriotic stand against gay marriage by supporting an illegal war that is bankrupting the country!), the Democrats will be forced to voice a new vision of a new economic order to energize and reunite its Labor base.

The Fat Chinese Lady Sings The Dollar's Swan Song

2005-07-22T16:40:00.000-04:00

Today's Wall Street Journal is filled with articles about a change in Chinese economic policy. Apparently, in the financial world this is HUGE news.

For years, China has pegged the value of its currency, the yuan, to the value of the dollar. China has wanted to maintain a low value for the yuan as measured against the dollar. That makes Chinese goods cheaper for Americans to buy than goods from other countries. That keeps Wal-Mart in business, too, by the way, since Wal-Mart is a major vendor of Chinese-made goods.

Anyhoo, China has been facing increasing international pressure because of its monetary policy. Many have said that China has been taking advantage of the world economic system by keeping the value of its currency low. More specifically, China has been undercutting international competition and flooding the world with artifically low-priced goods.

The US trade deficit with China is huge. By way of example, pretty much every time someone shops at Wal-Mart, the trade imbalance goes up.

China's solution has been to prop up the value of the dollar. Keep the value of the dollar high, they reason, and we keep the value of the yuan from becoming too low, too anti-competitive. So China has been buying US dollars. They buy US government bonds. They finance US government debt. They finance US military spending. And by providing easy credit to the US economy and keeping interest rates low, they finance US consumer spending at Wal-Mart on artificially low-priced Chinese goods.

But the Chinese can no longer afford to keep propping up the dollar. Because the value of the dollar has deteriorated too much, what with all the borrowing and spending and blowing up countries and cutting taxes and stuff.

So the Chinese are deciding to stop tying the yuan to the dollar. The Chinese will tie the yuan to an undisclosed bundle of foreign currencies. And it will allow the value of the yuan to fluctuate within certain parameters in a "managed float".

That means that the Chinese will have less incentive to prop up the dollar. That means US government bonds will be harder to sell. That means that it will be harder to borrow money in the US, as private borrowers are crowded out by our borrow and spend, cut taxes and starve the beast government. That means interest rates will rise.

Moreover, tying the yuan to other currencies means the Chinese will have an incentive to prop up the value of other currencies against the dollar. And since no one will know which countries are in the yuan "bundle", no one will know which currencies China wants to support.

So, the party is over. The fat lady is singing. Last call at Wal-Mart.

And for all those people who say that capitalism has defeated communism, belly up to the buffet and watch how changes in communist China's economic policy screw with the US and world economy.

Think of it this way -- China has been the credit and cheap goods "pusher" who has been giving the product away for free. Until now, when the US economy is addicted to low interest rates and cheap goods. But from now on, if we want Chinese credit and Chinese goods, we have to pay full price.

Kind of like when Toyota was an upstart competitor to GM.

Kind of like when Hyundai was an upstart competitor to Toyota.

Kind of like the opium wars in reverse.

I'm A Bad, Bad Liberal

2005-07-18T21:44:00.000-04:00

It's been a couple of days now, days that Karl Rove has been getting the type of attention from the main stream media usually reserved for issues of national interest involving missing white women (pregnant or under 18) or Michael Jackson.

Days since Ken Mehlman and other Republicans have tried to spin Karl out of trouble for identifying Mrs. Joseph Wilson as a CIA operative working on weapons of mass destruction. "She was a desk jockey, she did the filing". Except Karl said she had the authority to approve a fact finding mission to Niger -- oops, not a desk jockey. "He didn't identify her by name". OK, he identified Mrs. Joseph Wilson. How was he supposed to know that someone could find out Mrs. Joseph Wilson was Valerie Plame?

Now, in truth, Karl may not have been the original leak, but he's been tarred by the same mistake that caught Nixon and Clinton. He was involved in a cover-up. He said he had nothing to do with the public identification of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, and he did.

Nixon had nothing to do with the Watergate break-in, only the cover-up. Clinton's sexual dalliance with Monica Lewinsky didn't get him in trouble nearly as much as lying about it did.

And a tragic theme in American politics is about to play out again, in a time of war, which will force this country to examine our motives and our morality in global violence.

And I can't wipe this stupid smile off of my face. I'm going to hell.

This is a terrible thing. Our country has found the tip of the iceberg, and the iceberg is that the President and his staff knowlingly lied to get us into war, knowingly attacked anyone who tried to undermine the President's assertion that Saddam Hussein presented an imminent threat, a threat that could manifest in a mushroom cloud, and that war was justified and it wasn't all about money and a US military presence in the Middle East.

Happy happy joy joy.

Because finally, we're talking about some real news. Because finally, we're talking about some real issues. Because finally, the main stream media has the ammunition to tell Karl Rove and the White House to shut up, we're not listening to your lies anymore. We're not afraid of you anymore.

Finally.

It's a terrible time for the country.

Who wants a pina colada?

The Post Roe World

2005-07-04T22:08:00.000-04:00

The post Roe world is here.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the perennial swing vote, is retiring. Renquist and Stevens can't be far behind. That means that George Bush and Karl Rove will probably get to replace two liberal judges with two conservative idealogues and promote Scalia to Chief Justice. The court will be changed for a generation.

And of course, the first casualty will be Roe vs. Wade. And when the constitutional right to abortion is undermined, other privacy rights will follow in a domino effect that ends with the government eye in your bedroom key hole.

And we have only our selves to blame.

Here's a dirty little secret: Roe vs. Wade is a terrible decision. Tortured in its logic, finding meaning in the Constitution where none can reasonably be found, Roe is legally indefensible. It is a vulnerable decision because it is a legally unsound decision.

For over thirty years, we have let our basic freedom, our rights to our bodies, hang by a very delicate thread. And we have been lazy.

We have elected Presidents, Senators, Congressmen and Governors who have not firmly supported the right to choose. Every two years we have slept on our rights.

How else can abortion right be so endangered? Well over half the country is pro-choice, but our government is not. And now we're going to try to convince ourselves that it's not our fault, that we lost our rights because of the retirement of 70 and 80 year old cancer survivors, not because we voted against our own self interest time after time year after year. That's denial on a national scale.

And my daughter will grow up in a world where her friends seek out back alley abortions. But not my daughter. Because I'm going to teach her, beg her, whisper into her ear every night as she sleeps, that her Daddy will never judge her and that even if her government, her school, and her country don't support her right to choose, her Daddy does. And we'll be on the plane to Switzerland as soon as she tells me she wants to go.

That is, if the Federal government doesn't invalidate her state adoption first on the grounds that I'm gay.

Yes, the noose will tighten from all directions, catching many by surprise.

But don't blame Sandra Day O'Connor. She has a right to retire in her mid-70s. And don't blame George Bush or Karl Rove, because they couldn't do it if we didn't elect them.

No, the fault is ours. And in the post Roe world, that will become painfully clear.

Porter Goss Attacks Justification For Afghan Invasion

2005-06-20T13:13:00.000-04:00

The Associated Press reports that Porter Goss has an excellent idea where Osama Bin Laden is hiding. Goss won't say where, but the smart money is on the Afghan-Pakistan border.

But, says Goss, "the United States' respect for soverign nations makes it more difficult to capture the al-Qaida chief".

The AP reports Goss as saying "When you go to the question of dealing with sanctuaries of sovereign states, you're dealing with a problem of our sense of international obligation, fair play. We have to find a way to work in a conventional world in unconventional ways."

Now, let's look back to 2001 when President Bush attacked Asghanistan and ousted the Taliban regime because the Taliban was supporting al-Qaida and harboring Bin Laden. We bombed Afghanistan back to the stone age, which isn't saying much considering most of Afghanistan was still in the stone age, but the Bush Doctrine was clear: if you harbor terrorists we'll blow you up. You're either with us or against us.

So why the change? How is it that we would blow up Afghanistan for harboring Bin Laden, but now we're stymied because Bin Laden is in a safe haven in a sovereign nation?

And, by the way, how do we explain Goss' retraction of previous Bush Administration policy to the family of Pat Tillman, and to all the families of all the brave men and women who have died in Afghanistan beause we wanted to get Osama Bin Laden? How do we tell them that we've decided that the reason we asked them for their lives isn't good enough anymore?

So much for US intelligence.

A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To Economic Recovery

2005-06-10T17:26:00.000-04:00

The Wall Street Journal has run a story which suggests that the Federal Reserve has so successfully handled the burst of the tech stock and spending bubble in 2000 that we literally don't know what to do next.

The Fed slashed interest rates to 45 year lows, encouraging Americans to borrow more and driving up housing costs. But now Americans don't save -- in fact, we're pulling the equity out of our homes and spending it. We've borrowed and spent our way out of a recession.

What a remarkable accomplishment. We've actually mastered the economy.

But our fix of the economy has led to a massive current account deficit. Meaning we as a nation buy a lot more than we sell. And that can't be good.

So, using our economic mastery, we'll correct this problem, too. Right?

Now, common wisdom says that, as the Fed raises interest rates, and money becomes more expensive to borrow, we will borrow less and save more. But it doesn't seem to be happening. The Fed keeps raising interest rates, but mortgage rates are dropping, for crying out loud.

So what's going on? How can we simultaneously have mastered the art of conquering a recession and lost the ability to tighten the money supply?

The answer may lay beyond our borders.

Greg Ip writes that, "[t]o be sure, a major cause of the US current account deficit is that weak European and Japanese growth reduces demand for US exports. And China's fixed exchange rate keeps the prices of Chinese goods artificially low, giving its television sets, bicycles and barbecue grills an edge in the US market.

With uncharacteristis clarity, Ip goes on to describe our current situation:

" . . . the US saves so little that when the US cuts taxes and consumers take out mortgages, the money to finance both increasingly comes from abroad, in particular foreign central banks. Those banks purchase US dollars to keep the greenback high against their own currencies, thereby supporting their exports to the US. They then invest those dollars in US bonds, in effect providing the financing for Americans to buy those exports."

"'If I were a biologist I'd call this a perfect example of symbiosis," former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker mused in a February speech at Stanford University. 'Contented American consumers matched against delighted foreign producers. Happy borrowers matched against willing lenders. The difficulty is, the seemingly comfortable patterns can't go on indefinitely'.

So what do we do? Foreign countries are encouraging us to buy their goods at the expense of our own savings and ability to make fiscal plans.

Kind of reminds me of a drug pusher. The first one is always free. But once you've got a taste for the stuff, in this case an artificially strong dollar and articicially cheap foreign goods, you have to pay.

So how comfortable will this economic "correction" be when our foreign pushers decide to tighten the screws? Ask any addict who goes cold turkey.

So someone has learned to control the US economy. It just ain't us.

Reuters Gay Bashes The Pope

2005-06-06T16:12:00.000-04:00

Reuters ran an article today entitled "Pope condemns gay marriages as 'anarchy'".

Now, I saw that headline, and I made an assumption about the Pope. Specifically, that he was a homophobe.

But, when I read the story, I found out that this is what the Pope actually said:

"Today's various forms of dissolution of marriage, free unions, trial marriages as well as pseudo-matrimonies between people of the same sex are instead expressions of anarchic freedom which falsely tries to pass itself off as the true liberation of man."

Apparently, the Pope also described "'pseudo freedoms' such as gay marriages [as] based on what he called the 'banalisation of the human body' and of man himself."

So, does Reuters run a headline that says the Pope condemns divorce as anarchy? No. Does Reuters run a headline that says the Pope condemns free unions and trial marriages as anarchy? No. For that matter, does Reuters even tell us what a free union or a trial marriage is? No.

Out of everything the Pope condemned, Reuters picks up on the gay marriage issue. The article even goes on to report that Spain is on its way to legalizing gay marriage, and California has declined to do so.

I don't know which pisses me off more, the Pope's twisted marriage views or Reuters twisting the Pope's words. Because Reuters reported this as a gay issue. But it's not.

This is a straight people's issue, a woman's rights issue, a human rights issue. The gay part is the tail wagging the dog. But this report underplays the Pope's hostility towards the human rights of straight women in order to play up the gay card.

So, I have to conclude that the Pope is not a homophobe. That's an unfair characterization. In fact, by lumping gay marriage and divorce together, the Pope actually elevates gay marriage to the same level as a right most straight people think is a pretty good idea.

So, the Pope is not a homophobe, he's an equal opportunity discriminator.

But you wouldn't know that from Reuters.

Woodward and Bernstein

2005-06-06T12:56:00.000-04:00

I know, I know, by now we've had it up to our deep throats with Woodward and Bernstein. But there are two facts about what these guys accomplished that I never focused on prior to the recent press coverage, facts that I think deserve our attention.

First, Woodward and Bernstein were metro reporters for the Washington Post. They were not the White House reporters for the Washington Post. Meaning the people who's job it was to report on the White House did not investigate unlawful activity at the White House. Which I think helps us all to understand the role of the White House Press Corps -- they ain't investigative reporters.

Second, Woodward and Bernstein researched the Watergate story for two years. TWO YEARS. Food for thought in our instant gratification, reality TV culture.

Abu Ghraib Interrogators Get Their Due -- $2.65 Billion

2005-06-03T16:57:00.000-04:00

Reuters today ran an article on Titan Corp., a company which provides translators and interrogators used by the US Army in Iraq and has come under the spotlight for its work at Iraq's notorious Abu Ghraib prison.

Bill Rigby reports that Titan has been sold for cash and assumed debt equalling roughly $2.65 billion. Titan shareholders will receive $23.10 a share, a slight premium over a share price already inflated on takeover expectations.

The purchaser, defense contractor L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc., makes secure communications systems, chiefly for the US military. Titan disseminates top-secret information for the US armed services and intelligence agencies. L-3 expects the purchase to increase L-3's sales by $2.7 billion in 2006.

Almost half of Titan's 12,000 employees have special or top-secret security clearances, " . . . an asset you can't price because it takes two years to get somebody cleared," says L-3 CEO Frank Lanza.

I'm so happy that security clearances have such a strong value in the marketplace. I'd hate to think that security clearances were a dime a dozen.

The companies have other similarities. Titan has pled guilty to making illegal payments to officials in Benin and paid $28.5 million to settle the matter (about 1% of its purchase price, actually). And L-3 is the subject of a federal investigation after one of its units supplied defective parts for emergency radios to locate downed pilots. Fortunately, the prospect of abandoning downed pilots did not dissuade the market from purchasing L-3's debt, which is how L-3 is financing this purchase.

So, L-3 is paying $2.65 billion for Titan, and expects an increase in sales of $2.7 billion in the first year. That's impressive. That means that the purchase will pay for itself in a year, right?

So why such a low price? I'm no captain of industry, but would it be unreasonable for Titan to charge 10 times it's annual sales as a purchase price? Why charge a price that will be earned back within a year?

But then, Titan was almost bought a year ago by Lockheed Martin Corp. for $1.66 billion. So $2.65 billion a year later is a good deal, by comparison.

The finances of this deal escape me.

But what doesn't escape me is that the engins driving this entire industry is sales to the military. That means contracts paid for with US dollars. That means someone is getting rich off our tax dollars and it ain't us.

And it ain't the poor shlub soldiers at Abu Ghraib who "softened up" prisoners under the direction of outside contractors like the ones Titan provides, soldiers who are now prisoners themselves.

Follow the money.

AP In Bed With AIDS Denialists

2005-05-31T17:31:00.000-04:00

In recent months, John Solomon of the Associated Press has covered two stories which have had great impact on the access of infants and children to AIDS medicines, both domestically and abroad. In both instances, Mr. Solomon and the AP relied on sources who have twisted the truth for political and economic gain, at the expense of children. Not an unusual circumstance, surely, but in these two instances the result has been that children in need around the world are facing more limited access to health care.

It’s time for the Associated Press to check John Solomon’s sources.

In December, Mr. Solomon reported on alleged NIH misconduct during an international clinical trial studying nevirapine as a means to prevent the transmission of HIV from mothers to their children in resource poor settings. Mr. Solomon reported on allegations that the NIH hid problems in this study from the White House so as not to derail President’s Bush intention to spend $500 million on a plan to distribute nevirapine to mothers and children in Africa. Mr. Solomon relied primarily on the allegations and resources of a discharged and disgruntled NIH employee, Dr. Jonathan Fishbein, who was in the process of seeking Federal whistleblower protection to save his high-paying job.

An independent audit of the NIH study of nevirapine by the Institute of Medicine found that there were no problems with the study sufficient to undermine the study’s conclusion – that nevirapine was an appropriate treatment for the prevention of mother to child transmission of HIV in resource poor settings.

However, as a result of the scandal fomented by a disgruntled employee and reported by John Solomon and the Associated Press, South Africa’s African National Congress accused the US of using African children as “guinea pigs” in an unsafe study. South Africa has delayed the rollout of a plan to use nevirapine to be used as a lone treatment for HIV positive pregnant women, despite overwhelming evidence of its effectiveness.

So a crisis manufactured by Dr. Jonathan Fishbein to save his job and repeated by John Solomon without being adequately vetted is now helping to undermine the health of children in South Africa.

In May, Mr. Solomon reported on another story, that the US government has funded the testing of AIDS drugs on hundreds of foster children over the past two decades without providing a basic protection required by Federal law.

Prior to the implementation of the multi-drug “cocktail” for the treatment of HIV, foster care agencies and the government were desperate to find a treatment for infected children. Foster children were enrolled in clinical studies, along with other children. Those studies led to more effective treatments and diagnostic tools. This research was so effective that The New York Times actually reported in January that AIDS in infants may well be a thing of the past.

But John Solomon tells a different story. He raises the specter of the Tuskegee scandal to paint a picture of parent-less children being used as guinea pigs by an uncaring government.

Mr. Solomon reports that Federal law requires researchers and their oversight boards to appoint independent advocates for any foster child enrolled in a narrow class of studies that involved greater than minimal risk and lacked the promise of direct benefit. Arguably, since all of these HIV positive and exposed children would receive a direct benefit from participating in these trials, the Federal law did not apply. In some instances, foster agencies required the protection even if Federal law didn’t.

Illinois and New York City cannot say for sure if their foster children received independent advocates. New York City has asked the Vera Institute for Justice to conduct an independent audit. And The US Office for Human Research Protections is investigating the use of foster children in AIDS research by Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in a case reported by the New York Post and the BBC.

However, Mr. Solomon’s report opens with a conclusive statement that children were denied protection by the Federal government. Which, according to the facts reported in his own story, he cannot possibly know. Moreover, Mr. Solomon devotes a significant portion of his article to discussing the side effects experienced by HIV positive children in clinical trials, cataloguing rashes, fevers, vomiting, loss of white blood cells, even an unexplainably high death rate – ten children -- in one study.

The article cites several sources as believing that these clinical trials gave mostly poor and minority foster children access to world class health care in the face of an epidemic, doubtless saving lives. While some claim the relevant ethical issue is providing independent auditors, others say the relevant ethical issue is denying foster children as a group access to clinical trials.

This story is not new. It has been promoted by people like Vera Sherav of the Alliance for Human Research Protection, which compares pediatric clinical trials to the medical experiments conducted by Nazis. People like Dr. David Rasnick, who firmly denies that HIV is the cause of AIDS. These people have gotten this story published in the New York Post; they have gotten this story covered by the BBC; and now, it seems, they have enlisted the aid of John Solomon and the Associated Press.

Mr. Solomon has published his documentary evidence for this story – two blank consent forms, a Tennessee policy statement and a list of clinical trials in Illinois. But none of these documents speak to any of Mr. Solomon’s claims of government abuse and neglect, or to the suffering of children. So Mr. Solomon’s sources, for the most part, remain unclear.

What is clear is the impact of this story. Elizabeth Roberts, New York City Assistant Commissioner for Administration for Children’s Services, has announced that New York City will adopt a new policy limiting foster children’s access to clinical trials.

So a crisis manufactured by people who liken pediatric clinical trials to Nazi experimentation, people who deny that HIV causes AIDS, and repeated by John Solomon without being adequately vetted is now helping to undermine the ability of foster children in the US to gain access to clinical trials.

It is time for the Associate Press to take a stand for journalistic responsibility and conduct an independent review of the sources of John Solomon’s scandal mongering reports.

What He Knew And When He Knew It

2005-05-27T20:33:00.000-04:00

Today's Wall Street Journal reports that recent events have focused attention on how the White House handles the flow of information to the President.

Christopher Cooper reports that the White House staff finds it difficult to figure out what to tell the President and what not to tell the President. The issue is a particular concern to the President, as he holds a Master's Degree in Business Administration and he takes pride in his ability to create an efficient organizational structure.

What brought this issue to the fore? On May 11, a small plane violated Washington DC airspace. At 11:47 am, a Black Hawk scrambled to intercept the plane. The President was on a bike ride in Maryland at the time. (OK, I have to admit, right here I get pissed off that this is how the leader of the free world, who takes more vacation time than any previous leader of the free world, is spending his working time -- I was sitting at my desk eating a salad at 12:00 noon on May 11).

Anyhoo, at 12:01 pm, an evacuation of government buildings began. At 12:03 pm, the White House raised the threat level to red, the highest level. At 12:11 pm, the plane turned west; and at 12:14 pm, the "all clear" was given. And at 12:50 pm, the President was informed.

Just to be clear, over an hour after a military response is initiated, and almost an hour after the First Lady and former First Lady Nancy Reagan are hustled to a bunker, and Vice President Dick Cheney is hustled to a secure location, and Senators, Congressman and private citizens (you know, the losers who were actually working in the middle of a working day, and not on a bike ride in Maryland) are sent running through the streets of Washington, the President was informed.

When asked whether "this President is sufficiently at the levers of power", White House spokesperson Scott McClellan rejected the question as a mischaracterization of reality.

The article discusses how the President has learned about some previous issues only after they became public. For example, in a recent policy change, Americans will now have to show their passports when returning from Mexico or Canada. But no one told the President, the former governor of Texas, the advocate of looser immigration laws. Luckily, the President did not visit Canada or Mexico before he found out. That could have been awkward.

The article discusses how the President did not find out about the Abu Ghraib scandal before it became public. Cooper writes that "White House aides said Mr. Bush knew the gist of the abuse allegations, but the details of the case and the explosive photographs took him by surprise, though senior Pentagon officials had known of their existence."

And the article says that the President only scans periodicals, and does not watch television news. He relies almost exclusively on his staff to keep him abreast of current events.

So, while Pentagon officials knew about the Abu Ghraib pictures, know one told the President until the pictures became public.

Reading between the lines here, this says that people who decided not to tell the President about the pictures changed their minds when the pictures went public. Because unless someone who knew changed their minds, the President probably wouldn't have gotten all the details, since he doesn't really read the papers or watch TV news.

So the concern is not that there was photographic evidence that abuse occurred -- that the President didn't need to know. But that the photographic evidence became public -- that the President needed to know.

But this was not the event that made people ask whether or not the President is getting enough information. No, it was only a couple of years later, after the President's re-election, that this question was asked.

Cooper does report that sometimes, presidential ignorance can be politically beneficial. He cites the recently announced military base closing list as an example.

I can think of a few other examples. Watergate. Iran-Contra. Plausible deniability. The true advantage to keeping the President out of the loop is to protect the President from criminal liability in the face of knowing wrong-doing, as Nixon learned to late and Reagan learned all too well.

It just seems implausible to me that a President with an MBA who prides himself on creating an efficient organizational structure isn't knowingly limiting his access to potentially damaging information. No, this is a conscious choice. A conscious choice that would only be made by someone who knows that illegal activity is occuring on his watch.

So, people are wondering whether or not the President gets enough information. I wonder if anyone will tell the President.

HRC Demeans The Institution Of Marriage

2005-05-11T12:00:00.000-04:00

I got an e-mail today from Sally Green, Deputy Field Director for the Human Rights Campaign. OK, me and about a gazillion other 10%ers. Sally is asking all us GLBT folks to celebrate the anniversary of the first same-sex marriages in Massachusetts in a special way -- she wants us all to GET ENGAGED!

She writes ". . . I urge you to take a special action in the fight to end discrimination in our marriage laws. Get Engaged!"

Now, I'm single, but I'm going to run right out and grab the first mo I can find and head up to Beantown!

Now, seriously, marriage is supposed to be about loving one person, being committed to one person. Advocating marriage as a means to a political end demeans the very institution itself.

So, now, for the first time (to my knowledge), opponents of gay marriage have actual documentary evidence from the largest gay rights lobby in all the land that allowing gay marriage will demean the insitution of marriage.

Bravo, HRC! I'm as proud of you as the day you endorsed Alfonse D'Amato over Chuck Schumer! Kudos to new president Joe Solmonese for turning this increasingly irrelevant institution around!

Brazil Sees Bush As American Taliban

2005-05-02T17:16:00.000-04:00

Today's Wall Street Journal reports that Brazil refused about $40 million in US AIDS grants in protest of the US requirement that aid recipients first sign a pledge renouncing prostitution. As it turns out, prostitution is legal in Brazil.

Michael M. Phillips and Matt Moffett quote Pedro Chequer, director of Brazil's AIDS program, as saying "We can't control [the disease] with principles that are Manichean, theological, fundamentalist and Shiite". Since I already went to the trouble of looking it up, I'll tell you that Manichean means pertaining to a religious system that represents Satan as coeternal with God.

And it's not like Brazil doesn't know how to address the issue of AIDS. Brazil is seen as a model in the battle against the spread of AIDS. The country distributes antiretrovirals for free to its citizens. And it's prevention program has been hugely successful, with the current infection rate at about 1/2 that statistically forecast in 1992.

Brazilian officials say that a large part of that success is the government's willingness to work with prostitutes, gay men, intravenous drug users and other high risk groups. In fact, prostitutes are on the front line of AIDS prevention efforts in Brazil. Brazil does emphasize abstinence and fidelity in its prevention efforts, but it also relies heavily on condom distribution.

But, Brazil says it just can't work within the stricture of scripture as mandated by President Bush. Dr. Chequer is saying that you can't fight AIDS with your hands tied behind your back by the church, or the mosque.

USAID says the agency is still reviewing the Brazilian decision. I'm sure USAID is not the only agency in the world following developments in Brazil.

Moral Rights Of Artists

2005-04-28T16:25:00.000-04:00

Today's WSJ reports that President Bush has signed the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act, which creates an exemption in copyright laws to protect companies selling filtering technology.

OK, it actually protects one company. The primary beneficiary of this law is a company in Utah named ClearPlay, so my guess is that ClearPlay has made some astute investments in Congressional campaigns.

Anyway, filtering technology helps parents automatically skip or mute sex scenes, violence and foul language in movie DVDs. The legislation is a direct response to lawsuits brought by Hollywood studios and directors to stop the manufacture and distribution of filtering devices.

This is, of course, an effort to protect the American family from Hollywood immorality. Interestingly enough, other countries would see another moral issue here -- the moral rights of artists.

Perhaps best known as the French right of droit morale, many feel that artists have the moral right to control how their work is presented to the public. However, the US does not recognize the moral rights of artists.

By treaty, the US is obligated to honor the moral rights of artists from countries were moral rights are protected. So it will be interesting to see what happens when a French filmmaker takes exception to this law.

As for me, I think the whole idea is stupid. Why is the party of less government, the Republicans, interfering to allow technology which mutilates films? Why pass a law to protect one company?

But even more importantly, why does anybody need this? If you don't want your kids watching movies with sex, violence or profanity, don't buy them. Yes, it means you have to be conscious of the difference between "Reservoir Dogs" and "Lady and the Tramp", but in the long run you and your kids will be better off.

You can't parent by remote control, you can't filter out the entire world and there is no alternative to being actively involved in your kids lives and actually knowing what they are watching and listening to.

Follow Up: HIV+ Foster Kids In NYC

2005-04-25T16:16:00.000-04:00

Both the Associated Press and Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report published stories today on a manufactured crisis regarding HIV+ foster children in New York City who were entered into clinical trials for HIV medication. I published earlier on a BBC documentary about this "scandal", which I found to be little more than agitprop for AIDS denialists and other opportunists.

However, NYC's Administration for Children's Services has announced that it has hired the independent not-for-profit Vera Institute of Justice to review research ACS authorized between 1988 and 2001 involving 465 HIV+ foster children. ACS has already conducted an internal review, and it has found no wrong-doing. But in the interest of accountability and transparency, it has decided to take the additional step of a third party audit in order to assuage any community concerns.

And I say Bravo!

The Vera Institute of Justice web site says that the Institute works closely with leaders in government and civil society to improve the services people rely on for safety and justice. Among other things, Vera studies social problems and current responses, and provides practical advice and assistance to government officials in New York and around the world.

Vera's outside review will focus on what are, in my opinion, the only two legitimate questions: 1. Did ACS have the necessary permission to enroll these children in these trials; and 2. Did these children meet the studies' medical criteria for entry?

Now, there are two interesting factoids I caught in these reports that I want to stress. First, the Kaiser article says that two children involved in the studies were removed from foster parents who refused to give permission for their participation in the studies. As a foster parent, this is huge to me.

Foster parents are encouraged to take children into their homes and love them as their own. Which most of us do. However, the children are not ours. The state controls them.

Now, I have had the experience of denying permission for my foster daughter, who has been with me fifteen of her eighteen months on this planet and who I plan to adopt, permission to be brought on visits with her birth family unless the visits are confirmed in advance. Because at least three times the state has shown up at day care and demanded to take my foster daughter on a trip for a visit that has been cancelled, or was never even scheduled. And I have been called on the carpet any number of times for "interfering with the business of the Division of Youth and Family Services", even when I did so to stop my foster daughter from spending the day on a joy ride through the system with strangers for no good reason.

So if I, as a foster parent, decide it's not right for this child I love to be in a clinical trial, should the state remove that child? I should fall in love with a child but lose that child if I don't consent to medical treatment which I don't think is in the child's best interest?

You know, even these days, when newspapers tout that we have eliminated HIV in children in the US, there are a lot of HIV exposed infants in foster care who are deemed medically fragile and who have to take some pretty strong medicine until there is a definitive HIV- diagnosis, usually six months. Not to mention Hep C exposed children. It's hard enough to find foster parents for those children. But then, once you find the special people to do this, you pull the children if you disagree over medical treatment?

And you'll note, this is not even a topic under discussion. Foster parents have no rights. So this is just going to slide right on by.

Second factoid: The AP reports that the majority of these tests were conducted before 1996. Now, 1996 we discovered the protease inhibitor "cocktail", and the universe of HIV treatment changed. Before that, babies died daily from AIDS in this country. So, when you evaluate the decision to put foster children in clinical trials, you have to place it in context, in the desperate hopeless context of pre-cocktail pediatric AIDS treatment.

So, kudos to ACS for commissioning this study, which is asking the questions the community needs to put this issue to rest.

And shame on ACS for treating foster parents as little more than room and board providers with no say in the treatment their children receive.

Rice Chides President On Democracy Backslide

2005-04-21T21:26:00.000-04:00

In Wednesday's Wall Street Journal, Yochi J. Drazen and Gregory L. White report that Condoleeza Rice, in her new role as Secretary of State, has voiced some very serious concerns about the direction the President is taking the country. While the general theme of these criticisms is the President's faltering commitment to democracy, the specifics are as follows:

1. The President is slowing the pace of democracy by centralizing power and cracking down on potential political rivals.
2. The President is exerting more control over television stations and media outlets.
3. The President objects to foreign investment in the energy sector of the economy.
4. The President has failed to take a strong stand against intellectual property piracy.

Shocking. Condoleeza Rice criticizing George Bush for centralizing power, purging the government of anyone who does not share his neoconservative goals and fundamental Christian values? Condoleeza Rice criticizing George Bush for targeting Tom Daschle for standing in his way, and threatening to similarly target any other politician who tries to stop him from bankrupting Social Security? Condoleeza Rice criticizing George Bush for leaking the name of a CIA operative to the press and then seeking to jail reporters for repeating the story? Condoleeza Rice criticizing George Bush for elevating a male prostitute to the level of a White House correspondent while refusing to allow legitimate journalists to ask follow up questions?

But wait a minute -- George Bush doesn't object to foreign investment in the energy sector. He welcomed the Bin Laden family's money and other sources of Saudi money in his oil business -- you know, the one that went bust.

And George Bush would rather see millions of people die than allow a single pharmaceutical patent to be violated.

Has Condi lost her mind?

Oh, she was talking about Russian President Putin. HE is centralizing power. HE is targeting his political opponents.

Now, seriously, what does Condi think she's doing? Does she think that she and President Bush actually have credibility as defenders of democracy?

No, not really. As the WSJ reveals, as in most things Bush, this is a story about oil.

President Putin is in the process of nationalizing the Russian oil industry. So, in effect, Russia is going the way of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Mexico -- heck, a lot of other countries. Russia is coming back to the position that the oil under its soil belongs to the people, and so does the money that oil brings. OK, OK, so there will probably be some graft and corruption and government folks will skim off the top, but the bulk of the oil money will go to the people.

But George Bush, that oil and gas man, he wants that Russian oil for his friends and political supporters. So he sends Condi to tell Vladimir, as George has been known to affectionately call him, to respect democracy.

Because if George said he wanted Russia to respect the free market, well, then, there would have to be a free market. No sweetheart deals, no special access to oil for Russia's valued American ally.

No, if the issue was free markets, George and his friends would have to compete for the oil.

So he makes the issue democracy. Because he has blown up two countries in the name of pursuing democracy, and word is he'll bomb a third in June (that being Iran). The fact that Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq are valuable because of their oil and their oil pipelines has nothing to do with why George wants US friendly "democracies" there. The fact that those pipelines were built for Russian oil has nothing to do with why Russia's commitment to democracy is now being questioned.

But mark my words, one way or another, US tax dollars will fund Russian oil flowing through pipelines across Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.

In the name of free market and democracy.

So, when Condoleeza Rice goes out into the world demanding that the world respect democracy, look for the oil connection. Because that's what George Bush has done -- he has changed the meaning of democracy to mean access to oil money for himself and his friends.

Bill Clinton On Self Loathing

2005-04-13T15:22:00.000-04:00

The AP's Karen Matthews reports that a New York Republican fundraiser is planning an event to raise money to finance the eventual Republican party challenger to Hilary Clinton in her 2006 Senate run.

Arthur Finkelstein is a long-time Republican party operative. Most notably, he worked to help Governor Pataki unseat Governor Cuomo. Finkelstein plans to raise $10 million for the 2006 Senate race.

Finkelstein is also gay. He married his partner of 40 years in Massachusetts last week. Finkelstein has gone on the record as supporting visitation rights, health care benefits and other rights for same sex couples.

Former President Bull Clinton commented on Finkelstein's anti-Hilary efforts this way, when asked if the efforts made him angry:

"Actually, I was sort of sad when I read it. I thought one of two things. Either this guy believes his party is not serious and is totally Machiavellian in its position, or you know, as David Brock said in his great book 'Blinded by the Right', there's some sort of self-loathing or something. I was more sad for him."

Now, no one knows self-loathing better than Bill Clinton. He wrote a 900 something page book about his self-loathing.

But the concept of a former President making a public statement with not-so-subtle innuendo about the mental health and self-awareness of someone because that person's actions don't match up to President Clinton's assumptions about what gay people should want -- that makes me sad.

"He's gay, he's a Republican, he' must be in denial, or he must have emotional issues." Which is pretty damn close to "He's gay, he must be in denial, he must have emotional issues."

Why not just go ahead and call black Republicans Uncle Toms?

And the concept of a former President making an issue out of the sexual orientation of a political foe -- that makes me sad.

President Bush used fear of gay marriage as a tool to win an election. When my President took to the airwaves and said people like me are a threat to the moral fiber of this country, I was upset. I would have been more upset if someone I respected did it, but I was still upset.

John Kerry attempted to use Mary Cheney's sexual orientation as a tool against President Bush in the Presidential debates. I was upset, because I took it as a statement that President Bush and Dick Cheney should not be returned to the White House because they have strong family ties to gay people. I would have been more upset if someone I respected did it, but I was still upset.

Now Bill Clinton has done it. He has used sexual orientation as a political weapon. And I respect Bill Clinton. And I am devastated.

I guess I should have known better. I remember in 1992, Bill Clinton promised to end the ban on gays in the military, as his first order of business as President. But he caved. And we got "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." And since that time, the number of gay people being forced from the military has increased dramatically. Even during wartime, it continues.

So I should not be surprised to learn that Bill Clinton just doesn't get it, that you just don't use sexual orientation as a weapon. Because it hits many many more people than the intended target. People like me.

Thanks but no thanks, Bill.

So Much For Agricultural Subsidy Reform

2005-04-13T13:10:00.000-04:00

Today's AP reports that President Bush is accepting defeat on his plan to reduce agricultural subsidies to American farmers. While AP reporter Libby Quaid does not clearly define the reasons why the plan was abandoned, she cites resistance from farmers and from Congress, and quotes Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln as saying that "the administration has finally begun to hear the roar from the heartland."

The plan would have reduced the $360,000 individual subsidy cap to $250,000, which means only the largest farmers would have been primarily affected. Other cost-cutting measures may have lowered all payments even further.

However, Quaid reports that the concept of subsidy reform may have some life in it. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns says that the administration will continue to look to find ways to save the projected $8 billion over ten years the President's plan would have saved.

So, Congress and farmers have gotten the President to change his mind. That sounds as plausible as the idea that the President was ever serious about reducing agricultural subsidies in the first place. This is the President who is famous for his resolve, for attacking Senators and Congressmen who stand in his way. And yet his plan has been stopped by unnamed congressmen.

Doesn't sound like President Bush to me.

Maybe the President's commitment to agricultural subsidy reform wasn't that strong. Maybe there's more to this story.

Now, recent Wall Street Journal articles may shed some light on what's going on here. A recent front page article talked about the ethanol "boom" in the agricultural centers of the country. Farmers' collectives are investing in ethanol production facilities, and making a lot of money. It's a new kind of gold rush.

The Wall Street Journal has also discussed how falling agricultural subsidies might reduce barriers to expansion in the agricultural sector. Subsidies keep farmland prices inordinately high, so that farmers cannot afford to buy land to expand. Drop the subsidies, expansion is more possible. More corn, more ethanol. More boom.

So, there are plenty of people in Senator Lincoln's heartland who would be happy to see the subsidies come down.

So, for a while it seemed to me that the President's plan to drop agricultural subsidies dovetailed nicely with the President's energy policy: find a way to reduce foreign dependence on oil while maintaining oil and gas as the countries primary energy sources. Ethanol helps reduce demand for foreign oil by making domestic reserves last longer, as well as making them burn cleaner. Ethanol is primarily made from corn, but can also be made from wheat straw, rice straw and other farm wastes.

Now, yesterday's Wall Street Journal reported on a push by 33 of the 50 state governors to expand a proposed federal mandate for the use of ethanol as a vehicle-fuel additive. John J. Fialka writes that the governors want an eight billion gallon a year mandate; the oil industry and congressional representatives from oil states want Congress to stick to a five billion gallon a year mandate agreed to in discussions pertaining to last year's failed energy bill.

There's a lot of valid reasons to oppose any mandate that the oil industry buy a certain amount of ethanol. To traditional free market Republicans, or, OK, to anyone who believes in free markets, this may seem tantamount to a tax increase on oil production. OK, so it's offset by a 51 cent a gallon tax credit, but ethanol costs more than $1.30 a gallon. Also, the very concept that the government is creating a market for ethanol flies in the face of the concept of a free market. At the very least, then, I doubt very much this plays well with everyone in the conservative base of the country.

But those concerns don't seem to be in play here. At least, those pills have already been swallowed. The oil industry's argument does not seem to center on whether or not it's appropriate for the government to be meddling in the market this way, but rather on the extent of the meddling and the size of the hit the oil industry will have to take. Robert Slaughter, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, says there are additional costs in the use of ethanol by oil refineries because ethanol can't be shipped in oil pipelines and requires a different type of gasoline stock for blending. By all accounts, this is a dollar and cents debate.

So, dropping agricultural subsidies means more corn for ethanol, and the oil industry wants to keep a lid on the size of the mandate for the use of ethanol. And so the President backs off on his agricultural subsidies plan.

Now, THAT sounds like the President Bush I know. Mr. Oil and Gas. And now he can claim credit for trying to reduce agricultural subsidies, only to beaten back by Congress and special interests.

All in all, the President's agricultural subsidy plan seems to be largely a biological source of fuel.

Respect For Life

2005-04-05T16:49:00.000-04:00

I've been reflecting the past few weeks on issues of morality. Really, there's been nothing much else to do.

We have recently emerged from non-stop round the clock coverage of TerriGate and the parallel unfortunate plights of Terri and Michael Schiavo. Terri, who has been brain dead for what, 14 years ago, was finally released from her earthly prison and so was her husband. Terri's pain is over. Michael, viewed as a murderer by a small by fanatic portion of the country, will spend the rest of his life looking over his shoulder.

Godspeed, Terri and Mike.

The primary beneficiary of TerriGate seems to have been Michael Jackson, whose child molestation trial otherwise would have been the centerpiece of cable "news" and talk radio shows.

To me, it seemed that Tom DeLay, Randall Terry, the Bush brothers, Bill Frist, and others tried to enslave Terru Schiavo. They tried to consign her soul to a life sentence without the possibility of parole in a body that did not even know that it had died long ago. The proverbial fate worse than death.

And public opinion says these are moral men.

And now we are submerged in the death of the Pope.

And the media are telling us that these events are connected because the Pope stood up throughout his papacy for the rights of the individual, and that included Terri Schiavo. The Pope did not want Terri Schiavo's feeding tube removed -- that was disrespectful of life.

Me, I think the Pope has a mixed record on standing up for the rights of the individual. While it's true that the Pope finally found a woman he could stand up for in Terri Schiavo, it's not lost on me that the woman he championed so strongly was in a persistent vegetative state.

She was not a rape victim who wanted an abortion. She was not a mother of five who did not want more children and so asked for a birth control prescription. She was not an enslaved sex worker trying to protect her health through the use of condoms. She wasn't a lesbian. Nope, she was incapable of sin, no down side for the Pope.

Now, I feel creepy picking on the Pope. He was a man of conscience, a servant of God who tried to do good.

But by blaming the sex scandal within the US church on gays and pedophiles who had infiltrated the church, he did wrong. He equated gay men with pedophiles. And, by continuing to turn a blind eye to the true problem, the culture of silence regarding and tolerance of abuse within the church, he minimized the pain of past victims by helping to ensure future victims.

And by refusing to condone the use of condoms under any circumstances, together with his marginalization of the rights of women, he helped to preserve the conditions which continue to fuel the AIDS epidemic. In point of fact, the Pope failed to address in a meaningful manner the true crisis of our age, AIDS.

And yet, according to public opinion, the Pope was a moral man.

I'm starting to view as suspect anyone who is publicly viewed as moral. Really, the truly moral fly below the radar, not calling attention to their deeds. They certainly do not try to trade on their morality for political gain. And the truly moral never seek to profit from the misfortune of others. Like the Pope did when he blamed the sex scandals on gays and pedophile, furthering his view that gay rights were part of an agenda of evil. Or like Republicans and right to life activists did by seeking to keep Terri Schiavo enslaved in a dead body to serve as their mascot.

So the next time someone is cited as a moral leader, I'm going to look for the victims that person is exploiting.

Happy International Women's Day

2005-03-09T21:45:00.000-05:00

Today's Wall Street Journal presented two interesting views on the evolving roles of women in the Middle East.

Christopher Cooper, in an article discussing President Bush's intensification of his democratic push in the Middle East, discussed an address Laura Bush gave at the State Department in honor of International Women's Day.

Writes Cooper: "Mrs. Bush, who has adopted a higher profile in the president's second term, compared recent events in the Middle East to the fall of the Berlin Wall and named China, Myanmar and Cuba as countries that still refuse to grant political rights to women. 'We all have an obligation to speak for women who are denied their rights to learn, to vote or to live in freedom,' she said."

In a front page article by Farnaz Fassihi, the higher profile of Iraqi women in the politics of that country was profiled. The story focused on Fatima Yaqoub, a councilwoman in the Kathamiya district of Baghdad.

Ms. Yaqoub, a Shiite muslim, favors allowing Iraqi men to have as many as four wives and repealing laws that guarantee alimony payments and child custody rights for women in divorces. She also believes in decreasing the amount of money women stand to gain in inheritances and removing legal barriers to the marriage of girls under the age of 18.

In short, Ms. Yaqoub favors introducing Islamic Sharia law into Iraq's legal code, especially as it pertains to family matters and women's rights. She, and other women who share her beliefs, call themselves "Zeinab Sisters", devout women who follow the path of Fatima, daughter of the prophet Mohammed. And they are lending great credibility to the efforts of the Shiite majority to fashion Iraqi law on Sharia.

Such a step would return women to the status they held before Iraq introduced a secular family law in 1959. Currently, Iraqi law allows men to marry more than once, but in very limited circumstances, such as an inability of a woman to bear children. Under current law, child custody is automatically given to mothers; under Sharia, child custody goes to the father's family. And husbands can prohibit their wives from leaving the country under Sharia.

So it remains unclear whether President Bush has truly improved the lot of Iraqi women, if improvement is measured by the ability of women to live in freedom.

Agricultural Subsidies Still Up For Grabs

2005-03-08T19:40:00.000-05:00

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal reports that the cuts to agricultural subsidies proposed in the President's budget are getting serious consideration on Capitol Hill.

Sara Schaefer Munoz writes that this is an issue that cuts across the political divide. Democrats and Republicans are lining up on both sides. In favor of the cuts are Iowa Republican Senator Charles Grassley, who sits on both the Budget and Agriculture committees and Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota. Opposing are Georgia's Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss, who chairs the Agriculture Committee, and Arkansas Democrat Senator Blanche Lincoln.

Even the farming lobby is divided. American Farmland Trust, a Washington organization that represents farmers and ranchers interested in environmentally sound farming practices, supports the cuts. On the other hand. the National Farmers Union, a Denver group that represents farmers and ranchers, opposes the plan.

Farmers and ranchers. Kind of makes me think of those old westerns where the farmers would want to fence in their farms and the cattlemen would want open ranges.

Anyhoo, the agricultural subsidies also cut across geographic lines. Cotton and rice farmers in the South and in California would be hit harder than corn, wheat and soybean farms in the Midwest. Growers of cotton and rice get bigger subsidies than other farmers because complex cultivation and expensive equipment make these crops more expensive to grow.

So, the proposal hits Democratic leaning California and the Republican leaning south hard.

Underlying the entire discussion is the World Trade Organization and other international pressures, which oppose the subsidies.

So against my better judgment, I'm leaning towards believing that the President has actually put forward a proposal which hits both Republican and Democratic constituencies equally and moves the country closer to the international trade community. And the White House support on this issue seems to be critical in moving this debate forward.

In other words, I think the President is doing the right thing here.

And it's killing me.

So I'm looking for the angle, I'm desperately looking for something that will let me conclude that, in the final analysis, this is just more Karl Rove positioning for 2006 and 2008 somehow. And I have to admit, I'm not finding much to hang my hat on.

Except maybe this. One the of the concerns with the agricultural subsidies is that they drive up land prices. According to the Agriculture Department, subsidies can increase farm land values by 15%-25%.

Schaeffer quotes Iowa cattle farmer Mark Leonard as saying he would like to increase his acreage of farmland, which he uses to raise feed for his cattle. But the subsidies make that too expensive. So he's not expanding.

So the subsidies are inflating real estate prices. Presumably in California, the South and the Midwest. By 15%-25%. Now, who would have an interest in depressing the market value of farmland?

Well, ranchers, for one group. Maybe ranchers and the meat industry have given a lot of money to the President. Maybe the Carlyle group is investing heavily in cattle futures.

I know, I know, I'm reaching for straws, but the alternative creeps me out. That there is something about which the President and I actually agree.

US Still Surprisingly Productive

2005-03-04T15:09:00.000-05:00

In today's Wall Street Journal, Timothy Aeppel reports that US worker's productivity rose much faster in the fourth quarter than previously thought.

I write about this as part of my continuing campaign to illustrate that productivity and quality of life are inversely proportional. When productivity rises, workers' quality of life falls. I also write to illustrate how productivity, or workers' quality of life, is actually factored into the country's economic policy.

Productivity growth slowed in 2004 to 4%, down from 4.4% in 2003. Still, many economists continue to predict that productivity growth will slow soon.

Joshua Shapiro, chief US economist for MFR Inc., is quoted as saying "The gains you saw in the past were the result of companies taking a hatchet to their labor forces. Now they are selectively hiring, and economic growth is moderate, which means productivity growth has now reverted to trend."

What Shapiro is observing is a phenomenon with plenty of historical precedent. Writes Aeppel, "Productivity growth tends to soar", (or, as I say, quality of life tends to plummet) "when the economy is pulling out of a slump, because payrolls have been cut and the remaining workers are the most skilled. As companies expand, adding workers and opening new plants, productivity tends to moderate."

Payrolls have been trimmed and the remaining workers are the most skilled? Perhaps the most skilled at keeping their jobs, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are most skilled in performing their jobs. Aeppel seems to think that the labor market is a meritocracy.

Anyhoo, here's the dilemma. Productivity growth is slowing. That means labor will cost more. If productivity growth falls below 2%, one of two things will happen; either manufacturers will have to raise prices to cover increased labor costs; or companies will realize lower profits.

So that's the triangle economists are watching: productivity, inflation and profits. And since profits are generally perceived as good, and inflation a necessary evil but one which should be kept in check, the state actually has an interest in keeping the rate of productivity high and workers' quality of life low. The higher productivity growth, the lower the inflation rate and the higher corporate profits.

Now, here's the question. There appears to be a minimum acceptable productivity rate, around 2% over the long term. And while the Fed consistently refuses to set a target inflation rate, I keep reading that an inflation rate below 2.5% is not historically high.

But there is no target profit rate. Both productivity and inflation are manipulated to maximize profits.

How different would the world be if profit and inflation were manipulated to minimize the need for productivity to increase, i.e., to maximize workers' quality of life?

Bush Challenges Proponents Of Prostitution

2005-02-28T22:50:00.000-05:00

In today's Wall Street Journal, Michael M Phillips reports on a bold Bush Administration stance against prostitution.

President Bush has decided that no private American AIDS organization can get federal funding to provide health services overseas unless they sign a pledge affirming their opposition to prostitution.

The article quotes Republican Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas as illustrating the President's concern: "There is conservative support [for AIDS programs] . . . But there are areas of concern". What concerns? A memo distributed by Senator Brownback asks "[h]ow many lives have been saved from this totally preventable disease by the 'disease control' efforts of these long-standing and aggressive family planners, drug legalizers and pro-prostitution groups?"

Pro-prostitution groups?

Does the Senator really think that American AIDS service organizations providing health services overseas are pro-prostitution?

The article doesn't really connect the dots too well. It says AIDS service organizations don't want to condemn prostitution because it will stigmatize the prostitutes with whom they work closely. The prostitutes are helpful in handing out condoms.

The article also discusses the concept of harm reduction, a philosophy which recognizes that people will inevitably engage in risky behavior and thus the most pragmatic course is to make the behavior less risky.

All of which supports the assertion that AIDS service organizations engaged in harm reduction support prostitution. Since they seek to make prostitution less risky both for the prostitute and the trick, they obviously support prostitution.

Which is nuts. No AIDS service organization supports prostitution. Not a single one.

However, there are AIDS service organizations that recognize that prostitutes are powerless. And that one way to empower prostitutes is to protect their health. And that once empowered through health care, they may empower themselves in other areas of their lives. And thus enable themselves to escape a life of prostitution.

There are AIDS service organizations that recognize that many individuals are forced into prostitution. The Administration knows this. The Administration knows that children have been stolen from refugee camps in Banda Aceh and sold as sex slaves.

But, according to the Administration, no federal money can go to giving those children medical care. Because that would be supporting prostitution.

In truth, the Administration knows that no AIDS service organization is pro-prostitution. The President is doing two things.

First, he is pandering to his fundamental Christian base. This is part of the President's push to end federal support for needle exchange programs and abortions abroad, as a means to consolidate political support for himself. And Karl Rove and the next candidate Karl Rove trots out for the White House.

Which is disgusting enough -- sacrificing the health care of women and children forced into lives of sexual slavery for political gain.

But second, there is a very specific target of these initiatives. George Soros.

George Soros, who finances liberal activists, also finances the Open Society Institute. And the Open Society Institute does get some federal financing. And the Open Society Institute does operate needle exchange programs as part of a harm reduction effort to slow the spread of HIV in the former Soviet bloc. Where HIV is running wild.

So, the real pay-off will be in 2006, when Karl Rove will be able to label Democratic candidates who take money from George Soros, or who are supported by MoveOn.org and other liberal organizations, as pro-drug and pro-prostitution.

So, yes, Karl Rove and George Bush are sacrificing the lives of women and children around the globe as a matter of domestic public policy and for the purpose of gaining leverage in the next few election cycles.

Where would the country, indeed the world, be without this form of moral leadership?

For my money, if the President wants to take a strong stance against prostitution, the first thing he should do is fire Karl Rove.

Hariri and Arab Bank

2005-02-28T19:58:00.000-05:00

The slaying of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri is beginning to look like a turning point in Lebanese history.

On the front page of today's Wall Street Journal, Bill Spindle writes from Beirut, referring to Hariri, that the "giant bomb blast that took the life of a towering political figure here two weeks ago shattered more than a city's calm. It also unleashed a deep- seated anger over Lebanon's occupation by a foreign power: Syria."

The story we are getting is one of a spontaneous, popular uprising, a "surge so sudden it astonished even those who helped stir it", a stunning success of more aggressive US policies in the Middle East. The US has become increasingly critical of Syria because of Syria's support of Hezbollah and other terrorist groups, including those leading the Iraqi insurgency. Or so says the Bush Administration.

Because popular wisdom is that Syria killed Rafik Hariri. Or at the very least supported the terrorists who killed Rafik Hariri. But the scope of the attack suggests some level of state support.

Because Hariri was protesting against the extension of the Lebanon's pro-Syria president for a third term, despite a constitutional two-term limit.

And so, the story is, Syria killed Rafik Hariri.

But another article in today's Wall Street Journal forces a second look at this myth in the making. Glenn R. Simpson reports that the US has essentially shut down the US operations of Arab Bank PLC, Jordan's largest bank. The Comptroller of the Currency has alleged that Arab Bank has violated laws aimed at fighting terrorism and money laundering by failing to monitor and report suspicious fund transfers.

The bank has been caught up in an effort led by Palestinian President Mamhoud Abbas to dismantle an elaborate network of Islamic charities which are believed to fund terrorist activities against Israel. While the bank maintains that it has not knowingly funded terrorists, it acknowledges directing at least $90 million into the Palestinian territories.

Arab Bank PLC was founded by a Palestinian family with close ties to the late Yasser Arafat. It is the dominant financial institution in the Palestinian territories and a major financial force in Lebanon.

And at the time of his death, Rafik Hariri was the single largest shareholder of Arab Bank PLC.

So Yasser Arafat dies, and now there's a chance for peace in the Middle East. Rafik Hariri dies, and there is a fresh public outcry for Syria to leave Lebanon. And the press tells us that this is democracy on the rise and freedom on the march.

OK. Possible.

But if Arab Bank PLC is suspected of funneling money to terrorists, and Rafik Hariri was the single biggest shareholder in Arab Bank PLC, there is an apparent link between Rafik Hariri and terrorists.

Isn't it possible that these terrorists killed Hariri because he was seen as cooperating with the US to shut off their funding? What was the relationship between Hariri and terrorist groups?

If Arab Bank PLC was formed by a family with close ties to Yasser Arafat, and Rafik Hariri was the single largest shareholder in Arab Bank PLC, there appears to have been a connection between Rafik Hariri and Yasser Arafat. What was it?

And now, here's a theory. Arab Bank PLC and Hariri supported Hezbollah. Syria supports Hezbollah. Hariri wants to get Syria out of Lebanon, the US wants Syria to stop supporting Lebanon. So Hariri and the US cut a deal. Hariri agrees to cooperate with the US to stop Arab Bank PLC from funding Hezbollah, in exchange for US support of a popular uprising in Lebanon against Syria. And Hariri starts organizing his uprising. So, when Hezbollah kills him for selling out Hezbollah to the US, Hariri's nascent network is already primed to spring into action. Instant popular uprising.

That's just a theory. I don't have a shred of evidence to support it, other than what I read in the papers and what I see of the Bush Administration. But would it shock me to find out that the Bush Administration made common cause with a former supporter of terrorists? No, that's pretty much the neo-con way.

Is my theory any less believable than the popular story that the Prime Minister was assassinated because he was continuing the 15 year long struggle to get Syria out of Lebanon? Or do we think that the only reason Hariri was perceived as such a threat was because he was seen as working with the US against Syria and Hezbollah? And do we think that Syria, which knows it's under the US microscope, would abandon the use of proxies such as Hezbollah and Iraqi insurgents and instead directly, publicly and dramatically assassinate Hariri?

No story seems to make sense. But for some reason, I just don't believe that what we are seeing in Lebanon is a spontaneous uprising.

Saddam's Half Brother Really, Really, Really Captured

2005-02-28T13:52:00.000-05:00

Saddam Hussein's half brother, Sabawi Ibrahim al-Hassan, is in Iraqi custody. How he got there is a little unclear.

APs Patrick Quinn, writing in Baghdad, reported on February 27 at 12:50 pm that Iraqi security forces captured al-Hassan. Prime Minister Ayad Allawi released a statement that the arrest "shows the determination of the Iraqi government to chase and detain all criminals who carried out massacres and whose hands are stained with the blood of the Iraqi people, then bring them to justice to face the right punishment."

Quinn's report continued by quoting National Security Advisor Mouwafak al-Rubaie as saying this "is a great achievement for the Iraqi forces. It is also a lesson to others to give themselves up to Iraqi authorities."

Problem is, it seems Iraqi forces didn't capture al-Hassan. Syrian forces did.

In a story filed by Salah Nasrawi at 1:35 on February 27, Iraqi officials credited Syrian authorities with handing over al-Hassan, along with 29 other officials of the deposed Baath Party regime. It seems al-Hassan had been captured by Syria sometime after the February 14 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Syria handed the captives over "as a gesture of good will".

OK, so the story goes from an Iraqi victory to a Syrian good will gesture, "to show that they are cooperating". The story does not identify the party or parties with whom Syria is cooperating -- Iraq, the US, the UN -- it's anybody's guess.

On Monday, February 28, Todd Pitman reported from Baghdad for the AP that Syria's good will gesture was meant to end months of Syrian denials that it was harboring fugitive Baathists official who were leaders in the Sunni-based Iraqi insurgency.

So, what started as an Iraqi victory and morphed into a Syrian good will gesture is now a story about Syria bowing to international pressure to change its ways. It's also a story which supports the propositionsd that Syria supports terrorists and that the Iraqi insurgency is being run by former Baath Party officials. Both of these positions are frequently promoted by the Bush Administration.

One story, three different spins, all from the same news service.

All three AP reports include a statement that al-Hassan was number 36 on the list of 55 most wanted Iraqis created by the US. He is also one of the 29 most wanted supporters of the Iraqi insurgency (most wanted by whom is not clarified). The US put a $1 million bounty on al-Hassan.

The stories all report that al-Hassan led the General Security Directorate, responsible for maintaining internal security and quelling political opposition. Al-Hassan was accused of torturing many political opponents. He later served as a presidential advisor.

It would be nice if the AP could step back, sift through its own conflicting reports and tell us what actually happened here. Right now, the AP seems to be caught in the whirlpool of competing spin.

But it's fascinating how, at the end of the day, no one looks good but the US. Iraqis, most especially Ayad Allawi, look bad for taking credit for a capture made by someone else; Syria looks bad for its history of harboring terrorists and former Baath Party officials; but the US looks good because it got it managed to further a number of policy positions without lifting a finger.

Perchlorate Percolates Into Breast Milk

2005-02-23T16:43:00.000-05:00

Today's WSJ expands on yesterday's story on perchlorate contamination. Perchlorate, an ingredient in rocket fuel, was dumped for years by the military and its suppliers.

Yesterday, Peter Waldman wrote that the highest level of perchlorate in drinking water in the country was about 20 parts per billion, and that the EPA had decided that 24 parts per billion was the safe limit. Waldman also reported that many thought the safe limit for infants was much lower, due to their lower body mass, perhaps 4 parts per billion.

Perchlorate blocks the absorption of iodide, the essential chemical in thyroid-hormone production. The brains of babies which do not get enough iodide do not develop properly. So perchlorate has the potential to be a very bad thing for babies and the people who love babies.

Today, Waldman reports on a new study by researchers at Texas Tech University which reports high levels of perchlorate in breast milk, and lower levels in cows' milk. Strangely, breast milk and cows' milk was contaminated even in states where the drinking water doesn't contain high levels of perchlorate (the highest levels of contamination in breast milk were found in New Jersey). There is no clear explanation for this phenomenon.

The average level of contamination in breast milk was 10.5 parts per billion.

The Texas Tech study concludes that, based on published EPA assumptions about baby size and fluid consumption, a 9 pound baby drinking breast milk with 10.5 parts per billion of perchlorate will be getting twice the EPA "safe" amount. At the high end, some babies will be getting a level of perchlorate high enough to cause structural changes in the brains of lab rats.

All of this adds rocket fuel to the controversy surrounding the EPA's handling of perchlorate. Critics have charged that the EPA is protecting the military and its suppliers, who are responsible for perchlorate contamination, at the expense of the environment. And at the expense of the babies in the environment.

So now, in response to the Texas Tech study, EPA spokeswoman Cynthia Bergman said that the EPA will "take into account the real health benefits of breast feeding as we evaluate risks, if any, to nursing infants."

Somehow, then, the EPA is going to be conducting some type of calculation that balances the benefits of breast feeding against other factors. But what could those other factors be? The average breast fed child in this country is getting twice what the EPA says is a safe level or perchlorate. And there are many that say the EPA "safe" level is too high. So there seems to be little doubt that babies brains are at risk.

So will EPA be balancing the benefits of breast feeding against the needs of the military and its suppliers? Will it be calculating whether it will be cheaper to get all the babies off breast milk than to clean up the perchlorate?

One thing is certain. The EPA has lost its bearings.

Bush Pollutes Babies Brains

2005-02-22T21:23:00.000-05:00

Today's WSJ reports that the EPA has elected to permit more perchlorate in drinking water than recommended by the National Academy of Sciences.

Peter Waldman reports that perchlorate is a significant ingredient in rocket fuel. It's not your average household or industrial pollutant. No, this is by and large a government pollutant. The US military and its suppliers "discharged" perchlorate into soil and streams across the country, and now it's in the water supplies of 35 states.

The EPA has said that 24 parts per billion of perchlorate in drinking water is OK, safe. That's the appropriate rate for adults.

Problem is, people other than adults drink water. Children drink water. Babies drink water. Some estimate says babies drink six times the amount of water that adults do, pound for pound. So the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council (which appears to be Nationally National) says the adult number should be "translated" to account for smaller people. You know, babies.

So, setting the bar to protect people of all sizes, including babies, there should be no more than 4 parts per billion of perchlorate in drinking water. So says Dr. Richard Johnston of the University of Colorado and chairman of the National Research Council.

But no, 24 parts per billion is OK, says the EPA. In so doing, the EPA is claims to be relying on a report from the National Research Council while overruling the interpretation of that report by the Council's chairman, Dr. Johnston.

Acting head William Farland says that "some data" suggests infants are no more sensitive to perchlorate than adults, and thus need no special protection. I assume that means the EPA is aware of "some data" to suggest that infants are more sensitive to perchlorate than adults. And, says Farland, the NRC built a safety factor into its number to take into account pregnant mothers and their fetuses. A safety factor of which Council chairman Dr. Johnston is apparently unaware.

So EPA agrees with the Council that the right number is 24 parts per billion of perchlorate, but disagrees with the Council that this is the right number for adults and not for babies.

So what's the big deal? Thomas Zoeller, a neurobiologist from the University of Massachusetts said a 24 part per billion level of perchlorate in drinking water could limit babies' ability to produce thyroid hormone, a crucial chemical in controlling brain development.

So it's a big deal.

But no, the EPA says the number is 24 parts per billion. And since the most perchlorate contaminated water in the country maxes out at about 20 parts per billion, it's highly unlikely that federal regulation of perchlorate in drinking water is imminent. Which is a lucky thing for the federal government, the military and its suppliers, which would be liable for the clean-up.

By the way, the most contaminated State is California. Liberal, blue California. And both California Senators are protesting the EPAs decision.

You have to wonder what would have happened if the most contaminated state was Jeb Bush's Florida.

Contempt For The Free Press

2005-02-16T22:36:00.000-05:00

Today's Wall Street Journal reports on two news reporters facing jail.

James Bandler writes that contempt orders against New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper have been upheld by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Here are the reported facts. The President, in his 2003 State of the Union Address, said that Iraq had sought yellowcake from Niger. Ambassador Joe Wilson published an op-ed in the New York Times saying there was no reliable evidence to support the President's claim. Syndicated columnist Robert Novack subsequently published an article which, among other things, said two senior administration officials identified Ambassador Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as an undercover CIA operative working on weapons of mass destruction.

Cooper wrote some articles about the Novack story. Miller asked questions about the Novack story, but did not publish any stories. A grand jury has ordered both reporters to reveal their confidential sources. Because it's a matter of national security.

Time and the New York Times fought the grand jury orders, but lost at trial, and now have lost on appeal.

First and foremost, let's be clear that this is not about national security. It would be very easy to find out who leaked Valerie Plame's name to Novack. There are only about 6 people in the administration who would know Plame was a CIA operative. Just subpoena them.

Or subpoena Novack. Actually, there is some speculation that Novack has already named names, which is why his head is not on the block.

No, this is about intimidating the press. The government is going after journalists who reported that the the government. namely the Bush administration, violated national security by outing Plame to punish Wilson.

Wait -- one of these reporters never even published a story. Miller just asked questions. She will be going to jail for asking questions. And for working for the New York Times, which published Wilson's op-ed in the first place.

This bears repeating. The government will put Judith Miller in jail for asking questions and keeping her conversations private.

Jail for asking questions. The government says it's in the interest of national security, but don't you believe it. National security requires people in the administration go to jail. Not reporters. Not a reporter who just asked questions.

So, Valerie Plame loses. Joe Wilson loses. Time magazine loses. New York Times loses. Cooper loses. Miller loses.

The free press loses. Which means the country loses.

But the Bush administration walks away without a scratch.

Now that's contempt.

Out With Generics, In With R & D

2005-02-14T16:28:00.000-05:00

I have an idea percolating in my head.

Right now, there's a number of global protests against changes in India's patent laws. These patent law changes basically shut down India's generic drug industry, obligating India to honor foreign patents.

Generic drugs are a hot-button issue to AIDS and global health actvists. Most of the world can't afford US pharmaceuticals, most especially AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria patients in developing countries. And many had hoped that Indian generic antiretrovirals drugs would provide a lower-cost treatment option for patients with no real access to brand name US drugs.

To me, the situation in India is a very simple trade issue. India decided some time ago that it was in the best interest of the Indian economy to violate foreign patents. Thus promoting a domestic pharmaceutical industry. Thus creating jobs, expertise -- a lot of good things for the Indian economy.

Now, India wants to join the World Trade Organization. So it is agreeing to honor foreign patents. So the generic drug industry in India is pretty much out of luck.

But a new industry is now taking root in India. I've been reading reports about how pharmaceutical companies are exporting research and development to India.

So it's an interesting relationship. India agrees to shut down its generic drug industry, and starts to develop a research and development outsourcing industry.

OK, this could all be in my head, because I'm stringing together a bunch of news reports. I'm just working on a theory.

Another source of generic drugs, including AIDS drugs, has been China. And I've seen reports about pharmaceutical companies outsourcing research and development to China.

So I'm thinking -- are there forces at work which are targeting countries which produce generic drugs, and encouraging them to shut down their generic drug industries by helping them establish more lucrative research and development outsourcing industries?

Yeah, it reads a little like a conspiracy theory. In order for that to work, pharmaceutical companies would have to work hand in hand with US trade negotiators so that the US can hold out the carrot of WTO membership and pharma simultaneously can hold out the carrot of research and development investments.

I have no real evidence that this is happening.

I'm just percolating.

The Democratic Wing Of The Democratic Party

2005-02-11T10:29:00.000-05:00

Today's WSJ reports that Democrats are wary as Howard Dean apears certain to be named chairman of the Democratric party.

John Harwood quotes New York based pollster Doug Schoen as saying that "[i]f the Democratic Party is going to win Presidential elections again, it has to move to the center."

Former Democratic Representative Tim Penny of Minnesota is quoted as saying that "[i]f you're looking to reconnect the party to the middle of the electorate, I don't think it's a helpful development."

And then these guys wonder why Democrats have been relegated to second class status in this country.

Now, the President just squeeked out a re-election (don't let talk of mandates fool you, he got 51% of the vote, as a sitting President) by NOT moving to the center. He moved to the right and mobilized his base. And he continues to do so, with talk of a C0nstitutional Amendment institutionalizing homophobia and replacing safer sex education with abstinence programs at home and abroad.

John Kerry moved to the center. He out-Bushed Bush. He played up his military credentials, played down his Senate record and steadfastly hung to the tenet that he would win the election by telling the truth and acting the moderate.

And he lost. He lost because, while he motivated new moderates, he left behind the liberals and progressives, his base, the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. He took us for granted.

Now, Howard Dean is no left wing radical nut job. He ran the Vermont government for 12 years, balanced the budget and served a term as the head of the National Governor's Association. He even got support from the NRA.

But he hasn't bought into Republican, or rather fundamentalist Christian, behavioral norms. He's not "moving towards the center." He's telling Democrats to stand and fight.

He's a socially liberal, fiscally conservative leader. But most importantly, he's a leader.

And Democrats desperately need leadership. And not from the sheep headed towards the center, Senators Clinton and Bayh. The center is where we get our asses wooped. No commanding vision of the future of this country ever emerged from the center, and more than ever Democrats need a vision.

So I offer my congratulations to the re-emergence of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.

Compassionate Conservative Medicaid Caps

2005-02-08T22:22:00.000-05:00

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Administration will seek to save $60 billion over 10 years from Medicaid.

The picture Sarah Lueck paints is a hazy one. The article acknowledges that it is unclear how the Federal government will be reducing its obligations, other than to say that some benefits may be capped.

By the way, caps would be a revolutionary change to the system. There are no caps now. The Federal government is responsible for covering a percentage of state expenses, and the states determine what those expenses are. And this annoys the President. Because the Federal government cannot control how much it will have to spend.

The Administration is framing its proposal as closing "loopholes" states use to collect extra Medicaid payments. The government also will seek changes in the ways drugs are priced.

Simply put, this is garbage. Extra Medicaid payments? The states are getting extra Medicaid payments -- that's the Administration's position. States all across the country are slashing benefits, drowning under the costs of Medicaid, but somehow they are getting extra Medicaid benefits.

And the government is going to seek changes in the ways drugs are priced? We know the Administration will not be seeking those changes from drug companies, because the Administration does not believe that the Federal government should negotiate drug prices -- that's too close to price control. And separation of marketplace and state is more important to this Administration than separation of church and state. It's that big an issue.

No, the Administration means that doctors will not be able to charge a premium for drugs administered in their offices, such as chemotherapy. Doctors charge more for these drugs, because they are really a drug and a service, and because the prices charges subsidize other services for which doctors are under-reimbursed.

And what does this mean? Oncologists won't take Medicaid patients, or won't prescribe cutting edge drugs for Medicaid patients. Access to care and quality of care will suffer.

What is emerging is a plan to allow states to re-allocate Medicaid dollars to provide a lower level of care, which will still be "comprehensive", to a larger number of people without having to get Federal permission. Because right now states need to get Federal permission before they cut certain benefits.

So the hook is more control to the states, the price is Federal caps.

Just don't say block grants, because the Administration tried to get that in its first term and the Governors rejected it.

So say "caps." Say "loopholes." But don't say "block grant."

The article sites language such as "giving states more power to reduce benefits for certain Medicaid recipients, particularly children and low-income parents." As opposed to the high-income parents on Medicaid? The bulk of people on Medicaid are children and low-income parents. What can this possibly mean?

The article also says it wants to limit the ability of elderly Medicaid recipients to transfer their assets and still qualify for Medicaid coverage of nursing home costs. This, at least, is clear. If you ever need to go into a nursing home, the entire inheritance you have worked your entire life to pass on to your children should go to pay your medical bills. If you have a spouse, they should live in poverty to pay for your care.

Now, if you're rich, this won't matter, because you can afford a nursing home. If you're poor, this won't matter, because you're already poor. But if you're middle class? You and yours will no longer be middle class by the time you leave this mortal coil if you need a nursing home.

So, summing it all up, the Administration wants to save money by allowing the states to offer a less generous level of benefits to more people in exchange for a cap on certain Federal expenses. And then leave it to the states to decide how best to cut benefits among children, the elderly and the poor.

So how is this playing in the heartland? The National Governors Association said in a written statement that Medicaid costs are growing because health care costs are growing and enrollment is growing. Not because of "loopholes" allowing the states to get "extra" Federal money. Writes the NGA: "[We] do not want to be in the position of having to choose between funding health-care programs for grandparents or programs for their grandchildren."

So maybe the plan is not so hazy after all.

WSJ Keeps Darfur On The Front Page

2005-02-07T22:36:00.000-05:00

I know I'm frequently critical of WSJ, but today is an excellent example of why WSJ has been my newspaper of choice for over 15 years.

Today WSJ ran a front page article on the continuing crisis in Sudan. A famine threatens Darfur, as the mostly Arab government uses starvation as another tool of genocide.

But this famine will be worse than others. Because the tools of the agrarian society are being dismantled. Livestock slaughtered, crops destroyed, machinery broken or stolen. So that the farmers will never return to Darfur.

So the famine that is probably coming will take years to resolve.

Kudos to the Wall Street Journal for keeping our focus on what has been described as the world's number 2 crisis (the tsunami being number 1).

I'm ashamed to admit that I had to fight the impulse to skip the article to get to more discussion of the President's budget priorities.

Agricultural Subsidies On The Chopping Block?

2005-02-07T20:48:00.000-05:00

Today's Wall Street Journal ran an article discussing how President Bush wants to cut agricultural subsidies by $5.74 billion over the next ten years. The requested cut for this fiscal year is 3%, which would include lowering the maximum subsidy payment from $360,000 to $250,000.

The article, written by Scott Kilman, has all the information I would want it to have. The Agriculture Department reports that the largest 6% of growers got 20% of payments in 2001. The Environmental Working Group (I don't know them, but they have a rockin' web site at www.ewg.org and they don't like agricultural subsidies) claims that 10% of subsidy recipients received 72% of federal payments between 1995 and 2003.

The article even mentions that the White House is willing to reign in agricultural subsidies to facilitate a global agreement on trade through the World Trade Organization.

Is this too good to be true? Maybe.

If, as the Agricultural Department says, 6% of recipients get 20% of the payments, and if estimated payments will be $16.64 billion if they are not cut, that means 6% of recipients would have received about $3.32 billion. But if the current cap is $360,000, that means that 9,222 would have shared that $3.32 billion. That means that the total number of subsidy recipients is about 153,700. These are rough calculations, using fiscal 2006's projected subsidies and 2001 distribution figures.

But it helps put a face on the issue. We're talking about approximately 150,000 people. Not a huge slice of the population.

By comparison, $16.64 is a nice chunk of the budget. By comparison, the government spends $4.1 billion on job training. The entire budget for the National Institute of Health was about $29 billion in fiscal 2005, and the entire budget for the National Science Foundation was less than $5.6 billion that year. All as per WSJ.

The article hints at political undertones. Lowering the subsidy cap would be felt most strongly in the South and in California, where farmers raise cotton and rice. Grain farmers in the Mid-West

So this proposal will fall out interestingly along the electoral map: it will hit solidly blue California and the solidly red South, sparing the mid-West. Senator Grassley is a big proponent of capping subsidies, while previous attempts to do so have been defeated by Southerners in the House.

And I'm wondering where Senator Grassley stands on Social Security reform. And I'm wondering whether Southern Republicans have been resistant to the President's Social Security plan as well.

And I'm betting that agricultural subsidies will not be cut, but instead will become a bargaining chip in the Social Security reform negotiation. Because, as another Wall Street Journal story told us not so long ago, agricultural subsidies are considered "untouchable." The American farmer has the status of a cultural icon in the psyche of many Americans.

Because I simply cannot believe that the White House and I have precisely the same views on agricultural subsidies. Or anything.

I know that says as much about me as anything else, but there you have it.

More On Productivity

2005-02-04T16:37:00.000-05:00

Once again, productivity is the subject of an article in the Wall Street Journal.

The headline of the article is "US Productivity Rose In Quarter But At Slower Pace." The article, by Michael Schroeder starts with the statement: "US productivity growth slumped in the fourth quarter to the lowest level in nearly four years, signaling that the long boom in worker output is winding down."

Putting aside the issue of how productivity simultaneously rose and slumped (factually accurate, but a literary nightmare), the article provides some definitions regarding productivity.

Schroeder writes: "Productivity refers to the output workers produce for an hour on the job. Over time, wages generally rise at the pace at which productivity grows. Faster productivity growth allows employers to pay higher wages without raising prices. Slower productivity growth makes it harder to do that, and depresses wage growth and increases upward pressure on prices."

However, the hard data cited in the article don't support these statements. Productivity rose at 4.1% in the fourth quarter. Workers' hours rose 1.9% in the fourth quarter. But hourly compensation, adjusted for inflation, was down .3% last quarter.

So wages have not risen at the pace at which productivity grew.

So I still say, productivity is up, workers' quality of life is down. Workers are working more hours at lower wages.

If wages were rising at the same rate as productivity, then OK, quality of life would not be inversely proportional to productivity. But things being as they are . . .

Schroeder goes on to write that companies are starting to hire employees to meet continued strong demand, and "If productivity growth continues to slide, wage pressures maybe start to exert upward pressure on inflation."

Which seems a little circular. If the rate at which workers create output per hour increases at a slower rate, why would wages increase? High demand for workers? We're in a jobless recovery, there's labor a-plenty.

Unless and until there is data to support this proposition that wages increase as productivity increases without causing inflation, I will continue to believe that as productivity rises, quality of life for workers falls.

The Ups And Downs Of Productivity

2005-02-03T11:30:00.000-05:00

Wall Street Journal's Greg Ip has apparently revised his views on productivity since yesterday. Yesterday he reported that strong US productivity may explain why a $1 increase in the budget deficit yields only a $.20 increase in the trade deficit, according to a Fed study. Today, while reporting that the Fed raised interest rates again, he reports that growth in productivity has slowed.

So who cares? First of all, it's important to note that Mr. Ip is perfectly happy reporting conflicting views without comment. Which makes him more parrot than reporter, and makes me less likely to trust his reports.

But more importantly, productivity is important. Productivity means output per hour worked. When productivity goes up, it means either that more has been produced with the same amount of labor, i.e., people are working harder, or it means that the same amount is being produced with less labor, i.e., people are out of work.

So when SBC buys AT&T and plans to realize savings through increased productivity, it means SBC plans to provide the same level of service with 13,000 less people. Meaning SBC will fire 13,000 people.

So productivity matters.

To me, an increase in productivity usually means a decrease in the quality of life of workers. They're either working harder for no more money, or working less for less money, or not working at all. So either they have less time with their families, or lots of time with their families but no health insurance. Stuff like that.

When productivity is down, more people are working or more people are being paid more.

Finally, it's important because the Fed likes to see rising rates of productivity, or falling rates of quality of life. Because rising productivity means wages are not rising, meaning wages are not driving up prices, meaning inflation is less, meaning there is more capital available for economic activity.

And I just think it's creepy that our fiscal policy prefers to see declining quality of life among workers because it means better financial conditions for business.

So I think it's important enough for Mr. Ip to pay attention to.

Justice Department Monitoring Federal Judges

2005-02-02T16:16:00.000-05:00

In todays WSJ, Laurie P. Cohen reports that Deputy Attorney General James Comey wants federal prosecutors to report to the Justice Department when Federal judges depart from Federal sentencing guidelines.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the guidelines, when they were mandatory, were unconstitutional. Because we have separation of powers in this country, so as to preserve an independent judiciary. So the executive branch cannot tell the legislative branch what to do.

So, since the Justice Department cannot legally force Federal judges to follow sentencing guidelines, it will now seek to intimidate them into doing so.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but Justice is supposed to uphold the Constitution, right? So if the Supreme Court says Justice activity is illegal, shouldn't Justice just stop?

Or maybe we should just change the name of the department from Justice to Intimidation.

Iraq Has US Style Election

2005-02-02T16:06:00.000-05:00

Today's WSJ reports that tens of thousands of Sunnis may have been denied votes in Iraq's January 30 election because there were not enough ballots for them.

Considering that Sunni participation was considered one of the best ways to avoid a civil war in Iraq, this is a pretty shocking turn of events. Sunnis wanted to vote, but could not? The Shiite President thinks, maybe?

Apparently, Iraq's election was planned by Ohio Secretary of State Blackwell.

The irony is, after our presidential election the US has no standing to say that denying Sunnis ballots in the election makes the election invalid.

A great day for Democracy, indeed.

The Federal Reserve Can't Tell Its Ups From Its Downs

2005-02-02T15:28:00.000-05:00

In todays' WSJ, Greg Ip writes that the Federal Reserve has found no strong correlation between the budget deficit and the trade deficit.

Now, the budget deficit is the amount by which federal spending exceeds federal revenue every year. The trade deficit is the amount by which US imports exceed US exports every year.

Foreign trade partners have been bugging the US to reduce the budget deficit, so as to reduce the trade deficit. The argument is that the budget deficit represents a lack of US savings that must be offset by borrowing from foreigners. Hence, more money enters the country than leaves the country because we need to borrow so much.

The trade deficit is at a record high, some $600 billion in 2004. Ip writes that "[t]he dollar has weakened amid concerns, shared by Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, that foreigners will become less willing to finance that gap by buying US stocks, bonds and other assets."

Because foreigners are starting to realize that the value of US stocks, bonds and assets declines as the strength of the US economy declines. Stocks, bonds and assets are worth what the market will bear, and if the market isn't healthy then the value of assets in that market decline.

Now the Federal Reserve says our trading partners have it all wrong. A Fed study says that every dollar increase in the budget deficit increases the trade deficit by less than 20%. So, reducing the budget deficit will not have a big impact on the trade deficit.

Let's look at that closely. In economics, assumptions are made in every study, which may or may not make sense. Here, the Fed assumes that if an increase in the budget deficit of $1 means an increase in the trade deficit of $.20, then a decrease in the budget deficit of $1 would decrease the trade deficit by only $.20.

But that's just an assumption.

Now the study goes on to say that, since the trade deficit has no strong connection to the budget deficit, then the trade deficit must have other causes, such as increasing foreign demand for US assets and strong worker productivity growth.

So, if you listen to the Fed, the US economy is in such good shape that foreigners are buying up our assets. Except that the trade deficit has depressed the dollar to the point where foreigners don't want to buy our assets. And the fact that, just about a weak ago, the Fed noted that productivity is declining.

Maybe what the Fed should do is actually study what effect a reduction in the budget deficit would have on the trade deficit, rather than run the opposite study and make assumptions. I'm thinking that might help the Fed to reconcile why one discussion includes statements that foreign demand for US assets simultaneously rising and falling.

Because maybe, just maybe, decreasing the budget deficit might increase the value of US assets at a faster rate than increasing the budget deficit decreases the value of US assets.

Using common sense, if US assets are already a bad investment, going deeper into debt won't make it much matters much worse. But US assets would be much better investments if the country wasn't so deeply in debt, because there would be greater confidence that the value of the assets would increase. Maybe that's what the Fed study means. Maybe that's what our trading partners mean.

Note to Fed: In developing future economic models, assume common sense.

Federal Court 2, Alberto Gonzalez 1

2005-02-01T13:49:00.000-05:00

Today's WSJ reports that Federal District Judge Joyce Hens Green has ruled that the system of military hearings the Defense Department set up for Guantanamo prisoners is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court has ruled that Guantanamo prisoners have to be given access to evidence against them and given legal assistance in preparing their defense. Judge Hens has ruled that the Bush administration has failed to comply with these requirements.

This marks the second time the District Court sitting in Washington has ruled against the Guantanamo procedure. AFP reports that Judge James Robertson ruled that Saddam Hussein's presumed former chauffeur, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, had not been duly detained and that the procedure for his trial was not fair. The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal.

WSJ's Jess Bravin reports that the decision rejects legal theories supported by then White House counsel, now presumptive Attorney General, Alberto Gonzalez. Gonzalez has written that no suspected Taliban or Al Qaeda prisoners are protected by the Geneva conventions, as they are "enemy combatants" and not "prisoners of war".

Judge Green writes: "Nothing . . . authorizes the president of the United States to rule by fiat that an entire group of fighters covered by the Third Geneva Convention falls outside . . . definitions of 'prisoners-of-war'". Judge Green also ruled that Guantanamo hearings improperly relied on information which may have been obtained through torture.

What makes the game interesting is that a third judge on the same court, Richard Leon, has upheld the Guantanamo procedures. About two weeks ago, Judge Leon dismissed complaints brought on behalf of Guantanamo detainees because foreign nationals captured and detained outside of the US have no recognizable constitutional rights, Reuters reported.

The Justice Department statement, however, says it all.

"There is no basis in the Constitution, or in history, for according aliens captured by the military outside the United States and classified as enemy combatants "due process" rights under the Constitution, based on the mere fact that they are confined -- for operational and security reasons -- on foreign property that has been leased by the United States."

As Judge Green says, this is not the relevant test.

What bears repeating in the Justice Department statement is "and classified as enemy combatants". And the question is, "Classified by who?"

The Justice Department wants us to believe that the issue is where it denies people civil liberties, and where those people were born. In other words, the government can torture foreigners and lock them up for life, just not on US soil.

But the courts have recognized that the issue is that the government is denying people civil liberties, regardless of the location of the violation or the nationality of the people in question. The issue of US birth or US soil is irrelevant.

What two out of three federal court judges have said, and what the Supreme Court has implied, is that you can't just say someone is an enemy combatant, and thus deny them protection under the Geneva convention and the Constitution, without due process of law.

What two out of three federal court judges have said, and what the Supreme Court has implied, is that the Constitution is supposed to protect people against government tyranny. Specifically, the tyranny of the US government. The issue is the activities of the government, not the location of those activities or the citizenship of the people affected.

Let's break this down to simple truths. Right now, people are enemy combatants because George Bush says they are. And because George Bush says so, people can be locked up indefinitely without constitutional or Geneva Convention protections. And tortured. For life.

And some of our Federal judges are saying that President Bush, in so doing, has acted in contravention of the US Constitution, which pretty much precludes the state from denying any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

So maybe someone should tell Alberto Gonzalez that his job as White House counsel was supposed to be to help the President uphold the Constitution, not to find loopholes to circumvent the Constitution. Because any competent lawyer, let alone a former judge like Alberto Gonzalez, knows that the Constitution is big on due process rights.

And maybe someone should tell Alberto Gonzalez that his job as Attorney General will be to defend the Constitution, even against the President.

Because based on his positions and the public positions of the Justice Department, I'm not sure Alberto Gonzalez has even read the Constitution.

Because he seems to have forgotten that the issue is what the government does. Because the US government isn't supposed to be locking people up and throwing away the key, or torturing people, anywhere in the world, ever.

A Great Day For Democracy, But Not For The Free Press

2005-01-31T14:46:00.000-05:00

I have been struck by how overwhelmingly positive the press coverage of the Iraqi election has been. I've seen footage of dancing in the streets -- it's as moving as the footage of the spontaneous toppling of Saddam Hussein's statute when Baghdad fell.

The Wall Street Journal ran two articles on the election today, one saying how well the Iraqi security forces protected election sites, and one saying how a surprising number of Iraqis voted. The articles did note that there were about 175 insurgent attacks during election day, acknowledging that all was not flowers and roses. But overall the picture was one of glowing success.

This was a great day for democracy.

But there was one nugget of information I found the most fascinating. The number of voters could not be confirmed because independent international poll monitors and journalists were kept away from most polling places.

So how do we know that the Iraqi forces performed well at polling places, if no press could be there to verify it? WSJ quotes Col. Dean Franklin, an Australian officer in the US led command that trains Iraqi forces, in one article. WSJ quotes "Administration officials" in the other article.

So Col. Franklin gave an A+ to the forces he trained. And the administration gave an A+ to the forces it paid to train.

So how do we know how many Iraqis showed up at the polls? Kurdish party officials are quoted as saying that 85%-90% of Kurds voted. But we knew Kurds would vote, and we know Kurdish territory is safer than Sunni territory. The Governor of Fallujah is quoted as saying that 7,000 residents voted; a fraction of the residents, but a surprisingly high fraction.

And that's it. Aside from the names of a handful of Iraqis whose heartwarming stories are shared, there are no sources given for the glowing reports.

Now these reporters, whose movements are restricted for security reasons, got their information from somewhere, and it clearly wasn't first hand. Oh, they are in Iraq: Farnaz Fassihi is in Baghdad and Yochi J. Drazen is in Irbil. They, and Neil King Jr. in DC, were assisted by Haqqi Ismaeel, Jabbar Yaseen, Munaf Ammar and Greg Jaffe in Baghdad.

But very few official sources are cited for this glowing picture. So we have no idea how reliable this data is.

Call me a cynic, but a surprisingly rosy assessment based on information for which no clear source can be identified just makes me think someone's yanking my chain.

Oh, and that footage of the toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue? Turns out it was staged by the US military. But that doesn't mean Iraqis weren't really dancing in the streets this time.

US Good Neighbor Policy on Iran Nukes

2005-01-31T14:37:00.000-05:00

Today's WSJ contains the following item: "Washington has spurned an invitation to join European efforts to persuade Iran to abandon nuclear-weapons aspirations, US officials and foreign diplomats said. Undersecretary of State Bolton said he is trying to coordinate policy with Iran's neighbors amid the perceived threat."

FYI, Iran has four neighbors. Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey and Turkmenistan. US troops are currently supporting the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq; Turkey is seeking greater ties to the West and isn't about to cross the US; which leaves only Turkmenistan as an open question.

So which is more offensive -- the fact that Undersecretary Bolton refers to Iran's neighbors as if we don't know who they are, or the suggestion that the US is facing difficulty coordinating policy among these four countries?

AIDS In Infants: A Thing Of The Past?

2005-01-31T13:31:00.000-05:00

The New York Times, on January 30, reported that the "US Is Close To Eliminating AIDS In Infants".

Marc Santora quotes Dr. Vicki Peters as saying this "is a dramatic and wonderful success story." Dr. Peters, head of pediatric surveillance for the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene presented a report in Bangkok for World AIDS Day documenting the improvement in New York.

In New York, the number of babies born infected with HIV has decreased from 321 in 1990 to 5 in 2003. Kaiser Reports reports that nationally, 2,000 infants were born HIV+ in 1990, as compared to 200 today. So, there has been a decrease in the rate of HIV+ newborns of 98.5% in New York and 90% nationally.

Dramatic indeed. Dr. Lynn Mofenson, the chief of the Pediatric, Adolescent and Maternal AIDS Branch of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, part of the NIH, is correct when she says we "have made incredible progress".

This progress is attributed to proper pre-natal care, most notably in this article the use of AZT in the second trimester and during delivery. Also contributing to the success are aggressive public education and testing, as well as "cooperation at the federal and local levels."

The hurdles to be overcome were insufficient pre-natal care among drug users and social stigma which discouraged people from being tested for HIV. Delays in AIDS reporting also served as a barrier to controlling the rate of increase in HIV+ births.

Now, this is clearly a success story. And the success is that "mothers now can take action to make sure they never pass on the virus". So concludes the New York Times.

But there are a few unanswered questions. The first is the current standard of treatment for the prevention of mother to child transmission in the US. The article discusses the use of AZT at great length, including how the NIH fast-tracked its approval of the use of AZT when early test results were astonishingly positive. "Since then, a combination of ever better drugs, more rigorous testing and partner notification, and greater awareness of the necessity of safe sex practices has contributed to reducing the risk even further", reports NYT.

However, there is an on-going heated debate in the international AIDS treatment and prevention community about mother to child transmission. In a nutshell, the NIH currently approves of the use of the drug nevirapine to prevent mother to child transmission of HIV in resource poor settings. There have been allegations that this recommendation is based on slip-shod evidence, despite anecdotal evidence of great success.

So it is of particular interest whether or not nevirapine is part of this dramatic success story, or is it another drug, another treatment option? Of course, the US is not a resource poor setting, and what works here may not work in developing countries, but certainly it's a question the NYT should have asked.

The next question involves the references this article makes to babies born with HIV. Because it is impossible to know at the time of birth whether or not babies are HIV+. What can be known is whether or not a baby has HIV antibodies. But a definitive answer as to whether or not an infant is HIV+ will take 18 months.

Moreover, babies born with HIV antibodies get treated with antiretrovirals and get prophylactic treatment against opportunistic infection. And their caregivers have to take universal precautions against transmission, such as wearing rubber gloves when changing diapers.

So the number of babies born with the virus has dropped. But that does not tell us how many babies are born with the antibodies, and thus have to go through 18 months of treatment before they are declared HIV-.

Why is this relevant? Because, among other reasons, if these babies need to be placed in the foster care system, there are significant barriers to their placement in foster homes. And a high proportion of babies born to drug using mothers will end up in the foster care system. Many foster parents are reluctant to take on the responsibility of universal precautions, or simply fear bringing an HIV+ child into the home. This fear can stem from a number or reasons, ranging from prejudice to a perceived inability to care for a sick child.

So yes, this is a startling success story. Prevention programs around the world should take note, and HIV+ mothers around the world should take heart.

But when we speak of eliminating AIDS in infants in the US, let's not forget that there are some very real barriers to reaching that goal. And let's also not forget that even HIV- babies born exposed to the virus have a tough road during early, formative years.

How Wide Is Wide?

2005-01-27T13:21:00.000-05:00

Today's WSJ, on page A6, reports "Senate Confirms Rice to State Post By a Wide Margin". The unsigned article reports that Ms. Rice was confirmed by the Senate as Secretary of State by a vote of 85-13.

85 votes out of 98 cast. That's IS a wide margin. It's almost 87%. The President won the election by 51%, and that was considered a mandate, so 87% must be a remarkable show of support for Ms. Rice from the Senate.

Except the article goes on to say that the vote against Ms. Rice was the highest against any candidate for Secretary of State, at least since WWII. So, while the margin is high in absolute terms, put in the context of history, this is a dismally low margin of approval. An historically low margin of approval.

According to Barry Schweid of the Associated Press, only one nominee for Secretary of State, in the history of this country, was ever confirmed with a lower margin of support. In 1825, Henry Clay was confirmed as Secretary of State by a vote of 27-14, a margin of 66%

So, why then does WSJ say Ms. Rice was confirmed by a wide margin up in the headline, and not clarify that her wide margin was the second worst showing in history, and that's going back almost 180 years?

Damn liberal media.

A Cut By Any Other Name

2005-01-26T09:31:00.000-05:00

Today's WSJ reports that the Congressional Budget Office has increased its estimate for the budget deficit for the coming year.

John D. McKinnon writes that the current estimate of the budget deficit is $368 billion, excluding new military spending. In September, the CBO put this figure at $348 billion.

Now, the White House has requested an additional $80 billion in new military spending. Which to my thinking means that the current estimate of this year's deficit is $368 billion plus $80 billion, or $448 billion. The White House estimate is $427 billion, but what's $20 billion among friends? I mean, we misplaced more than $20 billion in Iraq last year, and no one seems to care much about it. It's pocket change, for crying out loud. A little "spread it around" money.

The article sheds a fair amount of light on the President's plan to "cut the deficit in half over the next five years", which White House spokesman Scott McClellan says the White House is on track to achieve.

The CBO says that the government will continue to run annual budget deficits, or keep borrowing more money, every year through the end of the decade, at which point the government may not have to borrow money to meet new obligations every year. But that prediction does not include additional potential costs, such as extending tax breaks which are set to expire, breaks for dividend and capital gains income, and private investment accounts for Social Security.

So, on the one hand, we have the White House saying we can cut the deficit in half in five years, and on the other hand we have the CBO saying that the national debt will continue to increase for years to come.

So what gives?

Well, it seems that when the White House says they will cut the deficit in half in five years, they don't mean that they will pay down half of the national debt in five years. Which, quite frankly, is what I thought it meant.

No, what Scott McClellan and the White House mean is that they will cut the rate of increase in the national debt by one-half in five years. In other words, the White House once projected that the government would borrow an amount equal to 4.5% of Gross Domestic Product in 2004. If the government borrows 2% of GDP in 2009, then the White House will say it has cut the deficit by more than half.

So, when the President says he will cut the deficit, he does not mean cutting the national debt, he means cutting the rate of increase in the national debt.

In you and me terms, he's not saying he's cutting his credit card debt in half, he's saying that he will charge less next year than this year, and continue to do that until he's charging half as much in five years. But he has no intention of paying down the balance -- he's going to keep right on borrowing.

You and I both know what would happen if we kept piling up credit card debt. I certainly wouldn't call that sound financial planning for the future. I very much doubt Scott McClellan would be touting our financial acumen.

What immediately comes to my mind are recent discussions over the President's plan to revise Social Security. Economist Mankiw tells us that there will not be benefit cuts, there will be a decrease in the rate at which benefits increase.

So, if what the President plans is to decrease the rate at which the national debt increases, why is he saying that he's cutting the deficit? I suppose there's a legalistic argument that the national debt and the deficit are two different things, and that everyone knows that. I didn't know it, but maybe everyone else did. Maybe the President did.

But I think the truth is that the President and his Administration just think that no one is going to realize that their definition of a "cut" when it comes to Social Security is the exact opposite of their definition of a "cut" when it comes to the deficit.

Spelling it out, making it as plain as day, here's the poing: If the President plans to cut the deficit in half, then by the same definition the President plans to cut Social Security benefits. If the President merely plans to decrease the rate at which Social Scurity increases, then by the same definition he merely plans to decrease the rate at which the national debt increases.

Media Consolidating At The Lowest Common Denominator

2005-01-25T15:24:00.000-05:00

On January 24, the Wall Street Journal ran an article on antitrust scrutiny being given to two newspaper acquisitions; Gannett Co.'s acquisition of mid-western community newspaper publisher HomeTown Communications Network Inc., and New York Times' plan to take 49% ownership in the free daily Metro Boston.

According to reporters John R. Wilke and James Bandler, the concern with respect to the Times deal is that, since the Times owns the Boston Globe, acquiring an additional newspaper in Boston might give the Times too much market power in the local newspaper advertising market. The concern with respect to the Gannett deal is diminished competition in the newspaper advertising markets in Detroit and Cincinnati, where Gannett already owns other papers.

Michael Kupinski, a media analyst with A.G. Edwards in St. Louis, is quoted as saying that more mergers are on the way. The next big merger may come through the sale of Pulitzer Inc., which owns the Arizona Daily Star,St. Louis Post-Dispatch and other dailies.

Now, when competitors complain about these deals, they are complaining about the impact on their ability to sell advertising. The publisher of the Boston Herald, Pat Purcell, is quoted as saying that the Globe's ability to jointly sell ads in Metro Boston and the Boston Globe could put him out of business. "Maybe there's not going to be so much money afterwards for people like myself".

And the Gannett deal might disrupt a joint operating agreement among daily newspapers in Detroit.

And these concerns are the basis of the Justice Department's investigation. WSJ surmises that the Justice Department continues to view newspaper advertising as a separate locally defined market, as opposed to viewing newspaper advertising in a market which includes internet, local television, direct mail and other media.

WSJ also notes that, since the Justice Department does view newspaper advertising as a separate local market, there exists a specific exemption from antitrust laws which allows newspapers to jointly set advertising, subscription and newsstand prices, yet preserves news competition.

So says the WSJ. Joint operating agreements among newspapers preserve news competition.

That actually bears repeating a third time. In crafting an antitrust exemption that allows competing newspapers to work together, the Federal government thought that competition in the distribution of the news was worthy of protection. It's why, back in the day, one company could not own more than one television station in a city.

Protecting competition in the marketplace for the dissemination of news to the public is a good thing. Worthy of Federal protection.

But you would never know that from reading the WSJ article. WSJ paints a compelling picture of what's going on with the nation's newspapers. The article blithely observes that more and more cities are getting more and more free daily newspapers which focus on "breezy news briefs, entertainment and sports scores". I think it's safe to assume that these "scrappy new competitors" are getting everything but their local news from news services.

And there are more mergers on the way. More mergers which will be reviewed solely on the basis of the impact on the newspaper advertising market, and not on the basis of the public's right to, and need for, a free, independent competitive press.

So I'm thinking that, just like it did when it created the antitrust exemption for joint operating agreements, when reviewing mergers in newspapers the Justice Department should be acting to protect news competition. Protecting the public's right to news which has not been dumbed down by papers which outsource their gathering of the news and their search for the truth.

But apparently that's too going to happen. And apparently, the right of the people to a free and independent press isn't important enough to color WSJ's coverage of consolidation in the newspaper industry.

Either Way You Slice It, Labor Loses

2005-01-20T16:51:00.000-05:00

On page A2 of today's Wall Street Journal I found two articles discussing inflation.

The first article, by Greg Ip, was titled "Fed Officials Weigh The Effects Of Slower Productivity Growth: Impact On Inflation-Rate Policy To Be Put Under Scrutiny". Mr Ip writes that the Labor Department reported inflation, excluding food and energy, was 2.2% in the 12 months that ended in December. Thus, inflationary pressures remain in check, and the Federal Reserve Bank is likely to continue raising its short-term interest rate target.

The second article, by Kemba J. Dunham, was titled "CPI Rose At Fast Clip, Erasing Many Pay Gains." Ms. Dunham writes that the core rate of inflation, which excludes the volatile food and energy categories, rose 2.2% last year. But while a 2.2% core inflation rate is a historically mild rate of inflation, it's double the rate of inflation of a year ago, when it was 1.1%. Moreover, the consumer price index, which includes food and energy and is the most widely followed barometer of inflation, rose 3.3% last year. The rate of increase in the CPI a year ago was 1.9%

So, the second article says that inflation, while still historically low, was high enough to wipe out the wage gains most Americans received in the past year. And the rate of increase in inflation is troubling -- it doubled in a year. That's bad.

"We're three years into a recovery with strong productivity growth, yet many in the working class are falling behind, which suggests that inequalities are embedded in the recovery at this stage," said Jared Bernstein, a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, a progressive Washington-based think tank. So quotes Ms. Dunham.

So, to sum up, article two says productivity is strong, but inflation is high and workers are beginning to suffer.

But the first article says exactly the opposite. Mr. Ip reports that the inflation rate is so low as to not be the primary concern of the Federal Reserve. The Fed's primary concern is the decrease in the productivity in the economy.

The productivity rate averaged 1.5% from 1973 to 1995. From 1995 to 2000, it averaged 2.6%. And from 2001 to 2003, it averaged 4.2%. So even though wages increased between 3% and 4% a year in recent years, the cost of labor was still decreasing. Because productivity increased more than wages.

So, since the cost of labor was decreasing, businesses did not have to raise prices. If labor costs more, eventually businesses have to raise prices to cover their labor costs.

But now, the increase in the productivity rate is only 2%. Which means labor is becoming more expensive. Which is bad for business.

So, combining the information in these two articles, inflation is at a historically low rate but rising fast and is a problem for workers but not for business. And productivity is at lower level than it has been in recent years but well within historical norms.

And the fact that inflation is more of a problem for workers than for business is now a permanent part of the economic picture.

Now, you might ask, how can one newspaper on one page in two articles simultaneously claim that inflation is rising at a fast clip and that inflation is rising moderately? The article saying inflation is rising quickly cites a progressive economist. The article saying inflation is rising at a moderate rate cites officials from the Federal banking system. Different sources, different views.

Remarkably, though, both articles end up saying the same thing.

Ip's article says the Fed will come down on the side of business. By continuing to increase its short-term interest rate target, the Fed is saying that inflation is not a problem, and is pinning it's hopes for the economy on an increase in productivity.

Which means it is now official government policy to improve the economy by paying labor less but charging them more for goods.

Which is what that progressive economist said. Workers can look forward to decreasing wages and increasing prices.

It's amazing that two atricles can interpret the same data in diametrically opposite manners and end up in the same place.

Colin Powell, Rebel

2005-01-13T10:31:00.000-05:00

Today's Wall Street Journal ran a profile of Stephen Hadley, newly appointed National Security Advisor. The sub-headline of the story is "Bush Taps Behind-The-Scenes Loyalist to Bring Discipline Among Foreign Policy Advisors".

Apparently, then, there has been a lack of discipline among foreign policy advisors. The article contains two statements that clarify this issue.

"With Secretary of State Colin Powell on his way out, aides say Mr. Bush is looking for less rancor, and more discipline, among his top foreign policy advisors".

"Ms. Rice has described Mr. Hadley as her "alter ego." Aides say the two plan to coordinate appointments of senior staff to ensure a better relationship between NSC and State, which the White House has considered a rebellious province for the past four years."

Aides. White House aides. Who could that be?

So, unnamed White House aides say the State Department, run by Colin Powell, has been a rebellious province. A veritable Triangle of Death, right there in the White House. I suppose Secretary Powell should consider himself lucky he hasn't been put in an orange jumpsuit like the other rebels.

In these times, phrases like "discipline" and "rebellious province" are loaded words. "Discipline" reinforces President Bush as the strict father of the nation, a man who is above criticism and reproach. And we all know how strict father Presidents deal with rebellious provinces.

What could possibly motivate the White House to use language about Colin Powell and his State Department that creates a linguistic link to the Sunni Triangle? How does that fit into the big picture?

The only thing I can think of is that the President has stated that if you're not with him, you're against him. Stand in his way and he will target you for retribution. Think Tom Daschle. Think Joe Wilson.

The White House simply cannot stand the prospect that Colin Powell will be out in the world, free to publicly air his disagreements with White House policy. So they have started to discredit him by citing a lack of discipline and, through a linguistic link to terrorists, suggesting he has weakened national security.

I smell Karl Rove.

The Meaning Of Diversity

2005-01-12T10:17:00.000-05:00

Today's WSJ reports President Bush held a town hall style meeting with a diverse group to "personalize the case for private retirement accounts to help fix Social Security".

A diverse group. The article does not clarify what that means in this context. This is a President who required citizens to sign loyalty oaths pledging their votes to him before they could get in to Presidential appearances during the campaign.

So what exactly does "diverse" mean to this President?

WSJ quotes the President as saying: "If you're 20 years old, in your mid-20s, and you're beginning to work, I want you to think about a Social Security system that will be flat bust, bankrupt, unless the United States Congress has got the willingness to act now," Mr. Bush said. He added that "the problem is that some in Congress don't see it as a problem."

Of course he wants you to think about a Social Security system that will be flat bust, bankrupt. Never mind that the system will not be flat broke ever, even under the President's financial assumptions. Never mind that the system is more financially solvent today than it was ten years ago. The President wants Social Security flat bust, bankrupt today. So that's what he wants people to envision. It's a request built on equal parts Karl Rove framing and Bush capitalist fantasy

Anyway, my reading is that the President is assuming that people in the room started working around the time they are 20. Which probably means that they were supported by their parents until then, probably through college, maybe even graduate school. Because how else can someone else live without working until their mid-20s? Or even until they are 20?

Remember that the Administration's argument against raising the minimum wage is that the majority of people earning minimum wage are teenagers in their first job. Which isn't true, by the way.

But the President seems to believe that these teenagers earning minimum wage aren't relevant to this discussion. He's focusing on those people who don't need to work until their 20s.

We're not even talking about the middle class here. I'm middle class, but I started working when I was 12. I worked through high school, worked through college, worked through law school. I got a lot of help from my parents, they paid my tuition and a lot of my living expenses, but I had to work too.

But what about those young people who have to work as teenagers to help pay the rent and put food on the family table? How about those young people who can't afford college and have to work to survive? What about young people who's only economic chance is to join the military?

I don't think the problem is that some in Congress don't see that Social Security may face a problem in 40 years or so. I think the problem is that the President doesn't see poverty today as a problem, doesn't see access to education today as a foundation for economic security tomorrow and doesn't see that his "diverse group" is limited to people who can afford to support their kids until their kids are in their mid-20s, and to those kids themselves.

So, I'm guessing the President addressed a diverse group of rich Republicans. Or maybe a diverse group of Bush supporters. But definitely a group who believes that it's more important to insure their retirement 40 years from now than it is to finance access to education and a decent minimum wage for teenagers and 20 year olds working today.

But diverse as most people would understand it? Doubtful.

Genocide

2005-01-11T21:38:00.000-05:00

Front Line is running a fascinating piece on Sudan tonight.

The US has taken the position that genocide has occurred in Sudan, although a peace treaty was recently signed. Colin Powell was there at the signing -- I saw it right there on the TV.

So what is this genocide? According to a member of the Sudanese Liberation Army interviewed by Amy Costello, the Muslim Sudanese government is allowing the purging of all African Sudanese from the country. The main tool for this "ethnic cleansing" is the Justic and Equality Movement, the Arab janjaweed militia. The government is targeting African civilians, bombing their homes, throwing them into fires. Throwing African babies into fires.

All so that Sudan can be in Muslim hands for generations to come.

And it occurred to me that the US, with its charges of genocide against Sudan, is also purging its government. In order to have any power in the White House, in the CIA, in Congress, in the Judiciary -- you're personal beliefs have to be compatible with fundamental Christianity. No liberal Jews, although conservative Jews like Joe Lieberman are apparently OK. There are certainly no Muslims in visible power in our government.

And we've seen them go, over the past four years. Christie Todd Whitman, hardly a liberal by any means, but not quite close enough to the fundamental line to make it into the inner circles of power. She actually expected the President to honor his campaign promises on the global environment -- obviously, she's too stupid to work in the White House. The recent purges at the CIA when Porter Goss moved in. And Colin Powell himself. Too much diplomacy, not enough neo-con vision.

Anyone with liberal sentiments not compatible with fundamental Christianity is gone gone gone.

Granted, no one in the US is throwing liberals and their babies into fires. But we are locking up our own citizens without charging them or giving them access to lawyers. On a smaller scale, of course, we're purging.

Maybe what Colin Powell should have done at that peace treaty signing was take the Sudanese government delegation aside and say: "It's OK to purge your society of Africans. Just be a little cooler about it. No more babies thrown into fires. Just allow businesses to poison their air, water and food, underfund their schools and deny them health care and pension benefits. It may take a generation, but you'll get there. Of course, the Africans won't be dead, but they'll be reduced to a status where their only hope for survival is as cheap labor for Muslim businesses. And you'll get lots and lots of US money in the form of investments to finance those businesses, once you achieve those terrific business conditions. We'll give Halliburton a contract to come over here and set up some health care infrastructure in the Muslim part of town. Maybe outsource some data processing work under the Presidential Emergency Plan For Aids Relief. There'll be plenty of money coming through. Be smart."

Because that's not genocide. That's just making your country a suitable environment for business.

That's just the American way.

Fascist Barbie

2005-01-09T01:13:00.001-05:00

I was watching Keith Olbermann on Friday. He has a pretty good show on MSNBC.

One running bit he does is on Fridays he has this mock game show segment where he gets quizzed about details of the news stories from the week.

Anyhoo, this week Keith got 6 1/2 questions right and 3 wrong. So he won a prize. A talking Ann Coulter doll.

I thought it had to be a gag. A talking Ann Coulter doll? Could there be such a thing?

But apparently there is. You can buy it on the web.

For those of you who don't know who Ann Coulter is, she's a conservative commentator and author. Her books include "TREASON", which purports to expose liberal lies told over the years. Like the lie that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were innocent of treason. And "HOW TO TALK TO A LIBERAL".

She's also an incredibly skinny blond with big boobs, married to Geraldo Rivera. And I hear tell she's good friends with Bill Maher.

I've always thought of her as Fascist Barbie, so I guess it shouldn't have surprised me to learn she has a doll. Which has her actual voice saying 14 witty phrases.

But the thought of my daughter playing with a talking Ann Coulter doll frightens me beyond words. What's the message? It's OK to be anorexic if your rude and condescending?

I bet she was fat in high school and had to go to the prom with her cousin.

So anyway, Keith takes this talking Ann Coulter doll, still in the box, and smashes it over and over and over on his desk until it's in a million little pieces.

Who says there's nothing good on television?

Hotel Rwanda

2005-01-09T01:13:00.000-05:00

I just finished watching this film and I am beside myself with grief and guilt.

Not for watching a movie -- that would be stupid. But the story, the film. I don't have words to describe this film and its simple, dignified and devastating depiction of horror.

In 1994, Rwandans killed about 1,000,000 Rwandans. The war was between two ethnicities manufactured by Belgians -- Hutu and Tutsi.

And I'm watching this film and I'm thinking, were was I in 1994? I was in a failing relationship, my career was in the crapper. I was much too busy to give a rat's ass about genocide.

Genocide.

I wish I could say I didn't know about the genocide and that's why I didn't care. But the truth is that I did know about the genocide and I didn't care. Because they weren't 1,000,000 people to me. They were only 1,000,000 Africans. Not my people. Not my problem.

I would indulge in an anguished guilt-ridden denunciation of myself here, but that would only once again be putting myself in front of 1,000,000 dead people.

1,000,00 dead people.

One fascinating thing about the movie is that America is a non-factor. The American government was not a player. The American media was not a player. We, as a nation, were entirely absent during this genocide, according to this movie.

Maybe it's because we got our asses kicked in Somalia in 1993. Maybe we, as a nation, had filled our quota on African civil wars. I find it hard to believe that our President, Bill Clinton, a man I admire, was a mere spectator. I thought more of him.

Maybe history will look back on American inaction during the Rwandan genocide and find it to be our least shining hour.

But my biggest question is, where was the media? All week long CNN has had its star reporters in the South Pacific, milking the death of 150,000 from a tsunami for all the ratings its worth.

But where was CNN in 1994? Where were the networks? I guess NBC figured it had Cosby and A Different World on the air so its African quota had been filled.

I was in New York City feeling sorry for myself in 1994, so maybe I shouldn't ask questions about anyone else.

Anyway, I'm . . . I'm beyond words.

I'm going to go to sleep on the floor in my daughter's room so I can listen to her breathing while she sleeps. It's the most beautiful sound in the world and it's the only thing I want to hear right now.

White House Says Gonzalez Impersonated By Cheney Legal Counsel

2005-01-06T09:53:00.000-05:00

As Alberto Gonzalez moves toward inevitable confirmation as our next Attorney General (you know, the guy charged with protecting civil rights and generally enforcing the law of the land, the Constitution), his record on subverting basic constitutional protections and civil rights for US detainees will be fully discussed in Congress and the media.

OK, his record will almost be fully discussed, since the White House is declining to grant Democratic Senators request for more of Gonzalez' paperwork. But close enough. It's clear that Gonzalez worked very hard to find ways to insulate US torturers from legal liability.

But there's one thing you may not know. According to the White House, as reported in the Washington Post, the extent to which these "new legal approaches" to authorizing torture and denying basic civil liberties were Gonzalez' handiwork is a mystery. Apparently, Gonzalez was the passive tool of Cheney legal counsel and all-around evil genius David S. Addington.

The Washington Post reports that it was Addington who wrote the memo which described the Geneva convention as obsolete in the face of a new paradigm of a war on terror. It was Addington who put forth the arguments that captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters are not entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention.

Addington wrote it and signed Gonzalez' name.

Now, when I read this in the Washington Post I thought that no reasonable person could give this obvious chicanery any merit. But then I heard Andrea Mitchell repeating this ridiculous story right there on the TV, on Chris Matthews' MSNBC show.

So there you have it. It was Addington, pretending to be Gonzalez, who subverted the Constitution. So Gonzalez is a perfectly choice for Attorney General -- we can trust him to respect the Constitution.

And we can believe Gonzalez when his says in his confirmation hearings that torture is abhorrent and he will pursue anyone who commits torture. I guess that means that he'll be going after the CIA officers who Gonzalez authorized to engage in "waterboarding" and other "interrogation techniques." Waterboarding involves strapping someone to a board, inverting them, covering their mouth and nose with a towel and then putting water on the towel. It creates an unbearable sensation of drowning.

And while we're at it, let's remember that Scott Peterson didn't kill his wife, it was an evil cult who abducted her and killed her and her unborn child. And it wasn't OJ Simpson who killed his wife and her friend, it was another evildoer and OJ is still out there trying to find that evildoer.

Now, if Gonzalez were to go to Congress and say "Yes, I supervised and authorized these legal analyses and I stand by them", I really wouldn't have a problem with his confirmation. His views and his policies would be a matter of public record, and open to public debate. And public censure.

But to try to get the job of Attorney General with a defense not much more sophisticated than a two year old blaming the dog for the pee-pee on the floor -- that alone should be proof of a lack of the moral and intellectual fortitude to be charged with protecting the Constitution.

Sentenced To Life Without The Possibility Of Trial

2005-01-05T10:54:00.000-05:00

Dana Priest of the Washington Post reports that the Bush Administration finds itself with a dilemma regarding hundreds of terror suspects currently in military or CIA detention. There is not enough evidence to charge the prisoners as terrorists. The prisoners have no more intelligence to share, if they ever had any.

In short, the US is holding hundreds of non-terrorists. But, according to Bryan Whitman, Pentagon spokesman, since the global war on terror is long term, the US needs a long term solution for these prisoners.

Yet the most obvious long-term solution, letting these innocent people go free, seems to be off the table. In the interest of national security.

Anyway, the Pentagon and the CIA are considering remarkably similar plans. The Pentagon is considering building prisons in foreign countries, and then sending prisoners to those foreign countries. Specifically, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Of course, the Pentagon will monitor the prisons to make sure the prisoners are treated humanely.

The Pentagon would also build a facility to permanently house some of the prisoners who will never be brought to trial because there is insufficient evidence against them. Those that do not come from Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia or Yemen. Those that come from countries that would release them. The Pentagon's facility would be modeled on a US prison, allowing the prisoners to socialize and be more comfortable. Meaning they can leave their cells.

The CIA would send prisoners to existing prisons in foreign countries willing to hold them indefinitely without public proceedings. The CIA has a preference for sending the prisoners to countries where they will be tortured. So that the foreign countries can get the information that we've already decided the prisoners don't have.

So, to sum up, the Pentagon and the CIA are holding hundreds of people it can't prove are terrorists. And they will continue to hold them for the rest of their lives, one way or another. Because the war on terror is a long term war.

Fortunately, our elected representatives are taking a forceful stand. Reuters quotes Republican Senator Lugar as saying lifetime detentions are a "bad idea", and that the Senate should have a careful, constitutional look at these proposals. Democratic Senator Levin says there must be some modicum, some semblance of due process for lifetime detainees, according to Reuters. And the Washington Post has Democratic Congresswoman Harmon saying that the situation is complicated, we need to protect sources and informants, but at the very least CIA detainees should be registered so their treatment can be monitored.

And so it becomes clear that our government believe there is intelligent discussion to be had about locking people up for life without a trial simply because they would be proven innocent at trial. And because the trial would permit the accused to talk about how they were caught and how they were treated.

And we may be satisfied with a semblance of due process and assurances that the detainees are being treated humanely. Except for the ones outsourced for torture by the CIA. But it's all in the interest of national security, so it's all OK.

Now, what's the risk of letting these folks go? They might talk. They might tell the world about how the Pentagon and the CIA treated them.

The CIA is especially interested in keeping its operations secret. We can't know who it is holding. We can't know where it is holding them. We can't know why it is holding them. And we can't know how it is treating them.

Because if we knew, the CIA would not be able to kidnap and torture people anymore. And the CIA needs to kidnap and torture people to do it's job defending American freedom.

Speaking of American freedom, here's a reminder of some things this country used to stand for:

The Preamble to The Bill Of Rights . . .

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

. . .

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

. . .

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.

Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law; and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

. . .

Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Geography of Change

2005-01-02T17:34:00.000-05:00

As the new year starts, I cannot help but be awestruck by the wide swath of change which has run from the Middle East to the South Pacific in 2004.

Start in Israel, which is facing Palestinian elections after the death of Arafat. The effects of that Palestinian election will be felt by Lebanon to the north, Syria to the northwest, Jordan to the west and Egypt to the south. The elections will be felt by Turkey, as Turkey pursues greater ties with the West. And it will be felt in Saudi Arabia to the southeast, facing its own elections amid growing internal terrorism.

Moving west from Saudi Arabia, the next country is Iraq. More than enough change in Iraq in 2004. Change that impacted Kuwait to the south and Iran to the east.

Continuing our move west from Iran, we enter Afghanistan, which had its first election in 2004. To the east is China. Did China change in 2004? Maybe it's more accurate to say that China continued on its inexorable course towards world domination in 2004.

To the south from Afghanistan is Pakistan, which saw its relationship with the West grow and its relationship with the Taliban turn deadly. To the south of Pakistan is India, which is closely watching the growing ties between arch rival Pakistan and the West.

Continuing east from India we find Bhutan, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Thailand; moving south we find Maldives, Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Indonesia, the epicenter of an historic tsunami in the end of 2004.

Following the line of change helps me to identify the relationship between a tsunami in the Indian ocean and elections Palestine and Iraq. The line of geographical change encompasses most of the Islamic world. And one way or another, by death of a leader or pre-emptive strike or financial incentives or natural disaster, the ties between the geographical Muslim world and the West increased greatly in 2004.

In one year. Across an entire continent.

No doubt some will cite this path of change as evidence that God supports the American mission to change the Middle East and the Muslim world. No doubt some will see political advantage in natural disasters and regional hatreds. No doubt some will see evidence of God's wrath here.

As for me, I don't see any particular meaning in this astonishing path of change, but I cannot help but be staggered by its breadth and comprehensiveness.

What does it mean? I think it means that 2005 will be filled with possibilities for progress and profiteering, growth and greed, rape and respect. And I find myself hoping for the best and preparing for the worst.

White House Tortures Rumsfeld In Bid For Gonzalez Approval

2004-12-31T09:54:00.000-05:00

The December 31 Wall Street Journal reports that the US has revamped its views on the definition of torture.

It appears that the White House no longer believes it has the legal authority to inflict pain approaching organ failure or death, or that only excruciating and agonizing pain constitutes torture. The White House now recognizes that torture committed to get information is no better than torture committed just for the fun of committing torture, even when the information sought is needed to protect national security.

But the good news is that the US never did any of that torture stuff, because none of that torture stuff was ever approved by the Justice Department. It was only included in memos written by the Justice Department as a legal exercise. Just for the fun of it.

Written, but not approved. And certainly not approved by Alberto Gonzalez, the man expected to be confirmed as our next Attorney General. The WSJ reports that Gonzalez disavowed the earlier memos a long time ago. In 2002, even. Shortly after WSJ initially reported on the memos in a big media scoop. Damn liberal media.

The only person reported by WSJ as approving the earlier memos is Donald Rumsfeld. Rummy included them in his list of approved interrogation techniques. Except that Rummy never actually authorized the use of torture, he just said he could if he wanted to. But of course he would never want to. Not even in the interest of national security.

Today's WSJ neglects to mention that Alberto Gonzalez included those recommendations on torture in a memo to the President in which he called certain portions of the Geneva convention "quaint". You know, those portions of the Geneva Convention that assume the presence of uniformed armies fighting for recognized nations, not terrorists fighting because they hate American freedom.

No, it was Rummy all along. It's right there in the Wall Street Journal.

Secretary Rumsfeld in the Oval Office with the torture memo. Reminds me of that game -- Clue. Apparently, everyone knows the President wants Rumsfeld to resign except Rumsfeld. Rummy, get a clue.

And, it appears that the point of the new memo is that the legal analysis of torture in the earlier memo was unnecessary because President Bush has issued an unequivocal order that no one should ever commit torture. So, apparently, no one needs to know what torture is, we just need to know not to do it.

The new report was delayed while the Justice Department, the CIA, Defense and State debated such esoteric topics as whether "severe physical suffering" was the same as "severe physical pain". And whether inducing nausea every day for weeks constitutes torture. Which, I'm guessing, they'll decide is not torture, because otherwise the series of White House leaked and approved Maalox moments for Rumsfeld over the past month may actually be deemed to violate the Geneva Convention.

On the other hand, couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Anyway, DAG James Comey finally ordered the new memo released by the end of the year. Coincidentally, Gonzalez' confirmation hearings begin the first week of the new year.

Gonzalez in the Congress with a new memo.

Get a clue.

Jeb Bush Launches 2008 Presidential Campaign

2004-12-31T09:33:00.000-05:00

The December 31 Wall Street Journal, in an article entitled "Debt Relief From Rich Nations Gains Momentum", provides some interesting facts.

First, President Bush feels he needs first hand assessments from the ground to coordinate relief efforts in the Indian Ocean after the recent tsunami. So he is sending Colin Powell, who is still the Secretary of State, and Governor Jeb Bush.

Now, the first question is why the President feels a need to coordinate relief efforts. The UN is coordinating relief efforts for every member of the UN. Member nations have pledged $500 million. France alone has pledged $57 million.

The US has pledged $35 million to UN efforts. But the US is vowing to spend millions more "as the food, housing and medical needs of the millions of survivors are assessed".

So, it would appear that the President will be funding a separate relief effort. Which, we can assume, will be paying US companies to provide US goods to the region. Or better yet, faith-organizations. Because why shouldn't the US economy and the Republican base get a boost from the tsunami? If we can run a war as a profit making, election-winning enterprise, why not humanitarian aid? The only thing sacrificed is a coordinated international effort that will make France and Kofi Annan look good. Who needs that?

And the US point man will be Jeb Bush. OK, Jeb Bush and Colin Powell are the point men, except that Colin Powell is retiring in a few weeks.

In all fairness, Governor Bush has had some experience in dealing with natural disasters, with Florida getting hit by four hurricanes this year alone. But so has the head of FEMA. But the head of FEMA did not give the President photo ops in an election year responding to natural disasters. And one of the principal criticisms of governors when they run for President is that they lack international experience. So Jeb's our guy.

A congressional delegation will also be heading to the region, headed by Iowa Congressman Jim Leach. Because Congress also needs first hand information. So it can advise the President on the President's separate aid campaign.

I can just see Jeb Bush and the Iowa Congressman hitting the Sunday morning talk shows.

Jeb Bush. Iowa Congressman. International issue.

Hmmm.

It's a disaster, all right.

Six Degrees of Agricultural Subsidies

2004-12-28T09:16:00.000-05:00

Here's the game: take any public policy issue, and within six moves connect that public policy issue to agricultural subsidies.

Take AIDS. Start with
1. The President'sl Emergency Plan For Aids Relief, which involves
2. A need for greater infrastructure in the developing world, which involves
3. A lack of indigenous agricultural markets in many developing agrarian societies because
4. America gives away food for less than local farmers can sell it as part of our foreign aid and
5. The American food being given away is bought through an agricultural subsidy program.

Take Social Security. Start with the President's plan for private investment accounts under Social Security for younger workers, which means
1. Increasing the deficit by 1 or 2 trillion dollars, which means
2. Discretionary spending will be cut because
3. Some areas of the budget are untouchable, like
4. Agricultural subsidies.

Four moves -- that's a good one!

I like this game for a couple of reasons. First, it shows how everything is interconnected. In order to understand any given problem, you need to put that problem in the context of the bigger picture. Which, in turn, shows us that what really matters is the bigger picture, and when we can get consensus on what the bigger picture should be then the smaller, individual issues fall into place.

The Republican base has bought into one big picture. And they have also bought into the concept that smaller policy matters have to fall into place in certain ways in order to maintain the bigger picture. It's one of the reasons they have been able to maintain such cohesiveness.

Well, actually, the big picture has helped them maintain cohesiveness because their big picture was not the majority big picture. Now that their big picture runs the White House, Senate and the House, I'm betting that there will be some internal debate about what exactly the big picture is. Which will lead to a loss of consensus and power. But that may just be wishful thinking.

But back to agricultural subsidies. Another reason I like this game is because a lot of people think agricultural subsidies are boring. OK, a lot of liberals think agricultural subsidies are boring. You know, there's no major agriculture on the coasts. It's a Middle America issue, a Middle America problem. It's not sexy, like the war or AIDS or the environment or abortion or civil rights.

But when we play six degrees of agricultural subsidies, we begin to see how agricultural subsidies affects all of these other issues. And we see that paying companies to make fuel from corn takes away money that could be going to solar research or other cleaner fuels. Or we see that as America becomes a net importer of wheat, agricultural subsidies play a factor in our diminishing ability to use butter (as opposed to guns) in foreign policy.

And liberals need to think about the un-sexy stuff. The PTA stuff. The highway appropriations stuff. The agricultural subsidies stuff. Because liberals need to weave all of those things together to make their own big picture. A big picture that makes sense to a majority of Americans and which makes the smaller issues fall into their proper places.

Liberals have not been acting like big picture people. They have been acting like small picture people. They have been picking individual issues and trying to change them, while ignoring the fact that before you change the details you have to change the big picture. You have to change to parameters of the entire debate.

When liberals focus only on policy details but not the big picture, they act like a minority party. They concede the development of a broad agenda to the big picture guys, the majority guys.

Liberals have lost their power in modern day American politics because they have bought into conservative cultural norms, conservative issue priorities . . . the conservative big picture.

And until liberals can clearly articulate their own big picture, they will forever be a minority party, trying to fit in to a conservative big picture.

So, play six degrees of agricultural subsidies with your friends and families today -- it's fun, it's educational and it may help you save the world!

What Social Security Problem?

2004-12-22T13:02:00.000-05:00

Leigh Stope, writing for the AP in Washington, authored an article entitled "Bush Criticized Over Social Security Plan".

Let the framing begin.

Apparently, the Democrats' position is that there is no real problem with Social Security. The real problem is Medicare.

Peter Orszag of the "liberal" Brookings Institute is credited with the following quote: "Social Security is like a car with a flat tire. There is a problem. We need to fix the flat tire. But we do not need to replace the car".

Stope credits Orzag for noting that the President's claim that Social Security faces an $10.4 trillion shortfall makes the problem seem worse than it is. That's because the shortfall exists when measuring Social Security obligations beyond a foreseeable period. But Medicare will have to start operating at a deficit this year, and be out of money in 2019. Social Security will start operating at a deficit in 2018, and be out of money by 2042.

Democratic Representative Bob Matsui, who sits on the House Social Security subcommittee, is quoted as indicating that Social Security's problems are manageable.

The opposing view, put forward in this article by David John of the Heritage Foundation, says the Social Security funding problem is real.

The President says he already fixed Medicare, and demands that Congress take the Social Security problem seriously. But he won't propose a plan, because that would be negotiating against himself. He'll give Congress the solution at the appropriate time.

It's a crisis. No it's not. It's a crisis. No it's not.

Kids, I swear I'll turn this administration around right now and no one will get to bankrupt the country unless you all start behaving RIGHT NOW!

Untouchable

2004-12-21T14:14:00.000-05:00

The front page of the December 21 Wall Street Journal reports on President Bush's vow to cut the federal deficit in half.

The story notes that public consensus dictates about 85% of annual government expenditures are untouchable. Defense and Homeland Security spending is 21% of the budget (up 55% under the Bush administration). This includes money for the simultaneous destruction and reconstruction of Iraq, and the modernization of the armed forces through the kincreased use of advanced technology. Social security spending is 21%. Medicaid and Medicare are a combined 21%. About 12% goes to other mandatory spending --welfare, unemployment insurance compensation, farm subsidies, federal civilian retirement benefits, military retirement benefits and other benefits programs.

Interest on the US deficit takes up about 7% of the budget. WSJ notes that this is more than the government will spend on education, housing, transportation, science, space and technology -- combined. OK, that's a little misleading, since the states are primarily responsible for education, but still it's an interesting nugget. Damn liberal media.

That leaves 18% of the federal budget under the heading of non-defense discretionary spending. The US government does not have an on-going legislative commitment to spend discretionary funds --discretionary funding must be re-committed every year. WSJ illustrates that non-defense discretionary spending includes breast cancer research, aid to rural and inner city schools, veteran's medical care, weather forecasts and park rangers.

Conveniently enough, the amount of non-defense discretionary spending budgeted for 2005 is roughly equal to the budget deficit for 2005.

Now, the President's plan is to limit non-defense discretionary spending to reduce the deficit. Not reduce non-defense discretionary spending, exactly, but limit the growth of non-defense discretionary spending so that it does not keep pace with the rate of inflation to pay down the deficit -- a net deduction.

But it seems clear that limiting the growth of non-defense discretionary spending is never going to fully reduce the deficit, much less cut it in half. Since the budget deficit is about the same amount as the total of non-defense discretionary spending, if you reduced non-defense discretionary spending 10% for 5 years, you could theoretically cut the deficit in half. But we're not talking about cutting non-defense discretionary spending -- we're talking about limiting its growth. We're never going to balance the budget that way.

So we appear to have no options. Certain entitlement programs are untouchable. And the President won't raise taxes, because that would upset his political base and because he truly believes lower taxes are better. He won't touch Medicare or Medicaid because Republican governors won't stand for it. So says former Republican house member Vin Weber. Republican Governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee is quoted as saying that the President cannot balance the budget by shifting costs to the states.

So that only leaves Social Security. That's what I keep hearing.

But what about that 15% of "untouchable" money for government benefits? Those government benefits that aren't discretionary. Why exactly is this money "untouchable"? "Public consensus", says WSJ.

Public consensus says agricultural subsidies are untouchable. But agriculture just had a banner year. And those subsidies should really be called the Archer Daniels Midland slush fund, because agricultural conglomerates get the bulk of that money. And those subsidies also are an oft-cited blight on international trade. Cited by whom? Our trading partners. The developing world. OK, and me. But mostly by developing countries with struggling agricultural industries.

Public consensus says federal civilian retirement benefits are untouchable. Including, I would assume, the President's retirement benefits. And Senators' retirement benefits. And House members' retirement benefits. Public consensus says military retirement benefits are untouchable, including benefits for people retiring from the military and going to work for private military contractors. Now, I'm never going to advocate denying people who have lived a life of public service their proper due. But how about a little needs testing on these entitlement before we cut Pell grants for college? How come we can't even talk about that?

So what exactly does "public consensus" mean, within the context of this article? This article was written in Washington and includes quotes from Republican Senator Judd Gregg, incoming Budget Committee chair; Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former Bush White House economist who now heads the (in theory) non-partisan Congressional Budget Office; and Eugene Steuerle, former Reagan Treasury official and current member of the Urban Institute. Republican Rep. Tom Cole is quoted as saying the President will now become a deficit hawk. And White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton is quoted as saying that discretionary spending is easier to target for reduction than entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare.

The sole quote from a Democrat is from Rep. David Price of North Carolina, who discusses the increasing difficulty of making available discretionary funds meet existing needs. But he does not discuss what is and is not available for budget cuts, he just talks about how the cuts in non-defense discretionary spending are beginning to hurt.

Apparently, then, public consensus means Republican party consensus. Or Republican party and Wall Street Journal consensus.

But I'm not buying it. I'm not buying that 12% of the Federal budget is off the table, when a big chunk of it seems earmarked for Republican constituencies like agricultural conglomerates and the military.

And, for the record, the President is not attempting to balance the budget by "fixing" Social Security, which doesn't even need to be fixed since it's solvent for the next 40 years. The President's plan is similar to taking out a home equity loan to invest in the stock market.

More specifically, allowing young workers to invest some of their Social Security money in the stock market and other investment vehicles is, in effect, gambling that the long term cost of borrowing to pay current Social Security obligations will be less than the long term increase in retirement income realized by privatizing Social Security accounts. In other words, the President is attempting to work the float, hoping that the cost of borrowing is less than the return on investing borrowed funds. And the plan throws a bone to Wall Street, another Republican constituency, in the form of increased fees for managing this new money stream.

That may be a lot of things. But it's not fiscally responsible. It's not being a deficit hawk. And it won't cut the deficit.

No matter what everyone says.

Bride Price

2004-12-17T11:58:00.000-05:00

The Christian Science Monitor, in its December 17 edition, reports on a new women's rights bill currently before Uganda's parliament. That bill will restrict the custom of "bride price" by making bride price optional, non-transferable and non-refundable.

Uganda has long been recognized as a leader in AIDS prevention on the African continent. The Ugandan program of promoting abstinence and safer sex, and distributing condoms, has been praised by many American legislators. In fact, the ABC approach promoted by President Bush in the President's Emergency Program for AIDS Relief is presented as being adopted from the experience of Uganda. PEPFAR promotes abstinence until marriage, being faithful in marriage and the use of condoms where appropriate.

Some have noted that ABC is not exactly the same as Uganda's approach. ABC does not incorporate safer sex education and restricts the distribution of condoms to situations where condoms would be appropriate. I personally believe that President Bush and his supporters on the far right are mischaracterizing the Uganda experience so as to use it as support for a fundamentalist, religious-based approach to AIDS prevention that is reminiscent of Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" approach to the drug war.

But the Christian Science Monitor reports that Uganda has moved even farther beyond ABC. Current thinking in Uganda is that boosting women's economic opportunities and social power should be seen as part and parcel of potentially successful and sustainable AIDS strategies.

Uganda recognizes that cultural practices have helped to render women powerless to protect themselves against AIDS. These practices include polygamy, marital rape and "bride price".

Bride price is the practice of men paying women's families before marriage, essentially purchasing women as property. Purchased women can be raped by their husbands, with no recourse. If a purchased woman dies, her husband can demand that the "price" be transferred to a sister. And sometimes men demand a refund when their wives die, so they can marry again. All of these practices help to spread AIDS.

CSM also reports that Uganda is re-focusing on abstinence as a means to empower women, especially young women, in part as a backlash against the aggressive marketing of condoms. Apparently, women who do not have enough control over their lives and their bodies to choose when to have sex, or not to have sex, also frequently do not have enough control over their partners when it comes to the use of condoms.

If the Bush administration were truly paying attention to the Uganda experience, it would undertand why PEPFAR is destined to fail. The reason 76% of the young people in sub-Saharan Africa are women is because women do not have the power to be abstinent, or to keep their husbands faithful. How can they, when women can be bought and sold for "bride price" and when polygamy is acceptable?

Sadly, by the time PEPFAR is able to bring ABC to Africa, Africans themselves will have moved beyond it.

Even more sadly, there are legislators who are aware that the best way to stop the spread of AIDS in Africa, and indeed everywhere, is to empower women. But they are on thw wrong side of the aisle, so they don't get to shape PEPFAR.

For example, Kaiser Reports reports that Senator Richard Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, has drafted legislation aimed at curbing the marriage of young girls in the developing world. Durbin is currently is seeking a Republican co-sponsor and hopes to introduce the bill in January. Kaiser Reports reports the Chicago Tribune as quoting Durbin as follows:

"I believe that you can tell the most about the potential future of a country by asking one simple question: How do they treat their women and girls? If they hold them back, that country is likely to struggle. If they fully include them and treat them as equals, that country is likely to advance much more rapidly"

Makes you wonder where this country is heading under the current administration.

More White House and Nevirapine

2004-12-14T22:02:00.000-05:00

In a follow up to his story of December 13, the AP's John Solomon reported additional information on activities of the NIH with respect to the NIH study of nevirapine in Uganda. That study, although deeply flawed in its methodology, has been viewed as supporting the proposition that a single dose of nevirapine can be used to prevent mother to child transmission of HIV if there is no alternative treatment available. Concerns about drug resistance keep nevirapine from being a first choice treatment.

The Uganda site for this study, opened in 1997, was closed in 2002 as a result of concerns about patient safety. AP reports that Dr. Tramont overruled his staff and his consultants in deciding that the Uganda site was ready to resume operations in 2003. Dr. Tramont does not contradict assertions from current and former staff that he re-wrote a report to the FDA about saftey issues at the site, or that members of his team disagreed with his decision to re-open the site.

Dr. Tramont made clear at the time that his decision was based on his more extensive experience in AIDS research than that of his staff or his consultants. He also noted that the lab was the best in Africa run by black Africans.

In truth, there seems to be little to this story. A hotly debated management decision was made at NIH, a consultant felt so strongly that the decision was wrong that he clashed with management and was terminated. That employee now is making allegations to Congress and seeking whistleblower protection. Mundane stuff.

And I do believe NIH representatives are sincere when they say they have prevented hundreds of thousands of African children from contracting HIV. Personally, I think NIH is right about this.

Except that the White House keeps coming up. The suggestion was made by one NIH staffer that Tramont's decision to re-open the Uganda site was due in part to the fact that President Bush was planning to visit Africa. Indeed, the President visited within days of NIH reopening the sites.

I still can't say why the White House broke this story, but my paranoia button is flashing. Mysterious White House involvement in a story. The story begins as an accusation that NIH withheld information from the White House that may have impacted White House policy on the use of nevirapine. The story continues with an accusation that NIH tried to give the White House the false impression that its nevirapine policy was working safely.

White House White House White House.

Maybe I've been watching too many Oliver Stone movies.

White House Re-Discovers It Didn't Know About Problems With Nevirapine

2004-12-14T11:52:00.000-05:00

The Associated Press reported from the White House on December 13, 2004 a story about NIH conduct from March to June of 2002. In June of 2002, the President made the use of the drug nevirapine in single doses a centerpiece of a $500 million plan for AIDS prevention. However, at the time the President announced his plan NIH knew of significant problems in the conduct of a clinical trial on nevirapine run in Uganda And NIH knew that a single dose of nevirapine can cause drug resistance to nevirapine.

The APs John Solomon writes that " . . . the National Institutes of Health, the government's premier health research agency, chose not to inform the White House as it scrambled to keep its experts' concerns from scuttling the use of nevirapine in Africa as a cheap solution . . ." That decision is laid at the doors of Dr. Edmund C. Tramont and his boss, Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Other salacious information in the article is the fact that NIH official Mary Anne Luzar wrote on an early copy of a report of the problem: Sensitive information. asked for it to be destroyed when audit is upon us." There is a dispute as to whether or not the "destruction" request came from nevirapine's manufacturer, Boehringer Inghelheim.

The story raises as many questions as it answers. First, the AP filed the story from the White House. Which implies the story came from the White House. But why would the White House let this story out now?

Starting in 1997, the NIH funded research in Uganda regarding the use of nevirapine to prevent the transmission of HIV from HIV+ mothers to their babies during childbirth.

Audits in 2002 began to show show that the Uganda study was not being conducted in a manner consistent with US standards. Apparently, these audits were necessary because the drug's manufacturer, Boehringer Ingelheim, wanted to use the study to support an application to the FDA to approve the use of nevirapine in the US to prevent mother to child transmission of HIV.

A private audit company hired by NIH found that the Uganda site failed to get patients' consent regarding changes in the experiment; the administration of incorrect doses; and delays and underreporting of "fatal and life threatening" problems. Apparently, 14 deaths were not reported and thousands of bad reactions were not disclosed.

Professor Francis Mmiro, a lead doctor in the Uganda study, is reported as saying: "We may not have reported exhaustively, but we reported all serious side effects. What you may call a serious side effect in the US is not a serious side effect in Kampala". An NIH official visiting the Uganda trial site is quoted as saying: "The site staff doesn't know what they don't know".

Despite the problems in the administration of the study, Dr. Tramont felt that the science underlying the study was solid. After reviewing the Uganda data in March of 2002, NIH officials remained confident that nevirapine can be used safely in single doses by African mothers and children to prevent HIV transmission during birth.

So, according to Lane, despite the fact that NIH knew about the President's plan, NIH did not tell Presidential aides about the problems in the Uganda study. And, in June 2002, the President supported the use of nevirapine.

Less than a month later, the Department of Health and Human Services sent a nine page letter to Ugandan officials outlining NIH's failure to protect Ugandan patients.

Dr. Clifford Lane, NIH's no. 2 infectious disease official, says NIH has learned many lessons from the Uganda study that will help NIH conduct clinical research more effectively both domestically and internationally.

One of the steps the NIH took to improve its research practices was the hiring of Dr. Jonathan Fishbein, an expert on safe drug research practices, in the summer of 2003. Dr. Fishbein was hired under a two year contract. However, he was informed that he was being released from his contract early. NIH says the termination is a result of Dr. Fishbein's performance; Dr. Fishbein's lawyers says it is a result of disputes with NIH managers about safety concerns. Dr. Fishbein began meeting with congressional investigators, providing extensive information about problems in NIH research.

The AP reports that, apparently as a result of those meetings, Senate Finance Committee Charles Grassley has asked the Justice Department to investigate NIH's conduct. Senator Grassley's web site contains no press release to this effect, so I can't confirm it yet.

The day after AP reported on NIH's alleged failure to disclose problems with the Uganda study and Senator Grassley's request of the Justice Department, AP reported that Dr. Fishbein was seeking whistleblower protection.

So it would seem hiring Dr. Fishbein turned out to be something of a false economy for NIH. Now NIH is outsourcing -- it has recently asked the National Academy of Sciences to investigate NIH's science on nevirapine.

So, what does it mean?

First, let's review the status of nevirapine.

Nevirapine is still being used as a single dose treatment in Africa to prevent mother to child transmission of HIV. NIH's Lane says that the possibility of drug resistance means that nevirapine should not be a first-choice option if there is another choice available. However, there is no other choice available in Africa.

There are other choices in the US. Behringer Ingelheim has not applied for FDA approval of nevirapine as a single does treatment for the prevention of mother to child transmission in the US because better treatments are available in the US. And as a result of pre-natal screening, the sue of c-sections in deliveries by HIV+ mothers and post-birth treatments for at risk newborns, mother to child transmission in the US is at record lows. Using treatments available in the US, the risk that an HIV+ mother will give birth to an HIV+ child is less than 2%. That risk is much higher outside of the US.

So, it appears this story is about the fact that NIH did not tell the White House about the problems with the Uganda study in a timely fashion. That's what Senator Grassley is so upset about. That's part of the reported scandal.

The other part of the reported scandal is that NIH sought to delay FDA review of nevirapine as a single does treatment, and then NIH and FDA officials arranged for Boehringer Ingelheim to pull its application.

It's interesting that the article does not find it scandalous that nevirapine is the only choice available in Africa for the prevention of mother to child transmission, but it is not the only choice available in the US. It's even more interesting that there is no discussion if the differences in the percentage of mother to child transmissions of HIV in the US and internationally.

But again, the question remains, why would the White House run with this story now? Is it trying to get out in front of Senator Grassley? That seems unlikely. Grassley is not making this a priority issue -- the article didn't come from him, there's no press release from him.

Why would the White House go to such great lengths to embarrass Drs. Tramont and Fauci, not to mention Boeringher Ingelheim? What's going on at the White House right now?

The White House was embarrassed when Bernard Kerik had to withdraw his acceptance of a nomination for Director of Homeland Security because he screwed around on his wife and hired an illegal immigrant as a nanny. There have been some behind the scenes struggles between NIH and Homeland Security regarding funding for bioterrorism efforts -- maybe someone is trying to stop Dr. Fauci from capitalizing on the set-back at Homeland Security.

The White House nominated Michael Leavitt, former Utah Governor and former EPA Administrator, for Secretary of Health and Human Services, which oversees NIH. Maybe the White House is trying to weaken Drs. Fauci and Tramont to make is easier for Governor Leavitt to make changes at NIH. Maybe the outgoing HHS Secretary, Tommy Thompson, is an ally of Fauci and Tramont and someone at the White House wanted to send a message.

But my mind keeps going back to Senator Frist and hisrecent tortured twisting of condom safety data to say that the best use of PEPFAR money is ABC -- abstinence, being faithful and condoms where appropriate.

The White House is currently reallocating all of its international AIDS spending under PEPFAR. I think the White House is intentionally casting doubt on the effectiveness of buying drugs with PEPFAR money. Because the White House wants to use PEPFAR money for abstinence programs, not treatment programs.

That's what the White House gets. NIH loses credibility, and the AIDS crisis is no longer due to the fact that US drugs aren't available in Africa. The problem is, and remains, that there needs to be a culture shift in the rest of the world. ABC, still no D.

So for my money, the true scandal is that nevirapine remains the first choice for the prevention of mother to child transmission in Africa, despite the existence of better alternatives in the US. But the White House has chosen to spin the story differently. Because if that part of the story were the focus, then the White House would not be able to discredit the idea spending US money on drugs under PEPFAR.

But that's just my opinion. I have no independent verification for that. So make up your own mind, please.

Now, a side note.

This story may have another consequence. NIH is currently preparing to conduct a new competition for clinical trials networks. That means that NIH is about to divvy up a lot of research money payable over the next 5-7 years. Anyway, research sites in the developing world are being strongly encouraged by NIH to join up with a US based research network if they want US money for studies.

US AIDS advocates are encouraging NIH to set aside money for purely local studies. Because developing countries may want to run studies relevant in those developing countries but not relevant in the US or otherwise of interest to a big, US based research network. But NIH is of the view that AIDS advocates should be grateful that developing countries are getting infrastructure and resources paid for by the US, and the advocates should leave well enough alone.

I see this story as strengthening NIH arguments that developing countries need NIH to pay for their infrastructure, and that sites in developing countries have little to contribute to the furtherance of scientific research outside of US clinical trials networks. Because foreign scientific standards are lower than US standards. And the data generated in the developing world is not suitable for FDA review. Even if the underlying scientific principals are sound.

So Tramont and Fauci may have been bitch-slapped by the White House, but at least they can still tell AIDS advocates to shove off. A little silver lining for our friends at NIH.

15%

2004-12-09T10:36:00.000-05:00

On the December 5 edition of THIS WEEK with George Stephanopolous, Senate Majority leader Bill Frist was peppered with questions on a number of topics, including the President's plans for addressing HIV/ AIDS both domestically and abroad. Dr. Frist made numerous references to the fact that condoms have a 15% failure rate. That being the case, Dr. Frist suggested, condoms are not the best first line defense against the transmission of HIV -- abstinence ia a better first line defense.

Now, where does this 15% figure come from? Condom packages contain a disclaimer that the failure rate for condoms, when used properly, is 2%. But, that's when used properly. So, we can assume that the failure rate is higher if condoms are not used properly. Maybe 15% is the actual failure rate, as a result of improper condom use.

On the Planned Parenthood website, there is a fact sheet entitled The Truth About Condoms. That fact sheet informs readers that of 100 women whose partners use condoms inconsistently or imperfectly, 15 will become pregnant in the first year of use. Only 2 will become pregnant if condoms are used perfectly. The citation for this information is Trussell, James, et al. (2003, on press). "Contraceptive Efficacy." in Robert A. Hatcher et al., eds. Contraceptive Technology, 18th edition. New York: Ardent Media.

The American Academy of Pediatrics reports that actual condom failure rates range from 5% to 20%, depending on the age of the users. The citation for this information is Hatcher RA, Trussell J, Stewart F, et al, Contraceptive Technology, 17th edition. New York: Ardent Media.

Contraceptive Technology is a gynecology textbook. Since it is now in its 18th edition, and since it is cited by both Planned Parenthood and the American Academy of Pediatrics, I'm inclined to view it as a reliable source.

So it doesn't seem unreasonable to say that condoms have a 15% failure rate when used incorrectly. Which is not exactly what Dr. Frist said -- he left off the part about incorrect use. But in all fairness, many condom advocates who say condoms have a 2% failure rate gloss over the correct/ incorrect distinction, too (OK, I've done it and some people I know have done it, ergo . . .)

A more fair description would be to say that condoms have a failure rate of about 15% when used incorrectly, but correct use reduces that failure rate to closer to 2%. would seem an actual failure of 15% for condom use is not a ridiculous number, [poand that a 2% failure rate for condoms assumes that everyone uses condoms correctly every time.

So, then, why would Dr. Frist choose to use inaccurate language? I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt by assuming he knows what's in this gynecological textbook in it's 18th printing, and that he's aware of the views of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

I have a theory. Dr. Frist asserted that the fact that condoms have a 15% failure rate was evidence that condoms were not the best first line defense against HIV infection -- abstinence was. If Dr. Frist used the more accurate description of the condom failure rate, would that undermine his view that abstinence was a better choice than condoms for a first line defense? Probably.

Family Health International is a not-for-profit with over 30 years of experience provided medical services throughout the world. I checked out their Board of Directors and the Senior staff, and they have some impressive folks from around the world working with them and for them. So I'm thinking they are a reputable organization.

FHI publishes a book entitled "The Latex Condom: Recent Advances, Future Directions". In Chapter 3, FHI writes that most condom failure occurs as a result of the behaviors of the user, not due to a faulty device, and that condom failure is often concentrated among certain groups of people. For most people, condom failure is rare, and there is a strong suggestion that a minority of condom users experience a disproportionate amount of failure. FHI writes that, in one study, one participant reported 41% of all the broken condoms, and three participants reported 47% of all slipped condoms. In another study, 3% of the participants were responsible for 34% of all broken condoms. A history of condom failure and less experience with condoms are cited by FHI as risk factors for condom failure, along with youth, lower education levels, lower income and large or uncircumcised penises.

So, FHI seems to suggest that if we educate young, sexually inexperienced people, focusing on communities with lower education, lower income and lower circumcision rates, we will be targeting that portion of the population which experiences a higher level of condom failure. And moving that 15% closer to 2%

Which leads me to conclude that Dr. Frist is missing the point. True, the simple distribution of condoms will not improve the 15% failure rate. In order to move the condom failure rate closer to 2%, we have to teach those people more likely to experience condom failure how to use condoms.

In other words, the 15% failure rate is not a justification for promoting abstinence, it is a justification for promoting sex education.

There's another point to be made. Dr. Frist says that abstinence is 100% effective. But he should probably be saying that abstinence is 100% effective when practiced correctly. In other words, all those teenagers with braces in their mouths, hard metal which can cut cheeks and gums and the sex organs of others during oral sex, giving and receiving oral sex and thinking they are practicing abstinence are at risk of contracting HIV, as well as other STDs. All those kids who promise to be abstinent but then have a failure of will power in the heat of the moment are experiencing a failure in abstinence as a first line defense against HIV. So, until we have an actual failure rate for abstinence, we can't really compare abstinence and condoms as first line defenses.

But there is a failure rate for abstinence, and that failure rate can be decreased through sex education.

Now, I must address this issue of penis size. FHI reports that the data is inconclusive. Quite frankly, there is no way to discuss the cited studies on penis size without touching on stereotypes about race, so I'll simply stop there.

Except to report on an Indian study, announced in 2001 and reported by News In Science, citing the British Medical Journal, which sought to examine the relationship between penis size and condom failure by cataloguing differences in penis size throughout the Indian population (until about 1999, there was only one size of condom available in India). Men involved in the study were to have their erect penises photographed with a digital camera, and then special software was to be used to measure length and girth. There were approximately 1000 responses representing a large range in penis sizes.

There's a joke in there somewhere.