The "Culture of Life"

This Schiavo thing has been hashed out everywhere. So I won't pile on any more except to say that the government should have nothing to do with a family's decision in a case like this. The condition of Terry Schiavo is a tragic one, as is the fact that her husband and parents had to go to court to settle their differences of opinion. But ultimately, that's as far as the issue should go, at least publicly. Congress calling the Schiavo's in to testify is another example (along with the steroid hearing) of grandstanding politicians sticking their noses where they don't belong in an effort to distract us from issues that need to be addressed but haven't been.

But back to this "culture of life" stuff coming from the right on this. Here's a quote from yesterday:

"The president believes that when there are serious questions or doubts in a case like this, that the presumption ought to be in the favor of life," Scott McClellan said.

And here's an example (actually a whole slew of them) of how much the president really values life. Check the link, it's probably not what you think. Some hypocrisy knows no bounds. (via Jeremiah at Kos)

Update: More now about public opinion and the politics behind this story.

Chimpy Has Derailed

Wow.

Something Positive

Ok ok, I've got something...

Last night on the phone, Benari and I were discussing how impressed we were with the actions and determination of Minority Leader, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV). I don't think either of us expected him to be such a galvanizing force among the Senate Democrats, and we're currently seeing coordination and a level of party unity (with a couple notable exceptions) that is unlike anything we ever saw under Daschle.

In fact, Daschle's defeat in November may have been a blessing in disguise for the Democrats, because they seemed unable to make any of the kind of headway under his leadership that we have seen in only a few months under Reid.

Among recent activities, Reid has:

come out against the FEC's stated intent to regulate the internet with regards to political causes (also covered here);

battled with GOP leadership over Judicial Appointments and the "nuclear option";

come out vocally about Greenspan's political hackery and AG Alberto Gonzales' horrendous record on human rights;

and opened a full time Democratic rapid response center/war room.

Since taking on the mantle of Minority Leader, Reid has done everything he can to lead boldly by example, as a good leader should. He has been strong, proactive, and outspoken. Let's hope he continues to be a thorn in the side of the GOP's "progress" in Senate until he assumes "Mjority Lader" status in 2007...

More on the FCC

Here's a follow up about the FCC from Altercation, but this time it's a telecom attorney weighing in:

Name: Witheld
Comments:
I've been a telecommunications lawyer with twenty years experience both at the FCC and in front of state regulatory commissions. Because I represent entities with pending cases there today, please do not publish my name. That said, I heartily endorse Ben Scott's critique of Chairman Michael Powell's thoroughly anti-consumer tenure. Michael Powell is the worst kind of regulator. He arrogantly assumes he knows everything, and therefore is completely close-minded to any legitimate input. The most notable example you barely mention, which is Powell's strident opposition to competition for residential and small business consumers. You might ask why this is the case, when Powell lards his long, pompous speeches with fulsome paeans to consumers? Mr. Powell single-handledly has eliminated the requirement that large incumbent phone companies like Bell South, SBC and Verizon, share their bottleneck facilities with competitors. These facilities are called "UNE-P", and is the only mechanism in place allowing competition. Powell's legacy of eliminating these facilities has yet to be quantified, but already competition for these consumers is evaporating. How can this occur? Simple. Powell is allowing the incumbents to charge "market" prices for these facilities, effectively in March, 2006. What are these prices like? Not surprisingly, they exceed the retail prices charged by the same incumbent providers. This is why the nation's largest competitive providers of residential service, MCI and AT&T, are quickly exiting the market and being purchased by Verizon/Qwest and SBC for chump change. But you ask, doesn't Powell say internet phone service and cell phones will provide the competition once MCI and AT&T (and dozens of other companies) exit the market? He does, but don't believe it. Very few people have abandoned their local phone service and totally rely on cell phones. The only people that do are the kinds of folks that did not have phone service to begin with (students, transients ,etc.). What about Internet phone service (called in industry parlance "VoIP")? This is a margin product today, and is frankly not getting too much penetration. One only need consider AT&T's utter failure in that market (far less than 100,000 customers over six months after entering and marketing the service) to see this is not going anywhere. What about cable TV companies, another competitor cited by Powell? Nationwide, cable providers service 3% of consumers, and are quite slowly rolling out services. The sum, as you will see over the next year, is Powell's legacy of remonopolization take hold.

Is Martin more pro-consumer? In reality, he is. Martin originally voted against Powell's scheme to eliminate competition. However, after the Bell Companies put on a full court lobbying blitz at the White House, Martin was forced to follow Powell's lead. Absent a White House that were not in cahoots with the large monopoly providers, I suspect Martin would do a good job at the FCC. Alas, we know this is not true. The future of competition in America is therefore bleak, since the Bush Administration and its appointees only look out for the large special interests. Get ready for more consolidation and less competition over the next four years.

Not much good news to report these days.

Delay-ed

It, of course, goes without saying that I think Congress should be a little more focused on its own members' ethics violations before getting all huffy and holier-than-thou over some athletes' ethics violations.

DeLay Ethics Allegations Now Cause of GOP Concern
By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 14, 2005; Page A01

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) has dismissed questions about his ethics as partisan attacks, but revelations last week about his overseas travel and ties to lobbyists under investigation have emboldened Democrats and provoked worry among Republicans.

With some members increasingly concerned that DeLay had left himself vulnerable to attack, several Republican aides and lobbyists said for the first time that they are worried about whether he will survive and what the consequences could be for the party's image.

If death comes from a thousand cuts, Tom DeLay is into a couple hundred, and it's getting up there," said a Republican political consultant close to key lawmakers. "The situation is negatively fluid right now for the guy. You start hitting arteries, it only takes a couple." The consultant, who at times has been a DeLay ally, spoke on the condition of anonymity, saying he could not be candid otherwise.

At least six Republicans expressed concern over the weekend about DeLay's situation. They said they do not think DeLay necessarily deserves the unwanted attention he is receiving. But they said that the volume of the revelations about his operation is becoming alarming and that they do not see how it will abate.

Thomas E. Mann, senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, said that DeLay remains generally strong within his party and is an effective leader and operator, but that "signs are emerging that both the number and nature of charges being raised against him could put him in serious political peril."

"While he is far from a nationally recognized figure, Republicans worry that all it takes is more national news coverage to change that, and there seems to be a new episode every week or two," Mann said. "We've seen throughout congressional history that a series of seemingly small ethical missteps can snowball."

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said DeLay "has always had, and continues to have, the strong support" of the party. "His leadership and dedication to maintaining and growing our numbers are a significant reason for our Republican majority," he added.

Republican leaders had thought they had built a fortress against future trouble by changing House rules in January and by changing the House ethics committee's Republican membership in February to include members closer to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and DeLay. In one previously unreported example of the tight connections, Rep. Lamar S. Smith (R-Tex.), one of the committee's new members, was co-host of a 2002 fundraising breakfast to benefit the DeLay-founded political action committee that is now the subject of a grand jury investigation in Texas. The grand jury is looking into whether the PAC improperly used corporate funds to influence the outcome of state legislative races.

DeLay's legal defense fund received contributions from two of the new ethics committee members, Smith and Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.). The committee admonished DeLay three times last year. Republican leaders later sought the rule changes that made it more difficult to bring new ethics charges against Republicans.

Democratic leaders have introduced a resolution to repeal the rules and said they plan to try to force Republicans to publicly defend the changes at a time when the news media are reporting about DeLay's relationship with lobbyists now under criminal and congressional investigation.

The rule changes require at least one member of each party to support an investigation before it is begun. Under the old rules, if the chairman and top Democrat did not agree on what to do with a complaint within 45 days after it was determined to be valid, an investigative subcommittee was automatically created. Now, a complaint is automatically dismissed if the committee does not act within 45 days.

Democrats opened their protest Thursday, at the ethics committee's first meeting under its new leadership, by preventing the panel from organizing. The committee must adopt rules to function, and those were voted down by a 5 to 5 party-line vote, leaving the House with no mechanism for investigating or punishing members.

Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (W.Va.), the committee's top Democrat, said in a telephone interview yesterday that he will not release his freeze on committee action unless the House undoes the rule changes, and he said he has begun recruiting Republicans to back him. He said he may use a tactic known as a discharge petition, which could force a bill to the floor if enough Republicans back him.

"This will have to be resolved on the House floor," Mollohan said. "These rules undermine the ability of the committee to do its job. Republicans are not going to want to be part of impeding the work of the committee."

The ethics committee, formally known as the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, is the only panel split evenly between Republicans and Democrats, giving the minority party leverage it does not have anywhere else in the House.

Ron Bonjean, Hastert's communications director, said the party's leaders have no intention of giving in. "It's very clear we're at an impasse caused by Democrat partisan politics," he said. "The House has already voted on rules for this Congress, and there is no credible reason to do it again."

The ethics protest came after a week of unrelenting bad news for DeLay, who was briefly taken to a hospital Thursday after he experienced what his staff called fatigue related to a heart arrhythmia. Two Sundays ago, CBS's "60 Minutes" aired a 12-minute segment reminding a national audience that a Democratic district attorney in Austin is continuing to suggest he might indict DeLay as part of an investigation of the involvement of money from Texans for a Republican Majority, a political action committee founded by DeLay, in the state's redistricting controversy.

On Wednesday, the New York Times said documents entered as evidence in a civil trial in Austin "suggest that Mr. DeLay was more actively involved than previously known in gathering corporate donations for" the committee, known as TRMPAC.

On Thursday, The Washington Post reported that DeLay and other members, including some Democrats, had accepted trips from the Korea-U.S. Exchange Council, which had registered as a foreign agent. That would make the trips a violation of House rules, although both DeLay and the group said he was not told about the registration until last week.

Dan Allen, DeLay's communications director, said his boss was a natural target for Democrats. "Congressman DeLay is a fixture of the conservative movement who's been a very effective leader that works with Republicans to get results," he said. "That alone makes him a target of the Democrats and their allies, but it is also the reason he enjoys the steadfast support of House Republicans."

Smith, the new Texan on the ethics committee, said the TRMPAC fundraising breakfast -- which invited supporters to spend as much as $10,000 for "underwriter" status -- would not interfere with his new duties. "When someone joins this committee, they make a solemn vow to protect the integrity of the House of Representatives," he said through an aide. "That means that every decision has to be based on the merits, not partisanship."

Juiced

So, Jared and I were discussing this via e-mail, and I think it's something that bears posting about.

The Government's hearings on steroids in baseball .


To be honest, while I think steroids are cheating and should be banned from sports, I don't see how it demands government intervention or even how it even relates to the government - aside from Dubya being a GM for the Rangers when Conseco was juicing. The fact that we're having immediate hearings on steroids with all the other serious issues we SHOULD be having hearings on upsets me greatly.

Why aren't we having a Gannon hearing? Why aren't we holding hearings on tax-payer funded, state-sponsored propaganda?! Why aren't we having a hearing on the Valerie Plame leak? Why aren't we having a hearing on Halliburton receiving no bid contracts in Iraq, even after overcharging American taxpayers more than $108 million?! Why aren't we holding a hearing to find out what happened to the lost $9 billion of last year's $87 billion supplemental?

Oh, but sports stars are juicing? Strike up the band, spin the merry-go-round, and let's have a circus!

With all of the serious funny-business going on within the government right now, I find it pretty insipid that our lawmakers have decided that now is the time to crack down on America's pastime. What's that old saying about getting one's own house in order?

Don't be fooled. This is just one more example of Congress acting like they're addressing a problem, when what they're really doing is diverting our attention away from the serious issues facing our country right now.

And, with all due respect to my favorite sport (and to my beloved World Champions), athletes using steroids shouldn't be considered one of those serious issues.

Try, Try Again

Last year, President Bush nominated William G. Myers III to the Federal Appeals Court and Myers was subsequently blocked in the Senate. So what does Bush do? He nominates the guy again this year, and accuses the Dems of being obstructionist if they don't give him the ol' rubber stamp. The Boston Globe has an editorial about it today that's good, so I'll copy it below in its entirety. It says pretty much everything I want to say about this, so it saves me the time:

A YEAR ago, the Democratic minority in the Senate blocked the nomination of William G. Myers III to the federal appeals court in San Francisco, finding that the former lobbyist for the mining and grazing industries lacked the temperament and experience for a lifetime judicial appointment. President Bush has renominated Myers. He is no more qualified now than he was in 2004, and he should be rejected again.

During the first Bush term, the Senate confirmed more than 200 judicial nominees, more than were confirmed during Ronald Reagan's first term or the previous President Bush's single term. There are fewer vacancies in the federal judiciary than there have been in 14 years. It is simply not true, as the administration has charged, that Senate Democrats are using obstructionist tactics to weaken the federal bench. Democrats in the first Bush term filibustered against fewer than a dozen nominees.

Myers has never been a judge at any level, never been a law professor, never even participated in a jury trial. As the top lawyer in Bush's Interior Department, Myers regularly did favors for his former paymasters in the mining industry. In one case, Myers reversed a Clinton administration ruling that a proposed gold mine would pollute the environment and intrude on a sacred tribal site. He did so without consulting with tribal officials, although they had asked for a meeting with him.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit regularly hears cases that touch on critical land-use issues such as the Clinton administration's roadless rule protecting the national forests and leases for oil and gas drilling on federal lands. Myers's views on such matters can be summed up in the opinion he once expressed that federal management of public lands is like ''the tyrannical actions of King George in levying taxes" on the American colonies without their representation. In his opinion, both the Endangered Species Act and the wetland provisions of the Clean Water Act are examples of ''regulatory excesses."

The standing committee on the federal judiciary of the American Bar Association reviewed Myers, and not a single member rated him ''well qualified." The National Congress of American Indians, which has never before opposed a judicial nominee, wants to see Myers rejected, as do more than 180 labor, environmental, civil rights, and women's organizations. Bush should never have sent his name back to the Senate, where it appears that Myers's only hope is if the Republican leadership cynically changes the body's filibuster rules to win approval for this manifestly unqualified nominee. A lifetime job on an important appeals court is no position for an ideologue who won't even listen to the other side.

It is disingenuous for the GOP to be accusing the Democrats of obstructionism in this case, especially given the fact that Bush has essentially had his way with his nominees. For more on the false obstructionist charges, here's a bit by Media Matters taking on false charges by Michael Reagan.

George Will (a conservative writer) comes out against altering the filibuster rules here.

Armando has a diary at kos about other nominees that are up for a second try.

Additionally, there are claims that the use of the filibuster is unprecedented. Those are also tackled by MM here. The Republicans were even more active with judicial blocks during the Clinton years, though they often killed nominees in committee or by pocket filibuster, as they held the majority. The filibuster is an important tool for a minority in the Congress, and since many of their other options have been removed by Republican leadership rule changes, it is their (and our) last line of defense.

Cobb-Badnarik-Kerry File Suit over Ohio Voting Fraud

From RawStory (via Kos, of course):

The lawyers for Green presidential candidate David Cobb and Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik, along with Kerry-Edwards 2004 have added election tampering to a civil suit filed against the state of Ohio over problems with the state's recount, RAW STORY has learned.

The suit...alleges that a manufacturer of voting machines, Triad Election Systems, which serves 43 counties in the state, is tampering with the recount. It is unclear exactly what recourse the plaintiffs' seek; the filing adds on to an original suit to have the recount take place before Ohio electors meet, which failed in the courts. Green Party spokesman Blair Bobier said the party hoped to reform the recount process and suggested Ohio should secure or impound voting machines.

Follow the RawStory link above for PDFs of the complaint.

New FCC Chairman

Alterman picks up on the radicalism of the new guy today in Altercation (quoting his friend, Ben Scott):

Nothing will come for a vote without [Kevin Martin's] say-so, and he’ll get to pick and choose what to do and when to do it. No individual on the planet will have more power over what’s on TV, who owns your radio station, how fast your broadband is (or whether you can get it at all), how many cell phone companies you have to choose from, and how much it all costs, than 38-year-old Kevin Martin.

[snip]

He’s been the number one advocate for the broadcasters at the Commission, except for when he’s a crusader against their indecent behavior. Needless to say, Martin has not distinguished himself as a friend of the public interest. Nor has he shown a great penchant for expanding access to new technologies to broaden the diversity of viewpoint and culture in the media system. He’s pretty much fallen in line with the talking points of the National Association of Broadcasters. All these sticky questions may explain why the White House picked him. Because he’s an FCC Commissioner already, the promotion to Chairman means he can skip the unpleasantries of a confirmation hearing in the Senate and the inconvenient questions about contradictory and failed policy decisions it might bring.[emphasis mine]

So it looks like the Bush administration is getting smart. By picking a wacko from inside the FCC already, they can more easily gloss over all the crappy decisions he's already supported by avoiding any hearings involved in confirming him.

Alterman has links to blanket coverage on this, so check it out through the above link.

What He Said

AmericaBlog is right:

How to tell people to go screw themselves
by Chris in Paris - 3/17/2005 04:09:00 AM

Reading the news, you might think that How to Lose Friends and Alienate People was written either by or for Bush and the GOP. It's tough to chose which action is the worst because we have such a crowded field.

Proposed FDA director who has overseen recent scandals
Wolfowitz to head the World Bank
Bolton to the UN
Drilling in ANWR
Planned cuts in Social Security
Bilking tax payers of millions in Iraq via Halliburton
What else? It seems to go on and on.

Ahh, just don't worry about it the Robert Blake, Scott Peterson and Michael Jackson trials are just so much more important. BTW, what's in American Idol?

Not to mention the new FCC chief... who happens to be to the right of Powell... oy.

Happy St. Patrick's Day

Remember to kiss your favorite Irish-person today.

Did I mention I'm Irish?

GOP: "We don't care."

So...on a personal note, let me commend the honorable Martin T. Meehan, for voting in favor of the Gannon Resolution...which the House Republicans voted down.

In fact, let's commend all those who voted in favor of the resolution:

Voting in favor of the resolution were: (All Democrats) Rep. Conyers, Rep. Berman, Rep. Scott, Rep. Watt, Rep. Jackson-Lee, Rep. Waters, Rep. Meehan, Rep. Schiff, Rep. Sanchez, Rep. Van Hollen

.

But, alas, the fix is in.

3/16/2005
Judiciary Committee quashes Democrats’ effort to demand credentialing info on ‘Gannon’
Filed under: General— site admin @ 5:42 pm


RAW STORY

The House Judiciary Committee voted against adopting a resolution demanding Bush agencies turn over all credentialing information related to James D. Guckert 21-10, the discredited conservative reporter and prostitute who wrote under the nom de guerre “Jeff Gannon.”

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the ranking Democrat on the committee, said the resolution was imperative to ensuring that the line between reporters and activists remains clear.

“If we don’t investigate this matter thoroughly,” Conyers said, “where and when will be draw the line? I plead with my committee members in the Judiciary to support this very plain but necessary [amendment].”

F. James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the committee, said he felt that “the Administration, in my opinion, has substantially investigated this matter.”

“The Secret Service has determined that Mr Guckert did not pose a danger to the President or his family,” Sensenbrenner said.

Sensenbrenner outlined his opposition to the measure in terms of not wanting to interfere with “competing investigations” by the Administration he said were already underway.

“I would reiterate the fact that the Administration has substantially complied with the request for information,” the Wisconsin Republican said.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee said the matter demanded an investigation.

It “cries out for a House investigation,” she said. “I frankly believe that this is no less serious than my colleagues thought the Clinton investigation was to them.”

Jackson Lee said Gannon had engaged in a possible “penetration of the White House.”

Heh. She said, "penetration." I'm sure the double entendre is lost on no one.

Now. Down to business. If you're outraged by the vote, then bright and early tomorrow morning, call each representative who VOTED AGAINST the resolution.

Voting Against: (All Republicans) Rep. Sensenbrenner, Rep. Coble, Rep. (Lamar) Smith, Rep. Gallegly, Rep. Goodlatte, Rep. Chabot, Rep. Lungren, Rep. Jenkins, Rep. Cannon, Rep. Bachus, Rep. Inglis, Rep. Hostettler, Rep. Green, Rep. Keller, Rep. Issa, Rep. Flake, Rep. Pence, Rep. Forbes, Rep. King, Rep. Franks, Rep. Gohmert.

You can also make a note of those not present: Democrats: Rep. Boucher, Rep. Nadler, Rep. Lofgren, Rep. Delahunt, Rep. Wexler, Rep. Weiner, Rep. (Adam) Smith, Republicans: Rep. Hyde, Rep. Feeney.

Call early. Call often. Have friends call. Be respectful. Leave lots of messages. Feel free to e-mail them as well. Let them know you're outraged. Find out why they don't care that a male prostitute had unfettered access to secret White House and CIA documents.

Rep. Howard Coble: (202) 225-3065, (336) 333-5005, (336) 626-3060



Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner: (262) 784-1111, (202) 225-5101

Rep. Lamar Smith: 202-225-4236, 512-402-9743, 210-821-5024


Rep. Steve Chabot: (202) 225-2216, (513) 684-2723

Rep. Chris Cannon: (202) 225-7751, (801) 851-2500,(801) 955-3631

Rep. Spencer Bachus: 202 225-4921, 205 969-2296, 205 333-9894, 205 280-0704

Rep. Randy Forbes: 202-225-6365, 757-382-0080, 804-526-4969,434-634-5575,

Rep. Jeff Flake: (480) 833-0092, (202) 225-2635

Rep. Elton Gallegly: (202) 225-5811, (805) 497-2224,(805) 686-2525

Rep. Trent Franks: 202-225-4576, 623-776-7911

Rep. Louie Gohmert: 202-225-3035

Rep. Bob Goodlatte: (202) 225-5431, (540) 432-2391, (434) 845-8306, (540) 857-2672, (540) 885-3861

Rep. Mark Green: (202) 225-5665, (920) 437-1954, (920) 380-0061,


Rep. John Hostettler: (202) 225-4636, (812) 465-6484, (765) 793-2161,(812) 232-0523,(812) 882-0632

Rep. Bob Inglis: 202-225-6030, 864-232-1141, 864-427-2205, 864-582-6422

Rep. Darrell Issa: 202.225.3906, 760.599.5000, 909.693.2447

Rep. William Jenkins: (202) 225-6356, (423) 247-8161


Rep. Ric Keller: (202) 225-2176, (407) 872-1962, (888) 642-1211, (888) 642-1211


Rep. Steve King: (202) 225-4426, (712) 732-4197, (712) 224 4692, (712) 325-1404

Rep. Dan Lungren: (202) 225-5716, 916-859-9906


Rep. Mike Pence: (202) 225-3021, (765) 640-2919


All contact info was taken from their main congressional websites. Every US Congressman can be found here.


Please feel free to circulate this around the web. Now, get crackin'!

Shit: Senate Votes for ANWR Drilling

Feck.

The Senate, by a 51-49 vote, rejected an attempt by Democrats and GOP moderates to remove a refuge drilling provision from next year's budget, preventing opponents from using a filibuster -- a tactic that has blocked repeated past attempts to open the Alaska refuge to oil companies.

Lorax has reason to maintain some hope, however.

So much for so-called conservatism.

Venezuela and its 'Anti-Bush'

I was cruising metafilter today and came across a post about Chavez and Venezuela, and the move by Bush to contain this guy.

I don't know how many of you have seen The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, but I highly recommend it as a peek behind the scenes of a failed coup attempt against Chavez (thought to be backed by the US), who has arguably brought some measure of democracy to a traditionally oligarchical distributive society in Venezuela.

Hugo Chavez assumed the presidency in Venezuela after a landslide victory in the 1998 elections there, and has kept power ever since by winning the hearts and minds of the enormous underclass of his country. He has attempted, and succeeded by some measures, to break the oligarchy of the extremely wealthy and powerful upper class by investing a portion of the oil revenues of Venezuela back into education and health care programs for the poor.

And basically, the Bush administration hates him and sees him as a threat for the following reasons:

Buschcon concerns are especially focused, however, on Chavez, for interesting reasons. Venezuela is a major oil producer whose popular and populist --- indeed now officially socialist ---- President Chavez is determined to defy Uncle Sam’s ancient claim to special low-cost access to Latin-America’s natural resources. It supplies nearly a sixth of US oil imports and the US buys 60 percent of Venezuela’s oil output. The Chavez government seeks full state government control over Venezuela’s oil sector and uses oil profits to --- imagine ---- eliminate poverty.

[snip]

In a region where anti-imperialist talk is cheap and policy tends to diverge from left-populist rhetoric, Chavez appears to be the real left deal. His accomplishments include a significant ongoing political mobilization of the poor and a considerable expansion of social welfare programs and investment that is improving the standard of living of Venezuela’s disadvantaged majority.

So Chavez is a guy who cares about the disadvantaged in his country, over the advantaged elite, and he's got oil revenues to back his philosophy. This definitely shouldn't equal "threat" in the eyes of the Bush Administration, so there must be something else going on which would prompt a tougher approach to the Chavez situation:

A strategy aimed at fencing in the government of the world’s fifth-largest oil exporter is being prepared at the request of President George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, senior US officials say. The move signals a renewed interest by the administration in a region that has been relatively neglected in recent years.

[snip]

“Chávez is a problem because he is clearly using his oil money and influence to introduce his conflictive style into the politics of other countries,” Mr Pardo-Maurer said in an interview with the Financial Times.

[snip]

Mr Chávez, whose government has enjoyed bumper export revenues during his six years in office thanks to high oil prices, has denied that he is aiding insurgent groups in countries such as Bolivia, Colombia and Peru. But a tougher stance from the US appears to be in the offing, a move that is likely to worsen strained bilateral relations.

[snip]

Suggestions that Mr Chávez backs subversive groups surface frequently, although so far also with scant evidence. Colombian officials close to President Alvaro Uribe say Venezuela is giving sanctuary to Colombian guerrillas, deemed “terrorists” by the US and Europe.

Tough to say who is right/wrong in this situation. Depending on which source you look at, Chavez is either a savior, a "new Castro", or an iron fisted totalitarian.

Honestly, I'm sort of torn over the whole topic because I'm too cynical to believe or disbelieve one side or the other completely. I'm also pragmatic, and there seems to be very little pragmatism on either side of this issue. But as for the coup attempt, I have a friend who knows the documentary makers of "Televised", and they've claimed it's legitimate.

So who knows, but I think it's something interesting to keep an eye on, considering the Bush track record with uncooperative, oil producing countries.

Ahnuld not a Hater

AmericaBlog links to an article about the Governator's appearance on Hardball during which he unequivocally stated that he would not allow hate and discrimination to be written into the Constitution of California.

Appearing last night on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, the governor was asked if he would "move to try to change the Constitution" should the California Supreme Court rule that the state can no longer deny marriage to same-sex couples; he replied, "No, absolutely not."

It's good to see that he's not a total wanker conservative. Maybe Shriver has had some influence somewhere along the way.

Getting drilled

There are many political outrages to discuss today, not the least of which is President Bush's announcement that he plans to tap Neo-Con warmonger Paul Wolfowitz to head up the World Bank. But, as Salon points out, there's more trouble a'brewin':

At the request of the Bush administration, Republicans in the Senate have tacked a provision onto a budget resolution which would open the refuge to drilling. Since budget resolutions can't be filibustered, now the advocates of opening the refuge only need 51 votes to let oil companies into the still-pristine land of muskoxen and caribou.

On the one hand, the Administration contiunes to encourage Americans to waste their precious resources on larger and larger gas-guzzling SUV's, and on the other hand, they're hyping up an energy crisis that they themselves are helping to create so that they can put more money in the pockets of their oil companies. It seems pretty obvious, doesn't it? How else can we explain the fact that the current energy policy does NOTHING to explore or invest in alternative forms of energy production, nor does it put any sort of common sense requirements in place to make oil and gas consumption more efficient. Instead of a conservative energy policy that encourages Americans to conserve energy and regulate oil consumption, we have an energy policy that says "Burn all the oil you want - we'll drill for more!"

Whatever the cost to wildlife, the Times says, the limited amount of oil there wouldn't do much to fix our energy problems, adding: "Any number of modest efficiencies could achieve the same result without threatening the refuge. Simply closing the so-called S.U.V. loophole -- making light trucks as efficient overall as ordinary cars -- would save a million barrels a day. Increasing fuel-economy standards for cars by about 50 percent, to 40 miles per gallon, a perfectly reasonable expectation, would save 2.5 million barrels a day."

But,it won't just be environmentalists who lose if they start drilling in Alaska. Consumers will lose, too (it costs money to drill for oil - costs which are conveniently passed on to the consumers)...and once we've used up our limited oil supplies, what then? Let's see an energy plan that doesn't focus entirely on helping the oil industry turn a quick profit. Maybe it's time that we had an energy policy that was actually CONSERVATIVE.

Next Step Towards Constitutional Monarchy

Apparently, Jeb Bush is on deck. They're talking Veep now, but we'll see if that changes. This is worth paying attention to:

"Nationally prominent Republicans are talking to each other about the possibility of getting Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to accept the vice presidential nomination in 2008 since he has ruled out running for president that year," Robert Novak reports.

Meanwhile, Florida GOP leaders "still hope that Bush might change his mind about not running against Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson's bid for a second term in 2006. Nelson is considered vulnerable, but no strong Florida Republican has indicated an interest in running against him."

Via PoliticalWire.

Bolton to the UN: Worst Pick Ever

Ian Williams at the Nation offers a good explanation of why Bush's nominee for Ambassador to the UN is such a crappy, and "perverse", selection.

Here's a taste:

The man who ordered a CIA probe on Hans Blix for not finding weapons in Iraq when ordered, who contrived the dismissal of the head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and who in 1999 wrote for the American Enterprise Institute of "Kofi Annan's UN Power Grab," has recently been trying fire Mohamed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, for not finding nuclear weapons in Iran. Americans, and the rest of the world, should worry. If his appointment is confirmed, Bolton's task is likely to be to bully the UN into supporting an Iraq-style fiasco in Iran or Syria. [emphasis mine]

I'm really beginning to think the Bush adminsistration makes it's moves HOPING to piss off the world. Here's more:

Possibly among the immediate casualties of Bolton's appointment will be some thousands of dead Darfurians. A resolution that would refer the continuing mayhem in Sudan to the International Criminal Court has already been stalled for months by the die-hard resistance of the Bolton faction in the State Department, but twelve members of the Security Council were cautiously optimistic that they had averted an American veto. Although it is clear that this is the one sanction actually feared by the Sudanese government and the Janjaweed militias it has employed, Bolton has already shown that in his obsessive war with the International Criminal Court, he does not care about the views of allies. Indeed, his fervent opposition to international restrictions on small-arms trade, landmines, biological weapons, child soldiers and nuclear testing suggests that he is quite prepared to accept significant casualties for his views--as long as they are other people's. [emphasis mine]

What a frickin' sicko. We're truly living with some demented-ass "leadership" these days. No doubt about it.

James Guckert is a (Media) Whore

Just didn't want anyone to forget that, for a guy who spent two years as a right-wing shill persecuting others, he's playing the part of a victim pretty well.

Witness the sad rantings of a man tormented and oppressed by the mean ol' liberals right here. Poor widdle fake weporter!

Read with delight the questions that have gone unasked at White House press briefings on his website.

Here are some questions I'd ask: why isn't this guy being questioned about the Valerie Plame CIA leak?! Hmmm? Why has the MSM abandoned this story, just when it was getting interesting? How did "Gannon" know about the beginning of the Iraq war hours before it happened? How did he get press credentials before Talon News was even created? And - seriously - why was a gay prostitute allowed to hang out with the White House press corps for TWO YEARS, without anyone saying anything? I mean, at the very least, don't you think being a male escort would raise some eyebrows? Especially in a White House that is so homophobic, Liz Cheney becomes outraged if her daughter Mary is referred to as a lesbian.

I'm all for second chances. But when you've proven yourself to be a liar, a hypocrite, and a shill, you sorta forfeit your claim to righteous indignation. Live by the sword, die by the sword, and all that...

And as AMERICAblog reminds us:

Don't forget, Wednesday morning, 10AM, you can watch the House committee meeting and vote on GannonGuckertGate on the Web
by John in DC - 3/16/2005 12:01:00 AM

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO VOTE ON GANNON RESOLUTION ON WEDNESDAY AT 10 A.M.

BROADCAST LIVE ON THE INTERNET

http://judiciary.house.gov/

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Tomorrow, March 16, at 10 a.m. the House Judiciary Committee will vote on a House resolution which will direct the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to respond to remaining questions on Gannongate. The resolution was introduced by Congressman John Conyers, Jr., Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, and twenty-eight Members of the House of Representatives. The American public deserves the full truth as to who at the White House paved the way for Mr. Guckert to have repeated and staged access to the President.

WHAT: Full committee markup of Gannon Resolution of Inquiry (H. Res. 136)

WHO: House Judiciary Committee

WHEN: Wednesday, March 16th, 2005, 10 a.m.

WHERE: 2141 Rayburn House Office Building

**Broadcast live on the Internet, http://judiciary.house.gov/

Paging Father Shanley

Is THIS where you got all those ideas?

HUH?

Crazy Evangelicals

Jesse Amanda (she's new at Pandagon, fresh from MouseWords!) breaks down this crazy essay about how women shouldn't be allowed to play sports, because they make girls mannish, unattractive to his repressed self, and un-Biblical... or something:

Most men I know admire a woman who is reasonably healthy and fit; they are also attracted to a woman who is somewhat “soft” and cuddly. This does not mean she should be delicate like tissue paper; no, a woman should be reasonably strong, and the normal duties of life will make her that way. This is what we learn from the Proverbs 31 woman. However, if you look at pictures of female athletes who play sports or observe them on the playing fields, you will notice that many develop strong, muscular bodies. Female athletes also sneer, wince, push, and fight just like the men. I notice these things all the time in pictures in our hometown newspaper. The sneers are most obvious; they make young women very unfeminine. The masculine uniforms and sweaty bodies aren’t very attractive, either.

Oh no!! Sneering!

Given that sports may very well foster pagan and humanistic attitudes, I urge parents to think deeply about this issue and about whether or not any members of their families should participate in organized sports programs. As a minimum, I hope you will agree with me that we should keep our daughters away from competitive sports and spend our time training them how to be Biblically feminine women, wives and mothers. [emphasis mine]

But but but... but we see here that Jesus loves playing organized sports with girls!





So which is it?

Boxer on ANWR

I was on my way home this afternoon and heard Sen. Boxer (D-CA) on the Ed Shultz show talking about the ANWR vote tomorrow morning. Apparently, the Dems are one vote short of blocking the drilling bill. So they'll be working through the night to secure the vote. Let's hope they can find it.

Boxer also mentioned that there is only enough oil in the ANWR area to satisfy our nation's oil thirst for 6 months. So the GOP wing nuts are trying again, as they have been for years, to open a beautiful pristine area (originally guarded for protection by Eisenhower, a Republican) for industrial oil drilling for 6 measly months of potential oil.

If you ask me, there's some deals cut somewhere. This isn't about energy independence, or boosting our reserves, or any of the other idiotic excuses you've heard from the Right. This is about short term profit for some insiders. That's just my hunch, but with oil prices exploding, a 6 month supply isn't going to drive them down any, and that could potentially mean a tidy little profit for whatever company greases its way into the ANWR drilling area. If I'm really off base with that, let me know. I have no factual evidence, just the hunch backed up by the fact that everything this administration/government does is somehow crappy for the average guy and beneficial to the crony insiders they call friends.

Krugman, Lieberman, Social Security, etc.

As usual, Krugman's on point. He's just the next in line to jump on Lieberman for essentially siding with the Republicans both on the bankruptcy bill and on social security "reform".

On the bankruptcy bill, Joe voted for cloture, but against the floor vote. The vote for cloture is the damning one, as it helped close the debate of the bill. The floor vote essentially didn't matter after debate had been closed. The best chance the Dems had to stop the bill was in the debate, before the cloture vote. Thanks, Joe.

And when it comes to social security, Joe has been dutifully repeating GOP talking points, ostensibly to appear as if he is being bipartisan and cooperative. Problem is, the GOP is neither bipartisan nor cooperative, and Joe still hasn't learned this. All he's doing is offering them political cover for their misguided, and fairly evil, plan to privatize ss and leave millions of people exposed to higher risk.

John Chait, filling in at TPM this week, discusses this further.

Additionally, there's a bit of a pile-on of a Sebastian Mallaby column in the Washington Post this week as well. The column is here.

And here are the critiques by Matt Yglesias, Josh Marshall, John Chait, and Bob Somerby (via Atrios).

Senator Rick Santorum (R-VA(?!?))

During my time on the Kerry campaign in Chester County, Pennsylvania, I found a warm space deep deep down in the cockles of my heart... maybe even in the sub cockle region... for all things that would, could, will, and might help the upright citizens of that great state take down, once and for all, Senator Rick Santorum (try googling santorum, too. It's fun).

So that brings me to Chuck Pennacchio's site. Chuck is running for Rick's seat in 2006, and has some information he'd like to share with you about Rick's supposed "Pennsylvania residency", plus some other dirt you might find interesting. Check it out, and pass it around (also cross posted at, where else, DailyKos). And may Rick Santorum lose next November. Badly.

Is it hot in here? (Updated)

Kossack Jerome a Paris highlights and consolidates a couple different accounts of the apparently very real, and very accelerated, process of global warming currently underway. The most notable evidence of which is the formerly snowy, but now bare, peak of Mt. Kilimanjaro, shown here.



As usual with dailykos, it's a great diary, and one that points the reader to a few good articles and hard, scientific studies.

UPDATE: Here's some more on the climate problem. This time, we focus on the glaciers in the Himalayas.

California Declares Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

Amen to that, though appeals are sure to follow. But in the mean time, chaulk another win up in the pro-rights, pro-equality, pro-American values column.

In his opinion, the judge wrote the following:

"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners,'' Kramer wrote.

The judge wrote that the state's historical definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians.

"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional,'' Kramer wrote. [emphasis mine]

That's right. A tradition of discrimination (of any kind) is not made constitutional simply because it has been a tradition. If that were the case, women wouldn't have the vote, and african americans wouldn't have freedom. The judge sees this issue for what it is, a question of equal rights under the law.

And lest any right wingers who might read this happen to be confused by my "pro-American values" comment above, I mean all those values that promote personal freedom (including freedom from hate and discrimination, as in this case), equal rights, and the glorious American tradition of being able to live in whatever way you want, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of your neighbor.

This isn't over yet by a longshot, however. Some California legislators are working to put an anti-gay marriage amendment on the ballot in November. If it passes, the courts are of no help. So if you are reading this in California, get up and work against writing discrimination into your state constitution. California is too cool to have that happen to it.

We're going to win this one in the end. Just remember, as California goes, goes the nation.

Want Someone New to Read?

Check out Singularity. They've got some good, off the beaten path stuff over there. ...found via Skippy.

Ask Karen Hughes

Let's hope that Congressional Democrats actually press Karen Hughes on the issues and ask her the tough questions. They don't even need to think that hard about what questions to ask; Salon's questions are pretty good.

Ingraham to the woodshed

Jeff Koopersmith, who I just discovered today (thanks again, First Draft), is a new must-read.

"Ingraham herself is insipid, hatefully so, as she insults everything and everyone "liberal." She spits the word "liberal" from her frost pink lips as if it were poison, and never misses the opportunity to label Ted Kennedy a "fat drunk," forgetting the tragic losses he and his family endured mostly as a result of people who think and thought like Ingraham, who believed out of sheer ignorance and arrogant hatred that that the Kennedys were targets of "true Americans." Unfortunately those targets were found, twice -- not to mention the loss of another Kennedy brother (Joseph) during World War II. Why do we never hear Ingraham speak of the two war heroes? Why is there never mention of Jack and Joe, Jr. as she gloats over the heroism of our boys and girls in the Arab today desert as if she served in the military as well?"

Just the kind of winger-smacking goodness I need on a weekly basis.

More on Propaganda

So I'm digging through the NYT article Benari links to below, and one part that sticks out is the bit about the General Accounting Office's audit of the administration's "news" bit creation and packaging:

"Under the Bush administration, the federal government has aggressively used a well-established tool of public relations: the prepackaged, ready-to-serve news report that major corporations have long distributed to TV stations to pitch everything from headache remedies to auto insurance. In all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government's role in their production.

[snip]

"The G.A.O. concluded that the two agencies "designed and executed" their segments "to be indistinguishable from news stories produced by private sector television news organizations." A significant part of that execution, the office found, was Ms. Ryan's expert narration, including her typical sign-off - "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting" - delivered in a tone and cadence familiar to television reporters everywhere." [emphasis mine]

Ok, so the G.A.O. sees this stuff for what it really is, and calls the administration out on it, which is exactly what the G.A.O. is supposed to do.

So what is the administration's response? Well, obviously, to ignore the G.A.O...

And on Friday, the Justice Department and the Office of Management and Budget circulated a memorandum instructing all executive branch agencies to ignore the G.A.O. findings. The memorandum said the G.A.O. failed to distinguish between covert propaganda and "purely informational" news segments made by the government. Such informational segments are legal, the memorandum said, whether or not an agency's role in producing them is disclosed to viewers. [emphasis mine]

Ah. I see. Since they don't agree with part of the G.A.O.'s findings, it's best to ignore ALL of their findings. Just like ignoring those pesky international treaties, right Mr. Attorney General?

Seriously, though, who needs accountability and oversight when you control every branch of government and have the Main Stream Media's nuts in your sweaty, vise-like grip (via Holden)? Not our current administration, that's for sure.

And Atrios correctly points out that the MSM news outlets are just as culpable. After all, they're running these propaganda packages as actual news (and could well be getting paid to do so!). How lazy and dishonest can you get?

Children of the Fallen

Over 1,000 children have lost a parent to the war in Iraq:

"The Pentagon doesn't keep these statistics, but using figures compiled by the Scripps-Howard News Service and other sources, NEWSWEEK has calculated that as of last week 1,043 American children had lost a parent in Iraq. To put it another way, nearly two years after the invasion on March 19, 2003, among the 1,508 American troops who have died as of March 11 were an estimated 450 fathers, and 7 mothers."

And for what? Really? For what?

This? This?

And though people may finally be coming around, it's too little, too late for those 1,000+ kids and their parents. And the scary thing is, I'm sure our president sleeps quite soundly at night. Even for all of this.