Capital Punishment

Reuters today has a very good article on the coming of the 1,000 execution since 1976 and the reasons for it (frontier justice mentality, a large presence of evangelists and racism).

Judith Miller, Go Away

The BBC reports today in anticipation of the airing of an interview with Miller tonight, that although she is "sorry" that the WMD information turned out to be wrong, she wasn't sorry for publishing it. Furthermore, she defends Scooter Libby.

She claims Mr Libby did not out Ms Plame as a covert agent, but as someone who worked for the CIA. Ms Miller said she assumed that Ms Plame was an analyst, not an operative.

She defends President Bush saying:

"I'm deeply sorry our intelligence community got it wrong. I am deeply sorry that the President was given a national intelligence estimate which concluded that Saddam Hussein had biological and chemical weapons and a active weapons programme."

For Judith Miller to still be defending her decision to print information directly from the White House (although she claimed to check her facts and note doubts where they were voiced), the NY Times had to apologize for six stories, 4 of which were written by Miller. Maybe 85 days in jail wasn't enough!

Global Warming and Cooling

There is a study published today in Nature that suggests that the currents in Atlantic responsible for warming Northern Europe above the temperature their latitude would suggest are slowing. This is consistent with global warming theory and models of the effect of greenhouse gases.

"Warming, in theory, could stall the salty, sun-heated, north-flowing currents by causing freshwater to build up in high-latitude seas as ice melts and more precipitation falls."

While there was some suggestion that more work needs to be taken to solidify the result, it adds to the evidence supporting the scientific community's consensus that global warming is a result of human activity and that its effects are significant. It also suggests another avenue by which global warming imposes economic costs (and these are likely to be, long-term, more expensive than reducing emissions): if the currents in the Atlantic slow and Northern Europe becomes colder, then there will be greater demand for fuels that are used to heat. This greater demand in Northern Europe will, in turn, raise prices for electricity and oil, which will raise costs for production of a large basket of goods across the world. Higher costs for this many goods will add to inflation and slow growth, producing a significant real effect.

Bush's Bombing Plans

Juan Cole has a fascinating article in Salon today describing the Bush Administration's hatred for Al Jazeera and the plausibility of the Daily Mirror's report that Blair had to talk Bush out of bombing the station's headquarters in Qatar. One particularly revealing quotation is from a press conference with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on April 15, 2004:

If I could follow up, Monday General Abizaid chastised Al-Jazeera and al-Arabiyah for their coverage of Fallujah and saying that hundreds of civilians were being killed. Is there an estimate on how many civilians have been killed in that fighting? And can you definitively say that hundreds of women and children and innocent civilians have not been killed?

SEC. RUMSFELD: I can definitively say that what al-Jazeera is doing is vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable.

Do you have a civilian casualty count?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Of course not, we're not in the city. But you know what our forces do; they don't go around killing hundreds of civilians. That's just outrageous nonsense! It's disgraceful what that station is doing.

On April 16, 2004, according to leaked top secret memos from 10 Downing Street used in the Daily mirror story, Blair had to talk Bush out of bombing Al Jazeera (which is located in Qatar, an ally). While the story seems unbelievable, there have already been "accidental" bombings of Al Jazeera stations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ethical Vacuum

As the Washington Post notes today, the increasing numbers of scandals have damaged the public's view of Congress. Since 2001, the approval rating of Congress has fallen from 59 percent to 37 percent. While Republicans are under investigation in most of the alleged scandals, Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) is also under investigation. This highlights what will be a prevalent theme in the 2006 midterm elections: the damage in reputation on incumbents. Any indication that incumbents are involved in either their own scandals or tied to lobbyist Jack Abramoff could spell trouble for even Congressmen in otherwise safe districts (at least narrowing their leads) and could produce a slate of blowback candidates spurred into running primary challenges against incumbents that would have had no chance without increasing concern over corruption in Congress. In the districts with those lobbyists most seriously under investigation, DeLay (TX) and Ney (OH) in particular, a serious challenge could be posed to the incumbents and it is possible that they could be deposed. That having been said, because the power is in the hands of the Republicans, they have the means by which to encourage corruption. While there may be worries by voters about incumbents of all political stripes, it is most likely that corrupt Republicans (or even those with an odor of corruption will be tossed out in favor of Dems.

Too Many Scandals to Keep Track Of

In case the GOP scandals have become overwhelming, there is a good website that has been keeping track of the ongoing scandals.

Randy "Duke" Cunningham's Resignation

Here is the statement read by Cunningham announcing his resignation. Although he seems contrite, it is definitely good that he is out. It will be interesting to see who Gov. Arnold Schwarzanegger nominates to fill Cunningham's seat.

I am resigning from the House of Representatives because I’ve compromised the trust of my constituents. When I announced several months ago that I would not seek re-election, I publicly declared my innocence because I was not strong enough to face the truth. So, I misled my family, staff, friends, colleagues, the public -- even myself. For all of this, I am deeply sorry. The truth is -- I broke the law, concealed my conduct, and disgraced my high office. I know that I will forfeit my freedom, my reputation, my worldly possessions, and most importantly, the trust of my friends and family. Some time ago, I asked my lawyers to inform the U.S. Attorney Carol Lam that I would like to plead guilty and begin serving a prison term. Today is the culmination of that process. I will continue to cooperate with the government’s ongoing investigation to the best of my ability. In my life, I have known great joy and great sorrow. And now I know great shame. I learned in Viet Nam that the true measure of a man is how he responds to adversity. I cannot undo what I have done. But I can atone. I am now almost 65 years old and, as I enter the twilight of my life, I intend to use the remaining time that God grants me to make amends. The first step in that journey is to admit fault and apologize. The next step is to face the consequences of my actions like a man. Today, I have taken the first step and, with God’s grace, I will soon take the second.

Thank you.

A hint of what's to come?

Today the Boston Globe reports that there has been a war of words between Sen. McCain (R-AZ) and Grover Norquist, the fanatical anti-tax zealot. The exchange was prompted by McCain's push along with Sen. Dorgan (D-ND) for an investigation of Norquist's group, Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) over the actions of Jack Abramoff, a lobbyist with some ties to ATR through their mutual client, the Choktaw Indians, as well as a friend and former colleague of Norquist. McCain's office refused to comment by saying:

'In Norquist's world, the truth is for suckers. And it's as pointless to respond to him as it would be to respond to some street-corner schizophrenic

It portends a serious split within the party that is sure to erupt during the Republican primaries for the 2008 presidential election and could take some attention off of the fight for the Dems nomination, which would be welcome, considering the effect of all the coverage in 2004.

Oh Sweet Irony

Today, basketball-sized chunks of the Supreme Court's facade fell from just near the statue of Liberty holding the Scales of Justice. It is rather ironic that this happened as the Republican majority are trying to attach a weight on the right side of the scales and tear up the idea of the court's reputation. But at least there was a little ironic humor on the side.

Cunningham Resigns!

Well, update on the earlier post on Cunningham. After pleading guilty, Randy "Duke" Cunningham announced his resignation from the House of Representatives. He represents the first (of many, I expect) Republican in Congress to resign because of corruption convictions (or pleas).

CIA Prison Intrigue Continues

One of the European Union's Commissioners has suggested that if any EU country is found to have hosted secret CIA prisons, they would face sanctions up to loss of their voting privilege. While it would be difficult to institute such a penalty because it requires unanimity among the other members, it should be taken. However, if there are multiple countries under suspicion, then it would be unlikely to pass unless the vote was taken at once, otherwise each country could shield the other. It will be an important test for the political will of the EU. When the last chance for implementing sanction against an EU member country when Germany (among other smaller countries) breached the fiscal rules under the Stability and Growth Pact, the EU balked. The maximum penalty could have been a fine held without interest by the EU of 0.5 percent of GDP until the budget meets the Stability and Growth Pact. However, instead of taking action, the EU met and weakened the rules on the pact, letting Germany and many other EU countries off the hook. Hopefully if CIA prisons are discovered in EU member countries, a more decisive, firm action will result.

Duke Cunningham pleads Guilty

Today Randy "Duke" Cunningham plead guilty to felony conspiracy and tax evasion charges stemming from the sale of his house to a lobbyist for a defense firm at an inflated price in exchange for legislative favors. It is good to see that even the powerful are not totally able to escape justice. Cunningham could be sent to prison for up to 10 years and be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is also an indication as to what may lie ahead for Tom DeLay. Much of the evidence leading to his indictment resulted in his attempts to arrange a plea bargain in order to keep his leadership position after attempts within Congress were stymied by public outrage. It also increases the likelihood of Cunningham's resignation (he already has announced his retirement after this session) since he can no longer vote because of the felony guilty plea. Time to sweep out the rubbish!

A Sad Milestone

This week could be marked by a tragic milestone in American justice: the execution of the 1,000 inmate since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. There really is no argument for the efficacy or efficiency of the death penalty. It costs far more (because of the lengthy appeals process designed to avoid the execution of innocent people) than life sentences without parole, it is not flawless and its punishment is irreversible if an executed person is later found innocent. It also is racially skewed. The most likely person on death row is a minority, particularly one who has killed a white person. Furthermore, low income people are much more likely to be sentenced to death than those with more income who are able to acquire better legal defense. Even without the problems in the implementation of the death penalty, there is a larger reason not to execute criminals: it puts us in a very small club of developed nations with capital punishment. It is not an effective deterrent, is expensive, is cruel, is enforced with a racial bias and it is irreversible. Enough already, the death penalty should be eliminated.

Senator Blank, D-NJ

With Corzine's election as the governor of New Jersey, potential successors to Corzine's Senate seat have been lining up as far as the eye can see. 6 of the 7 Democratic House members from New Jersey are jockeying for the Senate job and the head of the Dems Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has been speculating on successors. The public scramble for the appointment (which will be made by Corzine) hasn't generated positive publicity. Corzine has previously remarked about Schumer, "Sharing a media market with Chuck Schumer is like sharing a banana with a monkey. Take a little bite out of it and he will throw his own feces at you." The succession process should either be made by a vote within the Democratic party of New Jersey or decided behind closed door.

A pull-out by any other name

This evening, the Bush Administration announced that it may pull out three brigades from Iraq in early 2006. They coerced the decision into their "we'll stand down when they stand up" argument by suggesting that the Iraqi force has increased the number of soldiers capable of operating independently. This is rather strange given the embarassing revalation in front of Congress that the number of Iraqi brigades that are combat-ready has dropped from three to one. This suggests that the Bush team is trying to find a way to retreat from Iraq to placate growing anger by Americans at the rationale for war without being seen as "flip-flopping". I don't think it will work politically, as much as Americans will enjoy seeing some of the troops returning home, nor do I think it will do much to repair the armed forces which Bush has decimated. It marks the beginning of the end of a misguided invasion of Iraq. The American people have finally began to awke about the war in Iraq.

Flipped: The Beginning of the End

The Washington Post reports today that flipped associate of Jack Abramoff and former aide to former-House majority leader Tom DeLay has pleaded guity on one count of conspiracy in a bribery scandal in Congress. He will also provide investigators information about "Representative #1", Bob Ney (R-OH), likely in addition to other Congressional Republicans. The charge stems from overt bribery of officials beginning in 2000, the year he left DeLay's office. Gifts that were offered were listed in the indictment, as reported by the Post:

"The plea agreement lists gifts Ney was offered or received, including a golf trip to Scotland in 2002, $4,000 to his campaign committee, $10,000 to the National Republican Campaign Committee made with credit to Ney, regular meals and drinks at Abramoff's Signatures restaurant, sports tickets, and frequent golf and related expenses at courses in the Washington area."

The bribes were paid for official acts including

"providing legislation, agreeing to put statements into the Congressional Record, contacting federal officials to influence decisions, meeting with Abramoff's clients and endorsing a wireless telecommunications company that wanted to install antennas in House office buildings [...] [assisting in] Abramoff's efforts to buy a fleet of Florida casino ships [SunCruz Casinos, Inc. from Gus Boulis, who was later murdered allegedly by individuals with ties to Abramoff] [,...] help to two Texas tribal clients of Abramoff that wanted permission to open casinos [...] help pass[ing] tax legislation affecting [a California] tribe"

He wull also provide information on an all-expenses-paid trip to the Commenwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, an island chain in the Pacific that is part of the U.S. DeLay has been implicated in (among other trips) this one, where he was asked to help defeat legislation that would have required employers to follow U.S. labor law in order for their products to continue to be labeled as "Made in the U.S.A.". The Marianas Islands are reputed to be a haven for exploitative labor, abusing immigrants from East Asia in what are essentially work prisons, where workers are forced to submit to pregnancy tests, forced to abort any pregnancies and where they are not subject to redress under U.S. labor laws.

It will be interesting to hear what he has to say about the lawmakers involved.

Cheney's Bull

There is a great piece from Reuters today with prewar and postwar quotes from Cheney. They show his conviction, against all evidence, that beyond the unfounded WMD arguments, Cheney aggressively promoted the idea that al Qaeda was linked to and working with Iraqi intelligence sevices. Today he claims:

"This is revisionism of the most corrupt and shameless variety. It has no place anywhere in American politics, much less in the United States Senate," said Cheney.

The quote above is regarding criticism that Bush intentionally misled the country into war (57% of the American people believe it did, but then again a majority also was convinced by Cheney et al that Saddam played a role in 9/11). However much Cheney may call discussion of the war patriotic, his statement is shallow and he doesn't even bother to stay consistent. He accuses Democratic critics of being motivated by "self-defeating pessimism". So it's ok to criticize the Administration, but it is a sign of self-defeating pessimism? Sounds like he has a lot of respect for those who disagree.

Republicans lash out

Browsing down the Right side of the Daou report (on Salon.com) is a depressing experience. While most people are concerned about how the U.S. can extricate itself most effectively and safely from Iraq, the Right wing blogger/muggers are focused on playing politics with war. Linking to the blogs would just inflate their hit counters (and egos), so if you want more, you'll have to go through the Daou report.

From GOP Bloggers:

"Democrat-MSM Axis Taking Its Toll on Troops

Liberal surrender talk having an effect on the battlefield.... Congratulations, Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi, your efforts are succeeding; you must be so proud.

From Jawa Report:

"Of course over at dKos [the Daily Kos], when the erroneous news that Zarqawi dead broke, there were immediate signs of dismay. For the hardcore Left, any good news for our troops is bad news for them. They have pinned their political hopes on the defeat of our troops."

In total, the Republicans see any opposition to war as opposition to the troops and are quick to do whatever they can to link problems with the war effort onto Democrats. In the process they are abandoning the troops by holding on to the fallacy that all we need to do is "stay the course" in Iraq and the Iraqis will "stand up so we can stand down". However, it is not that simple where our troop presence is an endogenous variable in the insurgency. We should all be asking ourselves and our leaders how to get our so we're not still in Iraq, losing American soldiers in 5 or 10 years. One conservative blogger, Andrew Sullivan, with whom I do not often agree had this critique of the right's reaction to John Murtha's suggestion that we withdraw our troops from Iraq within 6 months:

"The Bushies are all over John Murtha. It seems to me it would be more helpful if Republicans and conservatives offered positive arguments for how to do better instead of attacking every critic as a wuss, unpatriotic, inconsistent, or worse. Murtha spent 37 years in the Marines. He voted for the war. But, unlike some, he kept his eyes open and he's reflecting genuine, real, patriotic worries about the war among many Americans. If he's worried, we all should be. It doesn't speak very well of the pro-Bush right that their first instinct is to ignore him and their second to dismiss him. But it's no big surprise by now, is it?"

No Gains Except for the Base

Bush's trip to China was about as unproductive as it could possibly be. He achieved no promises on human rights, but did manage to get a few Chinese Christians arrested by the Chinese government ahead of Bush's appearance at a Christian church. While the Chinese who were arrested come out behind, Bush gained a photo-op moment that will make his right-wing religious base happy. Bush did also get to go mountain biking with the Chinese Olympic team. And he gets to come back to the hostile political environment of the U.S. without anything to distract the public from the problems his Administration has caused.

Abramoff-gate bribery scandal

The NY Times reports today that the Jack Abramoff lobbying/bribery scandal (with the recently flipped associate, Michael Scanlon agreeing to plead guilty and cooperate) could become a scandal of immense proportions. It could ensnare more lawmakers than it already has. Currently David Safavian, the former procurment director was indicted, Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Bob Ney (R-OH) have been implicated, as well as Conrad Burns (R-MT). There have also been hints that the new House majority leader, Roy Blunt (R-MO) may also have been involved with Abramoff. Given the scale of the ties between Abramoff and many Republican members of Congress, the list of lawmakers linked to Abramoff is certain to grow as the investigation. Republicans in Congress should be worried, very worried.

The Unique CIA

In an interview with USA Today, CIA head Porter Goss claimed that the CIA uses "unique" techniques in the interrogation of prisoners, but does not torture:

"We use lawful capabilities to collect vital information and we do it in a variety of unique and innovative ways, all of which are legal and none of which are torture."

"Goss told USA Today that the CIA is neutral on the McCain legislation. But the newspaper said Goss made clear techniques that would be restricted under McCain's proposal have yielded valuable intelligence."

So, let me get this straight, the CIA does not torture, but says that techniques that would fall outside the boundaries of the McCain Amendment banning 'cruel, inhuman or degrading' treatment of prisoners (language identical to that in the U.S.-ratified Convention on Torture), but the U.S. doesn't torture. And what is a "unique" technique. It sounds as if the CIA has developed a new set of techniques that have not been strictly identified and prohibited, but would be outlawed under the provision in the McCain Amendment. Just because they are not listed as torture in international treaty, does not mean they are not torture. If something would be banned by an act of Congress that copies language from the Convention on Torture, it is torture. Maybe he is talking about rendition, where we send prisoners to other countries, where they are tortured without our consent. That has been a new use for an existing law (dating back to the 1990s). Unique indeed.

If we break it, they will come

Field of Dreams has never been so applicable as it has been since the invasion of Iraq. While Bush claimed that we invaded Iraq so we can 'fight them there, so we don't have to fight them here', we really went there to train those who will come over here (via Amman). The terrorist attacks by Iraqi trained terrorists in Jordan last week begun the exporting of terrorism that Bush has claimed to stop. We invaded Iraq and gave terrorists a new haven (after we destroyed their other one by invading Afghanistan). We broke it, we own the responsibility for what comes out of it (and the violence occuring within Iraq). What we have done in Iraq, as the critics of the war have pointed out, is create a new staging ground for terrorists, as well as a new raison d'etre. Where there wasn't much reason to hate America in Iraq (apart from the sanctions, but much of that blame could be placed upon Saddam), now we have created a conflict which can be spun as an American war against a Muslim country, and it has. Now not only do we have to fight against the terrorists, whom we were attacked by, we also have to fight those who oppose our occupation of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. The longer we stay in Iraq, the longer we feed the two groups of people who hate us.

A New Low

Today on the floor of the House, Rep. Jean Schmidt, who was elected in the recent special election in Ohio after almost blowing a hugh lead to Democrat Paul Hackett, a recently returned Iraq war veteran, made a nasty ad hominem attack on Rep. John Murtha, who called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq yesterday. Schmidt recounted a phone message from a Marine Colonel:

"He asked me to send Congress a message, stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

It caused a furor in the House and broke rules of decorum by criticizing another member by name. It is disgraceful for Schmidt to stoop to the level she did.

Patriot Act debate

Reuters just reported that opponents of extending several controversial measures have threatened to fillibuster if the changes are not made. The measures under debate include roving wiretaps and easy use of national security letters to gather information on people even tangentially related to terrorism suspects. Opponents also want the extensions of other measures to only last for 3 years instead of the 7 in the current bill. Opponents include most Democrats and a few moderate Republicans. It is good to see a serious challenge to the Patriot Act. It was enacted so soon after 9/11 that there was no chance given for serious debate. Either you supported the Patriot Act or you supported the terrorists at that point. Most likely, the Republican supporters or the White House will resort to the same tactics, but I think they have been overused and are seen as cliche now.

White House Campaign Against Dissent

As the Washington Post reports in a detailed article today, the White House has begun to respond to any criticism the way it did in the campaign, by impugning the source of criticism and using campaign-style tactics. The clearest indication of this was the response to Rep. John Murtha's (D-Penn.) call for withdrawal from Iraq within 6 months. The response was a nasty smear from the press secretary's office. From Reuters:

"White House spokesman Scott McClellan fired back that Murtha had endorsed a 'surrender' policy advocated by 'extreme' liberals such as filmmaker Michael Moore, seen in Republican circles as a dangerous radical."

Scott McClellan is calling a conservative hawkish Democrat who supported the war, but has recently changed his mind an "extreme liberal". All of these tactics are designed to try to stem any further defections from the conservative side in Congress, in particular, who are weighing the impact of supporting the White House on their chances for re-election in the 2006 mid-term elections. And while Bush, Cheney and their assorted spokespeople can claim that they support the right of dissent as 'patriotic', anyone who uses their right is labeled a traitor, a liberal and as unpatriotic as those 'cheese-eating surrender monkeys', the label for the French prior to the war. The Bush team knows that even their base has started to desert them and is resorting to pandering to the hard right as they did during the 2004 campaign.

Bye Bye Byrd-ie

Two years after it was ruled WTO-illegal, the U.S. House of Representatives finally repealed the Byrd Amendment, which distributed anti-dumping levies collected by the government among affected countries. This is an important step in maintaining at least some of our international obligations. With the Doha Round at an impasse over agricultural market access and subsidies and the U.S. criticizing the EU for refusing to budge further than their current offer to reduce barriers to trade only around 40% and keep 8% of the total agricultural products as 'sensitive', and therefore protected, the U.S. should live up to its obligations to the WTO if it is to avoid cries of hypocrisy. As Reuters reports, "Rep. Jim Ramstad, a Minnesota Republican, has called the program 'the ultimate combination of protectionism, corporate welfare and government waste.'" Prior to the Byrd Amendment, the levies imposed as penalties for dumping went into the U.S. Treasury. The next stop for the U.S. is to impose fewer anti-dumping levies; many of the ones imposed are done for political purposes and do not meet the threshold for dumping.

Free trade vs. regional trade agreements revisited

In a previous post, I argued against confusing or conflating free trade agreements and regionally preferential trade areas like Nafta. In a letter to the editor in today's Financial Times by Arvind Panagariya, a respected international trade economics professor at Columbia University entitled 'Safta can distract from global concerns' about the South Asia Free Trade Area. It is a good explanation for the potential pitfalls of preferential trade agreements, especially those formed among countries accounting for a very small share of global GDP.

Tamiflu cleared...for now

A Reuters article reports that the advisory committee studying the deaths of 12 Japanese youths and 32 cases of "psychiatric problems" have cleared the drug in the incidents, but suggest that further attention is necessary:

"'The committee does not think, based on the data presented, that there's any evidence Tamiflu played a role in the deaths,' panel chairman Robert Nelson said."


"The committee, a group of experts from outside the FDA, also agreed the agency should continue monitoring the safety of Tamiflu in children and report back to the panel in about a year after officials compile data from another flu season."

Yet another example where it is difficult to determine what role a drug played in deaths and psychiatric episodes. The impending report in a year after the current flu season may increase pressure from Roche on Bill Frist to jam his amendment into the health, education and labor bill (the House version was rejected yesterday, so there is still plenty of time for sneak-amendments) protecting vaccine makers from liability except in cases of willful negligence and capping noneconomic damages at $250,000.

New indictments?

The evidence, Fitzgerald has asked for a new grand jury, suggests that there might be more indictments coming down. However, it is unclear whether they will be focused on Rove's (Official A) role or on the testimony of Bob Woodward that may have contridicted his source's testimony or opened up new channels by which Valerie Wilson's identity was leaked to the press. Another possibility, while significantly unlikely, is that Fitzgerald is in the process of working out a plea deal for Scooter Libby that involves Libby squealing on other Administration officials. Or it could be a combination of all three. But, in any case, the indictment parade is unlikely to be over any time soon.

Senate rationality

I can't believe I'm saying this, but as far as I can tell, the Senate passed a rational tax cut bill. The bill passed today provided tax cuts to rebuild areas devastated by hurricane Katrina, increases in incentives for charitable giving, a temporary stay for the middle class from the Alternative Minimum Tax and a rejection of windfall profit taxes on oil companies (while at the same time increasing taxes by changing how oil reserves are taxed). However, in its current state, without extending the 15 percent tax rate on dividends and capital gains still included in the House version, now out of committee, there looks to be a fight with the House. The Senate version should trump the House version because with record deficits, no more tax cuts should be extended to the rich, the primary beneficiaries of the continuation of the lower dividend and capital gains tax cuts. More on this later if there are hidden handouts the Reuters article missed.

Counter-terrorism: Our enemy's enemy is not our friend

In an article looking like a follow-up to his article on CIA 'black sites', Dana Priest of the Washington Post wrote an article on the related, but separate effort by the CIA to work with other nations' security services to curb terrorism. The article highlights ways in which the CIA can work multilaterally to curb terrorism without violating the U.S.'s treaty obligations the way it did with the 'black sites' (which also violated many of the host country's laws). While this tactic is preferable, there are still ugly situations in which the U.S. is placed. As we should have learned in the 1980s with our Central American experiences in Nicaragua and El Salvador (among other places), supposing our friends are those who are opposed to the terrorists can lead to questionable judgments. In fact, if we take a hypothetical situation and exclude the hostility of the U.S. to Saddam Hussein, under the enemy's enemy theory, he could have been an ally to the U.S. because his secular government was, despite what the Bush Administration implied in the run-up to the war, wary of the Islamic fundamentalists that attacked us on 9/11. What stopped that particular alliance was Bush's oedipal 'he tried to kill my daddy' response. However, in countries in which the U.S. has not been militarily involved in the past 15 years, we have stumbled into some embarrasing cooperation agreements. Until the Uzbek government evicted the U.S. military from its airbases for our criticism of the massacre at Andijan, we were quite cozy with a brutal regime and the Washington Post article suggest that in the realm of CIA-intelligence service cooperation, we are still working with the Uzbek dictatorship to quell the threat of terrorism. There are indications that Uzbekistan has not been the exception to the rule (it just highlights the separations in expectations on human rights grounds betwen the State Department and the CIA).

Another interesting point is raised in the article on the difference between George Tenet and Porter Goss, the former and current heads of the CIA. Tenet took a much more activist approach in courting foreign intelligence services while Goss has been more laid back, avoiding chances to recruit new intelligence allies. While that may release the U.S. from questionable partners, it may also hinder the effort to cooperate with non-abusive regime's intelligence services and hinder efforts to combat terrorism.

Spending Bill Voted Down 224 - 209

Today, the House voted down a health, education and labor appropriations bill that would have cut many social programs, including job training, children's health Head Start, the CDC, drug abuse programs and the No Child Left Behind initiative. There were 22 Republicans who voted against the bill, despite the Republicans' usual pressure tactics and delays in closing the vote. The final vote was 224-209. It is another sign of crumbling Republican discipline and is especially significant because the House Republicans have typically been more lock-step than those in the Senate. It also may provide an opportunity to review the Presidents' seemingly untouchable tax cuts to repeal future tax cuts for the wealthy in order to fill some of the hole in the roughly $300 billion deficit (which includes an off-budget surplus of between $100 and $200 billion, mostly from Social Security). The deficit has the potential, despite the promising growth in inflows of foreign money in September, to destabilize the financial markets and the real economy if it is expected to remain constant or grow in the future.

The Impact of Frist's Amendment

If the Bill Frist-supported amendment to the HHS spending bill is passed, it would shield vaccine makers (specifically those manufacturing vaccines for anthrax and avian flu) from lawsuits unless the head of HHS determines that the companies are liable for willful misconduct. In a warning shot, there is a story from Reuters on deaths possibly caused by Tamiflu, the most effective vaccine against avian flu. The article says there are reports of psychological problems and suicidal behavior as other health risks from Tamiflu in youth, one of the populations most vulnerable to avian flu (children, the elderly and those with immune deficiencies). The FDA reports that it is investigating 12 deaths including "one suicide, four cases of sudden death and four cases of cardiac arrest. There were also single cases of pneumonia, asphixiation and acute pancreatitis."

In many cases where there are deaths associated with pharmaceutical drugs, it becomes difficult to determine whether the drug contributed to the deaths, and often there needs to be a string of similar deaths for any investigation to even begin. If the Frist-supported amendment passes, the threshold will be even higher for sanctions to be imposed on pharmaceutical companies.

Democrat takes a stand and doesn't qualify it

Today John Murtha, a conservative House Democrat who served in Vietnam, called for the end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq, citing the U.S. forces as a 'catalyst for violence'. His declaration that "US troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, the Saddamists, and the foreign jihadists" is right on the money. Our occupation strengthens the insurgency, much of which just wants to see the U.S. leave Iraq. If the U.S. left, there could be a chance for an international consensus on how to keep Iraq from descending into civil war. The hatchet could be buried over the U.S. invasion if the U.S. forces were no longer seen as occupiers across much of the world. It is a brave stance to take and will likely create some trouble for Mr. Murtha, but it is admirable.

Global Warming Quantified

A recent report published in Nature estimates that 150,000 deaths per year are caused by global warming. The link between global warming and the deaths are diseases that flourish in warmer temperatures as well as smog, which is worstened by higher temperatures. While the pseudo-science crowd blames 'thugocracies and hostility to market economics'. However, this is not a fair charge to make because the rising temperatures in, say Kenya, are not due much to Kenyan emissions of carbon dioxide and had Kenya had free elections and embraced market economics 50 years ago, there wouldn't have been much of a change in the effect of global warming. However, if 50 years ago, developed countries, particularly the United States, promoted the use of carbon-reducing technology in manufacturing and imposed more regulations on fuel economy and automobile emissions, there would have been a significant difference in terms of how much global warming had occured. It is a significant problem that had the U.S. not abandoned the Kyoto Treaty, could be changed. Under Kyoto, the countries that caused most of the current problems, the developed ones, would be responsible for reducing their emissions, while developing countries would be exempt now from the regulations. In the future that may change as their economies grow, but the aim of Kyoto was to reduce the externality developed countries imposed on poor developing economies, particularly those in the tropics.

European Investigation of CIA flights

It seems as if the Europeans are far more vigilant about the conduct of the CIA in handling suspected terrorists than the U.S. has been. While the Senate has been passing an amendment opposed by the White House that restates exactly America's committment under the Convention on Torture, the Italian government has issued warrants with Interpol for suspected CIA operatives involved in kidnapping (known to the CIA as 'rendition'). Other European countries have launched investigations into CIA flights through their countries to determine whether they were carrying detainees, which could be a violation of law. It will be nice if the U.S. takes as much interest in our government's conduct in the "war on terrorism" as other governments do. Everytime the U.S. is caught doing something that flagrantly violates international law (e.g., Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, secret CIA prisons around the world, desecration of the Koran in many detention facilities, loosening standards on the treatment of detainees), scores of anti-American terrorists are created. The U.S. is supposed to be, as Ronald Reagan declared, the 'city on the hill'. We are supposed to set the best example in our conduct (although Reagan didn't live up to his own idea, as his policies in Central America demonstrate...remember Iran-Contra?) and lead by example.

Woodward and Libby

The Washington Post speculates today that Bob Woodward's testimony to the grand jury would be a boon to his defense case because it shows that there was another "senior administration official" leaking Valerie Wilson's identity to reporters and therefore Libby was not 'obsessed' with instrumenting retribution for Joe Wilson's Op-Ed in the New York Times where he laid out a strong case that there was no attempt by Iraq to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger, which discredited the Administration's claim of exactly that link in the run-up to the war. However, I don't think that Woodward's testimony does anything to benefit Libby. In fact, it may do more harm to the White House. It doesn't have any bearing on the charges against Libby of perjury, false statements and obstruction of justice. The only congruence with the indictment is Fitzgerald's statement that Libby was the first official known to have passed Valerie Wilson's identity to a reporter. Woodward's testimony expands the conspiracy (in the legalistic sense, not the grassy knoll sense) within the Administration to discredit one of the most respected citics of the war. Woodward cannot reveal who his source is or the details of the conversation publicly, but he has said it was not Libby, Rove or Andy Card, Bush's chief of staff. This leaves a few people who would have known of Wilson's identity, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Stephen Hadley, Douglas Feith and Dick Cheney. Since Woodward was conversing with sources to get information for his book Plan of Attack, it was likely someone involved in the war planning (most likely excluding Powell and possibly Rice). I think the highest likelihood is that, like with Libby, Cheney was the original source of Wilson's identity, but he deputized the release to insulate himself from wrongdoing. In my opinion, Woodward probably received the information about Wilson's identity from either Douglas Feith or Stephen Hadley.

Frist's at it again

There is apparently a rider to a spending bill that would provide liability limits for the makers of vaccines against anthrax and bird flu supported by Bill Frist. The amendment, if passed would require the secretary of Health Human Services to declare that the injuries were caused by willful misconduct. It would also cap noneconomic damages at $250,000. This would severely reduce the incentives of vaccine makers to test whether there vaccines are safe. If they test, find that they are unsafe and release them, they could probably be held responsible, but if they only do the minimum amount of testing, they could release harmful vaccines and be protected, because their misconduct was not 'willful'. It would also politicize the decision on what 'willful misconduct' means. The experiences of the past 5 years suggests that when there is political oversight on scientific matters, the decision that emerges always seems to conform to the Administration's preconcieved ideology.

U.S. Torture Policy

A very distrubing, comprehensive look on how the U.S. got into the business of torture from Newsweek. It points out that "The international Convention Against Torture, ratified by the United States in 1994, bans the 'cruel, inhuman and degrading' treatment of all prisoners." This is the exact same language as the McCain Amendment, and therefore the struggle by Dick Cheney and CIA head Porter Goss against the amendment is strange. It would seem to only restate an international convention that the U.S. has ratified.

Bush Tax Cut "Fuzzy Math"

There is a really good article by Allan Sloan in Newsweek on why the Bush tax cuts were based on phony math. He points out that if a company were run like the government in terms of how they account for the effect of tax cuts, the executive would be in jail under Sarbanes-Oxley. It's time to reverse the tax cuts for the mega-rich and hold Bush to account for his "fuzzy math".

Use of White Phosphorous Confirmed

The U.S. forces in Iraq acknowledged today that they had used white phosphorous as "an incendiary weapon" in the assault of Falluja in 2004. Previously they had claimed only to use white phosphorous as a smokescreen. While the use against insurgents does not necessarily make it a chemical weapon (CW) banned under international law, the possibility that it was used in targeting civilians would. And despite the caveats that it was used only against insurgents and not a CW, it is still a nasty way to attack. As the Guardian describes:
white phosphorous "burns down to the bone in contact with skin". Sounds like a chemical weapon to me.

Col. Venable, quoted in the article, admitted:

"Yes, [white phosphorous] was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants. When you have enemy forces that are in covered positions that your high explosive artillery rounds are not having an impact on, and you wish to get them out of those positions, one technique is to fire a white phosphorous round into the position: the combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some cases the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so you can kill them with high explosives"

Stop U.S. Torture

It is now a battle between the White House and the Congress over torture, not a battle between Democrats and Republicans. With the President's approval ratings in the tank, Senatorial Republicans are not as wary of disaggrement with the Administration. This is the context in which the McCain Amendment banning "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment of prisoners of war and "enemy combatants" was passed. The White House opposes the amendment because they say it would "tie the president's hands" while continuing to assert that the U.S. doesn't torture. It would tie the president's hands, but in a way that is completely reasonable. The White House's main objection (besides the fact that the no torture pledges are meaningless lies) is in Congressional oversight of the Executive Branch. The White House has worked hard throughout the Bush Administration to strengthen the Executive Branch and free it from Legislative and Judicial oversight. While Cheney and Bush (particularly the former), probably believe torture is legitimate in the "War on Terrorism", they feel particularly offended by the effort by Congress to set boundaries for Executive Branch conduct.

In another vein, here are statements made in support of the McCain Amendment by prominent Republicans:

"If we are viewed as a country that engages in torture ... any possible information we might be able to gain is far counterbalanced by (the negative) effect of public opinion... This battle we're in is about the things we stand for and believe in and practice. And that is an observance of human rights, no matter how terrible our adversaries may be."
Senator John McCain (R-AZ)

"I think the administration is making a terrible mistake in opposing John McCain's amendment on detainees and torture."
Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)

"I'm a strong supporter of Senator McCain's amendment. I don't think the White House should veto it."
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell

"The United States can win the war on terrorism without sacrificing our values."
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

Energy Task Force participants

The Washington Post reports today that, contrary to assertions by the heads of major companies in their recent testimony before Congress and repeated assertions by the White House, oil companies were included on the Vice President's energy task force in 2001. According to an inside source (anonymous because he is fearful of retribution, not surprising for an official in the Bush White House), the oil executives' participation was confirmed "based on records kept by the Secret Service of people admitted to the White House complex". In the Bush White House, a premium is placed on secrecy, loyalty to corporate donors, particularly within the energy industry, in which both Bush and Cheney had worked prior to their election. This revelation (while almost universally believed) adds to the pile of evidence that the Bush Administration's energy policy was shaped, if not entirely written, by oil companies with no input from opposing groups, such as environmentalists or consumer advocates.

The Firing of Robert Scheer

To whom it may concern,

The fact that you removed Robert Scheer from the Op-Ed page with very little in the way of rationale is puzzling. It leaves open the opinion that it was done under duress from radical right-wingers such as Bill O'Reilly, who has criticized Scheer for being too far to the left and just this past summer suggested that Scheer be removed from the editorial page:

"with Robert Scheer and these guys, you don't get more left than him. I really believe their ideology has hurt them in Los Angeles. I think a lot of people in L.A. have said we don't want this rammed down our throat every day." [italics added]

The only explanation I can find from the LA Times statement:

"Our readers expect us to publish all points of view and the broadest range of opinion — from those of our editorial board and columnists to those of our readers and Op-Ed contributors. And we intend to do exactly that."

Which reads like a toned-down version of O'Reilly's screed. It would help the reputation of the LA Times to explain further and distance yourselves from O'Reilly, who recently asked Al Qaeda to attack San Francisco, promising no retailiation from the U.S. government

Problems with Bush

In a local newspaper interview, losing candidate in New Jersey's gubernatorial election Douglas Forrester criticized the recent bad news for President Bush as one of the keys in his defeat last week. He cited the Federal government's failure in its response to hurricane Katrina as a particular tipping point. It looks as if association with Bush's policies was a factor in the Republican loss for the governorship of Virginia, and one representative, J.D. Hayworth up for reelection in Arizona in 2006 has declared that he doesn't want any 'help' from President Bush in his campaign. It will be interesting to see the effect of this seeming need to disassociate from Bush's policy has upon the work of the Congress in the next year.

GOP splits

It appears that the moderates within the Republican party are finally waking up to the fact that their party has moved away from them. A recent poll shows that moderates' support of President Bush and the Republican Congress has fallen dramatically, while the number of those who believe that the religious right has too much sway within the party has increased significantly. It forebodes significant problems for Republicans in 2006, where Republican primaries could turn into a bloodbath where moderates and conservative Republicans try to determine the direction of their party. The Democrats could benefit, but they cannot depend upon a Republican meltdown, although the intra-party conflicts will make their job easier.

IMF Criticism of U.S. fiscal position: "Increase revenues"

In a speech yesterday, Rodrigo de Rato, managing director of the IMF called for the U.S. to address its fiscal deficit in an effort to stem the growing current account deficit. Specifically, he noted that:

This requires bold action to reduce the fiscal deficit. The U.S. administration recognizes the need for this, but a major element in their plan is unprecedented cuts in spending. These would have been difficult to achieve even before the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina. Uncertainties about the costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the reconstruction of the gulf coast, and the outcome of Congressional debates on how to control entitlement spending, cast further doubt on whether the goals of the deficit reduction plan can be achieved.

I understand very well that measures to raise revenue are not very popular in Washington, but neither are higher interest rates, more goods or financial market turbulence, which are among the possible outcomes in the U.S. of a disorderly adjustment of global imbalances.

He is absolutely right about raising revenue to reduce the deficit. If President Bush's tax cuts of 2001, 2002 and 2003 were eliminated for the very wealthy, there would be a sharp decline in deficits in the near term, which would reduce much of the uncertainty building that could trigger a disorderly adjustment of global imbalances. However, it is unlikely that even with his popularity in the toilet, that Bush or the Republicans in Congress would retreat on the tax cuts. But when the adjustment happens, blame will fall squarely on their shoulders.

Oh, the humanity

Today, in his speech to U.S. troops, Bush tried to maniplulate the commemoration of Veterans Day to prop up his approval ratings and try to throw sand in the eyes of those who suggest that he misled the country into war. Without even getting in a discussion of the faulty logic Bush used to attack those who disagree (and have facts to back up their assertions), it is rather low to use a speech on Veterans Day to save face and try to increase credibility. It is also shameful to use a backdrop of troops again to push his illegal war fought because he and the vice president misled Congress and Americans about the threat Saddam posed to the U.S. (it turned out there wasn't any threat to our country. Certainly less of a threat than Iraq poses to our security now.

In Defense of Wal-Mart

This is the most ethically challenging thing I have ever done. I despise Wal-Mart as a company (and their ethical judgement). However, the anti-Wal-Mart crowd has done a disservice to general principles. Starting with the positives: Wal-Mart is a company, a corporation. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. They import many of their goods from China because that is where the goods are produced for the least cost. That is the system of capitalism. And while they may play hardball with U.S. suppliers over the cost of their goods, they are doing nothing wrong in that respect. Any capitalist company tries to find the lowest cost providers. Currently, (until 27.5 percent tariffs are levied on all goods from China are introduced, which I think is a horrible decision and will hurt lower income Americans the most) the largest supplier of cheaply produced goods is China. In that respect, Wal-Mart breaks no ethical limits. IN their stores, their employees are paid low wages. Still no breaing of any laws, although ethically they should feel pressure to pay living wages. However, there are many legal issues in which Wal-Mart has stepped on the line (if not over it). Forced, unpaid overtime is illegal. Discrimination against people based on their gender, age and health is illegal. And for that the judicial system should impose sanctons. On the encouragement Wal-Mart provides for employees to go on public assistance, there is no legal barrier. However, there is an ethical barrier. They should not shirk on wages and benefits and promote the use of public assistance to adequately feed and provide health insurance for their employees. While their own labor standards may be questionable for labor law violations and questionable ethics in terms of employee compensation, there should be no doubt: Wal-Mart should be able to purchase goods from the lowest cost producer, whether in the U.S. or in China.

Rebuilding the Gulf Coast

We all knew it was doomed to happen, and now the NY Times is reporting on it. Contractors in Louisiana and Mississippi are spending far more than market prices on rebuilding school buildings without meeting the regulations typical for a hurricane and tornado prone area. Yet again. Iraq and Halliburton have begun to happen in this country. Next stop...insurgency and allegations of fraud.

Chirac

A much quoted, but illustrating quote:

“IN THE deprived suburbs, a kind of soft terror rules. When too many young people see nothing ahead but unemployment after they leave school, they end up rebelling. For a time the state can struggle to impose order, and rely on welfare benefits to avoid worse. But how long can this last?”

Written by Jacques Chirac in 1995 (the year in which he became president of France) illustrates the foreknowledge of the riots ten years hence, but exposes the difficulties of solving the problem. While Chirac knew quite well the problems of the suburbs of Paris (and other French cities) that stem from a xenophobia unsurpassed in Western Europe, the political will is not there to stem the tide of disenfranchisement felt by immigrant youth (I hate the focus on their religion, Islam, which in this case appears thus far to be completely irrelevant). Without the will to help all of society have equal opportunity, in the next 10 years, the scenario occuring in France could happen anywhere in the world (if it already is not happening). With Russia bringing in the new (old) holiday of its independence from the Poles in 1612 and the current weak centrist government in Germany (and the split within both the Labour Party in the U.K. and the Republican Party in the U.S.), there exists the possibility that nationalist parties in all these countries could grow, even becoming ruling parties (although still unlikely). Even if they do not take power, they will usher in a new xenophobia that will be easy to spread. In Russia, the ruling party, United Russia has leaned towards a resurgence of nationalism for its popularity; in Germany, with the unstable coalition of the SPD and the CDU/CSU, the fring parties will be working hard to gain strength for the next elections (quite possibly in the next year if the current coalition cannot hold together). In the U.K., the split within Labour over the war in Iraq and the growth of the anti-war Liberal Democrats splits the left vote and provides room for a Tory resurgence under an anti-immigration/xenophobic platform. In the U.S., the fracturing of the Republicans, especially over Bush's proposed immigration reform, could push many Republicans towards the Pat Buchanan xenophobe camp. The future could be rough if we do not work to stem the tide of xenophobia and nationalism.

DeLay Admission of Guilt

The Washington Post reports today that part of the reason Travis County (TX) District Attorney Ronnie Earl was able to successfully get indictments handed up for Tom DeLay was because he admitted that he had authorized the transfer of $190,000 of corporate donations to the RNC (which distributed them to candidates in Texas). In Texas it is illegal to get corporate donations for non-administrative expenses, and therefore DeLay had to launder the money through the RNC to turn soft money into hard money, usable by Texas candidates to Congress. Apparently, in discussions with Earle after the investigation had been launched, DeLay (through his lawyers) tried to work out a plea bargain where DeLay admitted wrongdoing and plead guilty to misdemeanors and was able to keep his leadership post in the Republican-controlled House. Most of the direct evidence of DeLay's wrongdoing are contained in his admissions directly to Earle, reducing the strength of DeLay's paranoid, McCarthyite argument about how the Democrats are out to get him in a partisan witch hunt. More likely, DeLay did commit the crime, admitted to it in private with Earle and publicly denied it in an attempt to save face (and his leadership position). This is emblematic of the Republicans who try to cover up things they do that would offend the public or conflict with the image they project of the "moral high-grounders". Witness the string of Republican politicians and talk show hosts (Rush Limbaugh, for example, who is on his fourth marriage) who proclaim the sanctity of marriage and go through wives faster than a prostitute with condoms (optimistically for the latter point). They know they do wrong, but they just love the power so much that anything they can do to enhance or keep hold of it they will do. They are like methamphetamine addicts. They will rob, intimidate or murder anyone as long as they get more dope (power in the case of Republicans)! It has to stop. [Note: I know there are Democrats with the same problems, but they do not profess to be "moral high-grounders" and the power hungry ones (like LBJ and his Vietnam addiction/Kennedy inferiority complex) are driven much more quickly out of power than the Republicans. In my example, for instance, LBJ realized his predicament and instead of being ruthless to gain re-election, bowed out of the presidential race.

Statistics and Riots in France

Many reports of the riots in France point to the strict separation of church (and mosque, temple, etc.) and state in the country. They also point to the official color-blindness of the government and question why the riots are spreading so quickly. I think that part of the reason has to do with how the French government collects statistics. In their census, there is no question asked of ethnicity or race. While this fits in with a policy of official color-blindness, it also creates blindness within the government. There is no point in avoiding cataloguing race and ethnicity along with income, education and other census questions as long as the underlying society has many racist and xenophobic elements (remember in the last election, Jean Marie Le Pen, the nationalist, xenophobic candidate made it to the final election run-off with over 20 percent of the total vote). If there exists underlying racial and ethnic prejudice within a society (and clearly France is a strong example of this), then removing questions of race and ethnicity from the census will put blinders on official policy that relies upon these statistics. Without being able to understand the racial and ethnic differences in education, income and employment, it beecomes far more difficult to reduce these differences and the underlying problems in society that the riots have highlighted will remain or grow. It constitutes turning a blind eye to racial and ethnic discrimination.

Alito's Conflict of interest

In an article in Reuters today, there is renewed criticism of Sam Alito's lack of recusal in a case in which he had a financial interest. The case involved the company Vanguard, a mutual fund company, from 2002. Judge Alito held Vanguard mutual funds and in 1990 when he was confirmed to the third circuit, he promised to recuse himself from any cases involving Vanguard. While he claims it was a 'glitch' in the computer system that checks for conflicts of interest, Judge Alito should have been aware of the conflict, since it had been specifically mentioned in his confirmation hearings (didn't he check for any conflicts of interest himself?). It also poses the problem that if he is confirmed, there will be a second justice on the Supreme Court that has not recused himself in a case of an obvious conflict of interest. The other one, of course, is Antonin Scalia (wasn't there another comparison made between the two?), who refused to recuse himself from the case involving Dick Cheney and whether he could keep the minutes and list of participants in his energy plan meetings secret. Prior to the case, Cheney and Scalia flew on Air Force Two and went duck hunting together. It is a cause for concern that 'Scalito' has also had conflict of interest problems and it should be vigorously discussed in his confirmation hearings.

Free Trade vs. Nafta/Cafta/Ftaa

Some people try to attach Nafta, Cafta and Ftaa to free trade. They are not free trade (especially with the riders attached that benefit 'entrenched interests') and the differences are very important in how they should be viewed. These agreements (Nafta etc.) are preferential trade agreements and will not necessarily lead to either benefit or free trade. It could be the case that by adopting a even level of protection to countries outside the preferential trade agreement (and lower or zero tariffs within) that prices of goods increase rather than decrease. To see how, look at a standard good (as economists say, a 'widget'). Assume that it can be produced for $8 in Mexico and $5 in China. If the original tariff is $6 per widget on imports from any country into the U.S. then the cost of each widget in the U.S. will be $11 for the one from China and $14 for the one from Mexico. If the tariff on imports from Mexico drops to $0 when the preferential trade agreement is signed while the tariff on Chinese imports stays at $6 per widget, then widgets will be imported from Mexico at a cost of $8 (rather than China where the cost with tariff would be $11). In this case, the more efficient producer is effectively shut out of the U.S. market in favor of a higher cost producer. This problem would not be an issue under free trade. Under free trade, the U.S. would import the widget from the lowest-cost producer and would reap the gains from this efficiency (and could provide social and retraining assistance to any workers in the U.S. hurt by the import of cheap widgets from China).

Chalabi's Back

How Ahmed Chalabi could show his face in the U.S. government buildings and how the U.S. government could welcome him is beyond belief. He is a self-interested scammer. Much of the information he and his source (called 'Curveball') fed the Bush Administration to justify war with Iraq was bogus (remember the mobile labs, where did they go once we invaded...oh, that's right Syria). He has been convicted in absentia in Jordan for bank fraud and his home was raided by U.S. authorities around a year ago when it was alleged that he was spying for Iran. Yet this is a figure the Bush Administration will still rub elbows with when he visits Washington.

Liberian Elections

As the BBC reports today, the former World Bank economist Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf is leading in the election with 60% of the votes counted so far (about 1/3 of the total). While her opponent, George Weah isn't anymore tainted with links to former strongman Charles Taylor, he doesn't have as much experience as she does. It would be a good sign to see Africa's first female head of state be an economist. One hopes that she will be successful in rebuilding the country after years of war.

Creationists

Once again the Kansas School Board ruled that science classes in the state must teach doubt of the theory of evolution. As one member who opposed the decision said "This is a sad day. We're becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world and I hate that". Let the laughing commence!

The New Napalm

Today it was reported that in 2003 and 2004, the U.S. military used bombs similar to napalm and the incendiary white phosphorus in the initial 'shock and awe' phase and in the siege of Falluja. This violates an amendment to the U.N. Convention on Chemical Weapons passed in 1980 (which the U.S. has not signed) banning the use of incendiary weapons against civilians. While the napalm used in the Vietnam era was destroyed by 2001, there are still weapons in the U.S. arsenal with similar effects. By using white phosphate, the U.S. reduces its claim to be the military with the best practices in terms of minimizing civilian casualties and opens up the U.S. to charges of war crimes. I wonder why the U.S. government has always rejected the International Criminal Court on the grounds that we don't want our soldiers to have to appear before it. Maybe a better way than undermining the court would be to abide by international law.

Twisting Investigations

No doubt with the indictment of Scooter Libby in the CIA leak case fresh in mind, Republicans in Congress are talking about investigating the leak to Washington Post reporter Dana Priest of the fact that the CIA has secret prisons around the world. However, this leak doesn't fall under the same category that the Valerie Wilson leak did. The latter was done for political revenge while the former is an act of whistleblowing on a government practice done contrary to international and U.S. military law. In this case, there is a legitimate public interest served. The American public has a right to know what is done in our names to protect our safety (although I believe it makes us less, not more safe, to torture people and hold them indefinitely incognito). When this government tortures people to protect "national security" there is an oversight role that the American people need to be able to take. Do we as a country condone the use of torture and secret indefinite detention by the government of so-called 'threats to our national security'. I believe that Americans in general do not and it should be known to them what we are doing so they can make an informed choice in the elections.

The Patriotic Cliff

Since the Bush Administration began its offensive on all things good and decent, they have focused on one ideology as the root of all evil: liberalism. Liberalism has been blamed for all things from terrorism to a lack of moral values. The idea that the government can do nothing but evil has been replaced by the mantra that everything outside of national security is an expendable job, best left to private companies. While they have suggested that national security can be done better by the private sector, the government should do it better, and they should do it more. The recently awakened press has realized that the government has been spying on regular Americans under the guise of national security. Furthermore, the government has been using secret 'black sites' to detain and torture suspected terrorists to sensitive to relegate to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. While Bush says "We do not torture", there are new allegations of abuse by U.S. soldiers that add on to the list of non-standard abusive techniques used by the U.S. from Guantanamo Bay to Abu Ghraib to Afghanistan (and the alleged CIA 'black sites'). While similar techniques are used in many locations, efforts to connect the dots are labeled as conspiratorial. Even as efforts to uncover the similarities and oversight of non-military commanders are unfurled, such as Janis Karpinski's latest book about her time spent at Abu Ghraib, the military decries any unifying link (ignoring the Bybee Memo, which authorized interrogation techniques disallowed under the Geneva Conventions). Liberalism is blamed for criticizing these moves. It is causing, as the right-wingers describe it, the decay of the social fabric at home, undermining the war on terrorism and even supporting the terrorists. If the conservatives are understood at face value, there is a divide at the center-right between those who are patriotic and those who are treasonous. There is a moral cliff whereby anyone who criticizes the neo-con agenda for remaking the Middle East in the "American" way is a terrorist sympathizer. The cliff divides those who support the historical legacy of America and those who are allied with its enemies. Anyone left of Susan Collins, the moderate Republican Senator from Maine (and I doubt she is in the goodwill list of the main segment of the Republican Party) is a terrorist sympathizer. However, this is not the American way, at least as theorized by the Founders. The founders of this American Republic supported and encouraged dissent and opposed limits on the oppositions freedom to dissent and put forward limits on the majority's power into the Constitution and the rules of Congress. Republicans decrying the Democrats move into a secret session the other day was not a "stunt", it was a minority part using Senatorial rules to force debate on an issue the majority party would not address. In the same way as a fillibuster is not a procedure against the rules of the Senate, the move to secret session was not a grandstanding move by the Democrats to gain attention. In the two party system in which we live (due to the rules of the electoral college), the move into secret session and the fillibuster are techniques enshrined as legitimate in Senate procedure that can allow a minority to bring to the attention of the majority issues that would otherwise be ignored. It is a defense against the facism which seems to be the Republicans' dream. With one party controlling the Congress and the Executive Branch (and having the largest number of sitting appointees in the Judicial Branch), it is the duty of the Democrats to do everything they can to have an opposing voice heard, whether you agree with it or not. Anything else would be a tyranny of the majority.

Fujimori arrested

Today upon his arrival in Chile, on his way to Peru in an attempt to reclaim the office he was ousted from, Alberto Fujimori was arrested and faces extradition to Peru to face charges of corruption and human rights violations during his decade long rule in Peru. It is a good sign that he will not be able to try to run for re-election.

Impeachment

In a new poll by Zogby and paid for by AfterDowningStreet.org shows that the public supports impeachment of President Bush if he lied about the War in Iraq. By a 53 percent to 42 percent margin (with a +/- 2.9 percent margin of error), respondents (there were a total of 1,200 polled) agreed with the statement

"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

Wow! One of the astonishing facts within this 53 percent is that 26 percent of self-identified Republicans agreed with the statement (along with 76 percent of Democrats and 50 percent of Independents.

Cheney conspiracy

In an article for FindLaw, John Dean, counsel to President Nixon, suggests that Libby was covering for Cheney in his lie and Fitzgerald caught on to the motivation for the lie. Dean suggests that by mentioning the Espionage Act in the indictment and press conference, Fitzgerald is trying to 'flip' Libby to testify against Cheney. Dean suggests that Libby's lie was made to protect Cheney by making "Cheney's disclosure to Libby was causally separate from Libby's later, potentially Espionage-Act-violating disclosure to the press. Thus, it also denies any possible conspiracy between Cheney and Libby." The only defense Libby could use to get Cheney off the hook would be to remain mum, plead guilty, go to jail and hope Bush pardons him before the end of Bush's term. In any other case, either he will have to talk (in exchange for a more lenient sentence in a plea bargain) or Cheney will have to
take the stand, exposing him to possible perjury charges. Since Libby already plead not guilty at his arraignment, the drama appears to just be getting started.

Patriot Act & National Security Letters

An insightful Washington Post article from Sunday provides as much information as I have seen on the increased use of national security letters by the FBI and the compilation of a large database of information gathered sheds light on a little known tool expanded by the Patriot Act. Because recipients of the National Security Letters cannot tell anyone anything about them, they have been hard to examine. However, with one lawsuit pending and one awaiting appeal (the original decision found that the use of National Security Letters with the secrecy involved now violates the 1st and 4th amendments), the article shows how easily and widely used they are. I believe that their use amounts to government spying on innocent members of society to cull a small and otherwise avoided threat and therefore their use (and especially the indefinite storage of information gained) should be ended. There are better ways of preventing terrorism than this and the price of additional safety does not outweigh the cost of civil liberties.

Cheney's Pro-Torture Stance

Proving once again how at odds with commonly held values he is, the Washington Post reports today (following up on the reports of secret CIA prisons from last week) that Dick Cheney has been the official most responsible for culling efforts to restrict the treatment of detainees. To connect with the story of secret CIA prisons, Cheney has pushed for the McCain Amendment banning torture to exempt the CIA. Bush has opposed the amendment and has threatened to veto the defence appropriations bill it is attached to if it survives the conference committee (it is not currently in the House version of the bill). Cheney's opposition to torture has been pulled once again to the forefront by his appointment of David Addington to the position of his chief of staff, Scooter Libby's job before he resigned after his indictment. Addington has been instrumental not only in creating the excessive secrecy and drive for increased executive power that has characterized the Bush Administration, he also was instrumental in creating the Bybee memos for then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzaless. The Bybee memo called the Geneva Conventions 'quaint' and provided the legal justification for the use of torture of prisoners. It is a positive development that the McCain Amendment passed the Senate 90-9 and the veto threat is hardly credible (Bush has never vetoed a spending bill), but a cloud of pro-torture memos and lobbying hangs over the office of the vice president.

Riots in Paris

The riots for the past 10 nights in the Paris suburbs (and now elsewhere in the country) are a blowup of tensions that should have been dealt with long ago and are likely to create more fuel for xenophobes seeking to block immigration into France, and the EU in general. This is a sad development. Had the government put in place programs that encouraged immigrants to assimilate (not losing their culture entirely) via programs that focused on integrating them economically, there would be a much lower likelihood of the kind of riots we see in the poor, immigrant suburbs of Paris. Because there is such a strong dichotomy between being "French" and being "non-French" in terms of opportunities, there is a segregation in society economically that fuels unreast. If there are not opportunities to improve economically, there are often moves towards radicalism of different kinds, whether fascist, communist or radical religious beliefs, all of which cause scenes that we see recurring night after night in France.

Free Trade Phonies

The Summit of the Americas was doomed to fail on its agenda to resurrect the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) because the FTAA isn't free trade. It is preferential trade that does not help in the movement towards truly free trade because it causes distortions in trade flows between countries within and without the area. It also (like the Central American Free Trade Area [CAFTA]) is burdened by many non-trade related areas like intellectual property protection (and in other agreements, trade and environmental standards not related to freeing trade). Even leaving aside the handouts to U.S. corporations that are often embodied in these trade agreementts, the idea of free trade areas (FTA) will not even theoretically lead to free trade because the gains to enlargement shrink and the costs increase as the size increase. In the theoretical literature, it is likely that there will be around 5 FTAs in equilibrium. In contrast to this, multilateral trade agreements (the Uruguay round which created the WTO from GATT and the current Doha round) which has brought to a head the problems of developed countries' agricultural subsidies and trade protection. However, this is the format for agreements that will lead to the most progress towards free trade and will, assisted by favorable domestic policies, do the most to reduce poverty and inequality across the world. Dump the FTAA, CAFTA and NAFTA and focus the energy on Doha and improving the transparency of the WTO so people see how it works and do not get wrapped up in the WTO-bashing myths that have inflamed activists in the developed world against it.

Old Blood

When Scooter Libby was forced to resign shortly before he was indicted, the office of the Vice President could have cast off some of the previous burdens of manufacturing intelligence. However, as reported by MSNBC reports that his successor, David Addington was mentioned in Patrick Fitzgerald's indictment of Scooter Libby as being part of conversations of Valerie Wilson's identity. He was also heavily involved in the efforts to increase executive power and create an extreme degree of secrecy starting with Cheney's meetings with corporate heads (including Enron's Kenneth Lay) to formulate energy policy.

Bush and Honesty

In a new CBS news poll, Bush's approval rating has hit its lowest point of his Administration, 35%. In the Washington Post-ABC News poll (which found a 39% approval rating and a 60% disapproval rating), 58 percent of respondents doubted Bush's personal honesty and integrity and 52 percent of respondent's believe that "Scooter" Libby's legal problems signal the presence of further wrongdoing in the Administration. In another ominous sign for Bush, 68% believe the country is seriously off track. All these poll results show the diminishing strength of Bush's propoganda machine, that worked so successfully following 9/11 and into the invasion of Iraq. However, with the news media showing some renewed vigor in reporting, people are waking up to the realities of Bush's policies. A seemingly endless war, a struggling economy showing record corporate profits while little or no growth in employment relative to the growth of the labor force, scandals and federal government incompetence in managing the response to hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma.

Tomlinson Out but CPB still haunted by his legacy

In a move that I have wanted for quite some time, Kenneth Tomlinson resigned today from the board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a public corporation that funds public television and radio. He was forced out largely due to his secret hiring of a private consultant to investigate the 'liberal bias' of Bill Moyers' and Diane Rehm's shows. This move is on the border between unethical and illegal behavior and represents the conservative's paranoia about non-existent 'liberal bias' in the media as a whole and particularly in public broadcasting. It is a step in the right direction for Tomlinson to resign, but problems still remain and his legacy of conservative paranoia is continued by Cheryl Halpern, a Republican contributor and activist. It would be nice to see the CPB headed by people without the conservative paranoia and hatred towards the concept of public broadcasting, but as many other agencies in the government have learned, Bush maneuvers the conservative agenda in non-partisan agencies by appointing political hacks to top jobs, who then are able to lean on career civil servants to either conform or leave. A sad commentary on the current state of American government

Lackluster Job and Wage Growth

In the employment report released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that employment in October was only 56,000 jobs higher than in September, which is below the rate needed to account for increases in population (~150,000 jobs created per month). The unemployment rate dropped slightly to 5.0 percent. Since August 2001 (when the unemployment rate was 4.9%), only one month (August 2005 with an unemployment rate of 4.9%) has seen a national unemployment rate of below 5%. Employment growth has been slow since the recession in 2001, barely (if at all) keeping up with growth in the labor force. The August employment growth number was reduced from it's original preliminary estimate and the September employment growth was revised to a loss of 8,000 jobs. Wages in October increased at the highest rate in almost 2 years, but that is because they have been growing incredibly slowly for this point in an economic recovery (by historical standards) and for the year as a whole, wages have increased by 3 percent, while the inflation rate is 4 percent meaning that the real wage has actually fallen by 1 percent this year. But that's a Bush recovery (remember 1991?).

Putin's Ploy

In an article in the St. Petersburg Times (Russia), there is apparently renewed action on a plan to reunited Russia and Belarus. While there are differing opinions on why it is occurring ("an electorate nostalgic for the Soviet Union"), many observers speculate that it is the solution to Putin's forced retirement in 2008 under the current Russian constitution. The constitution could be a way for Putin to remain in power past 2008, it would seem to work. The leader for which Bush seems so spiritually linked has strong autocrat
tendencies (for example making regions' governor an appointed position from the Kremlin) and seems to be moving towards a union with Belarus with Putin as the head.

Justifying Illegal Detentions

Apparently the State Department produced a report for the UN investigation of U.S. detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and in Iraq and Afghanistan. Reuters reports that the State Department report contained government rationale for indefinite detention at these facilities (the report did not address other facilities, such as the CIA 'black sites'). From the report:

"There is no question that under the law of armed conflict, the United States has the authority to detain persons who have engaged in unlawful belligerence until the cessation of hostilities".

However this defence falls down on the grounds of logic, since there is no definable 'cessation of hostilities' in the War against Terrorism. There will never be an end to a war on a tactic.

Girlie-men and southern fried moralism

The Economist has a few nice descriptions, calling Arnold Schwartenegger a 'girlie-man', contrasting Reagan Republicanism with what they call "southern-fried moralism". While undoubtably a conservative publication, it provides endless examples of British witicisms.

Gas Prices, Oil Companies and Windfall Taxes

While there have been some support for a windfall tax on excessive oil company profits, I have to disagree. While the oil companies have experienced record profits, a windfall tax would provide a perverse incentive for the future for oil companies to curtail, rather than expand production capacity, which in turn, would lead to higher oil and gas prices in the future than today. On the other hand, the Bush Administration's policy to reduce environmental restrictions on oil and gas production and opening the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) is also misguided. Neither will provide much benefit to end users of the products, restrain growing demand or provide incentives to reduce reliance on oil in favor of a renewable or less-environmentally damaging energy product. I have to agree with The Economist, who argue that it would be better to increase gas taxes, increase fuel efficiency of automobiles and impose a carbon tax. These strategies would reduce demand for oil and provide the government with a longer-term increase in revenues, part of which could be used to provide assistance to low-income Americans through gas credits and the Low Income Heating Energy Assistance Program (Liheap).

EU Investigates CIA 'black sites'

As the Financial Times reports, Brussels has launched an investigation into whether EU member or accession countries in Eastern Europe were the locations of secret CIA prisons, called 'black sites'. Human Rights Watch claims to have information that the 'black sites' in Eastern Europe are in Romania and north-eastern Poland. If this claim is substantiated, it could casuse significant problems for Poland's desire to join the Eurozone (and remain in the EU) and could significantly damage Romania's hopes of EU accession in 2007 or 2008. Other countries mentioned in the Washington Post story, Afghanistan and Thailand, claim that either the sites never existed or have since been closed.

Stonewalling Congress Again

An article in today's NY Times, the head of the committee investigating the botched federal response to hurricane Katrina has threatened to force the White House to release documents requested by the Committee. Chairman Thomas M. Davis III (R-VA) "threatened to issue subpoenas to compel administration officials to release the documents if they did not comply with the committee's request.". He complained of the Bush Administration that "We are not going to be stonewalled here. I will continue to press the administration for full compliance with our requests as soon as possible". It highlights another area in which the Bush Administration seeks to erode the investigative role mandated to Congress by the Constitution, and largely rests on the fear that the documents will make Micheal Brown, the deposed head of Fema during the hurricane, look even worse than he already does. The article provides several exerpts from emails he wrote during the disaster:

A deputy in Fema, Cindy Taylor, emailed him that "My eyes must be deceiving me. You look fabulous [in your public appearances] - and I'm not talking about the makeup," to which Brown responded "I got it at Nordstroms...Are you proud of me?" to which he added "If you look at my lovely FEMA attire you'll really vomit. I am a fashion god"

He was also concerned about his dog and expressed desires to leave his position. He wrote:

"Do you know of anyone who dog-sits...If you know of any responsible kids, let me know. They can have the house to themselves Th-Su."

"Can I quit now...Can I come home?"

"I am trapped now, please rescue me"

Illegal CIA Functions

This is just sick. The article details the CIA jails around the world (including in democratically ruled countries, unspecified, in Eastern Europe), where prisoners are tortured and held in isolation indefinitely. I have met someone who was chased by U.S.-supported death squads in El Salvador and who was subjected to what is now called 'waterboarding', drowning people and recussitating them. It provoked, as far as I can tell, irreversible mental problems. He seemed distant, 15-20 years after it occurred. He was totally detached from everything, left in a parallel universe, still having nightmares and other reactions to what happened to him. It affected me greatly to hear from him and I would never had heard had he not been rescued by the personal entreaty of my former representative, Connie Morella (R-MD), the only Republican I have ever voted for.
Waterboarding is an abhorrent practice and it and other illegal practices (under U.N. treaties and U.S. military law) are being used. In order for it to get going, George W. Bush had to sign off on it (not necessarily specifics, but for the general practice) because it is a covert CIA mission. Reprehensible! It must be stopped!

Rule 21

Today the Dems stood up and grabbed their cojones for all the world to see by invoking Rule 21, which puts the senate into closed session. Their complaint was started because the Republicans refused to investigate "Phase 2" of the report on the war in Iraq. "Phase 1" was released last fall detailing the failings of the intelligence used to invade Iraq. Phase 2 was intended to investigate the ways in which the intelligence was used by the White House, but was delayed until after the election. Senator Pat Roberts, head of the Intelligence Committee, stonewalled and today the Dems stood up and said "No". Phase 2 will be produced in a committee with 3 members from each party. Good work Dems.