Image
Demagoguery
"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth."

Franklin D. Roosevelt


Regular Reads
Eschaton
Tapped
Daily Kos
The Liquid List
Matthew Yglesias
Talking Points Memo
Slacktivist
James Wolcott
Michael Berube
Political Animal
How Appealing
MaxSpeak, You Listen!
Tbogg
TalkLeft
Rittenhouse Review
Neal Pollack
Suckful
Cursor
John Moltz
Southern Appeal
Nathan Newman
The Poor Man
NRO's "The Corner"
Pandagon
Wonkette
Legal Fiction
Sugar, Mr. Poon?
Carpetbagger Report
Balkinization
Happy Furry Puppy Story Time w/ Norbizness
This Is Not Over


Contact Us
Eugene Oregon
Noam Alaska
Helena Montana
Frederick Maryland
Zoe Kentucky
Arnold P. California


Mutual Admiration Society
DCCC's The Stakeholder
Abolish the Death Penalty
Busy Busy Busy
Uggabugga
New American Empire
Staunch Moderate
A La Gauche
The Moderate Voice
The Sneaky Rabbit
Bluegrassroots
Political Strategy
Cutting to the Chase
Acrentropy
The Blue Bus
American Monkey
Restless Mania
Your Right Hand Thief
Naked Furniture
Dimmy Karras
The Department of Louise
Torvus Futurus
HellaFaded
Live From the Nuke Free Zone
Proof Through the Night
No More Apples
Slapnose
PoliGeek
Irrational Bush Hatred
The Slugging Southpaw
I Voted for George
Nosey Online
Donna's Place
Schadenfreude
Resource.full
wordsimageslife
The Bully Pulpit
Lying Socialist Weasels
TJ Griffin
To The Barricades
Omni-Curious
Eat Your Vegetables
Stoutdem
Suddenly Routine
The Story So Far
Skimble
Marstonalia
The Lefty Directory
ZipSix
ReachM High Cowboy Network
John Hoke's Personal Asylum
Riba Rambles
The Bone
Fables of the Reconstruction
The Modulator
Planet Swank
Scoobie Davis Online
Single-Minded
World Phamous
The Good Life
Something's Got To Break
Upside-down Hippopotamus
Damfacrats 2004
The Fulcrum
BeatBushBlog
archy
Yankee From Mississippi
It's A Crock!
Red Wheelbarrow
Apropos of Nothing
Political Parrhesia
The Mahablog
Mousemusings
Restlessgeist
Galois
Muise in Gradland
American Leftist
Political Blog Directory
Boiled Meat
John Costello
Skydiver Salad
The Game & How We Played It
Soupie's BBQ and Daycare
Odd Hours
Nebraska Liberal
The American Street
Approximately Perfect


If you have linked to us and don't see your name, please send us an e-mail and we'll add you.


Recommendations
















Archives:


-- HOME --



This page is powered by Blogger. Why isn't yours?
Friday, January 30, 2004


Whitewashing

How on earth do you teach American history--in Georgia, no less--without mentioning the Civil War, Reconstruction, or the Trail of Tears?

Go to an eleventh-grade classroom and find out.

Still, this does help explain why so many folks think the 14th Amendment--which was enacted in part to permit Congress to pass race-conscious remedial legislation--prohibits affirmative action. But I'm pretty sure that the alleged "originalists" Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia have heard of Reconstruction, so they'll have to find another excuse.

posted by Arnold P. California at 4:39 PM




That Ought to Do it

The White House is resisting calls to investigate why our pre-war intelligence was so wrong regarding Iraq's WMDs. There is simply no need, says Condoleezza Rice

Asked by Mr. Lauer why, then, the White House did not favor an outside inquiry, she said: "I think we simply believe that there is work still to be done. The Iraq Survey Group is trying to complete its work. In fact, the intelligence community has its own investigation, inquiry, going on into a kind of audit of what was known going in and what was found when they got there."

Huh? The intelligence community is doing its own investigation? Aren't they the ones who supposedly screwed up so badly in the first place?

This administration continues to have a lot of faith in the intelligence community despite they fact that they provided them was faulty data which prompted an unnecessary war.

Unless, of course, that is not what happened at all.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 2:23 PM




Something is Rotten in Kansas

From the AP

Kansas can punish someone more harshly for having sex with a minor if the minor is of the same sex, the state Court of Appeals ruled today.

A three-judge panel, splitting 2-1, rejected the appeal of Matthew R. Limon, sentenced to more than 17 years in prison for having sex with an underage boy in 2000.

Had Limon engaged in sex with an underage girl, he could have been sentenced to one year and three months in prison.

Limon, who is mildly mentally retarded, got 17 years for performing consensual oral sex on a nearly-15-year-old male a week after he turned 18.

Update: Here is part of the reasoning as to why it is okay to send someone to prison for 17 years for engaging in homosexual sodomy but not for heterosexual sodomy

Additionally, sexual contact between minors and young adults can lead to unwanted pregnancies. Rearing children is not an overnight occurrence. Parents have a common law, as well as a statutory, duty to furnish support to their minor child. This duty applies equally to parents of a child born out of wedlock.

When a child is born from a relationship between a minor and a young adult, the minor is often unable to financially support the newborn child. In many cases, the minor is still a dependent. As a result, the financial burden to support the newborn child properly falls to the young adult. Obviously, the young adult cannot furnish adequate financial support for the newborn child while he or she is incarcerated. The legislature could well have concluded that incarcerating the young adult parent for a long period would be counterproductive to the requirement that a parent has a duty to provide support to his or her minor child.

On the other hand, same-sex relationships do not generally lead to unwanted pregnancies. As a result, the need to release the same-sex offender from incarceration is absent.

So, since heterosexual acts might lead to pregnancy, they can't send the parents away because they have to provide for the baby. But since no pregnancy can result from such homosexual acts, you can lock 'em away.

If someone can explain to me how any act of sodomy - which is defined as "oral or anal sex between two people" - could lead to pregnancy, I would be much obliged.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 12:02 PM


Thursday, January 29, 2004


One Step Backwards, One Step Forward

Step Backward: Florida

The most common argument used to justify banning gay adoption is this one, used by the Family Research Council, "Study after study has proven that households with a married mother and father create the best developmental environment for children, and as the 11th Circuit noted, the plaintiffs in this case were unable to refute that evidence. " Also according to FRC, "The [11th Circuit] decision detailed the rational basis for Florida's law, saying at one point, "Florida's interest...is not simply to place children in a permanent home as quickly as possible, but, when placing them, to do so in an optimal home."

The problem is that the state of Florida doesn't actually think so. Single heterosexual people can adopt in Florida. The state recently changed it's laws and no longer give preferred status to married couples over single people in the adoption process. Even Florida admits that kids apparently don't "need" both. They just need somebody. Well, unless that somebody is a gay person.

The honest truth is that the state of Florida has arbitrarily decided that gay people cannot and should not be trusted as parents. Nothing more, nothing less.

Step Forward: Thanks Kofi!

Later on that day.... General Kofi Annan has announced that employees of the United Nations will now receive domestic partner benefits. There's a catch, though. It only applies to workers from countries that permit DP benefits. Therefore, employees from the United States can't get them. But it's a good step in the right direction!

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 5:42 PM




And Speaking of Florida . . .

More news about how its screwed up criminal justice system causes blacks to lose their voting rights when similarly situated whites do not. As I mentioned recently, the law stripping ex-felons of the right to vote may seem to some people to be sensible in the abstract, but considering the state's habit of letting white defendants get a ''withhold of adjudication" that doesn't constitute a felony adjudication a lot more often than black defendants get the kid-glove treatment, the effect on blacks' voting rights quickly becomes apparent.

Now comes a further blow. You'd think that if anyone should lose voting rights, it would be those who commit the most heinous crimes. (The obvious way to make this work is to do what most states do: deprive people of voting rights only when they're in prison or on parole; that way, the people with the more serious crimes, who stay in prison for longer, or even for life, lose their voting rights for a longer period). Anyway, most people can't think of a more heinous offense than committing sex crimes against children, except possibly for murder (and some folks wouldn't say even murder is worse than raping kids). But Florida gives 1 man in 4 convicted of sex crimes against children a "withhold of adjudication"--meaning no felony record.

So "black crimes" like drug possession (not that blacks do it more, but they get arrested, prosecuted, and convicted more) will lose you the right to vote forever; but crimes that don't have the same racial connection--like, say, molesting the child next door--won't.

Jeb Bush, this is your conscience calling. Get rid of the felon disenfranchisement law now.

posted by Arnold P. California at 5:30 PM




It's Official

"States' rights" has been rehabilitated as an acceptable euphemism for bigotry. No longer need the anti-civil rights folks hide behind the ill-defined term "federalism." This is the very beginning of yesterday's 11th Circuit decision upholding Florida's ban on adoption by gay couples:
In this appeal, we decide the states’ rights issue of whether Florida Statute § 63.042(3), which prevents adoption by practicing homosexuals, is constitutional as enacted by the Florida legislature and as subsequently enforced.
What makes this a "states' rights issue" any more than any other case in which there is a constitutional challenge to state law? Search me.

Anyway, I'm pressed for time now and will write more about this decision later. But, rhetoric aside, it's a significant decision coming as it does after last Term's Lawrence case (the Texas sodomy decision). A principal justification for courts that took custody away from gay parents, refused to let gays adopt, etc., was that, after all, they regularly engaged in criminal conduct and intended to continue doing so. Now that that rationale is gone, one might think that courts will discriminate less frequently against gay parents (a similar line of reasoning led Justice Scalia, in his Lawrence dissent, to say that striking down an anti-sodomy law would inevitably require the states to sanction same-sex marriage). This is just one case, of course, but given the timing, it's an interesting one.

posted by Arnold P. California at 5:14 PM




Good Point

Tapped's Matthew Yglesias makes the following point regarding the stolen and leaked Senate Judiciary Committee memos

You can read the memos for yourself here on the website of the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary, a "loose coalition of 75 center-right grassroots organizations" which, presumably, are totally different from the insidious "interest groups" the [Wall Street] Journal is so worried about."

So Republicans are outraged that Democratic senators were meeting with like-minded interest groups to plot strategy regarding judicial nominations while, at the same time, Republican staffers were reading/stealing the Democrat's memos on said meetings and leaking them to friendly media outlets and like-minded interest groups?

posted by Eugene Oregon at 2:36 PM




Whither the Soccer Moms?

More news to cheer me in the face of the remarkable collapse of my man's campaign (and the apparent squandering of my campaign contributions along with 40 million other dollars in Iowa and New Hampshire): my favorite guide to polling, Ruy Teixeira, points to further signs that Dubya has lost the "swing voters" that were all the rage in 2000.
Among political independents, Bush's approval ratings are almost all net negative: overall (45 percent approval/50 percent disapproval), foreign policy (40 percent approval/50 percent disapproval), Iraq (44 percent approval/49 percent disapproval), and the economy (37 percent approval/58 percent disapproval).

Bush's favorability rating is also net negative among independents: 33 percent favorable/39 percent unfavorable. And by nine points (46 percent to 37 percent), independents say they probably will support the Democratic candidate rather than Bush in the November election. Note that Bush actually carried independents by two points in 2000, an election in which he lost the popular vote, so a deficit of this magnitude—or even half that size—would probably sink him in 2004.
Teixeira also points to some interesting data from the electorate as a whole that can't have Karl Rove feeling too bullish.
44 percent say they want to see him re-elected, compared to 52 percent who say they don't, also the worst "re-elect" performance of his presidency. Finally, John Kerry actually beats Bush in a head-to-head matchup among registered voters, 49 percent to 46 percent.

Pollsters asked voters who selected a given issue as "very important" whether they thought a Democratic president would do a better job than Bush on that issue. Here are the [issues most frequently identified as "very important"] with the percentage point lead or deficit for a Democratic president among these voters: economy and jobs (+22), health care (+34), education (+22), terrorism and homeland security (-18), the situation in Iraq (dead even), and Social Security/Medicare (+32).

It's also worth noting that a Democratic president leads Bush on every other issue tested in this poll: the environment (+46), the federal budget deficit (+40), U.S. relations with major European allies (+20), appointing new Supreme Court and federal judges (+12), foreign policy (+10), and even taxes (+8).
When a Republican is behind a Democrat on taxes, it's just about time to pack it in. And I have to say I'm heartened that the public isn't falling for the right-wing propaganda about judicial appointments, yack-a-thon or no yack-a-thon.

posted by Arnold P. California at 2:31 PM




Thanks for the Advice

World Magazine's Gene Edward Veith has some advice for Democrats on how to be competitive in the upcoming presidential election

They ought to just nominate as their presidential candidate George W. Bush.

[edit]

Seconding the nomination of President Bush would be seen as a much-needed gesture to unify the country during wartime, the rejection of politics as usual, a selfless patriotic act of nonpartisan statesmanship that would command respect and that would force the public to take the Democrats seriously again.

[edit]

It is true that the current Democratic Party establishment hates President Bush with a passion and a paranoia that borders on mental illness. If their party were to nominate him, the most virulent Bush-haters would suffer a nervous breakdown, whereupon they could receive the help they need. More importantly, they would leave the party, probably to join the Green Party, which is where, given their ideology, they belong anyway. With them gone, the Democratic Party could have credibility again.

[edit]

What would help the Democrats the most is that Mr. Bush, as the party's presidential candidate, would become, by custom, the leader of the party, selecting the national chairman and other party officials. Mr. Bush could rid the party of the rabid abortionists, the radical feminists, the gay mafia, and the nostalgic '60s peaceniks who hold the current Democratic Party in thrall.

I can't tell if he is trying to be funny or if he is simply the biggest idiot on the planet.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 12:32 PM




The Progress Report

If you don't get it, you really should sign up.

Today's edition is exceptionally good.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 12:11 PM




You Know Who Else Was a "Gathering Threat"?

Amadou Diallo.

At least the NYPD thought so. That is why they had to shoot him 41 times.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 11:50 AM




Books Are Scary and Evil

And if you're Rev. Mark H. Creech or Chuck Colson, the Da Vinci Code is downright diabolical. Creech wastes no time making with the brimstone.
Few things have done more to injure the witness of the Church than attacks on the deity of Christ, the reliability of Scripture, and the rise of feminist ideology. This demonic trinity has counterfeited the truth, ruined countless lives, and resulted in the eternal damnation of many a soul. Now these three have been brilliantly combined into one profoundly evil witness in Dan Brown's latest best-seller book, The Da Vinci Code.
But if you're worried he'll lost steam, don't. His polemic, published by the American Family Association's Agape Press, ends with, well, a raining torrent from the pit of hell.
I am not one for advocating book burning, but I will say that The Da Vinci Code is not worth the ashes burning it would create. It is as Sandra Miesel contends: "Blasphemy delivered in a soft voice." What is more, I unapologetically contend that those who embrace its seemingly intellectual revisions of the Lord Jesus, the Scriptures, and the Church will ultimately reside where all blasphemy is destroyed forever and forever -- the fires of hell!!!
And people say that secular book critics can deliver a blistering review. Puleeze, they got nothing on this guy.

posted by Helena Montana at 11:47 AM




Remember When?

During the 2003 State of the Union address Bush declared

I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean.

I wonder how he is doing on that

The White House sent at least three letters to the Congress in 2003 which insisted that the amount of funding the President requested, while a billion dollars less than what Congress had authorized, was perfectly adequate. Fortunately, members from both sides of the aisle rejected this contention and approved $2.4 billion for global AIDS, TB and malaria programs, a 16% increase over the White House proposal. Moderating the highly unilateralist direction of the President’s AIDS plan, they increased the amount for the Global Fund by 175% (from $200 million to $550 million in 2004). These increases are important, though they still far short of what programs could effectively utilize and what the US promised in AIDS spending legislation.

Well, that was last year. This year, I am sure Bush will make a real effort to stay on track with his $15 billion pledge

President Bush plans to scale back requests for money to fight AIDS and poverty in the third world, putting off for several years the fulfillment of his pledges to eventually spend more than $20 billion on these programs.


posted by Eugene Oregon at 11:31 AM




Are Saddam and Iraq One and the Same?

George Bush and his minions continue to insist that the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do because Hussein was a "gathering threat"

"There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a gathering threat to America and others. That's what we know," Bush said. "We know that he was a dangerous man in a dangerous part of the world."

But how can one be a "gathering threat" when, as David Kay says, they are being undermined by their own scientists?

They describe in Iraq that was really spinning into a vortex of corruption from the very top in which people were lying to Saddam, lying to each other for money; the graft and how much you could get out of the system rather than how much you could produce was a dominant issue.

In fact, it was specifically because Hussein was losing control over the country that Iraq was "spinning into a vortex of corruption" and therefore becoming a "gathering threat"

I think Baghdad was actually becoming more dangerous in the last two years than even we realized. Saddam was not controlling the society any longer. In the marketplace of terrorism and of WMD, Iraq well could have been that supplier if the war had not intervened.

Once this gets pointed out the administration, watch them turn on the spin cycle and start claiming that we went to war because Hussein was losing his grip on power and we wanted to keep Iraq from becoming marketplace for terror and WMDs.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 11:01 AM




Another Benefit of Being a Veteran

You get to lose your overtime pay

Some companies are interpreting language in new national overtime pay rules as possibly allowing them to exempt workers who have received military training.

[edit]

Under federal law, workers who are "learned professionals" are presumed to have control of their own time and are exempt from receiving overtime pay. Historically, that category included workers such as doctors, lawyers, scientists, theologians and others with advanced degrees.

In proposing changes in the rules last spring, the Labor Department said in the Federal Register that "the exemption is also available to employees in such professions who have substantially the same knowledge as the degreed employees, but who have attained such knowledge through a combination of work experience, training in the armed forces, attending a technical school, attending a community college or other intellectual instruction."

Boeing, the nation's largest aircraft manufacturer, wrote the Labor Department in June, saying it "strongly supports" the revisions, particularly one that would classify employees who had received military training as "learned experts." An air ambulance service from New Mexico and a helicopter company in Portland also wrote the department saying that military, technical school or community college training should exempt pilots and mechanics.


posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:36 AM




Mess with Lou!

Lou Sheldon, that is. The official anti-fun brigade, Traditional Values Coalition, has another on-line poll, this time on whether or not the POTUS should be a modern theocrat. Feel like spoiling it? It asks the following 5 questions:

Should a presidential candidate have moral standards based upon the Bible?

Should a presidential candidate support traditional marriage as a union of one man and one woman?

Should a presidential candidate oppose legalized abortion?

Should a presidential candidate work to shut down the pornography industry?

Should a presidential candidate appoint judges who believe in interpreting the Constitution rather than legislating from the bench?


posted by Zoe Kentucky at 9:15 AM




It's That Time of Year

Election time, that is. And Bush is working to reestablish his reputation as a moderate Republican by doing things like this

President Bush will seek a big increase in the budget of the National Endowment for the Arts, the largest single source of support for the arts in the United States, administration officials said on Wednesday.

The proposal is part of a turnaround for the agency, which was once fighting for its life, attacked by some Republicans as a threat to the nation's moral standards.

Laura Bush plans to announce the request on Thursday, in remarks intended to show the administration's commitment to the arts, aides said.

Administration officials, including White House budget experts, said that Mr. Bush would propose an increase of $15 million to $20 million for the coming fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1. That would be the largest rise in two decades and far more than the most recent increases, about $500,000 for 2003 and $5 million for this year.

The best thing about this is that it will just end up angering his base, which already appears plenty angry with him.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 8:50 AM


Wednesday, January 28, 2004


Is This PhRMA's Thank-You Note?

"Inappropriate" and "abuse of power" are among the stern words used by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in criticizing Louisiana Congressman Billy Tauzin's consideration of a lucrative job offer from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturing Association (PhRMA) -- the major lobbying power in the drug industry. CNN's website reports that the offer

"... came weeks after [Tauzin] helped to negotiate a sweeping Medicare bill that established a prescription drug benefit for America's seniors. .... The job would pay him more than $1 million a year, according to sources.

" 'Seniors who are wondering why the pharmaceutical companies made out so well in this bill at their expense, need only to look at this example of abuse of power and conflict of interest,' Pelosi said at a news conference.

"Tauzin won't announce his decision on whether to accept the offer for several weeks, his spokesman, Ken Johnson, has said. Privately, some GOP aides say the job offer presents a public relations problem for the party."
You think so, huh? CNN continues:
"As chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Tauzin oversees the Food and Drug Administration and the pharmaceutical industry. He was one of a handful of lawmakers who hammered out an agreement on the contentious Medicare legislation."


posted by Frederick Maryland at 6:27 PM




Not What the UN Bashers Want to Hear

Right-wing commentators love to bash the United Nations. UN bashing was once the exclusive domain of the extremist John Birch Society. But now virtually all self-described conservatives use the UN as a punching bag, and their statements have become more and more outrageous.

In May 2002, for example, ultra-conservative columnist Dennis Prager wrote about an unconfirmed, post 9-11 report that terrorists had considered the UN building as a target:
"The United Nations is, after all, one of the terrorists' most important allies ... What if the U.N. building were blown up? What would happen? ... if no innocents were hurt, the destruction of the U.N. building in New York City would actually increase goodness on earth."
It's probably safe to assume that Prager and his fellow UN haters are not devoted readers of the New York Times. But if they've been reading this week's editions, they've probably been left with heartburn -- utterly demoralized to learn that some UN efforts are playing a significant role in creating a more peaceful, stable world.

First, on Monday, the UN bashers probably cringed if they read James Risen's article in the Times. Writing about former chief weapons inspector David Kay, Risen reports:
[McKay] said it now appeared that Iraq had abandoned the production of illicit weapons and largely eliminated its stockpiles in the 1990's in large part because of Baghdad's concerns about the United Nations weapons inspection process. He said Iraqi scientists and documents show that Baghdad was far more concerned about United Nations inspections than Washington had ever realized.

"The Iraqis say that they believed that Unscom was more effective, and they didn't want to get caught," Dr. Kay said, using an acronym for the inspection program, the United Nations Special Commission.
Yesterday, another Times article reported that Unicef, a UN agency, is helping to coordinate the demobilization of rebel troops (many of whom are mere children) in the Sudan. Troops are turning in machine-guns and other weapons in various towns in Sudan's southernmost region. According to the Times:
"... in (the town of) Leer, where government troops and rebels have dug in for battle not far from each other, there are similarly optimistic signs. Between them a small team of international monitors have carved out a neutral zone. The monitors watched with amazement recently as a government commander entered the area, strode past rebels he has long been trying to kill and sat down to get his hair cut.

"Peace is still not a word that captures present-day Sudan, despite a string of accords signed in recent months between the government and the main rebel movement, known as the S.P.L.A. There are too many guns, too much ill will and too many people still dying.

"... negotiators have agreed to let southerners decide in a referendum in six years whether they want to separate altogether from the north. They have agreed to form a joint military force in the south, and pull back forces from the web of front lines that crisscross the country. They have also decided to divide the nation's oil wealth evenly.

"But reaching a final deal has proved difficult, with various deadlines -- first the end of 2003, then the end of January -- slipping. Pushing hard from the sidelines has been the Bush administration, which has made resolving Sudan's war a top priority.

"... Displaced people ... have begun returning to their homes from other parts of Sudan and from neighboring Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia."
Sad, isn't it, that this good news is likely to be heard as "bad news" by the UN bashers? Even when the Bush administration and the UN are on the same side.

posted by Frederick Maryland at 5:48 PM




Trippi is Out

Is this a good thing? Cause I'm not sure.

posted by Helena Montana at 5:41 PM




In Other Cannabis News...
This Thursday sees the downgrading of cannabis from a class B to a class C drug in Britain, putting it on a par with tranquillizers and steroids.

[edit]

In Britain, drugs are grouped into three categories. Class A drugs include heroin and morphine, class B drugs include amphetamines and barbiturates, and those in class C, now including cannabis, are judged to be the least damaging.

Under the reclassification, the possession, production and supply of marijuana are still illegal, but the penalties are different. Adults found carrying the drug are now more likely to receive a warning than a prison sentence. And the maximum prison sentence for possession has dropped from five to two years. Legally, this brings Britain in line with some European countries such as the Netherlands, although in practice these laws are likely to be more strictly enforced in Britain.


posted by Helena Montana at 5:26 PM




MD Governor Just Says "No" to Failed War on Drugs

Last week, in this post, I took a shot (and rightly so) at Maryland Gov. Bob Ehrlich's ridiculous explanation of his views on gay rights and gay marriage. But today I owe him one. An article in the Washington Post proves that Ehrlich is willing to divert from the ultra-conservative orthodoxy of the Republican Party:
Ehrlich, who last year became the first Republican governor in the country to sign a medical marijuana bill, is asking the (Maryland) General Assembly to pass legislation establishing guidelines for prosecutors who want to keep nonviolent drug offenders out of jail or off probation.

While the first phase of the program would be limited, Ehrlich said he hopes the approach, commonly known as diversion, would be the first step toward revamping the state's attitudes toward drug abuse.

... The measure is winning bipartisan support in the General Assembly. States across the country are turning to drug treatment as a cheaper and more effective way of dealing with substance abuse.
Don't get me wrong. I recognize that Gov. Ehrlich's motives may be driven somewhat by politics. After all, Maryland is not a GOP state. Ehrlich's views on this issue may reflect his desire to reach out to black or swing voters who are disgusted by the thousands of people who have been thrown into state prisons in recent years for non-violent drug offenses. Whatever the reason, his position is a sensible one.

posted by Frederick Maryland at 5:14 PM




Royally Screwing the Middle Class

Many thanks to (P)rick for bringing this to my attention.

An excerpt from a recent speech by Senator Byrd on the Bush Administration's economic policy priorities.

It's a grim, bleak time for working Americans.

Two and one-half million jobs have disappeared under this Administration's economic stewardship -- most of them in our once powerful manufacturing sector, which has lost jobs for 41 consecutive months.

One million jobs have been lost overseas. Eight million workers are unemployed. Half-a-million discouraged workers have dropped out of the labor pool.

Three and one-half million workers are collecting unemployment benefits, with an average 350,000 workers signing up for benefits each week. At the same time, 80,000 jobless workers are exhausting their unemployment benefits each week, forcing them to cut back on health care and food purchases.

Workers are losing their health insurance. Two and one-half million more people joined the ranks of the uninsured last year, the largest single increase in a decade. With health care costs spiraling out of control, forty-four million people must do without health insurance. Retired workers are forced to do without life-saving drugs.

For those workers with health insurance, out-of-pocket costs are soaring, more than doubling for employees of large companies since 1998. Costs are up sharply, too, for workers who pay monthly premiums but rarely see a doctor.

Worker pensions are in danger, with the federal pension insurer taking over 152 plans last year, slashing the pension benefit promised to over 200,000 workers.

Two million additional Americans fell into poverty in 2002. Not coincidentally, almost two million workers earn wages at the statutory minimum -- $5.15 per hour. Their wages are eroded every year by inflation, with the real value of the minimum wage dropping. While the wealthiest taxpayers receive tens of thousands of dollars in tax cuts, the Administration denies a meager $1.50 per hour raise to our most impoverished workers.

To quote President Franklin Roosevelt, "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."

After three colossal tax cuts, this Administration has denied much to those who have little in order to provide more to those who have much.

The American worker, once again, has become the forgotten man. While the Administration is offering only vague promises of hope, the American workforce is forced to endure the most hostile assault in decades.

The Bush Administration has tried to repeal the 40-hour work week and strip workers of their right to overtime pay. It has attacked the civil service system. It has repealed safety rules necessary for the protection of America's workers. It has neglected their health and safety in the workplace.

Now the Administration is blocking an increase in the federal minimum wage. It is blocking efforts to provide unemployment benefits to jobless workers. It is trying to push through a rule to strip 8 million workers of their hard-earned overtime pay ? and, it does so, always with the promise, that these benefits for businesses and the corporate elite will one day trickle down to the middle-class.

This is not the record of an Administration that understands the needs of working families. American workers are sinking on the Titantic and this Administration can only promise workers to send back the life boats once the first-class passengers have been taken to safety.

Americans would have to look back to the Hoover Administration, during the nadir of the Great Depression, to find an Administration that has treated workers more shabbily.

In 1932, Presidential candidate Franklin Roosevelt blasted the Hoover Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress for ignoring the plight of American workers, who he claimed had become the "forgotten man" under the Hoover Administration's top-down economic policies. The "present condition of our nation's affairs is too serious to be viewed through partisan eyes for partisan purposes," the future President charged. "These unhappy times call for the building of plans that rest upon the forgotten, the unorganized but the indispensable units of economic power, for plans...that build from the bottom up and not from the top down, that put their faith once more in the forgotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid."

I urge Senators to heed those words and to offer workers more than just ideologically based promises that would have us view the plight of America's workers from the top down, rather than the bottom up.

This year, the Congress must extend unemployment benefits. It must protect workers' pensions. It must increase the minimum wage. It must protect the overtime pay of our nation's workforce.

The Administration has invested its energies, it resources, and its political fortunes in those at the top of the economic pyramid, and it has abandoned the workers at the bottom. The representatives of the people must not do the same.

If this doesn't give you the chills then nothing will.

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 4:45 PM




Sorry, I Gave at the Office

In light of the fact that Congress recently passed the Omnibus Appropriations bill loaded down with over $10 billion in earmarked pork, I wonder if they can manage to scrounge up a mere $100 million or so to help out with this

The worst drought in more than a decade is sweeping through southern Africa, destroying crops, driving up food prices and leaving millions hungry — even as foreign assistance dries up, governments and humanitarian agencies say.

[edit]

"The current drought could be disastrous for southern Africa," Richard Lee, regional spokesman for the World Food Program, said Tuesday. "Parts of the region, which have now experienced two years of crisis, will have another year of massive shortages, if this continues."

[edit]

Despite recent contributions by the European Union and United States, WFP is still short $127 million — 29 percent of its emergency appeal to feed 6.5 million people in Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe for the year finishing in June 2004.

Millions of people in Zimbabwe have already had their rations reduced due to lack of funds.


posted by Eugene Oregon at 4:03 PM




If They Can Use Homophobia, Why Can't We?



posted by Arnold P. California at 4:02 PM




Why I'm Happy Even Though My Guy Keeps Losing

I climbed aboard the Dean bandwagon before it was much of a bandwagon, probably about a year ago. He's the first candidate who wasn't a personal friend to whom I've contributed money (a colleague ran unsuccessfully for Congress a couple of times). But I've been strangely un-upset after the Iowa and New Hampshire setbacks.

Why? It's not because I think Dean can still win the nomination (though I think he can). There are two reasons.

First, of the three other viable candidates, I have no trouble getting behind two of them (Kerry and Edwards) if they're the eventual nominee. I'd prefer Dean, but voting for Kerry or Edwards won't be nearly the unpleasant experience that voting for Clinton was for me. As for Clark, I don't trust him. Over the coming months, he might convince me, but right now, I just don't think I know who he is. But I also think he's a long shot, so it doesn't bother me too much yet.

Second, the anti-Bush energy is palpable and growing. Iowa had a record turnout for the caucuses. New Hampshire beat the old record for the primary turnout by 25%, even though it was bone-breakingly cold. If my guy loses, I'm not coming out of the nomination fight bitter towards the winner, and I don't think the supporters of other candidates will feel anything different. We're all working for the same thing, and the energy (and money, and volunteer time) will fall behind whoever is nominated. The unions are out there in a big way already, the civil rights groups are hitting the streets, and all of the other Democratic constituencies are similarly energized.

Bush's approval ratings are continuing to sag, though the free-fall of last summer ended a few months back; but the bigger point is that his disapproval ratings are higher than any President's since Carter at this point in the first term. Hell, 2500 registered Republicans braved the cold last night to go to the polls and write in Democratic candidates in the Republican primary in New Hampshire. The most recent polls show that more people want to see Bush lose than want to see him win.

It's going to be bloody. Bush has a ton of money, and the more desperate things seem, the more vicious Rove will get. But he's going down.

posted by Arnold P. California at 3:57 PM




Things I Don't Understand

Stuff like this

Presidential candidate John Edwards on Wednesday rejected any notion of sharing the Democratic ticket with front-running rival John Kerry -- unless he is at the top.

Asked on NBC's "Today" show if he would accept second place on the Democratic slate to face President Bush in the fall election, Edwards said: "I think you've got the order reversed. I intend to be the nominee."

Edwards said he would not be willing to be No. 2. "No, no. Final. I don't want to be vice president. I'm running for president," he said.

Yes, yes, yes, we all know that you are running for president. But why do politicians do this? Given the very likely fact that Edwards will not end up winning the nomination, why would he rule out becoming vice-president? Especially since he is not running for the Senate again.

I am sure that there is some political consultant spouting nonsense in Edwards' ear about how he has to appear focused on the presidency and unwilling to settle for any less and blah, blah, blah. That sort of tactic might work if you are haggling over the price of a new car, where you are trying to gain an upper-hand by appearing resolute and committed, but in a situation like this, where his fate is in the hands of others, it seems pretty pointless.

Note to all candidates: You do not appear more presidential by refusing to entertain the idea of serving as vice president.

And just what does this say about the total lack of respect candidates have for that position? It is good enough for others, but not for you? I don't know that many people would be too eager to accept an invitation to serve as Edwards' VP now, given his apparent disdain for the office.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 12:21 PM




Thank God for Useful Idiots

Who else could I be talking about except the Club for Growth? I'm loving this list they put out.
The president has turned out to be the biggest-spending chief executive in the past four decades. As compiled by the Club for Growth, here's the list of recent presidents and the average annual percentage that domestic discretionary spending went up while they were in office, with the biggest spenders first:

n 8.2 percent: George W. Bush, Republican (fiscal years 2002-04).

n 8 percent: Gerald Ford, Republican (1976-77).

n 6.8 percent: Richard Nixon, Republican (1970-75).

n 4.3 percent: Lyndon Johnson, Democrat (1965-69).

n 4 percent: George H.W. Bush, Republican (1990-93).

n 2.5 percent: Bill Clinton, Democrat (1994-2001).

n 2 percent: Jimmy Carter, Democrat (1978-1981).

n minus 1.3 percent: Ronald Reagan, Republican (1982-89).
Thanks guys! I'll try my best not to return the favor.

posted by Helena Montana at 12:04 PM




White Man's Justice

Via Ed Still's Votelaw blog and TalkLeft comes news from the Miami Herald about the racial effects on voting rights of Florida's criminal justice system.
White criminal offenders in Florida are nearly 50 percent more likely than blacks to get a ''withhold of adjudication,'' a plea deal that blocks their felony convictions even though they plead to the crime. White Hispanics are 31 percent more likely than blacks to get a withhold.

The disparity in outcomes has cost thousands of black offenders their civil rights, including the right to vote, serve on juries, hold public office, own a firearm.
When people try to defend the permanent disenfranchisement of citizens with felony convictions, they like to say that the ex-voters brought it on themselves. But when white folks who do drugs get arrested less often than blacks who do the same thing, get charged less frequently once they've been arrested, and get offered non-felony plea deals more frequently, that argument becomes a lot less plausible. Almost every state that has permanent disenfranchisement for people with felony convictions is in the South, i.e., states where there are a large number of African-American citizens and where there is generally a pattern of bloc voting along racial lines. These rules deprive African-American communities of a proportionate share of the vote.

I wonder if Rush Limbaugh will be stripped of his voting rights?

posted by Arnold P. California at 11:44 AM




Embarrassing

Considering my nom de plume, I find the Gropenfuhrer's spin on his campaign finance violation embarrassingly pathetic. During the recall campaign, that other Arnold had portrayed himself as unbeholden to the special interests who fund other candidates' campaigns. Opponents pointed out that his campaign was borrowing large sums of money (including from Arnold himself), and that if he raised money to repay the loans after the election was over, the voters would have no way of knowing at the time of the election whose pocket Arnold was in.

Turns out, of course, that the opponents were right. So how does the new Governor respond to a humiliating courtroom defeat, in which a judge rejected every one of his defenses?
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, unruffled by a court ruling that he illegally took out a $4.5-million bank loan to support his election campaign, said Tuesday that he would pay back the money himself, rather than seek the funds from political donors.

In a lunchtime appearance before the Sacramento Press Club, Schwarzenegger said he agreed with the ruling, calling it "great" and "fantastic." He added: "We never wanted to raise the money to pay it back. I myself [will] pay for that."
As Prof. Rick Hasen asks, "Although Gov. Schwarzenegger says 'We never wanted to raise the money to pay [the personal loan] back,' he does not explain why he held a series of fundraisers to do precisely that."

posted by Arnold P. California at 11:35 AM




What Does it Mean?

While reading through this Hill article on GOP anger over the $477 billion deficit, I came across this tidbit that I thought was very interesting

At that rate, the federal government is spending close to $900,000 more than it takes in every minute of the year.

Thank God the "fiscal conservatives" are now in control.


posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:38 AM




Time to End It

We all know that Al Sharpton's campaign for president is nothing but a pointless exercise in egotism, but given last night's New Hampshire primary results, he needs to stop taking up valuable space during debates and drop out of the race

Sen. John F. Kerry ------------ 83,564 - 38%
Howard Dean ----------------- 57,137 - 26%
Gen. Wesley K. Clark ---------26,966 - 12%
Sen. John Edwards -----------26,175 - 12%
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman ---18,660 - 9%
Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich -------3,064 1%
Rep. Richard A. Gephardt ----389 - 0%
Al Sharpton ---------------------345 - 0%

When you are getting less votes than a candidate who has already dropped out of the race, you really need follow that candidate's example.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:20 AM


Tuesday, January 27, 2004


That Explains A Lot

A few weeks back, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill released a book in which he portrayed Bush as being totally disengaged when they met for their first Cabinet meeting

This is what O'Neill says happened at his first hour-long, one-on-one meeting with Mr. Bush: “I went in with a long list of things to talk about, and I thought to engage on and as the book says, I was surprised that it turned out me talking, and the president just listening … As I recall, it was mostly a monologue.”

Now, via Southern Appeal, we know why

"But what a stellar crowd," Bush continued. "It looks like the index of Paul O'Neill's book. Let me say something about that book. Paul said I was disengaged because he talked to me for 45 minutes and I didn't say a word. I wasn't disengaged. I was bored as hell and my mother told me never to interrupt.

Joke all you want, but that explains why we are now facing a record $477 billion defecit and accumulated deficits of $1.9 trillion over the next decade.

Sorry governing bores you, Mr. President. Maybe next time the Treasury Secretary can bring you a paddle-ball or a Rubik's Cube to keep you occupied while he discusses all those boring details of sound fiscal policy.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 4:28 PM




Ditto

I was going to post something on congressional Republicans' newfound commitment to fiscal responsibility whereby they pledge to control the spiraling deficit via budget cuts and spending caps, but vow not to touch Bush's trillion dollar tax cuts.

But rather than go off on some rant about this, I'll just let Tapped's Nick Confessore sum it all up

This is a sham. The article notes that by far the biggest spending increases have come in defense and homeland security appropriations, including the war on Iraq -- the exact areas which these supposed fiscal conservatives have promised to exempt from spending cuts. (In a different time, responsible conservatives and Republicans who had authorized an expensive war abroad would have countenanced raising taxes to pay for it. Not these guys.) And of course, a still greater chunk of the deficit comes, or will soon come, from the irresponsible tax cuts that they also refuse to consider letting expire, let alone repealing early.

So by insisting on across-the-board cuts, what they're actually proposing is to roll back spending in areas that, by pre-Bush standards, were budgeted at levels that did not put the government in deficit, while leaving in place the very policies which we know for a fact have created most of that deficit.

So when billions of dollars are cut from government programs, we can all thank Bush for the war in Iraq and our $300 "rebate" checks.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 1:56 PM




Productivity: (noun) the desire to export jobs

In the business section of today's New York Times was this article about John Chambers, CEO of San Jose-based Cisco Systems -- carrying the headline: "Cisco Chief Calls Productivity New Engine of Wealth." Unfortunately, it would have taken you until the 18th paragraph to fully comprehend what John Chambers means by "productivity."

In the interview with the Times' Mark Landler, Chambers stated:
"If productivity grows 1 percent per year, your standard of living doubles every 72 years."
But to whom is Chambers referring when he says "your standard of living"? The average worker? The newspaper reporter who was busily taking notes? Or Chambers and Cisco's other senior executives?

The Times article states that Chambers is pushing "for productivity gains of 10 to 15 percent a year over the next five years ..." Wait a minute. Isn't a 1 or 2 percent annual productivity gain enough? Chambers himself says (see above) that a 1 percent gain each year produces a robust impact down the line, but he expects Cisco employees to increase their productivity 10-15 times that pace? The Times article says that Cisco employees improved productivity by 9 percent in the last quarter -- not quite high enough to satisfy Chambers' ambitions.

Exactly how Chambers thinks he'll accomplish such momentous jumps in productivity isn't revealed until paragraph #18:
"Moving jobs to lower-cost countries is part of that (strategy), Mr. Chambers said."
And Cisco is seriously pursuing that strategy. The tech company was one of several that attended a conference last week in New York City that was called, "Offshore Outsourcing: Making the Journey Work for Your Corporation."

U.S. workers have been extremely productive in recent years and decades. According to a Wall Street Journal article (Jan. 26 edition), median U.S. work hours per week have climbed from 41 per week to 49 since 1973. Sounds impressive to me, but, hey, I'm not looking to improve my standard of living like Chambers is.

And while Cisco's CEO likes to hide his strategy behind euphemisms like "productivity," other tech company executives are more candid about their plans. Syndicated columnist Bob Herbert noted this week:
"Intel has its headquarters in Silicon Valley. A (San Jose) Mercury News interviewer asked [Intel's Craig] Barrett what the Valley will look like in three years. Mr. Barrett said the prospects for job growth were not good. "Companies can still form in Silicon Valley and be competitive around the world," he said. "It's just that they are not going to create jobs in Silicon Valley."
Psssst ... Mr. Barrett, you're using the wrong talking points. It's all about improving productivity -- stay away from that J-word.

posted by Frederick Maryland at 1:11 PM




Lieberman Manages to Annoy .... Again

The Lieberman campaign has banked so much on the New Hampshire presidential primary that anything worse than a 3rd place finish is likely to be viewed as a rather stern rejection. Here's hoping that voters deliver precisely that message. Lieberman has long been a thorn in the side of anyone who wants to see the Democratic Party assume at least the appearance of offering an alternative agenda on economic, tax, social and foreign policy issues. Recent days have provided two additional reasons to be annoyed with the Connecticut senator.

First, there's the Lieberman TV ad that severely distorts the position of his Democratic rivals on Iraq. As the New York Times' "The Ad Campaign" feature explains
"The spot opens with the now-famous shot of a Hussein statue crashing to the ground in Baghdad ... The next image is of Mr. Lieberman speaking to voters from a podium, an American flag behind him."
And here is an excerpt of the voiceover from Lieberman's TV ad:
SCRIPT: "... Only one candidate was clear we are safer with Saddam Hussein in prison, not in power. Joe Lieberman -- a national leader in the fight against terrorism and tyranny."
To my knowledge, no Dem (not Dean, not anybody) has ever questioned whether America is safer with Saddam in custody versus the ex-dictator being in power. That was not the context in which Dean was speaking. Dean's controversial remark was questioning whether our country's safety was measurably improved by having Saddam in custody versus having him in hiding.

Even if Lieberman were justified in reframing Dean's remark in this way, why does his TV ad also try to paint Edwards, Kerry et al with the same brush? What comment did these other candidates make that justifies Lieberman's pompous line that he was the "only" candidate to say, blah, blah, blah about Saddam Hussein?

It is shameful that Lieberman would present this issue in such a fundamentally dishonest way.

The other reason to hope Lieberman makes a quick exit from this race? His constant praise for Republican John McCain, a senator who has earned a lifetime rating of voting 84% conservative. According to the Times:
"Mr. Lieberman has featured supporters of Mr. McCain's 2000 campaign in his television advertisements ..."
And a separate Times article noted:
"Mr. McCain, a symbol of political independence, popped up so frequently in Mr. Lieberman's comments that at one point [Lieberman] asked, chuckling, 'Have I mentioned him too many times today?' .... 'You know I love John McCain,' Mr. Lieberman said in an interview on the bus ..."


posted by Frederick Maryland at 12:13 PM




Staying On Message

What "talking points" did the White House communications staff draw up to deflect questions about David Kay and the failure to find WMDs? Apparently, all they could come up with was "let the Iraq Survey Group finish their work" and "the president made the right decision."

And you can see how well Scott McClellan stuck to that script during yesterday's "press gaggle" now that I have filtered out all the nonsense

Q: Given the comments by Dr. Kay, does the administration continue to believe there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

"the decision to remove Saddam Hussein's regime from power was the right decision. Saddam Hussein was a dangerous and gathering threat"

"it's important for the Iraq Survey Group to complete its work so that we have as complete and accurate picture as possible"

"let the Iraq Survey Group finish their work"

"let them continue their work"

"it's important that they complete their work"

"We need to let them complete their work"

"But make no mistake about it, the decision that the President made was the right decision. Saddam Hussein was a dangerous and gathering threat"

"the President made was the right decision"

"it's important first for the Iraq Survey Group to complete their mission"

"the first step is for the Iraq Survey Group to complete their work"

"it's important to let the Iraq Survey Group complete their work"

"But the first step is to let the Iraq Survey Group complete their work"

"it's important for the Iraq Survey Group to continue their work"

"the first step is for the Iraq Survey Group to complete their work"

"the decision that we made was the right decision. And what we know today only reconfirms that it was the right decision"

"the decision was the right decision. We knew before the war and what we've learned today only reconfirms that it was the right decision"

"I think his interest in letting the Iraq Survey Group complete their work"

"the Iraq Survey Group obviously will continue to do their work"

"reconfirms that we made the right decision"

"And we are going to have as complete a picture as possible from the Iraq Survey Group once they finish their work"

"we believe is important for the Iraq Survey Group to complete their work"


posted by Eugene Oregon at 11:00 AM




Doing Business with the Enemy

"60 Minutes" took a look at US companies who are doing business with countries that support terrorism

Did it ever occur to you that when President Bush says, "Money is the lifeblood of terrorist operations," he's talking about your money -- and every other American's money?

Just about everyone with a 401(k) pension plan or mutual fund has money invested in companies that are doing business in so-called rogue states.

In other words, there are U.S. companies that are helping drive the economies of countries like Iran, Syria and Libya

And just guess who showed up in the probe

In fact, U.S. law does ban virtually all commerce with the rogue nations, but there's a loophole that G.E., Conoco-Phillips and Halliburton have exploited: The law does not apply to any foreign or offshore subsidiary so long as it is run by non-Americans.

“These three companies, as far as we were concerned, appear to have violated the spirit of the law,” says Thompson. “In the case of Halliburton, as an example, they have an offshore subsidiary in the Cayman Islands. That subsidiary is doing business with Iran.”

That subsidiary, Halliburton Products and Services, Ltd., is wholly owned by the U.S.-based Halliburton and is registered in a building in the capital of the Cayman Islands – a building owned by the local Calidonian Bank. Halliburton and other companies set up in this Caribbean Island, because of tax and secrecy laws that are corporate friendly.

Halliburton is the company that Vice President Dick Cheney used to run. He was CEO in 1995 to 2000, during which time Halliburton Products and Services set up shop in Iran. Today, it sells about $40 million a year worth of oil field services to the Iranian Government.

In the case of Iran, Thompson says they earn most of their revenues through their oil industry. So what is the connection between that oil business and terrorism and weapons of mass destruction?

“The Iranian Government is receiving dollars from it. And then turning around and exporting terrorism around the world. It benefits terrorism. At least that's our belief,” says Thompson.

And when Lesley Stahl went to the Cayman Islands to get a look at the Halliburton office, she found that

[W]hile Halliburton Products and Services was registered at this address, it was in name only. There is no actual office here or anywhere else in the Caymans. And there are no employees on site.

We were told that if mail for the Halliburton subsidiary comes to this address, they re-route it to Halliburton headquarters in Houston.

The Cheney-Scalia hunting trip pales in comparison to this massive conflict of interest.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:57 AM




What's Wrong With This?

The main Arab states are apparently about to float a revision of their 2002 peace proposal to Israel--but it's a big revision.
The Kuwaiti newspaper Al Siyasa reported Saturday that the initiative, led by Saudi Arabia, would include "declarations of peace agreements between all Arab states," which will bring an end to the conflict between Israel and the Arabs. The states would declare a normalization in their ties with Israel, including the appointment of ambassadors.

The Arab states will demand that Israel withdraw to its borders prior to the June 1967 war, in other words, to leave the Palestinian territories and withdraw from the Golan Heights.

The initiative also includes a "creative solution" for the problem of Palestinian refugees, which is one of the most serious issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

According to the plan, some two million Palestinian refugees would be allowed to return to the new Palestinian state that would be established. More than two million others would be absorbed by other Arab states, and will be compensated for the suffering they had endured.

Under the deal, Iraq will also accept Palestinian refugees. Israel will not be required to absorb any Palestinian refugees.
The Arab plan, assuming it's acceptable to the Palestinians, would eliminate the "right of return" problem. Palestinians who lived (or whose parents or grandparents lived) inside the pre-1967 borders of Israel, but who left (Israeli version) or were expelled (Arab version) when Israel was created, have claimed a legal right to return to their former homes. Economically and politically, this would create tremendous upheaval in Israel, and solving the right of return problem has been a major stumbling block. If the Palestinians are willing to accept the compensation called for under the Saudi plan, that would remove the stumbling block.

So what's wrong with the Saudi plan? Presumably, from Israel's point of view, the obejction will be that it would exclude too many of the Jewish settlements from Israel, and it would also give the Palestinians control over the holy sites in the old city of Jerusalem and the many Jewish suburbs of Jerusalem that have been built since 1967. Most of the world doesn't think Israel has any legitimate claims to the settlements or East Jerusalem, but even so, it's hard to imagine Israel accepting a peace proposal that didn't at least create joint sovereignty over the old city.

But if the U.S. media were to give any coverage to the new Arab plan, it would at least lay to rest the canard that Israel doesn't have a "partner for peace" and that the Arab states won't recognize Israel's right to exist.

posted by Arnold P. California at 9:41 AM




A Lot of Good it Does Then

Rehnquist regarding Scalia's and Cheney's paling around

After news reports about Justice Antonin Scalia's recent hunting trip to Louisiana with Vice President Cheney, who is a named party in a case pending before the court, Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), a Democratic presidential candidate, wrote to Rehnquist on Jan. 22, asking him to explain how justices decide whether they have a conflict of interest in a given case.

In his response, which was released by the court yesterday afternoon, Rehnquist said the senators' suggestions that Scalia should have recused from the Cheney case have "no precedent."

"A Justice must examine the question of recusal on his own even without a motion, and any party to a case may file a motion to recuse," Rehnquist wrote. "And anyone at all is free to criticize the action of a Justice -- as to recusal or as to the merits -- after the case has been decided. But I think that any suggestion by you . . . as to why a Justice should recuse himself in a pending case is ill considered."

In other words, Rehnquist is saying "We're not going to do anything about this obvious conflict of interest. But after Scalia writes the majority decision ruling in Cheney's favor, you can criticize us for it all you want."

I am starting to understand what all those right-wingers are complaining about when they fret about "judicial tyranny."

posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:29 AM


Monday, January 26, 2004


What the Hell Do They Know?

From Human Rights Watch

The invasion of Iraq ended the reign of a brutal government, but coalition leaders are wrong to characterize it as a humanitarian intervention, Human Rights Watch said in the keynote essay of its annual global survey released today.

[edit]

In the keynote essay, Roth notes that removing Saddam Hussein from power brought about the end of one of the world’s most abusive governments. But intervening militarily on the territory of a sovereign state, without its permission, is inherently dangerous and must be undertaken for humanitarian purposes in only the most extreme cases. While Saddam Hussein had an atrocious human rights record, his worst atrocities were committed long before the intervention. At the time coalition forces invaded Iraq, there was no ongoing or imminent mass killing of the sort that would require the kind of preventive military action that should characterize true humanitarian interventions.

For a military action to be characterized as “humanitarian,” Roth argues that the motive for intervening should be primarily humanitarian; the danger of slaughter should be imminent and the scale of the killings massive; and all other options for preventing the slaughter should have been exhausted.

“The Bush administration cannot justify the war in Iraq as a humanitarian intervention, and neither can Tony Blair,” said Roth. “Saddam Hussein’s atrocities should certainly be punished, and his worst atrocities, such as the 1988 genocide against the Kurds, would have justified humanitarian intervention then. But such interventions should be reserved for stopping an imminent or ongoing slaughter. They shouldn’t be used belatedly to address atrocities that were ignored in the past.”

Nit-pick, nit-pick. Why should anyone listen to HRW? Its not like they are experts on human rights or anything.

Anyway, just for the record, I don't know that I agree that a humanitarian intervention can only come in relation to ongoing or imminent mass killing. I think that there are plenty of brutal dictators out there who could be toppled by outside forces for strictly humanitarian reasons. If, for instance, some future president decided to invade North Korea to rid the country of Kim Jong Il so as to save the millions of people who are being starved or imprisoned by his regime - I think that would qualify as a "humanitarian intervention" so long as the chief concerns were humanitarian rather than national security due to NK's alleged nuclear weapons program. This clearly was not the scenerio in Iraq, where the humanitarian aspect was an afterthought that was only trotted out once it was clear that the WMDs could not be found.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 6:22 PM




Finishing the Job

One of the main objections to the Iraq adventure was that it would distract us from tasks that should have had a higher priority in the War on Terror, principally rooting out al Qaeda and related groups and rebuilding Afghanistan so it wouldn't continue to provide fertile ground for terrorists to regroup.

Once again, the anti-war folks were right. Remember how the war in Afghanistan was going to create democracy, get rid of Islamic fundamentalism in the Afghan government, and guarantee rights to Afghan women?

Apparently, women in some places--notably the Taliban strongholds around Kandahar--are being denied the right to register to vote in the upcoming elections. A UN report on the condition of women in Afghanistan also notes that almost 80% of registered voters are men.

And it's not just women who are suffering from American inattention. Bringing democratic processes to a country with no history of them--and where warlords with private armies dominate much of the country--takes time, effort, energy, and resources. Not surprisingly, we've fallen well short on all counts.
Addressing the U.N. Security Council last week, former U.N. Special Representative in Afghanistan Lakdhar Brahimi said the deteriorating security environment was hurting voter registration.

''Naturally, the national electoral registration and, later, polling exercises cannot be conducted from behind a hardened compound wall,'' he told delegates.

In a report released last month, Annan said the security situation was ''a major concern'' throughout the country, ''with criminality, factional fighting and the illegal narcotics trade all having a negative impact.''

''Credible elections that advance the peace process will require an environment that allows the exercise of political rights, including freedoms of expression and association,'' he said.

''Lacking this, the outcome of elections risks merely legitimising through the ballot box political figures whose current authority stems from the use of force,'' Annan warned.

''The challenges of timely funding and security will be the most difficult to overcome,'' he added.

In August 2003, the Karzai government presented to donors a budget of some 78 million dollars to complete the voter registration process. But the lack of early donor response caused the start of the exercise to be delayed from October to December.
And as for fundamentalists, it appears that many of them have taken high positions in the government because they've got guns and international forces don't have the capacity to "pacify" them. Meanwhile, not unlike the situation in the United States, the fundamentalists are also trying to take over the courts.

But maybe we shouldn't worry about the rapid deterioration of the situation in Afghanistan. After all, the terrorists may decide not to regroup there anyway; they now have the new alternative of going to Iraq.

posted by Arnold P. California at 12:30 PM




Dennis Miller's Signature Quote
"I like him," Miller explained. "I'm going to give him a pass. I take care of my friends."
Not quite a comedian, not much of a political pundit, certainly not good at calling a football game. But Miller is certainly proved to be a 100% effective tool.

posted by Helena Montana at 11:04 AM


Sunday, January 25, 2004


By The Numbers

Todd sent us this piece from the Independent that provides a good rundown of Bush's first term - strictly by the numbers.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 5:59 PM



Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com