MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: May 28, 2006

« May 21, 2006 - May 27, 2006 | Main | June 4, 2006 - June 10, 2006 »

June 2, 2006

Man who made up yellow ribbon story invited to White House as an Iraq expert

Many of you will recall that, a few weeks ago, there was a "news report" released stating that Iran had passed a law that would require Jews to wear yellow ribbons and othe ron-Muslims to wear various ribbons or badges. After the story made the rounds of blogs and message boards, it was revealed that it was a fabrication of Amir Taheri, who started the rumor in an op-ed piece in a Canadian newspaper.

The upshot? Taheri was invited to the White House as an "expert" to give his opinions to George W. Bush on Iraq. According to White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, the group held an "interesting discussion that touched upon cultural issues, on political issues, on the state of affairs in Iraq." Snow stressed that the experts gave Bush "honest opinions."

Is Bush Right about Pensions?

Robert Reich says that George Bush is doing the right thing by demanding laws that would require companies to "fully fund their pension obligations to employees," something that corporations have opposed. Call me cranky, but I have a hard time believing that Bush would ever stand up to corporations to do something that would benefit workers and future retirees, so I'd like to see the fine print here. Surely there's a catch, no?

For background on the pension crisis in the United States, Roger Lowenstein wrote a terrific piece for the New York Times Magazine last year describing how companies have managed to skirt accounting rules and underfund their pension obligations, which means that unless something changes, a lot of companies are going to have to welch on pension promises made decades ago.

June 1, 2006

Attack on the Estate Tax

A link that's sort of buried in Kevin Drum's (very good) post on the estate tax is worth dredging up and highlighting. According to a recent report by Public Citizen and United for a Fair Economy, the campaign to repeal the estate tax has been largely financed over the past ten years by some 18 families worth $185.5 billion. The families have spent $490 million on lobbying efforts, and stand to gain some $72 billion from a permanent repeal, which is currently being considered by the Senate. Clever way to invest, I'd say.

Anyway, about a year ago I looked at the actual campaign to repeal the estate tax, which has always been short on facts and long on emotional appeals. Indeed, it's not even clear that facts—such as the idea that only a handful of small businesses and millionaires pay the tax, or the fact that repealing it would cost the treasury a staggering $1 trillion over the next decade—play much of a role in this debate. There are modest ways to reform the estate tax, such that, as Kevin says, "the Paris Hiltons of the world would still end up paying no more on their inheritances than most middle-class workers pay on their ordinary income." The people behind the repeal, of course, would rather pay nothing at all, and are certainly willing to spend the money to get there.

Chavez' Heating Program

William Fisher examines Hugo Chavez' program to sell discounted heating oil to poor communities in the United States. On the merits, it's hard to tell whether this program is a good idea or not—arguably Chavez could make better use of that money by spending it on poor communities in Venezuela—but it is true that all the sniping at Chavez from various corners of this country is, as Fisher puts it, "petty." Whatever one might think of Chavez—hero of the oppressed or crazed authoritarian, take your pick (or both)—he's in no sense a real security threat to the United States.

It's also worth pointing out that if Republicans and others disapprove of Chavez trying to win friends and influence people by selling heating oil to the poor, they could always stop him by reversing the cruel and gratuitous budget cuts that have been leveled at LIHEAP, the federal low-income heating assistance program, over the past five years. Just a thought.

Bush's Mixed Record on HIV/AIDS

Heather Hurlburt has a good post on the state of funding for international programs to combat AIDS/HIV. Apparently global spending has risen from $1.6 billion in 2001 to $8.3 billion in 2005, but that will need to climb further—to $20 billion in 2008—in order to provide AIDS "prevention, treatment, and care to everyone who needs it."

There are some things to take issue with though. Hurlburt wants to give the Bush administration, along with various "religious groups" credit for boosting AIDS funding. Yes, and it's hard to understate the effects of that. But some of these groups have also done a good deal of harm on this front. Everyone should read Helen Epstein's investigation into the fight against AIDS in Uganda—a country often touted as a success story. Religious conservatives in the U.S. have fought to suppress funding for contraceptives there, and have pushed abstinence-only education—which doesn't work—over programs that have proved to be successful, such as Uganda's "zero grazing" campaign. People are dying because of it.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration has refused to link HIV/AIDS prevention programs with existing reproductive rights networks around the world, even though many public health experts believe that doing so would make these prevention programs much more effective. Antiabortion groups, of course, oppose any such link because they fear it would mean that the U.S. was funding abortion providers, however indirectly. And then there's this:

Critics of the administration say the so-called "gag rule" it imposed on even mentioning abortion in the context of US-funded reproductive-health programs has confused private groups on the limits for using US funding. They say a provision that at least one-third of American AIDS prevention funding be spent on abstinence-only programs has added to the confusion to a point where some successful AIDS prevention programs have decided to turn down US funds.

The "global gag rule"—which Bush reinstated on his first day in office, and which has consigned millions of women to misery or death—obviously has had a lot of horrible effects, but this is an under-mentioned one, I think. So yes, a good deal of praise is in order for the administration's efforts on AIDS. But that certainly doesn't excuse the things that deserve criticism.

Rice's Offer to Iran Is No Breakthrough

The press is heralding Condoleezza Rice's offer of direct talks with Iran as a signal of a new, more moderate, US approach to the standoff between the two nations, but there is little in her words to suggest any real change in Bush administration policy. What Rice actually said was: "[A]s soon as Iran fully and verifiably suspends its enrichment and reprocessing activities, the United States will come to the table."

The Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottak on state television responded by saying that Iran "will not give up our nation's natural right [to enrichment], we will not hold talks over it. But we are ready to hold talks over mutual concerns." The BBC reports he also said, that if the US "is interested in any change in the existing situation, it should change its behaviour and behave properly and logically".

In the United States, Rice's statement has been hyped as a major new overture to Iran. Bush said, "I believe this problem can be solved diplomatically and I'm going to give it every effort to do so."

Yet at the same time, the US is readying a set of tough demands, including sanctions that would affect the world oil markets It hopes Europe will embrace these sanctions in future dealings with Iran if the latter doesn't abandon its plans for nuclear development.

Iran says it wants nuclear energy for power. The US says it wants to make bombs. The standard neo-conservative line on Iran has not changed. It argues there must be regime change, forced by military intervention if need be. According to this view, diplomacy is little more than a PR maneuver to demonstrate to the rest of the world that we have tried as hard as we could to negotiate with Iran, but failed. The same approach, of course, was used in the run-up to the Iraq war.

More on Haditha

Gary Farber has a roundup of coverage of the (alleged) Haditha massacre, including reports that some officers may have lied about the incident to their superiors. This Los Angeles Times story, meanwhile, is one of the better newspaper attempts I've seen to try and reconstruct what actually went on that day. Both are worth reading.

Department of Homeland Security snubs Statue of Liberty

Flying over Manhattan and seeing the Statue of Liberty has always been a thrill for me. It is difficult to think of New York--or for that matter, the United States--without thinking of the beautiful Lady Liberty. Unless, of course, you are the Department of Homeland Security. According to DHS, New York has no national icons or monuments, which is why DHS funding was cut for the city.

New York City funding was cut by 40%, from $207.5 million to $124.4 million. In addition to dismissing the Statue of Liberty as a monument or icon, DHS similarly dismissed the United Nations Building, the Empire State Building, and the city's library and major museums. Oh, and the New York Stock Exchange.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has asked DHS secretary Michael Chertoff to explain how the agency arrived at the conclusion that New York had no notable icons or monuments. I can't wait to hear his reply.

May 31, 2006

The Case for Intervention

For awhile now, all sorts of liberals, conservatives, and other concerned parties have been calling for the United States and Europe to "do something" about the ongoing genocide in Darfur. It's an understandable plea. But I'm somewhat sympathetic to the counterargument that intervening in Darfur would be extremely difficult.

For one, it's doubtful that the United States has the troops to intervene, what with our quagmire in Iraq and this recent news about sending more reserves into Anbar Province to fight a never-ending war against a bottomless supply of Sunni insurgents.

For two, it's possible that a Western intervention could make things worse. How many troops would need to be sent in? Would NATO—or whoever—simply end up siding with the Darfur rebel groups in a war against the central government? Would it get bogged down in yet another drawn-out and bloody war that killed more people than it saved? Would yet another invasion of a predominantly Muslim country cause problems around the world? Aren't there practical considerations here?

Anyway, Eric Reeves, who knows more about Darfur than most observers, has an essay today taking on these objections in detail. His reading of Sudan politics suggests that the Khartoum government would stop the genocide in the face of a robust Western intervention rather than engage in a war, and that an intervention, while difficult, has a better chance of stopping the genocide than creating another Iraq-like situation, although better intelligence and analysis—on the part of the West—is obviously a necessary precursor to any sort of military action.

I obviously can't judge if he's right—although historically, most interventions tend to prove much bloodier and more problematic than their most sanguine proponents predict—but the long essay is certainly worth reading in full. I'd also like to hear a reply to the argument that there are a variety of measures short of military intervention that could potentially pressure the Khartoum government into stopping the genocide.

Is Rice Extending an Olive Branch?

It sure seems like Condoleezza Rice is finally ready to do the right thing about Iran:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said today that the United States would be willing to change course and join multinational talks with Iran over its nuclear program if it suspends all nuclear activities.

Ms. Rice said that the move was meant to "give new energy" to a European effort to develop a package of incentives or potential punishments to convince Iran to rein in its nuclear program, and to give Iran a "clear choice."

Sounds like what we've been calling for all along, right? Direct negotiations? Well, maybe. But before getting too effusive, this is the Bush administration we're dealing with—a pack of lying war-mongers and all—so maybe a bit of skepticism is in order. It's not clear that Iran should be required to "suspend all nuclear activities" before talks can even begin. Isn't that something that the talks should work toward? Isn't that the whole point? Isn't Rice setting the bar too high?

So yes, it certainly seems like the Bush administration has decided to make unreasonable demands on Iran—only if you give us everything we demand will we sit down to talk—in order to sabotage negotiations before they even begin. Via Laura Rozen, Chris Nelson says that the Bush administration's main goal is to ensure that, if talks falter, Iran is seen as the "stumbling block," rather than the U.S. Rice's offer might be more for appearances sake than for any meaningful attempt to avoid war.

On the other hand, who knows, maybe good sense really has broken out unexpectedly in the White House and the administration wants to resolve this peacefully. We'll see. I should note that if the U.S. reached a détente with Iran before November, gas prices would probably go down and the Republican Party's midterm electoral prospects would probably brighten a bit. So maybe Karl Rove and friends should think about it...

Poison Ivy Epidemic on the Way

I can't honestly say this is the most important reason to worry about global warming, but hey, if it convinces people to pay attention:

Rising levels of carbon dioxide—a so-called greenhouse gas that traps heat within Earth's atmosphere—can fuel booming poison ivy growth, a new study reports.

Even worse, the rash-inducing vines may become more potent.

Poison ivy is no fun. Here are some great pictures of poison ivy rashes. Here's Mother Jones' (slightly less painful) cover package on global warming from last year. Hot office gossip has it that Al Gore gushed about this article on Fresh Air the other day. Do listen to Al.

May 30, 2006

Bush knew nothing of Haditha deaths until Time asked questions

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow says that George W. Bush heard reports that U.S. Marines had killed two dozen unarmed Iraqi civilians "When a Time reporter first made the call." In March, Time reported the investigation of a dozen marines for possible war crimes in a November incident in which unarmed citizens, including women and children, were shot. The killings occurred after a bomb hit a military convoy and killed a Marine.

Time is now reporting that the Marines' superiors may have been part of a cover-up.

More Iranian Overtures?

This theme is starting to get repetitive, but okay. A while ago, after Iran announced that it had successfully enriched uranium on an industrial scale, one Iranian analyst had this to say:

Saeed Laylaz, a political analyst in Tehran, said he expects Tuesday's political fanfare will soon be followed by another announcement suspending all enrichment activities, as requested by the IAEA. Such a move, Laylaz said, would be a savvy way for all sides to save face and avoid escalating the crisis.

"They wanted this big ceremony to show that nuclear technology is not a goal - it's an achievement. This is enough, and now we can go back to negotiations," he said.

That prediction seemed sort of outlandish, but now the New York Times reports this:

After boasting last month that it had joined the "nuclear club" by successfully enriching uranium on an industrial scale — and portraying its action as irreversible — Iran appears to have slowed its drive to produce nuclear fuel, according to European diplomats who have reviewed reports from inspectors inside the country.

The diplomats say the slowdown may be part of a deliberate Iranian strategy to lower the temperature of its standoff with the West over its nuclear program, and perhaps to create an opening for Washington to join the negotiations directly — something President Bush has so far refused to do.

An opening? Maybe there was something to Saeed Laylaz's prediction after all. Why not find out? Last week the Times reported that at least some members of the Bush administration were thinking about doing the right thing and at least trying to talk to Iran. That would make sense, seeing as how President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made some (admittedly rather circumlocutory) overtures in that direction, and seeing as how back in 2003, as Gareth Porter has recently reported, Iran was very interested in putting its nuclear program on the back-burner and agreeing to other U.S. demands in exchange for various security guarantees.

But hard-liners in the administration—Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld in particular—said "no" back then, and they seem to be saying "no" now (they now insist that the slowdown in enrichment is merely a "tactical ploy," whatever that means). At this point, we can say that if there's a war with Iran it will be because Iran hawks choose to go to war, not because it's necessary. At the risk of sounding like a seriously busted record, there are no excuses not to at least try and avert what would be a horrible idea.

Court Rules Against Whistle-Blowers

I can't say I quite understand the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision today to limit whistleblower protections. Basically, you have a Los Angeles deputy prosecutor, Richard Ceballos, who complained to his bosses that the county sheriff's deputy had lied in a search warrant affidavit (a trial court later threw out the challenge). After complaining, Ceballos claimed he was reassigned and then denied a promotion—acts that certainly seem like retaliation for whistleblowing.

Now the Supreme Court has long afforded whistleblowers some amount of protection from retaliation, but, in the decision today, refused to extend that protection to Ceballos, on the grounds that he was speaking out in his capacity as a public employee, rather than as a private citizen. This appears to mean that if he had simply called up a newspaper and told them about the problems with the search warrant, he'd be protected from retaliation. But because he wrote up an official memo to his bosses, he wasn't. Huh? Here's what John Paul Stevens had to say in his dissent:

[I]t is senseless to let constitutional protection for exactly the same words hinge on whether they fall within a job description. Moreover, it seems perverse to fashion a new rule that provides employees with an incentive to voice their concerns publicly before talking frankly to their superiors.

One would think so. Jack Balkin says this is a "very significant" development—employees acting in their official capacity may be disciplined for speaking out "without any First Amendment scrutiny":

So, it appears that if one's duties are to expose wrongdoing in the workplace, such exposure is entitled to no constitutional protection, but that if an employee whose duties do not involve such whistleblowing makes the exact same complaint, then Pickering/Connick analysis [i.e., protecting whistleblowers] still applies. A somewhat odd result, at least on first glance.

Samuel Alito, perhaps needless to say, voted with the majority and broke the tie. Seems to be an early sign of those pro-government tendencies many of his critics were worried about.

A Competent Bush Nominee?

Ezra Klein notes that Bush's nomination for Treasury Secretary, Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson, is a "serious, competent guy" who—shockingly—supported the Kyoto Protocol. (More to the point, he has stated that unless the United States puts emissions limits in place, "U.S. companies will lose ground to their competitors.")

That sounds nice (insofar as a pro-Wall Street Treasury Secretary can sound "nice"), but it also sounds a lot like a description of Bush's first Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, who, despite helping Ron Suskind produce a very nice book exposing the sheer mendacity and close-mindedness of the current administration, didn't really affect much in the way of policy.

June 2, 2006

Man who made up yellow ribbon story invited to White House as an Iraq expert

Is Bush Right about Pensions?

June 1, 2006

Attack on the Estate Tax

Chavez' Heating Program

Bush's Mixed Record on HIV/AIDS

Rice's Offer to Iran Is No Breakthrough

More on Haditha

Department of Homeland Security snubs Statue of Liberty

May 31, 2006

The Case for Intervention

Is Rice Extending an Olive Branch?

Poison Ivy Epidemic on the Way

May 30, 2006

Bush knew nothing of Haditha deaths until Time asked questions

More Iranian Overtures?

Court Rules Against Whistle-Blowers

A Competent Bush Nominee?

RECENT ENTRIES

ARCHIVE

RECENT COMMENTS

THE CURRENT ISSUE

SEARCH MOTHER JONES

PHOTO ESSAYS

TODAY ON...

SPECIAL REPORTS

INTERVIEWS

LETTERS

IN PRINT

June 2, 2006

June 1, 2006

May 31, 2006

May 30, 2006

RECENT ENTRIES

ARCHIVE

RECENT COMMENTS

SEARCH MOTHER JONES

TODAY ON...

BLOG LINKS

IN PRINT

DONATE TODAY