Who Am I? Why Am I Here?

What's a serious executive indiscretion?

elainethefirst — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:11:43 EST

Since it was revealed that the Bush Administration has been illegally wiretapping calls coming into or going out of phone numbers in the United States, there have been attempts to justify such an act as White House politics as usual. Such an "everybody does it" mentality can be traced back to the Watergate investigation of the early 1970s that led to the indictment and conviction of a numerous amount of high-levels employees of the Nixon administraion and the resignation of Nixon himself. Such an unprecedented affair did establish one precedent in the American consciousness: that all politicans are equally corrupt.

Ironically, the legacy of Watergate seems to be not a desire to root out presidential indiscretions a la Nixon, but the exact opposite: to let them pass because they are merely representative of politics as usual. Witness, for instance the Iran-Contra Affair, also an unprecedented and wholly illegal act wherein high-level aides in the Reagan Administration actively funnelled money from arms sales to Iran, one of the most rogue nations of our time to fund a violent rightist group in Nicaragua.

Republicans re-Define Legality in CIA Leak

elainethefirst — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 12:35:54 EDT

Think Progress has a nice fact sheet

Link

which debunks the myths that many in the right-wing have tried to advance ever since it was revealed that high-level advisers, particularly Karl Rove and Lewis Libby, were connected to the leak of the identity of an undercover CIA Agent. These myths are as far-fetched as the one advanced by right-wing publication The Weekly Standard that leaking classified information isn't a big deal. Phrases like "criminalization of politics" have been pulled out of the air, care of neo-con pundits like William Kristol. For Kristol, the leaking of the idenitity of a CIA Agent in retaliation for an assessment her husband gave that delegitimatized a foundation for going into war (the Niger connection) is simply politics as usual.

I find this the most troubling defense of the CIA leak, because it legitimizes Rove's brand of "politics," which amounts to unleashing a barrage of baseless smears that is bound to tread in illegal waters. If John Kerry was a movie star, and the National Enquirer had printed an article featuring the slanderous accusations of the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" (Truth=Lies), he probably would have sued the publication for libel. That these characterizations were against a politician, however, made them merely political and thus acceptable even if patently untrue. Slanderous campaigns, the hallmark of Rove's career, should have been outlawed long ago. If we accept it as politics as usual, our country can only look forward to the deterioration of our democratic political system.

The Big "D" Word

elainethefirst — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 23:49:50 EDT

No, it's not anything obscene, or at least, not in a literal sense.

D-E-B-T, debt is a huge problem for many Americans, and members of my generation are being catapulted into it in a way that may entrap us for many years to come. I caught the tail-end of an episode of "Money Talks" on my PBS affiliate that focused on a young woman who had recently graduated from college (apparently from Northwestern) saddled with credit card and student loan debt. She reported that her friends were in similarly dire situations with some having already filed for bankruptcy. As the description of this installment, called "Graduating into Debt" says, "Credit card debt and increasing college tuition rates are leaving many graduates in financial ruin before they even get their first jobs." Young people are told, and rightly so, that a college education is the first step to attaining a more optimal job and is a stepping-stone to graduate education, which has become increasingly common and necessary for career advancement.

However, the costs of college are hard for most people to meet on their own. According to the College Board, the average yearly cost of attending a four-year public school (tuition, room & board) is $12,841, and the average yearly cost at a four-year private school is $27,677. College tuition increases have far out-paced inflation. According to Professor Ronald Ehrenberg of the Cornell Higher Education Research Institute, "during the last quarter of a century undergraduate tuition and fees have risen at annual rates exceeding the rate of inflation by an average of 2.5 to 3.5 percentage points." (Ehrenberg details the reasons for these increases, which I won't outline here but which are worth a read).

The Rehnquist Legacy of a Court Divided

elainethefirst — Mon, 05 Sep 2005 14:07:00 EDT

William Rehnquist is no doubt receiving accolades for being Chief Justice of an often very divided court. Now that John Roberts, who appears to be nearly as conservative as Rehnquist, has been nominated Chief, it may help to look at Rehnquist's legacy, which was in many cases characterized by a sharply fractured court where the "conservatives" lost as many battles as the "liberals." This can be a slight consolation to those of us who are worried about the turn the court is taking:

Many commentators are rushing to proclaim William Rehnquist one of the "great" chief justices because of his impact on the Supreme Court. Not so fast. With all due respect to his memory, it is clear that on many important issues, Rehnquist lost the court that bore his name. And during some of the most heated battles, rather than an influential chief rallying the court, Rehnquist was the court's missing man, seeming to watch from the sidelines.
...
Although Rehnquist saw his court make some movements in his direction, they were incremental steps around the edges. The ramparts that Rehnquist assaulted did not fall. His limited successes were far from the legacy of greatness that Rehnquist champions claim.

To give him his due, Rehnquist had a major impact in two important areas -- restrictions on Congress's power and the immunity of state governments from federal law. For the first time since the early New Deal, the Supreme Court rejected laws as beyond Congress's power under the commerce clause, which gives Congress authority to regulate interstate commerce.
...
Even when he was on the winning side, Rehnquist frequently failed to achieve the hallmark of a great chief: an opinion that speaks with clarity and finality on deeply disputed issues. In its best-known opinion, Bush v. Gore , the Rehnquist Court issued a brief unsigned opinion for five justices and a separate, additional opinion by Rehnquist for three of those five justices -- hardly the kind of clear and ringing statement that one would expect in so momentous a case.

Fatally misplaced priorities yield disaster in New Orleans

elainethefirst — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:30:14 EDT

One of the most frustrating things about the upheaval from massive flooding in New Orleans is that it may well have been preventable. New Orleans was flagged as one of the top three potential disaster sites in the nation in 2001.

In 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency ranked a major hurricane strike on New Orleans as “among the three likeliest, most catastrophic disasters facing this country, directly behind a terrorist strike on New York City.

Despite that, New Orleans disaster management funds were cut in the last four years:

Since 2003, FEMA gave no money to Orleans and Jefferson Parishes in Louisiana, even though it recognized the flooding risks from a hurricane or levee breach as reported here about four hours ago.

Maestri [the local EM director] is still awaiting word from FEMA officials as to why Louisiana, despite being called the "floodplain of the nation" in a 2002 FEMA report, received no disaster mitigation grant money from FEMA in 2003 ("Homeland Insecurity," Sept. 28). Maestri says the rejection left emergency officials around the state "flabbergasted."

It is times like these when lack of a competent government becomes fatally clear. On a day to day level, assessing and ensuring preparedness for an emergency does not seem pressing, and thus receives little political or media attention.

Enough Roe-bashing

elainethefirst — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:35:39 EDT

Its seems a few people around here and elsewhere in progressive wings think that defending Roe v. Wade is screwing up the priorities of the Democratic party. First of all, Roe still is broadly supported. According to polls such as this one, it is supported by a majority--two-thirds--of Americans. This has been a consistent finding.

So to progressive men against Roe: it's not Roe that's keeping Democrats out of office what's keeping us out of office is not having the cajones--pardon my French..err Spanish--to stand up for what we believe, on workers rights, on health care, on foreign policy, on education. We don't talk about what we believe, and that's what's getting us. Roe is the least of our worries in this regard.

Furthermore, Roe is not a blatantly bad legal decision or even a mediocre one as some allege, at least not its fundamental holding. The argument often made against Roe is that there is no fundamental right to abortion, and that the matter should be sent back to states for legislating. However, opponents of Roe seem to avoid or take little issue with the point that any law made against abortion (or against anything for that matter) must pass a burden of Constitutionality, i.e. not violating fundamental rights. Thus, even if a law is popular, it can be unconstitutional, and there should be a valid state interest behind the law.

Roe holds that a right to privacy is protected under the Constitution. Justice Blackmun in the 1973 opinion explains it thusly,

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

If If Roe v. Wade is overturned, everyone should worry, not just pro-choice supporters

elainethefirst — Wed, 20 Jul 2005 23:47:21 EDT

Lately it has become almost in vogue to disparage Roe v. Wade as a legal opinion. Its main holding though, the "right to privacy" is sound, and if Roe is overturned on those grounds (which I think it would have to be), then all of us, and not just those of us concerned with women's reproductive rights, should fear.

Strict constructionists like Antonin Scalia have made it seem as if the U.S. Constitution enumerates individual rights. Scalia's opinion is that a right to abortion cannot be found in the constitution, therefore there is none. He says so a couple of times in his dissent in Stenberg v. Carhart, and he has said it before:

It has been arrived at by precisely the process Casey promised–a democratic vote by nine lawyers, not on the question whether the text of the Constitution has anything to say about this subject (it obviously does not)

If only for the sake of its own preservation, the Court should return this matter to the people–where the Constitution, by its silence on the subject,

However, what Scalia doesn't acknowledge is that the Constitution does not enumerate all rights of American citizens; it defines limits on government. If the Constitution were to enumerate all of our rights, that would be scary: it would be like saying these rights written here and these rights alone are your rights. It would be a model for a fascist mandate. Even if the federal government had the best intentions, many rights wouldn't be covered. For instance, a state or locality that had some grudge against, say chewing gum, could make a law against it with no federal repercussions. How could there be if the Constitution hasn't enumerated a right to chew gum?

The Ninth Amendment is rarely mentioned, but its provision that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" supports the idea that the Constitution is not a document that enumerates specific rights.

1970s Redux: Leak about agent again leads to the top

elainethefirst — Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:49:33 EDT

Not only has Bush's top political aide, Karl Rove, been revealed as a source for the Valerie Plame leak, but Dick Cheney's top aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby has been named as well. On "Meet the Press" Time Magazine's Matt Cooper revealed that he talked to Libby as well as Rove about Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame:

According to Cooper, Libby and Rove were among the government officials referred to in Cooper's subsequent Time story that said Wilson's wife was a CIA official and that she was involved in sending her husband on a trip to Africa.

This whole thing reminds me of Watergate in the sense that Richard Nixon, after the hotel burglary became news, took great pains to eliminate any trace of connection between himself and the crime, hoping to portray those involved as low-level hacks who committed a "third-rate burglary." However, because Nixon himself set a tone of no holds barred dirty campaigning, it would be no surprise (to some) in the end when it was revealed that he was likely connected with the Watergate burglary and especially with the subsequent obstruction of its investigation. It is unsurprising in the same way that the most high-ranking officials and not an out-of-control young staffer of the Bush White House can be traced to the Plame leak because the Bush establishment has such a similar history of dirty campaigning as Nixon.

Depends what the definition of 'leak' is...

elainethefirst — Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:20:59 EDT

The waters are murky on the question of whether Karl Rove revealed the name of a CIA Agent, at least according to this article from my favorite newspaper, the New York Times. Seriously though, according to the Times, an anonymous witness of some sort has come forward to let Patrick Fitzgerald know that Rove was told by Robert Novak that Novak knew who Plame was, and Rove confirmed that.

So that bolsters Rove's defense, but

The person who provided the information about Mr. Rove's conversation with Mr. Novak declined to be identified, citing requests by Mr. Fitzgerald that no one discuss the case. The person discussed the matter in the belief that Mr. Rove was truthful in saying he did not disclose Ms. Wilson's identity.

Well, this could be anyone. This could be George W. Bush, or Karl Rove's attorney Robert Luskin. Seriously though, an anonymous informant is basically agreeing with Rove's version of the facts, with no indication of how this person was privy to such information.

Finally, even if Rove's side of the story is true, and it hasn't been confirmed either way, the Times mentions that

White House officials may argue that Mr. Rove's conversation with Mr. Novak did not amount to leaking the name of the agent. But to critics of Mr. Bush - including the Democrats who have called for Mr. Rove's resignation - that is splitting hairs, and Mr. Rove in effect confirmed her identity, even if he did not name her.

Let's not forget, Rove is also vulnerable of perjury charges for his statements to a grand jury about not leaking Plame's name. I won't comment about the zealousness from those who wanted Clinton charged for perjury because I'm sure they are equally adamant that Rove, if guilty of leaking Plame's name, should face the same grave charges Clinton faced. Right guys?

Remember when Karl Rove got accused of treason? and other questions

elainethefirst — Sat, 09 Jul 2005 16:15:36 EDT

Whatever happened to that news story? Unsurprisingly, the lethargic Washington press corps frankly doesn't give a damn. According to Think Progress, Arriana Huffington, and Salon, among others, yesterday's White House press briefing was the fourth opportunity for the press corps to ask the administration questions about Rove being named as a source who leaked the identity of CIA Agent Valerie Plame to Time reporter Matt Cooper. Yet not one question was asked.

Meanwhile, Chicago-based U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who is constantly lauded as independent a prosecutor as they come, at least appears to be doing his best to ignore the heart of the problem in this case: that at least one government official leaked the name of a CIA agent and thereby committed treason, by making his targets members of the press who refuse to reveal confidential sources. The Judith Miller investigation reveals the flaws of Fitzgerald's most public modus operandi: going after journalists--who are private citizens--to turn over their confidential sources to the government regarding the Plame case. This move could surely deter future investigations into corruption that are aided by a source who needs the protection of confidentiality to continue provividng information (e.g. "Deep Throat"'s role in the Watergate investigation). [That Washington Post article mentions that Fitzgerald "quizzed" George W. Bush on the Plame leak as well, for an hour in the White House, but we have yet to hear what came of that].

London and Domestic Terrorism

elainethefirst — Thu, 07 Jul 2005 16:47:34 EDT

Listening to media coverage of the London transportation bombings has reminded me of how vulnerable public places in urban areas are to terrorism. It has been almost four years since September 11, and it seems like Americans have received little instruction on how to prevent attacks besides the vague warning to "be vigilant" and meaningless, color-coded terrorist alerts.

For instance, today America's public transportation systems status was rasied from a yellow to an orange alert. Presumably the only reason for this is because attacks just occurred against London's transportation system. Yet, the administration would do well to provide
(1) Any suggestion of what we can do to keep safe on our public transportation systems. (what looks suspicious, who should we contact)
(2) Which transport systems are the most vulnerable. (I'd assume New York's subway or the D.C. Metro are the most vulnerable while the Portland light rail can probably rest easy, but it would help for some sort of distinction from the administration who are more privy to intelligence than the rest of us)
(3) What they are doing to protect our "homeland," i.e. country against domestic attacks. Some of the radio shows I'm listening to brought up Bush's promise to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive" and Colin Powell's statement that "It's not enough to get one individual [i.e. bin Laden], although we'll start with that one individual."

What the London attack spotlights if it is indeed confirmed that Al Qaeda perpetrated them as they have claimed is that the U.S. government's focus on a country that had nothing to do with encouraging Al Qaeda--Iraq--is taking away precious time and resources from the true source of random killing of innocent people.

Another point that was made is that today's terrorist attack in London is virtually a daily experience for citizens and soldiers in Iraq. That is the world Iraqis live in, and the U.S. invasion has perpetuated it, not to mention caused increased terrorism in Iraq, purportedly what the war sought to prevent.

Hopefully these attacks will cause Americans to demand more information from the government on what we are doing to protect from domestic terrorism.

Caveat Emptor, Let the [Progressive] Buyer Beware

elainethefirst — Wed, 06 Jul 2005 22:31:09 EDT

Following up on the last couple of posts relating to Walmart, some of you may have heard of a great website called Buy Blue that alerts as to which comapnies donate to conservatives (and which donate to friends of people like us).

What should we do about Walmart? BuyBlue says, go to Costco. According to the Labor Research Association

there's another company that is breaking the Wal-Mart mold: Costco Wholesale Corp., now the fifth-largest retailer in the U.S. While Wal-Mart pays an average of $9.68 an hour, the average hourly wage of employees of the Issaquah, Wash.-based warehouse club operator is $16. After three years a typical full-time Costco worker makes about $42,000, and the company foots 92% of its workers' health insurance tab.

The site ranks companies by how much and what percentage of their donations go to democratic causes. There are some surprises too: apparently Bally Total Fitness is a loyal "Blue" corporation while California Pizza Kitchen is way in the red.

Remember those "Voting is for Old People" t-shirts that Urban Outfitters released last year? Well, the company is a big conservative donor, and one can only wonder if that t-shirt was a strategy to dissuade young people, who often vote liberal, from voting last year.

I now have an even more socially responsible excuse to avoid Papa John's and Burger King, two late-night joints near my university that are heavy on the grease, since they too are placed in the red category.

Hey that old guy from 'Law and Order' likes him, so he must be good!

elainethefirst — Wed, 06 Jul 2005 22:06:09 EDT

George W. Bush has signed on actor and former Senator from Tennessee Fred Thompson to "guide [his Supreme Court] nominee through the confirmation process."

I don't really understand why he reached out to Thompson, who Americans probably know best as District Attorney Arthur Branch on Law and Order. (I actually had to look that up, because I am one of the 10 Americans who doesn't watch L &O).

Anyway, I'm not sure why Fred Thompson has been invited to assume this role, but I do know that this White House invests a good deal in public relations solutions, so I expect they hope that when Americans see Thompson sitting behind Edith Jones or Alberto Gonzales or J. Michael Luttig during confirmation hearings, they will approve of the nominee since DA Arthur Branch is on their side.

The Security Issue

elainethefirst — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 16:02:50 EDT

So, as a result of a discussion with my friend on his blog, I want to address the latest frontier of the security issue which the Democrats must seize for 2006 (and right now!). The revelation that Karl Rove had a part in leaking the name of CIA Agent Valerie Plame, an expert on weapons of mass destruction, to columnist Robert Novak and thus the public means, as Buzzflash says:

the Bush White House committed brazen treason by deliberately undercutting our national efforts to keep WMDs out of the hands of "bad guys."

To have a high-ranking administration official reveal the name of a CIA Agent is treason or "a crime that undermines the offender's government," by one definition, for the purpose of scaring away someone like Joseph Wilson whose logical conclusions are not in sync with the White House's, is unprofessional, reprehensible, and illegal.

Possible Supreme Court Appointees, A Brief Profile

elainethefirst — Sun, 03 Jul 2005 18:33:41 EDT

Well, we know that Alberto Gonzales, current U.S. Attorney General and torture apologist wants the Supreme Court appointment badly.

Anyway, among possible Bush appointees who would satisfy the condition of being (a) right-wing (b) a woman and/or minority (c) (relatively) young, many are new to their current positions, be it on a circuit court or somewhere else.

48-year old Gonzales is one, since he was recently appointed to Attorney General, though I guess he's not right-wing enough for Bush's base.

By the by, this is a good point:

When you read all the negative responses by these ass hats against Justice O'Conner, it sort of surprises me. Mostly because if she had ruled against Bush in 2000, they never would be in the position that they are in right now. Al Gore might well have been president, leaving them to swing in the wind where they belong.

Reports that Rove Leaked Name of CIA Agent Plame

elainethefirst — Sun, 03 Jul 2005 18:31:35 EDT

It has been rumored in the blogosphere for sometime that Karl Rove was behind the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame, a vindictive measure to get back at her husband Joseph Wilson IV who concluded that there had been no uranium purchases by Iraq from Niger, a major justification the Bush administration had used to go to war in Iraq.

One thing that people who think this should be investigated and tried should not let up on is how HUGE this is. A top person in the president's administration leaked the name of a CIA Agent, thereby committing treason. A treason conviction can result in the death penalty, which I personally don't believe in and I don't rejoice in its sentencing, but if Rove were sentenced to death it would be great irony to have a man who worked for the governor who presided over the most death penalty sentences in any state--Bush--sentenced to death himself.

Currently Rove is saying he didn't leak the actual name of the Agent.

My opinion of this is that the fact that Rove probably didn't take what he did seriously reflects on this administration's feeling of impenetrable power, of being able to get away with anything, which so far they have. Hopefully this development will change that, but it will take a big fight.

Sandra Day O'Connor: An Independent Jurist?

elainethefirst — Sun, 03 Jul 2005 18:26:21 EDT

One problem I have with the coverage of retiring U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is her portrayal as an independent jurist simply because she was often a "swing vote" on heated issues before the court like school prayer and abortion rights.

Here's the problem with that: just because a judge's votes seem to consistently fall on the left or right doesn't mean he or she isn't equally independent in thought. Take David Souter, who the Republicans expected to be a shoe-in, a "stealth" conservative, since he hadn't written many opinions on hot-button issues. Souter's votes now provoke great resentment among Republicans, but the press portrays him as a reliable liberal vote, thus by their logic, not an independent like the less predictable O'Connor. However, Souter's unwillingness to conform to what Republicans expected of him would prove otherwise.

"Conservatives for American Values"

elainethefirst — Sun, 03 Jul 2005 18:23:57 EDT

I just found a website called Conservatives for American Values that I initially thought was scarily Republican, but after reading it a bit more, I realized it must be a joke. It's a sad place that our country's politics is in for this site to seem legit, even for a second. Choice quotes:

On a "Culture of Life"

Essentially a culture of life is a society that holds deep respect for the sanctity of life. Seems pretty simple, right? Well there are certain nuances to this concept that I want to address before you start decrying our treatment of detainees at Guantanimo Bay or capital punishment with this idea.

The Blame Michael Jackson Syndrome

elainethefirst — Wed, 29 Jun 2005 21:40:08 EDT

I didn't hear about this until seeing a taped episode of "The Daily Show" tonight where Fox schmuck Neil Cavuto is interviewing (or more like buttering up) George W. Bush. At one point, Cavuto suggests that the Michael Jackson trial has resulted in Bush's unpopularity. I think his logic is that if Americans weren't so wrapped up in it, they would pay attention to Bush's social secuirty plan and just love it. Anyway, the transcript is just too funny for words:

BUSH: Polls go up, and polls go down. But I also know my job. See, I could not be here in Washington, D.C., and take on an issue like Social Security and live with myself. In other words, if I didn't take this on, I'd have said, "What did you go to Washington for in the first place?"
...

CAVUTO: But in the meantime, the news channels then hear what you're saying, and then later on, we have this Michael Jackson update. I mean, his trial and his ongoing saga has gripped the nation for the past four-and-a-half, five months as you've been on this campaign.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: I know this is a little outlandish, Mr. President…

BUSH: No, that's all right, Neil.

CAVUTO: Do you think that the focus on Michael Jackson has hurt you?

Equally as coherent a logic would be that Americans are so disconcerted by the state of the country and the guy who is leading it that the Michael Jackson trial is some sort of escapist outlet. Better yet, how about Republicans stop making excuses for having unpopular policies. I mean that just takes the cake.

Bush's TV Campaigning

elainethefirst — Wed, 29 Jun 2005 09:48:47 EDT

George W. Bush has developed a habit of defending his increasingly unpopular policies on television. A month or two ago, he interrupted your regularly scheduled program to speak about Social Security after polls were showing his privatization plan was widely unpopular. (His address interrupted The O.C., which was not received all to well by some;).

Last night he did the same, deliviering a nationally televised address on Iraq. Since I was out, I did not watch the speech, and I'm sure if I was home I wouldn't have the heart to view it either.

It seems kind of odd that Bush should go on national television to recite about the same speech that he gave 13-months ago, when he's trying to address the fact that the state of Iraq is becoming progressively worse. Clearly this is a man who has no plans to understand the problems of his Iraq policy and try to revise it. The administration in general has proven unwilling and inept at self-criticism, which is to the detriment of our country and the countries which they intervene in abroad.