Hawking Encyclopedias

Stephen Hawking changes his mind and will pay up on a bet:

The eminent physicist Stephen Hawking has conceded that information can escape from black holes after all. The idea has been gaining popularity with physicists for some time, but the fact that Hawking, a pioneer of black-hole theory in the 1970s, has finally accepted it is something of a watershed.

"This will come as a surprise to physicists," says Hawking's Cambridge University colleague Gary Gibbons. "His style of doing science is quite dramatic: he will propose a thesis and defend it to the last, until it is overthrown by better reasoning."

It also means that Hawking loses a long-standing bet with John Preskill, a theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena.

Hawking had believed that anything swallowed by a black hole was forever hidden from the outside universe. Preskill bet that the information carried by an object was not destroyed when it plummeted into a collapsed star, and could actually be recovered.

"Stephen has changed his position, and I am expecting him to concede the bet," Preskill says. His prize is to be an encyclopaedia, "from which information can be recovered at will". Hawking says that he will indeed honour the wager.

     ...

If information can emerge from a black hole, does that give us hope that information can emerge from the Bush administration before they leave office next year? If I were you, I wouldn't bet an encyclopedia on it.

Steve
   PermaLink     

Recusal Or Refusal?

Decide for yourself. From Murray Waas of The American Prospect:

Attorney General John Ashcroft received numerous detailed briefings last year regarding the criminal investigation of the unauthorized disclosure of a CIA agent's identity, during which he was told specific information relating to the potential culpability of several close political associates in the Bush administration, according to senior federal law-enforcement sources.

Among other things, the sources said, Ashcroft was provided extensive details of an FBI interview of Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's chief political advisor. The two men have enjoyed a close relationship ever since Rove advised the Attorney General during the course of three of Ashcroft's political campaigns.

     ...

General Ashcroft... is "recusal" not in your vocabulary? What part of "appearance of conflict of interest" do you not understand? "Have you at long last, sir..." oh, never mind. I know the answer to that question.

(Via Scrutiny Hooligans, an Asheville blog that I have a feeling I'll be visiting a lot in the future.)

Steve
   PermaLink     

DeLay - A Real Caricature

From the Austin American Statesman's blog, Lasso:

Leave my caricature alone!
By lasso | Tuesday, July 13, 2004, 01:48 PM

U.S. Rep. Chris Bell, Texas-D, has filed an ethics complaint against House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. DeLay’s spokesman Jonathan Grella has had enough of Bell, saying today, “The last sign of a defeated and intellectually bankrupt party is a hate-filled strategy of caricature assassination.”

Yep. Rep. Bell is out to do in DeLay’s caricature, which may be a tougher nut to crack than DeLay’s character. (The AP swears by the quote.)

So... did DeLay's spokesman study at the George W. Bush School of Malapropism? Who cares... I needed a laugh this morning.

(Via Kuffner.)

Steve
   PermaLink     

Already Conquered, Part 2

Abraham Lincoln, whose remark on going forward with the 1864 elections provided the title of the previous post (below), must be spinning in his grave, and must have been spinning for some time now. It turns out there is additional recent material that I was unaware of on the business of shadow governments, suspended elections, etc. Digby points us to an Atlantic Monthly article by James Mann, in the March online issue, that makes it appear as if some sort of presidential plans for suspending our legitimate government have been in the works for a long while, indeed more than two decades:

     ...

Rumsfeld and Cheney were principal actors in one of the most highly classified programs of the Reagan Administration. Under it U.S. officials furtively carried out detailed planning exercises for keeping the federal government running during and after a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. The program called for setting aside the legal rules for presidential succession in some circumstances, in favor of a secret procedure for putting in place a new "President" and his staff. The idea was to concentrate on speed, to preserve "continuity of government," and to avoid cumbersome procedures; the speaker of the House, the president pro tempore of the Senate, and the rest of Congress would play a greatly diminished role.

     ...

"One of the awkward questions we faced," one participant in the planning of the program explains, "was whether to reconstitute Congress after a nuclear attack. It was decided that no, it would be easier to operate without them." For one thing, it was felt that reconvening Congress, and replacing members who had been killed, would take too long. Moreover, if Congress did reconvene, it might elect a new speaker of the House, whose claim to the presidency might have greater legitimacy than that of a Secretary of Agriculture or Commerce who had been set up as President under Reagan's secret program. The election of a new House speaker would not only take time but also create the potential for confusion. The Reagan Administration's primary goal was to set up a chain of command that could respond to the urgent minute-by-minute demands of a nuclear war, when there might be no time to swear in a new President under the regular process of succession, and when a new President would not have the time to appoint a new staff. The Administration, however, chose to establish this process without going to Congress for the legislation that would have given it constitutional legitimacy.

     ...

Mann reminds us that Cheney and Rumsfeld did not serve officially in the original Reagan administration. It is amazing, though, how often their names have appeared over the years in connection with schemes to take over the American government by dubiously legitimate means. I suppose they have, in one sense, succeeded at that, by becoming part of an administration that was not legitimately elected.

Do you still think Bush was joking when he talked about how much easier a dictatorship would be?

Steve
   PermaLink     

Already Conquered And Ruined?

Update: Balkinization has the goods on the constitutional issues. Maybe you should read his post first. There is no short version, but if there were, it still wouldn't look good for what the Bushies propose to do.

Here is my obligatory post on the possibility that members of the Bush administration will act to postpone the November election in the event of a terrorist attack. (Reuters link via The Fulcrum, but there are literally dozens of stories about this.) There is little new I can contribute, but I cannot just remain silent, either.

Pessimist, an aptly named blogger if ever there was one, provides us an historical summary of the subject, and far and away the best quote by a revered leader:

"We cannot have free government without elections," [the President] explained, "and if the rebellion could force us to forego or postpone a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us."

Who else... Abraham Lincoln. Do you still think the GOP is the "party of Lincoln"?

There is no justification for what they propose to do. Postponing a presidential election is completely outside the pale, if possible, even more so than stealing one.

Will the Bushies postpone the election indefinitely? or will they resort to a series of postponements until they can secure victory with no uncertainties? Does Bush have the ability to tap his Saudi friends to urge their terrorists... remember, 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraqis and everything to do with Saudis... to strike at a time that will trigger the postponement Bush has in mind?

Billmon says he is trying hard not to be too paranoid about this, and gives us a review of applicable law and constitutional provisions on the subject. But let's face it: after 2000, there is no basis to trust the crew in power right now. There is every reason to believe that they will attempt to retain power by any means at their disposal.

I guess it's not a conspiracy if all the elements are out in the open, so I'm not reaching for my tinfoil hat. But if a serious move is made to postpone the November election, I shall have to rethink many, many things.

Steve
   PermaLink     

DeLay Denied?

Tonight I will attend a Harris County Democrats meeting (HCD is a club of more-or-less liberal Democrats, not to be confused with HCDP, the local party) at which U.S. Rep. Chris Bell will speak on the complaints he has filed against Tom DeLay regarding possibly illegal fundraising in Texas for the Texas House, at least. Travis County (i.e., Austin) D.A. Ronnie Earle is pursuing similar investigations of possible illegal fundraising on DeLay's part on behalf of TRMPAC, the Texans for a Republican Majority, and some (again potentially illegal) interaction... read: money laundering... with the national Republican Party. (To anyone who suggests Earle, an elected Democrat, is partisan, Earle answers, correctly if you believe the WaPo article, that he has prosecuted far more Democratic politicians than Republican politicians in his term of office.)

That is bad enough. But this may well bring DeLay down:

In May 2001, Enron's top lobbyists in Washington advised the company chairman that then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) was pressing for a $100,000 contribution to his political action committee, in addition to the $250,000 the company had already pledged to the Republican Party that year.

DeLay requested that the new donation come from "a combination of corporate and personal money from Enron's executives," with the understanding that it would be partly spent on "the redistricting effort in Texas," said the e-mail to Kenneth L. Lay from lobbyists Rick Shapiro and Linda Robertson.

The e-mail, which surfaced in a subsequent federal probe of Houston-based Enron, is one of at least a dozen documents obtained by The Washington Post that show DeLay and his associates directed money from corporations and Washington lobbyists to Republican campaign coffers in Texas in 2001 and 2002 as part of a plan to redraw the state's congressional districts.

     ...

DeLay and Enron, in a possibly illegal fundraising relationship... what a combination that would be, if the connection is proven... and it certainly sounds as if the WaPo has the goods. Read the article.

As Michael of Musing's Musings points out, Kos suggests a similarity between Tom DeLay (R) and Dan Rostenkowski (D), a breathtaking arrogance that allows any behavior and thinks nothing is illegal. Rostenkowski went down. Will DeLay?

Steve
   PermaLink     

Death Penalty Moratorium Plank

I am almost a month late finding out about this. The platform committee of the Texas Democratic Party reported, and the platform vote was held, after I left the convention because of my broken foot. Today I received a forwarded email on an Amnesty International list, informing me that the TDP platform contains a plank supporting a moratorium on executions (scroll down), together with a list of proposed changes in law regarding capital cases. The email says that state chair Charles Soeching specifically referred to these proposals as something Democrats in Texas assuredly support. So did the indefatigable State Rep. Garnet Coleman, co-chair of the committee and an effective and much admired legislator: "A moratorium is certainly what this party wants." Fortunately, 1700 delegates signed a petition to bring the resolution to the floor, and the vote was reportedly an overwhelming YES. For your examination, I am reproducing the relevant passage from the platform:

Capital Punishment

When capital punishment is used, the people must be assured that it is fairly administered. The Texas death penalty system has been severely criticized by major Texas newspapers, religious leaders, and the appellate courts.  On May 18, 2004, Governor Perry even refused a 5-1 recommendation made by his Republican appointees to the Board of Pardons and Paroles, who asked him to commute the death sentence of a person with mental illness to life in prison. Texas Democrats extend our deepest sympathies to all victims of crime and especially to the family members of murder victims, and we strongly support their rights.  We believe reforms will improve the administration of justice in Texas to protect the innocent and bring the guilty to justice.

In the modern era, Texas has executed more than 320 people – by far more than any other state in the nation. The frequency of executions and inadequacies in our criminal justice system increase the likelihood that an innocent person will be executed. In order to promote public confidence in the fairness of the Texas criminal justice system, Texas Democrats support the establishment of a Texas Capital Punishment Commission to study the Texas death penalty system. During that study, we recommend a temporary moratorium of executions pending action on the Commission’s findings. The commission’s report should include recommendations to correct any problems or inequities found in the administration of the capital punishment in Texas, including consideration of the following reforms that are supported by Democrats:

• Life without parole, to give juries the option of sentencing offenders convicted of capital crimes to life without the possibility of release or parole;
• The right to be properly represented by counsel, to ensure that every person accused of a capital crime, regardless of income, race or the county of jurisdiction, has equal access to qualified trial and appellate attorneys, including the establishment of an Office of Public Defenders for Capital Cases;
• Use of DNA technology to remove legal barriers to allow the proper use of all available technologies to insure guilt or innocence before executions are carried out;
• A ban on executions of people who commit offenses as juveniles;
• Allowing death penalty appellants to argue racial discrimination using sentencing statistics, to ensure that no Texan is sentenced to death because of race;
• Procedures for implementing the Supreme Court’s 2002 ban on executions of people with mental retardation;
• Banning execution of the mentally ill and providing juries with sentencing options in such cases, including life without parole;
• The right to consular notification, to provide non-US citizens arrested in Texas their right under international law to contact their consulates; and
• Requiring the Board of Pardons and Paroles to meet in person to discuss and vote on every case involving the death sentence.

Regular readers know I oppose the death penalty in all cases. But I am a practical person, and until the U.S. joins the rest of the civilized world and abolishes capital punishment (again), I'll take what I can get. If the list above were implemented, far fewer people would be executed. A moratorium is a start. Development of laws assuring fairer trials is a next step. Eliminating juveniles and retarded people from the mix (as the Supreme Court has already eliminated mentally disturbed people) is another important step. If we cannot do this all at once, let us do it by stages.

During his campaign against Al Gore, Dubya said several times that he was absolutely certain that Texas never executed an innocent person during his term of office. More than 150 people were executed while Bush was governor. Since that time, in Texas and in many other states, death row inmates have been exonerated and released literally by the dozens. Since that time, in Houston, the HPD crime lab has trashed many DNA tests, throwing hundreds of convictions for capital and other serious crimes into doubt. My question to Bush, in response to his assertion, is this: How do you know all those people were guilty? The truthful answer is that he cannot possibly know, but Dubya and the truth have been estranged for a long time.

In any case, if I needed one more reason to be a Democrat in Texas, this platform plank is it.

Steve
   PermaLink     

Blame A Lack Of Intelligence

Bad CIA. Bad, baaaad, CIA. Next time, go on the paper!

Here, via the NY Times, is the text of the press conference by Sens. Pat Roberts (R) and John Rockefeller (D), chair and vice chair, respectively, of the Senate Committee on Intelligence. Some excerpts from Roberts's statement:

     ...

Obviously, while it is too large for either one of us to summarize, I can point out some of the highlights. First of all, most of the key judgments in the October 2002 national intelligence estimate on Iraq's WMD programs were either overstated or were not supported by the raw intelligence reporting. Here are some examples of statements from the key judgments.

Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear program. Iraq has chemical and biological weapons. Iraq was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle, a UAV, probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents. And all key aspects, research and development and production, of Iraq's offensive biological weapons program are active, and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War.

Now, these are very emphatic statements. Simply put, they were not supported by the intelligence which the community supplied to the committee, and they should not have been included in the NIE. Second, in the committee's view, the intelligence community did not accurately or adequately explain the uncertainties behind the judgments in the October 2002 national intelligence estimate to policy- makers, both in the executive branch and here on Capitol Hill. Intelligence analysts are charged with interpreting and assessing the intelligence reporting and with clearly conveying to policy- makers the difference between what they know, what they don't know, what they think, and then making sure that the policy-makers understand that difference. As the report details, they did not do this with respect to the October 2002 NIE.

Third, the committee concluded that the intelligence community was suffering from what we call a collective group-think, which led analysts and collectors and managers to presume that Iraq had active and growing WMD programs. This group-think caused the community to interpret ambiguous evidence, such as the procurement of dual-use technology, as conclusive evidence of the existence of WMD programs.

     ...

I'll have more to say about that in a moment. First, a bit of Rockefeller's statement:

Leading up to September 11, our government didn't connect the dots. In Iraq, we are even more culpable because the dots themselves never existed. Tragically, the intelligence failures set forth in this report will affect our national security for generations to come. Our credibility is diminished. Our standing in the world has never been lower. We have fostered a deep hatred of Americans in the Muslim world, and that will grow. As a direct consequence, our nation is more vulnerable today than ever before. I wanted to add some remarks about the report and about Chairman Roberts -- about the specifics of the report. And I need to tell you that the report -- 511 pages -- is absolutely outstanding.

     ...

That's not to say that there aren't areas of disagreement; there are, especially on the question of whether the administration pressured the intelligence community to reach predetermined, in my judgment, conclusions. And I have to say, that there is a real frustration over what is not in this report, and I don't think was mentioned in Chairman Roberts' statement, and that is about the -- after the analysts and the intelligence community produced an intelligence product, how is it then shaped or used or misused by the policy-makers? Because there is a wall between the world of intelligence collecting, analyzing, producing, then a wall, and then comes the decision of the policy-makers, based upon what has to be thoroughly honest and accurate reporting insofar as that is possible. And Chairman Roberts pointed out that sometimes it is not possible and, therefore, you have to put in what is uncertain about what you have reported, what your doubts are, what others in the analytical community's doubts might have been, what another intelligence agency's doubts might have been. That's very critical that policy-makers get those doubts as well as your intelligence conclusions and product.

So again there's genuine frustration -- and Chairman Roberts and I have discussed this many times -- that virtually everything that has to do with the administration has been relegated to phase two. My hope is that we will get this done as soon as possible. Yet even with those disagreements, the report is absolutely first-rate. Our investigation was objective. Our findings are detailed. And the conclusions are devastating. We found the intelligence judgments regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destructions were not supported by the underlying intelligence, and here my words will parallel in many respects what Chairman Roberts has said.

     ...

Our report found that the intelligence community's judgments were right on Iraq's ties to terrorists, which is another way of saying that the administration's conclusions were wrong, and that is of the relationship -- formal relationship, however you want to describe it, between Iraq and Al Qaida, and no evidence existed of Iraq's complicity or assistance in Al Qaida's terrorist attacks, including 9/11, which, through the device of Mohammed Atta and others, the debate continues almost up until two months ago, at least on the part of the vice president.

     ...

All emphasis mine, of course.

This is a real piece of political craft. All the bad stuff about the CIA's responsibility, its failure in intelligence gathering, analysis and reporting, comes out right now. Everything about the failures of the Bush administration, in pressuring the intelligence community to give the answers it wanted, in conveniently interpreting the answers they got as a solid basis for war, in going so far as to set up their own internal intelligence agency to turn raw intelligence into the answers they wanted, will have to wait until after the elections... if indeed we ever get those answers. A lot depends on who takes office in January, I'd say.

There's another aspect that is occasionally mentioned in blogs, but I haven't seen it suggested in mainstream publications: the intelligence community is, for the most part, an arm of the executive branch. In other words, however independent the CIA may be, it ultimately works for the president. Everyone wants to please the boss, and I'm sure the agency is no exception. If your only tool is a hammer, and your boss tells you to hit nails, whatever you hit is certain to look a lot like a nail. Yet the boss is, in this case, incorrectly framing the question as whether he is at fault or the CIA is at fault. I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Bush had been in office over two years when he took the nation to war against Iraq. In those two years, he had every opportunity to reshape the intelligence community both to do better work and to serve his administration better. It is clear that he accomplished the latter but not the former. Perhaps Mr. Bush needs a sign like the one Harry Truman is supposed to have had... "The Buck Stops Here" ... though someone would have to explain to Bush that "buck" in this case doesn't mean another dollar for him and his cronies. As we used to say of Richard Nixon, either Bush is responsible, or he's irresponsible.

Steve
   PermaLink     

Billmon On Blogging

Billmon pretty much nails it:

This blogging thing is very strange - weirdly addictive once you start doing it, but easy to avoid when you're not doing it, if that makes any sense.

It does to me. Read his story; if you are a blogger, it may well resonate with your own experience. It certainly does with mine. And I'm no Billmon.

Yesterday was an exceptionally productive day for me: a decent quantity of difficult paid work put behind me, a short blog post written; a bit of physical rearrangement of my office (the newer computer now sits in front of me, and the older one sits beside me, a serious incentive to move a lot of stuff I never got around to moving to the newer one); some configuration work on software I installed months ago so that I can actually use it, great quantities of shredding and bagging and recycling (oh my!) of the immense quantity of mail I receive from charitable and political organiztions; dinner with Stella and a colleague of hers; and, as the day progressed, a gradual emergence of a strong sense that, notwithstanding our all having pushed the limits of exhaustion and despair in the past few years, there is genuine hope that we may make some headway this year. Not a bad day, I'd say, even if I am still blogging from the older computer.

Forgive the entirely personal post, but Billmon describes ever so well just why blogging must be a reflection of life rather than the center of it, and I feel a need to concur in print. No one has been more dedicated, or better informed, or more productive of significant posts, than Billmon. If he feels the need to be human, to be a parent, to exist in a world outside of his blog, then we all may feel justified in doing the same from time to time. (Well, there's no way I can feel like a parent...)

Billmon has plenty of hard-hitting posts in his future; I just know it. And the rest of us will contribute what we can. Have a productive day today, and deal with your blog addiction as best you are able.

Steve
   PermaLink     

How Everyone Got Layed

With luck, we're about to find out. Meanwhile, that noise that readers hear from Oregon to Vermont to Florida is the sound of Houstonians cheering. Whatever his legal liability, Kenny Boy Lay symbolizes Enron to a city whose people suffered Enron's demise probably more than anyone else. Everyone here either worked for Enron or knew somebody who did.

Lay followed an old Republican tradition in his statement before surrendering himself:

• I have done nothing wrong. - Ken Lay
• I am not a crook. - Richard Nixon

Lacking time to blog today, and finding my Houston Chronicle login suddenly defunct on on this computer (but not on my other one... go figure), I refer you to two excellent posts on the subject:

• Off the Kuff
- gives a thorough examination of available sources and potential political ramifications (if any).
• Dohiyi Mir
points us to a Salon article about Lay and the Cheney energy task force, Lay and the California crisis, etc.

Yes, the Houston Chronicle (the dead tree edition) announced the indictment on the front page in what we used to refer to as "second coming type..." at least as big as was used for the first moon landing. Readers, I hope you enjoy this... yes, I think "enjoy" is the right word... as much as we will.

Steve
   PermaLink     

Surprise!

What if the "October surprise" happened in this very month? say, during the Democratic National Convention? Judis, Ackerman and Ansari in The New Republic:

Late last month, President Bush lost his greatest advantage in his bid for reelection. A poll conducted by ABC News and The Washington Post discovered that challenger John Kerry was running even with the president on the critical question of whom voters trust to handle the war on terrorism. Largely as a result of the deteriorating occupation of Iraq, Bush lost what was, in April, a seemingly prohibitive 21-point advantage on his signature issue. But, even as the president's poll numbers were sliding, his administration was implementing a plan to insure the public's confidence in his hunt for Al Qaeda.

This spring, the administration significantly increased its pressure on Pakistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman Al Zawahiri, or the Taliban's Mullah Mohammed Omar, all of whom are believed to be hiding in the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan. A succession of high-level American officials--from outgoing CIA Director George Tenet to Secretary of State Colin Powell to Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca to State Department counterterrorism chief Cofer Black to a top CIA South Asia official--have visited Pakistan in recent months to urge General Pervez Musharraf's government to do more in the war on terrorism. In April, Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador to Afghanistan, publicly chided the Pakistanis for providing a "sanctuary" for Al Qaeda and Taliban forces crossing the Afghan border. "The problem has not been solved and needs to be solved, the sooner the better," he said.

This public pressure would be appropriate, even laudable, had it not been accompanied by an unseemly private insistence that the Pakistanis deliver these high-value targets (HVTs) before Americans go to the polls in November. The Bush administration denies it has geared the war on terrorism to the electoral calendar. "Our attitude and actions have been the same since September 11 in terms of getting high-value targets off the street, and that doesn't change because of an election," says National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack. But The New Republic has learned that Pakistani security officials have been told they must produce HVTs by the election. According to one source in Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), "The Pakistani government is really desperate and wants to flush out bin Laden and his associates after the latest pressures from the U.S. administration to deliver before the [upcoming] U.S. elections." Introducing target dates for Al Qaeda captures is a new twist in U.S.-Pakistani counterterrorism relations--according to a recently departed intelligence official, "no timetable[s]" were discussed in 2002 or 2003--but the November election is apparently bringing a new deadline pressure to the hunt. Another official, this one from the Pakistani Interior Ministry, which is responsible for internal security, explains, "The Musharraf government has a history of rescuing the Bush administration. They now want Musharraf to bail them out when they are facing hard times in the coming elections." (These sources insisted on remaining anonymous. Under Pakistan's Official Secrets Act, an official leaking information to the press can be imprisoned for up to ten years.)

A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis "have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs before [the] election is [an] absolute must." What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." Says McCormack: "I'm aware of no such comment." But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.

     ...

Emphasis mine, of course.

Remember the days when politics stopped at the water's edge? Well, OK, maybe that was never really the case. But if this assertion is true... if Bush administration officials really are trying to press Pakistan to find, or at least announce the finding of, one or more of the al Qaeda leaders during the Democratic National Convention... then this goes well beyond opportunism, far beyond a serendipitous discovery of Osama in late July... then this is a deliberate neglect of American safety and security for the sake of Bush's election. And that, my friends, is outside the pale. There are many things one may do for the sake of political advantage... and endangering America is not one of them.

Part of me wishes this were not true. I'd love to fight this election battle on issues of the economy, national security and regaining international respect for America... straight out, no funny business... because I think Democrats could win on the issues alone. But the possibility that Pakistan is being played for Bush's political advantage is so consistent with everything else we know about this administration that I can't help believing, based on the evidence TNR (not exactly a lefty publication) has uncovered, that something like this really is in the works, that bin Laden, Al Zawahiri and/or Omar will be captured, or the capture announced, between 7/26 and 7/28.

I cry foul. I want those people captured as much as the next American. I want them tried, and evidence brought against them regarding the terrorist acts they appear to have committed. But the fundamental security of America must never be politicized, must never be used for personal or partisan political advantage. If these accused terrorists can be so straightforwardly captured... let it happen now. So what if Bush gets the credit; he has failed to capture them for almost three years now, and that speaks volumes about his competency. But if this can be accomplished, to the benefit of American security, let's get on with it. Delaying it until the Democratic convention would be, on the part of the Bush administration, an act of cowardice, cold selfishness and partisanship unmitigated by love of country. And that's putting it politely.

(Discovered via Talking Points Memo.)

Steve
   PermaLink     

Legal Lies

This is hardly surprising, but it is offensive:

Report: Bush Legal in Medicare Withholding

WASHINGTON - Democrats say an internal Bush administration investigation into the new Medicare law confirms there was a coordinated effort to keep its true costs from Congress and the public.

The Health and Human Services (news - web sites) Department inspector general said in a report released Tuesday that administration officials broke no laws in withholding the cost estimates from Congress. But the report described the aggressive tactics that were used to keep lawmakers from learning that the administration had estimates of the legislation's cost that were $100 billion more than the president and other officials were acknowledging.

Thomas Scully, the administration's Medicare chief until December, threatened to fire chief Medicare actuary Richard Foster to prevent him from giving information to lawmakers. Scully, then the administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, "has the final authority to determine the flow of information to Congress," the unsigned report said.

     ...

(All emphasis mine.)

Final authority. Right. Apparently, no one has the right to prevent an executive department from inflicting a willful, baldfaced, hundred-billion-dollar lie on Congress. According to this interpretation, the head of that department may legally do so. Administration officials broke no laws. They knowingly lied to Congress, including members of their own party, about what a major piece of legislation would cost, and that was OK, because they broke no laws. Hey, that must be so; they investigated themselves.

You gotta problem with that?

So do I.

Steve
   PermaLink     

Good Choice!

John Kerry chose John Edwards while I slept. As promised, the announcement arrived by email before anyone not involved in the Kerry campaign received word, but Stella phoned me with the news, knowing I would otherwise not be awake at that hour.

The GOP is already all over the choice. But their complaints are truly weak. NTodd has a good rundown (so to speak) of the GOP whining points, in case you don't feel like visiting the Bush campaign site. I don't either. All I can say is, happy birthday, Mr. Bush; here's your present, and don't imagine you can even tame him, let alone ride him.

Edwards is one of the best I've ever heard on the stump. His standard "Two Americas" speech, which I heard him deliver at the Texas Democratic Convention, is rousing and to the point. It is heartening to hear centrist Democrats like Edwards finally realizing that the drawing of this distinction between the wealthy elite... Bush's self-proclaimed base, remember... and the rest of us is an intrinsic part of the Democratic message. We didn't start the class warfare; Bush & Co. did that, with a vengeance. But we must confront it, and Edwards does that superbly. We can be deeply philosophical another time... but this is the middle of a campaign the like of which we have never seen before. Edwards delivers a barn-burner of a speech. From what I've seen on TV, he thinks on his feet quite well. As the old Chuck Berry song played after the announcement has it, Johnny B. Goode.

Steve
   PermaLink     

American Flag

It's the American flag. Not the Republican flag. Not the neocon flag. It's our flag. My flag. The American flag.

I made no special flag display today for the Fourth of July. Neither did I do so on Flag Day. I didn't have to. The American flag... my flag, the one representing liberal Democrats as surely as it does any other American... always flies here at my home, every day of the year. If someone doesn't like that, well, cheney 'em.

As Barbara Ehrenreich notes, when our forebears signed that Declaration, they truly were, as far as they knew, signing the "suicide pact" which the right wing keeps claiming our Constitution isn't. It was not an ill-considered publicity stunt. It wasn't a partisan gesture, though goodness knows our founders understood partisanship. They thought about it, and decided they were willing to die for freedom, and I suspect that in signing the Declaration, they expected to do just that. Many of them did.

They did not pledge their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor... and many of them were no strangers to wealth... to defend Halliburton's right to engage in war profiteering on a no-bid contract.

They did not lie about the war that they knew would inevitably follow the Declaration.

They knew full well that, if by some miracle they prevailed, the founding of a nation would be a far greater challenge than the winning of a war.

They understood that many minds can create what one alone cannot, that a political opponent one day may be a political ally the next, that no one has a monopoly on the truth, and that unchecked power concentrated in a head of state leads inevitably, sooner or later, to the demise of that state.

These are not difficult concepts for most of us, whatever our political affiliation. But apparently they are difficult for our current leadership. With us or with the terrorists? Our flag, but not your flag? Watch what you say? A dictatorship would be easier? You don't support the troops if you don't support the war? I don't think so!

There is much more I could say, but we're headed to a concert of American music followed by a fireworks display... the kind for which we don't have to pay to get in... and I need to wolf down a couple of veggie hot-dogs before I go. So I'll direct you to a few pieces I found particularly moving this Fourth of July.

Please read this.

And this.

And most especially (thanks, Michael, for posting it; I still experience a thrill every time I read it), this.

I wish the very best Fourth of July to every American out there who gives a damn about the dream we share!

Steve
   PermaLink     

Pay To Play On The Fourth -- DOGGEREL!

Our Fourth of July celebration in Houston this year is called Freedom Over Texas. Of course, freedom over Texas is a choice I'd make any day of the week, but in this case it's a sad misnomer: while the event itself is sponsored by Texas Chevy dealers, the fireworks this year are by Disney (the show is called, I kid you not, "'Wish Upon a Lone Star' - A Blast of Fireworks from Walt Disney World"), and adults must pay six bucks to enter the park. It gives new meaning to that old saying, ...

Freedom Isn't Free

You're primed to celebrate the Fourth, Your picnic basket's packed, You fantasize, for what it's worth, Our current leader sacked; But as you dream of freedom, Don't forget about the fee:     Ain't got a buck?     You're outta luck! 'Cause freedom isn't free! This show is run by Disney; it's Produced by Mickey Mouse; So throw some money in your kits Before you leave the house. You'll have to pay to be there, Else just watch on ABC:     Not YOUR six bucks;     It's Scrooge McDuck's! Your freedom isn't free! You think it's in our glorious past That freedom's price was paid? That dog won't hunt: its gaze downcast, It's neutered or it's spayed. You want to smell the fireworks, Not just watch 'em on TV?     You wanna play?     Ya gotta pay! This freedom isn't free! Yet I remember other times, On other Fourths, you know; When folks could keep their hard-earned dimes, And still enjoy the show. But now the Fourth is wholly owned By Disney/ABC:     Forget it, Jack...     Let's take it back! Our freedom should be free!

Steve Bates

Steve
   PermaLink  

Alice In The Unemployment Line

From Through the Looking-Glass:

"Well, in our country," said Alice, still panting a little, "you'd generally get to somewhere else -- if you ran very fast for a long time, as we've been doing."

"A slow sort of country!" said the Queen. "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"

Compare with the following AP story (all emphasis mine):

WASHINGTON -- Employers hired less help in June than economists anticipated -- adding 112,000 new payroll jobs -- and the unemployment rate remained unchanged at 5.6 percent for a third straight month.

Today's Labor Department report presented a mixed picture of the health of the labor market as the midsummer presidential nominating conventions draw near and debate intensifies between President Bush and challenger John Kerry over the administration's economic record.

June's payroll increase was the 10th straight month of gains. But analysts had forecast a rise of at least 250,000 in payroll employment as another sign of renewed strength in the labor market. Payrolls in April and May also were revised down slightly from the big gains previously reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

     ...

The Red Queen must have been thinking of 21st-century America.

I am grateful for any genuine economic improvement we may see. The situation under Bush has been worse than I ever imagined when he took office, and real people have experienced real hardships as a result. It would take a pretty mean-spirited person to wish those hardships would continue, for some political purpose... just as it has taken a pretty mean-spirited person to bring them about, or allow them to happen on his watch, for his own political purpose. Make no mistake: I want things to improve, as soon as possible.

But I am unwilling to recognize improvement where there is none, or to cheer vast improvement where there is scant improvement. In the case of unemployment, there is no real change at all: the job market would have to add jobs at a considerably faster rate just to keep up with people entering or re-entering the workforce. Employers are going to have to run twice as fast... twice as fast as all the running they can do.

There's much more to this story... massive net job loss over Bush's term, typically lower quality jobs with no benefits, etc. ... but you're better off hearing that from serious professional economists like these. Those individuals and institutions are better equipped and qualified to explain matters than I am.

An aside: someone apparently swiped my newspaper from my doorstep this morning. If they took it because they really needed the employment section, well, they're welcome to it.

---

UPDATE: From Ruy Teixeira, we have a quote from Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA):

Despite 10 months of job growth, there are still 1.1 million fewer non-farm payroll jobs than there were when President Bush took office. There are 1.8 million fewer private payroll jobs, including 2.7 million fewer manufacturing jobs.

Teixeira, a Senior Fellow at at The Century Foundation and the Center for American Progress, confirms Stark's figures, and adds

Manufacturing employment contracted by 11,000 jobs, ending a short spurt of job growth in that sector.

In other words, whatever trickle of new jobs there may be in the past year, Bush is far, far from making up for the disastrous net loss of jobs over the course of his term. There are lies, damned lies, and Bush's statistics on so-called job growth.

Steve
   PermaLink     

How The Iraq War Happened

Digby provides us an explanation of how liberal hawks, most of whom are offering their mea culpas now, made it possible. The mainstream media, too, were enablers. Digby's conclusion:

It's never easy to admit you were wrong. But, it is almost more important to realize why you were wrong than to admit it in the first place. If we could all wait to see how things turn out and then just say "whoops, sorry" and all would be well, then life would be pretty easy.

The fact is that the liberal hawks, especially, made the invasion palatable and acceptable to many people who trusted them. That is a heavy burden. I'm glad they've seen their error, but it doesn't mean we're on the same team, as Kevin seems to think. So far, I've seen little reason to believe they won't do exactly the same thing again if their blood gets up and they decide the opposition consists of people they don't wish to be associated with. I hope I'm wrong.

The rest of his post is a compelling argument for that conclusion; please read it all.

Back before March 2003, I was one of those who tried to point out the consequences of preemptively invading Iraq. I was also among those protesting in public, largely ignored by the media. That some liberals were fooled by Bush's false assertions, and that the media was in bed, ah, embedded, with the military, made my task much more difficult. I am grateful that the American public is finally beginning to realize the disastrous mistake our alleged leadership has made... but frankly, I was hammered early on by otherwise reasonable people who thought the war was necessary, largely because they bought into the Bush administration's lies about the threats Iraq posed. Like Digby, I am disinclined to forgive quickly.

There are few "money quotes" in Digby's post; it is a relentless exposition of the ways in which some among us were fooled into cooperating with the lying administration. You'll just have to read it all.

Steve
   PermaLink     

See Bush Cheney Seniors

"Cheney" has been "verbed," of course... and we all know Cheney's new favorite verb.

This post goes in the are-we-supposed-to-be-surprised category. From Reuters (all emphasis mine):

Drug Prices Spike After New Medicare Law -Group
Wed 30 June, 2004 21:15
By Susan Heavey

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Drug firms raised the prices of some medicines as much as 10 percent since the Bush administration enacted the new Medicare law late last year, making it hard for some patients to afford them, a new report said on Wednesday.

AARP, formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons, said the prices of brand-name drugs most used by older adults climbed an average 3.4 percent since late December.

The jump -- three times the rate of inflation -- was one of the sharpest quarterly spikes since 2000, the nation's largest group representing the elderly said in its report.

Drug manufacturers used "very aggressive pricing practices ... that harm the elderly population's ability to afford those drugs," said John Rother, AARP's policy director.

     ...

AARP, which supported the bill, is concerned "manufacturers are offsetting the discounts with prices that are higher than they otherwise would have been." Rother said. "It doesn't seem to be market driven."

     ...

It doesn't seem to be market driven. No Shrub, Sherlock.

For top-selling drugs, Bristol-Myers Squibb's anti-clotting drug Plavix rose 7.9 percent, followed by its cholesterol-fighting Pravachol at 7 percent.

"We encourage companies to exercise more self restraint," [AARP's Rother] said.

     ...

All of you who believe this was not the intended outcome... by BushCo™ and by AARP™, from the very beginning... please raise your hand. (I know my eyesight is not what it was when I was twenty, but it's still pretty darned good, and somehow I still don't see any hands...)

At a campaign event earlier this month, Bush said prescription drug cards mandated by the new Medicare law would save the elderly at least 15 to 30 percent.

     ...

It includes a privatized drug card program as a temporary fix until a full Medicare prescription benefit starts in 2006. It also prevents the U.S. government from negotiating medicine prices.

While initially thought to be a boon to Republican reelection efforts, some critics say the program is too confusing and gives drug firms too much control.

Bush's expected Democratic rival, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, has blasted the cards in favor of allowing Americans to buy cheaper drugs from abroad, turning prescription and other health care costs into a major election issue.

AARP has also said it favors importing drugs from Canada and other countries.

Are you old? Are you getting old? Does the light at the end of the tunnel look more and more like an oncoming cruise missile, ah, I mean, train? Do you contemplate, occasionally or perhaps daily depending on your age, just what Medicare and drug coverage mean to you? Or are you young, and do you hope to be old someday? Then maybe, just maybe, you should support John Kerry. We already know how George W. Bush feels about helping ordinary lower- and middle-class seniors who worked all their lives and planned for retirement, vs. helping large drug companies. Just remember: in Texas, an honest politician is one who, once bought, stays bought. George W. Bush is a sterling example of that phenomenon, bought and paid for by Big Pharma.

Steve
   PermaLink     

Selected Links To Recent Posts

 
Click any permalink below to go to the original article on a previous page. Click a comment link below to add a comment to the original article. Your comment will be noticed, by the YDD at least: HaloScan has a page allowing me to view recent comments, no matter which post they refer to.

Turkee Time

Steve
   PermaLink     

Give Me A Break!

Steve
   PermaLink     

One Moore Time...

Steve
   PermaLink     

IOKIYAR, Says Frist

Steve
   PermaLink     

Fahrenheights

Steve
   PermaLink