Mountaintop Pillage

The naked land reveals the naked truth. The greed of millionaires trumps the health of the poor, the purity of the water, and even the beauty of the hills. In an under-reported story, the Bush administration has made yet another rule change assaulting the environment and enriching the polluters. The practice of mountaintop removal will no longer be hampered by those pesky environmental rules designed to protect our waters.

Photo courtesy Vivian Stockman / www.ohvec.org
Flyover courtesy SouthWings.org

Couched in language which might initially incline a reader to think it is protecting the environment, the new proposed rules actually redefine terms, and reinterpret former acts of Congress, in such a way that mining operations which engage in the surface coal mining technology known as mountaintop removal are exempt from the 1983 requirement that prohibits mining activity within 100 feet of streams. In fact this practice routinely buries streams and valleys by tons of rubble, known as "excess spoil", which is stripped off the top of coal seams running through the tops of hills and mountains in West Virginia, Kentucky, and western Virginia.

The current rule change is subject to a 60-day comment period which will expire on October 23, though those looking for a response to their comment had best post it to OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov before September 24. Folks at the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition have created this page of suggestions for citizen action.

So if the rule change is new, then how is it that about 1200 miles of streams have been tainted by this process (700 miles simply buried) since 1992? According to Vernon Haltom of Coal River Mountain Watch,

What happens is the permitting agencies grant variances, and they grant variances just pretty much willy-nilly. All the coal operator has to do is request a variance, and they’re granted pretty easily. Unfortunately, you know, this rule change would remove even that requirement.

The latest rule change is simply the latest in a series of changes which further undercuts environmental safeguards of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). The lengthy new document, which is actually surprisingly readable, arguably does remove logical ambiguities from the original act, but ever in the direction of allowing practices which are suggested as possible where another part of the Act would logically prohibit them.

Viewing photographs of this obvious desecration, one might wonder why it isn't front page news, frequently reported by the mainstream press. Alternatively one wonders, "Well what's the other side of the story?" In fact Google searches of CNN, ABC News, CBS News, MSNBC, and Fox News consistently turn up surprising few hits on "mountaintop removal", in spite of the fact that is the acknowledged name of the practice. Neither can one find any bevy of editorials supporting this indefensible practice, though occasional editorial support of coal liquifecation technologies implicitly approve the practice, as mountaintop removal (MTR) provides much of today's raw materials for that process.

Furthermore I scoured the online versions of the local press from such places as Beckley, WV and Pikeville, KY. Very little in the way of articles on the process appear, though there were numerous letters to the editor almost unanimously in staunch opposition to the process. The Charleston Gazette did a better job of covering it, with an earlier series, and a recent editorial by Allen Johnson declaring the destruction of the mountains to be a moral issue. Johnson, of Christians for the Mountains, was featured on a recent episode of Bill Moyers' Journal which investigated the issue.

Well then, is it the jobs MTR is providing which is producing such silence on this destructive practice? In fact, it has the opposite effect on employment as the process uses bigger machines and fewer people than traditional mining practices. Vernon Haltom again:

You know, we hear about coal being cheap. Well, coal is not cheap when you consider all the externalized costs that are borne by these communities. It’s really -- it is unbearable. And so what you have, you have depopulation, you have decreased jobs. Mountaintop removal requires fewer miners, and therefore fewer jobs.

Really it boils down to wealth and influence. Don Blankenship, CEO of Massey Energy, has no lack of ties and connections to government and the regulators, while Ed Wiley, citizen of West Virginia, walked all the way from Charleston, West Virginia to Washington, DC, and still could get no hearing. Carmelita Brown can look up the hill at Blankenship's home, and yet her water frequently ran dark brown with contaminants from ground water ruined by Massey's irresponsible mining practices. Only after thirteen years of documenting the contamination and battling the authorities, did Brown and 300 other families get clean municipal water piped into their homes. Of course that doesn't fix the ground water contamination which continues apace, and will only accelerate when this rule takes effect. It doesn't fix the air pollution caused by the blasting which exposes the seams of coal, to the tune of 474,000 metric tons of explosives used in West Virginia alone in 2005.

The Administration's own report (page 3) acknowledges that there were 1079 excess spoil fills approved in Kentucky, 375 in West Virginia, and 125 in Virginia between October 2001 and June of 2005. These are those exemptions already granted for filling in creeks, which will no longer be necessary when the new rule goes into effect. The new language may remove ambiguity about what is and is not allowed (pretty much the polluters can do as they please), but the constraints, now often amount to vague suggestions that excess spoil and adverse environmental impacts be minimized, rather than enforcing specific standards. There remains the constraint that the spoil not be dumped into valleys lower in altitude than the lowest part of the seam to be mined, but that's easily skirted by making sure some mining occurs in a seam lower than the intended dumping area.

The champions of the free market love to claim that market forces can work to protect our environment, but when the distribution of wealth is so extremely skewed it just doesn't work that way. Billionaires buy the regulations they want, and the impoverished are left with no leverage. This isn't supply and demand; it's corruption pure and simple. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are on the take, but there is little question that the Bush Administration is front and center when it come to cementing the advantage for the wealthy elite.

Save SCHIP for Children's Sakes

Nearly everyone professes a desire to renew the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), set to expire in September. Disagreement persists on funding levels & sources, qualification thresholds, and state discretion for variances. Is this a healthy policy debate, or a platform for ideological grandstanding? For the sake of children's health, let's hope SCHIP is funded at levels to protect the truly vulnerable.

There is a policy debate here worth having, but hold on there and look at the scope and the big picture before allowing the ideologues to drag us into minutiae. SCHIP (pronounced ess-chip) is a program which America's governors agree across party lines has benefited the hard working families most deserving of health insurance for their children that they otherwise simply couldn't afford. Everyone agrees that renewing the program for five years at the current level of $25 billion for five years is not enough. The White House wants to limit the expansion to an additional $5 billion, the Senate's bipartisan version expands the program by $35 billion and the House version (HR 3162) by $50 billion. Co-author and conservative Republican Senator Orrin Hatch's made this statement on the floor in favor of the Senate version (S 1893).

The White House is attempting to don the garments of fiscal restraint in threatening a veto of excessive Congressional expansion of SCHIP. Ahem...

In 2003, Bush famously signed into law the most expensive health bill in our nation's history. That bill with a stated price tag of $400 billion over 10 years, almost didn't pass, as Tom DeLay had to coerce one fiscal conservative with a political threat against his son to get the necessary vote. Later we learned that the administration already knew that the price tag was being understated by over $100 billion, but the actuary with that information was being muzzled by his boss, so Congress might pass it. Never mind that the biggest beneficiaries of this bill were the pharmaceuticals and HMOs, much more than the seniors it was supposed to benefit, who in spite of all that government spending were actually going to have their out of pocket costs increase. Multiple sources now tell us that the actual cost to taxpayers of this gargantuan largesse to big pharma and HMO will exceed $1 trillion dollars, though the White House denies them. Note, however, the quiet admission that the cost is over $500 billion.

Yes some perspective is in order.



So this administration wants to trim $30-45 billion off of a program which directly benefits the underinsured in the name of fiscal responsibility, when four years ago it was willing to lie about the cost of a program it supported to the tune of $135 billion, when many of those dollars are an indirect benefit, which simultaneously lined the pockets of the executives who really have Bush's ear.

Yes I understand that the 2003 program is showing a 10 year cost, whereas the 2007 SCHIP graph is showing a 5 year cost - but still look at the difference between columns 5 and 6, which the Administration is declaring a willingness to veto over, compared to the difference betwee columns 2 and 3 which the Administration was willing to LIE over. When it comes to cost control this administration has no credibility whatsoever. It simply says whatever it wants for political reasons, with no apparent regard for the public good.

When all is said and done, this war the President started will likely cost us over $2 trillion dollars, dwarfing further the bars on the graph above - and that doesn't even attempt to assign a value to the lost lives of soldiers and civilians, or the damage to our national image across the globe.

Yes there is a policy debate worth having about SCHIP. From Kaiser to the AARP to pundits to policy journals, folks are weighing in with the specifics. Maybe the House version needs to be scaled back or includes earmarks which don't belong there. I'll take Orrin Hatch's word for it that in the Senate version, "my Democrat colleagues made sacrifices in endorsing this bill and in sacrificing program expansions they so dearly advocated". I personally might prefer the House version, but this President ought to be convinced to sign some compromise - perhaps close to that bipartisan effort in the Senate. I would urge my Congressman to work to present a bill that can be quickly approved, but one which accounts for the realities that the working poor and the working lower middle class must face in health care. Some states have already run out of funds, and in instances children may be literally dying because their parents can't afford the procedures they require.

Republicans are correct about one thing

The Democratic overnight session forcing Republicans to engage in a real filibuster was more theater than substance. Nonetheless it was theater which afforded the Democrats the opportunity to show the 60% of Americans who believe that funding of the war SHOULD be tied to deadlines for withdrawal, that they- Congressional Democrats - finally get it.

A lot of the commentary from pundits about the war and American opinion misses the point, but when you hear that the Congress is "tone-deaf" or that they are "behind the American public" on this issue, that's essentially correct. Back in late May, the Congressional Democrats in both houses capitulated, and gave Bush pretty much the funding bill he wanted, instead of relentlessly insisting on including a deadline, and forcing Bush to continually veto funding in order to avoid any deadline. The erroneous thinking was that the public would ultimately blame Congress in such a standoff which risked resulting in the troops not being funded at all. My argument at the time was that among the majority who oppose the war, Bush would take the blame in such a standoff. The contrary view seemed to be based in part on public reaction following the government shutdown of 1995 in which Clinton would not sign a bill with Republican conditions he did not want, and the government temporarily shutdown. The public blame at the time went to Congress. I say such reactions depend on the particulars, and the recent CBS/NYT poll suggests a majority of Americans would have approved of Congress insisting on deadlines in May, in spite of April polling which suggested the opposite. Clearly the Democrats' lack of spine in standing up to Bush is the major factor in bringing Congressional approval levels so low.

Now let me be perfectly clear. Majority opinion does not make that opinion correct. In February 2003 I was part of a vocal minority within America opposing our invasion of Iraq. We were correct.

If some action is right, then time will vindicate standing firm in spite of public opinion. Bush still hopes for such historic vindication in spite of all evidence and common sense which suggest otherwise. In May the Democrats did not need to fund this madness, and should have stood firm because it was right, not because the public would approve. Instead they guessed about public opinion, and allowed Bush to deepen the quagmire without conditions. Now that they are down to the low 20s in public approval, maybe they're finally getting it.

Bringing cots into the Senate chamber was most definitely political theater. It was welcome theater, and long overdue.

Stop-Loss: Bush's Ugly Draft

One courageous soldier, holding vigil in Bellingham, Washington (more coverage here), is discovering that most of the people he talks to don't even know what "stop loss" is, or believe that it only refers to a certain kind of stock trade. In fact the Bush administration's indefensible and immoral use of the military's stop loss policy is a despicable mistreatment of the volunteers who comprise our armed services.

The stop loss policy allows the military to retain soldiers past the time of their contract in times of national emergency. In a real national emergency that makes sense. The only national emergency we have now is one of Bush's own creation, and it is not going to be addressed - indeed it is only being exacerbated - by forcing our volunteer soldiers to remain in the line of fire past the time of their contract. The only emergency being addressed is the political emergency of Bush vainly attempting to save face while denying the reality that his "liberation" of Iraq has been a colossal failure.

Soldiers are being called back to third and even fourth tours of duty, and kept past the time stipulated on their contracts for one simple reason. There aren't enough volunteers to support this boondoggle, and no one other than Charlie Rangel has the gumption to suggest an honest draft to supply the fresh troops that would be necessary to support keeping the former level of troops in the Middle East, much less a surge. Meanwhile Ahmadinejad laughs while we rattle our sabres, because he knows our military is now stretched too thin to provide any real threat against Iran.

When news of the stop loss program first broke, I was surprised by the lack of outrage and coverage of it. Still, outside of the military, it is a little known necessity for fueling this insane war. There are signs that it is gaining traction as an issue, though, as it erodes support for the war in the very camps where support has traditionally been strongest. In fact it has generated such a spate of lawsuits and backlash in the ranks that Defense Secretary Robert Gates is ordering that plans be made to minimize its use.

The surge and the widespread objection to it has been well reported. Some have suggested that if we really want to give the military option a chance to succeed we would need a far greater surge than the President has ordered. The elephant in the room is that we CANNOT supply such a huge surge without a real draft, and that we can only support the current levels, surge or no surge, by mistreating the very soldiers we supposedly honor.

We must demand that President Bush support our troops by bringing them home in an orderly fashion - and soon.

Capitulation

Unfortunately there is nothing else to call it.

It's being said a million times in a million ways - and hopefully the media and the Democratic leadership will wake up to the fact that it's not just the "loony left" who want to see Congress stand up to this Administration and insist that we begin exiting from their insane and failed military boondoggle in Iraq.

An accidental similarity in title of one of my posts of a year ago with a recent opinion piece by Mark Buchanan published by the New York Times, has led me to that article which seeks to explain the disconnect between the media's "conventional wisdom" about the feelings of the American people and the breadth and depth of what they really feel. It's an interesting read, but with the Times odd policy of making opinion available only by subscription, I can point you instead to this reproduction of it.

I try to regularly watch Washington Week in Review, largely because it keeps me in touch with the DC pundits' "conventional wisdoms", but I frequently bristle at what they choose to cover or ignore, and at the characterizations of perfectly reasonable beliefs as being "fringe". Dan Balz is particularly nauseating - but I digress. Of course if you pay attention to the sponsors of this "public television" offering, one quickly sees big oil, big agribusiness, and military contractors. Who are we kidding? Brancaccio's NOW and anything Bill Moyers does in contrast is funded solely by foundations or socially conscious businesses.

So I sit here heartsick and dismayed that the Democratic leadership was so gutless that it could not come back with a bill that mandated a sane exit as a contingency to funding. It's even more sickening that so many Democrats voted for this capitulation - both in the House and the Senate.

Certainly I called both my Senators (Murray and Cantwell) to express my dismay, and my Congressman (Inslee) to applaud his courage.

Still, I think it is important not to come unhinged. By all means, let us point out that people are dying due to these decisions, but let us be aware that this is but one vote, and our continued engagement can still play a role in subsequent votes. I am not abandoning the Democrats over this, nor will I drop out. The voice of dissent is growing. To use it effectively we must continue to be involved - not drop out in disgust.

The Democratic leadership has sadly ceded the Republican talking point that a vote against an unreasonable funding resolution is a vote against the troops - we must not cede the talking point that only the leftwing fringe would do otherwise. That is provably not the case, but the more of us who come unhinged, the easier it will be for the opposition to paint us as such.

Choose hope - stay resolute - adopt a calm anger

We are here to stay.

Democrats: Don't Be Timid!

The veto on the war spending bill is now official, and the ball is in the Democrats' court.

Now is the time to pressure our Democratic lawmakers not only to hold their ground but to be even more assertive. Bush has already refused your compromise: take something away.

When a petulant child misbehaves, no one advises the parents to compromise with him. That would reward the bad behavior and encourage more mischief. Bush may not be a child, but he certainly acts like one. Frankly I'm happy for this veto. The embedded timelines in the bill gave Bush far too much latitude to simply ignore them. The American people are fed up. If the Democrats can get a tougher bill to pass, it will be the President who is then up against the wall. As time is running out his veto would become the thing that denies support for the troops.

It has always been this president and his administration who is most guilty of not supporting our troops:

Insufficient body armor(Just one of many reports)
Stop-loss extensions of tours of duty(example of a mother's protest)
Recalling soldiers for third redeployments(current search of Google news for sample stories)
Insufficient training for national guard sent for service
Not taking care of our returning veterans(Fox News, no less)

If the Dems can't get sufficient support for making the redeployment out of Iraq mandatory, then they should add more conditions IN SUPPORT OF THE TROOPS based on the foregoing. They should not remove language calling for redeployment out of Iraq, also IN SUPPORT OF THE TROOPS, in order to make Bush's signing more likely.

The conventional wisdom says the timetable will be removed in favor of more solid benchmarks. That is based on the reality that the vote on the last bill was close, and some Senators seem unlikely to be willing to hold their ground. The conventional wisdom can change if enough of those Senators and Congresspeople hear from their constituents demanding that they not cave in to a president intent on defying the will of the people. If the Democrats stay tough, the charge that they are not supporting the troops will not have sticking power.

It has become quite evident that it is Bush who will not support the very troops who he is asking to risk their lives for his misadventure. Support our troops. Demand that they be brought home!

More Bush Power = More Transparency?

Not bloody likely!

In yet another attempt to grab lost power, our secretive Administration announced two weeks ago that it will expand the review power of the Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to include all guidance documents released within all Federal Agencies. Incredibly OMB spokeswoman Andrea Wuebker claims that the change will increase "the quality ... and transparency of agency guidance documents."

OK, this may not seem like a big deal, and it is not even close to the most outrageous thing this Administration has done, but it is illustrative of their consistent underlying desire to always control the message and make sure that decent public servants within the federal government cannot undermine Bush's political aims by doing their jobs responsibly. Now there is nothing wrong with OIRA taking the time to review the work going on within various agencies, and challenging documents they may feel are politically motivated or inaccurate. But the effect of this rule change is to create more hoops for agencies to go through before releasing guidance documents of any kind, making sure that each is first vetted by officials whose primary concern is political.

Already, the Bush Administration has taken huge advantage of Clinton's original executive order which prompted oversight review of all proposed regulations, to make sure that they were all "properly" vetted by the legions within Bush's executive branch who look after the interests of his pals in the boardroom. As OMB Watch noted last year, "the role of OIRA in rulemaking is often far more pervasive and substantive than the executive order circumscribes." We also already know that when science uncovers inconvenient facts, political appointees have free rein to reword scientific papers to suit political expediency. Now that WAS outrageous!

Don't you know Bush just hates it when such stories break? Well they figure maybe fewer inconvenient findings will ever make it to public eyes if every guidance document requires more paperwork and vetting before even being released. Transparency indeed! The intention here is just the opposite.

Keep it Simple, Congress

Already I have some more advice for the new Democratic majorities in Congress.

Write some really simple legislation.

Americans are already disgusted with the "I'll scratch your back, if you'll scratch mine" system of governance in which bills become absurd conglomerations of disparate issues which no one wholly agrees with and no one wholly disagrees with. With majorities, Democrats have an opportunity to just say no to that process, and put bills in front of the President which are popular with the American people and carry no baggage that spoil their central theme.

Minimum wage is a great example. Democrats should avoid the temptation to fill a minimum wage bill with liberal riders. Make the President's veto, if he dares, mean exactly that he thinks it's ok for employers to pay sub-poverty wages.

Reverse the worst of the Republican legislation of the last 12 years a piece at a time. There's so much to do - make each piece of it as simple as possible. Allow the government to negotiate the best prices with pharmaceuticals for prescription drugs. Reverse the media consolidation rules which squelch diversity of opinion broadcast over TV and radio. Etc, etc, etc. One at a time the American people can come to understand that Democratic leadership is in their best interest. But only if the Democrats deliver that leadership.

No doubt Bush will be dusting off his veto pen at long last, but maybe there's a limit to the number of popular bills that an unpopular president can get away with vetoing. Opportunities abound; I'm choosing hope.

Knowledge, Security, Privacy, & Trust

The NSA's newly revealed database of phone call records won't generate any outrage from me. I felt the wiretapping uncovered a few months ago was clearly illegal, and holding Congressional hearings on that was appropriate. But really my concern is not with the surveillance so much as with its potential misuse. If our government was composed of gods, it wouldn't really be troubling if every secret was known, but it is of course composed of human beings so requiring documented justification for surveillance is certainly reasonable. If the government has to be more open about its activities, that prevents it from abusing the privilege. When secrecy is rampant already, I don't buy the argument that eliminating oversight is necessary for security. Indeed security is damaged if insiders become compromised through bribery or self-interest, and that secrecy is used to protect those from whom it is supposed to protect us. The FISA solution made a lot of sense by providing oversight without wide knowledge, and so the Administration's bypassing of it requires more public oversight in spite of any perceived risk.

This newly revealed program which gives access to a database which can be queried if real terrorist numbers are discovered, sounds like a very defensible program in the right context, but Bush defenders should hardly be surprised that it arouses major suspicion in the context of a secretive administration which regularly flouts the law, misleads the public, and manipulates the press. Still I want to be careful about flying off the handle and declaring that the existence of this database is an outrage. It is not. Misuse of the database might range from somewhat unethical to truly outrageous, but the potential for it to be used only in the interest of security does exist, and I wouldn't want to deny the method forever and for all time simply based on my mistrust of Bush and his minions.

What I really want is a government I can trust. Imagine a program where every infant born or immigrant to our shores got DNA sequenced and that information was retained in a secure database for future medical decisions and law enforcement. That would frighten most libertarians and civil libertarians to the core, and with good reason. But ideally it would be a wonderful asset if guarding against its misuse were taken seriously, and we could feel assured that it would only be used appropriately. This would be great, not only for victims, but for the wrongly accused, where DNA evidence could exonerate them. And what a deterrent to crime when you know that any found DNA can pinpoint you to a scene or weapon. In the long run it would be worth developing the system to guard the system against misuse, in order to benefit from it. I'm not going to push for it any time real soon, however.

Having a searchable database which records billions of phone call records is pretty small potatoes on the Big Brother meter, certainly compared to my DNA suggestion above. Rather than going ape over its existence, I believe the appropriate response is to continue to demand accountability by the executive branch for how it uses any such program. There may be cases where approval of further surveillance needs to be done by a secret court such as FISA, but approval needs to come from independently created sources which shouldn't be too chummy with those making the requests, and there is a strong case to be made that FISA is not sufficiently independent. That the NSA bypassed the required step in the earlier revealed wiretapping, in spite of that, feeds the distrust that more and more Americans are feeling for the current crop of leaders.

Feingold does not shy away from truth

Russ Feingold consistently follows his conscience rather than bending to political expediency. His modest call for censure of President Bush would pass overwhelmingly but for the fact that most senators behave in the opposite manner and must weigh the political calculus of supporting Feingold's call before doing what's right. Maybe this poll will help them along. It's truly laughable that Frist (of the Schiavo stunt) would decry the move as a political stunt.

Even if you don't see the secret surveillance program which bypassed the required FISA warrants as anywhere close to the most outrageous act of our outlaw government (and I would agree), it is a clear case where the law was broken, yet Bush unapologetically defends his lawlessness. This administration must be censured and Feingold correctly asserts that enough is enough.

Yesterday, mcjoan at DailyKos, made this discerning post, in which she called out these earlier words of John McCain:

Mr. Chief Justice, I intend to vote to convict the President of the United States on both articles of impeachment. To say I do so with regret will sound trite to some, but I mean it sincerely. I deeply regret that this day has come to pass.

I bear no animosity for the President. I take no partisan satisfaction from this matter. I don't lightly dismiss the public's clear opposition to conviction. And I am genuinely concerned that the institution of the Presidency not be harmed, either by the President's conduct, or by Congress' reaction to his conduct.

Indeed, I take no satisfaction at all from this vote, with one exception--and an important exception it is--that by voting to convict I have been spared reproach by my conscience for shirking my duty.

The Senate faces an awful choice, to be sure. But, to my mind, it is a clear choice. I am persuaded that the President has violated his oath of office by committing perjury and by obstructing justice, and that by so doing he has forfeited his office.

Of course, McCain was speaking in 1999 about a different President, but those words could work brilliantly from a moderate Democrat's standpoint today.

On a less serious note, I laughed when I first heard of the government's request to seek data from Google on common internet search strings. Right away I did Google searches for "Bush should be impeached" and "Cheney should be jailed", hoping to drive those numbers up. I suppose the reduced request probably turn up such numbers, but overstepping the bounds of what data this administration would mine would certainly not surprise me.

For those of you who have been checking in here periodically over the last several weeks, I do apologize for my silence. The good news is that a lot of others have been picking up the slack. I'll likely never be a daily blogger, but I still would like to avoid multiple week gaps. Life does dictate otherwise from time to time.

Previous Choosing Hope articles which reference Russ Feingold:
Comity Prevails
Thanks to Senators opposing Gonzales
Anticipating the Firestorm
Give 'em Hell Harry
and
my comment on Feingold at "What is Liberalism?"

Not my focus, but ...

Generally I ignore the kneejerk idiocy of screamers at Free Republic, figuring it's just as easy to find comparable examples on the left, say in the comments at Atrios or Democratic Underground. Let's worry more about the idiocy of those who actually hold the reins of power.

But the right wing echo chamber is real and it's a good thing that not all reasonable people ignore it. It does in fact feed public perceptions far too much for my liking, so I'm glad some are vigilant at exposing its hypocrisies.

Angelica, at Battle Panda, found some priceless comments from Free Republic during Clinton's days expressing outrage at his use of the FISA process to obtain warrants rather than doing it in open court. Do you think these same folks are beside themselves now that W is even bypassing the FISA process?

Angelica summarizes:

So now you know. Circumventing the FISA court is just a part of doing your job as a commander in chief if your name is G.W. Bush. But going through the FISA courts instead of getting a warrant in open court is a jaw-droppingly Kafkaesque abuse of executive privileges if you happen to be Bill Clinton.

She also pointed me to a wonderful screed by Glenn Greenwald noting the utter misapprehension of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" by Bush loyalists:

Now, in order to be considered a "liberal," only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush. The minute one criticizes him is the minute that one becomes a "liberal," regardless of the ground on which the criticism is based. And the more one criticizes him, by definition, the more "liberal" one is. Whether one is a "liberal" -- or, for that matter, a "conservative" -- is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush.

One might call it just talk, but Greenwald backs it up with examples aplenty.

Just a Silly Daydream

Family obligations kept me from listening to the State of the Union address last week. So I've made up my own.

Bush supporters complain of Bush detractors that there is nothing he could say that would make them happy. And you know what, they're close to right. The actions of this administration have been so consistent in many ways, that mere words alone could hardly assuage the anguish we feel at this administration's constant assault on so many of the values we hold dear.

I began contemplating what sort of speech Bush could have given that would have earned him my respect. If he made an utter about-face and gave a speech that one might expect from Ted Kennedy, proclaiming a new liberal day in America, I just wouldn't believe him. No, he would have to show me something different, but somehow square it with his abysmal record. Here, perhaps, is the speech which would have finally earned him my respect:

My fellow Americans,

The state of our Union remains strong on many fronts, with high employment, manageable inflation, the strongest defense in the world, and most importantly a diverse citizenry, comprised of millions of exceptional individuals whose abilities, inventiveness, compassion, and industriousness embody the hope for generations to come for American prosperity and idealism. Beneath these strengths, however, I must report that there lie some mighty troubles, which must be faced squarely and addressed aggressively before they eat away at the fabric of all that is great in our republic. I come to you tonight humbly acknowledging that I must share in the blame for these underlying afflictions which threaten the future that we all want for our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren.

When I came before you as a candidate for this office six years ago, declaring myself as a compassionate conservative who sought to be a uniter, not a divider, I meant it. I have personally known liberals, conservatives, and moderates, all of whom share the desire to do what is best for themselves, for their loved ones, and for their fellow citizens. Working together I believed we could find a way to move this country forward.

However, I seriously misjudged the extent to which my particular tactics for stimulating the economy would draw the ire of those who, also earnestly, believe those tactics to be severely misguided and injurious to less advantaged Americans. When my dear friends, who are the captains of industry, explain to me how cutting taxes, especially on inherited wealth and investment, is key to rejuvenating the economy, I believed them and I still do. But when billionairres such as Bill Gates, Sr join the chorus of liberal and Democratic voices who point out that such tax cuts have the immediate result of increasing the gap between the wealthiest Americans and those of less means, I can understand the angry resentment which has divided rather than united America.

These same captains of industry, fine people who love their children and relish clean air to breathe and clean water to drink, assured me that their industries could do a much smarter job of regulating themselves. They explained how so many of the environmental laws were burdensome, damaged the economy, and put us at a disadvantage in the global marketplace. Of course, I believed them, and I still do. Industry is smarter about regulating itself than a bureaucratically laden government ever can be. But I misjudged the grave distrust that many Americans have for allowing industry to police themselves. Very reasonable clear-headed thinkers really believe there is a danger that the lure of profits might coerce industry-appointed regulators to endanger our environment. I had intended to unite us, but instead I have divided America.

When terrorists struck their fateful blow on September 11 of 2001, we were united in our grief for those who were lost or whose lives were awfully changed forever. We were united in horror that anyone could so delight in such wanton destruction. However, I seriously underestimated the passion with which a large minority of Americans revere certain freedoms and their privacy. Our secret wiretapping program, for instance, was a common sense precaution against the terrorists gaining the upper hand. But after it was revealed, we discovered that it, as with other elements of the PATRIOT Act, was seen as a terrible invasion upon the liberties of ordinary Americans who had no connection with terrorists. My administration lost the trust of millions of Americans doing what we thought was necessary in our defense, and some really reasonable people are telling me that those measures are illegal. I had intended to unite us, but instead I have divided America.

When a brutal dictator in an oil-rich nation in the Middle East is believed to be accruing weapons of mass destruction, and my good friends who conceived of the Project for the New American Century assured me that his overthrow can only be accomplished by American initiative and is critical to our planet's future, I believed them. I anticipated that the American people would be united in their resolve to crush his dictatorship and attempt to bring Democracy to this fragile but important corner of our planet. After it was discovered that the weapons did not exist, and that the cost of the war in lives of our own men and women, in the lives of innocent civilians in the area, in the trust of the global community, and in dollars were all exponentially larger than we anticipated, the anger which would be felt toward our government for making that decision was beyond what any of us thought possible. Cindy Sheehan personified for many the heartfelt revulsion that many Americans had toward the deployment of our troops for what we believed to be a noble cause, but what for many was a foolish boondoggle. I had intended to unite us, but instead I have divided America.

When nature ripped savagely into the heart of our Gulf coast, Americans responded heroically to assist their neighbors rendered homeless. I responded with great faith in my good friends who I trusted to get the job done. I discovered that competence must trump loyalty though, when lives are at stake, and our government lost the trust of more of our citizens, as our treasury took another hit at a time when it could ill afford that.

When the combined effects of all these policies, nobly undertaken: Cutting taxes; Funding a protracted war; Passing health care reform; responding to disaster, but too late and without proper planning, combined to convert a huge surplus into a huge deficit, I find that even conservatives who have long supported my policies are questioning the wisdom of pushing forward without directly confronting this deficit. Their solutions of ending programs dear to liberals is in direct conflict with liberal solutions of ending the tax cuts for the wealthy and reducing non-essential military expenditures. I had intended to unite us, but instead I have divided America.

My good friend, and partner in this enterprise, Dick Cheney, has failed to agree with me that a dramatic change in leadership is required at this time, and so effective immediately, sadly, I am dismissing him from his post as Vice-President. Told of my plans, Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld has already tendered his resignation. And effective tomorrow, because my desire to unite rather than divide America is truly sincere, I will resign my office of President of the United States, and as provided by the Constitution, Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, will take the oath of office. Please give to him your support and prayers as we all work together to preserve the dream that is America.

God bless America!

All right, all right, it doesn't really square with Bush's past - his refusal to admit error, what we know that he really DID have to know about, and gosh in places he sure sounds a lot more like Walker Willingham than George Bush - but hey, it's just a silly daydream.

Caring About Africa

Africa is all too easily ignored by much of the world, especially the United States, and in particular Presidents in their State of the Union addresses.



One of my favorite resources on the web is O.T. Ford's Stewardship Project, which ignores no place. While I've occasionally disagreed with some particulars of his opinions, such as his willingness to accept Bush's Iraq war as better than simply leaving Saddam in power, I have nothing but the greatest respect for the thoroughness and seeming accuracy with which he portrays the Political Status of the States of the world, with respect to the extent to which they exhibit majority control by the people or not.

While certainly there is a wide range between the most oppressive states and the most liberal democratic states, I am inclined to accept Ford's quick categorization of most states into one realm or the other. He is not prone to the typical temptation of assigning status based on their claimed or putative ideology. Africa tends to be a continent where autocratic or oligarchic regimes are the norm, though there has been some encouraging movement of late in nations such as Nigeria, Liberia, Malawi, and Burundi. The reader of the map should be warned that significant oppression, especially of certain minorities, may linger in many of the "blue" nations, while some of the "orange" nations do show some movement toward liberalization. Overall the state of human rights remains awfully bleak across the continent.

I've never seen this type of information captured on a map before, so I have used Ford's analysis to create a first glimpse of Africa as it stands today. Eventually I am interested in furthering this analysis. For instance we might subdivide those nations where some regions are acting autonomously, or more finely designate the status of the states, or look at recent or historical trends. But until now, I've never even seen a snapshot.

[UPDATE: An excellent diary, What's the Matter with Africa, appeared today on DailyKos which is well worth the read. I added my map in the comments, since lots of maps were included in the diary and the comments.]

Government Spying

Some may think me remiss for not doing my part to pile on in attacking the Bush Administration for its illegal spying on American citizens and residents without receiving proper authorization. Well, make no mistake: I strongly disapprove. I largely agree with pundits as disparate as conservative George Will and liberal Markos Moulitsas here and here, in believing that this administration overstepped its bounds, and should not expect another free pass based on another plea of "Trust us."

That said, this is not the issue that most animates me.

I did earlier point to this excellent article by Hilzoy at the Washington Monthly who credibly makes the case that this revelation more than many others out of this administration meets a very high bar which he thinks necessary before seriously discussing impeachment. I am pleased that this is a story which has given pause to conservatives and libertarians, often defenders of the President's policies, creating momentum on Capitol Hill for Congressional hearings into the President's actions.

So why is this not front and center on Choosing Hope?

Perhaps it is because I'm so public in my views, that I'm more amused than outraged that my communications could be mined for their possible threat to the national security. I had better be careful, and I should be outraged, but there are plenty of others carrying the torch on this one, and I trust that they will persevere in their relentless call for the reining in of expanded executive power.

Perhaps this is how I might be listened in on. ;-)

But if you want my words, here is part of what I wrote in response to one conservative's ambivalent reaction to this story:

All indications are that FISA is very liberal in granting warrants, and THE PROCEDURES DO NOT REQUIRE ANY DELAY IN STARTING THE SURVEILLANCE and FISA’S DELIBERATIONS REMAIN SECRET. Following the law here would not have hampered any necessary surveillance to protect our security.

The only explanations I see for Bush going around the secret security court are either that he was initiating surveillance that he knew was questionable, or that he simply wanted to extend the power of the Presidency and flout the law.

I’m all for spying on the truly bad guys to keep us safe, but we had a system that allowed the executive branch to do just without tipping our hand, while remaining accountable for its actions through an independent secret court. Judge James Robertson, assigned to the court by Justice Rehnquist has resigned in reaction to this news, expressing through friends “deep concern that the NSA surveillance program, which was personally authorized by President Bush in 2002, was legally questionable and may have tainted the court’s work.”

In spite of relentless attempts to spin this and other stories for temporary bumps in the polls, this is yet another instance of further self-inflicted erosion to the core of support this administration was once able to count on. And yeah, I'm happy about that.

Misplaced Loyalty

Whether it's Chalabi or Mike Brown, Karl Rove or Tom DeLay, one of our President's calling cards is his loyalty to his chosen people far past the point where it might be reasonably expected. It's really a rather unusual political trait, and might be admirable in a sense, in a game where friends are often dropped like hot potatoes when the association might tar one's political future.

In an interview with Brit Hume of Fox News, Bush insists that his relationships with Cheney, Rove, and DeLay are as strong as ever. Our President:

[Cheney]'s got a nasty speculation about whether he's running the government or not running the government, whether I like him or don't like him.

The truth of the matter is, our relationship hasn't changed hardly at all. He's a very close advisor. I view him as a good friend. I had lunch with him today. We discussed a wide variety of topics.

And the good thing about Dick Cheney is when he discusses a topic with me and he gives me his advice, I never read about it in the newspaper the next day. And that's why our relationship is so close and his advice is so valued.

[On Rove]we're still as close as we've ever been. We've been through a lot. When I look back at the presidency and my time in politics, uh, no question Karl had a lot to do with me getting here. And I value his friendship. We're very close.

[On DeLay]Well, I like him. When he's over there, we get our votes through the House. [chuckles] We had a remarkable success of legislative victories. A remarkable string of legislative victories. We've cut the taxes and delivered strong economic growth and vitality. We've had an energy bill that began to put American on its way to independence.

But I really loved his attempt to spin the culture of corruption as a bipartisan problem:

I'm — you know, the Abramoff — I'm frankly, not all that familiar with a lot that's going on up there on Capitol Hill. But it seems like to me that he was an equal money dispenser, that he was giving money to people in both political parties. Yes, I mean, it's really important for all of us in public life to have the highest of ethics. So we can only trust the American people.

Thanks, George, for your trust. So will you trust me, this time?

Here's the LA Times article.

I personally have no doubt that but for the fact that so many Republicans are politically indebted to him, Tom DeLay would have been long since out of Congress, and very likely in jail by now.

What's not to get about his shenanigans? No doubt he follows the letter of the law more often than not, but the spirit of fair play or human decency is utterly absent in this man who had the gall to get all sanctimonious during the Terry Schaivo affair, while abetting sex slavery and sweatshop conditions in the Mariannas, coercing votes on the house floor with veiled threats, or killing popular bills in committee which otherwise would pass.

I've never voted for this man who wields so much power in this country, and am confident that an overwhelming margin would toss him out in a nationwide referendum, if we could have such a thing. But W likes him. Choice.

Splinters, Splinters, Everywhere

Here's more evidence that the UNholy alliance between corporate interests and the religious right is cracking up. It was bad enough for evangelicals to learn that their putative allies have been calling them 'wackos' behind their backs, but more are waking up to the fact that corporate interests are orthogonal (when not in direct conflict) to their interests. Already evangelicals as far right as Pat Robertson have bucked the Bush administration in calling on Congress to approve debt relief. The environment had been one issue on which the corporate and religious right leadership had been pretty consistently in lockstep against greener sensibilities, though I've personally known quite a few environmentalist evangelicals. But now evangelical leaders are speaking more forcefully for biblically mandated stewardship of God's creation creating splinters both within the evangelical movement, as well as between them and the corporate polluters. Thanks to Facing South for the inspiration.

Richard Viguerie, Ralph Reed, Grover Norquist, Rush Limbaugh, et al: I believe your glue is finally drying up!

Satirical "Lost" Bush Speech

If conservatives were consistently this brilliant in expounding their ideas, then they certainly would be quite formidable, but then they would also be less frightening. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the notion that the underpinnings of conservatism are ethically bereft, and all eloquence in defense of its policies is tantamount to cynical trickery.

As a liberal (usually) who is most annoyed by the dogged conflation by the right of liberalism with moral decay, one of my fundamental liberal notions is that sound values based on concern for our fellow humans can honestly lead people to different conclusions. It would be hypocritical of me to not acknowledge that some conservative values have merit, when my most scathing rebuke of many right-wingers is their refusal to acknowledge any merit to either the underpinnings of liberal thought, or an occasional success borne of liberal policy.

ScrappleFace consistently publishes intelligent satire from a pretty far right perspective. His attacks of the Bush administration are pretty consistently delivered from Bush's right. But while I would often vehemently disagree with author Scott Ott's prosriptions for an improved public policy, he strikes me as being in touch with the nobler underpinnings of conservatism, so much of his commentary rings true in spite of my disagreement.

Many on the left would dismiss Ott's frequent quotations of MLK's oratory as disningenuous because he clearly opposes many of the left's proscriptions for equal opportunity. But I see no reason to believe that his implied belief in equal opportunity is not genuine, simply because he mocks systems which he sees as fostering dependency and removing incentives for positive living and contribution to society. In fact I agree that any liberal system for promoting diversity and opportunity for the less advantaged needs to avoid those potential maladies, while I suspect that Ott would agree that any conservative system which demands responsibility and accountability should implement checks to prevent the exploitation of the vulnerable by the powerful.

In the current political climate, I find myself unambiguously allied with "the left" because I see the rise of corporatism as a real threat to the egalitarian ideal which has been advanced in fits and starts over the last two centuries. The current leadership of the Republican party is marching us toward an ever increasing gap between the wealthy and the poor which is in dire need of reversal. Many leaders of the opposition rightly point to the importance of framing in the right's success in gaining currency for their ideas in the national dialogue. They will point also to the technique of smearing the ideas associated with liberalism in changing the tenor of the debate. The implication is that progressives need to wage a similar campaign in reverse to compensate for the current imbalance. They may be right.

My fear is that when all the focus is put into winning the argument for one's "side" we lose sight of the values that were the underpinning of our ideology, and we contribute to the poisoning of the dialogue for those of good intent on both sides of the debate. But we don't need to lose sight of those values. The liberal values of generosity, enablement, fairness, openness, and freedom of thought can remain central to our discussion of the issues. We can agree with conservatives that personal responsibilty, accountability, temperance, and caution are worthy values to keep in drafting a way forward, without compromising our own ideals.

This is why I find no inconsistency in declaring myself to be both liberal and conservative, even though I supported the supposedly "far-left" candidacy of Dennis Kucinich in the last election. It's why I never stop looking for signs of reason from some in the Republican party, because ultimately we need a synthesis of ideas rather than a one-sided solution. Too often compromises are tactical rather than principled and we get a muddled centrism which brings some of the worst from both parties together. But not always. There are success stories out there. We must find them and model them if we are to choose hope for our future.

Cronyism Continues Unabated

Avoiding the appearance of impropriety is something one might expect of politicians and public officials, especially when attempting to recover from a public relations disaster. The current administration shows no such inclination. If anything they seem to glory in goading their opponents into making accusations of wrongdoing which may not be provable, by behaving like the child next to the open cookie jar.

• "Nothing improper happened in our secret energy task force, but we're not telling who was there."
• "Scalia might cast the deciding vote in protecting that secret, but you just have to trust us that he can do so impartially in spite of his friendship and recent duck hunting trip with Cheney."
• "We'll straighten out those little overcharges (honest errors, of course!) by Halliburton in their Iraq contract work. How dare you suggest their getting the no bid contract had anything to do with Cheney's connection!"

And the list goes on.

I sometimes wonder if they repeatedly push the envelope as some sort of loyalty test. Maintain plausible deniability, but intentionally create the appearance of impropriety whether or not impropriety existed, to keep your opponents fishing, and to flush out the less than fully faithful among your insiders. The only other explanation I can think of is analogous to the serial criminal whose behavior becomes progressively bolder and more outrageous with each crime.

The Katrina cleanup and reconstruction effort has the silver lining of providing jobs at least, and Federal officials are the first to agree with many Democrats that such jobs should go to locals from the affected gulf region. But administration critics quickly predicted the first line recipients of Federal aid would be none other than those corporations to whom they owe their election. FEMA wasted no time in proving them right by outsourcing the body recovery effort to a subsidiary of a company owned by Bush family friend Robert Waltrip. And to further test our suspicions, it is a company which has been involved in previous scandals, dating back to Bush's tenure as Texas Governor.

The news of this outsourcing hasn't been widely reported by the major networks, but has been corroborated by Reuters, a Louisiana TV station, the San Luis Obispo News, the News Insider, and the Contra Costa Times. Deepening the left's suspicions of potential new criminal behavior by the private contractor, is the order that no pictures be allowed, and reporters are not to be within 300 feet of the work.

Of course, none of this is proof that any new wrongdoing or misinformation is planned. It is possible that in spite of the connections, Kenyon International was the closest available contractor to deal with a body recovery effort of this magnitude - I don't know. Preventing the gruesome display of dead bodies on the nightly news before next of kin has been properly notified has arguable merit. It is claimed that the contract is being given with a 10% discount.

But how many times are we expected to believe that "the dog ate his homework", before we demand accountability from Bush and his pals. Cronyism is rampant throughout this administration, and I can no longer take them seriously about anything. The only path I see left for this government regaining credibility is for the whole lot of them to resign or be tossed out. I know that won't happen. They'll turn out all of their best speechwriters to regain the trust of those that can be turned. The tipping point may have finally been passed, however.

Thanks to Hungry Blues, and Body and Soul, for alerting me to this story.

See also:
www.newshounds.us/.../bush_cohorts_profiteering_at_all_levels.php
www.observer.com/opinions_conason.asp

Another View of Roberts

Having written "I'd rather have a Supreme Court Justice of sound temperament with whom I disagree, than one who might be more likely to make a ruling or two that I'd be happier with, but who has shown clear unsound judgment in matters of law" in commenting on John Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court, doesn't mean I won't also look at other views on the matter. Paul Loeb's article points out:

Challenging [Roberts] draws a line and invites our fellow citizens to stand up in other ways to this immensely destructive presidency.

How has a seemingly nice man like Roberts supported a politics of contempt for the voice of anyone but the wealthy and powerful? In a time when the Bush administration acts as if granted the divine right of kings, it’s troubling that Roberts defended Cheney’s right to refuse to name the corporate participants in his secret energy policy meeting. He advised Jeb Bush on the 2000 election, and denied being a member of the ultra-conservative Federalist Society, then turned up on the Society’s Washington steering committee. He’s argued that the Voting Rights Act can only be violated by intentional discrimination, saying laws that incidentally discriminate are ok. Most damning, Roberts just ruled that if this administration wishes to exempt someone from the Geneva Convention and international law, they have the absolute right to do so. The belief that a president can do whatever he chooses links this nomination, the Downing Street Memo and Plamegate in a common matrix of unaccountable power.

Roberts is also disturbingly loyal to dubious corporate interests, or at least to principles that allow these interests to run roughshod over ordinary citizens and communities. He argued that private individuals could not sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations like the removal of mountaintops by West Virginia mining companies. He supported the rights of developers to ignore the Endangered Species Act. He denied the rights of workers injured over time as part of their jobs, supported criminal contempt fines to force the end of a strike, and helped a major car manufacturer avoid a recall of dangerous seatbelts.

I still hold to the premise that a Democratic filibuster of Roberts would be bad politics. In spite of the foregoing, we could do a lot worse, and Roberts willingness to assist a gay rights group with pro bono work shows at least that he is not the inflexible ideologue that Clarence Thomas is. Democrats, indeed all Senators, on the Judiciary Committee, and if (when) passed to the full Senate should ask the tough questions. After reasonable discussion however, I simply don't see, given what we know so far, a reasonable argument against voting for cloture (filibustering), at least among the signatories to the compromise. That doesn't mean that any Senator uncomfortable with this choice should not feel free to vote no when the final vote comes up. I also stand by my belief that advocacy groups should save their money for future fights. There will be plenty of those.

After the Future

"They say the darkest hour is right before the dawn."

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times."

The proximity of hope to despair is exactly what should propel us to action. When I prognosticate about the future, I must admit that I fluctuate wildly between seeing a stark descent into hell and a transformative renaissance toward opportunities beyond imagination. It often feels that we live on the knife edge, though in my calmer moments I know that glory and tragedy will continue to coexist as they have throughout human history. But history has included some very dramatic fluctuations, and I'm not alone in sensing the volatility of the current age.

Many thanks to Micah Newman for pointing me recently to the writing of Jack Whelan, whose clarity in his analysis of America's current culture and politics is almost stunning. In reading his essay Philosophers, Artists, Saints, I was fascinated by his use of the Prodigal Son parable to critique what he refers to as the Phariseeism of today's rightwing Christianity. The gist of the article though seemed overly bleak to me, as I believe remnants of the transcendent reside in our very genes, and hence in all of us, despite the cultural emphasis on materialism or legalism. But elsewhere in his writing there remains great hope, not the least of which is in his statement of purpose, Toward a Progressive Future.

And his recent political analysis on the blog portion of his site, offers as incisive an indictment of the Bush administration as I've seen anywhere, with such morsels as:

the main problem that confronts us now with this particular administration is its dishonest use of the GOP framing narrative. It uses it as a sheep's disguise to hide its wolfish agenda. Compassionate Conservatism? Oh, come on. That's what makes this particular group so odious. What we see is not what we're getting. Sure the Dems do it too, but this group has taken this kind of mendacity to a new level. This administration presents itself as the proponent of small government, but it's about the promotion of centralism and greater police power. It presents itself as the party of fiscal responsibility, and it is about as irresponsible as a rich party animal college kid living off a family trust fund. It presents itself as the party of strong defense, but it is not defending us against the real threat posed by international terror. It is, instead, the party of strong offense with its doctrine of unilateral preemptive war. It presents itself as the party of family values, but it is the party of corporate, free-market capitalism, which more than any social force active in the world today is the destroyer of family and traditional values.

Check out any of the essays in his sidebar. I have not yet been disappointed.