Little things

You probably saw this NYT article about Bush's last-minute push to irreversibly change a bunch of labor and environmental regulations; it was in a lot of newspapers and at the top of Huffington Post. The lede highlights a change to OSHA codes which would extend the process of banning hazardous chemicals from the workplace, effectively handing employers an extra couple years in which to kill their employees. (No wonder the Chamber of Commerce "unequivocally supports" it.) But let me encourage you to read the article closely, because there's some other outrageous stuff in there:

One rule would make it easier to build power plants near national parks and wilderness areas. Another would reduce the role of federal wildlife scientists in deciding whether dams, highways and other projects pose a threat to endangered species...

One rule would allow coal companies to dump rock and dirt from mountaintop mining operations into nearby streams and valleys. Another, issued last week by the Health and Human Services Department, gives states sweeping authority to charge higher co-payments for doctor’s visits, hospital care and prescription drugs provided to low-income people under Medicaid. The department is working on another rule to protect health care workers who refuse to perform abortions or other procedures on religious or moral grounds.

Both the implications of each regulation here, and the trend, should be obvious. This is an administration that has never had any interest in governing responsibly -- so naturally, in its dying days, White House policy is devolving into favors. Big Business put these boys in Washington, so it's only fair they get some rewards. Dance with the one that brung ya, I always say!

...To my left-wing purist friends: say what you want about the Democratic Party and its corporate ties, but an Obama (or Kerry) administration at least isn't actively hostile to workers, the environment, and the poor. Conservatives, on the other hand...

Quote of the Day: The Distinction Between "Illegal" and "Criminal"

On his decision not to prosecute Monica Goodling and other Justice Department officials who illegally restricted career positions to Republican cronies (via NYTimes):

“Where there is enough evidence to charge someone with a crime, we vigorously prosecute,” he said. “But not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime,” he said. As the inspector general’s report acknowledged, the hiring violations were such a case, because the wrongdoing violated federal civil service law, but not criminal law, he said.

Let's reduce this to syllogism form.

P1: Major Premise.The politically-motivated violation of civil service law constitutes a violation of everything we hold dear, as well as the basic anti-corruption and anti-fraud laws I would be seriously astounded if we did not have right now.

P2: Minor Premise. It is inconsistent with federal civil service law to apply a political litmus test when filling career positions in the civil service, i.e. the Justice Department.

P3: Fact. Attorney General Michael Mukasey will not prosecute the people who committed these "non-crime violations."

C3: Michael Mukasey is also a partisan tool and is committing an offense to ethics, if not to law (this syllogism is leading me to lose my faith in law).

Correct me if I'm wrong on P1; I really do hope I am, because I'd rather think the code of the law itself is incomplete (despite its obvious suggestion of the question, "WTF were the Civil Service reforms good for, then?"), rather than become depressed over the apparent lack of importance it has for our government.

Miscarriage of Justice

But then, what else did you expect?

The Senate prepares for a massive flip-flop?

Hillary Clinton has proposed a "reverse authorization" of the Iraq war, a proposition I find a bit strange, a bit redundant, and frankly a waste of time. Senators spend enough time and energy as it is harping on and/or defending what they or their colleagues did or didn't do. This measure will simply detract from a real, timely plan for withdrawal.

The bill would repeal the Senate's October 2002 vote to give Bush the go-ahead on Iraq, but it's unclear what implications this has for the President's action. According to the NYT, "Even if Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Byrd succeed in their effort, it is not clear whether President Bush would have to withdraw troops, or if he could resist by claiming that Congress cannot withdraw its earlier authorization but instead has to deny money for the war to achieve that result.The question could prompt a constitutional debate over war powers that only the federal courts could resolve."

We do not need to a constitutional debate. We need to bring our troops home.

Strange also, that Clinton would propose this, as her 2002 authorizing vote has been an albatross around the neck of her campaign thus far. She still won't repudiate her vote (as John Edwards has) yet she wants the entire Senate to do just that?

Times calls for Gonzalez to be axed

Read this editorial (you don't need times select):

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/opinion/11sun1.html?hp

Something Slimy in Iraq's New Oil Policy

The Iraqi parliament is considering a law right now that designates who has control over Iraqi oil. A draft has been leaked and is floating around the internet, rightly causing some concern. An Iraqi blogger, Raed Jarrar, translated it and has it available for download his website (http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/search/label/Iraqi%20Oil%20Law). His biggest worry?

"Iraq will not be capable of controlling the levels -- the limits of production, which means that Iraq cannot be a part of OPEC anymore. And Iraq will have this very complicated institution called the Federal Oil and Gas Council, that will have representatives from the foreign oil companies on the board of it, so representatives from, let’s say, ExxonMobil and Shell and British Petroleum will be on the federal board of Iraq approving their own contracts."

Hmmm.

Here's the al Jazeera article on it: http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=13105

Bush's Two Failed Wars

Not content to screw over a nation with one war, President Bush has one-upped predecessors by f-ing up two wars. The other I am talking about is, of course, the war on drugs.

In today’s New York Times, Orlando Patterson, a Harvard sociology professor, has an editorial (which you might not be able to access because of Times Select) devoted to the Bush administration’s other botched war. The current focus of anti-drug measures that seeks to destroy drugs at their place of origin (Patterson focuses on Jamaica) has resulted in a catastrophic socio-economic crisis for both countries. As well, the incarceration of drug dealers at home does little to actually rehabilitate or educate. Nearly 50% of drug offenders are re-arrested upon their initial release, it doesn’t take a genius (something we all agree Bush is not), to realize something is amiss.

As with Iraq, the strategy is flawed in its conception and execution, made worse by a refusal to change course in the face of failure. It strongly emphasizes eradicating the source of drugs, interdiction of traffic and draconian punishment for offenders. It neglects what nearly every expert believes — and European experience has shown — to be the only successful strategy: a demand-side emphasis on preventive programs and rehabilitation of addicts.  

…

America’s unwillingness to recognize the socioeconomic context of the drug crisis at home and abroad, to see that being surrounded by failing states threatens its security, to provide aid where it is most effective, and to acknowledge that the root cause of this hemispheric disaster is not supply but its own citizens’ insatiable demand for illicit drugs, is as incomprehensible as the quagmire in Iraq.

Way to go, Bush administration, way to go. 

U.S. Attorney in Duke Cunningham case forced to resign by Bush Administration

In a shocking move with political consequences, the Bush Justice Department has asked San Diego U.S. Attorney Carol Lam to resign. Under a process changed by the Patriot Act, Bush can now appoint a new U.S. Attorney without Senate confirmation (normally the Senate confirms the President's nominees for U.S. Attorneys).

This is also not the first time the Bush Administration has fired U.S. Attorneys and replaced them without Senate confirmation: "Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., criticized the Bush administration yesterday for 'pushing out U.S. Attorneys from across the country under the cloak of secrecy.' 'We don't know how many U.S. Attorneys have been asked to resign – it could be two, it could be ten, it could be more. No one knows,' she said in a statement."

While the stated reason for her dismissal is her job performance, Lam has been focusing less on illegal immigrant and drug cases and more on white collar crimes and corruption, like that of resigned Republican Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham.

(Sea) Lions, and Penguins, and (Polar) Bears! Oh my!

The Bush administration is slowly taking steps in acknowledging global warming. And you know what caused such a political shift? Polar bears. Behold the power of the cute animal. Due to the climactic changes in the Arctic, the beloved figure of winter Coca-Cola commercials everywhere is in a real-life battle to survive. Tom Brokaw had a special about this a few months ago, and steadily the polar bear is getting more coverage.

Cute animals have a way of tugging at our heartstrings that is almost mythical. I’ve made a list of movies that have made me cry and most deal exclusively with a cute animal: Bambi, Homeward Bound, Black Beauty, White Fang, and Babe. [Sidenote: I am actually shocked a Bambi defense hasn’t emerged in a court of law. If I was sitting on a jury for a murder case and the defense brought up the fact that the defendant saw Bambi when s/he was five and was traumatized for life – I would buy it.] And I refuse to see Old Yeller.

I reckon most people are the same. At the multiplex some little penguins in their own tuxes beat out the famous tux-clad James Bond. Well one explanation is that the penguins in Happy Feet are just a lot cuter than Daniel Craig.

Considering that 2007 is an El Nino year, I think we should all brace for some dicey weather. And according to this poll, 70% of Americans aren’t optimistic about the climate. [Sidenote: Also this poll claims 25% of Americans expect Jesus Christ to return... um, yeah.] But if the cute animals are what it takes to get the Bush administration doing anything about global warming, more power to them.  

Nice guys they are...

FROM THE POLITICAL WIRE:

White House Dismissed Evangelicals as "Nuts"

David Kuo, who worked in the White House Office of Faith Based Initiatives, "says some of the nation’s most prominent evangelical leaders were known in the office of presidential political strategist Karl Rove as 'the nuts.' National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as 'ridiculous,' 'out of control,' and just plain 'goofy.'"

"More seriously, Kuo alleges that then-White House political affairs director Ken Mehlman knowingly participated in a scheme to use the office, and taxpayer funds, to mount ostensibly 'nonpartisan' events that were, in reality, designed with the intent of mobilizing religious voters in 20 targeted races."

------------------------------------------------

And I always thought they were on the same team. As much as I'm not crazy about voters who make their decisions on a purely religious basis, the Administration is treating people like trash--"their" people. In any case, those the White House deems 'nuts' are still people. Don't get me wrong--it's not like I don't think politicians use people. But this is just despicable.