February 19, 2006

No More Cheney Jokes!

It's too easy. It's like shooting a 78 year-old man.

Posted by Mark at 06:44 PM | Comments (0)

September 27, 2005

Bush A Day Late And A Gallon Short

[From The "No Shit, Sherlock" Files]
To Conserve Gas, President Calls for Less Driving

By DAVID LEONHARDT, JAD MOUAWAD and DAVID E. SANGER

With fears mounting that high energy costs will crimp economic growth, President Bush called on Americans yesterday to conserve gasoline by driving less. He also issued a directive for all federal agencies to cut their own energy use and to encourage employees to use public transportation.

"We can all pitch in," Mr. Bush said. "People just need to recognize that the storms have caused disruption," he added, and that if Americans are able to avoid going "on a trip that's not essential, that would be helpful."

Mr. Bush promised to dip further into the government's petroleum reserve, if necessary, and to continue relaxing environmental and transportation rules in an effort to get more gasoline flowing.

On Capitol Hill, senior Republicans called for new legislation that they said would lower energy costs by increasing supply and expanding oil refining capacity over the long run.

Even though Hurricane Rita caused much less damage to the oil industry than feared, the two recent hurricanes have disrupted production in the Gulf of Mexico enough to ensure that Americans are facing a winter of sharply higher energy costs. The price of natural gas, which most families use to heat their homes, has climbed even more than the price of gasoline recently.

Households are on pace to spend an average of $4,500 on energy this year, up about $500 from last year and $900 more than in 2003, according to Global Insight, a research firm.

Mr. Bush's comments, while similar to remarks he made shortly after the disruption from Hurricane Katrina pushed gasoline prices sharply higher, were particularly notable because the administration has long emphasized new production over conservation. It has also opted not to impose higher mileage standards on automakers.

In 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney said, "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it cannot be the basis of a sound energy policy." Also that year, Ari Fleischer, then Mr. Bush's press secretary, responded to a question about reducing American energy consumption by saying "that's a big no."

"The president believes that it's an American way of life," Mr. Fleischer said.

Ari shouldn't be calling his boss an idiot. -- Ed.

Mr. Bush, speaking yesterday after he was briefed at the Energy Department, did not use the dour tone or cardigan-wearing imagery that proved politically deadly for Jimmy Carter during the oil crisis of the 1970's. Nor did Mr. Bush propose new policies to encourage conservation. But he was more explicit than in the past that Americans should cut back.

Oil companies spent much of yesterday assessing the damage from Hurricane Rita, which seemed to spare many oil and gas facilities. Still, the gulf's entire oil output and about four-fifths of its natural gas production remained shut yesterday, less than a month after Katrina left the industry stretched thin.

The Gulf of Mexico produces about 7 percent of the oil consumed in the United States and provides 16 percent of the nation's natural gas.

About half of the 16 refineries that were forced to shut by Hurricane Rita have said they plan to restart production soon. But delays in refining pushed the average price of gasoline up again for the first time since Labor Day, to $2.80 a gallon for regular gasoline, according to AAA.

Crude oil prices also rose yesterday on the New York Mercantile Exchange, closing up 2.5 percent, to $65.82 a barrel. Natural gas futures rose 12 cents, to $12.44 a thousand cubic feet.

"We've been in a chronic situation here where supplies have not really caught up with demand," said Dave Costello, an analyst at the Energy Information Administration.

In response to higher energy costs, households are likely to spend less on restaurant meals, clothing and other items. That would slow economic growth in coming months, but economists predicted that other forces - like a continuing housing boom and rising corporate investments in factories and equipment - would keep the economy growing.

"I don't think we're talking about a recession or a near recession," said Joshua Shapiro, the chief United States economist at MFR, a research company in New York. "I think we're talking about growth that is slower than people expected."

Households are now spending about $550 billion a year on energy, up by about $150 billion since the start of last year, according to Global Insight. Over the course of an entire year, the increase would be equal to almost 2 percent of overall consumer spending.

Energy costs are likely to be a particular burden on low- and middle-income households, whose income growth has barely matched inflation over the last few years. Wealthier households have done better, government data show, and have helped keep economic growth healthy with spending on second homes, new vehicles and the like.

Although more forecasters, including Federal Reserve officials, remain optimistic, some say that the spike in energy costs could lead to something of a tipping point for consumers. Families have already begun saving less money in response to higher energy costs, and they might eventually decide to rethink other parts of their budget.

"The best leading indicator of consumer spending is real average hourly earnings," which have been hurt by higher energy costs, said Joseph H. Ellis, a former Goldman Sachs partner and the author of a forthcoming book on the business cycle. "I think we're heading into a very difficult 2006."

In Washington, two House committees are expected to consider proposals this week that have been blocked in the past by environmental objections. Beyond making it easier to build new refineries, one proposal would allow states to opt out of Congressional bans on coastal oil drilling, and another would allow drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which has been controversial for years.

"Families who are paying more than $3 for a gallon of gasoline cannot afford to watch Congress block more clean U.S. energy production while they suffer," said Representative Richard Pombo, Republican of California and chairman of the Resources Committee.

The oil and gas industry supported the moves. John B. Walker, chairman of the Independent Petroleum Association of American, said areas now off limits offshore and in Alaska "could supply our nation with more than 100 years of natural gas - and save U.S. consumers upward of $500 billion."

Uh-huh. And exactly what oil company is asking to drill in Alaska? Anyone? Beuler? Beuler? -- Ed.

Environmental groups said drilling advocates were trying to take advantage of anxiety from the storms and rising gasoline prices to push proposals that did not survive in the recently passed energy bill.

"It is kind of sad," said Kevin Curtis, legislative director at the National Environmental Trust. "There is nothing here that helps the consumer at the gas pump short term."

While attention has been focused on gasoline prices, the spike in natural gas prices has the potential to pose a bigger economic threat.

Households that use natural gas will pay an average $1,130 to heat their homes this winter, an increase of almost $400, according to federal government estimates. The price of natural gas in futures markets has more than doubled since 2000 and is six times what it was throughout the 1990's.

Posted by Mark at 06:52 AM | Comments (0)

FEMA's Ex-Director Brown Whines He Didn't Do It -- But We Know That

Brown Blames 'Dysfunctional' Louisiana

By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer

Former FEMA director Michael Brown aggressively defended his role in responding to Hurricane Katrina on Tuesday and put much of the blame for coordination failures on Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin.

"My biggest mistake was not recognizing by Saturday that Louisiana was dysfunctional," two days before the storm hit, Brown told a special congressional panel set up by House Republican leaders to investigate the catastrophe.

The storm slammed into the Gulf Coast on Monday, Aug. 29.

Brown's defense drew a scathing response from Rep. William Jefferson (news, bio, voting record), D-La.

"I find it absolutely stunning that this hearing would start out with you, Mr. Brown, laying the blame for FEMA's failings at the feet of the governor of Louisiana and the Mayor of New Orleans."

Brown, who for many became a symbol of government failures in the natural disaster that claimed the lives of more than 1,000 people, rejected accusations that he was too inexperienced for the job.

"I've overseen over 150 presidentially declared disasters. I know what I'm doing, and I think I do a pretty darn good job of it," Brown said.

Brown resigned as the head of FEMA earlier this month after being removed by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff from responsibility in the stricken areas.

Brown, who joined FEMA in 2001 and ran it for more than two years, was previously an attorney who held several local government and private posts, including leading the International Arabian Horse Association.

Brown in his opening statement said he had made several "specific mistakes" in dealing with the storm, and listed two.

One, he said, was not having more media briefings.

As to the other, he said: "I very strongly personally regret that I was unable to persuade Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin to sit down, get over their differences, and work together. I just couldn't pull that off."

Both Blanco and Nagin are Democrats.

"The people of FEMA are being tired of being beat up, and they don't deserve it," Brown said.

The hearing was largely boycotted by Democrats, who want an independent investigation conducted into government failures, not one run by congressional Republicans.

But Jefferson — who is not a committee member — accepted the panel's invitation to grill Brown.

Referring to Brown's description of his "mistakes," Jefferson said: "I think that's a very weak explanation of what happened, and very incomplete explanation of what happened. I don't think that's going to cut it, really."

Committee Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., cautioned against too narrowly assigning blame.

"At the end of the day, I suspect that we'll find that government at all levels failed the people of Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama and the Gulf Coast," said Davis.

Davis pushed Brown on what he and the agency he led should have done to evacuate New Orleans, restore order in the city and improve communication among law enforcement agencies.

Brown said: "Those are not FEMA roles. FEMA doesn't evacuate communities. FEMA does not do law enforcement. FEMA does not do communications."

In part of his testimony, Brown pumped his hand up and down for emphasis.

Brown said the lack of a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans before the storm was "the tipping point for all the other things that went wrong." Brown said he had personally pushed Louisiana Gov. Blanco to order such an evacuation.

He did not have the authority to order the city evacuated on his own, Brown said.

When asked by Rep. Harold Rogers (news, bio, voting record), R-Ky, whether the lack of an ordered evacuation was "the proximate cause of most people's misery," Brown said, "Yes."

Posted by Mark at 06:46 AM | Comments (0)

September 16, 2005

FEMA Blew It - In Their Own Words

Following are the daily briefings that Leo Bosner and his team sent to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, FEMA Director Michael Brown and other top officials in the days before Hurricane Katrina made landfall:

Friday, Aug. 26 E-mail

Saturday, Aug. 27 E-mail

Sunday, Aug. 28 E-mail

Monday, Aug. 29 E-mail

Bodies shouldn't have floated. But heads should roll.

Posted by Mark at 06:07 AM | Comments (0)

September 12, 2005

Sky News - You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up

bush_caption.jpg

Posted by Mark at 06:19 AM | Comments (0)

September 09, 2005

Our Republic Friends Are Silent And It's Deafening

My Democratic friends all have the same question: Why aren't our Republican friends chiding us now? It seems the battle against blacks the poor the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (or terrorism if you prefer) has left them speechless. Abortion, healthcare, Hillary, Iraq, etc. have all taken a back seat to the stunning incompetence of the Bush administration - stunned them into submission. Or has it? I for one, am still here and easy to contact.

Posted by Mark at 10:05 PM | Comments (0)

September 08, 2005

Gingrich Chimes In

"If we can't respond faster than this to an event we saw coming across the Gulf for days, then why do we think we're prepared to respond to a nuclear or biological attack?"

- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich

Posted by Mark at 10:21 PM | Comments (0)

September 07, 2005

Bush Knew

If the White House were alerted to a bomb scare in New Orleans, would the response have been any different?

Sleep tight, Mr. President.

Posted by Mark at 06:50 AM | Comments (0)

According To Bush, FEMA Just Not Needed Yet

While over 1,400 (ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED) firefighters are forced to wait in Atlanta and not be deployed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, FEMA's spokesperson needs to revisit her commitment to logic and sanity.

As New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin pleaded on national television for firefighters - his own are exhausted after working around the clock for a week - a battalion of highly trained men and women sat idle Sunday in a muggy Sheraton Hotel conference room in Atlanta.

Many of the firefighters, assembled from Utah and throughout the United States by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, thought they were going to be deployed as emergency workers.

Instead, they have learned they are going to be community-relations officers for FEMA, shuffled throughout the Gulf Coast region to disseminate fliers and a phone number: 1-800-621-FEMA.

On Monday, some firefighters stuck in the staging area at the Sheraton peeled off their FEMA-issued shirts and stuffed them in backpacks, saying they refuse to represent the federal agency.

Federal officials are unapologetic.

"I would go back and ask the firefighter to revisit his commitment to FEMA, to firefighting and to the citizens of this country," said FEMA spokeswoman Mary Hudak....

But as specific orders began arriving to the firefighters in Atlanta, a team of 50 Monday morning quickly was ushered onto a flight headed for Louisiana. The crew's first assignment: to stand beside President Bush as he tours devastated areas.

Posted by Mark at 06:35 AM | Comments (0)

Tom Peters Chimes In On FEMA's and Bush's Unresponsiveness

Tom Peters points out that MBWA (Managing By Wandering Around - staying in touch and damn the bureaucracy) is alive and well some places, dead in others.

Posted by Mark at 06:35 AM | Comments (0)

September 05, 2005

Dear Mr. President: New Orleans is angry

An open letter to the president from The Times-Picayune of New Orleans, published Sunday

NEW ORLEANS — Dear Mr. President:

We heard you loud and clear Friday when you visited our devastated city and the Gulf Coast and said, "What is not working, we're going to make it right."

Please forgive us if we wait to see proof of your promise before believing you. But we have good reason for our skepticism.

Bienville built New Orleans where he built it for one main reason: It's accessible. The city between the Mississippi River and Lake Pontchartrain was easy to reach in 1718.

How much easier it is to access in 2005 now that there are interstates and bridges, airports and helipads, cruise ships, barges, buses and diesel-powered trucks.

Despite the city's multiple points of entry, our nation's bureaucrats spent days after last week's hurricane wringing their hands, lamenting the fact that they could neither rescue the city's stranded victims nor bring them food, water and medical supplies.

Meanwhile there were journalists, including some who work for The Times-Picayune, going in and out of the city via the Crescent City Connection. On Thursday morning, that crew saw a caravan of 13 Wal-Mart tractor trailers headed into town to bring food, water and supplies to a dying city.

Television reporters were doing live reports from downtown New Orleans streets. Harry Connick Jr. brought in some aid Thursday, and his efforts were the focus of a "Today" show story Friday morning.

Yet, the people trained to protect our nation, the people whose job it is to quickly bring in aid were absent. Those who should have been deploying troops were singing a sad song about how our city was impossible to reach.

We're angry, Mr. President, and we'll be angry long after our beloved city and surrounding parishes have been pumped dry. Our people deserved rescuing. Many who could have been were not. That's to the government's shame.

Mayor Ray Nagin did the right thing when he allowed those with no alternative to seek shelter from the storm inside the Louisiana Superdome. We still don't know what the death toll is, but one thing is certain: Had the Superdome not been opened, the city's death toll would have been higher. The toll may even have been exponentially higher.

It was clear to us by late morning Monday that many people inside the Superdome would not be returning home. It should have been clear to our government, Mr. President. So why weren't they evacuated out of the city immediately? We learned seven years ago, when Hurricane Georges threatened, that the Dome isn't suitable as a long-term shelter. So what did state and national officials think would happen to tens of thousands of people trapped inside with no air conditioning, overflowing toilets and dwindling amounts of food, water and other essentials?

State Rep. Karen Carter was right Friday when she said the city didn't have but two urgent needs: "Buses! And gas!" Every official at the Federal Emergency Management Agency should be fired, Director Michael Brown especially.

In a nationally televised interview Thursday night, he said his agency hadn't known until that day that thousands of storm victims were stranded at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center. He gave another nationally televised interview the next morning and said, "We've provided food to the people at the Convention Center so that they've gotten at least one, if not two meals, every single day."

Lies don't get more bald-faced than that, Mr. President.

Yet, when you met with Mr. Brown Friday morning, you told him, "You're doing a heck of a job."

That's unbelievable.

There were thousands of people at the Convention Center because the riverfront is high ground. The fact that so many people had reached there on foot is proof that rescue vehicles could have gotten there, too.

We, who are from New Orleans, are no less American than those who live on the Great Plains or along the Atlantic Seaboard. We're no less important than those from the Pacific Northwest or Appalachia. Our people deserved to be rescued.

No expense should have been spared. No excuses should have been voiced. Especially not one as preposterous as the claim that New Orleans couldn't be reached.

Mr. President, we sincerely hope you fulfill your promise to make our beloved communities work right once again.

When you do, we will be the first to applaud.

Posted by Mark at 07:52 PM | Comments (0)

September 04, 2005

Slow Response To 9/11, Slow Response To Katrina ... Anyone See A Pattern?


'My Pet Goat' -- The Sequel

This time, during a catastrophe, the president did not merely dither for seven minutes, but for three days, and his top advisors followed suit. While the media has done a good job in portraying the overall failure of leadership in this weeks hurricane's disaster, it has not focused enough on this deadly dereliction of duty.

By Greg Mitchell

(September 03, 2005) -- While a rising chorus in the press has taken the White House, FEMA and the Pentagon to task for performing miserably in their response to the human disaster on the Gulf Coast, few have focused on the most telling aspect of the entire failure. It’s not just incompetence. It’s a shameful lack of concern: The 9/11 “My Pet Goat” dithering on an administration-wide scale.

Simply stated, the president and his top advisers chose vacation over action.

While the media has done a good job in portraying the overall deadly failure of leadership, it has not focused enough on this deadly dereliction of duty.

President Bush, in his weekly radio address on Saturday, said: “In America, we do not abandon our fellow citizens in their hour of need.” But Bush, and his top aides, quite frankly, did just that.

I was reminded of this today, seeing pictures of Vice President Dick Cheney finally showing up at the White House after riding out the storm-of-the-century in Wyoming. Perhaps he brought back with him a couple dozen trout to throw on the grill for the White House staffers.

His absence, and the president’s performance during it, can only add to the rumors that Bush is clueless without the Big Guy at his side.

This follows Bush himself remaining on vacation for more than two days after the storm hit, despite acknowledging this was the worst disaster in the nation’s history. He did take a trip during those days, not back to Washington but out to San Diego to deliver a political speech comparing his Iraq war to World War II. It got little play because nearly everyone else in the country, beyond his inner circle, was focused on New Orleans instead.

What that trip did produce was a picture of Bush laughing with a country singer and strumming a guitar. But at least the president did start heading home late Wednesday. As he did, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice was still enjoying her vacation in New York.

In fact, that night she enjoyed a few good yucks while attending the goofy Broadway play “Spamalot.” Ironically, the Bush team's performance this week did indeed seem like something out of a Monty Python skit. Each, in his or her own way, took a bunch of "silly walks."

Condi also played tennis with Monica Seles and on Thursday went on a shoe-shopping spree on Fifth Avenue until a fellow customer yelled at her for not doing her job and bloggers exposed all of this. Then she hurriedly headed back to Washington. Whoops, we discovered she was overdue in getting a grip on offers to help that were pouring in from overseas governments and organizations.

Paging Andrew Card: Turns out he was Bush's Maine man.

And what of FEMA chief Michael Brown? He was so out-of-it that he didn’t even know about 10,000 evacuees living and dying at the Convention Center, even after they had received wide TV coverage for hours and hours.

The next day, the president greeted him with, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." A medal is surely on the way. This from a president who has been fighting a "war on terror" in Iraq while appointing to the top FEMA position here at home a man whose main career experience was running an Arabian horse association.

At a press conference on Thursday, the fourth day of the disaster, with newspapers and TV reporting tens of thousands stranded at hospitals, homes and a highway overpass, Homeland Security chief Michael Cherotff was asked by a reporter if he thought only hundreds or maybe many more needed rescued. He replied:

“I'd be guessing. I mean, a thousand seems like a very large number, but we have already rescued several thousand. Hopefully, most people have gotten themselves onto roofs and have been picked up. But, as I said, rather than give you a guesstimate, I can tell you that as long as there is someone on a roof waving a flag, we're going to be sending a helicopter out there to get them.”

At the same press briefing, Cherotff was asked if he thought there were enough soldiers on the ground to control the situation. His answer: “I'm satisfied that we have not only more than enough forces there and on the way. And frankly, what we're doing is we are putting probably more than we need in order to send an unambiguous message that we will not tolerate lawlessness or violence or interference with the evacuation.”

While the 9/11 “My Pet Goat” episode was certainly illuminating, it’s not certain what might have worked out better that day had the president dropped the book and taken action. But his failure to grab the reins in the hurricane catastrophe for three days this week probably doomed hundreds, or more, to death.

This is not mere incompetence, but dereliction of duty. The press should call it by its proper name.

Posted by Mark at 05:28 PM | Comments (0)

Hey, Ben Stein, Bush Is A Big Boy, He Can Stand Up For Himself

Get Off His Back (Updated)
By Ben Stein
Published 9/2/2005 11:59:59 PM

Seems the pressure at Bush Central just spilled over and the apologists are out in lockstep lead by Ben Stein. Sadly, this diatribe embarasses the presidency by whining that accountability is not the part of the job. Sorry, Ben, "The Buck Stops Here."
***UPDATED: Sunday, Sept. 4, 2005, 2:13 p.m.***

A few truths, for those who have ears and eyes and care to know the truth:

1.) The hurricane that hit New Orleans and Mississippi and Alabama was an astonishing tragedy. The suffering and loss of life and peace of mind of the residents of those areas is acutely horrifying.

2.) George Bush did not cause the hurricane. Hurricanes have been happening for eons. George Bush did not create them or unleash this one.

3.) George Bush did not make this one worse than others. There have been far worse hurricanes than this before George Bush was born.

4.) There is no overwhelming evidence that global warming exists as a man-made phenomenon. There is no clear-cut evidence that global warming even exists. There is no clear evidence that if it does exist it makes hurricanes more powerful or makes them aim at cities with large numbers of poor people. If global warming is a real phenomenon, which it may well be, it started long before George Bush was inaugurated, and would not have been affected at all by the Kyoto treaty, considering that Kyoto does not cover the world's worst polluters -- China, India, and Brazil. In a word, George Bush had zero to do with causing this hurricane. To speculate otherwise is belief in sorcery.

5.) George Bush had nothing to do with the hurricane contingency plans for New Orleans. Those are drawn up by New Orleans and Louisiana. In any event, the plans were perfectly good: mandatory evacuation. It is in no way at all George Bush's fault that about 20 percent of New Orleans neglected to follow the plan. It is not his fault that many persons in New Orleans were too confused to realize how dangerous the hurricane would be. They were certainly warned. It's not George Bush's fault that there were sick people and old people and people without cars in New Orleans. His job description does not include making sure every adult in America has a car, is in good health, has good sense, and is mobile.

6.) George Bush did not cause gangsters to shoot at rescue helicopters taking people from rooftops, did not make gang bangers rape young girls in the Superdome, did not make looters steal hundreds of weapons, in short make New Orleans into a living hell.

7.) George Bush is the least racist President in mind and soul there has ever been and this is shown in his appointments over and over. To say otherwise is scandalously untrue.

8.) George Bush is rushing every bit of help he can to New Orleans and Mississippi and Alabama as soon as he can. He is not a magician. It takes time to organize huge convoys of food and now they are starting to arrive. That they get in at all considering the lawlessness of the city is a miracle of bravery and organization.

9.) There is not the slightest evidence at all that the war in Iraq has diminished the response of the government to the emergency. To say otherwise is pure slander.

10.) If the energy the news media puts into blaming Bush for an Act of God worsened by stupendous incompetence by the New Orleans city authorities and the malevolence of the criminals of the city were directed to helping the morale of the nation, we would all be a lot better off.

11.) New Orleans is a great city with many great people. It will recover and be greater than ever. Sticking pins into an effigy of George Bush that does not resemble him in the slightest will not speed the process by one day.

12.) The entire episode is a dramatic lesson in the breathtaking callousness of government officials at the ground level. Imagine if Hillary Clinton had gotten her way and they were in charge of your health care.

God bless all of those dear people who are suffering so much, and God bless those helping them, starting with George Bush.

****
UPDATE: Sunday, Sept. 4, 2005, 2:13 p.m.:

More Mysteries of Katrina:

Why is it that the snipers who shot at emergency rescuers trying to save people in hospitals and shelters are never mentioned except in passing, and Mr. Bush, who is turning over heaven and earth to rescue the victims of the storm, is endlessly vilified?

What church does Rev. Al Sharpton belong to that believes in passing blame and singling out people by race for opprobrium and hate?

What special abilities does the media have for deciding how much blame goes to the federal government as opposed to the city government of New Orleans for the aftereffects of Katrina?

If able-bodied people refuse to obey a mandatory evacuation order for a city, have they not assumed the risk that ill effects will happen to them?

When the city government simply ignores its own sick and hospitalized and elderly people in its evacuation order, is Mr. Bush to blame for that?

Is there any problem in the world that is not Mr. Bush's fault, or have we reverted to a belief in a sort of witchcraft where we credit a mortal man with the ability to create terrifying storms and every other kind of ill wind?

Where did the idea come from that salvation comes from hatred and criticism and mockery instead of love and co-operation?

Posted by Mark at 04:15 PM | Comments (0)

September 03, 2005

Starve The Beast. Clearly A Good Plan

bathtub.jpg

Posted by Mark at 04:05 PM | Comments (0)

September 02, 2005

New Orleans' Mayor Ray Nagin Interview And Federal (Un)Responsiveness

Worth every minute, including the very last.

Garland Robinette's interview with Nagin on Thursday night. Robinette asked the mayor about his conversation with President Bush:

NAGIN: I told him we had an incredible crisis here and that his flying over in Air Force One does not do it justice. And that I have been all around this city, and I am very frustrated because we are not able to marshal resources and we're outmanned in just about every respect.

You know the reason why the looters got out of control? Because we had most of our resources saving people, thousands of people that were stuck in attics, man, old ladies. ... You pull off the doggone ventilator vent and you look down there and they're standing in there in water up to their freaking necks.

And they don't have a clue what's going on down here. They flew down here one time two days after the doggone event was over with TV cameras, AP reporters, all kind of goddamn -- excuse my French everybody in America, but I am pissed.

WWL: Did you say to the president of the United States, "I need the military in here"?

NAGIN: I said, "I need everything."

Now, I will tell you this -- and I give the president some credit on this -- he sent one John Wayne dude down here that can get some stuff done, and his name is [Lt.] Gen. [Russel] Honore.

And he came off the doggone chopper, and he started cussing and people started moving. And he's getting some stuff done.

They ought to give that guy -- if they don't want to give it to me, give him full authority to get the job done, and we can save some people.

Posted by Mark at 06:34 AM | Comments (0)

August 31, 2005

Irony Defined

safe.jpg

Posted by Mark at 08:31 PM | Comments (0)

August 30, 2005

So W, Casey Sheehan Did Die For Oil, Is That The Gist?

Bush: U.S. Must Protect Iraq From Terror

Tuesday August 30, 2005 9:01 PM
By JENNIFER LOVEN
Associated Press Writer

CORONADO, Calif. (AP) - President Bush on Tuesday answered growing anti-war protests with a fresh reason for American troops to continue fighting in Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields that he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.

The president, standing against a backdrop of the imposing USS Ronald Reagan, the newest aircraft carrier in the Navy's fleet, said terrorists would be denied their goal of making Iraq a base from which to recruit followers, train them and finance new attacks.

``We will defeat the terrorists,'' Bush said. ``We will build a free Iraq that will fight terrorists instead of giving them aid and sanctuary.''

Appearing at the Naval Air Station North Island to commemorate the anniversary of the Allies' World War II victory over Japan, Bush compared his resolve now to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's in the 1940s and said America's mission in Iraq is to turn it into a democratic ally just as the U.S. did with Japan after its 1945 surrender.

But Democrats said Bush's leadership falls far short of Roosevelt's.

``Democratic Presidents Roosevelt and Truman led America to victory in World War II because they laid out a clear plan for success to the American people, America's allies and America's troops,'' said Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean. ``President Bush has failed to put together a plan, so despite the bravery and sacrifice of our troops, we are not making the progress that we should be in Iraq. The troops, our allies and the American people deserve better leadership from our commander in chief.''

The speech was Bush's third in just over a week defending his Iraq policies, as the White House scrambles to counter growing public concern about the war. But the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Coast drew attention away, as the White House announced during the president's remarks that he was cutting his August vacation short to return to Washington to personally oversee the federal response effort.

After the speech, Bush hurried back to Texas ahead of schedule to prepare to fly back to the nation's capital Wednesday. He originally was to return to the White House on Friday, after spending more than four weeks operating from his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

Bush's August break has been marked by problems in Iraq.

It has been an especially deadly month there for U.S. troops, with the number of those who have died since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 now nearing 1,900.

The growing death toll has become a regular feature of the slightly larger protests that Bush now encounters everywhere he goes - a movement that has been given new life by a vigil set up in a field down the road from the president's ranch by a mother grieving the loss of her soldier son in Iraq.

Cindy Sheehan arrived in Crawford, Texas, only days after Bush did, asking for a meeting so he could explain why her son and others are dying in Iraq. The White House refused, and Sheehan's camp turned into a hub of activity for hundreds of activists around the country demanding that troops be brought home.

Nationwide, Bush's approval rating on his handling of Iraq has fallen below 40 percent.

This week, the administration also had to defend the proposed constitution produced in Iraq at U.S. urging. Critics fear the impact of its rejection by many Sunnis and say it fails to protect religious freedom and women's rights.

At the naval base, Bush declared, ``We will not rest until victory is America's and our freedom is secure'' from al-Qaida and its forces in Iraq led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.


``If Zarqawi and bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks,'' Bush said. ``They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the United States and our coalition.''

Hoping to invoke the powerful feelings of national pride in World War II, Bush said the mission in Iraq must succeed in order to honor the sacrifice of that conflict's soldiers.

``We will never let the new enemies of a new century destroy with cowardice what these Americans built with courage,'' Bush said to an audience that including some WWII veterans.

Bush's V-J Day ceremony did not fall on the actual anniversary. Japan announced its surrender on Aug. 15, 1945 - Aug. 14 in the United States because of the time difference. Sept. 2, 1945, is the day the surrender was signed aboard the USS Missouri.

Tuesday, the day the president spoke, was the 60th anniversary of Gen. Douglas MacArthur's arrival in Japan to direct the U.S. occupation and reconstruction of the vanquished foe.

Posted by Mark at 10:09 PM | Comments (0)

With Poverty Growing Of Course We Should Cut Taxes. Eliminating Estate Taxes Would Help. Wouldn't It? Huh?

U.S. Poverty Rate Rises Despite Growth in 2004
By Joel Havemann and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON -- Although the economic expansion entered its fourth year, Americans' incomes remained stagnant last year, and the poverty rate rose, the Census Bureau reported today.

Median household income — half of all households earned more and half earned less — was $44,389 in 2004, a statistically insignificant $93 less than the 2003 median when adjusted for inflation. Household income has been falling consistently since reaching its all-time peak of $46,058 in 1999. Not since 1997 has it been lower than its 2004 level.

Nearly 37 million of the nation's 290 million people, or 12.7%, lived below the poverty line in 2004. The year before, there were 2.9 million fewer poor people, and the poverty rate was 12.5%.

Not since 1994 have there been so many poor people, and the poverty rate was last this high in 1998.

"This is not good news," said Timothy M. Smeeding, a professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School. "We're four years into a recovery and we're not showing any progress. In fact, quite the opposite."

The Census Bureau also reported that some 45.8 million Americans, or 15.7%, lacked health insurance in 2004, essentially the same rate as the 15.6% in 2003.

The overall uninsured rate remained about the same because government programs such as Medicaid and the state child health insurance program added to their rolls at about the same rate that private insurers lost enrollees. The number of year-round, full-time workers without health insurance increased by 456,000, to a total of 21.1 million people.

Despite the growing availability of insurance plans that offer low monthly premiums — and tax breaks — to people willing to take on responsibility for routine healthcare costs, the proportion of Americans buying their own coverage barely budged. It rose one-tenth of a percentage point to 9.3%, a changed census officials deemed statistically insignificant.

Posted by Mark at 09:59 PM | Comments (0)

August 26, 2005

I Just Look At The Pictures

bush-bird.jpg

More talk about Bush's mind. Think Captain Joseph Hazelwood.

While President George W. Bush travels around the country in a last-ditch effort to sell his Iraq war, White House aides scramble frantically behind the scenes to hide the dark mood of an increasingly angry leader who unleashes obscenity-filled outbursts at anyone who dares disagree with him.

“I’m not meeting again with that goddamned bitch,” Bush screamed at aides who suggested he meet again with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother whose son died in Iraq. “She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!”

Bush flashes the bird, something aides say he does often and has been doing since his days as governor of Texas.
Bush, administration aides confide, frequently explodes into tirades over those who protest the war, calling them “motherfucking traitors.” He reportedly was so upset over Veterans of Foreign Wars members who wore “bullshit protectors” over their ears during his speech to their annual convention that he told aides to “tell those VFW assholes that I’ll never speak to them again is they can’t keep their members under control.”

White House insiders say Bush is growing increasingly bitter over mounting opposition to his war in Iraq. Polls show a vast majority of Americans now believe the war was a mistake and most doubt the President’s honesty.

“Who gives a flying fuck what the polls say,” he screamed at a recent strategy meeting. “I’m the President and I’ll do whatever I goddamned please. They don’t know shit.”

Bush, whiles setting up for a photo op for signing the recent CAFTA bill, flipped an extended middle finger to reporters. Aides say the President often “flips the bird” to show his displeasure and tells aides who disagree with him to “go to hell” or to “go fuck yourself.” His habit of giving people the finger goes back to his days as Texas governor, aides admit, and videos of him doing so before press conferences were widely circulated among TV stations during those days. A recent video showing him shooting the finger to reporters while walking also recently surfaced.

Bush’s behavior, according to prominent Washington psychiatrist, Dr. Justin Frank, author of “Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President,” is all too typical of an alcohol-abusing bully who is ruled by fear.

Posted by Mark at 06:26 AM | Comments (0)

August 25, 2005

Morons On Parade

Pat Robertson: First Amendment rights versus terrorism provocation.

John Bolton: Peacemaker and peacekeeper.

How is it the anti-terrorism Republicans manage to just keep throwing gasoline on the fire? Hey! We need the gasoline!

Posted by Mark at 10:44 PM | Comments (0)

August 20, 2005

Vioxx Aplenty, Just Don't Try To Fight Skin Cancer

Seems the FDA, that gave us Vioxx, can't seem to find a way to give us a great sunscreen.

4,000 in the US, and Vioxx death toll may hit 2,000 in UK.

Meanwhile, the FDA is pulling sunscreens with Mexoryl off eBay, although you can get it on Amazon.

Some dermatologists call Mexoryl the best ingredient to prevent damage from ultraviolet-A rays, which penetrate deep and cause premature aging. Both the UVA and the shorter-length UVB rays have been linked to cancer.

Legal U.S. sunscreens are more focused on blocking sunburn-causing UVB-rays, says Dr. Clay Cockerell, president of the American Academy of Dermatologists. The allowable drugs for UVA protection, such as zinc oxide and Parsol 1789, don't block nearly as well as Mexoryl does, he says.

Posted by Mark at 10:13 PM | Comments (0)

Thankfully, W's Getting Much Needed Rest

Have The Black Helicopters Been Called Off?

Vacationing Bush Poised to Set a Record
With Long Sojourn at Ranch, President on His Way to Surpassing Reagan's Total

By Jim VandeHei and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, August 3, 2005

[Now, August 20, at 337 days - Record Broken! Congratulations!]

WACO, Tex., Aug. 2 -- President Bush is getting the kind of break most Americans can only dream of -- nearly five weeks away from the office, loaded with vacation time.

The president departed Tuesday for his longest stretch yet away from the White House, arriving at his Crawford ranch in the evening to clear brush, visit with family and friends, and tend to some outside-the-Beltway politics. By historical standards, it is the longest presidential retreat in at least 36 years.

The August getaway is Bush's 49th trip to his cherished ranch since taking office and Tuesday was the 319th day that Bush has spent, entirely or partially, in Crawford -- roughly 20 percent of his presidency to date, according to Mark Knoller, a CBS Radio reporter known for keeping better records of the president's travel than the White House itself. Weekends and holidays at Camp David or at his parents' compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, bump up the proportion of Bush's time away from Washington even further.

Bush's long vacations are more than a curiosity: They play into diametrically opposite arguments about this leadership style. To critics and late-night comics, they symbolize a lackadaisical approach to the world's most important day job, an impression bolstered by Bush's periodic two-hour midday exercise sessions and his disinclination to work nights or weekends. The more vociferous among Bush's foes have noted that he spent a month at the ranch shortly before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when critics assert he should have been more attentive to warning signs.

To Bush and his advisers, that criticism fundamentally misunderstands his Texas sojourns. Those who think he does not remain in command, aides say, do not understand the modern presidency or Bush's own work habits. At the ranch, White House officials say, Bush continues to receive daily national security briefings, sign documents, hold teleconferences with aides and military commanders, and even meet with foreign leaders. And from the president's point of view, the long Texas stints are the best way to clear his mind and reconnect with everyday America.

"I'm looking forward to getting down there and just kind of settling in," Bush told reporters from Texas newspapers during a roundtable interview at the White House on Monday. "I'll be doing a lot of work. On the other hand, I'll also be kind of making sure my Texas roots run deep."

"Spending time outside of Washington always gives the president a fresh perspective of what's on the minds of the American people," White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters Friday. "It's a time, really, for him to shed the coat and tie and meet with folks out in the heartland and hear what's on their minds."

Just as Bush has made these August trips a regular feature of his presidency, so, too, have Democrats made a tradition of needling him about them. This year, opposition politicians are tying his departure from Washington to the CIA leak case that has swept up his top adviser, Karl Rove.

"The White House stonewalling operation is moving to Crawford for the dog days of summer, but they can't hide from the legitimate questions dogging the president and his refusal to keep his promise to fire Karl Rove," said Josh Earnest, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee.

Presidents have often sought refuge from the pressures of Washington and from life in the White House, which Harry S. Truman called the crown jewel of the American prison system. Richard M. Nixon favored Key Biscayne, Fla. Bush's father preferred Maine. Bill Clinton, lacking a home of his own, borrowed a house on Martha's Vineyard, except for two years when political adviser Dick Morris nudged him into going to Jackson, Wyo., before his reelection because it polled better.

Until now, probably no modern president was a more famous vacationer than Ronald Reagan, who loved spending time at his ranch in Santa Barbara, Calif. According to an Associated Press count, Reagan spent all or part of 335 days in Santa Barbara over his eight-year presidency -- a total that Bush will surpass this month in Crawford with 3 1/2 years left in his second term.

"The Oval Office is wherever the president of the United States is," said Kenneth M. Duberstein, who was Reagan's last White House chief of staff. "With the communications being what they are, the president can communicate instantly with whomever he wants anywhere in the world."

Bush will not return to the White House until around Labor Day, but his staff has peppered his schedule with events to dispel any impression that he is not on duty. He will visit at least seven states, mostly with quick day trips, including New Mexico, where he plans to sign energy legislation into law. He gets off to a quick start this week, with a speech Wednesday in nearby Grapevine, Tex., then he plays host to President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia at the ranch Thursday. His schedule is clear Friday through Sunday.

At some point, Bush told reporters Monday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld will visit for consultations. "I have a busy couple of weeks down there," Bush said.

But he will make time for fun, or at least his idea of it. Bush rarely takes the type of vacation one would consider exotic -- or, to some, even appealing. His notion of relaxation is chopping cedar on his ranch or mountain biking through rough terrain, all in 100-degree-plus temperatures in dusty Texas where crickets are known to roast on the summer pavement. He seems to relish the idea of exposing aides and reporters to the hothouse environment.

"I just checked in with the house -- it's about 100 degrees," he told reporters Monday. "But no matter how hot it gets, I enjoy spending time in Texas."

Posted by Mark at 06:51 AM | Comments (0)

Black Helicopter Watch on W

Or Maybe Not

Is Bush Out of Control?
By DOUG THOMPSON

Buy beleaguered, overworked White House aides enough drinks and they tell a sordid tale of an administration under siege, beset by bitter staff infighting and led by a man whose mood swings suggest paranoia bordering on schizophrenia.

They describe a President whose public persona masks an angry, obscenity-spouting man who berates staff, unleashes tirades against those who disagree with him and ends meetings in the Oval Office with “get out of here!”

In fact, George W. Bush’s mood swings have become so drastic that White House emails often contain “weather reports” to warn of the President’s demeanor. “Calm seas” means Bush is calm while “tornado alert” is a warning that he is pissed at the world.

Decreasing job approval ratings and increased criticism within his own party drives the President’s paranoia even higher. Bush, in a meeting with senior advisors, called Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist a “god-damned traitor” for opposing him on stem-cell research.

“There’s real concern in the West Wing that the President is losing it,” a high-level aide told me recently.

A year ago, this web site discovered the White House physician prescribed anti-depressants for Bush. The news came after revelations that the President’s wide mood swings led some administration staffers to doubt his sanity.

Although GOP loyalists dismissed the reports an anti-Bush propaganda, the reports were later confirmed by prominent George Washington University psychiatrist Dr. Justin Frank in his book Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President. Dr. Frank diagnosed the President as a “paranoid meglomaniac” and “untreated alcoholic” whose “lifelong streak of sadism, ranging from childhood pranks (using firecrackers to explode frogs) to insulting journalists, gloating over state executions and pumping his hand gleefully before the bombing of Baghdad” showcase Bush’s instabilities.

“I was really very unsettled by him and I started watching everything he did and reading what he wrote and watching him on videotape. I felt he was disturbed,” Dr. Frank said. “He fits the profile of a former drinker whose alcoholism has been arrested but not treated.”

Dr. Frank’s conclusions have been praised by other prominent psychiatrists, including Dr. James Grotstein, Professor at UCLA Medical Center, and Dr. Irvin Yalom, MD, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University Medical School.

As a recovering alcoholic (sober 11 years, two months, nine days), I know all too well the symptoms that Dr. Frank describes and, after watching Bush for the past several years, I have to, unfortunately, agree with him.

Conversations over the last few weeks with longtime friends who work in the Bush White House confirm even more what Dr. Frank says and others have suggested.

The President of the United States is out of control. How long can the ship of state continue to sail with a madman at the helm?

Posted by Mark at 06:44 AM | Comments (0)

August 17, 2005

OK, 12¢ In Venezuela. Ready To Move To Caracas?

Nation and Price in USD Regular/Gallon As Of March 2005

Posted by Mark at 06:29 AM | Comments (0)

Roberts Wants Equal Pay, Maybe Even For The Broads

Roberts scoffed at equal-pay theory
By Joan Biskupic and Toni Locy, USA TODAY

As an assistant White House counsel in 1984, John Roberts scoffed at the notion that men and women should earn equal pay in jobs of comparable importance, and he belittled three female Republican members of Congress who promoted that idea to the Reagan administration.

The memo from Roberts, now President Bush's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, was a response to a letter that the three women - one of whom was Olympia Snowe of Maine, now a U.S. senator - had sent to the administration. The women had said that the concept of "equal pay for equal work" had not sufficiently boosted women's wages because women were not in many of the same fields as men. The three were promoting the notion of equal pay for different jobs of comparable value, based on factors such as skills and responsibility.

In his memo to White House counsel Fred Fielding, Roberts said the women's letter "contends that more is required because women still earn only $0.60 for every $1 earned by men, ignoring the factors that explain that apparent disparity, such as seniority, the fact that many women frequently leave the work force for extended periods of time. ... I honestly find it troubling that three Republican representatives are so quick to embrace such a radical redistributive concept. Their slogan may as well be, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to her gender.'"

The Feb. 20, 1984, memo from Roberts was among 5,393 pages of records released Monday by the National Archives that were from Roberts' work during the Reagan administration in the early 1980s.

The records, which have been stored at the Reagan presidential library in Simi Valley, Calif., did not include material from Roberts' tenure as deputy U.S. solicitor general from 1989 to 1993, a period in which he took part in cases involving abortion rights, school desegregation and religion in public places. Senate Democrats and the Bush administration continue to wrangle over the release of those papers. The administration has withheld the documents, saying that to release them would breach the attorney-client relationship.

Monday's papers reinforced the portrait of Roberts that emerged in previous releases of documents from his government work two decades ago, before he went on to a career in private practice and then became a judge on a U.S. appeals court. The papers show him as a young aide eager to advance Reagan's conservatism on civil rights, school prayer and women's rights.

Roberts' tone on some women's issues contrasts with that of Sandra Day O'Connor, the justice whom Roberts would succeed. As an Arizona legislator, she complained about women's low wages. As the court's first female justice, she voted for affirmative action and broadly interpreted federal law protecting girls from bias in school programs.

Roberts' memo in the debate over "comparable worth" in wages arose after a U.S. trial judge in Washington state ruled that federal anti-discrimination law required equal pay for men and women who held different jobs that required comparable skills and effort. Reagan officials were considering whether to urge an appeals court to reverse the ruling.

Snowe - along with Nancy Johnson, who is still a House member from Connecticut, and Claudine Schneider, who represented Rhode Island - wanted the ruling to stand and urged the Reagan administration to stay out of the case. (In the end, the administration did not intervene. An appeals court reversed the trial judge's decision.)

In a statement Monday, Snowe said that she recently had a "productive conversation" with Roberts "on a range of issues." She added, "Hopefully, 21 years later, Judge Roberts possesses an openness with respect to issues of gender-based wage discrimination."

One of Monday's documents might undercut the image of Roberts put forward recently by NARAL Pro-Choice America, an abortion rights group. A TV ad by the group cast Roberts as being sympathetic to bombers of abortion clinics. The group withdrew the ad last week under criticism that it was unfair.

Posted by Mark at 06:10 AM | Comments (0)

August 15, 2005

For The Same Reason Lobbyists Are In Washington and Manufacturer's Reps Are in Bentonville, Arkansas

Mexicans take over drug trade to US
With Colombian cartels in shambles, Mexican drug lords run the show.

CIUDAD JUÁREZ, MEXICO – The kingpins of this hemisphere's drug trade are no longer Colombians.

In the largest reorganization since the 1980s, senior US officials say, Mexican cartels have leveraged the profits from their delivery routes to wrest control from the Colombian producers.

"Profits"? Who you kidding?

Hint to Columbians: Get a globe.

Hint #1 to Bush: Supply and demand. Too much demand creates too much supply.

Hint #2 to Bush: 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners yet drug demand on the rise. If more incarceration isn't the answer, might more jobs be?

Posted by Mark at 06:22 AM | Comments (0)

August 11, 2005

OK, But Will Someone Tell Me Where I Can Get Gas As Cheap As That?

Get used to $2.10 or more for gas, EIA says

Forecast based on crude oil staying above $55 a barrel for same period

WASHINGTON - U.S. drivers can expect retail gasoline prices to average above $2.10 a gallon on a monthly basis through 2006, while truckers will face average diesel fuel costs over $2.20, the government said Wednesday.

The federal Energy Information Administration said its forecast is based on the price for U.S. crude oil staying above $55 a barrel during the same period.

The price for crude, which on Wednesday hit another record high of over $64, accounts for about half the cost of making gasoline and diesel fuel.

"It does appear that retail gasoline and diesel prices will remain above $2 per gallon for the foreseeable future," the EIA said in its weekly review of the oil market.

The national price for regular unleaded gasoline hit a record $2.37 a gallon on Monday, while diesel fuel rose to $2.41 -- less than half a penny from its all-time high.

Over the next few weeks, the EIA said a recent 21-cent rise in gasoline spot prices will be passed on to consumers at the retail level.

So far, only about 8 cents of that increase has made it into the pump price, the agency said.

"It takes about 2 weeks for changes in the spot price of gasoline to begin to show up at the pump and it is mostly passed through after 4 weeks," the EIA said. "This implies more price increases lie ahead for the next few weeks."

The agency said that after the Labor Day holiday in early September gasoline prices often decline as fuel demand drops when people go back to school and work.

However, the EIA warned that with a government forecast of an active hurricane season this year, gasoline prices "could continue to surge" beyond Labor Day if a major storm disrupts supplies in the Gulf of Mexico or more oil refinery outages occur.

Posted by Mark at 06:09 AM | Comments (0)

August 01, 2005

But What's McCain Know About Being Detained?

Courtesy
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/1/173936/6398

John McCain, John Warner or Lindsey Graham . . . are giving the White House fits with their attempt to get legislation approved that would expressly prohibit cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody.

There was a dramatic encounter during the floor debate last week when Senator Jeff Sessions, a Republican from Alabama, spoke out against the legislation, saying there was no need for it because, as he put it, the detainees are not prisoners of war, "they are terrorists."

Senator McCain, of Arizona, argued that the debate "is not about who they are. It's about who we are." Americans, said Mr. McCain, "hold ourselves" to a higher standard.

. . . That such an initiative would come from high-ranking, hawkish Republicans is extraordinary, and the White House is not happy about it. In addition to prohibiting cruel and degrading treatment, the legislation would restrict military interrogation techniques to those authorized in a new Army field manual.

. . . The White House has fought intensely, but so far unsuccessfully, against this revolt in the usually steadfast Republican ranks. Vice President Dick Cheney, in a meeting with Senators Warner, McCain and Graham, said the legislation would interfere with President Bush's ability to fight terrorism. He was not able to change their minds.

Unable to fend off the amendments, the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, put off further consideration of the defense bill until September. Senator McCain and his allies will try to build further support for the amendments during that period. The White House has threatened to veto the defense bill if the amendments are approved.

Posted by Mark at 11:39 PM | Comments (0)

April 09, 2005

Jesse Helms Hits 5000 RPM - Oops, He's Not Dead

Salon.com
by Tim Grieve

Hating Hillary -- and yourself?

Hillary Clinton should think about sending a wedding present.

We've known for some time that Arthur Finkelstein, the political advisor who helped shaped the careers of the likes of George Pataki and Jesse Helms, is planning to launch a pre-emptive strike against any HRC run for the White House. As New York magazine reported -- and we noted -- back in February, Finkelstein is putting together a "Stop Her Now" campaign designed around Swift-Boat style anti-Hillary charges.

It won't be the first time that Finkelstein has led the attack against a Democratic candidate: again and again in his career, the reclusive advisor has made "liberal" a dirty word as he's bashed and smeared his clients' opponents. But Finkelstein's anti-Hillary campaign will be his first since the right-wing partisans who fund his work found out this little truth about Finkelstein: In December, he got married -- to another man.

"I believe that visitation rights, health care benefits and other human relationship contracts that are taken for granted by all married people should be available to partners," Finkelstein told the New York Times. We wonder if Finkelstein has set forth his views with such clarity in discussions with Helms, the retired North Carolina senator who was known to refer to homosexuality as "sickening" and fought funding for AIDS treatment funding on the grounds that the disease was the result of "deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct" by homosexuals.

And there's one more thing we wonder: When Finkelstein makes the rounds of the religious right for contributions to "Stop Her Now," will his would-be donors' hatred for Hillary trump their hatred for the "radical homosexual agenda" of which Finkelstein appears to be a part?

Posted by Mark at 08:08 AM | Comments (0)

March 21, 2005

Just Keep Talking II

That Scalia Charm

NY Times
Published: March 21, 2005

Some court-watchers say Justice Antonin Scalia is on a "charm offensive" to become the next chief justice. Then he must have been taking the day off when he gave a speech last week and lashed out at the Supreme Court's recent ruling striking down the death penalty for juveniles, and at the idea of a "living Constitution." There is nothing charming about his view that judges have no business considering the constitutionality of aspects of the death penalty, or that the Constitution should be frozen in time.

Justice Scalia dissented bitterly in this month's juvenile death penalty case. Reasonable minds may ask, as he did, whether the majority opinion relied too heavily on the norms of international law in deciding what punishment does not meet modern standards of decency. But Justice Scalia disagreed not merely with the majority's conclusion that offenders cannot be executed for crimes committed when they were under the age of 18, but with the very fact that the court was even considering the question. "By what conceivable warrant can nine lawyers presume to be the authoritative conscience of the nation?" he asked.

In his speech last week at the Woodrow Wilson Center, he continued on the same theme. He attacked the idea of a "living Constitution," one that evolves with modern sensibilities, which the Supreme Court has long recognized in its jurisprudence, and of "evolving notions of decency," a standard the court uses to interpret the Eighth Amendment prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishments" in cases like those involving the death penalty.

In drafting the Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights, the Founders chose to use broad phrases that necessarily require interpretation. Since its landmark 1803 ruling in Marbury v. Madison, the court has held that it is the final word on the Constitution's meaning. In the recent juvenile death penalty case, the court was doing its job of determining what one such phrase, "cruel and unusual punishment," means today.

The implications of Justice Scalia's remarks are sweeping. Many of the most central principles of American constitutional law - from the right to a court-appointed lawyer to the right to buy contraception - have emerged from the court's evolving sense of the meaning of constitutional clauses. Justice Scalia seems to be suggesting that many, or perhaps all, of these rights should exist only at the whim of legislatures.

Justice Scalia may believe that by repeating his radical views enough times, the nation will grow accustomed to them. But his approach would mean throwing out much of the nation's existing constitutional law, and depriving Americans of basic rights. Justice Scalia's campaign to be the next chief justice, if it is that, is a timely reminder of why he would be a disastrous choice for the job.

Posted by Mark at 06:12 AM | Comments (0)

March 17, 2005

Going Once, Going Twice . . . Hey, Doesn't Anybody Want To Bid On This?

Alaskans Wary of Vote on Oil Drilling

Well, of course they are. Not only is the area a hell-hole no driller would want to work near (and I've been a driller; trust me on this), but at least they're getting some revenue from adventurers - no oil company wants to have anything to do with this. Must be GWB's nose for the oil biz that makes this a goer. Or did he fail in that business?

By MATT VOLZ, Associated Press Writer

JUNEAU, Alaska - The tiny north coast town of Kaktovik officially supports responsible development of oil and gas. But many reacted warily to the Senate vote to allow drilling in their back yard.

Even with just 284 residents, Kaktovik is the largest town on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's coastal plain. Mayor Lon Sonsalla said just about everyone has concerns about changes that could accompany any work in the 1.5 million-acre stretch, where billions of barrels of crude oil are believed to rest beneath the tundra.

"We are now given notice that we have to be on our toes," said the mayor.

Sure, we need to get off the Saudi's teat but, hey, here's the rub:

A Bush adviser says the major oil companies have a dimmer view of the refuge's prospects than the administration does. "If the government gave them the leases for free they wouldn't take them," said the adviser, who would speak only anonymously because of his position. "No oil company really cares about ANWR," the adviser said, using an acronym for the refuge, pronounced "an-war."

Posted by Mark at 11:22 PM | Comments (1)

March 14, 2005

I Will If You Will

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7181496/site/newsweek/MSNBC.com

Condoleezza Dreamin'
The secretary of State says she’s not planning to run for president in 2008. Will she change her mind?

March 14 - I heard a loud screeching crash on Sunday morning, followed by 24 hours of wailing. Did you hear it, too? It was the sound of the Condi Rice bandwagon getting a flat tire and flying into the drainage ditch—and millions of Republicans going into spontaneous apoplexy.

There it was, for all to hear, on NBC's "Meet the Press": Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice destroying the hopes of her party by vehemently denying that she will run for president in 2008.

Or did she? "I don't have any desire or intention of running for president," she said, by way of opening. That was too much wiggle room for host Tim Russert. So he persisted. "Desire or intention?" Russert asked.

"Both," Rice replied. Then Russert asked her to issue a Shermanesque refusal to run—as in, "If nominated, I will not accept. If elected, I will not serve." She wouldn't do it.

"Tim, I don't want to run for president of the United States," she said. Under more pressing, she tried, "I will not run for president of the United States. How is that? I don't know how many ways to say 'no' in this town."

"You're done? You're out?" Russert pressed. "I'm done," she said. They danced back and forth a little while longer, with Rice continuing to say, "I don't intend to run," and Russert asking for her to be more definitive. Finally, she said it again: "I won't run." And Russert had his scoop—and every Republican in the country suddenly got a kick in the teeth.

I mean, we're talking about Condi Rice here—a woman who has never expressed even the slightest desire to be president of anything except the National Football League, yet finds herself on the top of every GOP poll and every Republican political consultant's wish list.

To assess just how depressed my Republican counterparts are about the news of Condi's refusal to run, I called my father. Loyal readers of this column know that Dad is a true conservative—a believer in low taxes, balanced budgets, limited government regulations, pre-emptive war and public display of the Ten Commandments (as long as all 10 are "Defeat Hillary Clinton").

I assumed he would be distraught after the "Meet the Press" interview, but I found him upbeat. In fact, he had the audacity to claim that Rice had not ruled out a run for the presidency, despite the fact that she had used almost those very words (except for the "not").

"She said she wouldn't run," my father said. "But that doesn't mean she won't allow herself to be drafted!" He then proceeded to review the "Meet the Press" transcript and promptly affirmed that Rice remained the front-runner.

My father was merely echoing other Republican voices. The "Americans for Rice" Web site, one of a handful of rather unprofessional-looking blogs devoted to giving Rice the impression that millions of Americans are dying for her to run, hedged on behalf of their great black hope: She only told Russert she wasn't running because "she is our secretary of State and cannot be constantly hounded by questions of a possible presidential bid." The Web site then offered its conspiracy theories as to why it remains certain that Rice is running: "We find the recent position of Karen Hughes, one of the president's closest campaign confidants, within Dr. Rice's State Department very telling,” said the blog in a reference to Hughes’ nomination as Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. Perhaps actions speak louder than words in this case. With the memory of Eisenhower's being 'drafted' for the nomination, we are not deterred."

It was amazing to hear the people who once complained that Bill Clinton didn't know the definition of "is" now parsing Rice's statement for any evidence that she's still in the running (the prevailing theory, for instance, is that in three years, Rice will merely claim that "circumstances have changed" or that she must allow herself to be "drafted" so that Hillary Clinton doesn't roll back eight years of triumphs by President Bush).

What is driving these Condinistas? Certainly, every American has a soupcon of respect for Dr. Rice's achievements—from alarmist Cold War Kremlinologist to Stanford provost to national security adviser to secretary of State—but all the lofty talk soon evaporates into basic Republican hatred of Hillary Clinton (apparently eight solid years of hating her husband didn't get all the bile out of some people's systems).

If you listen to Republicans, there are only three candidates who can defeat Hillary in 2008 and save the Republic from inevitable demise: John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Condi Rice. With Rice gone, Democrats like me are obviously gloating. Suddenly, the chances have increased that the Republican Party will do in 2008 what my party has done for almost every election since 1960: bruise itself silly in the primaries, nominate a standard bearer who has no chance of winning, and lose. The only exceptions to this rule, of course, were Bill Clinton's consecutive victories (but we all know he wasn't a real Democrat anyway).

In other words, if the Republicans do what the Democrats typically do—pick the man who represents what the party actually believes rather than the candidate who can actually win—they'll pick Sen. Bill Frist or Sen. Rick Santorum. And if they do that, the most hated woman since Imelda Marcos will win 55-45.

It's not entirely clear to me why Republicans like Rice so much. Beyond her foreign policy pronouncements—I prefer the word "lies," but I'll be generous (for now)—she has offered no opinions on the issues of the day, from welfare reform to the president's judicial nominees to the environment to Social Security reform. Clearly what is motivating the "Draft Condi" movement is that she is an electable black woman in a party that will need every vote against Clinton. (If asked to choose among other black women who have never offered positions on the issues, however, I'd choose Janet Jackson. Granted, her position on nipple exposure probably renders her unelectable, but at least Janet Jackson never went on TV and said that Saddam Hussein had aluminum tubes that were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs" when, in fact, the opposite was true).

And the dream of defeating Hillary Clinton (who has never said she's running either, but that's a topic for another column) is what stokes the Republican fire. As the Americans for Rice Web site put it, "Do you really believe that the girl that was nurtured by her parents to believe that she could become president (even if she couldn't have a hamburger at Woolworth's) and who told her parents that one day she would live in the White House, and who has been at the right hand of the three Bush administrations is simply going to return to California to watch football on Sundays, play the piano and write her memoirs while Hillary moves back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? We don't think so either!" In other words, they're hoping that Rice lacks the very integrity that they admire: They're hoping that she lied to Russert the same way she lied about Saddam's aluminum tubes.

Posted by Mark at 10:54 PM | Comments (0)