StefCon

It Means.... I Should Live in Seattle?

2010-07-07T16:56:00.000-04:00

A couple people have told me I seem like a Seattle person. By that, I was told, they meant that I did not come across as relaxed enough to be a California girl. On the other hand, they said, I wasn't ... east coasty? enough to be from the east coast. Hence, I seemed like a Seattle person.

When I listen to rainbow man, I think back to that conclusion because his crazed wonderment reminds me of how much I hated SF's uber-hippies. On the other hand... it kind of sucks that no one in DC could probably relish over a rainbow with me like that. I mean, who doesn't like rainbows? And a FULL DOUBLE rainbow at that.

I'd like to be sitting on a mountaintop soaking in the glow of a double rainbow right now.

Jugular

2010-06-11T00:11:00.000-04:00

Once, during a hurricane, our mom warned my sisters and me to stay aware from windows, or risk being sliced in the jugular.

SHE WAS RIGHT.

Leadership

2010-06-09T00:04:00.007-04:00

It's about the movement, not the leader.

$5 to Your Name, and a New Dog Park

2010-06-06T18:09:00.000-04:00

In 2010, just how closely are race and class intertwined? Are young minorities as upwardly mobile as young whites? When a neighborhood gentrifies, is it a given it's whiter? By how much?

I've always had the impression that D.C. could be a unique case, given that an ambitious young person -- from any background -- probably, in this economy, has more opportunities for success here than anywhere else. That's why, while reading this Washington Post article this morning, I doubled back at this quote that smoothly equates race with class (The article is about whether Mayor Adrian Fenty favors whiter D.C. wards over blacker -- and poorer -- wards):

Ronald Walters, an expert in urban politics and professor emeritus at the University of Maryland at College Park, said that as the city's population has changed, the mayor has pursued policies that place a premium on certain projects -- dog parks and recreation centers -- that reflect what more-recent residents want but may not be as important to residents of wards with high unemployment or lack of easy access to city services.

"In D.C., you have gentrification, the return of the white population . . . to the point that it has become the effective electorate," said Walters, who points to the city's plan to invest in a $1.5 billion streetcar system as part of a massive gentrification effort. "Look at that kind of investment and the fact that Washington, D.C., has one of the highest poverty rates."

In truth, the correlation between race and wealth remains higher than I ever would have imagined, given the diversity I see in my everyday life. According to the Insight Center for Community Economic Development in Oakland, Calif., the median net worth of a white American woman aged 36 to 49 is $42,600. The median net worth of a nonwhite American woman of that age: $5.

$5.

That's stunning to me.

There are ambitious young minorities in D.C. who can hopefully bring down the disparity, and eventually help raise up entire minority communities. In the meantime, what about the rest of D.C.? I wonder how strongly race and economic status are correlated in the city as a whole. Probably much more so than a Northwest dweller is aware of :(

2008-10-06T15:45:00.001-04:00

Giving up privacy for gun control

2007-11-29T14:23:00.000-05:00

In the span of little over half a year, hundreds of thousands of names have been added to a federal database used to screen potential gun-buyers, Attorney General Michael Mukasey said this afternoon. Since the shootings at Virginia Tech in August, the number of names in the database has doubled to almost 400,000, Mukasey said at a meeting of the National Association of Attorneys General.

No one can dispute that screening people attempting to purchase weapons is necessary-- even the NRA approves of the database. Yet collecting names of the mentally ill for a national database seems like an unsettling topic for the new attorney general to address in his first policy speech since replacing Alberto Gonzales, who resigned from the Justice Department under the shame of having approved warrantless wiretapping of American citizens. The names are only collected from courts and other authoritative bodies-- not from private mental health records from hospitals or insurance companies. Still, the possibility for abuse of the list is scary to think about, especially given the Justice Department's current reputation.

Perhaps some freedoms have to be ceded in the name of safety; Rudy Giuliani argued as much during last night's debate when asked about the strict gun laws he enforced as mayor of New York. "I enforced all laws very aggressively, and that's the reason we reduced shootings by 74 percent," Giuliani said in last night's debate. "And we went from being one of the most dangerous cities in the country to being one of the safest." While it's true that the city changed dramatically while he was mayor, it's also true that Giuliani was notorious for using draconian measures to get things done. Such measures are sometimes tolerable, but they are more questionable when they make vulnerable a group of people who are already targets of discrimination. People suffering from mental disease don't need the extra burden of having public figures like an NRA spokesman calling them "mentally defective" to the AP.

But as long as the database is used appropriately, it should be a huge benefit for the country; the news of its growth should have been great. Instead, it only feels like a reminder of how much the Justice Department has to earn back our trust.

DCCC shoots itself in the foot

2007-11-29T12:07:00.000-05:00

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee initiated a new web-based fundraising campaign this week, pinning rising gas and energy prices on republicans. Sure, no one likes rising gas prices, but the Democratic party is practically asking to be punished with this move. Predictably, the Republican party has already thrown the issue right back in their face.

"When Republicans had the chance to protect us from high gas prices, they instead chose to oppose punishing price gougers," the DCCC claims. Actually, given that the Democrats were in power at this point, they were kind of the ones who had the chance. Not sure how they missed that. The NRCC certainly didn't, and promptly used the opportunity to point out that the democratic majority has failed to fulfill its promises. They then stepped it up a notch and named every democrat in Congress who's taking money from oil companies. Whoops!

Even if republicans had been responsible for the lack of reform in oil or energy in general, it seems rather foolish to set up the expectation that democrats could do better when there are certain factors involved in oil prices that are simply out of anyone's control. It's sort of like saying Bush was responsible for Hurricane Katrina because he didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol... sort of. In any event, while there is certainly politics involved in oil prices, there's no denying that worldwide growth is constantly increasing the demand for oil while our supply continues to shrink. Saudi Arabia is the only OPEC country able to expand its output, oil analysts say, but the oil left in its reserves is of a lower quality.

Really guys? Is this really what you want to hit the republicans on?

Incidentally, the lackluster energy bill that would increase fuel efficiency standards for cars is slowly trudging its way through Congress, no thanks to Democrat John Dingell of Michigan.

Kucinich debates himself

2007-11-29T09:54:00.000-05:00

While the Republican presidential candidates spent last night in Florida debating their interpretations of the Bible, not to mention the status of those people with "funny accents" who "look different" that happened to be working on Mitt Romney's lawn, Dennis Kucinich attracted a meager audience in person and online at a townhall session in New Hampshire, where he spoke about health care and relations with Iran. It could have been fun to see Ron Paul alongside the anti-war democrat in New Hampshire instead of the republican debate; seeing the two share their polar opposite views with each other (outside of the war, of course), could have been an interesting experiment in seeing how those outside of centrist positions could actually sell their ideas to skeptics. As it were, Ron Paul instead got sucked into the trap last night of trying to appeal to the values of the audience, even if they didn't quite match his own. The usually strictly libertarian congressman stooped to criticizing our relations that extend south of the border with crazy-talk of a North American Union, but he later went on to declare himself all for trade and internationalism. He wasn't the only one to fall in the trap of hypocrisy, though. Fred Thompson tried to make himself out to be the economic conservative but later stumbled and stalled when asked which federal bureaucracies he'd trim down first. Romney contradicted himself just about every time he opened his mouth. Giuliani, McCain and Huckabee seemed to keep to their principals and consequently, were able to put forth more substantive ideas about what kind of presidents they would be. Unfortunately, Tom Tancredo stuck to his principals, too, and even got everyone else to adopt them. "All I've heard is people trying to out-Tancredo Tancredo," he gleefully observed at one point. I'm glad Dennis was vocal last night about the issues missed at the debate, even if not many were listening.

For tonight's debate: the war is not a Yes or No question

2007-11-28T16:43:00.000-05:00

When the main candidates for the republican nomination get up on stage in Florida tonight for the CNN/YouTube debate, there will only be one person standing who supports a withdrawal of troops from Iraq. And that man, though he earns the approval of a group including everyone from pastors to pimps, will-- let's be honest-- not win the nomination. The rest, for reasons more or less legitimate, are arguing to keep troops active there to some degree for some time. That's all well and good, but let's remember what made this war a debacle in the first place: no consideration for consequences.

I am open to the idea that leaving troops in Iraq could be the best thing to do at this point. But if anyone in the current crop of presidential candidates, republican or otherwise, wants to earn even a degree of my respect, they had better articulate what they expect the consequences of their actions in Iraq to be. As I watch the republican debate tonight, I hope to hear ideas about what our longterm role in the Middle East should be. I hope to hear what sacrifices we as a nation would have to make to fulfill that role. Perhaps most importantly, I would like to hear how we expect to repay those making the biggest sacrifices.

It's no secret that the government's treatment of veterans is pathetic. The deplorable conditions of Walter Reed hospital made it clear to the general public that veterans are not getting the medical attention they need and deserve. Read The Nation's investigative report from earlier this year about the questionable practices of the VA that are preventing veterans from collecting medical benefits-- the personal stories told are heartbreaking. The Nation also ran a story just yesterday commenting on the paltry educational benefits veterans receive, which are in stark contrast to the benefits they are promised. And what a surprise that, with no medical benefits or the resources to obtain an education, veterans make up more than their fair share of the country's homeless population.

When the White House declared its opposition to the new GI bill that Senator Jim Webb introduced in January, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act, the president only demonstrated that he continues to be short-sighted. As pointed out in The Nation's article, a stronger GI Bill could potentially invigorate the economy as the Congressional Research Office showed the original did.

The next president cannot afford to have such narrow vision. The next Commander in Chief may or may not decide we should keep troops in Iraq-- but he or she better think about the decisions to make after that.

Giuliani acts like a winner, and not just in Florida

2007-11-28T10:35:00.000-05:00

The polls out today show that Rudy Giuliani's "I'm the best to beat Hillary" campaign has been a hit in Florida, if not the earlier primary states. Not only do all the polls out of Florida show him beating the other republicans in the locale of choice for retired New Yorkers, but they show why: he is the "most electable," said 61 percent of people polled by CNN. A plurality of voters polled also said he is the most likeable, the most honest and the strongest leader. Giuliani's support there is also evident in his fundraising. While he has yet to run a television ad in Florida, Mitt Romney has been running them for months there but has still raised about a million dollars less than Giuliani, says the Hill.

Clearly, though, it is the "electable" element that Rudy is clearly hoping to bank on. Giuliani's campaign will be mailing out flyers in New Hampshire this week, where the New Yorker trails far behind Mitt Romney. Rather than going after the republican frontrunner, however, the flyer is all about Hillary Clinton's "out-of-control spending." Giuliani will also release a new television ad in New Hampshire this week. Perhaps his campaign thinks drumming the "electability" point home that much more in New Hampshire will earn him some significant support,-- or perhaps he really is banking on Florida and other states for the nomination and is already setting his sights on Nov. '08. “He never assumed he would win the early states,” former Rep. Bill McCollum, Giuliani’s state campaign chairman, told The Hill.

Gates tries to help out Condi

2007-11-27T13:30:00.000-05:00

Many are skeptical of today's Middle East summit taking place in Anapolis, not only with regards to what can be accomplished but also the intentions of President Bush and Condoleezza Rice. They are only trying to salvage their legacies from being completely tarnished by the Iraq war, detractors say. Maybe so, but at least member of the administration who does not exist under the shadow of the ongoing war is trying to change the United State's course. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said yesterday at a speech at Kansas State University that if the U.S. wants to keep its influence abroad, it should stop thinking so much about military matters and invest more in the State Department.

Gates' statement is interesting in light of the deal reached yesterday between Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. It is all but inevitable that the United States will be involved in Iraqi affairs for years to come, but hopefully Gates will lead the way to a fresh direction for the Department of Defense, one in which it is not always at odds with the State Department, as was the case under Rumsfeld and Powell. Programs like the State Department's blogging efforts hopefully inidcate more of an emphasis on diplomacy. “Conflicts will be fundamentally political in nature and require the application of all elements of national power," Gates said. "Success will be less a matter of imposing one’s will and more a function of shaping behavior of friends, adversaries and, most importantly, the people in between.”

Still, of the twelve main appropriations bills that need to be passed for 2008, Congress has so far only put the defense bill onto the president's desk; he signed it, though apparently the $460 billion spent was not quite as much as the president had hoped for. As Gates pointed out yesterday, that's a pretty hefty sum in comparison to the State Department's $36 billion. But perhaps more than the budget, just the will to expand diplomacy needs to increase. “We are miserable at communicating to the rest of the world what we are about as a society and a culture, about freedom and democracy, about our policies and our goals,” Gates said. “It is just plain embarrassing that al Qaeda is better at communicating its message on the Internet than America.”

Fanning the flames

2007-11-27T11:20:00.000-05:00

David Brooks takes it upon himself this morning to remind us why America is great: our resourcefulness, productivity and ingenuity are forces to reckon with. Our success and security are rooted in strong ideals. In spite of this, he says, there is rising clamor among some politicians and pundits that we are unsafe; a select few would have us believe that the forces of globalization, immigration and terrorism are coming together to pose one great, united threat to the United States.

Brooks' column was well-timed-- the fear-mongering was in full force yesterday. The Washington Times ran a story about supposed Iraqi and Afgani terrorists sneaking into the United States through tunnels from Mexico to attack an Arizona Army base. The article is based off an FBI document that relies on DEA sources in Mexico who, in turn, got their information from a "sub-source" who is "of uncertain reliability." Anyone who remembers the moniker "curveball" knows how well these types of sources work out. Morever, all that FBI spokesman Paul Bresson would tell the Washington Times was that such reports are based on "raw, uncorroborated information that has not been completely vetted."

While most media outlets commendably resisted any temptations to run with the senational story, Fox News gave it continuous coverage, often conveniently leaving out in its reports the questionable sources, along with the fact that if this happened at all, it in fact happened six months ago. One anchor described the report as about "men who are willing to die for the privilege of killing Americans."

Fox's Neil Cavuto turned for commentary to Tom Tancredo, who is one of those whose fringe-opinion, anti-immigrant diatribes have been loud enough to change mainstream discourse. Tancredo, of course, is gleefully using this report to justify his recent campaign ad, which features a terrorist blowing up a mall. "I was called an alarmist, engaged in fear mongering," he said in a statement he released yesterday. "Considering the imminent threat of an attack on U.S. soil posed by Islamic terrorists, I challenge the sponsors of the upcoming presidential debates to give national attention to this real and present danger. Americans should know what our next President is going to do to assure their safety.”

As we all know, the other presidential candidates have taken Tancredo up on that challenge. Sadly, the American public seems to be ingesting this unfounded anxiety, though it may not be going down easy. Polls show that, when asked about them specifically, people are strongly in favor of security measures like a fence at the U.S.- Mexico border and national ID cards; however, when a Wall Street Journal poll from Nov. 1-5 asked what the federal government's top priorities should be, both terrorism and immigration fall behind issues like the war in Iraq, health care and job creation. The public is well aware that there are more pressing issues to worry about than building fences on the border, but somehow, the issue will not be put to rest. Thank for your vigilance, Tancredo.

Thompson talks taxes

2007-11-26T12:05:00.000-05:00

Fred Thompson released a 7-point tax plan on Sunday that incorporates a lot of policies that have been proposed by George Bush-- whether that makes it a "conservative" plan is up for debate.

The plan would, among other things, maintain Bush's tax cuts that are set to expire in 2010 and introduce a two-tiered flat tax. Thompson's plan would call for a 10 percent tax rate for joint filers with incomes of up to $100,000 ($50,000 for singles) and a 25 percent rate for those with higher incomes; it would simplify the tax code by reducing the deductions and credits available.

Thompson also spelled out that he favors repealing the death tax (or if you prefer, the estate tax); he also wants to repeal the alternative minimum tax, which everyone seemingly wants to do, though no one can agree on how to go about it. The former "Law and Order" star also proposed lowering the corporate tax rate from the current 35 percent to no more than 27 perent, which could actually increase federal revenues: if the loopholes and the jumble of deductions currently available to corporations were closed as Thompson suggests they should be, corporations might actually end up paying more in taxes than they currently do.

Throwing out suggestions of instituting flat taxes and lower rates for corporations sounds like it should be appealing to conservatives, but as the Washington Post points out, a nonpartisan group found that "major parts of Thompson's plan would cost at least $2.5 trillion more than it brings in over 10 years." When asked about this on the morning talk show circuit yesterday, Thompson simply replied that those estimates were wrong. He said money would be saved by his Social Security plan, in which workers younger than 58 years old would receive less Social Security than they've been promised.

How the plan might actually work may be less important than how it is received. As already noted on PoliticalBase, the Club for Growth applauded Thompson for suggesting to lower corporate tax rates. This sort of response to his plan could be a strong counter to Mike Huckabee's recent surge in Iowa. Huckabee calls himself an "authentic conservative," but if Thompson emphasizes economic issues over social issues, he can bolster Robert Novak's claim that Huckabee is really a "false conservative" and a "high-tax, protectionist advocate of big government."

Oprah stumping for Obama

2007-11-26T10:56:00.000-05:00

We can all stop speculating! Oprah will indeed join Barack Obama on the campaign trail. She will be traveling to Des Moines and Cedar Rapids, Iowa; Manchester, New Hampshire; and Columbia, South Carolina on the weekend of Dec. 8. It's time to revive the debate of whether the woman who turns paperbacks into gold can have the same effect in politics. Certainly, Obama is banking on Oprah's appeal with female voters. As he said about visiting her show, "there was a level of excitement among these middle-aged women that I’ve never seen. Their eyes glaze over."

Obama's support among women is just about equal to Hillary Clinton's in Iowa, though Clinton seems to be showing an edge among blue collar women. Working class women will almost assuredly stay in Clinton's camp. For women who came of age during an era of feminism, in a less advantaged class level in which the barriers against women are only higher, seeing a woman in power is very meaningful. It vindicates their years of hard work, their roles in bringing equality to women, which have been less celebrated than the work of their more intellectual peers.

Lest we forget, John Edwards has also been aggressively pursuing the female vote, paricularly the working class female vote. Former NARAL president Kate Michelman is one of his senior advisors, and he has even been referred to as potentially the "first woman president." His campaign often equates his fight for bridging the "two Americas" to a fight on behalf of poor women in particular.

Then there is the question how much the female vote really matters in and of itself. At least one report this year called single women "the most eligible untapped voters," no pun intended (I don't think). The report, which came out this summer, showed that unmarried women account for nearly 25 percent of all eligible voters.

Immigrants are not the enemy!

2007-11-23T12:54:00.000-05:00

As immigration, particularly illegal immigration, looms over the political discourse as an intractable problem, the news that the federal Citizenship and Immigration Services agency is amassing a huge backlog of applications for citizenship and residence visas almost seems expected. Everyone is in agreement that the country is in dire need of comprehensive immigration reform. If anything, this story is noteworthy for the angle it takes; it shows the crisis from the other side of the story-- the immigrants' side.

In the dialogue of political campaigns, immigration is often framed as a red vs. blue problem, a white vs. brown problem, Us against Them. It isn't always clear who's on which side-- it took Hillary Clinton quite a few tries to pick sides in the "Us vs. Them" debate surrounding driver's licenses. And while some republicans may want to portray themselves as pitted against democrats on the issue, nativism isn't an idea that belongs squarely in the conservative camp. Bob Moser pointed this out in The Nation more than a year ago; interestingly, he made the case for this in Tennessee, which experienced its first strong anti-immigrant wave in 2001 after becoming the first state to grant driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants. The point is, this is a problem that everyone finds personally frustrating, political inclinations aside. People are angry.

The New York Times addresses the seething discontent in the nation over immigration on its editorial page today. It blames piece-meal, enforcement-heavy measures to curb illegal immigration for that anger-- the sort of anger that instigates violence and racial bias. There is hope, however, the Times goes on to say, that a leader willing to face the political headwinds and bring forward comprehensive change could allay the country's anger.

A leader could do this with comprehensive policy reform-- but first he or she needs to change the "Us vs. Them" tone that is becoming increasingly hostile towards immigrants. "I take issue with your description of people being illegal immigrants," Dennis Kucinich said at the last debate, in response to Wolf Blitzer's driver's license question. "There are no illegal people." He is right. Most Americans probably know he is right, but as the problems stemming from immigration policy continue with no resolution in sight, their anger often is taken out on immigrants. There can never be any successful immigration reform as long as this hostility towards immigrants, Latinos in particular, continues. Hopefully, with news like today's, more people will realize immigrants are on our side, and are just as much short-changed by poor policy as Americans are.

Obama: the second-choice candidate

2007-11-22T11:49:00.000-05:00

The democratic candidates may find a moment of respite today from the relentless Iowa campaigning to celebrate Thanksgiving, but with the race as close as it is, no one's going to be counting their turkeys before they hatch. The campaigning in Iowa is, as of late, being framed as a race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, since the Washington Post's last poll shows Obama overtaking Clinton's lead, but only within the margin of error. But given that this is Iowa, Obama may have a lot more to be thankful for than one might think at first glance. Namely, he can be very thankful not only his supporters, but also those in Iowa who support Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich.

In Iowa, it doesn't necessarily matter which candidate caucusgoers see as the best choice; rather, it matters which candidate has the most support as the caucusgoers' first OR second choice. As Time pointed out yesterday, "Obama could benefit from last-minute shifts in support...under the arcane rules of Iowa caucuses." On Jan. 3, democratic Iowan caucusgoers will gather together in their precincts, huddling in the corner designated for their respective first-choice candidates. After 30 minutes of trying to convince others to join their corner, there will be a count. If a candidate's corner is not occupied by at least 15 percent (in some precincts, 25 percent!) of the attendees, that candidate is not eligible to receive any delegates from that precinct. At that point, people are free to move corners again, and those who originally supported a candidate who ended up with less than 15 percent of the room will disperse to support someone else.

In other words, if the polls could truly represent a cross section of each precinct in Iowa, basically everyone in Iowa who now supports Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich or Gravel (is anyone supporting Gravel?), will have to choose someone else. Of course, the precincts could each have very different preferences; maybe all of Richardson's support in Iowa is concentrated in one county. In that case, caucusgoers' second choices may not matter as much. But if the three top candidates in Iowa truly are the top three in most precincts, Obama is doing very well. Twenty-six percent of those polled by the Washington Post said Obama is their second choice; Edwards came in at 24 percent, and Clinton only received 19 percent of the second choice votes. The Post shows Obama as the clear winner of combined first and second choice votes, at 55 percent, with Edwards in at a distant second with 45 percent and Clinton at 44.

This second-choice support could be critical for Obama. "If [Clinton] wins Iowa, I think the race is over," the La Times quotes Democratic pollster Mark Mellman as saying. "There's really no place else to stop her." On the flip side, a win for Obama in Iowa could propel him to take the lead he's been inching closer to in New Hampshire, and then to take the bigger states on Feb. 5. Obama might want to say thanks for the tight primary schedule as well.

What the caucus-goers read

2007-11-21T12:48:00.000-05:00

As anyone who watches CNN knows, large mainstream media outlets will tell you about the presidential campaigns until your ears bleed. Meanwhile, small local media will print what presidential news they have, but will happily stick to covering this year's toy drive if they have to. They may not have much news to print, but to their credit, small weeklies know their communities well. With that in mind, Barack Obama's string of interviews with small Iowa weeklies makes a lot of sense. The pressure is on for all of the democratic candidates to leave a lasting impression on people in Iowa, which should mean more than just showing up in a small town for a few photo-ops. Most of the towns the candidates are visiting are probably rarely mentioned in larger statewide papers; their residents most likely see the local weeklies as the most legitimate news source about what's going on in their community. If a town of only a few thousand people is worth visiting in the first place, speaking with its local paper should certainly be a priority; if it's worth going to the local tailgate, or showing up for the community toy drive, it's worth speaking to the paper that would cover those events regardless of who was in attendance.

The 30-second work day

2007-11-21T09:44:00.000-05:00

Jim Webb was the only senator who had to go to work yesterday, being a junior member and convienently located in Northern Virginia. He opened the Senate for a full 30 seconds on Tuesday, as part of Harry Reid's plan to keep the president from making appointments while the Senate is on recess. As long as the Senate technically meets again after three days off, it is not in recess. That means the Senate will next need to "reconvene" on Friday, when Byron Dorgan of Nebraska is scheduled to preside over another 30-second session. Jack Reed of Rhode Island takes over next week.

Most notably, this would foul up any plans President Bush might have had to appoint his controversial Surgeon General nominee, Dr. James Holsinger. Many on the left consider Holsinger a preposterous choice for Surgeon General, given his tendency to weave his religious beliefs into his medical work, especially with regard to homosexuality. Now that he can't sneak into the post while the Senate is in recess, it looks like Holsinger is going to have to face the music and answer the questions of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, if he wants his nomination to get anywhere.

When technology trumps common sense

2007-11-20T15:21:00.000-05:00

California's secretary of state is suing a Nebraska voting machine company for selling nearly 1,000 uncertified machines to the state of California. The lawsuit could cost the company as much as $15 million in fines and reimbursements and, alleges the company, could possibly disadvantage California voters if the machines subsequently could not be used right away.

In pretty much completely unrelated news, the Department of Homeland Security is under fire for trying to push the use of a new kind of radiation-detection machine at U.S. borders. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced a plan in July 2006 to buy $1.2 billion worth of these machines, which he called a "vital priority." Just one month later, the Government Accountability Office alleged that officials had greatly exxagerated the machine's capabilities. After that, Congress put Chertoff personally in charge of certifying the machines; DHS officials responded to that move by rigging the certification tests. The ongoing problems have stalled the DHS's plan to buy any more of these machines-- so far, they've only bought 55 and use only 10 (for testing).

It seems that at every level of government-- from city councils to the feds-- officials are apt to embrace new technologies to give an appearance of efficiency and expertise. This could be fantastic for their constituents-- if government officials weren't also prone to letting the pomp and circumstance surrounding new technology overshadow a need for basic competence.

Surely, a business selling voting machines should be held liable if it does not meet standards set by the state, but shouldn't the secretary of state be held liable to the people for not verifying the machines' certification before purchasing them? In the case of the radiation-detection machinery, it's fortunate that not many have yet been purchased, but someone needs to be held accountable for trying to unjustifiably push forward the purchase. Radiation detection could possibly the very worst place for subjective influence. But should the accountability end simply at the DHS? Senator Joe Lieberman urged the DHS "to work quickly to resolve its problems so we can put this technology to work." That's a nice sound bite to make Lieberman sound tough on homeland security to voters, but do we really want them rushing through these tests anymore?

Thompson losing religious and WWF vote to Huckabee

2007-11-20T13:36:00.000-05:00

The National Right to Life's endorsement hasn't saved Fred Thompson's campaign from sliding behind in New Hampshire, where the libertarian Ron Paul and the true social conservative Mike Huckabee have proven to hold more appeal. In the latest CNN poll, in which Mitt Romney maintains a strong lead with 33 percent, Thompson has fallen into sixth place. Thompson only picked up a feeble 4 percent in the CNN poll, and 50 PERCENT of people polled said they would not support him "under any circumstances." His insipid campaign even has his formal supporters in Washington grumbling that they will ditch him soon after voters do on Feb. 5.

Meanwhile, the proselytizing of Mike Huckabee has won him enough support in Iowa to put him neck-and-neck with Romney in that state. His call to keep the White House occupied by evangelicals has also won the endorsement of Christian conservative organizer Tim LaHaye, whose wife runs Concerned Women for America. He and his wife have sent out emails appealing to voters in New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina to vote for Huckabee. In keeping with his fabulous Chuck Norris endorsement, Huckabee can also now claim the support of WWE wrestler Ric Flair, a.k.a. "The Nature Boy," and rock star Ted Nugent. Can we get all of these people together in an ad to follow up the Chuck Norris ad with, please?

May and Flower off the hook

2007-11-20T11:32:00.000-05:00

President Bush officially pardoned two turkeys this morning in the Rose Garden. May and Flower, as the turkeys were named by the public through an online poll, escaped a grisly death at the hands of the Vice President. Even Bush admitted as much, saying the VP wanted to name them "Lunch" and "Dinner." After speaking about all that he's thankful for (the usual-- the economy, soldiers, etc.), Bush tried to make a joke about a letter he received from a young girl in California who asked, "Do you ever get a headache?" "Not really," the president answered, "only when i have a press conference." Somehow, I believe him.

Obama takes the lead in Iowa

2007-11-20T09:27:00.000-05:00

Barack Obama has finally pulled ahead in Iowa, according to the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll. He stands at 30 percent in the poll, compared to Clinton's 26 percent, although there is a 4 percent margin of error. Obama has already inspired a great deal of excitement in many people, and with the news of his lead, his campaign could earn a great deal of momentum. According to the Post, his lead seems to come from changing priorities in Iowa, where 55 percent of people said a "new direction and new ideas" was more important than "strength and experience" in this campaign. This is a 6 percent shift from The Post/ABC's last poll, which was in July. At that time, 49 percent said change was the most important, and 39 percent said experience. This would imply that Obama's lead comes from caucus-goers who are abandoning Clinton. But while Obama's support rose 3 points from 27 in July to 30 this month, Clinton's has stayed steady at 26 percent. John Edwards took the real hit, going down from 26 percent of the support in July to 22 percent this month. Now that Obama has a clear lead as the alternative to Clinton, he will probably only steal more votes from Edwards.

Clinton won't be taking this lightly, though, with only 43 days left until the Iowa caucus. She recently opened her 34th campaign office in Iowa, and she reportedly spent over $350,000 on TV and radio ads last week alone. Besides that, she is amplifying a rhetorical tactic she has always employed of talking like the winner. "I cannot wait to get on the stage to debate the Republican nominee as we make the case for change, and they argue for the status quo," she said in Iowa yesterday morning. She also said, "It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush," which doesn't seem like a line of thought you'd want to harp on when more and more Iowans are prefering change to experience.

Blogging for peace

2007-11-19T16:24:00.000-05:00

The Washington Post reported today on a new program in the State Department that has "official bloggers" joining online conversations in Arabic on Arabic blogs in order to promote moderate views and positive viewpoints about the United States. Upon first reading about this program, it sounded to me like a strange, subversive way of manipulating international opinion. But after thinking about it a bit, and taking into consideration that the State Dept. employees apparently readily identify themselves as such on the blogs, it seems like a great strategy to me to promote better international relations.

By integrating themselves into online community discussions, the State representatives give the impression to regular citizens that there is a desire on the United States' side to engage our country in a dialogue and relationship with their respective country. This could temper the public's impressions when the United States officially limits its engagement with that country. For instance, the United States clearly has a careful line to walk with Iran. Measures like economic sanctions are, of course, useful in displaying the United States' power and communicating that it will not be too tolerant of actions that go against our democratic ideals. On the other hand, enforcing sanctions or using other measures that may appear too draconian in the eyes of regular citizens in Iran, or wherever, is obviously not going to win the U.S. any Iranian fans. The key is to act in a manner that communicates to the Iranian public that their own government is to blame for their international isolation-- not the United States. This would be a lot easier to accomplish by actually communicating directly with people --not just through actions.

Obviously, the government has means of doing that (Voice of America, for instance), but clearly any regular person would be more inclined to trust someone they talk to directly, in an informal discussion, than they would be to trust an official source. Even Americans don't always trust the official communications of our federal government. It's no suprise to me that the State Department says the feedback has been good so far. When you reach out to people and try to engage them in a sincere discussion, they will usually listen.

Homeland Security Advisor resigns- so she can work more

2007-11-19T12:10:00.000-05:00

Please don't dare say Francis Townsend wants to spend more time with her family. The president's Homeland Security Advisor, whose resignation was announced today, apparently explicitly forbade the White House press office from saying she was resigning to spend more time with her family. "I'm going to just take another job doing 20 hour days but this time in the private sector," Townsend said, according to CNN.

In a statement released by the White House press office, President Bush said Townsend "has played an integral role in the formation of key strategies and policies my administration has used to combat terror and protect Americans.'' Townsend spent 4 1/2 years in the role, in which she tracked terrorist groups and assessed the threats they posed. She also oversaw the revamping of the federal government's response to emergencies after Hurricane Katrina.

Townsend's resignation of course follows that of many other Bush aides, including Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales. The AP notes that White House press secretary Dana Perino "shrugged off the notion that a loss of top talent will hurt Bush's last months in office." Perhaps Townsend is a different story, but surely no one contends that losing Gonzales was going to "hurt" the Bush administration.

Chuck Norris approved

2007-11-19T11:15:00.000-05:00

Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee are all debuting ads this week. Romney's highlights his family values, while Giuliani's once again focuses on his experience in times of crisis. They're viewable through the below Boston Globe page. Huckabee's features none other than Chuck Norris himself, the man whose tears cure Cancer (too bad he never cries). It's ridiculous and hilarious, and it will definitely draw interest in his campaign and probably attract many young people to his web site. Maybe he'll overtake Ron Paul as the hipster vote.

McCain looks on the bright side- and wins endorsement

2007-11-19T10:06:00.000-05:00

Tom Kean, former New Jersey governor and co-chair of the 9-11 commission is endorsing John McCain for president today, says the Politico. The endorsement will clearly signal that McCain is strong on national security issues.

This comes on the heels of an interesting fact John McCain pulled out while on the campaign trail over the weekend that could be an indication of great recent success in Iraq -- or of a worsening plight, depending on how you look at it. "I'm happy to tell you that exodus has turned around and Iraqis are now coming back from Jordan and other places back to Iraq because we have established an environment in which they can live more peacefully," McCain said at a New Hampshire town hall meeting on Sunday.

It's true that Iraqis are returning home. Iraq's Ministry of Displacement and Migration has said about 46,000 Iraqi refugees returned to their war-ravaged country in October. "We are simply living in a better and obvious security situation," said Gen. Qassim Atta, according to CNN.

However, CNN's report glosses over the fact that the increased number of refugees returning home happens to coincide with strict new laws being enforced against Iraqi refugees in Syria and Jordan, which together harbor more than 90 percent of the 2.2 million people who have left the country. Syria now demands incoming Iraqis have Visas, and Jordan has begun turning people back, AP reported. Additionally, refugees already in those countries will either have to be officially recognized as refugees by the United Nations or leave once their residency permits expire. Many of those who manage to stay in these safer countries legally ultimately return simply because they cannot afford to live outside Iraq. "Going back to Baghdad means going to death row, but we have no money left that could allow us to go on living here," said one returning Iraqi to AP.

To cite statistics about returning Iraqis as a reason for optimism, McCain must either be so inclined to find success wherever possible that he is completely missing the bigger picture, or he is willfully deceiving people in New Hampshire. Either case doesn't exactly help his campaign, regardless of his endorsements.

But since Mr. McCain was kind enough to bring it up, the plight of Iraqi refugees is certainly worth exploring further.

Though millions of Iraqis have fled their country because of a war instigated by the U.S., the United States is harboring relatively few refugees. Only 1,608 were admitted last year, noted Bill Frelick, Refugee Policy Director for Human Rights Watch, when he testified on Nov. 15 before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus. The U.S. aims to resettle 12,000 this year, but Frelick said that goal would not likely be reached. Even if it did, he said, that only amounts to the number of Iraqis who flee to Syria within a span of six days.

He also had this to say: "The Bush Administration has boosted its 2008 emergency request to fund the Iraq and Afghan wars to $196.4 billion, bringing the total price tag to more than $800 billion. Less than one-fifth of 1 percent of that request, $240 million—less than the amount the U.S. spends each day to wage the war—is slated for emergency relief, basic health services and education for the 4.4 million Iraqis who have been forced from their homes."

If the U.S. does not provide more aid to refugees and the countries that harbor them, Frelick said, "Jordan’s and Syria’s borders will remain closed, more refugees will be forced back, and the present emergency could well escalate into a full-fledged disaster... The United States needs to spend money to save lives where it can and prevent further resentment and destabilization that could bring far greater costs in the years to come."

Maybe someone just needs to get John McCain something read other than official Iraqi press releases.

More evidence of politicizing climate change

2007-11-16T12:01:00.000-05:00

California and other states celebrated a victory yesterday in their protracted battle against the federal government's neglectful energy policies. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Bush administration's new fuel economy standards for light trucks and SUV's need to be fixed to take into account the effects of carbon emissions and their possible link to global warming.

At the same time, the Washington Post is breaking news that government scientists think that certain Smithsonian exhibits dealing with issues of climate change and the Arctic were too politically influenced. These new revelations of the administration's "chilling effect" on the scientific community can only "fuel" the states' convictions to proceed with their own energy policies. (sorry, couldn't help it!)

The Museum of Natural History ran a 2006 exhibit about changes in the Arctic that was dramatically altered by high level Smithsonian officials. For one thing, the name of the exhibit was changed from "Arctic Meltdown" to "The Arctic: A Friend Acting Strangely." Hmm. "For the focus to be shifted from scientific content to political content, I found disturbing for a museum," said NASA scientist Waleed Abdalati, who was involved in the project. Museum officials are under fire for other sketchy moves as well, such as approving a $5 million donation from the American Petroleum Institute to fund the Natural History Museum's Ocean Initiative exhibit hall and web site.

These incidents were preceded by one in 2003, the Post reports, when the Natural History Museum moved a photo display of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to a less noticeable location and changed its captions, right as the administration was considering oil and gas drilling in the region. That event was certainly a harbinger of things to come, and not only in the scientific community. The Bush administration has obviously since been lambasted for politicizing just about every apolitical federal bureaucracy imaginable. On a more tragic note, keeping images of our precious natural resources out of sight from the public, lest people be reminded of what we are destroying, brings to mind attempts to keep the public focused on the War on Terror by keeping our fallen soldiers out of view.

Thankfully, some like California gov. Schwarzenegger are trying to rein in the federal government's politicization of nonpartisan issues. In addition to the previously mentioned lawsuit, California is also suing the EPA so it can implement its own emission standards. Also, the governor will be hosting with Al Gore a forum on energy and climate change for both democratic and republican presidential candidates. It is supposed to take place this December in New Hampshire. Hopefully the next president will spend some time actually trying to change things, rather than changing their appearances by politicizing them.

Hillary wields the gender card proudly

2007-11-15T20:53:00.000-05:00

Tonight, perhaps for the first time ever, I felt like I saw a bit of authenticity in Hillary Clinton. As a female voter, this meant a great deal to me. There could never be any question about the significance of Hillary's campaign; whether you like it or not, the fact that she is a woman is notable. Mrs. Clinton has certainly acknowledged that and at times has tried to embrace it-- but, in my humble opinion, she has never been quite able to convey that it means anything to her personally. She seemed to do just that, finally, in the Nevada debate.

As the pundits mentioned on CNN once the debate was through, Hillary did quite well in the debate. The other candidates, Barack Obama in particular, did not fare as well by comparison. Obama perhaps just doesn't have "the fire in his belly," as James Carville and others put it. Clinton, on the other hand, does-- but it never seemed clear why. Having that sort of drive without showing any sort of underlying human emotion is kind of scary. By contrast, John Edwards has framed the passion of his campaign around the desire to unite the "two Americas" he has seen in his lifetime. That is something I can understand.

But tonight it seemed that maybe a little bit of the fire in Hillary's belly is indeed fueled by her pride in being a female candidate. "What did you mean when you referred to 'the boys' club'?" CNN's Campbell Brown asked Hillary, in reference to a speech Hillary gave at her alma mater, Wellesley. Hillary tilted her head up, her eyes scanning the ceiling. Her mouth opened wide. She seemed to be searching for one of those verbose, "nuanced" answers she is so fond of. But before the words could come tumbling out, paused and took in a breath. There was new clarity in her eyes. "Oh, Campbell," she said in a chiding tone. She then went on to speak of the many women she has met during her campaign, such as 95-year-old women who tell her they were alive when women couldn't vote and they want to be alive to see a woman president. It was perhaps the most genuine-sounding moment I've seen from Clinton.

It was interesting to note what happened afterwards, when John Edwards was given a chance to respond to whether he thought Clinton was playing the "gender card." He responded that all the candidates were well-qualified, but that voters had a right to know about the corporate ties of some of the candidates and that pointing out those ties should not be interpreted as making personal attacks. It was a fair point, but it generated a chorus of boos from the audience. For once, Edwards was the candidate coming off as cold while Clinton looked sincere and impassioned.

It was a great moment. Great enough to convince me to vote for her? No. But maybe it was for some women.

Richardson could learn from Dodd

2007-11-15T16:49:00.000-05:00

The New York Times reports that, according to Project Vote Smart, only three of the mainstream presidential candidates managed to answer politically risky questions on the organization's “political courage test” that forces them to take a side on tough issues.
All three of those candidates happened to be democratic-- John Edwards, Chris Dodd and Mike Gravel. Two mainstream candidates-- Bill Richardson and Mitt Romney-- declined to participate.

It's no surprise that the feisty Gravel-- who sees nothing wrong with calling Americans fat and stupid-- didn't refrain from giving his opinion. Edwards has been ratcheting up the dialogue surrounding his campaign and portraying himself as the straight-shooter in comparison to Clinton, so that makes sense as well. Dodd's passing marks from PVS should perhaps be the most noteworthy, given his impressive-- though fruitless-- attempts to stand out among the lower-tier candidates as honest and transparent.

During the Oct. 30 democratic debate, right before Clinton gave her fateful, flip-flopping response about Spitzer's proposed license program, Dodd quickly responded that he disagreed with the program. He, quite frankly, seemed like the only candidate really listening and thinking about the question. Next, Dodd announced Wednesday that he had convinced every democratic campaign-- except Richardson's-- to commit to prohibiting staff or out-of-state volunteers from caucusing in Iowa. Now, with this test, he has once again shown true character. Too bad nobody cares.

Richardson's refusal to even participate in the Project Vote Smart test is troubling because, unlike Dodd, his campaign actually has the momentum to go somewhere if he were to step up his game. By standing out as the only democrat not willing to declare his transparency on issues-- and the only democrat not promising to forgo shady caucusing tactics-- he can only lose that momentum. Sure, he just got nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for the fifth time. Yes, that's pretty special. But as MSNBC points out, so did Stalin. Richardson really does seem to be running for VP-- if his campaign is to be for anything else, much more should be expected of him.

Iowa hearts Huckabee

2007-11-15T12:41:00.000-05:00

It should come as no surprise that Mike Huckabee is nipping at the heels of Mitt Romney in Iowa, where the latest polls indicate he is just six points behind the republican frontrunner. In a state where speaking to relatively small groups of people in personal settings is the key to success, the former governor's eloquent and affable manner are surely taking him far.

Romney's criticism of Huckabee's plan in Arkansas that gave tuition breaks to children of illegal immigrants seems like a desperate attempt to arouse people's knee-jerk reactions against anything having to do with immigration that doesn't include building a fence. Educating children, regardless of their immigration status, clearly benefits the whole community; unfortunately for Huckabee, many people probably don't see it that way.

Romney will probably have to do a bit better than that if he wants to quell support for the Arkansas underdog, who is appealing for all the reasons Romney and Giuliani are not. His executive experience is from the south, not the northeast; no one questions his conservative record; and the religious right can have no qualms with a creationist Baptist minister. Plus, how can you not like a guy who lost 100 lbs. and is "Chuck Norris approved"?!

Will Obama's stock soar like Google's?

2007-11-15T09:18:00.000-05:00

When asked at Google yesterday how Obama supporters could convince their friends to vote for the young senator despite his supposed lack of experience, Barack compared his campaign to Google itself, whose founders started the company in grad school.

"Sergey and Larry didn't have a lot of experience starting a Fortune 100 company," Obama said. "I suppose when they came in and started talking to (Google's current general counsel) Dave Drummond about starting a company, he could have said, 'They don't know what they're doing."

I think this is a great analogy-- not because running the country is all that similar to running a technology company, but because it gets to the heart of a very basic question: What does it take to be a leader? Certainly experience helps, but pointing to the industry and innovation in this country reveals that Americans truly value the notion that anyone should have a chance to prove himself or herself as a leader.

Spending in all the wrong places

2007-11-13T10:27:00.000-05:00

President Bush pulled out his veto pen this morning to remind us all that we can't be worrying about petty things like health or education in the midst of a War on Terror. He vetoed the bipartisan appropriations bill for labor, health and human services, and education on the basis that it would cost too much-- but he was apparently able to let slide what he himself referred to as "some unnecessary spending" in the Pentagon's non-war budget, which he did sign today.

I certainly agree that there is some "unnecessary spending" going on at the Pentagon these days; more surprisingly, I can also find some "overspending" in the health bill as well--though it's small change in the grand scheme of things.

The appropriations bill laid out $141 million for the Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) program. This actually would have increased spending for abstinence-only programming even though it's been well-documented that such programming is pretty useless. Curiously, in spite of the president's apparent concerns over wasteful spending, his administration restricts federal funds for sex education courses to abstinence-only programs, as the Washington Post points out today. This article reveals how states have had to take matters into their own hands by refusing to take the abstinence-only money; Virginia governor Tim Kaine has made his state the lastest out of 14 to wipe their hands of the wasteful federal funds.

The president needs to embrace a totally new philosophy, in my opinion: Make love, not war-- but use condoms.

Those "mannish," "ruthless" women, Hillary and Nancy

2007-11-12T14:21:00.000-05:00

I find articles like "The Myth of the Iron Lady" in today's Post, regarding people's perceptions of female leaders, very interesting. It's particularly thought-provoking to me because I still have my reservations about Hillary Clinton-- but as a young female voter, I really, really want to like her.
One female leader that I more confidently can get behind is Nancy Pelosi. I think she is a highly skilled politician capable of balancing the responsibilities she has to her very liberal SF constituency with those she has to the country as Speaker. Could it be that I have an affinity for Ms. Speaker because she's been able to play up her warm persona? After the Democrats' victory in Nov. '06, she mentioned her five children and six grandchildren so many times, I felt like I knew her family better than mine. And then there was the horde of children surrounding her as she was sworn in as Speaker. I rolled my eyes at all this at the time, but maybe it seeped into my psyche.

To go along with this article's use of Wikipedia, it's worth noting that the entry on Clinton is full of references to her "polarizing force" in the subsection about her image; by contrast, Pelosi's entry mentions little about her image. Maybe that just means, based on other female leaders' entries, that people recognize the great potential in Clinton?

The global warming question: was it worth it?

2007-11-12T12:19:00.000-05:00

The story of Hillary Clinton's campaign planting questions with audience members at campaign stops seems mostly noteworthy to me because of the inferences that can be drawn from it-- ranging from the analytical (it will damage voters' perceptions of her) to the more far-flung psychological (I've heard people speak of the "arrogance" of the Clinton campaign).

Certainly, I don't ever want to see politicians pronouncing authenticity where it doesn't exist; but as an isolated incident, having a college student ask a question about global warming isn't going to do much harm. It is not as serious as deceptively ducking from responsibility, like FEMA did with a fake news conference about the California wildfires, and it doesn't even compare-- in terms of scope and enormity of issues addressed-- to the fake news packages produced under the Bush administration.

Because the real story lies in the incident's implications, it is interesting to watch the media's reaction. The New York Times writes a pretty straight account of the incident and mentions toward the end of the article a second alleged time the Clinton campaign tried to plant a question at an Iowa event. The article ends with the Clinton campaign disputing that second story.

FOX News, which first broke the planting story nationally after Grinnell's Scarlet and Black wrote about it, approached the second allegation more aggressively, making the second incident sound more legitimate and the Clinton campaign more deceptive. They also ran this analytical story about the negative impact it could have on her campaign; "rarely has there been as packaged and protected a presidential candidate as Hillary Clinton," they quote Larry Sabato, from the University of Virginia, as saying.

LA Times blogger Andrew Malcolm downplays the event, pointing out that "virtually every professional presidential campaign plants questions."

The Des Moines Register's lede today in a story giving John Edwards' response to the affair really packs a punch, which I think is great: "Hillary Clinton's campaign was acting like President Bush's when it recently planted a softball question."

There are certainly a lot of ways to read into this story, including arguing that it's not really a story at all... which makes me wonder why it even happened in the first place. Why would the campaign run the risk of creating such a fuss when the payoff was just three more minutes or so to talk about global warming?

Can Congress redeem itself?

2007-11-09T11:15:00.000-05:00

By approving Michael Mukasey as attorney general last night, the Senate confirmed that they lack the ability to take a principled stance on an important, fairly black-and-white issue like torture (I call it black-and-white since most Americans, along with military personnel, don't have any doubt waterboarding is torture). Their lack of moral compass is sad and disheartening; their lack of political sense is simply puzzling.

Chuck Schumer's NYTimes op-ed explaining why he voted in the Senate Judiciary Committee to bring Mukasey's confirmation to the full Senate had its merits-- it's true that the threat of an interim AG was a serious one. Whether Mukasey was confirmed or not, it looked like a lose-lose situation for the American people and for Congress. But by confirming Mukasey, we now not only have an AG whose ability to put an end to torture by our government is suspect, but the Democrats have also thrown away a great deal of political capital to a lame duck president.
This foolish move seems to be following a trend: Democrats' repeatedly dismal attempts to curtail the war make their political gains of last year seem undeserved. Republicans have bafflingly chosen to make the most noncontroversial of issues-- children's healthcare-- into a wedge issue by refusing to support SCHIP. It is no wonder Congress' approval ratings are so low.

If the Congress wants to redeem itself, and show it has any sort of moral compass or political fortitude, it has a few opportunities immediately in front of it. The first would be to reform the alternative minimum tax, in a manner that can survive the president's veto. The second would be stop confirming the president's morally dubious appointments; Mukasey got through, but others such as Julie Myers don't need to. Her display of racial insensitivity is totally inappropriate for someone in charge of immigration and customs enforcement, and given ICE's questionable recent history, the organization clearly needs better leadership than that.

Hopefully our representatives in Washington will realize that standing up to the president, big business, etc., is not only in the nation's best interest, but in their best interests as well.

Ron Paul: The Samuel L. of Politics?

2007-11-07T16:07:00.000-05:00

I got pretty excited reading the news yesterday about Ron Paul's tremendous feat of raising more than $4 million in the span of one day. With a campaign that has amassed such a rabid following-- to the surprise and chagrin of many-- Ron Paul could very well create some interesting twists in the Republican race.

Sadly, his campaign may not amount to much besides impressive fundraising and clever slogans. It just seems all-too hipster to me.
For those unfamiliar with hipster culture (or those too hipster to admit it), UrbanDictionary.com provides some useful descriptions: "Listens to bands that you have never heard of. Has hairstyle that can only be described as 'complicated'... Definitely cooler than you... Complains."

For a young crowd that likes to complain about the establishment with an air of superiority and relishes any opportunity to embrace the obscure, there is no better candidate than Ron Paul.
This is not to say that Ron Paul should be immediately dismissed-- the defiant, idealistic nature of his campaign could be inspirational for any age group. However, the Internet-based, more-than-slightly quirky character of his support network has all the telltale signs of a hipster fad. His ingenious "Ron Paul rEVOLution" slogan is the platonic ideal of hipster-ism. (Does it even mean anything? Is it supposed to be funny? Whatever, we're all for love and for revolutions...) The slogan works for this crowd because main tenant of hipster-ism is irony. Remember all the hype behind the movie "Snakes on a Plane?" Young people gushed over it online because it was so ridiculous-- and then didn't bother to actually go see the movie. Similarly, the wanton abandon behind Ron Paul's support may simply be fueled by the belief that he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Republican nomination, much less the general election. If that's the case, he comes acros as just a side-show, and there's no point in paying him any attention.

But the fact that so many people were willing to put actual money on him-- on Monday alone-- suggests that the Ron Paul campaign is more than just a hipster fad. It will be interesting to see how all this Ron Paul support shapes the dialogue of the race. He may not win the race, but his goals of ending the war and instituting extreme government reforms are likely here to stay. Frontrunners, take note.

Immigration Schmimmigration!

2007-11-04T21:04:00.000-05:00

Please excuse that horrible post title-- I am on the road, in a Motel 8 in the middle of Nebraska, and a little weary. In any event, I have to comment on all the hullaballoo surrounding the recent yet not surprising emergence of immigration as a "wedge" issue in the election. I agree that this issue is problematic for Democrats; however, I do not think it's as big of a deal as some make it out to be.

Republicans will almost certainly be able to skillfully utilize the issue of immigration as a diversion from topics such as the war, the economy, etc. once the general election campaigning is under way. I do not think it is as complicated an issue for Democrats during the primaries, however. E.J. Dionne said in yesterday's Post that "the issue is especially problematic because efforts to appease voters upset about immigration -- including a share of the African American community -- threaten to undercut the Democrats' large and growing advantage among Latino voters." I do not think the candidates need to appease voters "upset" about immgration. Here's why: for groups like African Americans who are arguably only tangentally affected by immigration (at least in comparison to Latino voters), it is not going to be a critical issue. The Democratic candidates should be able to have progressive stances on immigration and maintain their support among groups like African Americans because of their positions on other topics.
Dionne cites a study-- being repeatedly cited in the media-- that says most people think our country is "going in the wrong direction" because "our borders have been left unprotected and illegal immigration is growing." I think this response was the most popular simply because of the wording. In my opinion, suggesting that "our borders have been left unprotected" is a little extreme. This poll may not be the best way to gage the importance of the issue of immigration to voters.

So basically, immigration will mostly become a critical issue later on down the road, but for now, it looks like a bunch of media hype to me.

Back! And Better!

2007-11-01T15:58:00.000-04:00

I am back in full force! After a month hiatus, during which I traveled to Portugal, Spain, France, Italy and Colombia, and then drove from Philadelphia to San Jose, across the flattest states in the union.

And what constitutes the "better" part of this blog entry's title? My blog entries posted here will be initially featured on PoliticalBase.com, where I am currently a contributing blogger, among other things.

The happiness gap: During debates, my dominant emotions are negative

2007-09-26T23:50:00.000-04:00

This is going to hurt to say, but.... I think I actually *agree* with Chris Matthews.

In tonight's democratic debate on MSNBC, Hillary Clinton's attempts to avoid making any statements that could offend potentially any part of the democratic party-- and what's more, statements that could offend anyone of any party-- only reinforced what I consider to be some of the strongest criticisms against her.

Clinton held a commanding presence on the stage, but her evasiveness made her seem insincere and too similar to republicans.

With regard the latter issue, John Edwards skillfully insinuated that with Clinton as the democratic nominee, there would be little difference in next year's presidential election between what either party had to offer in terms of policy on Iraq. I am not sure yet how I feel about Clinton's strategy for the Iraq war, but Edwards' point at least seemed worth noting.

As for her insincerity, I was miffed that would not even give an opinion as to whether the Clinton Foundation's donors should be made public. She appeared to be incapable of answering any question without consulting her pollsters and strategists, even questions that could be called tangentially significant at best.

More seriously, she was obstinately silent on the topic of social security and on Tim Russert's very viable hypothetical involving Israel and Iran.

Clinton's refusal to answer questions bothered me for this reason: at such a critical juncture in the country's history, the last thing we need is a president who is willing to keep the American people in the dark for political gain.

More than ever, I am simply looking for a candidate at this point that I believe I can trust. I have never been one to put more stock in "character" than in a candidate's stance on the issues, but the Bush administration has certainly shown the devastation that can come out of dishonesty. I am not calling Clinton dishonest-- yet; I simply wish she were more forthcoming with her opinions.

When Clinton introduced her health care plan last week, I was impressed. It appears to be a well-crafted, viable plan, and its unveiling raised my hopes that Clinton could accomplish great things as president. As she resorted to calculated, vague statements tonight, however, my cynicism was roused.

All that said, I have not made up my mind about Clinton, or any of the candidates, really. There's plenty of time before the primaries for Hillary to 'fess up as to how she'd actually run the country. And while she might offend some people with her answers, she could very well win me over.

War on Terror Over-- Kanye Wins!

2007-09-22T22:51:00.000-04:00

This is old news by now, but I'd like to point out that Kanye West won the War on Terror for us. It should come as no surprise that West, the only American straight-up balla enough to say on national television what everyone else was thinking-- "George Bush doesn't care about black people"-- has led us to victory over the fundamentalist ideologues attempting to overwhelm the American psyche. Props to West for remaining hardcore thug in front of the terrorists while keeping his fresh-to-death, high-end preppie style. The sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks passed this month amid a flurry of events that would concern any red-blooded American: Congress extracted tense testimonials about the Iraq war from Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the President rebuffed his detractors in a live address to the nation, and the elusive Osama bin Laden released another video (apparently after a nice trip to his neighborhood Pashtun salon).

But the terrorists don't seem to be winning this war to control the hearts and minds of Americans-- a New York Times/CBS poll conducted the first week of September shows that for the first time since Sept. 11, 2001, there are as many Americans who think an imminent attack on U.S. soil is not likely as there are who think an attack is likely.

Yet while bin Laden's tape may not have elicited that much fear, President Bush didn't seem to pique much interest with his address to the nation, either. According to Nielsen Media Research, President Bush's Sept. 13 speech drew in 28.8 million viewers. This sounds like a lot (at least to me, anyways), but it is a paltry number compared to the 42.4 million who tuned in to watch Bush propose a troop surge in Iraq on Jan. 10. Furthermore, on CBS-- which had the highest number of viewers watching the speech, at 6.9 million-- the speech was just about the least popular program of the night. 8.8 million people decided to watch an episode of Big Brother 8, which was on before the speech, and 9.12 million people tuned in after the speech to watch part of a rerun of CSI and a rerun of Without a Trace. Hmm.

So if people weren't too concerned with Osama bin Laden or President Bush on Sept. 11, who were they interested in listening to? KANYE WEST. In a true showdown between two American heavyweights, Kanye West and 50 Cent both dropped their albums on Sept. 11, to see who could garner the highest record sales and thereby prove themselves the better MC (let's forget about proving that by, sayyy, rapping). Kanye had knockout sales reaching nearly one million. On top of that, 1.3 million viewers watched a Sept. 11 showdown between West and 50 on BET's 106 & Park. That is a considerable number for a cable network; it is 89 percent higher than the channel's average viewership on Tuesdays this season so far.

With all of this in mind, one can only reach the conclusion that Kanye West now has a more powerful grip over American life than the president or the terrorists. Congratulations, Kanye, and thank you for making us forget about the terrorists.

All this Fed stuff can get confusing...

2007-09-19T03:28:00.000-04:00

I think I may want to read Furby's book, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, after watching him on The Daily Show tonight. After Jon Stewart asked him why the Fed seemingly rewards the large investments of the wealthy over the modest savings of the working class when it lowers interest rates, Greenspan retorted the comedian should read his book again. It seemed like a good question to me, and it sounded like I could get a good answer from the book. Based on Furby's simple and articulate talking points during the rest of their discussion, his book may actually be pretty enlightening. A lot more, anyways, than watching "The Briefcase Indicator" on CNBC, an old favorite of my mom's back in the day.

NO ONE in Baghdad thinks the surge was beneficial.

2007-09-11T17:24:00.000-04:00

MoveOn.org is in full force this week, having sponsored a highly contentious full-page ad in The New York Times calling General David Petraeus "General Betray us."Of course, the nutty protestors who made their way into today's congressional hearings, featuring the general and Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, took quite a liking to the nickname.

I appreciate MoveOn's ability to mobilize ordinary, progressive citizens, but I find this particular ad counter-productive. General Petraeus is well-respected by both political parties, as evidenced by the Senate's unanimous approval of his tenure as leading commander in Iraq. Resorting to name-calling and placing blame on any number of individuals is not going to solve anything at this point. Perhaps it could have before we were so deeply entrenched in Iraq, but at this point, it seems clear that Petraeus is doing whatever he can to simply keep us above water.

MoveOn should focus more on the facts-- information that no one can dispute and that makes it clear that drastic change is needed. The organization highlighted in an email today a factoid from a new ABC News Poll that I think should be getting more coverage: NOT ONE Baghdad resident who was polled thinks the surge has worked. The poll presented a number of dismal findings, but this completely consensual response from every living person from Baghdad (who was polled, of course) really blew me away. Here is the direct text from the report:

Every respondent in Baghdad, and also in Anbar (where George W. Bush paid a surprise
visit to a sprawling U.S. base last week), says the surge has made security worse now
than it was six months ago (anti-U.S. sentiment in these areas is very high, and likely a
factor in these direct assessments). Views in the rest of the country are hardly positive:
Outside Baghdad and Anbar, still just 26 percent say the surge has improved security.

What a tragedy that on this sobering anniversary we face such bleak news.

Pics: Condos!

2007-08-29T18:00:00.000-04:00

Here are just a few of the many, many condos and apartments currently under development in Miami. Here's hoping a lot of people are desparate to move to luxury high rises in Miami.

All these empty buildings

2007-08-26T00:47:00.001-04:00

I happen to be in South Florida right now and took a drive through Miami just the other day. I was stunned at how many high rises were in construction. There have to be thousands of unfinished condos in downtown Miami. I can't imagine what will happen to those buildings if their developers meet the same fate as the partners of the Savoy Hotel and face foreclosure. The Savoy Hotel, a landmark with a guitar-shaped pool that sits on prime beachfront property on Ocean Ave., was in the process of being converted into luxury condominiums and condo hotels. The developers ultimately could not convince banks that the project was worth financing, and now the project is shut down. One of the lenders, BankFirst Corporation, is suing for $4.7 million.

It's also being reported today that median housing prices in the U.S. will probably fall this year for the first time in 50 years. Surely, if a famous luxury building literally on the sands of South Beach cannot withstand the market downturn and convince bankers that it is worthy of a loan, the high-rise condos that only face the polluted Miami river will not fare any better. What will happen to those buildings?? Will they be left unfinished??

I will try and take pictures when I am back in Miami on Tuesday to document the crazy number of half-finished buildings.

YouTube + the enterainment industry = BFF

2007-08-22T23:28:00.000-04:00

So Google is attempting to make YouTube profitable with ads that overlay video content on the bottom of the screen for a short period. Upon first reading about this form of advertisement, I was skeptical; I absolutely hate the moving pop-up ads that appear at the bottom-right corner of the screen on some channels, promoting programs other than the one you're watching.

On the other hand, it is at least reassuring that it will only appear on content created by media companies that have licensed their videos to YouTube. Putting ads on Viewer Created Content (VC2) would be practically sacreligious. I'm pretty sure YouTube would not only lose its legitimacy with amateur content creators that way, but also with most viewers.

Additionally, as mentioned in the NYTimes article (linked to the Title of this blog entry), this will hopefully convince more media companies to partner with YouTube to show their content. The populist nature of YouTube makes it the perfect medium with which to create buzz for programming. I think it's silly that there are people/companies who think that providing content online will cut away from regular viewership; I know I only get sucked into wanting to watch TV shows on a regular basis after watching them online, on DVD, or in any other format. It blows my mind that so many in the media business, whether it's television, print news, or whatever, seem so afraid of the Internet.

Andrew Keen, who was on the Colbert Report recently, is one of the idiots perpetuating the idea that the Internet is bad for art, culture, etc. As someone trying to make a living as a writer, I should be more sympathetic to that view than anyone. But he's not seeing the forest for the trees. He says Colbert is losing money from his show airing on YouTube; he also says he knows more about the Internet than Colbert. Both claims are ridiculous. Clearly, Stephen Colbert has harnessed the power of the Internet to promote his show and his right-wing persona better than any other celebrity. Just take, for instance, the fact that Colbert's speech at the White House Corresondent's Dinner was a No. 1 hit on iTunes, or that he single-handedly changed the population status of the African elephant on Wikipedia. His viewers have made him a sensation on the Internet, and more than likely, that has come full circle to earn him more viewership.

The point is, I think Andrew Keen is absolutely wrong about everything he says during this interview and that increased partnership between media companies and YouTube would be good for everyone.

Penn to Chavez: "My Bush insults are better than yours"

2007-08-03T13:28:00.001-04:00

Sean Penn met with Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez yesterday, and apparently he's not the only misguided actor to do so; Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte also visited the Latin American leader in Caracas.

I don't understand how (presumably) smart people, people who take an active interest in international affairs, can be so naive in their enthusiasm for Chavez. Certainly, he has promoted programs to redistribute wealth to the less fortunate, but at what cost? His attempts seal off the country's people from his domestic and international political adversaries -- by manipulating trade and tightening his grip on the nation's media -- are signs that his turn as president could mutate into an indefinite reign over a totalitarian regime. Isolation keeps totalitarian governments stable.

The Venezuelan-raised actress Maria Conchita Alonso (whom I've never heard of...) said she hopes Sean Penn "comes to his senses and he realizes that he's being used." She's absolutely right-- in order to isolate their countries more-- and thereby solidify their personal power-- leaders like Chavez do everything they can to incite the fury of the United States. Like when President Eisenhower failed to invited Fidel Castro to a luncheon at the Waldorf-Astoria while Castro was in New York for a United Nations meeting in 1960 (god, Castro's old)-- Castro instead said it would be his "honor to lunch with the poor and humble people of Harlem." That must've really annoyed Eisenhower.

Clearly, though, I shouldn't be surprised that this sort of absurd political participation is coming from Sean Penn. It's stupid, but nowhere near as nonsensical as his bizarre rant about George Bush's "soiled and blood-soaked underwear" a couple months back. At least that line resulted in this awesome "Meta-Free-Phor-All" with Stephen Colbert:

Nooooo!

2007-08-02T13:15:00.000-04:00

The deal between Murdoch and the Bancrofts went down on Tuesday, as detailed in this article. Hopefully our worst fears won't be realized, which would look pretty much like this cartoon.

Thankfully, Murdoch has committed to some limitations on what he can do to the editorial side of the Journal, and it is also worth noting that he will likely invest a great deal in bolstering the Journal's political coverage and its international bureaus, which is great. It's also good that Dow Jones in the hands of someone who understands that newspapers don't have to die because of the Web-- they just have to learn how to harness the Web as another outlet.

But only time will tell how much the Journal will change. I'm not sure if I'll be as fond of a Journal that's meant to compete more directly with The NY Times. I like that the Journal's front page never heavily focuses on "the news of the day." It certainly isn't my primary source of news, but it's one of my favorites. I'll read my primary news from whatever source pops up first on Google News, but I'll always look at the Journal (when I can get a hold of it) to see what other stories they've deemed worthy of print.

Now all I can ask for is that Murdoch doesn't touch the Journal's precious middle column, which always has quirky features. But it looks like he will: "He told Time magazine that he was not sure about the offbeat front-page stories known internally as 'A-Heds' that are a plum for reporters to write." :'( :'( :'(

Bancrofts Said Divided as Journal Deadline Looms

2007-07-30T11:12:00.000-04:00

"Mr. Murdoch has said that he has no intention of raising his offer and that he is prepared to walk away if the family does not approve the bid by today’s deadline."
I'm crossing my fingers.....

Edwards: Screw Compromise!

2007-07-24T18:38:00.000-04:00

A day after the CNN/YouTube democratic debate, as CNN continues to heartily pat itself on the back for being *hip to what the kids are into these days*, and as the frontrunners trade jabs over each other's performances, the viewers are likely still congealing their opinions as to who best responded to their questions.

For me, the highlight of the night was a defiant declaration from John Edwards to screw compromise! Citing the evils of partisanship that undoubtedly keep many things from getting done in the federal government, one man asked the candidates which republican they would choose as a running mate. Joe Biden took a stab at it first, giving a solid response of Chuck Hagel. Not bad. But then Edwards stepped in, refusing to name any of his republican counterparts. "Do you believe that compromise, triangulation will bring about big change? I don't," Edwards said. "I think the people who are powerful in Washington-- big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies-- they are not going to negotiate... The only way they are going to give away their power is if we take it away from them."

To me, this response showed the capability of a true a leader-- the capability to confidently dismiss the canned response about the virtues of compromise expected by everyone from Anderson Cooper to the man who asked the question. He had the courage to say something that probably few viewers expected; he sounded like someone who could see the forest for the trees.

As it turns out, I was far from the only one left with this impression. According to an email from the Edwards campaign, CNN says "viewers rated that moment the highest of all the candidates." That phrasing is a little odd to me, but obviously the general idea comes through: Edwards struck a nerve when he said he wouldn't compromise.

Edwards also had, in my opinion, the best 30-second clip. Its use of tragic imagery from the past four years combined with ironic music was very evocative of the frustration many Americans are experiencing. Most of the other videos were simply boring or just plain cheesy. Here is the clip he chose to run:

2007-07-13T10:46:00.000-04:00

All right, I know this is old news by now, but I can't contain myself any longer-- I'm pretty excited about the Spice Girls reunion tour.

In case you've forgotten how phenomenal they are, here's their big single "Wannabe":

powered by ODEO
Sure, they've always been totally fake, and Victoria Beckham looks more like a Frankenstein-ish Silicone Spice than Posh Spice these days, but the girls sure take me back to happier days: days when female singing groups could be based on personalities-- even a "sporty" personality embodied by an ugly chick in warmups and no makeup; days when "Girl Power" wasn't about going into rehab, or posing in sick, sexual knife scenes with friends. Can you imagine Lindsay Lohan kicking it with the Spice Girls? Their act seems so innocent in comparison to hers-- but maybe it could work out, if one of the girls wanted to spice things up with Lindsay.

Congress tries to do good while doing well... but still looks pretty bad

2007-07-10T17:48:00.000-04:00

Are Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats living up to the public's expectations? Hardly. Their approval ratings cannot even reach a paltry 30 percent, according to an article in yesterday's Washington Post, putting the legislative branch in as sorry a state as the notorious Mr. Bush. As for Ms. Speaker, she does not fare much better; her approval rating stood at 36 percent last month.

Yet the Post goes on to give a quite positive analysis of Pelosi's leadership: She skillfully orchestrated a "100-hour agenda" that managed to push through the House the Democratic leadership's "six goals for '06" by Jan. 18. All the while, her leadership has created a more unified party, the Post says.

So why has the public turned sour on the Democrats already? As it is pointed out, only one of the Democrats' initiatives has actually made it into law-- a raise in the minimum wage. All others have met their demise in the Senate, with the exception of an expansion in federal funding for stem cell research, which the president vetoed.

But in my opinion, the accomplishments of Pelosi and house Democrats should not be overshadowed by their low approval ratings. It is true that both Congress' failure to reform immigration policy and its stunted reprisals to Mr. Bush's ongoing Iraq war are enough to merit strong recrimination from the public. However, it must be noted that the Congress has made some important steps in moving forward legislative change that would have never happened under Republican rule. They are small steps, certainly, but that is the way democracy is supposed to work: It is meant to be a slow and deliberative process. The different branches of government, as well as the different parties, should cancel out each other's excesses, which is what they are trying to do. Now if only sparing the lives of hundreds more American soldiers weren't considered an excess.

The Freedom to Offend

2007-06-30T19:28:00.000-04:00

Authorities in Great Britain are racing to quell any further acts of terrorism after two men drove a car into the Glasgow airport, sending it up in flames, and two gasoline-laden cars- intended to explode- were found in London. Another attack, officials say, is considered "imminent."

The anguish brought upon an entire nation, not to mention the threat of physical danger, are only more tragic when considering the only possible explanation this Times article offers for the car incidents: They could be a reaction, the reporter says, to the recent knighting of controversial author Salman Rushdie. How infuriating.

As explained by the BBC, some Muslims, including the Pakistani parliament, believe that knighting Rushdie has "hurt Muslim sentiments." "If someone commits suicide bombing to protect the honour of the Prophet Mohammad, his act is justified," said Pakistan's Religious Affairs Minister Ejaz-ul-Haq. The message is that displays of disrespect toward Islam- even if done unintentionally, in jest or in any other peaceful manner- cannot be tolerated and must be responded to with violence. Clearly, this notion goes against the core values of Western democracy, namely individualism and freedom of speech.

I cannot say how democracies or any forms of government should run in the non-Western world, but in established Western democracies, these violent reactions are unacceptable. Does this mean that Islam is incompatible with the Western world? The plotters (who are most likely native to the UK) of these latest events would probably like us to think so. However, a significant number of Muslims, including both immigrants and native Westerners, happily call the UK or America home. Islam is the second most popular religion in the United Kingdom after Christianity, according to the UK Office for National Statistic's most recent survey from 2001. In the United States, there are probably 6 to 7 million Muslims, according to the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Hopefully this suggests that the violence of Islamic extremists in the West does in fact represent extreme viewpoints. As Shahed Amanullah, a Muslim resident of San Francisco says on the State Department website, "American values are, by and large, very consistent with Islamic values, with a focus on family, faith, hard work, and an obligation to better self and society."

The marriage of Islam's sense of communal honor and the Western world's notion of individualism seems to be something the Muslim community needs to work out on its own. Until then, I can only hope leaders in the West will continue to honor great thinkers, regardless of whom they may offend.

Hillary in the lead!...Who cares?

2007-06-18T17:00:00.000-04:00

Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton holds as much as a 13-point lead over Barack Obama, her closest rival in the presidential primary, according to the latest USA Today/Gallup survey. However, in reporting this news today, USA Today failed to point out that its poll was taken on a nationwide scale. While this tidbit is essentially a given, it is significant nonetheless.

At the end of the day, the aggregate national opinion is good for little else beyond political pontification; what really matters is statewide numbers. Polls taken at the state level show that the primaries could play out much differently than nationwide polls may suggest. For instance, in the latest poll taken in South Carolina from June 13- 15, Barack Obama trounces Hillary Clinton, 34 to 25 percent. Granted, most other important states show strong support for Clinton, mirroring nationwide opinion. But a win in a big state like South Carolina could give a candidate like Obama the momentum needed to overtake the lead.

To muddy the waters even more, it is hard to give too much weight to polling figures-- nationwide or otherwise-- when they change so wildly from week to week. In my opinion, it only shows that the general public is not yet as engrossed in the race as the media or political junkies inside the beltway already are.

Winning the War of Words

2007-06-01T21:07:00.000-04:00

In the continuing tussle over abortion rights, battles can be won or lost by condensing complex arguments into a few well-chosen words. Few may understand a law named the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, but most would agree that a "partial birth" abortion sounds gruesome. A "prolife" campaign may appeal to voters, while an "antichoice" campaign might not.

Conservatives have often seized the advantage in the rhetorical joust by claiming moral high ground. The Supreme Court "affirmed the value of human life," said Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, after the court upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act on April 18.

Now the prochoice movement is attempting to win back this war of words by talking values themselves, with the goal of reducing abortions. The aim is to connect core American values to the issue of reproductive rights by taking the emphasis off abortion rights and focusing on more universally accepted goals--preventing abortions through a broader agenda that includes better healthcare and comprehensive sex education. By circumventing the divisiveness of abortion, the prochoice movement intends to bring forward real legislative changes regarding reproductive health and rights.

"You want to be very clear about what your values are," says Kate Michelman, former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "Over the years we have had to work harder to communicate those values--dignity, parental responsibility, the value of family and when the time is right to have a family."

A values-oriented, prevention-based prochoice agenda has gained traction with the new Democratic Congressional leadership. However, the prevention rhetoric has been largely drowned out by the familiar clamor over abortion, growing in the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision and the upcoming presidential race.

Prochoice advocates say their message has always been about more than just abortion rights. The public, they say, will respond to words that unify people. Yet with the prolife movement continuing to push to outlaw abortion, is a prevention-based message strong enough to maintain and improve reproductive freedoms?

The Supreme Court's validation of the abortion ban was a resounding confirmation of the right's polarizing rhetoric. The name of the act itself had the prochoice community up in arms: NARAL Pro-Choice America refers to it as the "Federal Abortion Ban" rather than the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban."

"It is not a medical term, it is not a legal term, it is a political term," says Nancy Keenan, NARAL Pro-Choice America president.

Since the ruling, abortion has reclaimed its spot as a top media buzzword. Yet prochoice politicians have used the decision as an opportunity to stress a broader women's agenda that includes reproductive rights.

John Edwards in particular has used prevention-based rhetoric to tie women's health with other issues that he champions, such as poverty. On May 15, he launched his "Women for Edwards" agenda, which features a comprehensive set of "women's issues" as well as notable support from female leaders.

Edwards is advocating for "women who remain on the margins, for whom the benefits of the women's movement have not quite materialized yet because society has failed them," says Michelman, who now is a senior adviser for Edwards. "He is dedicated to ending poverty and ensuring healthcare--both of those affect women most--and focusing on low-wage jobs, which render women in a vulnerable situation."

The decision, after years as a leader in the prochoice movement, to support Edwards "was one of the most important political decisions of my life," Michelman says. "Hillary's race is an extraordinary opportunity for women." But Edwards, she says, "is speaking for the women who have no voice, who reside in the more silent corners of our nation--and that to me is most inspiring."

The two other Democratic frontrunners have also specifically addressed women voters on their websites and in their campaigns. Barack Obama's "Women for Obama" page promises to "engage women, enlist women and empower women." It lists the Illinois senator's positions on "women's issues" and notes he is a co-sponsor of the Prevention First Act, introduced by prolife Senate majority leader Harry Reid and prochoice Democratic Representatives Louise Slaughter and Diana DeGette. The measure provides more funding for family-planning services under Title X, calls for public-awareness programs on emergency contraception as well as programs for teen pregnancy prevention, and ensures equity in prescription and contraceptive insurance coverage.

Clinton describes herself as a "champion for women" on her website, where she notes that as First Lady she helped found the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancies, which aimed to reduce teen pregnancies. She also is a co-sponsor of Prevention First.

Clinton's history shows the prevention agenda is nothing new--but the emphasis in Congress does mark a change. "The prevention agenda is giving a proactive solution to a very divisive debate in this country," Keenan says. "It provides elected officials an opportunity to go on the offense."

Other bills offering middle-of-the-road, prevention-focused reproductive health legislation include the REAL Act, which provides for federally funded comprehensive sex education, and the Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act, which would expand Medicaid eligibility to family-planning services, expand adoption services and create programs to reduce teen pregnancy. "Now that we're in the majority, we think we have a real chance to move something forward," says DeGette, who co-chairs the Bipartisan Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus. The Prevention First Act, which DeGette calls the "gold standard" of the new agenda, has been referred to three committees, including the Energy and Commerce Committee, which she vice-chairs.

Supporters say the Prevention First Act is a measure that both prochoice and prolife advocates--Democratic or Republican--should be able to get behind. But of the bill's 136 co-sponsors, there are only four Republicans. In the Senate, no Republicans are co-sponsoring the measure.
Meanwhile, President Bush has stood firm in his opposition to family-planning services that might give advice on or provide abortions. In a May 3 letter to Congressional leaders, he wrote, "I will veto any legislation that weakens current federal policies and laws on abortion.... The standing pattern is that appropriate conscience protections must be in place for health care entities."

However, DeGette says votes on prevention bills could still be useful in revealing how extreme the Republican Party has become on reproductive rights issues.

"The people who push against this agenda are also anti-birth control," she says. "It has the added benefit of smoking those people out on this issue."

Polling continues to show that most Americans have moderate to liberal views on abortion. A May 10 Gallup poll found that a majority of Americans think abortions should be legal under some circumstances. Ninety-three percent of Americans favor the use of birth control, according to a 2005 Harris poll.

Michelman cites the defeat of a 2006 antiabortion ballot initiative in South Dakota as proof of how the prevention agenda appeals even to voters in more conservative states. Fifty-five percent of voters rejected the measure, which nearly banned abortions completely. Some voters expressed concern that, with no exceptions for rape, incest or the health of the pregnant woman, the measure was too draconian.

"For the first time, we put the decision a woman makes in the larger context of a woman's decision to protect her health, her ability to regain dignity," Michelman says. "I am certain South Dakota was the first time the issue was discussed as openly and as deeply as it was."

While prochoice advocates are maintaining their prevention focus, there is pressure after the "partial birth" court decision to revert back to a simpler, more assertive message. Senator Barbara Boxer introduced the Freedom of Choice Act on April 19, the day after the court announced its ruling, to provide federal protection for a woman's right to choose to prevent or terminate a pregnancy. "It really is going to draw the lines come election time," says Keenan. "Whether or not [a candidate] signs onto the Freedom of Choice Act will tell us a lot--who is going to protect women's freedom and privacy."

But refocusing the debate and adjusting the language of the prochoice movement will not count for much if it does not result in firmer support for reproductive rights. After all, President Bush was not so far off from using prochoice rhetoric himself in his last State of the Union address when he said, "In all we do, we must remember that the best healthcare decisions are made not by government and insurance companies but by patients and their doctors."

In spite of Bush's previous statements and his continuing veto threats, Congress could pave the way for legislative change with hearings and debate on the prevention-related bills that have been introduced.

Representative Tim Ryan, a prolife Democrat from Ohio, foresees a future in which Democrats can appeal to both prolife and prochoice voters by passing prevention legislation. "In a year or two, we will see a decline in abortion rates, and then you'll see the results and have proof for the American people," he says. "Can you imagine--the Democrats who brought abortion rates down? That's a significant thing to tell your constituents."

Does the World Bank have a future?

2007-05-23T17:56:00.000-04:00

As “the world goes gaga” over the pay-raise World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz arranged for his girlfriend, California congressman Brad Sherman bemoaned Tuesday at a congressional hearing, a slew of other flaws within the bank are ignored.

At the finance committee hearing, examining the role and effectiveness of the World Bank in combating global poverty, Sherman was primarily concerned with the approximate $270 million the bank has given to Iran over the course of Wolfowitz’s tenure.

“How can we convince the Iranian people that they will be cut off from the world if they continue to develop nuclear weapons when they are getting money from the World Bank, some of it ours?” he asked.

American politicians stay in office by “bringing home the bacon, even though it’s not kosher,” he said, and “the Islamic Republic is bringing home the bacon from the World Bank.”

The panelists at the hearing agreed the bank had problems— though they didn’t exactly argue it had problems keeping U.S. interests in mind.

“There is a widespread perception that the policies and practices of the bank are disproportionately driven by the [Bush] administration,” said Dr. Joseph E. Stiglitz, a professor at Columbia University. “Those who lost favor with the administration risked losing loans, while countries in favor could engage in corruption, without losing funds.”

Stiglitz went through a list of other legitimate problems with the bank, such as insufficient checks and balances and fears of retribution against whistleblowers.

“Large numbers of its senior people have departed…demoralized by what they saw happening” in the bank, he said.

Besides that, the changing world market threatens the utility of the bank, said Dr. Robert Hunter Wade, a professor at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

“[The bank] faces a whole array of new competitors such as China and Korea… private consulting firms… and the Gates Foundation and other private foundations,” he said.

These other institutions have not, however, left the bank irrelevant, Wade argued. The bank is still effective, he said, thanks to its “inter-governmental guarantees, its own large revenue base and its global reach.”

Furthermore, the bank has the potential to become a real leader in areas such as global warming, Wade said. It could take the lead decoupling economic growth and carbon emissions with new financing instruments, like a “carbon fund” that would allow countries to borrow money for environment-friendly power stations.

The panelists also expressed hope that the perception of corrupt American power in the bank could be diminished—if Wolfowitz’s successor is chosen for the right reasons and not because he or she is American.

“President Bush can send a powerful signal to the world by throwing open the contest to the entire world,” said Stuart E. Eizenstat, co-chair of the Atlantic Council Commission on Transatlantic Leadership for a New Global Economy. “That would turn the tragedy of the Wolfowitz incident into a plus for America’s image in the world.”

Like always, the World Bank and the United States have a common interest—but this time it is finding a leader who may not put America first.

Were the wrong U.S. attorneys fired?

2007-05-18T18:24:00.000-04:00

On Dec. 20, 2006, former assistant United States attorney Deirdra Brown-Fleming won a partial victory in the case against her inappropriate termination. The EEO Office of Federal Operations handed down a decision that day reprimanding Brown-Fleming’s former boss, U.S. attorney Alice Martin of the Northern District of Alabama, for violations of the Civil Rights Act.

It was a bad few weeks all around for U.S. attorneys.

Also on Dec. 20, U.S. attorney Bud Cummins of Arkansas left office to give up his seat for Tim Griffin, Karl Rove’s former aide. Cummins’ dismissal was just one of many that month. The firing of at least eight U.S. attorneys snowballed into allegations of political misconduct by the Dept. of Justice. The Justice Department initially claimed the firings were performance-related, though the prosecutors’ excellent records would suggest otherwise.

Meanwhile, in spite of the findings that racism existed in her office, Alice Martin remained—and still remains— in her role as federal prosecutor. On top of that, the Dept. of Justice is currently investigating allegations that Martin perjured herself during her sworn testimony regarding Brown-Fleming’s termination.

Brown-Fleming, the first African-American female to work in the Huntsville Branch of Northern Alabama’s U.S. Attorney’s Office, claims she experienced extreme harassment from her colleagues there; they punctured the tire of her car and constantly referred to her as “black bitch,” among other things, she says. After complaining about her colleagues in April 2002, Brown-Fleming was fired the next month because she was “not a team player.”

According to Brown-Fleming, Martin testified that she fired her before hearing about the allegations of racism in the office; this contradicts documentary evidence Brown-Fleming said she acquired under the Freedom of Information Act, such as a letter addressed to Martin marked “personal and confidential” from the EEOC regarding Brown-Fleming’s complaints. The Dept. of Justice began its investigation in 2004 into Brown-Fleming’s belief that Martin allegedly committed perjury, but it was held in abeyance until the EEOC completed its investigation into Brown-Fleming’s claims of racism.

Brown-Fleming said she also contacted Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions about the EEOC case; he wrote a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales relating Brown-Fleming’s complaints. The Dept. of Justice responded Brown-Fleming should contact the Office of Professional Responsibility with her complaints.

The EEOC, when it handed down its decision, ordered the Dept. of Justice to pay Brown-Fleming more than $800,000 in back pay, as well as front pay, if she chooses not to be reinstated at the U.S. attorney’s office. The Dept. of Justice sent Brown-Fleming a letter on April 17 stating it was resuming its investigation of her belief that Martin perjured herself.

The fact that a federal body confirmed that Brown-Fleming’s firing was retaliatory, along with the pending investigation into whether Martin committed perjury, certainly cannot be helping Martin in her capacity as a U.S. attorney. Rather than targeting other well-accomplished prosecutors, perhaps the Justice Department could have saved itself a lot of trouble by reprimanding-- or at the very least investigating in a timely manner-- prosecutors who were already causing a little bit of controversy.

The Army's new recruits!

2007-05-14T21:50:00.000-04:00

I caught the tail-end of the "Public Service Recognition Week" on Sunday, and unaware of what was going on, I thought I was walking into the middle of a military coup. The event was supposed to honor federal, state and local employees, but all I saw were military displays, complete with tanks, mini submarines, helicopters and automatic weapons brandished by our enemies abroad; maybe since I showed up at the end, the other displays had shut down already.

As kids in tourist-group t-shirts climbed atop tanks, I couldn't help but think that perhaps the military was using the event to employ some unique recruiting techniques. Maybe, given that the war is really putting a strain on the troops, they've decided to enlist some kiddie patriots. It might be a good idea to snare 'em in while they're young, since who knows how long the war will last, or how many more troops might be needed.

In any case, the display of military might on the mall really creeped me out. The monstrous tanks spanning the mall, diverting attention from the beautiful buildings and monuments that represent democracy, were a painful reminder of how the "war on terror" has taken precedent over civil liberties all too often in recent years. It also seemed ironic to be celebrating public servants in the midst of scandals that show how the administration has inappropriately politicized apolitical government positions. Seeing kids climb on tanks was also particularly disturbing since it was Mothers' Day yesterday.

Wolfowitz and Riza: How Sweet It Is!

2007-05-05T12:46:00.000-04:00

Note my reporting attribution at the bottom:

At the start of the scandal triggered by the revelation that World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz had helped arrange generous pay boosts for his girlfriend Shaha Riza, Wolfowitz declared, "I made a mistake, for which I am sorry."

Two and a half weeks later, Wolfowitz had readjusted his rhetoric. "The ethics charges are unwarranted" and "bogus," he said.

On Friday, the Bank's board of directors was working to complete its report on the Wolfowitz affair and pondering whether to reprimand or even remove Wolfowitz. But regardless of the outcome of the official deliberations--which have been affected by behind the scenes maneuvering and the individual agendas of member nations--the Wolfowitz and Riza tale is one of Washington insiderism, a story in which a powerful player was able to guarantee that his companion would make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and be entitled to a lucrative pension while working at a fledgling foundation with a friend of his. This is not how most public servants in Washington live.

After Wolfowitz, a former deputy defense secretary who was a prime architect of the Iraq war, assumed the Bank's presidency, he was faced with what he has called "a potential conflict of interest." He would be the boss (albeit not the direct boss) of his girlfriend, who was a communications officer in the Middle East section. He subsequently worked out a deal under which Riza would remain a Bank employee but be reassigned out of the Bank. What has caused the fuss is that this arrangement included a 36 percent pay hike--which raised her annual salary from $132,660 to $180,000--and guaranteed yearly pay increases of 8 percent. (She is now pulling in $193,000 a year.)

Wolfowitz has justified the initial compensation boost by arguing that when he arrived at the Bank Riza was short-listed for a promotion to communications adviser to the vice president of the Middle East region. Such a promotion would entail a jump in pay grade. The office of the vice president of the region had placed Riza's name on a short list of nine candidates, but, according to an official familiar with the deliberations of the human resources committee overseeing this job opening, Riza's position on the short list was not initially approved by the committee--a necessary step for her to receive the job. That did not end the matter. "It became clear the board was under strong pressure from upstairs to keep her on the short list," this official says.

Whether or not she made it to the final short list--Bank officials have different recollections--she was no shoe-in for the promotion. Two years earlier, Jean-Louis Sarbib, then the vice president for the Middle East region, had proposed Riza for a similar position, and the human resources board had rejected her. The board noted, according to a report made available to The Nation, that Sarbib should have sought other applicants for the position, that Riza "needs to establish herself as a communications professional," and that she should not receive a "promotion through the backdoor." Riza did not meet the minimum job qualifications: an advanced degree in communications and 15 years of experience. She was a gender specialist at the Bank--a well-known Arab feminist-- who had done communications work for only a few years.

In statements to the Bank's board, Wolfowitz has pointed to Riza's candidacy for the communications adviser post as a reason for awarding her a $47,340 compensation increase. "This raise is about double what you'd be allowed to get if you got that promotion," the official familiar with these deliberations said. "For Wolfowitz to use the argument that she was short-listed goes against what the committee said about her two years before. It does not justify the salary increase."

The Riza deal included more than that first big pay hike and annual increases. It also essentially guaranteed Riza subsequent promotions to higher pay grades. And the deal would provide her the yearly pay increases for up to ten years, if Wolfowitz remained at the Bank for a second term. By the end of a second Wolfowitz term, Riza, were she to stay a Bank employee, would make close to $400,000, possibly more.

These pay increases would lead to an outsized pension. According to a Bank source familiar with the institution's pension rules and formulas, pensions for Bank retirees are based on the average salary of an employee's last three years at the Bank. Under the Wolfowitz deal, Riza could expect an annual pension of about $110,000, if she retired in 2015 (assuming Wolfowitz served two terms). If Wolfowitz had not awarded her that initial salary hike of nearly $50,000 and she instead received steady annual raises of 4 percent over this ten-year period, her pension would be about $56,000. With the Wolfowitz deal, Riza could look forward to a rather comfortable pension.

And she could retire after working with a close friend of her boyfriend.

In September 2005, the Riza deal was finalized, and the World Bank and State Department agreed she would be seconded to the department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. She was given the task of developing a foundation that would focus on reform in the Middle East and North Africa. It would eventually be called the Foundation for the Future. (At the time, Elizabeth Cheney, the daughter of the vice president, was a principal deputy assistant secretary in the bureau, coordinating Middle East initiatives.) But there aparently was some question about her status at the State Department. The next month, J. Scott Carpenter, a deputy assistant secretary in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, faxed a note to the World Bank saying that "we do not view Ms. Riza as detailed or seconded to the U.S. Government." He offered to "further refine this arrangement." Documents released by the World Bank do not indicate what subsequently transpired between the State Department and the Bank regarding Riza's employment status.

Over a year later, on October 1, 2006, Anwar Ibrahim, chairman of the Foundation for the Future, wrote Robin Cleveland, a senior Wolfowitz aide at the Bank, and requested the transfer of Riza from the State Department to the Foundation for the Future. Two months later, after Cleveland instructed the Bank's vice president of human resources to approve the transfer, the Bank okayed the switch.

The Anwar letter and other Bank documents related to this transfer did not mention that Anwar is a longtime friend of Wolfowitz. One of Asia's most prominent Muslim politicians, Anwar was a former deputy prime minister of Malaysia. He and Wolfowitz met and developed a friendship in the mid-1980s, when Wolfowitz was U.S. ambassador to Indonesia, according to Aasil Ahmad, an adviser to Anwar. In 1998, after addressing a rally protesting the government, Anwar was arrested and subsequently jailed on corruption and sodomy charges. During his years in jail, Wolfowitz was an outspoken champion of Anwar. Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Anwar, while still imprisoned, wrote an essay condemning the attacks and calling on the Muslim worked to address "the suffering inflicted on the Muslim masses in Iraq by its dictator."

When Anwar was released from prison in 2004, Wolfowitz flew to Germany to meet him. The next year, Anwar, a former finance minister for Malaysia, endorsed Wolfowitz's appointment to the Bank, though he noted that he didn't share Wolfowitz's view of the Iraq war. ("The best the Americans can do is to withdraw their forces from Iraq," Anwar said.) These days, Anwar is back in Malaysia, advising the PKR opposition party, which is led by his wife, and preparing to run for president.

While helping to establish the Foundation for the Future at the State Department, Riza had recruited Anwar to serve as its initial adviser, according to Ahmad. The two then went about selecting a board of directors and drawing up the mandate for the group, which calls on the foundation to "advance and strengthen freedom and democratic trends and practices" in Middle Eastern and North African nations by supporting reform, media, human rights, and women's groups in those countries. The foundation, which is not a US government entity, has received a $35 million funding commitment from the United States and about $20 million in pledges from other governments. The board includes prominent citizens of Muslim nations. Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is the only American on the board.

The foundation has not gotten off to a big start. It has yet to provide a single grant. Its first president, Bakhtiar Amin, an Iraqi who served as a minister in the first interim government set up following the invasion of Iraq, left the post after a short time in the job. "He was not up to the task," says a source who has worked with the foundation. No replacement has yet been selected. The group also does not have a chief financial officer or a chief operations officer at this time. Last year, it decided to open its main Middle East office in Beirut--right before the war in Lebanon. It has no permanent office in Washington. Email requests for information on its activities have gone unanswered. Its website lists no phone number. But Ahmad, the adviser to Anwar, says the foundation will soon begin awarding grants, perhaps in the beginning of June. Riza, he says, has continued to handle the day-to-day operations of the foundation. Riza, who is qualified for the job, has not been talking to the media.

Bloggers have raised conspiratorial questions about the foundation. (See here.) The available evidence is that the outfit is legitimate, though it has been beset with logistical problems. But until it gets around to handing out grants, its work and aims cannot be fully assessed.

In the Paul and Shaha saga, the work (or non-work) of the Foundation for the Future is not the main issue. Riza ended up there after a Wolfowitz friend (Anwar) wrote the Bank and asked for Riza to be detailed to the foundation--and a Wolfowitz crony (Cleveland) said yes. Whether such actions violate any Bank rules, this is incestuous. Consider the overall scenario: thanks to her boyfriend, Shaha Riza, after receiving a hefty pay raise, could serve as an adviser to a barely-functioning foundation she helped create, working with a friend of her romantic partner, and pull in $200,000 to $400,000 annually over the next ten years. And then she could retire with a $110,000 per year pension. This is quite a deal for the average foundation aide in Washington. In all that, is there nothing wrong? (Wolfowitz attorney Robert Bennett told Newsweek that it was Riza who "worked up the numbers" and pressed Wolfowitz to craft such generous terms.)

After first admitting he committed an error, Wolfowitz now fiercely argues he is the victim of a smear campaign waged by Bank employees who opposed him from the get-go due to his role in the Iraq war. His detractors at the Bank may be out to bring him down as payback for Iraq and for his heavy-handed management ways at the Bank. But Wolfowitz, who entered the Bank a self-styled scourge of corruption, has handed them potent ammunition. Every recipient of World Bank money must now want deals with terms so sweet.

With reporting from Stephanie Condon.

A comment on the previous post

2007-05-05T10:17:00.000-04:00

I am admittedly perturbed that David chose to use part of my article on his blog without giving me any attribution. He told me the next morning that it was well-written but that the "core point" needed to be changed; however, by the time he read it, I had already left for my second job, so he chose to change it himself and post it as his.

In all honesty, the article I posted as my own is slightly different than the one I initially turned in to David. His main critique of my article was that it was too incendiary-- it sounded like I was giving credibility to a terrorist, something he certainly couldn't do on his blog. My original article was indeed more incendiary than the version I have posted (though it wasn't that different). The posted one may still be too sympathetic of Nasrallah. I am in no way validating the terrorist actions of Hezbollah; I do think, however, that my point has merit.

The Israeli Lesson

2007-05-04T12:40:00.000-04:00

This is from David's blog. He "borrowed" what I wrote (see previous post):

Can we learn from the Israelis?

Four and a half years ago, the Bush administration sold the Iraq war to the public with embellishments and faulty information (to be polite about it). Now Democrats in Congress are finally trying to hold the administration accountable.

The House oversight and government reform committee, chaired by Democratic Representative Henry Waxman, authorized a subpoena last week requesting that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice testify in front of the committee about one of the administration's false reasons for war‚Äîthat Iraq was trying to acquire uranium from Niger. Not only has Rice said she will not respond to the subpoena, Republican committee members are nay-saying the subpoena. "I understand why the Democrats want to kick Bush, but what would it achieve?" said Representative Chris Shays, a Connecticut Republican, according to The Hill.

Compare this to the Israeli model. A commission appointed by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert released a report this week that blasted Olmert's handling of the month-long war last year in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah. As AP put it, the report accused the prime minister of "hasty decision-making, failing to consult others and neglecting to assess the chances that his goals could be accomplished." Sound familiar? The report has prompted tens of thousands of Israelis to protest and demand Olmert's resignation.

There have been investigations in the United States of the intelligence failures that preceded the invasion of Iraq. The Senate intelligence committee and a presidential commission both lambasted the CIA for botching the intelligence on WMDs in Iraq. But there have been no investigations of Bush's decision to invade Iraq, his failure to plan adequately for the post-invasion phase, and his poor management of the war effort in the years since. Olmert messed up less than a year ago, and a panel (that he created) has already investigated his actions and rendered a harsh and official judgment of his actions. In the United States, there has been no such accountability. Can you imagine Bush appointing a panel to investigate his decision to invade Iraq and his handling of the war and the post-invasion challenges in Iraq?

The Virtues of Accountability

2007-05-03T16:09:00.000-04:00

Four and a half years after the Bush administration sold the Iraq war to the public with embellishments and faulty information, Democratic leadership in Congress is finally trying to hold the administration accountable.

The house oversight and government reform committee, chaired by California representative Henry Waxman, authorized a subpoena last week requesting Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice testify in front of the committee about one of the administration's false pretenses for war—that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium from Niger.

Not only has Rice said she will not respond to the subpoena, but Republican oversight committee members are also nay-saying the subpoena.

"I understand why the Democrats want to kick Bush, but what would it achieve?" said Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.), according to The Hill.

Well, perhaps Rice and Shays could learn from events overseas that holding the president and his team of neo-cons accountable for the war could achieve plenty: it could earn us some respect from the Iraqi people, which is no doubt crucial if a continued U.S. presence is to achieve anything substantial in Iraq.

An Israeli commission, appointed by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert himself, recently issued a report blasting Olmert's handling of the month-long war last year in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah. According to the AP, the report accused the prime minister of "hasty decision-making, failing to consult others and neglecting to assess the chances that his goals could be accomplished"—all accusations that should sound familiar to the Bush administration.

The Israeli people have taken to the streets, demanding accountability from Olmert. In Lebanon, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah came out with praise for the report. He had this to say:

"When the enemy entity acts honestly and sincerely even if its cause is unjust we cannot but respect it, especially when we look at the other (Lebanese) side which does not investigate, does not study and does not hold (anyone) accountable and does not form investigative commissions as if nothing has happened."

Surely, as the leader of the group that incited the violence of the month-long war in the first place and that the western world calls a terrorist organization, Nasrallah's words can only be given so much weight. And as the AP points out, the motives behind Nasrallah's comments may be less than clear.

Nevertheless, it is undeniable that Nasrallah has the genuine support of a large number of Lebanese civilians and his words carry influence. If Nasrallah speaks for the general public when he offers his respect to the Israeli government, perhaps there is hope that some mutual respect and understanding, and the potential for less violence, can be gleaned from that.

Supreme Court upholds Abortion Ban

2007-04-18T17:06:00.000-04:00

There are a whole host of political issues Americans disagree on, not the least of which is abortion. There are some things, however, most Americans can agree their politicians and government should stand for; two of the most important may be personal freedoms and honesty.

With the Supreme Court's decision today to uphold the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, there is no question that women's personal freedoms have been scaled back. Few women undergo the procedure banned by the law (which gives the medical procedure a gratuitously emotionally-loaded name). But when a woman does, it is because she and her doctor have decided it is the best medical decision for her. No one wants the law coming in between those types of decisions. Bush acknowledged this himself in his last State of the Union address:
"In all we do," he said on Jan. 10, "we must remember that the best health care decisions are made not by government and insurance companies, but by patients and their doctors."

This comment, for those still willing to take the president's words to heart, left room for hope. Perhaps, in spite of already having appointed two anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court, the president was now willing to put personal decision making and health care above his own moral high ground. But that remark from the State of the Union couldn't be squared with what he said just a few days later. From Camp David on Jan. 22, the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the president addressed anti-abortion protesters on the Washington Mall. He thanked them for helping "to build a culture of life" and reminded them of all the ways he's restricted abortion rights, such as signing into law the ban on partial-birth abortions.

The decision by Bush's appointments to the Supreme Court to uphold this law are a sad reminder that not only have Americans' personal freedoms been constricted, but also that the president has left no room for honest discussion about it.

Headline of the Day

2007-04-06T16:51:00.000-04:00

The Family-Friendly Easter Bomb Hunt

A War Even Hawks Don't Want?

2007-04-06T16:48:00.000-04:00

April 04, 2007

Stephanie Condon files this report....

Aside from Iraq (which is a pretty big aside), Iran is the most pressing foreign policy issue the United States currently faces. So Nicholas Burns, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, recently said at conference hosted by RAND. "My own view is that military conflict is not desirable, and it is absolutely unavoid--." Unavoidable? The audience at the conference--which was entitled "Coping with Iran: Confrontation, Containment or Engagement?"--collectively drew in an anxious breath before Burns corrected himself and said, "avoidable."

What was intriguing was that the foreign policy wonks at the conference were mostly in agreement: preemptive action against Iran in response to its growing nuclear program is a horrible idea. Even the American Enterprise Institute's Danielle Pletka--a hawkette who insists the world's lone superpower will "win" in Iraq and that regime change is the answer in Iran--stayed one step away from advocating the use of preemptive military force in dealing with Iran. "If you're looking to end [Iran's] nuclear program, than most people agree military action is not going to provide an answer," Pletka said. "It may slow it down, but it would have a whole series of consequences." Remember Pletka's AEI was the HQ for neocons who advocated the invasion of Iraq.

With hard-nosed hawks reluctant to urge military action in Iran, one might assume the Bush administration is not heading toward confrontation with Iran. But that's what's happening, according to David Ochmanek, RAND's senior defense analyst. At this conference, Ochmanek displayed a neatly laid-out chart--in case words alone didn't convey his point--and explained that the United States' current policies are leading to a worst-case scenario: a hostile relationship with a nuclear-armed country (though Iran is not expected to be able to build nuclear weapons for a number of years should it want to). Bush administration policies, he said, has not made the difficult road to diplomacy any smoother. They have exacerbated the tensions--as the US military presence in the region grows. "The lack of distrust is pervasive," said Javad Zarif, Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations (who spoke to the conference via phone because his travels within the United States are limited). "We as Iranians should not expect the United States to start trusting Iran" and visa versa.

Zarif, though he represents a repressive regime, had a point. With so much distrust and so much military hardware in each other's vicinity, the stage is sure set for an event (purposeful or not) to trigger a military confrontation between the United States and Iran. What if Iran had seized US naval personnel at sea (instead of British)? And remember Iran Air Flight 655. On July 3, 1988, the USS Vincennes shot down the civilian aircraft and all 290 passengers and crew members died. The US government claimed the Vincennes had mistakenly identified the Iranian airliner as an attacking military jet. Tehran claimed this had been an intentional attack on a civilian target. But no war happened. The United States never apologized, but eight years later it agreed to pay $6.1 million in compensation for the victims.

Imagine if this sort of event happened today? Ochmanek's message is that a war is likely--unless Washington and Tehran preemptively find a way to cool down relations before anything like this occurs. If they don't, it's possible the hawks may get a war they don't want.

Posted by David Corn at 04:59 PM

How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb

2007-03-23T08:37:00.000-04:00

Aside from Iraq (which is a pretty big aside), Iran is the most pressing foreign policy issue the United States currently faces, according to Nicholas Burns, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs.

At a March 21 conference, "Coping with Iran: Confrontation, Containment or Engagement?" Burns said, "My own view is that military conflict is not desirable, and it is absolutely unavoid— avoidable."

The audience at the RAND conference collectively drew in an anxious breath before Burns corrected himself.

While the intention of the conference was to stimulate debate regarding Iran, there turned out to be quite a bit of agreement: pre-emptive action against Iran in response to its growing nuclear program is a bad idea, panelists said. Even Danielle Pletka of American Enterprise Institute, who contended that a change of regime would be the best hope for the United States’ problems with Iran, stayed one step away from advocating pre-emption.

"If you’re looking to end [Iran’s] nuclear program, than most people agree military action is not going to provide an answer," Pletka said. "It may slow it down, but it would have a whole series of consequences."

Indeed, there should be "no doubt that Iranians will use any means necessary to strike a blow against those who assault them," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on the same day, in a televised address marking the beginning of the Persian New Year.

And yet, in a neatly laid-out chart, David Ochmanek, the Senior Defense Analyst for RAND, showed conference attendees how the U.S. is squarely on the path to confrontation with Iran. The United States’ current policies, he said, are moving things to the worst-case scenario: a hostile relationship with a nuclear-armed country.

Burns said he was confident that the latest sanctions on Iran currently being discussed by the U.N. Security Council would "tighten the vice around Iran."

The U.S. should stop pushing for sanctions, which "everyone knows will not work," said Javad Zarif, the Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations. Zarif spoke at the conference via phone, since his travels within the United States are limited.

"The lack of distrust is pervasive," Zarif said. "We as Iranians should not expect the United States to start trusting Iran" and visa versa.

So even though policy experts from all points on the political spectrum agreed that military action would be a idea, the tensions between the U.S. and Iran are only increasing. Maybe, said James Dobbins, the director of RAND’s International Security and Defense Policy Center and the conference coordinator, the problem is "they’re talking to us and not each other."

New World Water

2007-03-20T19:29:00.000-04:00

First draft, from March 16. Currently being edited:

With a host of other spending priorities to address, all too apparent what with the current Iraq spending legislation currently moving through the House, upgrading the nation’s water infrastructure may not exactly seem like an urgent priority for the federal government.

"If it flows out of taps, most people think there’s not a problem," Paul Schwartz, the National Policy Coordinator of Clean Water Action, said at a press briefing on March 16. "Most of our infrastructure is out of sight and out of mind."

But Schwartz and other environmental and consumer group representatives said that America’s water systems do not meet the health and safety standards the public expects them to meet. Just look, Schwartz said, to the disturbingly high levels of lead found in 2004 in Washington, D.C.’s drinking water, or the persisting high levels of arsenic found in rural drinking water systems.

The EPA has calculated a $22 billion annual shortfall in water infrastructure funding, noted Wenonah Hauter, the executive director of Food and Water Watch. The shortfall should be addressed March 21-23 at an EPA conference on "Paying for Sustainable Water Infrastructure" in Atlanta. The EPA will also likely emphasize plans to privatize America’s water.

The administration has said it "strongly opposes" both the Water Quality Investment Act and the Water Quality Financing Act, passed in the House with large margins of support on March 7 and March 9, respectively. The White House issued statements calling both bills "unrealistic in the current fiscal environment" and suggesting a move toward privatization.

Privatizing water infrastructure would have potentially disastrous consequences, Hauter said, such as "increasing prices, poor service and environmental problems."

She cited Atlanta as an example: When its municipal water system was handed over to the Paris-based water corporation Suez, it fell to pieces. The city faced broken hydrants, brown water and "boil-water" days, among other problems.

Privatization also consistently leads to higher rates, Hauter and Schwartz said.

"It’s a question of equity, a question of access, a question of fairness," Schwartz said. Higher rates would clearly have a larger impact on lower-income households.

"Are we going to set up a two-tier system?" he asks. "Healthy water for those who can afford it?"

The solution, Hauter and Schwatz said, lies in a federal trust fund for water infrastructure much like those that exist for highways and airports. They also would like to see a polluter-pay system in place.

But even as troubled water systems continue to make news—such as when intersex fish were found in the Potomac due to pollutants— the likelihood of increased federal funding for water systems seems unlikely in the near future.

"Even under the Bush administration and a Republican-lead congress, clean water funds were authorized," Schwartz said— but ultimately not appropriated. If you give more money to water infrastructure, where will you take it from, Schwartz asked.

"You’re looking at a declining range of options," he said. “It’s a zero-sum game."

Investigating Attorneygate

2007-03-07T21:21:00.000-05:00

Posted this morning on The Nation's blog "The Notion":

The Nation's Washington intern, Stephanie Condon, reports on yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the dismissal of eight US attorneys by the Bush Administation:

Senators at a Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday tried to get to the bottom of whether the Bush administration inappropriately fired eight federal attorneys for political reasons.
If so, the GOP plan has backfired: at least two Republican lawmakers could be mired in scandal, and the administration, having lost eight faithful and proficient public servants, finds itself in another PR disaster.

The reasons for the firings have continued to evade the former attorneys, as well as lawmakers. There is "no accountability in the Department of Justice," said Sen. Patrick Leahy ☼, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Instead, he said, there has been a "series of shifting explanations and excuses from the administration."

"Not since the Saturday Night Massacre have we witnessed anything of this magnitude," Leahy said, referring to the series of resignations and a dismissal during Watergate.

DOJ initially claimed the firings were performance related. Then it came out that seven of the eight attorneys had received glowing performance reviews. Now the administration claims that they did not meet certain department priorities.

The latest rationale seemed "awfully convenient" to Sen. Russ Feingold and the testifying attorneys.

"Why would I be a political liability when just a few years ago I was a political asset?" David C. Iglesias, the former U.S. Attorney for the district of New Mexico, said he wondered after his dismissal. He is convinced that his forced resignation was not performance related.

Carol Lam, the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California, spoke of her success in meeting the administration's expectations for immigration trials. "Our immigration trial rate more than doubled from 2004 to 2005," she said.

When she inquired why she was fired, she was told by the DOJ that they "didn't think that information would be useful to me."

The unstated reason may have been that Lam, like four of her fellow prosecutors, were leading corruption investigations into Republicans at the time of their dismissal.

Prosecutors looking into instances of Democratic corruption, like Iglesias of New Mexico, were pressured by GOP lawmakers to produce indictments before the November elections. Rep. Heather Wilson ☼, who found herself in a tight re-election race, asked Iglesias on Oct 16, "What can you tell me about sealed indictments?" Sen. Pete Domenici ☼ asked him: "Are these going to be filed before November?" When told no, Domenici replied, "I'm sorry to hear that."

"I felt sick afterwards," said Iglesias. It now appears that both Wilson and Domenici violated Congressional ethics rules by pressuring a prosecutor in an ongoing legal investigation.
The plot gets even thicker inside Congress. Ed Cassidy, the chief of staff to Washington Rep. Doc Hastings ☼, called dismissed prosecutor John McKay of Seattle to inquire about an investigation into voter fraud in the 2004 gubernatorial election. McKay said he cut the call short. In February 2005, Hastings became Chairman of the House Ethics Committee. Cassidy is now a top staffer to House Majority Leader John Boehner.

Yesterday's hearings deserve to be the first of many. It's becoming more and more obvious that attorneygate reaches into the upper echelons of Congress and the administration.

Did Bush's Chief Spook Say W. Misled the Nation?

2007-03-01T13:18:00.000-05:00

Again, I've been negligent. I covered the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Feb. 27 for my boss at The Nation. I originally wrote a straight news article, but because I had other work to do, I wasn't able to get it to him until around 6 p.m. that day. Unfortunately, this was too late, as most major news sources had already published straight news stories on their websites; I tweaked the story to make the style more appropriate for the timing and the nature of David's blog. Below is what was published today, March 1. Below that is the original story (written Feb. 27) and David's comments.

Stephanie Condon reports:

When the top three intelligence officials in the Bush administration testified before the Senate armed services committee on Tueday, their negative assessments of the situation in Iraq received the standard amount of media coverage. But what didn't draw much attention was that George W. Bush's top intelligence aide essentially said that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney had recently misled the public about the ground reality in Iraq.

Citing a recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, Vice Adm. John McConnell, the newly appointed Director of National Intelligence, said, "Current sectarian and political trends are moving in a negative direction." He added that "sectarian violence has become self-sustaining" and reported that the U.S. intelligence community has concluded "the sectarian situation will continue to deteriorate."Noting that suppressing sectarian violence and creating political unity is necessary for progress in Iraq, McConnell said, "Iraqi political leaders have a close to impossible task."

Those words struck a chord with Senator Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat, who came back to them later in the hearing."If theirs is close to impossible," the senator asked, "then how would you characterize our task?" At first McConnell didn't know how to respond. After a fair bit of hesitation, he said, "Our task is similar in that it is very, very difficult."

Bayh continued to press McConnell, forcing McConnell to acknowledge that the situation in Iraq has been deteriorating for some time. "So if someone indicated four months ago we were 'absolutely winning' in Iraq, that is a mistaken assessment?" Bayh asked.

"I wouldn't agree that we were winning," McConnell replied, explaining that it became clear in 2006 that conditions were worsening. Bayh then noted that comment was made by the president and vice president four months earlier. McConnell response? A very long pause. Then Bayh's time for questions expired.

###

What I originally wrote the day of the event:

The scenario is worsening in Iraq, the Iraqi government is too entrenched in sectarian division to do anything about it and there is no way out for the United States anytime soon, three intelligence directors told Senators Tuesday during an Armed Services Committee hearing on worldwide threats to the United States.

"Current sectarian and political trends are moving in a negative direction," said Vice Admiral John M. McConnell, the newly appointed director of National Intelligence, with regard to Iraq.

Sectarian violence has become self-sustaining," he said, citing the most recent National Intelligence Estimate released on Iraq. "We assess the sectarian situation will continue to deteriorate."

McConnell said resolution in Iraq will necessarily be political, but he was not optimistic about the prospects for political resolution any time soon.

The Shias, in my view are not confident in their position in the majority," McConnell said.

Morever, he said,"the Sunnis are not willing to admit they are no longer in charge. The Kurds are participating… and biding their time."

"Iraqi political leaders have a close to impossible task," he said.

Senator Evan Bayh later pressed McConnell, "If theirs is close to impossible, then how would you characterize our task?"

In a response that seemed to reveal just how oblique the United States’ mission in Iraq is, McConnell asked, after some hesitance, “With regard to Iraq?"

"Our task is similarly very difficult,” the director then said.

McConnell said, however, that as it states in the NIE, there would be a “significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict” if coalition forces were removed quickly.

Sen. Bayh pressed the panelists on the language of the NIE: Why discount a “rapid withdrawal” from Iraq without considering other, more measured withdrawal plans?

The NIE was “unquestionably and uncategorically not to consider policy,” said Dr. Thomas Fingar, deputy director of National Intelligence for Analysis and chairman of the National Intelligence Council.

Instead, Fingar said, the hypothetical was posed in the NIE to address the hypothesis that the coalition presence was aggravating violence. To remove the forces within the time frame addressed in the NIE—12 to 18 months— “would by very definition be ‘rapid,’” he said.

Still, the President’s “surge” plan has not started off to the greatest success, the panelists acknowledged under the committee’s questioning.

"I do not see evidence that Iraqi forces are measuring up in any amount to what the President laid out,” said Sen. John Warner.

He cited the president’s Jan. 10 speech, which said 21,500 additional American troops would be sent to Iraq to aid the Iraqis in securing their own country—not to take the lead in doing so.

But, according to a Feb. 23 New York Times article, only 300 Iraqi forces joined the 2500 American forces in the first few days of the new Baghdad security plan.

"The Iraqis have moved two of three brigades into Baghdad” that it promised, said Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

However, the forces are only manned at 43 to 82 percent of the levels promised.

McConnell said Iraqi forces were “in the process of taking the lead."

"It’s a work in progress,” he said.

###

David's comments:
stephanie,
you are a concise and clear writer--that's good. the piece you sent last night would have made a fine posting yesterday, almost as a straight but short account of the hearing. but if you lok at the newspaper stories out today, it's not mch different (that's a compliment, in a way). if you had gotten this to me right after the event, it would make sense to psot it. but if it's later--after the main news of the hearing has already hit--then it would need to have soemthing lse. a focus on a telling (or amusing or disturbing) exchange, fact, or moment that did not get much attention. but you are showing talent and good instincts.

What Would Iran Do?

2007-03-01T13:15:00.000-05:00

I've been negligent in my posting. Here is an article I wrote, originally posted on www.DavidCorn.com on Feb. 22, 2007:

Stephanie Condon wrote the following posting, while I was waiting for a verdict in the Libby trial....

Today's UN announcement that Iran has failed to meet the Security Council's deadline for suspending its uranium enrichment activities will likely fuel talk of an US-Iran military confrontation. But if it should come to that, there's no assurance that the United States would benefit from the clash. In a paper posted yesterday by the British American Security Information Council, retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner warns that Iran's capacity to retaliate against a US military attack would be not one of shock-and-awe but, nevertheless, of significant consequence.

In the paper--titled General, you have the advantage of time: Iran's response to the U.S. military option--Gardiner speculates that Iran's retaliation would be subtle and indirect--and perhaps set off explosive results throughout the entire region. Tehran could easily create more havoc for the United States in Iraq, Gardiner asserts, by boosting whatever assistance it provides Shia militia groups and by threatening the flow of oil in the region. It would also be able to summon up regional support, Gardiner says. With the right rhetoric, Iran could associate Israel with any U.S. military action, prompting Hamas and Hezbollah to step up attacks there. The results across the region would be unpredictable.

Writing as if he were an Iranian strategist submitting a memo to Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Gardiner notes,

Time is on Iran's side. Even after a U.S. strike, some of our options will even improve if they unfold slowly. That's particularly true of using oil leverage. Low signature but significant cuts in oil flow raise the prices, benefit us, and force the U.S. to pay. Low signature, drawn-out responses reduce the likelihood of additional U.S. attacks. A slow and low-signature response is important beyond preventing U.S. retaliation. Iran has another important interest: preventing chaos. The strategy I have outlined offers the best chance for first, deterring a U.S. attack, and second, if deterrence fails, inflicting long, drawn out and ultimately unacceptable pain on them while minimizing the chances of a second attack on the Islamic Republic, and leaving the government in the best position to harness the national will and international outrage against the aggressors while controlling the popular reaction. It will show that while we have retaliatory capability, we are reasonable and moderate in the face of unprovoked and outrageous attacks by the imperialist forces. It could play a central role in changing the international balance of power away from the Americans. In the end, Iran's influence in the region will be strengthened by a U.S. attack.

Despite appearances to the contrary, the administration insists that it does not desire a military clash with Iran. Perhaps they've already figured out what Gardiner has.

What can we do?, or What will we do?

2007-02-07T13:31:00.000-05:00

With the bush administration’s 2008 budget asking for $245 billion just for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the problem of genocide and the rule of law in Sudan left Senators asking, “What can the U.S. do about that?”

At the inaugural hearing of the judiciary human rights and the law subcommittee on Monday, at least one answer seemed clear: certainly not provide military or financial support.

“Do you always want to set yourselves up?” asked panelist Lt. Gen. Romeo Dallaire, when Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse asked what would be the best way for the United States to resolve the ongoing crisis in Darfur.

Why let other countries assume that the U.S. will take the lead role in stifling this conflict, continued Dallaire, a senator in the Parliament of Canada and former commander of the U.N. peacekeeping force in Rwanda, when countries are just as capable.

“Because somebody’s got to stop the logjam,” Whitehouse retorted defensively.

Then “create the initiative to bring those other beavers out,” Dallaire answered.

Dallaire said sending American forces to the Northeastern African country “would not be a smart move,” noting the religious component of the conflict.

What the United States should do, he argued, is use its political leverage to prompt other “beavers”— middle powers suchs as Germany or Japan—to take the lead. “There’s a gang out there that’s not pulling its weight,” Dallaire said.

With 44,000 troops and the resources to provide strategic sustainability, the conflict could be addressed properly, according to Dallaire. “All that is missing is the political will of sovereign states to put troops there.” he said.

The panelists at the hearing also urged the Senators to use more political muscle with larger powers that could impact the region economically, namely China and Russia. Dallaire referred to the two countries as the “scavengers of Africa.”

Subcommittee Chairman Sen. Dick Durbin pointed out that 85 percent of Sudan’s foreign revenue is from oil, and the industry is dominated by three major oil companies—owned by China, India and Malaysia.

So even with the United States’ military and financial resources tied up in other regions, the panelists argued, something still could be done. However, they said that resolving the crisis is not a matter of what can the U.S. can do, but rather what the U.S. and other countries will do.

“The essence of it is do we believe these humans count,” Dallaire said.

Actor and activist Don Cheadle, who was also a panelist at the hearing, said words like “genocide” and phrases such as “Never Again” were simply insulting, empty rhetoric when used in reference to Darfur.

“Do the small tributaries of information trickled to us by the GOS about terrorists trump the taking of innocent men, women and children's lives?” he asked. “Where mass atrocities are concerned, we are all bark and no bite.”

Why I volunteer; why Roe v. Wade is still relevant

2007-01-23T12:42:00.000-05:00

My first year out of college, I was poor. Hampered with mountains of debt and lacking health insurance, I went to my local Planned Parenthood to pick up birth control. “I hope no one gets the wrong idea,” I thought as I walked in.

I felt reassured to see a number of other people there to use the clinic’s services; still, I choked on my words a bit when I stated what I was there for. My uneasiness was quelled when the genial nurse promptly supplied me with not only a prescription for and an ample supply of birth control pills, but also a few packages of Plan B—the “morning after” pill. I was handily reminded that there is no shame in requesting basic health services.

One year and levels of maturity later, I no longer feel embarrassed about requesting birth control. As a Planned Parenthood volunteer, however, I am constantly reminded of how politically loaded something as fundamental as basic health care can be. “No, I don’t perform abortions,” I often find myself drolly replying to friends’ concerned looks when I mention I’m a volunteer.

Even some of my fellow volunteers seem to be stuck on the stigma surrounding Planned Parenthood. “Fortunately, I’ve never had to use its services myself,” one volunteer said recently, explaining he was involved because of his “ideological” and “intellectual” interests. I bristled at the comment. Certainly, there are some services Planned Parenthood provides that one may be “fortunate” to not need— but less than 10 percent of Planned Parenthood clients receive abortion services. More importantly, I had used the organization’s services—and I found that to be very fortunate.

As my fellow volunteer spoke of his reasons for getting involved, I realized what mine were. Thirty-four years ago, the Supreme Court decided that a woman’s right to choose must be protected. Yet, the topic of reproductive health remains controversial because it is consistently framed in a moral and political light. This overshadows what it’s really about— medical necessities and legal rights. Furthermore, grand opinions on philosophical notions such as “the right to life” only complicate the discussion surrounding reproductive issues far less contentious than abortion, such as birth control or the newly-discovered HPV vaccine.

I suppose I volunteer because I’d like to help reframe the discussion about reproductive rights. Once people stop speaking of “birth control” and “abortion” in hushed tones, as if passing moral judgment on anyone associated with those words should be a given, then I will feel like my reproductive rights are fully protected.

STEFCON 4: My first DC "Celebrity" Sighting

2006-12-28T17:35:00.000-05:00

On the night of Dec. 16, I had my first run-in with one of DC's presumptively numerous pseudo-celebrities. It was really exciting. Whose path did Fate so graciously align with mine that Saturday night?
No, it wasn't Hillary.

It wasn't Gilberto Arenas either (sadness).

It wasssssssss..........
THE QUESTION MARK GUY!

Otherwise known as Matthew Lesko.
And yes, he counts as a "celebrity," even if he is maybe only an H-list celebrity. The litmus test? Jeff dressed up as him for halloween. When someone dresses up as you for Halloween, it means you're at least sort of famous.
Though he seemed to be out for a night on the town with an attractive, age-appropriate lady friend, Mr. Lesko was nevertheless decked out in question marks. He had on a yellow leather jacket with black question marks painted all over it. He wore orange pants and orange crocks. He had orange thick-rimmed glasses that had eye lashes painted on them. He's a lot older than I realized. I guess chasing the government for free money (FREE!!!) really ages you.
I was out with Sharon, Reb and Tara (we had just gotten out of an AWESOME Keller Williams concert) when we happened next to Mr. Lesko on the sidewalk. Luckily, Sharon remembered his name since Jeff dressed up as him. She said Hi, and he was pretty friendly. I debated whipping out my camera, but didn't want to be too imposing so decided against it. That was a regrettable decision. I realized that only after he was a block ahead of us, and Reb and I tried to chase him down with my camera, to no avail.
Soon after, though, we stumbled upon his vehicle. This time I took pictures!

Look how excited we are! Imagine how excited we would've been if it were the actual question mark guy and not just the question mark car.

STEFCON 1

2006-12-28T14:10:00.000-05:00

"STEFCON 1 refers to maximum readiness. This has never (verifiably) been used before, but is reserved for imminent or ongoing attack."

This is my latest attempt at starting a blog. Get ready for an imminent attack of AWESOMENESS.