BakerMuckraker
Blogs in the Month of
January - 2006
- January 31, BURIED
TREASURE
- January 27, HAMAS,
NO MÁS, POR FAVOR
- January 24, BUSH
= SAFETY, DEMS = BIN LADEN BUDDIES
- January 20, JUST
WHAT AMERICA NEEDS: A RIGHT-WING TALKER!
- January 17, MY
PRIVILEGED INBOX
- January 12, MILLERISH
NEWS FROM IRAQ?
- January 10, HEAVY
BREATHING
- January 07, I
SPY SOME CONFUSION
- January 03, HERE
WE GO...
BURIED TREASURE
On Saturday, the New York Times had a piece on page 10, headlined “Hurricane Investigators See 'Fog of War' at White House” that seems to me Page One material.
Here’s the lede. You decide whether you agree with this being buried:
>The White House was beset by the "fog of war" in the crucial days immediately after Hurricane Katrina, leaving it unable to respond properly to the unfolding catastrophe, House investigators said Friday after getting the most detailed briefing yet on how President Bush's staff had handled the events.<
Pretty intriguing lede, but the best material is scattered throughout the piece. The reporter does a fine job of reporting what was said, and some background, in traditional news reporting style. But the reality of what is going on here – i.e. the way in which these revelations are being handled – can only be deduced through careful scrutiny on the reader's part. Too much homework for the public.
Here is the rest of the piece. I’ve underlined key passages, and inserted my comments in brackets :
“The closed-door briefing, attended mostly by House committee aides, was provided by Kenneth Rapuano, who as Mr. Bush's deputy domestic security adviser was the senior official in charge of managing storm events at the White House when the hurricane struck. The meeting was a compromise, a result of White House objections to the investigators' requests for copies of e-mail messages and other correspondence from top presidential aides.
[Closed-door briefing on the biggest disaster in American history? Hmm. Deputy domestic security adviser was in charge of the storm? Why was his boss, the domestic security adviser, too busy to manage the situation? What was a bigger deal at that moment than Katrina?]
Mr. Rapuano, those present said, acknowledged that he left the White House about 10 p.m. on Monday, Aug. 29, the night the storm hit. Some two hours later, the White House received a report indicating that a major levee in New Orleans had been breached and that most of the city had already been flooded. The report was sent by an official of the Federal Emergency Management Agency who had flown over the city late that afternoon.
But Mr. Rapuano said that before he left that night, the White House received a separate report from the Army Corps of Engineers saying an evaluation of the levees was still under way.
The White House, Mr. Rapuano said, finally received confirmation about the levee breach about 6 a.m. on Tuesday, the morning after it occurred. But even then, it does not appear that word got immediately to Mr. Bush, who was on vacation and who later said that he had had a "sense of relaxation" and had thought the city had "dodged a bullet."
"We are left with a picture of a White House that was plagued by the fog of war," said David Marin, the Republican staff director to the House committee investigating the government's response to the hurricane. "The committee is likely to find a disturbing inability by the White House to de-conflict and analyze information — and that had consequences."
[A Republican staff director says they found a “disturbing inability by the White House to de-conflict and analyze information” – and that is not front page news? Where else might any reasonably sentient person find such inabilities? Iraq? 9/11? Regulatory policies throughout the government? Handling of global warming data?]
Trent Duffy, the deputy White House press secretary, who also attended the briefing, acknowledged that all levels of the government had suffered from a lack of clarity about the events as they developed.
[Another deputy again! Have you ever heard of Mr. Rapuano or Mr. Duffy? They’re bringing out obscure figures to handle this national disgrace. And an admission by the White House itself that “all level of the government had suffered from a lack of clarity?” That isn’t page one material?]
"There was a lack of situational awareness at all levels," Mr. Duffy said in an interview on Friday. "That is one of the biggest lessons everyone in emergency preparedness has learned because of the storm."
With the House not yet in session, only one lawmaker from the investigative committee — its chairman, Tom Davis, Republican of Virginia — was present for the briefing. Mr. Rapuano told him and the staff investigators that the White House role had been to monitor the situation. The Federal Emergency Management Agency and its parent, the Department of Homeland Security, were operationally in charge, he said.
[Perhaps the most important administration admissions thus far, and only one lawmaker is present!]
The investigators expressed frustration that the White House did not seem to have been more actively involved. But Mr. Duffy, echoing a point made by Mr. Rapuano, said: "The White House should not be making combat decisions in Iraq. The same is true for a domestic emergency response."
The committee staff members also asked why it had taken Mr. Bush until the following Saturday, nearly a week after the storm, to order a large number of federal troops to the Gulf Coast.
Mr. Rapuano said that the Pentagon had already started to send troops and that in fact 5,000 of them had arrived by that point.
Louisiana's governor, Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, had asked for many more three days earlier, but Mr. Rapuano said the problem was that she had not provided specifics as to what kind of troops she needed.
[So as I understand it, the feds criticize Blanco for not doing enough, and then expect her to tell them exactly “what kind of troops” she needs. Doesn’t that presuppose that the Pentagon is some kind of passive subcontractor, and that any civilian official knows enough to make troop deployment decisions?]
If the investigators cannot determine, through either testimony or written correspondence, what various presidential aides knew, and when, it will be hard to pinpoint where failures occurred within the White House, said Mr. Marin, the staff director for the House committee.
"There is a difference between having enough information to find institutional fault, which we have," he said, "and having information to assign individual blame, which in large part we don't."
[Quelle surprise! Some unknown flunkies attend a closed-door session of Congress where just one member of Congress is present, explosive admissions emerge nevertheless, and it still ends up buried inside the paper. No wonder individual blame will not be assigned.]
CHUTZPAH DEPT: GOP SAYS NOBODY TAKE INDIAN BUCKS
USA Today reports on a new GOP bill designed to close a loophole on donations from Native American tribes.
>A little-known quirk in campaign-finance law that has helped Indian tribes increase their political clout is under scrutiny amid a scandal involving a high-profile lobbyist and his tribal clients.
House Republicans plan this week to propose closing a loophole that has allowed tribes with casinos to give substantial amounts to members of Congress. The change is part of a bill being drafted by Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier, R-Calif., to restrict lobbyist influence in the wake of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.
Last year, tribal casinos raked in nearly $20 billion in revenue, allowing them to become political donors in the same league with drug companies and defense contractors.
From total giving of $676,450 for the 1994 elections, tribal contributions grew to $8.6 million for 2004 races, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.
…“Members (of Congress) that we assumed were hostile, suddenly they're not,” says [Kevin] Gover, [ a member of the Oklahoma Pawnee tribe and former Bureau of Indian Affairs director. ] “It's not as simple as buying their support. But the reality is that if you are known to be a major contributor, and a member doesn't have a strong position on some issue, why not vote with those who support your campaign?”
Abramoff pleaded guilty to fraud and conspiracy this month for bilking tribes out of millions of dollars as he purported to be defending their gambling interests. Tribes also lobby for federal grants for education, bridges, housing and other issues.
…The growth in tribal political giving has been helped by the status tribes enjoy under federal campaign-finance law. Tribes are “persons” under the law, a category that also includes partnerships, corporations and associations. But tribes can give unlimited total amounts because they are not “individuals,” whose legal definition excludes organized groups.
Individuals may give no more than $2,100 to a federal candidate in a two-year election cycle, $26,700 to a political party, and no more than a total of $101,400. The candidate and party limits also apply to tribes, but not the overall ceiling. Tribes may give as much as they want. Dreier's proposal, developed at the behest of Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., would apply the individual limit on total giving to tribes….<
OH. So, now that Republicans are in big trouble for their acceptance of huge amounts from tribes as a quid pro quo for legislation – and now that they wouldn’t be caught dead accepting Indian money, they’re shutting the barn door but good. They certainly don’t want Democrats – who, historically have supported Native American concerns consistent with their overall platform – to get the money.
HAMAS, NO MÁS, POR FAVOR
One thing that is apparent from the Hamas victory: Democracy isn’t always pretty, and it also isn’t necessarily based on rational calculations. Palestinians aren’t well served by having a government that is at war with Israel. Still, Hamas gives Palestinians a sense that it cares about them. It provides basic services, a sense of pride, and, significantly, appears less corrupt than the previously-ruling Fatah.
Ultimately, however, unless Hamas renounces its desire to drive Israel into the sea, it won’t be able to deliver what Palestinians most need – a normalized relationship with the rest of the world, trade, and jobs.
In any case, the Bush Administration’s post-Iraq enthusiasm for spreading democracy now looks a little like what it probably always was – a convenient excuse for sole-power meddling, not a deeply-felt cause.
Indeed, democracy, pure and simple, can be an oppressive force. Herd mentality, peer pressure, mob sentiment, pandering from on high. You don’t want democracy without an informed electorate – one is dangerous without the other.
I’d like to see some talk about the importance of education and accurate information in all of this. But I’d also like to hear some talk about education and the dissemination of accurate information that is critical to a viable democracy…. right here in the good old USA. Too many of our own countrymen make bad choices at the polls because they simply are ill-informed. Polls constantly show that. So, Democracy Si -- but Informed Democracy, even better.
FREY’D OF REAL LIES?
You’d have to be in a cave not to have heard about the hoopla yesterday on Oprah, in which she took off after her former golden boy, author James Frey, for lying about – and in – his purported memoir regarding just about everything in his life. Oprah, of course, had continued to defend Frey (hence herself, since she’d made him a household name in the first place) long after it was clear that he was a fraud. But everyone loves Oprah, and so she was permitted to belatedly reverse herself, and had the clout to get him and his publisher onto her couch so she could let them have it, and redeem herself.
The press coverage of this was largely adulatory toward Oprah. We sure love our stars! We also love this kind of a scandal. Though the news about Hamas's victory was surely the real top story worldwide yesterday, American TV devoted almost all of its time to Frey. Priorities, folks.
To Muckraker, the most interesting thing in all this, is how the country seems to care a whole lot more about the lies of a guy we never heard of before – in a personal memoir -- than about, oh, the lies of the elected leadership of this country, in the course of making decisions that affect the future of America and the world.
Frey? Feh!
A SUSPICIOUSLY COMPETENT NOMINEE
On to more trivial things. Like the Bush Administration trying to suppress the Abramoff investigation.
As the New York Times reported today,
>The investigation of Jack Abramoff, the disgraced Republican lobbyist, took a surprising new turn on Thursday when the Justice Department said the chief prosecutor in the inquiry would step down next week because he had been nominated to a federal judgeship by President Bush.
The prosecutor, Noel L. Hillman, is chief of the department's public integrity division, and the move ends his involvement in an inquiry that has reached into the administration as well as the top ranks of the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill. <
Hmm. Something smells wrong about that. First of all, if you look at the nominees preferred by the White House, they generally are neither competent nor truly dedicated to the mission of the office they will assume. Check out FEMA, Mine Safety, Population Control, Medicare – all full of hacks and industry people.
But Hillman was good. He was deeply involved, on a day-to-day basis, with the Abramoff-centered corruption investigation that threatens to spread all over Washington. One matter of particular interest is meetings Abramoff apparently had with some unidentified White House staffers (and we aren’t talking about the Hanukkah parties where he and Bush grinned for the cameras.) Also of interest – his former aide, Susan Ralston, went to work for Karl Rove. Hmmm. Hmmm.
Usually, they give judgeships to people who promise to do damage -- gut the constitution, set women back decades, that kind of thing. Could they, this time, have reversed their policy by giving a judgeship to someone so he could do no more damage?
Under this scenario, they then arrange for him to be replaced by someone more compliant. Well, that’s what I’d do if I was managing a cover-up.
>The administration said that the appointment was routine and that it would not affect the investigation<
Yeaaaah.
EAVESDROPPING IS A-OKAY BY US
Speaking of the dangers of an uninformed (or easily manipulated) electorate…..
As the New York Times reported today:
>Americans are willing to tolerate eavesdropping without warrants to fight terrorism...according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
In a sign that public opinion about the trade-offs between national security and individual rights is nuanced and remains highly unresolved, responses to questions about the administration's eavesdropping program varied significantly depending on how the questions were worded, underlining the importance of the effort by the White House this week to define the issue on its terms.
The poll, conducted as President Bush defended his surveillance program in the face of criticism from Democrats and some Republicans that it is illegal, found that Americans were willing to give the administration some latitude for its surveillance program if they believed it was intended to protect them. Fifty-three percent of the respondents said they supported eavesdropping without warrants "in order to reduce the threat of terrorism."
The results suggest that Americans' view of the program depends in large part on whether they perceive it as a bulwark in the fight against terrorism, as Mr. Bush has sought to cast it, or as an unnecessary and unwarranted infringement on civil liberties, as critics have said.
In one striking finding, respondents overwhelmingly supported e-mail and telephone monitoring directed at "Americans that the government is suspicious of;" they overwhelmingly opposed the same kind of surveillance if it was aimed at "ordinary Americans."<
So that's that. You decide. Are you an American the government is suspicious of? Or are you an 'ordinary American?' Are you a freak or a decent human being? Do you show up at presidential speeches intending to make critical comments about the invasion of Iraq, or do you keep your lawn green and your trap shut?
L’ETAT C’EST MOI
Finally, as I’ve been working on something else and am extremely tired, I turn this space over to a column from the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, a witty if sometimes cantankerous fellow who is very good when he is very good. (Full disclosure: we were both interns at Newsday many years ago, and once sat at the same conference table together]
Trying to Maintain Control of the State, in a State of Confusion
By Dana Milbank
Friday, January 27, 2006; A07
The best-laid plans for President Bush's news conference went awry just 30 seconds into the event. An Associated Press camera and tripod broke free from their bracket on the ceiling and, in view of the TV cameras, dangled menacingly over reporters from Bloomberg News and the New York Daily News.
"First, I recognize . . ." Bush said, looking up and noticing the twirling piece of metal. "We live in a momentous time . . ." he tried again, then looked back at the unmoored object, which was blocking the MSNBC camera's shot of him. "For those of you watching, we seem to have a mechanical flaw," he felt obliged to explain.
The most powerful man in the world spent the next couple of minutes laboring through his opening statement yesterday in the White House briefing room while a large, bald technician walked into the picture and attempted, in a series of acrobatic gestures, to unscrew the tripod.
For the president, it was a timely reminder that events are not always within his control -- as if he needed another reminder. Earlier in the morning, the world learned that Palestinian voters had just handed their government to the terrorist group Hamas. Bush, trying to explain this reversal, suggested the defeated (U.S.-backed) leadership was crooked.
"If there is corruption, I'm not surprised that people say, 'Let's get rid of corruption,' " he reasoned -- inviting an unwelcome comparison to Jack Abramoff and the 2006 elections.
In all, Bush uttered nearly 7,000 words in his 45-minute Q&A. But his message could be summed up with a brief phrase in his least-favorite language: L'Etat c'est moi (I am the state).
His approval of a program to eavesdrop without warrants: "As I stand here right now, I can tell the American people the program is legal," he certified.
His refusal to release photos of him with Abramoff: "They're not relevant to the investigation."
His view on congressional anti-torture legislation: "Conducting war is a responsibility in the executive branch, not the legislative branch."
His refusal to provide Congress with testimony about the federal response to Hurricane Katrina: "That's just the way it works."
Midway through this Bourbonic performance, the Los Angeles Times's James Gerstenzang offered an observation on Bush's surveillance policy: "This seems to sound like something President Nixon once said, which was: 'When the president does it, then that means that it's not illegal.' " Whispered "oohs" could be heard in the room. Bush gave a look indicating he wished the dangling camera had fallen on Gerstenzang.
"Most presidents believe that during a time of war that we can use our authorities under the Constitution to make decisions necessary to protect us," he answered, then offered his reading of legislation passed after the 2001 terrorist attacks: "Go ahead and conduct the war. We're not going to tell you how to do it."
Bush seemed distracted even before the camera dislodged. "I do want to give you some thoughts about what I'm thinking about," he began.
The Hamas news may have been weighing on his mind. But he spoke as though the terrorist group's landslide had been a balloting triumph. "So the Palestinians had an election yesterday, the results of which remind me about the power of democracy," he said, later adding: "I like the competition of ideas."
When CBS's John Roberts steered questioning toward the National Security Agency's surveillance, Bush dismissed the notion of a law that legitimized it. "My concern has always been that, in an attempt to try to pass a law on something that's already legal, we'll show the enemy what we're doing," he said. "If the attempt to write a law is likely to expose the nature of the program, I'll resist it."
Even the Washington Times pressed Bush to answer charges that he has abused his power. But the president declined to be drawn into constitutional nuance. "I'm going to leave that to the lawyers," he said. "I believe I've been hired by the people to do my job, and that's to protect the people."
Another questioner wondered what it was about the 1978 law governing domestic wiretapping "that you feel you have to circumvent it."
The president's lip curled upward. He held up his hand, then leaned on the lectern and pointed his finger. "It's like saying, 'You know, you're breaking the law.' I'm not," he protested. Still, Bush explained why he disregarded the 1978 law. "I said, 'Look, is it possible to conduct this program under the old law?' And people said, 'It doesn't work.' "
The questions about the Abramoff photos heightened Bush's irritation. "Having my picture taken with someone doesn't mean that I'm a friend with him or know him very well," he replied to one questioner. "I've had my picture taken with you."
A few questions later, Bush made the distance between Abramoff and himself even longer. "I, frankly, don't even remember having my picture taken with the guy," he declared. "I don't know him."
Still, the president seemed to realize the questions about the photos were not going away. CBS Radio's Mark Knoller tried another approach. "Never mind about the photographs, but can you say whether . . . "
Bush cut him off. "Easy," he noted, "for a radio guy to say."<
Even easier for a blogger to say. Have a swell weekend.
BUSH = SAFETY, DEMS = BIN LADEN BUDDIES
Say that twenty times and you're home free. That’s the message from a new major propaganda offensive from the White House.
>A senior U.S. intelligence official offered a wide-ranging and detailed defense of the National Security Agency's domestic spying program yesterday, kicking off a White House campaign aimed at convincing the public that the effort is both legal and necessary to combat al Qaeda terrorists.
…In a separate speech later in the day, President Bush also repeated his argument that Congress effectively endorsed the program of eavesdropping without warrants under its authorization of military action against al Qaeda, dubbing the effort "a terrorist surveillance program."
…The remarks opened a three-day blitz by the administration aimed in part at making the controversial eavesdropping program a political winner for the White House in a midterm election year. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales will discuss the legal underpinnings for the program today, and Bush will pay a rare visit to NSA headquarters tomorrow to highlight its work.
The strategy was signaled by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove in a speech last week that framed the issue as a contest between Republicans who want to protect Americans from terrorists and Democrats who are trying to sabotage the administration's efforts. Some key Republicans have expressed misgivings about the program's legality as well, and the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled hearings on the issue next month.<
Um, there it is. Karl Rove again. Karl decides, you read. And, as usual, he is right. If they can get enough ‘spokespersons’ out there putting forth the party line, no matter how little credibility it has, they win. Or, at least they do not lose. These issues are pretty complicated, so it is not hard to shift the focus away from answering tough questions about whether warrantless eavesdropping was really necessary or whether it bagged any terrorists to simply asserting that your intent is to protect people.
If the media give equal play to the spin from the White House – which they appear to be doing – then it becomes yet another “he said, she said” story. The coverage should, of course, not be about what people are saying, but should attempt to figure out what is true. Such a novel concept!
LIFT A ROCK, FIND SOME CANDOR
Perhaps you have heard about the British spies exposed in Russia for hiding a transmitter in a rock. Yes, this is a real story.
>An espionage scandal redolent of the cold war unfolded Monday after Russia accused four British diplomats of spying...
A grainy black-and-white video, broadcast on state television on Sunday night and shown repeatedly again on Monday, was said to show a British diplomat picking up a fake rock that was said to conceal a communications device used to download and transmit classified information through hand-held computers.
The rock, the size of a watermelon, and the device, said to be able to transmit and receive data at distances of more than 60 feet, were seized near Moscow, prompting a search across the city for similar devices...<
I guess that puts the Brits, rather, between a rock and a hard place. Sounds like a case for George Smiley (for the uniformed, that is not the president of the United States, but a fictional character of John LeCarre.)
Or, perhaps, for Tony Blair, who, when asked about the matter, replied: “I'm afraid you are going to get the old stock in trade: 'We never comment on security matters,' except when we want to, obviously.”
Obviously. But Blair’s droll willingness to admit that most claims of sensitivity on national security matters are self-serving, is a huge leap for the truth. If I ran a newspaper, I’d probably headline this. “BLAIR ADMITS ‘NATIONAL SECURITY’ CLAIMS USUALLY HOGWASH”
THE REAL DANGER: LIBERAL PROFESSORS
Speaking of national security concerns, a conservative recent alumnus of UCLA has decided that there’s a dangerous subversive under every rock on campus. But academe is fighting back:
>A 24-year-old conservative alumnus who announced earlier this month that he planned to pay students at the University of California, Los Angeles, to tape-record the lectures of left-leaning professors backed down after U.C.L.A. officials informed him on Monday that he would be violating school policy.
The alumnus, Andrew Jones...says he is confident that students will volunteer to tape lectures or take detailed notes in an effort to expose their professors as liberal partisans who do not tolerate dissent in their classrooms.
...Mr. Jones started a nonprofit group called the Bruin Alumni Association to combat what his Web site terms "U.C.L.A.'s continued slide into political partisanship and indoctrination," enumerating a "Dirty Thirty" list of professors whose liberal leanings he considered egregious.
…Mr. Jones, a 2003 U.C.L.A. political science graduate and former president of the campus Republican group, had offered students $100 for tape recordings and lecture notes from a full quarter, $50 for just the handwritten notes and $10 for course handouts.
….Mr. Jones worked briefly during and after college for the conservative activist David Horowitz, who has been lobbying state legislatures to pass an "Academic Bill of Rights" to protect students with minority viewpoints from partisan professors.
Mr. Horowitz says he fired Mr. Jones, accusing him of pressing U.C.L.A. students to file false reports that they had been physically attacked by leftist activists. <
Boy. Fired by David Horowitz for overdoing it for the cause! That’s like being fired by Al Sharpton for seeking publicity.
PERKILY OPPOSED TO PERKS
So the papers are full of stories about congress members stampeding away from their lobbyist buddies:
>Skyboxes are suddenly empty. Trips have been canceled. Members of Congress and their aides are insisting on paying for their own meals — if they're willing to be seen in public with a lobbyist at all.
Even before new ethics rules have been put in place, the political corruption scandal sweeping down Washington's famed K Street corridor is disrupting life for those on both ends of the influence trade.
Jon Doggett, vice president of public policy for the National Corn Growers Assn., said he offered to take some Capitol Hill staff members to lunch last week, but was told they could not accept lunches from lobbyists anymore.
"I told one of them, 'I never bought your boss' vote with a $12 hamburger, did I?'<
The above was excerpted from a Los Angeles Times article co-bylined -- in a delicious coincidence -- by a Tom Hamburger, who presumably couldn’t be bought at all.
Of course, the big issue here is not hamburgers or even free golfing trips. It is that it is virtually impossible to get elected and retain one’s office without working regularly with lobbyists who provide, directly or indirectly, the campaign funds that are the oxygen of politics. Also, unless you’re wealthy when you get elected, you need to be thinking long-range about that big-bucks job waiting for you after you retire, as head of the insurance industry trade association, or as a lobbyist yourself.
The only way meaningful change will come is full public financing of congressional campaigns. If every candidate were given the same resources – and the same opportunity to take their case to voters, things would be dramatically different in America.
Also, congress members probably need to be paid more – that’s an expensive lifestyle, and hanging around constantly with people who wear nicer suits and make much more money is a virtual invitation to improper schemes to improve one’s lot.
BUNGLING ALITO
Speaking of reforming the way we elect members of Congress (and maybe opening the way for some fresh voices) check out this excellent New York Observer (January 23) treatment of how hot-air-loving Democratic veterans botched the chance to raise serious questions about Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.
>…others argue that the senior Democrats on the committee—Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Biden and Pat Leahy—blew their chances with a combination of endless speechifying and focusing on details of Judge Alito’s past. By the time the three junior Democrats on the committee—Mr. Schumer, Russ Feingold and Richard Durbin—began asking Judge Alito (relatively) rapid-fire questions about ideology, the tone had been set.
“If Schumer, Durbin and Feingold had done all the questioning, I think maybe this guy would be in some trouble right now,” said a former Democratic Judiciary Committee staffer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid antagonizing the Senators.
“They asked questions that exposed who Alito was rather than giving speeches.”
In particular, Mr. Schumer grilled Judge Alito on the question of whether the right to abortion is, like other constitutional interpretations the judge had committed to, “settled law,” and seemed to demonstrate that Judge Alito is likely to vote to overrule Roe v. Wade.
Mr. Schumer declined to comment on the performance of his colleagues or on the strategy of questioning Judge Alito’s ethics in hearing a case involving a company managing his savings, an issue that the New York Senator didn’t raise. And there seemed to be no coherent strategy on the Democratic side of the panel. The New York Times reported that, according to Democratic aides, “there had been even less strategy than usual in trying to coordinate the questioning by the eight Democratic senators.”<
While one can't help finding the old lions like Ted, Joe, and Pat sorta adorable, their stunning ineffectiveness over Alito does suggest that maybe they ought to make way for some new people. I’m available, how about you?
A MILLION EASY PIECES
Another good Observer piece weighs in on the controversy over James Frey’s “memoir”, A Million Little Pieces, in which Frey, taking no chances on poor sales, made just about everything up. (Yikes – sounds like George W. Bush’s 1999 memoir, “A Charge to Keep”)
The really shocking thing is how many publishers are equivocating over whether it is permissible to blatantly make up ‘facts’ of one’s life for a more readable memoir. This scandal is a leitmotif for our times – all standards are fungible.
>Jonathan Galassi, the publisher of the small and serious Farrar, Strauss and Giroux—the house whose book, Night by Elie Wiesel, was just announced as Oprah’s next book-club selection—had been out of town for most of the episode. “[Frey] is talking about his own personal experience, which he’s projecting in a very poeticized way,” Mr. Galassi said. “I kind of understand what Oprah is saying—that the basic message of the book is something that she can buy into, whether or not he enhanced certain things for dramatic effect.” Mr. Galassi added that the problem “would have been obviated by saying up front what you’re doing.” People are sometimes “reluctant to reveal their trade secrets” by putting disclaimers in books, Mr. Galassi said. “From a somewhat longer perspective, it’s not worth it.”
He added, however, that, in general, he agrees with [Gay] Talese.
“I would say, the closer to reality it is, the better it is,” Mr. Galassi said. “But that’s an artistic matter. I don’t think that it’s a great crime to change this or that, but I think it weakens your book.”
Mostly, it’s writers who have been left feeling deeply injured by the great Frey–debacle.
“Something that I feel very strongly about, as a writer of memoir and narrative nonfiction,” said Mr. Mendelsohn, “is that this guy has betrayed not only what shreds of conscience and integrity he may have—not only betrayed his readers, who he clearly doesn’t care about—but has betrayed the whole enterprise of memoir and nonfiction, because it means every time somebody picks up a book written by somebody who writes this kind of stuff, they’re less likely to believe it.” <
Amen, brother. Memoirs are non-fiction. Period. The most you should be allowed to get away with is your handling of strictly subjective elements and details that are hard to recall with certainty – who said exactly what, how people felt at the time. No making up arrests that didn’t happen, claiming you managed the Mets when you didn’t -- that sort of thing.
SEARCH (AND SEIZURE) ENGINES
Continuing on our accidental theme of secrets, truth and privacy, Slate has a fine piece today by Tim Wu, the Columbia law prof and author of Who Controls the Internet?
Wu writes about revelations that Microsoft and Yahoo responded to subpoenas by turning over to the government data on millions of internet searches. He notes that Google, which has resisted releasing the information, nevertheless keeps close track itself of what people are searching, creating a trove of material that could be misused in the wrong hands.
>In Google's Mountain View, Calif., campus, there's an LCD showing what's being searched for at any moment. A passing glance may reveal that information on "Depression" "martial [SIC?] counseling," or "anna kournikova" are all hotly sought after at a given time. The revelation that Google is fighting a Bush administration subpoena seeking to get hold of search records like these has, unsurprisingly, hit a lot of nerves. In part because it pits the Bush administration against Google—making the case a kind of a showdown of East coast against West; religion vs. science; Jedi Masters of information-seeking vs. Jedi Masters of information control, and so on.
…Google is being commended by many for standing up to the Bush administration. But however brave Google's current stance may be, the legal debate over Google's compliance misses the deeper and more urgent point: By keeping every search ever made on file, the search-engine companies are helping create the problem in the first place. In the wake of what we're seeing with this subpoena controversy, the industry must change the way it preserves and records our search results and must publicly pledge not to keep any identifying information unless required by court order. This has nothing to do with our mistrust of Google and everything to do with mistrust of the range of government actors—domestic and foreign—that Google must ultimately obey.
…Why is all this information being kept in the first place?
Google and other search engines argue—with some justification—that preserving search records is important to making their product the best it can be….But even though keeping such logs may make their product better, or more fun on the margin, the justifications for keeping so many secrets in such a vulnerable place are just too weak.
Imagine we were to find out one day that Starbucks had been recording everyone's conversations for the purpose of figuring out whether cappuccino is more popular than macchiato. Sure, the result, on the margin, might be a better coffee product. And, yes, we all know, or should, that our conversations at Starbucks aren't truly private. But we'd prefer a coffee shop that wasn't listening—and especially one that won't later be able to identify the macchiato lovers by name. We need to start to think about search engines the same way and demand the same freedoms.
It all goes back to this basic point: How free you are corresponds exactly to how free you think you are. And Americans today feel great freedom to tell their deepest secrets; secrets they won't share with their spouses or priests, to their computers. The Luddites were right—our closest confidants today are robots. People have a place to find basic anonymous information on things like sexually transmitted diseases, depression, or drug addiction. The ability to look in secret for another job is not merely liberating, it's economically efficient. But all this depends on our feeling free to search without being watched.
….The whole point of Chinese media control is to promote the sense that you are being watched, even if you aren't. That's not a feeling Americans should want or become accustomed to. We should want a country where we can assume that most of what we say disappears into thin air or cyberspace, because in the end that's the only way to stay sane.<
Great essay, and I heartily agree.
Of course, another way to stay sane is to stop Googling everything imaginable and go take a walk. Which is what I am about to do. (Still, I will have to contend with that van out there that follows me wherever I go, and makes it awfully difficult to stoop and recalibrate my rock….)
JUST WHAT AMERICA NEEDS: A RIGHT-WING TALKER!
This country obviously has way too many left-wing talk show hosts, so CNN has boldly decided to introduce a little balance.
[from Variety, via Romenesko]
Glenn Beck, who will do an hour-long show, is self-deprecating and cordial, says CNN Headline News president Ken Jautz. "He'd like to be able to disagree with guests and part as friends. It's conversational, not confrontational." The liberal media watchdogs at Media Matters report Beck has called Katrina survivors "scumbags," while a Wikipedia entry says the "cordial" Beck once told a caller, "Get off my phone you sick freak!"
OMERTA AT THE WHITE HOUSE
In today’s New York Times, Paul Krugman pointedly comments on how the White House has reacted to the exploding corruption scandal surrounding lobbyist Jack Abramoff and powerful governmentl figures:
>[Spokesman] Scott
McClellan has announced that the White House, contrary to earlier
promises, won't provide any specific information about contacts between
Mr. Abramoff and staff members.
So I have a question for my colleagues in the news media: Why isn't the
decision by the White House to stonewall on the largest corruption
scandal since Warren Harding considered major news?<
Well, why indeed? The media have given this administration an unprecedented free ride. Typically, on a good day, a White House reporter takes a couple of stabs at getting an answer, and then the pack quickly turns to something else.
It goes something like this:
Reporter: Scott, what about indications that the entire government is for sale?
McClellan: The president recently obtained an I-Pod over EBay.
Reporter: But how does the president feel about the arrest of a top White House procurement official with ties to Mr. Abramoff?
McClellan: As you know, we don’t comment on ongoing investigations.
Another Reporter: Scott, moving on, how’s the Draft Condi Rice for President movement coming along? And is that a new hairdo I see on the First Lady?
WHITE HOUSE GOOGLES YOU
Today’s big story, as you have probably seen, is the administration’s demand that web search services turn over data on billions of keyword searches
[per Los Angeles Times]
>Federal investigators have obtained potentially billions of Internet search requests made by users of major websites run by Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp. and America Online Inc., raising concerns about how the massive data trove will be used.
The information turned over to Justice Department lawyers reveals a week's worth of online queries from millions of Americans — the Internet Age equivalent of eavesdropping on their inner monologues. The subpoenaed data could, for example, include how many times people searched online for "apple pie recipes," "movie tickets 90012" or even "bomb instructions."
The Internet companies said Thursday that the information did not violate their users' privacy because the data did not include names or computer addresses. The disclosure nonetheless alarmed civil liberties advocates, who fear that the government could seek more detailed information later.
A Justice Department spokesman said the government was not interested in ferreting out names — only in search trends as part of its efforts to regulate online pornography. But the search-engine subpoenas come amid broader concerns over how much information the government collects and how the data are used.<
The only reason we even know about this newest revelation in the world of clandestine surveillance is because, alone among the big search engine companies, Google fought its subpoena. Which maybe partially makes up for that company’s own contribution to governmental suppression -- its cooperation with the Chinese authorities in shutting down online dissent in that country.
Anyway, with all the problems in the country and the world, it's interesting to note the Bush administration’s priorities. Clamping down on online porn? Or are they, like their Chinese friends, really more interested in suppressing political speech? Maybe they don’t like keyword search strings on the order of, oh, “Bush and Mao and Cultural Revolution and 'denounce your neighbor' and capitalism and communism and 'extraordinary rendition' and 'Republican convention' and 'Tienanmen Square' and Cheney and Forbidden City and Crawford and 'Cindy Sheehan'.” Or, even, " 'Hail to the Chief' and Doofus."
BRIEFING? EMPHASIS ON BRIEF
I’ve long fulminated about the ridiculousness of the so-called congressional “oversight” of the intelligence community. Oversight is supposed to mean overseeing something, but it also means, 'Oh, I screwed up, well, that was just an oversight.' For more on the subject, see this 2002 piece I did for The Nation.
Scarcely a day goes by when we don't hear how Congress is looking into this or that malfeasance or government catastrophe. But rarely are we told that Congress has barely a clue -- in good part because anything really worth knowing is kept from it on account of national security or some other excuse.
Today, the major papers, to their credit, did report the findings of the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, that the briefings the White House gave Congress about the warrantless NSA spying were "inconsistent with the law" and, practically speaking, totally pathetic. But the papers didn’t put it on the front page, where this revelation about the imbalance between the branches of government truly belongs. Until the public truly understands how the system works (or doesnt work), nothing will change. Nothing.
FINGERING THE BIGGEST PERPETRATORS?
So the couple who slipped that severed human finger into a bowl of Wendy’s chili got slammed hard for fraud. They’d tried to snooker the calorie kings into forking over some big bucks by claiming the finger came with the spicy fare. But their deceit was uncovered – in part because lab tests showed that the finger “was not consistent with an object that had been cooked in chili at 170 degrees for three hours.”
Also, according to the New York Times,
>…police officers also were never able to verify contentions by Ms. Ayala and two relatives that she vomited after spitting out the detached finger. The officers found no vomit at the scene, the affidavit said.<
(That was the ultimate paragraph in that article, perhaps setting some kind of new standard for style at the once studiously genteel newspaper.)
In any case, the man was sentenced to 12 years in prison, and the woman to 9 years; they also got hit with a $21 million restitution bill they’re not expected to pay.
Now, I’m all for throwing the cookbook at con artists of this ilk. But the sentence, as noted by the couple’s defense lawyer, does seem excessive in comparison to those faced by some white collar cooks whose massive corporate scams take tens of thousands to the cleaners. Plus, you can read elsewhere in the paper how Richard Scrushy, the CEO of HealthSouth accused of fraud, who got off scot free from a friendly mostly-black jury, apparently paid a columnist on a popular black paper to write favorable articles.
>A writer said yesterday that Richard M. Scrushy, the former chief executive of HealthSouth, paid her through a public relations firm to produce several favorable articles for an Alabama newspaper that he reviewed before publication during his fraud trial last year.
The articles appeared in The Birmingham Times, a black-owned weekly in Birmingham, Ala. Mr. Scrushy was acquitted in June in a six-month trial there on all 36 counts against him, despite testimony from former HealthSouth executives who said he presided over a huge accounting fraud. "I sat in that courtroom for six months, and I did everything possible to advocate for his cause," Audrey Lewis, the author of the articles, said in a telephone interview. She said she received $10,000 from Mr. Scrushy through the Lewis Group, a public relations firm, and another $1,000 to help buy a computer. "Scrushy promised me a lot more than what I got," she said. <
Besides that, Scrushy, a white gazillionaire not known for his appreciation of the gospel, suddenly started hanging out at black churches in Birmingham before his trial. Talk about sowing the fields.
Another article in The Times’ business section today is a rather sympathetic portrait of Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling, an accused mega-pillager, who we learn has frugally hand-furnished his legal team’s offices with material from Home Depot and ingenuity Martha Stewart might appreciate -- and who gives generously of his time to Jimmy Carter’s home-building charity, Habitat for Humanity (albeit on a judge's orders). Get the visual? Skilling is skilled--a builder and a leader of men. Not, by any means, a prospective jailbird.
If that light-fingered Wendy’s couple had more money, they’d certainly have had a better defense – and a better plea deal. Big bucks, big-time spin. Fast food, fast ticket up the river.
And Baker Muckraker, fast slipping into a good.... pre-weekend...... nap. Rest up, my pretties, more muckraking ahead.
MY PRIVILEGED INBOX
DEAR DIARY: I receive many important messages each day. Perhaps because people know of my fine reputation, they besiege me with kind offers of financial assistance, collaborations and so forth. I often hear from widows of former African leaders, from Nigerian oil company officials, from incredibly rich missionaries, all wanting me to help them deposit huge sums into American banks. And they even present me with the chance to make millions myself, for almost no work. If I had the time, of course I would get involved (just to be a good guy), but I am too darned busy already, earning a living.
Anyway, today I received a slightly different sort of e-mail, this one about a meeting. It sounds like something I should attend to.
Subject: meeting with Mr. Wilson
Russ,
My name is Kara Peterson and I am Mr. Wilson's executive assistant. Mr. Wilson sent you an invitation to meet last month regarding MRG. I will be coordinating a convenient time for the both of you to meet. In the essence of quality time, please review the following as a reminder of the reason for the meeting.
Meeting reminder <http://www.marketingresultsgroup.com/mjan.htm>
I want to make sure this is a good meeting for you and Mr. Wilson. Please read and fill out the following and I will schedule a call at a mutually beneficial time.
I admit I don’t really remember Mr. Wilson, or even his first name. (Nor have I clicked on the link, which you may not want to either) Was Mr. Wilson the crotchety neighbor on Dennis the Menace? Anyway, I’ll try to respond. I am sure it will be a good meeting.
CONGRESS MAKES ANONYMOUSLY
ANNOYING SOMEONE ON INTERNET A FEDERAL CRIME
The following opinion piece, about a real news development, obviously has nothing to do with the preceding item. [from CNET, via Progressive Review]
>Annoying someone via the
Internet is now a federal crime. It's no joke. Last Thursday, President
Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or
sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.
In other words,
it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you
do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.
This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet,
is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of
Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and
two years in prison. "The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly
problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American
Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be
annoying to someone else."
A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet,
you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.
"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate
telecommunications or other types of communications that are
transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet. . . without
disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or
harass any person. . . who receives the communications. . . shall be
fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." .
. . <
!! Hope this blog isn’t too annoying!!
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN OHIO
Blog readers may be familiar with my reporting about allegations of widespread fraud in the 2004 Ohio balloting, published by TomPaine.com. Inquiries I made into specific allegations did not turn up evidence of said fraud.
However, that’s not to say the Bush forces didn’t do everything in their power to win that election-swinging state.
One of those things may have been to suppress the story of how friendly fire killed an Army enlisted man from Ohio in Iraq, May 4, 2004. Apparently, things were so close politically and so sensitive in that state, that such a revelation could have been devastating to Bush.
This according to a fine piece in the Washington Post today. It reads like the murder mystery it may be, and has strong indications of a cover-up. There’s the president personally promising to look into it, then never getting back to the soldier’s grieving mother. There are many conflicting accounts and conflicting documents. This is an important story. Read it if you can.
IS THE CONGRESSMAN A FOOL? NEYYYYYY!
Speaking of Ohio, and dirty doings, today’s New York Times has an article about Ohio GOP Congressman Bob Ney, accused by lobbyist Jack Abramoff of being one of his colluders in a bribery scheme, with explicit quid pro quos involving golf trips and campaign contributions. Ney, who has just stepped down as chair of the House committee that hands out perks to members, denies any wrongdoing.
I don’t want to pass judgment, but I think that what one’s friends say in one’s defense is certainly telling. Here’s the single quote the Times published in that regard:
>"He keeps saying to me, 'As a friend, I didn't do it,' " said Neil S. Clark, a Republican lobbyist in Ohio who said he talked to Mr. Ney several times a week.
"Bobby has been a friend of mine for 26 years," Mr. Clark said. "He and I, when we were younger, we partied together, we lived in the same apartment complex. And I've never known Bobby to ever want to ruin his career."<
Boy, that’s one heck of an endorsement (and from a lobbyist, no less!)
Even when they partied together, Bobby never 'wanted' to ruin his career. I, on the other hand, always took time out from partying to remind my friends of my ultimate goal: to ruin my career. So, as I recall, did George W. Bush. And look where it got him.
MORE FALSE EQUIVALENCY
So Chris Matthews, who tries to make up for having worked way back for Democratic House Speaker Tip O’Neill by going after Democrats at every opportunity, weighs in on the Abramoff scandal.....
[per Media Matters]
>During a discussion of the Jack Abramoff scandal on the January 11 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews asked Cook Political Report editor and publisher Charlie Cook: "Charlie, don't you have to be a real ideologue, a real partisan to believe that one party's more crooked than the other? In terms of -- not in terms of ideas or of philosophy, but taking cash home with you and stuff like that?" Cook responded: "Yes, but the thing is, I think the country's more ideological in that sense, more partisan in that sense, than it's ever been before."<
Such inane comments – and from purported ‘neutral’ experts, no less. It doesn’t even make logical sense. The Dems have no power, so even if they wanted to pocket a lot of cash, who would be giving it to them?
MORE MEDIA MADNESS
I do believe, as I have said before, that MSNBC is trying to outfox (or at least outflank) Fox on the right. But Fox still has Bill O’Reilly, thank God:
[per Media Matters]
>On the January 11 edition of Bill O'Reilly's nationally syndicated radio show, Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew P. Napolitano asserted that "commentators" and "pro-life and pro-gun" activists would be "targets of warrantless searches" if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) were president.<
Sure, that’s a sound and responsible assertion! I imagine Hillary shared her intention with Mr. Napolitano.
TORTURE HERE THERE EVERYWHERE
It’s hard to keep up with all the revelations. This one, from Reuters Jan 12., doesn’t seem to have gotten much play:
>Documents tie shadowy US unit to inmate abuse case
>Newly released military documents show U.S. Army investigators closed a probe into allegations an Iraqi detainee had been abused by a shadowy military task force after its members used fake names and asserted that key computer files had been lost.
The documents shed light on Task Force 6-26, a special operations unit, and confirmed the existence of a secret military "Special Access Program" associated with it, ACLU lawyer Amrit Singh said on Thursday.
The documents were released by the Army to the American Civil Liberties Union under court order through the Freedom of Information Act. They were the latest files to provide details of the numerous investigations carried out by the Army into allegations of detainee abuse in Iraq.
A June 2005 document by the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command in Iraq described its investigation into suspected abuse of a detainee captured in January 2004 by Task Force 6-26 in Tikrit, deposed President Saddam Hussein's hometown. His name was redacted, but he was mentioned as the son of a Saddam bodyguard.
The man was taken to Baghdad international airport, documents stated. The United States maintains a prison there for "high-value" detainees.
He told Army investigators that U.S. personnel forced him one night to remove his clothes, walk into walls with a box over his head connected to a rope around his neck, punched him in the spinal area until he fainted, placed him in front of an air conditioner while cold water was poured on him, and kicked him in the stomach until he vomited, the documents stated.
Investigators could not find the personnel involved or the man's medical files, and the case was closed, the files stated. A memo listed the suspected offenses as "aggravated assault, cruelty and maltreatment."
"The only names identified by this investigation were determined to be fake names utilized by the capturing soldiers," the memo stated. "6-26 also had a major computer malfunction which resulted in them losing 70 percent of their files; therefore they can't find the cases we need to review."
The memo said the investigation should not be reopened. "Hell, even if we reopened it we wouldn't get anymore information than we already have," the memo stated.
Singh said previous documents indicated Task Force 6-26 was linked to other instances of detainee abuse in Iraq. "This document suggests that Task Force 6-26 was part of a larger, clandestine program that we think may have links with high-ranking officials, because obviously someone high up had the authority to put this program in place," Singh said in a telephone interview.
Army spokesman Paul Boyce said the Army had taken allegations of detainee abuse "extremely seriously." "The Army has gone to great extent in travel, interviews, documentation and concern to make sure that each and every allegation was thoroughly reviewed, thoroughly examined and, when appropriate, acted upon either through nonjudicial or judicial punishment," Boyce said.
A document stated Army investigators were not able to fully investigate suspects and witnesses because they were involved in the Special Access Program and due to the classified nature of their work. The task force is stationed out of Fort Bragg, North Carolina, the document said. The base houses the Army Special Operations Command.<
WHAT’S GOOD FOR GM NO LONGER SO GOOD FOR AMERICA
Yegads, folks. The following is from the London Independent [via Progressive Review]
>HALF OF BABY RATS FED GM SOYA DIED IN FIRST THREE WEEKS
Women who eat GM
[genetically-modified] foods while pregnant risk endangering their
unborn babies, startling new research suggests. The study - carried out
by a leading scientist at the Russian Academy of Sciences - found that
more than half of the offspring of rats fed on modified soya died in the
first three weeks of life, six times as many as those born to mothers
with normal diets. Six times as many were also severely underweight. The
research - which is being prepared for publication - is just one of a
clutch of recent studies that are reviving fears that GM food damages
human health. Italian research has found that modified soya affected the
liver and pancreas of mice. Australia had to abandon a decade-long
attempt to develop modified peas when an official study found they
caused lung damage.
Last May this newspaper revealed a secret report by the biotech giant
Monsanto, which showed that rats fed a diet rich in GM corn had smaller
kidneys and higher blood cell counts, suggesting possible damage to
their immune systems, than those that ate a similar conventional one.
The Russian research threatens to have an explosive effect on already
hostile public opinion. Carried out by Dr Irina Ermakova at the
Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian
Academy of Sciences, it is believed to be the first to look at the
effects of GM food on the unborn.<
Soy sorry, folks. Back to steaks? Or at least maybe a little improvement in labeling? Here is a group campaigning to have all products say whether they're genetically modified or not.
NOW THAT’S WHAT I CALL FAST FOOD!
Speaking of the more controversial aspects of food preparation....
TV CHEF SAYS COKE KEEPS KITCHEN WORKERS GOING
from the lovely Brit tabloid, the SUN [via Progressive Review]
>Telly chef Jamie Oliver has lifted the lid on Britain's restaurant kitchens - saying they are awash with cocaine. He claims young cooks are encouraged to snort the class-A drug to help them work long hours in the kitchen. Jamie, 30, hinted many famous chefs have been cocaine addicts. The School Dinners star said: "The kitchens in London are filled with drugs. And the cocktail of hot oil, sharp knives and cocaine is f*** lethal. "When I was 18, I remember being pushed into the loo, where some cocaine was lined up. "I was told to take it to make the night shift go easier but I blew it into the loo. I was too scared to take it. <
That must be where the tune, “Loo, Loo, skip to the Loo” comes from.
Maybe not. Anyway, now I'm wondering what they’re consuming over on the American set of Iron Chef, where the samurais of sushi, sautees and sorbets do their thing in a kind of frantic haze. (You can read here about my more wholesome adventures with Iron Chef Morimoto from the original Japanese show-- who seems to be one very straight guy, even if he does have a bit of a Ralph Lauren fetish.)
MILLERISH NEWS FROM IRAQ?
The New York Times has a big front page piece today about the insurgency falling apart. According to the article, some Iraqi insurgents are now training their weapons not on American troops but on other guerillas/freedom fighters/you-pick-the-term, particularly members of Al Qaeda. If this is true, it could represent a turning point in the Bush administration's effort to get the upper hand in that intractable conflict.
>The story told by the two Iraqi guerrillas cut to the heart of the war that Iraqi and American officials now believe is raging inside the Iraqi insurgency.
The battle, which the insurgents said was fought on Oct. 23, was one of several clashes between Al Qaeda and local Iraqi guerrilla groups that have broken out in recent months across the Sunni Triangle.
….But the split within the insurgency is coinciding with Sunni Arabs' new desire to participate in Iraq's political process, and a growing resentment of the militants. Iraqis are increasingly saying that they regard Al Qaeda as a foreign-led force, whose extreme religious goals and desires for sectarian war against Iraq's Shiite majority override Iraqi tribal and nationalist traditions.<
This certainly may well be correct, but several things trouble me about the story.
First off, this supposed development comes as the Bush Administration, facing mounting domestic criticism, launches a major new propaganda effort to show some kind of progress in Iraq.
Second of all, the whole notion of 'Al Qaeda' seems suspect since no one has gotten a handle on who is in those groups, whether they are mostly foreigners or Iraqis, and even the extent to which they are hierarchically organized.
Then, the article is entirely based on what some unverifiable total strangers tell the paper ("While American and Iraqi officials have talked of a split for months, detailed accounts of clashes were provided by men claiming to be local insurgents….”) And it is full of qualifiers: “said" "claimed” etc.
Having duly noted that American and Iraqi officials have been insisting for months that there is such an insurgent split, the article introduces these putative eyewitnesses, finally citing "American and Iraqi intelligence officials" as confirming the claims. There's a certain circularity which does not inspire confidence.
At the same time (unless I missed it) we as readers are given no sense of how the Times reporters even found these Iraqi insurgents. Who hooked them up? How did these “sources”, who live outside Baghdad, end up meeting with reporters in a Baghdad house? What’s the back story here?
One almost gets the impression that the meeting itself was arranged by the authorities. If that is true, we should be told. It would also be nice if news organizations could find some way to get into the areas where these incidents allegedly take place and check them out directly. Obviously, the dangers of traveling to those locales are great, but surely some telephone calls could begin the process of verification.
After all the problems The Times had over Judith Miller’s ingenuousness regarding Iraq, wouldn’t it be appropriate for Herculean fact-checking efforts prior to publishing articles that feel so speculative?
ALL’S FAIR IN CONGRESS AND BRIBERY
Although the sprawling Abramoff influence-peddling/bribery scandal doesn’t seem to touch Democrats in any significant way (despite attempts to implicate Dems who supported legislation favorable to Abramoff-linked Indian tribes) that doesn’t mean the Donkey Brigade doesn't have its share of sleazy operators.
Comes word via the Associated Press that Rep. William J. Jefferson, a Democrat, is accused of accepting bribes in return for helping with some business deals in Africa. A former Jefferson aide, Brett Pfeffer, has pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting bribery of a public official.
Mr. Pfeffer said in court that [Jefferson] had solicited his assistance in promoting business opportunities in Nigeria and Ghana. The congressman demanded 5 percent to 7 percent of the newly formed African companies in exchange for his help promoting the deal, Mr. Pfeffer said….
Mr. Jefferson was elected to the House in 1990, becoming the first black congressman from Louisiana since Reconstruction.
That’s all Louisiana needs -- another corrupt politician. And a corrupt one who represents the poorest of Lousiana's poor.
Of course, someone (Tom DeLay, maybe?) will have to explain exactly how taking money from African companies is so much worse than taking free trips abroad with funding from Russian companies or getting your wife a paid job at a phony nonprofit where she did next to nothing. Or selling out the whole government to the highest bidders among American corporations.
SETTING AN EXAMPLE
Speaking of people whose name includes "William Jefferson"....
Whatever William Jefferson Clinton’s pros and cons, it is hard to argue with the work he is doing as a former president, as reported in the New York Times.
>Former President Bill Clinton plans to announce today that his foundation has negotiated lower prices on AIDS tests and on two important AIDS drugs.
Four companies, from the United States, India and China, will offer rapid H.I.V. tests for 49 cents to 65 cents, which will reduce the typical cost of a test in poor countries by half, Mr. Clinton said in a written statement. Another four companies - three from India and one from South Africa - will make the antiretroviral drug efavirenz for as little as $240 per patient per year. One of the Indian companies, Cipla, will also make the antiretroviral abacavir for $447.
…The William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation acts as a broker, meeting with the health ministries of about 50 poor countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America and with drug makers. <
Clinton and Carter are looking pretty good in the ex-president sweepstakes. What about our current president's dad? Let's see -- I recall him getting something like a million dollars for a speech to the Moonies. Well, I guess that's something.
MUCKRAKER PRESCIENCE?
It all comes together at Muckraker.
Remember our recent, skeptical blog item about plans by evangelicals to build a theme park in Israel? And remember our recent item about the Rev Pat Robertson and his consistently deranged remarks? Well, now we can report some convergence. Israel is breaking off negotiations on the Dizzyland project because of Robertson’s suggestion that Ariel Sharon’s stroke was some sort of divine retribution.
According to the Times,
>"We cannot accept these statements, and we will not sign any contracts with Mr. Robertson," said Ido Hartuv, a spokesman for the Tourism Ministry.
Israel has been in advanced negotiations with American evangelicals over a proposal for a large pilgrimage and tourism center in the hills near the Sea of Galilee, where Jesus lived and preached. Mr. Robertson has been the leading figure in the negotiations. Mr. Hartuv said Israel would be willing to continue the talks without him.
….Under the proposal, Israel planned to provide at least 35 acres for the project, the Christian Heritage Center, and the evangelicals intended to raise $50 million for construction. Reports have said it would include a theme park, an auditorium and an outdoor theater.<
We can only hope that the differences are quickly resolved. I've been personally looking forward to checking out the rides in SodomAndGomorrahLand.
A LITO BALANCE, PLEASE
MSNBC (and NBC) apparently has a great idea – get to the right of Fox News. At least that’s how it looks with its lineup of talking heads. The following from Media Matters:
>Following MSNBC's live coverage of the first afternoon of Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s nomination hearing on January 9 -- during which the channel featured interviews with former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, former Republican National Committee chair Ed Gillespie, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) but no Democratic or progressive guests -- its prime-time coverage featured Buchanan once again, along with former Attorney General John Ashcroft, current RNC chairman Ken Mehlman, and former solicitor general Theodore B. Olson. For the entire day, the network included discussions with only two guests critical of Alito -- author and former Supreme Court clerk Edward Lazarus, who appeared with Buchanan on The Abrams Report, and Air America Radio host Rachel Maddow, who appeared on The Situation with Tucker Carlson during the 11 p.m. hour. On January 10, NBC's Today featured a single guest -- former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) -- in its report on the hearing.<
Next up: 12 Republicans disagree over how to decorate Alito's Supreme Court office....
BLITZING BLITZER
Let it be said that I find CNN's Wolf Blitzer very likable – and am sure I would enjoy being a guest on one of his shows, or even just sharing a convivial schmooze over milk and cookies. But, he really does typify the rather lame attempts by media figures to show they are not liberal by falling over the other way.
[from Media Matters]
In an interview with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) during CNN's live coverage of Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s January 9 confirmation hearing, Situation Room host Wolf Blitzer began by asking Kennedy: "It sounded, based on your opening statement, as if you have already made up your mind. You are going to oppose this nominee. Is that right?" Yet during a subsequent interview with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), Blitzer never questioned whether Frist had already decided how he was going to vote on the Alito nomination, even though Frist praised Alito as a "well-qualified man of high integrity" whose "mastery of the law" is "of the highest level."
POOR MRS ALITO
You’ve probably heard that she left the hearing room in tears over the rough treatment her husband was facing. She really doesn’t deserve much sympathy. She married the guy, and sticks by him even as he can’t recall practically any of the fairly despicable things he has done or advocated in years past -- including espousing views that would set Mrs Alito and her gender back many decades.
Not to be too much of a cynic, but isn’t Mrs. Alito’s crying a convenient distraction, and a handy way to try and posit that the critics are mean-spirited? A Rove-ian distraction, I would say: Everyone who supports good manners, get out there and support Alito! And so yet another political conflict becomes a family values issue.
WEIGHTY REPORTING
The New York Times today published the fourth and last in a terrific series about the rapidly-growing scourge of diabetes -- much of it caused by poor diets -- and how it is paralyzing whole swathes of New York City’s population (to say nothing of the rest of the country.)
Unfortunately, one wonders how many of the would-be victims even read The Times. Not many, according to generally-accepted circulation figures cited by the New York Post:
>The New York Times lost almost 20 percent of its readers in the five boroughs between 2001 and 2004 as the paper pushed to reinvent itself as a national publication. The Times' daily circulation in New York City dropped 18.7 percent during that period, to 260,526 copies from 320,682, according to figures obtained by The Post and confirmed by the Times.
….The biggest drop among the boroughs was in The Bronx, where the number of copies fell to 12,644 papers from 18,296, a decrease of 31 percent. Those results include bulk copies — those given away or sold at a steep discount to schools, hospitals and other institutions. <
That’s astounding: just 12,644 papers sold in The Bronx, a borough with more than 1.3 million people, the vast majority working-class or poor. The Times, judging from the subject matter of its features on botox and ads for glittery baubles, is clearly after an affluent national audience, but that raises the question of who is going to see these important articles. Doctors, yes. Policymakers, yes. And -- cynics will note -- journalism awards committees. But the poor and poorly-informed whose lifestyle and eating decisions contribute to this tragic and worsening situation? They won’t see it.
As the ranks of newspapers continue to dwindle, and as ordinary Americans abandon reading the news altogether, one wonders how we are going to get the word out on crucial matters like this. And one has no idea.
GAGGING AT GITMO
Speaking of diet, Muckraker recently blogged about a New York Post dispatch from that paper's swashbuckling columnist Steve Dunleavy, who visited Guantanamo and described it as hardly more severe than Club Med, but with better food.
Now, here’s a slightly different take from the UK’s Observer:
>New details have emerged
of how the growing
number of prisoners on hunger strike at Guantanamo Bay are being tied
down and force-fed through tubes pushed down their nasal passages into
their stomachs to keep them alive. They routinely experience bleeding
and nausea, according to a sworn statement by the camp's chief doctor,
seen by The Observer.
'Experience teaches us' that such symptoms must be expected 'whenever
nasogastric tubes are used,' says the affidavit of Captain John S
Edmondson, commander of Guantanamo's hospital. The procedure - now
standard practice at Guantanamo - 'requires that a foreign body be
inserted into the body and, ideally, remain in it.' But staff always
use a lubricant, and 'a nasogastric tube is never inserted and moved
up and down. It is inserted down into the stomach slowly and directly,
and it would be impossible to insert the wrong end of the tube.'
Medical personnel do not insert nasogastric tubes in a manner
'intentionally designed to inflict pain.'
It is painful, Edmonson admits. Although 'non-narcotic pain relievers
such as ibuprofen are usually sufficient, sometimes stronger drugs,'
including opiates such as morphine, have had to be administered. . .
The London solicitors Allen and Overy, who represent some of the
hunger strikers, have lodged a court action to be heard next week in
California, where Edmondson is registered to practice. They are asking
for an order that the state medical ethics board investigate him for
'unprofessional conduct' for agreeing to the force-feeding.<
Doubt it’s just a case of not wanting to eat one’s peas and carrots.
RELIGION ON THE MARCH
Periodically, Muckraker likes to point out the small ways in which organized religion helps, well, organize us. Here are a few examples:
From CNN:
>At least 345 people have been killed in a stampede during a symbolic stoning ritual at the annual Hajj pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia, according to the country's Health Ministry.<
-[via Media Matters:]
>National Clergy Council founder and president Rev. Rob Schenck appeared to question the religious devotion of those who prayed for miners trapped in a West Virginia mine, then warned that "God rebuked nations who only turned to Him in their most extreme moments of need." <
And, Rev Schenk is back again in this item from the Wall Street Journal:
>Insisting that God "certainly needs to be involved" in the Supreme Court confirmation process, three Christian ministers today blessed the doors of the hearing room where Senate Judiciary Committee members will begin considering the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito on Monday.
Capitol Hill police barred them from entering the room to continue what they called a consecration service. But in a bit of one-upsmanship, the three announced that they had let themselves in a day earlier, touching holy oil to the seats where Judge Alito, the senators, witnesses, Senate staffers and the press will sit, and praying for each of the 13 committee members by name.
"We did adequately apply oil to all the seats," said the Rev. Rob Schenck, who identified himself as an evangelical Christian and as president of the National Clergy Council in Washington.<
SPEAKING OF APPLYING OIL…
From the Guardian [via Progressive Review]
>Jesus was almost
certainly a cannabis user
and an early proponent of the medicinal properties of the drug,
according to a study of scriptural texts published this month. The
study suggests that Jesus and his disciples used the drug to carry out
miraculous healings. The anointing oil used by Jesus and his disciples
contained an ingredient called kaneh-bosem which has since been
identified as cannabis extract, according to an article by Chris
Bennett in the drugs magazine, High Times, entitled Was Jesus a
Stoner? The incense used by Jesus in ceremonies also contained a
cannabis extract, suggests Mr Bennett, who quotes scholars to back his
claims. "There can be little doubt about a role for cannabis in Judaic
religion," Carl Ruck, professor of classical mythology at Boston
University said. . .
"If cannabis was one of
the main ingredients of the ancient anointing
oil _ and receiving this oil is what made Jesus the Christ and his
followers Christians, then persecuting those who use cannabis could be
considered anti-Christ," Mr Bennett concludes.<
Hmmm. Psychedelic anointing oil? Isn't that what Rev. Schenk was putting on all the seats at the Alito hearings? Maybe that explains why it all seems so far out, dude.
HEAVY BREATHING
Noticed the following as Top items on CNN.com Monday morning:
• Vice President Cheney hospitalized with shortness of breath
• Mine survivor breathing on his own
Has this ever happened before? Bizarre.
And, as long as we're talking about heavy breathing, the New York Times, in its efforts to grow a younger reader base while newspapers still exist, has a feature today on the Oscar-equivalent for the porn industry.
Together with Kurt Eichenwald's increasingly-controversial Times story [fee required to read] in which he rescues a young man from the world of online porno, I detect a whiff of voyeurism. That's not to say this material isn't important, it's just to acknowledge the changes going on at that once-Grey Lady.
>The actress known as Tyla Wynn took to the stage late Saturday night to accept an X-rated-film award, the pornography version of an Oscar. The category was excellence in a multiperson sex scene.
Larry Flynt, publisher of Hustler, was among those at Saturday's ceremonies. Although thousands of people have watched Ms. Wynn perform intimate acts, she admitted to extreme nervousness when accepting her trophy, an opaque rectangle with the image of a man and woman intertwined.
"Speaking in front of people is hard," Ms. Wynn said, cradling her award, called the AVN. <
Or, as the president likes to say, it's "haaaaaard." And no, R.I., that was not off-color humor. (Or was it?)
HERE’S A LITO SECRET ABOUT “CONFIRMATION”
How much faith do you have in the confirmation process? Unfortunately, the title says everything: “confirmation.” It doesn’t say “verification.” When one party has a majority, all of the words uttered until the person is confirmed are pretty meaningless. Nominees are h