Open Left - Bush Administration

Tortured

Betsy L. Angert — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 18:16:03 GMT

Never for a moment in my life have I been "in love." I do not believe in the notion. Fireworks have not filled my heart. Flames of a fiery passion do not burn within me. Indeed, my soul has not been ablaze. Thoughts of a hot-blooded devotion seem illogical to me. Such sentiments always have. Fondness too fertile is but torture for me. I admire many, and adore none. For me, the affection I feel for another is born out of sincere and profound appreciation. To like another means more to me than to love or be loved. Excitement, an emotional reaction to another, rises up within me when I experience an empathetic exchange with someone who has glorious gray matter.

Today, it happened. I felt an a twinge that startled me. I stood still as he entered the room. I expected nothing out of the ordinary, or at least nothing other than what has become his recently adopted, more avoidant, routine. Although long ago, I had become accustomed to his face, his voice, and his demeanor, for I have known the man for more than a few years. In the last few weeks, while essentially he is who he always was, some of his stances have changed. Possibly, Barry has felt a need to compromise his positions, but I wonder; what of his principles.
Early on, I knew that he and I differed in some respects. While we each loathe drama, I was never certain if he felt as I do; love need not be a tortuous trauma. Barry spoke of the need to work together. Yet, not necessarily in aspect of life. At times, he advocated aggressive actions I could not consider. This, for me, caused much confusion. Nonetheless, I liked the man I saw before me.

I recall the day we first met, face-to-face. We shook hands. He smiled. Barry was polite, not pushy. Amiable is the way I would describe him. Then, the second time we saw each other, we had a more extensive conversation. He took my hand in his. We each spoke with greater sincerity. As Barry and I chatted, he looked me straight in the eye. He listened to my personal tale. Visibly, he pondered the story I shared. Barry responded so genuinely to my inquiry, albeit an unconventional concern, I was surprised. Indeed, I was impressed, although less than I was when I read what he had written.

His books moved me. The more autobiographical tome endeared him to me. His notes on hope did not lack the spirit to inspire me. As one who "loves" to learn, which differs from the impulsive idea that I might be "in love," a person that can kindle my earnest thirst for knowledge truly electrifies me. I recall the moment I read the text that, all these years later, still resonates within me. Barry humbly offered, in a discussion of empathy . . .

It is at the heart of my moral code, and it is how I understand the Golden Rule - not simply as a call to sympathy or charity, but as something more demanding, a call to stand in somebody else's shoes and see through their eyes.

Barry told tales of his mother, his grandfather, and how through his interactions with each he realized there is reason to think "about the struggles and disappointments" others have seen in their lives. Reflection helped the younger Barry understand, every individual is not solely right or wrong. If he were to insist that, his way was the only approach that worked, "without regard to his [or her] feelings or needs, I was in some way diminishing myself." Such awareness, such a superior soul; Barry showed what I believe to be a human's greatest strength, vulnerability. Were I to have a heart to win, the words of this gentle-man could have surely swept me off my feet.

Even his calm demeanor is as I desire and live. Those close to me wonder of my own emotional tranquility. From his manner and manuscript, it would seem Barry believes as I do. Empathy elicits equilibrium. Today, he seemed to embrace this notion once again. We can choose to love our neighbors. We need not torture "those who are different from us."

Near noon, on April 23, 2009, at the Holocaust days of Remembrance Ceremony, Barry, the now President of the United States, Barack Obama spoke of this belief again. Once more, I felt a pang for the person who oft-expressed a profound connection to the feelings of another. The sweet soul who can bring me to tears, did so once again. On this historic occasion, Barry shared a profound realization through a personal story. The subject; the Holocaust and the torture our forebears felt or beheld.

In the face of horrors that defy comprehension, the impulse to silence is understandable. My own great uncle returned from his service in World War II in a state of shock, saying little, alone with painful memories that would not leave his head. He went up into the attic, according to the stories that I've heard, and wouldn't come down for six months. He was one of the liberators -- someone who at a very tender age had seen the unimaginable. And so some of the liberators who are here today honor us with their presence -- all of whom we honor for their extraordinary service. My great uncle was part of the 89th Infantry Division -- the first Americans to reach a Nazi concentration camp. And they liberated Ohrdruf, part of Buchenwald, where tens of thousands had perished.

Stunned, by the saga, and the words that preceded the legend, I began to believe again. Perhaps the Barry I admire had a change of heart. Policies he never fully embraced, might not seem reasonable to him now.

During the campaign, Barry, Senator Barack Obama only promised to investigate, not to prosecute. Many months ago, before the August 2008 declaration, and thereafter, I had thought his stance reflected his vast ability to empathize. Yet, in the light of the ample evidence, most if not all of which affirms the Bush Administration engaged in extreme methods of interrogation, President Obama still supports or chooses to sustain a position that negates empathy for the victims. I shudder to think of how the Seventh Generation might be affected.

Hence, I am left to question what I thought was truth. Was the empathy I envisioned not as sincere as I hoped it to be? Perchance that is why, for me, love is as torture. I have faith no one has the power to disappoint me. Only my choices can be a source of much concern. For as long as I can recall, I have observed, once infatuation fades, we learn as I had before Barry entered the Oval Office. He is but another human. He embraces and then forgets, the power of empathy and the force of our past?

When, in homage to Holocaust victims, and survivors of a heinous hostility that forever stains world history, I sensed he knew. As I looked on, I forgot the setting. Intent on the torrent of news on torture techniques I read and heard throughout the day, I made an erroneous connection. As Barry, President Obama spoke of the deeds done in decades past, and those crimes committed by the previous Administration, I imagined the man I thought I knew meant to express empathy for those who suffered at the hands of Americans. The Chief Executive, on behalf of the United States avowed.

Their legacy is our inheritance. And the question is, how do we honor and preserve it? How do we ensure that "never again" isn't an empty slogan, or merely an aspiration, but also a call to action?
I believe we start by doing what we are doing today -- by bearing witness, by fighting the silence that is evil's greatest co-conspirator.
In the face of horrors that defy comprehension, the impulse to silence is understandable.

I cried. Tremendously thankful for the oratory, indeed, I must say, for a second, I was elated. I wondered. Had the person many think beloved, the individual I at least treasure, decided to rescind his prior position?

Might he have rejected the thought offered recently; "nothing will be gained by our time and energy laying blame for the past,"

Could it be the Holocaust Remembrance Ceremony helped the President to renew his faith in his earlier expression; "(H)istory returns "with a vengeance . . . "(A)s Faulkner reminds us, the past is never dead and buried -- it isn't even past." I hoped.

Perchance, he had worked through a struggle I too experience. As one who has no desire to hurt others, even those who have physically and psychologically harmed individuals, and our country's image, how might I think prosecution is just?

I truly embrace such an honorable ability to seek no retribution. Indeed, I may not fall "in love"; nonetheless, I would hope to live love.

I feel harsh reprisals are never wise. I also accept the enduring wisdom of a finer balance. I have experienced the need to empathize and the conflict of what I might do if one I treasure intentionally injures another. I have come to discover, if deleterious deeds are allowed to stand, sooner or later the other, I, and perchance, society will be subjected to adulterations that individuals or a culture cannot endure.

Awful actions we accept, avoid, or merely do not acknowledge become a foundation for the future. Humans inure. Lest we forget the Milgram shock experiment of decades ago, or the knowledge that when repeated in the present, proves again, as a Psychologist, Thomas Blass, espoused in "The Man Who Shocked the World." Milgram extrapolated, to larger events like the Holocaust, or Abu Ghraib. "people can act destructively without coercion." "In things like interrogations, we don't know the complexities involved. People are under enormous pressure to produce results."

I wonder how many Americans came to accept violence as a necessity on September 11, 2001. On that dreadful day, a date that now lives in infamy, all Americans were placed in a precarious position. With the threat of terror etched into our every cell, each of us had to ask, what were we to do. In the 2004 edition of Dreams From My Father, the Barry, who I trusted to be so thoughtful whispered his woe for what might occur once the "world fractured." He penned . . .

This collective history, this past, directly touches my own . . .
I know, I have seen, the desperation and disorder of the powerless: how it twists the lives of children on the streets of Jakarta or Nairobi in much the same way as it does the lives of children on Chicago's South Side, how narrow the path is for them between humiliation and untrammeled fury, how easily they slip into violence and despair. I know that the response of the powerful to this disorder -- alternating as it does between a dull complacency and, when the disorder spills out of its proscribed confines, a steady, unthinking application of force, of longer prison sentences and more sophisticated military hardware -- is inadequate to the task. I know that the hardening of lines, the embrace of fundamentalism and tribe, dooms us all.

Those are the words of the Barry I was inspired to meet, the person I was reminded of when he stood with an audience of individuals who never forget the agony of torture. Today, as that empathetic soul, the President referred to the future, the generations to come, he stated, "We find cause for hope" when "people of every age and faith and background and race (are) united in common cause with suffering brothers and sisters halfway around the world." I thought of the detainees at Guantánamo Bay prison, and the prisoners at Abu Ghraib and the need to empathize with victims of "extreme duress."

Oblivious to the purpose of this particular speech, in my moment of stupor, I surmised Mister Obama had not only accepted the association, but perhaps had realized what could occur if the transgressions of the previous Administration were allowed to stand as if all was in the past.

"Barry," Barack, the Commander-In-Chief, further elucidated; "Those [persons] can be our future . . . (D)uring this season when we celebrate liberation, resurrection, and the possibility of redemption, may each of us renew our resolve to do what must be done. And may we strive each day, both individually and as a nation, to be among the righteous.

I imagined the reference was to empathy, to the paradigms I too embrace. Punishment offers no benefits for people. Yet, there is a need to prosecute the culpable, to ensure that people are answerable for the most atrocious aggressions. It is vital, if we wish to prevent the numbness that humans so easily adopt, we must bring torture to the full light of day. Torment executed in our names, I think Barry would agree, hurts us. Surely, General and President Eisenhower did. Mister Obama acknowledged this only hours ago .

Eisenhower understood the danger of silence. He understood that if no one knew what had happened, that would be yet another atrocity -- and it would be the perpetrators' ultimate triumph.
What Eisenhower did to record these crimes for history is what we are doing here today. That's what Elie Wiesel and the survivors we honor here do by fighting to make their memories part of our collective memory. That's what the Holocaust Museum does every day on our National Mall, the place where we display for the world our triumphs and failures and the lessons we've learned from our history. It's the very opposite of silence.
But we must also remember that bearing witness is not the end of our obligation -- it's just the beginning. We know that evil has yet to run its course on Earth. We've seen it in this century in the mass graves and the ashes of villages burned to the ground, and children used as soldiers and rape used as a weapon of war.

Barry knows what President Obama. spoke of in his address at the Holocaust Day of Remembrance Ceremony Love needed not be tortured. Expressions of fondness are found in empathy, not extreme duress.

President Eisenhower understood as I had hoped, on this day, Barry Obama had. What occurs far from view is never truly unseen. Nor can avoidance erase the scars left on a heart. While as a country, or as individuals we may prefer to retreat to the attic as President Obama's great uncle did, in truth, it is impossible to forget.

People who participated know this to be so. A belatedly brave Federal Bureau of Investigation agent, Ali Soufan, tell his tales of sorrowful love in My Tortured Decision. The mediator recalls how for seven years he has remained silent about the false claims magnifying the effectiveness of the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding. Mister Soufan, as General Eisenhower did before him saw the need to "shed light on the story, and on some of the lessons to be learned."

I inquire; what will Barry do, and what of President Obama. Will the man who once held my hand and professed a need to be empathetic do as he declares his commitment? "(W)e have an opportunity, as well as an obligation, to confront these scourges." Might he instead do as he hopes we will not, "wrap ourselves in the false comfort that others' sufferings are not our own,"

I can only hope Barry will encourage the President to heed his own call. "(W)e have the opportunity to make a habit of empathy; to recognize ourselves in each other; to commit ourselves to resisting injustice and intolerance and indifference in whatever forms they may take -- whether confronting those who tell lies about history, or doing everything we can to prevent and end atrocities like those that took place . . ."

Let us never forget Guantanamo Bay prison, Abu Ghraib, or any America penitentiary camp, need not be our holocaust. Tales of tortured love need not be an American truth.

References for tortured love . . .

Remarks by the President at the Holocaust Remembrance Ceremony. United States Capitol. April 23, 2009
Our New Sort of War, It might be the most dangerous of all. By Victor Davis Hanson. National Review. April 16, 2009
Obama calls situation in Afghanistan 'urgent'. Cable News Network. July 21, 2008
Obama Challenges Grads to Cultivate Empathy, by Barack Obama. Northwestern University. June 19, 2006
How Obama Did It, By Karen Tumulty. Time. June 5, 2008
Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, By Barack Obama. 2004
Statement of President Barack Obama on Release of OLC Memos. Office of the Press Secretary. White House. April 16, 2009
On Interrogation Policies, Another Delicate Compromise From Obama, By Ben Pershing. Washington Post. April 17, 2009
he Audacity of Hope, By Barack Obama
Would Obama prosecute the Bush administration for torture? By Mark Benjamin. Salon. August 4, 2008
Science Chief Discusses Climate Strategy, Obama Adviser Hints at Compromise on Cap-and-Trade Emission Allowances. By Juliet Eilperin. Washington Post. Thursday, April 9, 2009; A02
A Guide to the Memos on Torture. The New York Times.
Decades Later, Still Asking: Would I Pull That Switch?, By Benedict Carey. The New York Times. July 1, 2008
William Faulkner.
My Tortured Decision. By Ali Soufan. The New York Times. April 23, 2009
In 2002, Military Agency Warned Against 'Torture, Extreme Duress Could Yield Unreliable Information, It Said. By Peter Finn and Joby Warrick. Washington Post. Saturday, April 25, 2009

Tea Parties; Taxes and Torture Served

Betsy L. Angert — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:50:26 GMT

I am a discontent and distressed taxpayer! "Disgruntled" is a word that might describe my deep dissatisfaction with how my tax dollars are spent. Yet, on April 15, 2009, typically thought of as "Tax Day," I felt no need to join my fellow citizens in protest. I did not attend a "Tea Party". I too believe, in this country, "taxation without representation" is a problem. One only need ponder the profits of lobbyists to understand the premise. Corporate supplicants amass a 22,000 percent rate of return on their investments. The average American is happy to realize a two-digit increase. Nonetheless, as much as I too may argue the point, assessments are paid without accountability, what concerns me more is my duty dollars did not support what I think ethical projects.
My cash funded the unconscionable and the President stated "nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past."

Had outrage for criminal intent and actions been voiced, I too might have rallied round bays and buildings with buckets of brewed leaves in hand. Yet, it seemed amongst the tea teetotalers, no one was incensed by the illegal, and what I believe to be immoral practices.

Tea Tossed
The "Teatime" participants I heard did not mention the myriad of misery Americans inflicted on adversaries. Fury for the previous Administration's torturous policies did not appear in the papers, or, at least, I did not read these statements. Talk of the recently released memorandums (pdf) did not evoke much discussion. The current crop of "grassroots" demonstrators spoke of how the Obama budget might burden their personal lives. Angry activists vocalized a preference not to pay levees. Few, if any, reflected on the benefits received.

While our grievances may differ, we share a conviction. I too am troubled by what the Obama Administration, which I helped to elect, thinks correct.

Taxes Paid
However, unlike the anxious Americans who voiced their dissent for levees paid, I am happy to give my tax dollars to the government. For me, funds that help supply public services are vital. I welcome the opportunity to better ensure there will be police, firemen, and women. I take comfort in the knowledge children and adults may use libraries to peruse quality books. I embrace legislation intended to better instruction. In my life the importance of education cannot be understated. Bridges built and maintained, roads paved, traffic signs and signals, functional sanitary sewer systems, and diseases controlled and prevented . . . As a concerned citizen, I am glad I can contribute to these ventures.

I object to what I think unlawful and debauched. I cannot condone interrogations authorized and acted upon, in my name. My angst is exacerbated by the current Administration assertion; these crimes are not punishable by law. Those who tortured only did as was commanded. At the time, the Department of Justice declares, "superiors" stated such harsh techniques were legal.

Torture Tolerated
What I would call cruel and unusual punishment, the prior President, his Vice, and Cabinet thought proper. Each Executive stated these torturous measures were necessary to protect Americans. The people heard proclamations that what "we" did was justified. It was effective. Only months ago, Vice President Dick Cheney explained; "The professionals involved in that [so-called torture] program were very, very cautious, very careful -- wouldn't do anything without making certain it was authorized and that it was legal. . . (I)t's been a remarkably successful effort. . . . I think those who allege that we've been involved in torture, or that somehow we violated the Constitution or laws with the terrorist surveillance program, simply don't know what they're talking about." (Memos aside. Please peruse Torture Memorandums. )

Dick Cheney and his compatriots seem to distinguish between citizens of this country and those who might be identified as "foreigners." To further elucidate the spokesperson for the Bush White House stated; "These are not American citizens. They are not subject, nor do they have the same rights that an American citizen does vis-à-vis the government."

The newer Administration may concur; civil rights afforded to our countrymen may not be offered to individuals classified as combatants. While I disagree with that contention, I do believe as the Obama White House does. International Law states, all living creatures have an inalienable right to be treated humanely.

Thankfully, President Obama and his Cabinet condemn tortuous practices. Yet, the current Administration announced there is no need to prosecute. Mister Obama affirmed, "(A)t a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past."

I must ask; does this declaration ensure history will be repeated? Individuals such as I accept that tribunals will not transform what was. Punishment may not convince those who engaged in criminal behaviors to change. I seek no retribution. Yet, I do think there is a need to prosecute the culpable. Humanitarian principles lead taxpayers such as I to declare, torture, by any definition cannot be tolerated. As a society, we have seen how people are easily numbed by what peers think, say, and do. Studies show the prevalence of video violence has an influence on what we later think is acceptable.

In America, ideally, not ideologically, we understand profound principles unite us. The greater good, the commonweal, take precedence over individualism. As is inscribed in the Preamble of the Constitution "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity do ordain and establish" in this country, we care. Our fellow citizens, and future generations matter to us.

Perhaps this profundity explains why concerned citizens, those who happily contribute to tolls are distressed by the Obama Administration's declaration, there will be no prosecution.

Persons such as I, who are troubled by torture, understand the past permeates the present and will be the future, if what is worrisome is avoided, accepted, or is left unattended. We, the peaceful people who are proud to pay levees of love, are not comforted by an act of contrition. Nor does the knowledge that President Obama released the memorandums as required by law reassure us.

If intentionally inflicted physical and psychological harm can be characterized as just, and some Conservatives, such as the former Vice President, Dick Cheney, thinks it does, then it makes sense to tax payers who supported the previous President to sanction the acts outlined in recently released memorandums as sound.

Many Conservatives share this sentiment, although not all. Lest we forget former Presidential candidate John McCain's succinct statement on one the techniques the Bush Administration authorized. "They should know what it [waterboarding] is. It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture." A man who lives with the memory of being a Prisoner of War, the Arizona Senator emphatically stated, torture is ineffective. That is until Presidential politics altered his position.

Could it be that candidate McCain did as the current President has done, bow to a constituency that does not demand prosecution for what the United States has defined as criminal since its inception.

Opposition to torture was verbalized before the United States became a nation. The Declaration of Independence reminds residents of this territory, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

In 1863, in the midst of the brutalities of the Civil War, President Lincoln forbade his forces from acts of cruelty, including torture. After the barbarities of World War II, America led an emergent community of United Nations to adopt in 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with its provision that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment (Art. 5)."
In 1975, the United States aided in the United Nations adoption of a separate Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. In 1988 President Reagan signed and in 1994 the United States ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the most comprehensive legally binding international treaty prohibiting the use of torture. The U.N. Convention's prohibition against torture is absolute, without exceptions.

It was only during the 2006 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (pdf) that the United States turned a blind eye on its history. Perchance the topic of terror, or the threat envisioned as the Twin Towers fell turned Americans against principled actions.

Tax and Terror Codes; Reviled, Renewed, or Rejected?
No one can know with certainty what caused a country or countless within the continent to reject the prescribed canon that is the United States Constitution. Nonetheless, it is clear, the American people do not insist political power be checked. Collectively, cynicism was and is adopted. With that acquisition, the country accepted deplorable directives. The American populace chose to forego authentic representation. Hence, the electorate allowed for the more heinous atrocities that followed. Today, only personal financial concerns bring people to their feet and out onto the streets.

The transition was subtle. Distrustful of government, the public grew to expect the worse. Now we receive it. We pay for torture and are pleased when a President proclaims of "a dark and painful chapter in our history," this too shall pass. Personally, I fear it will not. My fellow citizens did not address my angst when they dumped dried evergreen shrubs on lawns or in a bay. The President's decision to disregard what he too called interrogation techniques outlined in the official communication that "undermine our moral authority and do not make us safer" does not bring me joy.

While I did gladly pay my financial assessments, and I did not voice my dissent for torture with tea, I remain a discontent and distressed taxpayer.

References for a dire reality . . .

Tax Day Is Met With Tea Parties, By Liz Robbins. The New York Times. April 16, 2009
Investments Can Yield More on K Street, Study Indicates, One Tax Break Brought Companies 22,000% Rate of Return on Lobbying Costs. By Dan Eggen. Washington Post. Sunday, April 12, 2009; A08
Interrogation Memos Detail Harsh Tactics by the C.I.A., By Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane. The New York Times. April 17, 2009
President Obama's Statement on the Memos. Text. The New York Times. April 16, 2009
Torture Memorandums. U.S.. Department of Justice. Office of Legal Counsel. The New York Times.
Justice Department Releases Bush Administration Torture Memos. Bradbury And Bybee Memos Are Released In Response To Long-Running ACLU Lawsuits. American Civil Liberties Union. April 16, 2001
Where Do Your Tax Dollars Go? - Tax Day 2009. National Priorities Project.
Income Tax Chart - 2009. National Priorities Project.
War Resisters League.
Mad as Hell at Teatime, By Eugene Robinson. Washington Post. Friday, April 17, 2009
What Distracts Us from Impeachment? By David Swanson. The Humanist. November/December 2007
Declaration of Independence. Indiana Law.
Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. Adopted by General Assembly resolution 3452 (XXX) of 9 December 1975. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
United Nations Convention Against Torture, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. United Nations. 1994
Law School Past Shapes Obama's View On Justices, By Nina Totenberg. All Things Considered. National Public Radio. October 30, 2008
Transcript: Cheney Defends Hard Line Tactics, Jonathan Karl Interview. ABC News. December 16, 2008
From Universal Prohibition to Universal Eradication of Torture: Developments of International Law Standards. By the President and Fellows of Harvard College. Harvard Human Rights Journal / Vol. 14. Spring 2001
Cheney defends war on terror's morality. Office 'consequential' because Bush wanted it. By Jon Ward. The Washington Times. December 18, 2008
Peer pressure pushes people to go green. MarketPlace. January 6, 2009
The Influence of Media Violence on Youth. By Craig A. Anderson, Leonard Berkowitz, Edward Donnerstein, L. Rowell Huesmann, James D. Johnson, Daniel Linz, Neil M. Malamuth, and Ellen Wartella. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. Volume. 4, NO. 3, December 2003
Obama Releases Torture Memos, Vows Not to Prosecute, By David Kravets. Wired. April 16, 2009
Obama: Memos' Release Required By Law. CBS News. April 16, 2009

Weekly Pulse: Not In Kansas Anymore: Sebelius Tapped to Lead HHS

The Media Consortium — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:30:54 GMT

By Lindsay Beyerstein, TMC Mediawire Blogger

The Obama administration unveiled two major nominations on Monday: Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius for Secretary of Health and Human Services and Nancy-Ann DeParle for health czar. The czar is responsible for shepherding healthcare reform legislation through Congress and the Secretary will be responsible for implementing the plan.
Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation, but we'd like to remind everyone that In These Times floated Sebelius' name for HHS in September of 2008; Ramon Castellblanch wrote:

Three major obstacles face the next secretary. One, tens of millions of Americans lack health insurance. Two, any attempt to deal with this crisis will result in the private insurance industry — and its lobbyists — swooping in to turn policy changes into a windfall for itself. And three, for eight years, the department has been crippled by low morale and staff departures caused by Bush administration mismanagement.The next secretary must have the ability to help undo this damage.

Castellblanch argued at the time that Sebelius was the right person for the job because of her executive experience as governor, her knowledge of the insurance industry, and her strong progressive values.

Julie Burkhart of RH Reality Check writes of Sebelius' record as governor, "[Gov. Sebelius] has been a tireless advocate for expanded health care for pregnant women, for comprehensive and medically accurate sexuality education and for more accommodating adoption statutes."

Naturally, the right wing hates the Sebelius nomination because of the governor's strong pro-choice record, but there doesn't seem to be much they can do about it.

Anti-abortion groups are insinuating that Sebelius is a close ally of Dr. George Tiller, a Kansas physician who performs late-term abortions. Operation Rescue has tried unsuccessfully to shut down his clinic for years, making Dr. Tiller the White Whale of the Kansas anti-abortion movement. The alleged smoking gun is the revelation that Sebelius invited Tiller to the governor's mansion for dinner. As Ezra Klein points out in the American Prospect, Tiller and his staff did dine with Sebelius, but only because they placed the winning bid at fund raising auction.

Burckhart reports in RH Reality that the Speaker of the Kansas House, Mike O'Neal, introduced two anti-choice bills on Tuesday in an attempt to embarrass the governor on abortion. Presumably, he hopes to force Sebelius to veto the bills before her confirmation hearing.

Senators Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts of Kansas, both conservative Republicans, have pledged to support Sebelius. Brownback says abortion is murder. So, it might seem odd that he's supporting the ardently pro-choice Sebelius. Once again, home state boosterism triumphs over the "rights of the unborn." Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly concludes that Sebelius' confirmation is all but assured: If Operation Rescue can't even pick up Sam Brownback, the religious right doesn't have the political muscle to sustain a serious senate fight.

The liberal group Catholics United is also supporting Sebelius, Sarah Hepola reports in Salon.

As governor, Sebelius proposed that the state provide health insurance for every uninsured child in Kansas from birth to age five. In 2008, Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones praised Gov. Sebelius for vetoing a voter-disenfranchising ID law and nixing unhealthy coal-fired power plants.

Sebelius's record as a reform-minded insurance commissioner may provide a preview of coming attractions at HHS. Sebelius served as commissioner from 1995 to 2002. As a candidate, she signaled her independence by refusing campaign contributions from the insurance industry. As insurance commissioner, Sebelius backed a number of pro-consumer reforms for health insurance including a patient's bill of rights, mandated maternity coverage, and enhanced privacy protections. Sebelius also blocked a proposed merger of Kansas' non-profit health insurance company, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, by a for-profit company because the deal would have increased insurance premiums and forced hospitals to turn away patients who couldn't pay. The insurance companies fought Sebelius all the way to the Supreme Court and lost.

Obama's pick for health czar, Nancy-Ann DeParle, is a health policy veteran from the Clinton administration. Matt Cooper of Talking Points Memo notes that she is married to New York Times reporter Jason DeParle.

Nancy-Ann DeParle currently works for a private venture capital firm and serves on the boards of various medical device companies. There was speculation that the Obama administration might scrap the health czar post all together after former Sen. Tom Daschle was forced to abandon his confirmation bid when his income tax irregularities came to light. Ezra Klein writes in the Prospect that DeParle seems like an odd choice given the health czar's portfolio as the president's top liaison to Congress on health care reform:

The reason it's hard to evaluate DeParle is because it's not clear what she -- or the Office of Health Reform -- is meant to be doing. The OHR, remember, was built for Daschle: He wanted space in the West Wing where he could run the policy and politics of the health reform process. But few expect DeParle to assume a similar role. The OMB and the NEC have taken a central role in policy design and it's hard to imagine the Office of Health Reform muscling control of the process away from them. Daschle was a political heavyweight whose particular basket of congressional-liaison qualifications is not reproduced in DeParle.

DeParle must, of course, resign from the boards of medical device companies before she takes the job. According to the Obama administration, DeParle's recent affiliations present no conflict of interest--time will tell whether that assertion bears up under scrutiny.

On the whole, Sebelius and DeParle are two strong picks to advance Barack Obama's healthcare reform agenda. If confirmed, these two nominees will bring energy and experience to the fight.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care. Visit Healthcare.NewsLadder.net for a complete list of articles on healthcare affordability, healthcare laws, and healthcare controversy or follow us on Twitter.

And for the best progressive reporting on the ECONOMY, and IMMIGRATION, check out, Immigration.NewsLadder.net and Economy.NewsLadder.net.

This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and created by NewsLadder.

Weekly Audit: Budget Good, Bailout Bad

The Media Consortium — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 14:47:15 GMT

By Zach Carter, Media Consortium MediaWire Blogger

President Barack Obama rolled out his highly anticipated federal budget proposal on Thursday, and while the plan represents a dramatic departure from the priorities of the Bush administration, its ultimate impact may be crippled by a counterproductive bank bailout.

First, the good news: The budget is awesome.
"Obama would raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for healthcare for the uninsured; cap pollution emissions; put billions more dollars into infrastructure and new technology; ... invest in new education programs; and roll back the U.S. troop presence in Iraq," Mike Madden writes for Salon. "There were proposals to save money by modernizing the healthcare system ... and by eliminating federal farm subsidies to the biggest and wealthiest recipients."

While it's refreshing to see a set of priorities that put economic stability ahead of entrenched corporate interests, Obama's call to reduce the federal deficit comes as a bit of a surprise. He has inherited a massive recession and defecit. Over at The American Prospect, Ezra Klein highlights an analysis of spending by Media Consortium alum Brian Beutler. Both bloggers agree that government debt is not a major problem, provided that borrowed funds are used to invest in something meaningful.

"Debt can be good if you expect that spending will offer a greater return than saving," Klein writes. "And right now, because Treasury bonds are the last safe investment, it's the cheapest it's been for the government to borrow money in 50 years."

Republicans are screaming about the enormous deficit that Obama's budget requires, but most of that debt was passed down by President George W. Bush. Obama has actually taken cues from Congressional Republicans to find funding for financial shortfalls. Steve Aquino of Mother Jones notes that Obama's move to raise premiums on Medicare received by wealthy Americans is a longstanding Republican priority. Additionally, Obama's move to cap the itemized deduction tax subsidy at 28 cents on the dollar would re-establish Reagan-era levels.

But the line items missing from Obama's budget are just as noteworthy. The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen dissects the Republican angst over Obama's refusal to push for cuts in Social Security benefits. During his speech before Congress last week, Obama breezed right by the alleged Social Security crisis without asking elderly Americans, who have already seen their 401k plans cut in half over the past year, to take further cuts in their retirement income.

That's a good thing, because as Matthew Rothschild explains for The Progressive, Social Security's looming implosion is a Republican myth. "Social Security isn't going bankrupt," Rothschild writes. "It's fully funded until 2041, and could remain so for many more years simply by making the wealthiest Americans kick in their share."

The income limit for Social Security taxes is $105,000 a year, so billionaires pay the same Social Security as those making $105,000 annually. If Social Security ever does run into trouble, it can be easily fixed by charging rich people more for the program.

On to the bad news.

The government bailed out Citigroup and its shareholders for the third time on Friday, converting $25 billion in preferred stock into ordinary, run-of-the-mill, we-own-this-company common stock. But while Citi's stock market value was hovering around $13 billion at the time, taxpayers only received a 36% stake in return for their largesse.

The Real News has a great interview with economist William Engdahl about the banking lobby's ability to exercise control over public policy, despite the industry's self-inflicted collapse. Engdahl argues persuasively that it is time for the government to stop propping up bank shareholders under the hope that "market prices" will magically appear for worthless assets. "Write those assets, those toxic assets, down to zero," Engdahl says. "Only the state can do that at this point. You don't find the market price for these things."

The government has been playing for time for the last 18 months in hopes that the financial crisis could iron itself out. Rather than reward investors who put money into bad companies, Engdahl says Obama needs to wipe out the shareholders of failed banks and kick out the management teams that steered their companies into catastrophe.

Playing for time was the central economic strategy of Henry Paulson's tenure as Treasury Secretary, but as Lagan Sebert and David Murdoch make clear in the below video for The American News Project, Paulson also managed to slip in major giveaways to big U.S. banks in the process.

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) allowed the government to inject capital into banks, but Paulson charged them a much lower than market rate of return on the investment. As a result, taxpayers missed out on about $78 billion that they could have expected to receive in interest payments had their money been managed by, say, Warren Buffett instead of Paulson. To put that number in perspective: President Obama's entire plan to avert foreclosures will cost taxpayers $75 billion.

The U.S. banking system is completely broken and will need an enormous taxpayer commitment to return to any semblance of health. But there are good ways and bad ways to go about doing that. A bailout should be accompanied by control over how a bank is managed.

The banking industry is working very hard to portray TARP as something other than a bailout. When Northern Trust, for example, throws decadent parties after receiving taxpayer funds, its executives justified those lavish expenditures by claiming that their company was not "bailed out," but merely received capital which it is paying for. The pricing of TARP was so favorable to banks and so disadvantageous for taxpayers that this claim cannot be taken seriously. Northern Trust got a bailout, and even if they pay back their TARP funds ahead of time, the interest they are paying is so far below market rates that the company will still be coming out ahead.

Obama's budget shows that he knows what it takes to turn the economy around, but his financial policy indicates that he lacks the political will to shake off the banking lobby and do what is necessary to save ordinary Americans from disaster.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the economy. Visit StimulusPlan.NewsLadder.net and Economy.NewsLadder.net for complete lists of articles on the economy, or follow us on Twitter.

And for the best progressive reporting on critical health and immigration issues, check out Healthcare.NewsLadder.net and Immigration.NewsLadder.net.

This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and was created by NewsLadder.

Levin on Torture: "There Needs To Be An Accounting"

Chris Bowers — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 21:35:14 GMT

At the progressive media summit, Senate Armed Services Chair Carl Levin just said that "there needs to be an accounting of torture in this country." He was adamant that torture was a policy initiated at the highest levels of the Bush administration, and pointed the assembled media to a report on his website indicating as much. I cannot find this report on either the Armed Services website at this time, or on Levin's Senate page. ~~If anyone else can find it, please post a link in the comments.~~ Edit (Dan): Here it is.

Additionally, Levin insisted that he would continue his investigation on torture policies within the Department of Defense until it is completed. He urged the Senate Intelligence committee to do the same for torture policies initiated by the CIA. Further, Senator Levin indicated that he had urged Attorney General nominee Eric Holder to spend resources in the Department of Justice to finish the investigation.

Earlier, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had indicated that he would provide all Senate committees with additional resources (money and staff) so that, among other things, investigations of the sort Levin was engaged in could be expanded and completed.

Finally, Senator Levin insisted that Eric Holder would be confirmed as Attorney General despite today's delay tactics by Arlen Specter. Also, while I did not have a chance to ask Senator Levin if he intended to introduce legislation to mirror House Judiciary Chair Conyers's bill on a commission to investigate Bush administration crimes, I should have a chance to do so later today. Stay tuned.

Pelosi Supports Investigating Bush Administration

Chris Bowers — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:43:35 GMT

HR 104, a bill by House Judiciary Chair John Conyers to create a commission to investigate Bush-era crimes, took a step forward yesterday when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi signaled her support. From the Young Turks:

Pelosi who famously remarked in 2006 after Democrats won control of both Houses of Congress that "impeachment is off the table" indicated during an interview with Fox News she was willing to support legislation proposed by House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers to create a blue-ribbon panel of outside experts to probe the "broad range" of policies pursued by the Bush administration "under claims of unreviewable war powers," including torture and warrantless wiretaps.

But told by Fox News' Chris Wallace that President-elect Barack Obama signaled his unwillingness to support efforts to investigate the Bush administration, Pelosi countered, saying, "I think that we have to learn from the past, and we cannot let the politicizing of the - for example, the Justice Department, to go unreviewed. Past is prologue. We learn from it. And my views on the subject - I don't think that Mr. Obama and Mr. Conyers are that far apart."(...)

Pelosi said issues related to the politicization of the Justice Department will require Congress to "look at each item and see what is a violation of the law, and do we even have a right to ignore it, and other things that are - maybe time spent better looking to the future rather than to the past."

The pre-season prediction of the House being more progressive than the Senate appears to be holding true to form. On Wednesday, the House will pass legislation to place increased transparency, oversight and conditions on TARP funds, even though the Senate, led in this case by Baking Chair Chris Dodd, is currently refusing to pass similar legislation. The same can be said of HR 104 as there is currently no equivalent legislation in the Senate to investigate Bush administration crimes.

There is a glimmer of hope, however. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island has said that he intends to investigate the Bush administration:

"I think that there's a lot that remains to look at, and I appreciate that President Obama doesn't want to make it his purpose as a new president, with America in real distress in many directions, to go back and look at all this, but I think we in Congress have an independent responsibility, and I fully intend to discharge that responsibility," Whitehouse said.

I have placed a call to Senator Whitehouse's office on this matter, inquiring as to whether the Senator intends to introduce legislation similar to HR 104 in the Senate. I have not heard back yet, and I do not imagine that I will hear back before Wednesday given the holiday and festivities, but this is another great example of a piece of progressive legislation that needs a little help to get through Congress. As such, it is legislation we will work to try and pass.

Speaker Pelosi Proclaims Possible Impeachment

Betsy L. Angert — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 21:26:22 GMT

Speaker Nancy Pelosi on prosecuting the Bush administration

She said it! I never thought this day would come. Change has truly arrived in America, even before the Presidential Inauguration. Today, on Fox News, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, the only person who could, the woman who for so long would not, stated, she is Open to the Prosecution of Bush Administration Officials. Oh joy! Oh, bliss. Never did I imagine this moment might become a reality. Even the idea that this could be a possibility eluded me. Today, on January 18, 2009, finally, I have hope. I believe in the future, as Michelle Obama expressed, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country, or I will be when I see an actionable censure.
I, as the future First Lady, elucidated, feel "privileged." to witness a transformation that most never thought probable, let alone a viable potential. I am elated. I hold my breath, and await what could be if only she authorizes Congress to act.

Could it be true? Indeed, an investigation into high crimes and misdemeanors might commence. At least that is what an anxious nation heard as Nancy Pelosi spoke these words. "I think you look at each item and see what is a violation of the law and do we even have a right to ignore it." The California Democrat who holds the highest office in respect to this process continued, and mused that there might be "other things that are, maybe, spent better looking to the future rather than to the past."

The nuance causes much concern. Conservative Constitutional, and International Affairs Attorney, Bruce Fein, who advocates for a Bush/Cheney impeachment, may not think the sentiment sufficient. The former Associate Deputy Attorney General under Ronald Reagan, might wonder if the Speaker offered too little. The decision is very late. Still, the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation scholar, Bruce Fein, might feel as I do. While the statement Speaker Pelosi shared is not all I had hoped for, it is a beginning.

Perchance the judicious John Nichols, a Journalist, might believe Nancy Pelosi's newfound wisdom is not as poignant as it could have been. I know not what the man who prudently penned The Genius of Impeachment thinks of this novel declaration. However, I trust he too was touched by what he often said he waited for, a window of opportunity.

I, personally, feel blessed for the prospect of an investigation into practices that were injurious to democracy. More importantly, I yearn for the day when the millions of displaced Iraqis and Afghanis experience a rightness. For too long, these persons suffered from a wrong that most feared would be a precedent never corrected.

The innocent thousand times a thousand, troops, civilians, women, and children, who lost their lives needlessly in these same two Middle Eastern countries, I believe, would want no vengeance. I have faith, the fallen would wish to know, they did not die in vain. Their demise might elicit a dream. There will be a day when people realize all that is done in our name matters, people, of any and every race, color, and creed make a difference. A life taken without cause could be the lesson that will teach a world. A realization for what is right, is not a shame. It is the blessing the dearly departed deserve.

Those willing to right a wrong will not be blamed, if by their actions, no more high crimes and misdemeanors are committed.

There is much to be considered and remedied. There are authorizations for illegal wiretaps to rescind. The loss of habeas corpus cannot be denied. Propaganda that passed for press reports must be addressed. The blindfold that stands for fairness must be replaced in what has become a politicized Justice Department. Guantánamo Bay prison and torture "legitimized" cannot stand if humane treatment of prisoners is to matter. Geneva Convention Rules must be sustained if there is to be a modicum of honor in war.

Much must be addressed if America is ever to be acclaimed. There is a fierce urgency to now. Perhaps, at last, Nancy Pelosi feels it. Fox News reported that the Speaker "hinted that the law might compel Democrats to press forth on some prosecutions, even if they are politically unpopular." Wow! I await. Until then, I will hold the words of the California Democratic Leader dear, "That's not up to us to say that doesn't matter anymore. I want to see the truth come forth."

Nancy Pelosi, so too do I.

References for a new reality . . .

Transcript: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on 'FNS' Fox News. January 18, 2009
Pelosi Open to Prosecution of Bush Administration Officials. Fox News. January 18, 2009
Michelle Obama: For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. Breitbart TV. February 18, 2008
John Nichols. The Nation.
The Genius of Impeachment; The Founders' Cure for Royalism. By John Nichols. The New Press.
Bill Moyers Journal; Transcript. Impeachment. Bruce Fein. Public Broadcasting Services. July 18, 2007
Carts Before Horses, Impeachment inquiry first, ask questions later. By Bruce Fein. Slate. Friday, August 31, 2007

Please peruse a history of thoughts on a possible of impeachment. View videos. Ponder the precedence set if, as Americans, we do not embark upon the trail of Constitutional Law. Please, consider what was and will be if prosecution is not pursued. I thank you.

Democrats Avert Dennis Kucinich Privileged Resolution; Impeach Cheney

Impeachment; Not Impossible. Bush Cheney Censure Begins with You

Tough Talk on Impeachment; Bill Moyers Journal

Impeachment; Bush and Cheney Convict of Constitutional Crimes

Wexler, Gutierrez, Baldwin, Kucinich, and the People Call For Cheney Censure

Impeach. Support Increases for Censure of Cheney and Bush

Today's Journalism: Stimulus, Investigating Bush, and Wall Street Bailout

Chris Bowers — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:11:40 GMT

Today, I placed calls into several congressional offices, looking into the stimulus package, investigations of the Bush administration, and the second phase of the Wall Street bailout. Here is what I found:

1. Foreclosure relief and bankruptcy reform not in the stimulus: With a draft outline of the stimulus package currently circulating, I contacted a congressional aide who confirmed to me that the provisions of HR 225 and S 61, allowing bankruptcy judges to re-write mortgages according to current home values, did not appear to be included and was overall unlikely to be included. Given our efforts on this front earlier in the week, this is unfortunate. However, the aide expressed optimism that this aspect of foreclosure relief and bankruptcy reform would be attached to a near-future, omnibus Foreclosure Relief bill that House Finance Chair Frank will be moving forward later in the session (aka, later this year).

2. How will Senator Whitehouse investigate the Bush administration? Pursuant to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse's comments on NPR two days ago, that he intended to investigate the outgoing Bush administration:

One Democratic senator who sits on both the Judiciary and Intelligence committees said Congress does need to see the secret legal opinions drafted for Vice President Dick Cheney by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. Rhode Island's Sheldon Whitehouse considers those opinions a blot on the Justice Department.

"I think that there's a lot that remains to look at, and I appreciate that President Obama doesn't want to make it his purpose as a new president, with America in real distress in many directions, to go back and look at all this, but I think we in Congress have an independent responsibility, and I fully intend to discharge that responsibility," Whitehouse said.

I called Senator Whitehouse's press office to see if the Senator intended to introduce mirror legislation to HR 104, a bill by House Judiciary Chair Conyers to create an independent commission to investigate Bush-era crimes. The press office did not know at this time, but they would get back to me in a day or two once they have the answer.

3. Will there be new conditions, transparency and oversight on bailout funding? Finally, pursuant to a Politico article that Senate Banking Chairman Dodd might not introduce mirror legislation to House Finance Chair Frank's HR 384, which places tough conditions, transparency and oversight on the use of TARP money:

Obama's team will draft a letter laying out some assurances on how it would spend the money, and Dodd says it should be broadened beyond the financial sector to include commitments to help stave off home foreclosures, more accountability and tighter requirements on executive compensation for private companies that receive TARP funds.

Dodd said he's prepared to draft legislation, mirroring a bill proposed by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass) last week, to call for a broadening of the TARP program and for more oversight, but he said that a letter from Obama's team - instead of additional legislation - could be sufficient to alleviate concerns in Congress.

I called Senator Dodd's office and asked if Senator Dodd intended to introduce mirror legislation to HR 384 (which is currently being debated in the House). No response has been received at this time. I will have to keep trying.

****

These are three of the stories I am following right now. We have entered a new moment where not only are Democrats actually passing a huge amount of legislation, but where they are willing to talk to progressive media about it. As such, if you want me to look into other aspects of these stories, or into other congressional stories altogether, I can do so. Let me know what you want to see in the comments. The doors really are open right now. Let's take advantage of this.

Update: As per the comments, I have added broadband and high-speed rail funding as the next issues I will make inquiries about. And, keep in mind that I started asking Dodd's office about mirror legislation because of commenter debcoop, too. I really will take your concerns to the Hill. Just let me know.

Reversing Last-Minute Bush Admin Regulations

Chris Bowers — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:27:17 GMT

One of the first items the new session of the Senate will vote on will be S 8, the vaguely named "Returning Government to the American People Act." The bill, which has already been placed in the Senate calendar and is thus eligible for action on the floor of the Senate, is a placeholder for a broad new Democratic effort to review, and then reverse, many of the regulations the Bush administration instituted during its final weeks. These include regulations such as a "conscience clause" allowing health care workers broad latitude to deny certain medications and procedures on the grounds of religious beliefs (read here: medications and procedures related to reproductive rights).

These and other right-wing landmines are being laid to help trip up the new administration, and progressive governance. Rooting out these last-minute regulations would be a great way to start cleaning up the mess left by the Bush administration. As part of that effort, S 8 reads (more in the extended entry):

It is the sense of Congress that--

(1) the Bush Administration should not rush into effect major new controversial regulations in its closing days;

(2) the incoming Administration, working with the Congress, should review and, if appropriate revise or reject such `midnight regulations'; and

(3) if legislation is necessary to ensure the new Administration has this opportunity, that Congress should enact, and the President should sign, such legislation.

Now, there are good reasons to be dubious of any legislation that merely expresses a "sense of Congress," as such pieces of legislation are often just empty gestures that accomplish nothing. However, a source on the matter indicates that S 8 is only the beginning of the process, not the end. In this light, S 8 is merely the starting point of a broad effort to review all regulations put in place by the Bush administration during its final weeks. Thus, the upcoming vote on S 8 actually will have a useful purpose: providing a baseline of support in the Senate for this process. If there are any conservative Democrats who are opposed to this effort, or any Republicans receptive to the idea, the upcoming vote on S 8 will let us know.

There is already a House version of S 8, introduced by Representative Gerald Nadler. It is HR 34, and, unlike S 8, it is a fleshed out piece of legislation, rather than just a shell. This bill nicely compliments the commission proposed by John Conyers to investigate Bush administration crimes. Further, both bills have been referred to the judiciary committee (one of the four committees to with the Conyers bill was referred). As such, I would like to start our progressive legislation monitoring project with both HR 34 (the Nadler bill) and HR 104 (the Conyers bill). Both work on cleaning up the mess left by the Bush administration.

One roadblock on this front is that the judiciary committee does not have its new members up yet, and we won't be able to develop a baseline of committee support for either bill until it does. In fact, most committees have not announced their new member lists yet, and it will be difficult for us to proceed with this project until they do. If anyone can assist in finding complete House committee member lists, it would be of great help.

Investigating The Bush Administration

Chris Bowers — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:45:05 GMT

Change.gov has their responses to the second round of "open for questions" up. The most popular question came from Bob Fertik, who asked:

"Will you appoint a Special Prosecutor (ideally Patrick Fitzgerald) to independently investigate the gravest crimes of the Bush Administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping?"

This question has received a decent amount of media play, as it is featured by Keith Olbermann and George Stephanopoulos. The latter teases that he asked Obama this question in an interview for "This Week" tomorrow morning.

Change.gov's response to Fertik's question was a bit of a non-answer, quoting Biden from three weeks ago:

Vice President-elect Biden, 12/21/08: "[T]he questions of whether or not a criminal act has been committed or a very, very, very bad judgment has been engaged in is--is something the Justice Department decides. Barack Obama and I are--President-elect Obama and I are not sitting thinking about the past. We're focusing on the future... I'm not ruling [prosecution] in and not ruling it out. I just think we should look forward. I think we should be looking forward, not backwards."

While not ruling out investigation, Biden's response makes it clear that such investigations will not be a priority. It is a safe bet that Obama will provide a similar answer tomorrow morning.

This is an instance where we do not have to wait for the Justice Department, however. Given that, in the U.S. House, John Conyers has introduced legislation to set up commissions to investigate the Bush administration, this could actually be a perfect starting point for the progressive legislation monitoring project. Starting on either Monday or Tuesday, we could call the Democratic members of the four(!) committees to which the Conyers bill, H.R. 104, has been referred, and ask them if they support it. In so doing, we can find out who is blocking the bill on our end.

Now, I did not originally list H.R. 104 as one of the pieces of legislation for the project to start with, because it is just a commission rather than an actual investigation. If no one is actually going to be prosecuted, this might not rise above the level of a resolution condemning something or congratulating someone. However, it is something that a lot of netroots activists and media types are both interested in, so I am willing to make it one of the bills we start with if there is enough support here. To go along with it, I will try to find another piece of legislation that has been referred to each of the four committees in question, so that we are asking members about more than one bill. If we can find out about more than one piece of legislation with each contact, it would make the monitoring project much more efficient.

So, I'd like to hear from you. Let me know what you think about starting with H.R. 104, creating a commission to investigate Bush-era crimes, in the comments. Also, in the extended entry, I have included a poll on the matter.

A Detailed Analysis of the Bush Legacy in Picture Form

Living Liberally — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 01:00:00 GMT

Laughing Liberally To Keep From Crying
by Lee Camp

Midnight (De-)Regulation and the Myth of A 'Center Right Nation' -- Part 2: Hiding The Ball

Paul Rosenberg — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:06:37 GMT

In my earlier diary, Midnight De-Regulation and the Myth of A 'Center Right Nation' -- Part 1: The Environment, I presented a list of Bush Administration midnight de-regulations of environmental protections, as an example of how unpopular center-right policies really are enacted in this supposedly "center-right" nation--so unpopular that they are done quickly and stealthily in the dead of night, with as few witnesses as possible-a dead giveaway of the real popularity of such policies. In this diary, I want shine a bit more light on the particulars of how this happens. I'll get into that on the flip. But first, just so you understand it's not just environmental protections that are being hit, here's a few other examples of last-minute changes Bush is pushing for on the way out the door:

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (Department of Transportation) - The rule would allow truck drivers to drive up to 11 consecutive hours. Because of the effects of fatigue, longer hours-of-service periods put both truck drivers and other motorists at risk.
Department of Justice - The rule would expand the power of state and local law enforcement agencies to investigate potential criminal activities and report the information to federal agencies. The rule would broaden the scope of activities authorities could monitor to include organizations as well as individuals, along with non-criminal activities that are deemed "suspicious."
Employment Standards Administration (Labor) - The rule would limit employee access to family and medical leave. Among other things, the rule would make it more difficult for workers to use paid vacation or personal time to take leave and would allow employers to speak directly to an employee's health care provider.
Department of Health and Human Services - The rule could reduce women's access to federally funded reproductive health services. The rule would require health care providers to certify they will allow their employees to withhold services on the basis of religious or moral grounds or risk losing funding.

Back in early September, OMB Watch Executive Director Gary D. Bass wrote an illuminating commentary, "Bush's Last-Minute Rush to Dismantle Public Protections". In it, he explained how the Bush Administration had actually pretended that it wouldn't be pulling this sort of last-minute shenanigans:

In May, White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten issued a memo that set deadlines for agency regulations during the remaining months of the Bush administration. Bolten said he wanted to stop last-minute regulatory activity - commonly known as midnight regulations. To avoid this, except in "extraordinary circumstances," Bolten said agencies should propose regulations that they want to finalize no later than June 1 and that all final rules should be published by Nov. 1.

This is a joke, right?

Right:

Now that the June 1 deadline has come and gone, it appears there are a lot of "extraordinary circumstances" to be found. Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed a rule that could have far-reaching impacts on women and family planning decisions. The rule allows health care professionals at institutions that receive government money to opt out of providing abortion and sterilization if such services create a problem of conscience for the provider. HHS would require the institutions to certify they are complying with federal laws that allow health care workers to withhold services on the basis of religious or moral grounds. Violations could lead to loss of funding.
After first leaking a proposed rule that would have defined many contraceptives as abortion, HHS published a rule that leaves ambiguous the scope of services that might be curtailed.
The proposed rule was published on Aug. 26, long after the Bolten June 1 deadline, and the Bush administration is gaming the system to get the rule finalized. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviewed the rule before it was released, as it does with all major rules. But OMB reviewed the HHS rule with unusual stealth: the review was done in hours, the same day HHS published the rule, ensuring that it would not appear on OMB's website until after the fact. Additionally, the comment period on the proposal is only 30 days, which is short for major rules in general, but very short for highly complex and controversial rules such as this one.

This is hardly surprising to those of us who've been paying attention to how the Bush Administration operates these past 8 years. Too bad that excludes virtually everyone in the punditalkrazy. But it is a sort of timely reminder that they will never stop pulling this shit up to the very last minute they are able to-and even beyond, if they can block any efforts to undo the evil they've done.

Bass goes on to cite two more examples of regulations in the Department of Labor (DOL). About the second one, he writes:

Another DOL proposed rule, this one from MSHA, violates the Bolten memo and appears to be heading swiftly toward finalization. On Sept. 8, MSHA proposed to require mandatory substance abuse testing for miners. The requirement would apply to miners who perform "safety-sensitive job duties" and their supervisors. (MSHA defines safety-sensitive job duties as, "Any type of work activity where a momentary lapse of critical concentration could result in an accident, injury, or death.") Mine operators could test for drug and alcohol use both as a condition of employment and at any time during employment.
Why would MSHA focus on drug testing when recent mine disasters have shown that miners face unconscionably hazardous working conditions including lack of adequate communications systems and rescue equipment? As Ken Ward reports in the Charleston Gazette, "Coal industry officials have long sought an MSHA rule to require drug testing of miners." Like with the other rules, MSHA will only take public comment for 30 days, indicating Bush officials - like former coal industry executive and current MSHA chief Richard Stickler - are trying to bestow a generous parting gift to the coal industry before a new administration takes over.

This is the same Adminstration, mind you, that has studious ignored massive serial mine safety violations on the part of mine-owners., and okayed highly dangerous operations. Their head of mine safety was an old industry hand, who was so distrusted that even when the GOP controlled Congress, he had to be appointed during a Congressional recess, because he couldn't pass public scrutiny in this center-right nation. Back in August, 2007, AP reported in fair and balanced fashion ("Utah Mine Collapse Puts Safety Chief Under Fire"):

As hopes for a rescue dim at Utah's collapsed Crandall Canyon Mine, critics looking for someone to blame are focusing on the stern-faced director of the government agency that oversees coal mine safety.
Members of Congress, union officials and worker advocates were skeptical before the Aug. 6 accident that Richard Stickler was dedicated enough to worker safety.
The former mine executive faced so much opposition when he was appointed to head the Mine Safety and Health Administration, President Bush had to bypass critics and install him during a congressional recess last October.
Now all three groups are pointing to mistakes they say Stickler has made in handling attempts to rescue six trapped miners. The situation grew more grim last week when three rescue workers were killed in a subsequent cave-in.
Stickler's career at the agency will be defined by the Crandall Canyon accident and his next big decision - whether to call off the rescue effort and entomb the six missing miners forever.
Critics think any investigation of the accident will ultimately ask why the agency signed off in June on a mining plan for the area where the collapse occurred.
Experts have said the terrain is risky for the type of mining the operators wanted to do. Concerns about the roof's stability after a cave-in damaged another part of the mine in March made the agency's approval even more questionable, they say.
Stickler probably never saw the Crandall Canyon mining plan, critics say.
A mine workers union and others say Stickler has failed to change the climate at the agency from one of "really coddling mine operators," said Phil Smith, a spokesman for the United Mine Workers of America, which opposed Stickler's appointment and is calling for an independent investigation of the accident.
"What we're not seeing is a change in culture," Smith said. "I think the Crandall Canyon incident reflects that."

As for the mine owner, did he take any sort of responsibility?

Not exactly:

At the mine on Wednesday, co-owner Robert Murray said he would forever seal the mine and not touch any part of it for mining.
Murray, chief executive of the Murray Energy Corp., made the comments after outrage swept this mourning community when he suggested on Tuesday that he might rename the mine, Crandall Canyon, and resume operations in another area.
Murray said Wednesday that those initial words had been misinterpreted. Instead, he said, he may mine coal reserves in different mountains several miles from the Crandall Canyon site, at an unspecified date.
"I have no plans to ever reopen the mine," said Murray, in a telephone interview. "I never had any intention of going back in physically. It's done. It's closed."
"Crandall Canyon is finished in name, and all possible entryways into Crandall Canyon are done, too," he said. "It's alive, and it's an evil mountain."

That's right: It's not his fault! The evil mountain did it!

And they want to test miners for doing drugs! That's how they'll keep them safe.

Another example Bass cites amounts to a de facto gutting of the Endangered Species Act:

In another "extraordinary circumstance," on Aug. 15, the Department of Interior proposed a change in the way government agencies comply with the Endangered Species Act. The proposal would allow officials to approve development projects that could impact endangered species without consulting federal wildlife and habitat scientists.
Interior's proposal missed the Bolten memo's deadline by two-and-a-half months. OMB spent only three days reviewing the proposed rule, whereas the average review time this year for Interior rules is 64 days. Like all the others, the comment period will only be 30 days.

Out in the real world of this so-called "center-right nation," an awful lot of environmentalists at the local level are Republicans. Thanks to this new regulation, they won't be sticking their noses into government business as their local wildlands are bulldozed over. There are just too many conservative socialists running around out there. Can't let them take over everything!

Ah, and then there's the never-ending expansion of spying on everyone:

The hits just keep on coming. On July 31, the Department of Justice proposed a rule - again, after the June 1 deadline - that may result in additional domestic spying by allowing state and local law enforcement agencies to gather and include terrorism-related information in their federally funded criminal intelligence data systems, and to share such information with federal officials. The data would be held in the information systems for ten years instead of the current five years. Civil liberties experts noted that the rule, the first revision of police intelligence gathering since 1993, would result in local and state law enforcement conducting intelligence gathering for the federal government. In short, the proposal makes it easier for state and local police to spy on Americans. Like the others, this proposed rule only allows one month to comment.

I just can't understand why they have to be so secretive about all this? Haven't they heard? America is a center-right nation. We're all cool with anything they want to do. That's why we gave the Republicans such a resounding victory at the polls two weeks ago. Where have they been?

Midnight De-Regulation and the Myth of A 'Center Right Nation' -- Part 1: The Environment

Paul Rosenberg — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 18:34:10 GMT

The myth of a center-right nation is kept alive like most myths are--by the simple act of endless repetition. But like most myths, it doesn't do so well when you try a little reality testing. For example, if this really were a center-right nation, would the Bush Administration have to do so damn much dirty work behind closed doors, in undisclosed locations, or contracted out to somebody's horse-trainer's cousin? Or, to put a little finer point on it, would the Bushies really have to wait until they were halfway out the door to enact a whole slew of environmental regulations like the following, without congressional input?

Office of Surface Mining (Interior) -- The rule would allow mining companies to dump the waste (i.e. excess rock and dirt) from mountaintop mining into rivers and streams.
Environmental Protection Agency -- The rule would ease current restrictions that make it difficult for power plants to operate near national parks and wilderness areas.
Environmental Protection Agency -- Under the rule, concentrated animal feeding operations, i.e. factory farms, could allow farm runoff to pollute waterways without a permit. The rule circumvents the Clean Water Act, instead allowing for self-regulation.
Environmental Protection Agency -- The rule would exempt factory farms from reporting air pollution emissions from animal waste.

List continues on the flip...
More Bush Administration environmental "midnight regulations":

Department of the Interior -- The rule would alter implementation of the Endangered Species Act by allowing federal land-use managers to approve projects like infrastructure creation, minerals extraction, or logging without consulting federal habitat managers and biological health experts responsible for species protection. Currently, consultation is required.
Environmental Protection Agency -- The rule would change EPA's New Source Review program, which requires new facilities or renovating facilities to install better pollution control technology, by subjecting fewer facilities to its requirements.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Department of Commerce) -- The rule would transfer the responsibility for examining the environmental impacts of federal ocean management decisions from federal employees to advisory groups that represent regional fishing interests. The rule would also make it more difficult for the public to participate in the environmental assessment process required by the National Environmental Policy Act.
Environmental Protection Agency -- The rule would reclassify thousands of tons of hazardous waste as fuel, allowing it to be burned instead of sensitively disposed of. The emissions generated by burning the waste would be more toxic than emissions from burning fossil fuels. The chemical industry is advocating for more categories of waste to be reclassified.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (Department of Transportation) -- The rule would allow truck drivers to drive up to 11 consecutive hours. Because of the effects of fatigue, longer hours-of-service periods put both truck drivers and other motorists at risk.
Bureau of Land Management (Interior) -- Capitalizing on a recent decision by Congress to let the ban on oil shale development to expire, the BLM rule would open 2 million acres of western land to leasing. Environmentalists say oil shale development, which involves extracting liquid oil from solid rock by heating it, increases greenhouse

The point here is blindingly simple: environmental protection is quite popular with the American people, but it is vehemently opposed by the powers that be atop the Republican hierarchy, particularly top funders of movement conservative front groups and the like. And so these massively unpopular sorts of anti-environmental actions must be taken in the most obscure, unaccountable, low-profile manner possible.

Yet, despite the fact that such policies can't remotely stand the light of day, we are told, in effect, that this is precisely what the American people want, because, after all "this is a center-right nation".

Environmental regulations aren't the only ones involved, of course. But support for environmental protections is so broad and so strong that it serves as perfect exemplar of just how wrong-headed the "center-right nation" narrative really is.

For more information, the original of this list (with more info on the items, and more items in other areas) can be found on OMB Watch's RegWatch blog here.

We Interrupt Your Regularly Scheduled Election Fantasizing...

nhvzr — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 03:06:33 GMT

...to remind you that the current administration will, in fact, be in power for several more months. Not to count chickens, but I don't see a strategic scenario in which John McCain pulls off a win on Tuesday, which means that we have two vital tasks to accomplish as quickly as possible. The first is the battle for Obama's soul, as JJ put it. The second, which is not entirely unrelated, is a full-fledged understanding of the damage that the Bush administration did to the country and to the world.

It would be far easier to follow in Bush's footsteps, to keep using the tools they forged, than to truly take the country in a new direction. Indeed, to abandon everything that they accomplished would be literally impossible: in the absence of something like 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, the United States is just not nimble enough to radically change its foreign policy over a single presidential term. To have a chance of salvaging the rule of international law, then, we need to know how they did what they did as soon as humanly possible. By January 20th, at the latest.
The below is an interview with Philip Gourevitch, author of, among other excellent books, the Abu Ghraib exposé Standard Operating Procedure:

The whole interview is worth watching, but the most relevant point Gourevich makes for our purposes starts at about 14:00. Implicitly, it's an answer to the question of why this photo happened:

Seriously, May, 2003 was a really stupid time to declare victory in Iraq, and they had to know it. Turns out they had a reason, and it sheds a lot of light on how the abuses at Abu Ghraib took place:

They set about seeking ways to dismantle the limitations and restrictions on intelligence gathering and interrogation in their prosecution of the war on terror. And they tried- they studied the law, the Geneva Conventions and the international ban on torture, cruel human and degrading punishment. And they basically just detected various weaknesses, in definitions and other levels in those laws, and said they don't apply, let's scrap them, let's find loopholes within them. And they lawyered up, and created a new set of rules...
There's a really key moment that I found in trying to understand all of this, which is the moment of the president's Mission Accomplished speech. The famous May 1 speech. He appears on the aircraft carrier... He gives the thumbs up, and grinning, a pose that soldiers at Abu Ghraib were mocked for using. And he says, "Mission Accomplished"... he says "This is the end of major combat in Iraq."
Well, as we know, it was the beginning of the war, almost. But what does he mean? On that same day, in Afghansistan, Rumsfeld made the same declaration. What does this mean?
In the Geneva Conventions, almost all of the protections they extend to prisoners are based on a conventional war in which it's the warring armies of two states. End of major combat meant Saddam's state is gone. Anybody who is now fighting us becomes an illegal combatant, and when we capture them they become security detainees. These labels turn out to have legal balloons attached to them, which create a whole different set of rules. And so, although it seemed like Mission Accomplishment was premature triumphalism and it was mocked as such and a campaign stunt, frankly, that year. It was in fact, buried in it, was a speech that created a new legal paradigm for Iraq which said that this whole war's illegal, the other side...
This is now a terrorist, an anti-terrorist campaign, it's an anti-insurgent campaign. And they took a tiny little loophole in the Geneva Conventions which said that in the name of imperative military necessity an occupier may seize people temporarily. And they used it to justify mass detention, without charges, in secret holding facilities, without any system of release. And that created the climate, and set the stage, for which our soldiers, the M.P.s, found themselves becoming the poster boys for this policy.
It was no longer the Iraq War, it was the global war on terror in their minds. And anything was justified. And the soldiers were told this.

The "Mission Accomplished" declaration was, in other words, about making a real war into the shadowy, vague, lawless war on terror. It was a stupid political stunt, but it was also the coldest of legal moves, and set the stage for everything that happened in Iraq in the next five years.

By its very nature, Obama's presidency will be a breath of fresh air that this country cannot live without. He promises a sharp distinction between his administration and that of the current president: "What's more, in the dark halls of Abu Ghraib and the detention cells of Guantanamo, we have compromised our most precious values. What could have been a call to a generation has become an excuse for unchecked presidential power."

But I can't help but worry about statements like "The terrorists are at war with us." Obama believes in the War on Terror - and the question is, which war? How much better will Obama fare, when faced with similar challenges? The legacy of the Bush Administration remains in place until we actively dismantle it, remember. Merely leaving Iraq is not enough, if the chance of war elsewhere remains high. Increasing non-military aid is meaningless if we continue to hold prisoners in endless captivity. The "war" is over in Afghanistan too.

To morally continue the worldwide fight against terror, we need precise and humane legal oversight. We need a Fifth Geneva Convention, a code for the 21st Century, for insurgents, terrorists and violent criminal conspiracies. One of the first true tests for the soul of the Obama administration will be its approach to this issue: the extent to which it pursues a legal, moral justification for the war on terror. To take significant military action without such justification is to be just as bad as Bush, no matter who gives the orders or what they say about it.

As Gourevitch puts it, we do not want the standard with which we "measure ourselves in the war on terror [to be] that we're not quite as bad as the terrorists. That's too low a standard." We are better than that. We have to be, or the surge of genuine patriotism we've all felt over the last few months is no better than the flag-waving of the last eight years.

As sad as it is, we have to prove our country's morality. And I fear it will be far harder than it sounds.

Cross-posted on the Train of Thought.

PBS' Coded Plea For Help

Daniel De Groot — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 21:15:00 GMT

Scott Horton has a story on a documentary that will make the case that the highest levels of the Bush administration authorized torture, at the level of even authorizing particular techniques on individual prisoners. Problem is that PBS has refused to air it, until next year:

PBS would not run the show-at least not until President Bush has left office. The show delivers impressively on a promise to "connect the dots in an investigation of interrogations of prisoners in U.S. custody that became 'at a minimum, cruel and inhuman treatment and, at worst, torture'"

While this might lead one to indict PBS, I think the real story is more interesting, and highlights the importance of strong public media.
The story at first glance appears to be about PBS' cowardice or complicity, and might lead one to wonder what the point of having public media is if they will chicken out from telling key stories that criticize the powers that be.

But Horton adds a bit of background:

This spring, PBS's distinguished Frontline series aired a mildly critical account of the lead-up to the Iraq War entitled "Bush's War." As the airing of the program was announced, the Bush Administration proposed to slash public funding for PBS by roughly half for 2009, by 56% for 2010 and eliminating funding entirely for 2011. Did PBS get the message? Perhaps.

Honestly, I missed this news at the time. I even watched the Frontline episode (and I recommend it). Did I miss it because I missed it, or because the media buried it, because no one cares about PBS? Doing some poking around, the PBS cuts did not attract much notice (though this is amusing from what I gather is a libertarian), and it's too bad because there was some good stuff, like this:

The CPB's president and CEO, Patricia Harrison, a former Republican National Committee official, called Bush's budget "Draconian."

So what does PBS do here, with an even more critical doc? Well they do lose their nerve, but I have to like the intentional give-away of their reasons:

The project was first offered to PBS in September 2007, with the representation that it would be available to air after May 2008. It was completed and circulated to PBS decision makers on schedule in May of this year. Their response? According to producer Sherry Jones, PBS told her that "no time slot could be found for the documentary before January 21, 2009"-the day after George W. Bush and Dick Cheney leave office.

PBS to America: "Help meeee!"

Seriously, PBS points out Bush's 2003 war was always full of shit five years later so the Bushies pull out the Sarah Palin playbook and try to fire the entire network. No one says boo. No waves. Can you blame PBS for getting gun-shy in the face of a then not implausible McCain victory, and the likelihood that no one would be in the forest to hear PBS fall? (after all, only PBS would report on a story like this)

Good news is that the doc will still air, Horton:

The producers decided to offer the show directly to local affiliates. As of this writing, roughly sixty-five percent of the PBS network have signed on to run the program, including the flagship New York (WNET) and Boston (WGBH) stations.

The broader points to draw from this are these:

The crime here is not PBS being quelled into silence, but the supposedly independent private media being conspicuously quiet about this. At least PBS is trying.
Yes, public media is not immune to pressure from a malfeasant government determined to suppress information, but that's more reason to put PBS (and NPR) on reliable funding streams, not subject to the annual budgetary whims of various administrations.

Public broadcasting needs to be on the agenda for anyone mad at the many glaring media failures of the past twenty years. It's not a pancea, the CBC and BBC screw up too, but there is no doubt that things could be no worse for having an American public broadcaster well funded enough to run a 24-hr cable news network, not living like an abused spouse in fear of another beating.

The fourth estate is a vital societal function, and leaving it totally to run as a business is yet another glaring market failure in an era rife with them.

People need accurate and pertinent information, even when giving it to them is not particularly profitable. Someone has to pay for journalist to do serious investigative work. As the newspapers crumble, and gut their newsrooms, there is a role here for government.

Stuff I Won't Miss After 2008

Chris Bowers — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 22:30:00 GMT

Yesterday, I complained about things that will continue to frustrate me after the impending Democratic landslide is complete. Today, I'd like to balance that out with a series of things that I won't miss after the huge Democratic victories this year. In the extended entry, I list a whole bunch of them.
Stuff I won't miss after the election:

I won't miss statements like "X is why Democrats lose" or "Democratic won't start winning until they do X." God, those sentences are irritating, especially since the C variable is inevitably the pet project of whoever is writing them. However, when Democrats have the White House and congressional majorities Republicans haven't enjoyed in eighty years, it will be kind of hard to argue that Democrats aren't winning elections anymore.
I won't miss statements like "Republicans will just use voting machines to steal the election anyway." Such statements irritate me because of both their fatalism and general lack of proof. While I have no doubt that such statements will continue even if Democrats when a 100 seat majority in Congress, they will be less frequent. Kind of hard to argue that Republicans just steal all elections through voting machines when Democrats have such enormous majorities.
I won't miss statements about how much a genius Karl Rove is, or that simply he is somehow controlling a vast Republican conspiracy that will certainly dominate us. The fact is that Republicans will experience their largest electoral losses in over thirty years under Karl Rove, even though he was handed the most favorable Republican political environment in a century after 9/11. Anyone who turns his party's most favorable political environment in a century to its worst losses in half a century is a pretty sucky political strategist. Enough with the Karl Rove worship and paranoia.
I won't miss Republican claims that Democrats don't understand the American heartland, and the bucolic small town values at its core. I am really, really sick of this one. I can't wait to write the counter articles that say stuff like "Republicans don't understand modern, pluralistic America," or other concern troll pieces that give incredibly stupid, lame, patronizing advice of that sort. This is the reverse of #1.
I won't miss the daily tracking polls. Waiting for those causes way too much stress in my life.
I won't miss all the talk of partisan polarization or gridlock in Congress. With majorities like these, we might not always do the right thing, but we are going to pass a lot of stuff. Republicans are not going to be able to hold filibusters together in the Senate, even if they do manage to hold onto 41 or 42 seats. Half of all Republican Senators will be up for re-election in 2010, and there wasn't a single Senate vote this year of any consequence where the entire Republican party held together. We will get plenty of defectors to pass lots of stuff. Whether or not that stuff is good is another story, of course.
I won't miss being asked if I am registered to vote. Yes, I'm registered to vote. I'm the fraking Democratic state party official for this area, alright? I guess I can already be relieved that is over.
I won't miss Joe Lieberman supposedly holding the balance of power in the Senate. I won't miss hearing Lieberman and others whine about how they Democratic Party left them out. Anyone who left the Democratic Party from 2005-2008 clearly chose the exact wrong time to do it, given the changing partisan mood of the country. Talk about catching the wrong direction of a fashion trend.
I won't miss McCain, or Palin, or Bush, or Cheney, or Rice, or Paulson, or really any members of the Bush administration. Good-frakking-bye.

There is other stuff I won't miss, too, but these are the things that immediately come to mind. What won't you miss after 2008?

You Can't Regulate The Bush Administration

Chris Bowers — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:15:04 GMT

Here is, as succinctly as possible, my rationale for opposing the bailout:

Politically speaking, any bailout bill passed between now and January 19th will require Bush's signature, and siding with Bush will do Democrats more political harm than good. Economically speaking, any bill that gives the Bush administration this much money and power will cause more economic harm than waiting 113 days to allow Obama to deal with the problem. As such, it is not just politically sensible, but it is also economically sensible to wait until the next administration in order to act.

My solution is simple: stop negotiating with Bush altogether and make the election a referendum on what sort of economic plan to pass. The public would overwhelmingly back such a move, as polling shows (more in the extended entry):

USA Today/Gallup Poll. Sept. 24, 2008. N=1,019 adults nationwide. MoE � 3.

"As you may know, the Bush administration has proposed a plan that would allow the Treasury Department to buy and re-sell up to $700 billion of distressed assets from financial companies. What would you like to see Congress do: pass a plan similar to what the Bush administration has proposed, take action but pass something different from what the Bush administration has proposed, or not take any action on this matter?"

Similar to Bush Proposal: 22%
Different from Bush Proposal: 56%
Not Take Any Action: 11%

Not only does the public support ending negotiations over the Bush plan, the polling trends over the last two weeks make it clear that keeping this issue front and center is really, really helping Democrats. We will win a huge trifecta if this is the news for the next five weeks. And with a huge trifecta, we can pass a plan that will actually solve the crisis, rather than handing over even more money and power to the Bush administration.

It is more politically irresponsible and damaging to the economy to hand over that much money and power to the Bush administration than it is to wait another 113 days. And don't even talk to me about the regulations and oversight in the bill. People like Bush and Paulson caused this problem, ignoring regulations and oversight the entire way. They will ignore the regulations we tack on, just like they threatened to do so with any Iraq timeline, and just as the Treasury department is already admitting in public conference calls on this bill. And then, when Democrats in Congress get mad, the administration will ignore their subpoenas, just as they have done all along. The regulations and add-ons don't mean anything. You can't regulate the Bush administration.

So that's my argument. I think it is a good one. And, unlike Paul Krugman, I don't think that it makes us a banana republic to have so little trust in the White House that we refuse to give them more power. I think, after the last eight years, that it makes us eminently sensible, and starts moving us back on the road to becoming a better functioning republic.

There Is No Crisis--Summary

Chris Bowers — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 20:22:22 GMT

Things are getting a little suspicious about this "crisis."

Why did the Bush administration suddenly declare a "crisis" during the final two weeks when Congress would be in session during his presidency? Is it maybe because, after the election, Congress would know it wasn't dealing with Bush anymore?
If this is such a sudden crisis, why is it that the Bush administration was drawing up the plan for this bill for months beforehand?
Why is it that Congress is supposed to bail out many banks and firms that are actually quite successful and profitable right now, and not just those that are failing?
Why is Paulson blatantly lying to Congress about oversight?
Where did the $700 billion figure come from?
Why is Paulson urging that debate on the matter be held after the legislation is passed?

The burden of proof should always be placed on those who are demanding a huge government bailout, not upon those who are skeptical that one is needed. And yet the questions keep mounting, with no answers in sight.

I am not saying that there is no need for government intervention. I am saying that the case for a $700 billion bailout is far from having been made. Until the case is made, there is no need to go forward. We will elect a new President in 42 days. We swear in a new Congress in 103 days. What is the rush? Why does this all of a sudden need to be done while the Bush administration is still in charge? The case hasn't been made, and answers are slow in coming, if they come at all.

There Is No Crisis-Where's My Pitchfork?

Chris Bowers — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:38:38 GMT

Deputy Press Secretary Ton Fratto tells us that the banks we are bailing out are actually good firms with a lot of profitable assets:

You have to remember, these are not all weak or troubled firms that own mortgage-backed securities. A lot of them are very successful banks and investment houses that have done very well, have been responsible, are holding performing assets that have value. They were not necessarily irresponsible players, and so you have to be careful about how you deal with them.

Um, then why are we bailing them out? I thought there was a crisis. Now the government has to step in and help out hugely profitable firms just because one aspect of those banks is as profitable as the rest? Whenever rich people make a mistake, taxpayers have to plug the gap, even if those rich people are still making huge amounts of money?

This is all a lie. They are lying about how much trouble these firms are in. They are lying about their desire for oversight. It is just a big frakkin' lie. I doubt there is a crisis at all. They have done such a good job lying, however, that a majority of the country thinks a bailout is needed.

They are just lying, and looking to make the biggest single rip off in history. If there was a pitchfork and torch event taking place anywhere right now, I'd join in. This seems a helluva a lot like Louis the XVI demanding more money from the Estates General. When does the march on Versailles begin? It might seriously be time for a few hundred thousand people to start sleeping in two shanty towns, one surrounding the Capitol and the other surrounding the White House. If they can get away with this, then they can get away with anything.

To Infinity, and Beyond!

Chris Bowers — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:05:43 GMT

Saving Earth from asteroids, constructing permanent Moon bases, traveling to Mars, launching climate monitoring satellites, discovering Earth-like planets in nearby solar systems, researching faster than light propulsion, engineering space elevators tethered to habitable cities with sustainable industries in geo-synchronous orbit--these are just some of the space-program related topics I discuss in the extended entry.

Read on. You know you want to.
In a great article for all those interested in the space program, Greg Easterbrook argues against NASA's plans for a permanent moon base that supposedly leads toward a Mars mission, favoring instead increased infrastructure to identify and protect against, near-Earth asteroids. Easterbrook mocks current NASA priorities:

In January, I attended an internal NASA conference, held at agency headquarters, during which NASA's core goals were presented in a PowerPoint slideshow. Nothing was said about protecting Earth from space strikes-not even researching what sorts of spacecraft might be used in an approaching-rock emergency. Goals that were listed included "sustained human presence on the moon for national preeminence" and "extend the human presence across the solar system and beyond." Achieving national preeminence-isn't the United States pretty well-known already? As for extending our presence, a manned mission to Mars is at least decades away, and human travel to the outer planets is not seriously discussed by even the most zealous advocates of space exploration.

Easterbrook is absolutely right about all of this. The permanent Moon base, while superficially attractive in a very American pioneer sort of fashion, doesn't make any sense. Without even considering other projects NASA could pursue for a moment, the folly of permanent human settlement on either the Moon or Mars is better explained by science fiction writer Bruce Sterling in an article that received a lot of play four years ago. Long story short, Sterling points out that we haven't settled many inhospitable places on Earth yet, like the Gobi desert. However, no one ever argues for permanent settlement of the Gobi desert, even though it would be far easier, cheaper and more profitable. A permanent Moon base would be like Spain deciding, after circumnavigating the globe, that Antarctica was the best place to colonize.

Now, returning to other NASA priorities, a permanent moon base is indeed a potentially large drain on actually useful projects. We did out thing on the Moon forty years ago, and we have robots exploring Mars better than a human ever could. Now, it is time to move on to better projects. Here are three pretty obvious ones that need more funding:

Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR): This is a satellite, proposed by Al Gore, that will serve the twin functions of monitoring climate change and producing a continuous picture of Earth that will be broadcast for free, twenty-four / seven, on the Internet. Truly, this is an outstanding project, with the blessing of the national academy of the sciences, that will further the development of humanity and the notion of a single, global community.
Exoplanet telescopes: Our ability to search for planets outside of our own solar system ("exoplanets") is currently a boom sector of space exploration. While the first exoplanet was discovered only 16 years ago, now over 300 exoplanets have been identified. Currently, we have the technology that would, with proper funding and only twelve years of work, allow us to determine how many Earth-like planets there are within five thousand light years of our solar system. The three projects that can jointly answer this question are the Kepler mission (which has suffered budget cuts), the Terrestrial Planet Finder (which has been shelved), and the Space Interferometry Mission (which has been delayed more than ten years). For far less money than a moon base, we can figure out if there are other planets like Earth in nearby space, how many of them there are, and then take long, extended looks at each of them.
Near-Earth Asteroid Identification: Even though, every year, there is about a one in a thousand chance that the Earth will suffer a catastrophic (not necessarily life-ending, but still disastrous) asteroid collision, in the above quote article Easterbrook shows that NASA is not making asteroid identification a priority. Unlike Easterbrook, I don't think we need to start building the protection infrastructure right away, because once we identified the next dangerous object we would have years to prepare. However, the construction of the Pan-STARS telescope complex, plus an infrared, out-ward facing, asteroid monitoring telescope in solar orbit near Venus, would allow us identify any and all potential threats we might face. If a dangerous object was identified, we could then take the next step of building the infrastructure necessary to alter its course.

Collectively, these projects need another $2B or so in order to all be fully funded. While they lack the immediate, superficial glamour of a permanent Moon base, taken as a whole they would produce the most beautiful pictures of the Earth ever made (and make them publicly available), monitor climate change, identify and monitor all dangerous, near-Earth asteroids, and determine both the number and location of Earth-like planets in nearby space. The cumulative benefits they thus provide to science and the advancement of humanity are enormous--far in excess of their price tag. They would also provide a lot of "national pre-eminence" than a permanent Moon base.

Even if they aren't sexy enough for NASA, there are other, more long-term, and potentially useful projects that could substitute for a permanent Moon base. In particular, re-funding the breakthrough propulsion program and beginning work on a space elevator that could connect to a permanent, flourishing city in near-Earth orbit would do the trick.

First, the far-reaching impact of discovering a breakthrough propulsion would be incalculable. Not only would such a breakthrough allow us to travel to other solar systems, but it would also potentially lead to a permanently solution to the the energy crisis here on Earth. The price tag for fully funding, and expanding, this program would be only around $10M a year.

Second, a space elevator, constructed sometime in mid-century, somewhere in the continental United States west of the Mississippi, would provide the U.S. with a virtually permanent monopoly on space travel. A space elevator would make existing rocket technology obsolete, and vastly reduce the cost of traveling to outer space. Long-term, it would also allow the U.S. to construct a permanently inhabited city ~~in geo-synchronous orbit about 200 miles~~ above our country (UPDATE: OK, I was wrong about the distance). Given the extremely low costs of space travel that a space elevator would create, the city would even have sustainable industries including tourism, massive solar energy production, zero gravity ore processing, satellite upkeep, research, and even potentially a space dock for travel to the Moon or Mars. And it would only be accessible through the United States, providing more "national pre-eminence" than you could shake a stick at.

The lesson we all need to learn is that the space program is not simply flashy, government funded pork. It is an essential part of our national, and international, infrastructure:

But apart from reliable weather forecasts, perfect navigation, cheap worldwide phone services, search and rescue, environmental imaging, forest fire monitoring, arms reduction verification, sixty-channel television, discovering the origin of the Earth and Moon, and vastly increasing our knowledge of the solar system and the rest of the Universe, what has space travel ever done for us?

NASA also provides 18,000 high tech jobs, a significant brain gain for the United States as a whole, and major scientific projects like the WMAP satellite. If it's priorities are properly directed, it can accomplish even more great things including, but not limited to, the projects I have outlined above. Given its obsession with a permanent Moon base, NASA under the Bush administration has far less productive, scientific, sustainable, and valuable priorities that have become a hallmark of the Bush presidency. A permanent Moon base bits into a pattern of poorly thought out ideas that demonstrate a lack of vision and a childlike machismo in its approach to the world (or, in this case, the solar system).

There are great things we can do with the space program to advance humanity and, if that is your thing, ensure American pre-eminence for many decades to come. While I have heard mixed signals from the Obama campaign on this front, the next President needs to start pushing NASA in that direction.

Also, if you enjoyed this post, next month at netroots nation, I will be discussing these and other issues on the Space Policy Panel.