Around the World

This recipe is really 180 degrees around the world from the one below. But this whole recipe experience is about my sharing my favorite foods with you and, as you can see, I'm a "promiscuous eater." I'm also hugely curious about new foods and cuisines and am trying new things all the time (had a new Thai dish at lunch I'd never tried before today, it was delicious and I'll see if I can't cobble together a recipe for you during the week.) I just ran into a recipe for Jerusalem artichokes baked with herbs which I'm dying to try with lamb chops. I have never eaten a Jerusalem artichoke before and didn't know how to cook them.

This recipe is for a classic treatment of Chicken Kiev, decidedly not a diet food. In my second year of graduate school at New England Conservatory many moons ago, I had a roommate who was as interested in food as I was. She was much more experienced with more kinds of foods than I was; her family was Ukrainian and many of them lived in the Ukraine and Europe and she had traveled a lot. I had never heard of Chicken Kiev, much less eaten it, until I met her. I remember the first time she made it for me. I was thunderstruck that such simple ingredients could make such a spectacular dish. It was her mother's recipe, which is very close to the one I reproduce here. While that year wasn't one of the great roommate experiences of my life (current total=0) she taught me to try everything and we explored some of the outer reaches of cuisine that Boston offered in the late '70's. Boston was and is a great restaurant town, and though we were pretty poor, there were still terrific great ethnic restaurants to try, and a Chinatown and North End to wander. Our apartment was in Brookline, then heavily Jewish, and some of the finest really kosher delis were a couple of blocks away at Cleveland Corner. We didn't eat out much, couldn't afford it, but we always went for maximum bang for the buck. It was during grad school (round 1) that I really started to learn ethnic cooking, and if I was too tired to cook, there was the little Japanese hole in the wall around the corner that served soup, salad and a couple of tempura fried veggies with rice for $1.99. Boy, are those days long gone!

So here is my Chicken Kiev recipe for the adventurous eater. I like to serve this with steamed fresh asparagus with a lemon and tarragon vinaigrette and plain long grained white rice to soak up the herb butter. Serve a buttery Chardonnay with this and keep dessert simple. This is a company meal your guests will be talking about for a long time.

8 tablespoons (1 stick) unsalted butter, room temperature
1 teaspoon dried parsley
1 teaspoon dried tarragon
1 teaspoon kosher salt, plus extra for seasoning chicken
1/4 teaspoon freshly ground black pepper, plus extra for seasoning chicken
4 boneless, skinless chicken breast halves
1 cup seasoned flour
2 large whole eggs, beaten with 1 teaspoon water
2 cups Japanese bread crumbs (panko), plus 1/4 cup for filling
Vegetable oil, for frying (I like canola for this)

Combine butter, parsley, tarragon, 1 teaspoon salt, and 1/4 teaspoon black pepper in the bowl of a stand mixer. Place mixture on plastic wrap or waxed paper and roll into small log; place in freezer.

Place chicken breasts, 1 at a time, between 2 pieces of plastic wrap. Squirt chicken lightly with water and squirt the top of the plastic wrap as well. Pound to no less than 1/8-inch thickness. Season each piece of chicken with salt and pepper.

Lay 1 chicken breast on a new piece of plastic wrap and place 1/4 of the compound butter and 1 tablespoon bread crumbs in the center of each breast. Using the plastic wrap to assist, fold in ends of breast and roll breast into a log, completely enclosing the butter; roll very tightly. Repeat with each breast. Place chicken in refrigerator for 2 hours, or up to overnight.

Place egg and water mixture in 1 pie pan, 1 cup of seasoned flour and 2 cups bread crumbs in a different pie pan.

Dredge each breast in flour then dip each breast in the egg mixture and then roll in the bread crumbs. Let them rest and the coating dry on a cooling rack over a cookie sheet for 10 minutes.Heat 1/2-inch of vegetable oil in a 12-inch saute pan over medium-high heat until oil reaches 375 degrees F.

Gently place each breast in oil, sealed-side down, and cook until golden brown, approximately 4 to 5 minutes on each side, until the internal temperature reaches 165 degrees F. Remove to a cooling rack set in sheet pan and allow to drain for 5 to 10 minutes before serving.

Because you can start this a day ahead, this is a good dish for entertaining. The night of your dinner, all you have to do is finish the frying, after starting the rice. The asparagus are waiting and I steam my veggies in the mike. The vegetables finish faster and hold their "crisp" better. Just rinse the asparagus and nuke it in a covered cassarole dish. Barbara Kafka's Microwave Gourmet is a reference book you shouldn't be without. It taught me how to maximize my use of microwave cooking techniques, and now I nearly always use it for veggies and fish in preference to any other cooking technique.

Saigon Street Food

I love the Vietnamese beef noodle soup known as pho but I've never made it before. Today I just found this new recipe at www.epcurious.com, one of my favorite food websites, with the resources of Gourmet and Bon Appetit magazines. I'm definitely going to make a big batch of this and freeze it down in single serving containers this weekend. No two bowls of pho are ever the same: you finish off the basic broth, steak and noodles with whichever condiments, herbs or vegetables you have around. I like a squeeze of lime, cilantro, thai basil and Vietnamese chile sauce with mung bean sprouts and chopped scallions in mine. This recipe looks just like the way I've watched dozens of pho cooks make this soup in any of the many little pho shops around me (the area near me is called Little Saigon.)

2 large onions, halved lengthwise
1 (3-inch) piece fresh ginger, left unpeeled
4 lb meaty cross-cut beef shanks (sometimes called beef shins; 1 1/2 inches thick)
7 qt cold water
2 teaspoons star anise pieces
1 (3-inch) cinnamon stick
3 whole cloves
1 tablespoon black peppercorns
1 (1/2-lb) piece boneless beef sirloin steak or tenderloin
1 lb dried flat thin or medium rice noodles (banh pho or pad Thai)
1/2 cup Asian fish sauce (preferably Vietnamese nuoc mam), or to taste
1/2 teaspoon salt, or to taste

Special equipment: cheesecloth; kitchen string
Accompaniments: fresh bean sprouts; very thinly sliced onion (rinsed and drained); fresh cilantro, mint, and basil (preferably Thai) leaves; thinly sliced scallions; lime wedges; thinly sliced fresh Thai or serrano chiles; Asian fish sauce (preferably nuoc mam)

Make broth:
Roast onions and ginger directly on rack of a gas burner over high heat, turning with tongs, until blistered and blackened, 10 to 15 minutes. (Alternatively, broil onions and ginger on foil-lined rack of a broiler pan about 5 inches from heat, turning occasionally, until charred, 20 to 25 minutes for onions; 25 to 30 minutes for ginger.) Transfer to a bowl and cool. When cool enough to handle, rinse and rub under cold running water to remove any blackened pieces (some areas will remain browned).

While onions and ginger roast, cover shanks with 2 quarts cold water in a 6- to 8-quart pot. Bring to a boil, then drain in a large colander (discard cooking water) and rinse well with cold water. Clean pot.

Wrap star anise, cinnamon stick, cloves, and peppercorns in cheesecloth and tie into a bundle with kitchen string to make a spice bag, then add to cleaned pot along with 4 quarts water, shanks, onions, and ginger. Simmer, uncovered, skimming froth occasionally, 2 hours. Add remaining quart water and return to a boil, then reduce heat and simmer, skimming froth occasionally, until shanks are very tender, about 1 hour more.

Prepare sirloin and noodles for soup while broth simmers:
Freeze steak until firm but not frozen solid, 30 to 45 minutes, then slice across the grain with a sharp thin knife into less than 1/8-inch-thick slices.

Soak rice noodles in cold water to cover until softened, about 30 minutes, then drain in cleaned large colander. Cook noodles in a 6-quart pot of boiling water, uncovered, stirring, 1 minute, then drain.

Finish soup:
Transfer shanks with tongs to a cutting board. Clean pot. When shanks are cool enough to handle, remove meat from bones and cut into small pieces, discarding bones, fat, and sinew. Set aside 2 cups beef (reserve remainder for another use).

Pour broth through a fine-mesh sieve into a large heatproof bowl, discarding solids. Measure broth: If there is more than 3 quarts (12 cups), boil in cleaned pot until reduced; if there is less, add water. Let stand until fat rises to top, 1 to 2 minutes, then skim off fat if desired.

Combine broth and beef (2 cups) in cleaned 6- to 8-quart pot and bring to a boil, then add fish sauce and salt and return to a boil just before serving.

Divide noodles among 6 large deep bowls. Top noodles with uncooked sliced steak and ladle boiling-hot broth (with pieces of beef shanks) over steak and noodles. (Hot broth will cook steak.)

Serve soup with accompaniments.

Cooks' notes:
• Broth can be made (and strained) 3 days ahead and cooled completely, uncovered, then chilled with 2 cups beef, covered. Bring to a boil just before serving.
• In place of the sliced sirloin steak or tenderloin, you can use beef shabu-shabu (paper-thin slices of meat available at Asian markets) or thinly sliced rare roast beef (from deli counter), torn into pieces.

Makes 6 main-course servings.

Down, Down, Down

President facing ‘gray and gloomy’ electorate
NBC/WSJ poll: Small slice of good news for Bush on domestic wiretap issue

By Mark Murray
Political reporter
NBC News
Updated: 7:53 p.m. ET Jan. 30, 2006

WASHINGTON - Heading into Tuesday's State of the Union address and the beginning of the 2006 political season, President Bush faces an electorate that continues to be dissatisfied with his job performance, increasingly wants U.S. soldiers to come home from Iraq, and believes the Republican Party is associated more with special interests and lobbyists, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

The overall political climate for Bush is “gray and gloomy,” says Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted this survey with Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart. “In general, people are just not in a happy mood.”

The poll, however, contains a slice of good news for the Bush administration: A small majority approves of the administration’s controversial use of domestic wiretaps without a court order to track calls between terrorist suspects and U.S. residents. But a majority also believes that these wiretaps could be misused.

The survey, which was conducted from Jan. 26-29 of 1,011 adults and which has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, shows Bush’s approval rating at 39 percent, which is unchanged from last month’s NBC/Journal poll. (Other recent national surveys have shown his approval rating to be slightly higher, in the low 40s.) In addition, only 25 percent say they want to see Bush take the lead role in setting policy for the country, while 49 percent say they prefer Congress.

“He’s off track,” says Hart, who wonders if Bush will use his State of the Union address to strike a more conciliatory tone with his political opponents. “If it is ‘our way or the highway,’ it will be a very long year for the president.”

W would need a temperament transplant to achieve this. The bad news: a long year for W means a very long year for the rest of us.

SOTU Crystal Ball

WaPo's Dan Froomkin on yesterday's gaggle:

Elevating the Tone

Here's another theme you can expect tonight, again telegraphed by Bush after his Cabinet meeting yesterday:

"One of the things I will do is call for Congress and the executive branch to have a good, honest dialogue, but to speak candidly with each other, but to do so in a way that brings credit to the process. And I'll do my best to elevate the tone here in Washington, D.C. so we can work together to achieve big things for the American people."

But just how exactly will he do that?

That very question came up at the press briefing. And it turns out that when Bush talks about trying to elevate the tone, he doesn't mean his own.

"Q Let me ask you a question about elevating the tone, because, obviously, a lot of Americans are familiar with this talk from the President, even though it didn't really come to pass after he was elected in 2000. . . . So could you be a little bit more specific about what he thinks he can do to elevate the tone?

"MR. McCLELLAN: Just exactly what he's been doing throughout his administration. This President has always worked, whether it was when he was governor of Texas or since he's been President of the United States, has always worked to reach out and elevate the discourse. If you look at his tone, this President has focused on how we can work together to get things done, and focused on what the American people expect us to do. And that's what -- and that's what he will continue to do. . . .

"Q You said the President is going to continue doing what he's doing in terms of elevating the tone in Washington. So to whom, exactly, is he referring?

"MR. McCLELLAN: To elevating the tone?

"Q Yes.

"MR. McCLELLAN: All of us. Both parties, to work together to get things done for the American people.

"Q So everybody is kicking in the gutter, except him? (Laughter.)

"MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's not what he said. That's what you said. . . . The President has reached out. It requires others to reach back."

No, I won't by liveblogging the SOTU tonight, because I could probably sit down and write it out for you word for word right now. ThinkProgress will be live blogging, webcasting and basically be your go to site for the speech, and that's where I'll be.

The More Things Change...

Via Suze:

The Fear That Kills

By Marjorie Cohn, TruthOut.org. Posted January 31, 2006.

Appalling new evidence reveals that female soldiers serving in Iraq made fatal decisions in their attempts to avoid rape.

In a startling revelation, the former commander of Abu Ghraib prison testified that Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, former senior US military commander in Iraq, gave orders to cover up the cause of death for some female American soldiers serving in Iraq. .... Karpinski testified that a surgeon for the coalition's joint task force said in a briefing that "women in fear of getting up in the hours of darkness to go out to the port-a-lets or the latrines were not drinking liquids after 3 or 4 in the afternoon, and in 120 degree heat or warmer, because there was no air-conditioning at most of the facilities, they were dying from dehydration in their sleep."

"And rather than make everybody aware of that -- because that's shocking, and as a leader if that's not shocking to you then you're not much of a leader -- what they told the surgeon to do is don't brief those details anymore. And don't say specifically that they're women. You can provide that in a written report but don't brief it in the open anymore."

For example, Maj. Gen. Walter Wojdakowski, Sanchez's top deputy in Iraq, saw "dehydration" listed as the cause of death on the death certificate of a female master sergeant in September 2003. Under orders from Sanchez, he directed that the cause of death no longer be listed, Karpinski stated. The official explanation for this was to protect the women's privacy rights.

Sanchez's attitude was: "The women asked to be here, so now let them take what comes with the territory," Karpinski quoted him as saying. Karpinski told me that Sanchez, who was her boss, was very sensitive to the political ramifications of everything he did. She thinks it likely that when the information about the cause of these women's deaths was passed to the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld ordered that the details not be released. "That's how Rumsfeld works," she said.

"It was out of control," Karpinski told a group of students at Thomas Jefferson School of Law last October. There was an 800 number women could use to report sexual assaults. But no one had a phone, she added. And no one answered that number, which was based in the United States. Any woman who successfully connected to it would get a recording. Even after more than 83 incidents were reported during a six-month period in Iraq and Kuwait, the 24-hour rape hot line was still answered by a machine that told callers to leave a message.

"There were countless such situations all over the theater of operations -- Iraq and Kuwait -- because female soldiers didn't have a voice, individually or collectively," Karpinski told Hackworth. "Even as a general I didn't have a voice with Sanchez, so I know what the soldiers were facing. Sanchez did not want to hear about female soldier requirements and/or issues."

Karpinski was the highest officer reprimanded for the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, although the details of interrogations were carefully hidden from her. Demoted from Brigadier General to Colonel, Karpinski feels she was chosen as a scapegoat because she was a female.

Sexual assault in the US military has become a hot topic in the last few years, "not just because of the high number of rapes and other assaults, but also because of the tendency to cover up assaults and to harass or retaliate against women who report assaults," according to Kathy Gilberd, co-chair of the National Lawyers Guild's Military Law Task Force.

This problem has become so acute that the Army has set up its own sexual assault web site.

PTSD

Via Juan Cole:

Mental disorders affect third of Iraq vets

Date: Friday, January 27, 2006 9:26:15 PM EST By OLGA PIERCE, UPI Health Business Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Jan. 27 (UPI) -- About 40,000 soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have been found to show symptoms of mental health disorders, a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) representative said Friday.

In fact, a mental condition known as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) --first recognized during the Vietnam era -- is being diagnosed frequently among troops returning from the Middle East, and the VA has had to adjust its treatments and infrastructure to accommodate this, as well as the changing face of the American soldier.

Although the fraction of soldiers diagnosed, about one-third, is higher than in the past, the VA has "no real way to know - in a true epidemiological sense - whether the rate is higher than past conflicts," Antoinette Zeiss of the VA office of mental health services, said at the National Press Club.

The higher fraction could, in part, be due to increased screening, she said.

As troops return home, they face the challenge of restarting their lives. Though most of the approximately 400,000 servicemen and women never seek help from the VA, those who do often must cope with the lingering effects of debilitating mental and physical injuries that differ from those in previous wars. Fortunately, new approaches to treatment are available as well.
....
Another more-frequent phenomenon is known as poly-trauma, when returning soldiers have both severe physical and mental wounds.

Many soldiers with severe injuries, who would have died in past conflicts, are now surviving and require specialized care, Zeiss said.

The VA has plans to expand the number of poly-trauma centers it operates from four to 21 to accommodate this increased need.

For all veterans who suffer from mental disorders, methods of treatment are changing.

The past practice of isolating them in hospitals has been replaced by an approach that stresses integrating patients into the community, and the support it can provide, as soon as possible.

And recent studies have confirmed that new medications, such as SSRI drugs developed to treat depression, can be effective in treating Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, an option not available in the past.

A 2004 study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, of nearly 6,000 Marines returning from Iraq and Afghanistan found that between 15 and 17 percent of Iraq conflict veterans and about 11 percent of veterans who served in Afghanistan suffered symptoms of mental disorders when they returned home. However, less than half of those affected sought care, in part because they feared they would be looked down on by their fellow soldiers and superior officers.

The VA is reaching out to veterans to overcome attitudes and get them the help they need, Zeiss said.

What the article doesn't tell you: this is the next generation of homeless and substance addicted vets.

Equality For All

Coretta Scott King, 78, Widow of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Dies

By PETER APPLEBOME
Published: January 31, 2006

Coretta Scott King, first known as the wife of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., then as his widow, then as an avid proselytizer for his vision of racial peace and non-violent social change died Monday night, according to Andrew Young, the former United Nations ambassador who is an old friend of the King family. She was 78 and had been in failing health for years following a stroke.

Mr. Young said in a phone call to NBC's "Today" show that Mrs. King died last night at her home in Atlanta.

"I understand she was asleep last night and her daughter tried to wake her up," Mr. King said.

Mrs. King rose from rural poverty in Heiberger, Ala., to become an international symbol of the civil rights revolution of the 1960s and a tireless advocate for a long litany of social and political issues ranging from women's rights to the struggle against apartheid in South Africa that followed in its wake.

She was studying music at the New England Conservatory of Music in Boston in 1952 when she met a young graduate student in philosophy, who on their first date told her: "The four things that I look for in a wife are character, personality, intelligence and beauty. And you have them all." A year later she and Dr. King, then a young minister from a prominent Atlanta family, were married, beginning a remarkable partnership that ended with Dr. King's assassination in Memphis on April 4, 1968.

Mrs. King did not hesitate to pick up his mantle, marching before her husband was even buried at the head of the garbage workers he had gone to Memphis to champion. She then went on to lead the effort for a national holiday in his honor and to found the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Non-Violent Social Change in Atlanta, dedicated both to scholarship and to activism, where Dr. King is buried.

Aside from the trauma of her husband's death, which left her alone with four young children, Mrs. King faced other trials and controversies over the years. She was at times viewed as chilly and aloof by others in the movement. The King Center was criticized first as competing for funds and siphoning energy from the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which Dr. King had headed. In recent years, it has been widely viewed as adrift, characterized by intra-family squabbling and a focus more on Dr. King's legacy than continuing his work. And even many allies were baffled and hurt by her campaign to exonerate James Earl Ray, who in 1969 had pleaded guilty to her husband's murder, and her contention Ray did not commit the crime.

But more often, Mrs. King has been seen as an inspirational figure around the world, a dogged advocate for her husband's causes and a woman of enormous spiritual depth who came to personify the ideals Dr. King fought for.

Granted, there will be all sorts of opportunists that will spend the next few days trying to co-opt her legacy, but let's remained focued on her true message, especially after monumental setbacks like Alito.

“Struggle is a never ending process. Freedom is never really won you earn it and win it in every generation.”

Let's all take a few minutes today to reflect and give say some prayers for the family and then roll up our sleeves and get back to work because the struggle is far from over.

Community Action

Via Sean-Paul Kelley:

Wikipedia takes action:

This RFC is being opened in order to further a centralized discussion concerning actions to be taken against US Congressional staffers and possibly other federal employees who have engaged in unethical and possibly libelous behavior in violation of Wikipedia policies (WP:NPOV, WP:CIV). The editors from these IP ranges have been rude, abrasive, immature, and show disregard for Wikipedia policy. The editors have frequently tried to censor the history of elected officials, often replacing community articles with censored biographies despite other users' attempts to dispute these violations. They also violate Wikipedia:Verifiability, by deleting verified reports, while adding flattering things about members of Congress that are unverified.

The offending editors have been blocked. This RFC is needed to gather community comments. It is proposed that a one week block is not enough.

The links gives an editing history of the abuses and the IP addresses. Wikipedia is fighting back.

Circular Firing Squad

Via Liza Sabater here are the Republicrats who voted for cloture yesterday:

# Akaka (Hawaii)
# Baucus (Montana)
# Bingaman (New Mexico)
# Byrd (West Virginia)
# Cantwell (Washington)
# Carper (Delaware)
# Conrad (North Dakota)
# Dorgan (North Dakota)
# Inouye (Hawaii)
# Johnson (South Dakota)
# Kohl (Wisconsin)
# Landrieu (Louisiana)
# Lieberman (Connecticut)
# Lincoln (Arkansas)
# Nelson (Florida)
# Nelson (Nebraska)
# Pryor (Arkansas)
# Rockefeller (West Virginia)
# Salazar (Colorado)
# Harkin (Iowa) abstained from voting.

It's time to support the primary challenger in Connecticut.

If these 20 had voted with the other 25 Democrats, the filibuster would have succeeded. The Democrats defeated it.

On-Going Disaster

Pre-Katrina Emergency Plan for Elderly Faulted

By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 31, 2006; Page A07

Louisiana officials did virtually nothing to prepare to evacuate poor, sick or elderly people as required under a state emergency plan adopted months before Hurricane Katrina hit, according to newly released documents.

State Transportation and Development Secretary Johnny B. Bradberry told Senate investigators that he was assigned the task in April, months before the Aug. 29 storm. But his department had no buses or drivers to execute the mission.

"We have done nothing to fulfill this responsibility," Bradberry said, according to a transcript of a Dec. 21 deposition obtained by The Washington Post. "We put no plans in place to do any of this."

Bradberry approved the plan, "but I signed it under the condition that I wanted to keep things moving. . . . We had issues with that, because we didn't feel like we were the best, quote, 'agency,' or group to coordinate that," he said.

Anticipating 100,000 New Orleans residents might be left behind, state officials spent hours "agonizing" over how to move them in a joint exercise months earlier involving a hypothetical "Hurricane Pam" striking southeast Louisiana, according to a transcript of a Jan. 6 statement by Dolph Diemont, a U.S. Department of Transportation official.

"We said, 'Oh, this is so huge, we're going to need so many buses, we're going to need all of this planning and communications and cooperation, coordination, all of this to come together.' It's really a massive effort," Diemont said.

In the end, hundreds of New Orleans school buses were left idle in flooded parking lots after Katrina because their drivers fled. Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco and Mayor C. Ray Nagin have said the Katrina evacuation was much more successful than expected, but they faulted the federal government for not swiftly delivering help.

Parsing Bush's Gulf Coast Promises

Speech Text

In nearly all of Mississippi, electric power has been restored

On Sept. 15, President Bush promised to "do what it takes" to lift the city from the waters. Following are some of the statements his made in the speech and the status of those goals.

Status

Power has been restored to Mississippi and to 92% of affected areas in Louisiana, according to Entergy Corp. However, only 32% of Louisiana customers have returned.

Speech Text

Trade is starting to return to the Port of New Orleans

Status

The port is operating at 70% of pre-storm levels.

Speech Text

Agricultural shipments are moving down the Mississippi River

Status

Shipping tonnage is back to normal upriver from New Orleans through the ports of South Louisiana and Greater Baton Rouge.

Speech Text

All major gasoline pipelines are now in operation

Status

Daily U.S. oil production from the Gulf remains down about 26%. Gas production is down about 18%.

The rest of that link is quite illuminating.

Morning After

Kennedy Seen as The Next Justice In Court's Middle
Alito Expected to Tilt Conservative

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 31, 2006; A04

Should Samuel A. Alito Jr. be confirmed to the Supreme Court today, as expected, it will mark the beginning of a new Supreme Court era -- and, perhaps more important, the end of an old, familiar one.

For much of the past 24 years, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whom Alito would replace, has wielded the swing vote on a split court, usually casting her lot with the court's four other conservative justices, but siding with liberals on such crucial issues as abortion, affirmative action and campaign finance reform.

Alito's arrival, however, may turn the O'Connor Court into the Kennedy Court. If, as many expect, Alito forms a four-vote conservative bloc with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, that would leave Justice Anthony M. Kennedy -- a conservative who has occasionally voted with liberals on gay rights, the death penalty and abortion -- as the court's least predictable member.

"Assuming the predictions about Alito's views are correct, he turns Justice Kennedy into a swing vote on a lot of issues," said Pamela Karlan, a professor of law at Stanford University who teaches a course on the current Supreme Court.

No case illustrates the new dynamic better than the challenge to a Republican-drafted congressional redistricting plan for Texas, which the court will hear on March 1. The stakes in the case are huge and could include eventual control of the closely divided House.

The Texas plan, drafted at the request of then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R) and rammed through the state legislature in 2003 over Democratic protests, created a first-ever majority-Republican congressional delegation to match the state's overall GOP voting preference.

But opponents say it was an unconstitutional, partisan gerrymander. The court has split down the middle on such claims in the past, with the four liberal justices -- John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer -- saying that the court can and should decide when partisanship goes too far.

Conservatives -- the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia and Thomas -- said the courts should stay out of this political thicket.

Kennedy, however, said that he would not rule out the possibility that a partisan gerrymander could violate the Constitution, although such a plan had not yet been found.

On this issue, at least, Alito, who acknowledged at his confirmation hearings that he was a youthful skeptic about the court's past efforts to fix legislative districts in the name of "one person, one vote," could vote as O'Connor did. If, as expected, Roberts followed suit, that would leave Kennedy to decide the case.

Another issue on which Alito faced sharp questioning at his hearings -- presidential war powers -- is also on the court's docket. The key case is a challenge to President Bush's plan to try terrorist suspects at military tribunals.

A former aide to Osama bin Laden, Salim Hamdan, claims that his pending trial before a tribunal is unlawful because it has not been authorized by a statute or the Constitution. He also argues that the federal courts should be allowed to enforce his rights as a prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions.

The WaPo, as they so often do in "war" coverage, neglects to use the word "alleged" aide to ObL, after all the evidence hasn't been supplied in court yet, has it? After all, just yesterday they told us:

Al Qaeda Detainee's Mysterious Release
Moroccan Spoke Of Aiding Bin Laden During 2001 Escape

By Craig Whitlock
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, January 30, 2006; A01

RABAT, Morocco -- For more than a decade, Osama bin Laden had few soldiers more devoted than Abdallah Tabarak. A former Moroccan transit worker, Tabarak served as a bodyguard for the al Qaeda leader, worked on his farm in Sudan and helped run a gemstone smuggling racket in Afghanistan, court records here show.

During the battle of Tora Bora in December 2001, when al Qaeda leaders were pinned down by U.S. forces, Tabarak sacrificed himself to engineer their escape. He headed toward the Pakistani border while making calls on Osama bin Laden's satellite phone as bin Laden and the others fled in the other direction.

Tabarak was captured and taken to the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he was classified as such a high-value prisoner that the Pentagon repeatedly denied requests by the International Committee of the Red Cross to see him. Then, after spending almost three years at the base, he was suddenly released.

Today, the al Qaeda loyalist known locally as the "emir" of Guantanamo walks the streets of his old neighborhood near Casablanca, more or less a free man. In a decision that neither the Pentagon nor Moroccan officials will explain publicly, Tabarak was transferred to Morocco in August 2004 and released from police custody four months later.

Back to Alito and the upcoming court docket:

The Bush administration argues that the tribunals are based both on the president's constitutional powers as commander in chief and on the Sept. 14, 2001, joint congressional resolution authorizing the use of force to battle terrorists.

The administration prevailed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in a decision joined by Roberts while he was still a judge on that court.

Roberts will have to sit out the case at the Supreme Court, leaving just eight justices to decide the matter.

The outcome is difficult to predict; in the past, court conservatives have splintered on similar issues, with Thomas lining up fully behind the administration, Kennedy and Rehnquist lending partial support, and Scalia actually joining with the court's most liberal member, Stevens, in rejecting the administration's claim that it could indefinitely hold a U.S. citizen captured in Afghanistan without charges.

Given the quizzical nature of what the Bushies actually do rather than what they say, Justice Alito is going to have some fine slicing and dicing to do.

Goodbye Heidi

Playwright Wendy Wasserstein Dies

By MICHAEL KUCHWARA
The Associated Press
Monday, January 30, 2006

NEW YORK -- Playwright Wendy Wasserstein, who chronicled the feminist struggles and successes of the baby-boomer generation in such wryly observant works as "The Heidi Chronicles" and "The Sisters Rosensweig," has died of lymphoma at the age of 55.

Wasserstein died Monday at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, said Andre Bishop, head of Lincoln Center Theater and Wasserstein's close friend and mentor. She had been ill for several months.

Broadway theaters will dim their lights Tuesday in honor of Wasserstein.

"Wendy had a voice like no other and a great sense of the absurd," said Swoosie Kurtz, who appeared in "Uncommon Women and Others," Wasserstein's first stage success. "She could take something that was sad or somber in life, wrap her words around it and somehow make it light and not so disturbing."

Wasserstein's writing was known for its sharp, often comedic look about what women had to do to succeed in a world dominated by men.

"She was an extraordinary human being whose work and whose life were extremely intertwined," said Bishop, who produced most of her works, first at Playwrights Horizons and later at Lincoln Center Theater. "She was not unlike the heroines of most of her plays _ a strong-minded, independent, serious good person who happened to have a wicked sense of humor."

Wasserstein found her greatest popular success with "The Heidi Chronicles," which won the best-play Tony as well as the Pulitzer Prize for drama in 1989. Its insecure title character (played by Joan Allen) takes a 20-year journey beginning in the late 1960s and changes her attitudes about herself, men and other women. Equally popular was "The Sisters Rosensweig," which moved from Lincoln Center to Broadway in 1993, and concerned three siblings who find strength in themselves and in each other.

We read and did some scenes from "The Heidi Chronicles" in my Theatre classes in college. I remember them being very witty and moving. I don't it dawned on me, a 20 something kid, how profound that play was in articulating the feelings of people a generation before me.

It's been a tough year for the American theatre with the loss of Arthur Miller, Ozzie Davis, and many others. Another great from the stage is gone leaving our lives a bit dimmer.

A Dying Wage

High wages, low wages, and morality

By David R. Francis

It's unusual for a controversial economic issue to be fought on moral grounds. But ACORN, a public advocacy group, has been winning a higher "living wage" for workers in state after state, city after city, by appealing to voters' sense of justice.

"It's probably the best [argument] we have," says Jen Kern, director of ACORN's Living Wage Resource Center. A decent income is a moral matter of "fairness," she says. Those who "play by the rules of the game should be able to support themselves by their work."

"A job should keep you out of poverty, not keep you poor," agrees Paul Sherry, coordinator of the Let Justice Roll Living Wage Campaign, a church-based coalition in Cleveland seeking to raise low wages.

According to the father of classical capitalism, Adam Smith, a Scottish professor of moral philosophy at Glasgow University in the 1700s, the "invisible hand" of self-interest ensures the most efficient use of resources in an economy, and public welfare is a byproduct.

Today Americans are mostly content to let market forces - that is, the law of supply and demand - determine the wage levels for the multiplicity of jobs, professions, and positions that make the economy work. It would be extremely difficult for a bureaucratic group to make detailed, comparative judgments as to the real value of various occupations and place a specific wage level on each.

But at some point, the extremes in wages resulting from what is called "free enterprise" begin to violate people's sense of common justice. They chuckle, then, at the portrayal in a Boston Globe cartoon of two bosses in a fancy office saying to three workers: "Why should you have a minimum wage? We don't have a maximum wage."

As it is, an employee working full-time at the federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour makes $10,712 a year, about $1,000 above the official poverty level for an individual ($9,654).

At the other end of the scale, the compensation of top corporate executives, on average 431 times the salary of a blue-collar worker in his or her company, is widely seen as excessive. Critics often use the word "obscene" - a moral term - to characterize the tens of millions of dollars they get.

Capitalism in regard to pay is "out of whack," says Scott Klinger, codirector of Responsible Wealth, a Boston advocacy group concerned over deepening income inequality in the nation.

Mr. Klinger maintains that Adam Smith assumed equal power in a free market among its players. He didn't see the "enormous concentration" of economic and political power that has enabled the privileged to set the rules of the system. "Supply and demand is not the operative force," he says.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has just proposed that corporations disclose more information about executive compensation beyond salary, such as pensions and other perks.

"A small positive move," says Klinger. He advocates, among other things, that the directors of a firm should include not just executives from other companies, but also representatives of labor, the community, and others to better assure that business decisions take account of "stakeholders" other than company shareholders.

So far, though, rising income inequality has not aroused sufficient public indignation to prompt congressional moves to stem it.

The rising tide of productivity and profits is only lifting all yachts. The rest of us paddle furiously to keep from drowning in debt.

Handing them their talking points on a plate

I really doubt that you're going to see this next item in America's "free press".

Al-Zawahri calls Bush a 'failure'

30/01/2006 - 18:17:22

Al-Qaida’s deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahri called US President George Bush a "butcher" and a "failure" in a videotape aired on Arab television today, his first appearance since an American airstrike that targeted him this month in Pakistan.

Al-Qaida’s deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahri called US President George Bush a "butcher" and a "failure" in a videotape aired on Arab television today, his first appearance since an American airstrike that targeted him this month in Pakistan.

Al-Zawahri, shown in the video wearing white robes and a white turban, said the January 13 airstrike killed "innocents" and said the United States had ignored an offer from al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden for a truce.

"Butcher of Washington, you are not only defeated and a liar, but also a failure. You are a curse on your own nation," he said, referring to Bush.

"Bush, do you know where I am? I am among the Muslim masses."

The airstrike hit a building in the eastern Pakistan village of Damadola, killing four al-Qaida leaders.

Thirteen villagers were also killed in the strike, angering many Pakistanis.

Do I really need to comment upon this?

Save to say that when we hand our enemies plums like this, free, gratis, for nothing, what need have they to lie about us?

Crock Pot Ready

One of the things I love about my crockpot is that I can fill it in the evening and put it in the fridge overnight, put the pot on before I start work for the day and, voila, dinner is all ready for me at the end of the day.

This is a real nice meal to come home to at the end of the day. Pick up a salad at the grocery on the way home or quickly steam some fresh spinich in the microwave. If you've got soup in the freezer, nuke it and dinner for 4 is ready in five minutes.

This recipe doesn't get much easier. If that looks like a lot of garlic to you, it isn't. Slowcooking on low heat mellows the garlic and brings out the nutty flavor, rather like roasting does.

1 pound boneless, skinless chicken breasts, lightly pounded (3 to 4 ounces meat per person)
Kosher salt
Freshly ground black pepper
8 cloves garlic, smashed
1 cup wild rice blend
1/4 cup fresh squeezed lemon juice
2 1/4 cups water
10 fresh parsley sprigs

Season the chicken breasts generously with salt and pepper. Place the chicken breasts in the bottom of a slow cooker. Add the garlic and rice. Add the lemon juice to the water and stir. Pour this mixture over the rice and chicken. Stir once to coat. Place the lid on the slow cooker and set on low for 8 hours. To plate, place a serving of the rice on each plate and top with 1 chicken breast. Garnish with fresh parsley sprigs.

Get Smart

NSA's Trailblazer loses way

Published: 2006-01-30

A program intended to mine the Internet and telecommunications for bits of data related to terrorism is still on the drawing board, despite costing an estimate $1.2 billion over the past six years, according to a Baltimore Sun investigation.

The National Security Agency (NSA) has spearheaded the initiative, known as Trailblazer, aimed at connecting the dots between various information sources, such as e-mail, cell phone calls and instant messages. After spending almost $1.2 billion on the project since 1999, only a "few isolated analytical and technical tools have been produced," the article stated.

Earlier this month, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed lawsuits against the Bush Administration for conducting wiretaps of American citizens without judicial oversight. President Bush secretly authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States without obtaining a warrant through a secret court system designed to allow foreign surveillance.

The Trailblazer system is reportedly a key technology for enabling the NSA to more broadly identify and eavesdrop on terrorism suspects. The system would allow the agency to automatically fish out key pieces of data from amongst the noise of real-time communications, according to the Baltimore Sun article. The proposed Trailblazer system resembles descriptions of the Echelon surveillance network that has occasionally been the focus of media reports.

So let me see if I am getting this right.

The all-seeing al-knowing all-powerful NSA decides to put together a data mining system, encompassing just about every form of electronic communications there is.

They spend six years doing this.

They also spend 1.2 billion dollars.

And they aren't in view of a finished product now or in the readily foreseeable future.

In fact, it is being called "the biggest boondoggle going on now in the intelligence community".

This gets better, as you shall see if you read the Baltimore Sun reference.

The NSA initiative, which was designed to spot and analyze such hints, has resulted in little more than detailed schematic drawings filling almost an entire wall, according to intelligence experts familiar with the program. After an estimated $1.2 billion in development costs, only a few isolated analytical and technical tools have been produced, said an intelligence expert with extensive knowledge of the program.

Trailblazer is "the biggest boondoggle going on now in the intelligence community," said Matthew Aid, who has advised three recent federal commissions and panels that investigated the Sept. 11 intelligence failures.

Complex from the start - the initial Trailblazer plan called for more than 1,000 priority items - the project ballooned as it was passed through three separate NSA divisions, each with its own priorities, former intelligence officials said. And, they said, Trailblazer's overseers lacked either the influence or the time to clearly define their goals and keep the project on track.

When the agency's inspector general looked at the NSA's handling of the project in its first three years, it found in a 2003 report "inadequate management and oversight" of private contractors and overpayment for the work that was done, according to a recently declassified version of the report obtained by The Sun through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Meanwhile, Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC), the lead contractor on the project, did not provide enough people with the technical or management skills to produce such a sophisticated system, according to industry and NSA experts familiar with Trailblazer. And, they said, the company did not say no when the NSA made unrealistic demands.

The company was initially awarded $280 million in 2002 to begin construction.

SAIC spokesman Jared Adams declined to comment, saying, "We have been asked to defer all comment regarding the NSA Trailblazer contract to the NSA."

The reporting in this article includes interviews conducted over the past three months with 25 intelligence professionals, 13 of whom worked on or had oversight of Trailblazer. Because the program is classified, most would not allow their names to be used.

Although the Bush administration spent much of the past week defending the NSA's eavesdropping work as vital to keeping Americans safe from terrorism, virtually no attention has been paid to the agency's failure to deliver the system the NSA said was key to fulfilling that mission.

That means the government has been standing by while the agency has been gradually "going deaf" as unimportant communications drown out key pieces of information, a government official with extensive knowledge of Trailblazer told The Sun.

Now, the only thing I really want at this point is for somebody to please tell me how this administration is "strong on security".

Because as God is my witness, I really do not see how that can be.

Frankly, it reminds me more of Mussolini's navy.

You know what I'm referring to, right?

That cardboard fleet of little toy boats, most of which were blown straight to Hell by a bunch of Royal Navy biplanes at Taranto between November 11 to 12, 1940, and then finished off at Cape Matapan the last week of March of the following year, because their crypto got compromised.

In a safe house somewhere in Pakistan, Osama bin Laden is laughing his ass off. Right now.

Ugh!

Needless to say, after the depressing ending to the Alito matter and the rest of the bad news today, I'm burnt out on politics for the day. It's going to be recipes, cooking techniques and lifestyle stuff for the rest of the evening. This is one tired blogger.

Your Gas Dollars at Work

Exxon Mobil Posts Largest Annual Profit for U.S. Company

By JOHN HOLUSHA
Published: January 30, 2006

Exxon Mobil Corporation said today that its 2005 earnings totaled $36.13 billion, an increase of 42 percent from the previous year. The amount is the largest annual profit ever for an American company.

The earnings come at a time of high gasoline and heating fuel prices that have prompted some political leaders to call for a windfall profits tax on oil companies. But the company said it was reinvesting in exploration and refining capacity to meet the world's need for energy.

"Our strong financial results will continue to allow us to make significant, long-term investments required to do our part in meeting the world's energy needs," the company's chairman, Rex W. Tillerson, said in a statement accompanying the earnings report.

Earnings for the final quarter of the year were $10.71 billion, or $1.71 a share, up 27 percent from the $8.42 billion, or $1.30 a share, in the final quarter of 2004.

The fourth-quarter performance capped a record year for oil companies driven by a surge in crude oil and gas prices. Crude oil prices rose 40 percent last year, driven by rapidly rising demand from economically rising countries like China and India and production problems in oil-producing countries like Nigeria and Iraq.

Total revenues for the quarter reached $99.66 billion from $83.37 in the year-ago period.

Exxon Mobil reported that oil and gas production declined by 1 percent in the fourth quarter. However, the company said that if the lingering effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which crimped production in the Gulf of Mexico and on the Gulf Coast, and other factors are included, production rose 2 percent.

We used to have excess profits taxes for situations like this, but no more

Bird Flu News

Via fellow flu blogger Crawford Killian's excellent H5N1 blog:

Hope in new bird flu cases?

By HELEN BRANSWELL, THE CANADIAN PRESS

Mon, January 30, 2006

With word yesterday that all but three surviving avian flu cases have been discharged from Turkish hospitals, questions are swirling over whether the world has overestimated the virulence of the H5N1 virus.

Some wonder if the fatality rate in the Turkish outbreak - four of 21 cases, if all are confirmed - is proof the assessment of the virus's virulence has been skewed by a failure to detect mild, even symptomless cases in the other countries where human infections have been recorded.

Could H5N1's high death toll - stubbornly hovering over 50% - be the product of faulty math? Of not using the right denominator to calculate the rate?

Experts caution that people shouldn't read too much into the Turkish numbers at this point.

'TOO EARLY TO CONCLUDE'

"I think it's really too early to conclude anything," says Dr. Guenael Rodier, an infectious disease expert with the World Health Organization's European office in Copenhagen.

Rodier led the international team that travelled to Turkey to help contain the outbreak.

"True scientists are patient people. And the ones who are impatient, I tend not to trust their science.

"We know things are often more complex than anticipated.

"It takes time."
....
"The evidence for widespread asymptomatic infections is just not there," says Michael Perdue, a scientist with the World Health Organization's global influenza program in Geneva.

Certainly the odd case here and there probably went unnoticed, the experts assume. Mild cases are more likely to fall through the surveillance net than severe ones.

But a number of studies have been done in Vietnam, Thailand and Indonesia looking for antibodies to the virus in the blood of people who were exposed but who didn't show signs of being ill. Chicken cullers. Relatives of known cases. Hospital staff who cared for H5N1 patients.

"And they essentially found zero. They haven't found any," says Dr. Scott Dowell, an official with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta.

Once again, Helen Branswell gets the exclusive because she knows who to ask and what questions to ask.

Call Senators Now

I just checked the whip counts. We can win this. Call Senators now.

Sign Here
Presidential signing statements are more than just executive branch lunacy.
By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Monday, Jan. 30, 2006, at 5:32 AM ET

There are two ways President Bush likes to wage war on your civil liberties: He either asks you to surrender your rights directly—as he does when he strengthens and broadens provisions of the Patriot Act. Or he simply hoovers up new powers and hopes you won't find out—as he did when he granted himself authority to order warrant-less wiretapping of American citizens. The former category seems more benign, and it's tempting to lump Bush's affinity for "presidential signing statements" in that camp. It's tempting to believe that with these statements he is merely asking that the courts take his legal views into account. But President Bush never asks anything of the courts; he doesn't think he has to. His signing statements are not aimed at persuading the courts, but at reinforcing his claim that both courts and Congress are irrelevant.

Many of us had never heard of a presidential signing statement until last month, when Bush used one to eviscerate the McCain Anti-Torture bill he claimed to endorse. We all saw the big Oval Office reconciliation with McCain; we heard Bush say he was dropping his opposition to the bill, which passed with broad bipartisan support (90-9 in the Senate, 308-122 in the House) and made it illegal for Americans to engage in the "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment of detainees held here or abroad. What we missed was the actual signing ceremony, which took place two weeks later, at 8 p.m. on Dec. 30.

Unless you spent New Year's weekend trolling the White House Web site or catching up on your latest U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News as you waited for the ball to drop, you probably missed the little "P.S." the president tacked onto the McCain anti-torture bill. The postscript was a statement clearly announcing that the president will only follow the new law "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president to supervise the unitary executive branch ... and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power." In other words, it is for the president—not Congress or the courts—to determine when the provisions of this bill interfere with his war-making powers, and when they do, he will freely ignore the law.
....
President Ronald Reagan, guided by his Attorney General Edwin Meese III (and urged on enthusiastically by a young lawyer called Samuel Alito), launched a concerted policy to start to use signing statements as a means of reinforcing the executive's message and consolidating its power. Meese arranged to have them published for this very reason. Until the Reagan presidency, the executive branch had only ever issued a total of 75 signing statements. Reagan, Bush I, and Bill Clinton deployed them 247 times between them. (Clinton issued more statements than Bush I, but fewer than Reagan). According to Cooper, by the end of 2004, Bush had issued 108 signing statements presenting 505 different constitutional challenges. He has yet to veto anything.

How important are these executive-branch constitutional challenges? Not very. While a few courts—including the Supreme Court on occasion—have nodded their heads at a signing statement in attempting to construe the intent behind a piece of legislation, they are consulted only rarely and given limited legal weight. Bush's legal claims that black is white and up is down won't likely trump the clear and express will of Congress in a courtroom anytime soon. Certainly you'd need at least three more Sam Alitos on the Supreme Court before you need to fear a judicial declaration that they represent some kind of binding legal authority. Does that mean the statements are legally meaningless and that the fretting over them represents yet more reflexive anti-Bush hysteria?
....
Should we dismiss these statements just because President Bush is so brazen in his claims? So willing to take legal positions that are undefended because they're legally indefensible? Will all this just go away someday, when a court dismisses these statements as excessive and unfounded? No. Because President Bush isn't trying to win this war in the courts. Thus far, he has faced each legal setback as though it never happened; or—more often—he's recast it as a victory. He doesn't care what the courts someday make of his signing statements, just as he didn't care what the courts made of his enemy-combatant claims. He views the courts as irrelevant in his pursuit of this war. These signing statements are dangerous because they repeat and normalize—always using seemingly boilerplate language—claims about the boundless powers of a "unitary executive." By questioning the principle of court review in the McCain statement, Bush again erodes the notion of judicial supremacy—an idea we have lived with since Marbury v. Madison. When he asserts that he—and not the courts—is the final arbiter of his constitutional powers, he is calling for a radical shift in the system of checks and balances.

It's so tempting to laugh off Bush's signing statements as puffed-up, groundless claims that he is all-powerful, all-knowing, and also devastatingly handsome. But this is the president talking and instructing his subordinates—and also outlining a broad legal regime that may not technically be constitutional, but that hardly makes it laughable. These declarations promote a view of the law that may have no merit in the courts but may never have the chance to be resolved there in the first place.

We've got a full-scale constitutional crisis underway here, but you won't know about it if you read the mainstream media. I'm grateful to Dahlia Lithwick for elucidating the issues so clearly.

Defining Deviancy Down

Army's Rising Promotion Rate Called Ominous
# Experts say the quality of the officer corps is threatened as the service fights to retain leaders during wartime and fill new command slots.

By Mark Mazzetti, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Struggling to retain enough officers to lead its forces, the Army has begun to dramatically increase the number of soldiers it promotes, raising fears within the service that wartime strains are diluting the quality of the officer corps.

Last year, the Army promoted 97% of all eligible captains to the rank of major, Pentagon data show. That was up from a historical average of 70% to 80%.

Traditionally, the Army has used the step to major as a winnowing point to push lower-performing soldiers out of the military.

The service also promoted 86% of eligible majors to the rank of lieutenant colonel in 2005, up from the historical average of 65% to 75%.

The higher rates of promotion are part of efforts to fill new slots created by an Army reorganization and to compensate for officers who are resigning from the service, many after multiple rotations to Iraq.

The promotion rates "are much higher than they have been in the past because we need more officers than we did before," said Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, an Army spokesman.

The Army has long taken pride in the competitiveness of its promotions, and insists that only officers that meet rigorous standards are elevated through its ranks.

But the recent trends in promotions have stirred concerns that the Army is being forced to lower its standards to provide leaders for combat units that will be deployed overseas.

"The problem here is that you're not knocking off the bottom 20%," said a high-ranking Army officer at the Pentagon. "Basically, if you haven't been court-martialed, you're going to be promoted to major."

Let's see if this comes up in Rummy's next presser.

Astronomical

Via The Agonist:

U.S. IN TECHNICAL DEFAULT
by Dr. M
(AKA Dr. Chris Martenson)
January 27, 2006

In a shocking development, the Treasury Department website is openly stating that as of January 24, 2006 our national debt stood at $8,185.3 billion and on January 26th at $8,190.5 billion.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

Yet the US national debt ‘ceiling’, the maximum amount of debt the US government may hold at any one time, stands at $8,184 billion – a full $5.5 billion less. Although called upon by John Snow, Congress has not yet passed an expansion of the debt ceiling and so the US government is now operating in technical default.

You may recall that when last the debt ceiling was approached in the months surrounding the 2004 elections, the Treasury department furiously employed every accounting trick in the book (and then some) to avoid breaching the limit. They even went so far as to take the unprecedented step of borrowing $14 billion from the Federal Financing Bank to cover up the shortfall.

But they never breached the ceiling.

On January 24th they breached it brazenly and openly and with nary an accompanying explanation. Neither have any lawmakers have broached this indelicate subject.

I suppose we could write this off as merely an unsurprising development from a government that no longer bothers to even appear to be adhering to rules, laws and procedures, let alone actually doing so.

But the silence is all the more troubling because there is an unprecedented level of government borrowing on the books for 1Q06 with next 2 weeks (Feb 1st to Feb 9th) an especially busy period of time. An ambitious ~$70-$80b in Treasury paper will hit the market.

The federal government does not have the legal authority to borrow above the statutory debt limit, which raises the prospect of emergency congressional action to avoid a full-fledged default.

Congress will probably attach a rider to a “must-pass” defense appropriation bill and ironically title it “The Fiscal Responsibility Amendment of 2006”. And if they do, $50 says they do it very late on Friday night.

Since the debt ceiling has been raised 50 times over the past 40 years, hoping for some rational debate on the matter would be an extravagant indulgence. Time spent wishing pigs could fly would offer a far better potential return.

Another odd facet of this story is the deafening silence from the financial press (and I use that term loosely) regarding this matter. Leaving aside the issue of a technical default, one wonders why questions aren’t being asked about the rate of debt accumulation and whether it’s sustainable.

The last debt-ceiling adjustment was $800 billion and was passed in November 2004. Now, on January 24th 2006, it is entirely gone. $800 billion in only 16 months for an average of $50B a month.

Factoring out the plundering of excess social security contributions, the US government borrowed $52B in 3Q05, $96B in 4Q05 and expects to borrow $171B in 1Q06. A trend nearly as mind-boggling as the soon to be discontinued M3 series.

Why do I even bother to pen such distressing factoids?

Because in all my time studying economics I have determined only one thing; there’s no free lunch. Pay now or pay later but pay we will.

I'm sure DeLong and Sawicky have something to say about this.

Filibuster Alito

The Swing Senators

UP FOR ELECTION IN 2006

Mary Landrieu [LA], currently has NO primary challenger but if she will not listen to the people we have until 8/11 to find an alternative to run against her.

Daniel Akaka [HI], already has two primary challengers, one of whom, Ed Case, is a former elected state representative and is polling well.

Joe Lieberman [CT], already has a primary challenge looming from Ned Lamont who has set up an exploratory site, and until 5/16 to make the decision to jump in. They last thing Joe needs is lots of more encouragement for Lamont.

Bill Nelson [FL], currently has NO primary challenger, with until 5/12 to find one.

Ben Nelson [NE], currently has NO primary challenger, but if there is a concerned citizen in Nebraska who wants to run they have until 3/1 to register as a candidate.

Jeff Bingaman [NM], currently has NO primary challenger but still two weeks remain until the deadline for filing of 2/14.

Carper [DE], currently has NO primary challenger and all the way until 7/28 to enter the primary against him.

Kohl [WI], currently has NO primary challenger. We have heard he plans on skipping the vote, which is the same thing as an abstain. The filing deadline in Wisconsin is 7/11.

Cantwell [WA], is being already challenged by a strong progressive candidate, Mark Wilson.

Byrd [WV], has no serious primary challenger we can confirm and the 1/28 deadline has just expired. Perhaps you can appeal to his professed love of the Constitution which Alito would gut.

Robert Menendez [NJ], was just appointed but has to run himself this year. If he drops the ball there are challengers waiting in the wings and until 4/10 to decide.

Lincoln Chafee [RI] is a Republican who professes to be pro-choice and not feeling very secure right now about her 2006 prospects. Perhaps he is a possibility for abstention on cloture.

Olympia Snowe [ME] is a another Republican who professes to be pro-choice who must face the electorate in 2006. She should also be encouraged to abstain on cloture.

OTHER POSSIBLE SWING SENATORS

Blanche Lambert Lincoln [AR], up for reelection in 2010
Mark Pryor [AR], up for reelection in 2008
Tom Harkin [IA], up for reelection in 2008
Evan Bayh [IN], up for reelection in 2010
Susan Collins [ME], up for reelection in 2008
Carl Levin [MI], up for reelection in 2008
Max Baucus [MT], up for reelection in 2008
Frank Lautenberg [NJ], up for reelection in 2008
Tim Johnson [SD], up for reelection in 2008
Patty Murray [WA], up for reelection in 2010

Just tell them that failure to support this filibuster will be a deal breaker as Alito starts to cast the votes that his reactionary supporters absolutely know he will.

Here is a link for you to find the local office phones and the toll free numbers for the DC offices. Go make that call.

Backwards

The clueless WaPo opines:

The Next Policy Bungle?

Monday, January 30, 2006; Page A16

PRESIDENT BUSH'S State of the Union speech tomorrow night looks set to address health care. Mr. Bush is choosing a ripe topic: The United States spends almost twice as large a share of its economy on health as other rich countries do, yet it still has lower life expectancy and 46 million uninsured people. Some of his team's thinking is good but not entirely new. For example, both Medicare and private insurers are beginning to reward doctors and hospitals that score well on measures of quality and cost-effectiveness. Other administration ideas are good if done the right way, such as caps on doctors' liability. But the president's team is also enthusiastic about the trend toward out-of-pocket payments, which it sees as a way of driving down health costs. Its enthusiasm is misguided.

The theory behind out-of-pocket payments is that patients who pay their bills themselves will shop carefully. This is likely to hold true some of the time but not most of it. Most consumers aren't equipped to distinguish between good medical service and bad; the results of poor service show up only after they've paid for it. A minority of motivated consumers may do the research necessary to judge whether a doctor's advice is sound, but even this minority can't be expected to start poring over medical journals when they are hit by a medical emergency -- and emergencies account for a large chunk of health spending.

Indeed, in many cases the doctors themselves can't be expected to know how much treatment will cost until after the fact. They admit a patient, perform some tests; those tests lead to new tests, and so on. So even if the White House could conjure superhero patients who assiduously researched their options even when in pain, the superheroes couldn't discover what sort of bill they faced before they checked into a hospital.

Nor is that all. No vision of consumer-driven health care assumes that all payments will be out of pocket; above a certain ceiling, insurance would take over. There are limits to how high that ceiling can be. People may be expected to pay $3,000 or $5,000 a year, perhaps a little more if they are affluent. But many medical procedures cost more than any of those ceilings, so the incentive to economize vanishes. Meanwhile, advocates of consumer-driven health care tend to argue that people with chronic diseases deserve a special break; they are faced with large bills that aren't discretionary, so they shouldn't have to pay them out of pocket. But if chronic care and procedures costing more than $5,000 aren't going to be disciplined by consumers, the gains from consumer-driven care can be only limited. They are unlikely to justify the harshness of forcing people to pay for health out of pocket -- or the risk that people will cut back on preventive drugs and so boost health costs in the long run.

Dear WaPo,

This is all about risk shifting and putting the onus on the individual rather than an insurance risk pool. It's another move to make the serf class poorer. There is nothing good or useful about it. Or have you become so wealthy yourselves that you can't see it? This is another Bush recidivist proposal the likes of which have already been rejected by the rest of the West. There might be a reason for that but, like the rest of the US media, you are so US-centric you can't see that, either.

The Coup

The Senate Should Postpone The Samuel Alito Vote For One Week To Increase Awareness Of The Unitary Executive Theory
Tell A Friend
The Public, the Media, and the Senate Republicans are all asleep and not yet informed about this Theory and the danger it presents.

by Rev. Bill McGinnis

http://www.opednews.com

The Bush Machine will obviously not want to do this, because the more the Public finds out about Samuel Alito's enthusiastic support of the dangerous "Unitary Executive Theory," the more they will oppose him. The Public would never accept the Unitary Executive Theory as Law if they knew what it really is. At this moment, the Public, the Media, and the Senate Republicans are all asleep and not informed about this Theory and the danger it presents. But in a week of solid effort, they can all be awakened and informed.

Now the President is outrageously demanding that the Senate give him an "up or down vote" immediately, as if he had the authority to demand anything of the Senate. He has no such authority anywhere in the Constitution. Republican Leadership: Aren't you embarrassed to be continuously bowing down to Mr. Bush, as if he were your Master and you were his slaves? Did you take an oath to support the Constitution, or to support George W. Bush? (They are two different things, you know, frequently in conflict.) Here is the exact text of the oath of office you took when you entered the Senate. When you read it again, does it anywhere say "support the President?" No it does not. It says "support the Constitution." Then why are you so willing to accept orders from the President? Are you in love?

U. S. Senate Oath Of Office

In essence, the Unitary Executive Theory says that the President should have complete control over the Executive Branch, and that the Executive Branch should be in charge of almost everything that the Government actually does, including all the functions of the Independent Agencies, which have always been separate from the Executive Branch. In addition, this Theory insists that the President has "plenary authority" to exercise his powers, and he must not be interfered with by Congress or the Supreme Court. So Congress and the Supreme Court lose their ability to control the President and become mere advisors to him, whom he can disregard if he chooses to do so.

In a particular example we all are familiar with, this Theory says that the President is not obligated to follow either the anti-torture laws or the anti-spying laws. So this is why Bush hasn't been following them: he claims he is not obligated to do so. And why do you suppose the President almost never vetoes any laws? Because why bother to veto a law if you are not obligated to follow it anyway? In fact, to veto it would suggest that somehow it did have authority over you. So it is better for him to let the law be enacted, write a signing statement saying that he doesn't really have to follow it, and then simply disregard it whenever he chooses. And when these outrageous claims are eventually challenged before the Supreme Court, who do you suppose a Justice Samuel Alito would rule in favor of? The President, of course! Wake up, everybody. This is a coup in progress!

I can't disagree. What the Senate is about to do represents the most significant fundamental change in our government since the Civil War, and the country is completely unaware of it.

Missing the Point

A healthcare prescription that's hard to swallow
# Rationing may be the only way to ensure that access for all remains affordable.

By Henry Aaron, HENRY AARON is co-author with Melissa Cox and William B. Schwartz of "Can We Say No? The Challenge of Rationing Health Care.''

SEVEN U.S. WORKERS in 10 still get health insurance coverage as a fringe benefit of employment. But perhaps not for long. Healthcare spending gobbled up nearly $2 trillion in 2004, and it has grown about 2½ percentage points a year faster than income for decades. Yet Americans die younger than citizens of some industrialized nations that spend far less per capita on healthcare. And employers saddled with soaring costs are reducing coverage and raising employee premiums.

Something needs to be done, but no one seems quite ready to come forward with a solution. The only thing American politicians all agree on is this: The United States must at all costs avoid healthcare "rationing." One after another, they step forward to deplore this much-hated approach, insisting they will fight off efforts to deny the insured any beneficial service that their insurance covers.

But it's too late for that. The truth is that sensible rationing may be the only way to make sure that fair access to healthcare for all remains affordable. The U.S. can no longer afford to offer every available service no matter how high the cost or how small the benefit to the patient. Intelligent healthcare rationing — limiting the availability of care that costs society more to produce than it is worth to patients — is not a horror to be avoided. It's a regretfully necessary limit to sustain fair access to healthcare that is worth what it costs.

To see the connection between rationing and affordable care for all, one must recognize that insured patients pay little of the cost of their own care when ill. So they quite understandably want everything that might conceivably add even some tiny benefit — the extra test that provides hardly any information at all, the surgery that is little or no better than watchful waiting, or the costly patented drug that is little or no better than the inexpensive generic.

Gee, Henry, the rest of the industrialized West manages not to ration healthcare, has better outcomes, better lifetimes and better infant mortality rates than we do, but the solution for our problems is rationing? Maybe doing something about the 46 million people in this country without health insurance would do a better job of improving our outcomes. Ya think?

Looking Forward

Interior Offered Extensive Katrina Aid
FEMA Ignored Proposals or Didn't Use Resources Effectively, Department Says

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 30, 2006; Page A03

Hundreds of federal search-and-rescue workers and large numbers of boats, aircraft and bulldozers were offered to FEMA in the hours immediately after Hurricane Katrina hit, but the aid proposals were either ignored or not effectively used, newly released documents show.

The Interior Department, which made the offers, also proposed dispatching as many as 400 of its law enforcement officers to provide security in Gulf Coast cities ravaged by flooding and looting. But nearly a month would pass before the Federal Emergency Management Agency put the officers to work, according to an Interior document obtained by The Washington Post.

"Although we attempted to provide these assets we were unable to efficiently integrate and deploy these resources," Interior officials said in written response to questions by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Acting in the "immediate aftermath" of the hurricane, Interior officials provided FEMA with a comprehensive list of assets that were "immediately available for humanitarian and emergency assistance," according to the memo, dated Nov. 7, 2005. Those assets included more than 300 boats, 11 aircraft, 119 pieces of heavy equipment, 300 dump trucks and other vehicles for clearing debris, as well as Interior-owned campgrounds and other land that could be used as staging areas or emergency shelters.

Also offered were rescue crews from the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service, teams specially trained for urban search-and-rescue missions using flat-bottom boats.

"Clearly these assets and skills were precisely relevant to the post-Katrina environment," the memo said. Yet, the rescue teams and boats were not considered in the federal government's planning for hurricane disasters, the memo states.

Ultimately, many Fish and Wildlife teams did travel to the Gulf and assisted in the rescues of more than 4,500 people -- but they were "never formally tasked" for that assignment by FEMA, the document states.

The Interior Department's criticisms echo those expressed by other government agencies that have publicly faulted FEMA's hurricane response. In October, Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta criticized FEMA for moving slowly in requesting buses to evacuate flood victims from central New Orleans. The order for buses was issued in the early hours of Aug. 31, nearly two days after Katrina made landfall.

Hurricane season starts in 5 months. If you, like me, are in a vulnerable zone, I suggest that you begin planning now. We are on our own.

The Movement

In Alito, G.O.P. Reaps Harvest Planted in '82

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: January 30, 2006

Last February, as rumors swirled about the failing health of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, a team of conservative grass-roots organizers, public relations specialists and legal strategists met to prepare a battle plan to ensure any vacancies were filled by like-minded jurists.

The team recruited conservative lawyers to study the records of 18 potential nominees — including Judges John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — and trained more than three dozen lawyers across the country to respond to news reports on the president's eventual pick.

"We boxed them in," one lawyer present during the strategy meetings said with pride in an interview over the weekend. This lawyer and others present who described the meeting were granted anonymity because the meetings were confidential and because the team had told its allies not to exult publicly until the confirmation vote was cast.

Now, on the eve of what is expected to be the Senate confirmation of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court, coming four months after Chief Justice Roberts was installed, those planners stand on the brink of a watershed for the conservative movement.

In 1982, the year after Mr. Alito first joined the Reagan administration, that movement was little more than the handful of legal scholars who gathered at Yale for the first meeting of the Federalist Society, a newly formed conservative legal group.

Judge Alito's ascent to join Chief Justice Roberts on the court "would have been beyond our best expectations," said Spencer Abraham, one of the society's founders, a former secretary of energy under President Bush and now the chairman of the Committee for Justice, one of many conservative organizations set up to support judicial nominees.

He added, "I don't think we would have put a lot of money on it in a friendly wager."

Judge Alito's confirmation is also the culmination of a disciplined campaign begun by the Reagan administration to seed the lower federal judiciary with like-minded jurists who could reorient the federal courts toward a view of the Constitution much closer to its 18th-century authors' intent, including a much less expansive view of its application to individual rights and federal power. It was a philosophy promulgated by Edwin Meese III, attorney general in the Reagan administration, that became the gospel of the Federalist Society and the nascent conservative legal movement.

Both Mr. Roberts and Mr. Alito were among the cadre of young conservative lawyers attracted to the Reagan administration's Justice Department. And both advanced to the pool of promising young jurists whom strategists like C. Boyden Gray, White House counsel in the first Bush administration and an adviser to the current White House, sought to place throughout the federal judiciary to groom for the highest court.

"It is a Reagan personnel officer's dream come true," said Douglas W. Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University who worked with Mr. Alito and Mr. Roberts in the Reagan administration. "It is a graduation. These individuals have been in study and preparation for these roles all their professional lives."

Click the link and read the rest. The "conservative base" has had a plan for a long time. These are people who don't have any interest in representing you.

Good Morning, Sunshine!

CHILES STUFFED WITH SCRAMBLED EGGS AND BACON WITH CHIHUAHUA CHEESE SAUCE

This is a deliciously different way to consume your morning bacon and eggs. It's spicy!

1 1/2 cups (or more) whipping cream
1 1/2 cups (packed) coarsely grated queso chihuahua* (about 6 ounces)

6 large fresh poblano chiles (each about 4 ounces)

12 ounces bacon slices, coarsely chopped
6 tablespoons (3/4 stick) butter
16 large eggs, beaten to blend in large bowl

2 dried guajillo chiles, seeded, sliced very thinly into strips
Fresh cilantro sprigs
Corn tortilla chips
Sliced tomatoes

Bring 1 1/2 cups cream to boil in medium saucepan over medium-high heat; whisk in cheese. Boil sauce until reduced to 1 cup, whisking occasionally, about 5 minutes. Season with salt and pepper. (Can be made 1 day ahead. Cover; chill. Before serving, rewarm over low heat, and thin with cream by tablespoonfuls if desired.)

Char poblano chiles over gas flame or in broiler until blackened. Enclose in paper bag 10 minutes. Peel chiles, leaving stem intact. Cut 1 slit lengthwise down side of each chile; carefully remove seeds.

Cook bacon in large skillet over medium-high heat until brown and crisp. Using slotted spoon, transfer to paper towels to drain. Pour off drippings from skillet. Add butter to same skillet and melt over medium heat. Add eggs and stir gently until softly set, about 4 minutes. Mix in bacon. Season eggs with salt and pepper.

Spoon eggs into roasted chiles through slit. Arrange 1 stuffed chile on each plate. Spoon warm cheese sauce over. Garnish with guajillo chile strips, cilantro, tortilla chips, and tomatoes.

*Melting cheese available in balls, braids, or rounds. Sometimes labeled queso asadero or queso oaxaca. Substitute Monterey Jack, I've also used Queso Fresco, which is also easier to find..

Makes 6 servings.

Something Special

GOAT CHEESE SOUFFLES AND MIXED GREENS WITH RASPBERRY VINAIGRETTE

2 4-ounce logs soft fresh goat cheese (such as Montrachet)

2/3 cup whole milk
2 tablespoons (1/4 stick) butter
3 tablespoons all purpose flour
1/2 cup freshly grated Parmesan cheese (about 1 1/2 ounces)
4 large egg yolks
2 tablespoons chopped fresh chives
2 teaspoons chopped fresh thyme or 1/2 teaspoon dried
2 teaspoons chopped fresh rosemary or 1/2 teaspoon dried
1/4 teaspoon ground black pepper

6 large egg whites
1/4 teaspoon salt

Mixed Greens with Raspberry Vinaigrette

Preheat oven to 350°F. Butter six 3/4-cup soufflé dishes or custard cups.

Cut one 4-ounce goat cheese log into 6 equal rounds. Place 1 round in each prepared dish. Crumble remaining 4-ounce cheese log into large bowl.

Bring milk to simmer in small saucepan. Remove from heat. Melt butter in heavy medium saucepan over medium-high heat. Add flour and stir 2 minutes. Gradually whisk in hot milk. Continue cooking until mixture is smooth and resembles thick paste, whisking constantly, about 2 minutes. Pour mixture over crumbled goat cheese in large bowl. Whisk in Parmesan, yolks, herbs and pepper. Cool soufflé base to lukewarm.

Using electric mixer, beat egg whites with 1/4 teaspoon salt in another large bowl until stiff but not dry. Gently fold 1/4 of egg whites into lukewarm soufflé base to lighten. Fold in remaining egg whites. Divide soufflé mixture among prepared dishes. Transfer dishes to baking sheet and bake until soufflés are puffed and golden brown on top, about 22 minutes.

Place soufflé dishes on serving plates. Mound Mixed Greens with Raspberry Vinaigrette alongside and serve.

Serves 6.

Even if you've never made a souffle before, these are easy and the combination of the cheese and herbs is unspeakably good. I prefer a lemon/olive oil vinaigrette to the raspberry with the salad, but I really like to serve these with a minestrone soup with pesto.

Special Side Dish

CAULIFLOWER CHEDDAR GRATIN WITH HORSERADISH CRUMBS

This is a very special side dish to partner an expensive cut of meat. I generally prefer my cauliflower raw, but this is the recipe that made me a cauliflower believer. I had it for the first time at the home of friends.

3 lb cauliflower (1 large head), cut into 1 1/2- to 2-inch florets
1/2 stick (1/4 cup) unsalted butter
2 tablespoons all-purpose flour
1 1/2 cups whole milk
6 oz sharp Cheddar, coarsely grated (2 cups)
1/2 cup finely chopped scallion greens
1/2 teaspoon salt
1/2 teaspoon black pepper
20 (2-inch) square saltine crackers or half a cup of panko
4 tablespoons drained bottled horseradish

Preheat oven to 450°F. Butter a 2-quart shallow baking dish.

Cook cauliflower in a 5- to 6-quart pot of boiling salted water until just tender, 6 to 8 minutes. Drain cauliflower well in a colander and transfer to baking dish.

While cauliflower cooks, melt 2 tablespoons butter in a 3- to 4-quart heavy saucepan over moderately low heat and whisk in flour. Cook roux, whisking, 3 minutes. Add milk in a slow stream, whisking, and bring to a boil, whisking frequently. Reduce heat and simmer sauce, whisking occasionally, 8 minutes. Remove from heat and add cheese, scallion greens, salt, and pepper, whisking until cheese is melted. Pour cheese sauce over cauliflower and stir gently to combine.

Coarsely crumble crackers into a bowl. Melt remaining 2 tablespoons butter in a small saucepan, then remove from heat and stir in horseradish. Pour over crumbs and toss to coat.

Sprinkle crumb topping evenly over cauliflower.

Bake gratin until topping is golden brown, about 10 minutes.

Comfort Food

MAHOGANY BEEF STEW WITH RED WINE AND HOISIN SAUCE

4 tablespoons olive oil
3 1/2 pounds boneless beef chuck roast, trimmed, cut into one-inch pieces
3 1/2 cups chopped onions
2 cups Cabernet Sauvignon
1/2 cup beef broth
1 14.5-ounce can diced tomatoes with Italian herbs, undrained
1/4 cup hoisin sauce*
2 bay leaves

1 pound slender carrots, peeled, cut diagonally into 1-inch lengths
2 tablespoons chopped fresh parsley
1/2 pound baby portabello mushrooms cut in bite size pieces

Heat 2 tablespoons oil in heavy large pot over high heat. Sprinkle meat with salt and pepper. Add meat to pot; sauté until brown on all sides, about 10 minutes. Push meat to sides of pot. Reduce heat to medium; add 2 tablespoons oil to pot. Add onions; sauté until golden brown, about 15 minutes. Mix meat into onions. Add 1 cup wine, beef broth, tomatoes with juices, hoisin sauce, and bay leaves. Bring to boil.

Reduce heat to low, cover pot and simmer 45 minutes, stirring occasionally. Add mushrooms,carrots and 1 cup wine. Cover; simmer 30 minutes, stirring occasionally. Uncover, increase heat to high; boil until sauce is slightly thickened, stirring occasionally, about 15 minutes longer. Reduce heat to medium. Discard bay leaves. Season stew with salt and pepper. (Can be made 1 day ahead. Cool slightly. Chill uncovered until cold, then cover and keep refrigerated. Bring to simmer before serving, stirring occasionally.) Transfer stew to large bowl. Sprinkle with parsley; serve.

* Available at Asian markets and in the Asian foods section of some supermarkets.

Makes 6 large servings. You will have leftover and you will be happy about that, this is better the second day.

Cook's notes: I prefer this with the beef dredged in seasoned floor before browning. This recipe is extremely successful in the crock pot. Throw everything in together and cook on high for about 6 hours.

Bird Brain

Ron Brownstein is on a collision course with himself.

Ronald Brownstein:
Washington Outlook
State of the Union Puts Bush on Collision Course With Himself

On the nation's biggest domestic problems, President Bush faces a clear choice as he approaches Tuesday's State of the Union address. He can make a political point. Or he can make progress against the problems. It's probably not possible to do both — unless Bush wants to radically reconfigure his political strategy.

Here's the tension. Since 2000, Bush's electoral game plan has relied mostly on inspiring a big turnout from his Republican base. With a few exceptions (education, immigration), this has encouraged him to advance policy proposals that excite his half of the electorate — while often infuriating the other half.

At times, the White House seems to welcome Democratic opposition. The greater the disagreement between the parties, the sharper the contrast Bush and GOP candidates can use to energize their core supporters at election time.

But on crucial issues such as the federal budget deficit, access to healthcare and America's dependence on foreign oil — all concerns Bush is likely to emphasize Tuesday — the nation is unlikely to make significant progress unless the parties narrow their differences. The evidence suggests that the best way to confront these problems is to blend ideas each side favors. The political imperative of greater contrast collides with the substantive imperative of more cooperation.

Consider healthcare. About 46 million Americans lack health insurance. All indications are that Bush wants to expand coverage by offering Americans sweetened tax incentives to open health savings accounts. With these tax-free accounts, people pay much more of their initial medical costs out of pocket (at least $2,100 for a family). Then they buy an insurance plan for catastrophic expenses.

These accounts can be a good deal for healthy people, and they might attract younger workers who now choose to remain uninsured. With proper safeguards to prevent a migration that leaves only the oldest and sickest in traditional insurance programs, Bush's health savings accounts could help expand access.

But these accounts alone are unlikely to significantly shrink the number of uninsured. Two-thirds of the uninsured come from families with incomes at twice the poverty line, or about $38,614 for a family of four, or less.

Even with tax benefits, health savings accounts "really don't lend themselves to the vast majority of the uninsured, because they don't have the money to pay" the required out-of-pocket expenses, says Bruce Bodaken, chairman and chief executive of Blue Shield of California.

Since most Democrats resist these accounts as a threat to traditional insurance, a Bush plan built on them alone would guarantee plenty of campaign contrast. But a compromise that joined these accounts with expansions of government programs, and perhaps new requirements on employers, could meaningfully expand access to care.

Ron, how are those uninsured going to be able to afford both premiums and saving accounts when you point out that they already can't?

Hubris Always Brings Nemesis

Polls Show Many Americans are Simply Dumber Than Bush

By Paul Craig Roberts

01/29/06 "ICH" -- -- Two recent polls, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll and a New York Times/CBS News poll, indicate why Bush is getting away with impeachable offenses. Half of the US population is incapable of acquiring, processing and understanding information.

Much of the problem is the media itself, which serves as a disinformation agency for the Bush administration. Fox "News" and right-wing talk radio are the worst, but with propagandistic outlets setting the standard for truth and patriotism, all of the media is affected to some degree.

Despite the media's failure, about half the population has managed to discern that the US invasion of Iraq has not made them safer and that the Bush administration's assault on civil liberties is not a necessary component of the war on terror. The problem, thus, lies with the absence of due diligence on the part of the other half of the population.

Consider the New York Times/CBS poll. Sixty-four percent of the respondents have concerns about losing civil liberties as a result of anti-terrorism measures put in place by President Bush. Yet, 53
percent approve of spying without obtaining court warrants "in order to reduce the threat of terrorism."

Why does any American think that spying without a warrant has any more effect in reducing the threat of terrorism than spying with a warrant? The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Bush is disobeying, requires the executive to obtain from a secret panel of federal judges a warrant for spying on Americans. The purpose of the law is to prevent a president from spying for partisan political reasons. The law permits the president to spy first (for 72 hours) and then come to the court for permission. As the court meets in secret, spying without a warrant is no more effective in reducing the threat of terrorism than spying with a warrant.

Instead of explaining this basic truth, the media has played along with the Bush administration and formulated the question as a trade-off between civil liberties and protection from terrorists. This formulation is false and nonsensical. Why does the media enable the Bush administration to escape accountability for illegal behavior by putting false and misleading choices before the people?

The LA Times/Bloomberg poll has equally striking anomalies. Only 43 percent said they approved of Bush's performance as president. But a majority believe Bush's policies have made the US more secure.

It is extraordinary that anyone would think Americans are safer as a result of Bush invading two Muslim countries and constantly threatening two more with military attack. The invasions and threats have caused a dramatic swing in Muslim sentiment away from the US.
Prior to Bush's invasion of Iraq, a large majority of Muslims had a favorable opinion of America. Now only about 5 percent do.

A number of US commanders in Iraq and many Middle East experts have told the American public that the three year-old war in Iraq is serving both to recruit and to train terrorists for al Qaeda, which has grown many times its former size. Moreover, the US military has concluded that al Qaeda has succeeded in having its members elected to the new Iraqi government.

We have seen similar developments both in Egypt and in Pakistan. In the recent Egyptian elections, the radical Muslim Brotherhood, despite being suppressed by the Egyptian government, won a large number of seats. In Pakistan elements friendly or neutral toward al Qaeda control about half of the government. In Iraq, Bush's invasion has replaced secular Sunnis with Islamist Shia allied with Iran.

And now with the triumph of Hamas in the Palestinian election, we see the total failure of Bush's Middle Eastern policy. Bush has succeeded in displacing secular moderates from Middle Eastern governments and replacing them with Islamic extremists. It boggles the mind that this disastrous result makes Americans feel safer!

What does it say for democracy that half of the American population is unable to draw a rational conclusion from unambiguous facts?
....
Americans need desperately to understand that 95 percent of all Muslim terrorists in the world were created in the past three years by Bush's invasion of Iraq.

Americans need desperately to comprehend that if Bush attacks Iran and Syria, as he intends, terrorism will explode, and American civil liberties will disappear into a thirty year war that will bankrupt the United States.

The total lack of rationality and competence in the White House and the inability of half of the US population to acquire and understand information are far larger threats to Americans than terrorism.

America has become a rogue nation, flying blind, guided only by ignorance and hubris. A terrible catastrophe awaits.

Call 'Em Like You See 'Em

Spies, Lies and Wiretaps

A bit over a week ago, President Bush and his men promised to provide the legal, constitutional and moral justifications for the sort of warrantless spying on Americans that has been illegal for nearly 30 years. Instead, we got the familiar mix of political spin, clumsy historical misinformation, contemptuous dismissals of civil liberties concerns, cynical attempts to paint dissents as anti-American and pro-terrorist, and a couple of big, dangerous lies.

The first was that the domestic spying program is carefully aimed only at people who are actively working with Al Qaeda, when actually it has violated the rights of countless innocent Americans. And the second was that the Bush team could have prevented the 9/11 attacks if only they had thought of eavesdropping without a warrant.

Sept. 11 could have been prevented. This is breathtakingly cynical. The nation's guardians did not miss the 9/11 plot because it takes a few hours to get a warrant to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mail messages. They missed the plot because they were not looking. The same officials who now say 9/11 could have been prevented said at the time that no one could possibly have foreseen the attacks. We keep hoping that Mr. Bush will finally lay down the bloody banner of 9/11, but Karl Rove, who emerged from hiding recently to talk about domestic spying, made it clear that will not happen — because the White House thinks it can make Democrats look as though they do not want to defend America. "President Bush believes if Al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why," he told Republican officials. "Some important Democrats clearly disagree."

Mr. Rove knows perfectly well that no Democrat has ever said any such thing — and that nothing prevented American intelligence from listening to a call from Al Qaeda to the United States, or a call from the United States to Al Qaeda, before Sept. 11, 2001, or since. The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act simply required the government to obey the Constitution in doing so. And FISA was amended after 9/11 to make the job much easier.

Only bad guys are spied on. Bush officials have said the surveillance is tightly focused only on contacts between people in this country and Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Vice President Dick Cheney claimed it saved thousands of lives by preventing attacks. But reporting in this paper has shown that the National Security Agency swept up vast quantities of e-mail messages and telephone calls and used computer searches to generate thousands of leads. F.B.I. officials said virtually all of these led to dead ends or to innocent Americans. The biggest fish the administration has claimed so far has been a crackpot who wanted to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch — a case that F.B.I. officials said was not connected to the spying operation anyway.

The spying is legal. The secret program violates the law as currently written. It's that simple. In fact, FISA was enacted in 1978 to avoid just this sort of abuse. It said that the government could not spy on Americans by reading their mail (or now their e-mail) or listening to their telephone conversations without obtaining a warrant from a special court created for this purpose. The court has approved tens of thousands of warrants over the years and rejected a handful.

As amended after 9/11, the law says the government needs probable cause, the constitutional gold standard, to believe the subject of the surveillance works for a foreign power or a terrorist group, or is a lone-wolf terrorist. The attorney general can authorize electronic snooping on his own for 72 hours and seek a warrant later. But that was not good enough for Mr. Bush, who lowered the standard for spying on Americans from "probable cause" to "reasonable belief" and then cast aside the bedrock democratic principle of judicial review.

Just trust us. Mr. Bush made himself the judge of the proper balance between national security and Americans' rights, between the law and presidential power. He wants Americans to accept, on faith, that he is doing it right. But even if the United States had a government based on the good character of elected officials rather than law, Mr. Bush would not have earned that kind of trust. The domestic spying program is part of a well-established pattern: when Mr. Bush doesn't like the rules, he just changes them, as he has done for the detention and treatment of prisoners and has threatened to do in other areas, like the confirmation of his judicial nominees. He has consistently shown a lack of regard for privacy, civil liberties and judicial due process in claiming his sweeping powers. The founders of our country created the system of checks and balances to avert just this sort of imperial arrogance.

The rules needed to be changed. In 2002, a Republican senator — Mike DeWine of Ohio — introduced a bill that would have done just that, by lowering the standard for issuing a warrant from probable cause to "reasonable suspicion" for a "non-United States person." But the Justice Department opposed it, saying the change raised "both significant legal and practical issues" and may have been unconstitutional. Now, the president and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales are telling Americans that reasonable suspicion is a perfectly fine standard for spying on Americans as well as non-Americans — and they are the sole judges of what is reasonable.

So why oppose the DeWine bill? Perhaps because Mr. Bush had already secretly lowered the standard of proof — and dispensed with judges and warrants — for Americans and non-Americans alike, and did not want anyone to know.

Who is the Goat?

Plantation' Politics and Other Games

By Michael Kinsley

Sunday, January 29, 2006; Page B07

It seems to be time once again to play Kick the Democrats. Everyone can play, including Democrats. The rules are simple. When Republicans lose elections, it is because they didn't get enough votes. When Democrats lose elections, it is because they have lost their principles and lost their way. Or they have kept their principles, which is an even worse mistake.

They represent no one who is not actually waiting in line for a latte at a Starbucks within 150 yards of the east or west coastline. They are mired in trivial lifestyle issues like, oh, abortion and gay rights and Americans killing and dying in Iraq, while the Republicans serve up meat and potatoes for real Americans like privatizing Social Security and making damned sure the government knows who is Googling whom in this great country.

Just repeat these formulas until a Democrat has been sent into frenzies of self-flagellation or reduced to tears.

There is always a pickup game of Kick the Democrats going on somewhere. But something about the Alito confirmation -- the pathetic and apparently surprising inability of 45 Democratic senators to stop 55 Republicans from approving anyone they want -- seems to have made the game suddenly a lot more popular.

How dire is it for the Democrats? George Will noted on TV the other day that they have lost five of the past seven presidential elections. This baseball-like statistic -- "Democrats have lost X of the past Y elections" -- has been one of Will's favorite tropes over the generations. But why now five out of seven? Two out of the past four would be equally accurate, and not nearly as grim. And then there is the election of 2000. We can argue forever (and will) about who won that election, but if the question is whose views attracted more voters, there is no dispute that the answer is the Democrats. Attributing 2000 to the Democrats means they have won two of the past three elections, three of the past four, and a non-apocalyptic three of the magic seven.
....
Nevertheless, I've been impressed all over again the past couple weeks with the Republicans' skill at political stone soup -- making something out of nothing. In this case it's a remark by Hillary Clinton comparing Congress to a plantation. Near as I can tell, the alleged objection to "plantation" is -- by analogy to the Holocaust -- that any metaphorical use of the word is an insult to the real slaves and their descendants. This particular stone soup would be overheated even if the ingredients were fresh and sincere. But the fuss is obviously cynical, coming as it does from people -- talk radio hosts, the editors of the Wall Street Journal: you know the type -- who usually stalk the microphones to denounce excessive sensitivity and its smothering effect on political debate.

It appears that we need to update Godwin's law.

Feeling Safer?

Courtesy of ThinkProgress here's a reminder of the KATRINA TIMELINE, while the MSM is in the process of obscuring the facts:

Friday, August 26

GOV. KATHLEEN BLANCO DECLARES STATE OF EMERGENCY IN LOUISIANA [Office of the Governor]

GULF COAST STATES REQUEST TROOP ASSISTANCE FROM PENTAGON: At a 9/1 press conference, Lt. Gen. Russel Honoré, commander, Joint Task Force Katrina, said that the Gulf States began the process of requesting additional forces on Friday, 8/26. [DOD]
Saturday, August 27

GOV. HALEY BARBOUR DECLARES STATE OF EMERGENCY IN MISSISSIPPI [Office of the Governor]

5AM CDT — KATRINA UPGRADED TO CATEGORY 3 HURRICANE [CNN]

GOV. BLANCO ASKS BUSH TO DECLARE FEDERAL STATE OF EMERGENCY IN LOUISIANA: “I have determined that this incident is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments, and that supplementary Federal assistance is necessary to save lives, protect property, public health, and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a disaster.” [Office of the Governor]

FEDERAL EMERGENCY DECLARED, DHS AND FEMA GIVEN FULL AUTHORITY TO RESPOND TO KATRINA: “Specifically, FEMA is authorized to identify, mobilize, and provide at its discretion, equipment and resources necessary to alleviate the impacts of the emergency.” [White House]
Sunday, August 28

2AM CDT – KATRINA UPGRADED TO CATEGORY 4 HURRICANE [CNN]

7AM CDT – KATRINA UPGRADED TO CATEGORY 5 HURRICANE [CNN]

MORNING — LOUISIANA NEWSPAPER SIGNALS LEVEES MAY GIVE: “Forecasters Fear Levees Won’t Hold Katrina”: “Forecasters feared Sunday afternoon that storm driven waters will lap over the New Orleans levees when monster Hurricane Katrina pushes past the Crescent City tomorrow.” [Lafayette Daily Advertiser]

9:30 AM CDT — MAYOR NAGIN ISSUES FIRST EVER MANDATORY EVACUATION OF NEW ORLEANS: “We’re facing the storm most of us have feared,” said Nagin. “This is going to be an unprecedented event.” [Times-Picayune]

AFTERNOON — BUSH, BROWN, CHERTOFF WARNED OF LEVEE FAILURE BY NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER DIRECTOR: Dr. Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Center: “‘We were briefing them way before landfall. … It’s not like this was a surprise. We had in the advisories that the levee could be topped.’” [Times-Picayune; St. Petersburg Times]

4PM CDT – NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE ISSUES SPECIAL HURRICANE WARNING: In the event of a category 4 or 5 hit, “Most of the area will be uninhabitable for weeks, perhaps longer. … At least one-half of well-coseverely damaged or destroyed. … Power outages will last for weeks. … Water shortages will make human suffering incredible by modern standards.” [National Weather Service]

LATE PM - REPORTS OF WATER TOPPLING OVER LEVEE: “Waves crashed atop the exercise path on the Lake Pontchartrain levee in Kenner early Monday as Katrina churned closer.” [Times-Picayune]

APPROXIMATELY 30,000 EVACUEES GATHER AT SUPERDOME WITH ROUGHLY 36 HOURS WORTH OF FOOD [Times-Picayune]

LOUISIANA NATIONAL GUARD REQUESTS 700 BUSES FROM FEMA FOR EVACUATIONS: FEMA sends only 100 buses. [Boston Globe]
Monday, August 29

7AM CDT - KATRINA MAKES LANDFALL AS A CATEGORY 4 HURRICANE [CNN]

8AM CDT – MAYOR NAGIN REPORTS THAT WATER IS FLOWING OVER LEVEE: “I’ve gotten reports this morning that there is already water coming over some of the levee systems. In the lower ninth ward, we’ve had one of our pumping stations to stop operating, so we will have significant flooding, it is just a matter of how much.” [NBC’s “Today Show”]

MORNING — BUSH CALLS SECRETARY CHERTOFF TO DISCUSS IMMIGRATION: “I spoke to Mike Chertoff today — he’s the head of the Department of Homeland Security. I knew people would want me to discuss this issue [immigration], so we got us an airplane on — a telephone on Air Force One, so I called him. I said, are you working with the governor? He said, you bet we are.” [White House]

MORNING – BUSH SHARES BIRTHDAY CAKE PHOTO-OP WITH SEN. JOHN MCCAIN [White House]

11AM CDT — MICHAEL BROWN FINALLY REQUESTS THAT DHS DISPATCH 1,000 EMPLOYEES TO REGION, GIVES THEM TWO DAYS TO ARRIVE: “Brown’s memo to Chertoff described Katrina as ‘this near catastrophic event’ but otherwise lacked any urgent language. The memo politely ended, ‘Thank you for your consideration in helping us to meet our responsibilities.’” [AP]

The Day of the Lizard

Debate on Climate Shifts to Issue of Irreparable Change
Some Experts on Global Warming Foresee 'Tipping Point' When It Is Too Late to Act

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 29, 2006; Page A01

Now that most scientists agree human activity is causing Earth to warm, the central debate has shifted to whether climate change is progressing so rapidly that, within decades, humans may be helpless to slow or reverse the trend.

This "tipping point" scenario has begun to consume many prominent researchers in the United States and abroad, because the answer could determine how drastically countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years. While scientists remain uncertain when such a point might occur, many say it is urgent that policymakers cut global carbon dioxide emissions in half over the next 50 years or risk the triggering of changes that would be irreversible.

There are three specific events that these scientists describe as especially worrisome and potentially imminent, although the time frames are a matter of dispute: widespread coral bleaching that could damage the world's fisheries within three decades; dramatic sea level rise by the end of the century that would take tens of thousands of years to reverse; and, within 200 years, a shutdown of the ocean current that moderates temperatures in northern Europe.

The debate has been intensifying because Earth is warming much faster than some researchers had predicted. James E. Hansen, who directs NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, last week confirmed that 2005 was the warmest year on record, surpassing 1998. Earth's average temperature has risen nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 30 years, he noted, and another increase of about 4 degrees over the next century would "imply changes that constitute practically a different planet."

"It's not something you can adapt to," Hansen said in an interview. "We can't let it go on another 10 years like this. We've got to do something."

Princeton University geosciences and international affairs professor Michael Oppenheimer, who also advises the advocacy group Environmental Defense, said one of the greatest dangers lies in the disintegration of the Greenland or West Antarctic ice sheets, which together hold about 20 percent of the fresh water on the planet. If either of the two sheets disintegrates, sea level could rise nearly 20 feet in the course of a couple of centuries, swamping the southern third of Florida and Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village.

While both the Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets as a whole are gaining some mass in their cold interiors because of increasing snowfall, they are losing ice along their peripheries. That indicates that scientists may have underestimated the rate of disintegration they face in the future, Oppenheimer said. Greenland's current net ice loss is equivalent to an annual 0.008 inch sea level rise.

The effects of the collapse of either ice sheet would be "huge," Oppenheimer said. "Once you lost one of these ice sheets, there's really no putting it back for thousands of years, if ever."

Last year, the British government sponsored a scientific symposium on "Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change," which examined a number of possible tipping points. A book based on that conference, due to be published Tuesday, suggests that disintegration of the two ice sheets becomes more likely if average temperatures rise by more than 5 degrees Fahrenheit, a prospect "well within the range of climate change projections for this century."

The report concludes that a temperature rise of just 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit "is likely to lead to extensive coral bleaching," destroying critical fish nurseries in the Caribbean and Southeast Asia. Too-warm sea temperatures stress corals, causing them to expel symbiotic micro-algae that live in their tissues and provide them with food, and thus making the reefs appear bleached. Bleaching that lasts longer than a week can kill corals. This fall there was widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidad that killed broad swaths of corals, in part because ocean temperatures were 2 degrees Fahrenheit above average monthly maximums.

Many scientists are also worried about a possible collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation, a current that brings warm surface water to northern Europe and returns cold, deep-ocean water south. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who directs Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, has run multiple computer models to determine when climate change could disrupt this "conveyor belt," which, according to one study, is already slower than it was 30 years ago. According to these simulations, there is a 50 percent chance the current will collapse within 200 years.

It's taken the WaPo a while to get on board. We reported what the rest of the scientists are thinking for quite some time now.

peratures rise by more than 5 degrees Fahrenheit, a prospect "well within the range of climate change projections for this century."

The report concludes that a temperature rise of just 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit "is likel

Wishful Thinking

When I lived in Boston, lo, these many years ago, there was this cool service that would deliver breakfast to your door on Sundays. They put a card on your house door on Saturdays, just like a hotel would, and you ticked the boxes for the things you wanted. I could never actually afford to use this service back then, but I sure could use it now. It sure would be delightful to have somebody else bring me a steaming plate of Eggs Benedict on a cold morning.

Skimming

Poor Nations Complain Not All Charity Reaches Victims

By STEPHANIE STROM
Published: January 29, 2006

Some foreign governments have begun to criticize international aid agencies for the way they raise and spend money, echoing the demands of many American donors that a larger part of their charitable gifts be used for the purposes for which they were originally intended.

The health minister of Niger fired the opening salvo at the end of the year, charging that some international aid groups had overstated the extent of the hunger crisis in his drought- and locust-ravaged country as part of a strategy to raise money for their own purposes.

"We will not allow any NGO or any other organization to manage funds behind our backs and make publicity, propaganda even, to raise money," said Aby Ibrahim, the Niger minister, referring to nongovernmental organizations by the international shorthand by which they are known, Reuters reported.

He said Niger would begin investigating organizations to ascertain how they are using the money, though relief workers there say there is no evidence that his government has carried through on that threat.

Such a posture is risky, since volunteer organizations could simply withdraw and leave Niger to cope with its problems on its own.

But many governments are prickly about seeming unable to handle domestic crises on their own. Officials of relief groups hinted privately that just such sensitivity might have motivated Mr. Ibrahim's outburst and said they stood by their assessments of Niger's problems.

"Unless the international community renews its commitment to deal with the consequences of the food crisis in Niger, including the prevailing level of malnutrition, the country faces a second year of extreme suffering and hardship," said Trevor Rowe, of the United Nations World Food Program.

Since Mr. Ibrahim spoke, other government officials have expressed frustration with how aid groups deploy the private money they raise.

An official in Sri Lanka said his government had quietly complained to the French government about Doctors Without Borders after the group contacted donors following the tsunami in December 2004 and asked if it could use more than three-quarters of the money it had raised for that disaster to address other crises.

Indonesia, too, is vexed that aid agencies have scaled back their commitments to build housing in Banda Aceh after raising money for that purpose and other projects to aid tsunami victims.

The countries are asking: "Are you spending the money you collected for my country and where are you spending it?" said Richard Walden, president and chief executive of Operation USA, a Los Angeles-based disaster relief organization.

Let's see. We have The Red Cross Scandal and the Katrina disaster, so it is only natural to wonder what else has gone wrong.

Our Booming Economy

Via Suze:

Max speaks:

A number of observers seem to suggest that the economy is doing very well and that people mistakenly believe that the economy is on the wrong track. The facts are that trends in almost every indicator of the aggregate ‘macro’ economy –- GDP growth, investment, payroll employment, personal income-- have been inferior in this business cycle and recovery when measured against earlier comparable periods.

Moreover, the wages of workers (inflation-adjusted) fell in 2005 from 2004 levels and have been falling for several years. For instance, the wage (inflation-adjusted) of the median worker fell 1.3% in 2005. Given declining wages it is not surprising that the typical (median) household income fell for five years in a row through 2004 (2005 income data are not yet available), poverty has risen, and families have gone deeper into debt. Furthermore, health care costs are taking a bigger bite out of family incomes. The bottom line is that people do not feel good about trends in the economy because the things that matter most to them - wages, jobs, family income -- have not been making them better off.

The administration claims that its tax cuts have led to jobs and growth. Yet, as we have shown, GDP, investment and other trends do not support this claim. A simpler way of showing the failure of the tax cuts to deliver jobs is to note that private sector jobs, excluding those generated by military or other government spending, have not increased since early 2001. If private sector jobs have not been created in significant numbers, how can one say that the tax cuts have worked?

The folks I hang out with are hurting, since we don't live on our investments.

The Foreign Press

While you are bleeding at the gas pump, the oil companies are taking record profits home to their shareholders. Just thought you'd want to know.

But you have to read the foreign press to learn this.

Cred

Here is the link to the bird flu session from the World Economic Summit in Davos last week. If your relatives and friends won't listen to you, maybe they will listen to the world's bankers, who are scared out of their very expensive suits by the prospect. This is an audio file.

Fun With Protein

Not everyone loves goat cheese. I do. I'm nuts about it. If you aren't, skip this post and go to those below. You'll find politics, religion and food from the left side. Hmm, on food, there is no partisan reaction. This is just plain good food, the stuff I cook in my kitchen, and you are welcome to my table regardless of your politics. We are all humans here, and we need to eat.

This is a recipe that's cheap. The Italians call that "cucina de magre," the cooking of the poor, and it is the way I prefer to eat most of the time. Goat cheese is fairly pricey here, but it isn't in in Italy.

Goat Cheese Ravioli with Creamy Walnut Sauce

Filling:
1 cup crumbled goat cheese
1/2 cup finely chopped toasted walnuts
1/2 cup minced fresh basil
1 tablespoon extra virgin olive oil
2 teaspoons minced garlic
1 teaspoon minced lemon peel

3 large pasta sheets

Sauce:
4 tablespoons butter
1/2 cup chopped walnuts
1/2 cup finely chopped shallots
1/2 teaspoon minced garlic
1/2 cup dry white wine
2 cups whipping cream
1/4 cup chopped fresh basil
1/2 teaspoon salt
1/2 teaspoon freshly ground black pepper
1/4 cup freshly grated Asiago or Parmesan

In a bowl combine the goat cheese, walnuts, basil, oil, garlic and lemon peel, and mix well. Set aside.

Put pasta sheet on work surface with long side facing you and put packed teaspoon of filling 2 inches apart lengthwise along half of the pasta sheet (you should have 10 to 12 mounds). Around each mound of filling brush dough very lightly with water. Fold dough lengthwise in half over mounds of filling, gently pressing around mounds to force out any air, and seal edges well. With a fluted pastry wheel trim edges and cut between mounds of filling to separate ravioli.

Line a large tray with a dry kitchen towel and arrange ravioli in 1 layer. Make more ravioli with remaining 2 pieces of dough and remaining filling in same manner, transferring to kitchen-towel-lined tray and arranging in 1 layer. Ravioli may be made 8 hours ahead and chilled on towel-lined tray, covered loosely with plastic wrap.

Melt 2 tablespoons of the butter in large, heavy skillet over medium-high heat. Add the walnuts and cook, stirring, until brown and fragrant, about 3 minutes. Remove nuts from the pan. Add the remaining 2 tablespoons butter, shallots and garlic, and saute for 1 minute. Add the wine and cream, and bring to a boil. Cook over medium-high until the liquid has thickened and reduced by nearly 50 percent in volume, about 4 minutes. Stir in the basil, salt and pepper. Remove from the heat and cover to keep warm.

Bring a large pot of salted water to a boil. Cook the ravioli until they are tender and rise to the surface, carefully stirring to keep them from sticking together, 3 to 4 minutes. Drain in a colander. Transfer the cooked ravioli to the pan with the sauce, and gently toss to coat and heat through. Divide the ravioli among 6 serving plates or shallow bowls, and sprinkle each serving with grated cheese. Serve immediately.

This is another of those dishes which will cause you to hug yourself. This is earthy cooking and worthy of sharing with friend. If you have the pasta in the freezer, which is the way to keep this dish pre-cooking the pasta, you have an instant hit on your hands.

Frozen fresh pasta takes a minute or so to cook longer than that which just came up off your pastry board. Check it with a slotted spoon and your teeth.

This recipe is so good that I serve it as a main course. You can't really follow it with anything other than Tiramisu. Trust me on this, this is so good your guests will be talking about it for weeks, and your spouse will be asking when you are going to make it again.

Spinach Pasta

I'm completely politic'd out after that intense phone call with Senator Kennedy (we'll have another tomorrow or Monday morning, the Senator understands the power of the Netroots) and it is time for me to give you something to eat. Yes, I am thinking about Valentine's day recipes but haven't come up with a menu for you yet, though I have some "interesting" ideas.

Here's another of the "base" recipes, a standard spinach pasta from scratch. This is for the food processor, and if you don't own one, I recommend it as part of your "batterie de cuisine." Yes, I've lived without one. Life is better with one. Ask for it for your birthday if you can't fund it yourself. It will make your life so much easier that you really won't believe it. I have the basic, bottom of the line Cuisanart, and I recommend nearly everything that manufacturer makes (I love their cookware, as well.) I assume the other manufacturers do the same, but the cookbook included with the Cuisanart machine is just excellent and using the book taught me how to use the machine. Life is better with homemade mayonaisse.

I love spinach pasta and the extra hit of vitamins and minerals it gives your cooking. This is easy with a food processor.

5 ounces fresh spinach, blanched and squeezed dry
1 pound all-purpose flour
1 teaspoon salt
1 large egg
6 large egg yolks
1 tablespoon extra-virgin olive oil

In the bowl of a food processor, combine the flour, salt and blanched spinach. Process to mix well. With the machine running, add the eggs, egg yolks, and olive oil through the feed tube, and process until it resembles wet cornmeal, about 2 minutes.

Take a handful of dough at a time and form into a firm ball. Repeat with the remaining dough. Roll out each dough ball into desired shape in a pasta machine according to the manufacturer's instructions.

Bring a pot of salted water to the boil and cook the pasta until just al dente, about 2 minutes. Drain in a colander and serve with desired sauce.

You might find this amusing, but I use a laundry rack, the kind you keep in the laundry, for drying my pasta, I don't have room for a formal pasta rack. This is a small place. This recipe makes about a pound and a half of pasta which will serve six as main course. I don't have room for six people in my dining room, so the overage goes into the refrigerator after it has dried. The laundry rack gets wiped down carefully before I put it into food use.

If you don't have a pasta rolling machine, make your noodles the old fashioned way. Sprinkle some flour on a pastry board and get out a rolling pin. Take that lump of dough and roll it out like you would a pie crust, about a 1/8th inch thick and slice the noodles with a knife. Fresh noodles are so good that you will pinch yourself and wonder why you haven't made them before. I have a food processor and a pasta machine, a virtual pasta factory for a solo householder. If you like pasta and eat it often, you will be happy with this combo, which will set you back about $150 bucks, and give you many meals of great pleasure. And, omigod, will your dinner guests love you. The "fresh pasta" you get in the dairy case at the grocery can't hold a candle to this.

I don't eBay, but you can probably find all of this equipment used much more cheaply. It will need to be cleaned very carefully before you use it if you buy it used. The Atlas Pasta Machine is what most Italian home cooks use. Having spent a fair amount of time in Italian homes, I endorse it as well and it is what I use.

No, they don't advertise here, the fools, so this is an independent endorsement.

Filibuster Alito

If you live in a state with a Democratic Senator, you need to get on the horn and call them now. Tell the staffer who answers the phone that you are absolutely opposed to Judge Alito and that you expect your Democratic Senators to support the filibuster. This stuff works. I'm hearing about voice mail boxes which are already stuffed. Use the fax machine, write emails, use every mode possible. Even Senators like Bob Byrd who have declared that they are supporting Alito, get on the horn and let them know you are not happy about that. Alito has a track record of supporting business over the individual, the state over the disabled and we know he'll vote to restrict and abolish women's right to their own bodies. This is the critical weekend and if we can muster sufficient outrage, we have a chance to defeat Scalito. We do have the power.

Blogs and Politics

Blogs Attack From Left as Democrats Reach for Center

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 28, 2006; A06

Democrats are getting an early glimpse of an intraparty rift that could complicate efforts to win back the White House: fiery liberals raising their voices on Web sites and in interest groups vs. elected officials trying to appeal to a much broader audience.

These activists -- spearheaded by battle-ready bloggers and making their influence felt through relentless e-mail campaigns -- have denounced what they regard as a flaccid Democratic response to the Supreme Court fight, President Bush's upcoming State of the Union address and the Iraq war. In every case, they have portrayed party leaders as gutless sellouts.

First, liberal Web logs went after Democrats for selecting Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine to deliver the response to Bush's speech next Tuesday. Kaine's political sins: He was too willing to drape his candidacy in references to religion and too unwilling to speak out aggressively against Bush on the Iraq war. Kaine has been lauded by party officials for finding a victory formula in Bush country by running on faith, values and fiscal discipline.

Many Web commentators wanted Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), a leading critic of the Iraq war who advocates a speedy withdrawal, to be the opposition voice on the State of the Union night. Most Democratic lawmakers have distanced themselves from the Murtha position. "What the hell are they thinking?" was the title of liberal blogger Arianna Huffington's column blasting the Kaine selection.

"Blogs can take up a lot of time if you're on them," Kaine said to reporters Thursday. "You can get a lot done if you're not bitterly partisan.
....
Liberal activists seemed to have slightly more influence with their campaign to persuade Senate Democrats to filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel A. Alito Jr. Despite several polls showing that the public opposes the effort, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) on Thursday strongly advocated the filibuster plan -- and wrote about his choice on the Daily Kos, a Web site popular with liberals. Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), a leading liberal and critic of the Iraq war, told reporters Kerry's viewpoint is not shared by most in a culturally conservative swing state such as West Virginia. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) also opposes the filibuster.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is another frequent target of the Internet attacks. Code Pink, an antiwar women's group with a flashy Web site, plans to protest one of Clinton's weekend fundraisers and is using the Web site to rally people against the New York Democrat. The critics say Clinton has not challenged Bush aggressively enough on Iraq.

"The bloggers and online donors represent an important resource for the party, but they are not representative of the majority you need to win elections," said Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic lobbyist who advised Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. "The trick will be to harness their energy and their money without looking like you are a captive of the activist left."

The blogs-vs.-establishment fight represents the latest version of a familiar Democratic dispute. It boils down to how much national candidates should compromise on what are considered core Democratic values -- such as abortion rights, gun control and opposition to conservative judges -- to win national elections.

Hmmm. Makes you wonder why I'm about to get on a conference call with Senator Kennedy.

Making Shft Up

Alito's mythical feel-good America
# Alito's feel-good vision of America before hippies and protests simply isn't true.

By Jonathan Zimmerman, JONATHAN ZIMMERMAN teaches history and education at New York University. He is the author of "Whose America? Culture Wars in the Public Schools."

ONCE UPON A TIME, Americans lived by a few simple maxims: God, country and family. Children respected their parents; students listened to their teachers; citizens followed the law. Then along came the 1960s, when liberal elites undermined traditional sources of authority. College kids smoked dope, feminists burned their bras and black militants burned down the cities. So now we have welfare, divorce, crime and a sick society that has lost its moral compass.

That's the Republican Party line on the 1960s, when everything good turned sour. Well, maybe not everything. Amid the tumult and violence, a few Americans held fast to timeless American values. And that's where our next prospective Supreme Court justice comes in.

Samuel A. Alito Jr., you see, has become the GOP's anti-'60s cultural hero. Republican supporters seized eagerly on Alito's opening remarks at his confirmation hearing, when he compared his traditional upbringing in Hamilton Township, N.J., to the chaos and unrest he encountered at Princeton University.

Hamilton was "an unpretentious, down-to-earth community," Alito recalled, where kids went to school in the morning and played baseball in the afternoon. But at Princeton, where Alito enrolled in 1968, he found something else. "I saw some very smart people and very privileged people behaving irresponsibly," Alito said at the hearing. "I couldn't help making a contrast between some of the worst of what I saw on the campus and the good sense and the decency of the people back in my own community."

Alito's story meshes perfectly with the larger Republican narrative about the 1960s: A lot of bad things happened, but a few good people resisted them. "Judge Alito is a paragon of the oldfashioned working-class ethic," gushed the New York Times' David Brooks. "In a culture that celebrates the rebel … he respects tradition, order and authority."

To Michael Barone of U.S. News & World Report, Alito symbolizes the "dutiful people" who adhered to tradition when the "beautiful people" attacked it. "While Manhattan glitterati thronged Leonard Bernstein's apartment to celebrate the murderous Black Panthers," Barone declared, "ordinary people … were going to work, raising their families and teaching their children to obey lawful authority and work their way up in the world."

There's only one problem with this GOP version of postwar history: It isn't true. The feel-good Republican vision of pre-'60s America is a myth. Urban kids were already using drugs in the 1950s, when J. Edgar Hoover called heroin a menace to American society. The FBI was busily harassing gays, who formed visible communities in many cities. And urban poverty was on the rise, even as most middle-class Americans looked the other away.

Most of all, a vicious racism infected enormous swaths of American society. And not just in the "Jim Crow" South, which is the story we know best, but in the urban North as well. In such cities as Chicago and Detroit, whites organized to keep African Americans out of their neighborhoods. They rallied outside city housing agencies to bar black tenants; they picketed white homeowners who sold property to black buyers. Even more, as University of Pennsylvania historian Thomas Sugrue has shown, whites often assaulted and vandalized blacks who did move into white areas. Were all whites racist? Of course not. But we can no longer pretend that they uniformly "respected authority" and "followed the law," as Brooks and Barone maintain.

This is what truly infuriates me about the Alito nomination. He and Bush are alike in this regard: it's all about resentment by the privileged class who feel that their entitlements are being challenged. Demonizing poor people, women (feminazis) and minorities who have the temerity to demand that they be treated like human beings has been the Republican way for decades.

SOP

Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him

By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: January 29, 2006

The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists.

Dr. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions. "They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," he said.

Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at the space agency, said there was no effort to silence Dr. Hansen. "That's not the way we operate here at NASA," he said. "We promote openness and we speak with the facts."

Mr. Acosta said the restrictions on Dr. Hansen applied to all National Aeronautics and Space Administration personnel whom the public could perceive as speaking for the agency. He added that government scientists were free to discuss scientific findings, but that policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen.

Dr. Hansen, 63, a physicist who joined the space agency in 1967, is a leading authority on the earth's climate system. He directs efforts to simulate the global climate on computers at the Goddard Institute on Morningside Heights in Manhattan.

Since 1988, he has been issuing public warnings about the long-term threat from heat-trapping emissions, dominated by carbon dioxide, that are an unavoidable byproduct of burning coal, oil and other fossil fuels. He has had run-ins with politicians or their appointees in various administrations, including budget watchers in the first Bush administration and Vice President Al Gore.

In 2001, Dr. Hansen was invited twice to brief Vice President Dick Cheney and other cabinet members on climate change. White House officials were interested in his findings showing that cleaning up soot, which also warms the atmosphere, was an effective and far easier first step than curbing carbon dioxide.

He fell out of favor with the White House in 2004 after giving a speech at the University of Iowa before the presidential election, in which he complained that government climate scientists were being muzzled, and said he planned to vote for Senator John Kerry.

But Dr. Hansen said that nothing in 30 years equaled the push made since early December to keep him from publicly discussing what he says are clear-cut dangers from further delay in curbing carbon dioxide.

I have a lot of acquaintances in the career civil service across all the agencies. I'm hearing the same from all of them.

Action Now

Bob Fertik writes:

The Alito 48 Submitted by Bob Fertik on January 27, 2006 - 12:13am.Sam Alito

Saturday Updates:

* Bush is freaking out! He used his Saturday radio address to demand an "upperdown" vote, exactly 91 days after denying Harriet Miers her "upperdown" vote! Maybe he's reading his hopeless polls?
* The corporate media whores are freaking out!
* Pro-filibuster additions: Paul Sarbanes
* Three Democratic men tell us to go fuck ourselves: Mark Pryor, Ken Salazar, and Kent Conrad
* Read these great blogs from BuzzFlash and BradBlog. And for off-topic fun, don't miss Bob Geiger's Saturday Cartoons.

We need to stop George Bush from getting 60 Senators to end the filibuster on Monday at 4:30 p.m.

That means we must convince 41 Senators to either support a filibuster or stay away from the Senate on Monday, preferably by visiting maimed soldiers at Walter Reed Hospital.

Below is a list of 44 Democrats, 1 Independent, and 3 Republicans whose support is possible - the "Alito 48."

We will keep a tally below, relying on you to report back on your calls.

* Crossed out names support the filibuster - don't call them
* Underlined names will be absent - which is good but keep calling them
* Bold names will probably vote against Alito, but oppose the filibuster - call them first! (Our info sources are numbered and linked)
* Regular names will probably vote against Alito, but have not declared their position on a filibuster - call them second!
* Italic names will vote for Alito and against the filibuster - call them third and try to convince them to change!

This is the latest tally:

Current
Total Goal We Lose
Filibuster supporter: 13 Plan to be Absent: 0 13 48 -
Filibuster opponent: 6+3 Alito supporter: 4 13 0 8

Here are the "Filibuster 48" with their direct phone numbers. You can also use these toll-free numbers (and ask for the Senators by name): 888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641.

Ask the question clearly: will Senator X support John Kerry's filibuster of Judge Alito, or will (s)he oppose Kerry's filibuster?

We need a firm yes or no - be polite but persistent.

Post the results of your calls in the comments below.

Filibuster Supporters

Barbara Boxer (D- CA) , 202-224-3553
Dianne Feinstein (D- CA) , 202-224-3841 (1,)
Christopher J. Dodd (D- CT), 202-224-2823 (1,)
Richard J. Durbin (D- IL) , 202-224-2152
John F. Kerry (D- MA) , 202-224-2742
Edward M. Kennedy (D- MA) , 202-224-4543
Paul S. Sarbanes (D- MD), 202-224-4524
Debbie A. Stabenow (D- MI) , 202-224-4822
Harry Reid (D- NV) , 202-224-3542
Hillary Rodham Clinton (D- NY) , 202-224-4451
Charles Schumer (D- NY) , 202-224-6542
Ron Wyden (D- OR) , 202-224-5244
Russell D. Feingold (D- WI) , 202-224-5323

Filibuster Undecideds

Blanche Lambert Lincoln (D- AR), 202-224-4843
Joseph I. Lieberman (D- CT), 202-224-4041
Thomas R. Carper (D- DE), 202-224-2441
Daniel K. Inouye (D- HI), 202-224-3934
Tom Harkin (D- IA), 202-224-3254
Barack Obama (D- IL), 202-224-2854
Evan Bayh (D- IN), 202-224-5623
Barbara A. Mikulski (D- MD), 202-224-4654
Carl Levin (D- MI), 202-224-6221
Mark Dayton (D- MN), 202-224-3244
Max Baucus (D- MT), 202-224-2651
Frank Lautenberg (D- NJ), 202-224-3224
Robert Menendez (D- NJ), 202-224-4744
Jeff Bingaman (D- NM), 202-224-5521
Jack Reed (D- RI), 202-224-4642
Lincoln D. Chafee (R- RI), 202-224-2921
Patrick J. Leahy (D- VT), 202-224-4242
Maria Cantwell (D- WA), 202-224-3441
Patty Murray (D- WA), 202-224-2621
Herb Kohl (D- WI), 202-224-5653
John D. Rockefeller, IV (D- WV), 202-224-6472
James M. Jeffords (I- VT), 202-224-5141

Filibuster Opponents - silent & scared

Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D- DE) , 202-224-5042
Bill Nelson (D- FL), 202-224-5274
Daniel K. Akaka (D- HI) (1,), 202-224-6361
Mary Landrieu (D- LA) (1,), 202-224-5824
Byron L. Dorgan (D- ND) (1,), 202-224-2551
Olympia Snowe (R- ME) (1,), 202-224-5344

Filibuster Opponents - loud & proud

Mark Pryor (D- AR), 202-224-2353
Ken Salazar (D- CO) , 202-224-5852
Kent Conrad (D- ND) (1,), 202-224-2043
Alito Supporters

Ben Nelson (D-NE) 202-224-6551
Tim Johnson (D- SD) , 202-224-5842
Robert C. Byrd (D- WV) , 202-224-3954
Ted Stevens (R- AK) , 202-224-3004

Pick up the phone or the fax machine.

The Pattern of Not Caring

Hurricane Investigators See 'Fog of War' at White House

By ERIC LIPTON
Published: January 28, 2006

WASHINGTON, Jan. 27 — The White House was beset by the "fog of war" in the crucial days immediately after Hurricane Katrina, leaving it unable to respond properly to the unfolding catastrophe, House investigators said Friday after getting the most detailed briefing yet on how President Bush's staff had handled the events.

The closed-door briefing, attended mostly by House committee aides, was provided by Kenneth Rapuano, who as Mr. Bush's deputy domestic security adviser was the senior official in charge of managing storm events at the White House when the hurricane struck. The meeting was a compromise, a result of White House objections to the investigators' requests for copies of e-mail messages and other correspondence from top presidential aides.

Mr. Rapuano, those present said, acknowledged that he left the White House about 10 p.m. on Monday, Aug. 29, the night the storm hit. Some two hours later, the White House received a report indicating that a major levee in New Orleans had been breached and that most of the city had already been flooded. The report was sent by an official of the Federal Emergency Management Agency who had flown over the city late that afternoon.

But Mr. Rapuano said that before he left that night, the White House received a separate report from the Army Corps of Engineers saying an evaluation of the levees was still under way.

The White House, Mr. Rapuano said, finally received confirmation about the levee breach about 6 a.m. on Tuesday, the morning after it occurred. But even then, it does not appear that word got immediately to Mr. Bush, who was on vacation and who later said that he had had a "sense of relaxation" and had thought the city had "dodged a bullet."

"We are left with a picture of a White House that was plagued by the fog of war," said David Marin, the Republican staff director to the House committee investigating the government's response to the hurricane. "The committee is likely to find a disturbing inability by the White House to de-conflict and analyze information — and that had consequences."

Trent Duffy, the deputy White House press secretary, who also attended the briefing, acknowledged that all levels of the government had suffered from a lack of clarity about the events as they developed.

"There was a lack of situational awareness at all levels," Mr. Duffy said in an interview on Friday. "That is one of the biggest lessons everyone in emergency preparedness has learned because of the storm."

With the House not yet in session, only one lawmaker from the investigative committee — its chairman, Tom Davis, Republican of Virginia — was present for the briefing. Mr. Rapuano told him and the staff investigators that the White House role had been to monitor the situation. The Federal Emergency Management Agency and its parent, the Department of Homeland Security, were operationally in charge, he said.

The investigators expressed frustration that the White House did not seem to have been more actively involved. But Mr. Duffy, echoing a point made by Mr. Rapuano, said: "The White House should not be making combat decisions in Iraq. The same is true for a domestic emergency response."

The committee staff members also asked why it had taken Mr. Bush until the following Saturday, nearly a week after the storm, to order a large number of federal troops to the Gulf Coast.

Mr. Rapuano said that the Pentagon had already started to send troops and that in fact 5,000 of them had arrived by that point.

Louisiana's governor, Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, had asked for many more three days earlier, but Mr. Rapuano said the problem was that she had not provided specifics as to what kind of troops she needed.

Eric Lipton, this is inadequate reporting. We now know that W was warned about possible breach of the levees 48 hours before Katrina hit. Fog of war my ass. This is plain and simple incompetence and the NYT is too fucking cowardly to call it.

Anyone who knew anything about disaster planning knew about this.

W was cutting brush in Crawford and couldn't be bothered to notice this anymore than he could be bothered to notice the Presidential Daily Brief on August 6, 2001 which warned of the coming attack.

Scorpions

A wrong-way agency

FOR TOO LONG, THE EPA HAS BEEN AWOL. Once a proud protector of public well-being, the Environmental Protection Agency has become an agency that too often ignores science and must be dragged into taking even the smallest steps. Even worse, it prevents other public agencies from moving forward with plans to protect the environment.

The EPA was criticized last week by the Government Accountability Office for its weak efforts to keep lead out of drinking water. Its own inspector general reported last year that the agency ignored scientific evidence in its poorly planned effort to come up with soft limits on mercury pollution. Its requirements for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump in Nevada were thrown out of court in 2004 because they fell far short of those called for by the National Academy of Sciences.

Now the EPA would like to weaken rules on toxic reporting, and it is ignoring a key recommendation of its own Scientific Advisory Committee — a first, according to many veterans — to propose keeping annual levels of particulates at their current levels. The microscopic particles are a stubborn pollutant in Southern California's air and can cause heart disease, asthma and poor lung development in children.

Perhaps most frustrating to the rest of the world — and many U.S. states — the EPA wants nothing to do with regulating greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. Twelve states, including California, sued to force the EPA into doing its rightful job, but the courts ruled against them; the EPA claims it lacks the authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

Last month, the top U.S. negotiator walked out of the international talks in Montreal on cutting greenhouse gases. It was left to representatives of individual states to show the world that this country does care about global warming — even if its leaders don't.

I know some of the career civil servants at EPA. They are frustrated and angry that the "leadership" of the agency are political appointees with ties to the industries which they are supposed to regulate. That's the pattern of Bush appointees.

Whatever they tell you, they are knifing you behind your back.

Hearts and Minds

Documents show U.S. military in Iraq detain wives
27 Jan 2006 23:49:56 GMT
Source: Reuters

By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON, Jan 27 (Reuters) - U.S. forces in Iraq, in two instances described in military documents, took custody of the wives of men believed to be insurgents in an apparent attempt to pressure the suspects into giving themselves up.

Both incidents occurred in 2004. In one, members of a shadowy military task force seized a mother who had three young children, still nursing the youngest, "in order to leverage" her husband's surrender, according to an account by a civilian Defense Intelligence Agency intelligence officer.

In the other, an e-mail exchange includes a U.S. military officer asking "have you tacked a note on the door and challenged him to come get his wife?"

The documents were among thousands obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union from the government under court order through the Freedom of Information Act.

"This is not an acceptable tactic," ACLU lawyer Amrit Singh said on Friday, referring to seizing a wife to try to catch a husband, "nor are any of the other abusive techniques acceptable. We know that abusive techniques were employed in a systemic manner across Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay."

Paul Boyce, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon, said: "It's very hard, obviously, from some of these documents to determine what, if anything, actually happened. ... When you see an individual e-mail note, it's oftentimes very confusing to figure out how that particular case fits into an overall, larger puzzle."

Boyce also said the military has thoroughly looked at "any allegation against soldiers of misconduct or abuse of detainees."

A June 10, 2004, memo written by the DIA employee, labeled as "secret," referred to "violations of the Geneva Convention" relating to detainee abuse and illegal detention of noncombatants.

'THREE YOUNG CHILDREN'

It described the actions of Task Force 6-26, which has been mentioned in other documents in connection with allegations of detainee abuse, and stated that on May 9, 2004, task force personnel detained the wife of "a suspected terrorist" in Tarmiya, Iraq.

"The 28-year-old woman had three young children at the house, one being as young as six months and still nursing. Her husband was the primary target of the raid, with other suspect personnel subject to detainment as well," the memo stated.

"During the pre-operational brief, it was recommended by TF (task force) personnel that if the wife were present, she be detained and held in order to leverage the primary target's surrender," the memo stated. Its author said that "I objected to the detainment of the young mother to the raid team leader" and "I believed it was a dead issue."

The memo stated that "I determined that the wife could provide no actionable intelligence leading to the arrest of her husband."

"Despite my protest, (the) raid team leader detained her anyway," stated the memo, whose author officially reported the incident within the chain of command. The memo said the wife was released two days later to the custody of a tribal sheik.

In the other case, a U.S. lieutenant colonel e-mailed, "What are you guys doing to try to get the husband -- have you tacked a note on the door and challenged him to come get his wife? ... or something more sophisticated, I suspect, from the 'not necessarily the cool guys, but the guys with the cool stuff?'"

A later e-mail stated, "These ladies fought back extremely hard during the original detention. They have shown indications of deceipt (sic) and misinformation."

I'm checking to see how many Geneva Conventions this violates.

IOKIYAR

Mr. Abramoff's Meetings, Again

Saturday, January 28, 2006; Page A20

IF A TYPICAL picture is worth a thousand words, a picture of President Bush with Jack Abramoff, we suppose, might be worth about 10,000. And so we understand the desire of our more visually inclined colleagues to obtain photos of the president and the criminal. But the focus on the photos distracts from a more important question that the president managed to duck in his news conference Thursday: Who in the White House and administration met with Mr. Abramoff, and what were those meetings about? .... The president himself attended a White House meeting with some of Mr. Abramoff's clients. How did that get set up? The White House acknowledges that Mr. Abramoff had some "staff-level meetings" there. With whom, and about what?

Republicans didn't tolerate this kind of behavior from the Clinton White House in the midst of its fundraising scandal. "At every turn, they are stonewalling, covering up and hiding," Haley Barbour, then the head of the Republican National Committee, said as the Clinton administration tried to brush off questions about its fundraising before the 1996 election. Mr. Barbour complained of the administration's "utter contempt . . . for the public's right to know."

Such obstructionism is no more acceptable now. The public understands this: Three-fourths of those surveyed in a new Washington Post/ABC poll said the White House should disclose the contacts. "This needs to be cleared up so the people have confidence in the system," Mr. Bush said. Our point exactly.

It's OK if you are a Republican.

The Pattern

Post-Katrina Promises Unfulfilled
On the Gulf Coast, Federal Recovery Effort Makes Halting Progress

By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 28, 2006; A01

Nearly five months after Hurricane Katrina swamped New Orleans, President Bush's lofty promises to rebuild the Gulf Coast have been frustrated by bureaucratic failures and competing priorities, a review of events since the hurricane shows.

While the administration can claim some clear progress, Bush's ringing call from New Orleans's Jackson Square on Sept. 15 to "do what it takes" to make the city rise from the waters has not been matched by action, critics at multiple levels of government say, resulting in a record that is largely incomplete as Bush heads into next week's State of the Union address.

The problems include the slow federal cleanup of debris in Mississippi and Louisiana; a lack of authority for Bush's handpicked recovery coordinator, Donald E. Powell; the shortage and poor quality of housing for evacuees; and federal restrictions on reconstruction money and where coastal communities can rebuild.

With the onset of the hurricane season just four months away, there is no agreement on how to rebuild New Orleans, how to pay for that effort or even who is leading the cross-governmental partnership, according to elected leaders. While there is money to restore the city's flood defenses to protect against another Category 3 hurricane, it remains unclear whether merely reinforcing the levees will be enough to draw residents back.

New strains emerged this week when Bush aides rejected a plan by Rep. Richard H. Baker (R-La.) to set up a government corporation that would buy back the mortgages of storm-damaged homes around New Orleans. Instead, the government limited the use of $6.2 billion in grants to the rebuilding of 20,000 homes destroyed outside federally insured flood zones.

Dismayed state and local officials said the president's approach does not provide help for an additional 185,000 destroyed homes. They warned that the federal government's halting recovery effort is undermining, at a critical juncture, the confidence of homeowners, insurers and investors about returning.

"They gave us a ladder to reach all of our housing needs, but the top rungs are missing," Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D) said in statement from Baton Rouge. "You can't fix a $12 billion problem with $6 billion."

Without a government mechanism to compensate homeowners and then clean up and repackage entire, devastated neighborhoods for developers, much of the city will never be rebuilt, Baker said.

Below are some of the major promises Bush made in his Jackson Square speech, and how the government has fared:

· Housing. Bush promised to empty shelters quickly, meet the immediate needs of the displaced, register victims, and provide housing aid in the form of rental assistance and trailers.

In Mississippi, 33,378 occupied trailers are meeting 89 percent of the estimated housing needs. But there have been 34,000 repair requests and maintenance complaints, according to Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.).

In Louisiana, trailers have been provided for about 37 percent of the estimated 90,000 displaced families in need of housing. Officials acknowledge production bottlenecks and in-state battles over sites. Trailer costs have swelled from $19,000 to $75,000 apiece.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Small Business Administration are struggling to meet unprecedented demands. FEMA is providing rental assistance to 700,000 families, but about 75,000 people are still in hotels. In some places, there is a shortage of rental housing available for evacuees.

As of Jan. 16, 18,943 applications for rental help had yet to be processed. As of this week, the SBA said that 190,000 of 363,000 applications for disaster loans to homeowners and businesses are still pending.

"It just doesn't seem to be well organized," said Ronald D. Utt, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation who has written about disaster housing policy. "Things in some respects have gotten more confused than they were a couple weeks after the storm."

The reconstruction of New Orleans is brought to you by the same people who organized the reconstruction of Iraq. There is no plan.

The Souperbowl

These potato skins are simply sinful. If you are contributing to a pot luck, do the finish cooking at the host's house. The rest can be assembled the day before and refrigerated tightly covered.

3 lb russet (baking) potatoes (6 to 8 medium; preferably organic)
2 small heads garlic (2 inches in diameter)
3/4 stick (6 tablespoons) unsalted butter, softened
1 teaspoon salt
1/4 teaspoon black pepper

Preheat oven to 350°F.

Prick each potato once or twice with a fork. Cut off and discard top fourth of garlic head, then wrap garlic tightly in foil. Bake garlic and potatoes on same rack in lower third of oven until potatoes are tender, 50 minutes to 1 hour. Remove potatoes from oven and cool on a metal rack 15 minutes. Continue to bake garlic until tender, about 15 minutes more, then cool in foil on rack.

While garlic cools, halve potatoes lengthwise, then quarter each half (to form short wedges). Scoop out potato flesh (reserving it for another use), leaving 1/4-inch-thick potato skins.

Increase oven temperature to 425°F.

Squeeze garlic into a small bowl, discarding garlic skins, and mash to a paste with butter, salt, and pepper using a fork.

Divide garlic paste among potato skins (about 1/2 teaspoon each), spreading evenly, then roast skins in a large shallow baking pan (1 inch deep) until golden and crisp, 20 to 25 minutes.

Cooks' note:
• Potato skins can be scooped out and spread with garlic paste (but not baked) 1 day ahead and chilled, loosely covered with foil. Bring to room temperature before baking.

Makes 8 servings.

Your guests might enjoy some herbed sour cream with this, but I'm a fan of Allouette's garlic and herb low fat spread. Which I also use in twiced baked potatoes topped with fresh chives. You can make a meal with those and some cruditees.

Expect these skins to vanish off the serving platter. They will be inhaled.

What to do with the potato innards leftover from this recipe? Serve potato and fennel soup with one of the sandwiches below.

CREAMY FENNEL AND POTATO SOUP

Fresh fennel bulbs and crushed fennel seeds add subtle anise flavor. Use a mortar and pestle to crush the fennel seeds, or simply place them in a plastic bag and pound them with a rolling pin. The soup can be made a day ahead and rewarmed before serving.

2 tablespoons olive oil
6 cups coarsely chopped cored fresh fennel bulbs (from about 4 large), fronds reserved
2 medium onions, chopped
8 ounces white-skinned potatoes, peeled, diced
4 cups (or more) canned low-salt chicken broth
2 teaspoons (or more) fresh lemon juice

1 cup whipping cream
1 teaspoon fennel seeds, finely crushed
3/4 teaspoon dried tarragon

Heat oil in heavy large pot over medium-high heat. Add fennel bulbs, onions, and potatoes; sprinkle with salt and pepper. Sauté until slightly softened, about 8 minutes. Add 4 cups broth and 2 teaspoons lemon juice; bring to boil. Reduce heat, cover, and simmer until vegetables are very tender, about 30 minutes. Cool slightly.

Meanwhile, bring cream, fennel seeds, and tarragon to boil in heavy small saucepan. Reduce heat and simmer 5 minutes. Remove from heat; cover and let stand 20 minutes so that flavors blend.

Working in batches, puree soup in blender until smooth. Return soup to same pot. Stir in cream mixture. Simmer until flavors blend, thinning with more broth if desired, about 5 minutes. Season to taste with salt and pepper and more lemon juice, if desired. (Can be made 1 day ahead. Cool slightly. Chill until cold, then cover and keep chilled. Rewarm over medium heat, stirring occasionally.)

Ladle soup into 8 bowls. Garnish with reserved fennel fronds and serve.

Makes 8 first-course servings.

Because the potatoes are already cooked, don't add them until after the broth has already been boiled and reduced to a simmer.

As with the chili below, serve this to your football crowd in oversize disposable coffee cups with plastic spoons to make it spill-less and ease the clean up. This is an exceptional soup with the two sandwiches two posts below.

The Next Dinner

My next big cooking/kitchen intensive will be over Easter, probably but not necessarily at my brother the chef's place. We did this last year and it worked very well. He gets a little itchy when I'm in his kitchen and he's used to being the chef, so if he has something to say, I listen. I've been looking at my recipe collection and saving some new ones from my cookbooks and off the internets but haven't come up with a menu yet. Do you have a suggestion? Do you have a traditional menu for Easter that you'd like to tell us about? He's on a diet which he is pretty disciplined about, but even his doctor gives him Sundays off. That said, he's become a big proponent of lighter cuisine and I must say that Christmas was different but damn delicious. He's an innovative cook. My S-I-L has a tummy which is touchy to garlic and onions. I, of course, feel pretty crippled without garlic and onions, but my repertoire is fairly large. Suggest things which fall in the broad middle of standard American cooking and maybe I'll be cooking *your* menu for the next holiday.

I will be bringing wild rice bread. What goes with that besides some herbed "I can't believe it's not butter?"

Here is your Iron Chef challenge: the mystery ingedient for this meal is fresh herbs. Just don't ask me to make ice cream. Iron Chef insiders will get the joke.

I'm thinking stuffed chicken, they aren't fish people. But I'm open to pursuasion.

Hearty Pot Luck Fare

Are you going to a potluck this weekend? This baked pasta always gets rave reviews, it's an old Bon Apetit recipe from a dozen years ago or so that I've tinkered with.

PASTA SHELLS FILLED WITH FETA AND HERBS

Sauce
1/4 cup olive oil
1 onion, chopped
4 garlic cloves, minced
1/2 teaspoon dried crushed red pepper
2 28-ounce cans Italian plum tomatoes, chopped in processor with juices
1 cup chopped fresh basil

Filling
2 15-ounce containers ricotta cheese
14 ounces feta cheese, chopped
1/2 cup chopped fresh basil
2 fresh chive bunches, chopped
2 eggs

1 12-ounce package jumbo pasta shells

Fresh basil sprigs

For sauce:
Heat oil in heavy large saucepan over medium heat. Add onion and sauté 5 minutes. Add garlic and sauté until onion is tender, about 5 minutes. Add crushed red pepper and sauté 30 seconds. Add tomatoes. Simmer until sauce is reduced to 5 cups, stirring occasionally, about 1 hour. Season to taste with salt and pepper. Remove from heat and mix in basil. (Can be prepared 1 day ahead. Cover and chill.)

For filling:
Combine ricotta, 1 1/3 cups feta, 1/2 cup chopped basil and chives. Season to taste with salt and pepper. Mix in eggs.

Cook shells in large pot of boiling salted water until just tender but still firm to bite. Drain. Rinse with cold water until cool. Drain thoroughly.

Preheat oven 350°F. Spread 3/4 cup sauce over bottom of each of two 13 x 9 x 2-inch glass baking dishes. Fill 30 shells and divide between dishes. Top with remaining sauce. Sprinkle with remaining feta. (Can be prepared 1 day ahead. Cool and refrigerate.) Bake shells until heated through, about 30 minutes. Garnish with basil sprigs.

Serves 6.

Since this recipe makes two pans, you can serve one and freeze the other. For a variation with meat, add a 1/4 pound of thinly juillienned prosciutto to the cheese sauce with no added salt. Or, add pealed and devained shrimp to the tomato sauce at the very end of its simmering, just before the dish is assembled. This is a truly delicious recipe with an amazing balance of textures and flavors, you will get many requests for the recipe.

If you are going to serve this at a buffet or sit down dinner party, serve fruit salad marinated in champagne with cinnamon and nutmeg for desert.

Croque-Monsieur

Are you having or contributing to a Superbowl party this weekend? Think beyond take-out and nachos. I'll have some ideas for you here.

These hearty sandwiches are a bistro staple. I lived on them on my first trip to France (given my very limited French at that time, I'd learned to say "croque-monsieur avec un vin blanc, s'il vous plait" and that was about it.) They are very satisfying, a little messy and meant to be eaten with knife and fork. This is the classic treatment.

1 cup finely grated Gruyère plus 2 tablespoons for sprinkling the sandwiches
2 tablespoons sour cream
3/4 teaspoon Dijon-style mustard
3/4 teaspoon kirsch
8 slices of homemade-type white bread
4 thin slices of cooked ham
1/2 stick (1/4 cup) unsalted butter, softened
In a bowl stir together 1 cup Gruyère, the sour cream, the mustard, and the kirsch and spread 1 tablespoon of the mixture evenly over each bread slice. Arrange the ham on 4 of the bread slices and top it with the remaining bread slices, spread side down. Remove the crusts with a sharp knife and spread the tops of the sandwiches lightly with 2 tablespoons of the butter. Invert the sandwiches into a large skillet, spread the tops with the remaining 2 tablespoons butter, and grill the sandwiches over moderately high heat, turning them once, for 6 to 8 minutes, or until they are golden brown on both sides. Transfer the sandwiches with a metal spatula to a baking sheet, sprinkling them with the remaining 2 tablespoons Gruyère, and broil them under a preheated broiler about 4 inches from the heat for 2 to 3 minutes, or until the Gruyère is just melted.

Serves 4.

This is a very tasty vegetarian variation on the sandwich above.

TOASTED GRUYERE, GOLDEN ONION, AND APPLE SANDWICHES

Can be prepared in 45 minutes or less.

1 tablespoon olive oil
1 pound onions, sliced thin
2 teaspoons chopped fresh rosemary leaves or 1/4 teaspoon dried, crumbled
2 teaspoons white-wine vinegar
4 oval slices rye bread
1/2 Granny Smith apple
1/4 pound thinly sliced Gruyère cheese (use a cheese plane if possible)
In a 10-inch heavy skillet heat oil over moderate heat until hot but not smoking and cook onions with rosemary, stirring occasionally, until golden, about 10 minutes. Stir in vinegar and salt and pepper to taste and cook until vinegar evaporates. Cool onion mixture.

Preheat broiler.

On a baking sheet toast both sides of bread about 3 inches from heat until golden. Core apple with a melon-ball cutter and cut crosswise into very thin slices. Divide onion mixture among toasts, spreading evenly, and cover with overlapping apple slices. Cover apple slices with Gruyère and broil sandwiches until cheese is melted and bubbling, about 1 minute.

Serves 4.

The Only Real Reporter In DC

As usual, Dan Froomkin comes up with better questions than anyone in the White House press pool:

Executive Power

Jim VandeHei writes in The Washington Post: "President Bush set limits yesterday on White House cooperation in three political disputes, saying he is determined to assert presidential prerogatives on such matters as domestic eavesdropping and congressional inquiries into Hurricane Katrina.

"In a mid-morning news conference, Bush told reporters he is skeptical of a proposed law imposing new oversights on his use of the National Security Agency to listen in on electronic communications. He also said that he will block White House aides from testifying about the slow federal response to Hurricane Katrina, and that he will not release official White House photos of himself with former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff."

Bush made it sound like his pictures with Abramoff were purely from assembly-line style receiving lines. But that's not necessarily so. Some of the pictures appear to have been taken at the more intimate sort of events typically reserved to reward political allies.

VandeHei writes that Bush was also "adamant about not allowing top aides to testify about Hurricane Katrina. Bush, who has moved on several fronts over the past five years to strengthen the power of the presidency, said it would be damaging to him and future presidents if aides feared providing candid advice."

But what kind of advice Bush got is not the central point -- it's what kind of information he got, and what did he do with it? Isn't that fair game?

250 and going strong

For those of you who don't know... today is the 250th birthday of Mozart!

Kevin Drumm has a nice series of links for quizes and other fun things related to Wolfgang.

As for me... I've had on WCPE all day in my classroom since they are doing all Mozart all day. The also do streaming music over the web, so if you want to listen to some while at work, check them out.

Systematic Violations

ACLU Releases Government Photos

Reported By: Jon Shirek
Web Editor: Tracey Christensen
Last Modified: 1/25/2006 9:41:15 PM

The ACLU of Georgia released copies of government files on Wednesday that illustrate the extent to which the FBI, the DeKalb County Division of Homeland Security and other government agencies have gone to compile information on Georgians suspected of being threats simply for expressing controversial opinions.

Two documents relating to anti-war and anti-government protests, and a vegan rally, prove the agencies have been "spying" on Georgia residents unconstitutionally, the ACLU said. (Related: ACLU Complaint -- PDF file)

For example, more than two dozen government surveillance photographs show 22-year-old Caitlin Childs of Atlanta, a strict vegetarian, and other vegans picketing against meat eating, in December 2003. They staged their protest outside a HoneyBaked Ham store on Buford Highway in DeKalb County.

An undercover DeKalb County Homeland Security detective was assigned to conduct surveillance of the protest and the protestors, and take the photographs. The detective arrested Childs and another protester after he saw Childs approach him and write down, on a piece of paper, the license plate number of his unmarked government car.

"They told me if I didn't give over the piece of paper I would go to jail and I refused and I went to jail, and the piece of paper was taken away from me at the jail and the officer who transferred me said that was why I was arrested," Childs said on Wednesday.

The government file lists anti-war protesters in Atlanta as threats, the ACLU said. The ACLU of Georgia accuses the Bush administration of labeling those who disagree with its policy as disloyal Americans.

"We believe that spying on American citizens for no good reason is fundamentally un-American, that it's not the place of the goverment or the best use of resources to spy on its own citizens and we want it to stop. We want the spies in our government to pack their bags, close up their notebooks, take their cameras home and not engage in the spying anymore," Gerald Weber of the ACLU of Georgia said during a news conference.

I guess once you start violating Constitutional amendments the urge to try to collect them all becomes inexorable.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Tentacles

Justice and Junkets

Published: January 27, 2006

Justice Antonin Scalia certainly has poor judgment when it comes to vacations.

Justice Scalia was apparently unchastened by the criticism of his 2004 duck-hunting excursion with Vice President Dick Cheney, one of that term's most prominent Supreme Court litigants. Last September, he skipped the swearing-in of Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. because of another ethically dubious trip, this time to the posh Ritz-Carlton at the Beaver Creek ski resort in Colorado.

He was there to teach a 10-hour seminar over a couple of days for a conservative group, the Federalist Society. "Nightline" recently reported that the gig had left Justice Scalia plenty of time for tennis, fly-fishing and socializing with seminar participants, some of whom may have business before the Supreme Court. One Federalist Society cocktail reception was sponsored in part by the lobbying and law firm that used to employ Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay's convicted pal and benefactor for golf trips.

Justice Scalia's travel is part of a broader affliction on the federal bench. The Los Angeles Times reported in 2004, for example, that Justice Clarence Thomas had accepted thousands of dollars in gifts in recent years, including an $800 leather jacket, a $1,200 set of tires from Nascar and an extravagant vacation from a conservative activist. Federal judges below the Supreme Court level accept dozens of free vacations each year from well-heeled special interests under the guise of "judicial education."

The judicial lobbying problem is more serious in one respect than the scandal enveloping Congress. Lawmakers operate in an overtly political environment, but the decision-making process of judges is supposed to be impermeable to clever efforts by special interests to buy access and favor.

Three Democratic senators with a longstanding concern about this problem — Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Russell Feingold of Wisconsin and John Kerry of Massachusetts — are readying provisions to ban junkets and other compromising gifts for judges, which they hope to make part of their party's lobbying reform proposal. For Congress to pass a lobbying reform bill that curbs inappropriate perks for lawmakers but not for federal judges would be a scandal in itself.

One wonders about the song Abramoff is singing to the feds.

A Sinkhole, Not a Pothole

U.S. Economy Grows at Slowest Pace in 3 Years

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: January 27, 2006

Filed at 9:11 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The economy grew at only a 1.1 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter of last year, the slowest pace in three years, amid belt-tightening by consumers facing spiraling energy costs.

Even with the feeble showing from October through December, the economy registered respectable overall growth of 3.5 percent for all of 2005 -- a year when business expansion was undermined by devastating Gulf Coast hurricanes.

The Commerce Department report, released Friday, offered the latest figures on gross domestic product, the best measure of the country's economic standing.

The 1.1 percent growth rate in the fourth quarter marked a considerable loss of momentum from the third quarter's brisk 4.1 percent pace. The fourth-quarter's performance was even weaker than many analysts were forecasting. Before the release of the report, they were predicting the GDP to clock in at a 2.8 percent pace.

The 1.1 percent growth rate was the smallest gain since the final quarter of 2002, when the economy expanded at just a 0.2 percent rate.

The weakness in the final quarter of last year reflected consumers pulling back, cuts in government spending and businesses being more restrained in their capital spending.

Economists felt that the slowdown in the final quarter was more of a temporary setback rather than any harbinger of a sustained period of economic weakness ahead.

''The economy hit a pothole in the fourth quarter. I'm not at all worried about the health of the economy,'' said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. Zandi believes that economy in the current January-to-March quarter is already doing better and predicts economic growth will come in around a 4 percent pace.

In the fourth quarter, though, consumers turned cautious as high energy prices and rising borrowing costs took their toll budgets.

Consumer spending rose by just 1.1 percent pace in the fourth quarter, the slowest since the second quarter of 2001 when the economy was suffering through a recession.

Most of the weakness came as people sharply cut back on purchases of big-ticket goods, including cars and appliances. Spending on such ''durable'' goods dropped by a hefty 17.5 percent rate in the final quarter, the sharpest decline since the first quarter of 1987.

I don't know what the Moody's guy is smoking, but the winter isn't over and gas prices are still going up. I don't know what your heating bill looks like, but mine is a horror and this has been a mild winter so far.

The Unserious Administration

Using Our Fear

By Eugene Robinson

Friday, January 27, 2006; Page A23

Once upon a time we had a great wartime president who told Americans they had nothing to fear but fear itself. Now we have George W. Bush, who uses fear as a tool of executive power and as a political weapon against his opponents.

Franklin D. Roosevelt tried his best to allay his nation's fears in the midst of an epic struggle against fascism. Bush, as he leads the country in a war whose nature he is constantly redefining, keeps fear alive because it has been so useful. His political grand vizier, Karl Rove, was perfectly transparent the other day when he emerged from wherever he's been hiding the past few months -- consulting omens, reading entrails -- and gave the Republican National Committee its positioning statement for the fall elections: Vote for us or die.

Democrats "have a pre-9/11 worldview" of national security that is "deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong," Rove said. The clear subtext was that Americans would court mortal danger by electing Democrats. Go forth and scare the bejesus out of them, Rove was telling his party, because the more frightened they are, the better our chances.

To cultivate fear for partisan gain is never a political tactic to be proud of, but Rove's prescription of naked fearmongering is just plain reprehensible when the nation faces a shifting array of genuine, serious threats. This is a moment for ethical politicians -- and, yes, these days that seems like an oxymoron -- to speak honestly about what dangers have receded, what new dangers have emerged, and how the imperatives of liberty and security can be balanced.

From the likes of Rove, I guess, we shouldn't expect anything more noble than win-at-all-costs. But we do have the right to expect more from the president of the United States, and while Bush gives off none of Rove's Sith-lord menace, he has made the cultivation of fear a hallmark of his governance.

I can't get the thought of that August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Brief, the one headed "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US as Shrubelyu cut brush in Crawford

Son King

How do you stick a story like this on pg.6? Bush basically flipped off the Constitution yesterday!

Bush Reasserts Presidential Prerogatives

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 27, 2006

President Bush set limits yesterday on White House cooperation in three political disputes, saying he is determined to assert presidential prerogatives on such matters as domestic eavesdropping and congressional inquiries into Hurricane Katrina.

In a mid-morning news conference, Bush told reporters he is skeptical of a proposed law imposing new oversights on his use of the National Security Agency to listen in on electronic communications. He also said that he will block White House aides from testifying about the slow federal response to Hurricane Katrina, and that he will not release official White House photos of himself with former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Facing repeated questions, Bush distanced himself from Abramoff, who is at the center of the biggest political corruption and bribery scandal in a generation. Bush said he does not recall having his picture taken with Abramoff or ever meeting him. Abramoff was a member of the exclusive club of Bush's $100,000 fundraisers known as Pioneers.

"Having my picture taken with someone doesn't mean that I'm a friend with him or know him very well," Bush told reporters.

Of course not, except when there is clear evidence that there is more than one picture and there is a huge effort on the part of the President's supporters to *ahem* delete all existing pictures and deny the ones that exist. Conservatives need to apply the Clinton test... namely if the President's last name was Clinton, would they approve. Better yet, if they were pictures of Al Gore at a Buddhist Temple would they be so calm?

It gets better though after the bump.

The president was similarly adamant about not allowing top aides to testify about Hurricane Katrina. Bush, who has moved on several fronts over the past five years to strengthen the power of the presidency, said it would be damaging to him and future presidents if aides feared providing candid advice.

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), a staunch supporter of Bush on foreign policy, has accused the White House of undermining the probe by refusing to detail the role of White House officials. "If people give me advice and they're forced to disclose that advice, it means the next time an issue comes up I might not be able to get unvarnished advice from my advisers," Bush said. "And that's just the way it works."

Umm... no. That didn't stop your friends in Congress 8 years ago from hauling everyone from the President to his girlfriend's book seller in front of a rouge lawyer determined to bring the President down at all costs.

On the issue of NSA eavesdropping on overseas communications to or from U.S. citizens, Bush said he is concerned about Congress writing a new spying law because it could force the government to provide details and clues about a top-secret program used to hunt down terrorists.

We need to know what did/did not take place with your pathetic efforts in the Gulf. Otherwise, you are in contempt of Congress and that's not a partisan issue.

What else was covered yesterday?

"There's no doubt in my mind it is legal," Bush said. Democrats have accused Bush of breaking the law by authorizing the spying program without approval from Congress or the courts. The debate is expected to dominate hearings, scheduled to begin Feb. 6, on the highly classified NSA program.

"But it's important for people to understand that this program is so sensitive and so important that if information gets out to how we run it or how we operate it, it'll help the enemy," he said. "Why tell the enemy what we're doing?"

Bush, why do you think that Bin Laden doesn't use cell phones anymore? The enemy isn't some comic book villain like HYDRA or S.P.E.C.T.R.E. from James Bond. .. they can adapt and plan and anticipate what you may do. More importantly, they know that the more you destroy the freedons that Americans have, the easier their job is.

If Clinton had done even a third of this, the public would have happily accepted his impeachment instead of trashing the Republican party in the '98 election. Why are their no principled Republicans willing to stand up to this blatant abuse of power?

Things That Make You Go "Hmmm"

Prosecutor Will Step Down From Lobbyist Case

By PHILIP SHENON and ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: January 27, 2006

WASHINGTON, Jan. 26 — The investigation of Jack Abramoff, the disgraced Republican lobbyist, took a surprising new turn on Thursday when the Justice Department said the chief prosecutor in the inquiry would step down next week because he had been nominated to a federal judgeship by President Bush.

The prosecutor, Noel L. Hillman, is chief of the department's public integrity division, and the move ends his involvement in an inquiry that has reached into the administration as well as the top ranks of the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill.

The administration said that the appointment was routine and that it would not affect the investigation, but Democrats swiftly questioned the timing of the move and called for a special prosecutor.

The announcement came as Mr. Bush faced a barrage of questions about why he would not make public "grip-and-grin" photographs of him with Mr. Abramoff. The photographs apparently show Mr. Bush and Mr. Abramoff smiling at White House Hanukkah parties and Republican fund-raising receptions.

Mr. Bush's position, which he offered at a news conference on Thursday morning that was peppered with questions about Mr. Abramoff, was that the photographs were so common as to be almost meaningless and that it was part of his job "to shake hands with people and smile." He said he could not remember posing for the pictures, or, for that matter, even meeting Mr. Abramoff.

"I had my picture taken with him, evidently," Mr. Bush said. "I've had my picture taken with a lot of people. Having my picture taken with someone doesn't mean that I'm a friend with them or know them very well."

He said, "I'm also mindful that we live in a world in which those pictures will be used for pure political purposes, and they're not relevant to the investigation."

The White House, which announced Mr. Bush's selection of Mr. Hillman for the court in a routine e-mail message on Wednesday that included 15 other nominations to judgeships and federal jobs, dismissed the calls for a special prosecutor.

Hmmm. And I spent the afternoon yesterday talking about what a terrific job the career prosecutors in the public integrity section are going with Bob Borosage.

The Corrupt System

Medicare Drug Plan Leaves Out Supplies
# The benefit covers home IV medication but not the implements and care needed to administer it.

By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — The new Medicare drug program is denying supplies that seriously ill patients need to administer intravenous antibiotics and other medications at home. As a result, some patients are being referred to nursing homes, and others have had to go into hospitals.

Although no national estimates are available, the number of patients affected — including some with life-threatening diseases such as cancer and multiple sclerosis — could run into the thousands. One Anaheim pharmacy says 200 of its patients are having trouble.

Medicare officials say they are aggressively addressing the problem, which they attribute to restrictions in the law that created the prescription benefit and to difficulty communicating with states, pharmacies and medical providers.

Essentially, the prescription program allows coverage of the drugs but does not pay for the medical supplies and nursing help needed for the home infusion treatments to be safe and effective — a policy that effectively shuts down such treatment for some patients, even though it is substantially cheaper than the alternatives. Two GOP senators warned the Medicare agency last fall that the gap in coverage "may limit access to home infusion therapy."

Home infusion pharmacies say they are overwhelmed trying to help patients deal with the problem. "It's like I'm doing triage in a MASH unit," said pharmacist Michael Rigas, vice president for clinical affairs with Crescent Healthcare in Anaheim.

The bill was written by the drug companies and passed in the middle of the night. None of this is surprising, even if it is evil.

Planet 9 in Outer Space

Earth-Like Planet Found Outside Solar System

By Guy Gugliotta
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 26, 2006

Scientists using a technique derived from Albert Einstein's theories said yesterday they have detected the most Earth-like planet ever discovered outside the solar system -- an icy, rocky world 5 1/2 times the size of Earth orbiting a star 28,000 light-years away.

The new planet, given the identifier OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb, was discovered last summer by teams of researchers using telescopes throughout the world. The scientists said the discovery suggested Earth-size planets are quite common in the universe.

"We're opening a new window," said University of Notre Dame astrophysicist David P. Bennett in a webcast news conference hosted by the National Science Foundation, a major sponsor of the research. In the future, he added, "we will be able to detect planets down to Earth mass."

That's not too far away and I bet if we get a high definition television, we can even watch new episodes of Battlestar Galactica as the ships roll by. We just might need to point out to the commander that he needs to avoid surfing the net or the government will wonder what a "Daggit" is.

Rock and Hard Place

Most evacuees in hotels haven't sought extension

By ERIC BERGER
Houston Chronicle
Jan. 26, 2006

Just 40 percent of the 6,000 hurricane evacuees remaining in Texas hotels have sought permission from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to stay beyond Feb. 7.

That's when the agency will stop paying hotel and motel costs for Texas and Louisiana residents who fled Hurricanes Katrina and Rita during the summer. People remaining in hotels who wish to stay beyond that deadline must call the agency to obtain an authorization code by Monday.

With 3,490 hotel rooms still occupied in Greater Houston, a large number of families and individuals could be evicted in a couple of weeks.

"Instantly, we could be looking at a 30 to 40 percent increase in homeless people on the streets," said Thao Costis, an executive vice president with SEARCH, a Houston-based service provider for the homeless. "Our shelters are already filled to the gills with people who were here. We'll do what we can, but our resources are pretty maxed out."

.........

Gloria Carter, 41, has been staying at a hotel in Webster since she was forced to leave her condemned apartment in Lake Charles, La., in December. The single mother of three children and an older son couldn't find any vacant places in her hometown, so she came to the Houston area hoping to find work and assistance for rent.

Carter has applied for FEMA's Individual Assistance Program, which provides long-term housing assistance for natural-disaster victims, and has already registered to have her hotel stay extended until Feb. 13. But she has gotten no solid answers to her question: "What do we do at that point in time?"

She hopes to be out of a hotel by then, but she's waiting for her application to clear or for a place to become available at one of several apartment complexes. There's a job prospect at a McDonald's in Alvin.

So what does FEMA expect these people to do? It's not like a job at McDonald's is going to cover the living expenses of 5 people! The longer they don't have a stable place and a job, the less likely they are to find work and be self sufficient.

Where are all of the pious Christians who scream about family values? I know the winters in Houston aren't as cold as many other places, but forcing families onto the street because you REFUSE to help them rebuild their homes and lives is inexcuseable. According to them, it's more important to get a judge that will tell everyone how to live their lives instead of taking care of the sick and needy.

Unbelievable.

The Basic Pantry

Here is another of those "base" recipes that take well to personal variations. This is both low fat and filling, two things which you don't find together too often. Serve with an artisanal bread and cheese and fruit for desert and you have a comforting quick dinner for cold days (here in the Mid-atlantic, winter is finally threatening, the last week has been cold and I've been downing a lot of soup.)

CREAMY BEAN SOUP WITH FRESH HERBS AND SPINACH

3 tablespoons olive oil
3 cups chopped onions (about 2 medium)
3 garlic cloves, minced
1 tablespoon chopped fresh rosemary
5 cups low-salt chicken broth
2 15- to 16-ounce cans white beans, drained
2 15- to 16-ounce cans garbanzo beans (chickpeas), drained

1 6-ounce package baby spinach leaves
1 tablespoon finely chopped fresh sage
Grated Parmesan cheese
Extra-virgin olive oil (optional)

Heat 3 tablespoons olive oil in large pot over medium-high heat. Add onions and garlic and sauté until onions are golden, about 15 minutes. Add rosemary and stir 1 minute. Add all broth and beans. Bring soup to boil; reduce to medium-low and simmer until flavors blend, about 10 minutes.

Working in batches, transfer soup to blender and puree until smooth; return to pot. Mix in spinach and sage; stir until spinach wilts, about 1 minute. Season soup to taste with salt and pepper. Ladle soup into bowls. Sprinkle each with Parmesan cheese and drizzle with extra-virgin olive oil, if desired.

Makes 8 first-course servings.

Cook's notes: the EVO isn't optional! Save your parmesan rinds in the freezer and add them to this while it is simmering, remove before pureeing. If you have the calorie budget, you can add a little heavy cream at the point where everything goes into the blender. I cook with virtually no salt, but this might need a little (tastes differ) but I like lots and lots of freshly ground pepper on everything. I use freshly ground peppercorn melange, but you might prefer white pepper with this for the look. Skip the cheese and use a vegetable broth and you have a vegan dish, but then add a little lemon juice. You can also up the protein by adding some turkey sausage (or Aidell's Chicken and Apple, which I love) during the sauteeing stage.

This is nourishing and comforting dish for Lent if you are going to be fasting off meat. I did that the very first time I made a Lenten fast. It was too easy. I'm a really good vegetarian cook and a fast of any kind should leave you different from the way you were when you began it. I've tried lots of different fasts over the years. The one I've found the hardest, and the one I'm going to try again this year because it really does change me, is fasting off judging others. In the Myers-Briggs typology, I'm an INTJ with a really strong J (for judging as personality type, if you don't know the lingo.) One of the reasons I never seriously considered going into parish ministry is that Melanie doesn't suffer fools gladly, which means that I'd last maybe a week. Fasting off judging other people is the hardest thing I've ever done and it seems like I can't do it often enough. A three day water-juice fast is no biggy anymore and something I do when I have a decision to make that I'm having a hard time with. In previous Lents I've gone off buying books for the duration (no longer a problem, a couple of years of poverty cured the habit. In the past, bookstores were to me what bars are to an alcoholic: a trip to Borders was the cure for a bad day.) At the time, that was really hard and I headed for the bookstore after church on Easter. One year, I turned off the radio and the TV for Lent. With the kind of work I do now that's not really possible, but, let me tell you, I came to love the silence and was in no big rush to turn the media whirl back on. It took about six months before I was a regular consumer of the electronic media again.

How about that: food, spirituality and cultural criticism, all in one post. Whatever your religious tradition, nearly all the ones I know about have a fast tied to the annual calendar or to the lifespan. What has been your experience with fasting?

The Theory of Everything

I was able to get an hour interview with Robert Borosage in his office at Campaign for America's Future late this afternoon. We talked about the "culture of corruption," the Abramoff fiasco, and indictments pending. I'll have more on the interview this weekend. It was a very interesting discussion. Bob is more plugged in to the ways the political process works and doesn't than the average lefty. The theme for any Dem challenger to run on this year is cleaning up the process.

This will play a part in the grand unified theory of the neo-cons, popular culture and bad theology that I'm coming up with. I discussed some of it with Bob, but it is still pretty unfinished.

The No News Conference

Spinning the Hamas Victory

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, January 26, 2006; 12:54 PM

President Bush this morning faced a conundrum: How to reconcile all his soaring rhetoric about democracy with the democratic election victory of a radical Islamic group he has labeled as a terrorist organization?

The answer: Spin that conundrum away.

The words "terrorist organization" never came out of Bush's mouth in his hastily-called news conference, just hours after it became clear that Hamas won a huge upset victory in the Palestinian elections.

Hamas has claimed responsibility for many attacks on Israel over the years and continues to deny Israel's right to exist. Bush as recently as yesterday, in a Wall Street Journal interview, flatly declared that the U.S. won't deal with the group regardless of the election results.

But this morning, Bush was looking hard for the positive. The Palestinian vote was "a wakeup call to the leadership," he said.

"The people are demanding honest government. The people want services. They want to be able to raise their children in an environment in which they can get a decent education and they can find health care. And so the elections should open the eyes of the old guard there in the Palestinian territories."

He only grudgingly acknowledged the central problem: "On the other hand, I don't see how you can be a partner in peace if you advocate the destruction of a country as part of your platform.

"And I know you can't be a partner in peace if you have a -- if your party has got an armed wing."

Meanwhile, Bush urged Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to remain in office for now.

Here's the transcript of the 45-minute news conference, held in the dilapidated White House Briefing Room -- which showed its true nature when a boom microphone started flapping uncontrollably over Bush's head moments after he walked to the podium.

Bush faced many questions about his secret National Security Agency domestic spying program. He repeatedly insisted it was legal, in spite of the conclusion by many legal scholars that his position runs counter to the checks and balances required by the Constitution.

Asked why he wouldn't go to Congress -- even now -- for approval of the program, he said more public knowledge about it would "help the enemy."

Bush denied that he had circumvented the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which makes it a crime to conduct domestic surveillance without a criminal or intelligence warrant.

"You know, 'circumventing' is a loaded word. And I refuse to accept it, because I believe what I'm doing is legally right."

Describing how he came give his approval, Bush said: "I said, 'Look, is it possible to conduct this program under the old law?' And people said, 'It doesn't work in order to be able do the job we expect to us do.' "

Asked if he would please release the photos of him with disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Bush refused. "We live in a world in which those pictures will be used for pure political purposes, and they're not relevant to the investigation," he said. "I frankly don't even remember having my picture taken with the guy. I don't know him."

Asked to summon some "Texas straight talk" and make a clear and unambiguous statement about torture, Bush did so: "No American will be allowed to torture another human being anywhere in the world."

But by and large, the press conference was a frustrating experience for journalists whose specific questions were largely answered with imprecise comments related to their general topic. Bush's discountenance of follow-up questions means he fully controls the discourse.

One journalist asked: "Your explanation on the monitoring program seems to say that when the nation is at war, the president, by definition, can order measures that might not be acceptable or even perhaps legal in peacetime. And this seems to sound like something President Nixon once said, which was, 'When the president does it, then that means that it's not illegal in areas involving national security.' So how do the two differ?"

Bush wouldn't address that comparison.

And some of the questions were very incremental and small-bore.

I wonder if reporters shouldn't ask him some more basic questions that might be of interest to the American people. For instance, why not ask Bush what he considers the limits of executive power? Why not ask him about the competence of his administration, in the wake of the response to Hurricane Katrina and the rollout of the Medicare prescription plan? Why not ask about his credibility gap, in light of all his false statements and predictions about Iraq?

And -- one of my pet peeves -- why not ask him about these unspecified people he and his aides refer to all the time? For instance, who precisely does he think Karl Rove was talking about when Rove said last week that "some important Democrats" don't want to know who al Qaeda is calling in America? And precisely who was Bush himself talking about when he said yesterday: "I understand there's some in America who say, well, this can't be true there are still people willing to attack"?

I have an idea: what if W gave a "press conference" and nobody came?

Social Darwinism II

Emmanuel Todd: The Specter of a Soviet-Style Crisis
By Marie-Laure Germon and Alexis Lacroix
Le Figaro

Monday 12 September 2005

According to this demographer, Hurricane Katrina has revealed the decline of the American system.

Research engineer at the National Institute of Demographic Studies, historian, author of Après l'empire [After the Empire], published by Gallimard in 2002 - an essay in which he predicted the "breakdown" of the American system - Emmanuel Todd reviews for Le Figaro the serious failures revealed by the storm.

Le Figaro - What is the first moral and political lesson we can learn from the catastrophe Katrina provoked? The necessity for a "global" change in our relationship with nature?

Emmanuel Todd - Let us be wary of over-interpretation. Let's not lose sight of the fact that we're talking about a hurricane of extraordinary scope that would have produced monstrous damage anywhere. An element that surprised a great many people - the eruption of the black population, a supermajority in this disaster - did not really surprise me personally, since I have done a great deal of work on the mechanisms of racial segregation in the United States. I have known for a long time that the map of infant mortality in the United States is always an exact copy of the map of the density of black populations. On the other hand, I was surprised that spectators to this catastrophe should appear to have suddenly discovered that Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell are not particularly representative icons of the conditions of black America. What really resonates with my representation of the United States - as developed in Après l'empire - is the fact that the United States was disabled and ineffectual. The myth of the efficiency and super-dynamism of the American economy is in danger.

We were able to observe the inadequacy of the technical resources, of the engineers, of the military forces on the scene to confront the crisis. That lifted the veil on an American economy globally perceived as very dynamic, benefiting from a low unemployment rate, credited with a strong GDP growth rate. As opposed to the United States, Europe is supposed to be rather pathetic, clobbered with endemic unemployment and stricken with anemic growth. But what people have not wanted to see is that the dynamism of the United States is essentially a dynamism of consumption.

Is American household consumption artificially stimulated?

The American economy is at the heart of a globalized economic system, and the United States acts as a remarkable financial pump, importing capital to the tune of 700 to 800 billion dollars a year. These funds, after redistribution, finance the consumption of imported goods - a truly dynamic sector. What has characterized the United States for years is the tendency to swell the monstrous trade deficit, which is now close to 700 billion dollars. The great weakness of this economic system is that it does not rest on a foundation of real domestic industrial capacity.

American industry has been bled dry and it's the industrial decline that above all explains the negligence of a nation confronted with a crisis situation: to manage a natural catastrophe, you don't need sophisticated financial techniques, call options that fall due on such and such a date, tax consultants, or lawyers specialized in funds extortion at a global level, but you do need materiel, engineers, and technicians, as well as a feeling of collective solidarity. A natural catastrophe on national territory confronts a country with its deepest identity, with its capacities for technical and social response. Now, if the American population can very well agree to consume together - the rate of household savings being virtually nil - in terms of material production, of long-term prevention and planning, it has proven itself to be disastrous. The storm has shown the limits of a virtual economy that identifies the world as a vast video game.

This last shows the ultimate fallacy of the Straussian neo-cons. Unless everyone has the capacity to consume together, the entire system falls apart.

You postulate that the management of Katrina reveals a worrying territorial fragmentation joined to the carelessness of the military apparatus. What must we then fear for the future?

The hypothesis of decline developed in Après l'empire evokes the possibility of a simple return of the United States to normal, certainly associated with a 15-20% decrease in the standard of living, but guaranteeing the population a level of consumption and power "standard" in the developed world. I was only attacking the myth of hyper-power. Today, I am afraid I was too optimistic. The United States' inability to respond to industrial competition, their heavy deficit in high-technology goods, the upturn in infant mortality rates, the military apparatus' desuetude and practical ineffectiveness, the elites' persistent negligence incite me to consider the possibility in the medium term of a real Soviet-style crisis in the United States.

Would such a crisis be the consequence of Bush Administration policy, which you stigmatize for its paternalistic and social Darwinism aspects? Or would its causes be more structural?

American neo-conservatism is not alone to blame. What seems to me more striking is the way this America that incarnates the absolute opposite of the Soviet Union is on the point of producing the same catastrophe by the opposite route. Communism, in its madness, supposed that society was everything and that the individual was nothing, an ideological basis that caused its own ruin. Today, the United States assures us, with a blind faith as intense as Stalin's, that the individual is everything, that the market is enough and that the state is hateful. The intensity of the ideological fixation is altogether comparable to the Communist delirium. This individualist and inequalitarian posture disorganizes American capacity for action. The real mystery to me is situated there: how can a society renounce common sense and pragmatism to such an extent and enter into such a process of ideological self-destruction? It's a historical aporia to which I have no answer and the problem with which cannot be abstracted from the present administration's policies alone. It's all of American society that seems to be launched into a scorpion policy, a sick system that ends up injecting itself with its own venom. Such behavior is not rational, but it does not all the same contradict the logic of history. The post-war generations have lost acquaintance with the tragic and with the spectacle of self-destroying systems. But the empirical reality of human history is that it is not rational.

This is the first installment of a longer meditation which has been growing since yesterday and will probably take until the weekend to bear written fruit. I found this link by way of another sterling rant from James Wolcott which Susie pointed out today.

In the interview excerpted above, Emmanuel Todd doesn't come right out and say it, but there has to be something in the popular culture which allowed neo-con theories to take root and grow and for the Southern lower class to buy into so much of these theories which actively work against their self interest (which, as Todd points out, is irrational, unpragmatic behavior.) I want to spend a few more days thinking about this and working out a theory about this which just started purcolating yesterday. This interview in Figaro sort of focused everything. Your thoughts and comments are welcomed as I run this through my writer's grist mill.

The Empire

Of Cabbages and Kings

By STEVE FORRESTER
The Daily Astorian [Astoria, Oregon]

The New York Times published an eloquent rebuttal to the nomination of Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court Monday. The gist of the Times’ message was that Alito believed in wider presidential powers and “a radically narrow view of Congress’ power.”

In the run-up to Alito’s nomination as well as that of Chief Justice John Roberts, I have been struck by how bloodless these judicial nominees are. Except for having gone through some kind of ideological outsiderism at elite Ivy League schools, I don’t see the face of America on them.

There was a time when some Supreme Court justices were marked by the physical place or the life struggle that had shaped them. These days they seem to be largely shaped by a private educational system, and they’ve been on a narrow track to the federal judiciary, with relatively little contact with the ordinary business of life. Some on the federal bench have no experience with the public schools.

Chief Justice Earl Warren had been governor of a state. Thurgood Marshall was shaped by the struggle for civil rights in the 1950s, when a black man had to assert his right to practice law. Sandra Day O’Connor was marked forever by returning to Phoenix after graduating near the top of her Stanford Law School class, only to be told by the city’s most eminent law firm that it might have a secretarial position for her.

One of the arguments made in favor of confirmation of Alito is that a conservative president gets to pick conservative jurists and that's just politics. But this piece made me think a little further. Roberts and Alito really are different from their immediate predecessors. Roberts is a silver spoon baby who never really had much contact with the reality of the middle class, his college summers spent in factory work not withstanding. Both are Ivy League products who have never had to fear a pink slip. Of course, they have that in common with most of the Senate, which is one of the major reasons I think that the filibuster seems to be off the table. The Democratic Senators have nearly all never had to work a job where they had to worry about being fired or laid off. They've never had to work a job which was physically dangerous. They haven't ever had to live somewhere which was so polluted as to endanger their health. They've never been subject to discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation or disability. The Senate doesn't reflect America. If it did, they would understand why us working stiffs see Alito as a grave danger to the rest of us. His politics of resentment wears poorly with us.

Chilling Effect

For only the second time in the history of Bump, I deleted a comment. The commentor had an invalid email address so my attempt to notify him directly failed. This deletion occured for the same reason as the first: I don't wish to invite visits from the Secret Service or the FBI. It is not an urban legend that some bloggers have had those visits, and I live a little closer to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue than most of them.

A Little Bit of History Returning

White House Dismissed '02 Surveillance Proposal

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 26, 2006; Page A04

The Bush administration rejected a 2002 Senate proposal that would have made it easier for FBI agents to obtain surveillance warrants in terrorism cases, concluding that the system was working well and that it would likely be unconstitutional to lower the legal standard.

The proposed legislation by Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) would have allowed the FBI to obtain surveillance warrants for non-U.S. citizens if they had a "reasonable suspicion" they were connected to terrorism -- a lower standard than the "probable cause" requirement in the statute that governs the warrants.

The administration has contended that it launched a secret program of warrantless domestic eavesdropping by the National Security Agency in part because of the time it takes to obtain such secret warrants from federal judges under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

The wiretapping program, ordered by President Bush in 2001, is used when intelligence agents have a "reasonable basis to believe" that a target is tied to al Qaeda or related groups, according to recent statements by administration officials. It can be used on U.S. citizens as well as foreign nationals, without court oversight.

Democrats and national security law experts who oppose the NSA program say the Justice Department's opposition to the DeWine legislation seriously undermines arguments by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and others, who have said the NSA spying is constitutional and that surveillance warrants are often too cumbersome to obtain.

"It's entirely inconsistent with their current position," said Philip B. Heymann, a deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration who teaches law at Harvard University. "The only reason to do what they've been doing is because they wanted a lower standard than 'probable cause.' A member of Congress offered that to them, but they turned it down."

Of course they dismissed it. They already knew they didn't need it.

Secret Surveillance May Have Occurred Before Authorization

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 4, 2006; Page A03

Even before the White House formally authorized a secret program to spy on U.S. citizens without obtaining warrants, such eavesdropping was occurring and some of the information was being shared with the FBI, declassified correspondence and interviews with congressional and intelligence officials indicate.

On Oct. 1, 2001, three weeks after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who was running the National Security Agency at the time, told the House intelligence committee that the agency was broadening its surveillance authorities, according to a newly released letter sent to him that month by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.). Pelosi, the ranking Democrat on the committee, raised concerns in the letter, which was declassified with several redactions and made public yesterday by her staff.

"I am concerned whether and to what extent the National Security Agency has received specific presidential authorization for the operations you are conducting," Pelosi wrote on Oct. 11, 2001. The substance of Hayden's response one week later, on Oct. 17, 2001, was redacted.

The secret NSA program, developed in the immediate aftermath of the attacks on Washington and New York as a way to find any hidden al Qaeda operatives still in the United States, was authorized in October 2001, a senior administration official said.

The president and senior aides have publicly discussed various aspects of the program, but neither the White House, the NSA nor the office of the director of national intelligence would say what day the president authorized it. Don Weber, an NSA spokesman, said in an e-mail yesterday that it would be inappropriate to "discuss details which could potentially cause harm to the safety of our nation."

Pelosi's letter suggested that she and others on the committee first heard about expanded work by the NSA on Oct. 1, 2001, when Hayden briefed them on NSA activities.

"During your appearance before the committee," she wrote, "you indicated that you had been operating since the September 11 attacks with an expansive view of your authorities with respect to the conduct of electronic surveillance." The letter, while redacted in parts concerned with surveillance, made clear that the agency was "forwarding" intercepts and other collected information to the FBI. Two sources familiar with the NSA program said Pelosi was directly referring to information collected without a warrant on U.S. citizens or residents.

Oooh, oooh, ooh, Congresscritter Pelosi, it's only taken you 5 years to have qualms about this?

Heard Around Town

Via Surburban Guerrilla:

Dave Niewert speaks:

Effective immediately, the Democrats will be known as the lyin'-ass boyfriend party - the perfect date for progressive voters looking to be stood up, bullshitted blind, or left holding the tab.

For five years now it's been "Please baby, baby, baby, please! I'm sorry I was a no-show last time, but hey, that was because I was working overtime to save up to do something extra special for next time, which is the really big event - right, baby?"

Last April, when the Democrats backed away from filibustering extremist appeals court nominees, it was, "Don't you fret, baby. We're not going to go to the mat over small fry like Owen, Pryor, and Brown because we're saving the filibuster for the big one - you know, the Supreme Court, baby." Months later, Democrats folded rather than fight John Roberts, the young-ish yes man with a penchant for executive privilege and a wife who used to head an anti-choice organization. After all, they said, they needed to save their energy, and the filibuster, for the next Supreme Court nominee, who would undoubtedly be worse.

Well, baby, the moment of truth has arrived. It's Alito-time, and the lyin'-ass boyfriends are backpedaling again. Why aren't they going to raise a ruckus this time? Aw, baby... the filibuster is just so darned hard to use with only 45 senators! And what's the point of trying to do anything until we've recaptured the Senate or the White House?

I broke my longstanding policy of not donating money to political parties last fall when the folks from the DNC called and asked for money to help gird them for the upcoming fights over judicial seats. I was assured that indeed they would fight to keep right-wing extremists off the Supreme Court.

And now, faced with a clear-cut extremist (and dissembler) who is about to not only overturn the right to obtain an abortion, but also to pave the path for an imperial executive branch with limitless powers ... nothing.

I'm not terribly inclined, as my readers know, to use profanity in my posts. But if the Democratic Party wants any more of my money, they can just go fuck themselves.

When the Democrats become an opposition party, they'll get a dime out of me. This is the most dangerous Supreme Court nominee in a generation and all the Dems can do is speechify their way onto the moral high ground while Bush crowns himself king? Sorry, kids, that isn't good enough.

If Dick Cheney can use the F-bomb on the floor of the Senate, I guess I can use it on the Internets.

Start the Day with a Smile

Via the reveres, the way to start the day with a smile:

The BEAST 50 Most Loathsome People in America, 2005

50. Geraldo Rivera

Charges: A mustache only slightly less loathsome than Tom Friedman’s-if only because fewer people take Rivera seriously....

48. Larry the Cable Guy

Charges: The absolute nadir of the American South’s baffling cultural hegemony. A middle-class Nebraskan, raised in Palm Beach, whose parents sent him to private school, masquerading as an Appalachian mutant and making millions off the nine-toed cyclopes in his audience by calling his material "blue collar," when it’s really just a celebration of proud ignorance. The latest in a long line of "entertainers" propagating the lie that real talent is elitist. The South has risen again—just long enough to grab the rest of the nation by the legs and pull it back down to its Lovecraftian depths. Isn’t even "bad funny." Makes Jeff Foxworthy look like Chris Rock.

21. Bill Frist

Charges: A physician whose senatorial career has been a protracted renunciation of the Hippocractic oath. First and foremost, Frist does harm. Drew the scrutiny of the SEC and Department of Justice for directing the sale of $6 million worth of stock in his brother’s company, while claiming not to know he even owned it. Diagnosed Terri Schiavo from the senate floor, proclaiming "that is not somebody in a persistent vegetative state," and then denied ever having made such a judgment. His Harvard Medical School classmates reproached him in a letter for having exploited his medical training. Made protecting drug maker Eli Lilly from litigation for putting mercury in vaccines a provision of the Homeland Security bill. Honed his surgical skills on cats he adopted from pet shelters—really.

This is the Oscars of the progressive Left. Go and read the rest, just make sure to swallow and put down your coffee first.

Wha??

EPA Calls for End to Releases of Chemical in Teflon Process
# The voluntary effort is expected to eliminate public exposure to the widely used industrial compound. The move is hailed by activists.

By Marla Cone, Times Staff Writer

In a rare move to phase out a widely used industrial compound, the Environmental Protection Agency announced Wednesday that it was asking all U.S. companies to virtually eliminate public exposure to a toxic chemical used to make Teflon cookware and thousands of other products.

Although the effort is voluntary, the federal government has rarely taken such a sweeping, accelerated action against an industrial compound. The eight major companies that use it to make an array of nonstick and stain-resistant products are expected to comply, cutting releases from their plants and products by 95% over the next four years and completely soon after that.

DuPont, which manufactures Teflon and has used the compound for more than 50 years, pledged to meet the deadlines. The voluntary phaseout will not end the sale of Teflon and other products, but it is expected to drastically curtail the release of the chemical into the atmosphere.

That chemical, a perfluorinated acid called PFOA, has contaminated the bloodstream of most Americans and is polluting the environment throughout much of the world.

In laboratory animals exposed to high doses, PFOA causes liver cancer, reduced birth weight, immune suppression and developmental problems. In humans, the effects of lower doses are unknown, but it is transferred to fetuses.

"The science on PFOA is still coming in, but the concern is there. Acting now to minimize it is really the right thing to do for our health and our environment," said EPA Acting Assistant Administrator Susan Hazen.

Under the EPA plan, the companies can still use the chemical in manufacturing as long as it doesn't turn up in its products and is not released into the environment.

Wednesday's announcement is considered the EPA's most aggressive effort to restrict an industrial compound in more than 15 years, when it enacted a regulation banning asbestos.

Environmentalists, who have criticized most EPA actions under the Bush administration, applauded the move.

"With its announcement today, the EPA is challenging an entire industry to err on the side of precaution and public safety and invent new ways of doing business," said Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook.

The Environmental Working Group, which for several years has investigated and heavily criticized DuPont's handling of PFOA, applauded the company as well, saying its pledge shows it is "forward-looking, environmentally sensitive [and] setting the pace for a cleaner chemical industry."

Last month, the EPA fined DuPont $16.5 million for allegedly hiding data on the toxicity and health effects of PFOA for more than 20 years and contaminating the drinking water supply in the Ohio River Valley, next to a DuPont plant in West Virginia. It was the largest administrative fine in the history of the EPA.

The seven other companies asked to comply are 3M/Dyneon; Arkema Inc.; AGC Chemicals/Asahi Glass; Ciba Specialty Chemicals; Clariant Corp.; Daikin and Solvay Solexis. They were told to respond by March 1.

Under a 30-year-old federal law that governs toxic substances, the EPA cannot ban chemicals outright without a years-long rule-making process and protracted legal fights, so the agency is seeking voluntary compliance.

The companies are being called upon to reduce PFOA released into the environment and the PFOA content in their products by 95% by 2010, from amounts found in 2000. They also are being asked to eliminate all sources of public exposure no later than 2015 — not just in the United States but at all their global operations.

The agreement "will, if properly implemented, dramatically reduce, and eventually eliminate" PFOA in the environment, Cook said.

Environmentalists said they would continue to urge a ban on PFOA as well as other chemicals that build up in the environment. "No one should confuse the agreement announced today with a ban. It is not a ban," Cook said.

It would, however, be the largest voluntary phaseout in EPA history, affecting a line of products worth billions of dollars a year.

Alastair Iles, a chemical policy expert working with UC Berkeley professors, called the effort "definitely unprecedented. It is the first time that I know of EPA actually calling for a reduction of a specific chemical used in products."

DuPont Vice President Susan Stalnecker said her company had already been "aggressively reducing" PFOA emissions into the environment. "Having achieved a 94% reduction in global manufacturing emissions by year-end 2005, we are well on our way to meet the goals and objectives established by the EPA stewardship program," she said.

The chemical for decades has been considered essential in making nonstick and stain-resistant products. In addition to Teflon cookware, it is used by the aerospace, transportation, textile and electronics industries for such products as wiring and fabrics.

George W. Bush's EPA is calling for the end of pollutant? Miracles do happen, I guess.

The Bad Actor

Dead to the World

By FELIX G. ROHATYN
Published: January 26, 2006

DURING my four years as the American ambassador to France, I discovered that no single issue was viewed with as much hostility as our support for the death penalty. Outlawed by every member of the European Union, the death penalty was, and is, viewed in Europe as a throwback to the Middle Ages. When we require European support on security issues — Iran's nuclear program; the war in Iraq; North Korea's bomb; relations with China and Russia; the Middle East peace process — our job is made more difficult by the intensity of popular opposition in Europe to our policy.

Several years ago, Justice Anthony Kennedy spoke to the senior staff of our embassy in Paris on this issue to help them explain our position to a very hostile French audience. I was agreeably surprised when he indicated his belief that sooner or later, we would have to take into account the views of Europeans in determining what constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment."

Last March, the Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 decision, abolished capital punishment for juvenile offenders, concluding that the death penalty for minors is indeed cruel and unusual punishment. "Our determination," Justice Kennedy wrote in the majority decision, "finds confirmation in the stark reality that the United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty."

While, unsurprisingly, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented, it is notable that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor agreed with Justice Kennedy that international trends affect the meaning of "cruel and unusual punishment." Justices Scalia and Thomas, on the other hand, took the majority to task for taking "guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislators."

This attitude, reflecting a narrow and parochial view of the issue, is also found in Judge Samuel Alito's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on his nomination to the Supreme Court: "I don't think it appropriate or useful to look to foreign law in interpreting the provisions of our Constitution. I think the framers would be stunned by the idea that the Bill of Rights is to be interpreted by taking a poll of countries of the world."

To the contrary, globalization has made it not only "appropriate or useful" but vital to look at foreign laws. It is in our interest to be aware of their impact whether they concern antitrust, food safety or the death penalty. Contempt for the laws of our allies is a major factor in our increasing isolation in the world; our present posture in Iraq reflects that reality. That is why is it is deeply troubling that the next member of the Supreme Court will most likely share Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas's point of view.

The Supreme Court is our most respected institution. Whether it is conservative or liberal is important; but it is even more important that it be enlightened. It must show understanding, if not respect, for other peoples' beliefs and laws, and occasionally be willing to support reasonable changes. Our Constitution, itself, was an extension of Enlightenment ideas that were incubated on the Continent. It certainly did not spring up in a vacuum, but was affected by strains of political thinking in Europe.

I think it is significant that the US is the only industrialized, western nation with the death penalty. George W. Bush seems to delight in it. The US's determination to think that its moral authority is so sublime that it can be imposed elsewhere is viewed by the rest of the world as alarming. We politically seem to love fetuses but impose state sponsored murder on adults without the ding, ding, ding which signals "cognitive dissonance."

Standing Up For What?

Senators in Need of a Spine

Published: January 26, 2006

Judge Samuel Alito Jr., whose entire history suggests that he holds extreme views about the expansive powers of the presidency and the limited role of Congress, will almost certainly be a Supreme Court justice soon. His elevation will come courtesy of a president whose grandiose vision of his own powers threatens to undermine the nation's basic philosophy of government — and a Senate that seems eager to cooperate by rolling over and playing dead.

It is hard to imagine a moment when it would be more appropriate for senators to fight for a principle. Even a losing battle would draw the public's attention to the import of this nomination.

At the Judiciary Committee hearings, the judge followed the well-worn path to confirmation, which has the nominee offer up only the most boring statements and unarguable truisms: the president is not above the law; diversity in college student bodies is a good thing. But in what he has said in the past, and what he refused to say in the hearings, Judge Alito raised warning flags that, in the current political context, cannot simply be shrugged away with a promise to fight again another day.

The Alito nomination has been discussed largely in the context of his opposition to abortion rights, and if the hearings provided any serious insight at all into the nominee's intentions, it was that he has never changed his early convictions on that point. The judge — who long maintained that Roe v. Wade should be overturned — ignored all the efforts by the Judiciary Committee's chairman, Arlen Specter, to get him to provide some cover for pro-choice senators who wanted to support the nomination. As it stands, it is indefensible for Mr. Specter or any other senator who has promised constituents to protect a woman's right to an abortion to turn around and hand Judge Alito a potent vote to undermine or even end it.

But portraying the Alito nomination as just another volley in the culture wars vastly underestimates its significance. The judge's record strongly suggests that he is an eager lieutenant in the ranks of the conservative theorists who ignore our system of checks and balances, elevating the presidency over everything else. He has expressed little enthusiasm for restrictions on presidential power and has espoused the peculiar argument that a president's intent in signing a bill is just as important as the intent of Congress in writing it. This would be worrisome at any time, but it takes on far more significance now, when the Bush administration seems determined to use the cover of the "war on terror" and presidential privilege to ignore every restraint, from the Constitution to Congressional demands for information.

There was nothing that Judge Alito said in his hearings that gave any comfort to those of us who wonder whether the new Roberts court will follow precedent and continue to affirm, for instance, that a man the president labels an "unlawful enemy combatant" has the basic right to challenge the government's ability to hold him in detention forever without explanation. His much-quoted statement that the president is not above the law is meaningless unless he also believes that the law requires the chief executive to defer to Congress and the courts.

Judge Alito's refusal to even pretend to sound like a moderate was telling because it would have cost him so little. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who was far more skillful at appearing mainstream at the hearings, has already given indications that whatever he said about the limits of executive power when he was questioned by the Senate has little practical impact on how he will rule now that he has a lifetime appointment.

Senate Democrats, who presented a united front against the nomination of Judge Alito in the Judiciary Committee, seem unwilling to risk the public criticism that might come with a filibuster — particularly since there is very little chance it would work. Judge Alito's supporters would almost certainly be able to muster the 60 senators necessary to put the nomination to a final vote.

A filibuster is a radical tool. It's easy to see why Democrats are frightened of it. But from our perspective, there are some things far more frightening. One of them is Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.

How much worse do things have to get before the opposition party starts acting like, well, the opposition? We know a lot about this guy and he is plenty scary. Dems, when are you going to start acting like you are a part of the government, even in the minority you are part of it?

The republic is at risk and the Dems don't think that's an "extraordinary" circumstance? Exactly when is it that y'all think you are going to stand up and act like humans?

An Alternative Superbowl Party

I remember the first time I had mussels. I was at an Italian antipasto bar in Quincy Market at Boston's Faneuil Hall with my grad school room mate in 1979. She was always encouraging me to try new foods (I was a pretty provincial kid) and she'd fallen hard for the Italian food of Boston. I don't think I'd ever seen a mussel before and wasn't entirely sure how to eat them. I felt awkward. She was of Ukrainian extraction with a family who lived all over the globe and was used to eating her way around the world. I can't say that this long ago cold table bar convinced me (I was still learning about fresh seafood, unfamiliar food to a kid raised in the upper midwest in the '60's and '70s) and I didn't really start exploring seafood seriously until I arrived here near the Chesapeake bay. I have become a devoted fan of mussels in the last ten years, the French and Italian versions both have restaurants which serve excellent interpretations in my neighborhood. But my favorite way to eat them (and cook them) is in the Thai style known as hoi ob, a classic recipe from Thailand's ocean coast. And there are a pair of restaurants in my neighborhood which both make delicious iterations of this dish.

However, this is not hard to make. While you are searching for the ultimate red and green curry recipes for a Thai dinner party, you can start a meal with these and I sincerely doubt that your guests will remember anything else. Frankly, if you can find plump Prince Edward Island mussels, my favorite, you don't really need much more than a bowl of these, a dish of Thai jasmine rice, a little dish of Thai cucumber salad and a glass of wine. This serves 6 as a first course. One pound will serve you, professional single, as dinner. And it will take you maybe 20 minutes to put together. Fresh mussels are now pretty easy to find anywhere in a grocery store of any size these days and fish markets will definitely have them. I haven't needed to find them online, but almost anything you want can be found online these days with a little Google digging and shipped to you on ice overnight if you are in East Decorah, Iowa, and don't have access to city markets.

HOI OB

5 pounds mussels (preferably cultivated)
3 limes
a 1 3 1/2-ounce can unsweetened coconut milk
1/3 cup dry white wine
1 1/2 tablespoons Thai red curry paste
1 1/2 tablespoons minced garlic
1 tablespoon Asian fish sauce
1 tablespoon sugar
2 cups fresh cilantro sprigs

Accompaniment: lime wedges

Scrub mussels well and remove beards. Squeeze enough juice from limes to measure 1/3 cup. In an 8-quart kettle boil lime juice, coconut milk, wine, curry paste, garlic, fish sauce, and sugar over high heat, stirring, 2 minutes. Add mussels, tossing to combine. Cook mussels, covered, stirring occasionally, until opened, about 5 to 8 minutes. (Discard any unopened mussels.) Chop cilantro and toss with mussels.

Serve mussels with lime wedges.

This smells so good. And they will wonder about all those strange food names you gave out when you talked about your Superbowl party. Of course, if you aren't having a Superbowl party, you could just have a Thai tapas party. It's a thought.

BTW, this is one of those dishes that will cause you to hug yourself and wonder if you haven't been transported to heaven.

If you are serving this as dinner for one for you, or for a tableful of friends, you will need to provide bowls for the discarded shells. If you always wanted to know what those little seafood thingie forks were for, this would be it. Thais also set up this dish with those little ceramic soup spoons for slurping the cooking broth, and a plate of toast points to soak some of it up wouldn't be out of place.

For Superbowel parties, this has some possibilities if your crowd is interested in something more than nachos. The Thai repertoire has a range of finger foods as vast as Spanish tapas. You could serve the mussels in big bowls, along with satay skewers, larb and Nam Tok, a spicy and refreshing cold beef salad of slices of cold flank served on lettuce to be rolled up. Yum.

This will give you extra points around the water cooler on the day after the Superbowl and it might (that's a BIG might) give you some leftovers to take to work. Colleagues will wonder why your cubicle
smells so good. If you are lucky enough to have leftovers. Don't count on it.

Serve to Great Acclaim

This is a spectacular first course to the tournedous recipe posted below. The presentation is impressive and is a real crowd pleaser. This is a Gourmet magazine recipe from more than a dozen years ago and I've been acclaimed Chef by friends when I make it. Note that it is time and utensil intensive, but is actually better if you make the components the day before you serve it. If you have one of those stick blenders, you can use it to puree the soups and I don't find that the pepper soup really needs straining. If you are going to use a blender or food processor, remember that you will need to clean it between uses if you only have one work bowl or pitcher. Using this as a first course with the tournedos below allows you to do the heavy lifting a day or two before you do the finish cooking for the main plate which takes very little time and effort.

Cook's note: make a double batch of the Serrano Cream. You are going to want to eat this on everything.

ROASTED YELLOW PEPPER SOUP AND ROASTED TOMATO SOUP WITH SERRANO CREAM

For the pepper soup:
3 tablespoons finely chopped shallot
1/2 teaspoon dried thyme, crumbled
1 tablespoon unsalted butter
6 yellow bell peppers, roasted (procedure follows) and chopped coarse (about 6 cups)
1 1/2 cups low-salt chicken broth plus additional to thin the soup
1/4 cup heavy cream
fresh lemon juice to taste

For the tomato soup:
3 pounds plum tomatoes, quartered lengthwise
3 unpeeled large garlic cloves
3 tablespoons finely chopped shallot
1/2 teaspoon dried oregano, crumbled
1 tablespoon unsalted butter
1 1/2 cups low-salt chicken broth plus additional to thin the soup
1/4 cup heavy cream
fresh lemon juice to taste

For the serrano cream:
3 fresh serrano chilies or jalapeños, seeded and chopped fine (wear rubber gloves)
1 large garlic clove, minced and mashed to a paste with 1/2 teaspoon salt
1/2 cup crème fraîche or sour cream

To roast peppers:
Using a long-handled fork char the peppers over an open flame, turning them, for 2 to 3 minutes, or until the skins are blackened. (Or broil the peppers on the rack of a broiler pan under a preheated broiler about 2 inches from the heat, turning them every 5 minutes, for 15 to 25 minutes, or until the skins are blistered and charred.) Transfer the peppers to a bowl and let them steam, covered, until they are cool enough to handle. Keeping the peppers whole, peel them starting at the blossom end, cut off the tops, and discard the seeds and ribs. (Wear rubber gloves when handling chilies.)

Make the pepper soup:
In a heavy saucepan cook the shallot, the thyme, and salt and pepper to taste in the butter over moderately low heat, stirring, until the shallot is soft, add the bell peppers and 1 1/2 cups of the broth, and simmer the mixture, covered, for 12 to 15 minutes, or until the peppers are very soft. In a blender purée the soup in batches until it is very smooth, forcing it as it is puréed through a fine sieve set over the pan, cleaned, and whisk in the cream, enough of the additional broth to reach the desired consistency, the lemon juice, and salt and pepper to taste. The soup may be made 1 day in advance, kept covered and chilled, and reheated.

Make the tomato soup:
Spread the tomatoes, skin side down, in one layer in 2 foil-lined jelly-roll pans, add the garlic to 1 of the pans, and bake the tomatoes and the garlic in a preheated 350°F. oven for 45 minutes to 1 hour, or until the tomatoes are very soft and their skin is dark brown. Let the tomatoes and the garlic cool in the pans on racks. In a heavy saucepan cook the shallot, the orégano, salt and pepper to taste in the butter over moderately low heat, stirring, until the shallot is soft, add the tomatoes, the garlic (skins discarded), and 1 1/2 cups of the broth, and simmer the mixture, covered, for 15 minutes. In a blender purée the soup in batches until it is very smooth, forcing it as it is puréed through a fine sieve set over the pan, cleaned, and whisk in the cream, the additional broth if necessary (both soups should have the same consistency), the lemon juice, and salt and pepper to taste. The soup may be made 1 day in advance, kept covered and chilled, and reheated.

Make the serrano cream:
In a blender blend together the chilies, the garlic paste, and the créme fraîche until the mixture is combined well. (Be careful not to overblend the mixture or the cream may curdle.) Force the mixture through a fine sieve set over a small bowl. The serrano cream may be made 1 day in advance, kept covered and chilled, and brought to room temperature before serving.

To serve the soup:
For each serving ladle 1/2 cup of each soup into 2 glass measuring cups, pour the soups simultaneously into a shallow soup bowl from opposite sides of the bowl, and drizzle some of the serrano cream over each serving.

Makes about 3 cups of each soup, serving 6.

We Feed Our Readers

This the classic preparation of Tournedos of Beef. The onion and potato gratin recipe which follows is also a classic side dish and needs to be started before you turn to the tenderloins.

Tournedos of Beef in Mushroom, Mustard and Red Wine Sauce with Caramelized Onion-Potato Gratin

Croutons:
4 slices, country-style bread
Olive oil
Salt and pepper

Preheat oven to 400 degrees F. Place bread on a work surface and using a 3-inch cookie cutter, cut a round crouton from the center of each piece of bread. Brush both sides of the croutons with olive oil and season with salt and pepper, to taste. Place the croutons on a baking sheet and bake for 5 to 7 minutes or until lightly golden brown.

Tournedos and Sauce:
2 tablespoons olive oil
1 tablespoon unsalted butter
4 beef fillet steaks, about 6 ounces
Salt and coarsely ground black pepper
1 pound shiitake mushrooms, cleaned and quartered
2 shallots, finely diced
1 cup red wine
1 cup beef broth
2 tablespoons Dijon mustard
2 tablespoons cold unsalted butter

Heat olive oil and butter in a large skillet over high heat. Season the fillets with salt and press the coarsely cracked black pepper onto 1 side of each fillet. Place the fillets pepper-side down into the skillet and sear until golden brown, turn the fillets over and continue cooking for 4 to 5 minutes for medium-rare doneness. Remove the steaks to a plate. Remove all but 3 tablespoons of the fat in the pan and return to high heat. Add the mushrooms and cook until golden brown and their liquid has evaporated. Add the shallots and cook until soft. Add the red wine and reduce by half. Add the broth and cook until reduced by half. Whisk in the mustard and butter and cook for 30 seconds. Season with salt and pepper, to taste. Place each fillet on top of a crouton and spoon some of the sauce over.

Onion and Potato Gratin:
2 tablespoons olive oil
3 large Spanish onion, peeled and sliced thinly
2 cloves garlic, finely chopped
Salt and freshly ground black pepper
4 large potatoes, peeled and sliced thinly
3 tablespoons balsamic vinegar
1 1/4 cups heavy cream
1/4 cup finely chopped fresh parsley
1 cup grated Gruyere cheese

Heat oil in a large saute pan over medium heat. Add the onions and cook slowly until caramelized. Add the garlic and balsamic vinegar and cook for 2 minutes. Preheat oven to 375 degrees F. Butter a 9-inch baking pan a place a layer of potatoes on the bottom and season with salt and pepper. Spoon 1/5 of the onion mixture over the potatoes and top with 1/4 cup of the heavy cream and a tablespoon of parsley. Repeat to make 5 layers. Sprinkle the cheese over the top of the potatoes. Bake for 50 to 60 minutes, or until the potatoes are soft and the cream has been absorbed.

I'd suggest a dry Australian Shiraz with this.

What Housing Bubble?

Sales of Existing Homes Fall for 3rd Month in Row

By VIKAS BAJAJ
Published: January 25, 2006

Sales of existing homes fell for the third successive month in December, a trade group reported today, even as the housing market registered a fifth consecutive year of sales increases.

The data appear to suggest that the era of rapidly increasing sales may be coming to a close. Sales fell 5.7 percent, to an annual pace of 6.6 million homes, in December after a 1.3 percent dip in November and a 2.7 percent drop in October. It was the lowest level of sales since March 2004. The number of existing homes sold fell or was flat in all four regions of the country, while the total inventory of homes for sale dipped slightly, the National Association of Realtors reported. Median prices — half the homes sold for less, half for more — were up 10.5 percent, to $211,000, from a year earlier.

For the full year, home sales grew by 4.2 percent, to 7.07 million, setting another record in annual sales. The nation's long housing boom is almost a full decade old, with the exception of 2000, when sales fell by 0.4 percent.

"The housing boom in the United States is over," said Lynn Reaser, the chief economist for Bank of America's investment strategies group. "It, at this point, appears to be on the soft landing plane with sales slowing, some growth of inventory and sellers not receiving their full asking price."

Dammit, missed the top of the market.

Here Comes the New Crook

Brian reads the political tealeaves spot-on:

Political Animal by Brian Morton
We’re All Crooks Here

Everyone who goes into politics is crooked. You know it, I know it, everyone you talk to at parties knows it. Mark Twain called Congress America’s “only distinctly native criminal class.” We joke about it, and cartoonists poke fun at it every chance they get.

So who wants to mess with a good thing, right? Nothing like going with the flow when it comes to a truism that everyone acknowledges.

Except right now this truism is part and parcel of the Republican playbook in Washington, right when they’ve got a hold on the White House, the Congress, and are one short step away from a stranglehold on the Supreme Court.

Why are Republicans suddenly disparaging all the institutions of which they happen to be in charge? One guy who turned around to the feds and started singing like a bird, some guy named Jack Abramoff. Abramoff is starting to make dear old Richard Nixon look like the late “Clean” Gene McCarthy. He’s the headliner in the rock concert that was former House majority leader Tom DeLay’s “K Street Project.” Abramoff tied together all the money interests—the people who wanted to buy and sell legislation and members of Congress like poker chips—with the lobbyists, who then worked with those said members of Congress and the people in the White House to give away the store.

The reason why the Republicans are crowing that everyone is crooked is so that you’ll agree, put down the newspaper, and go back to hating the Steelers or watching American Idol or whatever it is they think people outside the Beltway do when they’ve written off all politicos as crooks. Nothing to see here folks, move along. If you think that both sides are equally crooked, then you don’t care, and they’ll breathe a big sigh of relief. And then they’ll go back to selling communications law to the phone and cable providers, the wilderness to logging interests, and your credit to the people at MBNA.

The phrase “Abramoff gave money to Democrats as well as Republicans” has been repeated so much in the last three weeks that I’m surprised no one has set it to music. Never mind that it’s not true—Abramoff gave money only to Republicans, George W. Bush and Robert Ehrlich among them. His clients may have given some money to Democrats, but he himself gave money to not one Democrat—not one.
....
Claiming this is a bipartisan scandal is just plain prevarication. And now the president and every member of the Republican Congress that has ever taken a dollar from this felon is interested in painting everyone as crooked, because it’s the only possible way they can come out smelling halfway decent.

Now it turns out that both Washingtonian magazine and Time magazine have seen no fewer than five pictures of Bush and Abramoff together—photos that put the lie to the McClellan tale that “the president does not know him, nor does the president recall ever meeting him.”

So Washington is full of crooks, all of them. You vote some out, and the next ones aren’t any better. And if you think that, then it’s OK not to care about Jack Abramoff. After all, what’s the matter with believing something everyone knows is true anyway, right?

Social Darwinism

Another Shot at the Safety Net

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Wednesday, January 25, 2006; 12:48 PM

President Bush's last attempt to reengineer the country's social safety net didn't go so well. No amount of presidential razzle-dazzle could persuade the public to abandon Social Security as they knew it.

But now signs are that in his State of the Union address next week, Bush will be back with some more ideas. These at least initially sound much more innocuous -- what's not to like about Health Savings Accounts? -- but on closer examination they bear many of the same hallmarks of his failed Social Security bid.

Much like private Social Security accounts, Bush's health-care proposals emerge from his radical vision of what he calls an "ownership society."

"To each his (or her) own" could be the motto of that ownership society. But what is on the one hand individual empowerment is on the other an attack on collective values that are key to a society's ability to protect its weakest and most vulnerable members.

In the case of health savings accounts, in particular, the endangered principle is that of pooling risk. Expect to hear a lot more about that not-too-sexy sounding topic in the coming weeks.

The Straussians may like Intelligent Design, but at heart they social Darwinians.
The only individuals this will empower are the ones who already have power.

Morning Meeting Open Thread

I'm in a meeting until lunchtime EDT. What's on your plate today? Is there anything bugging you that you'd like to rant about (with a link, if you wish)? Has something wonderful happened that you'd like to crow about? This is an open thread.

Same Old

There is both more and less in this story than meets the eye. This is lazy reporting.

Sexual Harassment Routine, College Students in Poll Say
Many Cases Unreported, Survey Finds

By Susan Kinzie
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 25, 2006; Page A02

Sexual harassment is common on campus, according to a national online survey by the American Association of University Women released yesterday, with 62 percent of college students saying they had received a comment or gesture they found inappropriate.

Most didn't report incidents to campus employees or other officials.

One student involved with the survey said she sees harassment every day at school, including catcalls and people brushing up against her in hallways. It's a problem everywhere, said another student, Haley Pollack of Indiana University, but especially at college. "Campuses are just highly concentrated with not only hormones but everything else that comes with young adults." She said she was propositioned by a graduate assistant when getting extra help after a math class.

Greta Franklin, 27, of the University of Maryland said her friends haven't been troubled much by harassment. She thinks students are more likely to laugh things off. "I think a lot of people just think, 'What's the big deal?' "

Many students seemed confused about how to tell when a line had been crossed -- or where the lines should be.

Sexual harassment can be hard to view objectively and hard to measure, said Frank Vinik, an attorney and senior risk analyst for United Educators, a cooperative providing insurance to more than 1,000 schools. "I've been looking at harassment on college campuses from a legal perspective for more than a decade," he said, "and that [62 percent] is one of the highest numbers I've ever heard."

That could be because the survey defined harassment broadly or because the results are skewed by the survey's respondents, he said. Or the results could be a surprising new finding.

Read the whole thing. Yes, the definition of harassment used in the survey is 'way overbroad and the reporting is incredibly superficial, but, in another way, this tells me something about how little things have changed since I was, first, an undergrad and, second, a young faculty member.

As an undergrad, I was a reporter for the university paper, a job I badly needed. The editor of my section changed when the guy who hired me graduated. The new guy informed me immediately that, if I wanted assignments (I was paid by the article) I had to sleep with him. Needless to say, I was shortly job-hunting again.

A few years later, I was in my first year of university teaching. The school had just promulgated its first sexual harassment policy, designed to cut down on predation on students by the faculty and staff. That same week, I was gathering up my notes and texts after teaching my 8 AM class when one of my freshmen walked up to the lectern. I assumed he had a question or needed some help. Wrong. In the empty classroom, he pinned me to the wall and demanded to know when I was going to go out with him. He had a good six inches and 80 pounds more than I. I was so stunned I couldn't even scream, not that it would have done me much good in the deserted basement classroom suite where I was teaching. There was no campus policy for students harassing teachers.

When you read stories like this one, think outside of the box. Since there is no reporting on the survey itself or the methodology used to analyse the data, only a breezy, reporter's eye view of the conclusions, this story has no business on page 2 of the WaPo. In fact, if the story can't be reported properly, it should have been spiked until someone competent could be assigned to report it.

All the news that's fit

Google bows to China pressure

Verne Kopytoff, Chronicle Staff Writer
January 25, 2006

Bowing to Chinese laws, Google Inc. has agreed to censor search results about topics forbidden by the government there, eliciting scathing criticism from civil rights advocates.

The popular search engine will block results that include such terms as "free Tibet," "democracy" and "Falun Gong" as part of a Chinese Web site the company is introducing today.

The Mountain View company's decision illustrates some of the compromises companies make to do business in the world's most populous nation. China's government puts tight controls on what citizens can read and filters the Web to block access to any material it deems harmful.

In the past, Chinese residents have had to access Google through the company's U.S. Web site, which includes a Chinese version. However, because of filtering by the Chinese government, the site was often inaccessible or the results it returned led nowhere.

By agreeing to exclude certain search results from the new site, Google is departing from its self-described mission to organize all of the world's information. For many, this implied that the company would oppose censorship. In a statement, Andrew McLaughlin, the company's senior policy counsel, acknowledged the shortcoming but added that the benefit to China's users and Google's business would offset it.

I can't say that I'm surprised by this, but I have to wonder how much longer China can get away with censoring all of this material, especially as they increase their economic connections with the rest of the world.

Stranger than Fiction

Expect Alito to support an aggressive presidency

Floyd J. McKay / guest columnist

If the Samuel Alito confirmation hearings did nothing more, they alerted Americans to something called the "unitary executive."

That's important, and behind all the rhetoric dealing with abortion, affirmative action and so forth, it is the aggressive advancement of executive power by the Bush administration that really worries most Democrats and a few Republicans in Congress.

It is part and parcel of the steady drumbeat of the national-security state, sacrificing both individual liberties and separation of powers to an endless "war" that allows an absolutist president to govern by secrecy and fear.

The unitary executive theory contends that the president, as chief executive, has sweeping powers to interpret or even ignore laws he disagrees with, particularly in wartime, and it severely limits Congress and even independent regulatory agencies.

To advance the unitary executive during the Reagan administration, a corps of conservative lawyers — Alito was one — utilized "signing statements" in which the president, when signing a bill passed by Congress, declares that there are parts of the law that he basically intends to ignore. The signing statement declares congressional action unconstitutional or unduly intruding on presidential power and instructs the administration to ignore that law or section of law.

Couched in a lot of complex legalese, the signing statement amounts to a line-item veto, something not authorized by law but effectively accomplished by these statements.

In Bush's case, the excuse for this unilateral action has primarily been national security and the war on terror. As in his political speeches, Bush has excused nearly any action on "wartime president" grounds. The latest example is the anti-torture law passed by Congress late last year. After declaring that he and Sen. John McCain are now in agreement against torture, Bush wrote a signing statement that boils down to a commitment to ignore the law if and when he chooses.

The Supreme Court could reverse his decisions, of course, but while the lengthy process of appeals runs its course, the administration obeys the signing statements rather than the laws passed by Congress. Bush serves as legislator and executive, effectively altering the balance of power in Washington.

This is serious stuff, and Americans need to declare time out from their iPods and remote controls to listen to the warnings. Not since Richard Nixon, who also used secrecy and wiretaps, have we seen such a raw grab for power.

Aggressive promotion of the unitary executive through signing statements was rare before Ronald Reagan, who made considerable use of the technique. George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton used it as well, but disagreements were generally worked out with Congress, and didn't become a major issue.

But George W. Bush has made it a cornerstone of his increasingly aggressive presidency. In his first term, Bush issued 108 signing statements, with 505 constitutional objections, according to Portland State University professor Phillip J. Cooper, an authority on the practice. Bush not only uses it a lot, he uses it in unprecedented depth. When signing the Homeland Security Act in 2002, Bush wrote four-plus pages of statements exempting his administration from the law.

That explains how Bush is the only modern president to avoid a veto in his first term. He subverts Congress with a signing statement that is not subject to congressional override, then administers the law as he darn well pleases.

Put this together with Alito's stand on Roe and I suggest that you review Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale."

The Standard

From today's Madison (WI) Capital Times ed page:

Editorial: Alito fails the Feingold test
A Cap Times editorial

Not to be lost in the reporting on Tuesday's Senate Judiciary Committee vote to endorse the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to serve on the Supreme Court is the fact that Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., has voted for the first time in his Senate career against a Supreme Court nominee.

More than any other vote by a member of the committee which split 10-8 along partisan lines, with all Republicans backing Alito and all Democrats opposing his nomination Feingold's vote stands out. While the seven other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee had all voted against one or more Republican nominees for the high court, Feingold had, until Tuesday, voted to confirm every Supreme Court nominee, Republican or Democrat, to come before the panel.

This break in pattern by the man who is arguably the Senate's most adventurous thinker and independent player ought to serve as a basis for rethinking strategies with regard to blocking the nomination up to and including the prospect of a filibuster.

Simply put, if Alito is unacceptable to Feingold, then he should be unacceptable to a good many other senators including moderate Republicans with whom Feingold has worked closely on campaign finance reform and a host of other issues over the years, such as Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.

Why give this special status to Feingold? Because, since his arrival in the Senate in 1993, he has distinguished himself by his consistent if often controversial approach to presidential nominations.

Feingold has a record of supporting disputed Republican picks for top posts including former Attorney General John Ashcroft and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts because of his belief that presidents should be afforded broad leeway when it comes to making appointments. A progressive who cast the sole Senate vote against the Patriot Act in 2001, Feingold has long argued that Democrats must support the qualified conservative nominees of Republican presidents if they expect Republicans to support the qualified liberal nominees of Democratic presidents.

Feingold's standard has often infuriated liberal interest groups, along with many of his fellow Democrats, who have argued that he has given too much slack to right-wing Republicans who will never repay the favor. Why, the common question goes, does a progressive Democrat give conservative Republicans a blank check?

But Feingold has always rejected the "blank check" analogy. The senator has voted against a number of federal appeals court nominees in recent years, and he has consistently made it clear that he would oppose a Supreme Court nominee in an instance where a president selected someone who was too extreme, too biased or too ethically challenged.

The fact that Alito is the first high court nominee to fail to meet the Feingold standard is significant. And, as the senator explained to the committee Tuesday, it was not a close call.

This isn't a partisan vote on Feingold's part. It is a principled one and should be troubling to his fellow senators.

Job Description

Photos of Bush With Abramoff Are Withheld
White House Calls Pictures Irrelevant to Ethics Inquiry

By Jim VandeHei and Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, January 24, 2006; Page A04

Several White House officials have been briefed about pictures of President Bush and Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff taken since 2001 but will not release them on grounds that they are not relevant to the ongoing money-for-favors investigation, aides said yesterday.

"Trying to say there's more to it than the president taking a picture in a photo line is just absurd," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters. Bush, he said, does not recall meeting Abramoff and did not do any favors for the disgraced lobbyist.

Abramoff, who recently pleaded guilty in the growing bribery and corruption scandal, was with Bush about a dozen times when pictures were taken by the official White House photographer or other participants over the past five years, according to a source familiar with Abramoff's legal situation. Abramoff, this source said, displayed at least five of them on his office desk and has told people the president talked about his children's names as well as personal details about their schooling during one encounter.

The source said Abramoff has more than half a dozen photos with Bush, including one of the two men shaking hands, but has no intention of releasing them. The existence of the Bush-Abramoff photos was first reported by Washingtonian magazine, which reviewed five photos but was not permitted to publish them.

No evidence has emerged thus far suggesting Bush had a close relationship with Abramoff or that he or any of his top White House aides did anything to improperly assist his clients, according to people familiar with the investigation. Several lower-level administration officials, however, have been caught up in the scandal, including the top procurement official. The federal probe is expected to zero in on Abramoff's dealing with the Interior Department as it unfolds in coming months.

White House Declines to Provide Storm Papers

By ERIC LIPTON
Published: January 25, 2006

WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 - The Bush administration, citing the confidentiality of executive branch communications, said Tuesday that it did not plan to turn over certain documents about Hurricane Katrina or make senior White House officials available for sworn testimony before two Congressional committees investigating the storm response.

The White House this week also formally notified Representative Richard H. Baker, Republican of Louisiana, that it would not support his legislation creating a federally financed reconstruction program for the state that would bail out homeowners and mortgage lenders. Many Louisiana officials consider the bill crucial to recovery, but administration officials said the state would have to use community development money appropriated by Congress.

The White House's stance on storm-related documents, along with slow or incomplete responses by other agencies, threatens to undermine efforts to identify what went wrong, Democrats on the committees said Tuesday.

"There has been a near total lack of cooperation that has made it impossible, in my opinion, for us to do the thorough investigation that we have a responsibility to do," Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, said at Tuesday's hearing of the Senate committee investigating the response. His spokeswoman said he would ask for a subpoena for documents and testimony if the White House did not comply.

In response to questions later from a reporter, the deputy White House spokesman, Trent Duffy, said the administration had declined requests to provide testimony by Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff; Mr. Card's deputy, Joe Hagin; Frances Fragos Townsend, the domestic security adviser; and her deputy, Ken Rapuano.

Mr. Duffy said the administration had also declined to provide storm-related e-mail correspondence and other communications involving White House staff members. Mr. Rapuano has given briefings to the committees, but the sessions were closed to the public and were not considered formal testimony.

"The White House and the administration are cooperating with both the House and Senate," Mr. Duffy said. "But we have also maintained the president's ability to get advice and have conversations with his top advisers that remain confidential."

Yet even Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, objected when administration officials who were not part of the president's staff said they could not testify about communications with the White House.

"I completely disagree with that practice," Ms. Collins, chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said in an interview Tuesday.

According to Mr. Lieberman, Michael D. Brown, the former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, cited such a restriction on Monday, as agency lawyers had advised him not to say whether he had spoken to President Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney or to comment on the substance of any conversations with any other high-level White House officials.

Nevertheless, both Ms. Collins and Representative Thomas M. Davis III, a Virginia Republican who is leading the House inquiry, said that despite some frustration with the administration's response, they remained confident that the investigations would produce meaningful results.

Other members of the committees said the executive branch communications were essential because it had become apparent that one of the most significant failures was the apparent lack of complete engagement by the White House and the federal government in the days immediately before and after the storm.

Audit Describes Misuse of Funds in Iraq Projects

By JAMES GLANZ
Published: January 25, 2006

A new audit of American financial practices in Iraq has uncovered irregularities including millions of reconstruction dollars stuffed casually into footlockers and filing cabinets, an American soldier in the Philippines who gambled away cash belonging to Iraq, and three Iraqis who plunged to their deaths in

The audit, released yesterday by the office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, expands on its previous findings of fraud, incompetence and confusion as the American occupation poured money into training and rebuilding programs in 2003 and 2004. The audit uncovers problems in an area that includes half the land mass in Iraq, with new findings in the southern and central provinces of Anbar, Karbala, Najaf, Wasit, Babil, and Qadisiya. The special inspector reports to the secretary of defense and the secretary of state.

Agents from the inspector general's office found that the living and working quarters of American occupation officials were awash in shrink-wrapped stacks of $100 bills, colloquially known as bricks.

One official kept $2 million in a bathroom safe, another more than half a million dollars in an unlocked footlocker. One contractor received more than $100,000 to completely refurbish an Olympic pool but only polished the pumps; even so, local American officials certified the work as completed. More than 2,000 contracts ranging in value from a few thousand dollars to more than half a million, some $88 million in all, were examined by agents from the inspector general's office. The report says that in some cases the agents found clear indications of potential fraud and that investigations into those cases are continuing.

Some of those cases are expected to intersect with the investigations of four Americans who have been arrested on bribery, theft, weapons and conspiracy charges for what federal prosecutors say was a scheme to steer reconstruction projects to an American contractor working out of the southern city of Hilla, which served as a kind of provincial capital for a vast swath of Iraq under the Coalition Provisional Authority.

But much of the material in the latest audit is new, and the portrait it paints of abandoned rebuilding projects, nonexistent paperwork and cash routinely taken from the main vault in Hilla without even a log to keep track of the transactions is likely to raise major new questions about how the provisional authority did its business and accounted for huge expenditures of Iraqi and American money.

"What's sad about it is that, considering the destruction in the country, with looting and so on, we needed every dollar for reconstruction," said Wayne White, a former State Department official whose responsibilities included Iraq from 2003 to 2005, and who is now at the Middle East Institute, a research organization.

But they oftentimes ask me -- they say, what's it like being the president of the United States?

And my answer to them is first, it's a huge honor. But, secondly, if I had to give you a job description, it would be a decision-maker. I make a lot of decisions.

I make some that you see that obviously affect people's lives, not only here but around the world. I make a lot of small ones you never see but have got consequence.

Decision-maker is the job description. First of all, when you make decisions, you've got to stand on principles. If you are going to make decisions, you've got to know what you believe.

Weekday Dinner

This is both easy and good enough to serve guests for a casual dinner, or it makes a popular buffet/potluck dish. It's one of those "base" recipes that you can mess around with a lot and substitute other shellfish for the shrimp, or chicken or turkey. It's also easy to halve. As written (or pixeled, or whatever it is we do here) it will serve 6. The leftovers are better the next day, as with so many savory dishes, so don't hesitate to make extra.

BAKED ORZO WITH SHRIMP, TOMATO SAUCE, AND FETA

1 medium onion, finely chopped
5 garlic cloves, minced
2 tablespoons minced fresh basil
1/2 teaspoon dried hot red pepper flakes
2 tablespoons olive oil
1/2 cup dry white wine
1 (28- to 32-oz) can crushed tomatoes
1 teaspoon salt
1 1/2 lb large shrimp (about 36), shelled and deveined
1 lb orzo (rice-shaped pasta)
1/2 cup Kalamata or other brine-cured black olives, pitted and chopped (not canned black olive, these need to be real Kalamata olives)
1 lb feta, patted dry and finely crumbled (3 cups)

Preheat oven to 425°F.

Cook onion, garlic, basil, and red pepper flakes in 1 tablespoon oil in a 4-quart heavy pot over moderately high heat, stirring, until onion is softened, about 3 minutes. Add wine and boil until reduced by half, about 3 minutes. Stir in tomatoes and salt, then reduce heat and simmer briskly, stirring frequently, until slightly thickened, about 8 minutes.

While sauce is cooking, cook orzo in a 6-quart pot of boiling salted water until al dente. Reserve 1/2 cup cooking water, then drain orzo in a sieve. Return orzo to pot and toss with remaining tablespoon oil. Stir in sauce with shrimp and reserved cooking water, then add olives and salt and pepper to taste.

Spoon half of pasta into an oiled 13- by 9- by 2-inch glass baking dish, then sprinkle with half of feta. Top with remaining pasta and feta, then bake in middle of oven, uncovered, until cheese is slightly melted and pasta is heated through, 10 to 15 minutes.

Serve this with a salad of bibb lettuce, granny smith apple sliced very thin, a very simple balsamic vinaigrette and topped with quartered hard boiled eggs. Salt and pepper to taste. A crusty loaf of olive bread with herbed olive oil for dipping on the side, and you have a quick and easy meal for company. A Napa chardonnay will stand up to this.

Comfort Food

This is a Mario Batali recipe that I've never felt the need to tinker with. It's both simple and rich, comfort food for the winter. In the summer time prepare it alla Brodo. Serves 4 as a main course, 6 as a first plate. The sage butter sauce is what makes it.

Zucchini Panzotti with Cheese: Panzotti di Zucchini con Cacio

1 small zucchini
3 tablespoons extra-virgin olive oil
1/2 medium red onion, finely chopped
3 cloves garlic, peeled and thinly sliced
1 bunch fresh oregano, leaves removed
1 egg
1/2 cup ricotta
1/2 cup freshly grated pecorino
1/2 teaspoon freshly grated nutmeg
1 bunch Italian parsley, finely chopped to yield 1/4 cup
Salt and freshly ground black pepper, to taste
1 recipe basic pasta dough, recipe follows
4 tablespoons butter
8 sage leaves
1/4 pound cacio di Roma (or other semisoft sheep's milk cheese)

Rinse and dry the zucchini and trim both ends. Slice into 1/16-inch rounds and set aside.

In a 12 to 14-inch saute pan, heat the olive oil until smoking. Add the onion and garlic and cook over medium heat until softened and lightly browned, about 8 to 10 minutes. Add the zucchini and oregano leaves and cook until very soft, about 3 to 4 minutes. Remove from heat and allow to cool.

In a mixing bowl, stir together the cooked zucchini mixture, the egg, ricotta, pecorino, nutmeg and parsley until well mixed and season lightly with salt and pepper. Roll out pasta into sheets on the second thinnest setting and cut into 3-inch rounds with a water glass or pasta cutter. Place 1/2-tablespoon zucchini mixture into each and fold into a half moon. Continue until all the pasta is used.

Bring 6 quarts of water to a boil and add 2 tablespoons salt. Drop the panzotti into the water and cook until the pasta is tender, about 3 to 4 minutes.

Meanwhile, melt the butter in a 12 to 14-inch saute pan and add the sage leaves. Drain the pasta in a colander and pour into the butter mixture. Toss to coat well and pour into a heated pasta dish. Shave cacio over the pasta, using a vegetable peeler, and serve.

Basic Pasta Dough:
3 1/2 to 4 cups all-purpose flour
4 extra-large eggs
1/2 teaspoon extra-virgin olive oil

Mound 3 1/2 cups of the flour in the center of a large wooden cutting board. Make a well in the middle of the flour and add the eggs and the olive oil. Using a fork, beat together the eggs and oil and begin to incorporate the flour, starting with the inner rim of the well.

As you expand the well, keep pushing the flour up from the base of the mound to retain the well shape. The dough will come together when half of the flour is incorporated.

Start kneading the dough with both hands, using the palms of your hands. Once you have a cohesive mass, remove the dough from the board and scrape up and discard any leftover bits. Lightly reflour the board and continue kneading for 6 more minutes. The dough should be elastic and a little sticky. Wrap the dough in plastic and allow to rest for 30 minutes at room temperature. Roll or shape as desired.

Reason to Buy a New Gadget

I'm burned out on Alito hearings and the drone of senatorial voices. It's time for a change of pace. I saw this on Emeril last night and can't wait to make it, and I'm not a big salmon lover. I've got some shopping to do this weekend, and I'm going to call around to see where I can find one of these smokers. I love the idea of being able to use it indoors during the winter when the grill is out of reach. Anybody have recommendations? While I'm at it, I'm shopping for a DVD player. Your thoughts are welcome.

Smoked Salmon, Crispy Bacon, and Maytag Blue Cheese Salad

5 slices bacon, diced
1 egg
1 teaspoon Dijon mustard
1 teaspoon white vinegar
1 teaspoon chopped garlic
1 1/2 cups olive oil
6 ounces blue cheese (recommended: Maytag Blue)
1/2 cup buttermilk
1/4 teaspoon kosher salt
1/4 teaspoon freshly ground black pepper
Dash hot pepper sauce (recommended: Tabasco)
12 ounces fresh spinach, washed and patted dry
2/3 cup thinly sliced red onion
1 pound House-Smoked Salmon, recipe follows
4 hard-boiled eggs, peeled, quartered, and lightly seasoned with salt

Place the bacon in a medium skillet over medium heat. Cook until brown and crispy, about 8 minutes. Remove the bacon from the pan, drain on paper towels, and reserve.

In a food processor, fitted with a metal blade, combine the egg, mustard, vinegar, and garlic. Puree until smooth. With the machine running, slowly add the olive oil until all the oil is incorporated and the mixture is thick. With the machine running add 4 ounces of the blue cheese and the buttermilk. Season the dressing with salt, pepper, and pepper sauce.

In a mixing bowl, toss the spinach and red onions with as much dressing, as desired. Season the salad with salt and pepper. Mound the greens in the center of each plate. Crumble the salmon over the greens. Sprinkle each salad with the reserved crispy bacon, and remaining blue cheese. Garnish with the quartered eggs and serve immediately.

Home-Smoked Salmon:
1 1/2 teaspoons kosher salt
3/4 teaspoons paprika
1/4 teaspoon granulated garlic powder
1/2 teaspoon granulated onion powder
1/4 teaspoon ground black pepper
1/8 teaspoon cayenne pepper
1 pound skin-on salmon fillet

In a small bowl combine the salt, paprika, garlic powder, onion powder, black pepper, and cayenne. Season the salmon on all sides with the spice mixture. Wrap the entire seasoned fillet with plastic wrap and refrigerate for 2 hours or up to 8 hours.

Prepare a stovetop smoker according to the manufacturer's directions.

Unwrap the salmon and place skin side down on the rack in the smoker. Place the smoker over medium heat (or as directed by the manufacturer), cover, and cook until the salmon is firm and flakes easily, 20 to 30 minutes. Remove the salmon from the smoker and cool.

Yield: 1 pound smoked salmon

Fast and Loose

Editor and Publisher has the transcript of this interchange between Knight Ridder's security reporter Jonathan Landay and General Michael Hayden, head of the NSA. This would be entertaining if it weren't for Hayden's job:

***

QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I'd like to stay on the same issue, and that had to do with the standard by which you use to target your wiretaps. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures. Do you use --

GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But the --

GEN. HAYDEN: That's what it says.

QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.

GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But does it not say probable --

GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says --

QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard --

GEN. HAYDEN: -- unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: The legal standard is probable cause, General. You used the terms just a few minutes ago, "We reasonably believe." And a FISA court, my understanding is, would not give you a warrant if you went before them and say "we reasonably believe"; you have to go to the FISA court, or the attorney general has to go to the FISA court and say, "we have probable cause."

And so what many people believe -- and I'd like you to respond to this -- is that what you've actually done is crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of "reasonably believe" in place of probable cause because the FISA court will not give you a warrant based on reasonable belief, you have to show probable cause. Could you respond to that, please?

GEN. HAYDEN: Sure. I didn't craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order. All right? The attorney general has averred to the lawfulness of the order.

Just to be very clear -- and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you've raised to me -- and I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to become one -- what you've raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is "reasonable." And we believe -- I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we're doing is reasonable.

***

Here's the Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "

A new Gallup poll released Monday showed that 51% of Americans said the administration was wrong to intercept conversations involving a party inside the U.S. without a warrant. In response to another question, 58% said they support the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the program.

Dan's Review

Froomkin's back and life is once again complete.

Bush Unplugged But Unrevealing

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Tuesday, January 24, 2006; 12:30 PM

How can a president of the United States talk for almost two hours, unscripted, and be so fundamentally unrevealing?

Promising his Midwestern audience insights into his worldview and decision-making process, Bush yesterday made a little news here and there, but mostly killed time with stale sound bites and folksy banter.

Just by virtue of his speaking so long, the meandering talk at Kansas State University generated zillions of column inches this morning in which reporters dutifully recorded the one genuinely new development -- his rechristening of "domestic spying" as "terrorist surveillance" -- as well as his playful digs at his wife, his hemming and hawing when asked about that gay cowboy movie, and so on.

And simply by taking a baby step outside his protective bubble and fielding unscreened questions (most, but not all of them, softballs) from a starry-eyed, solidly red-state audience, he garnered buzz about being forthcoming.

But he wasn't.

Ultimately Bush unplugged gave a performance of remarkably little substance. There was no new thinking on display. There were no real insights shared. Instead, we heard mostly restatements of policy, familiar phrases and even whole stories recycled from the 2004 campaign.

"I'm here to tell you how I see the world and how I've made some of the decisions I've made and why I made them," Bush promised at the start of his speech. But he did so in only the most simplistic terms.

"My most important job is to protect the security of the American people," he said. On the topic of sending troops into harm's way: "And so when I'm telling you I made the decision, you all have got to understand, I did not take that decision lightly." On his job: "If I had to give you a job description, it would be a decision-maker. I make a lot of decisions."

Yes, Bush spoke at his greatest length yet about the National Security Agency's domestic spying program. But it was still only a few minutes, and he focused mostly on the now-familiar White House arguments for why he thinks he has the right to do what he did. He did not really explain what the program is, how it works, why it was necessary -- or why he chose not to go through existing legal channels or ask Congress for permission.

He frowned on the term "domestic spying" -- "I would call it a terrorist surveillance program," he said.

This will inevitably launch a new war of words between conservative and mainstream press organs. But was Bush willing to say definitively that only terrorists were surveilled? Or was he prepared to at least discuss what standard of evidence was required? No. Not a word.

All Politics

The Louisville Courier-Journal doesn't even try to keep the contempt out of its voice.

There Rove goes again

There may be depths to which Karl Rove wouldn't sink, but it's difficult to imagine what they might be.

Mr. Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, defended the administration's domestic eavesdropping program last week by saying that "President Bush believes if al-Qaida is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why. Some important Democrats clearly disagree."

What rubbish. Once again, when this administration is challenged, it lashes out at the patriotism of its critics.

Mr. Rove (who is being investigated by a federal grand jury for possible involvement in the unpatriotic act of leaking the name of a CIA operative) would not be able to identify a single "important Democrat" who opposes monitoring all al-Qaida communications. He didn't even try.

Clearly, Mr. Rove continues to believe that terrorism provides political opportunity for Republicans. Uniting Americans to combat terrorists seems far less important to him than dividing (Americans) and conquering (Democrats).

The nation should hope that Mr. Rove's speech was not a preview of what to expect from a public relations blitz by the President this week in defense of his surveillance program.

The President has yet to make a clear case that it was necessary to break laws that provide for obtaining wiretapping warrants in secret courts in terrorism cases -- and that allow for warrants to be sought after the fact in emergencies. He has yet to explain why, if he felt the law is inadequate, he did not ask Congress to change it.

Meanwhile, he and Mr. Rove might take note that it is a Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who plans hearings on the eavesdropping.

Breaking into Popular Culture

U expert on 'Oprah'

Michael Osterholm's warnings that an influenza pandemic is unavoidable will reach a mass daytime audience today when he appears on "The Oprah Winfrey Show."

The infectious-disease expert from the University of Minnesota will discuss the particular threat of the H5N1 strain of avian influenza that is spreading among birds in Asia and Eastern Europe and has been linked to 82 human deaths.

Osterholm has said repeatedly that the world is behind in its preparations for a pandemic, and that everything from vaccine production to local emergency plans needs to be updated. In June, he offered his infamous "we're screwed" assessment, when asked what would happen if a bird flu pandemic hit today.

Today's 'Oprah' show, titled "Bird Flu: The Untold Story" is the second in a series on global threats. The hour-long show starts at 4 p.m. on WCCO Channel 4.

It's on at 4 here, too. Check your local listings.

The Face of America

Protesters See Mood Shift Against 'Roe'
Court Nominees, Young Activists Cited at Annual Antiabortion March

By Michelle Boorstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 24, 2006; Page A03

Tens of thousands of abortion opponents held an upbeat rally on the cold, gray streets of downtown Washington yesterday and described what they see as a societal tide turning against the 33-year-old Roe v. Wade court decision that legalized the procedure.

Demonstrators at the annual March for Life said their movement has been buoyed by two recent Supreme Court nominees -- one of them confirmed -- who appear open to reconsidering the 1973 decision. They talked optimistically about how technological advances are producing clearer sonograms, which could make it harder to argue that a fetus is not a person.

And they noted yesterday's large turnout of young people, who filled the march route along Constitution Avenue and lined the walls outside the Supreme Court in cheerleader jackets, black leather outfits with studs and T-shirts that read, "Abortion is Mean" and "Sex is good, the pill is not."

"This is the beginning of the end. We'll look back at some point soon and won't believe that people were ever killing babies like it was nothing," said Ryan McAlpin, 19, who came from Chicago with a group of friends.

The rally and march were the culmination of three days of antiabortion conferences and lobbying. Yesterday's events began on the Mall, in front of the Smithsonian Castle, with speakers including Christian and Jewish religious leaders from across the country and Bobby Schindler, the brother of Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged woman at the center of a right-to-die debate last year.

The march is held each year to protest the Supreme Court's Jan. 22, 1973, decision that most laws against abortion violate a constitutional right to privacy. The first protest was in 1974 in Washington.

Stephen G. Peroutka, chairman of the National Pro-Life Action Center, one of the event's sponsors, estimated the crowd size at 225,000 to 250,000 people, while D.C. police gave an estimate of 70,000.

The streets were filled with banners, many of them from churches across the country, and many groups wore matching T-shirts or hats so as not to get separated. The mood was closer to a party than a political protest, and the soundtrack of the day was the laughter of young people.

Joe Giganti, a spokesman for the action center, said more Americans are starting to question the notion that Roe is settled law. "I'd say the mood has changed significantly just in the past year," he said. "We're going to see the overturning of Roe ."

These kids don't remember the bad old days, and they don't remember that their position is going to primarily effect moderate to low income women.

There are days when I don't recognize this country any more.

Foregone Conclusion

Supreme Court Pick Is Set to Clear Senate Panel as Vote Nears

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: January 24, 2006

Filed at 7:19 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito takes his first step toward the high court with a preordained Senate Judiciary Committee victory Tuesday, but the strength of opposition among panel Democrats may forecast his margin of victory in the full Senate.

The GOP-controlled committee was advancing the nomination of Alito -- President Bush's pick to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor -- on Tuesday. All 10 Republican senators already have announced their support for the conservative judge, leaving the eight Democrats with no way to stop the committee from giving him a positive report.

''You don't have to worry about him in the committee,'' Bush said at Kansas State University on Monday. He called Alito ''a very, very smart, capable man. When you talk to Sam Alito, you think, 'smart judge.'''

But Alito's liberal critics are worried that Alito may defer too much to Bush and swing the court to the right. They fear his replacement of O'Connor will bring conservatives a decisive fifth vote on cases involving abortion, affirmative action and the death penalty.

Half of the committee's eight Democrats -- Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Dick Durbin of Illinois and Dianne Feinstein of California -- have announced their opposition to his nomination. Many expect the other four -- Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Joseph Biden of Delaware and Charles Schumer of New York -- to join them.

After the committee votes, Alito's nomination goes to the full Senate for a final vote as early as this week. Republicans want Alito on the Supreme Court before Bush gives his State of the Union address on Jan. 31.

In recent judicial battles, a 10-8 party line vote would be the first sign of the possibility of a Democratic-led filibuster. But Democrats are not expected to try that with Alito, a former federal prosecutor and lawyer for the Reagan administration who parried sharp Democratic attacks on his judicial record and personal credibility without a major stumble during his confirmation hearings earlier this month.

Democrats are expected, however, to try to persuade as many senators in their party to vote against him as possible on the Senate floor.

Critics of Alito plan to protest and march this week to try to turn votes against the 55-year-old judge who is now on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Only one Democrat so far is supporting Alito, conservative Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts won the votes of 22 Democrats last year.

The whip counts I've seen this morning indicate a filibuster would succeed and force the nuclear option.

Peace, Order and Good Government

Voter turnout estimated at 60 per cent
Jan. 23, 2006. 11:37 PM

OTTAWA — Give Elections Canada an E for effort, but its marketing and public information campaign failed to draw more voters to the ballot box Monday.

Voter turnout was at about 60 per cent about an hour after the last polls in British Columbia closed.

There was little change from the record low turnout of 60.9 per cent recorded during the June 28, 2004 vote.

Many observers had speculated the number could fall further this time around with all the potential weather perils of a late-January election.
....
This winter campaign was only the second federal election in Canadian history to span the Christmas holidays. The first, in 1979-80 only really got underway in January for a Feb. 18 vote.

Turnout that day was 69.3 per cent, strong by today's standards but several percentage points lower than the previous election on May 22, 1979.

Elections Canada ran several TV ads throughout the campaign reminding voters this was their chance to be heard.

Youths have been a particular target, since only about 38 per cent of eligible voters between the ages of 18 and 24 cast ballots in 2004.

However, that was a vast improvement from 2000, when only one in four eligible youths voted.

Contemplate that, fellow Yanks. In Canada, 60% turnout is considered low. In 2004, our 60% turnout was an historic high.

They Knew

Of course they bloody knew... and yet Brownie had the gall to get on TV and state that everything was fine. Arlen, if incompetence isn't the ground for impeachment, then what is?

Documents Show Govt Forewarned on Katrina

By LARA JAKES JORDAN
The Associated Press
Tuesday, January 24, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The government's plans to evacuate people from New Orleans in the approach of a catastrophic storm were only 10 percent complete a month before Hurricane Katrina, newly released documents show.

"If you think soup lines in the Depression were long, wait till you see lines" at collection points in New Orleans, Transportation Department regional emergency officer Don Day said at a July 29 briefing with federal and state authorities.

"We're at less than 10 percent done with this ... planning when you consider the buses and the people," Day said at the briefing, according to notes taken by contractors Innovative Emergency Management Inc. of Baton Rouge.

The plans were part of a government exercise, known as Hurricane Pam, to test the nation's preparedness for a catastrophe. A month later, they were put to the test when Hurricane Katrina roared ashore, flooding New Orleans.

The documents were released by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which was examining Hurricane Pam at a Tuesday hearing.

When are the voters going to wake up? Yes, I know that George is currently batting a 36% right now, but what more will it take to throw all of those bums out.

Honestly, as an American History major, I don't know of any other administration aside from Grant's that was this pathetic. If Karl want to run on terror, let him because there is plenty of evidence that we are not safer than we were 2 years ago. If you aren't sure, ask the citizens of the Gulf Coast.

Who are you?

Judge Orders Release of Gitmo Detainee IDs

By LARRY NEUMEISTER
The Associated Press
Monday, January 23, 2006

NEW YORK -- A federal judge ruled Monday that the Defense Department must release the identities of hundreds of Guantanamo Bay detainees to The Associated Press.

U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff told the government to provide the information in the form of unredacted copies of transcripts and documents related to 558 military hearings in which detainees were permitted to challenge their incarcerations

Most of the hundreds of prisoners at the U.S. prison in Cuba have been held since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks without being charged or publicly identified, which has troubled human rights groups.

The AP filed its Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking the documents last year. The government then turned over the transcripts of 558 tribunals but redacted facts about each detainee's identity.

The judge gave the government until Wednesday to decide whether to appeal to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and ask him to suspend his order.

Earlier this month, the judge rejected government arguments that the detainees' names should be kept secret to protect their privacy, but gave the government one last chance to change his mind.

In response, the government argued that releasing the identities could subject the families, friends and associates of the detainees to embarrassment and retaliation.

In a written ruling Monday, the judge said he found that argument unconvincing. He said family members and the others "never had any reasonable expectation" of anonymity.

Many of the detainees were captured in Afghanistan, and are there, the Persian Gulf, Russia and other countries

So who do we have there? Are there any more 15 year olds or other foreign nations who are clearly NOT terrorists. More importantly for the supporters of the administration, if they had some important terrorists there don't you think Ashcroft would have held a press conferences trumpetting how successful they were at catching the enemy?

Simple Truth

Warriors and wusses

Joel Stein

I DON'T SUPPORT our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on.

I'm sure I'd like the troops. They seem gutsy, young and up for anything. If you're wandering into a recruiter's office and signing up for eight years of unknown danger, I want to hang with you in Vegas.

And I've got no problem with other people — the ones who were for the Iraq war — supporting the troops. If you think invading Iraq was a good idea, then by all means, support away. Load up on those patriotic magnets and bracelets and other trinkets the Chinese are making money off of.

But I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward.

Blindly lending support to our soldiers, I fear, will keep them overseas longer by giving soft acquiescence to the hawks who sent them there — and who might one day want to send them somewhere else. Trust me, a guy who thought 50.7% was a mandate isn't going to pick up on the subtleties of a parade for just service in an unjust war. He's going to be looking for funnel cake.

Besides, those little yellow ribbons aren't really for the troops. They need body armor, shorter stays and a USO show by the cast of "Laguna Beach."

The real purpose of those ribbons is to ease some of the guilt we feel for voting to send them to war and then making absolutely no sacrifices other than enduring two Wolf Blitzer shows a day. Though there should be a ribbon for that.
....
I know this is all easy to say for a guy who grew up with money, did well in school and hasn't so much as served on jury duty for his country. But it's really not that easy to say because anyone remotely affiliated with the military could easily beat me up, and I'm listed in the phone book.

I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea. All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades.

Stein is a shade too flippant for me, but this isn't a point of view you hear very often and it is honest. I can't "support the troops," whatever that vacuous locution means, because I don't support the war and never did. Given the way the Bushies have cut the VA, you can't really say they support the troops, either.

Job Survey

Job Losses

Tuesday, January 24, 2006; Page A01

Announced cuts in North America in the past year:

GM

30,000

Ford

Up to 30,000

Delphi

24,000

Daimler-Chrysler just announced another 6,000 cuts this morning. Welcome to our booming economy.

As Predicted

Canadian Voters Oust Incumbent for Conservative

By CLIFFORD KRAUSS
Published: January 24, 2006

TORONTO, Jan. 23 - Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party defeated the long entrenched Liberal Party in Canadian elections on Monday. A Conservative victory is a striking turn in the country's politics and is likely to improve Canada's strained relations with the Bush administration.

Falling far short of winning a clear majority in the House of Commons, Stephen Harper may lead a shaky government.

Prime Minister Paul Martin had hoped to build on a string of four consecutive Liberal national election victories in the past 13 years, but his campaign was damaged by two years of investigations into party scandals that spurred a backlash and a desire for change.

Mr. Martin tried to cut into Mr. Harper's lead in the final days with a campaign of rancorous advertising, as opinion polls indicated that many urban voters were wary of allowing the country to veer into uncharted ideological waters.

But in the end, Mr. Harper seemed to reassure the public that he had evolved into a centrist in recent years and that his government would emphasize cutting taxes and cleaning up corruption, rather than social issues like abortion and gay rights.

In a concession speech, Mr. Martin announced that he would leave the party leadership before the next national election. "I telephoned Stephen Harper and congratulated him on being chosen by the people of Canada," he said. "We differ on many things, but we all share the belief of the potential and the promise of Canada and the desire of our country to succeed."

Preliminary data showed that the Conservatives won more than 36 percent of the popular vote, and fell short of a majority in the 308-seat House of Commons.

Incomplete results showed the Conservatives leading in 125 districts to 102 for the Liberals, followed by the Bloc Québécois with 51 districts and the labor-aligned New Democratic Party with 29. One independent candidate won.

The Bloc Québécois fell well short of its goal of winning a symbolically important majority in Quebec because of the Conservative gains. The Conservatives showed strength across the country, but particularly in rural and suburban areas.

Mr. Harper, 46, is a free-market economist who expressed strong support for Washington at the time of the American-led invasion of Iraq and shares the Bush administration's skepticism of the Kyoto climate control protocol, which Canada has signed and ratified. His party was formed three years ago as a coalition of two conservative parties.

My dear friends up North: methinks these Canadian neo-cons aren't going to wear all that well with you. Be glad that you got Harper with a minority government, that will limit the damage.

Part of the Clusterfsck

Iraq Rebuilding Badly Hobbled, U.S. Report Finds

By JAMES GLANZ
Published: January 24, 2006

The first official history of the $25 billion American reconstruction effort in Iraq depicts a program hobbled from the outset by gross understaffing, a lack of technical expertise, bureaucratic infighting, secrecy and constantly increasing security costs, according to a preliminary draft.

The document, which begins with the secret prewar planning for reconstruction and touches on nearly every phase of the program through 2005, was assembled by the office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction and debated last month in a closed forum by roughly two dozen experts from outside the office.

A person at the forum provided a copy of the document, dated December 2005, to The New York Times. The inspector general's office, whose agents and auditors have been examining and reporting on various aspects of the rebuilding since early 2004, declined to comment on the report other than to say it was highly preliminary.

"It's incomplete," said a spokesman for the inspector general's office, Jim Mitchell. "It could change significantly before it is finally published."

In the document, the paralyzing effect of staffing shortfalls and contracting battles between the State Department and the Pentagon, creating delays of months at a stretch, are described for the first time from inside the program.

The document also recounts concerns about writing contracts for an entity with the "ambiguous legal status" of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the question of whether it was an American entity or a multinational one like NATO.

Seemingly odd decisions on dividing the responsibility for various sectors of the reconstruction crop up repeatedly in the document. At one point, a planning team made the decision to put all reconstruction activities in Iraq under the Army Corps of Engineers, except anything to do with water, which would go to the Navy. At the time, a retired admiral, David Nash, was in charge of the rebuilding.

"It almost looks like a spoils system between various agencies," said Steve Ellis, a vice president and an authority on the Army corps at Taxpayers for Common Sense, an organization in Washington, who read a copy of the document. "You had various fiefdoms established in the contracting process."

One authority on reconstruction who attended the session last month, John J. Hamre, said the report was an unblinking and unbiased look at the program.

"It's gutsy and it's honest," said Mr. Hamre, president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a public policy group based in Washington. He was not the source of the leaked document. Even in the early stages of writing the draft, Mr. Hamre said, one central message on the reconstruction program was already fairly clear, that "it didn't go particularly well."

"The impression you get is of an organization that had too little structure on the ground over there, that it had conflicting guidance from the United States," Mr. Hamre said. "It had a very difficult environment and pressures by that environment to quickly move things."

A situation like that, Mr. Hamre said, "creates shortcuts that probably turn into short circuits."

The draft report is emerging as the rebuilding comes under fresh criticism in the United States and Iraq. Partly because of sabotage to oil and gas pipelines and electrical transmission lines, Iraq's oil exports have plummeted over the last several months, and its national electrical output has again dipped below prewar levels.

Expecting anything else out of Bushco would be founded on fog. Show me one case where this gang is capable of doing anything right. Just one.

Tangled Web

European governments 'knew of' CIA flights

January 24, 2006

A European investigator looking into allegations of secret, CIA-run prisons in Europe said today that "a great deal" of evidence pointed towards the existence of a US system of "outsourcing" torture.

Swiss senator Dick Marty said it was also highly likely European governments knew what the US had been doing, and that more than 100 prisoners may have been involved.

He admitted, however, that he had uncovered no formal evidence so far of the existence of clandestine detention centres in Romania or Poland, as alleged by Human Rights Watch in New York.

The senator presented his findings in an interim report to the Council of Europe, the continent's principal human rights watchdog, on whose behalf he is conducting his investigation.

"There is a great deal of coherent, convergent evidence pointing to the existence of a system of 'relocation' or 'outsourcing' of torture," he said the report.

"Acts of torture or severe violation of detainees' dignity through the administration of inhuman or degrading treatment are carried outside national territory and beyond the authority of national intelligence services."

The report said that extraordinary rendition - transferring terror suspects to countries where they may face torture or ill treatment - "seems to have concerned more than a hundred persons in recent years".

"It is highly unlikely that European governments, or at least their intelligence services, were unaware," it concluded.

How long will it take our friends on the Continent to call their leaders and punish them for allowing this to happen? Maybe this is one of the reasons why the Bushies didn't want to get involved with the International Criminal Court .

Personal Disaster Open Thread

This is just a heads up to all. This is going to be a complex and challenging week. I've got a major management job to do with The Flu Wiki tomorrow as we negotiate Hurricane Oprah, tomorrow as her bird flu show (tell your skeptical friends and relations to watch it, I hear she's a major believer) and a front page article in the St. Petersburg (FLA) Times on Friday. In the middle of all of this, I have to figure out how to get my car out of impound, deal with the Alito vote for Judging The Future and buy groceries.

The car is in impound because the sheriff who stopped me for a headlight out last week ran my license and discovered that there was a suspension notice on it which I was not aware of, having never gotten the suspension notice (thank you USPS, they lose my mail all the time here) for a suspension I thought I'd taken care of last year. This is going to take a boatload of time to work out, and it all started with being too poor to renew my license and registration a couple of years ago.

I took a cab to the grocery tonight, it isn't too far, but the trip adds 12 dollars to the price of the food.

I had to wait for a check from the employer before I could even dream of bailing the car out of impound, but I won't have time to do the dance (clerk of court by foot, DMV by cab to renew the license, cab to the impound lot to pick up the car) until later this week. I work for a living and the employer has a crisis right now which means I can't take time off until after Wednesday. And then there is the court date next month. Driving on a suspended is a felony here.

Yes, two years ago I was driving on an expired license. That's what you do when you have to make the choice between a license and food. The cop who stopped me made sure that I knew he could put me in jail on the spot. I was properly contrite and tugged my forelock, but it was a long walk home in the cold and I was dressed for a drive, not a walk.

Let's just say that the Word which has been imprinted on my hard drive is "don't ever get poor again."

Lose a job and your fall out of the middle class is fast and hard.

Your tales of woe are welcomed below in comments. No, I don't have health insurance and haven't since May when FedEx fsked up "overnight, on time," which is a joke, and my Cobra was cancelled.

You?

A Canvas

This is as easy as the portobello bruscheta is labor intensive, and is a great base onto which you can impose your own soup ideas. You can toss this together after a full day at work and not feel taxed.

CHICKEN-ORECCHIETTE SOUP WITH CILANTRO AND LEMON

1 tablespoon olive oil
2 skinless boneless chicken breasts (about 12 ounces total)

3 cups coarsely chopped onions
3 plum tomatoes, sliced
2 stalks lemongrass, thinly sliced (about 1/2 cup)
2 tablespoons coriander seeds
2 teaspoons cumin seeds
2 teaspoons fennel seeds
8 cups chicken stock or canned low-salt chicken broth
1/2 cup chopped cilantro

8 ounces orecchiette pasta, freshly cooked
3 plum tomatoes, seeded, chopped
1/2 cup fresh lemon juice
Fresh lemon slices (optional)

Heat oil in heavy large pot over medium-high heat. Sprinkle chicken with salt and pepper and sauté until cooked through, about 4 minutes per side. Transfer chicken to plate. Cool.

Add chopped onions and next 5 ingredients to pot and sauté over medium heat until fragrant, about 2 minutes. Add stock and 1/4 cup chopped cilantro. Simmer 20 minutes to blend flavors.

Strain broth into heavy large saucepan. Slice cooked chicken crosswise into thin strips; add to broth. (Can be prepared 1 day ahead; cover and refrigerate.)

Add cooked pasta, chopped tomatoes, lemon juice and remaining 1/4 cup cilantro to soup. Season to taste with salt and pepper. Bring soup just to simmer. Ladle into bowls; garnish soup with lemon slices, if desired.

Serves 6.

This can be frozen up to the point the orrechieti are added. Making it with lime instead of lemon gives it a whole other dimension. I like to add a couple of bayleaves to give the soup a little earthier base flavor. You can use virtually any kind of pasta or cooked rice.

If I don't have chicken stock in the freezer, I buy the low sodium kind that comes in the shelf stable paper cartons. Even my regular grocery store stocks it (and you'll want to have a nice supply for your bird flu preps.) Use vegetable stock and cremini mushrooms with the other ingredients and you have a tasty soup for vegetarian friends.

First Bites

We now return to the recipe part of our program.

These are labor intensive, but worth the work. They are an excellent appetizer for a wine tasting, for example.

PORTOBELLO BRUSCHETTA WITH ROSEMARY AIOLI

1 1/2 cups balsamic vinegar
1/4 cup honey
1/4 cup (packed) golden brown sugar
1 1/2 tablespoons chopped fresh thyme
6 4-inch-diameter portobello mushrooms, stemmed, dark gills removed

3 tablespoons olive oil
3 red onions, sliced (about 6 cups)

2 large red bell peppers
3 tablespoons thinly sliced green onion
3 tablespoons chopped fresh basil
1 garlic clove, minced

1 3 1/2-inch-diameter sourdough or French-bread baguette, cut into 24 slices
Additional olive oil
3 large bunches arugula (about 5 ounces), coarsely chopped

Rosemary Aioli

3/4 cup mayonnaise
3 garlic cloves, minced
1 tablespoon fresh lemon juice
1 tablespoon balsamic vinegar
2 teaspoons chopped fresh rosemary
2 teaspoons Dijon mustard

Whisk all ingredients in small bowl to blend. Season to taste with salt and pepper. (Aioli can be prepared 1 day ahead. Cover with plastic and refrigerate.)

Makes about 1 cup.

Preheat oven to 375°F. Mix vinegar, honey, brown sugar and thyme in medium bowl. Transfer 1/2 cup marinade to small bowl; set aside. Place mushrooms in 15x10-inch glass baking dish. Pour remaining marinade over mushrooms. Cover baking dish with foil and bake until mushrooms are tender, about 40 minutes. Transfer mushrooms to work surface; cool. Cut mushrooms into 1/2-inch-wide slices.

Heat 2 tablespoons oil in heavy large skillet over medium heat. Add red onions and sauté until very tender and beginning to brown, about 25 minutes. Pour in reserved 1/2 cup marinade and cook until liquid is absorbed and onions are glazed, about 6 minutes. Set onions aside.

Char bell peppers over gas flame or in broiler until blackened on all sides. Enclose in paper bag and let stand 10 minutes. Peel, seed and chop peppers. Place peppers in medium bowl. Add green onion, basil, garlic and 1 tablespoon oil and toss to combine. (Mushrooms, onion mixture and bell pepper mixture can be prepared 1 day ahead. Cover separately and refrigerate.)

Preheat oven to 375°F. Place bread slices on baking sheet. Brush bread with additional olive oil. Bake until lightly toasted, about 10 minutes. Layer portobello mushroom slices, arugula, onions and then bell pepper mixture atop bread slices. Bake until heated through, about 3 minutes. Season to taste with salt and pepper. Drizzle bruschetta with Rosemary Aioli. Serve immediately.

Makes 24.

Off the Radar

Cohen: School nurse crisis puts kids at risk

By Elizabeth Cohen
CNN

WALNUT CREEK, California (CNN) -- A few months ago, I was interviewing a principal at a Chicago, Illinois, public elementary school, when from outside her office came the sounds of a child coughing.

The coughs became louder and deeper -- mixed with gasps for breath. We stopped the interview, and the principal opened the door.

I couldn't believe what I saw. A kindergartner was having an asthma attack.

The secretary looked furiously through file drawers for his nebulizer. The child looked awful, clearly having trouble breathing.

"Why don't you get the school nurse?" I asked. The principal looked at me like I was an idiot. "The what?" came the reply.

The school nurse is almost a thing of the past.

In the course of one generation, she's nearly become a relic.

Many parents remember the school nurse, but there's a good chance today's children don't have one.

And while the number of school nurses is decreasing, children with chronic illnesses such as severe food allergies and diabetes are on the rise.

In California, where we went to do a story, at any given time 70 percent of the students don't have a nurse right at their school, according to the California School Nurses Organization. Some districts have no registered nurses at all, the group says.

One California nurse, Kathy Gabe, spends her time driving between six schools, taking care of 5,000 students. Almost as horrifying as witnessing the asthmatic child in Chicago was watching Gabe train school secretaries what to do when a child goes into anaphylactic shock because of an allergic reaction.

The same employees who take attendance are the ones assigned to handle medical emergencies if the nurse isn't there. And since Gabe splits her time between six schools, there's a good chance she won't be available.

It's not just school nurses: there is a general nursing shortage in this country. All of our hospitals are understaffed, too. That's something that should give you pause in the context of a global flu pandemic.

Uh-Oh

Hooked on your Blackberry? That might be a problem....

Supreme Court Rejects BlackBerry Appeal

By Yuki Noguchi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 23, 2006; 1:00 PM

The Supreme Court today rejected a petition from BlackBerry maker Research in Motion Ltd. for a rehearing of its patent-infringement case.

The Canadian maker of the popular wireless e-mail device has been locked in litigation against NTP Inc., a McLean-based patent-holding company that holds the licenses for the technology.

RIM may face a court-ordered shut down of most of its 4 million BlackBerrys in the United States if it cannot settle its case with NTP.

The company has said, however, that is developing a technological work-around that skirts the patent infringement. RIM has also asked the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to review NTP's patents with the hopes that they would be declared invalid.

In 2002, a jury found RIM violated several key NTP patents and ordered it to pay royalties, which as of November had accrued to more than $250 million.

"The Supreme Court's denial closed the final path for RIM to avoid liability," NTP said in a statement today. NTP is an investor in RIM competitor Good Technology Inc., and has licensing agreements with other wireless e-mail companies, such as Nokia Corp. and Visto Inc.

Housing Bubbles

Home prices get even more overvalued
Housing markets have cooled a bit, but not before prices got even less affordable than ever.
By Les Christie, CNNMoney.com staff writer
January 23, 2006: 11:21 AM EST

NEW YORK(CNNMoney.com) - Although many overheated U.S. housing markets lost steam during the third quarter of 2005, most still grew less affordable.

That's according to the Local Market Monitor, a real-estate market research provider.

Most overvalued markets

The cities where housing prices are most out of whack

City Percent overvalued
Santa Barbara-Santa Maria CA 86%
Naples FL 72%
Modesto CA 71%
San Diego CA 70%
Stockton CA 64%
Riverside-San Bernardino CA 64%
San Jose CA 61%
Sacramento CA 59%
Vallejo-Fairfield CA 58%
Los Angeles-Anaheim CA 57%

Source: Local Market Monitor
Most undervalued markets

Biggest housing bargains in the USA.

City Percent undervalued
El Paso TX -26%
McAllen-Edinburg TX -21%
Fayetteville NC -18%
Memphis TN -18%
Augusta GA -17%
Little Rock AR -17%
Pittsburgh PA -14%
Indianapolis IN -14%
Dallas TX -14%
Houston TX -13%

Source: Local Market Monitor

Through the third quarter of 2005, 79 of the 100 surveyed markets had gotten more expensive, relative to what Local Market Monitor calculates as fair value.

At the top of the list for overpriced cities was Santa Barbara, Calif. at 86 percent overvalued. The average home there should cost $308,900, according to the Local Market Monitor. Instead it sold for $573,100. The survey found that only 16 of the markets had gotten less expensive.

Overall, 37 markets were found to be severely overpriced, which meant that they were at least 15 percent more expensive than they should be, and only 6 were underpriced by 15 percent or more. Fifty-seven were deemd to be farily priced.
Prices are flattening out

While the slowdown in price increases seem to indicate the market has peaked, some regions, especially in the red-hot Sunshine State, continue to experience accelerating home prices.

These included Naples, Fla. where prices increased 32 percent in the 12 months through the end of the third quarter. That's after more modest increases of 18 percent in 2004 and 9 percent in 2003.

Other still-booming markets included Phoenix (up 34 percent), Cape Coral/Ft. Myers, Fla. (33 percent), and Deltona/Daytona Beach, Fla. (27 percent).

The level of over-valuation matters in three ways, according to Ingo Wenzer, president of Local Market Monitor. The higher it is, the greater the risk of it correcting; the greater the correction can be; and the longer it will take to return to present-day prices after they fall.

"Once markets are overpriced by 40 percent or so, the risk is pretty high and the adjustment can take five to 10 years," said Winzer.

The link will take you to a listing of housing prices in the top 100 cities in the country. Go and take a look at how your market is doing. DC is listed as 37% over priced, which makes it pretty darn close to that 40% mark.

Spying On Us All

The Other Shoe Drops:
Classified Leaks and Journalists

By NORMAN SOLOMON

At an informal Jan. 20 hearing on domestic surveillance, chaired by Rep. John Conyers and attended by eight Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, one of the most illuminating witnesses was legal scholar Jonathan Turley. He noted that President Bush "already stated quite clearly that he believes he can violate federal law. That, for our system, is the equivalent of a declaration of war on the separation of powers."

Turley, a professor of Constitutional law at George Washington University, added: "But one thing I would encourage you to think about as a collateral matter is how important it is for Congress to pass a shield law for journalists. This is a great example of why journalists need to have a federal shield law. The fact that the administration's first act was to pursue the whistleblower and potentially threaten these journalists shows how vital it is for us to have a statutory protection supporting the First Amendment."

The White House has launched its own anti-leak bandwagon with a vengeance, Turley explained: "If the administration continues the way it's going, it's going to significantly diminish the ability of journalists to hear from whistleblowers. I'm referring to the fact that this administration has used a waiver that's given to all officials in a particular office -- and they're all asked to sign and to waive confidentiality, so that if you don't, you self-identify; but if you sign it, you're signing something false unless you actually did waive. We're in a very precarious position unless we get a shield law so that these types of abuses can be disclosed."

Yes, the Bush administration was in a defensive crouch when investigators put the squeeze on leakers and journalists in the Plame case. But the same administration is now eager to put the squeeze on leakers and journalists in the NSA domestic-spying case.

For that matter, even in the Plame battle, the White House has moved to further normalize the idea of legal actions against journalists. On Jan. 20, lawyers for Dick Cheney's ex-assistant Lewis Libby notified a federal court of their intention to issue subpoenas to journalists and news organizations in a quest to obtain documents for Libby's upcoming trial.

In the long run, efforts to drag reporters into legal proceedings are apt to let the journalistic profession -- or culpable administration officials -- off the hook. The focus can easily become the merits of a journalist's legal position rather than the substance of the reporting.

Judith Miller's credibility as a reporter was sinking in the post-invasion aftermath of her prewar stories that beat the drum about supposed WMDs in Iraq. Since then, Miller has been more successful in the martyr-tinged role of jailed reporter than in the journalistic role of defending her odious reportorial work.

It's very important to assess whether a journalist has been serving as a watchdog or a flunky for powerful government officials. But prosecutors and judges are not the ones who should decide. Such assessments -- and their consequences -- should be journalistic and political.

This is the single most important domestic question before us right now.

Getting Old is Hell

Pinching pensions

BAD NEWS ABOUT PENSIONS, like Google's latest acquisition or the gnomic pronouncements of Alan Greenspan, is a hardy staple of the financial pages. If it's not IBM or Verizon or some other relatively healthy company announcing changes (read: cutbacks) to its plan, then it's a company in a struggling "old economy" industry such as steel or airlines that is unable to pay all the retirement benefits it has promised.

So much for the bad news. The worse news is that pension reform bills passed recently by the House and Senate don't do enough about the endangered pensions of the old economy — and do too little to address the longer-term challenges facing all pension plans. Both reform bills, which lawmakers are expected to begin reconciling in the next few weeks, aim to force employers to better fund their pension plans. They also call for companies with underfunded plans to pay higher premiums to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., the federal pension insurance system that is dangerously underfunded.

ADVERTISEMENT
Good ideas all. But some of the bills' less-noticed provisions may actually weaken some employee pension protections. Both bills, for example, allow companies whose plans become underfunded to freeze benefits. The House version lets companies even rescind benefits in some situations, an idea that could set a dangerous precedent. Another provision allows employers to reduce how much they pay retirees who choose to take their pensions in a lump-sum payment by playing with the interest rates used to calculate such payments.

President Bush has threatened to veto both bills, though not necessarily because of any of these concerns. Regardless, any bill that is as forgiving of employers as these does not deserve his signature.

No matter what happens in Washington, pension reform is happening anyway. For better or worse, as companies such as IBM and Verizon make clear, corporate America has decided that the traditional pension system is no longer attractive.

A growing number of employers are ceasing to provide traditional pensions, under which they guarantee employees a fixed income upon retirement. Instead, employers are increasingly offering 401(k)-style plans, to which they make fixed contributions during an employee's career. This gives employees more control — and more of the risk. Other than the danger that workers will bungle their investments (or cash them out and spend them ahead of time), the reality is that Americans are going to have to save more if they hope to retire at a decent standard of living. Or, for that matter, to retire at all.

I am one of those people. I had to cash out what little I had in my 501(c) tax deferred accounts to live on two years ago. In my years in the orchestra, the employer contributed very little to the Union pension fund, so I don't have much coming from that. I'm going on 52 and don't have much time to self fund if I'm going to be able to retire before I die. I know an awful lot of people in the same boat.

Countdown

Judge Alito's Radical Views

Published: January 23, 2006

If Judge Samuel Alito Jr.'s confirmation hearings lacked drama, apart from his wife's bizarrely over-covered crying jag, it is because they confirmed the obvious. Judge Alito is exactly the kind of legal thinker President Bush wants on the Supreme Court. He has a radically broad view of the president's power, and a radically narrow view of Congress's power. He has long argued that the Constitution does not protect abortion rights. He wants to reduce the rights and liberties of ordinary Americans, and has a history of tilting the scales of justice against the little guy.

As senators prepare to vote on the nomination, they should ask themselves only one question: will replacing Sandra Day O'Connor with Judge Alito be a step forward for the nation, or a step backward? Instead of Justice O'Connor's pragmatic centrism, which has kept American law on a steady and well-respected path, Judge Alito is likely to bring a movement conservative's approach to his role and to the Constitution.

Judge Alito may be a fine man, but he is not the kind of justice the country needs right now. Senators from both parties should oppose his nomination.

It is likely that Judge Alito was chosen for his extreme views on presidential power. The Supreme Court, with Justice O'Connor's support, has played a key role in standing up to the Bush administration's radical view of its power, notably that it can hold, indefinitely and without trial, anyone the president declares an "unlawful enemy combatant."

Judge Alito would no doubt try to change the court's approach. He has supported the fringe "unitary executive" theory, which would give the president greater power to detain Americans and would throw off the checks and balances built into the Constitution. He has also put forth the outlandish idea that if the president makes a statement when he signs a bill into law, a court interpreting the law should give his intent the same weight it gives to Congress's intent in writing and approving the law.

Judge Alito would also work to reduce Congress's power in other ways. In a troubling dissent, he argued that Congress exceeded its authority when it passed a law banning machine guns, and as a government lawyer he insisted Congress did not have the power to protect car buyers from falsified odometers.

There is every reason to believe, based on his long paper trail and the evasive answers he gave at his hearings, that Judge Alito would quickly vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. So it is hard to see how Senators Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, all Republicans, could square support for Judge Alito with their commitment to abortion rights.

Judge Alito has consistently shown a bias in favor of those in power over those who need the law to protect them. Women, racial minorities, the elderly and workers who come to court seeking justice should expect little sympathy. In the same flat bureaucratic tones he used at the hearings, he is likely to insist that the law can do nothing for them.

The White House has tried to create an air of inevitability around this nomination. But there is no reason to believe that Judge Alito is any more popular than the president who nominated him. Outside a small but vocal group of hard-core conservatives, America has greeted the nomination with a shrug - and counted on its senators to make the right decision.

Air of inevitability? How much did you have to do with that, Bill Keller?

Coming Undone

Professionals Fleeing Iraq As Violence, Threats Persist
Exodus of Educated Elite Puts Rebuilding at Risk

By Doug Struck
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, January 23, 2006; A01

BAGHDAD -- The office of Iraq's most eminent cardiologist is padlocked. A handwritten sign is taped on his wooden door in the private clinic in Baghdad: Patients of Dr. Omar Kubasi should call him in Amman, Jordan.

There, Kubasi, 63, spends his days sitting at a cafe with other physicians and professionals from Iraq. Frustrated, he watches from afar as the medical education system he helped set up during his 36-year career slowly disintegrates. His teaching doctors are fleeing the country in fear. Younger physicians are looking for other countries to train in. Even patients are leaving, no longer confident in the care they can get in Iraq.

"I think it's part of the plan for the country's destruction," Kubasi said by telephone. "The situation in the last six months has gotten so bad, we couldn't continue."

Kubasi left Baghdad in May after he and nine other doctors received letters, written in a childish hand, telling them they would be killed if they did not stop working in their native Iraq. He and his colleagues had been the objects of threats before, but the last carried a foreboding urgency, he said.

Iraq's top professionals -- doctors, lawyers, professors -- and businessmen have been targeted by shadowy political groups for kidnapping and ransom, as well as murder, some of them say. So many have fled the country that Iraq is in danger of losing the core of skilled people it needs most just as it is trying to build a newly independent society.

"It's creating a brain drain," said Amer Hassan Fayed, assistant dean of political science at Baghdad University. "We could end up with a society without knowledge. How can such a society make progress?"
....
Anyone displaying signs of wealth, often professionals and businessmen, are particular targets of kidnappers in search of high ransoms. However, payment is no guarantee a hostage will not simply be killed and dumped; some authorities claim dozens of bodies are found every day but never reported.

That danger is overlaid by the activities of an insurgency that aims to terrify the society by means of bombings, murder and abduction -- or threats. In addition, the death toll from sectarian violence among Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds has climbed steadily.

"Professors have been threatened. Doctors have been killed in their clinics. Killing has become common," Fayed said. "Some people believe this is intentional, to try to empty Iraq of its elite."

This is what is really going one, despite what you hear from the administration. This is societal breakdown.

The Memory Hole

Bush Aide Says Abramoff Photos Coincidence

The Associated Press
Monday, January 23, 2006

WASHINGTON -- An adviser to President Bush said Monday that Bush's photographs in the company of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff amount to a coincidence and shouldn't be interpreted any more seriously than that.

"He doesn't have a personal relationship with him," White House counselor Dan Bartlett said of Bush and Abramoff, who recently pleaded guilty to federal charges stemming from his lobbying practices and has pledged to cooperate with government prosecutors.

"We acknowledge he (Abramaoff) attended some Hannukuah celebrations," Bartlett said in an appearance on NBC's "Today" show. "Any suggestions by critics or anyone else to suggest the president is doing something nefarious with Abramoff is absurd."

Bush himself has said that he doesn't recall meeting Abramoff.

Both Washingtonian and Time magazines have reported the existence of about a half-dozen photos showing the two together, however.

Time reported on its Web site Sunday that its staff members have seen at least six photos featuring Bush and Abramoff. They appeared to have been taken at White House functions, according to the reports.

If we had any doubt about how serious the Abramoff scandal is, here it is. I haven't seen them spin like this since Bush's War Record was discussed.

Of course, my jewish friends call this chutzpah.

Memory

As Profits Soar, Companies Pay U.S. Less for Gas Rights

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: January 23, 2006

WASHINGTON, Jan. 22 - At a time when energy prices and industry profits are soaring, the federal government collected little more money last year than it did five years ago from the companies that extracted more than $60 billion in oil and gas from publicly owned lands and coastal waters.

If royalty payments in fiscal 2005 for natural gas had risen in step with market prices, the government would have received about $700 million more than it actually did, a three-month investigation by The New York Times has found.

But an often byzantine set of federal regulations, largely shaped and fiercely defended by the energy industry itself, allowed companies producing natural gas to provide the Interior Department with much lower sale prices - the crucial determinant for calculating government royalties - than they reported to their shareholders.

As a result, the nation's taxpayers, collectively, the biggest owner of American oil and gas reserves, have missed much of the recent energy bonanza.

The disparities in gas prices parallel those uncovered just five years ago in a wave of scandals involving royalty payments for oil. From 1998 to 2001, a dozen major companies, while admitting no wrongdoing, paid a total of $438 million to settle charges that they had fraudulently understated their sale prices for oil.

Since then, the government has tightened its rules for oil payments. But with natural gas, the Bush administration recently loosened the rules and eased its audits intended to uncover cheating.

Industry executives deny any wrongdoing, arguing that the disparities stem primarily from different rules for calculating the sale prices for paying royalties and the sale prices for informing shareholders.

Remember Cheney's secret energy task force?

Bad News From Turkey

A rather ugly picture has been shaping up over the last week or so as the information about the H5N1 isolates from Turkey has begun to come out.

Those of who who would like to take a swim in some highly informative, albeit deep, waters, should visit the Reveres' recent and quite magnificent primer on the biochemistry of the influenza infection process. It is quite unlike anything I have seen in the blogosphere to date, and a classic of scientific journalism the likes of which I have not seen since the news coverage of the Apollo missions. These little gems may take a while to digest, I warn you.

• Background science for the Turkish mutations, Part 1 (E.M. 1)
• Background science for the Turkish mutations, Part 2 (E.M. 2)
• Background science for the Turkish mutations, Part 3 (E.M. 3)
• Background science for the Turkish mutations, Part 4 (E.M. 4)

Then, more topically, there is Declan Butler's recent piece in Nature, "Turkish virus shows increased affinity for humans", which discussed the WHO's recent statement on the Turkish outbreak at Geneva.

My 20 year old cat is just going to have to be PO'ed at me this evening. Because I am going to have to defer sacking out until I have appraised the Bump community of what has emerged.

It is in no way comforting news.

Part of the meat is contained in the fourth of those four utterly remarkable articles in Effect Measure. I am seriously green with envy as I write this. The Reveres ran up the sort of blog post I dream about writing.

Another part is in the Declan Butler article I cited above.

Instead of directly citing these, I will content myself with simply boiling them down as best I can at 11 in the evening.

There are three important genetic changes reported so far in the Turkish isolates.

1. S227N is a serine to asparagine change in position 227 of the hemagglutinin protein chain. "S" is abbreviation for serine and "N" the abbreviation for asparagine. You can find the standard amino acid abbreviations here.

   It makes the viral hemagglutinin protein (the virus' counterpart of a burglar's prybar) bind more effectively to the α-2,6 sialic acid-galactose linkage (see E.M. 3 and 4) on the surface of non-ciliated cells (see E.M. 4) in the respiratory tract.

   Just like human influenzas do.

2. E627K is a glutamic acid to lysine change at position 627 of the polymerase protein. It helps the virus replicate at temperatures typical of the cooler nasal regions of the respiratory tact.

   As reference, I give you an article in the Journal of Virology, Residue 627 of PB2 Is a Determinant of Cold Sensitivity in RNA Replication of Avian Influenza Viruses.

   E627K is also associated with neurological complications, as Dr. Niman explains.

   I trust the implications of that last little item are not lost on you. If this crap can replicate in the upper respiratory tract, it is that much closer to going airborne.

   And the S227N polymorphism makes it better adapted to infecting humans across that air gap.



3. There is also a change at hemagglutinin 153 that the WHO didn't go into details about, because "it is not clear what role this particular change plays". But according to the Reveres, this position is adjacent to both the receptor binding site and the site that antibodies against hemagglutinin attack.

   In other words, it is possible that this could represent an immune-resistance change.

NONE of this is good news.

This current flu season doesn't worry me too much. The next one does.

Oh, there's one other little item which should make your bed rest this evening as enjoyable as my own.

There is a report of an H5N1 fatality in Iraq. The diagnosis was made on the grounds of the clinical presentation of the case. Final test results were not yet in when this story went to press, but given the circumstances set forth in the story, I don't expect they'll be any surprise.

Dessert

I like this as a winter dish.

FRESH ORANGES WITH SPICED RED WINE SYRUP

1 750-ml bottle dry red wine such as Spanish Ribera del Duero
1 cup plus 1 tablespoon sugar
1 cinnamon stick, broken in half

8 oranges

Bring wine, 1 cup sugar, and cinnamon to boil in large saucepan, stirring until sugar dissolves. Boil until reduced to 1 cup, about 18 minutes. Cool syrup completely. Cover and chill until cold. (Can be made 1 day ahead. Keep chilled.)

Finely grate peel from 2 oranges. Mix peel and 1 tablespoon sugar in small bowl. Using small sharp knife, cut off peel and white pith from all oranges. Working over large bowl, cut between membranes to release segments. (Can be made 1 day ahead. Cover orange segments and sugared peel separately and chill.) Divide oranges and juice among 8 bowls. Drizzle syrup over and sprinkle with sugared orange peel.

Makes 8 servings.

Yum.

Smart Start

This is a light, low-fat and refreshing centerpiece for a summer lunch, or a stunning first course for a barbecue.

CUCUMBER AND AVOCADO SOUP WITH TOMATO AND BASIL SALAD

1 large English hothouse cucumber, peeled, diced (about 2 1/2 cups)
2 1/2 cups low-fat (1%) buttermilk
1 avocado, quartered, pitted, peeled
4 tablespoons chopped red onion
1/4 cup chopped fresh basil

1/2 cup seeded chopped tomato
2 teaspoons fresh lime juice
4 tablespoons plain nonfat yogurt

Combine cucumber and buttermilk in blender. Chop 1/4 of avocado; set aside for salad. Cut remaining avocado into chunks. Add avocado to blender; then add 2 tablespoons red onion and half of the basil. Blend until very smooth. Season with salt and pepper. Cover; refrigerate until chilled, about 1 hour.

Mix reserved avocado, remaining 2 tablespoons onion and basil, tomato and lime juice in small bowl. (Can be prepared 1 day ahead. Cover soup and tomato salad separately and refrigerate.) Ladle cucumber soup into 4 bowls. Dollop each with 1 tablespoon yogurt; top with tomato salad and serve.

Per serving: calories, 145; total fat, 6 g; saturated fat, 2 g; cholesterol, 5 mg
Makes 4 servings.

Fancy Fare

This is for when you are both flush with cash and have room in your calorie budget for a splurge. It is one of my favorite dishes and makes sophisticated dinner party fare.

Steak au Poivre

4 tenderloin steaks, 6 to 8 ounces each and no more than 1 1/2 inches thick
Kosher salt
2 tablespoons whole peppercorns
1 tablespoon unsalted butter
1 teaspoon olive oil
1/3 cup Cognac, plus 1 teaspoon
1 cup heavy cream

Remove the steaks from the refrigerator for at least 30 minutes and up to 1 hour prior to cooking. Sprinkle all sides with salt.

Coarsely crush the peppercorns with a mortar and pestle, the bottom of a cast iron skillet, or using a mallet and pie pan. Spread the peppercorns evenly onto a plate. Press the fillets, on both sides, into the pepper until it coats the surface. Set aside.

In a medium skillet over medium heat, melt the butter and olive oil. As soon as the butter and oil begin to turn golden and smoke, gently place the steaks in the pan. For medium-rare, cook for 4 minutes on each side. Once done, remove the steaks to a plate, tent with foil and set aside. Pour off the excess fat but do not wipe or scrape the pan clean.

Off of the heat, add 1/3 cup Cognac to the pan and carefully ignite the alcohol with a long match or firestick. Gently shake pan until the flames die. Return the pan to medium heat and add the cream. Bring the mixture to a boil and whisk until the sauce coats the back of a spoon, approximately 5 to 6 minutes. Add the teaspoon of Cognac and season, to taste, with salt. Add the steaks back to the pan, spoon the sauce over, and serve.

With the steaks, I like to serve quartered, oiled and herbed Yukon Gold potatoes simply roasted and a salad of wild Italian field greens, with crumbled bleu cheese and coarsely choped walnuts dressed with a lemon vinaigrette. Dessert should be light and refreshing like an Italian ice or sorbet. Pinot Noir is a perfect match for this meal.

Grow Some Stones

Ms. Molly speaks for me:

AUSTIN, Texas --- I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president. Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges. The recent death of Gene McCarthy reminded me of a lesson I spent a long, long time unlearning, so now I have to re-learn it. It's about political courage and heroes, and when a country is desperate for leadership. There are times when regular politics will not do, and this is one of those times. There are times a country is so tired of bull that only the truth can provide relief. If no one in conventional-wisdom politics has the courage to speak up and say what needs to be said, then you go out and find some obscure junior senator from Minnesota with the guts to do it. In 1968, Gene McCarthy was the little boy who said out loud, "Look, the emperor isn't wearing any clothes." Bobby Kennedy -- rough, tough Bobby Kennedy -- didn't do it. Just this quiet man trained by Benedictines who liked to quote poetry. What kind of courage does it take, for mercy's sake? The majority of the American people (55 percent) think the war in Iraq is a mistake and that we should get out. The majority (65 percent) of the American people want single-payer health care and are willing to pay more taxes to get it. The majority (86 percent) of the American people favor raising the minimum wage. The majority of the American people (60 percent) favor repealing Bush's tax cuts, or at least those that go only to the rich. The majority (66 percent) wants to reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending, but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes. The majority (77 percent) thinks we should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment. The majority (87 percent) thinks big oil companies are gouging consumers and would support a windfall profits tax. That is the center, you fools. WHO ARE YOU AFRAID OF? I listen to people like Rahm Emanuel superciliously explaining elementary politics to us clueless naifs outside the Beltway ("First, you have to win elections"). Can't you even read the damn polls?

Scalito

You could see this coming a mile away:

States Step Up Fight on Abortion
# Anticipating a more conservative Supreme Court, lawmakers are proposing bans in hope of forcing the justices to revisit Roe vs. Wade.

By P.J. Huffstutter and Stephanie Simon, Times Staff Writers

INDIANAPOLIS — Taking direct aim at Roe vs. Wade, lawmakers from several states are proposing broad restrictions on abortion, with the goal of forcing the U.S. Supreme Court — once it has a second new justice — to revisit the landmark ruling issued 33 years ago today.

The bill under consideration in Indiana would ban all abortions, except when continuing the pregnancy would threaten the woman's life or put her physical health in danger of "substantial permanent impairment." Similar legislation is pending in Ohio, Georgia and Tennessee.

The bills are in direct conflict with the Supreme Court's 1973 rulings establishing abortion as a constitutional right. Roe vs. Wade and its companion case, Doe vs. Bolton, asserted that doctors could consider "all factors … relevant to the well-being of the patient," including emotional and psychological health.

In the years since, states have adopted a variety of laws designed to restrict access to abortion or force women to think through alternatives. Those efforts are expected to continue this year, with states considering proposals to impose new licensing standards on abortion clinics, or to require women seeking abortions to first view ultrasound images of their fetuses and discuss with a counselor the pain a fetus might feel during the procedure.

About 50 such bills were passed in 2005 — twice as many as in 2004, according to the abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Kicking the Vets

Who Can Fight for the Soldiers?
Veterans Need the Right to Hire a Lawyer

By James C. McKay

Sunday, January 22, 2006; Page B02

If American soldiers are mature and responsible enough to choose to risk their lives for their country, shouldn't they be considered competent to hire a lawyer? No, not if that lawyer is going to pursue their veterans' benefits claims before the Department of Veterans Affairs. That's the flabbergasting answer from Congress and the Supreme Court.

During the Civil War, a statute was enacted imposing a $5 limit on the fees paid to lawyers or agents assisting veterans applying for pensions, reenlistment bounty or other military allowances. Two years later, the cap was raised to $10 -- and remained at that level for 124 years. In those days, filing a claim involved simply filling out a one-page form; a $10 fee was reasonable for the claimants who needed assistance. But as time passed, the fee became so trivial that its practical effect was to bar veterans from employing lawyers.

In 1985, the Supreme Court upheld the limit, rejecting the contention that it effectively deprived veterans of their Fifth Amendment right to due process or their First Amendment right to petition for the redress of grievances. And in 1988, while Congress eliminated that $10 ceiling and created a Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, it also said that a veteran could hire a lawyer only after completing a complex administrative process that culminates at the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA). By that time, however, a case has been lost, often because the veteran did not present the correct claim, or properly present available evidence -- technicalities that could hurt the case on appeal even after a lawyer is involved.

As a result, many veterans' benefits disappear down the rabbit hole. Take the case of Dana Myers, who joined the Marine Corps as a teenager and who received an honorable medical discharge on Dec. 20, 1957, because of back problems. The next year, he was denied disability payments. In April 1959, he sent a letter to the regional Veterans' Affairs office taking issue with that ruling. But later the Board of Veterans' Appeals said that Myers didn't use the precise words that are required for what is known as a "notice of disagreement" (or NOD). Without that, the board rejected his appeal.

If Myers had hired a lawyer, he would likely have followed the correct procedure back in 1959. Instead, Myers is still fighting his case. In 1994, he won a 40 percent disability payment, but it wasn't paid retroactively because of his procedural errors back in 1959. I began representing him on a pro bono basis in July 1998, the first time he ever had a lawyer, and we won retroactive payments. Now the Veterans Administration (VA) is refusing to give him back payments based on anything more than a 10 percent disability for most of that time. Another appeal is pending.

This is what supporting the troops actually looks like in the 21st century.

The Talking Head

Cheney does not believe in close ties between Iran, Al-Qaeda

Sat Jan 21, 11:39 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Vice President Dick Cheney has said he does not believe there are close relations between Iran and Al-Qaeda, seeming to distance himself from some earlier US administration charges.

"I think you've got to remember that the Al-Qaeda organization is primarily made up of radical Sunni Islamists, of course, and the Iranian regime is Shia-dominated -- Shia. So there's not a natural fit there," Cheney said in a telephone interview with the Hugh Hewitt Show, released by the White House.

"That doesn't mean that there haven't been relationships over the years, but I don't believe it's close. I haven't seen any evidence of that," Cheney added on the heels of new broadcast threats by
Osama bin Laden.

[e]arlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

"There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there."

The Voting Crisis

Via Susie Madrak:

As Elections Near, Officials Challenge Balloting Security
In Controlled Test, Results Are Manipulated in Florida System

By Zachary Goldfarb
Special to The Washington Post
Sunday, January 22, 2006; Page A06

As the Leon County supervisor of elections, Ion Sancho's job is to make sure voting is free of fraud. But the most brazen effort lately to manipulate election results in this Florida locality was carried out by Sancho himself.

Four times over the past year Sancho told computer specialists to break in to his voting system. And on all four occasions they did, changing results with what the specialists described as relatively unsophisticated hacking techniques. To Sancho, the results showed the vulnerability of voting equipment manufactured by Ohio-based Diebold Election Systems, which is used by Leon County and many other jurisdictions around the country.

Sancho's most recent demonstration was last month. Harri Hursti, a computer security expert from Finland, manipulated the "memory card" that records the votes of ballots run through an optical scanning machine.

Then, in a warehouse a few blocks from his office in downtown Tallahassee, Sancho and seven other people held a referendum. The question on the ballot:

"Can the votes of this Diebold system be hacked using the memory card?"

Two people marked yes on their ballots, and six no. The optical scan machine read the ballots, and the data were transmitted to a final tabulator. The result? Seven yes, one no.

"Was it possible for a disgruntled employee to do this and not have the elections administrator find out?" Sancho asked. "The answer was yes."

Blue State Workaround

'Blue' States Tackling Energy On Their Own

Federal Efficiency Rules Fall Short, Some Say
By Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 22, 2006; Page A01

Democratic-leaning states increasingly are regulating energy use and emissions, working around a GOP-controlled federal government that state officials say has not done enough.

The states are creating energy efficiency requirements for light bulbs and household appliances, limiting power plant and automobile output linked to global warming, and requiring the use of renewable energy, such as wind and solar.

Leading the effort are "blue" states that voted Democratic in the 2004 presidential election. Even some of those states that have Republican governors, such as California and Connecticut, are making their own rules.

"In a way, the left is controlling that agenda," said Amy Myers Jaffe, associate director of the energy program at Rice University in Houston. "They're just implementing it at the community and state level."

Jaffe and other analysts said some of the policies would have to be adopted nationally to have a significant impact on the environment and energy consumption. But with other policies, such as the auto emissions limits, they said a sufficient number of big states are adopting regulations to make a significant difference nationally. "If all these giant-population states do this, does it matter that we don't have a national policy?" Jaffe asked.

Seven states that voted Democratic in 2004's presidential election have signed on to a regional plan to restrict power plant emissions. Eleven states that went Democratic have adopted, or are in the process of adopting, automobile tailpipe emissions requirements, which face a court challenge before they can be implemented. Nine of the 10 states that have adopted appliance efficiency regulations also voted Democratic.

Requirements that a portion of electricity come from renewable sources have caught on beyond the Democratic-leaning states. Seven states that went Republican in 2004 have joined 13 Democratic-leaning states and the District of Columbia in setting those rules.

Though the new regulations are not necessarily partisan, the activists behind them say their adoption requires lawmakers and constituents who are concerned about global warming and energy-conservation -- issues that Democrats often emphasize.

The Bush administration welcomes state efforts "as long as they do not put Americans out of jobs or move emissions from one state to another or one country to another," said Michele St. Martin, a spokeswoman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

State officials say their constituents are demanding new limits on pollution and energy consumption. "What is frustrating is that these things aren't being done on a national basis," said Maine Gov. John E. Baldacci (D).

Here's the political anomaly: corporate lobbyists write laws that gut Federal regulations to cut regulatory costs annd increase profits. The states respond by enacting their own regulations to protect their own environments. Now the corporations have increased regulatory compliance costs from having to comply with differing state requirements. Corporations can't seem to figure out that it is in their best long-term interest to have sensible, national environmental standards and effective inspection requirements.

Ways and Means

Part D users uncover ways to cut through maze

Sunday, January 22, 2006
By Christopher Snowbeck, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Is your ID number for that new Medicare drug plan not working at the pharmacy counter? Try adding three zeroes.

Can't get through to the company to ask a question about your benefits? Select the phone tree option for people looking to join the plan -- rather than existing members -- and you might find operators are standing by.

And if you must contact a Medicare health plan, try to use a speaker phone with a redial button. Placing a call can require numerous attempts and hours on hold, depending on the plan.

These pearls of wisdom are real-life strategies being used by patients and pharmacists as they navigate their way through the new Medicare prescription drug program. In many cases, the problem is simple: Health plans have been overwhelmed with calls, said Mike Leavitt, U.S. secretary of Health and Human Services.

"Some of the insurance plans did not properly anticipate the level of service that would be required on this group, and were understaffed," Mr. Leavitt said during a call with reporters on Friday. "We have worked with the plans to make sure those staffing levels were adjusted accordingly."

Michael Hornick, a pharmacist at Ernie's Pharmacy in Midland, stumbled across the "three zeroes" solution this week after repeated attempts to help a patient newly enrolled in a Medicare drug plan on Jan. 1. The patient hadn't received an ID card from her health plan, but had a letter that contained her six-digit ID number.

Medicare officials have repeatedly said that letters with ID numbers should be good enough to fill a prescription, yet every time Mr. Hornick or his staff tried to submit the claim it was denied. Calls to the health plan -- which he did not want to identify -- always ended in a busy signal.

Finally, Mr. Hornick thought of something: ID numbers for that health plan used to contain nine digits, the first three of which were zeroes.

"When I added those 3 zeroes to the ID, the claim submissions worked," he said.

Resourcefulness is our virtue. Cluelessness is their vice.

Bistro Food

My first trip to France was a revelation, as you might expect. I was a starving student then, and bistro food was a mainstay (the food shops were too intimidating for someone without a lick of Frech, but I had my trusty Berlitz restaurant guide by my side. These days, I travel on the local markets, with a cooler, if necessary, and eat on the local economy.) I had about four words of French and "croque monsieur" were two of them. Around here, there is a great French bistro where I can get one for cheap, with a salad and a glass of wine for meager bucks. No, I'm not going to tell you where it is because I like being able to show up and get a table. But you can make your own. This is for four. The nutrionists won't like it. It's a French grilled cheese sandwhich with ham.

INGREDIENTS:

* 8 slices bread, 1/4-inch thick, crusts removed
* melted butter
* 1/2 lb. Gruyère, diced
* 2 Tablespoons white wine
* 4 slices ham, cut to fit the bread

PREPARATION:
1. Place the cheese and wine in a the top of a double boiler and melt over hot (not boiling) water.

2. Working in batches, dip each piece of bread in the melted butter and fry on both sides until golden brown.

3. In the same skillet, add a little of the remaining butter and sauté the ham slices.

5. Spread 4 slices of the bread with the melted cheese and top with ham and another bread slice.

To serve:

Serve very hot.

Other traditional versions drench it with bechemel sauce, but I prefer this simpler version. It lets the ingredients speak for themselves.

Another version, called "croque madame" replaces the ham slice with chicken or turkey and is equally good. I would argue that they are even better because gruyere has a more natural affintity for poultry than pork.

Hint: whichever meat you decide to choose, once the bread has been sauteed, add a schmear of mayonaisse with a bit of horseradish on the inside of the sandwich. It goes well with the gruyere and gives the whole presentation a "pop."

This is "comfort food."

Easy Pork 'Cue

I'm not a big fan of pork, but I buy the chops when they are on special once in a while and freeze them down. This recipe is easy to reduce for a single or couple and it is spectacular if you like 'cue, as I do. Serve this, Texas style, with cole slaw and hot German-style potato salad.

Barbecued Pork Chops
INGREDIENTS:

* 3/4 cup vinegar
* 3/4 cup ketchup
* 1 1/2 cups water
* 1/2 cup chopped onion
* 2 small cloves garlic, minced
* 2 teaspoons salt
* 1/2 teaspoon pepper
* 2 teaspoons Worcestershire sauce
* few dashes hot pepper sauce or ground cayenne pepper
* 3 tablespoons brown sugar
* 8 thick pork loin chops (3 pounds)

PREPARATION:
In a saucepan mix first 10 ingredients. Bring mixture to a boil; reduce heat, cover, and simmer for 20 minutes, stirring occasionally. Pour sauce over pork chops in a large, deep bowl; cover and refrigerate for at least 4 hours. When ready to cook, arrange chops in a single layer in a large shallow baking dish or roasting pan. Pour sauce over chops. Bake, uncovered, at 350° for 1 to 1 1/2 hours, or until chops are tender, basting occasionally.

Pork chops recipe serves 6 to 8.

This is good enough for company and easy enough for family dinners, which is a nice card to add to the recipe file. When it gets to be grilling weather again, cut back on the amount of sugar. This recipe is great in the oven but it burns on the grill.

The End of a Perfect Meal

As you know, I'm not that big on desserts, but this one is so toothsome that it is worth the work. This requires a little skill with baked goods, a genoise is not an amateurs game, but if you've done a little baking, you should be okay with this one. The presentation is spectacular. The coulis is what makes this dish and it is the easy part and a technique you can use a million ways with other desserts. It will serve 10-12, can be made ahead and frozen.

Chocolate Ice Cream-Filled Cake Roll with Raspberry Coulis

1 1/2 cups sugar
6 whole large eggs
2 large egg yolks
1/2 teaspoon salt
3 tablespoons light corn syrup
2 tablespoons water
1/2 teaspoon vanilla extract
2 1/2 cups cake flour, sifted
1 teaspoon baking powder
Melted butter, for greasing
1 quart chocolate or Dutch chocolate ice cream
Cocoa powder, for garnishing
1 recipe Raspberry Coulis, recipe follows
1/4 cup lightly toasted sliced almonds, for garnish
Fresh mint, for garnish

Preheat the oven to 375 degrees F.

Place the sugar, whole eggs, egg yolks, salt, corn syrup, water and vanilla in a heat resistant medium-sized mixing bowl. Set it over a saucepan of simmering water and beat the eggs using a hand held mixer until the eggs have tripled in volume and have reached a temperature of 110 degrees F, about 10 to 15 minutes.

In a separate bowl, sift together the cake flour and baking powder. Gently fold the flour into the beaten eggs in 3 or 4 stages, folding until just combined and being careful not to overmix the batter. Lightly grease an 11 by 17-inch sheet pan with melted butter and line with parchment paper. Butter the top of the parchment paper. Pour the batter into the sheet pan and bake until the center is set and springs back when pressed lightly, about 15 minutes. Remove the cake from the oven and allow it to cool completely before proceeding.

Once the cake has cooled, remove from the pan and lay topside up on a cutting board. Insert toothpicks into the 4 sides of the cake, positioned about 1-inch apart and inserted horizontally about 1/2-inch from the surface of the cutting board. These should serve as a guide for cutting the top brown edge from the cake. Using a long-bladed, serrated knife, cut the top brown edge off of the cake by running the knife against the edges of the toothpicks. Rotate the knife as you cut to make a smooth cut. Carefully turn the cake over and repeat, so that both the top and bottom browned edges have been removed and the cake is about 1/2-inch thick with no visible brown top or bottom. (If it helps, you can use a thin book as a guide and lay the toothpicks on the book, then insert into the cake.)

With the cake trimmed, lay it on a cutting board with 1 of the short ends facing you. Remove the ice cream from the freezer. If the ice cream is in a paper container, use a serrated knife to cut the ice cream in its container into 1/2-inch rings. Peel the paper away, and lay the ice cream on the cake, leaving a 1-inch border on 3 of the sides and a larger border on the short edge that is furthest from you. There should be some ice cream left over; use this to fill in any gaps on the cake that are not covered with ice cream. Starting with the end closest to you, roll the cake into a log, and wrap it in parchment paper. Wrap again in plastic wrap. Place the wrapped cake in the freezer and let freeze at least 2 hours, and up to 1 day before serving.

Once the cake has chilled sufficiently, remove it from the freezer and unwrap it. Trim about 1/2-inch from both edges of the cake using a serrated knife. Slice the cake into 10 or 12 even rings. Place the cocoa powder in a small fine-meshed sieve and sprinkle around the edges of the plate. Run your finger around the edge of the plate to form a clean edge. Using a birthday candle or other object with a fine tip, write your greeting or a guest's name, etc., in the cocoa powder along the plate's edge. Place the cake slice onto the center of the plate and serve with the Raspberry Coulis either drizzled over the cake or on the side. Garnish with the toasted almonds and mint leaves.

Raspberry Coulis:
1 1/2 pounds frozen raspberries
1/3 cup sugar
1 tablespoon lemon juice

Place all the ingredients in a 1-quart saucepan over medium-high heat. Bring the raspberries to a boil, and reduce the heat to a heavy simmer. Continue to cook the raspberries until the sugar dissolves, the raspberries burst, and the liquid reduces by one half, about 15 minutes. Strain the raspberries through a fine mesh strainer and discard solids. Reserve coulis in a non-reactive container until ready to use. Coulis will keep, refrigerated, for up to 2 weeks.

Yield: 1 1/2 cups

Open Thread Busy Blogger

This is a very busy day and I've got still more errands to run, and I'll have some more recipes for you later when I get home. Any special requests? What are you doing this weekend? This is an open thread.

The Other Disaster

Pakistan's Push in Border Areas Is Said to Falter

By CARLOTTA GALL
and MOHAMMAD KHAN
Published: January 22, 2006

PESHAWAR, Pakistan, Jan. 19 - Two years after the Pakistani Army began operations in border tribal areas to root out members of Al Qaeda and other foreign militants, Pakistani officials who know the area say the military campaign is bogged down, the local political administration is powerless and the militants are stronger than ever.

Both Osama bin Laden, who released a new audiotape of threats against the United States this week, and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, are believed to be living somewhere in the seven districts that make up these tribal areas, which run for more than 500 miles along the rugged Afghan border.

The officials said they had been joined by possibly hundreds of foreign militants from Arab countries, Central Asia and the Caucasus, who present a continuing and vibrant threat to the authorities within the region.

Countering those assertions, Maj. Gen. Shaukat Sultan, chief spokesman for the Pakistani military, said the accounts of the size of the militants' forces were exaggerated. He put the number of foreign militants in the whole of the tribal areas at "100, plus or minus."

The tribal areas are off limits to foreign journalists, but the Pakistani officials, and former residents who did not want to be identified for fear of retribution, said the militants - who call themselves Taliban - now dispensed their own justice, ran their own private jails, robbed banks, shelled military and civilian government compounds and attacked convoys at will. They are recruiting young men from the local tribes and have gained a hold over the population through a mix of fear and religion, the officials and former residents said.

They have embarked on a disruptive campaign of terrorism, particularly in North and South Waziristan: in the last year, 108 pro-government tribal elders, 4 or 5 government officials, informers and even 2 local journalists, have been assassinated by militants, local journalists say.

Qaeda operatives are the driving force behind the local militants and are influencing their tactics, the officials said.

The Soviets threw hundred of thousands of their best forces into Afghanistan for nearly a decade and were defeated, and Bush thinks he's going to quash the Taliban with 10k? Rummy is a nincompoop.

The problem is that, as in Iraq, we're using conventional warfare tactics against a fourth generation war. Can't win that way, if there were any kind of metric that mattered for "winning" in such a situation.

Other Bad Bugs

Via Sean-Paul Kelley:

Malaria Could Kill At Will Within 10 Years, World Health Body Warns

By ANDRÉ PICARD

Friday, January 20, 2006 Page A15

PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTER

The World Health Organization has issued a dire warning that malaria -- already one of the planet's biggest killers -- could become virtually untreatable within a decade if physicians do not dramatically change the way they treat the disease in much of the world.

In an unprecedented move, the WHO also called on drug manufacturers to immediately cease the production and sale of artemisinin malaria medications, even though these drugs are cheap and highly effective.

The drugs, known as "mono-therapy" when used by themselves to treat malaria, can be effective if taken properly over a five-day period. But drug resistance can develop if the full course of treatment is not followed.

Dr. Arata Kochi, director of the Malaria Department at the WHO, said malaria sufferers should be treated only with combination therapies (which include artemisinin and other drugs) and that manufacturers should produce only combination pills.

He said the new guidelines are justified and necessary because the parasite that causes malaria appears to be developing resistance to artemisinin, and that could render the drug useless.

"Our biggest concern right now is to treat patients with safe and effective medication and to avoid the emergence of drug resistance," Dr. Kochi said. "If we lose artemisinin, we'll no longer have a cure for malaria." He said that would be a public-health disaster.

But Dr. Kochi acknowledged that attempts to treat malaria only with combination therapies will be difficult because there is a huge black market for malaria medication -- both real and fake -- in the developing world. The new campaign will include a crackdown on counterfeit drugs.

Artemisinin is a drug extracted from the dry leaves of the Chinese herb Artemsisia annua (qinghaosu or sweet wormwood), which is cultivated only in China and Vietnam. The companies affected by the new WHO initiative are principally in those two countries.

An estimated 500 million people worldwide are infected annually with malaria, a mosquito-borne disease. More than one million of them die -- mainly young children and pregnant women -- but the disease leaves many more sick and lethargic, robbing people of their ability to be productive and devastating the economies in many developing countries.

The parasite falciparum malaria can be beaten back with drugs, but when a full course of drugs is not taken, the parasite can mutate and develop resistance.

There are a number of striking examples of resistance rendering malaria drugs ineffective. Sulfadoxine-pyrimethanime was initially almost 100-per-cent effective in curing malaria when it was introduced in 1977, but within five years was curing only 10 per cent of cases in Thailand. The once-popular chloroquine lost its effectiveness in almost every part of the world between 1999 and 2004.

Within a year of its introduction, resistance developed to the malaria medication atovaquone.

This is a huge deal. Also underneath the radar screen is the fact that our armamentarium of anti-biotics is also limited. The over- and mis-use of antibiotics over the last four decades has led to most common infections (and a batch of the not so common ones) resistent to all but the most powerful antibiotics. We are on the edge of a drug crisis and big Pharma isn't keeping up. Their financial interest is in highly profitable drugs like Viagra.

Heading into the Election

Anti-U.S. Tack Backfires On Canada's Liberals

By Doug Struck
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, January 21, 2006; Page A12

BURLINGTON, Canada -- Rob Hlohinec, 58, doesn't see what's so bad about Americans. He even admits to knowing some.

"I've talked to Americans. They want the same things we want," Hlohinec said as he watched a Conservative Party campaign rally in this Ontario town last week.

At his side, Irene Heller, 82, agreed. She said that was one reason she would vote to replace the government headed by the Liberal Party's Paul Martin in Canadian national elections on Monday. Martin, she said, uses anti-Americanism to try to win votes.

"He gets votes when he knocks America, and I don't approve of that," said Heller, who braved a sleet storm to attend the rally.

Heller's and Hlohinec's candidate, Conservative leader Stephen Harper, holds a strong lead in public opinion polls, fueled largely by dissatisfaction with 12 years of Liberal rule. Among the dissatisfied are voters unhappy with the growing divide between Canada and the United States.

Polls show a deep antipathy among Canadians toward the Bush administration, made more acute by the invasion and occupation of Iraq. That has carried over to a more general anti-Americanism, and academics here have made a cottage industry of talking about the divergence of values between Canadians and Americans.

Martin sought to corral that sentiment by portraying Harper as dangerously pro-American. But the strategy appeared to backfire in this campaign, exacerbating his slide in the polls.

"In the last campaign, those attack ads worked. This time they won't. People are just fed up," said Peter Bryce, 46, a financial manager who said the political rally in this town west of Toronto was the first he had attended.

Most US reporting on Canadian politics is poor, but this article gets it mostly right, at least according to what I hear from politically savvy Canadians. The mood up North is that there is enough weariness with the Liberals, combined with a particularly inept campaign by Paul Martin, that this will be more of an anti-Martin election rather than a pro-Conservative election. Turnout will likely be low as there is a certain amount of election fatigue in the population, as well. My Canadian correspondents say that the election is likely to be closer than polling data show, and that the smaller, left of center parties are likely to pick up some seats in Parliament as a protest vote against Liberal corruption and general lack of leadership.

All of that said, I suspect Harper is going to have difficulty forming a government that can get much done. The Conservatives will have a plurality of seats in Parliament which can be blocked if the opposition parties can form working coalitions (this will not be easy.) Canadian political scientist Michael Stickings has further thoughts.

Once more into the breach

Medicare Woes Take High Toll on Mentally Ill

By ROBERT PEAR
Published: January 21, 2006

HILLIARD, Fla., Jan. 16 - On the seventh day of the new Medicare drug benefit, Stephen Starnes began hearing voices again, ominous voices, and he started to beg for the medications he had been taking for 10 years. But his pharmacy could not get approval from his Medicare drug plan, so Mr. Starnes was admitted to a hospital here for treatment of paranoid schizophrenia.

Mr. Starnes, 49, lives in Dayspring Village, a former motel that is licensed by the State of Florida as an assisted living center for people with mental illness. When he gets his medications, he is stable.

"Without them," he said, "I get aggravated at myself, I have terrible pain in my gut, I feel as if I am freezing one moment and burning up the next moment. I go haywire, and I want to hurt myself."

Mix-ups in the first weeks of the Medicare drug benefit have vexed many beneficiaries and pharmacists. Dr. Steven S. Sharfstein, president of the American Psychiatric Association, said the transition from Medicaid to Medicare had had a particularly severe impact on low-income patients with serious, persistent mental illnesses.

"Relapse, rehospitalization and disruption of essential treatment are some of the consequences," Dr. Sharfstein said.

Dr. Jacqueline M. Feldman, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said that two of her patients with schizophrenia had gone to a hospital emergency room because they could not get their medications. Dr. Feldman, who is also the director of a community mental health center, said "relapse is becoming more frequent" among her low-income Medicare patients.

Emma L. Hayes, director of emergency services at Ten Broeck Hospital, a psychiatric center in Jacksonville, said, "We have seen some increase in admissions, and anticipate a lot more," as people wrestle with the new drug benefit.

Medicare's free-standing prescription drug plans are not responsible for the costs of hospital care or doctors' services. "They have no business incentive to worry about those costs," said Dr. Joseph J. Parks, medical director of the Missouri Department of Mental Health, who reported that many of his Medicare patients had been unable to get medicines or had experienced delays.

At least 24 states have taken emergency action to pay for prescription drugs if people cannot obtain them by using the new Medicare drug benefit. Florida is not among those states.

In an interview, Alan M. Levine, secretary of the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, said: "We've set up a phone line and an e-mail address for pharmacists. We try to solve these problems on a case-by-case basis. We have stepped in to get drug plans to pay for prescriptions, so people don't leave the pharmacy without their medications."

Federal officials said they were moving aggressively to fix problems with the drug benefit. About 250 federal employees have been enlisted as caseworkers to help individual patients. The government has told insurers to provide a temporary supply - typically 30 days - of any prescription that a person was previously taking. And Medicare has sent data files to insurers, supposedly listing all low-income people entitled to extra help with premiums and co-payments.

But in many cases, pharmacists say, they still cannot get the information needed to submit claims, to verify eligibility or to calculate the correct co-payments for low-income people. And often, they say, they must wait for hours when they try to reach insurers by telephone.

S. Kimberly Belshé, secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency, said the actions taken by the federal government "have not been sufficient to address the problems that California residents continue to experience."

Let's just say that the new Medicare is clusterfuck in ways which could have been predicted.

Food for Love

Valentine's Day is coming. Here is the centerpiece for a romantic meal for two, or a party if you want to double it, or freeze it down for a single. This is one of those "hug yourself this is so good" dishes, and herbs make the difference between "snooze" and "wow."

Chicken:
1 (3 to 4-pound) chicken, excess fat trimmed and giblets removed
Kosher salt and freshly ground black pepper
1 shallot, sliced
1 bunch fresh thyme
1 lemon, zested in large strips
3 tablespoons extra-virgin olive oil
1 tablespoon honey

Sauce:
3 tablespoons water
1 tablespoon freshly squeezed lemon juice
1 tablespoon extra-virgin olive oil
1 tablespoon honey
2 tablespoons minced shallot
2 teaspoons chopped fresh thyme leaves
1/4 teaspoon kosher salt
Freshly ground black pepper

Preheat the oven to 425 degrees F.

For the chicken: Season the chicken cavity with salt and pepper, to taste. Stuff the chicken cavity with the shallot, half the thyme, and lemon zest. Set a v-rack or regular rack in a roasting pan, and brush chicken with a bit of the olive oil. Whisk the honey and remaining oil in a small bowl. Dip the remaining thyme in the mixture and use it to brush the chicken all over with the honey mixture. Season bird with salt and pepper, to taste.

Tuck the wings under the back, cross the legs, and tie them with kitchen string. Place the chicken breast side down on the rack and roast until the back is golden brown, about 35 to 40 minutes. Remove the pan from the oven and turn the chicken breast side up. Cut the string where it holds the legs together and open up the legs a bit. Baste the chicken with the pan drippings, using the thyme sprigs as a brush. Roast the chicken again until the breast is golden brown and a meat thermometer inserted in the thigh registers 170 degrees F., 20 to 25 minutes more. Transfer the chicken to a carving board, and let it rest 10 minutes before carving.

For the sauce: Remove the rack from the roasting pan. Put the pan over medium-high heat, add the water, and stir with a wooden spoon to release the brown bits that cling to the pan. Strain the pan drippings into a small bowl and spoon off the fat. Whisk in the lemon juice, olive oil, honey, shallot, thyme, salt, and pepper to taste. Carve the chicken and serve drizzled with the sauce.

I serve french cut green beens on the side, dressed with a balsamic vinaigrette for contrast.

Plate a half chicken by stacking the pieces on each other as links and drizzle with the sauce. The rice is a mop up if you serve it with the papadums that Indian cooking really requires. These are fun to eat with dinner and fun to make and easy. This recipe will give you a deliciously browned bird. Use good arborio rice as the side.

End of the Week Menu

With help from Chuck Hensey, Bump had 11 new posts put up today. That's not bad at all, given that I'm also contributing a half-dozen posts on the Alito nomination (most not cross posted here) to Judging the Future five days a week. Let me tell you, at this point in the Alito process, this is one tired blogger. Therefore, it is time for some recipes. It's Friday night, I have a glass of wine and my thoughts turn to the ways I'd like to feed all of you, who are friends. I hope that you will use these to try some new things or sharpen up old favorites. Tonight, I'm turning off CNN and parking my TV on the Food Network. I'm particularly partial to the cooking of Emeril Legasse, but I'm aware that not everyone likes that much garlic. I cook his recipes and add more (!). I'm a big fan of the entire Alliaceae family, and grow a lot of it myself. Some simply can't eat it without getting gassy, so most of my recipes can be cooked successfully without them, usually by substituting an acid and herbs. That said, this recipe is a pure celebration of garlic. Garlic lovers, these lovely buds are for you! I love shellfish and this is a huge favorite.

Shrimp Bruschetta with Limoncello

Yield: 4 servings

1/4 cup extra-virgin olive oil
2 garlic cloves, thinly sliced
12 large shrimp, cleaned with tails left on
1 lemon, zest finely grated and juiced
1/2 cup limoncello liqueur
Salt and freshly ground black pepper
1 baguette, sliced into 16 slices, or 8 slices country bread
1 bunch flat-leaf parsley, chopped to yield 1/4 cup

Preheat the broiler or grill.

In a 12 to 14-inch saute pan, heat the olive oil over medium heat until just smoking. Add the garlic and cook until it turns light brown. Add the shrimp and cook without turning for 2 to 3 minutes, until bright red. Turn the shrimp over and cook for 1 minute. Add the lemon juice, and limoncello, and cook until reduced to about 1/3, about 2 minutes. Season with salt and pepper. Remove from heat and set aside. Drain on paper towels to remove the oil.

Grill or toast the bread and place on a platter. Spoon 1 shrimp with sauce onto each toast, sprinkle with lemon zest and parsley, and serve immediately.

This is a Mario Battali recipe and I double the garlic, which gets mild after it has been sauteed. If you can't drink or can't find limoncillo, substitute three tablespoons of lemon juice and a scattering of sugar. This recipe really needs baguette croutons. It is a first course or a pass with drinks nosh which will have your guests asking, "Say, is this for dinner?" It's that delish.

Serve this as a main course by doubling everything but the bread and pour over arborio rice with a steamed vegetable like asparagus on the side, but do it simply, with just a butter sauce. This will serve 4 as a first course, 2 as a main course.

This is simple, and if your guests are garlic lovers, it will be a great favorite.

Wanna Write? Read a Lot.

Study: Most College Students Lack Skills

By BEN FELLER, AP Education Writer Fri Jan 20, 1:56 AM ET

WASHINGTON - More than half of students at four-year colleges — and at least 75 percent at two-year colleges — lack the literacy to handle complex, real-life tasks such as understanding credit card offers, a study found.

The literacy study funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, the first to target the skills of graduating students, finds that students fail to lock in key skills — no matter their field of study.

The results cut across three types of literacy: analyzing news stories and other prose, understanding documents and having math skills needed for checkbooks or restaurant tips.

Without "proficient" skills, or those needed to perform more complex tasks, students fall behind. They cannot interpret a table about exercise and blood pressure, understand the arguments of newspaper editorials, compare credit card offers with different interest rates and annual fees or summarize results of a survey about parental involvement in school.

"It is kind of disturbing that a lot of folks are graduating with a degree and they're not going to be able to do those things," said Stephane Baldi, the study's director at the American Institutes for Research, a behavioral and social science research organization.

Most students at community colleges and four-year schools showed intermediate skills. That means they can do moderately challenging tasks, such as identifying a location on a map.

There was brighter news.

Overall, the average literacy of college students is significantly higher than that of adults across the nation. Study leaders said that was encouraging but not surprising, given that the spectrum of adults includes those with much less education.

Also, compared with all adults with similar levels of education, college students had superior skills in searching and using information from texts and documents.

"But do they do well enough for a highly educated population? For a knowledge-based economy? The answer is no," said Joni Finney, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, an independent and nonpartisan group.

I've been teaching at the university level for more than 25 years and I've watched the level at which students read and write decline on a yearly basis. I've also worked with professionals with advanced degrees who express themselves so poorly in writing that you wonder how the hell they ever got a job. If you want to write well, you need to read. It's wide reading that makes a great writer. Two of the best I know have no college, but they are better writers than people I know with PhDs.

Tentacles Everywhere

Republicans, large and small
Bush, Alito, Abramoff ... and Healey

n the view of professor Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas Law School, "The major issue before the Court, and the nation, both now and in the foreseeable future ... [will be] the ability to stave off ever more aggressive assertions of executive power unchecked by either Congress or the judiciary." There is a great deal of evidence in Alito’s record, on and off the bench, that indicates he is a strong advocate of unrestrained presidential powers — at least as long as the president is a right-wing Republican. His record as a judge hews so closely to his personal conservative beliefs that it strains credulity to imagine him as anything other than a right-wing radical, a Bork without the silly beard. It is at least possible to imagine his smoother and more sophisticated brother conservative, Chief Justice John Roberts, entertaining heretical legal opinions if they are sufficiently intellectually enticing. Alito is nothing more than the kinder, gentler face of conservative extremism, an understated, opera-loving guy from a modest background who earned prestigious degrees from Princeton and Yale Law and hitched his star to plutocrats who put the screws to working people and made the well-off even more affluent — all while cloaking their agenda in pious hosannas. Who says you can’t fool most of the people most of the time?

Alito’s personal and professional career has been that of a highly competent valet in the service of corporate and conservative interests. There is no evidence that he has an independent bone in his body. These are the same interests that the corrupt super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff sought to further buy by doling out cash and favors to the already bought. It’s true that a handful of the recipients of Abramoff’s largesse were Democrats, but the overwhelming majority of them were Republicans. Alito, of course, is in no way implicated in Abramoff’s illegal deeds. But other rapacious lobbyists, such as Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, and modern-day Elmer Gantrys, such as Christian politico Ralph Reed, worked hand in glove with the very sort of Republicans who sponsored Alito’s career. There are very few degrees of separation between Abramoff’s interests and Alito’s supporters. They are master and man, one and the same.

Shining light on the essential nature of the corrupt concept that is Bushism won’t, most likely, stop Alito’s elevation to the Supreme Court — although we fervently hope Senate Democrats will stand against his confirmation. And while the coming Republican congressional scandals will cost the GOP, the price is not likely to be high enough to give back control of the House of Representatives to the Democrats. To those who shrug and say — with painful candor — that the even if the Democrats won control of the House, they wouldn’t know what to do with it, we say this: a less effectual House is better than a corrupt House.

Next week, I'll be interviewing Bob Borosage of the Campaign for America's Future to show you how Abramoff is tied into virtually every scandal in the Bush administration, including Alito's appointment. The more I've read, the bigger this looks.

Our Booming Economy

U.S. Stocks Head for Biggest Loss of Year; GE, Citigroup Slide

The Conventional Wisdom

WaPo blogger Joel Achenbach thinks he's being funny:

Three More Years?

George W. Bush has been president for precisely five years. By my reckoning that means he can serve for another three years, unless, after consultation with the Attorney General, he exercises his Executive Privilege to void the Constitution entirely and declare himself President For Life. I'm not saying that'll happen! We're not political here. We're objective. It's much more likely that he will declare that he didn't really win in 2000, and therefore should be permitted to run again in 2008.

Fortunately, the 22nd Amendment anticipates that argument. Please read carefully the wording of the amendment: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once. " In other words, since Bush served more than two years of what would have been Gore's first presidential term, he was only eligible to be elected once.

Nonetheless, the amendment has an enormous loophole. It fails to take into account the fact that our perception of time, and of the duration of presidential administrations, is highly subjective. The four-year term is an artifact of the 18th century. In an accelerated society, four years can sometimes seem much shorter or much longer, depending upon the intensity of media coverage of a presidency, and whether we're getting fed up with someone. It's well known among historians, for example, that the Millard Fillmore presidency seemed to go on for a full century. Whereas the first Grover Cleveland presidency was so forgettable that people literally forgot he had been president, and a few years later elected him again for what they thought was the first time.

Thus a new amendment could stipulate that a president can serve what feels like two terms. Which might be anything from three months to 40 years. Let's think out of the box for once. Let's restore feelings to their rightful place at the center of American democracy. Numbers don't matter. What matters is if we're in the mood.

Here in the liberal blogosphere, it's the accepted wisdom that the chances of having an election in 2008 aren't so good. Bush has already announced that he'll declare martial law in the event of pandemic flu.

On a Lighter Note

Misdirection at the White House

By Al Kamen

Friday, January 20, 2006; Page A15

Back in the Clinton era, people often made the mistake of trying to get to the administration Web site by typing "whitehouse.com" instead of "whitehouse.gov." That, sources told us at the time, would take you instantly to a porn site featuring, well, the usual.

Some people just couldn't stop making that mistake, no matter how hard they tried.

But now, in the Bush era, typing in "whitehouse.com" directs you to Loan.com, a site offering help on mortgages, debt consolidation, auto loans and the like.

Seems most appropriate. In the Clinton days, a sleazy sex site. In the Bush era, a loan company to hike up your debt.

Filibuster Friday

Urgent Phone Action: IT'S FILIBUSTER FRIDAY To Stop Alito
Tell A Friend
Instantly lookup your senators' local district phone and fax numbers

by thepen

CALL ALL YOUR SENATORS LOCAL DISTRICT OFFICES NOW TO OPPOSE ALITO

INSTANTLY LOOKUP ALL THEIR LOCAL PHONE AND FAX NUMBERS AT
THIS SITE:

We have gotten many emails from our participants, asking "what more can we do?" Some have reported senators arbitrarily turning off their answering machines at night, or long waits on hold. Are they trying to hide from the thousands and thousands of their constituents who are raising their voices to demand that they filibuster the evasive Alito? Even if you have already sent your personal message by email or made some phone calls, we have added a FABULOUS extra function to the main action page where you can instantly lookup all your senators local district offices phone and fax numbers with just one click.

SPREAD THE WORD ABOUT FILIBUSTER FRIDAY

If the other side can have a so-called "Justice Sunday", we can have our own "Filibuster Friday", and that day is today. In just the last 24 hours we have seen a major shift in momentum. Yesterday, Senator Leahy came out with a very strong statement that he recognizes the immense threat to our freedom and democracy in allowing a dangerous and unpopular president to install a fifth and controlling vote to hold that our Constitution actually intended to create an executive dictatorship. Today we need to show our support for those senators who are standing up now by hitting every phone they've got right down to the district level with our phone calls and faxes. Get all your numbers with one easy click at

http://www.nocrony.com

Those you who like to call in to progressive radio programs, we have all their call in numbers too at the site above in the right column. Call them and ask them to talk up Filibuster Friday all day and night long! Let's start early and snowball the thing all day long. Ask them to give out the easy to say and remember URL above as much as possible. Senators have said they are "undecided" on a filibuster. But we the American people HAVE decided and all they have to do it get it.

Some senators who are too still too cowardly to demand a filibuster are saying they will make Alito an issue in the 2006 election. It'll be an issue alright, in their OWN primaries! Any officeholder who will not stand up for this one must never hold public office in any capacity ever again. And the difference is whether you will stand up YOURSELF right now and make those calls to their local district offices. Make calls to the toll-free numbers 888-355-3588, 888-818-6641 and 800-426-8073 if you can get through there too.

It is not enough for them to vote "No." They must vote "Hell, NO!" It's called a filibuster. Yes to a filibuster. Filibuster Friday.

Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to be ours, and forward this message to everyone else you know.

Posted by Melanie at 11:08 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Democracy and Trust

Why Lawyers Are Liars
Apparently, It's All In a Life's Work

By Michael Kinsley

Friday, January 20, 2006; Page A17

As a loyal member -- well, as a member -- of the District of Columbia Bar, I am aware of the tension between advocacy and honesty. But until the recent controversies over Supreme Court nominees, I was unaware of the scope and depth of my professional obligation to avoid telling the truth. It apparently spans an entire career in the law. .... Legal briefs filed for a client are one thing, but internal memos to a client are another. Or so you might think. But I'm afraid not. Roberts's defenders -- his defenders -- insisted during his confirmation that memos he wrote to his boss when he worked in the White House itself should not be taken seriously as a reflection of his true beliefs. The memos gave the appearance of urging the Reagan administration to take a more conservative line on issues such as school prayer and employment discrimination. But White House press secretary Scott McClellan revealed that these were actually Reagan's views already. "I think what those files show is a young White House staffer helping to provide legal analysis in support of the president's agenda, President Reagan's agenda." In other words, Roberts supplied reasons for views Reagan already held. Roberts was just a repairman, fixing views he didn't necessarily own.

When do lawyers become free to have their own agenda and say what they really think? Not when they leave the government and enter private practice. Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee that "the positions a lawyer presents on behalf of a client should not be ascribed to that lawyer." While true, this is a point that does not bear excessive emphasis. If the average potential juror knew that lawyers actually take pride in not believing what they say it could wreck the whole system.

What if that practicing lawyer should be appointed as a judge? Alito warned senators not to assume that the decisions of a lower federal court reflect a judge's true beliefs, because lesser judges are bound by rulings of the Supreme Court. And if that lower-court judge is nominated to join the Supremes? We all know that in the confirmation process, etiquette, if not ethics, requires evasion, if not outright lying, because to reveal any actual legal view would amount to "prejudging" potential cases.

And, finally, even Supreme Court justices are bound to some extent by the doctrine of stare decisis , which is the judicial equivalent of papal infallibility. Rulings lose the mystical authority they depend on when people start to get the idea they can be reversed at will. The actual power of stare decisis in restraining Supreme Court justices from saying and doing what they believe is unclear. The capstone untruth of a successful legal career is promising, under stare decisis , to suppress your true beliefs more than you really will.

This is even more tortuous than Kinsley usually is, but the last graph is key. Faith in our legal system is built on precedent. Overturning it on ideological whim destroys faith in the system.

Breakdown

Trial Illuminates Dark Tactics of Interrogation
By Nicholas Riccardi, Times Staff Writer

FT. CARSON, Colo. — It was dubbed the "sleeping bag technique."

Interrogators at a makeshift prison in western Iraq, desperate to break suspected insurgents, would stuff them face-first into a sleeping bag with a small hole cut in the bottom for air.

Chief Warrant Officer Lewis E. Welshofer Jr. used it on an Iraqi general as a last-ditch grab for information as Welshofer's unit was in the midst of an offensive against insurgents and desperate for intelligence.

The technique was not in the Army Field Manual, but Welshofer testified Thursday that he believed it was permitted after top commanders told interrogators "the gloves were coming off."

But Welshofer got no information.

Read this in light of Rosa Brooks' op ed below. It's not just the Constitution which is in doubt, it's the entire construct of what we used to think of as "the rule of law." This frail framework of agreements, precedents, treaties and traditions is tumbling down all over the place in W's America.

Burning Problems

Fire Erupts in W.Va. Mine; Two Missing

By LAWRENCE MESSINA
01.20.2006

Fire broke out in an underground coal mine in southern West Virginia late Thursday and two workers were unaccounted for, authorities said.

The fire was reported at the Aracoma Coal Co. in Mellville, about 60 miles southwest of Charleston.

Jeff Gillenwater, a spokesman for the mine's owner, Massey Energy, said the blaze began on a conveyer belt inside the mine and the mine itself was not on fire.

"It is not a raging fire. It is a belt line fire that caused smoke in the coal mine," Gillenwater told The Logan Banner newspaper. "There are two individuals we are currently trying to find in the coal mine."

Gillenwater said there is clean air in several sections of the mine. "These two guys know this coal mine well, and we're just hopeful mine rescue finds them quickly," he said.

Mine rescuers, emergency crews and representatives of the state Miners Health Safety and Training Office were at the scene.

Now, I'm not blaming the Bush Administration for this fire. For all we know, it may be just a random accident. Certainly those happen and it's not the government's fault. However, does anyone here remember the last time two serious mine accidents took place within the span of 2 months?

Of course, we do know that the other mine in Sago had numerous violations and yet still reamined open. Honestly, this doesn't make any sense to me. If the place is that bad, shouldn't it be forced to shut down until appropiate actions are taken to correct the problems that exist? Isn't that the entire purpose behind regulating businesses?

The administration's responce to all of this is their usual MO... shift the blame. Case in point (emphasis mine):

Bush administration proposes higher mine safety penalties

By Karen MacPherson, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
January 20, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Two years ago, U.S. Labor Secretary Elaine Chao urged Congress to nearly quadruple the fines for the most "egregious" safety violations in the nation's mines, raising them to $220,000 from $60,000.

In her budget testimony last year, Ms. Chao again asked Congress to increase the maximum fines levied by the Mine Safety and Health Administration, which is part of the Labor Department.

But the Bush Administration sent no legislation to Capitol Hill, and Congress took no action .

Three weeks ago, White House press secretary Scott McClellan highlighted the proposal as he fended off criticism of the administration's record on mine safety after 12 miners died in the Sago Mine in West Virginia.

Mr. McClellan said improved mine safety had been an administration priority. "In fact," he said, "this administration proposed a fourfold increase in fines and penalties for violations of Mine Safety and Health Administration rules."

But it was not until this week , on Wednesday, that the Bush administration finally sent legislation to Congress to increase the maximum fine to $220,000. Labor Department officials said the increase would help ensure that mine operators abide by safety rules, and congressional Republicans indicated they would seriously consider the proposal as congressional hearings begin on the Sago Mine tragedy.

......

Congressional critics, however, said that the Labor Department already has the authority to raise fines for safety violations and that the current flurry of activity on the issue is window dressing designed to deflect attention from what they argue is the Bush administration's poor enforcement record.

"The Bush administration is attempting to hide the fact that it could have assessed much higher fines without needing to come to Congress for permission," said Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee.

Amazing isn't it? This adminisrtation is going around claiming powers it doesn't have (NSA) and completely ignoring the authority it does have. Even better, it turns out that their "reforms" won't acutally fix the problem. Why?

Ellen Smith, publisher of Mine Safety and Health News, contends that raising the top fine from $60,000 to $220,000 won't mean much unless the administration can also persuade Congress to change the "penalty criteria" used by administrative judges in determining whether to reduce fines proposed by MSHA.

Judges have to look at the financial condition of the company, Ms. Smith. If a fine impairs the company or hurts them in their business, then the penalty is going to get lowered.

"The whole thing about the Mine Act is that you can't fine a mine operator out of business. They have to be able to continue to be in business."

Ms. Smith pointed to a recent case in which a miner died and the mine operator was fined $53,000. The fine eventually was lowered to $18,000 "because of the financial condition of the operator and the size of the business," she said.

"Maybe increasing the fines is what's needed to be more of a deterrent,'' Ms. Smith said. "But if a guy losing his life isn't a deterrent, I don't know what is.''

Dangerous Territory

Rosa Brooks:
Political footballs and constitutional law

ON MONDAY, my constitutional law class will meet for the first time this semester, and I don't have the slightest idea what to tell the students about the subject we'll be discussing for the next 13 weeks.

I've taught the class before, and by now I know most of the canonical cases as well as I know my own phone number. My problem is that I'm no longer sure there's really a subject to teach.

I don't seem to be the only one confronting this problem. As Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Tribe recently observed: "Conflict over basic constitutional premises is today at a fever pitch. Ascertaining the text's meaning; the proper role and likely impact of treaty, international and foreign law; the relationships among constitutional law, constitutional culture and constitutional politics; what to make of things about which the Constitution is silent — all these, and more, are passionately contested, with little common ground from which to build agreement."
....
We've faced constitutional crises several times in our history — moments when the nation was so seriously divided that violence and even political dissolution seemed real possibilities. Disagreements over the constitutional permissibility of anti-slavery laws led to the Civil War. Nearly a century later, it took federal troops to force Arkansas to abide by the Supreme Court's Brown vs. the Board of Education ruling.

Today, we're again facing constitutional crisis, and it's as serious as many we've faced in the past. We have a president who seems intent on challenging all the old verities about constitutional checks and balances, and a population that is bitterly divided over the definition of human life, the scope of personal freedom, the role of religion in society and the role of government in responding to social and economic problems.

Little wonder, then, that we fight about the "judicial philosophy" of Supreme Court nominees such as Samuel Alito. How tempting to imagine that all our problems would be solved if we could only find a magic bullet: the one "correct" approach to constitutional interpretation.

But as we move further and further from 1787, it becomes less and less possible to find any "correct" approach to resolving constitutional dilemmas. The Constitution was drafted by a small group of men writing at a time when the entire population of the United States was smaller than the present-day population of South Carolina, when the enslavement of human beings was considered acceptable, when women had few legal rights, when the cotton gin was still a high-tech dream. No matter how thoughtful the framers were, why should anyone imagine that a short document drafted more than two centuries ago could possibly contain the answers to every modern question?

But that's the deep oddity of American constitutional culture. Despite its all-too-human origins, we treat our Constitution as revealed truth, and we want our judges to serve as its infallible priests.

And this, perhaps, is the best I can offer my students: the suggestion that in the United States today, constitutional interpretation is best understood as a form of theology rather than law.

What's in a Label?

New Drug Label Rule Is Intended to Reduce Medical Errors

By GARDINER HARRIS
Published: January 19, 2006

WASHINGTON, Jan. 18 - The confusing tangle of information found on the labels of prescription drugs will soon undergo a major revision, a move federal drug regulators hope will reduce the injuries and deaths caused by medical errors.

The changes, announced Wednesday by the Food and Drug Administration, are intended to clarify the flood of information that doctors routinely confront when assessing the safety of prescription drugs. The new rule does not affect the drug information sheets that patients routinely receive, but is likely to result in major changes to drug advertisements and may offer some liability protections to drug makers.

Some 300,000 people are injured and nearly 100,000 are killed in hospitals every year because of medical errors, studies show. Prescribing errors are a major cause.

But studies show that fewer than one in 10 physicians routinely read drug labels, which provide the most complete information about a drug's dangers and uses. And when they do read labels, studies also show, doctors learn little. Major changes to drug labels have in the past done little to stop dangerous prescribing habits by physicians.

"I think labels are really confusing now," Dr. Charles Gerson, a gastroenterologist in Manhattan, said in an interview. "There are a million little bits of information, and it's not easy to find what you're looking for."

Under the new rule, drug labels will for the first time have a highlights section that summarizes the vital information needed to prescribe a drug safely. This new section will first list safety warnings and then summarize any recent changes. Advice about how to use and dose a drug will follow, and there will be a new section telling doctors what they should tell patients.

This looks so... reasonable that I can't believe that it's coming from this administration. I'm mean, it's logical, consumer friendly, and might help the majority of citizens. It even looks to cover the television advertisements, which he irked me for years. Honestly, am I going to ask my doctor to sign me up for a drug that has so many side effects that it takes 3/4 of the commercial to list them (even if all of the people on the background are happy...)?

Wait though... if you look farther down the article there is this nugget:

Trial lawyers reacted angrily to a preamble to the new rule stating that the rule pre-empts, or supersedes, state liability statutes.

In the preamble, the agency listed six claims against drug makers that would be prohibited as a result of the rule, including claims that a drug maker should have put into a label's "highlights" section a risk warning included elsewhere in its label, or claims that a drug maker should have included a warning that the drug agency deemed unnecessary.

"Overwarning, just like underwarning, can similarly have a negative effect on patient safety and public health," the preamble states.

Drug agency officials have for years made similar arguments in some product liability trials, but the preamble may provide broader protections to drug makers, former agency lawyers said.

"It will make it impossible to file liability claims," said Peter Barton Hutt, a former general counsel for the agency who is in private practice. Other lawyers suggested that the preamble would provide far less protection to drug makers.

Yeah, right. If the labels are written in legalese or medicalese, then you'll need a Masters to understand where the instructions start, much less finish.

So if the explaination isn't clear enough, it's not their fault that you couldn't read it... after all we know that 80-90% of people have a high school degree so they should be able to read it. And if not, oh well.... the corporation can't control that.

Nestled In

Time for recipes, and here is one that is quick and easy and can be used a lot of places. This will find its place on the plate next to a tenderloin of beef for dinner or next to a ramekin of shirred eggs at breakfast or brunch. Hell, serve them with soup and sandwiches at lunch.

I'm mindful of the things my brother the chef has told me about his research on potatoes. Like many of us, he is losing weight (this is a really tall guy) by getting rid of the things that make losing weight excessivelly hard work, and potatoes do cling to your butt and waist. Potatoes contain forms of starch which do convert to fat with great ease. Frying them helps this along. That said, I've never met a potato I didn't like, but they aren't part of the daily menu any more. Enjoy this recipe sparingly, but do enjoy it. If you are eating them more than a few times a year, you are begging for the dreaded "my jeans don't fit" moment.

Here's a good way to eat them.

Ingredients:
8 ounces red potatoes, each cut into 6 wedges
1 1/2 tablespoons extra-virgin olive oil
1/2 teaspoon sea salt or other coarse salt
1/2 teaspoon ground black pepper
3 cloves garlic, minced
1 1/2 teaspoons chopped fresh rosemary

Directions:
1. Preheat oven to 400*.
2. Toss potatoes with oil, salt and pepper in medium bowl to coat.
3. Transfer potatoes to small baking sheet; roast 20 minutes, stirring once.
4. Add garlic and rosemary to potatoes; toss.
5. Roast until potatoes are just tender, about 10 minutes.
6. Transfer to plate; serve.

Makes 2 servings.

Rosemary is an amazing herb, I grow it every year, and it will transform every thing from eggs, to chicken to ham, or these simple potatoes. It makes the simple complex.

Some cooks make this recipe more a part of the aromatic vegetable scene by adding one small sauteed yellow onion. But the straight recipe will go with a lot of things. Sea salt IS different.

The End of the First Amendment

Buck over at Bad Attitudes caught this:

Yesterday, the Supreme Court made a key decision which even federal officals admit will have major implications for free speech across the country.

With all eyes on the Alito confirmation non-aftermath, the Court hastily refused to hear the appeal of South Carolina activist Brett Bursey, the first and only person to be prosecuted under the statute governing “Threats to the President.”

Bursey's crime? Four years ago, when President Bush came to Columbia, SC to whip up support for the Iraq war, Bursey — a leader of the South Carolina Progressive Network — inserted himself into the pro-Bush crowd with a sign saying “No more war for oil, don't invade Iraq.”

For these unthinkable sentiments, Bursey was commanded to retreat to an Orwellian-named “free speech zone” or be charged with trespassing. As Bursey relates, “I told the police that I was in a free speech zone called the United States of America.”

The trespassing charges were dismissed four months after the arrest, but the feds wouldn’t have it. The Secret Service quickly moved to press the unprecedented: “Threats to President” charges, and, after being refused a jury trial, Bursey was convicted and given a $500 fine.

Bursey could have gone the easy route and paid the money. Instead he and public interest lawyer Lewis Pitts appealed the decision, racking up thousands in legal bills to protest what they perceived to be a legal sham with national implications.

It’s no exaggeration to say the Supreme Court’s decision to let the conviction stand sets a dangerous precedent. A Secret Service official in South Carolina, Neal Dolan, admitted as much in Charleston last year when he declared that “If Bursey’s prosecution holds, we have another dozen cases” across the country.

By any means necessary...

Feds After Google data...

The Bush administration on Wednesday asked a federal judge to order Google to turn over a broad range of material from its closely guarded databases.

The government indicated that other, unspecified search engines have agreed to release the information, but not Google.

I guess it's time for me to finally dump my Yahoo mail account.

Oh, and does anybody take seriously their need to violate our privacy for the sake of our children?

Big Brother is Here

Federal Grants Bring Surveillance Cameras to Small Towns
Village in Vermont Has Almost as Many as D.C.

By David A. Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 19, 2006; Page A01

BELLOWS FALLS, Vt. -- This snowy village, in the shadow of Fall Mountain and alongside the iced-over Connecticut River, is the kind of place where a little of anything usually suffices. There are just eight full-time police officers on the town's force, two chairs in the barbershop and one screen in the theater.

A little of anything -- except surveillance cameras. Bellows Falls has decided it needs 16 of those.

Using federal grant money, police plan to put up the 24-hour cameras at such spots as intersections, a sewage plant and the town square. All told, this hamlet will have just three fewer police surveillance cameras than the District of Columbia, which has 181 times Bellows Falls's population.

Similar cameras are already up in the Virginia communities of Galax and Tazewell, where police can pan right down Main Street, and in tiny Preston, Md., with two police officers and five police cameras. An interest in public, permanent video surveillance -- as well as the federal dollars to pay for it -- seems to be flowing down to the smallest levels of American law enforcement.

So far, the growth of small-town surveillance camera systems has not received much national notice. But it already seems to be changing the way such Mayberry-size places are policed.

"People don't notice things" as they used to in Bellows Falls, said Keith Clark, the village's police chief. Instead, "now, technology is there to do that."

Large police departments have only started to embrace public surveillance in the past six years or so, long after privately owned cameras became ubiquitous at banks, ATMs and stores. D.C. police have placed their 19 cameras around downtown and Georgetown, and similar networks have gone up in places such as Baltimore, Chicago and New York.

But, despite the popularity of these systems, some critics still question whether they are any good at stopping crimes in progress. In Washington, for instance, the worst offense caught on police cameras so far seems to have been a car break-in -- in 2001.

Yet more privacy surrendered, for nothing.

More Rummygrams

William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security
Destabilizing Missiles?

Tony Capaccio of Bloomberg News has another scoop that probably portends the most important strategic military development of our generation.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has given the Navy go ahead to develop a conventionally armed Trident missile. Two dozen existing nuclear-armed submarine-launched missiles will be converted to carry conventional warheads. The missiles will then be assigned "global strike" missions to allow quicker preemptive attacks.

For the first time since intercontinental ballistic missiles were "captured" in arms control treaties 40 years ago as unique and potentially destabilizing weapons, the United States will muddy the waters by modifying an existing nuclear weapon for use in day-to-day warfare.

The conversion of Trident missiles abandons the strict segregation of nuclear from conventional weapons.

Were the United States ever to use its new conventional Tridents, the firing would also flirt with accidental nuclear war. Ballistic missiles aimed at targets in North Korea, for example, might falsely signal to China or Russia that the United States was attacking them.

The arms control and strategic stability issues associated with this decision are momentous. But here is the tragic reality of opening this door: The United States just doesn't need the capability.

Another debacle brought to you by Donald Rumsfeld. At least he's consistent.

Bork Alito

Durbin Says He'll Vote Against Alito

(AP) CHICAGO U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, the Senate's second-highest ranking Democrat, said Thursday he will vote against confirmation of Samuel Alito as the nation's 110th Supreme Court Justice.

Durbin, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he will oppose the nomination of the federal appeals court judge when it comes for a vote next week because Alito has failed to show he would protect privacy rights.

"Based on his record, I'm concerned that Judge Alito will not be willing to stand up to a president who is determined to seize too much power over our personal lives," Durbin said in a statement.

He also criticized Alito for being guarded at his confirmation hearings, noting that the New Jersey native would not even clearly say whether he is a Bruce Springsteen fan.

Leahy to oppose Alito

JESSE J. HOLLAND
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy said today he will oppose Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito's confirmation, saying he did not believe the conservative judge would be independent of President Bush and the executive branch in his future rulings.

"At a time when the president is seizing unprecedented power, the Supreme Court needs to act as a check and to provide balance," Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said in a speech at Georgetown University's law school. "Based on the hearing and his record, I have no confidence that Judge Alito would provide that check and balance."

It is no surprise that the Vermont senator is voting against Alito. He was one of the nominee's harshest interrogators at Alito's confirmation hearings last week.

Leahy also has been a critic of Bush's actions in the war on terror, including warrantless wiretapping on American citizens.

"In an extraordinary era of governmental intrusions into the lives of ordinary Americans, when it has been left to the Supreme Court to restore balance, it is difficult to have any confidence that this nominee will serve as an effective check on his patron or on the government which he has spent his entire legal practice representing," Leahy said.

Harkin Against Alito Nomination

January 19th, 2006 (AP) -- Senator Tom Harkin says he will oppose Samuel Alito's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Iowa Democrat says he's worried Alito would help to undermine the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Harkin, who wrote the ADA, says any nominee for the high court must possess a "true passion for justice," and Alito "falls far short of that measure." With Republicans in solid control of the Senate and GOP lawmakers lined up behind the Alito nomination, Harkin admitted there's little chance his nomination can be derailed.

Have you guys all forgotten the word filibuster?

Loyalty

Sometimes you stumble across things that boggle your mind. Here's mine for the day.

Ad about pledge irks some Republicans

KIM CHANDLER
News staff writer
Tuesday, January 17, 2006

MONTGOMERY - A radio ad bashing a loyalty pledge the Alabama Republican Party requires legislative candidates to sign has miffed some Republicans because it's sponsored by a group with Democratic ties.

The ad is paid for by the Alabama Values Coalition, a political action committee, and is in heavy use across Alabama. Birmingham mayoral aide Scotty Colson is chairman of the group, and Blake Pritchett, a former vice president of Alabama Young Democrats, is treasurer, according to state records.

The ad takes aim at a loyalty oath Republican legislative candidates were required to sign when they sign up to run in the party's primary elections. Candidates pledge they will support only Republicans for leadership positions in the Alabama Senate and House of Representatives.

"According to this sworn oath, the Republican Party comes first from now on. The people come second or third or last," a somber announcer says in the radio ad.

Heh. As you can guess, the R's are howling about the ad but it's more accurate than all of the c**p their friends the Swift Boaters put out on Kerry.

Guess what, if you don't want to have the image of a fascist then don't act like one. Darn... I guess that means you'd have to give meetings open to the public including your opponents.

As Brad DeLong Would Say...

Inflation Hit Five-Year High of 3.4% Last Year
Wages Didn't Keep Up, Labor Department Says

By Nell Henderson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 19, 2006; Page D01

Surging energy prices pushed consumer inflation to a five-year high in 2005, outpacing average wage gains for most U.S. workers, the Labor Department reported yesterday.

The department's consumer price index, a widely followed inflation gauge, rose 3.4 percent last year, the fastest rate since 2000, reflecting higher prices for fuel oil, gasoline, natural gas and electricity, the department said.

Higher fuel prices were behind the 3.4 percent rise in the consumer price index last year. Consumers are paying more for home heating oil this winter.

Workers' average pay rose more slowly. Average hourly wages fell 0.5 percent and average weekly earnings declined 0.4 percent, after adjusting for inflation, in the 12 months that ended in December, the department said in a separate report.

Last year was the third consecutive year in which weekly wages fell, after adjusting for price changes, according to department statistics on the 92 million private production and non-managerial service workers who make up more than 80 percent of the nation's workforce.

"We're just not seeing the improvement in living standards you'd expect" in an economy that is expanding at a healthy pace and benefiting from rapid productivity growth, said Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, a think tank that focuses on labor issues. "It's the biggest problem in the current economy."

Can't blame the headline writer for this howler: "Workers' average pay rose more slowly. Average hourly wages fell 0.5 percent and average weekly earnings declined 0.4 percent, after adjusting for inflation, in the 12 months that ended in December, the department said in a separate report."

When you use "rose more slowly" and "declined" in the same graf, Nell, you must have confused the hell out of the copy editor.

More Incompetence

Setback for U.S. missile shield
Troubled by series of test failures
Slows deployment of interceptors

Jan. 19, 2006. 01:00 AM
RACHEL D'ORO
ASSOCIATED PRESS

FORT GREELY, Alaska—Behind the heavy barbed wire at this snowy range are silos containing eight interceptors designed to shoot down incoming enemy missiles. There were supposed to be as many as 16 in place by now.

But after an embarrassing series of test failures in the ambitious, expensive and highly criticized program to build a national missile-defence shield, the U.S. military is slowing the deployment of interceptors while it conducts more testing.

Fewer interceptors than the military had hoped for have been installed at Fort Greely, an 325-hectare complex at the edge of an old spruce forest, and at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Vandenberg has just two interceptors instead of four.

The government has spent about $100 billion (U.S.) on missile defence since 1983, including $7.8 billion authorized for the current fiscal year. Interceptors, however, have failed five times in 11 tests, even though some critics of the program say the tests have been practically rigged to succeed.

Officials with the Pentagon's Missile Defence Agency said its director, air force Lt.- Gen. Henry Obering, decided to step back on the advice of two independent panels, which scrutinized the program after test failures in 2004 and 2005 in which the interceptors did not even make it out of their silos.

This has been a boondogle from day one, but you aren't reading about it in the WaPo.

Thanks to reader S for the link.

Making Things Up

New analysis confirms fines for mine safety violations are down

By Seth Borenstein and Linda J. Johnson
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Federal mine safety officials on Wednesday disputed a Knight Ridder analysis showing a dramatic reduction in the dollar amount of large fines for mine safety violations during the Bush administration, saying in an Internet posting that those fines are actually up.

Mine Safety and Health Administration spokesman Dirk Fillpot said that Knight Ridder made "assumptions that were incorrect" in its Jan. 6 analysis.

But when Knight Ridder conducted a new analysis in the manner suggested by Fillpot using MSHA's newest database, it showed the same dramatic drop.

The newest data show a 43 percent reduction in proposed median major fines from the last five years of the Clinton administration when compared with the first five years of the Bush administration. That's the same percentage reduction found in Knight Ridder's original analysis, using a smaller, online database of MSHA violations.

When asked about that drop and the analysis, Fillpot refused Wednesday to answer 11 specific questions about MSHA's fines, its analysis or the posting of its critique.

Instead Fillpot repeated a prepared statement that said "it is unfortunate that Knight Ridder's analysis of MSHA's penalties was inaccurate."

But four statistical experts who looked at the databases and analyses said Knight Ridder's findings were accurate and that MSHA's assessment didn't contradict the newspaper's findings of smaller fines during the Bush administration.

"It's really wrong for them (MSHA) to say you're incorrect," said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina in Columbia. "There's no question that the average/median proposed penalty has gone down."

MSHA's response "is looking at two different things and making a statement as if they are looking at the same thing," said Jeff Porter, a database library director for Investigative Reporters and Editors Inc., an association of journalists. Porter also teaches data analysis at the University of Missouri School of Journalism.

On its Web site, MSHA said the size of the final assessments - which are lower after bargaining and appeals - are up by "nearly 38 percent." Knight Ridder looked only at proposed fines because some of the actual fines are determined not by MSHA, but by administrative judges when mining companies appeal those penalties. Further, Knight Ridder found that fines finally assessed and paid fines are still lower on average in the Bush administration.

Fillpot wouldn't explain how his agency came up with the 38 percent figure. The statistical experts said they couldn't understand how MSHA figured that out. Fillpot said "that information is taken from actual MSHA enforcement records and is accurate."

He refused to elaborate.

That's the standard tactic with the Bushies: if the facts aren't on your side, make assertions backed up with nothing.

Blowback

Iraq crude sector hit hard by ongoing insurgency

By TARIQ KHONJI

MANAMA: Terrorism and instability has brought Iraq's oil industry to a standstill, an official declared in Bahrain yesterday. The result is starvation of investment and technology, the same problem the industry has suffered for 35 years, said Oil Ministry public relations manager Mohammed Ali Mustafa.

"Iraq has been isolated from the rest of the world for all this time, especially since the start of the Iran-Iraq war, but of course, the problem reached its peak following the invasion of Kuwait," he said.

"But terrorism has meant that we are not getting the foreign investment that we desperately need to get back on our feet.

"In all this time, not a single major oil industry-related contract has been awarded and no joint venture projects announced."

Mr Mustafa cited as an example Iraq's biggest oil refinery, in Bayji, having to shut down production for two weeks because of terrorist threats.

"The threats were as a result of Iraq raising oil prices. The terrorists had become used to buying oil very cheaply and then smuggling it out of the country and selling it for hefty margins," he said.

Remember when we were told that the Iraqis would be able to finance our war (as if they would want to) on their oil income? Hmmm. What does the price of gas look like in your neighborhood these days

No Exit

Paul Woodward has some interesting things to say this morning about a Guardian story which says:

The west has picked a fight with Iran that it cannot win

Washington's kneejerk belligerence ignores Tehran's influence and the need for subtle engagement
Simon Jenkins
Friday January 20, 2006

Guardian

Never pick a fight you know you cannot win. Or so I was told. Pick an argument if you must, but not a fight. Nothing I have read or heard in recent weeks suggests that fighting Iran over its nuclear enrichment programme makes any sense at all. The very talk of it - macho phrases about "all options open" - suggests an international community so crazed with video game enforcement as to have lost the power of coherent thought.

Iran is a serious country, not another two-bit post-imperial rogue waiting to be slapped about the head by a white man. It is the fourth largest oil producer in the world. Its population is heading towards 80 million by 2010. Its capital, Tehran, is a mighty metropolis half as big again as London. Its culture is ancient and its political life is, to put it mildly, fluid.

All the following statements about Iran are true. There are powerful Iranians who want to build a nuclear bomb. There are powerful ones who do not. There are people in Iran who would like Israel to disappear. There are people who would not. There are people who would like Islamist rule. There are people who would not. There are people who long for some idiot western politician to declare war on them. There are people appalled at the prospect. The only question for western strategists is which of these people they want to help.

Of all the treaties passed in my lifetime the 1968 nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) always seemed the most implausible. It was an insiders' club that any outsider could defy with a modicum of guile. So it has proved. America, sitting armed to the teeth across Korea's demilitarised zone, has let North Korea become a nuclear power despite a 1994 promise that it would not. America supported Israel in going nuclear. Britain and America did not balk at India doing so, nor Pakistan when it not only built a bomb but deceitfully disseminated its technology in defiance of sanctions. Three flagrant dissenters from the NPT are thus regarded by America as friends.

I would sleep happier if there were no Iranian bomb but a swamp of hypocrisy separates me from overly protesting it. Iran is a proud country that sits between nuclear Pakistan and India to its east, a nuclear Russia to its north and a nuclear Israel to its west. Adjacent Afghanistan and Iraq are occupied at will by a nuclear America, which backed Saddam Hussein in his 1980 invasion of Iran. How can we say such a country has "no right" to nuclear defence?

None the less this month's reopening of the Natanz nuclear enrichment plant and two others, though purportedly for peaceful uses, was a clear act of defiance by Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Inspectors from the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) remain unsure whether it implies a secret weapons programme but the evidence for this is far stronger than, for instance, against Saddam Hussein. To have infuriated the IAEA's Mohamed ElBaradei takes some doing. As Saddam found, deviousness in nuclear matters is bound to arouse suspicion. Either way, the reopening yielded a strong diplomatic coalition of Europe, America, Russia and China in pleading with Ahmadinejad to desist.

On Monday, Washington's kneejerk belligerence put this coalition under immediate strain. In two weeks the IAEA must decide whether to report Iran to the UN security council for possible sanctions. There seems little point in doing this if China and Russia vetoes it or if there is no plan B for what to do if such pressure fails to halt enrichment, which seems certain. A clear sign of western floundering are speeches and editorials concluding that Iran "should not take international concern lightly", the west should "be on its guard" and everyone "should think carefully". It means nobody has a clue.

Paul comments:

The American drumbeat - take Iran to the Security Council - is being carefully choreographed. It is intended to reached a dramatic climax in February when, chance would have it, the council's presidency will be held by US Ambassador, John Bolton. He says, "This will be a test for the council, and appropriately so, because the Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems threatens their region and threatens the world as a whole."

The question is, if this a test for the Security Council, is the Bush administration pinning its hopes on success or failure?

It's easy to see how the administration might derive a measure of satisfaction in seeing the council stumble and thereby bolster the claim of those who regard the UN as an "abject failure." At the same time, if the Security Council does not respond well as ringmaster Bolton lashes his whip, the US will then have to tackle the question: What next?

On the other hand, if "success" means that the council agrees to impose the most punative of sanctions by cutting off revenue from oil exports and preventing Iran from importing gasoline, athough this would obviously profit the oil industry it would just as predictably hurt every SUV-driving American and thereby strike a blow to the GOP in the coming elections.

Ultimately, one has to wonder, has the administration really thought this through, or is it again a hostage of its own rhetoric?

Privacy Search

I know there are quite a few people here who are not fans of Google, but they seem to be on the "right" side of this issue for the moment.

Feds after Google data

By Howard Mintz
Mercury News
Thu, Jan. 19, 2006

The Bush administration on Wednesday asked a federal judge to order Google to turn over a broad range of material from its closely guarded databases.

The move is part of a government effort to revive an Internet child protection law struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. The law was meant to punish online pornography sites that make their content accessible to minors. The government contends it needs the Google data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches.

In court papers filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Justice Department lawyers revealed that Google has refused to comply with a subpoena issued last year for the records, which include a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period.

The Mountain View-based search and advertising giant opposes releasing the information on a variety of grounds, saying it would violate the privacy rights of its users and reveal company trade secrets, according to court documents.

Nicole Wong, an associate general counsel for Google, said the company will fight the government's effort ``vigorously.''

``Google is not a party to this lawsuit, and the demand for the information is overreaching,'' Wong said.

The case worries privacy advocates, given the vast amount of information Google and other search engines know about their users.

How long do you think it will take this administration to shift its reasons from "child molestors" to "Terrorists"? Sure, they want this data to make a case for the Child Protection Act (a bad law if there ever was one), but do you thikn that Gen. Gonzalez will stop there? This is YOUR information we are talking about here. The government has no need to know what I have checked out on the Internet unless I am suspected of a crime and then, you know, there are courts to go through.

We've already seen how well their last fishing trip went in finding bad guys... how well will this work? They want 1 million random e-mail addresses with no obvious reason for it aside to "find pornography", whatever their current definition of pornography is this week (see Miller and Ashcroft for some of the legal issues).

It's time to wake up, NOW! Personally, I don't think the government discovering that I did a web search on ancient india will make that much of a difference, but that's not the crux of the matter. They have no legal right to collect that infomration on me without going through the courts.

Oh, something else from the article to make you feel safer...

The government indicated that other, unspecified search engines have agreed to release the information, but not Google.

Great... I wonder what enterprising reporter will track down who has ignored the Constitution and given away their users' records.

Say "Wha'"

Diplomats Will Be Shifted to Hot Spots
Rice Also Plans to Elevate USAID Chief

By Glenn Kessler and Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, January 19, 2006; Page A01

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said yesterday that she will shift hundreds of Foreign Service positions from Europe and Washington to difficult assignments in the Middle East, Asia and elsewhere as part of a broad restructuring of the diplomatic corps that she has dubbed "transformational diplomacy."

The State Department's culture of deployment and ideas about career advancement must alter now that the Cold War is over and the United States is battling transnational threats of terrorism, drug smuggling and disease, Rice said in a speech at Georgetown University. "The greatest threats now emerge more within states than between them," she said. "The fundamental character of regimes now matters more than the international distribution of power."

As part of the change in priorities, Rice announced that diplomats will not be promoted into the senior ranks unless they accept assignments in dangerous posts, gain expertise in at least two regions and are fluent in two foreign languages, citing Chinese, Urdu and Arabic as a few preferred examples.

Rice noted that the United States has nearly as many State Department personnel in Germany -- which has 82 million people -- as in India, with 1 billion people. As a first step, 100 jobs in Europe and Washington will be immediately shifted to expanded embassies in countries such as India, China and Lebanon. Many of these diplomats had been scheduled to rotate into coveted posts in European capitals this summer, and the sudden change in assignment has caused some distress, State Department officials said.

Officials said that ultimately as many as one-third of the 6,400 Foreign Service positions could be affected in the coming years.

Separately, today Rice plans to unveil a restructuring of U.S. foreign assistance, including announcing the nomination of Randall L. Tobias as the new administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development. Officials said Rice plans to elevate the USAID post, giving Tobias -- a former Eli Lilly chief executive who now heads the administration's global AIDS relief program -- an office and a planning staff in the State Department. Rice will designate Tobias as having a rank equivalent of deputy secretary of state.

Although the move stops short of merging USAID with State, it is intended to draw the agency closer into the department's fold, the officials said. Additionally, the new director will be given broader authority over a range of foreign assistance accounts now managed by separate entities. "Effectively, this will allow a single person to have visibility into these various accounts," a State official said.

How many foreign languages does Condi Rice speak?

From Wikipedia

"During an interview with Russian Echo Moscow Radio, her fluency in the Russian language was tested when she was asked about her intentions concerning running for President. [15] When asked by a schoolgirl, "One day you will run for president?" she replied, "President, da, da," before she quickly answered with "nyet, nyet, nyet." When a Russian girl asked how she could become like her, she replied in English, "I don't want to talk about myself."

Jeebus, I have that much Russian. Condi is supposed to be an Expert. This is our new World of the Wierd.

Posted by Melanie at 06:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Fourth Estate Loses Its Way

The fucking Constitution is in question and I'm supposed to care about this? NYT, shut down your investigative unit until you can get your shit together.

Inquiry on Clinton Official Ends With Accusations of Cover-Up

By DAVID JOHNSTON and NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: January 19, 2006

WASHINGTON, Jan. 18 - After the longest independent counsel investigation in history, the prosecutor in the case of former Housing Secretary Henry G. Cisneros is finally closing his operation with a scathing report accusing Clinton administration officials of thwarting an inquiry into whether Mr. Cisneros evaded paying income taxes. Skip to next paragraph J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press

Henry G. Cisneros, secretary of housing and urban development, speaking to President Bill Clinton on Dec. 19, 1994, in Washington.

The legal inquiry by the prosecutor, David M. Barrett, lasted more than a decade, consumed some $21 million and came to be a symbol of the flawed effort to prosecute high-level corruption through the use of independent prosecutors.

Mr. Barrett began his investigation with the narrower issue of whether Mr. Cisneros lied to the Federal Bureau of Investigation when he was being considered for the cabinet position. He ended his inquiry accusing the Clinton administration of a possible cover-up.

His report says Justice Department officials refused to grant him the broad jurisdiction he wanted; for example, Attorney General Janet Reno said he could look at only one tax year. And after Internal Revenue Service officials in Washington took a Cisneros investigation out of the hands of district-level officials in Texas, the agency deemed the evidence too weak to merit a criminal inquiry, a conclusion strongly disputed by one Texas investigator.

Former officials of the Justice Department and the I.R.S. dismissed Mr. Barrett's conclusions in appendices attached to the report, saying the findings were the product of an inquiry that was incompetently managed from the start.

After being indicted on 18 felony counts, Mr. Cisneros pleaded guilty in 1999 to a misdemeanor charge of lying to investigators. He was later pardoned by President Bill Clinton.

Mr. Barrett kept his office open more than six years after the law that created the independent counsel system was allowed to die. Lawmakers in both parties had wearied of the many inquiries that had failed to achieve the goal of removing political influence from criminal investigations of administration officials.

Some Republicans long contended that efforts to close down Mr. Barrett's operation were motivated by an effort to suppress information about the Cisneros investigation that could reflect badly on Mr. Clinton and his wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But to Democrats and other critics of independent counsels, Mr. Barrett's inquiry has stood as a prime example what went wrong with an important post-Watergate law. That legislation allowed prosecutors, outside the Justice Department's traditional criminal justice bureaucracy, and armed with virtually unlimited time and money, to pursue their subjects into areas few federal prosecutors were likely to venture.

The final report, scheduled to be made public on Thursday, discusses in detail why the office remained in operation for so long: an intense behind-the-scenes clash between senior Justice Department officials and Mr. Barrett, who was trying to explore possible obstruction of justice within the Justice Department and the I.R.S.

Riiight, blame a Clinton era official on page one. There are nine or ten areas of inquiry of Bushco you could be featuring on page one, but, nooo, let's rehash some minor stuff rather than give an inch to Abramoff, Iraq or extraordinary rendition and torture. Grey Lady, you ain't what you used to be.

Dancing with Wolves

Congressional Agency Questions Legality of Wiretaps

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 19, 2006; Page A05

The Bush administration appears to have violated the National Security Act by limiting its briefings about a warrantless domestic eavesdropping program to congressional leaders, according to a memo from Congress's research arm released yesterday.

The Congressional Research Service opinion said that the amended 1947 law requires President Bush to keep all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees "fully and currently informed" of such intelligence activities as the domestic surveillance effort.

The memo from national security specialist Alfred Cumming is the second report this month from CRS to question the legality of aspects of Bush's domestic spying program. A Jan. 6 report concluded that the administration's justifications for the program conflicted with current law.

Yesterday's analysis was requested by Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, who wrote in a letter to Bush earlier this month that limiting information about the eavesdropping program violated the law and provided for poor oversight.

The White House has said it informed congressional leaders about the NSA program in more than a dozen briefings, but has refused to provide further details. At a minimum, the briefings included the chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence oversight committees and the two ranking Democrats, known collectively as the "Gang of Four," according to various sources.

"We believe that Congress was appropriately briefed," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said in a statement last night.

Bush has publicly acknowledged issuing an order after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that allowed the National Security Agency to intercept telephone and e-mail exchanges between the United States and overseas without court authorization. The cases were limited to people suspected of al Qaeda ties, Bush and his aides said.

Cumming's analysis found that both intelligence committees should have been briefed because the program involved intelligence collection activities.

It's on page A5. The WaPo continues to yawn as we enter the New Security Age of the Empire of King George.

It's so nice that a few Congressional leaders have been briefed a couple of times while our civil rights go down the swirly. Too bad none of them thought it was important to tell us. Voters might remember that in November.

Maybe they had dinner with Jack Abramoff to help them forget all of this unpleasantness....I hear that his old place, Signatures was really nice. Out of my price range, but it seems very attractive.

Feeling Safer? Don't.

You think the newspaper headlines of corruption in Washington don't really apply to you? If your health and safety is of interest to you, you should be paying attention.

Whistling in the Wind

By Sam Graham-Felsen, AlterNet. Posted January 18, 2006.

It's gotten so bad for whistleblowers in the Bush era that the federal agency designed to protect them has whistleblowers of its own.

Gabe Bruno is a 29-year veteran of the Federal Aviation Administration. A dedicated, faithful, and -- in retrospect, he believes -- "naive" public servant, Bruno learned the hard way that blowing the whistle within the federal government is at best, a futile endeavor, and at worst, a career-destroying choice. He agreed to share his story with AlterNet under the safeguards of the Whistleblower Protection Act.

In 1998, Bruno, a field manager at the FAA's Orlando, Fla., Flight Standards District Office, was assigned to oversee safety standards during the merger between Valujet and AirTran, shortly after the former airline suffered a tragic accident that killed all 110 passengers on board. In the aftermath of the Valujet crash, the FAA carried out a 90-day safety review and created a new inspection program for all airlines to comply with. To Bruno's amazement, however, the FAA never applied this new program to AirTran (which had absorbed Valujet) itself. Bruno made numerous attempts to address the problem, but was "actively denied" by the FAA.

Meanwhile, in a separate incident, it came to light that over 1,000 FAA-certified mechanics had fraudulently obtained their credentials -- literally buying "A" grades on a paper certification test from a long-time FAA-designated examiner. After the examiner was criminally prosecuted and convicted, Bruno demanded that all mechanics be retested. This time, Bruno required mechanics to demonstrate hands-on skills on real airplanes; 75 percent failed. Yet, in the spring of 2001, Bruno's newly appointed superiors cancelled his re-examination program, offering scant rationale for the decision, and repeatedly rebuffed his attempts to re-install the program.

Fearing a repeat of the 1996 tragedy, he requested a face-to-face meeting with FAA Associate Administrator Nicholas Sabotini. "Instead of taking my concerns seriously and making the necessary changes, he treated me as some sort of disgruntled employee," said Bruno. "Next thing I know, after 26 years of outstanding performance evaluations, I've lost my management job." Bruno, who had spent over half of his career in management, was re-assigned to a lower-level runway safety position. He now works from home, isolated from his colleagues, "where I can voice my concerns but no one can hear me," he said.

After failing to correct the problems "from the inside, like a good soldier," Bruno took his fight to the Office of the Special Counsel (OSC) -- an independent federal agency responsible for aiding and protecting whistleblowers within the government. Initially, there were signs of hope. Elaine Kaplan, the Clinton-appointed special counsel found "substantial likelihood" that Bruno's case had merit and ordered the inspector general (IG) of the Department of Transportation to carry out an investigation. The IG found no wrongdoing within the FAA, despite the fact that Bruno had provided a huge amount of documentary evidence to support his claims.

Kaplan demanded a re-investigation after Bruno provided point-by-point rebuttals to the IG's findings. Again, the IG reported that they had found no problems. "I could tell that the IG was pretty experienced at this, that there were a lot of midnight-oil meetings behind closed doors where people were saying, 'How are we going to respond to this, how are we going to respond to that?'" said Bruno. "None of my documentation changed, but their stories seemed to be evolving as the investigation went on."

But Kaplan remained convinced that Bruno's case was meritorious, ordering yet another investigation. By now, though, it was 2003, and Kaplan's five-year tenure as special counsel had expired. President Bush appointed Scott Bloch -- then deputy director of Task Force for Faith-based and Community Initiatives -- to replace her and, soon after, everything would change.

All of a sudden, no one would take Bruno's calls at the OSC. When the IG's fourth report came back and dismissed Bruno's charges, he once again provided a comprehensive and detailed written rebuttal. Yet, no one at the OSC -- with which he had been closely working for months -- responded to his letters or emails, and his requests to meet Bloch in person were never answered. The OSC closed the case, failing to address Bruno's claims of far-reaching corruption and coverups, and determined that any alleged wrongdoing on the part of the FAA was unintentional. Bruno's first charge -- that the FAA's post-Valujet safety program had not been applied to AirTran -- was completely ignored. And although the OSC asserted that the fraudulently certified engineers should be retested, it made no mention of requiring hands-on examination -- the very core of Bruno's complaint. "Basically, they misrepresented and soft-pedaled on everything that was wrong about the FAA," said Bruno.

The silencing of Gabe Bruno and the whitewashing of FAA corruption is far from an aberration; under the tenure of Scott Bloch, such treatment has become standard practice. According to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), whistleblowers are coming forward in record numbers, yet the number of whistleblowers who have been helped by the OSC has plummeted.

Since Bloch took office, over 1,000 whistleblower complaints -- many leveling serious charges of government corruption and incompetence, including allegations of misconduct within FEMA before the Katrina disaster -- have been summarily dismissed. In the words of Jeff Ruch, executive director of PEER, the OSC has become "a plumber's unit for the Bush administration, plugging leaks, blocking investigations, and discrediting sources."

At this point, asking the question, "Will we get out of this alive?" is not fear-mongering.

Imperial Theory

Executive Assistant
Alito flunks the most pressing test of today and tomorrow

Matt Welch

The year is 2009. President Hillary Clinton introduces a nationalized healthcare package, which she assembled after conducting a dozen secret meetings in the White House with George Soros, Big Labor, and unknown representatives from industry groups who stand to make a bundle. Judicial Watch files a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit for the minutes of the meetings. Clinton refuses, citing her Executive Privilege to hold private and confidential conversations about most anything she chooses. The case goes to the Supreme Court.

How would Samuel Alito vote?

President Al Gore, in a major speech on "the terrorism of child pornography," orders the Attorney General to use "all the same tools of the War on Terror" in the new crackdown against online smut-peddlers. Soon after, American citizen Jose Blow is detained on "suspicion of planning a snuff film," and is held indefinitely, without charge, and without access to a lawyer. President Gore says Blow will be detained until authorities can extract all possible "information about the kiddie-porn ring." The ACLU files a challenge.

How would Alito vote?

A good rule of thumb when weighing the wisdom of a high-voltage appointment, or fundamental shift in governance, is how that re-balancing of power will affect things when the other team's in charge. Because some other team will be in charge some day, and they will find their own unique opportunities to abuse whatever power they inherit.

George Bush and Dick Cheney have been very deliberately accumulating and building power in the executive branch since taking the oath of office. On just his 10th day in office, Bush let us know that "I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but for predecessors as well."

The remark was played up as a comical Bushism—somewhat inaccurately, since he was justifying the decision not to reverse one of Bill Clinton’s pardons. But as we've come to learn, it was a dead-sober glimpse into the core Bush/Cheney governing philosophy of rolling back what the veep recently described as the "erosion of presidential power and authority ... at the end of the Nixon administration."
....
Alito's pre-judge history of defending domestic wiretaps and advocating presidential signing statements suggests deference to the executive. His judicial record of not rejecting strip-searches on 10-year-olds and giving law enforcement the benefit of the doubt reinforces that impression. But what of his answers last week?

Though Alito did stress repeatedly that the president was not above the law (what else was he going to say?), and paid repeated tribute to Justice Robert Jackson's landmark 1952 decision blocking Harry Truman's war-time seizure of steel mills, the deal-breaker for me was this mealy-mouthed response to Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.), who is consistently one of the only members of the Judiciary Committee to approach nomination hearings with the seriousness they warrant:

SEN. FEINGOLD: But it is possible under your construct that an inherent constitutional power of the president could, under some analysis or in some case, override what people believe to be a constitutional criminal statute. Is that correct?

JUDGE ALITO: Well, I don't want to—I don't—I want to be very precise on this. What I have said—and I don't think I can go further than to say this—is that that situation seems to be exactly what is to fall exactly within that category that Justice Jackson outlined, where the president is claiming the authority to do something, and the thing that he is claiming the authority to do is explicitly—has been explicitly disapproved by Congress. So his own taxonomy contemplates the possibility that—he says that there—this—there is this category, and cases can fall in this category, and he seems to contemplate the possibility that that might be justified.

But I'm not—I don't want to even say that there could be such a case. I don't know. I would have to be presented with the facts of the particular case and consider it in a way I would consider any legal question. I don't think I can go beyond that.

I don't feel comfortable with a Supreme Court unclear on the notion of whether the president can legally break the law; the existence of such a deferential bench is a standing invitation for Bush and his successors to do just that.

Today these crimes will be justified in the name of being "serious about fighting the war"; tomorrow they will be justified in the name of being "serious about protecting our children." Which is why yesterday is almost too late to finally begin showing some seriousness about protecting the constitutional liberties that neither of the major political parties respect when they hold the keys to the White House.

Reason is a libertarian publication which swings right.

Stating the Obvious

The Military Recruiter's Lament

By Scott Ritter, AlterNet. Posted January 18, 2006.

Recruiters should realize it's not military service Americans are rejecting, but rather military service in support of a cause not deemed worthy of the sacrifice expected.

It should come as no surprise to any observer of modern America that U.S. military recruiters are having a difficult time meeting their quotas. Last year, the U.S. Army fell 6,600 recruits short of its goal to enlist 80,000 new soldiers. An increase in recruitment incentives, including signing bonuses and increases in college scholarships, combined with the raising of the maximum enlistment age (to 39) and allowing high school dropouts to be recruited, have not helped reverse the tide. Even the vaunted U.S. Marines, the pinnacle of the all-volunteer U.S. military, which has prided itself on its ability to attract recruits with slogans like "If everyone could be a Marine, there wouldn't be Marines" versus money and other recruiting gimmickry, have failed to make their enlistment quota.

As recruiters struggle to overcome the national aversion to military service that has gripped the country, their superiors wrestle to pin down the underlying reasons behind this failure of the American people to heed the call of the trumpet. Some, like Gen. Richard Cody, the U.S. Army's Vice Chief of Staff, have turned the issue into one of fundamental patriotism.

"This recruiting problem is not just an Army problem, this is America's problem," Cody is quoted as saying. "And what we have to really do is talk about service to this nation -- and a sense of duty to this nation."

Fair enough. I'd like to take Gen. Cody up on the challenge and talk about this so-called inability or unwillingness on the part of America to live up to any sense of duty to the nation by turning its collective back on joining the U.S. military. Some observers of the recruitment crisis, including the recruiters themselves, have noted that a main reason for the drop off in numbers of new enlistees is the war in Iraq and the growing casualty figures attributed to the fighting in Iraq. This line of argument seems to draw a direct correlation between the costs associated with being a soldier and the decision to enlist.

I frankly couldn't think of a greater insult to the American people than to put forward an argument along those lines. When one examines the employment picture in America today, firefighting is listed as one of the most dangerous vocations. And yet America's youth are lining up to compete for firefighting jobs, despite the dangers. The reason for this is that danger aside, firefighting is seen as an honorable profession, one worthy of the sacrifice entailed.

Americans aren't afraid to put their lives on the line for a worthy cause. It is not military service that is being rejected, but rather military service in support of a cause not deemed worthy of the sacrifice expected. The military today has degenerated into an entity that is viewed by many in the American public as no longer serving the larger interests of the American people, but rather the play toy of a political elite who use the U.S. military as a tool to impose their ideology on others around the world, as opposed to "upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States," the mission assumed when one is sworn into military service.

Well duh.

Thanks reader bluto blogger

The I Word

Zogby poll: Majority supports impeaching Bush for wiretapping

WASHINGTON, D.C. — By a margin of 52 to 43 percent, citizens want Congress to impeach President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of Pres. Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Zogby International.

The poll found that 52 percent of respondents agreed with the statement: "If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

Of those contacted, 43 percent disagreed, and 6 percent said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a margin of error of 2.9 percent.

"The American people are not buying Bush's outrageous claim that he has the power to wiretap American citizens without a warrant. Americans believe terrorism can be fought without turning our own government into Big Brother," said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik in a statement.

Responses to the Zogby poll varied by political party affiliation: 76 percent of Democrats favored impeachment, compared to 50 percent of independents and 29 percent of Republicans.

Responses also varied by age, sex, race, and religion. 70 percent of those 18-29 favored impeachment, 51 percent of those 31-49, 50 percent of those 50-64, and 42 percent of those older than 65. Among women, 56 percent favored impeachment, compared to 49 percent of men. Among African Americans, 90 percent favored impeachment, compared to 67 percent of Hispanics, and 46 percent of whites.

The new Zogby poll shows a major shift in support for Bush's impeachment since June 2005. In a Zogby poll conducted June 27-29, 2005 of 905 likely voters, 42 percent agreed and 50 percent disagreed with the identical statement asked about in this recent polling.

Detente

Court: Striking Abortion Law Goes Too Far

By GINA HOLLAND
The Associated Press
Wednesday, January 18, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court steered clear of a major ruling on abortion Wednesday, instead giving New Hampshire a chance to save its parental notification law.

Justices, in a rare unanimous abortion ruling, agreed that the New Hampshire law could make it too hard for some ill minors to get an abortion, but at the same time they were hesitant about stepping in to fix the 2003 statute. They told a lower court to reconsider whether the entire law is unconstitutional.

"Making distinctions in a murky constitutional context, or where line-drawing is inherently complex, may call for a `far more serious invasion of the legislative domain' than we ought to undertake," retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the court.

The New Hampshire case had been expected to be much closer at the high court.

Instead, justices found consensus on narrow grounds, that a lower court went too far by permanently blocking the law that requires a parent to be told before a minor daughter ends her pregnancy.

Civil rights groups predicted that the appeals court would again strike down the law.

"It tells politicians that they must include protections for women's health and safety when they pass abortion laws," said Jennifer Dalven, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union.

Ok, the outcome wasn't exactly what some progressives wanted, but it's not the disaster it could have been. It is interesting that there was a 9-0 agreement on the case. Many parental notification laws exist in other states and aren't too bad, though this one appears to be too narrow for most people. We already restrict the rights of minors a great deal in many other areas of society so it's understandable why people want some limits here too.

It looks as though the Court is in a "wait and see" mode just like the rest of us. It's yet another reason to go contact your senators about Alito and make sure you let them know there will be a price to pay if they vote for him (even if your Senators are Liddy Dole and Big Phrama Burr like mine).

H5N1 Update

World unprepared for bird flu: Annan

United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan has warned the world is not yet ready to combat a bird flu pandemic.

He has also called for a "tremendous effort" in stepping up preparations.

"There's no time to waste. Lets ensure we're ready. We are not yet there," Mr Annan said in a speech to an international bird flu donors conference in Beijing.

"To be truly prepared we would need to mount a tremendous effort."

The two-day International Pledging Conference on Avian and Human Influenza, which wraps up later today, is aiming to secure $A2 billion in funding to implement a three-year plan to fight bird flu.

Mr Annan says the funding being sought would help save much greater costs if the bird flu crisis, which has already killed around 80 people since 2003, escalates into a global pandemic.

"Our effort requires resources. The amount asked for is small compared to the costs," he said.

Mr Annan also emphasises the need for governments and bureaucracies around the world to cut down on red tape and unite to share technical expertise.

He says he has asked all parts of the UN system to have contingency plans in place in case of a pandemic, and advised all countries to do the same.

Most of the bird flu deaths that have occurred since 2003 have been in South-East Asia and China.

However the virus has spread through the Middle East and into Europe over the past year, killing four teenagers in Turkey this month.

We don't know what will happen, but the experts are worried by this most recent development. See the reveres' excellent series of posts on influenza basic science at Effect Measure this week.

Have you begun planning? Stockpiling is as easy as picking up a few extra things each time you go to the store. Some of the stockpilers at The Flu Wiki are making plans to stock for six months. I think that's overkill, but you should be planning for 6-8 weeks of confusion in your local area as each wave of a possible pandemic burns itself out. My big local grocery chain has announced that they are so big and have so many employees that it won't be a problem, which tells me that they are delusional and not taking the worst-case scenario seriously, so I'll have to be ready on my own. I'm also sending Dr. Woodson's two-page flu summary to my city council.

Take Action!

Bumped to the top til Noon on Wednesday, Jan. 18. New content below.
URGE SENATORS TO OPPOSE ALITO
National Call-in Day Wednesday!

If you've been reading the papers, you know that some people are trying to make it look like no one cares and no one is fighting Samuel Alito's nomination. Monday's New York Times quoted Steve Schmidt, the White House point man for Alito saying, "The American people see Judge Alito and say, that's exactly the sort of person we want to see on the Supreme Court."

Are we going to let this White House spinmeister speak for us and what we care about?

If you want your voice heard and not more Washington doublespeak, we need you to speak up now - and tell the Senate that America can't afford Alito on the Supreme Court.

Getting your voice heard in Washington may never matter more than it does today.

On Wednesday at noon, Democratic senators will meet to decide their Alito strategy. And Republican senators are trying to suggest that everyone on their side of the aisle supports Alito. Call today and tell them you oppose Alito!

Call Your Senators Toll Free on Wednesday, January 18
877-851-6437

To find out who you senators are click here.

Yet Another Screwup

Spying on Ordinary Americans

Published: January 18, 2006

In times of extreme fear, American leaders have sometimes scrapped civil liberties in the name of civil protection. It's only later that the country can see that the choice was a false one and that citizens' rights were sacrificed to carry out extreme measures that were at best useless and at worst counterproductive. There are enough examples of this in American history - the Alien and Sedition Acts and the World War II internment camps both come to mind - that the lesson should be woven into the nation's fabric. But it's hard to think of a more graphic example than President Bush's secret program of spying on Americans.

The White House has offered steadily weaker arguments to defend the decision to eavesdrop on Americans' telephone calls and e-mail without getting warrants. One argument is that the spying produced unique and highly valuable information. Vice President Dick Cheney, who never shrinks from trying to prey on Americans' deepest fears, said that the spying had saved "thousands of lives" and could have thwarted the 9/11 attacks had it existed then.

Given the lack of good, hard examples, that argument sounded dubious from the start. A chilling article in yesterday's Times confirmed our fears.

According to the article, the eavesdropping swept up vast quantities of Americans' private communications without any reasonable belief that they could be related to terrorism. The National Security Agency flooded the Federal Bureau of Investigation with thousands of names, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers and other tips that virtually all led to dead ends or to innocent Americans.

About the only result the administration has been able to dredge up on behalf of the spying program is the claim that the information it gained helped disrupt two plots: one to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge and one to detonate fertilizer bombs in London. But officials in Washington and Britain disputed the connection. And that plot to cut down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch has been trotted out so many times that it would be comical if the issue were not so serious.

I am, of course, as horrified as every other civil libertarian by this blatantly unconstitutional and illegal move by Bushco, but I'm seeing another side in this mess. The president seizes kingly powers and uses it to waste the FBI's time when they really ARE looking for terrorists. More gross incompetence.

We've Been Here Before

Robert Bork without the beard

By DEBORAH LEAVY

In the 18 years since Robert Bork failed to be confirmed, the far right has gained strength and now dominates the political landscape. They were able to shout down the nomination of Harriet Miers, who preceded Alito.

They nearly denied the Judiciary Committee chairmanship to Sen. Arlen Specter, one of the few moderate Republicans left in politics. Mindful of conservative power, Specter, who has always pledged to protect a woman's right to choose and voted against Robert Bork, is now willing to confirm Samuel Alito, the man who devised the legal strategy of chipping away at Roe vs. Wade until it could be overturned. That may now be the mainstream, but it should be unacceptable to pro-choice voters.

That Democrats have been so stymied in trying to stop the Alito nomination is the bitter fruit of the last two presidential elections, and elections for senators as well. Most voters don't focus on the Supreme Court as an important issue. That's too bad, because most voters don't want to overturn Roe vs. Wade, don't want government surveillance to be unlimited, and don't want to have the Supreme Court strike down laws such as the Clean Air and Clean Water acts, civil-rights laws and laws protecting worker safety. Any and all of that could happen under the Bork/Alito approach to the law.

If, as expected, Judge Alito is confirmed, he will join a Supreme Court poised to radically transform the legal landscape in ways that would shock the Framers of the Constitution and should alarm most Americans.

Because in Sam Alito, we got Bork without the beard.

The End of Liberal Canada

It looks like the Northern Branch of the wingnut neocons are getting ready to take over our neighbor to the north. Pogge, mahigan, Tim and Jonathan are documenting the destruction. Paul Martin, or "Dithers" as the pogge team call him, was a competent technocrat if not a brilliant statesman who has run an abysmal campaign. Stop me if this all sounds familiar. Hey, pogge! Do you guys use Diebold voting machines?

Fabricating Grievance

Via Suze:

UCLA Alumni Group Is Tracking 'Radical' Faculty
By Stuart Silverstein and Peter Y. Hong, Times Staff Writers

A fledgling alumni group headed by a former campus Republican leader is offering students payments of up to $100 per class to provide information on instructors who are "abusive, one-sided or off-topic" in advocating political ideologies.

The year-old Bruin Alumni Assn. says its "Exposing UCLA's Radical Professors" initiative takes aim at faculty "actively proselytizing their extreme views in the classroom, whether or not the commentary is relevant to the class topic." Although the group says it is concerned about radical professors of any political stripe, it has named an initial "Dirty 30" of teachers it identifies with left-wing or liberal causes.

Some of the instructors mentioned accuse the association of conducting a witch hunt that threatens to harm the teaching atmosphere, and at least one of the group's advisory board members has resigned because he considers the bounty offers inappropriate. The university said it will warn the association that selling copies of professors' lectures would violate campus rules and raise copyright issues.

I really think these are made-up grievances, like so much of what the whiney right does. In all of my years of over education and all of the years I spent teaching in universities (three of them) I can recall sensing a liberal bias only in the two years I spent in seminary. I had no clue about the political propensities of any of my colleagues on the faculties on which I served. We had too damn much work to do to talk politics. My seminary profs would admit to a liberal bias, theologically, but "actively proselytizing their extreme views" in the classroom? It never happened. I know from personal experience that just getting through the syllabus each semester in order to hang on to your accreditation as an institution required every bit of craft one had. There is no time for political harangues.

Shocks to the System

Sell-Off Shuts Down Tokyo Stock Exchange

Wednesday January 18, 7:47 am ET
By Yuri Kageyama, AP Business Writer
Tokyo Stock Exchange Closes 20 Minutes Early As Investigation Sparks Sell-Off for 2nd Straight Day

TOKYO (AP) -- Panic trading spurred by a widening criminal investigation of a popular Internet startup forced the Tokyo Stock Exchange to shut down 20 minutes early Wednesday as share prices plunged for a second day.

It was the first time trading had to end early because the market's computers couldn't handle a surge of transactions.

The benchmark for the Tokyo exchange slid 2.9 percent Wednesday. The Nikkei 225 index dropped 464.77 points, its biggest one-day drop since May 10, 2004.

That compounded losses Tuesday when the Nikkei fell 2.8 percent amid reports of a widening investigation into allegations that Livedoor Co. had covered up massive losses. The index has fallen nearly 6 percent the last two days.

"Individual and foreign investors are selling in a panic," said Satoru Otsuka, senior economist at Mizuho Research Institute in Tokyo. "The problem is that we have no idea how the Livedoor problem will unfold."

Investors and the Japanese public alike were stunned when prosecutors marched into the Tokyo headquarters of Livedoor on Monday evening on suspicion of violation of securities laws by giving false information.

Livedoor, founded in 1997, offers various Internet services, including consulting, telecommunications, mobile sites and software development. It also has bought up chunks of other companies and managed to raise money by offering more of its own stock.

It is headed by 33-year-old Takafumi Horie, who has risen to celebrity status as a geeky entrepreneur -- a rarity in Japan. He has made unsuccessful attempts to buy a media conglomerate and a baseball team and frequently appears on TV.

The national daily Yomiuri Shimbun reported that Livedoor is suspected of concealing a $8.7 million deficit for the full-year results ending September 2004.

Horie denies wrongdoing, and authorities would not comment on the Yomiuri report.

The Japanese media have dubbed the whole affair "Livedoor shock," which has garnered banner headlines and intense news coverage since the raid.

Internet-related stocks like Softbank Corp. and Yahoo! Japan got hit in the market's plunge, but blue-chip electronics firms like Canon Inc., Toshiba Corp. and Sony Corp. also fell.

Remember that 90% of equity markets are about perception and emotion.

Alito and the Big Lie

The Imperial Presidency at Work
Posted: 2006/01/16
From: NYT

The administration's behavior shows how high and immediate the stakes are in the Alito nomination, and how urgent it is for Congress to curtail Mr. Bush's expansion of power. Nothing in the national consensus to combat terrorism after 9/11 envisioned the unilateral rewriting of more than 200 years of tradition and law by one president embarked on an ideological crusade

You would think that Senators Carl Levin and John McCain would have learned by now that you cannot deal in good faith with a White House that does not act in good faith. Yet both men struck bargains intended to restore the rule of law to American prison camps. And President Bush tossed them aside at the first opportunity.

Mr. Bush made a grand show of inviting Mr. McCain into the Oval Office last month to announce his support for a bill to require humane treatment of detainees at Guantánamo Bay and other prisons run by the American military and intelligence agencies. He seemed to have managed to get Vice President Dick Cheney to stop trying to kill the proposed Congressional ban on torture of prisoners.

The White House also endorsed a bargain between Mr. Levin and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, which tempered somewhat a noxious proposal by Mr. Graham to deny a court hearing to anyone the president declares to be an "unlawful enemy combatant." The bargain with Mr. Levin removed language that stripped away cases already before the courts, which would have been an egregious usurpation of power by one branch of government, and it made clear that those cases should remain in the courts.

Mr. Bush, however, seems to see no limit to his imperial presidency. First, he issued a constitutionally ludicrous "signing statement" on the McCain bill. The message: Whatever Congress intended the law to say, he intended to ignore it on the pretext the commander in chief is above the law. That twisted reasoning is what led to the legalized torture policies, not to mention the domestic spying program.

Then Mr. Bush went after the judiciary, scrapping the Levin-Graham bargain. The solicitor general informed the Supreme Court last week that it no longer had jurisdiction over detainee cases. It said the court should drop an existing case in which a Yemeni national is challenging the military tribunals invented by Mr. Bush's morally challenged lawyers after 9/11. The administration is seeking to eliminate all other lawsuits filed by some of the approximately 500 men at Gitmo, the vast majority of whom have not been shown to pose any threat.

Both of the offensive theories at work here - that a president's intent in signing a bill trumps the intent of Congress in writing it, and that a president can claim power without restriction or supervision by the courts or Congress - are pet theories of Judge Samuel Alito, the man Mr. Bush chose to tilt the Supreme Court to the right.

The administration's behavior shows how high and immediate the stakes are in the Alito nomination, and how urgent it is for Congress to curtail Mr. Bush's expansion of power. Nothing in the national consensus to combat terrorism after 9/11 envisioned the unilateral rewriting of more than 200 years of tradition and law by one president embarked on an ideological crusade.

Wikipedia on The Big Lie theory:

His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it. - OSS report page 51

The Lazy Pundits

Ruben Navarrette Jr.: A lousy way to pick a justice

By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Published 2:15 am PST Wednesday, January 18, 2006

SAN DIEGO - Senate confirmation hearings are supposed to teach us things and, sure enough, the hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito Jr. taught us plenty.

Not about the nominee, who at times couldn't get a word in edgewise as Democrats and Republicans blathered incessantly, either attacking him or defending him against the attacks of others. I couldn't decide which was more painful to watch.

Rather, the lessons were about the system and the people it is supposed to serve. We learned more about what's important to the media - especially inside-the-Beltway commentators - and what isn't. Executive power and abortion are hot issues; affirmative action and alumni organizations are not.
....
For the most part, I'm willing to buy what Republicans were selling about how Alito is honest and full of integrity. If confirmed, I believe he could make a fine Supreme Court justice.

And yet, I also believe that Alito, while obviously intelligent, was playing dumb about the Princeton alumni group. After all, his is the kind of brain that's capable of reaching back over nearly 20 years of court decisions and recalling the exact circumstances of a case, the principles involved and the precedent relied upon in making the decision. And yet somehow, in recalling even the slightest detail of why he joined a group of conservative alumni, or even why he later brought up his membership in pursuit of a promotion, it failed him.

You know, the way - you'd have to say - the Alito hearings failed the American people.

Navarette lists all the reasons why Alito doesn't belong on the court and then says, "whatahell, yawn, confirm him anyway." Just another hack pundit who is too lazy to follow the logic of his own propositions. Man, I get tired of slogging my way through this crap.

Make a Difference

Via Suze:

CNN's new hire Glenn Beck has this to say:

BECK: Hang on, let me just tell you what I'm thinking. I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out -- is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus -- band -- Do, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, "Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore," and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realize, "Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death." And you know, well, I'm not sure.

Contact CNN and tell them (politely and professionally, of course) that you can't condone this hate speech and that you will no longer watch them nor patronize their advertisers.

To Start

Did I mention baked brie en croute below? Yes, I did. Here is any easy treatment.

Ingredients:

1 egg yolk

1 puff pastry sheet

1 wheel Brie

Directions:

1. Beat egg yolk with 1 tablespoon water.

2. Thaw puff pastry 20 minutes, then unfold. Cut pastry sheet
into 4 squares. Roll out a pastry square until it is approximately
1/2 inch larger than the circle of cheese.

3. Place Brie in center of circle and trim edges leaving a 1/2
inch border.

4. Brush border with egg mixture. Roll second square of pastry
until it is large enough to fit over the cheese again allowing the
1/2 inch border. Place over the circle of cheese and press to
seal.

5. If desired, decorate with cutouts made from pastry scraps
(heart-shapes, crescents, twists etc.) and apply with egg
mixture.

6. Brush top only with egg and place on an ungreased cookie
sheet in the middle of a preheated 375°F oven. Bake for 20
minutes or until golden brown. Top with sliced roasted almonds.

Serve warm or at room temperature with baguette slices and fruit slices. This is fabulous on strawberry pieces or Granny Smith slices. Remind your guests to keep room for dinner and you'll have a very nice breakfast in the morning.

Football Food

The Super Bowl is coming (or so I'm told) and even I'll make nachos for that. This salsa is a complex, layered and hot, respectful treatment of good chiles. Most years I grow my own scotch bonnets (me love them scoville units) but I was too busy trying out cultivars of basil this past summer.

Some notes on cooking with chilis. These guys all contain serious amount of hot. Wear latex gloves and keep your hands away from your face. Capsaicin is sticky and it lingers on your hands. You don't want it anywhere near your eyes or nose. Take it from one who learned the hard way back in my contact lens wearing days.

6 Roma tomatoes, chopped
4 garlic cloves, minced
2 seeded and minced jalapenos, plus 2 roasted, skinned and chopped jalapenos
1 red bell pepper, fine dice
1/2 red onion, fine chopped
2 dry ancho chiles, seeded, cut into short strips and snipped into pieces (use kitchen scissors)
1 tablespoon olive oil
1 lime, juiced
salt, and pepper, to taste
Fresh scallions and cilantro, to taste (use parsely if you can't find cilantro)

In a bowl, combine all ingredients. Place in refrigerator for up to 12 hours for flavor infusion.

Serve with tortilla chips.

If you don't have a gas stove, you can roast the jalapenos under the broiler, but, frankly, I do them right on my electric burners. You have to watch them carefully and keep turning this way, but it is fast. Use tongs.

The hottest part of a chili is the meat right under the skin. If you char the skin, you turn some of the starches to sugar which takes some of the sting out. If you can't roast your jalepenos, blanch them in boiling water for 2 minutes. Either way, the skin slips right off. Always seed your chilis.

Live wild this year by making your own tortilla chips. Just buy a couple of packages of corn tortillas, cut them in eighths and bake them in single layers in a well oiled jelly roll pan. Sprinkle with a little sea salt before baking at 350 until crispy. Takes 8-10 minutes.

I rock out with nachos on those rare times when I go to a sporting event or watch them on TV (except for golf tournaments, my favorite TV sport, which seems to call for baked brie more than nachos) and I love to load them up with sour cream, guac and mixed monteray jack chedder grated fine. The chips and cheese go into a big casserole in the oven until the cheese is melted. Then top with the other stuff and chopped green and black olives, jalapenos and chopped tomatoes from the salad bar at the grocery. I also use the salad bar for quick pizza toppings. Know your tools. The salad bar is one.

Mulligatawny Soup

As you know, I love ethnic food and that is one of the delights about living in the DC area. We might not be New York or Toronto (the most ethnically diverse city in North America) but we have a lot of variety and a lot of restaurants with expat customers.) Before I moved here, I'd had very little contact with the foods of the Indian subcontinent or Southeast Asia, but now they are among my favorite foods.

I have a great Indian restaurant right down the street (I live in a neighborhood that has some of the best ethnic restaurant in the DC area only blocks away) and as you know, I have a soup jones. I hardly ever have a meal at Haandi without starting with a bowl of their excellent Mulligatawny Soup. This is easy to make at home.

1/4 cup vegetable oil
3 cups chopped onions (about 1 pound)
5 garlic cloves, chopped
1 1/2 tablespoons garam masala
1 1/2 teaspoons ground coriander
1 teaspoon turmeric
1/2 teaspoon cayenne pepper
2 bay leaves
2 cups dried red lentils (red daal if you have an Indian grocery)
8 cups low-salt chicken broth

2 cups diced cooked chicken
1 cup canned unsweetened coconut milk
3 tablespoons fresh lemon juice

2 cups cooked basmati rice
Lemon wedges

Coarsely chopped cilantro to garnish

Heat vegetable oil in heavy large pot over medium-high heat. Add onions and cook until golden brown, stirring frequently, about 15 minutes. Add garlic and sauté 2 minutes. Add garam masala and next 4 ingredients; stir 1 minute. Add lentils; stir until coated. Add chicken broth. Bring soup to boil; reduce heat to medium and simmer until lentils are very tender, about 20 minutes. Discard bay leaves.

Working in batches, puree soup in blender until smooth. Return to pot. Stir in chicken, coconut milk, and lemon juice. Season to taste with salt and pepper.

Divide rice among bowls. Pour soup over. Garnish with lemon wedges; serve.

Makes 8 first-course or 4 main-course servings.

Cooks note: the quality of the garam masala makes or breaks this dish. If you can't find it, or you aren't sure of the quality of what you do find, make your own.

This classic blend of spices is essential in Indian cuisine.

Makes 1 3/4 Cups

1/2 cup cumin seeds (optional)
1/2 cup coriander seeds
1/4 cup black peppercorns
1/4 cup cloves
4 cinnamon sticks
1 tablespoon freshly ground cardamom seeds

1. In a hot skillet over medium heat, toast all the ingredients except the cardamom seeds for 2 to 3 minutes, stirring or shaking the pan constantly.

2. Turn off the heat, stir in the cardamom seeds, and continue to stir the mixture for 1 minute.

3. Remove the pan from the heat and grind all the spices together in a spice grinder. Garam Masala will keep indefinitely in a tightly closed jar, although the spices will get weaker after 6 months.

I have two coffee grinders, the inexpensive electric Krups kind you can find at the grocery. I use one for coffee beans, the other is for spices only. If you are cooking Indian regularly, you will use up this amount of garam masala well before the end of 12 months.

Try Something New

I am politics and Alito'd out. It's time for some good food.

Most American cooks have barely tasted an artichoke, much less cooked one. You are missing a fantastic treat if all you know about are bottled or canned artichokes. This takes a little care and you will want to do a dry run on your family before you try them out on company. But they are delicious finger food and if you drip them with butter even the kids will enjoy "playing with their food."

GRILLED ARTICHOKES WITH SESAME DIPPING SAUCE

(If it isn't grill weather, you can do this under the broiler.)

Dipping Sauce
1/2 cup mayonnaise
3 tablespoons Worcestershire sauce
2 tablespoons olive oil
2 tablespoons oriental sesame oil
1 1/2 tablespoons honey
1 tablespoon fresh lemon juice
3/4 teaspoon seasoned salt

Artichokes
2 tablespoons fresh lemon juice
4 large artichokes

1/3 cup olive oil
1 garlic clove, minced

For dipping sauce:
Whisk mayonnaise, Worcestershire sauce, olive oil, sesame oil, honey, lemon juice, and seasoned salt in small bowl to blend well. Cover and refrigerate until cold.

For artichokes:
Fill large bowl with cold water; add lemon juice. Cut off stem and top quarter of 1 artichoke. Bend back dark green outer leaves and snap off at artichoke base until only pale green and yellow leaves remain. Cut any dark green areas off base. Cut artichoke lengthwise into 6 wedges. Place artichoke wedges in lemon water. Repeat with remaining artichokes.

Steam artichokes until tender, about 30 minutes. Cool. Remove choke and any purple-tipped leaves from center of artichoke wedges. (Dipping sauce and artichokes can be prepared 1 day ahead. Keep sauce refrigerated. Cover artichokes and refrigerate.)

Prepare barbecue (medium-high heat). Stir olive oil and minced garlic in small bowl to blend. Brush garlic oil over artichokes. Sprinkle artichokes with salt and pepper. Grill artichokes until slightly charred, turning occasionally, about 8 minutes.

Transfer artichokes to platter and serve with dipping sauce.

Makes 6 servings.

If you discover you really like them, specialty stores sell artichoke plates which have indentations for three or four dipping sauces. Other classics with artichokes include hollandaise, bordelaise and bernaise.

This grilled preparation is particularly tasty. You readers in the central valley of California who have access to the artichoke fields around Castroville, well, I'm just jealous.

Lying Liars

Murtha and the Mudslingers

By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Tuesday, January 17, 2006; Page A17

I underestimated the viciousness of the right wing.

Last November, Rep. John Murtha, a Democrat and a decorated Marine combat veteran, came out for a rapid American withdrawal from Iraq. At the time, I wrote: "It will be difficult for Bush's acolytes to cast Murtha, who has regularly stood up for the military policies of Republican presidents during his 31 years in Congress, as some kind of extreme partisan or hippie protester."

No, the conservative hit squad didn't accuse Murtha of being a hippie. But a crowd that regularly defends President Bush for serving in the Texas Air National Guard instead of going to Vietnam has continued its war on actual Vietnam veterans. An outfit called the Cybercast News Service last week questioned the circumstances surrounding the awarding of two Purple Hearts to Murtha because of wounds he suffered in the Vietnam War.

John Kerry, as well as John McCain -- who faced scurrilous attacks on his war record when he was running against Bush in the 2000 South Carolina primary -- could have warned Murtha: If you're a Vietnam veteran, don't you dare get in the way of George W. Bush.

David Thibault, editor in chief of Cybercast, made it very clear to The Post's Howard Kurtz and Shailagh Murray that Murtha was facing accusations about his 1967 service now because "the congressman has really put himself in the forefront of the antiwar movement." In other words, if Murtha had just shut up and gone along with Bush, nothing would have been said about his service.
....
As it is, the charges are remarkably flimsy. Former representative Don Bailey (D-Pa.), whom Murtha defeated in a 1982 congressional primary after a redistricting, said that Murtha had told him he did not deserve his Purple Hearts, Kurtz and Murray reported. Bailey, who won a Silver Star and three Bronze Stars in Vietnam, recalled Murtha saying: "Hey, I didn't do anything like you did. I got a little scratch on the cheek."

Authentic war heroes (including McCain) often play down their own heroism. In any event, what we know about Murtha, McCain, Kerry and, yes, Bailey, is that they served in combat in Vietnam. What we know about Bush and Vice President Cheney ("I had other priorities in the '60s than military service'') is that they didn't.

What's maddening here is the unblushing hypocrisy of the right wing and the way it circulates -- usually through Web sites or talk radio -- personal vilification to abort honest political debate. Murtha's views on withdrawing troops from Iraq are certainly the object of legitimate contention. Many in Murtha's party disagree with him. But Murtha's right-wing critics can't content themselves with going after his ideas. They have to try to discredit his service.

Moreover, the right has demonstrated that its attitude toward military service is entirely opportunistic. In the 1992 presidential campaign, when the first President Bush confronted Bill Clinton -- who, like Cheney, avoided military service entirely -- conservatives could hardly speak or write a paragraph about Clinton that didn't accuse him of being a draft dodger. In October 1992, Bush himself assailed Clinton. "A lot of being president is about respect for that office and about telling the truth and serving your country," Bush told a crowd in New Jersey. "And you are all familiar with Governor Clinton's various stories on what he did to evade the draft."

But from 2000 forward, the Republicans had a problem: They confronted Democrats, first Al Gore and then John Kerry, who actually did go to Vietnam, while it was their own standard-bearers who had skipped the war. Suddenly, service in Vietnam wasn't the thing at all. When a Democrat went to war, there must have been something wrong with the way he did it. Gore's service was dismissed because he worked "only" as a military journalist. You can even find Bush's defenders back in 2000 daring to argue that flying planes over Texas was actually more dangerous than joining the Army and serving in Vietnam the way Gore did.

It's the ease with which they lie that frosts me.

Take Action!

I just got this email:

Thought you and your readers might be interested that hundreds of
people will gather outside the Wednesday group meeting of conservative
activists tomorrow morning to protest corruption in Washington at a rally
sponsored by the Campaign for America's Future, MoveOn.org Political Action and
the Public Campaign Action Fund. As you know, the Wednesday group is hosted by
Gover Norquist, a compatriot of Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and notorious lobbyist
Jack Abramoff. Norquist helped create the ?K Street Project? to coordinate
activity between corporate lobbyists and conservative policymakers to secure
passage of legislation for their clients.

Details about the protest against conservative corruption:

--9:45 a.m., Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2006
--On the sidewalk outside Americans for Tax Reform at 1920 L Street, NW,
Washington, D.C.
--Hundreds of protestors holding "Stop Corruption" signs as conservative
operatives and lobbyists arrive to meet.

This will take about a half hour and signs will be provided. Readers who work downtown and can duck out for coffee are invited to add to the mix.

Federalism Wins in Oregon

Supreme Court Upholds Oregon Suicide Law

By GINA HOLLAND
The Associated Press
Tuesday, January 17, 2006

The Supreme Court delivered a rebuff to the Bush administration over physician-assisted suicide today, rejecting a Justice Department effort to bar doctors in Oregon from helping terminally ill patients end their lives under a 1994 state law.

In a 6-3 vote, the court ruled that then-U.S. Attorney General John D. Ashcroft overstepped his authority in 2001 by trying to use a federal drug law to prosecute doctors who prescribed lethal overdoses under the Oregon Death With Dignity Act, the only law in the nation that allows physician-assisted suicide. The measure has been approved twice by Oregon voters and upheld by lower court rulings.

Faced with lower court rulings against his position, Ashcroft brought the case to the Supreme Court on the day he announced his resignation in November 2004. The case was continued by his successor as attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., dissenting for the first time since he joined the court in September, sided with the two most conservative justices -- Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- in voting for the minority view.

At issue was whether the federal Controlled Substances Act, enacted in 1970 to combat drug abuse and trafficking, allowed the attorney general unilaterally to prohibit doctors in Oregon from prescribing regulated drugs for use in physician-assisted suicide, despite state law permitting them to do so.

Writing the opinion of the court, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the federal law bars doctors from using prescriptions to engage in illicit drug dealing but that "the statute manifests no intent to regulate the practice of medicine generally." Moreover, the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) relies on "a functioning medical profession regulated under the states' police powers," he wrote.

"In the face of the CSA's silence on the practice of medicine generally and its recognition of state regulation of the medical profession, it is difficult to defend the Attorney General's declaration that the statute impliedly criminalizes physician-assisted suicide," Kennedy wrote.

Ever since Bush v. Gore it has been evident that these so-called principled Conservatives are only focused on one thing, that is maintaining their power. It's odd that the "big government" Liberals are the ones defending the states from the over reaching Federal Government. Personally, I don't care about assisted suicide one way or the other... I feel that is a personal decision which the government has no business getting involved with. If it is a question of morals and God's displeasure, then God will take care of that on God's schedule and not man's.

It was quite clear that General Ashcroft's motivation for going after this bill had little to do with enforcing the law. Perhaps this can explain why the administration is doing everything they can to keep the Padilla case out of the Supreme Court. It's about time that the different branches of government stood up for themselves. Maybe the Senate can do the same thing for the Legislative Branch next week.

More Devolution

USAID Paper Details Security Crisis in Iraq

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 17, 2006; Page A13

The U.S. Agency for International Development paints a dire and detailed picture of the Iraq security situation in its request for contractors to bid on its $1.32 billion, 28-month project to help stabilize 10 major Iraqi cities.

The USAID program, outlined in a Jan. 2 paper, envisions development between 2006 and 2008 of partnerships in cities that make up more than half of Iraq's population. Those cities would include Baghdad, Basra, Mosul, Kirkuk and Najaf. The project, which to date has only $30 million of the proposed funds, will try to reduce violence by creating jobs, revitalizing community infrastructure, and mitigating ethnic and religious conflicts.

To prepare potential bidders for the task, USAID included an annex with the contractor application. It describes Iraq as being in the midst of an insurgency whose tactics "include creating chaos in Iraq society as a whole and fomenting civil war." Many of the attacks are against coalition and Iraqi security forces, the annex says, and they "significantly damage the country's infrastructure and cause a tide of adverse economic and social effects that ripple across Iraq."

Although President Bush and senior administration officials tend to see the enemy primarily as Saddam Hussein loyalists and foreign terrorists, the USAID analysis also places emphasis on "internecine conflict," which includes "religious-sectarian, ethnic, tribal, criminal and politically based" violence.

The Sunni-vs.-Shiite violence goes back centuries. Today, the differences are being exploited on both sides as Sunni bombings of Shiite sites along with kidnappings and killings have been matched by Shiite retaliation and revenge killings of Sunnis.

The last paragraph is wrong. There is little history of Sunni-Shiite violence in Iraq prior to our misadventure there. The top part of Pincus' report comports well with reports I've read from people in Iraq.

A Little Context

Ignoring Science on Clean Air

Published: January 17, 2006

Every five years, the Clean Air Act requires the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to revise federal air quality standards for smog and soot. It is a stressful moment. When Carol Browner, President Bill Clinton's administrator, tightened standards in 1997, industry and its friends in Congress erupted in protest, and a federal appeals court said the rules were unconstitutional. The regulations did not actually take effect until Justice Antonin Scalia ruled in 2001 that Ms. Browner had the right to issue them and had done so properly.

Now it is the turn of Stephen Johnson at the E.P.A., only this time it is the scientists and environmentalists who are upset, and not without reason. Last month, Mr. Johnson proposed new rules governing fine particulate matter, known as soot. The most dangerous of these are microscopic specks that can cause significant inflammation and arterial damage in the bloodstream and the lungs.

At best, Mr. Johnson's proposed rules represent only a modest tightening of the Browner rules - despite considerable additional research over the last few years, some 2,000 studies altogether, expanding the list of adverse health effects associated with fine particles (especially among children) and, collectively, pointing to the need for stronger standards.

Industry has also complained. While the standards do not deliver cleaner air on their own, they set in motion the regulatory machinery and capital investments aimed at achieving cleaner air. Industry has a point when it says it is already spending money on cleaner fuels, engines and power plants.

But more can be done. According to E.P.A. estimates, particle pollution kills about 20,000 people every year and hospitalizes many more. Mr. Johnson's critics complain that he either ignored or rejected the advice of not only his staff scientists but also the agency's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. The chairwoman of that committee, Rogene Henderson, has said publicly that she was surprised and disappointed by Mr. Johnson's decisions, that the battle wasn't over, and that the panel would continue to press its case.

Environment in crisis: 'We are past the point of no return'

Thirty years ago, the scientist James Lovelock worked out that the Earth possessed a planetary-scale control system which kept the environment fit for life. He called it Gaia, and the theory has become widely accepted. Now, he believes mankind's abuse of the environment is making that mechanism work against us. His astonishing conclusion - that climate change is already insoluble, and life on Earth will never be the same again.

By Michael McCarthy Environment Editor
Published: 16 January 2006

The world has already passed the point of no return for climate change, and civilisation as we know it is now unlikely to survive, according to James Lovelock, the scientist and green guru who conceived the idea of Gaia - the Earth which keeps itself fit for life.

In a profoundly pessimistic new assessment, published in today's Independent, Professor Lovelock suggests that efforts to counter global warming cannot succeed, and that, in effect, it is already too late.

The world and human society face disaster to a worse extent, and on a faster timescale, than almost anybody realises, he believes. He writes: " Before this century is over, billions of us will die, and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable."

In making such a statement, far gloomier than any yet made by a scientist of comparable international standing, Professor Lovelock accepts he is going out on a limb. But as the man who conceived the first wholly new way of looking at life on Earth since Charles Darwin, he feels his own analysis of what is happening leaves him no choice. He believes that it is the self-regulating mechanism of Gaia itself - increasingly accepted by other scientists worldwide, although they prefer to term it the Earth System - which, perversely, will ensure that the warming cannot be mastered.

This is because the system contains myriad feedback mechanisms which in the past have acted in concert to keep the Earth much cooler than it otherwise would be. Now, however, they will come together to amplify the warming being caused by human activities such as transport and industry through huge emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2 ).

It means that the harmful consequences of human beings damaging the living planet's ancient regulatory system will be non-linear - in other words, likely to accelerate uncontrollably.

He terms this phenomenon "The Revenge of Gaia" and examines it in detail in a new book with that title, to be published next month.

The uniqueness of the Lovelock viewpoint is that it is holistic, rather than reductionist. Although he is a committed supporter of current research into climate change, especially at Britain's Hadley Centre, he is not looking at individual facets of how the climate behaves, as other scientists inevitably are. Rather, he is looking at how the whole control system of the Earth behaves when put under stress.

Professor Lovelock, who conceived the idea of Gaia in the 1970s while examining the possibility of life on Mars for Nasa in the US, has been warning of the dangers of climate change since major concerns about it first began nearly 20 years ago.

He was one of a select group of scientists who gave an initial briefing on global warming to Margaret Thatcher's Cabinet at 10 Downing Street in April 1989.

His concerns have increased steadily since then, as evidence of a warming climate has mounted. For example, he shared the alarm of many scientists at the news last September that the ice covering the Arctic Ocean is now melting so fast that in 2005 it reached a historic low point.

Two years ago he sparked a major controversy with an article in The Independent calling on environmentalists to drop their long-standing opposition to nuclear power, which does not produce the greenhouses gases of conventional power stations.

Global warming was proceeding so fast that only a major expansion of nuclear power could bring it under control, he said. Most of the Green movement roundly rejected his call, and does so still.

Now his concerns have reached a peak - and have a new emphasis. Rather than calling for further ways of countering climate change, he is calling on governments in Britain and elsewhere to begin large-scale preparations for surviving what he now sees as inevitable - in his own phrase today, "a hell of a climate", likely to be in Europe up to 8C hotter than it is today.

In his book's concluding chapter, he writes: "What should a sensible European government be doing now? I think we have little option but to prepare for the worst, and assume that we have passed the threshold."

And in today's Independent he writes: "We will do our best to survive, but sadly I cannot see the United States or the emerging economies of China and India cutting back in time, and they are the main source of [CO2] emissions. The worst will happen ..."

He goes on: "We have to keep in mind the awesome pace of change and realise how little time is left to act, and then each community and nation must find the best use of the resources they have to sustain civilisation for as long as they can." He believes that the world's governments should plan to secure energy and food supplies in the global hothouse, and defences against the expected rise in sea levels. The scientist's vision of what human society may ultimately be reduced to through climate change is " a broken rabble led by brutal warlords."

Professor Lovelock draws attention to one aspect of the warming threat in particular, which is that the expected temperature rise is currently being held back artificially by a global aerosol - a layer of dust in the atmosphere right around the planet's northern hemisphere - which is the product of the world's industry.

This shields us from some of the sun's radiation in a phenomenon which is known as "global dimming" and is thought to be holding the global temperature down by several degrees. But with a severe industrial downturn, the aerosol could fall out of the atmosphere in a very short time, and the global temperature could take a sudden enormous leap upwards.

One of the most striking ideas in his book is that of "a guidebook for global warming survivors" aimed at the humans who would still be struggling to exist after a total societal collapse.

Written, not in electronic form, but "on durable paper with long-lasting print", it would contain the basic accumulated scientific knowledge of humanity, much of it utterly taken for granted by us now, but originally won only after a hard struggle - such as our place in the solar system, or the fact that bacteria and viruses cause infectious diseases.

Rough guide to a planet in jeopardy

Global warming, caused principally by the large-scale emissions of industrial gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), is almost certainly the greatest threat that mankind has ever faced, because it puts a question mark over the very habitability of the Earth.

Over the coming decades soaring temperatures will mean agriculture may become unviable over huge areas of the world where people are already poor and hungry; water supplies for millions or even billions may fail. Rising sea levels will destroy substantial coastal areas in low-lying countries such as Bangladesh, at the very moment when their populations are mushrooming. Numberless environmental refugees will overwhelm the capacity of any agency, or indeed any country, to cope, while modern urban infrastructure will face devastation from powerful extreme weather events, such as Hurricane Katrina which hit New Orleans last summer.

The international community accepts the reality of global warming, supported by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In its last report, in 2001, the IPCC said global average temperatures were likely to rise by up to 5.8C by 2100. In high latitudes, such as Britain, the rise is likely to be much higher, perhaps 8C. The warming seems to be proceeding faster than anticipated and in the IPCC's next report, 2007, the timescale may be shortened. Yet there still remains an assumption that climate change is controllable, if CO2 emissions can be curbed. Lovelock is warning: think again.

Fairness is What I Say It Is

As I reported last week:

Alito Nomination Vote Put Off A Week

WASHINGTON, Jan. 17, 2006

(CBS/AP) The Senate Judiciary Committee was planning to vote Tuesday on whether to confirm Judge Samuel Alito's nomination as a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

But late Monday, as had been expected, the voting got postponed.

Under the rules, any senator can force a delay in a vote for one week.

Alito opponents have been angling for as much time as possible to try to rally public opposition to the nomination.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said he and Committee Chairman Arlen Specter discussed the timing of the vote over the holiday weekend and agreed to move it to Jan. 24th.

The new date, said Leahy in a statement, "allows all Senators, Republicans and Democrats, to conclude Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday events without having to rush back to Washington before the Senate returns to session ... This arrangement accommodates Republicans and Democrats."

Judge Samuel Alito's nomination to serve on the Supreme Court will be voted on by the Committee on Jan. 24 and the full Senate is to begin debate the following day.

Leahy says he has "assured Chairman Specter that no Democratic Senator" will ask for a second delay in the vote, and Specter, according to Leahy, does not expect any delays coming from the GOP.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., issued a statement Monday night saying he looked forward to a "fair up-or-down vote" swiftly on Alito, President Bush's choice to succeed retiring Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Right, Senator Frist, just like the fair up or down vote Harriet Miers got. Freakin' hypocrites.

The Cost of Trying to Live

While we are all trying to help our parents wade through the complete clusterfuck which is Medicare Plan D, I noticed that gas has gone up 15 cents in the last two weeks. Fabulous news for people on fixed incomes.

Talking Back to the TV

Dear CNN,

Please teach your reporters how to use the English language, since they don't seem to have learned it in their J-schools. The word "disenfranchised" means:

deprived of the rights of citizenship especially the right to vote

It doesn't mean whatever your idiot reporter thinks applies to the dispersed citizens of New Orleans. My God, you people are hacks.

Best,
Melanie

Smear and Evade

Spread this around, please. This is from ThinkProgress.

In Desperation, Gonzales Smears Gore

Here’s Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on the Larry King Live show last night:

I would say that with respect to comments by the former vice president it’s my understanding that during the Clinton administration there was activity regarding the physical searches without warrants, Aldrich Ames as an example.

I can also say that it’s my understanding that the deputy attorney general testified before Congress that the president does have the inherent authority under the Constitution to engage in physical searches without a warrant and so those would certainly seem to be inconsistent with what the former vice president was saying today.

The issue with the Bush’s warrantless domestic wiretapping program is that it violates a federal criminal law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Despite what Gonzales is implying, the Clinton administration never violated FISA and never claimed they could violate FISA. Here’s why:

1. Prior to 1995, FISA did not cover physical searches. (With Clinton’s signature, the law was expanded to cover physical searches in 1995.) The search of Aldrich Ames home occurred in 1993. It did not violate FISA.

2. Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified in 1994 that the President could conduct warrantless physical searches, before FISA required physical searches to be conducted pursuant to a warrant. Gorelick was arguing that the President could conduct warrantless physical searches in the absence of Congressional action. At no time did she suggest that, after Congress required the President to obtain a warrant, the executive branch could ignore the law, nor is there any evidence the Clinton administration failed to comply with FISA.

The fact that the Attorney General of the United States is resorting to such obvious deception shows that they have no real answers. The administration is getting desperate and grasping at straws.

Not that Americans are paying attention.

Grand Delusions

Storms Payback From God, Nagin Says
Mayor Faults War, Blacks' Infighting

By Brett Martel
Associated Press
Tuesday, January 17, 2006; Page A04

NEW ORLEANS, Jan. 16 -- Mayor C. Ray Nagin suggested Monday that hurricanes Katrina and Rita and other storms were a sign that "God is mad at America" -- and at black communities, too, for tearing themselves apart with violence and political infighting.

"Surely God is mad at America. He sent us hurricane after hurricane after hurricane, and it's destroyed and put stress on this country," Nagin said as he and other city leaders marked Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

"Surely he doesn't approve of us being in Iraq under false pretenses. But surely he is upset at black America also. We're not taking care of ourselves."

Nagin, who is African American, also promised that New Orleans will be a "chocolate" city again. Many of the city's black neighborhoods were heavily damaged by Katrina.

"It's time for us to come together. It's time for us to rebuild New Orleans -- the one that should be a chocolate New Orleans," the mayor said. "This city will be a majority-African American city. It's the way God wants it to be. You can't have New Orleans no other way. It wouldn't be New Orleans."

Great. Another political leader who gets his marching orders directly from God. In another context, such people are called "schizophrenics."

Constitutional Crisis

The conservative case against Alito

January 16 '06
By Ben Adler
Published: Monday, January 16, 2006 9:47 PM EST

Throughout Judge Samuel Alito's confirmation hearings last week, Republican senators proclaimed their opposition to "judicial activism" and their support for "judicial restraint" and "strict constructionism" (and implied their support for Judge Alito largely on that basis). For example, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Alaska, told Alito, "You have a record as a brilliant but modest jurist ... who exercises restraint." Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., asked Alito, "Are you a strict constructionist?"

One can hear echoes in these statements of President Bush's campaign pledge to nominate "strict constructionists" and "judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas" for Supreme Court vacancies. But he has only fulfilled half of that promise in nominating Alito. Alito is indeed a lot like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. But, to conservatives, that should be a cause for concern rather than celebration.

A study by Yale University law professor Paul Gewirtz and recent Yale Law School graduate Chad Golder shows that those supposed strict constructionists are actually the Supreme Court's biggest practitioners of judicial activism. The study shows Thomas and Scalia to be the justices who are first and third most likely to rule congressional legislation unconstitutional (frequently overruling the judgment of the people's elected representatives is the essential definition of judicial activism). Alito's close adherence to their philosophy has earned him the nickname "Scalito." If conservatives mean what they say about opposing judicial activism, then they should be horrified at the prospect of another Scalia-like justice on the Supreme Court.

The same goes for executive power. Conservatives have always been suspicious of centralized power in Washington over individuals and their locally elected representatives. Many conservatives are upset at the Bush administration's abuse of executive power. Archconservative former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., writing in the Jan. 9 edition of Time magazine, criticized Bush for wiretapping American citizens without a judicial warrant. And he applauded the Supreme Court for "slap[ping] Bush's hands when, after 9/11, he asserted authority to indefinitely detain those he unilaterally deemed "enemy combatants" ... without any court access."

Judge Alito, on the other hand, has shown subservience to the executive branch of the federal government. Ironically, it has fallen to liberal Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., to be the proverbial canary in the mine with regard to Alito's penchant for allowing the federal government unlimited law enforcement powers — something true conservatives, who have long decried excessive governmental power, especially federal power, should theoretically be up in arms over. It was Kennedy who grilled Alito during the hearings on his approval of federal marshals threatening a family of farmers at gunpoint while serving them an eviction notice caused by their money problems. Where were the right-wing heartland populists, so fond of sticking up for the traditional family farm when it is supposedly threatened by the estate tax, on that issue during the hearings?

Conservatives have also long professed a devotion to individual liberty. Therefore, even very culturally conservative judges have often defended individual rights from governmental assault. Scalia famously held that flag-burning is protected speech under the First Amendment. Alito has shown no such commitment to the principle of protecting from governmental intrusion the individual rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Throughout his career, he has allowed questionable uses of government authority when many other judges, conservative and liberal, found Fourth Amendment violations in the same cases. Most famously, in 2004, he upheld the strip-search of an innocent 10-year-old girl and her mother, even though neither was named in the search warrant.

Ultimately the Alito nomination is a perfect test case for the conservative movement. Will it finally stand up to Bush, who has expanded the size, scope and power of the federal government? Will it form a coalition with liberals, based on its shared interest in protecting individual rights, to oppose this nominee? Or will it abandon the principles it has professed to hold dear in obeisance to the Washington Republicans who talk about limited government and freedom but actually expand government and trample civil liberties?

The answer to all these questions will be an important measure of the intellectual honesty of the conservative movement.

Conservative scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, Norman Ornstein wrote:

Some time ago, Jeffrey Rosen, a superb legal scholar, pointed out Alito’s dissent in a 1996 decision upholding the constitutionality of a law that banned the possession of machine guns. We are not talking handguns, rifles or even assault weapons. We’re talking machine guns.

Congress had passed the law in a reasonable and deliberate fashion. A genuine practitioner of judicial restraint would have allowed them a wide enough berth to do so. Alito’s colleagues did just that. But Alito used his own logic to call for its overturn, arguing that the possession of machine guns by private individuals had no economic activity associated with it, and that no real evidence existed that private possession of guns increased crime in a way that affected commerce--and thus Congress had no right to regulate it. That kind of judicial reasoning often is referred to as reflecting the “Constitution in Exile.” Whatever it is, it’s not judicial restraint.

Roberts is a very conservative guy, and a strict constructionist--one who means it. He understands that Congress is the branch the framers set up in Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution. It is not coincidence that Article 1 is twice as long as Article II, which created the executive branch, and almost four times as long as Article III, which established the judiciary. Judges should bend over doubly and triply backward before overturning a Congressional statute, especially if it is clear that Congress acted carefully and deliberatively.

Too many judges, including some of the brightest, talk a good game of judicial restraint, but somehow find that deference is due Congress only when it passes laws they like. The smart ones find some rationale for overturning laws they don’t like, preserving a patina of consistency, but not more than that. (A few, including Clarence Thomas, don’t even pay lip service to the principle when voting to overturn legislative acts.)

Many of these judges do give substantial deference to the executive branch, perhaps because they have served in the executive branch. That is true of Thomas and Antonin Scalia, as it was of William Rehnquist, and is true of Alito as well (he served as U.S. attorney in New Jersey). It is true, of course, of Roberts too, but he has at least demonstrated deference to Congress. This is one of the reasons I have advocated putting more people with legislative experience on the court. It is a shame that we are losing Sandra Day O’Connor, our only justice who was ever elected to office, and have only one remaining, Stephen Breyer, who has worked in Congress.

President Bush had alternatives--strong conservatives who understand the role of the courts and the role of Congress. Judge Michael McConnell is one. It is a shame that the president didn’t choose one of these men or women. Whatever else it does with Judge Alito at the confirmation hearings, the Senate needs to hold his feet to the fire on this larger issue of deference to the legislative branch.

Conservative legal scholar Bruce Fein adds:

"[David] Addington adds to the problems the president has with the courts," said Bruce Fein, who was an official in the Reagan Justice Department and worked with Addington during the Iran-contra probe. Fein said Addington is the "intellectual brainchild" of overreaching legal assertions that "have resulted in actually weakening the presidency because of intransigence."

Fein said Cheney and Addington, while arguing that they are reclaiming executive authority, are actually seeking to push it to new levels. Many of the restraints on executive authority -- the War Powers act, anti-impoundment legislation, the legislative veto and the independent counsel statute -- have already disappeared or become insignificant.

"They're in a time warp," Fein said. "If you look at the facts, presidential powers have never been higher."

In part, Cheney and Addington may be reflecting the reality from when they served in Congress, Cheney as a Republican leader and Addington as a staff member. During the Iran-contra hearings, Addington was heavily involved in arguing that Congress was improperly tying the hands of the president by preventing him from helping Nicaragua's contras.

The legal scholars I consult say that the red flashing light that the Constitution is in danger has been flashing for a while now. With Bush's declaration that he can wiretap at will, breaching the Fourth Amendment, the klaxon horns went on. It's both loud and bright around here these days.

Al Gore spoke to this yesterday in a barn-burning speech at DAR Constitution Hall. When Fein and Gore are in agreement, it is time to be concerned.

Wanted: Competent Help

Spy Agency Data After Sept. 11 Led F.B.I. to Dead Ends

By LOWELL BERGMAN, ERIC LICHTBLAU, SCOTT SHANE and DON VAN NATTA Jr.
Published: January 17, 2006

WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 - In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month.

But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans.

F.B.I. officials repeatedly complained to the spy agency that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. The spy agency was collecting much of the data by eavesdropping on some Americans' international communications and conducting computer searches of phone and Internet traffic. Some F.B.I. officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans' privacy.

As the bureau was running down those leads, its director, Robert S. Mueller III, raised concerns about the legal rationale for a program of eavesdropping without warrants, one government official said. Mr. Mueller asked senior administration officials about "whether the program had a proper legal foundation," but deferred to Justice Department legal opinions, the official said.

President Bush has characterized the eavesdropping program as a "vital tool" against terrorism; Vice President Dick Cheney has said it has saved "thousands of lives."

But the results of the program look very different to some officials charged with tracking terrorism in the United States. More than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, including some in the small circle who knew of the secret program and how it played out at the F.B.I., said the torrent of tips led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.

"We'd chase a number, find it's a schoolteacher with no indication they've ever been involved in international terrorism - case closed," said one former F.B.I. official, who was aware of the program and the data it generated for the bureau. "After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration."

Are you really surprised to find that this crew is incompetent at making you safer? Are you?

Church and State

Ohio churches' efforts political, clergy say

Stephanie Strom, The New York Times
Jan 17, 2006

A group of religious leaders has sent a complaint to the Internal Revenue Service requesting an investigation of two large churches in Ohio that they say are improperly campaigning on behalf of J. Kenneth Blackwell, the conservative Republican running for governor.
In their complaint, the clergy members contend that the Fairfield Christian Church and the World Harvest Church, which were widely credited with getting out the Ohio vote for President Bush in 2004, have allowed their facilities to be used by Republican organizations, promoted Blackwell's candidacy among their members, and otherwise violated prohibitions on political activity by tax-exempt groups.

They are asking the IRS to examine whether the churches' tax exemptions should be revoked, and are requesting that Mark W. Everson, the federal tax commissioner, seek an injunction to stop what they consider improper activities.

These are the same churches that boasted theturning out thousands of voter for the 2004 election (pro-Bush), so why do they think that anyone is going to take their responces seriously?

Do I think that anything will be done about it? Nope. Let's face it, the scandal that was Ohio in 2004 is a Phd thesis for some Political Science student in the class of 2024, provided we are still an organized nation by then.

I wonder if Diebold is going to win the election for Blackwell this year....

Get With the Program

Emeril's Fried Chicken, to go with the biscuits:

1 whole fryer, cut into 8 pieces
Essence, recipe follows
2 cups plus 2 tablespoons buttermilk
Vegetable oil for frying
2 1/2 cups flour
2 eggs, beaten
Salt and pepper

Season the chicken pieces with Essence. Pour 2 cups of the buttermilk over the chicken and cover with plastic wrap. Place the chicken in the refrigerator and marinate for 1 hour.
Heat the oil in a large cast iron skillet. Remove the chicken from the refrigerator and drain. Season the flour with Essence. In a shallow bowl, whisk the eggs with the remaining buttermilk. Dredge each piece of chicken in the seasoned flour. Dip each piece of chicken in the egg wash, letting the excess drip off. Dredge the chicken pieces back in the seasoned flour, coating each piece of the chicken completely. Carefully lay the chicken in the hot oil. Fry the chicken for 4 to 6 minutes on each side, or until golden brown and the juices run clear. Remove the chicken from the oil and drain on a paper-lined plate. Season the chicken with salt and pepper.

Emeril's ESSENCE Creole Seasoning (also referred to as Bayou Blast):
2 1/2 tablespoons paprika
2 tablespoons salt
2 tablespoons garlic powder
1 tablespoon black pepper
1 tablespoon onion powder
1 tablespoon cayenne pepper
1 tablespoon dried oregano
1 tablespoon dried thyme

Combine all ingredients thoroughly. Yield: 2/3 cup

What matters here is the buttermilk marinade. You can love or hate Emeril's "bayou blast", I love it , hate at will, but the buttermilk overnight cannot be skipped.

The fried chicken you wll get from this exercise is so good that words fail me. Just cook this.

Intelligence Failure

You know, I remember all that blather in 2001 about how the "grown ups" were now going to be in office and we'd see how are government was supposed to run. Little did I know that they were refering to Casto's government...

Spy Agency Data After Sept. 11 Led F.B.I. to Dead Ends

By LOWELL BERGMAN, ERIC LICHTBLAU, SCOTT SHANE and DON VAN NATTA Jr.
Published: January 17, 2006

WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 - In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month.

But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans.

F.B.I. officials repeatedly complained to the spy agency that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. The spy agency was collecting much of the data by eavesdropping on some Americans' international communications and conducting computer searches of phone and Internet traffic. Some F.B.I. officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans' privacy.

As the bureau was running down those leads, its director, Robert S. Mueller III, raised concerns about the legal rationale for a program of eavesdropping without warrants, one government official said. Mr. Mueller asked senior administration officials about "whether the program had a proper legal foundation," but deferred to Justice Department legal opinions, the official said.

President Bush has characterized the eavesdropping program as a "vital tool" against terrorism; Vice President Dick Cheney has said it has saved "thousands of lives."

But the results of the program look very different to some officials charged with tracking terrorism in the United States. More than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, including some in the small circle who knew of the secret program and how it played out at the F.B.I., said the torrent of tips led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.

"We'd chase a number, find it's a schoolteacher with no indication they've ever been involved in international terrorism - case closed," said one former F.B.I. official, who was aware of the program and the data it generated for the bureau. "After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration."

Wow! Simply... wow. Now either George and his buddies had watched their friend Arnold on the big screen too much or they really believed that there were thousands and thousands of terrorists inside the US ready to strike. And so, the only way to get them was to monitor everyone. Simply brilliant! And those pesky courts... eh, who needs them?

After all, look what one of the people in charge has to say about it later in the article:

"It isn't at all surprising to me that people not accustomed to doing this would say, 'Boy, this is an awful lot of work to get a tiny bit of information,' " said Adm. Bobby R. Inman, a former N.S.A. director. "But the rejoinder to that is, Have you got anything better?"

Yeah Bobby... it's the rule of law. It's that thing that supposedly makes us better than all the rest, at least that's what I'm supposed to teach our kiddies in Civics (of course maybe that's why I haven't been given Civics recently... hmmm...).

Seriously though, you took an oath to uphold the Constitution. No one is above the law, not even the NSA. If you are going to do something like that, Congress has rules for how it is done. Heck, Republicans even control it so it's not like you have to worry about an opposition party.

And how bad was this program? Well, I'll let one of the professionals describe it:

Officials who were briefed on the N.S.A. program said the agency collected much of the data passed on to the F.B.I. as tips by tracing phone numbers in the United States called by suspects overseas, and then by following the domestic numbers to other numbers called. In other cases, lists of phone numbers appeared to result from the agency's computerized scanning of communications coming into and going out of the country for names and keywords that might be of interest. The deliberate blurring of the source of the tips caused some frustration among those who had to follow up.

F.B.I. field agents, who were not told of the domestic surveillance programs, complained that they often were given no information about why names or numbers had come under suspicion. A former senior prosecutor who was familiar with the eavesdropping programs said intelligence officials turning over the tips "would always say that we had information whose source we can't share, but it indicates that this person has been communicating with a suspected Qaeda operative." He said, "I would always wonder, what does 'suspected' mean?"

"The information was so thin," he said, "and the connections were so remote, that they never led to anything, and I never heard any follow-up."

I wonder when the media will start mentioning Impeachment. This is almost to the level that Bush's allies in the media can't ignore it, especially if their names start to appear on some lists. The public is way ahead of them in this area, but that is no surprise. The people know a real scandal when they see it.

Polling Bumpers: Important Political Questions

Getting us to think about potential political scenarios.... Let's crank up the comments section to "David Byron" levels of 2004 (without the vitriol).

Ten poll questions for the Bump Nation's thoughts:

1) Is there a Democratic candidate you could not support as the nominee in 2008, a Republican nominee you could support, or perhaps a matchup of nominees in which you'd really have to think about whom to vote for?

2) Name the biggest thing the Democratic Party needs to do to become effective and/or relevant in 2008, BESIDES FINDING A SPINE (in other words, define how and on what issues the party must find itself).

3) Where do you find yourself on the political spectrum in terms of demanding electability (one side), pure moral courage (the other side), or a practical balance thereof?

4) Relative to question three above, is there a political matchup for '08 that might force you to shift your place on said political spectrum? What would it be?

5) The issue most damaging/threatening/harmful to our country is........?

6) The best way to counter Republicans is to:

A) Attack them, and stay on message by exposing them.
B) Ignore them, and stay on message by explaining your own plan.
C) Not focusing on "your own plan," but reclaiming the religion/values turf in the national politico-cultural debate.
D) Acknowledge their mastery of spin, acknowledge your own (Democrats') historic weaknesses, and then tell the American people why you're finally in a position to do better.
E) Employ a fundamental emotional argument in which you argue that no party, the Dems included, should ever monopolize presidential power or so repeatedly assure an electorate to "trust me because I know what I'm doing," without offering good reason for such assurances.
F) None of the above, with your explanation/answer.

7) How important will the prospective Democratic Party nominee's home region and personal profile be to you? How important should it be to the country?

8) What is the biggest thing the media needs to do better in the next presidential election cycle?

9) How can/should/must we hold the media accountable and get the press corps to listen IN ADVANCE of the primaries?

10) Can you talk to conservatives or not? If so, what is the secret to sustaining civil, respectful dialogue that broadens both of your perspectives and gives you hope this country (and its political debate) can be mended?

Light as a Feather

I quoted Dr. King earlier today, as I promised myself I would do every year. But that put me in mind of some of the great southern cooking I learned when I first moved to the South. I'm not a Southerner, and never will be (though I could stand to learn from both the manners and the tart literary rejoinders which have been borned here) I have come to learn to love some of the food. One of the great discoveries was buttermilk biscuits. Serve these with stews of any kind, ham, roast chicken, any of the great entrees of the south. These are as light as a feather and will be the envy of your neighbors unless they have a legacy recipe as good as this one.

2 cups unbleached all purpose flour
1 tablespoon sugar
1 tablespoon cornstarch
2 teaspoons baking powder
1/2 teaspoon baking soda
1/2 teaspoon salt
1/4 cup (1/2 stick) chilled unsalted butter, cut into 1/2-inch pieces
3/4 cup chilled buttermilk

Preheat oven to 450°F. Sift first 6 ingredients into large bowl. Add butter and rub in with fingertips until mixture resembles coarse meal. Add buttermilk and stir until dough forms.

Turn dough out onto floured surface; knead until smooth, about 8 turns. Roll out dough to 1-inch thickness. Using 2-inch-diameter biscuit cutter or cookie cutter, cut out biscuits. Gather scraps; roll out to 1-inch thickness and cut out additional biscuits.

Transfer biscuits to large ungreased baking sheet. Bake until golden, about 12 minutes. Serve warm.

Makes 12 biscuits.

For breakfast, crack these open with two forks (like you would an English muffin, never a knife) while hot and serve with butter and jam. As a base for shortcake, these are superb. For lunch or dinner with soup, ham, stew. a hot breadbasket of bisquits is a welcome addition. Make an Eggs Michael with poached eggs, regular, thick cut bacon and hollandaise over hot biscuits. Um, hum, bisquits soak up the hollandaise better than muffins.

With buttermilk marinated fried chicken, these are a necessity.

I learned my fried chicken from a great cook from NOLA. Let me see if I can find the recipe....

What Happened to Opposition, Dianne?

Alito Hearings Unsettle Some Prevailing Wisdom About the Politics of Abortion

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: January 16, 2006

WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 - Just a little over a year ago, senators of both parties said publicly that it would be almost impossible for a Supreme Court nominee who disagreed openly with the major abortion rights precedents to win confirmation.

But partisans on either side now say that last week's confirmation hearings for Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. cast doubt on such assumptions.

All eight Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee have indicated they believe that Judge Alito would threaten abortion rights. All are expected to vote against him, although the parties are still disputing the date of the committee's vote. But many concede that his confirmation is all but assured and that their party is unlikely to try to stop it through a filibuster.

"I do not see the likelihood of a filibuster, to be very candid with you," Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California and one of the most prominent abortion rights supporters on the Judiciary Committee, said Sunday on the CBS program "Face the Nation."

Ms. Feinstein said she would vote against Judge Alito, in part because of the abortion rights issue. "If you asked me who would Alito most be like, it would probably be, I'd have to say, Scalia," she said, referring to Justice Antonin Scalia, leader of the court's conservative faction, which opposes abortion rights.

But she added: "I mean, this is a man I might disagree with. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the court."

Some abortion rights advocates reacted with alarm.

"Dianne Feinstein's comment is very disturbing," said Kate Michelman, the former president of Naral Pro-Choice America and a witness against Mr. Alito at the confirmation hearings.

"Since the last election there seems to be less comfort, if you will, or less willingness to be very forthright or strong on a woman's right to choose," Ms. Michelman said in a telephone interview on Sunday. "It is worrisome that there wasn't more strength behind their questioning" of Judge Alito's views on abortion.

The Democrats' response to the Alito nomination is especially significant because he would succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who had been the court's swing vote on many abortion rights cases.

Judge Alito, in particular, aroused the ire of abortion rights supporters because of two memorandums he had written as a lawyer for the Reagan administration displaying deeply held disagreement with the abortion rights decisions. Abortion rights groups called the memorandums the most extensive written record of a Supreme Court nominee's opposition to the abortion rights precedents since 1987, when the Senate rejected Judge Robert H. Bork.

At the hearings, Judge Alito said he would keep an open mind about the weight of precedents in such cases, while confirming that his past writings represented his views at the time.

But Democratic strategists and officials of liberal groups opposed to confirmation said privately throughout the hearings that they did not believe that demonstrating Judge Alito's opposition to abortion rights would be enough to defeat his nomination. The handful of Democrats from socially conservative states were reluctant to be perceived as voting against him on those grounds.

The shift in the politics of the abortion rights issue was clear early in the hearings. On the first day of questioning, when the parties laid out their arguments and public opinion began to form, only two Democratic senators, Ms. Feinstein and Charles E. Schumer of New York, made abortion rights a central focus.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat, and Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, the senior member and liberal stalwart, aimed their questions primarily at other issues like presidential and executive power. And when they later returned more fully to abortion rights, they often talked more euphemistically of a right to privacy.

It's time for Diane Feinstein to have a primary challenger.

Barn-burner

Here is a link to the transcript of Al Gore's speech for the American Constitution Society.

The Truth Hurts

Via Susie:

New Zogby Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support Impeaching Bush for Wiretapping

By a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,216 U.S. adults from January 9-12.

The poll found that 52% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

43% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 2.9% margin of error.

"The American people are not buying Bush's outrageous claim that he has the power to wiretap American citizens without a warrant. Americans believe terrorism can be fought without turning our own government into Big Brother," said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik.

Recently White House spokesman Scott McClellan cited a Rasmussen poll that found 64% believe the NSA "should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects." Of course, that is exactly what Congress authorized when it created the FISA courts to issue special expedited secret warrants for terrorism suspects. But Bush defied the FISA law and authorized warrantless wiretaps of Americans, which has outraged Americans to the point that a majority believe Congress should consider Bush's impeachment.

"Bush admits he ordered illegal warantless wiretapping, but says it began in response to 9/11 and was limited to a small number of calls to or from Al Qaeda," Fertik said. "But recent reports suggest wiretapping affected a much larger number of Americans, and a report in Friday's Truthout says the wiretapping began before 9/11."

"The upcoming Senate hearings on White House wiretapping could be as dramatic as the Watergate hearings in 1973. A majority of Americans have already believe Congress should look into grounds for impeachment, yet we have only seen the tip of the iceberg in the Corporate Media. If Bush ordered warrantless wiretapping long before the terrorist attack on 9/11, then Americans will realize that George Bush came into office determined to shred the Constitution and take away our rights," Fertik said.

Impeachment Supported by Majorities of Many Groups

Responses to the Zogby poll varied by political party affiliation: 66% of Democrats favored impeachment, as did 59% of Independents, and even 23% of Republicans. By ideology, impeachment was supported by Progressives (90%), Libertarians (71%), Liberals (65%), and Moderates (58%), but not by Conservatives (33%) or Very Conservatives (28%).

Responses also varied by age, sex, race, and religion. 74% of those 18-29 favored impeachment, 47% of those 31-49, 49% of those 50-64, and 40% of those over 65. 55% of women favored impeachment, compared to 49% of men. Among African Americans, 75% favored impeachment, as did 56% of Hispanics and 47% of whites. Majorities of Catholics, Jews, and Others favored impeachment, while 44% of Protestants and 38% of Born Again Christians did so.

Majorities favored impeachment in every region: the East (54%), South (53%) and West (52%), and Central states (50%). In large cities, 56% support impeachment; in small cities, 58%; in suburbs, 46%; in rural areas, 46%.

Support for Clinton Impeachment Was Much Lower

In August and September of 1998, 16 major polls asked about impeaching President Clinton (http://democrats.com/clinton-impeachment-polls). Only 36% supported hearings to consider impeachment, and only 26% supported actual impeachment and removal. Even so, the impeachment debate dominated the news for months, and the Republican Congress impeached Clinton despite overwhelming public opposition.

Passion for Impeachment is Major Unreported Story

The strong support for impeachment found in this poll is especially surprising because the views of impeachment supporters are entirely absent from the broadcast and print media, and can only be found on the Internet and in street protests. The lack of coverage of impeachment support is due in part to the fact that not a single Democrat in Congress has called for impeachment, despite considerable grassroots activism by groups like Democrats.com (http://democrats.com/impeach).

Hi, Bob! Do you think you are going to see these polls reported anywhere in the MSM?

Those Who Fail to Learn the Lessons of History

Via Sean-Paul Kelley at The Agonist:

Harvard history profNiall Ferguson is smoking something different from what I'm smoking.

The origins of the Great War of 2007 - and how it could have been prevented By Niall Ferguson (Filed: 15/01/2006)

Are we living through the origins of the next world war? Certainly, it is easy to imagine how a future historian might deal with the next phase of events in the Middle East:

With every passing year after the turn of the century, the instability of the Gulf region grew. By the beginning of 2006, nearly all the combustible ingredients for a conflict - far bigger in its scale and scope than the wars of 1991 or 2003 - were in place.

The first underlying cause of the war was the increase in the region's relative importance as a source of petroleum. On the one hand, the rest of the world's oil reserves were being rapidly exhausted. On the other, the breakneck growth of the Asian economies had caused a huge surge in global demand for energy. It is hard to believe today, but for most of the 1990s the price of oil had averaged less than $20 a barrel.

A second precondition of war was demographic. While European fertility had fallen below the natural replacement rate in the 1970s, the decline in the Islamic world had been much slower. By the late 1990s the fertility rate in the eight Muslim countries to the south and east of the European Union was two and half times higher than the European figure.

Shorter Ferguson: since Iraq worked out so well, let's go and do it all over again in Iran!

Same Old

Via Today In Iraq's friendly fire:

KING'S VIETNAM CRITICISM: Rings True For Iraq Today

It's ironic that President George W. Bush chose the week before Martin Luther King Day to denounce Americans who oppose his policy in Iraq. (In his speech on Tuesday, January 10, Mr. Bush more than implied that those critics are disloyal, irresponsible and aiding the enemy.) Martin Luther King, Jr. was an outspoken critic of the war in Vietnam and his eloquent challenge to U.S. policy then is startlingly relevant today.

Dr. King denounced the Vietnam War as an unjust, cruel and futile campaign which ravaged the Vietnamese people in their homeland and robbed the poor here in the U.S. He articulated the war's impact on low income Americans when he stated: "A few years ago.it seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor - both black and white - through the Poverty Program.. Then came the build-up in Vietnam and I watched this program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idol, political plaything of a society gone mad on war. And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube."

Dr. King's rebuke still rings true. The spending plan pushed through Congress right before Christmas was touted by conservatives as a "deficit reduction" measure. But it was, in reality, another effort by President Bush and the Republican Party to give huge tax breaks to the wealthy while slashing funds for vital programs which benefit ordinary, working Americans: public schools, jobs, housing, financial aid for college students and medical care for children and the elderly and so on. Meanwhile, Mr. Bush and his Republican allies in Congress continue to find tens of billions of federal dollars for the war in Iraq.

Dr. King was eloquent in pointing out that while our leaders may speak of protecting us from enemies and advancing freedom around the world, the true purpose of American military action is often to prop up of U.S. business interests. King's observations extended beyond Vietnam as he stated: "This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counter-revolutionary actios of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerillas in Cambodia and why napalm and Green Beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru."

Once again, Dr. King's analysis applies perfectly to current circumstances. The biggest beneficiaries of the war in Iraq are corporations such as Halliburton, the company formerly run by Vice-President Dick Cheney, which received a multi-billion government contract to provide various supplies to our troops and to manage Iraq's oil industry. Halliburton got this mega-deal without having to bid and despite evidence that the company had over-charged the government millions on previous contracts. Accountants at the Pentagon point out that Halliburton has failed to explain millions worth expenses in Iraq, yet the Vice-President's former business associates continue to operate openly, charging everything back to the American people. Not long ago, the White House gave Halliburton another huge, no-bid contract - this time to help clean up New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina (another disaster made worse by the Bush Administration's callousness toward everyday Americans, especially low-income people of color).

It's easy to believe that the real motivation behind the Iraq war was oil profits and other financial opportunities. After all, there was never any proof that Saddam Hussein was linked to terrorist groups like al Qaeda. (One of the first people to point this out was Brent Scowcroft, the retired Air Force general who served national security advisor to the first President Bush.) The question of whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction would have been cleared up without bloodshed if the UN inspectors had been permitted to finish their work. But President Bush refused to wait and rushed forward with an attack just as the UN Security Council was voting to give the inspectors time to complete their mission. The President's eagerness to start fighting at that pivotal juncture fueled doubts about the Administration's motives.

As skepticism about Iraq's alleged terrorist ties and WMD program grew, the White House modified its rhetoric and began talking about "liberating" Iraq from its cruel dictator, Saddam Hussein. The U.S.-led attack was even titled "Operation Iraqi Freedom." This made many Americans feel that our nation was embarking on a noble, even holy campaign. But other U.S. citizens saw the posturing about liberation as a smokescreen. After all, it our government - particularly under Republican leadership - hasn't made a practice of rescuing oppressed people from brutal dictators. There was no talk of "regime change" when the black folks in South Africa were being murdered, imprisoned and tortured under apartheid. President Reagan never spoke of "liberating" the people of El Salvador, despite ample evidence of government brutality, death squads and "rape rooms" like those so often cited by President Bush in Iraq. When President Clinton sought to deploy U.S. forces to Somalia as peacekeepers, he was opposed by Republicans in Congress (many of whom are now staunch supporters of the war in Iraq). And, of course, President Bush has said almost nothing and done even less about the rampant slaughter that is ongoing in Darfur.

It's been nearly 40 years since Martin was assassinated and some things have changed. But not nearly enough things.

Since I am a preacher by trade, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor -- both black and white -- through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.

Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. So we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. So we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would never live on the same block in Detroit. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.

Amen.

Politics, Not Governance

Senate Democrats Emphasizing Ethics, Not Alito
Unable to Keep Conservatives Off Court, Leaders Turn to Issues That Have More Traction With Voters

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 16, 2006; Page A02

Just as Samuel A. Alito Jr. was wrapping up three days of testimony in his bid for a Supreme Court seat -- which core Democratic groups desperately want to prevent -- the Senate's Democratic leader sent an e-mail statement to hundreds of journalists.

In it, Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) had this to say about Alito: not one word. The Thursday news release, trumpeting a "Republican Culture of Corruption" in big red letters, dealt with Republican lawmakers' alleged ties to disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a theme of Democratic messages these days.

Later that day, after Alito had left the hearing room, Reid issued a criticism of the nominee but made no mention of a possible filibuster, seen as the only conceivable way Democrats might thwart the nomination in the GOP-controlled Senate.

The fact that Reid paid scant attention to Alito that day, amid heavy TV coverage, is testament to the faith that Democratic leaders place in the ethics-corruption issue as a winner in November's congressional elections.

On Wednesday -- when Senate Democrats return from recess and huddle on the Alito nomination for the first time since the hearing -- congressional, national and state party leaders plan a major Washington event. It will not focus not on Alito but on a proposed "honest leadership act" that would ban gifts to lawmakers, among other things.

These priorities hint at the difficulties Democrats have experienced during the past six months in pursuing the goal of keeping conservatives such as Alito and John G. Roberts Jr. off the Supreme Court. Roberts coasted to confirmation as chief justice last fall, and GOP senators predict Alito will be confirmed this month, albeit by a narrower margin. Analysts say Alito's confirmation in particular could move the court notably to the right.

I call bullshit, Harry Reid. This man is a damaging pick for the SCOTUS and likely to do damage to the republic under a Bush presidency. We have a president who thinks he is king and Alito is a rubber stamp to that and you can't find anything to filibuster here? Grow some stones, man.

Megafailure

President Tells Insurers to Aid Ailing Medicare Drug Plan

By ROBERT PEAR
Published: January 16, 2006

With tens of thousands of people unable to get medicines promised by Medicare, the Bush administration has told insurers that they must provide a 30-day supply of any drug that a beneficiary was previously taking, and it said that poor people must not be charged more than $5 for a covered drug.

The actions came after several states declared public health emergencies, and many states announced that they would step in to pay for prescriptions that should have been covered by the federal Medicare program.

Republicans have joined Democrats in asserting that the federal government botched the beginning of the prescription drug program, which started on Jan. 1. People who had signed up for coverage found that they were not on the government's list of subscribers. Insurers said they had no way to identify poor people entitled to extra help with their drug costs. Pharmacists spent hours on the telephone trying to reach insurance companies that administer the drug benefit under contract to Medicare.

Many of the problems involve low-income people entitled to both Medicare and Medicaid.

In a directive sent to all Medicare drug plans over the weekend, the Bush administration said they "must take immediate steps" to ensure that low-income beneficiaries were not charged more than $2 for a generic drug and $5 for a brand-name drug.

In addition, it said insurers must cover a 30-day emergency supply of drugs that beneficiaries were taking prior to the start of the new program.

In an interview yesterday, Dr. Mark B. McClellan, administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said that "several hundred thousand beneficiaries who switched plans" in December may have had difficulty filling prescriptions in the last two weeks.

In California, officials estimate that 200,000 of the state's 1.1 million low-income Medicare beneficiaries had trouble getting their medications.

Despite these problems, Dr. McClellan said, Medicare is now covering one million prescriptions a day. With the latest corrective actions, he said, "all beneficiaries should be able to get their prescriptions filled."

In the past, such predictions proved to be premature. New problems appeared as old ones were solved, and some insurers were slow to carry out federal instructions.

Since the program began on Jan. 1, many low-income people have left pharmacies empty-handed after being told they would have to pay co-payments of $100, $250 or more.

About 20 states, including California, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania and all of New England, have announced that they will help low-income people by paying drug claims that should have been paid by the federal Medicare program.

"The new federal program is too complicated for many people to understand, and the implementation of the new program by the federal government has been awful," said Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, a Republican. On Saturday, he signed an emergency executive order making the state a "payer of last resort" for the out-of-pocket drug costs.

The Bush administration said it was rushing to provide insurers with correct information about the extra subsidies available to low-income people enrolled in their plans.

"We sent files to all plans providing complete information on dual-eligible beneficiaries" entitled to both Medicare and Medicaid, Dr. McClellan said. "The plans now have all the information in one place."

Translation from Timespeak: this is a gigantic clusterfuck. I need to checkin with my mom and make sure she is getting all her meds. All of the folks I know who are health care providers or social workers with seniors are sweating bullets over trying to keep their clients supplied with their meds.

A Few Loose Ends

I'll admit it. I'm hooked on the Food Network. Yes, I know Iron Chef America is way cheesy and Rachel Ray is a vapid hairdo. The cooking competitions are contrived. I don't care. I get a boatload of cooking ideas from these shows. Emeril Legasse is a source of constant inspiration, he cooks the kind of food I like to cook, from classic french and italian to classic cajun. I came of age with a chef in the house who taught me to be constantly fascinated with the things you could do by re-imaging the dishes we grew up with.

And I love to entertain. It's a source of constant frustration that my place is so small that I can't host the kind of dinner parties I'd like. I like big, stand-up parties with lots of food and wine that take a day or more to prepare, but I've got room for three, at most, at my dining table and no living room to speak of.

All this is by way of saying, I'm planning to move. To someplace cheaper than DC, probably the "greater Toronto area" or GTA as The Toronto Star likes to call it. The auto traffic is beyond horrific, even for a person from DC, but as a webmaster working from home, that's not so much an issue. My equity here will buy a real house in the cheaper market.

Thanks to my Vancouver readers for the Christmas book. Mike Davis's The Monster at Our Door is a must-read for anyone following the avian flu threat. It is both well researched and well written, the man is a stylist. There is so much activity at Flu Wiki that I can't stay on top of it and I'm giving at least a couple of interviews a week. If things fall silent here for a few hours, be sure that I'm either out for dinner with friends or giving interviews to the media. The recent rash of cases in Turkey, odd piece of irony, that, have caught the media's attention, and they've found Flu Wiki.
DemfromCT does most of the heavy lifting in the Forum, but, as publisher, I have a lot of behind the scenes things to do. Lately, I've been very busy over there as the traffic has doubled in the last month.

Things will be changing here at Bump, too. I've invited the guest editors in to take a greater role as I move into my new job, which will be a very intense experience in web editing and management. The guest guys are co-bloggers now. I haven't started the new gig yet, but I have enough of a sense of the site from the prototype that this is going to be both hard and absorbing. The co-bloggers and I will maintain Bump but the schedule will change from mine to theirs. They all have day gigs, which I haven't had for most of the last few years.

You'll still get the same mix of news, recipes, the ridiculous and whatever strikes our fancy, but the mix will change a bit. I view this as an improvement. We are all experts in different fields. Real experts, the kind who get hired for what we know, and this is not a small thing. The commentary you get here comes from people who know what they are talking about and know how to source their essays. Unless you prefer Jonah Goldberg, and I don't think you would have found your way here if you did.

Jonah Goldberg. There are some decent thinkers on the rightwing, people I can respectfully disagree with, but what the fuck is the National Review, the gold standard for conservative thought, doing publishing this certifiable idiot. Jeebus, when the right has intellectuals like Paul Craig Roberts, why the fuck are they paying idiots like Goldberg? If you think that only the left is stupid, you haven't been paying attention.

Oy, these people are clueless.

Low Fat Dinner

I got to have dinner this evening with Suburban Guerrilla's Susie Madrak. Bloggers make great friends. Suze says hi to pogge and Kevin Hayden. We went out to a great Thai place in DC that had some of the best Thai food I've ever eaten. Susie's in town to cover Al Gore's speech at DAR Constitution Hall. C-Span is going to cover it, so I'll watch it on TV and blog about it here. We met at the home of blogger Mike Rogers and his neighbor, Raw Story blogger John Byrne, both of whom are attending the Gore event tomorrow.

Needless to to say, we talked blogging and politics and, as with most days, I'm politics'd out, so here is something good to eat.

This is great done on the range and broiler now, it's fabulous on the grill in the summer.

SAUTEED FLANK STEAK WITH ARUGULA AND ROASTED CAULIFLOWER AND RED PEPPERS

1 large head cauliflower (2 1/2 lb), cut into 1 1/2-inch-wide florets (8 cups)
2 lb red bell peppers (about 5), cut into 1-inch squares
4 large garlic cloves, peeled
1 1/2 tablespoons extra-virgin olive oil
1/4 cup red wine vinegar
2 teaspoons chopped fresh thyme
1 1/2 teaspoons salt
1 1/2 teaspoons coarsely ground black pepper
1 (1-lb) piece flank steak, halved lengthwise (along the grain)
1/2 tablespoon vegetable oil
3 oz baby arugula
1/2 cup fat-free reduced-sodium chicken broth
2 teaspoons red-wine vinegar, or to taste
Put oven rack in upper third of oven and preheat oven to 500°F.

Toss cauliflower, bell peppers, and garlic with olive oil, vinegar, 1 teaspoon thyme, 1 teaspoon salt, and 1/2 teaspoon pepper in a large bowl. Spread in a large shallow baking pan (at least 15 by 10 inches) and roast, turning over once or twice, until vegetables are tender and slightly charred, 25 to 30 minutes.

While vegetables roast, heat a dry 10-inch heavy skillet (not nonstick; preferably cast-iron) over moderately high heat until hot, about 3 minutes. Meanwhile, stir together remaining teaspoon thyme, teaspoon pepper, and 1/2 teaspoon salt in a small bowl. Pat steak dry and rub both sides with thyme mixture.

Add vegetable oil to hot skillet, then add steak and sauté, turning over once, 5 to 7 minutes total for medium-rare. Transfer to a cutting board and let stand, loosely covered with foil, 5 minutes.

Reserve roasted garlic cloves and 1 cup roasted bell peppers. Toss arugula with remaining roasted vegetables in pan to wilt, then transfer to a platter.

Blend reserved garlic and bell peppers with broth, vinegar, and salt and pepper to taste in a blender until smooth. Transfer sauce to a small bowl or sauceboat.

Holding a knife at a 45-degree angle, cut steak across the grain into thin slices and arrange on platter with vegetables. Pour any juices accumulated on cutting board over meat and serve sauce on the side.

Makes 4 servings.

W Hates the Earth

Scorched Earth

By ROBERT L. PARK
Published: January 15, 2006

College Park, Md.

NASA has quietly terminated the Deep Space Climate Observatory, citing "competing priorities." The news media took little notice. Few Americans, after all, had even heard of the program. But the entire world may come to mourn its passing.

Earth is growing warmer. Even the most strident global-warming deniers have taken to saying that a little warming is a good thing. If the trend continues, however, it will have catastrophic consequences for life on this planet. Correctly identifying the cause could be the most important problem facing humanity.

Most scientists link global warming to unrestrained burning of fossil fuels, which shrouds Earth in a blanket of carbon dioxide, trapping the Sun's energy. Others, backed by industries that spew pollutants into the atmosphere, insist that greenhouse emissions are not the problem. They prefer to attribute warming to natural variations in solar output. Scientists are skeptical, but they don't deny the possibility. The issue cries out to be resolved.

Even in a world wracked by wars, battles are not fought over scientific disagreements. In science, nature is the sole arbiter. Disputes are resolved only by better experiments.

The better experiment when it comes to global warming was to be the climate observatory, situated in space at the neutral-gravity point between the Sun and Earth. Called Lagrange 1, or L1, this point is about one million miles from Earth. At L1, with a view of the full disk of the Sun in one direction, and a full sunlit Earth in the opposite, the observatory could continuously monitor Earth's energy balance. It was given a poetic name, Triana, after Rodrigo de Triana, the sailor aboard Christopher Columbus's ship who first sighted the New World.

Development began in November 1998 and it was ready for launching three years later. The cost was only about $100 million. For comparison, that is only one-thousandth the cost of the International Space Station, which serves no useful purpose.

Before Triana could be launched, however, there was a presidential election. Many of the industries favored by the new Bush White House were not anxious to have the cause of global warming pinned down. The launching was put on hold.

The disdain of the Bush White House for Triana goes much deeper than just a desire to avoid the truth about global warming. Triana began life in early 1998 as a brainchild of Al Gore, who was then the vice president. Mr. Gore, the story goes, woke up one morning wondering if it would be possible to beam a continuous image of the full Earth back from space to inspire people with the need to care for our planet. The 1972 portrait of the full Earth, taken from the Moon, had inspired millions with the fragile beauty of our blue planet. Why not beam the image live into classrooms, allowing students to view weather systems marching around the globe?

Scientists had dreamed of such an observatory for years. They hoped Mr. Gore's influence would make it happen. Mr. Gore's support would end up destroying it. Those who hated him, hated Triana. His dream of inspiring environmentalists and schoolchildren served only to trivialize the project. It was ridiculed as "Gore's screen saver."

Triana is terminated, but global warming is not. Someday, there will have to be an observatory at L1. Perhaps the most important lesson from our exploration of the solar system is that the most terrible place on Earth is a Garden of Eden compared to the best place anywhere else. We must find out how to keep it that way.

Bad News

2 Common Flu Drugs Called Ineffective Against Virus

By David Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 15, 2006; Page A09

Federal health officials yesterday advised physicians not to use two common and long-standing influenza drugs because nearly all the virus in current flu outbreaks in the United States is resistant to them.

The elimination of amantadine and rimantadine from clinical use leaves practitioners with only two licensed influenza antivirals, Tamiflu and Relenza. Relenza is largely unavailable, however, because of supply shortages.

Resistance to amantadine and rimantadine has been climbing, particularly in Asia, in recent years. It has taken a huge leap this year in the United States for reasons that are unclear.

Two years ago, 2 percent of circulating flu viruses here were resistant to the two drugs, which are known as adamantanes. Last flu season, 11 percent were resistant. This season, 91 percent of virus samples tested since Oct. 1 -- 109 out of 120 -- are adamantane-resistant, said Nancy J. Cox, head of the influenza branch at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC made the announcement yesterday in an urgently called news conference. Flu season is heating up, and outbreaks have been reported in nursing homes in New York, Illinois and several other states. The adamantane drugs are commonly prescribed to prevent infection in elderly or chronically ill people at high risk of complications of the infection, including death.

"We really wanted to let clinicians know so they could treat their patients appropriately," Cox said.

In the first week in January, seven states reported "widespread" flu activity; 11 reported "regional"; nine, including Virginia, reported "local"; 21 states, including Maryland (plus the District), reported "sporadic"; and two reported none.

"These were the mainstay of influenza therapy," said Anne Moscona, a pediatrician at Weill Cornell Medical Center and an expert in antiviral drugs. She said the demise of amantadine and rimantadine is not entirely unexpected.

"The evolution of virus in this direction has been inevitable. I think 91 percent resistant is probably a higher level than was anticipated," she said.

Adamantane resistance is also rising in Europe, although flu-surveillance labs there have not released their figures, Cox said.

In Asia, resistance increased from 2 percent in 2001 to 27 percent in 2004, with some countries reporting much higher rates. In China last flu season, 74 percent of virus samples were resistant to the adamantanes.

There are two ways drug resistance can increase rapidly.

Flu virus can undergo a spontaneous mutation that makes it resistant to a drug. There are five places in the influenza virus genome where the substitution of a single nucleotide or "letter" can confer resistance to both adamantane drugs. This resistant strain can then, purely by chance, become the dominant one during a flu season.

Alternatively, using an antiviral drug during an infection -- particularly if the dose is inadequate -- can put evolutionary "pressure" on a virus to develop resistance. About 30 percent of people who take amantadine once they are infected with influenza will end up excreting drug-resistant virus from their throats, Moscona said.

A Homework Assignment For Us

Yes, politics is depressing these days. Yes, our election cycles run way too close together. Yes, the substance of election campaigning is virtually nonexistent. Yes, the whole political landscape--the system, the dialogue, the levels of citizen interest and participation, the quality of the candidates--is dark, barren and impoverished.

Moreover, I confess that after seeing what happened with Howard Dean in Iowa two whole years ago (wow, it's been THAT LONG???), I really had enough with politics. I had an experience of cognitive meltdown--seeing the bleakness of reality for what it was made me turn off my own political jets.

Now, though, after two years in the wildnerness, I'm being reminded that this political system is the only one I--WE--have. And the Democratic Party, while so astonishingly bad, is the only thing that's going to (well, I don't know about save the country) reduce the advances of evil, corruption and injustice in America. With that in mind, it's time to focus on 2008.

I hope the logic and urgency of such a statement can be immediately appreciated, felt and shared, but if not, here are some reasons why this needs to be the case with all of us:

1) Merely reducing the Republican majority in the House won't create or cause the fundamental change needed to steer things in the right direction. The power and aura surrounding the Presidency of the United States make that one office so supremely and overwhelmingly important for Democrats to take back (unless it's hawkish Hillary Clinton against hawkish John McCain).

2) Starting to think and act with 2008 in mind gives us the time, breathing room, and head space needed to use the 2006 congressional elections as a time to observe, listen and gather, more than anything else. Feeling the politico-cultural winds blowing across this country--as students, more than as participants--will give us the knowledge, awareness and savvy needed to carry the fight in 2008, when it really matters.

3) Those who win in American politics are those who plan long-distance and long-term. Karl Rove started thinking about 2004 right after Bush v. Gore was decided. We need to be thinking about how to frame the 2008 debate in such a way that the Democratic Candidate can reach the people he needs to reach in the battleground states he needs to win.

4) We need to be ahead of the curve in ensuring that the Democrats do things the right way in the primary campaign, in order to minimize damage against the eventual nominee while also helping the mold that nominee into a candidate who will blend needed dimensions of both real-world media savvy and morally courageous conviction that will capture the mind of a country that, for the most part, is sickened or turned off by Democrats who, with their spinelessness and cluelessness, are not taking advantage of Republican corruption.

The kinds of things that need to happen in the next Democratic primary are as follows:

A) No more than three total candidates, hopefully just two, and no fringe candidates in the mix. Consensus-building and the conversations associated with it need to take place before candidates throw their hat into the ring.

B) No infighting or backstabbing. Advance your vision, no negative ads. Use the primary campaign to show politicking, debating, campaign oratory, and other long-lost political arts at their best. Give the country reason to change its mind. Give the Jay Lenos of the world no reason to pillory you.

C) Call the media out when it doesn't do its job, and back it up with specifics. Don't answer lame questions, and say why. Don't allow imagecraft (a la Howard Dean) to become a big deal. Focus so much on substance that fence-sitters and even Republicans can't help but see how serious you are about helping the country.

D) A focus on the Democrats, both the candidates and the voters, on Katrina-related issues of class, economic justice, and trust (or lack thereof) in government. The '08 election, as much as some would want it to be about Iraq, must revolve around the "homeland security" of providing basic services and defenses for Americans on American soil. The Republicans must not be allowed to change the conversation, and the primary will enable Democrats to forcefully establish the new turf for the general election.

As you can see, these issues need to be cultivated, thought about, molded and publicized right now, because once Election Day 2006 is over, the talk will focus on the '08 election and the ever-extended primary season that, in effect, will begin in the summer of 2007.

Action and planning must start now. No, it's not too early. Not for a race this big. What's more is that by planning for '08, we can think of the Bush presidency as something that can come to an end. But if we don't plan now, the '08 election could potentiall lock the Presidency in the wrong hands until 2017. We have little choice about seeing Bush stay on the imperial throne through January of 2009, but we have all the choice in the world about ensuring that an American dark age doesn't last through most of the 2010's, and on into a future that's already paralyzingly uncertain as it is.

From the Right

Rock-ribbed conservative Dr. Paul Craig Roberts says:

Caught in gratuitous and illegal spying on American citizens, the Bush administration has defended its illegal activity and set the Justice (sic) Department on the trail of the person or persons who informed the New York Times of Bush’s violation of law. Note the astounding paradox: The Bush administration is caught red-handed in blatant illegality and responds by trying to arrest the patriot who exposed the administration’s illegal behavior.

Bush has actually declared it treasonous to reveal his illegal behavior! His propagandists, who masquerade as news organizations, have taken up the line: To reveal wrong-doing by the Bush administration is to give aid and comfort to the enemy.

Compared to Spygate, Watergate was a kindergarten picnic. The Bush administration’s lies, felonies, and illegalities have revealed it to be a criminal administration with a police state mentality and police state methods. Now Bush and his attorney general have gone the final step and declared Bush to be above the law. Bush aggressively mimics Hitler’s claim that defense of the realm entitles him to ignore the rule of law.

Bush’s acts of illegal domestic spying are gratuitous because there are no valid reasons for Bush to illegally spy. The Foreign Intelligence Services Act gives Bush all the power he needs to spy on terrorist suspects. All the administration is required to do is to apply to a secret FISA court for warrants. The Act permits the administration to spy first and then apply for a warrant, should time be of the essence. The problem is that Bush has totally ignored the law and the court.

Why would President Bush ignore the law and the FISA court? It is certainly not because the court in its three decades of existence was uncooperative. According to attorney Martin Garbus (New York Observer, 12/28/05), the secret court has issued more warrants than all federal district judges combined, only once denying a warrant.

Why, then, has the administration created another scandal for itself on top of the WMD, torture, hurricane, and illegal detention scandals?

There are two possible reasons.

One reason is that the Bush administration is being used to concentrate power in the executive. The old conservative movement, which honors the separation of powers, has been swept away. Its place has been taken by a neoconservative movement that worships executive power.

The other reason is that the Bush administration could not go to the FISA secret court for warrants because it was not spying for legitimate reasons and, therefore, had to keep the court in the dark about its activities.

What might these illegitimate reasons be? Could it be that the Bush administration used the spy apparatus of the US government in order to influence the outcome of the presidential election?

Could we attribute the feebleness of the Democrats as an opposition party to information obtained through illegal spying that would subject them to blackmail?

These possible reasons for bypassing the law and the court need to be fully investigated and debated. No administration in my lifetime has given so many strong reasons to oppose and condemn it as has the Bush administration. Nixon was driven from office because of a minor burglary of no consequence in itself. Clinton was impeached because he did not want the embarrassment of publicly acknowledging that he engaged in adulterous sex acts in the Oval Office. In contrast, Bush has deceived the public and Congress in order to invade Iraq, illegally detained Americans, illegally tortured detainees, and illegally spied on Americans. Bush has upheld neither the Constitution nor the law of the land. A majority of Americans disapprove of what Bush has done; yet, the Democratic Party remains a muted spectator.

Why is the Justice (sic) Department investigating the leak of Bush’s illegal activity instead of the illegal activity committed by Bush? Is the purpose to stonewall Congress’ investigation of Bush’s illegal spying? By announcing a Justice (sic) Department investigation, the Bush administration positions itself to decline to respond to Congress on the grounds that it would compromise its own investigation into national security matters.

What will the federal courts do? When Hitler challenged the German judicial system, it collapsed and accepted that Hitler was the law. Hitler’s claims were based on nothing but his claims, just as the claim for extra-legal power for Bush is based on nothing but memos written by his political appointees.

The Bush administration, backed by the neoconservative Federalist Society, has brought the separation of powers, the foundation of our political system, to crisis. The Federalist Society, an organization of Republican lawyers, favors more "energy in the executive." Distrustful of Congress and the American people, the Federalist Society never fails to support rulings that concentrate power in the executive branch of government. It is a paradox that conservative foundations and individuals have poured money for 23 years into an organization that is inimical to the separation of powers, the foundation of our constitutional system.

September 11, 2001, played into neoconservative hands exactly as the 1933 Reichstag fire played into Hitler’s hands. Fear, hysteria, and national emergency are proven tools of political power grabs. Now that the federal courts are beginning to show some resistance to Bush’s claims of power, will another terrorist attack allow the Bush administration to complete its coup?

Dr. Roberts and I disagree on nearly everything of substance politically, and I think that is a good thing in the marketplace of ideas. So does he. He's a patriot and will happily consider me the same. The neocon propagandist fascists currently in power derive their authority from the same place Hitler's National Socialists did: an ignorant and uninterested populace. The rest of the world has noticed that we've elected nuts. The bulk of our electorate hasn't.

Judge Alito is a threat to the Constitution. Nobody, including the Democrats, seems to give a flying fuck about that.

Oh, and by the way, how many more billions should we be spending in Iran, that country which ends in "n" rather than "q?" The rhetoric is already ratcheting up on the Sunday shows.

Bye, Bye, Republic

The Unitary Executive: Is The Doctrine Behind the Bush Presidency Consistent with a Democratic State?

By JENNIFER VAN BERGEN

When President Bush signed the new law, sponsored by Senator McCain, restricting the use of torture when interrogating detainees, he also issued a Presidential signing statement. That statement asserted that his power as Commander-in-Chief gives him the authority to bypass the very law he had just signed.

This news came fast on the heels of Bush's shocking admission that, since 2002, he has repeatedly authorized the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance without a warrant, in flagrant violation of applicable federal law.

And before that, Bush declared he had the unilateral authority to ignore the Geneva Conventions and to indefinitely detain without due process both immigrants and citizens as enemy combatants.

All these declarations echo the refrain Bush has been asserting from the outset of his presidency. That refrain is simple: Presidential power must be unilateral, and unchecked.

But the most recent and blatant presidential intrusions on the law and Constitution supply the verse to that refrain. They not only claim unilateral executive power, but also supply the train of the President's thinking, the texture of his motivations, and the root of his intentions.

They make clear, for instance, that the phrase "unitary executive" is a code word for a doctrine that favors nearly unlimited executive power. Bush has used the doctrine in his signing statements to quietly expand presidential authority.
....

As Findlaw columnist Edward Lazarus recently showed, the President does not have unlimited executive authority, not even as Commander-in-Chief of the military. Our government was purposely created with power split between three branches, not concentrated in one.

Separation of powers, then, is not simply a talisman: It is the foundation of our system. James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers, No. 47, that:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

Another early American, George Nicholas, eloquently articulated the concept of "power divided" in one of his letters:

The most effectual guard which has yet been discovered against the abuse of power, is the division of it. It is our happiness to have a constitution which contains within it a sufficient limitation to the power granted by it, and also a proper division of that power. But no constitution affords any real security to liberty unless it is considered as sacred and preserved inviolate; because that security can only arise from an actual and not from a nominal limitation and division of power.

Yet it seems a nominal limitation and division of power - with real power concentrated solely in the "unitary executive" - is exactly what President Bush seeks. His signing statements make the point quite clearly, and his overt refusal to follow the laws illustrates that point: In Bush's view, there is no actual limitation or division of power; it all resides in the executive.

Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense:

In America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.

The unitary executive doctrine conflicts with Paine's principle - one that is fundamental to our constitutional system. If Bush can ignore or evade laws, then the law is no longer king. Americans need to decide whether we are still a country of laws - and if we are, we need to decide whether a President who has determined to ignore or evade the law has not acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government.

What scares the crap out of me is that the American people don't give a shit about this. Bush just declared himself king, Judge Alito is fine with that, and they can't be bothered to notice. It's time to move to Canada.

Boo Hoo

Alito is being replayed on the Sabbath Gasbags and the factsare missing. The man has a track record. Let's not forget that.

In the media, the story is his wife's tears. It's pathetic. Our media don't have much experience with facts.

Masters of Destiny

Marshall Plan' for Iraq Fades
# Once the $18.6 billion for reconstruction is spent, the nation might have to rely on private investment. 'No pain, no gain,' a U.S. official says.

By Doug Smith and Borzou Daragahi, Times Staff Writers

BAGHDAD — After more than 2 1/2 years of sputtering reconstruction work, the United States' "Marshall Plan" to rebuild this war-torn country is drawing to a close this year with much of its promise unmet and no plans to extend its funding.

The $18.6 billion approved by Congress in 2003 will be spent by the end of this year, officials here say. Foreign governments have given only a fraction of the billions they pledged two years ago.

With the country still a shambles, U.S. officials are promoting a tough-love vision of reconstruction that puts the burden on the Iraqi people.

"The world is a competitive place," Tom Delare, economics counselor at the U.S. Embassy, said this month during a news briefing. "You have to convince the investor that it is worth his while to put his money in your community."

An embassy spokeswoman later said that the Bush administration was not abandoning the Iraqi reconstruction effort. It "remains committed to helping build Iraq and continues to assess needs on the ground," she said. No decisions on future funding requests have been made, she said.

But embassy and reconstruction officials outlined a program of private investment and fiscal belt-tightening by the new Iraqi government as the long-term solution to the country's woes, even if that causes short-term suffering for Iraq's people.

"No pain, no gain," Andy Wylegala, whose job at the embassy is to help Americans do business in Iraq, said at the same briefing. "It's a very difficult procedure to pass through. But when I look from my side, I see it as a long-term, very favorable development."

After touring Baghdad early this month, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) questioned the new direction.

"I think we're fooling ourselves if we think we can simply just pass this on to the Iraqi people immediately or to the international community," Reed said. "We've got to continue our efforts…. That requires money."

Iraq's new government will embrace market policies, but it still needs more help with reconstruction, said Movad Ubaidi, deputy chief of the newly elected National Assembly's economics committee.

"If these donations were spent, the American government is asked to give more so that Iraq can recover from the damage it suffered," Ubaidi said.

But the commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Iraq, Gen. William H. McCoy, said at a recent briefing that the last of 3,100 reconstruction projects would soon be awarded, and almost all would be completed before the year ends.

"We were never intending to rebuild Iraq," McCoy said. "We were providing enough funds to jump-start the reconstruction effort in this country."

Look, the Army and the Marines are great at breaking things and killing people. That's their job. Rebuilding countries isn't really in their training manual, so don't expect much.

Don't expect the Secretary of Defense to know that. He's part of the neocon plan to remake the Middle East. The fact that they are all incompetent idiots ought to be obvious by now.

Why Everybody Spies on the Poor Little U.S.A.

A tip of the hat to Slashdot. In many situations, I have to use a great deal of self control to keep from punching out my monitor when reading that site. Especially when they discuss an area off the beaten track of the readers' expertise. Such as Bird Flu. But every once in a while, I pan some gold there.

This one just takes the breath away.

Emphasis mine.

Web Site of Agency Is Called Insecure

By JOHN MARKOFF
Published: January 13, 2006

The General Services Administration has shut a Web site for government contractors after a computer industry consultant reported that he was able to view and modify corporate and financial information submitted by vendors.

The security flaw, which could have permitted contractor fraud, was reported to the agency's inspector general on Dec. 22, but almost three weeks passed before the system was taken offline Wednesday afternoon.

The General Services Administration is the federal agency responsible for procuring equipment and services, including computer security technology, making the lapse all the more striking.

"This is the government entity responsible for letting contracts for security," said Mark Rasch, chief security counsel for Solutionary, a security firm. "Clearly the people who log in would know about security."

The agency said it believed that the flaw had not been exploited by intruders or by authorized users.

It is not clear how long the problem existed. The Web site, called eOffer, was introduced in May 2004 to let companies respond electronically to requests for proposals for computer technology services and products.

Computer security consultants said the flaws could have had consequences ranging from corporate espionage to bid tampering. They also said the agency now faced the challenge of verifying the accuracy of contracting data.

The site remained inoperative yesterday evening with a posted message stating: "The eOffer system is down for maintenance. Please pardon the inconvenience, thank you."

The security flaws were discovered by Aaron Greenspan, president of Think Computer, a computer security firm based in Dallas, when he tried to register his company as a government contractor last month.

While entering data on the site, he said, he discovered that it was possible to call up documents at random and to take over the accounts of other companies by simply entering a publicly available business identification number once he had validated his own account with the system.

"Theoretically, one could have started a bidding war between Boeing and Lockheed Martin, or Dell and Gateway, or changed the terms of their existing contracts," he said.

According to Mr. Greenspan, the contract data on the Web site stretched back at least nine years.

When the system was introduced last year, the agency said it was intended to meet President Bush's mandate "to improve effectiveness and efficiency in government." It was intended to save time and money by bypassing the paper-based process for negotiating contracts.

A spokeswoman for the agency said yesterday that it had begun an "intensive search" to identify "possible irregularities within the electronic tools G.S.A. provides to its customers."

The spokeswoman, Jennifer E. Millikin, deputy director of communications, said the agency acknowledged that the flaw compromised the integrity of the Web tool but that it "believes the problem was brought to the agency's attention before it became a hazard to other users." She said the 20-day interval before the site's shutdown reflected the processing of the inspector general's report within the agency.

OK. As for the flaw itself - my take is that it's a Bad Thing. But shit happens, and this sort happens depressingly often.

E-commerce sites of the sort of complexity this GSA site seems to require often need one-off coding that simply cannot be vetted for security flaws the way a mass-market application can.

Let 30 million people pound on an app and it'll show its flaws a lot quicker than if only 3 thousand do. Open source or closed.

Furthermore, the sheer complexity of the software layered atop the web server itself can open the door to all sorts of possibilities, many of which spell pure merry hell. I have seen this sort of "Customer A can touch Customer B's stuff" issues before. They have shown up both in the product-by-product vulnerability reports I review each day, and in eCommerce sites I have had to help investigate, once matters have hit the fan for true and for certain.

That being said, a 20 day period between receipt of the vulnerability report and closure of the site is completely insane. This wasn't a case where the precise flaw in the source code had to be found and fixed before action could be taken. This was a matter of taking down a page and putting up a splash page to replace the original.

A mistake of this type and magnitude would not be surprising in the Department of the Interior. Or .. dare I say it? .. the DHS. But the GSA ought to be one of the most security-aware branches of the Federal Government!

And the eOffer site was up since May of 2004? That was more than a year and a half ago. The mind just boggles.

One more observation. This next is pure speculation. But if I were a gambling man, I'd give at least even odds that eOffer was a site built by outsourced contractors. The Feds do that very frequently these days.

Once upon a time, I worked for a contracting outfit. I have also worked, and am still working, for outfits that contract out IT jobs when they feel they can. It is my considered opinion that the reliability of a product you get from a contractor, especially when the product involves software, system administration, or site security, is liable to have flaws that will be both more frequent and harder to fix than if the job were done in-house.

Winter Food

WINTER VEGETABLE AND BEAN SOUP WITH PESTO

This recipe hails from France.

Pesto
2 cups (packed) fresh basil leaves
1/2 cup drained canned diced tomatoes
3 tablespoons freshly grated Parmesan cheese
2 tablespoons extra-virgin olive oil
3 garlic cloves, peeled

Soup
2 large leeks (white and pale green parts only), chopped
2 medium carrots, peeled, diced
1 6-ounce white-skinned potato, peeled, diced
3 tablespoons water
8 cups canned vegetable broth
1/2 cup orzo (rice-shaped pasta)
6 ounces green beans, trimmed, cut into 1/2-inch pieces
1 15-ounce can cannellini (white kidney beans), rinsed, drained
1/4 teaspoon dried crushed red pepper

2 tablespoons freshly grated Parmesan cheese
For pesto:
Puree all ingredients in processor. Season with salt and pepper. (Pesto can be made 1 day ahead. Cover and refrigerate.)

For soup:
Combine first 4 ingredients in heavy large pot. Cover and cook over medium-low heat until vegetables are almost tender, stirring occasionally, about 8 minutes. Add broth; bring to boil. Stir in orzo; boil uncovered until orzo is almost tender, stirring often, about 12 minutes. Add green beans; reduce heat and simmer until beans are tender, about 6 minutes. Stir in cannellini and crushed pepper; simmer until heated through, about 3 minutes. Season with salt and pepper.

Divide pesto among 4 bowls. Ladle soup over pesto; swirl to blend. Sprinkle with 2 tablespoons cheese.

Per serving: calories, 353; total fat, 12 g; saturated fat, 2 g; cholesterol, 6 mg
Makes 4 servings.

The bean soup is a great protein source, but this really needs the pesto for flavor. Freeze down a big batch of pesto with all the beans you are storing for your pandemic flu preps. That's a REALLY bland diet.

Pesto can be used in so many ways that I make it in bulk in the Cuisineart. A plate of plain spaghetti topped with this stuff is fit for a king. A dab on baked piece of cod is heaven. Pesto freezes well, put it in plastic ice cube trays, a tablespoon at a time, and then store the results in freezer proof bags for a quick hit of flavor. This is way grand way to spend a Saturday afternoon.

Comfort Food

This is decidedly not a low-cal recipe, but it is so good it's worth saving for a once in a while splurge. For six, generously.

Pasta al Carbonara

2 teaspoons olive oil
4 ounces thinly sliced prosciutto, juillienne sliced into 1/2 inch strips
2 teaspoons minced garlic
1 cup freshly grated Parmesan, about a quarter pound (steel knife in your food processor)
8 large egg yolks
1/4 cup chopped fresh basil leaves
1/4 cup chopped fresh Italian parsley leaves
1/4 cup chopped green onions, both white and green stems
Salt
1 pound pasta
Freshly ground black pepper
1/2 cup pine nuts
1 tablespoon finely grated lemon peel

In a large bowl, whisk together the olive oil, garlic, onions, cheese, yolks, basil, and parsley to blend.

Meanwhile, bring a large pot of salted water to a boil over high heat. Add the spaghetti and cook until it is just tender but still firm to the bite, stirring occasionally, about 10 minutes. Drain quickly. Toss, carefully drained but still hot, with the egg sauce and the sliced prosciutto. The heat of the pasta cooks the sauce.

Season the pasta, to taste, with pepper and salt if needed (the prosciutto will likely add all the salt you need). Transfer the pasta to a large wide serving bowl. Sprinkle the pinenuts and lemon zest over, and serve.

All this needs is a salad of arugala and mixed wild field greens with an herbed vinaigrette. If you have a source for those tiny nicoise olives on the side, so much the better. My local gourmet shop sells them. Amazon has the brand I prefer.

Light Breakfast

A lifetime of low fat cooking has left me with quite a collection of low and reduced fat recipes. Since the beginning of the year is the time when we try to lose the weight we put on over the holidays, I'm going to feature a few low fat, low carb recipes in the coming weeks. This stuff is all GOOD, which I insist on.

Breakfast is the most important meal of the day when you are trying to lose weight! Here is a delicious and different breakfast main course. I'd love a fruit salad with this. A couple of low fat hints: use canned, evaporated skim milk in your coffee instead of half and half or even whole milk. It gives you the substantial "mouth-feel" of half and half without the fat. Sugar is only 16 calories a teaspoon, but use unrefined sugar.

This recipe will serve four generously.

EGG ROULADE STUFFED WITH TURKEY SAUSAGE, MUSHROOMS, AND SPINACH

1 tablespoon olive oil plus additional for brushing baking pan and parchment paper
1/2 lb turkey sausage, casings discarded (if necessary) and sausage coarsely crumbled
2 large garlic cloves, chopped
4 scallions, chopped
1/2 lb fresh shiitake mushrooms, stems discarded and caps chopped
1/2 lb fresh cremini mushrooms, trimmed and chopped
1/4 teaspoon black pepper
3/4 teaspoon salt
1 (10-oz) package frozen chopped spinach, thawed and squeezed dry or 1/2 pound of fresh spinach, wilted and drained
1/4 cup water
2 large whole eggs
4 large egg whites
2 tablespoons fat-free (skim) milk
1 oz finely grated Parmigiano-Reggiano (about 1/3 cup)
3 oz Gruyère, coarsely grated (1 cup)

Special equipment: a 19- by 13-inch sheet of parchment paper

Put oven rack in middle position and preheat oven to 350°F. Lightly oil a 15- by 10-inch shallow baking pan, then line bottom and all 4 sides with parchment paper, allowing 2 inches of parchment to hang over short sides of pan, and lightly brush parchment (except overhang) with oil.

Heat 1 teaspoon oil in a 12-inch heavy nonstick skillet over moderately high heat until hot but not smoking, then cook sausage, stirring, until finely crumbled and cooked through, about 2 minutes. Transfer to a bowl and keep warm, covered.

Add remaining 2 teaspoons oil to skillet and sauté garlic and scallions, stirring, until golden, about 3 minutes. Add mushrooms, pepper, and 1/4 teaspoon salt and sauté, stirring, until mushrooms are softened and golden, about 8 minutes. Add sausage and spinach to skillet and sauté, stirring, 3 minutes. Transfer half of spinach mixture to a food processor and add water, then blend until finely chopped. Return to skillet, stirring to combine, and keep warm, covered.

Blend whole eggs, whites, milk, Parmigiano-Reggiano, and remaining 1/2 teaspoon salt in a blender until smooth and frothy.

Pour egg mixture into baking pan and bake until firm, about 10 minutes. Remove from oven and leave oven on.

Sprinkle egg layer evenly with half of Gruyère, then spoon spinach filling evenly on top and sprinkle with remaining Gruyère. Bake just until cheese melts, about 5 minutes.

Position pan on a work surface with a long side nearest you, then gently roll up egg layer toward you, using parchment as an aid and holding filling in place with your fingers.

Cool roll in pan on rack 10 minutes, then transfer to a platter using 2 large spatulas. Trim ends and gently cut into 8 slices with a serrated knife.

Each serving (2 slices) contains about 323 calories and 7 grams fat.

This dish will take about an hour to make, so it is a weekend dish. The rollups will keep in the fridge, tightly covered, for two days.

Dinner in 20 Minutes

Time for some good cooking, I'm politics'd out.

This is a dish I ate for the first time in the finest restaurant in Turin, Italy. I've never been a big fan of smoked salmon, but this dish was so good that I was ready to eat it all night.

This is per serving. It's not a cheap dish, so you really should make fresh pasta to go with it.

Pasta with Vodka Sauce

1/4 pound of fresh linguini or fettucine
1 tablespoon olive oil
1/4 pound of very thinly sliced smoked salmon, juillienned in half inch strips
1/2 cup chopped yellow onions
1/2 teaspoon salt
Pinch crushed red pepper flakes
2 teaspoons minced garlic
1/2 cup crushed tomatoes
3 tablespoons vodka
2 tablespoons heavy cream
1 to 2 tablespoons chiffonade of fresh basil leaves
Freshly grated Parmigiano-Reggiano, for garnish
Sprig fresh basil, for garnish

Bring a medium saucepan of salted water to a boil. Add the pasta and cook until just al dente, fresh pasta needs only a couple of minutes. Drain in a colander and return to the saucepan.

Meanwhile, in a large skillet, heat the olive oil over medium heat. Add the onions, salt, and red pepper flakes and cook, stirring, until the onions are soft and golden, about 5 minutes. Add the garlic and cook until fragrant, about 30 seconds. Add the tomatoes and cook, stirring, until thick, about 2 minutes. Add the vodka and cook until the sauce reduced by half, 3 to 4 minutes. Stir in the cream and cook until the sauce thickens, about 2 minutes. Stir in the basil and remove from the heat.

Toss the sauce with the pasta and smoked salmon to coat evenly and transfer to a pasta bowl for serving. Top with cheese and sprig of basil and serve immediately with a bowl of grated Parmigiano-Reggiano.

Secrets

Proof Bush Deceived America

by Ray McGovern

James Risen's State of War: the Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration, may hold bigger secrets than the disclosure that President George W. Bush authorized warrantless eavesdropping on Americans.

Risen's book also confirms the most damning element of the British Cabinet Office memos popularly called the "Downing Street memos;" namely, that "the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy." The result is that it is no longer credible to maintain that the failures in the Iraqi intelligence were the product of a broken intelligence community. The Bush administration deliberately fabricated the case against Iraq, lying to Congress and the American people along the way.

Risen, a senior reporter for The New York Times, reports that British Prime Minister Tony Blair had an urgent need in the summer of 2002 to get the equivalent of a "second opinion" regarding Bush's plans for war in Iraq – insight independent of his own telephone conversations with the president and independent of what Blair was hearing from his own foreign office.

During his April 2002 visit to Crawford, Blair had gone out on a limb in pledging to support war on Iraq. The following months saw him getting nervous. So he chose what intelligence parlance calls a "back channel," and sent the chief of British intelligence, Richard Dearlove, to Washington to sound out his counterpart: the garrulous CIA director George Tenet, who he knew to be very close to the president.

The highly revealing Downing Street memo contained the minutes of Dearlove's briefing of Blair and his top advisers upon his return from Washington on July 23. But what the memo left unanswered was the question of who gave Dearlove the confidence to say this to his prime minister:

Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy.

When the Sunday Times published the minutes of that key briefing on May 1, 2005, it seemed a safe bet that Dearlove's source was Tenet, and I said so.

Now we have the confirmation. Risen writes that George Tenet was reluctant to receive Dearlove, but acquiesced when the British made clear that Blair considered the back-channel meeting urgent. Tenet then rose to the occasion – with a vengeance. Risen, quoting a former senior CIA official who helped host the British for a session that lasted most of Saturday, July 20, 2002, reports that Tenet and Dearlove had a 90-minute one-on-one conversation, during which Tenet was "very candid."

None of this will bother the true believers, but this is certainly grounds for impeachment.

Bad Policy

Houston Teachers' Pay Now Tied to Scores

By JUAN A. LOZANO
The Associated Press
Thursday, January 12, 2006

HOUSTON -- Houston became the largest school district in the country on Thursday to adopt a merit pay plan for teachers that focuses on students' tests scores.

By a 9-0 vote, the Houston school board approved a plan that offers teachers as much as $3,000 in extra pay if their students improve on state and national tests. The program could be expanded to provide as much as $10,000 in merit pay for teachers.

The vote came after several teachers told the board at its monthly meeting they believed the plan was flawed and unfair because some teachers will be eligible for larger bonuses than others.

"This is not a perfect plan, but it is a beginning," said school board president Diana Davila.

Other school districts nationwide have implemented various types of incentive pay programs for teachers in recent years. Denver adopted one in November, becoming at the time the largest district to do so. Houston, with more than 200,000 students, is the nation's seventh-largest district.

The plan is divided into three sections, with as much as $1,000 in bonus pay tied to each.

The first will award bonuses to all teachers in schools rated acceptable or higher, based on scores on the state's main standardized test. The second ties pay to student improvement on a standardized test that compares performance to nationwide norms.

In the third section, reading and math teachers whose students fare well compared with others in the district would be eligible for bonuses.

The teachers' union doesn't approve of the plan, saying it focuses too much on test scores and is too complicated.

"Any time you divide one set of teachers from another, you are sending the wrong message," said Jana Angelov, a high school art teacher who has been with the district for eight years.

It's nice to know that the state of bad ideas has decided to use another one that has been tossed around for a while. If you want to know where our public schools are headed, visit Houston.

Seriously though, I can't believe that any teacher would actually sign on to this plan. I've mentioned before how I am not a big fan of unions, can you imagine how the school would function if they knew that some people were in line for more (potential) bonus money simply because of the subject they taught?

The other problem is what will happen to those parents who aren't lucky enough to have kids in the "good" classes because the best teachers won't want to teach anyone else. Don't believe me? Look on the flip for a real world example.

At one of the local schools, the principal gave special perks and recognition for teachers who had exceptionally high EOC (End of Course) scores in their filed. Now in North Carolina, those classes are in Math, Science, Social Studies, and English I. This created a great deal of resentment between the departments at that school, especially between the elective teachers and the core course teachers. This is not good for the school nor is it good for the students.

Likewise, there is even more resentment between the teachers who have different levels of students. Your honors teachers are going to look brilliant, even if they aren't and the people who teach everyone else (especially inclusion classes with all of the learning disabilities). Do we really want that undercurrent of resentment between the co-workers? This job is hard enough when everyone is on the same page and things go well. Here, let me use my classes this semester to prove this.

I have a great schedule this year. Both semester, I teach 2 Honors classes of World History and one regular class. Granted, they are Freshmen so my grades aren't quite as high as I would normally have but the class averages are 83, 85, and 73 respecitvely.

In my honors classes, I have 44 students and 4 or 5 will fail for the year (none of them should be in an honors class but in the system I can work in, they don't need a teacher's recommendation to take the harder classes). Otherwise, I have nearly 10 A's and mostly B's and C's after that (depending on exams). I expect the majority of the kids to pass the exam and make honor roll/principal's list.

In my standard class, I have 7 out of 24 who have already failed for the year (their exam is on Wed.). 4 of them never really tried for one reason or another (2 can't read much higher than a 6th grade level, one never could behave or show up on time, and the other never did anything). The other 3 passed the first half of the class and, for whatever reason, decided not to do anything this quarter. I honestly expect the exam average in there to be around a 60 (there will be some 20's and 30's from the ones who have quit and a 1 for the girl who comes just often enough to still qualify for welfare) if I'm lucky and that's with 3 A's in the class.

Now, am I a better teacher in those first two classes? It's basically the same material (guess what, honors or standard Stalin still ruled the Soviet Union) and it's presented basically the same way. Now compare this to last year when I had 3 standard classes with averages of 71, 71, and 63. 5 kids in that last class were either long term suspended or were out more days than they were in... it was a zoo.

I'm not saying this to illict sympathy but to point out that if you used the Houston idea to compensate me, I'd make the bonus this year but not last year simply because of the kids I had... something that I can't control. We need to be encouraging people to do better, but punishing teachers that don't have the "gifted" kids isn't the way to do it.

It Ain't Over

Wider Fight Is Seen as Alito Victory Appears Secured

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: January 14, 2006

WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 - Democrats and Republicans say Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s confirmation to the Supreme Court is all but certain, yet the fight over his nomination heated up on Friday as both sides seized on it as a flashpoint for Senate races in the fall and future court selections.

Despite growing certainty about the ultimate conclusion after five days of hearings, interest groups on both sides announced plans on Friday to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on television commercials intended to influence the outcome.

And within moments of dismissing the last witnesses on Friday, Republicans and Democrats on the Judiciary Committee traded accusations of bad faith in a dispute over when the committee and the Senate would vote on confirmation.

Officials of liberal groups insisted that they still held hope of blocking confirmation. Conservative organizers, on the other hand, said privately that their advertisements were partly a victory lap to call attention to a fight the president was winning after a spate of setbacks.

But behind the new advertisements and the partisan bickering are also political calculations about how the vote may play out in this year's Senate races, and about what kind of benchmark the vote count will set for the next Supreme Court vacancy.

Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, declared his support for Judge Alito on Friday and said he expected a party-line vote of the committee's 10 Republicans and 8 Democrats. But after the committee votes, Mr. Specter predicted, the politics of the final vote will be messier.

"They will get out that big map with red and blue, and where President Reagan did well, and who is up for election, and what happened to Senator Daschle," Mr. Specter said, referring to Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the former Democratic majority leader who led fights against Republican judicial nominees and was defeated in 2004 by a conservative Republican who made that an issue.

It will be "all that sort of high level principle," Mr. Specter said.

Members of both parties said that the number of votes that Judge Alito received would help lay groundwork for the selection and reception of the next court nominee. Republicans have often cited the 78 votes to confirm Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. last year as evidence that President Bush's judicial picks are in the mainstream.

"Make no mistake about it," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and a member of the Judiciary Committee, "had we not put up the fight we put up with the judicial nominations all along, you would have more conservative people on the Supreme Court."

Officials of the liberal groups acknowledged the goal of laying groundwork, but insisted they were still building momentum to defeat Judge Alito's confirmation.

"Rather than talking about '06, rather than talking about the next nomination, we have got the Alito nomination before us," said Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and a leader of the anticonfirmation effort.

You and I have a role in this fight. You need to be on the phone or email with your Senators to let them know, whether you are a conservative or a liberal, that Alito is far out of the mainstream and that you are familiar with his record and find it personally distasteful. There is not a moment to lose.

Weather Report

Rich, Matt and Charles, I feel your pain. We're expecting flooding rains later today.

No end to rain in Seattle

SEATTLE Enough already.

That's what many people in the soggy Seattle area are saying, as it rains for the 27th straight day. One meterologist says he thinks the rainy pattern could last another week. An official in Tacoma says even a one-day break would help.

Washington Governor Christine Gregoire has declared a state of emergency in 12 counties. That will start the process of seeking federal disaster funds to repair the damage from floods and mudslides.

Seattle's record for the most consecutive days of rain is 33, in 1953.

Natural disasters are not limited to panflu or hurricanes. I stockpile here for icestorms. As a native Minnesotan, driving my frontwheel drive car in the snow isn't a big deal, but the other drivers are the biggest hazard. Icestorms are another matter. That's "stay home until it melts" territory.

Bombing Them Back to the Stone Age

Berlin admits giving US bombing targets in Iraq

By Tony Paterson in Berlin
Published: 14 January 2006

Berlin admits giving US bombing targets in Iraq German Chancellor Angela Merkel shakes hands with President George Bush in the White House yesterday.

Chancellor Angela Merkel's fence-mending visit to the United States is being overshadowed by a growing scandal over reports that German intelligence had fed America key information about military targets in Iraq before the US invasion.

German MPs have called for a full inquiry into the allegations amid speculation about the future of Franz Walter Steinmeyer, Mrs Merkel's Social Democrat Foreign Minister, who was a senior government official during the Iraq war.

The reports of German-US intelligence co-operation, aired on Germany's ARD television channel, were confirmed by Berlin government sources and appeared to run directly counter to official German government policy on the war.

Citing a US government official, the TV channel said German intelligence officers in Baghdad had supplied information about a restaurant in the Mansur district of the city which the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, was said to have frequented on the eve of the US-led invasion. The US military bombed the building killing 12 people.

Renate Kunast, the opposition Greens party parliamentary leader described the reports as "monstrous". She added: "This suggests Germany took part in the war against Iraq after all."

Government officials conceded that Germany's BND intelligence services maintained a presence in Baghdad. But they declined to say what kind of information had been passed to the Americans other than details about which buildings - such as schools, hospitals and embassies- should not be bombed.

Mrs Merkel's two day trip to Washington had been widely canvassed as an attempt to repair the most serious rift in German-US relations since 1945, caused by the vehement opposition by her predecessor, Gerhard Schröder, to the invasion.

In Germany, there is speculation that the reports of German-US intelligence co-operation had been deliberately timed to embarrass Mrs Merkel during her visit and dampen her attempt to improve relations with Washington.

But in a speech at Washington's German embassy shortly after her arrival, Germany's first woman Chancellor suggested she was determined not to disappoint her American hosts, "We must now muster enough strength to begin a new phase in our relationship," she said.

And in a clear acknowledgement of the White House stance on terrorism she added: "The fight against terrorism has proven more difficult than the Cold War."

Washington underscored the importance of Mrs Merkel's visit by allotting three hours for her meeting with President George Bush and the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. In Germany, the US ambassador to Berlin has been on in a charm offensive, saying in interviews that German-US ties are "excellent." Before Mrs Merkel's visit, the Bush administration said they viewed Germany's new conservative leader as a strong partner who could help bridge differences.

Yet despite the pro-US rhetoric, German officials have made clear they have no misgivings about the abilities of Mrs Merkel's grand coalition government to substantially change Germany's position on key issues of American interest.

Although Mrs Merkel has shifted from her predecessor by stressing the importance of a US-led Nato, she ruled out sending German troops to Iraq. Shortly before her visit, she criticised the US prison in Cuba, saying: "Guantanamo cannot and should not exist in the long term. Ways must be found to handle prisoners differently."

Surveys show that among the 72 per cent of Europeans opposed to US foreign policy, Germany tops the bill, with 83 per cent of the people at odds with President Bush.
Berlin admits giving US bombing targets in Iraq German Chancellor Angela Merkel shakes hands with President George Bush in the White House yesterday.

Chancellor Angela Merkel's fence-mending visit to the United States is being overshadowed by a growing scandal over reports that German intelligence had fed America key information about military targets in Iraq before the US invasion.

German MPs have called for a full inquiry into the allegations amid speculation about the future of Franz Walter Steinmeyer, Mrs Merkel's Social Democrat Foreign Minister, who was a senior government official during the Iraq war.

The reports of German-US intelligence co-operation, aired on Germany's ARD television channel, were confirmed by Berlin government sources and appeared to run directly counter to official German government policy on the war.

Citing a US government official, the TV channel said German intelligence officers in Baghdad had supplied information about a restaurant in the Mansur district of the city which the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, was said to have frequented on the eve of the US-led invasion. The US military bombed the building killing 12 people.

Renate Kunast, the opposition Greens party parliamentary leader described the reports as "monstrous". She added: "This suggests Germany took part in the war against Iraq after all."

Government officials conceded that Germany's BND intelligence services maintained a presence in Baghdad. But they declined to say what kind of information had been passed to the Americans other than details about which buildings - such as schools, hospitals and embassies- should not be bombed.

Mrs Merkel's two day trip to Washington had been widely canvassed as an attempt to repair the most serious rift in German-US relations since 1945, caused by the vehement opposition by her predecessor, Gerhard Schröder, to the invasion.

In Germany, there is speculation that the reports of German-US intelligence co-operation had been deliberately timed to embarrass Mrs Merkel during her visit and dampen her attempt to improve relations with Washington.

But in a speech at Washington's German embassy shortly after her arrival, Germany's first woman Chancellor suggested she was determined not to disappoint her American hosts, "We must now muster enough strength to begin a new phase in our relationship," she said.

....

Although Mrs Merkel has shifted from her predecessor by stressing the importance of a US-led Nato, she ruled out sending German troops to Iraq. Shortly before her visit, she criticised the US prison in Cuba, saying: "Guantanamo cannot and should not exist in the long term. Ways must be found to handle prisoners differently."

Surveys show that among the 72 per cent of Europeans opposed to US foreign policy, Germany tops the bill, with 83 per cent of the people at odds with President Bush.

German leaders want probe into reports of war aid
Intelligence agents said to have helped the US in Baghdad

By Colin Nickerson, Globe Staff | January 14, 2006

BERLIN -- German opposition leaders yesterday demanded a formal parliamentary inquiry into reports that the country's intelligence service helped the United States identify bombing targets in Baghdad during the opening days of the Iraq war, even though Germany had objected to the US-led invasion.

The charges have ignited a political furor in a country where opposition to the military campaign was as intense during the opening days of the conflict as it is today. Gerhard Schroder, former chancellor, won narrow reelection in 2002 largely because of his vow that Germany would never ''make itself available for any adventures" in Iraq. Schroder was defeated last year by Angela Merkel, a pro-American conservative who nonetheless promised that the German military will not join the Iraq conflict.

Officials of the intelligence service and other ministries confirmed that the Schroder government authorized exchanges of intelligence information with the United States about installations in Baghdad despite its public opposition to the invasion. The officials insisted, however, that German agents on the ground in Baghdad only provided the United States with information intended to prevent accidental attacks against civilian installations, such as precise coordinates for schools, hospitals, and diplomatic compounds.

Even that limited assistance drew fire from opposition leaders, although government officials said it was only natural that German intelligence would cooperate on some level with its American ally.

''It would be Quixotic to assume that the fight against terrorism or international dangers and challenges would be possible without an information exchange between friendly services," main government spokesman Thomas Steg told reporters.

But a German newspaper and public television, quoting an unidentified ''Pentagon official" and other sources, reported this week that intelligence agents in Baghdad also helped the United States identify bombing targets -- allegations that triggered outrage in Parliament.

''This accusation about the involvement of German authorities in the Iraq war is a monstrous accusation," said Renate Kuenast, leader of the Greens, a left-leaning political party that shared power with Schroder's Social Democratic Party during the time in question.

''If you don't take part in a war, you can't help with the selection of targets," she told German reporters, urging a formal parliamentary inquiry that could require intelligence officials and other government figures to testify under oath.

Merkel, in Washington yesterday for a meeting with President Bush, said that certain activities undertaken by government agencies necessarily have to remain secret. ''You have to accept that not everything will become publicly known," she said.

At a joint news conference with Merkel, Bush said he had no knowledge of any German assistance in US bombing raids.

According to investigative reports by the newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung and German public television, a pair of daring German foreign intelligence agents remained in Baghdad after Germany evacuated its Iraq embassy on March 17, 2003, three days before the US and British invasion.

The duo, according to news reports confirmed by the government in public statements yesterday, provided the United States with information on ''non-targets" that American bombers should avoid -- information sought by commanders anxious to avoid a repeat of the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade during 1999's Kosovo war.

Far more controversial, however, are reports that the German intelligence agents also provided coordinates for targets of US attacks, including a failed effort by the United States to kill former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

According to the German news reports, US military intelligence received information on April 7, 2003, that high-ranking officials of the regime were assembled in a restaurant in Baghdad's posh Mansour district. Americans believed Hussein might be present at the gathering. The need for fast information was critical. According to the media reports, the German intelligence agents, acting on a US request, quickly scouted the scene and confirmed the presence of armored vehicles and black Mercedes limousines.

The site was vaporized by four satellite-guided, 2,000-pound bombs delivered by an American B1 bomber, according to statements by the US military soon after the attack.

Hussein was not at the gathering or had departed in the nick of time. The huge blast killed more than a dozen Iraqis, according to news reports filed by journalists who remained in Baghdad during the war. It was never clear whether the victims were officials of the regime or unlucky civilians.

A Little Systems Psychology

Unfit to Serve

WEB UPDATE - 11:45 P.M.
CAP critic calls Alito 'unfit' to serve
Formerly slated to testify before judiciary committee, Dujack '76 criticizes media for 'character assassination'

Matt Davis
Princetonian Staff Writer

Just hours after the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded its confirmation hearings — with Samuel Alito '72 poised to win the support of the committee — one of Alito's most outspoken critics called him out of touch with mainstream America and unfit to serve as a Supreme Court justice.

Stephen Dujack '76, a longstanding critic of the conservative alumni group to which Alito belonged, said: "I think he's woefully unaware of what it's like to be in this country and not be a white male. That makes him unfit to sit on the Supreme Court."

Dujack, who was speaking tonight at a College Democrats event in McCormick Hall, asserted that the nominee's past association with the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP) casts doubt on his ability to serve all Americans fairly. "How can we be sure that he will offer women and minorities full equality under the law?" Dujack asked

In earlier interviews, Dujack compared eating meat to The Holocaust, which would not have made him the most credible witness in the world.

Me, I'm an omnivore, who eats little meat because finding the organic stuff which isn't loaded with chemicals and antibiotics is difficult, but Dujack's point remains. Alito has shown no interest in women's and minorities' rights. In fact, his CAP membership, about which he had memory problems in the recent round of hearings, was all about hating women and minorities. In his record of opinions on the Third Curcuit bench, finding an opinion in favor of a woman or minority is going to take you into the tall grass. The man is a dinosaur. And he is about to join a court laden with dinosaurs and without even one woman. Republicans don't seem to like women. It makes me ask the question, "what are you so afraid of?"

Security Comparison of Windows Software Firewalls

Right at this moment, ZoneAlarm is my software firewall of choice for Windows environments.

How did I evaluate the security of this particular firewall before I arrived at this conclusion?

One caveat about software firewalls. ALL of them.

At the end of the day, a software firewall is just another application running in physical memory. It is not different in any real way from IE, Thunderbird, AIM, or Kaspersky Antivirus.

• It accepts inputs from the user, from other apps, and from the environment.
• It also processes raw data arriving over a network wire.

This means that a software firewall is just as vulnerable, in principle, to buffer overflows, format string vulnerabilities, etc., etc., ad-nauseum, as any other kind of network client application running under Windows.

Possible consequences of exploitation can run all the way from a Denial of Service ("DoS") attack which could crash your firewall, possibly in an open state (read "no protection") to complete control of your Windows system by a remote attacker.

How to vet software firewall security from public data.

I would begin by vetting that vendor's software firewall offerings across the board. That will give me a feel for how quickly and thoroughly they mitigate security flaws, and the severity of those which fall through the cracks.

There are two "go-to" places that I use these days for this kind of data:

• The bugtraq database residing at Securityfocus.com
• Secunia

At Secunia, start with a simple search on "personal firewall" or "zone alarm" or "symantec firewall". Then focus in on reports of the security status of particular candidate firewalls by maker and major version number.

Secunia's site design is perfect for this. Lightyears better than bugtraq, whose design is at least six years old.

What to look for? What indicates hightened potential risk and what are red flags?

• Remotely exploitable vulnerabilites can be exploited merely via network contact, without an authenticated login.
• Local network exploitable vulnerabilites should only be exploitable from inside the trusted network. Secunia makes the implicit and unstated assumption that the trusted network is protected from attacks against these vulnerabilities, from the Internet, by a hardware firewall. They further assume that its administrator is competent.

  In a home or small business environment, neither of these assumptions is likely to be true. So my rule of thumb in that case is to treat "local network exploitable" as "remotely exploitable".

• Locally exploitable vulnerabilities can only be exploited if the attacker is actually connected to the target system, either at the console itself or logged in (or its practical equivalent) from another site.

While locals are important because they can be used to consolidate control, remotes are much more dangerous, all other things being equal.

Any unpatched vulnerabilities which are not very very recent indeed in a report on an entire major version of a software firewall are cause for grave concern.

If any of these unpatched vulnerabilities are remotely exploitable, I would personally take that to be a failing grade.

Here are a few Secunia reports for your perusal and edification.

• ZoneAlarm 4.x


• ZoneAlarm 5.x


• ZoneAlarm 6.x


• Symantec Norton Personal Firewall 2003


• Symantec Norton Personal Firewall 2004


• Symantec Norton Personal Firewall 2005


• Symantec Norton Personal Firewall 2006


• Sygate Personal Firewall 5.x


• Kerio Personal Firewall 2.x


• Kerio Personal Firewall 3.x


• Kerio Personal Firewall 4.x

A few easy exercises:

• Why would Kerio Personal Firewall make me uneasy?


• Why would I run screaming from Kerio Personal Firewall 2.x or Sygate Personal Firewall 5.x?


• What data in these reports would lead me to prefer ZoneAlarm over Symantec Norton across the board?

Postscript:

Security is not the only consideration to bear in mind when choosing software such as a software firewall.

I'm an analyst by my nature. I'm also a serious geek. So when ZoneAlarm asks me half a dozen "should I allow this?" type questions during installation of new software, not only do I take it in good heart, but I prefer it that way.

Others who are not quite so much the gear-head and find ZA's question-and-answer methodology confusing and/or frightening and/or excessive may be better off with another product. Even if its security history does not rate as high as that of ZA.

Because the security measure whose imposed "hidden" costs are so high that you turn it off is as bad as no security measure at all. Worse in fact, because it tends to foster an illusion of risk mitigation when no such mitigation is in force.

Spanish Connection

Spain defies US on Venezuela deal

Friday, 13 January 2006

Spain has said it will go ahead with the sale of 12 military planes to Venezuela despite US objections.

However, the aircraft will be made with more expensive European parts because the US has blocked the use of its technology for Venezuela.

The US says Venezuela's Socialist President Hugo Chavez could use the planes to destabilise the region.

Both Madrid and Caracas have said the equipment - also including eight patrol boats - is for defensive purposes.

Deputy Prime Minister Maria Teresa Fernandez de la Vega said Spain "did not share" the US reasons for blocking the deal.

She said the deal would create 1,000 Spanish jobs over the next few years.

Ah Spain... we hardly knew you. At one shining moment, you were part of our Coalition of the Willing... now you are aiding and abetting terrorists. What has become of you?

George II = ticking off our allies since 2001.

I really hope we don't need their help sometime in the future, like in dealing with a nuclear Iran. Besides, it's not like these ships are going to destabilize the region any more than a coup d'etat staged by an oil hungry, agressive northern neighbor.

Fun with Bread

Enough hearings, enough politics. It's time for some cooking!

Making Your Own Sourdough Starter

It’s funny to hear people talk about buying starter. Most of the time, buying starter is like buying air. Because that’s where sourdough “yeast” comes from.

Forget fancy starter recipes—especially ones telling you to add baker’s yeast! Just put a little whole wheat flour in a small dish and mix in some water till it’s like pancake batter. Then set it out uncovered, in a warm place, but out of direct sunlight. Exact amounts really don’t matter, but if you need a guideline, try half a cup of flour with an equal amount of water. After evaporation, that should yield about half a cup of starter.

The starter mixture will pick up wild “yeast” from the air—actually a variety of microorganisms—and feed them. Within a few days, it should bubble and smell sour.

If the mixture crusts over before that, just stir it up. If it picks up the wrong microorganisms and smells foul, throw it out and try again. Some environments are friendlier to sourdough cultures than others are but with any luck, you’ll get it the first time. This will go faster in the summertime with the windows open, but you can still do it on your kitchen counter in the winter.

Once the mixture bubbles, put your starter in a loosely covered jar or crock—no metal—and refrigerate it. Don’t worry about “feeding the starter” to keep it fresh. Left alone, it will stay good for at least two months. When you’re ready to use it, just pour off any black liquid that has formed on top.

This starter can be used for quick breads, pancakes and waffles as well as sour dough bread. You'll need to enlarge the starter (breads will need a cup or two and reduce some of the flour and liquid if you do) but once the starter is started, it isn't hard to do.

I've bonked around the Internet tonight looking at "sourdough" recipes. 99% of them start with what any decent baker calls a "sponge," yeast activated in warm water (or sometimes water and milk) and allowed to begin fermenting before it is added to flour. This is not sourdough. The procedure above makes sourdough. You'll get good bread with both methods, but they will be very different breads. I love the slightly sour flavor and dense, coarse crumb of sourdough bread and the way that a slice warm from a loaf just out of the oven contrasts with sweet, unsalted butter. Sourdough also takes a little longer to stale than plain yeast breads.

If your sourdough loaf does stale before you finish it, chop it into coarse, irregular cubes and make croutons. The large, irregular crumb soaks up other flavors brilliantly if you want to toast them with herbs and garlic in a well olive oiled jelly roll pan in the oven. You can keep them in the freezer. These are a treat on salads or soups and, crushed, can be used to thicken a gravy to very flavorful result.

One Demoralized Democrat

Pam Spaulding at Pandagon has a great post: Rights Going Down in Flames

I was writing a fellow blogger about this Alito mess at one in the morning, and thinking aloud why it all seems so familiar and demoralizing watching Dem “outrage,” displaying utter inability to actually use what leverage they do have in the process. The filibuster was never really on the table, the questioning was pathetically impotent.

All the witty, incisive or wonky postings around the blogosphere cannot change the basic fact that once again, the Dems in these hearings decided there would not be a fight over the most lasting, significant political decision that can be made by a president. In this case, a president that was beholden to the fringe, bigoted, theocratic, right-wing element of his party — and Bush made that clear when he picked Alito.

The legacy of a Supreme Court appointment can change profoundly the most basic rights and privileges of citizens, yet these lame-ass Dems didn’t seem to take seriously that Alito is a man capable of casting votes to roll the clock back on fundamental rights and liberties. Even worse, there was a generous paper trail out there take him out with if skillfully handled — and they didn’t know what to do with that either.

I’m not saying that the hearings were a pointless exercise, it’s just that from the questioning that I’ve seen over the last few days, I can’t say we are in the game at all — we witnessed a lot of ego stroking and an ineffective use of a forum that clearly needs better minds capable of using it properly.

I was watching Anderson Cooper 360 a couple of nights ago, and Alan Dershowitz brilliantly proposed a line of questioning that would have blown the hearings wide open. Alito early on said that his personal views have NO BEARING on how he would rule on a case, and that left the Senators with a huge opening to ask all sorts of questions about specific issues. Did they do this? Nope, it was a dog and pony show. (CNN):

DERSHOWITZ: Well, you know, if I were a senator, I’d ask them the following question. I would say, “You have said that your personal views are utterly irrelevant to how you will decide cases. We don’t agree with you on that. But since you’ve said that, let’s ask you some really hard questions about your personal views.”

“Is your mother right when she says that you personally strongly oppose a woman’s right to choose abortion? What do you personally think of gay rights? What do you personally think of affirmative action?”

He couldn’t say, “Well, I can’t give you those answers because it will come before me.” No, no, no, no. You’ve told us that your personal views are irrelevant. We think they’re relevant, so give us the answers. I think it’s a very, very hard question for him to duck.

TOOBIN: You know, Anderson, all 18 of those senators on that committee had to answer when they ran for office, “Do you think Roe v. Wade should be overturned?” Yet the one person in that room who actually has something to say about whether Roe v. Wade gets overturned doesn’t have to answer that question.

DERSHOWITZ: That’s right.

TOOBIN: And this isn’t something that is just for Republicans. Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg also ducked that question. I just think the process is messed up in a way that we, the public, and the senators don’t get the information that they need.

DERSHOWITZ: Let me give you some proof of that. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the best courts in the country, and their judges, when they come out after to do an appeal, they will often say to you, “You know, we have a view on this case. Here’s what we think now. Try to talk us out of it.”

Some of the best appellate court judges tell us in advance what their views are. There is nothing inconsistent with a judge expressing his views but keeping an open mind. And they ought to demand of every nominee, Republican or Democrat, “Tell us what your current views are or what your past views were.”

Bush vs. Gore. Where were you on the night that Bush vs. Gore was announced? What did you say to your friends when the decision came down? What did you actually say? Did you write e-mails to anybody? Did you agree with the decision, not what would you do in the future?

COOPER: Right.

DERSHOWITZ: Senators don’t know how to ask these hard questions.

I take it that no one working for any of the Dem Senators (or the Senators themselves) watched that program. Too bad. What I saw up there were Dem Senators in the end, just enjoying their face time on TV, pontificating, looking outraged for their constituents — they were already pre-programmed by their staffs to ask the same lame questions over and over, and left room for Alito to obfuscate so easily.

The system is broken.

For me, the hearings demonstrated that 1)a law school degree is no guarantee that a guy can craft an argument or pursue a line of logic; 2) with the exception of Schumer, the Dems are politically tone deaf; 3) most of these Dems are really too stupid to be running this country and should be replaced. Most of the Judiciary Committee holds law degrees; they had to run for political office. None of them would ever have won a case in court.

Playing for Time

The Democrats have managed to postpone the Senate vote on Alito for a week, which gives us more time to organize. I have just volunteered to work with the National Women's Law Center, a member of the Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary, who are among the sponsors of this blog. Go to Independentcourt.org to learn what you can do to help.

Hey, it's a funny war

USATODAY.com - Pentagon to families: Go ahead, laugh

When the stress of the war in Iraq becomes too severe, the Pentagon has a suggestion for military families: Learn how to laugh.

With help from the Pentagon's chief laughter instructor, families of National Guard members are learning to walk like a penguin, laugh like a lion and blurt "ha, ha, hee, hee and ho, ho."

I'm nearly speechless at this.

But I can say write some names: Kurt Vonnegut. Joseph Conrad.

If We're All On Our Own, "WE" Must Become Larger

One of the most simultaneously chilling and brilliant aspects of Melanie's supremely incisive commentaries on the issues of the day is that in so many dimensions of contemporary American life, she notes how "we're all on our own."

Have you noticed that?

Panflu? All on our own.

Reliable news gathering? All on our own.

Protecting women? All on our own.

Making key syntheses between politics and religion? All on our own.

Standing up for justice and wisdom in the rebuilding of New Orleans, and by extension, our social order? All on our own.

Food safety? All on our own.

Fighting for a fair and rightful place at the economic table? All on our own.

Offering real assistance and uplift to the poor, as an extension of both public policy and socio-cultural attitudes? All on our own.

Preserving the goodness and integrity of the Republic? All on our effing own.

It's sad, but it's so true. It resonates with meaning and accuracy.

So, Bumpers, the strategy--while complex in its details--is simple in the bigger picture: if WE are all on our own, then WE need to become larger in numbers and greater in the scope of our ambitions. We need to be more connected in our efforts, more conscious of living countercultural lifestyles. "WE" need to awaken currently unawakened neighbors to the power they have within themselves to be their truest and most authentic selves. "WE" need to tell so many decent but spiritually somnambulant neighbors of ours that, by golly, they do NOT have to follow longstanding pieces of cultural pre-programming that lead to cookie-cutter, consumer-centric, possession-based, materially-focused lives.

We get one shot at this existence with these wonderful brains and marvelously-made bodies of ours, so amazing are we to behold. "WE" need to tell those around us that "THEY" can join "US," so that "WE," all on our own as we are, can become a MAJORITY, not a minority.

And when "WE" become that majority, "WE" will look around us and notice that our Republic will be much closer, once again, to that interconnected public commons the founding fathers initially envisioned for this idea, this project called "The United States of America."

"WE," after all, are "WE THE PEOPLE." That idea used to mean something, and it was always supposed to mean something.

It sure as hell must mean something now.

If "WE" become large enough, being "all on our own" will cease to be such a lonely and chilling image, because we'll be so unified and on fire for a higher purpose.

"WE" need to be the change "WE" want to see in the world, and especially in America.

The Stakes

Do you want Sam Alito on this court?

U.S. Seeks to Avoid Detainee Ruling

By Dan Eggen and Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, January 13, 2006; A07

The Bush administration took the unusual step yesterday of asking the Supreme Court to call off a landmark confrontation over the legality of military trials for terrorism suspects, arguing that a law enacted last month eliminates the court's ability to consider the issue.

In a 23-page brief, U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement said the justices should throw out an appeal by Yemeni national Salim Hamdan, an alleged driver and bodyguard for Osama bin Laden, because a new statute governing the treatment of U.S. detainees "removes the court's jurisdiction to hear this action."

The brief represents the latest escalation in the showdown between the Bush administration and critics of the government over the legal rights of military detainees captured overseas. Hamdan's case is one of several high-stakes legal battles working their way through the courts, and the Supreme Court's November decision to consider his appeal was a blow to the government.

Hamdan is among approximately 500 inmates held at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; nine are scheduled to be tried by "military commissions" created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Hamdan's lawyers and many civil liberties groups have decried the commissions as unconstitutional and unfairly stacked against defendants.

Separately, the administration is trying to eliminate habeas corpus lawsuits filed on behalf of nearly every detainee, saying they have clogged federal courts with frivolous actions. The Supreme Court gave Guantanamo Bay detainees access to federal courts in a 2004 ruling.

The Detainee Treatment Act, principally written by Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and signed into law Dec. 30, is intended to prevent detainees from having access to U.S. courts except in specific circumstances. It outlines a limited system for legal challenges by inmates, allowing them only to appeal the determination that they are enemy combatants to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and then, potentially, to the Supreme Court. It also allows anyone convicted in a military commission to appeal that decision.

The two lawmakers and their colleagues have disagreed sharply in recent days over whether the legislation is meant to apply to cases such as Hamdan's that were filed before Bush signed the legislation into law.

Clement's brief argues that the statute must be given "immediate effect" -- meaning that previous legal challenges should be dismissed, and that Hamdan and other inmates should proceed under the new rules.

"Congress made clear that the federal courts no longer have jurisdiction over actions filed on behalf of Guantanamo detainees," Clement wrote.

Levin, in a statement issued yesterday, said that "the Justice Department is in error. Far from deciding that the relevant statutory language applies to pending cases, Congress specifically considered and rejected language that would have stripped the courts of jurisdiction in cases that they had before them."

Neal Katyal, a Georgetown University law professor who represents Hamdan, declined to comment on the government's filing.

Burt Neuborne, a New York University law professor who wrote a friend-of-the-court brief in the Hamdan case, said the government's brief ignores the fact that if Hamdan's case is dismissed, he and other detainees will have no avenue to challenge the legality of Bush's power to detain enemy combatants and create military trials.

"The government's basic argument is: You can't hear it now, but you can hear it later," Neuborne said. "What they don't say is that the other route doesn't let Hamdan raise the question of the president's authority in these cases. . . . They're not telling the Supreme Court the real consequences of their motion."

Anything

Fred Barbash at the WaPo'sCampaign for the Supreme Court posted this interchange from Blitzer on CNN last night:

Outside the Hearing Room: Bork on Alito On Bork

Wolf Blitzer interviewed Robert Bork tonight on CNN's Situation Room, in part on the subject of what Alito said about Bork. Here's an excerpt:

BLITZER: Here's what Samuel Alito said about you, back in 1988. Let me put it up on the screen. "I think he - referring to you - was one of the most outstanding nominees of this century.

He is a man of unequaled ability, understanding of constitutional history, someone who had thought deeply throughout his entire life about constitutional issues and about the Supreme Court and the role it ought to play in American society."

He was asked about those remarks on Tuesday. Listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAMUEL ALITO, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: When I made that statement in 1988, I was an appointee in the Reagan administration and Judge Bork had been a nominee of the administration, and I had been a supporter of the nomination. I don't think the statement goes beyond that. There are issues with respect to which I probably agree with Judge Bork, and there are a number of issues with which I -- on which I disagree with him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Very diplomatic answer, I must say. How do you think he handled himself?

BORK: Very well. He's walking away from a lot of things. That was one example.

BLITZER: Including you, right.

BORK: Yes.

BLITZER: So why do you say he handled himself very well?

BORK: The object nowadays is to get confirmed. People will say pretty much -- or avoid saying pretty much in order to get confirmed.

In the Old Dominion

Lawmaker: No Donor Sperm For Single Women

Created:1/12/2006 7:24:57 PM
Last Updated:1/12/2006 10:31:12 PM

A Virginia lawmaker is trying to stop some women from getting pregnant. He wants to make it illegal for doctors to artificially inseminate single women. While many call the bill 'anti-gay,' it could affect straight women as well.

Donna Parker is a stay-at-home mom and a PTA president. She's also under attack for the way she conceived her two children. Donna and her partner, Karol, who have been together for 15 years, decided together to have children.

But Delegate Bob Marshall of Manassas is proposing a bill that would make it illegal for doctors to artificially inseminate single women.

Fertility doctor Michael Dimattina says Marshall's bill is discriminatory.

Discriminatory? Ya think?

I suppose it isn't really possible that we in the Commonwealth of Virginia have more than our share of nutjobs and idiots, but we do tend to elect them to political office.

Mob Rule

Cronies, chums and Bush surrogates get government posts

Peter Kirsanow, a Black conservative lawyer who represents management in disputes with labor, was handed a recess appointment to the National Labor Relations Board

On Wednesday, January 4, while the Jack Abramoff corruption scandal continued to unwind, sending shockwaves through the nation's capital, the Bush Administration announced a handful of recess appointments. Included on the list of appointees -- who do not have to face confirmation by the Senate -- was a host of Bush cronies who don't appear ready for primetime.

In a 2002 speech Kirsanow said that affirmative action had "metastasized into a racial spoils system consisting of preferences, quotas and set-asides."

Julie L. Myers, a niece of former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Richard B. Myers and the wife of the chief of staff to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, was appointed to head the Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureau at the Department of Homeland Security. Critics from both parties maintained that Meyers "lacked experience in immigration matters," the Washington Post's Thomas B. Edsall reported.

Tracy A. Henke was appointed executive director of the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness. The Washington Post noted that Henke "had been accused in her politically appointed post at the Justice Department of demanding that information about racial disparities in police treatment of blacks in traffic cases be deleted from a news release."

Former Maryland Republican gubernatorial candidate (twice defeated) Ellen R. Sauerbrey -- an outspoken opponent of abortion rights and family planning -- whose nomination had been bottled up in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was named assistant secretary of state for population, refugees and migration. On Thursday, January 5, the New York Times pointed out that Sauerbrey "has zero experience in emergency management and refugee resettlement."

Another name on Bush's list was that of Peter N. Kirsanow. The conservative African American lawyer from Cleveland, who since 2001 has been serving on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, was appointed to fill one of two vacant seats on the five-member National Labor Relations Board. He will maintain the NLRB position for the remainder of a five-year term that expires on August 27, 2008.

Kirsanow is a partner with Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP. The firm's website points out that Kirsanow's practice has focused on "representing management in employment-related litigation, as well as in contract negotiations, NLRB proceedings, EEO matters, and arbitration."

Alito's Pro-Internment Witness: "You Can Forget About Civil Rights"

If there's another terror attack on American soil, you can forget about civil rights. That's according to Peter Kirsanow, who will testify to Samuel Alito's civil rights credentials before the Senate Judiciary Committee today. Kirsanow is a conservative African-American member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and recent backdoor Bush appointee to the National Labor Relations Board. His mere presence today as a pro-Alito witness raises serious questions about the nominee's willingness to protect established legal precedent on civil rights.

On July 19, 2002, during a U.S. Commission on Civil Rights meeting with Arab-American groups in Detroit, Kirsanow warned that if there's another terrorist attack in America "and they come from the same ethnic group that attacked the World Trade Center, you can forget about civil rights."

Kirsanow continued by urging his audience to drop their opposition to the Patriot Act. After all, he said, if Arabs attack the U.S. again, "not too many people will be crying in their beer if there are more detentions, more stops, more profiling." To Kirsanow, crushing civil rights is just fine as long as "too many people" don't complain.

As a lawyer, Kirsanow established his reputation by successfully defending big business against unionization drives and lawsuits from exploited workers, including one who died from a workplace injury (for more on Kirsanow's legal history, read Bill Berkowitz's excellent profile). He is a former member of the African-American conservative front group, Project 21, which is run out of the offices of the National Center for Public Policy Research. Jack Abramoff, who was a NCPPR board member, funnelled over $1 million in Indian casino money through the organization, some of which paid for international junkets for Tom Delay.

As you can easily see, this is all one big, interlocking crime family.

Missing the Point

Corralling Domestic Intelligence
Standards in the Works for Reports of Suspicious Activity

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 13, 2006; A05

The Bush administration is trying to set standards for how government agencies collect and maintain reports of suspicious activity because of concern that the agencies may be keeping inappropriate information on Americans while working to thwart terrorism with more extensive domestic intelligence, according to officials.

A number of departments have set up systems to encourage employees and others to file suspicious-activity reports, or SARs, to protect their facilities and personnel from attack. The National Counterterrorism Center, which by law has primary responsibility for analyzing terrorism-related intelligence, is trying to bring some order to that system, officials said.

Currently, the reporting varies in type and specific purpose from agency to agency, and information is collected in one form or another in data systems by the Pentagon, the FBI, the CIA, and the departments of State, the Treasury and Homeland Security.

How that information is handled and shared among intelligence agencies has become a matter of heightened concern after recent revelations that a Pentagon agency inappropriately kept reports in a database about people and groups that had protested the war in Iraq. Yesterday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) wrote Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to express concern and ask him for answers about the Counterintelligence Field Activity agency, or CIFA.

Officials hope that imposing common procedures for collecting and keeping information will reduce the chances for abuse.

"One of our objectives certainly is to weed out rubbish and other stuff that shouldn't make its way into suspicious-activity reports in the first place," a senior counterterrorism official said of the NCTC effort. "In many instances the threshold for reporting is low, which makes it extremely difficult to evaluate some of this information," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issues.

A spokesman for Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte said the NCTC, which is under his control, was "playing the primary role in seeking to establish common standards" and added: "There are various suspicious-activity reporting systems, and it is NCTC's role to improve and coordinate the way they are done."

The government's increased emphasis on collecting domestic intelligence has raised concerns among civil liberties advocates and members of Congress, who cite abuses during the Vietnam War years. Congressional investigations in the 1970s uncovered evidence of unauthorized wiretapping, domestic surveillance, infiltration of peace groups and the creation of files on thousands of Americans. The findings led to laws restricting the government's ability to spy on and keep information about U.S. citizens.

There is no mention, anywhere in the article, that all of this is Constitutionally questionable. The WaPo treats this as if it is just a question of beaurocracy.

Nothing New

In New Orleans, Bush Speaks With Optimism but Sees Little of Ruin

By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: January 13, 2006

NEW ORLEANS, Jan. 12 - President Bush made his first trip here in three months on Thursday and declared that New Orleans was "a heck of a place to bring your family" and that it had "some of the greatest food in the world and some wonderful fun."

Mr. Bush spent his brief visit in a meeting with political and business leaders on the edge of the Garden District, the grand neighborhood largely untouched by the floodwaters of Hurricane Katrina, and saw little devastation. He did not go into the city's hardest-hit areas or to Jackson Square, where several hundred girls from the Academy of the Sacred Heart staged a protest demanding stronger levees.

Mr. Bush's motorcade did pass some abandoned neighborhoods as it traveled on Interstate 10 into the city.

"It may be hard for you to see, but from when I first came here to today, New Orleans is reminding me of the city I used to come to visit," the president told the local leaders at the Convention and Visitors Bureau, an independent group set up to attract business and tourism to the city.

Mr. Bush added that "for folks around the country who are looking for a great place to have a convention, or a great place to visit, I'd suggest coming here to the great New Orleans."

Mr. Bush, who appeared to be trying to spread optimism in a city that is years away from recovery, did not tell the group or the city's residents what many were hoping to hear: that he would commit the federal government to building the strongest possible levees, a Category 5 storm protection system.

Instead, on a day when the Bush administration revised the deficit upward to more than $400 billion and blamed it largely on Hurricane Katrina, Mr. Bush restated his support for spending $3.1 billion of federal money on building "stronger and better" levees.

Local engineers say those levees would protect against the 100-mile-an-hour winds of a Category 2 hurricane and the low barometric pressure of a Category 3 or weak Category 4 storm. Hurricane Katrina peaked as a Category 5 storm in the Gulf of Mexico and hit land as a Category 3 storm.

The president ignored questions about the city's new rebuilding plan, introduced Wednesday night to enormous community criticism, and White House officials traveling with Mr. Bush declined to offer opinions. The plan, which depends on nearly $17 billion more from the federal government, gives neighborhoods in low-lying parts of the city from four months to a year to attract sufficient numbers of residents or be bulldozed.

The federal government has so far authorized $85 billion in relief to the Gulf Coast, with $25 billion spent.

"We're not going to weigh in," Donald E. Powell, the president's Gulf Coast recovery coordinator, told reporters on Air Force One on Thursday morning. "It will be their plan."

In the meeting at the Convention and Visitors Bureau, Mr. Bush sat between Mayor C. Ray Nagin and Lt. Gov. Mitchell J. Landrieu. Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, the Democrat with whom Mr. Bush has a chilly relationship, was in The Netherlands looking at the country's flood-control system.

"It's a heck of a place" is right up there with "you're doing a heck of job, Brownie." Bush still mistakes bullshit for substance. Actually, since he's never seen substance in his entire life, there isn't any way he could tell the difference.

The New Orleans Times Picayune begs to differ:

Rebuilding on hold

Monday, January 09, 2006

Drive through large parts of New Orleans, and you find a city in limbo. From the lakefront to Gentilly to Broadmoor and beyond, on street after street, block after block, waterlogged houses sit vacant and lifeless. The same is true for other flood-ravaged parts of South Louisiana.

Owners have come in to drag out their ruined belongings and tear out moldy drywall. Now they are waiting and wondering whether and how to rebuild.

Will they have enough money to start over? Will they be able to pay off their mortgages and have any money left to fix their homes? How many of their neighbors will be able to return? Will there in fact be a neighborhood post-Katrina or just a smattering of stubborn pioneers in a flooded-out wasteland?

This is a maddening position to be in, and the longer the uncertainty continues, the harder it will be for individuals and the region to recover from Hurricane Katrina.
....
The Baker plan may indeed be costly, depending in part on how many people take advantage of it. But its cost would be a fraction of the economic losses that the metro area -- and by extension the nation -- will suffer if large parts of greater New Orleans remain fallow.

Rep. Hensarling and other skeptical members of Congress ought to visit South Louisiana and take a tour through our ravaged neighborhoods before they oppose Rep. Baker's reinvestment plan. It is hard to imagine anyone who could come here and be unmoved by residents' plight.

There are hopeful signs from Washington. The White House has promised to move the legislation forward if some changes are made, Rep. Baker said. Exactly what that would entail has yet to be announced, but the administration's support is crucial.

The measure passed the House Financial Services Committee overwhelmingly in December. And Sen. Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican who chairs the Senate Banking Committee, has said he would make the legislation a top priority when Congress reconvenes.

If Sen. Shelby has any doubts about the need for a Baker-style buyout, he should come down and take a look at what our community is facing. In fact, anyone in a leadership position in Congress who has yet to visit South Louisiana since the hurricane really ought to make a trip.

People here would be happy to host them. And, even in our battered state, we promise a good meal to anyone who heads this way.

While we watch the Bushies blow this one, thoughts of pandemic influenza are never far from my mind. If they can't handle this, you'd better believe we'll be on our own for panflu.

Pro-Woman, Pro-Democracy

The New York Times opines this morning:

Pro-Choice Senators and Judge Alito

There was a telling moment at the start of the Alito hearings when Senator Arlen Specter, the committee chairman, offered Judge Alito a way out. He asked whether Judge Alito believed, as some commentators do, that the Supreme Court's 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, strongly reaffirming Roe, made Roe a "super-precedent" - and therefore rendered the judge's 1985 views obsolete.

But Judge Alito would not give Senator Specter, who supports abortion rights, even that small bit of comfort, saying he did not believe in super-precedents. All of that should make things hard for Senator Specter and for three moderate Republicans - Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine - who have said they will oppose any nominee committed to overturning Roe.

Judge Alito's assertions that he will keep an open mind on Roe are little comfort. With nearly 70 percent of Americans saying in a recent Harris poll that they would oppose Judge Alito's confirmation if they thought he would vote against constitutional protection for abortion rights, he was not likely to say at his hearings that he would do so. Few nominees would be so brave or foolhardy.

As a result, senators have to try to forecast the behavior of a nominee like Judge Alito, who comes with a clear record of opposition to abortion rights and strong support from the anti-abortion movement.

The single most important thing a senator can do to support abortion rights is to vote against Supreme Court nominees who would take such rights away. Given Judge Alito's record and his testimony, it is hard to see how Senators Specter, Chafee, Snowe and Collins - or any other pro-choice senators - can call themselves strong advocates of abortion rights if they support him.blockquote>

There are many troubling things about Judge Alito and this is the most obvious. The Republicans who are also pro-democracy ought to be nervous, as well.

Posted by Melanie at 05:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

What's Lurking Behind These Shoddy Male Hearings

Let me add a thought before I head for snoozerville.

Sam Alito's views on abortion aren't what disturb me the most (his theories on the unitary executive should make every American quake in their boots.) But let's go back and take a look at abortion.

If Alito has his way abortion will be, once again, illegal in this country. It mostly is in some places already, since the Dakotas only have one doctor each willing to provide the service. Mississippi is getting there, too.

I'm not highly sympathetic to the abortion on demand crowd, but they are a small part of the pro-choice part of America. Most women who choose an abortion do so for tragic reasons. The right to lifers, Alito among them, would have you believe that this is a trivial decision, rather like chosing to have your nails done on Friday. People like Antonin Scalia and Sam Alito don't think that women, their partners and their doctors are capable of making wise decisions in a tragic situation and that government should make the decision for them. If you fuck, pregnancy is the price you pay and raise that baby without any enforcement help by the state to get the father to pay. Under this scheme, men get to fuck for free, of course.

Of course if Jenna or Not-Jenna needed an abortion, I'm sure it would quickly and privately be provided and given that they are party animals, this might be needed. Heavy drinkers aren't known to be careful in the administration of contraceptives.

Of course, if Alito ascends to the High Court, Griswold is up for review, so don't count on over the counter contraception. Alito has only two children, so I wonder what he and the missus use. Do you want your contraception choices under review by a right wing nut?

Do you think incest and rape are a small problem in this country? You must be reading the WaPo and the NYT rather than talking to your friends. Fully 30% of the women I know have experienced one or both. Women need to stop being attacked. Most women never report it because the way you get treated as a rape victim still sucks.

This is still a country which hates women.

Arlen Specter is a very lucky man who has never had a wife, daughter or female relative attacked. I suggest that his constituents with more experience need to contact his office. My rape story is going to my Senators. These clueless men need to get a dose of reality.

Winter Food

I love soup. I make it from scratch often. It's virtually the perfect food for a single because it is so easy to freeze down individual portions. Here are some tips for soup making and presentation:

For an extra-special presentation, preheat soup bowls in a 150 degree F oven, or even the dry-cycle of your dishwasher.

Add homemade flavor to canned chicken broth by tossing in leftover carrot peelings, onion ends, celery leaves, parsley stems, and/or mushroom stems, along with poultry bones and wings, if you have them, and a clove or two of garlic. Let it simmer for about 1/2 an hour, then strain. The result will taste like you spent hours on it.

Save leftover Parmesan rinds in your freezer. Toss them in slow cooking/simmering Italian soups for great flavor.

Take advantage of different kitchen appliances, like pressure cookers and slow cookers, for amazing and simple homemade stocks. If you make more than you need, just freeze it and it will be ready for you on a rainy day.

Canned chicken broth can contain lots of hidden sodium. Select a low-sodium version, which leaves you in control of both your salt intake and the flavor of your soup.

One Angry Man

George Bush's rough justice

The career of the latest supreme court nominee has been marked by his hatred of liberalism

Sidney Blumenthal
Thursday January 12, 2006
The Guardian

Few public figures since Nixon have worn their resentment so obviously as Alito. The son of a civil servant, he attended Princeton and Yale law school. "Both opened up new worlds of ideas," he testified. "But this was in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It was a time of turmoil at colleges and universities. And I saw some very smart and privileged people behaving irresponsibly."

In his application to the Reagan justice department, Alito wrote that his interest in constitutional law was "motivated in large part by disagreement with Warren court decisions ... particularly in the area ... of reapportionment" - which established the principle of one person, one vote. Alito's law career has been a long effort to reverse the liberalism of the Warren supreme court.

In the Reagan justice department, he argued that the federal government had no responsibility for the "health, safety and welfare" of Americans (a view rejected by Reagan); that "the constitution does not protect the right to an abortion"; that the executive should be immune from liability for illegal domestic wiretapping; that illegal immigrants have no "fundamental rights"; that police had a right to kill an unarmed 15-year-old accused of stealing $10 (a view rejected by the supreme court and every police group that filed in the case); and that it should be legal to fire, and exclude from funded federal programmes, people with Aids, because of "fear of contagion ... reasonable or not".

Against the majority of his court and six other federal courts, he argued that federal regulation of machine guns was unconstitutional. He approved the strip search of a mother and her daughter although they were not named in a warrant, a decision denounced by fellow judge Michael Chertoff, now secretary of homeland security. And Alito backed a law requiring women to tell husbands if they want an abortion, which was overturned by the supreme court on the vote of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor,

On the supreme court, as O'Connor's replacement, he will codify the authoritarianism of the Bush presidency, even after it is gone.

Under Their Robes

3rd Circuit Judges to Testify on Alito's Behalf

Tony Mauro
Legal Times
01-12-2006

After two lonely days of defending his 15-year record on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito Jr. will be reinforced today by seven people who know his tenure from the inside -- fellow 3rd Circuit judges.

But in advance of their testimony, they are coming under fire for injecting themselves into a political process in a way that undermines judicial independence.

"It's regrettable, a very poor precedent," said Eldie Acheson, who as a top Clinton Justice Department official shepherded nominees Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer through the confirmation process. "It puts them in the middle of an executive and congressional branch function. As judges and as a court, this is not their business."

The judges -- two in active service, three on senior status, and two retired -- are testifying at the invitation of Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who played a role in the appointments of many of them. The active judges testifying are Chief Judge Anthony Scirica and Judge Maryanne Trump Barry; they did not return phone calls seeking comment.

"They will testify as to his approach to judging, as to whether he has an agenda, as to whether he is ideological, whether he pushes any specific point of view," Specter said in a statement explaining his invitation. "I don't know to what extent they can comment about where he stands on the spectrum, but that is up to them."

Their appearance also may cause some awkwardness for Alito, who, if confirmed, will be reviewing the rulings of judges who are singing his praises in public. By contrast, both Justice Clarence Thomas and the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist recused themselves in cases brought by lawyers who testified against them at their confirmation hearings.

Senior 3rd Circuit Judge Edward Becker, a longtime friend of Specter who helped recruit his colleagues for their testimony today, dismissed these concerns and defended the judges' participation.

"We are fact witnesses who can talk about his temperament, his integrity, his intellect, his approach to the cases and to the law," said Becker, who will testify today. "I'm not going to characterize his jurisprudence." Becker said he and Alito ruled in more than 1,000 cases together and the insights he gained about Alito during deliberations are valuable to the Senate. "If I don't know the guy, nobody does," he said.

I'm reading around the law prof blogs and most seem to think this is a very bad idea.

Indicting His History

Writing today on The Nation's website, Bruce Shapiro cuts to the chase:

Alito Almanac: Right-Wing Revelation

Bruce Shapiro

Alito's studied stonewalling on Roe and CAP helped to obscure a crucial difference between this hearing and any other confirmation in memory. Ever since Robert Bork went down in flames, most Supreme Court nominations--Democrat or Republican--have gone to judges with a relatively short tenure on the bench. Hearings have served as ways of filling out their record and introducing them to the Senate and the public.

Alito's hearing, by contrast, is serving to eclipse his astonishing fifteen years as a federal appellate judge; to wipe from memory a track record hundreds of cases long. At Wednesday's hearings, Democrats zeroed in on a handful of issues--CAP, Roe, Alito's theory of executive power, his participation in a Vanguard Mutual Fund case despite investments--which Alito had long been prepared to deflect with well-rehearsed technocratic answers and evasion.

Almost absent from the witness stand was the Alito of the last fifteen years--who, as the Yale Law School's Alito Project report notes, "has sought to move the law to acheive the broad philosophical purposes" articulated in that now-notorious 1985 Justice Department memo. At day's close Democrats requested a third round of questioning. Their case now depends, in essence, on calling that Alito as a witness against the genial equivocator on stage this week.

Avian Flu: Next Steps

Bird Flu Mutation Of Concern, Experts Say
Health Officials Play Down Fear of Pandemic in Turkey

By Daniel Williams and Alan Sipress
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, January 12, 2006; Page A12

ISTANBUL, Jan. 11 -- Preliminary tests show that the strain of bird flu virus that has stricken at least 15 people in Turkey has evolved in a way that could make it somewhat more hazardous to human beings, although it still lacks the capacity to be passed easily from person to person, international health officials said Wednesday.

The analysis, based on the sequencing of one of the virus's genes, suggests that at least some of the H5N1 bird flu virus here carries a change in one of its proteins, according to Michael L. Perdue of the World Health Organization. That protein is what lets the virus attach to cells and penetrate them.

"It's a little concerning because the virus is still trying new things in its evolution," said Perdue, who is overseeing the agency's response to the Turkish outbreak from WHO headquarters in Geneva.

Influenza experts are studying the apparent change to determine its significance, Perdue said. A spokesman for Britain's Medical Research Council, which is involved in the research, said it would take a few days to confirm the preliminary findings.

The experts say they believe the genetic change could make it easier for bird flu to pass from chickens to people. If the virus were to eventually gain the capacity to be passed easily from person to person, it could trigger a global epidemic.

Nancy J. Cox, who heads the influenza branch at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, said the change was found in one sample of H5N1 isolated from a Turkish child who recently died of the infection. The hemagglutinin protein, which the virus uses to attach to cells of the respiratory tract, had an alteration not usually seen in avian influenza viruses. Other incremental changes in the virus have been seen in China and Vietnam since outbreaks began in 2003.

Experts from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization warned that the virus could become permanently entrenched in Turkey, thereby increasing its risk to people and the chance it could evolve further. "The highly pathogenic avian influenza virus H5N1 could become endemic in Turkey," the organization said in a statement.

Two deaths have been attributed to bird flu in Turkey. The fatalities were the first outside China and Southeast Asia, areas where a total of 78 people have died in the past two years. More than 100 people have been hospitalized in Turkey with flu symptoms. The patients are under observation as they await test results to reveal whether they suffer from bird flu.

As so many of you have requested, I have the experts on speedial to let you know when we hit the "tipping point." We aren't there yet, but this is a worrysome development. The officials are being re-assuring, as is their habit, but I think we know a little better. It's time to move up your prep clock.

Imperial Presidency

The Congressional Research Service and Constitutional Law Scholars Weigh in on President Bush's Authorization of Warrantless Surveillance:
Why This Controversy Bridges the Partisan Divide, At Least Among Experts
By ELAINE CASSEL
----
Thursday, Jan. 12, 2006

On December 16, 2005, the New York Times had a riveting page one headline: "Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers without the Courts." The article reported that, in 2002, President Bush signed an executive order directing the National Security Agency (NSA) to listen in on overseas phone calls to and from the United States - without approval from any court, even the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court.

After first refusing to discuss the report, President Bush went on the offensive - even threatening those who exposed the program with investigation. (The Times had held the story for more than a year, for reasons yet not fully explained).

It turns out that only eight members of Congress knew of the program. They were told shortly after it began in 2002, and they were, literally, sworn to secrecy. Congress as a whole was neither consulted nor asked to amend FISA to allow the surveillance the President wanted - even though it had overwhelmingly passed the USA Patriot Act after September 11.

In a December 22, 2005 letter to Congress, Assistant Attorney General William Moschella tried to defend Bush's actions to the literally hundreds of members who were left out of the loop. He contended that the legal foundation for the surveillance program derived from Congress's September 18, 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force in Afghanistan (AUMF); the President's inherent powers as Commander-in-Chief during "wartime"; and historical precedent for more liberally interpreting the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement for warrantless searches in "wartime."

Meanwhile, the President's approval rating has dropped only a point - from his pre-Times article rating of 47 percent. And public opinion on the issue has so far followed a roughly partisan divide. In a Washington Post-ABC News poll of 1,001 randomly selected adults, reported on January 11, 75 percent of Republicans thought the program was acceptable, while 61 percent of Democrats said it was not.

On January 5, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) released its own report on the controversy. And on January 9, fourteen top constitutional law experts and former government officials - among them, prominent conservatives -- sent a letter to Congressional leaders directly responding the December 22 DOJ letter.

Both the CRS and the legal experts' analyses definitively rebut the Administration's December 22 defense of its actions. And even Bush Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, when asked in his confirmation hearings whether the president is above the law, answered with a definite "no."

In this column, I will discuss these sources in arguing that this domestic surveillance program isn't a partisan issue; the law is quite clear .

The Congressional Research Service Report

The CRS report, undertaken at the request of some members of Congress, does not come out and flatly say that there was no legal basis for the secret spy program, because the full details of the program are not yet known. However, it directly rebuts the Administration's claims, in its December 22 letter, as to why it had to engage in secret surveillance.

The Administration's main excuse was that FISA -- enacted in 1978, as a direct response to former President Nixon's illegal wiretapping of his political "enemies" -- is too outdated, too slow, and too cumbersome to deal with the "new threat" posed by this "new" kind of enemy and new kind of "war."

But then, why not ask Congress to amend FISA? Acting outside FISA, the CRS report pointed out, is illegal: FISA itself says that "procedures in this chapter . . . shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted."

What about the argument that the President has the power simply to disregard FISA if he so chooses? The CRS outright rejected the claim that there is constitutional authority for plenary presidential surveillance in derogation of Congressional statutes clearly to the contrary. And it points out that FISA is, indeed, directly to the contrary: Its legislative history of FISA and amendments indicate clearly that the "exclusive means" language was inserted to precisely to counter any claim that the President has inherent Executive authority to order surveillance of Americans without complying with FISA.

Finally, the CRS report effectively refutes the Administration's claims that FISA is too slow or cumbersome to be effective in current times. It explains how, under FISA, surveillance can begin prior to receipt of a warrant. (It is also done in secret, without notice to the target.) And it points out that if the President nevertheless feared that FISA warrants would take too long or might somehow "tip off" targets of surveillance, he had only to ask Congress for changes to the law.

Legal Scholars Appeal to the Congress

The legal experts' conclusions are strikingly similar to those of the CRS report: They characterize the Bush administration's defense of its NSA domestic spying program as lacking "any plausible legal authority."

The signers - listed in the letter -- include the nation's leading constitutional law scholars, many of them former Justice Department attorneys and presidential advisors, and even a former FBI Director and federal judge.

The experts' letter refutes Administration claims that the AUMF and Article II of the Constitution, which includes the "Commander-in-Chief" language, give Bush the authority to disregard FISA and violate the Fourth Amendment. The letter agrees with the CRS report that Bush should have asked the Congress for changes to existing law, rather than proceeding unilaterally - and illegally. And it ends with a stinging admonition: "[T]he President cannot simply violate criminal laws behind closed doors because he deems them obsolete or impracticable."

The Upcoming Congressional Hearings Are Not Merely a Partisan Clash

Senator Arlen Specter recently repeated his promise to conduct hearings on the surveillance program after the Alito hearings conclude, and his plan has bipartisan support. Even the President himself said, on January 11, that the hearings will be "good for democracy," as long as they don't give away "secrets" to the enemy. And reportedly, an NSA whistleblower has come forward offering to testify.

What should we demand from the hearings? Some will be cloaked in secrecy, no doubt. But the public deserves to know who the targets are, what is being done with the information, and how widespread the program is - especially since the Times, in several follow-up stories, has suggested that the surveillance is far more widespread than the Administration admitted in its December 22 letter.

The disclosure of this illegal surveillance program is but one of the many ways in which President Bush, unbeknownst to most Americans, and even the Congress, has carried out his avowed goal (and one frequently touted by Vice-President Cheney) to "restore" the presidency to its stronger, pre-Watergate phase. That's code for creating an executive branch that only obeys the laws it likes--and ignores the rest.

President Bush has said as much in the "signing statements" appended to many laws. With one hand, he signs into law the statutes passed by the our elected representatives, while with the other he endorses a directive to federal agencies that he will tell them how they are to carry out--or not carry out--the law.

The point here is that the executive already has the legislative ability to do what needs to be done, in secret, without abridging the Constitution. Bush's statement that the Constitution in no bar to executive action is an impeachable offense on its face. I note that with the exception of Kennedy and Schumer, the Judiciary Committee Dems are dancing around this.

Cognitive Dissonance

If recusal is so important to Alito's ethics, how did he conveniently manage to "forget" $80,000 worth of investments?

The Coverage

I notice that the cable channels are running commentary by political flacks, rather than by Constitutional scholars. What standing does Ed Gillispie have to make remarks on Alito's fitness to the high court? Of course, Americans can't tell the difference, which is the fault of our lousy public education system.

What about "unitary executive," cable talking heads? God, you don't know anything, idiots.

More Questions

I asked some questions about Alito back in November and I'm going to run them again, since they haven't yet been answered:

A Princeton alum, hilzoy at Obsidian Wings has some thoughtful commentary on Judge Alito and the Concerned Alumni of Princeton:

The fact that Samuel Alito was a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, and cited that fact on his 1985 job application, has been in the news recently; and it occurred to me that since I was a Princeton undergraduate (class of '81) while CAP was active, I might be able to provide some useful background on this one.

CAP is generally described as 'a conservative group'. But this is as misleading as calling the John Birch Society a 'conservative group' would be. There are lots of conservatives who are thoughtful and intelligent, and who have real intellectual integrity. Conservatives like this did not tend to join CAP. CAP was dedicated to finding outrages that it took to be caused by the horrible fact that women and minorities were being admitted to Princeton. The need to find outrages generally came first; any encounter with facts came later. For this reason, CAP tended to attract not conservatives per se, but the sort of conservative who is forever getting deeply hysterical about some perceived threat to a supposed previous golden age, who sees such threats everywhere, and who is willing to completely distort the truth in order to feed his (and it generally was 'his') obsessions.

(I mean: just ask yourself: what sort of person would devote time and energy to a group focussed entirely on combatting trends at his undergraduate institution, trends that the actual undergraduates of the time had no problem with? We used to wonder: don't these people have lives?)

CAP did a number of things to combat Princeton's slide into mediocrity and decadence, otherwise known as its decision to admit women and more than a token number of minorities. It published a magazine, Prospect, devoted to lurid stories about all that decadence and mediocrity and outraged editorials calling for a return to the halcyon days of the 1950s. These stories had the same relation to reality as the views of those fundamentalists who imagine that a life without Christ is necessarily composed of mindless and sordid sexual episodes, punctuated by periods in which one drugs oneself into a stupor, carried out in an attempt to avoid having to recognize one's own appalling inner emptiness: they were just plain false, and reveal more about the person who believes them than anything else. We used to read stories in Prospect aloud to one another for laughs. (CAP was very well funded, and copies of Prospect were everywhere.)

Attention Senate Judiciary Committee: you might have some interesting questions for the nominee.

The High Cost of Being Female

Alito Leaves Door Open to Reversing 'Roe'
Membership In Controversial Group Surfaces As an Issue

By Amy Goldstein and Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, January 12, 2006; Page A01

The once-sluggish confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. turned confrontational yesterday, as the nominee signaled he might be willing to revisit the ruling that legalized abortion nationwide and Democrats pummeled him over his membership in an alumni group that wanted to restrict enrollment of women and minorities.

Tempers flared openly between the Senate Judiciary Committee's Republican chairman and eldest Democrat, and the nominee's wife fled the marbled hearing room in tears before the day ended with Republicans predicting that Alito will win confirmation, although by a slim margin.

Throughout the day's more than seven hours of questioning, Democratic senators regularly accused Alito of giving incomplete, inconsistent answers. Republicans accused Democrats of being unfair. At one point, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) complained after Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) read aloud magazine excerpts published in the 1980s by Concerned Alumni of Princeton and espousing views Kyl branded as "very scurrilous."

The drama of the hearings' third day nearly overshadowed the significance of the position Alito staked out on the landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade . Senators also branched into new territory: Alito's record from 15 years on the Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit on cases involving religion, immigrants seeking to prevent deportation, and criminals' rights.

Alito edged closer to suggesting that he might be willing to reconsider Roe if he is confirmed to the high court, refusing, under persistent questioning by Democrats, to say that he regards the 1973 decision as "settled law" that "can't be reexamined." In this way, his answers departed notably from those that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. gave when asked similar questions during his confirmation hearings four months ago.

Yesterday, Alito said that Roe must be treated with respect because it has been reaffirmed by the high court several times in the past three decades.

But when Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) peppered Alito with questions about whether the ruling is "the settled law of the land," the nominee responded: "If 'settled' means that it can't be reexamined, then that's one thing. If 'settled' means that it is a precedent that is entitled to respect . . . then it is a precedent that is protected, entitled to respect under the doctrine of stare decisis." Stare decisis is a legal principle that, in Latin, means "to stand by that which is decided."

During Roberts's confirmation hearings, he, too, was reluctant to disclose how he would vote if asked to overturn Roe . But during the 2003 hearing on his nomination to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, he had said he viewed the ruling as settled law.

And during Roberts's hearings to become the nation's chief justice, Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) had asked, "Do you mean settled for you, settled only for your capacity as a circuit judge or settled beyond that?" Roberts replied: "Well, beyond that, it's settled as a precedent of the court."

After his exchange with Alito yesterday, Durbin told reporters: "Sam Alito would not use those same words. It really, I'm afraid, leaves open the possibility that we are considering the nomination of a justice who will change 30 years of law in this country, a dramatic change to the American society."

Alito never did answer the questions about why he joined CAP. The ROTC issue had already been resolved by the time he joined and it was not their most important issue. He's never answered a question regarding Roe and I don't expect he will.

This question needs some further thought. Why is Roe so contentious in US politics when it is settled law in the rest of the industrialized west. I can't think of another western country which criminalizes abortion. Make no mistake, I don't think that abortion is anything other than a tragedy, but I think that the choice between tragedies ought to be the right of the woman, her partner and the doctor to make. It's not the government's choice to make. In the rest of the industrialized west, this is settled law. The idea that it is still open to question in the US leads me to ask the question "Why?"

My answer is that female sexuality is still suspect in our culture. While sex is featured in our tv programs and video games and so forth, this is still a puritan culture and most of the onus is on women. Pregnancy is the price you pay for sexual activity and, if you are female, the price is mostly yours. God knows, the government won't do much to help you collect any financial help from the father. This is pregnancy as punishment.

I can't find a lot of good things to say about abortion, but I can find even fewer good things to say about unlicensed abortionists and women bleeding out from self-abortions on the floor of their bathrooms, and these were the status quo ante before Roe. Wealthy women always had the option to fly to Canada or Cuba. The abortion ban has always been about women who have less.

ThoughtCrime

In Shift, Bush Says He Welcomes Inquiry on Secret Wiretaps

By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: January 12, 2006

LOUISVILLE, Ky., Jan. 11 - President Bush said Wednesday that he would welcome a Congressional investigation of whether he had the authority to order the National Security Agency to monitor communications in the United States without warrants.

Until now, the White House had opposed public hearings, which are scheduled to begin next month in the Senate. But on Wednesday, answering questions from a friendly crowd in Louisville in a conference center decorated with signs that said "Winning the War on Terror," Mr. Bush appeared ready to make the best of a political necessity.

In his campaign-style meeting, he was repeatedly applauded for authorizing the wiretaps, a decision that some of his political aides said they believed would ultimately help rebuild his approval ratings by demonstrating the lengths to which he would go to prevent another terrorist attack inside the United States.

Asked whether his administration was going to "go after the media" for revealing operations like the domestic wiretapping, Mr. Bush instead defended his decision to authorize the surveillance. "I did so because the enemy still wants to hurt us," he said. "And it seems like to me that if somebody is talking to Al Qaeda, we want to know why."

I wonder if the media is going to remember that Bush was against these hearings before he was for them? More importantly, are they going to let this idiotic statement stand? He's already returned to accusing his opponents of giving "aid and comfort to the enemy" so how much of a stretch is it to assume that he's involved in some Nixonian activities?

We really need some journalists who did not sleep in their Civics classes. Our basic rights are being taken away under our noses and no one seems to care or bother reporting on it.

Remember gang, 2+2=5 when Bush says it does even though we all know that it is 4.

More Global (Non)Warming

Warming Tied To Extinction Of Frog Species

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 12, 2006; Page A01

Rising temperatures are responsible for pushing dozens of frog species over the brink of extinction in the past three decades, according to findings being reported today by a team of Latin American and U.S. scientists.

The study, published in the journal Nature, provides compelling evidence that climate change has already helped wipe out a slew of species and could spur more extinctions and the spread of diseases worldwide. It also helps solve the international mystery of why amphibians around the globe have been vanishing from their usual habitats over the past quarter-century -- as many as 112 species have disappeared since 1980

Scientists have speculated that rising temperatures and changing weather patterns could endanger the survival of many species, but the new study documents for the first time a direct correlation between global warming and the disappearance of around 65 amphibian species in Central and South America.

The fate of amphibians -- whose permeable skin makes them sensitive to environmental changes -- is seen by scientists as a possible harbinger of global warming's effects. Rising temperatures are threatening the survival of flora and fauna worldwide, including coral reefs in the Caribbean, which serve as critical fish nurseries, and South African rhododendrons, which cannot move to a cooler climate

Thank goodness we have our friends in the petrolium industry and Bush's EPA to remind us how there aren't any problems here. After all, who's going to miss a bunch of frogs... just don't tell Miss Piggy.

Dr. Seuss for the 21st Century

Morgaine Swann at The Goddess sent this out tonight:

The tale of Sam I AM

I’m tired of corruption, Right,
And politicians not too bright
If you mess with reproductive rights
Women all will stand and fight

Machine Gun Sam should get a clue,
Commerce laws protect you
From the sale of arms, big and small,
That hunters do not use at all

When FISA laws are just ignored
It really makes me miss Al Gore
He was elected, but you see
Bush v Gore cheated me

We know Bush lied to start a war
We do not trust him any more
He taps our phones and reads our mail
He put the country up for sale
If the law is to prevail
The pRresident should go to jail

I would not like to be a fool
I would not like to confirm you
I do not trust you with my rights
I do not believe you, day or night

Your record says you are a sham
You’re too extreme, you, Sam I Am

Time for Food TV

After all those hours with C-Span, it's really, really time for Emeril Lagasse.

It's definitely time for a change of gears. After three days of hearings, I'm pretty much testimonied out. Let's talk food!

Pork Medallions in Crushed Gingersnaps With Apples and Sage

4 servings

Prep for this recipe goes quickly, and may appeal to a slight sweet tooth. The apples and sage mixture can be made more saucelike if you add 1/2 cup chicken stock just after adding the cider vinegar. Serve with basic polenta or a salad of a fennel and butter lettuce.

Recipe adapted from "Sparks in the Kitchen," by New York chef Katy Sparks (Knopf, 2006).

For the coating:

2 cups (about 35 cookies) crushed gingersnaps, pulsed in a food processor until they resemble coarse cornmeal

2 tablespoons ancho chili powder (optional)

1 teaspoon grated orange zest

1 tablespoon finely chopped sage

1 teaspoon finely chopped thyme

Flour, for dredging

2 eggs, beaten with 3 tablespoons cold water

For the apples and sage:

2 tablespoons unsalted butter

2 crisp firm apples, such as Gala, Cortland or Granny Smith, peeled, cored and cut into 1/2 -inch-thick rings

1 teaspoon curry powder (optional)

1 tablespoon light brown sugar

2 tablespoons cider vinegar

Salt

Freshly ground black pepper

Freshly grated nutmeg

1 to 2 tablespoons coarsely chopped sage

For the pork medallions:

2 to 3 pork tenderloins (about 2 pounds total), trimmed of visible fat, cut into 1/2 -inch-thick slices and pounded to even 1/4 -inch-thick slices

Salt

Freshly ground black pepper

2 to 3 tablespoons unsalted butter

1 tablespoon canola oil

For the coating: In a small bowl, combine the crushed gingersnaps, chili powder, if using, orange zest, sage and thyme. Place the flour and egg wash in separate small bowls. Set aside.

For the apples and sage: In a large skillet over medium heat, melt the butter. Add the apple slices, sprinkle with curry powder, if using, and brown sugar and cook until the apples are golden brown, about 3 minutes per side. Add the cider vinegar and deglaze the pan by scraping up any browned bits sticking to the pan. Turn off the heat and season the apples with salt, pepper and nutmeg to taste. Add the chopped sage and toss lightly to combine. Set aside.

For the pork medallions: Preheat the oven to 250 degrees. Have ready an ungreased rimmed baking sheet.

Season the meat with salt and pepper to taste. Dredge the medallions in the flour, egg wash and then the gingersnaps, coating on both sides.

In a large skillet over medium-high heat, heat 1 1/2 tablespoons of the butter with a teaspoon of the oil. Cook the medallions 2 minutes per side, until the crust is set and browned. Transfer the cooked medallions to the baking sheet and place in the oven to keep warm. Wipe the skillet clean for subsequent batches, adding the remaining butter and oil as necessary. Place 3 or 4 medallions on each plate, along with some of apples and sage mixture. Serve hot.

Eye on America

If you want to know how poor our civics teaching is in this country, listen to the call-ins on C-Span. People are ignorant and not up to speed on current events or recent history.

Domestic Spying

Just because you're paranoid, that doesn't mean they're not out to get you:

National Security Agency mounted massive spy op on Baltimore peace group, documents show

Kevin Zeese
Published: January 10, 2006

The National Security Agency has been spying on a Baltimore anti-war group, according to documents released during litigation, going so far as to document the inflating of protesters' balloons, and intended to deploy units trained to detect weapons of mass destruction, RAW STORY has learned.

According to the documents, the Pledge of Resistance-Baltimore, a Quaker-linked peace group, has been monitored by the NSA working with the Baltimore Intelligence Unit of the Baltimore City Police Department.

The documents came as a result of litigation in the August 2003 trial of Marilyn Carlisle and Cindy Farquhar. An NSA security official provided the defendants with a redacted Action Plan and a redacted copy of a Joint Terrorism Task Force email about the activities of the Pledge of Resistance activities.

The NSA, established in 1952 by President Truman, is the largest and most secret of U.S. intelligence agencies. Headquartered between Baltimore and Washington, DC, the agency has two principal functions: to protect U.S. government communications and intercept foreign transmissions. However, the NSA's United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18 strictly prohibits the interception or collection of information about "U.S. persons, entities, corporations or organizations" without explicit written permission from the Attorney General.

The revelation that a Baltimore peace group was spied upon comes in the wake of a news reports that the agency has also been eavesdropping on Americans' international calls and raises new questions about the legality of NSA activities. The agency did not immediately return a request for comment.

The Baltimore Pledge of Resistance is part of the national Iraq Pledge of Resistance, which works with the Baltimore Emergency Response Network and the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) -- part of a national group committed to nonviolent civil resistance to stop the war in Iraq. The Pledge lobbies Maryland congressmembers via letters, phone calls, faxes, emails and face-to-face meetings; members of the group are periodically arrested for peaceable protests.

Documents turned over by the NSA indicate that the group was closely monitored. In one instance, the agency filed reports approximately every 15 minutes from 9:30 AM to 3:18 PM on the day of a demonstration at the National Vigilance Airplane Memorial on the NSA Campus in Maryland.

According to an NSA email dated July 4, 2004, the agency collected license numbers and descriptions and the number of people in each car and filed a report about them gathering in a church parking lot for the demonstration. NSA agents also logged their travel to the demonstration, including stopping as a gas station along the way. A canine dog unit was used to search a minivan when it was stopped on the way to the demonstration - nothing was found.

NSA officials even reported on the balloons being inflated for the demonstration and the content of their signs.

An entry made at 1300 hours on July 4. reads, "The Soc. was advised the protestors were proceeding to the airplane memorial with three helium balloons attached to a banner that stated, 'Those Who Exchange Freedom for Security Deserve Neither, Will Ultimately Lose Both.'"

On the day of the demonstration three protesters were cited for "disturbances on government property" and released. A federal judge eventually dismissed the case before trial.

Two of those demonstrators, Max Obuszewiski and Ellen Barfield, are still scheduled for trial in Baltimore federal court Jan. 25. The defendants have filed a motion for discovery and included the letter from the NSA acknowledging spying on the Pledge. The prosecutor has refused to release this information as part of discovery. The defendants plan to argue that the information is necessary for their defense.

"The NSA confirmed, because of a FOIA request I filed, that indeed it has files on peace and justice groups," Obuszewiski said. "However, the Agency is refusing to release the information unless I pay $1,915. What might be in these files?"

A second NSA document on the letterhead of the National Security Agency Police and authored by NSA Police Major Michael E. Talbert is dated Oct. 3, 2004. It is an action plan for the "threat of a demonstration hosted by a group known as Pledge of Resistance - Baltimore." They note the demonstration is part of the "Keep Space for Peace Week." The NSA action plan includes plans for four days, but six activities being planned by the NSA before the day of the demonstration have been redacted.

Sleepless Nights

Sleep can leave you as groggy as booze

By ANNE MCILROY
Wednesday, January 11, 2006

You wake up, go to the kitchen and pour juice on your cereal and milk in your glass. You're not alone: New research suggests many people are as mentally impaired when they wake up as if they were drunk -- even if they got a full night's sleep.

Sleep inertia, that groggy, disoriented feeling that that comes with waking up, has been well documented by researchers, who say it can last a few minutes or in some cases, up to two hours. For the first time, a study has measured how sleep inertia impairs cognitive abilities, said University of Colorado researcher Kenneth Wright. "We wanted to know, how bad is this?"

His study found that volunteers performed much worse on a series of tests immediately after waking than when they had gone without sleep for 24 hours.

When volunteers stayed up for 24 hours, they scored about 80 per cent as high as they normally did on tests that assessed short-term memory, counting skills, and the ability to add two numbers.

Their score was even lower immediately after they were woken up after eight hours sleep. They performed only 65 per cent as well as they normally did.

An earlier study on sleep deprivation found that not sleeping for 24 hours leaves people as mentally impaired as if they had a blood alcohol level of .08 per cent. It appears sleep inertia may be worse.

"For a short period, at least, the effects of sleep inertia may be as bad or worse than being legally drunk," said Dr. Wright.

Sleep inertia is worse if someone is sleep deprived, and if someone is woken out of deep sleep, which tends to occur earlier in the night

This is just something to think about as you stay up all night trying to accomplish all of the tasks you didn't do while surfing the web during the day and following the Senate hearings.

Thank God for C-Span

Media Matters has the video.

Blitzer again accused Democrats -- but not Republicans -- of reaching "early verdict" on Alito nomination

Summary: During CNN's live coverage of Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s hearing, Wolf Blitzer once again accused the Democrats -- but not Republicans -- of prejudging the nomination.

During CNN's live January 11 coverage of Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Situation Room host Wolf Blitzer again accused Democrats -- but not Republicans -- of prejudging Alito's nomination. "Some Democrats are delivering an early verdict on Alito's performance," Blitzer declared, as the onscreen text read "Democrats" and "Early Judgements [sic]." Later, Blitzer suggested that Democrats were using the hearings to mount a case against Alito, rather than to assess his fitness for elevation to the Supreme Court. Blitzer asked: "Are [Democrats] looking for answers? Or for the Supreme Court nominee to stumble?" But Blitzer made no similar comments about Republicans, several of whom have showered Alito with praise and asked him fawning questions.

Similarly, on January 10, Blitzer asked Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) if he had "already made up [his] mind" to oppose Alito, but Blitzer declined to ask Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) whether he had already decided to support the nominee, as Media Matters for America noted.

The Push Over

Troubling times, a troubling nominee

By Jonathan Turley

The confirmation hearings for Judge Samuel Alito will focus greatly on his stated opposition to Roe v. Wade. The obsession with abortion in American politics has had an anaerobic effect on past confirmation hearings, sucking the air out of other issues. For Alito, this may have the welcomed effect of obscuring a more troubling question from his past writings and cases: Alito's extreme views of government authority over citizens' rights.

Despite my agreement with Alito on many issues, I believe that he would be a dangerous addition to the court in already dangerous times for our constitutional system. Alito's cases reveal an almost reflexive vote in favor of government, a preference based not on some overriding principle but an overriding party.

In my years as an academic and a litigator, I have rarely seen the equal of Alito's bias in favor of the government. To put it bluntly, when it comes to reviewing government abuse, Samuel Alito is an empty robe.

Power grabs

This country is facing one of the most serious constitutional crises in its history. President Bush has claimed virtually absolute authority to act in contradiction of federal and international law. In the recently disclosed National Security Agency operation, he has claimed the right to order surveillance that may be a crime under federal law. Last week, it was disclosed that when Bush signed a prohibition on torture he had long opposed, he reserved the right to violate it if he deemed it in the nation's interests.

The Framers gave our nation three branches in a system of checks and balances to prevent the concentration of power. The Republican-controlled Congress has remained largely passive in the face of these extreme assertions of power, leaving only the judicial branch as a check. Over the past five years, many federal judges — including Republican appointees — have stood against some of the president's most extreme actions.

We are down to our last branch, and Alito would supply the final vote to shift the balance of power toward a president claiming the powers of a maximum leader. Alito's writings and opinions show a jurist who is willing to yield tremendous authority to the government and offer little in terms of judicial review — views repeatedly rejected not only by his appellate colleagues but also by the U.S. Supreme Court.

As an assistant solicitor general, Alito strongly opposed the ruling of a court of appeals in the seminal case of Garner v. Tennessee. In that case, a police officer shot and killed an unarmed 15-year-old boy when he fled with $10 from a home. Alito supported the right of the officer to kill the boy for failing to stop when ordered, a position ultimately rejected by six members of the Supreme Court and decades of later decisions.

Likewise, Alito authored another memo that argued strongly in favor of giving immunity to officials who violate the rights of citizens — a position long rejected by the federal courts.

As he did as a Reagan administration attorney, Judge Alito often adopts standards so low that any government excuse can overcome any government abuse.

Turley teaches public interest law at George Washington University Law School.

As was pointed out in a phone call conference last night, this nominee is "Say Anything Sam" who will say anything in order to get a job. Nothing that he says can be relied on.

Alito Week

Would somebody please put a bag over Joe Biden?

American Nightmare

Young dream-seekers strapped by debt

By Marilyn Gardner
January 11, 2006

Tamara Draut and Stuart Fink didn't expect it to come to this. After eight years of marriage, the couple found themselves with less than a dollar and with three days until the next paycheck. Seated on the living room floor, they sorted through their compact discs, choosing ones to sell.

"We never imagined we'd be peddling our wares for food money at the age of 30," Ms. Draut says. A combination of graduate school tuition, meager salaries, unemployment, a career change, and the cost of setting up housekeeping had drained their modest resources.

Straitened circumstances are becoming more familiar to those in their 20s and 30s as they try to get a foothold on the American Dream. Student loans, depressed wages, rising healthcare costs, and soaring housing prices are creating new economic realities. Sixty percent of young adults between 18 and 34 are struggling for financial independence, says Draut, now the director of the economic opportunity program at Demos, a think tank in New York. She is also the author of a new book, "Strapped: Why America's 20- and 30-Somethings Can't Get Ahead."

"What made the transition to adulthood somewhat less bumpy 30 years ago was that we had an economy that lifted all boats," she says. "When productivity was increasing, so were wages. We don't have that today. Wages certainly aren't keeping up with the cost of things like healthcare and housing."

Then there is the high cost of college. A bachelor's degree has become the equivalent of a high school diploma - essential for basic status in the middle class.

Michelle Wingate, who is in her mid-20s, holds an entry-level position at a public relations firm in Raleigh, N.C. She is paying off student loans. "When you graduate from college, you think, 'This is great. I'm going to be able to pay off all my debts,' " she says. "That's just not the case. My salary looks good from afar, but once I get my money I'm sending it directly to the people I owe it to. That creates a whole other problem. When you owe money, you can't save it."

.....

Parents are also confused. "A lot of parents don't understand why their kids haven't accomplished the traditional markers of adulthood that they did - buying a home, starting a family, living without debt," Draut says. "I don't think there's an awareness of how much the economic context has changed."

Dayana Yochim, personal finance editor for The Motley Fool, an investor-education group, often hears from parents who want to know how they can teach their children about managing finances. "These parents are worried about their own retirement," she says. "Cutting the apron strings is a move parents have to make to provide for their own futures financially. But it's a hard thing to do when you feel that your children don't have the skills they need."

Compounding these generational challenges is what Ms. Yochim calls "incessant commercial wooing." On TV, she says, "it's all about luxury and excess and consumption," right down to the fancy lofts and apartments where sitcom characters live.

"That is not how people really live in New York City," she says. And with commercials filling 20 minutes of every televised hour, she adds, "No wonder we all suffer from 'the wants.' "

This combination of economic instability and the skyrocketing cost of advanced degrees and crippling my generation (I'm 34). When my wife and I got engaged, she had roughly $20,000 in school and consumer debt to her name. It took us the better part of 5 years to get out from under that and then we had our kids. Who knows what would have happened to our family if did not have good health insurance and supportive parents. Sure my wages have gone up some each year, but this is the first year that my wife, a state employee, has received a raise (a piddling 2.5%, barely COL). When you add on the increasing energy and healthcare costs, it's no wonder that our consumer debt shot back through the roof again.

This new reality is also hard on our (generation's) parents too, especially when they see their kids get solid middle class jobs and still not be able to afford to buy a house or to stash hardly anything away for a rainy day. Unless something changes soon in either housing, education, or medical costs, ours may be one of the first generations in America to be worse off than our parnets were and that's despite "playing by the rules". If that's the case, I weep for my children when their jobs are outsourced.

A Little Ethical Lapse

Graham’s Behind-the-Scenes Coaching of Alito Could Violate Senate Ethics Rules

In his opening statement [Monday], Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said he’s already made up his mind on Alito before hearing his answers:

I don’t know what kind of vote you’re going to get, but you’ll make it through. It’s possible you could talk me out of voting for you, but I doubt it. So I won’t even try to challenge you along those lines.

It should come as no surprise that Graham has made up his mind – behind the scenes, he’s been helping Alito prepare for his question and answer session. Here’s what the WSJ Washington Wire reported this morning:

On Thursday, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of the “gang of 14″ who sits on Judiciary, joined a so-called moot court session at the White House.

Coaching a judicial nominee behind-the-scenes is not the proper role for a Judiciary Committee member who must subsequently sit in judgment on that nominee. Indeed, it could be a violation of the ethical duties of a senator. Here’s what Senate Rule 37 (Conflicts of Interest) in the Senate Ethics Manual says:

“No Member, officer, or employee shall engage in any outside business or professional activity or employment for compensation which is inconsistent or in conflict with the conscientious performance of official duties.’’ … The Committee has interpreted this paragraph to prohibit compensated employment or uncompensated positions on boards, commissions, or advisory councils where such service could create a conflict with an individual’s Senate duties due to appropriation, oversight, authorization, or legislative jurisdiction as a result of Senate duties.

Having sat in on a “moot court session at the White House,” it has created at least the appearance that Graham is a partisan advocate — not an impartial evaluator — of an issue within his legislative jurisdiction.

Objective Journalism

Here is a reminder of what is at stake.

Review of cases shows Alito to be staunch conservative
By Stephen Henderson and Howard Mintz
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - During his 15 years on the federal bench, Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito has worked quietly but resolutely to weave a conservative legal agenda into the fabric of the nation's laws.

A Knight Ridder review of Alito's 311 published opinions on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals - each of singular legal or public policy importance - found a clear pattern. Although Alito's opinions are rarely written with obvious ideology, he's seldom sided with a criminal defendant, a foreign national facing deportation, an employee alleging discrimination or consumers suing big businesses.

Despite the intense focus on whether Alito would cast the decisive vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, he has had scant opportunity as a judge to address the issue. As a young lawyer in the Reagan administration in 1985, he did advocate overturning the landmark abortion ruling. But it's his record in matters that routinely come before the Supreme Court that suggests he's likely to be more reliably conservative than Sandra Day O'Connor, the justice he would replace.

Liberal and conservative supporters alike describe the quiet, scholarly Alito as a restrained judge who follows the law, not his personal beliefs. Those who've worked closely with him, including former law clerks and fellow judges, say they can't think of a case in which he took a partisan political stance.

"As you can probably glean from his opinions, he's a conservative," said former 3rd Circuit Judge Timothy Lewis, a more liberal judge who served with Alito from 1992 to 2000 and supports the nomination. "I'm very comfortable with his judicial philosophy, though it was very different than mine. It only works if the judge doesn't have an agenda. He is not result-oriented."

But Knight Ridder's review of Alito's record reveals decisions so consistent that it appears results do matter to him.

"Alito is more conservative than O'Connor; this isn't a hard question," said Rory Little, a Hastings College of the Law professor in San Francisco and a former Supreme Court clerk who praised Alito's credentials. "This isn't a guy who is going to vote in a way that will make anybody on the left happy."

A review of Alito's work on dozens of cases that raised important social issues found that he rarely supports individual rights claims.

The primary exception has been his opinions about First Amendment protections. Alito has been a near free-speech absolutist in his writings, and he's been equally strong on protecting religious freedoms.

But even some of his First Amendment opinions underscore the bent in the rest of his work. He hasn't strictly enforced church-state separation, and his love of the First Amendment seems to stop at the prison walls. He has written opinions that would deny prisoners access to reading materials and curtail their rights to practice their religious beliefs.

In other areas, Alito often goes out of his way to narrow the scope of individual rights, sometimes reaching out to undo lower-court rulings that affirmed those rights.

In one notable ruling, Alito snatched a lower-court victory from a group of diabetic inmates who alleged their jailers didn't adequately treat their illness.

Alito has been particularly rigid in employment discrimination cases.

Many conservative jurists set a high bar for plaintiffs who allege racial, gender or age bias in the workplace, but Alito has seldom found merit in a bias claim.

He has written in at least 18 discrimination cases and has sided with plaintiffs four times, including once when white police officers claimed that Pittsburgh's affirmative action policy unfairly disadvantaged them and another time when a mentally disabled grocery store worker was fired.

And Orin Hatch is the wanker of the day.

The Lessons of History

Alito, at Hearing, Pledges an Open Mind on Abortion

David Y. Lee for The New York Times

By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
and NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: January 11, 2006

WASHINGTON, Jan. 10 - Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. said Tuesday that he would bring an open mind to the Supreme Court when it came to abortion rights and sought to rebut suggestions that he had an overly expansive view of presidential powers as he parried a barrage of questions at the heart of his confirmation battle.

In his first public give and take with the 10 Republicans and 8 Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Alito made no glaring mistakes as he engaged in a day of sparring with Democrats who are concerned that he would move the court to the right on some of the most divisive issues facing the nation.

Giving careful, limited answers to probing and sometimes aggressive questions about his views on abortion, Judge Alito said he would give considerable weight to decades of rulings built on the concept that a decision to terminate a pregnancy falls under a constitutional right to privacy.

"Today, if the issue were to come before me, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed and the issue were to come before me, the first question would be the question that we've been discussing, and that's the issue of stare decisis," the legal term for precedent, he said.

"And if the analysis were to get beyond that point, then I would approach the question with an open mind and I would listen to the arguments that were made."

But he did not commit himself to upholding or overturning the right to an abortion, and he did not address whether he might support further incremental restrictions on abortions.

Under nine and a half hours of on-and-off questioning on the second day of his hearing before the committee, which will pass initial judgment on his fitness for the seat being vacated by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Judge Alito also tried to avoid locking himself into any specific position on executive authority.

He said no president could operate outside the law and the Constitution, but he repeatedly dodged efforts to solicit his views on whether President Bush had exceeded his authority in the recently disclosed eavesdropping program and in the way terrorism suspects and enemy combatants have been held.

From the transcripts of Justice Thomas's confirmation:

What Supreme Court Nominee Clarence Thomas Said When Asked About Roe v Wade:

Sen. Brown: I would be interested to know if in your own mind you have come to a decision on the right to terminate a pregnancy.

Judge Thomas: I have an open mind.

Sen. Kennedy: Well, do I understand that you may overrule it or you may sustain [Roe]?

Judge Thomas: I am open-minded on this particular important issue.

Sen. Hatch: Now, as I heard your testimony the day before, you said that you are basically undecided on that issue, and that you are reserving your judgment until the time when you can listen to all the facts and all of the issues and all of the case law and all of the other materials pertaining to that particular issue. Am I wrong in stating it that way?

Judge Thomas: Senator, I indicated that I think it is important that I retain an open mind and that I don't have an opinion on that important case.

Sen. Simpson: Do you promise this committee to consider the abortion issue as you face it on the Court with an open and equitable and fair mind and with sympathy and compassion for all who are involved in that terrible decision?

Judge Thomas: Senator, I would not only make that promise on this important issue, not only to this committee but, if confirmed, to the American people, and to myself...And that is a promise that I take very deeply and understand and appreciate and feel strongly about, on all cases, that I approach them with an open mind and for the individuals involved with an open heart.

What Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Did:

Justice Thomas, voting to overturn Roe, "We believe that Roe was wrongly decided, and that it can and should be overruled consistently with our traditional approach to stare decisis in constitutional cases." [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Cases, 505 U.S. 833, 944 (1992)]

Shifty

This is NYTimes "Select" to which I don't subscribe, so no link.

Doing the Alito Shuffle
By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON

You've got to like a man who knows how to juggle.

Samuel Alito picked up the skill on a summer vacation a decade ago, and his juggling talent was on full display yesterday as he tried to balance the old Sam, who was eager to impress Reagan revolutionaries with his zeal, with the new Sam, who is eager to impress a bipartisan Senate panel with his open-mindedness.

It was a tale of two Sams.

Is he the old Sam, who devised ways to upend Roe v. Wade and crimp abortion rights? Or the new Sam, who has great respect for precedent and an "open mind" about abortion cases?

Is he the old Sam, who plotted ways to tip the balance of power to the executive branch? Or the new Sam, who states that "no person in this country is above the law, and that includes the president"?

Is he the old Sam, who said Robert Bork "was one of the most outstanding nominees of this century" and "a man of unequaled ability"? Or the new Sam, who shrugged off that statement as the dutiful support of one Reagan appointee for another?

Is he the old Sam, who cited membership in a Princeton alumni club that resisted the admission of women and minorities when he was seeking a promotion in the very white Reagan old boys' club? Or the new Sam, who has "no specific recollection of that organization," unless, of course, he innocently joined it to support R.O.T.C. on campus, and who says he's been shaped partly by his hopes for his 17-year-old daughter, Laura, and by his sister's experiences "as a trial lawyer in a profession that has traditionally been dominated by men"?

Is he the old Sam, who thoughtlessly blew off a pledge to recuse himself from cases involving Vanguard, where he has a six-figure mutual fund? Or the new Sam, who admits that the problem was not "a computer glitch," as he had suggested, and humbly says, "If I had to do it over again, there are things that I would have done differently"?

The judge didn't deign to say what he thought of illegal wiretaps - which you'd think would be an easy one.

About the judge's memory lapses, Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican, drolly noted, "And I hope you'll understand if any of us come before a court and we can't remember Abramoff, you'll tend to believe us."

Some of his answers, Senator Joe Biden complained to Chris Matthews, did not "ring a chord of sincerity." (The National Review Web site says the voluble Biden got in 3,673 words and held Judge Alito to 1,013.)

You don't have to know the difference between horizontal and vertical stare decisis, or between emanations and penumbras, to see that the man who could take Sandra Day O'Connor's seat and yank back women's rights was, in a word, shifty.

Or in three words, shifty, sapless and sighing.

That's what I'm seeing. I don't know who, among the ordinary American electorate, watches C-Span, but what I'm seeing scares the crap out of me.

BTW, one of my colleagues timed Joe Biden's "question." It ran 11 minutes. Do not, ever, get between Joe Biden and a camera. I've got money to send to the first Democrat who mounts a primary challenge.

Alito Questions, Day Two

Here is what the WaPo says. I thought Alito's answers on CAP and Vanguard sounded stupid, scattered and unbelievable. Democratic Senators, I suggest you put your efforts there. This guy has been murder-boarded within an inch of his life and if he sounds stupid here, attack.

Alito Replies Don't Rock Status Quo

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 11, 2006; Page A14

On his first day of questioning from senators, Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. tried to send a reassuring message: The country may be at war, but Americans' personal privacy and civil liberties will be safe with me.

Under sharp questioning from Democrats and gentle prodding from Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, the federal appeals judge portrayed himself as a cautious, independent thinker who understands the judiciary's role as a check on presidents who overstep their constitutional authority.

"The Bill of Rights applies at all times," he told the committee. "And it's particularly important that we adhere to the Bill of Rights in times of national crisis because that's when there's the greatest temptation to depart from them."

In an otherwise low-key performance, Alito seemed to bristle only once, when Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) asked if Bush administration officials had helped sculpt his answers about the White House's use of the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on some communications inside the United States.

"Nobody has told me what to say," Alito snapped.

But, like nominees before him, Alito was short on specifics, refusing to explain how he would rule on issues that might come before the court.

The nominee had to walk a fine line: He could not renounce his past opinions; he could not openly agree with Democratic critics of the president who appointed him; and yet he had to show that, on the court, he would not merely act as a rubber-stamp for the president.

The discussion of executive authority reflected the changed political landscape since Oct. 31, when President Bush nominated Alito, 55, to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Initially, it appeared the battle over his nomination would shape up as a contest mainly over abortion, on which O'Connor has long held the balance of power within the court.

"Judge Alito, in 2000 you gave a speech to the Federalist Society which has been published. In that speech you gave an expansive view of an old and mostly discredited legal theory called "unitary executive." Would you please tell us what you meant by that and what it means to you now?"

"Judge Alito, in 1985 you said that you thought the Supreme Court had wrongly decided Roe v. Wade. Why did you think that? What do you think now? Why? If a woman is raped or incested by a relative, do you think she should be able to terminate an unwanted pregnancy? How would an unwanted pregnancy be different if a woman was impregnated in the course of a wanted relationship?"

Democrats, if you aren't taking your talking points from Chuck Schumer, you are idiots.

Iraq: The Deconstruction

Anthony Cordesman is the first voice I'm listening to this morning:

WASHINGTON, DC, United States (UPI) -- There is a grim lesson to learn from the evolution of the insurgency in Iraq.

It is a lesson that goes firmly against the American grain, but it is a natural corollary of limited war. If the course of the political and military struggle shows the United States that it cannot achieve the desired grand strategic outcome, it needs to accept the fact that the United States must find ways to terminate a counter-insurgency war. Defeat, withdrawal, and acceptance of an outcome less than victory are never desirable in limited war, but they are always acceptable. For all the arguments about prestige, trust, and deterrence, there is no point in pursuing a limited conflict when it becomes more costly than the objective is worth or when the probability of achieving that objective becomes too low.

This is a lesson that goes against American culture. The whole idea that the United States can be defeated is no more desirable for Americans than for anyone else, in fact, almost certainly less so. But when the United States lost in Vietnam it not only lived with the reality, it ultimately did not suffer from it. When the United States failed in Lebanon and Haiti, it failed at almost no perceptible cost. Exiting Somalia was not without consequences, but they were scarcely critical.

This does not mean that the United States should not stay in Iraq as long as it has a good chance of achieving acceptable objectives at an acceptable cost. But it does mean that the United States can afford to lose in Iraq, particularly for reasons that are frankly beyond its control and which the world will recognize as such. There is no point in 'staying the course' through a major Iraqi civil war, a catastrophic breakdown of the political process, or a government coming to power that simply asks us to leave. In all three cases, it isn`t a matter of winning or losing, but instead, facing a situation where conditions no longer exist for staying.

In the future, the United States will need to pay far more attention to the option of declaring that it is fighting a limited war for limited objectives if it really is a limited war. It may well need to fully explain what the limits to its goals and level of engagement are and develop a strategy for implementing, communicating and exploiting these limits. One mistake is to tell the host government, or the people you are fighting with, that your commitment is open-ended and that you can never leave; the incentive for responsibility vanishes with it.

Similarly, if you tell the American people and the world that a marginal strategic interest is vital, the world will sooner or later believe it, which is very dangerous if you have to leave or lose. You are better off saying you may lose, setting limits, and then winning, than claiming that you can`t lose, having no limits, and then losing. And this should not be a massive, innovative lesson, but it is one we simply do not seem prepared to learn.

The evolution of the insurgency in Iraq is yet another lesson in the fact that focusing on the military dimension of war is an almost certain path to grand strategic defeat in any serious conflict, and particularly in counter-insurgency. If the United States must engage in counter-insurgency warfare, and sometimes it must, then it needs to plan for both the complexity and cost of successful conflict termination and ensuring a favorable grand strategic outcome. It must prepare for the risk of long-term engagement and escalation, risks that will require more forces and resources; or it must otherwise set very clear limits to what it will do based on the limited grand strategic value of the outcome and act upon them -- regardless of short-term humanitarian costs.

The United States needs to prepare for, and execute, a full spectrum of conflict. That means doing much more than seeking to win a war militarily. It needs to have the ability to make a valid and sustainable national commitment in ideological and political terms. It must find ways of winning broad local and regional support; stability operations and nation building are the price of any meaningful counter-insurgency campaign.

Tony's been saying the same thing for over a year and he is probably the smartest strategician working in English these days. Does the Pentagon listen to him? The answer would be "no."

Liberal Blogging

Sorry for the long silence. I'm doing back to back conference calls with other liberal bloggers as we talk about how to coordinate our response to the nomination of Sam Alito to the high court. I'll have more stuff in the morning that you can print out and hand to your undecided friends, who then need to call their senators and their local papers. Let's just say the liberal blogsphere is really energized and starting to do some real coordination for the first time.

This is another one of those 18 hour days in the liberal blogosphere and the rest of the week is likely to be the same. Those of you requesting Melanie's evening recipes are likely to be a little frustrated this week. The hours after 6 PM are going to be working hours for me.

Let me re-iterate a point that Susie Madrak made to me this evening. When you see shit in the local paper which is clearly shit, don't call the reporter, who will do everything to make you feel happy over the phone. Call the editor. Editors HATE getting phone calls from readers and they have the power of the paycheck over reporters, who fear their editors.

The good news is that the liberal blogosphere is finally beginning to start coordinating. The even better news is that we are finally starting to listen to Susie, instead of the policy wonks at Dkos or the DSSC. You don't sell your ideas to blue collar voters by talking grad school ideas. You show them how they get hit in the pocketbook. When I was still working in the labor movement, I thought of this as "the wisdom of the street." It is long past time that the progressive movement got out of its head and down to the street level where most of us live. There is hope.

Chris Bowers and dkos are the usual dicks. Go there if you want the same old, same old. They are yesterday's news and clueless in the bargain. Middle america doesn't do law school, and what part of that do you not understand?

Melanie

Alito Week

The overwhelming impression that I get of Sam Alito is that he has a hard time remembering things, from his membership in CAP to which investments should cause him to recuse himself. This guy is just plain too sloppy to be on the Supreme Court.

Prediction: the Senate will break on party lines. Do the Dems have the stones to filibuster? This guy is worth it.

Serious Damage

GI Schmo
How low can Army recruiters go?
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Monday, Jan. 9, 2006, at 5:06 PM ET

Three months ago, I wrote that the war in Iraq was wrecking the U.S. Army, and since then the evidence has only mounted, steeply. Faced with repeated failures to meet its recruitment targets, the Army has had to lower its standards dramatically. First it relaxed restrictions against high-school drop-outs. Then it started letting in more applicants who score in the lowest third on the armed forces aptitude test—a group, known as Category IV recruits, who have been kept to exceedingly small numbers, as a matter of firm policy, for the past 20 years. (There is also a Category V—those who score in the lowest 10th percentile. They have always been ineligible for service in the armed forces and, presumably, always will be.)

The bad news is twofold. First, the number of Category IV recruits is starting to skyrocket. Second, a new study compellingly demonstrates that, in all realms of military activity, intelligence does matter. Smarter soldiers and units perform their tasks better; dumber ones do theirs worse.

Until just last year, the Army had no trouble attracting recruits and therefore no need to dip into the dregs. As late as 2004, fully 92 percent of new Army recruits had graduated high school and just 0.6 percent scored Category IV on the military aptitude test.

Then came the spiraling casualties in Iraq, the diminishing popularity of the war itself, and the subsequent crisis in recruitment.

In response to the tightening trends, on Sept. 20, 2005, the Defense Department released DoD Instruction 1145.01, which allows 4 percent of each year's recruits to be Category IV applicants—up from the 2 percent limit that had been in place since the mid-1980s. Even so, in October, the Army had such a hard time filling its slots that the floodgates had to be opened; 12 percent of that month's active-duty recruits were Category IV. November was another disastrous month; Army officials won't even say how many Cat IV applicants they took in, except to acknowledge that the percentage was in "double digits."

(These officials insist that they will stay within the 4 percent limit for the entire fiscal year, which runs from October 2005 through September 2006. But given the extremely high percentage of Cat IVs recruited in the fiscal year's first two months, this pledge may be impossible to keep. For the math on this point, click here.)

Some may wonder: So what? Can't someone who scores low on an aptitude test, even very low, go on to become a fine, competent soldier, especially after going through boot camp and training? No question. Some college drop-outs also end up doing very well in business and other professions. But in general, in the military no less than in the civilian world, the norm turns out to be otherwise.

In a RAND Corp. report commissioned by the office of the secretary of defense and published in 2005, military analyst Jennifer Cavanagh reviewed a spate of recent statistical studies on the various factors that determine military performance—experience, training, aptitude, and so forth—and concluded that aptitude is key. A force "made up of personnel with high AFQT [armed forces aptitude test] scores," Cavanagh writes, "contributes to a more effective and accurate team performance."

I've been telling you literally for years that Rummy has broken the Army. This is just another way in which it will take a decade or more in which to undue the damage he's done.

The Monster at our Door

Record Share Of Economy Is Spent on Health Care

By Marc Kaufman and Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, January 10, 2006; Page A01

Rising health care costs, already threatening many basic industries, now consume 16 percent of the nation's economic output -- the highest proportion ever, the government said yesterday in its latest calculation.

The nation's health care bill continued to grow substantially faster than inflation and wages, increasing by almost 8 percent in 2004, the most recent year with near-final numbers.

Spending for physicians and hospitals shot up considerably faster than in recent years, while drug costs grew at a slower rate than over the past decade.

Even as health care costs continue to escalate, however, many Americans -- especially minorities and the poor -- still do not receive high-quality care, according to two other federal reports yesterday. The quality of health care is improving slowly and some racial disparities are narrowing, the reports found, but gaps persist and Hispanics appear to be falling even further behind.

"We can do better," Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said at a Washington conference on racial and ethnic disparities in health care. "Disparities and inequities still exist. Outcomes vary. Treatments are not received equally."

Political, medical and economic leaders and experts have long warned that health care cost trends will gradually overwhelm the economy, and many companies now complain that employee and retiree health costs are making them less competitive. Yesterday's report added new reasons to worry.

The overall cost of health care -- everything from hospital and doctor bills to the cost of pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, insurance and nursing home and home-health care -- doubled from 1993 to 2004, said the report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. In 2004, the nation spent almost $140 billion more for health care than the year before.

In 1997, health care accounted for 13.6 percent of the gross domestic product.

"Americans rejected the tougher restrictions of managed care in the late 1990s, and yet they want all the latest advances in medical technology," said Drew Altman, president of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, which researches health issues. "Since government regulation of prices and services is not in the cards, the inevitable result is higher costs."

The health care increase of 7.9 percent in 2004 was almost three times the overall national inflation rate, which was 2.7 percent. The average hourly wage for workers in private companies was essentially unchanged that year, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

As you can see, I'm working on a theme here today. Given this economic reality, a pandemic infectious disease will bankrupt us. Add utter economic chaos to the social effects of a pandemic.

Scary News

Emergency Systems Ailing
Report Says Most States Are Ill Prepared for Medical Crises

By Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 10, 2006; A03

Few states are equipped to handle emergency medical crises such as a terrorist attack, a natural disaster or an influenza outbreak, according to an analysis being released today by the American College of Emergency Physicians.

The organization gave an overall grade of C-minus to emergency care in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, with more than half earning below-average scores in areas dealing with the availability of hospital beds and emergency specialists, immunization rates, injury-prevention programs, malpractice laws and sophistication of 911 telephone systems.

"A C-minus is horrible," said Angela Gardner, chair of the task force that prepared the first-ever analysis of emergency medical systems. "When my children come home with a C-minus, they get grounded."

Emergency care specialists such as Gardner said they expected to find some deficiencies in a field that has seen budget cuts and rising demand. But the panel was startled at how poorly prepared the nation is as a whole to manage trauma, whether in individual patients or in the event of a large-scale disaster.

"We have no capacity to handle a Hurricane Katrina or an avian flu outbreak," Gardner said in an interview yesterday. "We can barely handle a regular flu outbreak."

Analyzing publicly available data, the task force gave each state and the District an overall letter grade and ratings in four categories: access to emergency care, quality and patient safety, medical liability environment and public health and injury prevention.

No state received an A overall. California, Massachusetts, Connecticut and the District scored the highest, with overall ratings of B. "More than 80 percent of the states earned poor or near-failing grades," the report concluded. At the bottom, earning D grades, were Arkansas, Idaho and Utah, while Virginia scored a D-plus and Maryland got a B-minus.

Locally, the report illustrated how government action -- and inaction -- affect health care. The District nearly failed in the category of public health, largely because it lags far behind in government-funded programs for infants, the elderly and injured workers. Virginia's low grade overall was attributable primarily to a state malpractice system that has sent specialists fleeing to friendlier legal environments, Gardner said.

As a Virginia resident, this is disheartening news. I've had more experience with local emergency rooms than I care to think about.

Lurking Risk

A Killer Takes Wing
# For the avian flu to reach North America -- and there is no known way to stop it -- all it will take is an infected bird's migration.

By Karen Kaplan, Times Staff Writer

FAIRBANKS, Alaska — Beneath a dim morning sky, Jonathan Runstadler trudged across the ice with a long fiberglass tube, some gardening tools and a smattering of plastic lab bottles.

Months earlier, summer breezes had carried wild birds from Asia to this little pond. Now, with the temperature hovering at 9 degrees, Runstadler bored through the frozen surface in search of the seeds of a pandemic.

"Ground Zero is what's in birds," said the University of Alaska molecular biologist, who dropped hockey puck-shaped ice samples into a Ziploc bag.

This snowy patch of the Alaskan wilderness sits at the edge of a bird flu outbreak that emerged in Hong Kong in 1997 and has recently spread as far as Kazakhstan, Croatia and Siberia. The virus has ravaged farms in Thailand and felled wild birds from western China to Eastern Europe.

Turkey has become the latest hot spot, reporting at least two human deaths from bird flu since the start of the year — the first human cases outside Asia.

Since 2003, the virus has killed 76 people in its march across the globe, according to the World Health Organization. More than half died in the last year.

What Americans once viewed as a distant scourge is now just across the Bering Strait. If it arrives in North America, scientists expect to find it first in Alaska, a breeding ground for many migratory birds from Asia.

The bird flu virus, known as H5N1, is the culmination of random mutations and countless viral mixings, producing a strain of influenza completely unfamiliar to the human immune system.

It could be just a few more mutations away from being able to easily infect and spread among people — the raw ingredients needed to spark a global pandemic. Or it could evolve into a harmless strain.

Its future is uncertain.

The virus is not so different from the common flu that causes fevers and runny noses each winter. Yet it has provoked a degree of fear that belies its mundane origins.

Governments have slaughtered millions of chickens and other poultry. Hospitals are stockpiling Tamiflu and other antiviral medications. Scientists are racing to develop a vaccine.

In Alaska, scientists such as Runstadler are searching for traces of H5N1 in bird droppings left from the summer breeding season. They could be preserved in now-frozen water or soil.

"It's just a matter of time before H5N1 shows up everywhere," said George M. Happ, a biologist at the University of Alaska who is coordinating the state's pursuit of the virus.

As I've told the many journalists I've talked to in the last six months, I've been following H5N1 since 1997, when the first case of bird to human transmission was documented. I continue to follow it as a risk communicator because it represents the most substantial threat to public health now on the radar screen.

NPR had an extensive story on "Morning Edition" this morning on the possible social costs of an infectious disease pandemic which includes an excellent interview with John Barry, the author of The Great Influenza, which I cannot recommend too much.

UPDATE: If the Reveres are made uneasy by this situation, then I am, too.

Down the Road

Despite Advocacy, Alito Is Not on Public's Radar Screen

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 10, 2006; Page A06

Until Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) gaveled the confirmation hearings for Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to order yesterday, the battle over Alito's nomination had been a shouting match between partisans. Whether it ever engages the public now depends on the effectiveness of Alito and his Democratic interrogators.

To the advocates on both sides, the battle is described in drastic terms. "Judge," said Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), "this may be one of the most significant or consequential nominations that the Senate will vote on since I've been here in the last three decades."

Earlier in the day, an e-mail fundraising appeal went out from a prominent conservative under the heading "The nomination of Judge Samuel Alito is in serious trouble" -- though few believe that is the case.

The opening day of hearings signaled that Alito faces a far more adversarial process in winning a seat on the Supreme Court than did Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. On such issues as abortion, privacy, warrantless eavesdropping and the power of the presidency, the confluence of current events and Alito's record has given Democrats much to contest. Alito also faces greater scrutiny because he would replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the court's key swing voter.

But on this nomination, as with Roberts's, there has been a clear disconnect between the zeal of activists and the detachment of the general public. Tim Hibbits, an Oregon-based pollster, said the Alito nomination falls low on the public's list of priorities. "With the exception of highly energized base voters, it's not something that's engaged people," he said.

That could change, depending on how Alito conducts himself when the questioning begins today. But it is also possible that low-voltage confirmation hearings are becoming the norm, not the exception, despite the investment of activists to turn them into surrogate presidential campaigns. Former President Bill Clinton won overwhelming confirmation votes on his two nominees, and Roberts won 78 votes last fall when he was confirmed.

Because of the implications of President Bush's clear desire to move the court in a more conservative direction, many activists have predicted a clash this year akin to those that occurred over the nominations of Robert H. Bork and Clarence Thomas -- Bork's heavily freighted in ideology and Thomas's overwhelmed by accusations of sexual harassment.

It has not happened. One reason may be because the public considers these nominees differently than do the ideologues or both sides, looking at experience and demeanor more than at ideology. Or it may be because Alito's nomination has been overshadowed by more compelling issues, such as Iraq, the cost of home heating oil and natural gas or lobbyist Jack Abramoff's plea bargain. Whatever the reason, the public has been slow to engage.

In contrast, advocacy groups have participated in a high-decibel battle, using commercials, news conferences, television debates and op-ed articles -- pouncing on every years-old memo, statement or argument from Alito or from one another. Liberal groups openly opposed Alito days within days of his nomination. Conservatives, after splintering over Supreme Court nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers, have rallied behind a man they see as one of their own. Yesterday, activists picked apart the senators' opening statements as though they were monitoring a presidential debate.

But all the rhetoric has done little to polarize the public, even in an age in which sharp divisions are common. Not surprisingly, Republicans are generally united in favor of Alito's confirmation, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. More notable, given the possibility of a near party-line vote in the Senate, is that rank-and-file Democrats are almost evenly divided. The poll found that 40 percent of Democrats said Alito should be confirmed, while 39 percent said he should not. Self-identified liberals were almost as divided, with 38 percent saying they favor his confirmation and 44 percent saying they do not, with the rest undecided.

"A groundswell of opposition hasn't arisen," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for People and the Press, who said his organization's most recent poll showed that the Alito nomination is attracting minimal attention. "You're going to have to really get some significant news out of these hearings to move the needle in a negative way."

Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster, said three factors have helped defuse what many thought would be a huge fight: the holidays, the dominance of other issues, and the lack of an effective and overarching argument against Alito by Democrats.

The holiday break, she said, has worked to Alito's advantage. Rather than giving opponents time to organize, "it gave the public time to get complacent." Having heard little about Alito over the holidays, she said, many Americans have concluded, "What's to worry about?"

Ron Klain, who was a Clinton administration official, said presidents have learned from the fights over Bork and Thomas. "I think both President Clinton and now President Bush have learned lessons about how to present these nominees and how to set up these confirmation fights so as to try to defuse the opposition," he said. "That doesn't mean the opposition's necessarily going to be defused. . . . But clearly the proponents have advanced in their thinking about public presentation of nominees over where they were."

Baltz's analysis is basically correct. Unless the liberal advocacy groups hammer on privacy and Roe, this wingnut is going to the SCOTUS.

The Anti-Sam's Club

Witness For The ??

Republicans on the Senate judiciary committee have asked Cathy Fleming, the incoming president of the National Association of Women Lawyers, to testify on behalf of her former colleague, Judge Sam Alito.

Problem is: yesterday, the NALW refused to endorse Alito, writing that "[a]lthough Judge Alito's former law clerks and professional associates interviewed by NAWL generally reported that he has had positive and supportive working relationships with women and has appropriately hired women and promoted them to senior positions, Judge Alito's interpretation of statutes affecting women and their families further reflects a narrow reading of the requirements of those statutes to the detriment of women's rights."

National Association of Women Lawyers ('NAWL') Issues Evaluation of Judge Samuel A. Alito for the Position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court

CHICAGO, Jan. 8 /PRNewswire/ -- The National Association of Women Lawyers ("NAWL"), Committee for the Evaluation of Supreme Court Nominees, has evaluated Judge Samuel Alito for the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Committee has determined that Judge Alito is not qualified to serve on the Court from the perspective of laws and decisions regarding women's rights or that have a special impact on women. NAWL's rating of not qualified from a women's rights perspective is the result of its evaluation of Judge Alito's writings, including his judicial record. On those women's rights issues that he has addressed, Judge Alito has shown a disinclination to protect or advance women's rights. Our concern also recognizes that Judge Alito will be replacing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a decisive vote in a number of cases involving the rights of women and laws that have a special impact on women. Judge Alito's jurisprudence in the area of women's rights has not been restrained, as some have characterized his general judicial approach; rather, he has too often engaged in strained legal reasoning to effect a narrowing of women's rights beyond the intent of statutes and precedent.

Of primary concern to NAWL is Judge Alito's stance on women's reproductive
rights. Judge Alito's dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682
(3d Cir. 1991), is a pointed attack on the abortion right. Judge Alito argued
that married women should be compelled by law to notify their husbands of
their abortions. This conclusion-that women lack medical autonomy-was at odds
with the opinion of the Supreme Court in an earlier case, Thornburgh v.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986),
which affirmed Roe, condemning indirect constraints on a woman's right to
choose. Judge Alito was willing to require that Planned Parenthood take on
the impossible burden of proving the number of women who informed their
husbands of their intent to obtain abortions. In addition, he was willing to
ignore directly applicable Supreme Court precedent.

Empire and Excess

U of Michigan history prof Juan Cole offers some thoughts into the Alito hearings:

Great Justices Installed by Bush

As the Alito confirmation hearings begin, it is worth considering some of the judicial consquences of George W. Bush's various campaigns.

When the US overthrew the Taliban and installed the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, the Bush administration implied that everything had changed.

What few observers seem to have noticed is that Hamid Karzai immediately appointed as Afghanistan's chief justice, Fazal Hadi Shinwari, whose philosophy of life was little different from that of the Taliban!

One can only imagine that Bush, who kept thousands of troops in the country and oversaw the evolution of the Afghanistan government, had no objections to the man's judicial philosophy.

Among Shinwari's rulings:

Amputation of hands and stoning to death will continue to be the punishment for thieves and adulterers in post-Taliban Afghanistan, country’s new Chief Justice Fazal Hadi Shinwari was reported today as saying.

Afghan Chief Justice Bans Cable TV.

Afghan chief justice wants co-ed schools to be shut.

Fatwa for "Blasphemy" Journalists: The supreme court proposes the death penalty for two journalists who criticised Islamic practice.

Was all this to make his own nominees to the Supreme Court, who merely want to install a king-president over Americans, uphold the privileges of rich white males, and work against women's rights and one-person, one-vote rights for racial minorities, good in comparison?

All of this makes Alito's membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton look relatively mild, although some sort of weird echo of Bush's foreign policy.

The Reporters

In Ambush Lasting Seconds, U.S. Reporter in Iraq Becomes Hostage

By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, January 10, 2006; Page A01

BAGHDAD, Jan. 9 -- The call came from reporter Jill Carroll's cell phone, from a young, wary-sounding Iraqi man who said he had just picked up the phone from a sprawled body on a Baghdad street. "The person this phone belongs to was just killed," the caller said.

The caller was wrong. The body was that of interpreter Allan Enwiyah, 32, who had just become one of thousands of Iraqis to be killed in nearly three years of war in Iraq.

The phone belonged to Carroll, a 28-year-old freelance reporter with hennaed hair who minutes before had become the first female American journalist to be kidnapped in Iraq.

Carried off in the Red Toyota Cressida of her driver, who escaped unharmed, she became the latest of more than 400 foreigners and more than 30 journalists to be abducted in Iraq's pitiless violence. Thousands of Iraqis have been abducted in the same period. Numerous Westerners remain in captivity, including four members of the activist group Christian Peacemaker Teams who were taken late last year.

"All together, it didn't take 10 seconds," Carroll's driver said Monday night, two days after she was kidnapped in a west Baghdad neighborhood seen as heavily sympathetic to insurgents.

"I always talked to her, told her Iraq is a place where reporters don't feel comfortable now," the driver said. "She always said, 'No, if there is a place I feel comfortable in, it's Iraq.' "

Carroll, a native of Michigan, was on assignment for the Christian Science Monitor, a Boston-based daily newspaper that has long carried extensive overseas coverage. Carroll had come to the Middle East in October 2002 and reported for Jordanian, Italian and American news organizations, including for The Washington Post in Baghdad for a few weeks in early 2003.

Carroll's kidnapping occurred in the same part of Baghdad as that of Margaret Hassan, an aid official believed killed by her abductors in 2004. Numerous foreign men have been killed by their kidnappers since 2003; of the several Western women who have been kidnapped, Hassan is the only one believed to have died at the hands of her captors. Iraqi officials say as many as 30 Iraqis a day are reported kidnapped in Baghdad. The abductions are part of the rising lawlessness accompanying the country's political unrest. Some Iraqi hostages are freed for ransom gathered by friends and families; others are dumped out on roads, dead.

In a statement, the Monitor called Carroll an "established journalist" experienced in the Middle East. "In recent months, the Monitor has tapped into her professionalism, energy, and fair reporting on the Iraqi scene," the newspaper said. "It was her drive to gather direct and accurate views from political leaders that took her into western Baghdad's Adil neighborhood on Saturday morning.

And we wonder why we have difficulty getting good information?

Corporate America at Work

A friend forwarded me this link and I thought people would like to see it.

Double Trouble

By Don Oldenburg
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 8, 2006

Need a reminder to scrutinize all charges on your bills in the new year? Try this telling tele-tale:

After switching her long-distance calls to an Internet (VOIP) service recently, Jenifer Boadwine cut back her Verizon unlimited nationwide calling plan to a cheaper Verizon regional plan to save a few bucks.

But when the Olney home-mortgage consultant got her first Verizon bill after the switch, she was stumped. "It was actually higher than when I had all my long-distance calls included," Boadwine said.

Boadwine uses Verizon's automatic-payment plan and gets her monthly bill online. So it's a synopsis of the actual bill, which is difficult to scour line by line for errors. So she shrugged and figured it might have been one of those confusing "overlap bills" that prorate charges when you've changed calling plans or phone carriers. But her next Verizon bill again seemed too high -- again, by about $40 -- so she asked her fiance, Mark Stevenson, to investigate.

"He's a little more forthright than I am," the laid-back Boadwine said. "If there is a discrepancy, even a few dollars, Mark'll find it."

Digging into the details, Stevenson, a mechanical engineer, did a double take at what looked to him like a double charge. Verizon was billing his sweetie for the local plan, for the new regional plan and also for a la carte services that are included in the regional plan. Sorry, wrong numbers!

He called Verizon to complain. "The customer service representative said that they knew they've been having an issue with their system double-billing," Stevenson said. "When I asked if they were taking any steps to remedy this by notifying their customers . . . or refunding money, they simply said 'no,' that most people call when they notice that they're being overcharged."

Verizon refunded Boadwine's overcharges, but Stevenson was troubled by the company's apparent laissez-faire attitude of overlooking erroneous charges unless customers notice and complain. "These days people are so busy. . . . I'm sure there are a large number of customers who wouldn't realize they're being ripped off month after month by their phone company," he said.

When the Consummate Consumer asked Verizon about the overcharge, Harry Mitchell, director of Verizon's Mid-Atlantic Bureau, investigated and found that "a system problem" had indeed caused incorrect billing -- and not just on Boadwine's bill. "About 150 other customers," specifically in the mid-Atlantic area, were affected, said Mitchell, adding that, overall, there are 4 million Verizon customers in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and the District.

While he dared not say it and risk anyone thinking that Verizon doesn't care about those 150 customers, the implication of course is that 150 out of 4 million is a drop in the bucket. Which is true -- unless you're the drop.

Welcome to monopoly world. This is what happens when everyone can merge together and there is less of a need to provide "service" to the customers. If you combine that with the simplified versions of the online bills that most companies want you to use, and it's amazing what type of mistakes can creep in.

I knew there was a reason why I like receiving paper bills...

The Details

This is some French Cooking 101. Mirepoix and duxelles should be in a slide lock bag in everybody's freezer. Freeze them down in tablespoon amounts in an icecube tray and you have a quick hit of flavor to add to soups, stews, gravies, omelettes or just about anything else you can think of. This is a cheap and good way to boost your cooking

Mirepoix

Mirepoix is a classic culinary term for a mixture of equal amounts of finely diced carrot, onion, and celery, often seasoned with minced herbs, and Sauteed in butter until just softened. Occasionally, cubes of ham or bacon are added to the vegetables to impart a richer flavor. A mirepoix is used either to season stews, soups, sauces, and fricasses or as a base for braising meats or fish. In this recipe, mirepoix refers to equal parts of finely diced carrot, onion, and celery.

I don't use meat with these so that I can use them with vegan recipes for vegan friends. I'm a carnivore, now and again, but not all of my friends are. Mirepoix don't suffer for the lack of meat.

Carrot, onion and celery are considered "the aromatic vegetables" which make any dish more interesting.

Duxelles

Another condensed flavor you can freeze down in ice cube trays and add a tablespoon at a time. This is so good that it almost hurts.

Duxelles is a mixture of finely chopped mushrooms, shallots and herbs cooked in butter. It is used to flavor soups and sauces, as a garnish, and a stuffing. Take a thinly pounded pork chop, veal or chicken cutlet, or even a flank steak. Spoon the precooked duxelles down the center. Roll the meat and then sauté or roast it.

8 oz. finely chopped mushrooms
1 shallot, finely chopped
Butter as needed
Parsley, chopped to taste
Salt and pepper to taste

Sauté the mushrooms and shallot in butter until the mushrooms are browned. Season with the parsley, salt and pepper.

Store this in your freezer. Take it out a cube at a time to season whatever it is you are cooking. It will work. Add into a garlic butter for Chicken Kiev and you will astonish your guests. Serve enough rice to soak up all the juices. Uh huh. Oh, yeah.

Poison Pet Food. Once Again.

After Recall of Food, Veterinarians at Cornell University Rush to Save Poisoned Dogs

By MICHELLE YORK
Published: January 9, 2006

ITHACA, N.Y., Jan. 7 - On Friday morning, when their 4-year-old golden retriever, Minnie, was near death, Robert and Janice Lugo called in sick to their jobs, carried Minnie to their car and drove her to a top animal hospital four hours away.

They were in such a rush that Mr. Lugo left his winter coat back at their home in Catskill, N.Y. But he took his credit cards, which he figured he would need to pay for what could be thousands of dollars in veterinary bills.

It is the Lugos' last effort to save Minnie from liver disease brought on, veterinarians said, by pet food contaminated with a stealthy toxin. "She trusted us, and we fed her poison," Mrs. Lugo said, crying.

On Dec. 20, Diamond Pet Food, a Missouri company that sells its products internationally, voluntarily recalled 800,000 bags of pet food under several labels after an investigation. Based on lab tests, company officials believe that 1 to 3 percent of those bags contain dangerous amounts of aflatoxin, a poisonous byproduct of a fungus that grows on corn and other crops. When ingested in high amounts, aflatoxin causes potentially fatal liver disease. The recall included both cat and dog food, though dogs seem to be more susceptible.

"I'm hoping and praying that we got those bags back," said Mark Brinkmann, the company's chief operating officer.

You really don't want to know what I would prefer that the CEO in question gets back. Really.

This is an old, old, old issue.

I adopted my first cat more than 30 years ago. Fortuitously, an edition of the monthly magazine "Consumer Reports" came out at almost exactly that same time, and discussed, in detail, the minefield Americans refer to, in blissful ignorance, as "department store pet food".

They designed their tests such that sustained weight loss over a period of several weeks was a-priori grounds for a failing grade, and the test animal was switched to a "known-good" food posthaste.

Even so, they lost some test animals.

That was in 1972.

I used one of the top-rated dry foods in that report until 1996. At which point, one of my cats developed a urinary tract infection. Due to the pet food: too much ash, hence crystals in the urine, hence the UTI. The vets did the urinalysis and had the smoking gun down in black and white.

I never went back to that dry food or any other that could be obtained in a supermarket.

Two months ago, my three year old female came down with the same thing. With the same root cause. This was a premium food that had come well-recommended, and NOT by some industry shill.

So now all three of mine are on prescription cat foods.

It really escapes me as to just what level of assurance we can expect from any vendor out there, period, end of sentence, when stories like this just keep recurring over and over again.

Everybody moans and wrings their hands, so the presstitutes can duly "report" that notice has been taken.

But nothing is ever, ever done to clean this industry up. And I guess nothing ever will be. Until such time as the government in this country is something other than an extension of the business oligarchy, whose decisions are what frames actual public policy.

Revisiting the Death Penalty

I find the death penalty a hard issue to tackle. One the one hand, I personally have no problem if the state wants to excecute someone who has committed a ghastly crime... those people should be few and far between. On the other hand, I think that the death penalty should be imposed fairly and if it is not being handled that way, it should be suspended until things change. Here is a case in point:

Case is a first for high court

Charles Lane, The Washington Post
Jan 09, 2006

It has been nearly two decades since the body of Carolyn Muncey was discovered under some brush, just 100 yards from her small cabin in this Appalachian hamlet. The 29-year-old mother of two had been savagely beaten, and her death shook a tiny tobacco-growing community to its roots.
Not long after her slaying, authorities charged Paul Gregory House, a paroled rapist from Utah who lived nearby, with murder. In February 1986, a jury convicted him and sentenced him to death.

Long after the trial, DNA tests proved that body fluids on Muncey's clothes belonged not to House, as authorities had thought and told the jury, but to the victim's husband, Hubert Muncey Jr.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in House's case, the first in which a death row inmate has come to the high court with DNA evidence claiming innocence.

The justices' intervention takes place at a time when DNA evidence might be changing how Americans think about criminal justice, including the death penalty. Last week, Virginia Democratic Gov. Mark Warner ordered DNA testing in the case of a man executed in 1992, to see whether he was wrongly put to death.
The Supreme Court has never squarely ruled that executing an innocent person is unconstitutional. Appellate courts do not usually concern themselves with new evidence, instead focusing on whether a defendant received a fair trial.

House's attorneys want the court to rule that, in the age of DNA testing, the Constitution guarantees those with particularly strong claims of innocence a chance to seek a new trial, even if the normal appeals process has run out.

At a minimum, they say, House is entitled to a new hearing under existing court precedent, which allows death row prisoners with strong claims of innocence to raise separate constitutional issues that would otherwise be barred.

Tennessee officials argue that House's case is about a duly convicted killer denying the people of Luttrell justice for Muncey's death. Although DNA testing may have knocked a hole in the state's case, they argue, that case's foundations are still solid.

As more and more studies come out that show the death penalty falls disproportionally on the backs of minorities and the poor, doesn't it make sense to use the latest in technology to be sure that the person who you want to excecute actually committed the crime in the first place?

Now I don't know much about this particular case, but given the moritoriums that took place in Illinois and thefact that even North Carolina started to talk about one, shouldn't the government be a little less enthusiastic to kill one of its citizens?

Devolution

Attack at Heavily Secured Iraqi Ministry Kills at Least 18

By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
and JOHN O'NEIL
Published: January 9, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 9 - In the latest in a series of brazen attacks in the heart of Baghdad's heavily fortified government zone, two suicide bombers disguised as high-ranking police officers blew themselves up outside the Interior Ministry today, killing at least 18 officers and wounding 25.

The attack came during a parade to mark Police Day that was attended by the Iraqi ministers of the interior and defense and by the American ambassador, an official of the Interior Ministry said.

Last week, a similar ceremony on a parade ground in the government zone to mark the country's Army Day was disrupted by mortar fire. No one was injured in the attack on that ceremony, which was also attended by the American ambassador, Zalmay Khalizad.

One of the bombers who carried out today's attack was disguised as a police major and the other as a lieutenant colonel, according to an official at the Interior Ministry. They both were wearing explosive belts under their uniforms.

Both had high-level security passes that enabled them to get through a checkpoint and into the heavily guarded Interior Ministry compound, according to news agency reports.

Guards became suspicious of one of the men because of his bulk and fired on him, detonating the explosive. As officers crowded around, the second bomber blew himself up, causing heavy casualties, according to the reports, which put the number of dead as high as 28.

Later, a mortar shell was fired at the ceremony as it proceeded on the nearby parade ground, but no injuries were reported.

Al Qaeda in Iraq claimed responsibility for the attack, according to news agencies. The Associated Press reported that a Web site that the group's leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, has often used to issue statements carried a claim of responsibility and described the attack as revenge for acts of torture against captured insurgents.

American soldiers shut down a detention center run by the Interior Ministry late last year, after discovering that prisoners appeared to be mistreated. An investigation into charges of torture, which the Interior Ministry denies, is continuing.

This is spinning out of control.

Unitary Executive

The Alito hearings
Judge Samuel Alito's position on Roe vs. Wade should not be the focus of this week's proceedings, but rather his views on executive power.

A [St. Petersburg]Times Editorial
Published January 9, 2006

The Senate Judiciary Committee begins hearings today on the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito Jr. to the U.S. Supreme Court. There is more at stake with this nomination than the selection last year of John Roberts as the new chief justice. Alito has been nominated to replace the court's centrist and swing vote, retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. But his record as an appellate court judge and a Reagan Justice Department lawyer suggests he is not in O'Connor's mold and would pull the court to the right in some areas. The central question of the hearings: How far to the right would Alito take the court?

Just as in the Roberts confirmation proceedings, the attention of most special interest groups has focused on Alito's views o n Roe vs. Wade, the decision legalizing abortion. During Alito's 15 years on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, he considered the abortion issue at least twice. In one case he voted to approve a spousal notification requirement that the Supreme Court ultimately disallowed, and in another Alito voted to strike down a law that banned so-called "partial-birth abortion," after the Supreme Court had similarly ruled.

This might seem like an even split, but some of his writings while at the Justice Department laying out an incremental strategy for eroding abortion rights raise questions about his constitutional view on this issue. Even so, the committee should not let this issue hijack the proceedings. There are more momentous issues deserving of its attention.

Since the terror attacks of 9/11, President Bush has been asserting sweeping new powers as commander in chief - powers that rival a monarch's in some cases. Most recently it was discovered that Bush approved a domestic surveillance program authorizing the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without court approval. Alito, if confirmed, would very likely be called upon to rule on the limits of presidential authority.

O'Connor wrote that "a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens." But Alito has demonstrated exceeding deference to executive power.

In a November 2000 speech, Alito spoke approvingly of the "unitary executive" concept in which the president enjoys expansive authority under the Constitution. Bush has asserted this interpretation of our founding document as a basis for his arrogation of power. Alito said in his remarks at the time that he agreed with the unitary executive theory when he worked in the Justice Department and still does. Also, while Alito was in the Justice Department, he proposed the expanded use of presidential signing statements - expressions of the president's interpretation of the statute he's signing. To the detriment of Congress, signing statements would "increase the power of the executive to shape the law," Alito wrote in a 1986 memo.

There are a lot of things which scare the hell out of me about this nominee and that last graph outlines the most frightening aspect of his writings and speeches. We currently have a president who reserves the right to wiretap American citizens and who overrules the law of the land and and treaties approved by the Senate to approve torture. Anyone who believes that the framers of the Constitution enshrined a balance of powers between three co-equal branches of government should oppose this nominee.

I'll be watching the hearing this week and live blogging them if I hear things worthy of your immediate attention.

Poor Me

Bremer: Request for More Troops Was Ignored

From Reuters

WASHINGTON — L. Paul Bremer III, who led the U.S. civilian occupation authority in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, said he had urged President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to increase postwar troop strength in the country, but his pleas were ignored.

In an interview on NBC Television broadcast Sunday night, Bremer said he sent a memo to Rumsfeld suggesting that half a million soldiers would be needed, three times the number deployed by the Bush administration.

"I never had any reaction from him," the former diplomat told NBC's Brian Williams on "Dateline."

Although he never heard back from his direct boss, Bremer said he discussed his concerns with Bush, who told him he would seek troops from other countries, but did not mention increasing U.S. forces.

Bremer thought the Pentagon painted a false picture of the capability of the Iraqi force that would take over when the Americans departed.

"I raised my concerns about the numbers and quality of these [Iraqi] forces — really right from the beginning," he said.

Asked why he did not go public with his concerns, Bremer defended what he considered his obligation to "tell the president what you think ... in private, through the appropriate channels, as I tried to do."

Bremer's remarks echoed those he made in a 2004 speech, in which he said, "We never had enough troops on the ground" after the fall of Baghdad.

Bremer's book comes out this week. Given what a self-serving asshole he is, I take all of this with enough salt for an entire pot of soup.

If We Feel Like It

Via my old friend Lex:

Bush could bypass new torture ban
Waiver right is reserved

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | January 4, 2006

WASHINGTON -- When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.

After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.

''The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

Some legal specialists said yesterday that the president's signing statement, which was posted on the White House website but had gone unnoticed over the New Year's weekend, raises serious questions about whether he intends to follow the law.

A senior administration official, who spoke to a Globe reporter about the statement on condition of anonymity because he is not an official spokesman, said the president intended to reserve the right to use harsher methods in special situations involving national security.

''We are not going to ignore this law," the official said, noting that Bush, when signing laws, routinely issues signing statements saying he will construe them consistent with his own constitutional authority. ''We consider it a valid statute. We consider ourselves bound by the prohibition on cruel, unusual, and degrading treatment."

But, the official said, a situation could arise in which Bush may have to waive the law's restrictions to carry out his responsibilities to protect national security. He cited as an example a ''ticking time bomb" scenario, in which a detainee is believed to have information that could prevent a planned terrorist attack.

In other words, if we cross our fingers behind our back it isn't really a law. So there.

Selling Washington

President Bush at Recess

Published: January 9, 2006

It is disturbing that President Bush has exhibited a grandiose vision of executive power that leaves little room for public debate, the concerns of the minority party or the supervisory powers of the courts. But it is just plain baffling to watch him take the same regal attitude toward a Congress in which his party holds solid majorities in both houses. .... Modern presidents have employed this power to place nominees who ran into political trouble in the Senate. Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton made scores of recess appointments. But both of them faced a Congress controlled by the opposition party, while the Senate has been under Republican control for Mr. Bush's entire five years in office.

In some cases, Mr. Bush has used the recess appointment power to rescue egregiously bad selections that would never pass muster on grounds of experience and competence. (Remember last year's recess appointment of the undiplomatic and Congressionally unacceptable John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations.) In other cases, he has merely sought to avoid logjams that the White House created for itself by refusing to accommodate reasonable Democratic requests for information, documents and consultation.

Among those Mr. Bush unilaterally elevated to important posts this time around was Julie Myers, a government lawyer with ultrathin credentials whom Mr. Bush appointed to head the 15,000-person Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, the government's second largest investigative force.

Also on the list was Ellen Sauerbrey, the unqualified political crony Mr. Bush chose to head the billion-dollar-a-year State Department office that helps coordinate emergency relief efforts for refugees abroad, and whose nomination had stalled for just cause in the Foreign Relations Committee.

Mr. Bush also bypassed Senate hearings on a new deputy defense secretary and for three of the six seats on the Federal Election Commission. The election commission appointees include Hans von Spakovsky, a Justice Department lawyer who overrode the objection of career lawyers to gain approval of a Georgia voter identification plan almost certain to harm black voters.

The White House regularly accuses Senate Democrats of unfairly blocking the president's nominees, and it is true that one determined senator can freeze an appointment. But Mr. Bush's record in this area owes less to unreasonable Democrats than to the low caliber of some of his choices, his disinterest in bipartisan consensus and his aversion to any form of accountability, whether to the Senate, the courts or the public.

It's all about the buddies, NYT. Viewing the public trough as a place for the faithful to feed is just another form of animal husbandry.

"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."

The Week Ahead

The New York Times offers a program for viewing the Alito hearings this week. You can watch C-Span's coverage here starting at 12 noon EST today.

Issues and (Possible) Answers: A Primer on the Alito Hearings

By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: January 9, 2006

WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 - When Judge John G. Roberts Jr. appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee in September for hearings on his nomination to the Supreme Court, all of the participants were largely improvising. It had been 11 years since the last nomination, and the legal landscape, political climate and very state of the world had changed so radically that the old templates were of little use.

Live video of the confirmation hearings and a blog by The Times's David D. Kirkpatrick will be available beginning at noon Monday.

Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., on the other hand, will have a fresh road map from the Roberts hearings when he sits to face the committee Monday for his own confirmation hearings. The topics to be covered, the nature and tenor of the senators' questions, and the limits on what Judge Alito will be willing to answer will almost certainly follow the path cut in September.

But there will be distinct differences, too. Judge Roberts replaced Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, meaning that his nomination was a one-for-one, conservative-for-conservative swap. If Judge Alito is confirmed, he will replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whose vote was often the fulcrum on which the Rehnquist court's decisions turned.

Judge Roberts's judicial record was, moreover, comparatively thin, a product of less than two years as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Judge Alito, by contrast, has produced hundreds of opinions in his 15 years on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia. Unlike Judge Roberts, he has written at length on some of the most contentious issues of the day.

Judge Roberts was asked only a few questions about what has since become a burning issue: the scope of executive power. Several senators say they will question Judge Alito closely on the legal implications of the recently disclosed domestic surveillance program.

With the lessons of the Roberts hearings as a guide, then, here is a primer on the questions Judge Alito is likely to face and how he may be expected to answer.

Abortion

Supreme Court confirmation hearings employ a sort of code when it comes to abortion. Since nominees typically refuse to divulge their views about what the Constitution has to say on the subject, on the grounds that the issue may come before them, senators tend to ask instead about privacy and about precedent.

Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that found a constitutional right to abortion, was largely based on the right to privacy described in a 1965 case, Griswold v. Connecticut. Senators eager to tease out some information about the fate of Roe ask instead about the validity of Griswold.

The Griswold case, which struck down a law making the use of contraceptives illegal, found a constitutional right to privacy in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of various provisions of the Bill of Rights.

Judge Robert H. Bork's harsh criticism of Griswold in his academic writings and his skepticism about the nature and scope of a constitutional right to privacy at his confirmation hearings helped doom his nomination in 1987.

A second proxy for abortion is precedent. Senator Arlen Specter, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a supporter of abortion rights, pressed Judge Roberts, for instance, on whether the Supreme Court's reaffirmation of the core abortion right in a 1992 case, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, made Roe a "super-duper precedent."

Judge Roberts did not adopt Mr. Specter's language and listed several factors on each side of the general question of when precedents should be overruled, many drawn from Casey itself.

Judge Alito may find it harder to take refuge in Casey's discussion of precedent, as the case presents something of a minefield for him. He participated in it as an appeals court judge, dissenting in 1991 from a ruling striking down a Pennsylvania law that required married women to notify their husbands before having an abortion. The Supreme Court disagreed with him in a 5-to-4 ruling the next year.

Though Judge Alito's decision in Casey was careful, technical and reflected an effort to interpret the Supreme Court's confusing abortion jurisprudence at the time, the fact that he found himself on the losing side of the most important abortion case since Roe will doubtless prompt many questions.

Think Progress has more. The NYT piece misses the really troubling stuff.

Going Away

Polar Bears Face New Toxic Threat: Flame Retardants

By Marla Cone, Times Staff Writer

Already imperiled by melting ice and a brew of toxic chemicals, polar bears throughout the Arctic, particularly in remote dens near the North Pole, face an additional threat as flame retardants originating largely in the United States are building up in their bodies, according to an international team of wildlife scientists.

The flame retardants are one of the newest additions to hundreds of industrial compounds and pesticides carried to the Arctic by northbound winds and ocean currents. Accumulating in the fatty tissues of animals, many chemicals grow more concentrated as larger creatures eat smaller ones, turning the Arctic's top predators and native people into some of the most contaminated living organisms on Earth.

In urban areas, particularly in North America, researchers already have shown that levels of flame retardants called polybrominated diphenyls, or PBDEs, are growing at a rapid pace in people and wildlife. Although they have been found in much lower concentrations in the Arctic, scientists say their toxic legacy will persist there for years because they are slow to break down, particularly in cold climates.

In polar bears, the effects are unknown. But in tests on laboratory animals, PBDEs disrupted thyroid and sex hormones and damaged developing brains, impairing motor skills and mental abilities, including memory and learning.

Scientists say that other industrial chemicals with properties similar to PBDEs are already weakening the bears' immune systems, altering their bone structure, skewing their sex hormones and perhaps even causing small numbers of hermaphroditic bears.

What remains uncertain, however, is whether those physiological changes are killing bears or reducing their populations. Some experts suspect that many cubs, which are contaminated by their mother's milk, are not surviving.

An even more immediate threat to the world's 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears is global climate change, which is melting their hunting grounds. Bears in Canada's western Hudson Bay — the most well-researched population — declined from 1,100 in 1995 to fewer than 950 in 2004. In Alaska, wildlife biologists for the first time have documented that polar bears are drowning. Scientists predict that some populations could become extinct by the end of the century as more sea ice melts.

Derek Muir of Canada's National Water Research Institute, who led the new research, said the geographical patterns in contamination suggest that the East Coast of North America and northwestern Europe are the primary sources of the flame retardants.

Our planet grows smaller and meaner. This is not a good thing.

IBM Says "Fuck You" To Workers

More Companies Ending Promises for Retirement

By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH
Published: January 9, 2006

The death knell for the traditional company pension has been tolling for some time now. Companies in ailing industries like steel, airlines and auto parts have thrown themselves into bankruptcy and turned over their ruined pension plans to the federal government.

Now, with the recent announcements of pension freezes by some of the cream of corporate America - Verizon, Lockheed Martin, Motorola and, just last week, I.B.M. - the bell is tolling even louder. Even strong, stable companies with the means to operate a pension plan are facing longer worker lifespans, looming regulatory and accounting changes and, most important, heightened global competition. Some are deciding they either cannot, or will not, keep making the decades-long promises that a pension plan involves.

I.B.M. was once a standard-bearer for corporate America's compact with its workers, paying for medical expenses, country clubs and lavish Christmas parties for the children. It also rewarded long-serving employees with a guaranteed monthly stipend from retirement until death.

Most of those perks have long since been scaled back at I.B.M. and elsewhere, but the pension freeze is the latest sign that today's workers are, to a much greater extent, on their own. Companies now emphasize 401(k) plans, which leave workers responsible for ensuring that they have adequate funds for retirement and expose them to the vagaries of the financial markets.

"I.B.M. has, over the last couple of generations, defined an employer's responsibility to its employees," said Peter Capelli, a professor of management at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. "It paved the way for this kind of swap of loyalty for security."

Mr. Capelli called the switch from a pension plan to a 401(k) program "the most visible manifestation of the shifting of risk onto employees." He added: "People just have to deal with a lot more risk in their lives, because all these things that used to be more or less assured - a job, health care, a pension - are now variable."

I.B.M. said it is discontinuing its pension plan for competitive reasons, and that it plans to set up an unusually rich 401(k) plan as a replacement. The company is also trying to protect its own financial health and avoid the fate of companies like General Motors that have been burdened by pension costs. Freezing the pension plan can reduce the impact of external forces like interest-rate changes, which have made the plan cost much more than expected.

"It's the prudent, responsible thing to do right now," said J. Randall MacDonald, I.B.M.'s senior vice president for human resources. He said the new plan would "far exceed any average benchmark" in its attractiveness.

Pension advocates said they were dismayed that rich and powerful companies like I.B.M. and Verizon would abandon traditional pensions.

"With Verizon, we're talking about a company at the top of its game," said Karen Friedman, director of policy studies for the Pension Rights Center, an advocacy group in Washington. "They have a huge profit. Their C.E.O. has given himself a huge compensation package. And then they're saying, 'In order to compete, sorry, we have to freeze the pensions.' If companies freeze the pensions, what are employees left with?"

All this while compensation packages for the executive suite grow ever sweeter. When you are making $4 million a year, your pension isn't on the top of your worry list, is it? When you leave you'll get a golden handshake worth $25 million, unlike the little people you manage, whose pension sell out will leave them destitute, But, hey , it's good business and turns a profit for the shareholders. And the only thing which matters is what Wall Street thinks.

These are the bastards who are running America right now, and George W. Bush iis their chief shill. Of course, he has his millions and his friends already covered. And someplace around 40% of the country still thinks he is a plainspoken guy who has their interests at heart.

Since Americans are so easy to scam, I'm going to take a few weeks off this year to work out my scam to turn a few $million and retire. Americans appear to be easy marks.

Celebrating the Blogosphere

My colleague Jordan Barab has some pointed things to say about mine safety and the Bush administration and the Sago mine disaster. In fact, just go read Jordan first of all on any occupational safety and health issue. He's an expert. It's pretty depressing reading, however.

* Bush Administration Dropped Mine Rescue Improvement Regulation in 2002 * Are Sago Families The Latest Victims of Bush Administration's Public Affairs Policies? * Disgusting Politicization * The Press and The Truth At Sago * MSHA To Mine Companies: Don't Worry, This Won't Hurt Any More Than A Speeding Ticket * Mine Safety: Bush Administration to the Rescue? * Mine Safety Watch Is Back * Behind the Mine Disaster * 13 Miners Trapped A Mile Underground Following Explosion

All with links, and he has a full time job elsewhere and a family at home. No, I don't know how he does it.

Military Waste

Experts blast Osprey buggy

Joseph Neff, Staff Write
News and Observer
Jan 08, 2006

To get firepower into battle, the Marines will soon start using the V-22 Osprey, a tilt-rotor aircraft that costs $110 million each, as an aerial taxi for troops.

The futuristic craft will also transport a vehicle that looks a lot like a Vietnam-era jeep. But this model, a modified dune buggy, costs $127,000 each and doesn't have armor. Some experts worry that it is vulnerable to attack, too slow and too prone to rolling over, making it dangerous in combat.

"It's crappy," said Ralph Bicknell, a retired Marine and automotive engineer from West Olive, Mich., who designed a vehicle and mortar system but didn't bid on the project.

The shortcomings of the new vehicle, called the Growler, are just the latest problem for the Osprey. The military has worked for two decades to develop the aircraft, but four crashes and a host of design and safety concerns have kept the planes out of action.

Recently the Pentagon said most of the Osprey's problems have been fixed and gave the thumbs up for full production. The military wants to spend $50.5 billion on 454 Ospreys and plans to deploy them in 2007.

The Marine Corps plans to spend $300 million for a fleet of mortars and the Growlers to tow them and carry troops.

The Army and Marines typically use Humvees for these types of missions. But the Humvee won't work with the Osprey because of the V-22's narrow cabin and limited lifting power. The Osprey flies as both helicopter and airplane, a feature with a trade-off: It flies much faster than a helicopter with the same weight and horsepower, the CH53E Sea Stallion; but it can carry only half the weight. The Sea Stallions cost $22 million each in 1994, when they were last built.

The Growler was chosen because it fits into the Osprey's cabin. It will take two Ospreys to fly in one mortar with 30 rounds of ammunition and six Marines to operate the system. One Sea Stallion could handle the same load, though slower.

The logistics don't make much sense, according to Bill Cowan, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel and counterterrorism expert who served three combat tours in Vietnam.

"This is just nuts," said Cowan, now a defense consultant who lives in northern Virginia. "This is no way to bring firepower to the troops who need it."

I'm not going to steal the thunder from this excellent article by including more of it, but you need to read it. Then forward it to each one of your patriotic, "conservative" Republicans and ask them how this type of waste and incompetence is allowed while we can't afford to get decent body armour to our troops in harms way.

And the greatest part... just about everyone involved with this project knows what a boondoogle it is. The local media here has reported on it for years and this reported did a nice job of summarizing the long and tortured history of this project.

Is it wrong for me to agree with Eisenhower about the military industrial complex? He certainly was not someone who was "soft" on foreign affairs. While we are at it, would it be asking too much to get some Congressional oversight in to what in the #@!$% is going on at the Pentagon? I think Congress needs to point out that "Trust us." doesn't work well anymore. After all, as my friends at work like to remind me, it's OUR money they are wasting.

A plan of Action

All Parts of City in Rebuild Plan of New Orleans

By GARY RIVLIN
Published: January 8, 2006

NEW ORLEANS, Jan. 7 - The city's official blueprint for redevelopment after Hurricane Katrina, to be released on Wednesday, will recommend that residents be allowed to return and rebuild anywhere they like, no matter how damaged or vulnerable the neighborhood, according to several members of the mayor's rebuilding commission.

The proposal appears to put the city's rebuilding panel on a collision course with its state counterpart, which will control at least some of the flow of federal rebuilding money to the city.

The primary author of the plan, Joseph C. Canizaro, said teams of outside experts would try to help residents of each neighborhood decide whether to rebuild or relocate. Those teams would help increase the odds of success for those residents who decided to return, Mr. Canizaro said.

The commission will propose that the city should discourage homeowners from rebuilding in the hardest hit areas until a plan can be hammered out, but will not forbid them from doing so.

But ultimately, the areas that fail to attract a critical mass of residents in 12 months will probably not survive as residential neighborhoods, Mr. Canizaro said, and are likely to end up as marshland as the city's population declines and its footprint shrinks.

People who rebuild in those areas will be forced to leave, according to the proposal. Though such a requirement would be emotionally wrenching, the commission will propose a buyout program to compensate those people at the market price before Hurricane Katrina, but it is not clear whether there will be federal financing for such a program.

Assuming the commission's recommendations are formally adopted by Mayor C. Ray Nagin, the plan will defer for a year one of the most contentious issues in the city's struggle to recover from the flooding that followed the hurricane: the fate of the most heavily damaged and flood-prone neighborhoods.

Many residents of low-lying neighborhoods like the Lower Ninth Ward and New Orleans East have said they are determined to rebuild their ravaged blocks, while some experts have argued that such areas are better returned to marshland for safety and economic reasons. Some civic leaders who had hoped the mayor's panel, the 17-member Bring Back New Orleans Commission, would take a firm stand on the issue expressed disappointment.

........

Mr. Canizaro, a prominent real estate developer here, acknowledged the possibility that Hurricane Katrina could spell the death of more than one New Orleans neighborhood. He cited a study by the Rand Corporation that estimated that in three years the city would have a population of no more than 275,000, down more than 40 percent from its pre-hurricane population of 465,000.

"It doesn't take a genius to figure if you're only going to have 40 or 50 percent of your original population, then there's going to be shrinking in the amount of land that's going to be needed," Mr. Canizaro said.

This is a long article on some of the ideas that are being tossed around to rebuild the city. Mr. Canizaro is correct that for now, the population of the city will be much lower. The fact that many of the neighborhoods that will be demolished are African-American will make this difficult project much harder. I hope that the involvement of many community leaders will make this transition less painful and can encourage the citizens to establish new communities within their city.

Of course, the drop in population could change in the long term if New Orleans is able to bring in new industry and high tech businesses to provide economic opportunies that were not present in New Orleans pre-Katrina.

One of the ideas that is mentioned in this article is worth highlighting:

The final report, as described by several commissioners, will include several ideas designed to stimulate the city's economy and culture, including a proposal to construct a light rail system and a plan to establish New Orleans as a world center of neuroscience research.

This is the type of visionary thinking, whether you agree with it or not (light rail?), that needs to be persued. The city already has some excellent universities that can feed dollars and people into these project. It's certainly a step forward from some of the early proposals to simply focus on the Quarter and casinos.

UPDATE

It figures, not 10 minutes after I post the article, but I stumble across a head shaker that serves as a foil to my above comments.

The Urban League is already showing some resistance to the plan and they are being led by former New Orleans Mayor Marc Morial. And people wonder why the Republicans have had no trouble convincing the rest of the English speaking world that y'all are a bunch of nitwits, despite their own lack of creidibility.

Morial really needs to stop playing politics... the city is facing a crisis far worse than it's ever seen before and you aren't going to be able to rebuild every single neighborhood. Sure, the neighborhoods should hav a say in the matter and that would be great if it was a small town, but that's not what New Orleans is. The solution isn't a practical one and the longer it takes to get something started, the harder it will be to get people to move back and to convince businesses and government to reinvest in the city. Sure, the 'Aints are staying but honestly, unless they draft Young it's going to be another 4-12 season and that won't bring people back.

The city needs to look forward, not backwards. Marc, you had a chance to bring the city forward like your father did when he was Mayor. You didn't do it and hindering the efforts of the current mayor won't rebuild the city. Sure, his plan isn't perfect, but work with him instead of against him. There are plenty of people who actively want to see y'all fail. So go out there and prove him wrong. I've seen you in action in person, debating Rep. Jefferson for the political show at Tulane, and I know you can inspire people so inspire them to return home and make the new New Orleans that people like me would want to move back to.

Teachers Left Behind

Although we joked about this part of NCLB at work, it's no joke to school systems like DC that find themselves in a serious bind.

1,100 D.C. Teachers Might Lose Jobs

By V. Dion Haynes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 7, 2006; Page B01

D.C. School Superintendent Clifford B. Janey has notified 1,100 uncertified teachers -- about 25 percent of the system's teaching force -- that they will lose their jobs if they do not obtain proper credentials by June 30.

Most of those teachers have expired provisional licenses or have not submitted proof of a valid D.C. teaching license. Janey said yesterday that he took the action because the teachers had been warned repeatedly that they were in danger of being dismissed if they did not comply.

He also cited teacher standards in the federal No Child Left Behind law. But Janey acknowledged that his dismissal plan goes well beyond what that law requires. According to that law, school districts must demonstrate by June that they are making a good-faith effort to put only "highly qualified" teachers in their classrooms, a standard that includes full state certification.

"The question for us is how long can we wait for individuals who have known about the expectation to become fully certified but fail to meet it, irrespective" of the No Child law, Janey said. "We want to send an unambiguous message about the importance of becoming fully certified. This recognizes the kind of impact a good teacher has on the quality of life of children. We are putting a premium on teacher quality."

Although he expects that the pool of targeted teachers will be "reduced significantly" by June as many accelerate efforts to become certified, Janey said he is preparing for the dismissal of what could be hundreds of employees. He said he will begin a teacher recruiting drive next month to ensure that vacancies are filled.

It is not clear how many of the 1,100 can meet Janey's deadline. School and teachers union officials said some of the teachers simply need to pass the District's licensing exam, while others need more college credit hours in the subject they are teaching and might have trouble getting them in time. Officials could not say how many teachers are in each of those categories.

Janey said that according to school system records, 545 of the teachers have never had a valid D.C. license. Union officials dispute that figure, saying that the system has a history of poor record-keeping and has likely lost some files.

George Parker, president of the Washington Teachers' Union, agreed that the number of uncertified teachers likely will drop by June. But he questioned whether the system will be able to recruit enough certified teachers to fill vacancies.

.......

The federal law defines "highly qualified" teachers as those who have at least a bachelor's degree, full state certification and demonstrated knowledge of their academic subjects. Maryland recently reported that a quarter of its classes are not staffed by a highly qualified teacher. In Virginia, year-old data show that 5.5 percent of classes did not meet the standard. Officials in several suburban Washington school systems said they have not set deadlines by which uncertified teachers must be credentialed.

There are a couple of things here. First, highly qualified doesn't mean jack. It means you've got a degree and don't drool on yourself and you've jumped through whatever hoops exist at the state/local level. The Praxis test they refer to isn't that hard, though some of the educational theory stuff is challenging, but most people can handle it. This designation is a huge joke in our department, since the VCR Masters and coaches are all "highly qualified" but I would never allow them to teach either of my children (mind you, both of these people are my friends).

Second, there are some fields where finding a "highly qualified" candidate is nearly impossible. For a while, the NCLB guidelines for what a "high qualified" special education teacher were originally required them to have a degree in EVERY subject they taught. Since many of them teach stand alone versions of the main core course, they had to demonstrate "expertise" in all core subject areas(!). This would disqualify just about anyone in this field, and it's nearly impossible to find people to teach special education to begin with.

Finally, there aren't enough people who truely are "highly qualified" that want to teach science and math (or special education) for the tiny salaries and dificult working conditions when they can make 2 or 3 times as much money and have more professional opportunities.

So what does DC do? I'm sure there are many teachers there in the process of finishing their certification... many are what were call lateral entry teachers (people who have come from another field without a teaching degree). Unless we make a serious effort to make teaching an attractive field and then put in place conditions to retain good teachers, over 1/4 of whom quit before 5 years, the poorer schools with horrible conditions will continue to suffer. Ah well, it's not like it's our nation's capitol.

Ground Zero

Iraq now terrorist central: analyst
From: Agence France-Presse
By Martin Abbugao in Singapore

January 08, 2006

I

RAQ has replaced Afghanistan as the nerve centre of global terrorism by militant groups whose ability to regenerate, despite setbacks, means that suicide bombings and other mass-casualty attacks remain a serious danger in 2006, analysts said.
Three major developments are likely to define the security landscape this year, Singapore-based terrorism analyst Rohan Gunaratna told a forum organised by the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) last week.

"The first is that al-Qaeda has morphed or transformed from a small group into a terrorist movement," he told diplomats, academics, officials and business executives.

"So today the threat is not so much from one single organisation called al-Qaeda but from the global jihad movement."

Mr Gunaratna, head of terrorism research at the Singapore-based Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, said governments must "prepare for a challenge posed by a number of disparate groups" waging campaigns on the global, regional and local levels.

"The second most significant development we have seen is that the centre of gravity of international terrorism has shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq," he said. "Iraq is the new land of jihad.

Advertisement:
"Like we saw the last generation of jihadists coming from Afghanistan, we will see the next generation of jihadists will come from Iraq."

The US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 that ousted the fundamentalist Taliban regime resulted in the dismantling of al-Qaeda training bases there.

Al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was moving to establish a global terrorist network from Iraq similar to the way Osama bin Laden had done from Afghanistan, Mr Gunaratna said.

The third significant development was the deepening co-operation among various militant groups worldwide, Mr Gunaratna said.

We can thank Chimpie for this. Feeling safer? You're delusional.

Moving Ahead

The ball has been moved forward.

Two Turkish Victims Had Lethal Strain Of Bird Flu

Associated Press
Sunday, January 8, 2006; Page A20

GENEVA, Jan. 7 -- Two teenage siblings who died of bird flu in Turkey last week were infected with the deadly H5N1 strain of the virus, the first time the strain has killed humans outside East Asia, the U.N. health agency said Saturday.

The World Health Organization said it was sending specialists to Turkey to investigate whether the victims were infected by animals or by other humans.

WHO spokeswoman Maria Cheng said the agency's laboratory in Britain reported the results Saturday on the tests from a 15-year-old girl and her 14-year-old brother, who died earlier in the week. They have yet to complete testing on the samples from their 11-year-old sister, who died Friday. A fourth sibling, a 6-year-old boy, was hospitalized.

Cheng said the spread of the disease from East Asia, where it has killed more than 70 people, was "a concern" but the global risk assessment of a pandemic was unchanged.

"Right now these new cases in Turkey, they don't elevate the global risk assessment, so we're still in the same pandemic alert phase that we've been in for the last couple of years," Cheng said. "But it's something that needs to be monitored very closely."

So far, H5N1 has been capable in rare cases of being transmitted from poultry to humans in close contact with the birds, but not from human to human. Experts fear that if the virus mutates into such a strain, it could set off a human flu pandemic.

The "Not Yanks"

The anti-nation
Canadians used to distinguish themselves from Americans by saying we had a different political system. Now it's our `values' that identify us, and a corrosive anti-Americanism is the tie that binds this nation's growing solitudes. If that's the only thing
Jan. 8, 2006. 08:54 AM
DAN DUNSKY
SPECIAL TO THE STAR

Every country has its problematic national story: race in the United States, class in Britain, empire in Russia. Canada's problem is its perpetual identity crisis, a collective neurosis bred of being a confederation of English and French peoples Ñ what the novelist Hugh MacLennan once called the country's "two solitudes" Ñ and the small neighbour to one of history's few great nations. Canadians alternately worry about too much American attention Ñ of being overwhelmed by the United States Ñ and, as suggested by the title of a book published in 1999, Invisible and Inaudible in Washington: American Policies Toward Canada (UBC Press), of being ignored by the United States. (It didn't help that the New Republic once judged the most boring headline ever to be "Worthwhile Canadian Initiative.")

These twin pressures have always existed as an immutable fact for Canadians and likely always will. But American policymakers need to be far more interested in how we deal with these questions, since their answers will largely determine whether Canada is likely to remain a trusted ally in the unpredictable post-9/11 world or become a dangerously exposed northern flank.

The United States cannot "wall itself off" from Canada. Traffic across the 5,061-kilometre border, which Ronald Reagan once hailed as "a meeting place between great and true friends," cements the most comprehensive bilateral trading relationship in history. A truck crosses the U.S.-Canadian border every 2.5 seconds. Approximately $1.3 billion in two-way trade crosses the border every day Ñ $500 billion a year. More than 200 million two-way border crossings occur yearly, making the shared border the busiest international boundary in the world.

Nearly 25 per cent of American exports go north to Canada. More significantly, Canada is now America's largest source of crude oil and petroleum products. This may become more important, both because of continuing instability in the Persian Gulf and because, according to the Oil and Gas Journal, Canada contains, at 180 billion barrels, the world's second-largest proven reserves.

"Anyone watching what is happening up north will recognize that, before long, Canada will inevitably overtake Saudi Arabia as the world's oil giant," said Utah Senator Orrin Hatch recently. While chastising Canada for "irresponsible" talk of favouring China with increased oil exports as payback for the ongoing U.S.-Canadian softwood lumber dispute, Hatch nevertheless said that "we in this country don't want to be on Canada's shit list, ever."

Despite the senator's fears, however, Canada has much more to worry about than the U.S. Quite simply, the border is Canada's economic lifeline. Owing to the absence of a large domestic market and an abundance of natural resources, Canada must export to survive. And today the United States consumes fully 85 per cent of Canada's exports, accounting for an astounding 40 per cent of the country's GDP. In addition, many high-value Canadian products and services Ñ for example, Canada's contribution to the U.S. space program Ñ are designed to piggyback on existing American initiatives.

The signing of the U.S.-Canadian Free Trade Agreement in 1988 (and NAFTA in 1993) accelerated the vertical integration of Canada's economy with that of the United States. Some 50 per cent of Canadian foreign direct investment (FDI) is now aimed at the U.S., while more than 60 per cent of inbound FDI is American. According to Export Development Canada, a federal Crown corporation, "the import content used to make Canadian exports has been growing steadily and now averages around 35 per cent, and in many manufacturing industries [exceeds] 50 per cent." This integration has, in turn, increased Canadian productivity. In short, it is no exaggeration to say that Canada's primary national interest is located south of the border.

The shock on Canadian economic activity of the effective closure of the border after 9/11 demonstrated the country's vulnerabilities and highlighted Canada's interest in safeguarding its southern frontier. The nightmare scenario for Canadian politicians today is a successful attack on the U.S. homeland by a terrorist who enters through Canada.

Faced with this reality, Canada has strengthened its anti-terrorism posture. Over the past four years, in addition to specific action on the border, Parliament has passed Canada's first-ever Anti-Terrorism Act, a Public Safety Act, and a new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Further, the government has created the Office of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Canada's answer to the Department of Homeland Security, and has undertaken a foreign affairs and defence review. Canadian law now defines terrorism and designates terrorist groups operating in Canada. It is an offence to support terrorist groups or any activities related to such groups. And security, intelligence and law-enforcement agencies have been given enhanced powers of surveillance, arrest and detention, including preventive arrests or arrests without warrants.

Canada has established common procedures with the United States for the screening of high-risk goods in third countries prior to their arrival at North American airports and seaports, and the Department of Transportation has plans to increase the use of biometric systems and radiological scanners at Canadian points of entry.

Similarly, after 9/11, public pressure to rebuild the Canadian armed forces has grown dramatically. In its 2005 budget, the federal government pledged an additional $11 billion to the armed forces over five years, a move supported even by the dovish NDP. This marked the first substantial increase to the defence budget since cuts in the overall federal budget during the 1990s reduced military spending by some $25 billion.

And though Canada chose to sit out the Iraq War, Canadian Special Forces joined American units in Afghanistan in 2001 and later assumed the leadership of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. In the summer of 2005, the Canadian military enhanced its Afghan force and set up base in Kandahar. Using language that Canadians had all but forgotten, Major-General Andrew Leslie, former commander of Task Force Kabul and deputy commander of ISAF, predicted that Canada may be in Afghanistan for a generation: "There are things worth fighting for. There are things worth dying for. There are things worth killing for."

In sum, Canada has acted to improve its overall security posture since 9/11. In keeping with the Canadian realist approach to bilateral continental relations, Canada has endeavoured to safeguard its economic interests by satisfying American security concerns, which, according to former Canadian ambassador Allan Gotlieb, "opens doors [in Washington] like no other key."

But if self-interest was clearly at work in Canada's post-9/11 security decisions, it is less clear whether the Canadian and American governments share the same global outlook. Whether Canada is a trusted ally of the United States Ñ insofar as the latter has defined its global roles and responsibilities Ñ is a more difficult question to answer. For, in many disturbing ways, Canada seeks to unify its chronically fractured sense of nationhood in opposition to the United States.

For most Americans, the territory and people who lie north of the 49th parallel are a big blank spot. That is yet another sad piece of American myopia. I love Canada, as you know, and many of my closest friends are Canadians. One of the things I value is that they aren't Americans and have a very different take on our world than Americans do. Canadian liberals aren't a down-coated version of American liberalism and they are working from a different set of assumptions than we Yanks are. Canadian liberalism is much closer to European social democratism than it is to US politics.

It's probably off your radar screen, but Canada is in the middle of a national electoral campaign right now. Most of the issues in this campaign are domestic to Canada, but, as this article in The Star points out, one of issues is Canada's relationship with its belligerant neighbor and Canada's self-identity.

I'm more than happy to tell my Canadian friends that there is a whole lot more to being Canadian than being the "not Americans." Canadians are nicer and much more community-minded than are Yanks. That "rugged individualism" which is so pernicious down here never took root in a country where the population is mostly thinly scattered and making sure that your neighbor doesn't freeze to death is going proposition.

There are interesting, intelligent and informed ideas and propositions about politics, community and the role of religion in both being floated north of the border. We might learn something if we chose to notice

Blood and Treasure

Iraq war could cost US over $2 trillion, says Nobel prize-winning economist

· Economists say official estimates are far too low
· New calculation takes in dead and injured soldiers

Jamie Wilson in Washington
Saturday January 7, 2006
The Guardian

The real cost to the US of the Iraq war is likely to be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion (£1.1 trillion), up to 10 times more than previously thought, according to a report written by a Nobel prize-winning economist and a Harvard budget expert.

The study, which expanded on traditional estimates by including such costs as lifetime disability and healthcare for troops injured in the conflict as well as the impact on the American economy, concluded that the US government is continuing to underestimate the cost of the war.

The report came during one of the most deadly periods in Iraq since the invasion, with the US military yesterday revising upwards to 11 the number of its troops killed during a wave of insurgent attacks on Thursday. More than 130 civilians were also killed when suicide bombers struck Shia pilgrims in Karbala and a police recruiting station in Ramadi.

The paper on the real cost of the war, written by Joseph Stiglitz, a Columbia University professor who won the Nobel prize for economics in 2001, and Linda Bilmes, a Harvard budget expert, is likely to add to the pressure on the White House on the war. It also followed the revelation this week that the White House had scaled back ambitions to rebuild Iraq and did not intend to seek funds for reconstruction.

Mr Stiglitz told the Guardian that despite the staggering costs laid out in their paper the economists had erred on the side of caution. "Our estimates are very conservative, and it could be that the final costs will be much higher. And it should be noted they do not include the costs of the conflict to either Iraq or the UK." In 2003, as US and British troops were massing on the Iraq border, Larry Lindsey, George Bush's economic adviser, suggested the costs might reach $200bn. The White House said the figure was far too high, and the deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, said Iraq could finance its own reconstruction.

Three years later, with more than 140,000 US soldiers on the ground in Iraq, even the $200bn figure was very low, according to the two economists.

Congress has appropriated $251bn for military operations, and the Congressional budget office has now estimated that under one plausible scenario the Iraq war will cost over $230bn more in the next 10 years. According to Mr Stiglitz and Ms Bilmes, whose paper is due to be presented to the Allied Social Sciences Association in Boston tomorrow, there are substantial future costs not included in the Congressional calculations.

For instance, the latest Pentagon figures show that more than 16,000 military personnel have been wounded in Iraq. Due to improvements in body armour, there has been an unusually high number of soldiers who have survived major wounds such as brain damage, spinal injuries and amputations. The economists predict the cost of lifetime care for the thousands of troops who have suffered brain injuries alone could run to $35bn. Taking in increased defence spending as a result of the war, veterans' disability payments and demobilisation costs, the economists predict the budgetary costs of the war alone could approach $1 trillion.

The paper also came amid the first indications from the Pentagon that it intended to scale down its costly presence in Iraq this year.

I remember saying to a pro-war friend back during the run-up, "What's it worth to you? How many billions, how many trillions?" Her answer, "whatever it takes," seems strangely unsatisfying. We don't have unlimited resources.

Hungar and Entitlement

In Kenya, 'Why Does This Keep Happening?'
Return of Drought and Threat of Starvation Renew Calls for Sustainable Development

By Emily Wax
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, January 8, 2006; Page A20

NAIROBI, Jan. 7 -- On New Year's Day, groups of angry Masai herders attempted to drive their emaciated cattle onto the manicured lawns of the presidential residence so their animals could graze on the thick carpets of green grass in the morning sun.

With a drought turning their fields and pastures into dusty gray wastelands, and with millions of people in the region facing a food shortage, the herders wanted to make a point, organizers of the action said.

"Africa is not so poor that it doesn't have enough food or grazing land to feed itself. There's plenty of food here," said Ben Ole Koissaba, a leader of the Masai, one of the largest and most powerful tribes in Kenya. "Many countries around the world face drought, but people don't starve. We think it's ludicrous for the government to treat its citizens this way. Why does this keep happening?"

Many are asking that question as yet another drought threatens lives and destroys crops and livestock here. About 11 million people in Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Somalia are "on the brink of starvation," the United Nations said this week. In northeastern Kenya, at least 40 people, most of them children, have died from malnutrition and related illnesses since December, according to the Kenya Red Cross.

Enough food is grown in Kenya to feed all of its population of 33 million, but many citizens, especially the country's poor subsistence farmers, cannot afford it. When the rains ceased last year, the farmers were left with parched crops, hungry livestock and nothing to eat.

"The month of December 2005 will be remembered for a long time to come by Kenyans as a time when people were starving to death while others were feasting," said Gullet Abbas, secretary general of the Kenya Red Cross Society.

Feeding centers for children younger than 5 are filling up in northern Kenya, Abbas said. Cattle, goats and camels are growing thin. On Thursday, 3,000 herdsmen moved their 20,000 head of cattle across the border into Uganda to look for green pastures, according to reports on national television. Governments have warned that power shortages are possible because of lower water levels at Kenyan and Tanzanian dams, which the countries depend on to generate electricity.

"The current drought is more severe at most locations than the droughts of 1984, 1999 and 2000," Joseph Mukabana, director of the Kenya Meteorological Department, said in a full-page paid commentary in the Daily Nation, Kenya's largest newspaper. "Food relief efforts may need to go beyond December 2006 in some parts of the country."

Late Friday, President Mwai Kibaki ordered the government to purchase "all available" corn in the country in an emergency operation to stave off more deaths. The cabinet has "termed as the country's current number one priority the provision of food for Kenyans," Kibaki's office said in a statement.

The Kenya Red Cross Society and the Famine Early Warning Systems Network, a monitoring group, have criticized the government for failing to do more to prepare for the drought, saying that officials knew more than a year ago that such conditions would develop.

It saddens me that this is on A20 in the WaPo. But the point that Wax makes, that the hunger crisis around the world is one of distribution, not of production, cannot be made often enough. If the world community responded with helicopters, most of the suffering could be averted.

The same is true in our country. We have plenty of food. We just enjoy penalizing poor people so that they can't have enough.

My choice of words is not an accident.

Smile, not Laugh

The week in latenight jokes

Jay Leno, David Letterman, Conan O'Brien and Jon Stewart

Published: January 8, 2006

Jay Leno

According to a new poll, President Bush's approval ratings are on the rise. A lot of these polls are phone polls and people were worried Bush is listening in.

Did you see Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor making the coin toss at the Rose Bowl? When Bush saw a Supreme Court Justice flipping a coin, he said, "Hey, that's how I got elected."

Congressman Tom DeLay, who has also been indicted, has officially filed for re-election. Did you hear his campaign slogan? "Give me two more years before the judge gives me 5 to 10."

John Kerry is positioning himself for another run at the White House in 2008. Kerry said this campaign will be much better than the last one. He says this time he's going to take three positions on each issue.

David Letterman

A kid from Florida is like 16 years old. He runs away from home and goes to Iraq. He wanted to see what it was like. He spent three weeks over there. Then he came home. At least he had an exit strategy.

The guy who was the former chef at the White House has written a tell-all book. He says Dick Cheney's his favorite recipe is something called Chicken Gitmo. It's chicken bound and gagged on a bed of rice.

Conan O'Brien

Donald Trump is reportedly considering running for president in 2008. Trump said he'll choose a running mate and then dump her for a younger, hotter running mate.

For the first time in more than 50 years, it rained in Pasadena on the day of the Rose Bowl Parade. Fortunately, officials were able to keep the parade route dry by dragging the SpongeBob float back and forth.

Jon Stewart

I was allowed to host the Oscars this year, and I'm very excited about that. It feels like winning the Heisman. No guarantee of how you're going to do in the ballgame or in your career afterward, but it is something they can't take away from you, unless you go crazy and kill your ex-wife and a waiter. And even then, it is pretty hard to take away from you.

Fairly lame, but, then, so was the news.

On Your Tee Vee

Neither CNN nor MSNBC will tell you, but this is the critical issue in the life of the republic right now. Make note.

Alito's moment
# Has Bush doomed his own nominee?

By Edward Lazarus, a lawyer in private practice, is the author of "Closed Chambers: The Rise, Fall, and Future of the Modern Supreme Court."

SUPREME COURT nominations are as old as the republic, but the modern history of the battles over court appointments begins in 1987. That's when the Senate rejected Robert H. Bork, the conservative appellate judge who President Reagan nominated to replace Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., the swing-voting centrist on what was then, as now, a closely divided court.

Nominees had failed to win Senate approval before Bork. The Senate turned down Clement Haynsworth in 1969 and G. Harold Carswell a year later, President Nixon's first two choices to replace Justice Abe Fortas.

Nor was Bork's nomination unprecedented in the dramatic political shift it portended if he had been confirmed. In 1962, President Kennedy's choice of liberal Arthur J. Goldberg to replace conservative Felix Frankfurter moved an already fairly progressive Warren court significantly to the left, clearing the way for a civil rights and civil liberties revolution.

Still, the Bork hearings were the first in which political-interest groups, recognizing the huge importance of controlling the federal judiciary, defeated a potentially court-altering nominee by using campaign-style tactics to turn the confirmation proceedings into a popularity contest and a national referendum on the Constitution's meaning.

Bork never knew what hit him. He lost because Senate Democrats successfully cast him as an arrogant hyper-intellectual who espoused a judicial philosophy — in particular, his rejection of a constitutional "right to privacy" — out of tune with mainstream America. Every Supreme Court nomination since reflects the lessons that each side drew from the experience.

This was especially true in the fight, one-sided as it was, over John G. Roberts Jr.'s nomination to replace William H. Rehnquist as chief justice. Some Senate Democrats and liberal interest groups tried mightily to reprise the 1987 strategy and portray Roberts as an out-of-the-mainstream, anti-privacy ideologue. But Republicans were ready with an effective counterstrategy that quickly quelled any nascent opposition.

Indeed, Roberts, by design, was the archetypical "reverse Bork" — a congenial, telegenic nominee with an impressive pedigree but as slim a track record as feasible on hot-button issues. And he arrived at his confirmation hearings armed with a reverse-Bork strategy:

• Ameliorate past criticisms of popular liberal precedents, especially Roe vs. Wade, by emphasizing respect for precedent;

• neutralize previous expressions of personal opinion on controversial issues by drawing a bright line between personal beliefs and judicial philosophy;

• avoid an ideological battle by declining to answer problematic questions on grounds that the issues raised might be the subject of future cases;

• and mount a public-relations campaign of your own.

With Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s confirmation hearings Monday, it remains unclear whether either side has made significant strategic adjustments based on Roberts' experience.

The administration has stuck with the winning Roberts playbook, albeit this time with a nominee who, thanks to 15 years on the federal bench, has a more extensive track record. For instance, Alito's handlers have tried to overcome the nominee's deeply felt and repeated hostility toward Roe vs. Wade by emphasizing his reverence for precedent and modest conception of the judicial role.

More generally, they've attempted to downplay his record as a sometimes hard-edged conservative on such issues as race and gender discrimination, states' rights and the separation of church and state by casting Alito as congenial, open-minded and keenly aware of the need to divorce personal beliefs from legal interpretations. No doubt Alito will seek to exhibit these qualities when refusing, as did Roberts, to answer problematic questions.

Senate Democrats have not revealed any new strategies after completely failing to force Roberts to elaborate on his judicial ideology or otherwise penetrate the nominee's carefully crafted and beautifully delivered responses. They certainly have more to work with this time.

Early in his career, Alito did not hide his sometimes radical legal views, including hostility toward the now universally accepted one-person/one-vote standard for voting apportionment. He wrote several judicial decisions that are easily caricatured, such as a dissent supporting the legality of a strip-search of a 10-year-old girl and another arguing that Congress does not have authority under the "commerce clause" to restrict the transfer and possession of machine guns.

And no one expects Alito to be as effective testifying as Roberts was.

But to defeat Alito, Senate Democrats will need more than a clutch of 20-year-old policy memos and unsettling judicial opinions. They will have to portray Alito as a genuine threat to some core American value — and not merely to the right to privacy, on which all the moves and countermoves are already choreographed.

President Bush's decision to engage in warrantless wiretapping of Americans in apparent violation of the statute regulating spying for national-security purposes raises a constitutional issue of staggering importance. In undertaking this program — and other policies on the use of torture, detention and the designation of enemy combatants — in its prosecution of the war on terror, the administration asserts an inherent constitutional authority to commit acts that Congress has explicitly deemed criminal.

The question of whether the president is, to put it bluntly, above ordinary law whenever he invokes his constitutional authority as commander in chief will have to be decided by the Supreme Court. Whether it will transform the political landscape remains unclear. But it may be the only issue on which Alito is truly vulnerable. He is on record supporting a very broad view of presidential authority and, as a judge, has shown great deference to the acts of executive branch officials, including advocating legal immunity for the attorney general against lawsuits charging him with illegal wiretapping.

Alito's trackrecord gives it all up to a powerful executive. He's a conservative ideologue with regressive views, having dissented against rights for injured workers, women and minorities in his time on the bench. His membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton, which sought to turn back the enrollment of women and minorities at his Ivy undergrad school, should give everyone pause. He went back on a pledge to the Senate to recuse himself in cases involving the investment firm which has made hundreds of thousands of dollars for him. If you want links, use the search function on this site. All of my statements are from news stories in the press in the last month. Alito is a nicer looking and acting version of Bob Bork, no scary beard, no scary books, the judicial philosophy is the same.

I'm sure he cooks nice tuna steaks on his grill for the neighbors. But that's not a pass to the high Court for someone with as weird an agenda" is he has. Women and minorities need not apply.

The same conservatives who love him include the right wing women who think that OTHER women should be back in the kitchen, while Phyllis Schlafly prowls K street. Hippocrites. Morons and assholes can argue here.

Disaster Compounded

Hotel ordered to house Katrina victims

1/7/2006, 7:05 p.m. CT
The Associated Press

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — A judge blocked the eviction Saturday of about 100 people from a New Orleans hotel, which had ordered tenants displaced by Hurricane Katrina to move out to make room for new guests. Orleans Parish Civil District Court Judge Michael Bagneris issued a restraining order and ruled that the hurricane victims be allowed to return, said Bill Quigley, head of the Loyola Law Clinic who sought the order.

The Maison St. Charles manager Emily Wright did not return calls Saturday seeking comment.

Some tenants said they got their eviction notices Monday, the day the Federal Emergency Management Agency announced it would continue to pay for hotel rooms housing hurricane victims while it ironed out issues arising from a class-action lawsuit.

Wright told The Times-Picayune the hotel had planned on the Katrina victims leaving by the initial federal cut-off of Jan. 7, and it needed to make room for guests who had reserved rooms months earlier. "I feel like we have to honor those contracts," she said Friday.

Hotels' participation in housing hurricane victims is voluntary, FEMA spokesman James McIntyre said. "We have no legal authority to have the hotel discontinue its standard business practices," he said. "We will work to assist people who have been evicted."

Some people found other rooms.

Velma Lewis, 41, said that after calling dozens of other hotels, she and her daughter finally found one with a room available for FEMA vouchers.

"We started loading up this morning. We came back ... and they had locked us out of the room," she said. The managers let them retrieve their remaining belongings, she said.

Pauline Powell, 58, and her daughter had no luck finding another place, and no car to get anywhere.

"I'm stuck with her stuff out here in the street and my stuff too," she said. "And nowhere to go."

Thank God some of the judges down there have their heads screwed on straight.

High Tech Epidemiology

Wired has an excellent article on bird flu and the computer simulation lab at Los Alamos. It's long but worth it. You can see it here.

Big Pharma

Drug profits infect medical studies

By John Abramson

SEVERAL OF OUR most venerated scientific journals have recently been besmirched by allegations of scientific misconduct. Shocking? We should be just as shocked as Inspector Renault when he discovered gambling at Rick's Cafe in Casablanca.

First, the New England Journal of Medicine made public its concerns about crucial data having been withheld from its 2000 report on a study sponsored by Merck exaggerating the safety of its blockbuster drug Vioxx, now withdrawn. Then the lead author of a seminal article published in the journal Science reporting the creation of viable stem cells from cloned human embryos admitted he falsified results and resigned his academic post in disgrace.

This week brings the news that a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary failed to include the deaths of two patients in a clinical trial of its new drug for heart failure, Natrecor, in an article published in the Journal of Emergency Medicine.

Why shouldn't we be surprised? Because over the last 25 years, clinical research has been largely privatized. Three-quarters of the clinical studies published in the three most respected medical journals (the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Assn. and the Lancet) are now commercially funded. As a result, our medical knowledge grows not in the direction that best improves our health but toward corporate profits, the way that plants grow toward sunlight.

This wasn't always so. Before 1980, most medical studies were publicly funded, and most academic researchers scorned industry support. Now, however, the vast majority of clinical trials are commercially funded, and with the financial stakes so high, there is mounting evidence of individual scientists and corporations manipulating their findings.

Even our most trusted journals are dependent on drug-company money. Drug makers don't just buy advertising in their pages. According to Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, they also pay up to $1.75 million for reprints of articles favorable to their drugs, which sales reps then hand out to doctors.

And many journal articles are biased in favor of their sponsors' products. A 2003 report in the Journal of the American Medical Assn. found that clinical studies funded by drug companies are three times more likely to conclude that the sponsor's drug is the treatment of choice, compared to studies of the same drug that were not commercially funded. (This study of the effects of commercial bias, by the way, was funded by Danish research institutions.) The disturbing conclusion is that most of the evidence in what doctors believe to be "evidence-based medicine" is more infomercial than dispassionate science.

It's vital to protect the integrity of our medical knowledge. But the current peer review system alone can't do the job. The journals, and the peer reviewers they rely on, are in the untenable position of having to trust that corporate sponsors have accurately and completely reported their findings. At present, journal editors and peer reviewers typically are not allowed unrestricted access to the data from commercially sponsored research. Amazingly, many drug company-funded researchers who write the articles are also not allowed access to all of the data the company has collected.

There is no better cautionary tale than the unwarranted success of Vioxx. Greater safety was the only reason for doctors to have prescribed Vioxx, given that it provided no better relief of arthritis symptoms or pain and cost up to 10 times more than the older anti-inflammatory drug, naproxen (sold without a prescription as Aleve). But Merck's own study clearly showed that Vioxx was more dangerous than naproxen overall and caused significantly more heart attacks, blood clots and strokes — whether or not the patient had a previous history of cardiovascular disease.

It's time to bring back public funding for drug research. The combination of private funds and private gain is putting us all in danger.

It's Not Rocket Science

Expect a Ghost Town by Sunset
'Redskins Effect' Causes Eerie Calm

By Joshua Partlow
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 7, 2006; Page B01

The trash blows past the hardware store like tumbleweed and the men inside speak of a "ghost town." Imagine: a crisp clear Sunday, pregnant with possibilities for cabinet repair, deck sanding, maybe a new nail gun, and yet, there are no customers. And this, dead center in the nation's capital.

"It's amazing," said John Woodfolk, 64, behind the key counter at W.J. Candey Hardware, two blocks from Dupont Circle. "You just don't see anybody on the streets."

Woodfolk is describing a phenomenon that some call the "Redskins Effect": that trance-like state of calm that descends on the region when hundreds of thousands of eyes are staring at football. Today, at 4:45 p.m. -- kickoff of the Washington Redskins' first playoff game in six years -- expect many area residents to retreat en masse to their dwellings or sports bars. Outside, life will continue, but according to those who've lived it, the pace will be quite different.

"When it's a home game, we're losing 60 percent of our business; it's really something," said Brewster Bassett, the head teaching professional at the Bull Run Country Club in Haymarket, who has watched his fairways regularly bleed golfers at game time. "It's a funny effect. I kept on asking the general manager, 'What's going on here?' And he said: 'Football.' "

At 84 Lumber in Clinton, salesman Matt McLean said three or four customers will walk in during a typical Redskins game. On days without a game, that number would be more like 20, he said. As for today's playoff game, McLean said the effect on fans is "a lot bigger deal now."

The general manager at a Giant supermarket in Silver Spring -- who asked not to be named because such armchair anthropology is not smiled on by corporate -- compared the Redskins Effect to a mountain range with three peaks and two valleys:

First the pregame rush for chips and dip, beer and party platters, then the game time lull, followed by a second spike at halftime ("Halftime is re-load time"), then a second-half drought and finally a postgame rush. The manager also noted that the proportion of female shoppers rises during the game:

"They want to get out of the house, out of sight; they don't want to see it."

Guess when I'm going to run my errands today? I'm going to Borders to pick up some dead tree copies of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists which features yours truly, Bump and The Flu Wiki. We're Flu Famous this week.

Talking Heads

Evangelical Leaders Criticize Pat Robertson
By Larry B. Stammer, Times Staff Writer

Evangelical leaders said Friday that they were embarrassed and incensed by televangelist Pat Robertson's assertion that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who had suffered a massive stroke, was stricken by God as punishment for ceding the Gaza Strip and a portion of the West Bank to Palestinians last summer.

Officials of conservative Christian churches and organizations suggested that Robertson was losing religious and political influence as a result of his remarks on Sharon and other recent controversial comments.

"I'm appalled that Pat Robertson would make such statements. He ought to know better," said Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest U.S. Protestant denomination.

"The arrogance of the statement shocks me almost as much as the insensitivity of it," Land said in an interview.

The Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Assn. of Evangelicals, said that Robertson no more spoke for evangelicals than "Dr. Phil," the television show host, spoke for psychologists.

The concerns voiced by evangelical leaders Friday came as the White House sharply criticized the televangelist's remarks as "wholly inappropriate and offensive."

The harsh criticism of Robertson spotlights what many see as his growing isolation from mainstream American evangelicalism.

Last August, Robertson called for the assassination of leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Then, in November the televangelist warned the town of Dover, Pa., that it risked God's wrath because voters had recalled conservative school board members who favored teaching "intelligent design," whose proponents believe organisms are too complex to have developed independently. Critics charge that the concept is an attempt to put theology in public school science classes.

On Thursday, Robertson, in a reference to Sharon's decision last year to withdraw Israeli troops and settlers from Palestinian territories, quoted the prophet Joel to his "700 Club" television audience and said that "God has enmity against those who divide my land."

After calling Sharon "a delightful person" with whom he had prayed, Robertson added: "But here he's at the point of death. He was dividing God's land, and I would say woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the European Union, the United Nations, or the United States of America. God says: 'This land belongs to me. You'd better leave it alone.' "

On Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network website Friday, spokeswoman Angell Watts said that Robertson was simply reminding viewers of what he said the Bible had to say.

She also blamed the controversy on People for the American Way, a liberal advocacy group that issued a transcript of Robertson's remarks. She said the group had "a clear left-wing political agenda" and had taken his comments out of context. Based on a review by The Times of video of Robertson supplied by People for the American Way, the transcript was accurate.

Watts did not return phone calls requesting further comment.
....
The Rev. Kevin Mannoia, chaplain at Azusa Pacific University and past president of the National Assn. of Evangelicals, was among those who suggested that Robertson's comments could have been a misguided effort to restore his once powerful standing as a religious and political voice in America by creating new controversy.

"I wonder whether, consciously or subconsciously, this is an effort on the part of an individual who has significant influence in the church and the country and recognized that influence is waning," Mannoia said.

"He continues to try to maintain that influence by increasingly controversial statements — perhaps statements out of desperation, perhaps statements out of [wanting] more attention," he said.

The inCompetent News Network reports this garbage as if it had some significance, the morons. They got a hotly worded letter from me yesterday. According to the evangelical Barna Research group, evangelicals make up about 7% of the US population, roughly the same percent as 20 years ago. Robertson doesn't speak for them or anyone but the wingnut fringe.

Religion news coverage in this country is appalling, and the cable channels are the worst offenders.

For C-Span Wonks

Rebels in G.O.P. Call for DeLay to Be Replaced

By CARL HULSE
Published: January 7, 2006

WASHINGTON, Jan. 6 - A rebellious band of House Republicans moved Friday to bar Representative Tom DeLay of Texas from regaining his position as majority leader, demanding a vote to replace him permanently at the top of the party hierarchy. Skip to next paragraph Larry Crowe/Associated Press

Representative Charles Bass wants a House Republican leadership election.

Acting in the wake of Tuesday's guilty plea to corruption charges by the lobbyist Jack Abramoff, once a close ally of Mr. DeLay, Representatives Jeff Flake of Arizona and Charles Bass of New Hampshire began circulating a petition on Friday to collect 50 signatures needed to call a party leadership election. By midafternoon, they had commitments from about two dozen lawmakers, aides said.

"Rightly or wrongly, Mr. DeLay is seen as the public face of Washington, and it is not healthy right now," Mr. Flake said. "We need a course correction."

While the petition calls only for the election of a permanent majority leader, the rank-and-file could push for more if enough lawmakers conclude a broader shake-up is warranted. Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois appears safe in his spot, but the turmoil represented another significant challenge to his ability to hold his caucus together without the help of Mr. DeLay, his longtime partner in running the House.

At least one Republican, Representative Melissa A. Hart of Pennsylvania, said Friday that if there is to be an election it should encompass a wider evaluation of the leadership. "The current letter being circulated by Congressmen Flake and Bass does not go far enough," she said in a statement. "The Republican Conference is run by a leadership team and when the majority leader position becomes vacant, the conference needs the ability to reassess the leadership team as a whole."

One senior House leadership aide, who would not be publicly identified discussing the delicate topic of internal leadership elections, said the leadership situation was volatile, making it difficult to foresee what might occur. "It feels to me like we are going to see some changes," the aide said.

Mr. DeLay was forced to give up his leadership post in September after his indictment in Texas on campaign-related charges of money laundering. He has said repeatedly that he intends to try to resolve those charges quickly and return to his place as the No. 2 House Republican. But admissions of criminal wrongdoing by Mr. Abramoff and the continuing federal investigation of former senior aides to Mr. DeLay have intensified political anxiety among Republicans at the start of a potentially pivotal election year.

But a spokesman for Mr. DeLay, a very determined politician who has never shied from a fight, suggested that he would resist any effort to oust him permanently.

"Mr. DeLay appreciates the fact that a majority of his colleagues recognize that he remains committed to resuming and fulfilling his responsibilities as majority leader as soon as he is exonerated in Texas, which he believes will happen by the end of the month," said Kevin Madden, the DeLay spokesman.

House officials predicted that Mr. Hastert would ultimately schedule an election, which could force a vote by Republicans to remove from the leadership a man responsible for much of their past political success but someone increasingly viewed as a political liability because of a continuing swirl of ethical and legal questions.

A divisive leadership battle has the potential to roil the House just as President Bush and Congressional Republicans are unveiling their election-year agenda through Mr. Bush's State of the Union speech and other events. It could also lead to new faces in the leadership ranks as Republicans try to demonstrate they are seriously responding to the lobbying scandal, which could still ensnare other lawmakers.

The Repubs delayed gavelling the House back into order in order for Delay to have the time to clear himself. That doesn't look like it is going to work and, in addition to the Alito hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee, we have a leadship fight on the floor of the House to look forward to this month. This ought to be fun.

Hooverisms

All they need now is a cross dressing leader, not that there is anything wrong with that, and it's 1972 all over again.

Homeland Security opening private mail

By Brock N. Meeks
Chief Washington correspondent
MSNBC
Jan. 6, 2006

WASHINGTON - In the 50 years that Grant Goodman has known and corresponded with a colleague in the Philippines he never had any reason to suspect that their friendship was anything but spectacularly ordinary.

But now he believes that the relationship has somehow sparked the interest of the Department of Homeland Security and led the agency to place him under surveillance.

Last month Goodman, an 81-year-old retired University of Kansas history professor, received a letter from his friend in the Philippines that had been opened and resealed with a strip of dark green tape bearing the words “by Border Protection” and carrying the official Homeland Security seal.

I had no idea (Homeland Security) would open personal letters,” Goodman told MSNBC.com in a phone interview. “That’s why I alerted the media. I thought it should be known publicly that this is going on,” he said. Goodman originally showed the letter to his own local newspaper, the Kansas-based Lawrence Journal-World.

.....

“This process isn’t something we’re trying to hide,” Mohan said, noting the wording on the agency’s Web site. “We’ve had this authority since before the Department of Homeland Security was created,” Mohan said.

However, Mohan declined to outline what criteria are used to determine when a piece of personal correspondence should be opened, but said, “obviously it’s a security-related criteria.”

Hey Mohan, if you've had the authority then you also have a responsibility to be accountable to the public. There is this strange thing in the Constitution called the 4th Amendment. It's not the 4th Suggestion, but the 4th Amendment... supposedly part of your job description is to uphold that document it is in and to obey it.

Do your job properly or go to jail... it's that simple. Don't spy on people for whom there is no probable cause... and writing to someone overseas doesn't qualify as probable cause.

Republic of Fear

Report Rebuts Bush on Spying
Domestic Action's Legality Challenged

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 7, 2006; Page A01

A report by Congress's research arm concluded yesterday that the administration's justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments.

The Congressional Research Service's report rebuts the central assertions made recently by Bush and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales about the president's authority to order secret intercepts of telephone and e-mail exchanges between people inside the United States and their contacts abroad.

The findings, the first nonpartisan assessment of the program's legality to date, prompted Democratic lawmakers and civil liberties advocates to repeat calls yesterday for Congress to conduct hearings on the monitoring program and attempt to halt it.

The 44-page report said that Bush probably cannot claim the broad presidential powers he has relied upon as authority to order the secret monitoring of calls made by U.S. citizens since the fall of 2001. Congress expressly intended for the government to seek warrants from a special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before engaging in such surveillance when it passed legislation creating the court in 1978, the CRS report said.

The report also concluded that Bush's assertion that Congress authorized such eavesdropping to detect and fight terrorists does not appear to be supported by the special resolution that Congress approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which focused on authorizing the president to use military force.

"It appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has expressly or impliedly authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations here," the authors of the CRS report wrote. The administration's legal justification "does not seem to be . . . well-grounded," they said.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has pledged to hold hearings on the program, which was first revealed in news accounts last month, and the judges of the FISA court have demanded a classified briefing about the program, which is scheduled for Monday.

"This report contradicts the president's claim that his spying on Americans was legal," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), one of the lawmakers who asked the CRS to research the issue. "It looks like the president's wiretapping was not only illegal, but also ensnared innocent Americans who did nothing more than place a phone call."

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the president and the administration believe the program is on firm legal footing. "The national security activities described by the president were conducted in accord with the law and provide a critical tool in the war on terror that saves lives and protects civil liberties at the same time," he said. A spokesman for the National Security Agency was not available for a comment yesterday.

You don't have to be a constitutional scholar to understand that this is going to a) go down in flames or b) lead to massive immigration to Canada. Me, I'm looking at real estate around Toronto. The fact that Americans aren't alarmed by this is what tells me it is time to go.

When Nixon did it, it provoked a constitutional crisis and hearings in Congress. This time, it is getting yawns from the fear crowd. It's time to go someplace where civil rights are taken a little more seriously than they are in this country.

Bird Brains

This won't be news to most here, but it is the WaPo and I'm putting it in the record:

HHS Advises Stocking Up On Supplies for Avian Flu

Reuters
Saturday, January 7, 2006; A02

There is no vaccine and drugs are in short supply, but Americans may be able to ride out any pandemic of bird flu if they stock up on supplies and keep their children clean, the government said yesterday.

The Department of Health and Human Services checklist illustrates how little can be done to prevent widespread illness and disruption if H5N1 avian influenza causes a pandemic -- a global epidemic -- this year.

The virus still mostly affects birds, but the deaths of three children in Turkey, if confirmed to have been caused by H5N1, means the virus has now infected people in six countries. The World Health Organization has confirmed 142 cases and 74 deaths from bird flu since 2003.

So far the virus cannot pass easily from person to person, but experts fear that genetic changes could give it that capacity and spark a pandemic that could kill millions. If that happens, HHS said, it could kill 2 million Americans, close schools for days or weeks, and disrupt industry and commerce.

Experts say the best way to wait out a pandemic, which could last months, is to stay away from other people and keep close to home.

"During a pandemic, if you cannot get to a store, or if stores are out of supplies, it will be important for you to have extra supplies on hand. This can be useful in other types of emergencies, such as power outages and disasters," the HHS guide says.

HHS's Pandemic Flu Planning Checklist for Individuals and Families, available on the agency's Web site, PandemicFlu.gov, advises:

Teaching children to wash hands frequently and appropriately, covering coughs and sneezes with tissues, and modeling the correct behavior.

Having ready-to-eat canned meats, fruits, vegetables, soups, bottled water and cleaning supplies on-hand for an extended stay at home.

Having any nonprescription drugs and other health supplies on hand, including pain relievers, stomach remedies, cough and cold medicines, fluids with electrolytes, and vitamins.

Talking with family members and loved ones about how they would be cared for if they got sick, or what will be needed to care for them in another home.

HHS updated pandemicflu.gov yesterday and this is the new material on the site. Of course, if you have been reading The Flu Wiki for a while, you'll realize that the community got there ahead of the government, did it better and that, gosh, HHS is copying The Flu Wiki. It's nice to see when the government understands that they need to follow the experts. But, of course, this is a non-profit site and if they'd thrown a few bucks at us they would have gotten an even better product. Oh, well.

While America Slept

Basis for Spying in U.S. Is Doubted

By ERIC LICHTBLAU and SCOTT SHANE
Published: January 7, 2006

WASHINGTON, Jan. 6 - President Bush's rationale for eavesdropping on Americans without warrants rests on questionable legal ground, and Congress does not appear to have given him the authority to order the surveillance, said a Congressional analysis released Friday.

The analysis, by the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan research arm of Congress, was the first official assessment of a question that has gripped Washington for three weeks: Did Mr. Bush act within the law when he ordered the National Security Agency, the country's most secretive spy agency, to eavesdrop on some Americans?

The report, requested by several members of Congress, reached no bottom-line conclusions on the legality of the program, in part because it said so many details remained classified. But it raised numerous doubts about the power to bypass Congress in ordering such operations, saying the legal rationale "does not seem to be as well grounded" as the administration's lawyers have argued.

The administration quickly disputed several conclusions in the report.

The report was particularly critical of a central administration justification for the program, that Congress had effectively approved such eavesdropping soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by authorizing "all necessary and appropriate force" against the terrorist groups responsible. Congress "does not appear to have authorized or acquiesced in such surveillance," the report said, adding that the administration reading of some provisions of federal wiretap law could render them "meaningless."

The president acknowledged last month that he had given the security agency the power to eavesdrop on the international telephone and e-mail communications of Americans and others in the United States without a warrant if they are suspected of ties to Al Qaeda.

The Justice Department is investigating the disclosure of the program, first reported in The New York Times. With Congressional hearings expected this month, the Congressional research report intensified debate on the program. Administration lawyers quickly responded that Mr. Bush had acted within his constitutional and statutory powers.

If this doesn't scare the crap out of you, you haven't been paying attention. Bush turned you into a subject rather than a citizen on your dime. If I were you, I'd be pretty pissed about that.

Me, I'm moving to Canada. They take their civil liberties a little more seriously than does the somnolent US voter.

If the swine want lipstick on a pig down here, I'm angling for something which looks a little more like The Fedralist Papers. I don't want to live in a country which sleeps through something like this.

And I have a housing agent in Canada looking for me. You might need or want to get out of here, too. Email me.

Blindingly Foolish

Cretins. You didn't have to be a graduate of the War College to figure this out. This is the price of Rummy's war on the cheap.

Pentagon Study Links Fatalities to Light Armor

By MICHAEL MOSS
Published: January 7, 2006

A secret Pentagon study has found that as many as 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have survived if they had had extra body armor. Such armor has been available since 2003, but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.

The ceramic plates in vests now worn by the majority of troops in Iraq cover only some of the chest and back. In at least 74 of the 93 fatal wounds that were analyzed in the Pentagon study of marines from March 2003 through June 2005, bullets and shrapnel struck the marines' shoulders, sides or areas of the torso where the plates do not reach.

Thirty-one of the deadly wounds struck the chest or back so close to the plates that simply enlarging the existing shields "would have had the potential to alter the fatal outcome," according to the study, which was obtained by The New York Times.

For the first time, the study by the military's medical examiner shows the cost in lost lives from inadequate armor, even as the Pentagon continues to publicly defend its protection of the troops.

Officials have said they are shipping the best armor to Iraq as quickly as possible. At the same time, they have maintained that it is impossible to shield forces from the increasingly powerful improvised explosive devices used by insurgents in Iraq. Yet the Pentagon's own study reveals the equally lethal threat of bullets.

The vulnerability of the military's body armor has been known since the start of the war, and is part of a series of problems that have surrounded the protection of American troops. Still, the Marine Corps did not begin buying additional plates to cover the sides of their troops until last September, when it ordered 28,800 sets, Marine officials acknowledge.

The Army, which has the largest force in Iraq, is still deciding what to purchase, according to Army procurement officials. They said the Army was deciding among various sizes of plates to give its 130,000 soldiers, adding that they hoped to issue contracts this month.

"Secret Pentagon study" my a**. Anyone who has been paying attention has known about this For Years, if you read Stars and Stripes and Military.com. The idiot civilians running this war out of K street, not the Pentagon, where all the competent military types have already absconded to someplace where they will actually be listened to (which is not Rummy's five sided debacle) in the think tanks, have been talking about this FOR YEARS. This isn't new news. I've been reading Mike Scanlon at The Brookings Institution for a long time now.

Somebody, please find some competent war correspondents. All of this has been plain-ass naked as the bottom of a child on the changing table for YEARS and the WaPo is just getting up to speed now? The other story that they aren't covering is that there isn't enough ammo for troops to train or deploy with. The Guard and Reserve are training by going through their exercises and, essentially, shouting "bang, you're dead" at each other.

We shouldn't be in this stupid war in the first place, and we should be bringing our troops home, whatever your perspective on the casus belli if we can't support them properly. I have yet to find one aspect of this conflict which isn't stupid, stupid, stupid AND incompetent.

Gee. Both the WaPo and the NYT failed to bring that up. The NYT's new ombud might want to bring that up. Nah, it'll never happen.

A Little Ethnic Action

It's Thai takeout for Friday night dinner here at Harmony Hall? How about you? What's for dinner.

Chomping at the Bit

Senators to Demand Full Answers From Alito
Democrats Signal Willingness to Delay Final Vote on Supreme Court Confirmation

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 6, 2006; Page A04

Senate Democrats warned Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. yesterday to expect pointed questions at next week's hearing, and said they may postpone a final vote on his confirmation until late January.

Alito's hearing before the Judiciary Committee, scheduled to begin Monday, will last a week if it tracks last year's confirmation process for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. A Democratic member, Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), said yesterday that senators will ask extensive questions and insist that Alito answer them fully -- even if it means pushing the hearing into the following week.

All judicial nominees are required to respond to senators' queries, Schumer said in a speech in Washington. "The obligation, however, is greater for some nominees," he said. "It is greater when a nominee has taken a clear position on a legal matter."

Schumer said Alito has written extensively about executive and congressional powers, abortion and "the issue of personal autonomy."

"On at least these issues and perhaps many others," he said, "Judge Alito has more to answer for than any other Supreme Court nominee in memory."

In a similar vein, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) told reporters that Alito faces "a steep hill to climb." But he would not speculate on whether Democrats, who hold 44 of the Senate's 100 seats, might use a filibuster to try to block a confirmation vote.

In a day of dueling news conferences by liberal and conservative groups, Alito's supporters said he is no more obligated to answer all questions than were previous nominees, several of whom sidestepped queries about pending or past Supreme Court cases.

"I expect Judge Alito will answer a lot of questions just in the same way that Chief Justice Roberts did and the same way that Ruth Bader Ginsburg did," Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) said in a conference call with reporters. Ginsburg was named to the Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat.

We'll shortly find out if anybody besides Schumer and Kennedy have a spine.

Flu Talking

Go here to see if Sinclair Broadcasting has an outlet in your market. The flu blogging interview with me will be on their 10 PM EST news broadcast tonight. If, like me, you don't have a Sinclair outlet in your area, the interview will be up on their website on Monday.

It was fun. The reporter asked intelligent, open ended questions (good interview technique).

Our Booming Economy

Job Growth Slows in Dec.

By Daniela Deane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 6, 2006; 11:21 AM

The U.S. economy added 108,000 jobs in December, only about half of what was expected, but 2005 came in as the second straight year that American employers added more than 2 million workers, government figures showed.

The unemployment rate dipped below 5 percent to 4.9 percent in the last month of the year and labor costs rose, according to figures released today by the Labor Department. Revised job growth figures for October and November showed that 71,000 more jobs were added in those two months than first reported.

Economists had forecast an addition of more than 200,000 jobs in December and the lower figure suggested companies may be shying away from hiring and relying instead on productivity gains to meet demand. Job losses in construction, retail and transportation offset job gains in manufacturing, professional and business services, education and health services and government.

"The December payroll figure was sharply weaker than expected, but practically everything else was surprisingly strong," said Stephen Stanley, chief economist at RBS Greenwich Capital. "It appears to me that the unusually frigid weather during the survey period helped to dampen hiring."

W. is on TV right now speechifying about our great economy. He simply lies.

Planflu

My Pandefense colleague Scott Layne, MD, sends along this video produced by the University of California system on their response to possible pandemic influenza. You might want to share this link with family and friends who think you are something of a nut for taking the threat seriously.

Right Wing TV Open Thread

I'm giving an interview to Sinclair Broadcasting on pandemic influenza and The Flu Wiki this afternoon, so blogging will be on the light side until later today. This is an open thread. What are you doing this weekend?

Our Booming Economy

Via Susie Madrak:

Prosperity in George Bush's Economy

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted January 6, 2006.

Why are folks so pessimistic about our boom-boom American economy? Because for most of us, it's painful to live in

The economy the cable news networks gush about is going gangbusters. We're hearing about 10 straight quarters of strong growth in gross domestic product, and jobs being created at a clip of over 2 million per year. Unemployment is down, and more Americans own their homes than ever before. And don't forget, Americans' net worth is at an all-time high! And all this prosperity, the corporate media will tell you, is thanks to five years of President George Bush.

But that's an economic picture you won't find hanging on the wall of any normal American house. Most of us know that we're not doing as well today as we were a few years ago. According to a recent Gallup Poll, almost two-thirds of those asked said the economy was "fair" or "poor," and almost six in 10 thought it was getting worse.

That disconnect has left many commentators -- especially on the right -- either scratching their heads with befuddlement or raging apoplectically at the bias of the "liberal media."

National Review author Victor Davis Hanson scolded those who read the New York Times for living "in an alternate universe where everything is supposedly going to hell." In "the real adult world," Hanson wrote, "the economy is red-hot, not mired in joblessness or relegating millions to poverty." But in fact, there are 5 million more Americans living in poverty today than there were four years ago.

Gerard Baker, the U.S. editor for Rupert Murdoch's Times of London wrote, "when it comes to economics, all but America's most fervent critics can still only marvel."

"Everything in the American garden is lovely," Baker continued, "So why the long face, buddy?"

I'll tell you why the long face: The economy most of us experience from day to day has been nothing short of painful over the past five years.

Consider these numbers from the Economic Policy Institute -- a left-leaning think-tank (this essay leans heavily on EPI's excellent research):

* Salaries are still below where they were at the start of the recovery in November 2001. That, while productivity -- the growth of the economic pie -- is up by almost 15 percent. Meaning we're working harder, producing more, for the same money as five years ago.

* Since the recession ended in 2001, 50 percent more of the growth in corporate income was sucked up as profits than after past recessions. That's left less for those of us who work for a living.

* As a result, median household income has now fallen for five years in a row. It was 4 percent, or $2,000, lower in 2004 than it was in 1999.

That last figure means that Joe and Jane Average American -- the household smack in the middle of the booming go-go American economy -- have gotten a pay cut for five years in a row. Small wonder they're sporting long faces.

And that hasn't occurred in a bubble; health care costs for that same family (with kids) rose over 40 percent -- yeah, 40 percent --between 2000 and 2003.