The conscience of the nation

Bill Moyers is the conscience of America. Consider the commencement address he delivered at Southern Methodist last week.

Some highlights:

"America’s a great promise but it’s a broken promise.

"It’s not right that we are entering the fifth year of a war started on a suspicion. Whatever your party or politics, my young friends, America can’t sustain a war begun under false pretenses because it is simply immoral to ask people to go on dying for the wrong reasons.

…

"America needs fixing. Our system of government is badly broken.

"You are leaving here as our basic constitutional principles are under assault – the rule of law, an independent press, independent courts, the separation of church and state, and the social contract itself. I am sure you learned about the social contract here at SMU. It’s right there in the Constitution – in the Preamble: “We, the People” – that radical, magnificent, democratic, inspired and exhilarating idea that we are in this together, one for all and all for one.

…

"For all the chest-thumping about rugged individuals and self-made men, it was the imperative and ethic of cooperation that forged America. Laissez faire – 'Leave me alone' – didn’t work. We had to move from the philosophy of 'Live and let live' to 'Live and help live.' You see, civilization is not a natural act. Civilization is a veneer of civility stretched across primal human appetites. Like democracy, civilization has to be willed, practiced, and constantly repaired, or society becomes a war of all against all.

…

In l960 the gap in wealth between the top 20% of our country and the bottom 20% was thirty fold. Now it is 75 fold. Stock prices and productivity are up, and CEO salaries are soaring, but ordinary workers aren’t sharing in the profits they helped generate. Their incomes aren’t keeping up with costs. More Americans live in poverty – 37 million, including l2 million children. Twelve million children! Despite extraordinary wealth at the top, America’s last among the highly developed countries in each of seven measures of inequality. Our GDP outperforms every country in the world except Luxembourg. But among industrialized nations we are at the bottom in functional literacy and dead last in combating poverty. Meanwhile, regular Americans are working longer and harder than workers in any other industrial nation, but it’s harder and harder for them to figure out how to make ends meet…how to send the kids to college…and how to hold on securely in their old age. If we’re all in this together, what’s a civilized response to these disparities?

America’s a broken promise. America needs fixing.

I often see something in print and Publish Postask myself, "Why didn't I say that?" In Bill Moyers' case, I read his words and ask myself, "Why didn't I think that?"

Memorial Day

"If any ask you why we died,
Tell them because our fathers lied."

Rudyard Kipling

On this Memorial Day, as we recall the sacrifices of men and women who risked all and sometimes gave all for this nation, let us also remember that when politicians lie, good people die as a result.

Blowing my own horn

Today's NYT carries a letter over your editor's name today on the subject of Monica Goodling's testimony, along the lines of this TONE post.

Mmm, mmm, good!

Back in the '70's, The Wall Street Journal published an article called something like "We don't want your paprika to walk off the plate," about how spices and similar ingredients contain "permissible levels of filth"--rodent hair and feces, pieces of dead moths, that sort of thing. Given that spices are milled from flowers, leaves and seeds into tiny pieces or powders, and as they can be contaminated everywhere from field to factory, it is inevitable that some nasty stuff gets into the final product. Not a pleasant prospect, but then we don't see many people collapsing from the pepper they put on their eggs. Our bodies can fight off a certain amount of toxins and beasties. Still, we all know that contamination can make us sick and even kill us.

I was reminded of that WSJ story by a piece on NPR today, about the dangers we face from food imports, especially from China. Some of it is pretty chilling stuff.

You may wonder why the brouhaha about food imported from China. Isn't this the country that was buying our wheat to stave of starvation a couple of decades ago? Yes. Today--as Americans learned this spring--we are importing wheat gluten from China. We are also importing lots of other food and food ingredients from the People's Republic. Did you know that 80 percent of our ascorbic acid--otherwise known as vitamin C, comes from China? Me, neither. The NPR website (link above) has an interesting table showing the amount of some food imports from China, including almost $160 million worth of concentrated apple juice (they have apples there?) used as sweeteners, $60 million in fresh garlic and another $18 million in powdered garlic. So it isn't enough to avoid food products from China; ingredients in made-in-America products is being imported with increasing frequency.

Last month--not last year, last month--FDA inspectors rejected more than 250 shipments of food from China, more than from the rest of the world combined. Reasons include such defects as obvious decomposition of meat and fish to the presence of drug residues. Yecchh.

What's really scary is that the FDA inspects only a tiny portion of the food products that are imported. Given that China is not going to increase food safety or wholesomeness to American standards any time soon, a complete overhaul of the agency's inspection system, and a drastic increase in resources, are necessary to avoid serious threats to our health. To do that, however, will mean yet another battle with the small-government, no-new-taxers, at least until they get scared for their own health.

It's more than 100 years since Upton Sinclair published The Jungle, but the fight for food fit to eat goes on.

Crossing the line

So Monica Goodling admits that she "crossed the line" in filling Justice Department posts on the basis of partisan credentials. She did a lot more than that.

Goodling and her co-conspirators (for that is what they were) dealt a body-blow to our system of justice.

The credibility of our prosecutions depends on the public's belief that political appointees (and, in the case of most local district attorneys, elected officials) can keep politics out of prosecutorial decisions. Now it is clear that, at least in areas such as civil rights and government corruption cases, we cannot have that faith when the federal government is involved.

That is a terrible, terrible development. For decades, under men like John Doar and Nicholas Katzenbach, the Justice Department was the shining ornament not just of the United States, but of the civilized world. As much as anything, the federal system of justice showed the world what the United States was all about.

What I fear is that that may still be the case.

Immigration--some further thoughts

Yesterday, I noted the irony--or is it hypocrisy--that the GOP, for so long the self-proclaimed party of family values, should back an immigration proposal that tilts the field toward those with desirable skills, rather than family members of prior immigrants.

Tom Friedman makes an argument, if not for the proposal now before Congress at least for taking skills into account. Recounting his experience at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute graduation (where he apparently received an honorary degree), Friedman says that it seemed that virtually all of the PhD recipients were foreign-born, and argues that if we do not make it easy for such graduates to stay in the country, we are doing tremendous damage to our economy and our world position.

Friedman has a point. Immigration has always been like the Nile floods in ancient Egypt, which kept that narrow valley fertile and formed the basis for Egyptian power. Immigrants have watered the fields of American enterprise and achievement. And in a global age, when we bring students here and then tell them to go back home, we are improving the lot of our competitors.

Now there may be good reasons for doing just that, most clearly where we have a sufficient supply of skilled graduates. And the best argument for restricting immigration may well be that it imposes a drain on nations that can ill afford to lose human capital--not on France or Britain or Japan so much as on Haiti, Mexico and other places that need the kind of energetic, intelligent, active people who are most likely to emigrate.

While I tend to agree with Friedman on narrow national-interest grounds (subject to the caveat just above, which bothers me somewhat), that does not mean that the proposed new visa scheme is a good idea. It would impose the elitist concept that we can pick winners--that those who already possess certain skills are the immigrants we want. Sounds good, but watch out.

The truth is, we don't know which immigrants we want. The proposal before Congress now would have kept out Andrew Carnegie and others who came here with nothing and built the nation. (It would have kept my grandparents out, too.) We may think that a computer programmer or someone with an engineering degree from a well-regarded foreign university is preferable to a Mexican farm worker or a Haitian who's first job will be bussing in a restaurant. Maybe. Maybe not. Last week, CBS did a profile on the doctor who heads Johns Hopkins' department of neurosurgery. He came here from Mexico as a teenager, to pick crops. Only after he was here did he get on a track to education and professional brilliance. Do we want to keep such people out of our country?

Still hanging on?

Or still twisting in the wind?

Alberto Gonzalez, of course. Earlier this week there was a lot of talk that he would resign before the Senate votes on a no-confidence resolution. I thought he might cut and run before his former hireling, Monica Goodling, testifies before Congress today. But no, Gonzalez is still there, tarnishing the reputation--or what's left of it--of the Justice Department.

We old people can remember when the Justice Department really did seem to be in the business of seeking justice, when people like John Doar and Nicholas Katzenbach led a government effort to make the promise of equality before the law a reality. Those were the days--almost forgotten now--when the government was actively trying to eliminate, or at least reduce, poverty.

Now, what do we have? Government sold to the highest bidder in a shabby, half-hidden auction.

There's no guaranty that things will change after January 20, 2009, but at least there's room for hope. That's what makes this the most exciting time since the Kennedy campaign of 1960.

Family Values

As you've undoubtedly heard, the proposed compromise immigration bill would swing the system toward granting visas for skilled workers and away from the families of immigrants. This proposal came from the Repubs, of course.

So much for the party of family values.

Maybe secession wasn't such a bad idea after all

Proving that the Old South really hasn't died, the Virginia Citizens Defense League held a "Bloomberg Gun Giveaway," to thumb its nose at New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's campaign to stop the deadly traffick in guns from states like Virginia to NYC.

Two $900 firearms were given away--a pistol and a "Varmint Stalker" rifle. The winner of one, a former Brooklyn resident, is quoted as saying "If he [Bloomberg] doesn't like people in New York having guns, he should deal with New York. Just keep out of Virginia." The problem, as this empty-headed twit doesn't seem to recognize, is that Virginia won't keep its guns out of New York.

Now if Virginia were in a foreign country, things would be a lot simpler.

One to go

Democrats seek a vote of (no) confidence on Gonzalez. Given the number of Republicans who have called on the AG to resign (the latest being Chuck Hagel, over the Ashcroft hospital-room intrigue), its hard to see how the result could be much in doubt. The question, then, becomes what the Repubs will do to try to avoid the vote.

One Down

Wolfowitz is out at the World Bank.

In a sop, the banks' board of directors accepted Wolfie's claim that his actions had an honorable purpose. Right.

Whoops

In this post, TONE may have given the impression that then-AG Ashcroft approved the warrantless wiretapping program from his hospital bed. It's now clear that that was not the case, that--hard as it may seem to believe--he expressed his reservations about the legality of the program. Not only that, but he pointedly told then-White House Counsel Gonzalez and chief of staff Andy Card (a man who until now has looked like Mr. Clean among all the scandals) that they should not be talking to him, but to the (Acting) Attorney-General, James Comey.

For some fascinating video of Comey's testimony on the subject, take a look at this, from Talkingpointsmemo. (This is the most riveting footage of the kind that I've seen since Alexander Butterfield spilled the beans about Nixon's Oval Office tapes during Watergate.)

Mitt Romney, civil libertarian

Last night at the Republicans' debate, Mitt Romney said he'd like to see the size of the Guantanamo concentration camp (he didn't use THAT term, of course) doubled, that he doesn't want prisoners in the US where they would be entitled to actual legal representation.

The question isn't whether a Mormon should be President, it's which Mormon.

The successor

Last week I saw a number of postings on political blogs theorizing that Alberto "Not-so-Speedy" Gonzalez's staying power is due to the Administration's fear of the confirmation fight that will ensue if he leaves. Yet yesterday we saw a man who is a good Republican and who's nomination would sail through Congress: James B. Comey, former Deputy Attorney General in the Bush administration, testified before Congress.

There would be a price for the administration pay in appointing Comey, of course. He happens to be one of that apparently disappearing breed: an Republican who really is dedicated to the Constitution as it is written and the rule of law, not politics. He is the one, you may recall, who refused to sign off on the administration's warrentless wiretaps when he was Acting Attorney-General while then AG John (Too Dumb to Beat a Dead Guy) Ashcroft was in the hospital. Which led Gonzalez to rush to that hospital to get a hazy Ashcroft (he was going under anesthesia) to approve the program. Comey has also been frank in saying that those US attorneys allegedly fired for performance reasons were among the finest in the land.

(Has it occurred to you that perhaps when the administration says they were dismissed for performance reasons, what they mean is that the US Attorneys in question were performing their jobs all too well?)

And there is something else: the probability that, if he were AG, Comey would actually investigate the shenanigans that have shredded the fabric of government under Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez, et als.

The thin thread of mortality

Early Friday morning, I'm lying in bed trying to sleep when I notice that my legs ache. Aha! I think, I'm coming down with something. Probably a 24-hour bug.

And so it proved.

Nothing terribly serious. A mild headache that might have meant a slight fever (not worth bothering to check), aches in the legs, no appetite.

So, how can such a minor ailment make one lose so much energy that it requires thought to decide whether it's worth expending the effort to reach out and turn off the light? That getting up to go into the next room becomes a major project?

Although it was, fortunately, one of those 24-hour things (I felt--fancied, perhaps, that I could actually sense the fever break as slight chill late on Friday night), even the day after I was tired enough to take a solid one-hour nap after getting myself a bowl of cold cereal for breakfast. And I did nothing that might remotely be called productive for the rest of the day. Indeed, I could not even face the idea of booting up the computer until today.

We go on, most of us, on most days, feeling vital enough to carry out our normal tasks without exhaustion and, if we are lucky, with sufficient energy for other pursuits as well. Yet a simple cold or mild virus will lay us out as if we are on our deathbeds.

Makes you think, doesn't it?

Take one day off

and you lose a week. I was out of the office last Friday to work on getting the lovely Rozinante
ready for the water, and I'm just catching up now. (Rozinante's color scheme is different now.)

What did I miss? The Queen's visit, for one thing. (Even after more than 200 years, if you say "the Queen," Americans know that you are referring to the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, more familiarly known as Great Britain, the UK or sometimes--wrongly--England.) I may be a liberal, but I have a soft spot for the Queen. Especially given what we have in the White House today.

Other than that, it seems like more of the same: Bush is threatening to veto the Democrats' latest Iraq spending bill, Not-So-Speedy Gonzalez is back in front of a congressional committee today, Wolfowitz is still hanging on at the World Bank and people are still dying in Iraq.

Perhaps the best development of the week was that Hillary Clinton has joined with Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) in a measure to repeal the authorization to use force in Iraq. Talkingpointsmemo reports that liberals in the House are talking about making their support for a new funding bill (the old one passed by just 10 votes, remember) dependent on an agreement to bring a de-authorization bill to the floor.

Some commentators have said that such a measure would be meaningless, because Bush would just veto it. Leaving aside that every such veto peels some more people away from W, I do not see why the President would have a chance to veto it. Did he have to sign the original authorization--which was an authorization for him to take action? What would that add? And why would he have the right to veto a bill that, in effect if not in form, expresses the will of an equal body of government? That makes no sense.

I don't mean to suggest that repealing authorization will end American participation in the war, any more than repealing the Gulf of Tonkin resolution did. To do that, Congress would have to cut off funds--or the chief executive would have to suffer an attack of good sense. But reversing its stance would be a powerful statement and would further isolate Mr. Bush.

(UPDATE: Greg Sargent reports that House Democrats will allow a straight up-or-down vote on whether to withdraw from Iraq.

Support the troops--bring them home

I went to an anti-war rally, organized by MoveOn.org, in downtown Boston this afternoon. Maybe 100 people stood around, some with signs, some with pots and pans to make noise, a few handing out leaflets. There was a screechy portable sound system.

Were the demonstrators supporting Congress against the President? No, not really. Their attitude was more "a plague on both your houses." The calls were for bringing the troops home, "now." One speaker suggested that the American and Iraqi peoples both wish an end to the war.

Would that it were so. True, a large majority of Iraqis devoutly wish to see the backs of the Americans, but let's be honest: a large number of them want us gone so that they can have a freer hand in killing their fellow countrymen. And we should remember that--despite what you hear--there ARE Iraqis who believed that the Americans could make their country a better place, that at least some of those who joined the Iraqi army and police force did so for patriotic reasons, and others did so, not to advance the cause of a sectarian militia, but to feed their families. There are also millions of Iraqis who simply want to live lives free of politics, war and sectarianism. Those people are unlikely to coalesce into a force strong enough to suppress the killers but, having encouraged them, we owe them at least a semblance of transition before we leave them to their fates.

The people that I saw at today's demonstration help to explain why the anti-war movement has not generated mass protests, even with the war's unpopularity. Instead of building bridges to mainstream politicians and voters, speakers castigated congressional Democrats for providing money for the war and failing to establish hard-and-fast deadlines to bring the troops home.

True enough, but even the largely-symbolic bill that Bush vetoed yesterday had only a 10-vote margin in the House. If the anti-War movement want stronger legislation, it has to appeal to those who now hesitate; criticizing them as near-allies of Bush and his cronies is a poor way to do that.

You can't veto the truth

Americans United for Truth is running a powerful ad about Bush's veto of the Iraq/Afghanistan funding bill. It's title: "You Can't Veto the Truth."

Facing the future

This weekend I replace the "impeach Bush" bumper sticker on my car with one that says "Obama ''08."

Worse than Watergate

Is the position that the United States finds itself in today worse than it was in 1973--the comparable point in the Nixon administration? I believe that it is.

Watergate--the name for a related group of scandals in the Nixon Administration--represented a covert attempt to undermine the electoral process. Although it came to involve the President in a cover-up, it was essentially a political scandal aimed at insuring Nixon's reelection.

The Bush Administration, in contrast, has mounted a frontal attack on the Constitution. If it were to succeed in imprinting its view of government on the nation, the presidency would be more powerful than it ever has been under liberals--the alleged apostles of big government--government would be less transparent than any time in the last 70 years, the state would have more power to intrude on citizens' lives than ever in our history, and those citizens would have no right of redress. And all that is beside the way that the present regime works to increase the power of those at the top of the economic scale.

There is another factor at work here. In 1973-74, we lived in a bi-polar world. While Watergate wracked the nation we remained the undisputed leader of the non-Communist world. In the nuclear standoff, our opponents had few options to take advantage of disarray at home.

Today, our weaknesses play into the hands of our enemies, separate us from our allies and handcuff us in our battle against people who want the worst for the United States. We are substantially weaker now than we were when Bush came into office, and the primary cause of this is not Osama bin Laden or his allies, but George W. Bush and his.

That's why I say that the present crisis is worse than Watergate.

Beyond the politics

So Democrats have passed a bill that would fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Bush is going to veto it, because it contains a sort of timetable. (Not a real timetable, because withdrawal is not mandatory.) Now what?

Those of us who oppose the war need to recognize that there are no easy answers, and we need to ask the hard questions. If it is true that the "surge" has led to a significant reduction in sectarian violence in Baghdad--and I have seen no credible reports questioning that--we have to ask whether a withdrawal of American troops will lead to an upsurge in deaths.

Certainly we cannot keep American forces in Iraq for decades (although the logic of the administration's argument could lead to that), and it may be that keeping the lid on will simply mean that the violence will return once the pressure is released. It may also be the case that the level of violence in Iraq is not being diminished by the limited American escalation; that a rise in the number of deaths outside the capital more or less balances the lower casualties in the city.

Are we prepared to accept a continued American presence in Iraq if the evidence shows that it will save lives? I am not saying what that evidence must be, and frankly I do no know what would prove that case to me. But assuming that, like Potter Stewart judging obscenity, we know it when we see it, will we temper our anti-war stance if the proof is there?

The best answer to these questions that I have seen recently comes from a letter to The New York Times by Ronald L. Spiers, who was a State Dept. official and ambassador in the Middle East in both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Spiers suggests that: "We ask the Iraqi government and Parliament to decide formally whether they want coalition forces to stay or go. If Parliament does not have a majority for a request that we stay, we will pack up and leave as quickly as possible in a safe, orderly manner."

That suggestion is not particularly new; a number of liberals have said pretty much the same thing, knowing that the Bush administration--no more committed to Democracy in Iraq than it is here at home--would reject it. But Spiers goes on:

"If the government and Parliament go on record as wanting coalition forces to stay, we would leave a force large enough to provide Iraqi forces with needed training, reconstruction and logistic support, intelligence support in tracking foreign fighters, and its own force protection.

"It would stay as long as both sides agree that it is necessary and desirable, with no timetable for departure. It would have no combat role in dealing with internal sectarian conflict."

There's no chance that this approach will be accepted by Bush, Cheney & Co., but as they become more and more isolated, such a limitation on the American role could become attractive to an increasing number of GOP senators and congressmen, especially those up for re-election in 2008.

Spiers' suggestion explicitly leaves the matter of sectarian violence to Iraqis, and implicitly rejects the idea that Americans can be a buffer between the contending forces. In the long run, and the peoples of the Middle East know all about long runs, that is certainly true.

Spiers's idea may be the best that anyone can come up with in this tragic situation.

The ultimate corruption

For an example of how thoroughly corrupt the Bush administration is, take a look at The New York Times' analysis of the way the Occupational Health and Safety Administration had betrayed its role of protecting American workers.

As The Times recounts, OSHA has ignored clear dangers to workers, refused to issue binding regulations and, instead, relied heavily on voluntary cooperation from the businesses it was set up to regulate. Simply put, that is a recipe for death and injuries among the very people whom OSHA is supposed to protect. If you don't think so, look at it this way: which businesses are most and least likely to comply with voluntary standards? The ones that are already concerned with the health and safety of their workers (frequently because a union is involved) will meet voluntary standards, because it seems to be good business to do so. But the companies that have dangerous workplaces are hardly going to change their ways just because OSHA tells them that it would be nice if they did so. It hardly needs to be pointed out that the whole reason why we need a health and safety agency is to deal with the second kind of employer.

OSHA and its regulations are seldom the stuff of headlines. The agency's operations generally fly beneath the radar, so it is the perfect place to apply the Repubs' doctrine of hollowing out government agencies in aid of private greed--even where life and health is at stake.

Half-Staff

An Army sergeant stationed in Afghanistan questions why flags were flown at half-staff for the Virginia Tech victims, but American casualties in that country and Iraq are not accorded similar honors. Sgt. Jim Wilt suggests that military deaths lack the "shock factor" of the Virginia Tech killings. In this he is surely right.

Wilt suggests that flags be lowered to half-staff at the home base of those killed. A good way to honor those sacrifice, but not likely given a commander-in-chief who ordered that there be no photos of coffins of the dead returning from the battlefields.

Lincoln Was Right

Paul Krugman quoting Abraham Lincoln to illustrate how Bush holds Congress and the nation hostage to his Iraq delusion: “A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, ‘Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!’ ”

What's in a name?

A beauty parlor in Newport, RI:

Curl Up and Dye

Off to the seven seas

I'm going sailing for a few days--helping a friend to deliver his new-to-him (i.e., pre-owned as the used-car ads say) boat.

See you next week.

The abortion decision

The New York Times called it "fundamentally dishonest," and that pretty well sums up the Supreme Court's decision in Gonzalez v. Carhart (yes, THAT Gonzalez).

One aspect of the decision that I focused on which most observers have not was the question of where in tarnation the federal government gets the power to regulate abortions. This is important, because it goes to the continuing tug of war over where the boundaries of federal power lie.

For many years, we liberals pushed those boundaries, at least in most areas. With the coming of the "conservative" revolution and especially in the Bush years, it was our ox that was gored and we saw that federal power ought to be limited.

OK, so back to the decision. The majority never dealt with the question of federal power; all it did was to quote from the statute's prohibition on doctors who are in or affect interstate commerce. That might apply to a doctor who treats a patient in another state (one might question whether medical practice is commerce, but I think that horse has left the barn; those of us who think that doctors and lawyers can be liable for violation of consumer-protection laws can hardly make that argument), but what about the woman from down the block? The kind of arguments in favor of a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause that actuated liberals for many years--viz., the New Deal--might accept that formulation. (In a case in 1941, the government argued that a farmer who never sold in interstate commerce, indeed, I think the one in question said he consumed all his own produce, was nonetheless subject to farm regulations, because his products were part of the total stream that included interstate commerce. The Supreme Court agreed.)

Here's the problem, though, at least as respects the decision this week: three of the five justices in the majority (Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas) voted to strike down the Violence Against Women Act a few years ago. The reason? The acts forbidden did not have a close enough relation to interstate commerce. One might think that perhaps the justices value fetuses more than women.

These are the same justices who have struck down other laws, because they found fault with congressional findings that formed the justification for them. Yet this week, Justice Kennedy noted substantial flaws in important parts of the congressional findings on which the anti-abortion statute, yet he went on to uphold its validity.

What gives? We know: the five justices (as Justice Ginsburg noted, all male) were determined to validate the statute at issue, and the decision was written to justify that aim. This is result-oriented jurisprudence, and it is the opposite of the way judges are supposed to decide cases.

I'm not going to comment on the parts of the decision specific to abortion; others far more qualified have done that. I will, however, go out on a limb and predict that Gonzalez v. Carhart will ultimately prove harmful to the anti-abortion cause. The fact that the Supreme Court has actually allowed a restriction on abortion that takes no account of the life or health of the mother to stand will galvanize millions who have stood on the sidelines. Given the general weakness of conservatives and especially of the GOP these days, that is going to help speed political change, which will lead to different laws and, ultimately, different judges.

Department of wooley thinking

Britain's largest union of journalists has voted in favor of a boycott of Israeli goods, because of what it calls Israel's "military adventures," likening the effort to the boycott of South African products in the struggle against apartheid.

Given the British journalists killed by Arab fighters in Iraq, and the fact that the BBC's Alan Johnston was kidnapped--and according to some reports murdered--by Palestinians in Gaza--the move might be seen as curious. Or, perhaps, as giving in to threats of violence.

But what the journalists did was more than strange, illogical or weak: It was a violation of their professional principles. The job of the reporter is to observe and report. The journalist who becomes part of the story forfeits his claim to our attention. But that is exactly what these British scribes have done. By injecting themselves into the maelstrom of Middle East politics, they have disqualified themselves from the only role that they could legitimately claim.

(For British foolishness, this move ranks with the resolution of the Oxford Union in 1935 or so, that declared its members would not die for King and country. A few years later, of course, many of them were doing exactly that.)

The possible future

Tom Friedman had an important article on the need to advance a Green agenda in our politics and society in the NYT Magazine on Sunday, important primarily because the prominence of the author and the publication will help to extend the debate to the mass of voters, the people who need to be mobilized if real, hard political changes are to become reality.

Friedman does an effective job at sketching the scale of the problem we face if we are to avoid a global climate disaster, and at showing the economic challenges that must be met in order to bring China and India--already important sources of pollution, their contributions to warming growing daily--into the fold of nations truly dedicated to reducing greenhouse gases. But where the article shines is in showing that an enlightened, environmentally-responsible policy is not only possible, but is the way to restore the American manufacturing sector.

One example that Friedman uses is GE's locomotive manufacturing plant in Erie, PA. Erie might be thought of as the buckle on the rust belt, but as the manager of the plant points out, “Our little town has trade surpluses with China and Mexico.” How does an American plant, paying American wages and making a heavy-industry product of the kind that has long since fled to foreign makers, compete with--and actually sell to--the nations that have sucked so much manufacturing away? By producing engines that are lighter (thus more economical to run) and cleaner in both current (NOx) and future (CO2) pollutants than their foreign competitors. Oh, and as the plan manager also notes, "they don’t stop on the tracks.”

My favorite line in the article is a quote from John Gardner, founder of Common Cause, likening climate change to: "a series of great opportunities disguised as insoluble problems."
We need to wake up the can-do attitude that characterized American enterprise for so many decades to take on those problems.

The question

The slaughter at Virginia Tech prompts this question:

When will our political leaders have the courage to point out that the leaders of the NRA are knowing or unwitting allies of drug dealers, organized crime and urban gangs?

The next step, rethought

In an earlier post, I suggested that the Don Imus affair might provide the impetus for a re-examination of the way in which black women have been regarded in the media. In this, I was hardly alone, nor even the first to express the idea.

Others saw a broader issue: the way in which we talk about each other in general. Is there a difference between Don Imus' stupid remarks about the Rutgers University women's basketball team and the homophobia of Russ Limbaugh, the xenophobia of Glenn Beck or the ravings of Ann Coulter? No, no, and no, except that Imus got his comeuppance for his maundering.

On further thought, I suspect that I was mistaken in viewing the Imus contretemps as the start of a national discussion about how we talk about one another. It now seems that this incident is part of a revulsion at incivility that started--as usual--among "ordinary" Americans before the media noticed. Its most clear expression to date was not have Imus's demise, but the November 2006 election. Voters there turned their backs not only on Bush's policy in Iraq, but on a political style that assumes a monopoly on truth and good.

So Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter and their ilk will continue their smirking bigotry but they, like Don Imus and George W. Bush, are part of the past.

The same, I suspect, is true of those rap and hip-hop artists I wrote about--although being totally ignorant of what passes for music these days, I can speak from a vantage point of absolutely no authority.

For someone who does speak with authority, take a look at Russ Mitchell's CBS interview with Maya Angelou, who takes on the rap and hip-hop artists I spoke of in my earlier post. She is magnificent.

Fingerprints

This is big:

From the Albuquerque Journal, April 15, 2007:

"In the spring of 2006, Domenici told Gonzales he wanted [U.S. Attorney David] Iglesias out.
"Gonzales refused. He told Domenici he would fire Iglesias only on orders from the president.
"At some point after the election last Nov. 6, Domenici called Bush's senior political adviser, Karl Rove, and told him he wanted Iglesias out and asked Rove to take his request directly to the president.
"Domenici and Bush subsequently had a telephone conversation about the issue.
"The conversation between Bush and Domenici occurred sometime after the election but before the firings of Iglesias and six other U.S. attorneys were announced on Dec. 7."

In other words, it is not just Gonzalez, and not just Karl Rove who are implicated in the politically-motivated firings of the US Attorneys, but the President himself. Did Bush know that the senor Senator from New Mexico wanted the U.S. Attorney fired for political reasons? Assuming that the President would invoke executive privilege to conceal what Rove told him, isn't it enough that a) Domenici's call was routed through Rove and b) Domenici's called Iglesias to complain that the US Attorney's office was not indicting Democrats before Election Day in a vote-fraud case that Iglesias considered too weak to prosecute, enough to show that Bush knew what was up?

Will the major media pick this up? Will Democrats have the guts to pursue the story to the Oval Office?

Stay tuned.

The next step

At last, our long national nightmare is over. Oh, wait, it was only a week ago that the brouhaha over Don Imus' latest (and, let us hope, last) outrage broke.

So MSNBC and CBS finally saw the light--or at least the declining revenues as advertisers scampered away from the sinking ship. Whether for reasons of morality or cupidity, the right result was reached.

Perhaps the most salutary part of the whole sorry affair was that more attention was focused on the way that rap and hip-hop "artists" speak of black women every day in terms that would make Imus blush.

So, now that the Imus is fading into history, what will happen next? Will we go back to business-as-usual? Or could this be an opportunity to change attitudes towards black women in particular, and more generally the attitude that black Americans have about themselves?

White guys like me can't have much part in this--there's far too much history for that. But women, black, white, Hispanic, Asian--and black men can stand up and say to people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson that it's time to stop the demeaning portrayals of women--especially black women--in mass media, that it's past time for leaders in the community to begin a relentless campaign to teach younger people the destructiveness of the kind of thinking and acting that leads to all women being regarded as ho's. That could, and should, expand to an examination of the self-destructive behavior that is sometimes deemed acceptable among American blacks, and to a sustained efforts to change the thinking that leads to acts that hold too many blacks back and makes life more difficult for those who don't behave that way, but share skin color with those who do. (Yes, it's racist that whites and others assume that all blacks act the way some do, and they whites find it convenient to believe that many more black Americans believe and behave like the gangsta rappers than is really the case.)

So, how's that surge working out for you?

One day in Baghdad: a suicide bomber blows up a truck on a major bridge across the Tigris, killing at least 10 people according to early reports and sending the bridge into the river.

A few hours later, another suicide bomber blows himself up inside the cafeteria of the Iraqi parliament. Which is in "the heavily-fortified Green Zone."

Oh, well, John McCain (R-AZ) didn't say that you could walk across bridges or through the Green Zone in safety.

Destroying the Army

During and after World War II, psychologists studying the effect of combat determined that a soldier could be in battle for approximately six months before he (they were virtually all men in those days) became ineffective. Not six months at a time--six months, total. Look at the history of American units in the Second World War and you will see that few were in front-line combat for six months or more. And, in the case of formations such as the 82nd Airborne, which served in Africa, Sicily, Italy and Northern Europe, a very high percentage of the men in the earlier campaigns had been replaced by the time of the later ones; each of the 82nd's battle experiences were also limited in time.

In Vietnam, as up to now in in Iraq, the US Army assigned soldiers for one-year tours of duty in the war zones. That did not, and does not, mean twelve months in combat, because these wars were and are not the same as the Second World War. But in a war with no front, the soldier is always under stress, always liable to attack. In Iraq, even more than in Vietnam, there are no safe havens.

So, the announcement yesterday that Army tours in Iraq are being extended for three more months will not only be an immediate blow to morale. If carried out--if the American people do not stand up and force an end to the insanity of an open-ended commitment to this unwinnable struggle--this new policy will permanently damage the psyches of thousands of people who will return with no visible injuries, will seriously erode the cohesion and fighting efficiency of units and will only accelerate the downward spiral of the United States from the pinnacle of power that it held when George W. Bush became President.

(The very idea of a pre-determined tour of duty in a war zone is--to be charitable--of questionable wisdom. "Short-timers" in Vietnam were well known to be dangerous to themselves and those around them. The idea of soldiers counting down the days is counterproductive to military discipline and efficiency. And, it will also tend to straitjacket the thinking of commanders, leading them to keep some units in the war zone longer than necessary or desirable, while others may be rotated before they need to be--although in Iraq, with danger always present, it is hard to see how that could be true for any American formation.)

On the visit of the Premier of China to Japan

Premier Wen is going to Japan today.

You just told me when.

Yes, I did.

Who is it?

No, Hu isn't going. He's the President

I don't know who isn't going. I want to know who is, but I don't know who is. That's what I'm asking you.

And I'm telling you. Hu is the President of China.

And I still don't know. Is that the same as being premier?

No, the Premier is Wen.

We've been over that. I thought you said it was today.

Yes, I did. But you asked about Hu.

Are you going to tell me?

Yes I did. He's the President.

But who's the premier? Isn't that the guy we started talking about?

No. We were talking about Wen.

We've been over that! I know it's today.

Right. But then you asked who the premier was.

Uh huh. So who is it?

No, I keep telling you. He's the president. Wen is the premier.

I don't think I care any more.


--I couldn't resist!

(For those who don't keep up with these things, Wen Jibao is the Premier and Hu Jintao the President and Paramount Leader of the Communist Party of the Peoples' Republic of China.)

In case you were wondering

Josh Marshall, of talkingpointsmemo.com, explains--using the example of Carol Lam, the dismissed US Attorney in San Diego--what the scandal is really all about. AND, there's a bonus: Richard Holbrooke taking down the critics of Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria.

(The clip is slow to load, but give it time--even at this late date, it's worth remembering what Rove & Co. were trying to do.)

The arrogance of power

Or is it the power of arrogance?

So W has invited the leaders of Congress to sit down with him at the White House and discuss funding for the war. But he's made it clear that he won't negotiate over Congress' desire to limit the time that Americans are fighting and dying in Iraq. "We can discuss the way forward on a bill that is a clean bill; a bill that funds our troops without artificial timetables for withdrawal," the President said.

In other words, we can discuss how you're going to do what I want.

Will Democrats have the guts to decline the invitation, even if he sweetens it with an offer of lunch? Unfortunately, they probably won't, although Harry Reid did say, "The president is inviting us down to the White House with preconditions. That's not the way things should operate." When it comes right down to it, though, the leadership of House and Senate will prove too scared of how the right-wing claque would howl at such effrontery. Too bad, because the American people would understand.

An anniversary

When I suggested that Democrats make rebuilding America's infrastructure a major part of their 2008 platform, I was did not realize how close we were to the anniversary of the WPA, established on April 8, 1935; for the reminder, I am grateful to Charles Osgood and CBS Sunday Morning (I can't find a link to today's Almanac segment, which noted the anniversary).

WPA--the Works Progress Administration for you young 'uns--was the great public-works engine of the New Deal. In a few yeas, it build\t hundreds of thousands of miles of roads, thousands of bridges, as well as schools, courthouses and the Grand Coulee Dam. The agency also employed artists to paint murals in public spaces, actors and directors to put on plays, and Woody Guthrie to write and perform songs, including Grand Coulee Dam.

(U.S. Bureau of Reclamation)

Next time you hear a Repub say that we can't solve problems by throwing money at them, just say "WPA."

McCain's Dukakis-in-a-tank moment

I didn't see all of John McCain's 60 Minutes interview, but there were parts that I did see in which he looked like the old straight-talker. Whatever you think of his politics, it's hard to dislike the man (something that I never, ever, said about W, or Reagan). Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, reporter Scott Pelley never asked him whether shilling for the war was strategy or conviction, simply assuming the latter.

Not that it really matters. McCain admitted that his campaign is tied to what happens in Iraq. As we all know, that misadventure can only end badly--for the United States, for Iraqis and, in all likelihood, for McCain as well. Indeed, even if he were to win the GOP nomination, can he expect to prevail against any of the top-tier Democrats? Perhaps against Hillary, if he can somehow recapture his reputation for independence and paint her as an endless calculator, both tall orders. Right now, it looks far more likely that McCain will be pretty well out of the race before Iowa. (I'm not predicting that--I know how early it is. I'm only saying that that's how it looks today.)

As for McCain's stroll through the Shorja market--followed by his sunny report and, the next day, the kidnapping and murder of 21 market workers--the Senator did admit that he "mis-spoke." But then he said that that's his personality, and that he's happy with the way he is. While we might applaud a man who is comfortable with himself, I suspect that Americans are fed up with presidents who consistently say what they don't really mean.

2008

It's been quite a while since the last installment of our occasional series on the Democrats' 2008 platform, so let's get back to it.

Bob Herbert, an NYT columnist who is underrated, because he's on the same page with Paul Krugman and Nicholas Kristoff (who should be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize), wrote a very well reasoned piece about the need to restore our infrastructure. Unfortunately, he sold the topic short by saying that he can't think of a less sexy story.

I think he's wrong about that. True, crumbling bridges and roads don't lead the news--unless they collapse like the tunnel in Boston's Big Dig did last year. (Ironically, that was part of a new project, not an old one.) But virtually all Americans must ride on those aging roads and bridges every day. Many of them know of the poor condition of our infrastructure first-hand, and many who don't bother to think about the subject could be educated if our would-be leaders called attention to it. Restoring our infrastructure is exactly the kind of bread-and-butter issue that made Democrats the dominant party for most of the Twentieth Century and, while such topics are sometimes derided in a globalized world, they remain important.

Indeed, as Herbert points out, if the US wants to compete in the global market, repairing our infrastructure will be vital. Without safe roads, bridges and tunnels, without dams that reliably hold back water, we will suffer from commercial sclerosis. If you don't believe me, look at the third-world nations in which getting products to market and distributing goods to customers are major impediments to progress.

There is another point that argues for Democrats making infrastructure a major part of their platform in 2008: it is yet another way to split the "conservative" coalition. Businesspeople who have voted for the GOP in the past have interests that diverge sharply from the starve-the-best yahoos like Grover Norquist. They will support money to repair the underpinnings of the structure on which their enterprises rest (sometimes literally), and some of them will vote for a Democrat who pledges to take on the task.

The moral high ground

Remember when the Repubs claimed that they were more in tune with "American values" than the Democrats? I suppose that they are still claiming that, but fewer and fewer people are listening. Here's one example of why that's so: Last week, the office of Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) admitted that he had placed a "hold"--a maneuver by which one senator can block consideration of a measure--on an anti-cockfighting measure that was passed in the House by a vote of 368-39. Thus, Sen. Coburn--who is a doctor, by the way--becomes the Senate's leading proponent of animal cruelty.

The Senator's office portrayed his move as a stand against unnecessary federal law. Proponents of the bill suggested that he had knuckled under to pressure--read, campaign cash--from the illegal but huge cock- and dogfighting industry.

Ah, yes, the GOP, party of values. The value of the dollar, that is.

Sometimes it's hard to defend free speech

For defenders of free speech, a headline like "Three Yale students arrested for burning U.S. flag," is worrisome, or worse. Isn't that a fight that was won years ago, when the Supreme Court declared that the First Amendment protects such acts, incendiary as they may be?

But then it turns out that the students in question did not own the flag. Not only that, but the flag they burned was attached to a flagpole, and the flagpole was attached to a house. And it was still flying from that flagpole, attached to that house, when they set it ablaze.

So the three--two of whom turn out to be foreign nationals (not that that should mean anything) were not charged with flag-burning, as such, but with arson, reckless endangerment and lesser offenses.

Still, when they appeared for arraignment they were attired in leg irons and handcuffs. Would that have been the case if the flag in question had had a Budweiser label on it, instead of the stars and stripes? You be the judge.

Needed: the never-ending Congress

The President has used his power to make recess appointments to put Susan Dudley into a post as head of the little-known but very powerful Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Dudley, an anti-regulation zealot, will now be in charge of the office that reviews all governmental regulations. Yes, once again, the fox is in charge of the hen house.

But wait, as they say on late-night TV, there's more. You may recall that Mr. Bush had nominated Sam Fox to be ambassador to Belgium, an appointment that was pulled when it turned out that Fox was the financial angel behind the "Swift Vote Veterans for Truth," (a title with as much verisimilitude as calling the Soviet Union's chief newspaper Pravda). Today, however, in a matchless display of arrogance and contempt for both congressional Democrats and our constitutional system (which envisions recess appointments as stop-gaps to make sure that essential posts are filled when Congress cannot do so), the President appointed Fox to the ambassadorial job, where he will stay until 2008. Don't you think the Belgians are thrilled and honored?

What can be done? As far as I can tell, there are only two solutions to this hubris. One is for Democrats to make sure that Congress does not recess between now and January 2009. You've heard of the never-ending campaign? Welcome to the never-ending Congress.

The other can be encapsulated in a bumper sticker that I had printed last year.

Keep your head down in the farmers' market!

John McCain (R-AZ) and three congressmen took a stroll through the Shorja, the central market in Baghdad, the other day, and pronounced it safe and a symbol of progress through the "surge." They neglected to mention that they had been accompanied by a company of US troops, that the area had been scouted in advance and that there were attack helicopters overhead.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) pronounced the market "like a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime."

Oh, yeah? And when you go to those markets in your home state, Congressman, do you wear a flak jacket like you were on Sunday? (Maybe they offer REALLY great bargains in Indiana farmers' markets.)

Let my people go

Tonight is the first night of Passover, the week-long holiday in which Jews commemorate their liberation from slavery in Egypt. Passover is both a shared and an individual holiday: As the Bible says, each Jew should feel that he (or she) was freed. Or as is recited several times, "This is for what the Lord God did for me when I went out of the land of Egypt."

My family used a Haggadah (the book recounting the story of Pesach, or Passover) that was written during World War II, and it expresses the ideal of liberation that informed Jewish thought in the New Deal and the Second World War. As told there, the story of the Exodus is not just the story of the Hebrews' escape from Egypt, but all victories of freedom over oppression since: the liberty serfs won from their masters (some of those serfs, in Eastern Europe, enthusiastically joined in pogroms), the freedom of slaves freed from bondage all over the world, the freedom of workers from robber-baron bosses.

Today, the Supreme Court refused a chance to rule on the rights of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, hundreds of men who have been left behind barbed wire and bars for five years and more without trial and, in almost all cases, without even being charged. Two justices, Kennedy and Stevens, suggested that the prisoners might come back to the court after exhausting their other remedies (Congress has denied them all remedies except military commissions), or if the government were slow to charge them. Slow? What is five years if not slow? Recall that the Constitution contains a provision requiring speedy trial of criminal cases.

Is it coincidence that among the dissenters from this erev (eve) Passover decision were its two Jewish members, Justices Breyer and Ginsburg? I'd like to think not. I should like to think that their heritage informed their reasoning.

(Justice Breyer, dissenting for himself and Justices Ginsburg and Souter, simply demolished the logic of Stevens and Kennedy and, implicitly, the refusal by the court's right wing to even hear the prisoners' argument. Unfortunately, Justice Ginsburg refused to sign the portion of the dissent that would not only have permitted review, but would have ordered the case heard this term.)

Oops

Turns out that we were watching the wrong Thompson. While there was a media boomlet former Sen. Fred Dalton Thompson (presently the Manhattan DA, at least on Law and Order, it turns out that the Thompson running for the Republican nomination is Tommy Thompson, former Wisconsin governor and undistinguished secretary of HHS.

McCain, Giuliani and Romney are shaking in their shoes.

Money, money, money

The media has already started trumpeting Hillary Clinton's (R-NY) fundraising prowess--$26 million raised in the first quarter, another $10 million transferred from her senatorial campaign fund (don't be misled if you read $36 million in a fashion suggesting that she raised that much in the first 3 months of 2007).

Clinton's fundraising is impressive, and it demonstrates a strong organization and the commitment of many people to her campaign. (And also the value of being married to an ex-President.) But she has yet to demonstrate that she can put Democrats qualms to rest and actually get votes in competition with other candidates for the nomination.

In other words, we're still seeing inside baseball.

For once, I hope he's lying

The President has been all over TV and radio this week, castigating congressional Democrats for putting their views ahead of the generals'. Can he really believe that? I hope not.

One of the bedrock principles of our system is that the military is controlled by civilians. The generals (and admirals) don't make the final decision, political leaders do. So, when Bush suggests that the House and Senate should leave decisions about pulling out of Iraq to the generals, he is either deluded about the way our government works or, once again, he is twisting the truth. I hope it is the latter, because if the President really believes that whether to continue our involvement in Iraq is a military, rather than a political question, we are in even worse trouble than I thought.

Adieu, Princess

I am sad to report that we had to have Natasha put to sleep last night. She had been ill while we were in France, but seemed to be responding to treatment until yesterday afternoon, when she failed suddenly. We are saddened by her passing, but although she had diabetes and thyroid problems, for the fourteen years that she was with me (and seven since Diane and I have been together), she did not suffer until the last couple of weeks of her life, and for that we are grateful.

The Princess, as we called her, came to me after having been abused--when I brought her home, she still had one leg in a cast. She mostly recovered, although her right hind leg remained gimpy and she was never a lap cat, and would generally make herself scarce when strangers came in the house. She would sit near me, but always where she could get away. If I was seated at the computer in a chair with arms, she would sometimes seek attention, seeing that I was pinned in the chair and could not do more than reach out and fluff her. Still, for many years she would like on the floor, roll over on her back and expose her belly, and she would let me tickle her there and seemed to like it.

Natasha was the number one feline--hissing at her brother, Shay-Shay, whenever he came near except, strangely, around the food bowls. Still, he misses her; he's wandering around the house looking a little lost.

In an earlier post, I suggested that I might not deserve to go to heaven, but Natasha and Shay-Shay do. So, if there is such a place, I guess she's there or on her way, but I like to think that she also lives whenever we think of her.

Adieu, Natasha. You'll always be our princess.

It's not always about politics

Regular readers will know that TONE will never be confused a with non-partisan or putatively objective outlet. Sometimes, however, we must acknowledge that politics is only part of the life of the world and, really, a small part in the lives of most people.

This rumination is caused by news that the White House spokesman, Tony Snow's, cancer has metastasized to his liver. There are new treatments all the time, but as far as I know, liver cancer remains intractable. (If I'm wrong about that, post a comment correcting me, please!)

I don't know Tony Snow, but I don't like his slant on the news and I don't like the administration for which he speaks. Still, from human beings to one another, we must all wish him well.

Profiles in courage

I hope you saw John and Elizabeth Edwards on 60 Minutes the other night. If not, take a look.

John Edwards has always been a person that I've liked, but had a hard time focusing on. I hate to admit it, but his accent may have something to do with that. He and his wife, however, showed the world an honesty, frankness, openness and courage that sets an example for all of us, not just those in politics or public life. (People who are interested in going into politics should watch the interview for a lesson in how to behave--a lesson generally not learned or ignored.)

After watching and listening to the Edwardses, I have more a great deal more respect for them than I did before, and wish them well in everything they do.

An insight

I was going to put a couple of posts on here last night, but instead I wound up spending a few hours in the ER. Not to worry, it turned out to be nothing. In fact, I left without seeing a doctor. Which gave me an insight into one small corner of our healthcare "system." When I asked about satisfying my co-pay, the nurse replied that there was none, because I hadn't seen a doctor. I did, however, get the services of a number of hospital employees, blood work and an EKG. But because I didn't see a doctor I, at least, face no charge. (Presumably my insurer will be billed.)

Does that seem as illogical to you as it does to me?

On a related note, CBS News had an enlightening story on the prevalence of hospital billing errors, which, as one billing advocate noted, always seem to be made in favor of the hospital. The scale of the errors reported--anecdotes only, let's note--makes me wonder how much of our bloated healthcare spending goes out in overpayments.

The magic word

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) has uttered the magic word--impeachment. While not urging Congress to take the ultimate step against George W. Bush, the Senator did acknowledge that some view impeachment as a legitimate tool to rein in a president who refuses to listen to the legislative branch.

Hagel's declaration marks the largest crack in Republican ranks to date, and gives the idea of impeachment legitimacy that it lacked before. This does not mean that W will be impeached, of course; the numbers in Congress and the clock ticking down on the Bush administration make even hearings on a move to impeach a remote possibility at best. But Hagel's words take the struggle against Bush's slow-motion coup against the Constitution to a new level.

(Is the Senator from Nebraska also signaling that he will not run for President? Recently, he called a news conference--and effectively brought his home state to a standstill--to announce that he was undecided about a presidential candidacy. Many wondered at such a quixotic escapade. Perhaps Hagel has not determined that he will not try for the White House.)

Back

Yes, TONE is back, and your editor's back, which got cranky in Paris, is one big reason why we've been off line for more than a week. The back started to ache in Paris, almost certainly due to an old injury (a couple of ruptured discs over the past couple of decades). The good part was that walking was fine, standing was OK; it was sitting that was most painful. Hence, posting--especially in Internet cafes--became problematic.

Meanwhile, the world ground on. So, now that I'm back home and better, let's turn to more important matters.....

The view from here

Here being the Quartier Latin, hard by the Pantheon.

We're staying in a small appartment just down the block from the Pantheon. The TV gets only a few channels, all of them news and most in English, which is fine by moi.

The big US story here has been the announced confession of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to the killing of Daniel Pearl, as well as the long-known masterminding of the 9/11 attacks. My sources tell me that in the still-classified portion of the transcript he also confessed to involvement in the still-unsolved disappearance of Judge Crater, the Lindbergh kidnapping, Lincoln's assasination and the stabbing of Thomas à Becket. (Thanks to this French keyboard I'm struggling with, I can at least put in the proper à.)

The other big story from the US, on BBC has been the scandal over the fired US attorneys and demands for Gonzalez's head. As they say here in France, he's pain grillé (toast). And likely Karl Rove too, as Bush' duck walk gets more lam every day.

Eh bien, I'm going to go off and enjoy Paris--as much as I can with the Euro at $1.33; when we started coming here regularly, in the last days of the Clinton administration, it was $.96. Thank you, George Bush.

A bientot

I'm off for a week in la Belle France tonight. Specifically, Paris. We'll be staying in a flat in the 5th Arondissment, the Latin Quarter, just down the hill from the Pantheon. This is a section of the city that I know only slightly, so it will be interesting to explore.

What with traveling and being in another city, not to mention those annoying French keyboards, I don't expect to be posting much, although I'll try to check in now and again if I can find a decent Internet cafe in the neighborhood.

What's going to happen between now and when I return, on March 22nd? Will we still have Alberto Gonzalez to kick around? He's dead meat, the only question is when the White House will throw him out. I suspect that he may well be in the trash within a week. The bigger question is Karl Rove. As Congress gets closer and closer to his role in the politically-motivated firing of the US attorneys, his job is really threatened, especially after the Repubs' dismal showing last November and given W's present unpopularity ratings. I don't expect him to be out the door by next week, but don't be surprised if he's gone by tax day.

And you can be sure that, with the way new scandals, and new developments in old scandals seem to pop up every day, I'll be searching for the CNN, the BBC and the International Herald Tribune.

Au 'voir mes amis.

It's not the heat, it's the cupidity

So Halliburton is moving its corporate HQ from cosmopolitan Houston to Dubai. Well, maybe. According to the headline in the The New York Times, "Halliburton Is Moving Its C.E.O. From Houston to Dubai." The Times also reports that the company will remain incorporated in the US, which shoots down my first reaction--that this was a tax dodge.

Why do it, then? Surely, the company must know how this will be--is being--received by the public. It's another black eye for Halliburton alumnus and prime patron, Deadeye Dick Cheney. Could it be that David Leasar, Chairman and CEO, prefers the climate in Arabia to that in Houston?

Or is it, as one of my law partners put it, that Lesar will be getting out (of the country) ahead of the indictments?

Strict construction

What happens when a "strict constructionist" meets a result he doesn't like? That was illustrated this past week when the federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down the District's strong gun-control law.

At issue was the Second Amendment. For a short provision, the Second Amendment has generated a great deal of controversy. The Amendment reads as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That language has always seemed pretty clear to me. An eighth-grade grammarian of average skill would tell you that the first phrase, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," modifies--or conditions--the rest of the sentence. From this, we might conclude that the framers wrote of the right to keep and bear arms in the context of preserving the militia system that was in place in the United States at the time.

Permit me to step outside of the language of the Amendment for a moment (I do not claim to be a strict constructionist, at least not in the usual sense). In 1791, when the Amendment was adopted, the United States had no army. In 1775, when the Revolution began, it was the militias of the 13 colonies who provided the backbone of the first forces to oppose the British. All through the Revolutionary War, militia forces--for good or ill--remained a substantial part of the American military establishment. Remember, too, that the British Army was the opposite of the American militias: a long-service professional force. It would have been perfectly logical for the framers of the Second Amendment to regard the establishment of such an army, particularly if there was no militia to guard the rights of the people as anathema.

Today's militia is the National Guard.

So, did the DC Circuit declare that the District's gun-control law must be interpreted in light of the states' interest in maintaining a militia? (Or did it note that, as something other than a state, the District might not even be covered by the Amendment?) Nah. That would have led to the wrong result.

Writing for the majority, Judge Lawrence Silberman said, according to The New York Times, “It seems passing strange that the able lawyers and statesmen in the First Congress (including James Madison) would have expressed a sole concern for state militias with the language of the Second Amendment. Surely there was a more direct locution, such as ‘Congress shall make no law disarming the state militias’ or ‘states have a right to a well-regulated militia.’"

To begin with, this is not strict constructionism: that doctrine would look to the language of the provision at issue as the key to its meaning. Judge Silberman, instead, offers his own interpretation. That can be a respectable means for interpreting the Constitution, but it's not strict construction.

But then the judge goes off on what courts used to call "a frolic of his own." He actually proposes alternative language for the Amendment. Why? Because to read the language of the Second Amendment as written must lead to the conclusion reached by nine of the ten courts of appeal that have considered the question: that the Second Amendment relates to the establishment of a militia, not to the private possession of firearms.

Mightn't we expect that a judge of the second-highest court of the land would have sufficient respect for the men who wrote the Constitution that he or she would refrain from trying to re-write their words, or from criticizing the reasoning that led them to write our founding document the way they did? Mightn't we hope that judges will interpret the Constitution by trying, as hard as they can, to avoid decisions dictated by political ideology?

That's rich

So Newt Gingrich admits that he had an affair even as he was prosecuting Bill Clinton over the Lewinski matter.

Is this going to derail a possible presidential bid? Don't count on it. The Right seems to have a blind spot when it comes to hypocrites in its own ranks.

Government by subpoena

Back in the fall, when Repubs were fearful (with good reason, as it turned out) of losing control of Congress, they tried to frighten voters by saying that the Democrats would govern by subpoena. The Democratic leadership denied any intention to do so, and the first couple of months of the new Congress pretty much bore them out.

However, with the scandal over conditions at Walter Reed and other military hospitals (wait for more on the Veterans Administration hospitals to hit the media soon), and revelations over the politically-motivated firings of US Attorneys--particularly now that Repub senators and congresspeople are being drawn into the mess--it's impossible for a responsible congressional leadership not to conduct multiple investigations.

How many other scandals are just waiting to break?

A convenient loss?

Federal prosecutors admit that a videotape--classified, naturally--of the final interrogation of Jose Padilla in a Navy brig is missing.

Those of you old enough to remember Watergate are undoubtedly thinking, "18-minute gap."

Fair and balanced

Or, it's all in how you look at it:

Department of apt descriptions

"Ann Coulter is the Paris Hilton of politics."

Liz Rodgers

What a difference a Democratic Senate makes

The Senate has voted to permit airport screeners to unionize--the same right that almost all other federal civil servants have had for decades. The vote was 51-46; I strongly suspect that it was pretty much along party lines (at least one Repub must have crossed over, because Tim Johnson (D-SD) is still hors de combat), and there's little doubt that the President will veto the bill if he can, should it come to his desk. The provision is part of broad anti-terrorism bill, so Bush might have to swallow hard and permit it to become law.

Anti-union forces in the Senate have not found themselves bound by scruples or honesty on this measure. For instance, Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) said, "Terrorists don't go on strike. Terrorists don't call their union to negotiate before they attack." The senator seems to have forgotten that unionized federal workers are not permitted to go on strike. He might also consider whether the right to join together to advance worker rights is one of the things that is supposed to set us apart from the terrorists.

Similarly, Repub leader Mitch McConnell (KY), a man who gives new meaning to the word "slimy," said "We're not going to let big labor compromise national security." I'm sure that's going to endear him to all the unionized workers to build our planes, tanks, guns and ships. Sen. McConnell doesn't bother to note that despite it's name, the Transportation Security Administration is not a law enforcement agency. Screeners are not armed and have no power to arrest anyone or even to stop someone who runs through a security checkpoint or a
gate. They must call on law enforcement--generally local police--for that.

TSA has been a deeply troubled agency. Complaints of favoritism, discrimination and incompetence have been legion. To take one instance, the entire Massachusetts congressional delegation signed a letter to the TSA administrator noting that more than 200 complaints of discrimination had been lodged about TSA's Boston operation.

A union might well improve the operation of the agency by reducing the number of complaints, and thus actually enhance security. But don't expect the mad-dog union-busters of the GOP to acknowledge that.

Editorial Note: The original post should have noted that your editor represents two TSA employees in his career as a lawyer.

A prediction?

As news comes that lawyers for detainees at Guantanamo Bay have formally asked the Supreme Court to review the decision of a federal appeals court upholding the Military Commissions Act--including its denial of habeas corpus rights--The New York Times' Adam Liptak offers a trenchant analysis of why it may not be too difficult for the justices to reverse the lower court's decision. Indeed, he suggests that the judges of the D.C. Circuit are liable to be slapped down for impertinence.

Couldn't have said it better myself

"At the foundation of our civil liberty lies the principle which denies to government officials an exceptional position before the law and which subjects them to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen."
-- Louis D. Brandeis, J., in Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465, 477 (1921)

(Thanks to Barry Roseman of the National Employment Lawyers Association)

Good news or bad?

There have been increasing reports of violence within Iraqi sectarian blocs--Sunni against Sunni, Shi'a on Shi'a. Is this a signal of even further disintegration in Iraqi society, or might it show the first stirrings of a reversal of the sectarianism that has thrown the nation into chaos? Certainly some reports speak of attacks, particularly on Sunnis who are accused of seeking reconciliation with Shi'a, opposing al Qaeda and/or cooperating with the Americans. Might that be a sign that there is an increasing number of people--sufficient to worry those whom we lump together as insurgents--who are thinking of themselves as Iraqis again?

Even if there is such a shift in sentiment, it is a long, long way from being the kind of social movement that could damp down and ultimately end the violence. Such a movement is, however, just about the only way to avoid ultimate disaster.

What is to be done?

The Times presents a fine editorial today. Entitled "The Must-Do List," it urges Congress to take action to set right a long string of outrages against our Constitution and our democracy, from restoring habeas corpus to those accused of being enemy combatants, to defining that term itself (it now means pretty much whatever the administration wants), and stopping warrantless searches of Americans' telephone calls.

Unfortunately, the one suggestion that the editorial omits is the one that is necessary if we are to restore the Constitution to its rightful place in our society: to get rid of George W. Bush and his gang.

A welcome contest

Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) were both in Selma, Alabama for ceremonies commemorating "Bloody Sunday," the day 42 years ago when Alabama State Police and sheriff's deputies attacked a group of demonstrators marching to demand the vote for black citizens, an event that led to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The presence of the two senators--they spoke at black churches three blocks apart--symbolizes the fight between them for black votes in Democratic primaries. (I do not mean to count out other candidates from appealing to the black vote, too.)

Some have suggested that Sen. Obama should naturally expect to pull in black voters, because he is one of them. I disagree.

Although your editor supports Sen. Obama, this contest is a good thing. It is good for Barack Obama, because it will help to make him a candidate who is black (African-American if you prefer), rather than a black candidate. It is good for Hillary Clinton, because it will make her think more about what representing all Americans really means. It is good for the Democratic Party, because a real contest--one that focuses on issues, not on silly political games like the one played last week over David Geffen's remarks--will strengthen the party for 2008.

And most of all, it is good for the nation, because it is a sign that the ideas behind the civil rights movement--particularly the importance of democracy--remain vital today.

More good news

The Employee Free Choice Act passed the House today, on a vote of 241 to 185. While WAPO describes it as a nearly party-line vote, it's notable that a number of Republics crossed party line to support the measure. Would that have happened a year ago?

The Act would permit unions to be certified by a "card check," that is, by turning in signed cards from more than half of the workers. Companies typically prefer to make the union win an election. While a secret ballot might sound democratic, in fact election campaigns give management the chance to use a large number of unfair (and illegal) tactics to defeat attempts to organize. All too often, employees are threatened with firing; active union supporters frequently do lose their jobs. Even if unfair labor practices can be proved, obtaining relief from the NLRB is a tortuous process and, with the Board dominated by Republics, anything but certain. Card checks result in a lot fewer complaints about management strongarming.

The Republics have vowed to block the Act in the Senate and the White House promises a veto if it should somehow pass, so it won't become law this year. But its advance is a sign that the wind may be changing and that labor's long-sought resurgence may, at last, be gathering steam.

A straw in the wind

The Boston Globe reports that "conservatives" are shifting their focus from the 2008 presidential race to the congressional contests, hoping to recapture one house of Congress as a bulwark against a Democratic or "moderate" Republic president. (Who among the Republics qualifies as a moderate?)

Flop sweat, already.

Can't wait to see the bumper stickers

Political Wire says that former Virginia governor Mark Warner (D) is being courted to run against incumbent John Warner (R-VA), and is seriously considering it.

Actually the two ran against each other in 1996. But Mark Warner was much less well-known then. He left office in 2005 with sky-high popularity ratings. Meanwhile, John Warner's growing independence on defense and national-security may have weakened his hold on some conservatives, and he just turned 80.

Cheney and the Taliban

Does it make any sense for the Taliban to claim that they were trying to get Dick Cheney in that suicide bombing at the gates of Bagram airbase? (Deadeye Dick was apparently a mile away at the time.) I mean, why would they want to eliminate their greatest asset?

A question

As Frank Rich argues, the real enemy remains al Qaeda. And, as the NYT reported last week, al Qaeda is resurgent in Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province, an essentially ungoverned area that borders Afghanistan. They have even reestablished camps of the sort that trained the 9/11 hijackers.

Assume with me, if you will, that the Pakistani government lacks the will or the ability to root out al Qaeda and its homegrown terrorists. (Dick Cheney is apparently lecturing the Pakistanis that they have to do that or those fearsome Democrats in Congress will cut aid to the country, but the history of the past few years gives little basis for confidence that the Musharraf government can or will move effectively.)

OK, here's the question: If you were President, would you order American special forces into Waziristan (that's where the terrorist training camps apparently are) and have them fight a clandestine campaign to destroy al Qaeda?

Your answers to this question will be welcomed.


(By the way, Waziristan is where Kipling set the story of The Man Who Would Be King.)

The Iraqi Hamilton

The early days of the United States were amazing in many ways, none more so than the line up of personalities that came to the fore just when the new nation needed them. Think of it: a nation of about 3 million people produced Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, John and Martha Adams, John Marshall, Alexander Hamilton and dozens (perhaps hundreds) of lesser but still notable personalities.

Now look at Iraq, with eight times the population of the early United States. Do you see a Washington or Jefferson? Or even a Hamilton?

Where does the difference lie? Part of it is a matter of luck--something that the early American republic had but that Iraq seems to lack.

Much of the distinction lies in history: Americans of the Eighteenth Century grew up in a society where a man could rise from poverty to substance through his wits and a system that rewarded enterprise and intelligence. Today's Iraqis have grown up in a society characterized by violence, tribal structures and ethnic identities, where tribal and familial relationships are vital and the most important characteristic for success has been brutality.

Can Iraq move toward democracy? I'd like to think that it can. But that road will be long, hard, dangerous and likely to fail. The best model for the development of at least a proto-democracy in Iraq is likely to be Turkey, not the United States. Turkey, y0u may recall, developed the beginnings of a democratic system because of a brilliant autocrat, Kemal Ataturk, who decreed that a multi-party parliamentary system would succeed his rule. I am not an expert on Turkish history, but I understand that Ataturk went so far as to say to one politician, "you will be in this political party," and to the next, "you will be in that party," and so on. Not surprisingly, the system he created took a long time to develop into anything approaching what we would call a democracy. There has been military rule, and the armed forces still play a much larger role than is healthy for civil society. The nation is riven by disputes over how to deal with the Armenian genocide and the restive Kurds in its southeastern quarter. (The greatest danger to Iraqi Kurdistan lies not in al Qaeda, but in Turkish secularists.)
And yet, Turkey is the most successful of the traditional Middle Eastern states in moving toward representative government.

Now, how is it that we expect to stay in Iraq long enough for something similar to happen in that country?