The Nature of Things

Apologies for no blog the past week. I am in a remote spot where, believe it or not, broadband does not exist. The Internet connection is by phone at speeds of about 2400. You’ve got to be a certain age to remember such lethargic connections– and surely without nostalgia. And it costs about a dollar a minute while online. Combine the slow speed and the high cost, and it would take a pretty outrageous development to warrant posting something from here.

Having said that, a blog is an obligation as much as a pleasure, and so here is an update. I’m in a water-logged nature preserve called Los Esteros del Iberá, in the north of Argentina. The area has a mind-boggling array of bird and beast. In the past several days, I’ve come very close to the local version of crocodile, often lazing about in families, been mocked by a gaggle of monkeys, said hello to a boa constrictor, and chatted with loads of Capybaras, large friendly aquatic rodents that look like storybook characters. Black eagles and exotic terns, herons and more perch regally or gossip noisily. It’s incredibly beautiful and restorative and reminds one in the most intense way that caring about the environment is not some vague theoretical concept. And as remote as this place seems, I’m reminded of other pristine places I visited that soon found they could not resist the forces of greed and selfishness (see my Nation article about Irian Jaya, found on my website). I’ll write more about this issue either here or in full article form.

And I’ll try to post again from Argentina before returning stateside, if at all possible.
- posted by Russ @ 4:07 AM

Time for Ethics; Finger to Wendy’s; Glacial Fixes

House Speaker Dennis Hastert says, according to today’s Wall Street Journal (via Slate), that he's finally open to backing away from the House's recent loosening of ethics rules. "I do not rule it out," he said. That’s no small item—it’s huge.

Even under the best of circumstances, the House ethics committee never did a very good job of policing itself. It took a member to initiate action against a colleague, and who wanted to do that? The weakening of ethics committee standards meant that on the rare occasion when enough people on the panel actually wanted to do something, they couldn’t if the panel deadlocked. And, of course, with the committee evenly split between parties, guess what often happens?

Hastert’s remark, and the general fallout over Tom DeLay’s behavior, presents a unique opportunity to really begin putting teeth into the process of investigating the worst of what is, sadly, so routine on the Hill. Reformers of all kinds have ideas on that. (Ask Gary Ruskin of the Congressional Accountability Project, for starters.) Whether this important objective will get the attention it deserves, however, is another matter. A lot will depend on how much attention activist groups and media organizations give it.
---

Perhaps you heard that the woman who claimed to find a human finger in her Wendy’s chili has been arrested. No announcement of why at this time, but some suspect fraud, given the woman’s litigious history. Yet it’s ironic that Wendy’s should be trying to finger the woman. After all, the “discovery” should have been a public relations coup. A human finger is probably one of the most nutritious things on a Wendy’s menu.

After you read Paul Krugman’s piece in today’s Times about the high percentage of health care costs that mainly go to paying personnel whose job is to pass health care expenses on to someone else, you can’t help but wonder what role companies like Wendy’s, McDonald’s, et al, play in making such a large number of Americans undesirable health insurance risks.

A far more serious effort by the government to encourage the public to eat right–-beyond that somewhat helpful if preachy food pyramid—would go a long way toward reducing medical costs. More should be done, too, to encourage companies like Wendy’s to offer healthy food. How about a “cholesterol depletion allowance”?

------

Glaciers in the Antarctic Peninsula have been steadily shrinking since the 1950s, according to a new study (WP/Wires/Slate). Typically, news organizations run tiny items about these findings, far smaller than they might to, oh, say, a woman claiming to find a finger in her Wendy’s chili.

We need to rethink the entire way that we cover the rapid disintegration of the world’s ecosystems. Surely there’s a more powerful way to tell this story on an ongoing basis. I have some ideas on this, and hope to incorporate them into a new nonprofit I’m developing to reinvigorate investigative reporting. Anyone with ideas on this, feel free to write me from the link at the bottom of my main website, http://www.russbaker.com/ .

##
- posted by Russ @ 8:20 AM

You-Can’t-Make-This-Up Dept.

With a computer and a few hundred dollars, you can kill some real animals from the comfort of your living room. As reported in today’s LA Times [free registration required], an Internet-based company called live-shot.com allows a person anywhere to—via remote-control—operate a rifle on a stand at a Texas ranch, and kill some deer, antelope or sheep at the fenced-in compound. An onsite video camera allows you to follow the action like you’re there.

Lawmakers around the country are, justifiably, up in arms (pardon the pun) and introducing legislation to ban Internet hunting. But as awful as it sounds, the idea of shooting real living things from one’s couch may prompt more ideas on how to use the Internet to do things we can’t be bothered to actually execute (again, sorry about the pun) on our own.

I propose the following:
* Demonstrators-R-Us. Got a beef about something? Someone else will go stand outside the White House, wave a banner on your pet issue, and you’ll be able to monitor the operation from your bathtub, speak remotely with any bystanders, and more.
* Trial Blind Dates. Someone else goes on your blind date for you, but you get to direct the action, and receive constant feedback on your prospect’s table manners, conversation skills, etc. If it’s good enough, you go yourself the next time.
* Virtual Little League. Sometimes, your kid just can’t make the game. Might be sick, or maybe family business takes her or him away. With VLL, your child could simply log on, and, using a camera mounted behind home plate, generate swings by a batting machine.
* Love-shot.com. Not able to be there for your lover, or not in the mood? One of those incredibly life-like dolls takes your place, but, via Internet, you’re able to manipulate hands and other body parts to do what you can’t—or won’t. Only risk is your mate may never want the real you back in bed.
* Iraqi Force Protection. This one is not that far from reality. The Pentagon wants to use robotic surrogates to do the fighting, and is on its way to developing the capability. Once it’s fully operational, only the other side will die. Of course, if the other side also employed surrogates, then wars could be fought with no one at all dying. Now that’s a novel idea. Speaking of which, how about animals sending in surrogates at the Texas ranch? They could monitor the action and let testosterone-poisoned couch cowboys blow the heads off fake antelope.

##
- posted by Russ @ 7:15 AM

BOLTON, WAL-MART and ARGENTINA


A group called Move America Forward (MAF) plans to air ads attacking Sen. George Voinovich, the Ohio Republican whose bold, independent-minded refusal to support John Bolton’s nomination for US ambassador to the UN, has at least temporarily derailed Bolton’s frightening ascendancy. (See my previous posts on Bolton). This organization, previously little-known, trumpets its desire to move the UN headquarters out of the United States altogether, as noted by the Wall Street Journal. MAF’s support for Bolton is one hell of a kiss of death for the guy, who is desperately backpedaling from his own vociferously anti-UN past.

If MAF can run ads against Voinovich, how about some other group stepping forward to run ads praising him? Indeed, it is imperative that senators, regardless of the political party, be publicly celebrated for courageous stances. Some of the organizations that traditionally spend money to criticize Republicans ought to be out there patting the guy on the back.

----
About a week ago, Wal-Mart announced that it was donating $35 million over the next decade to a new conversation program of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. While that’s commendable, it is important to realize just how little $3.5 million a year is to Wal-Mart, which, according to the Sierra Club (via the New York Times), paid that much in civil penalties to settle charges it violated the Clean Water Act in nine states last year. Basically, Wal-Mart is just not the kind of outfit to care a whole lot about the environment, or about labor rights, or much else in the way of true communitarian spirit. All of us, and the media in particular, ought to be highly vigilant toward such transparent publicity ploys, and such super-cost-effective ways of cleaning up the company’s justifiably sullied image. Any article about something like this that does not compare the $35 million to Wal-Mart’s profits in a similar 10-year period is just not giving readers a fair picture.

---

Your faithful correspondent is in Argentina at the moment (wonders of the Internet!) Any ideas on stories to be explored, people to see, things to eat, fire away. (russ@russbaker.com)

##
- posted by Russ @ 1:02 PM

SCAMS FROM HILL GOP

What could be more exciting for a doctor than receiving a fax from a US Congressman, with the welcome news that he has been named Physician of the Year? Not much. And what could be more disappointing than learning that you’re not really a favorite medic, but target of a bait-and-switch fundraising gimmick from congressional Republicans?

According to a report earlier this month by ABC’s Brian Ross, to actually receive his award in person at a DC workshop, a Jamestown, N.Y. doctor learned that he would have to donate $1,250 to the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Worse, he learned that he was not alone. The GOP had selected hundreds of people for “Doctor of the Year.” At the awards event, which featured appearances by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, and President Bush, banners in the room proclaimed "A Celebration of the House Republican Majority" and "Moving America's Agenda."

This speaks volumes about the GOP leadership’s contempt for the truth, for the guardians of our health care system, and, moreover, about their lack of respect for people in general. This is the kind of con game we expect in e-mailed spam from people claiming to be the sons of ex-African dictators with millions of dollars to share. That the GOP leadership stoops so low is an astounding story that should get more attention. Too, doctors ought to speak out about this. And maybe say something about how the GOP, while claiming to be “Moving America’s Agenda” can’t be bothered to address one of the country’s most urgent matters: the health insurance crisis. .

##
- posted by Russ @ 8:53 AM

Boltin’ the GOP Ranks

As I said last week (I think it was last week), the real story with the Bolton nomination is the pathetic confirmation process. These GOP senators just sit there in seeming pain, suffering silently for the good of their party, knowing perfectly well how awful a guy Bolton is, how deeply offensive he would be to UN ambassadors from other countries if he is approved, how his deep animosity to the notion of global cooperation makes his nomination akin to putting, say, a key polluter at the helm of the EPA.

The weekend brought still more revelations on Bolton as not only serial suppressor of intelligence reports that went against his political agenda, but as a kind of functional madman. Read here, on the blog DailyKos, the allegations of a USAID contractor in Kyrgyzstan on how he tried to destroy her for seemingly legitimate criticism of the failings of his then-employer. According to the woman, whose credibility is not thus far in question, Bolton chased her around her hotel, pounded on her hotel room door, slipped threatening notes underneath, and went about serially ruining her reputation for daring to speak the truth.

Now, GOP Sen. Hagel indicates he may switch his vote, but that’s most likely because one of his own staffers was harassed by Bolton. Incredible that it requires that level of personal involvement to cause a senator to vote in the public interest.

The new ad campaigns designed to pressure elected officials in their own districts makes perfect sense. For years, they have marched to the tune of fanatical Right groups and those who fund their campaigns. Let the voters in their areas know what is really going on, and you’ll see them begin abandoning unjustified party-line voting faster than you can say Re-election Defeat.

----

Compare Bolton, if you will, with Robert Zoellick, the new deputy secretary of state. A Sunday New York Times piece on him, labeled “Diplomatic Memo,” admiringly casts him as a man who is self-confident enough to admit what he doesn’t know, to make himself available to the press, and to make little effort to remain “on message.” That’s a welcome relief from most other ranking bureaucreats, including her own boss, Condi Rice, who proudly notes that everything she says is exactly what Bush would say. Let’s hope that Zoellick is part of a new trend. Maybe the spiraling problems facing the administration are shocking the White House into extreme action: hiring generally competent people who think that Reality is more than a tv show.

------

Two upcoming government reports will say that airport security is no better than prior to the 9/11 attacks, despite the federal takeover of the process, according to the AP.

How astounding is that? Really, there’s been way too little discussion about the exact benefits of the massive reshuffle of government, the massive invasion of our privacy, the massive expenditure of funds, for projects with little clear public benefit. When is that going to become a dominant topic of conversation?

##
- posted by Russ @ 9:13 AM

UN Reporting Taxes Our Minds

Today’s New York Times leads with indictments of a Texas oil trader and a South Korean businessman in connection with illegal profits and kickbacks in dealings with Iraq through the UN’s Oil For Food program.

Anyone who has read my Nation critique of Times reporter Judith Miller’s Oil for Food coverage knows that her work has been deeply flawed and heavily biased against the UN institutionally and against Kofi Annan in particular. That Nation article elicited a heavy (and supportive) response from many quarters, including from Times staffers frustrated by Miller’s continued ability to practice her peculiar brand of journalism in such key real estate.

So I read with interest today’s piece. For one thing, you’ll note that Miller shares a byline with another reporter, and gets second billing. Julia Preston covers federal investigations from Manhattan, and Miller the UN scandals, so this makes sense. However, Preston’s involvement in the piece seemingly tempers Miller’s urges, and gives it a feel of a balanced, straight-ahead report on a government investigation.

However, there’s more-- and less-- here than meets the eye. Reading this confusing account gives one the general sense that the United Nations did something wrong. Based on the charges, those being indicted clearly are guilty of wrongdoing of some kind, and certainly of greed and immorality. But, actually, you can’t really tell exactly who did what, why it matters, how precisely it harmed the public interest, what if any awareness top UN officials had of any of this, how important a development these indictments are in the larger scheme of things, what this tells us about the value of the overall Oil for Food program (these people’s activities seem to relate to a tiny fraction of the total budget) – or practically anything else.

Given Miller’s almost exclusive concentration on Oil for Food scandals the past year, we could have reasonably expected better analysis. She knew these investigations were underway, and she knew what they generally involved. Yet, the article relies on the same sorts of predictable anti-UN statements that she’s cited in the past, and, again, they’re not substantiated by the material.

An FBI official is quoted as saying that the defendants “willingly conspired with a foreign government with whom our country was on the brink of war”, though of course we now know that the brinksmanship was largely trumped up based on false information.

Also, for the umpteenth time, Miller goes back to her favorite well, quoting neophyte Senator Norman Coleman, who is a virtual creation of the White House, and who leads a committee investigating Oil for Food, overreaching to say that the indictment was a “significant step forward in exposing the abuses and criminal misconduct” in the UN program, what had levied “a terrible cost to the Iraqi people, our allied forces, and the integrity of the U.N.” I challenge readers who are perhaps better than I am at close reading to point out what in the article really substantiates that language.

Miller also turns to the stellar Rep. Henry Hyde, for a kicker statement that the indictment showed “the degree to which the oil-for-food program was so pervasively corrupted.” He’s allowed the last word with no balance or perspective from anyone else.

Finally, it is imperative to consider that these indictments are the result of investigations being pushed at the highest levels of the Bush Administration, which is determined to weaken the UN as part of its effort to expand support for unilateral US military action. Under this administration, as, to a lesser extent, under some other administrations, investigations by a US Attorney cannot be seen simply as “law enforcement” – it’s often law enforcement with a powerful strategic agenda.

Many good people within the Times are disturbed by the paper’s tolerance of an anti-multilateralism propaganda campaign being waged in its pages, through the constant reportage of every shred, related or not, that can tarnish the UN. It’s apparent that plenty of corruption can be found in large programs and institutions. Without context and perspective, we cannot know what to make of such things. In any case, wouldnt it be nice to see the paper demonstrate equal zeal for investigating the enrichment of friends of the White House at considerable cost to the public interest?

##
- posted by Russ @ 10:52 AM

NO BOLTON WITHOUT A LUGAR

As always with government processes, the headlines rarely reflect the reality as well as the small details do. That’s why C-SPAN is such a marvel of democracy. You get to watch these folks up close as they twist themselves into rubber-band superheroes in defense of whatever position they’ve already staked out. One fellow I like to keep an eye on is Senator Richard Lugar, the genial Hoosier who presides over hearings on John Bolton, President Bush’s highly controversial nominee for UN ambassador.

Even in the face of damning testimony from highly credible figures like Carl Ford Jr., a former State Department intelligence chief, about Bolton’s dangerous antics in service of ideology over reality, Lugar shrugs it all off. Ford is the latest figure – and a loyal Republican and Bush supporter – to say that Bolton tried to intimidate or professionally ruin analysts who would not go along with his cooking the books – in one case, his effort to falsely accuse Cuba (yes, Cuba) of having an offensive biological weapons program.

Lugar is a fellow whom no one can say a bad word about because he – well, he just comes across as such a nice man. You hate to pressure or even question anything about the guy. But in the end, he almost always shrugs, says that, yes, it is true that this man Bolton probably did all these bad things, and yes, one wishes we had people in sensitive positions like the UN ambassadorship who were better suited to play a positive role in the institution, but, hey, he’s what president Bush wants, so that’s that.

This, of course, essentially nullifies the whole point of these hearings. Congress is supposed to examine and question the policies of the White House, and those hired to carry them out. People like Lugar do the public a great disservice by (a) not admitting that certain nominees are grossly inappropriate and therefore unfit to serve (b) not speaking honestly about the underlying issue – in this case, the administration’s two-faced attitude toward international cooperation. The end game is preserving administration freedom to take unilateral military action based on trumped-up charges – in Iraq, in Cuba. That’s good enough for Bolton, and good enough for Bush. But, the real question that should be asked this week is: is this good enough for the very pleasant Senator Lugar?
- posted by Russ @ 8:26 AM

April 13, 2005

Remember that “think tank” that has funded DeLay’s foreign golfing trips for “educational purposes”? The woman who runs it is a longtime friend of DeLay’s former chief of staff, who left his staff to become a high-powered lobbyist. There are strands and strands here, all suggesting the total corruption of the process. Basically, DeLay cranks out staffers into the lobbying world where they can make a fortune, direct perks and glamorous free trips to him, and further influence corporations into funding Republican gains in return for being able to rewrite laws in their own favor.

Meanwhile, Amy Ridenour, the woman who runs the think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research, explains, in a buried reference in a Wall Street Journal piece , why the center got involved with an Indian tribe that provided massive funding for the DeLay Con Team. The tribe got ripped off by the lobbyist, DeLay buddy and former DeLay staffer Jack Abramoff, to the tune of many millions while Abramoff privately mocked the Indians in emails as “troglodytes.” Why did the Center like the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians? Because it was “impressed” by what the tribe had done to improve its people’s welfare and preserve tribal culture – with casino earnings. It’s doubtful, based on the overall profile of the think tank, that they give two hoots about preserving the culture of Indians or any other community of color, but it certainly is likely that she appreciates the value of casino gambling. Which, like everything else these DeLay cutouts do, is about raking in massive amounts while bestowing a whole new set of economic woes and punishments upon America’s working classes.

##
- posted by Russ @ 9:45 AM

JUNKING JUNKETS

One thing the unfolding Tom DeLay ethics scandals seem to obscure: the need to eliminate sponsored junkets altogether. DeLay, and, to a lesser extent, several other members of Congress, are in trouble for accepting free trips that may have been paid for by lobbyists. According to the rulebook, they can take trips paid for by organizations claiming an educational mission, but not by lobbyists. This is, of course, ridiculous. Why should our elected officials be allowed to accept anything of value for free from anyone?

The distinction between organizations and lobbyists is already blurred. It’s one thing when the organization in question is well-known, universally respected, and essentially of an inquiring rather than ideological mindset. But most have an agenda, and whatever “education” the junketeer gets is usually heavily skewed toward the group’s favored outcomes.

I have yet to see a proper investigation of the small, rather obscure “conservative” organization that officially sent DeLay to the UK and to Russia, trips that appear to have actually been paid for by a lobbyist trying to influence DeLay. By now, news organizations should have thoroughly established the track record and value of this group and its “educational” mission. The limited published remarks from the outfit’s officials suggest something unsavory overall.

In any case, there’s simply no basis for us allowing our representatives to be given what is tantamount to valuable gifts from interested parties. If DeLay or any other members of Congress need to travel, let them justify it as part of their job, and then let tax dollars pay for it. In the end, we pay either way, but it’s a lot cheaper when we’re billed directly and have transparency in the process.

##
- posted by Russ @ 8:07 AM

PRIVACY AND FISHINESS

PRIVACY ON A HIGH WIRE

Sunday’s New York Times led with a Bush Administration plan “to give the government access to possibly hundred of millions of international banking records in an effort to trace and deter terrorist financing…”

Washington would get access to logs of international wire transfers in and out of US banks.

Yet, you have to read to the jump (page 25) to learn that the 9/11 terrorists operated on a shoestring and that no unusual transactions were found. And the former head of the FBI’s terrorism-financing unit says that we “don’t really have a full grasp of how to deal with the problem yet.”

Well, of course not. If one of the most destructive acts in modern history cost less than half a million dollars to execute, then scrutinizing everyone’s wire transfers is not going to turn up advance notice of any future plots.

Instead, the government will be gathering further unnecessary information on innocent Americans. There is way too much toleration of increases in surveillance and monitoring without justification. Let those who want to expand “big government” meddling in our private lives have to make a highly persuasive case – based on hard proof that their needle-in-a-haystack approach does anything besides intimidate and exert implicit controls on the lives of average people who harbor no ill intent.

----

FISHY BUSINESS PRACTICES EVERYWHERE

The Times did some bracing investigative journalism – sending samples of what was advertised as “fresh wild salmon” to a lab and confirming that most of what is sold as such in the city is actually from fish farms.

It would be interesting to see the Times expand that approach to other business claims. As anyone who has cell phone service, a credit card or any other major service or product knows, distortions, exaggerations and virtual bold lies plague our marketplace. The gap between the eager come-on from the sales department to the cooperation and desire to correct from the customer service side is profound, and seemingly getting more so. How many of us have bought into some plan or product only to learn that the quality, quantity or overall efficaciousness was grossly misrepresented? Well, try all of us.

Other advanced countries are generally far more aggressive about investigating and blocking false and misleading claims. Instead of monitoring millions of wire transfers (see today’s first item) by ordinary Americans, why doesn’t the government devote a bit of effort at the constant hoodwinking that goes on under the heading of “level playing field capitalism.”
- posted by Russ @ 9:26 AM

CENSORSHIP AND RESPONSIBILITY

Today’s Wall Street Journal brings alarming news in the form of an article about a new example of implicit censorship. General Motors has pulled its ads from the Los Angeles Times in what is apparently pique over critical coverage of the company. Their account is worth $10 million a year, and given that the Times already struggles with profitability issues, this must be a serious concern at the parent Tribune Company.

It’s not hard to see that such actions have an impact on the public interest. What newspaper wants to go around alienating big advertisers? Not many, it seems. If you look at the nature of the newspapers’ investigative and enterprise reporting (self-initiated projects rather than reactions to news from elsewhere, such as lawsuits or criminal investigations) you will see a serious shortage of articles on the practices of major corporations. The exceptions tend to be companies like Wal-Mart, which is so big it hardly even needs to bother advertising, and which has itself pushed out of business many companies that did advertise heavily.

Now would be a good time for scrutiny of this issue, and for a statement from other newspapers decrying efforts by advertisers to influence journalism. News organizations need to stand together when such threats arise.

As for GM, if executives put more stress on fixing inherent problems with the company and less on retribution, they wouldn’t have such critiques to address.

----
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

According to a front page article in a recent Wall Street Journal, “The bankruptcy legislation..is consistent with President Bush’s emphasis on personal responsibility…Mr Bush believes that he can transform individual behavior…”

Well, let’s see. How has George Bush embodied personal responsibility? Here are a few random examples:

-Instead of serving in a war (Vietnam) he supported, he took a position in a safe stateside National Guard unit, then left it under murky circumstances before his obligation was up. Then, as president, started a war under false pretenses, which exposed members of that same Texas National Guard to deadly overseas service they had not expected when they signed up for what is traditionally domestic service.
-Ran money-losing businesses that were subsidized almost entirely by his father’s friends
-Made a fortune on fronting for a baseball team that got huge public subsidies and took by eminent domain people’s private land for a ballpark.

##
- posted by Russ @ 10:02 AM

POPE, PRISON, SPIES AND HOPE
------

The Pope’s funeral: Journalists providing endless time-filling blather during the Pope’s funeral really should find a tactful way to provide some perspective. After all, they're not commentators at a parade. It's important to take this opportunity to remind the audience that, although Pope John Paul II was indeed a tireless advocate of the poor and the developing world, he adamantly opposed contraception, which plays a direct role in fostering poverty. Reporters might, appropriately, note a new UN warning that the world’s population of slumdwellers could triple to three billion by mid-century. A funeral -- and especially one as symbolic as this one -- is a time not just for fond remembrance and tears, but for talk that helps the living move on in a productive fashion. The Pope -- an admirer of tough, straight talk -- would certainly have respected such candor.

Prelude to Abu Ghraib: A new BBC Documentary documenting widespread torture in American prisons, including, notably, Texas prisons, while George Bush was governor – torture actually filmed for official purposes – puts Abu Ghraib in crucial context. So does a Wall Street Journal article recalling the harsh sentences imposed on Japanese accused of WW2 war crimes – including making prisoners of war salute for hours on end. That crime got the Japanese soldier a 12-year prison sentence. Interesting to compare our notion of accountability for soldiers then and now.

---

Sandy Berger case --- Conservatives are now registering highly valid suspicions about something the Bush Administration did, albeit did in concert with the Clinton Administration. Former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, who was discovered to have smuggled out and destroyed documents from the National Archives, has been let off with a bizarrely mild punishment – he must pay a $10,000 fine and will lose his security clearance for three years. Not just that, but the Bush Administration waited until several hours after Terri Schiavo died, when the media was massively distracted, to announce the wrist-slap.

The editorial page of Rupert Murdoch’s Bush-slavish New York Post went after Democrats for this, appropriately criticizing the “cavalier attitude of leading Democrats” -- and citing a chuckled comment from Bill Clinton when the story first broke -- “That’s Sandy for you.”

Another conservative publication, Reason magazine, speculated, more helpfully, “[p]erhaps the prospect of Berger’s going public with just how much info the Bush administration chose to ignore about a looming Al Qaeda offensive prodded Justice into deal-making mode.”

And an article in the conservative online publication, Worldnet Daily, raises the question of why Berger destroyed three versions of a document, but not two others. In offering a hypothesis, it cites Col. Buzz Patterson, who carried the “nuclear football” for Clinton in 1996, who comments on the fact that some copies of documents might have the president’s handwritten notes, and indicates Clinton’s apparent awareness of an earlier plot to use airliners as missiles. If indeed Clinton wrote notes on such a document, the Bush people likely were aware of concerns about a future attack. Avoidance of responsibility for failing to anticipate the 9/11 attacks might well explain why both Democratic and Republican administrations were glad to see marked-up documents destroyed. This is all speculation, of course, but, given the obvious effort by the current White House to dispense quietly with the matter, it certainly warrants a closer look.

------

Polls Toll for Overreaching GOP? Two new polls of considerable note. A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll finds that stereotypes about the GOP and Dems have been reversed. By 55%-40%, respondents believe that it is now the Republican Party, traditionally the advocate of limited government, which is “trying to use the federal government to interfere with the private lives of most Americans” on moral values.

And a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll has one-third of REPUBLICANS approving of congressional Democrats blocking Bush and Hill Republicans from “going too far in pushing their agenda.”

If that isn't a banner headline-worthy development, the harbinger of a sea change, then what might be? For those determined to put sanity back into government, those are signs that the nation clamors for new, visionary leadership.

--

SamDisclaimer: I often wax poetic about Sam Smith and his irreplaceable newsletter, the Progressive Review, http://www.prorev.com/ . He nearly always has smart things to say, and, even more often, simply posts smart links to articles that contain important or savory morsels. I can’t always credit him for these links, but Sam, rest assured, I appreciate your enormous contribution, as do so many others.
- posted by Russ @ 9:09 AM

Meanwhile, Back At the Ranch....

Today’s Wall Street Journal reports “Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah is expected to meet with President Bush at his Texas ranch later this month…This month’s visit by the Crown Prince also will add an important chapter to the emerging story of Mr. Bush’s penchant for quiet ranch-house diplomacy. On Monday, for instance, the president is to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon at his ranch…”

Now, it’s great that the President is pulling off this “quiet ranch-house diplomacy.” And it makes sense, given how much time he spends at the ranch. What I wonder about is exactly how much time the diplomacy itself takes out of his schedule. Clearly, building relations with other world leaders and exploring complex issues takes time, and doing it in a relaxed setting makes sense. It also would justify, I suppose, spending all that time away from the White House.

But….when Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin was invited to Crawford in March, it wasn’t even for an overnighter – it was for lunch. Martin wanted to talk about missile defense, border issues, and other urgent matters. Bet he had to talk fast.

Meanwhile, note the recent report that Bush, in what appears to be an effort to further control the messages coming from the administration, is requiring cabinet members to spend several hours a week working in the White House office building – though not necessarily to meet with him. Given that they already have their own offices elsewhere, one can’t help wondering if there’s a double-standard for the boss and the staff.
- posted by Russ @ 10:48 AM

April 5, 2005 Amid the hagiographic coverage of Pope John Paul II, today’s New York Times had a courageous op-ed. The author of a book on the remarkable Pope John XXIII notes that while the most recent pope was “a man of physical and moral courage”, John Paul II had many failings. Among those was losing a crucial opportunity to modernize the Church, “seeking to impose conformity of thought,” and filling ranks of bishops with “mindless sycophants and intellectual incompetents,” while “good priests have been passed over…[and] left the priesthood.”

While we’re on heretical ground, how about this thought? The Pope suffered for more than a decade from the ravages of Parkinson’s disease – a scourge visited upon millions who might benefit from stem cell research. Of course, the Pope and the Church were adamantly opposed to that research. Meantime, many Catholics were vocal in favor of extending Terri Schiavo’s life in the magnificently obscure hope that she might someday improve after 15 years of general brain inactivity. Schiavo perhaps might have improved – but only if stem cell research could make advances in the treatment of brain injuries. Anybody for revisiting the stem cell issue, which has largely vanished from the news?

##
- posted by Russ @ 7:28 AM

April 5, 2005

Amid the hagiographic coverage of Pope John Paul II, today’s
- posted by Russ @ 7:28 AM

MISLEADING ON BOLTON AND UN

Today, some papers are running an AP piece from Sunday, with diplomats rallying to the defense of Bush’s beleaguered nominee for UN ambassador, John R. Bolton. In the New York Times today, the headline was “Bush’s Choice For U.N. Position Wins Defenders.”

Well, yes, he did win defenders, but this really would only have been a story if, say, those defenders actually believed in the UN, unlike Bolton, who is famous for his contempt for the institution. Unlike the 62 global critics of Bolton who signed an open letter calling for his rejection by the senate, there’s scarcely a soul in the new ‘defender’ list who can be said to be a friend of multilateralism. And that should have been made more clear in the article. It’s no surprise that people who want the US to do whatever it wants internationally unhindered by constructive cooperation between nations should support Bolton. But then, the headline might have been “Reaganite Hardliners back Bush Hardliner”. That would be helping the public understand what is actually going on.

Most importantly, although the AP piece mentions that the new letter supporting Bolton was organized by Frank Gaffney, “a Pentagon official in the Reagan administration,” it does not mention what he has done since then – run one of the most extreme pro-militarism think tanks, heavily funded by hardliners and defense contractors. The lede of the article is also lax, simply characterizing the signers of the letter as “retired arms control specialists and diplomats”, when in fact they include Caspar Weinberger, who almost never met a muscle-flexing he didn’t enjoy, and R. James Woolsey, the ex-CIA director who was one of the prime advocates of US unilateral action in Iraq. Readers might have appreciated such perspective.

For more on media misrepresentations about UN matters, I refer you to my piece in this week’s Nation magazine, accessible near the top of my website, http://www.russbaker.com/ .
- posted by Russ @ 12:07 PM

True, it is April 1, i.e. April Fool’s Day, and we can certainly say that, collectively speaking, as Americans, Fools R Us.

Schiavo’s death and the Pope’s worsening condition naturally took up prime space on the front page of the New York Times. It is great that the off-lead about the presidential commission on intelligence failures re Iraq was paired with a tough analysis noting how Bush-Cheney and company were let off the hook.

But – the real news was to be found on Page A11. Basically, one of the key underpinnings of the decision to go to war with Iraq, the claims that Saddam Hussein was building mobile labs to develop biological weapons, turns out to have been the creation of one wacko code-named “Curveball.” US intelligence officials were warned by the Germans that the man was “crazy”, had a drinking problem, mysterious disappearances, and there were concerns that he was a fabricator.

Senior intelligence officials tried to stop the US government from using his claims, without avail. Analysts who objected to use of Curveball’s information were forced out.

Now isn’t that front page news? Shouldn’t that be dominating the television reports? Instead, we have Bush “embracing” the overall report, which wasn’t allowed to examine the White House’s own culpability.

A headline like “White House knew WMD Claims Based on Alleged ‘Fabricator’ “ would go a long way to helping clear things up for the large number of Americans who still believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. And who still don’t get it that one of the biggest, and most tragic, deliberate deceptions in modern times is still playing.

You can bet that, were Clinton still president, this is what everyone would be talking about. Congressmembers would be on television right now, demanding that the administration be held accountable. Today, were someone with even a fraction of Karl Rove’s skill at spotting opportunities in a position of power for the opponents of the war, this thing would be enormous already.
- posted by Russ @ 8:57 AM