MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: March 4, 2007

« February 25, 2007 - March 3, 2007 | Main | March 11, 2007 - March 17, 2007 »

March 9, 2007

Women's Days Better These Days in Pakistan, India and Here at Home?

With this being Women's History Month and yesterday being International Women's Day should we try to cram in a crib sheet on the complex and varied "women's issues," of the day? One might argue that such issues are most powerful, and all the more relevant, when addressed as human issues, just as we should all look at Hillary not as the female candidate, Obama not as the black one. But, alas, we humans do love to compartmentalize, so here goes.

As an opportunity to demonstrate international solidarity groups took full advantage of IWD yesterday. Women (and men) all around the world attended demonstrations and rallies calling for equal rights and a stop to violence against women. And while many recognize that there are some initiatives and laws that theoretically secure and guarantee gender equality, in practice much remains to be done.

In Pakistan yesterday activists repeated the demand for a complete abolition of the Hudood Ordinances. Some background: last year's much advertised Protection of Women Act amends the Hudood Ordinances of 1979 and was touted by President General Musharraf as a measure to "safeguard the rights of women." But it only partially repeals the ordinances. Previously, rape was subject to the Sharia law; now, a judge can choose whether the rape case should be tried at a criminal court or under the Sharia, based on " forensic and circumstantial evidence." Little wonder that Pakistani women's groups have severely criticized the bill, charging that Musharraf is still beholden to the radical mullahs. In order to placate the mullahs, Pakistanis who want change, and international criticism of women's rights in Pakistan, he recently introduced this half-assed bill which is arguably no different from the Ordinances.

Pakistan's next door neighbor, the "largest democracy" in the world, India, also has its share of problems regarding the situation of women: child trafficking, the sex trade, female foeticide, illiteracy, discrimination, and Hindu fundamentalists that police Hindu women and direct sexual violence towards Muslim women. The country's Domestic Violence Act of 2005, which took effect last year, does not require women to provide physical evidence of abuse in contrast to previous laws --meaning emotional, verbal, and psychological abuse are now recognized as potential forms of abuse. Moreover, it includes all females, whether they are spouses or not. A step forward though this act is not a remedy for all social ills: phenomenon such as female foeticide must be effectively targeted.

And a word on the home front. Perhaps because most of the western media heavily focuses on the status of women in the Third World and in conflict-ridden areas, we're under the impression that we don't have equally serious problems here at home. Think again: According to a UN Report from last year, "between 40 and 70 percent of female murder victims are killed by husbands or boyfriends in Australia, Canada, Israel, South Africa and the United States." And, "in Europe, North America and Australia, more than half of women with disabilities have experienced physical abuse, compared with one third of non-disabled women." And the numbers reflecting abuse against females in the US indeed prove that violence against women is "pervasive" across the globe, even in America. More on women's plight here at home in our package of articles on domestic violence, "No Safe Haven".

--Neha Inamdar

FBI Violated Civil Liberties Repeatedly In Issuance Of National Security Letters

For some time now, the FBI has insisted that it is using the Patriot Act's national security letters function with caution and discretion. National security letters were used by the agency between 2003 and 2005 to obtain the personal records of U.S. residents and visitors, and a court order is not required to issue one. Corporations and other organizations receiving national securing letters are told that part of federal compliance is that they keep the request and the reply secret.

The FBI reported that it had sent only "about 9,000" national security letters, when--in fact--it had sent between 19,000 and 50,000, depending on who you ask or how the data is interpreted. At any rate, there is no doubt that they sent many more than they claim to have sent, and the figure seems to be in the several-thousand area. More significant, a sampling of the letters, investigated by the Justice Department, indicates 22 possible breaches of internal FBI and Justice Department regulations.

Because the Patriot Act permits the gathering of personal information from persons not alleged to be spies or terrorists, the potential to abuse the national security letter function was obvious to many of us from the beginning, but both the FBI and the Bush administration insisted, over and over, that no abuses were taking place. You can call it incompetence or you can call it lying, but the bottom line is that abuses were taking place all the time.

Lanny Davis, a member of the White House Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, says that a recent briefing by the FBI left him "very concerned about what I regard to be serious potential infringements of privacy and civil liberties by the FBI and their use of national security letters. It is my impression that they too regard this as very serious."

In the Justice Department report are many examples of FBI agents having used "exigent letters" to get fast information under the condition that they would later cover the requests with either full national security letters or grand jury subpoenas--only the national security letters and subpoenas never surfaced. There were also several instances in which agents claimed exigent circumstances when none existed.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is said to be "incensed" over the report, and FBI director Robert S. Mueller III has taken full responsibility for the errors.

Thanks to Think Progress and NPR.

Bush Administration Proposes Pennies On the Dollar In Settlement To Indians

Here’s the latest in the continuation of the epic Cobell v. Kempthorne lawsuit—a veritable Odyssey for our times, chronicled in Mother Jones (Sept-Oct 2005) "Accounting Coup." Ten years and three Secretaries of the Interior have passed since Elouise Cobell, a Blackfeet banker and MacArthur “genius grant” recipient, filed suit against the government, in pursuit of money long overdue her and 500,000 Indians. Background from the MoJo article:

[Cobell’s] fight takes the forms of Cobell v. Norton [now Kempthorne], a federal lawsuit on behalf of a half-million Indians across America whose individual property is held in trust by the Department of the Interior… Interior leases these private Indian lands to oil, timber, and agricultural corporations and other commercial entities, then pays the Indians the revenues those leases yield. But Cobell claims the government has been grossly negligent in its 118 years of managing the Individual Indian Trust, treating the Indians not as clients and beneficiaries but as easy marks.

While generations of non-Indians have become rich harvesting the abundant resources of private Indian lands—which once included virtually all the oil fields of Oklahoma—Indian landowners have been paid only erratically, and far less than their due. Consequently, even landowning Indians remain among the nation's poorest citizens, joining the 23 percent of Indians in America living in poverty, and the nearly 40 percent who are unemployed. Some tribes fare even worse, and the Blackfeet suffer a 34 percent poverty rate and a 70 percent unemployment rate. Overall, Indians are more than twice as poor as the average American.

Cobell filed her lawsuit in 1996 after years of kinder entreaties failed, demanding payment of all unpaid revenues from Indian leases for the past century, a tally of past revenues, and a new accounting system to deal with future revenues. According to Cobell's forensic accountants, the government owes $176 billion to individual Indian landowners, averaging $352,000 per plaintiff, making this monetarily the largest class-action lawsuit ever launched.

Now the government has proposed paying $7 billion. Seems like a lot, right? But with those monies Interior hopes to settle Cobell’s lawsuit on behalf of the Individual Indian Trust and a whole lot more. Hey, this is the kind of accounting we should all get to practise when it comes time to pay our taxes… From IndianTrust.com:

The money would end the more than 250 tribal cases as well as the billion-dollar Cobell lawsuit over individual Indian funds. In exchange, the administration demands Congress extinguish the government's liability for all future trust claims. Not only would the money be used to resolve the lawsuits, it would be used to pay for trust reform programs at the Interior Department. In the letter, Gonzales and Kempthorne cite fractionation, information technology security and a controversial initiative to shift all management duties to tribes and individual Indians.

The proposal was immediately met with resistance from the Cobell plaintiffs. Keith Harper, a Washington, D.C., attorney for the plaintiffs, called it a "bad faith offer. You cannot say that you have a potentially $200 billion liability [for tribes] and try to settle that, plus Cobell, plus trust reform, plus IT security, for $7 billion," he said yesterday… The offer is also likely to draw objections from tribal leaders, who rejected the same proposal last fall when it was released by Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona).

Arguments to Pardon Libby, to the Circular File

Now maybe I'm just the liberal rabble-rouser the right likes to believe I am, but pardon Libby: huh? A political scandal that ends in jail time for someone who worked in the White House is one that has real heft to it. But even the liberal(ish) American Prospect is calling for a pardon.

Now to play devil's advocate for a moment: Say this is a political battle, left and right in the trenches. How many of the right came to the left's aid during Clinton's absurd political persecution (cherry on the top of which sundae came today when henchman Newt Gingrich admitted that he was having an affair at the time he was impeaching Clinton for having an affair)? Precious few. Not only that, but many Democrats and leftists broke ranks to speak out against Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich. And the case for doing partisan battle has never been stronger: This administration is shredding the constitution and making every department of the government partisan from top to bottom. (For a micro-tour, click here and here.)

Now let's take the arguments on their face. The Prospect says we should pardon Libby because "The offenses of which [he] has been convicted pale in comparison with the high crimes that have gotten us trapped in Iraq and that, even now, remain unacknowledged and largely unpunished." Say what? The column reads like a celebration that finally someone in this corrupt administration has been taken to task with "pardon Libby" stuck on the top and the bottom. The time has already been spent going after Libby—even if "he's small potatoes" were a good argument, it would have made sense a year ago but not now. It's not a good argument: If you work in the White House, don't lie on the stand in a probe about endangering the life of someone serving her country. Cover up for someone higher, do time.

Word to the Prospect: You know your argument is messed up when you agree with Tom DeLay. Here's the illogical platitude the oustered uber-partisan House leader offered: "In their wisdom, our Founding Fathers gave our chief executive the authority to issue pardons in order to better balance the scales of justice." Which is even more ironic than it seems given that pleas for a pardon come amid revelations that the Bush Justice Department fired prosecutors who weren't sufficiently partisan. Balance the scales of justice? More like sit their fat white asses on the right side.

Giuliani Is Giuli-Gone-y

As pathetic as the Republican hunt for a nominee already is, it just got worse.

Rudy Giuliani has had no luck wooing conservatives, but you'd think America's mayor would at least get the firefighter vote. Nope. Turns out many of New York's finest think Giuliani botched the Ground Zero clean up and showed blatant indifference for the ladders' losses. In fact, Giuliani was to be the one '08 candidate they didn't invite to speak at an upcoming forum, a leaked union letter [PDF] reveals. They relented, Rudy accepted, and then bowed out shortly thereafter.

Countdown on his candidacy is on.

Replacement U.S. Attorney Accused of Vote Suppression

Calling an anti-Bush website GeorgeWBush.org was a stroke of genius that continues to pay off.

Remember Timothy Griffin, who replaced H. E. Cummins when the latter was unceremoniously sacked for not playing hardball with the Bush administration? Well Tim accidentally sent emails meant for senior RNC staff about a vote suppression scam he was running to addresses @GeorgeWBush.org instead of @GeorgeWBush.com.

The suppression scam, explained on Greg Palast's blog (H/T AlterNet), specifically targeted blacks and Latinos (and soldiers and the poor). That's a felony. But instead of firing or investigating old Timmy boy, the Bush administration fired the respectable Cummins specifically to make room for Griffin. An old buddy of Rove's, he's exactly their kind of guy.

Crusading NYT Tax Reporter Strikes Again

David Cay Johnston covers taxes for the New York Times in the tradition of the very best muckraking journalists. Here's what I wrote about Johnston in an introduction to a long interview I did with him a year ago:

David Cay Johnston is one of the few people in the United States who's exposing the American tax code for what it is: backwards socialism. As a Pulitzer Prize-winning tax reporter for the New York Times, Johnston has, over the past nine years, uncovered the inner workings of a system that coddles, aids, and abets the rich in their various attempts to get out of paying taxes, forcing the upper-middle, middle, and working classes to pay for government on their own.

As Johnston showed in his book, Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich—And Cheat Everybody Else, few people have really closely examined the intricate loopholes, devices, dodges, and shelters that allow corporations and superrich individuals to pay shockingly little in taxes.

Johnston exposed $262 billion in tax fraud from his post at the Times and broke the story that Enron had used various offshore devices to avoid paying any taxes at all. If you've ever hated paying your taxes and had a creeping feeling that corporations and those in higher tax brackets aren't feeling the burden they way you are, take a look at what Johnston has to say.

Today, Johnston reports that the Bush Administration's push to privatize government has reached the tax code, compromising it in critical ways.

The Internal Revenue Service is asking tax lawyers and accountants who create tax shelters and exploit loopholes to take the lead in writing some of its new tax rules.

Hey, if you let energy executives write energy policy, why not let dirty tax lawyers write the tax code? But while some are critical of the move -- "Why don’t we just privatize Congress and outsource the development of our laws?" asked the director of a research and advocacy non-profit, who noted that the outsourcing of regulation was reaching the point of absurdity -- others see this as a formalization of a problem that already secretly plagues the system:

Kenneth J. Kies, one of the most sought-after tax lobbyists in Washington, said the proposal "merely formalizes" the practice of lawyers sending the I.R.S. letters "saying, 'We think you need to issue some guidance in an area and here is our suggestion.'" He said a formal process would be more transparent.

Further reason to believed that all-consuming cynicism is warranted when thinking about the federal government. It's not enough that all of Bush's agencies and departments are in the pocket of big business -- the IRS needs to be in the pocket of the folks who do big business' taxes. So that way, rich CEOs can both play the game on an uneven playing field and not have to pay any taxes on the winnings.

(Hat Tip, Kevin Drum)

Gingrich Admits to Having Affair While He Pushed to Impeach Clinton over Lewinsky

He admitted this in an interview with Focus on the Family that will air today. No big deal though, because Gingrich has repented. "I've gotten on my knees and sought God's forgiveness," he says. Now that that's been taken care of, it's on to selling his new book: "Rediscovering God in America."

Libby Pardon Mania

It's all anyone is talking about. Will Bush pardon Libby? The Dems are urging the president not to. Libby allies are pushing hard and fast for an immediate pardon. Bush has said he will stay out of it for now.

Jonathan points out we should really move "past Libby and take a look at all the other players (Read: Cheney) in this sordid drama." I couldn't agree more, but there is one interesting question which Newsweek posed a few days back. Can Bush pardon Libby even if he wanted to? According to Newsweek, he can't. The VP's chief of staff "does not qualify to even be considered for a presidential pardon under Justice Department guidelines," reads the article. Here are the guidelines.

Well, so this isn't exactly true, because not all presidents follow these guidelines. But Bush has, so it could make the prospect for a pardon from him unlikely. Bush has been both stringent with the number of pardons that he has granted as well as with the manner in which he has granted them. One guideline that could impede Libby's pardon prospects is that a petitioner must wait five years or until released from confinement to file a pardon application. There is also the issue of acceptance of guilt, which according to Jonathan Turley, a GW law prof. I contacted for more information on this issue, is a "threshold expectation among pardon attorneys."

But really, I wonder if any of this matters. With pressure from Cheney and Libby allies, will Bush uphold his frugal pardon track record? Maybe not. According to Turley, if Bush pardons Libby, the controversy would indeed be escalated considering his refusal to pardon so many others, but he notes that Bush has one thing going for him -- low ratings. "It is hard to get any lower," says Turley. "He is down to the true believers and Koolaid drinkers at this point." Maybe Libby will get lucky.

Some International Women's Day Resources

We were remiss in not posting this yesterday, but here are some quick links to help you celebrate (?) International Women's Day one day late.

Jessica at Feministing has a video post describing International Women's Day events around the world.

Katha Pollitt has a post at TPM Cafe that hits on a lot of topics.

Here's the official website and you can find the history of International Women's Day on Wikipedia.

How Do You Say "Huge Contrast" in Portuguese?

Via ThinkProgress, take a look at the different local reactions to President Clinton's 1997 trip to Brazil and GWB's current trip.

Congress to Open Hearings on Plame Case

A few days ago, Mike Tomasky wrote what a lot of us were thinking -- can we please get past Libby and take a look at all the other players in this sordid drama, the ones the jurors were practically begging to try. It's partially an instinct to nail Rove and Cheney for their role in the leak (even the jury knew Libby was the "fall guy"), but also a desire to use the Plame affair as a way into examining all the lies, corruptions, and malfeasance that led us to war.

Well, god bless Henry Waxman, because he heard our prayers both silent and vocal. In hearings that could begin as early as next week, Waxman will use the power of his House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee to fully flesh out every administration member's role in the Plame case. Possible witnesses include Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson, Patrick Fitzgerald, and Dick Cheney himself. (As of now, that's all speculation.)

And FYI - You can find the "Plamegate" portion of the Iraq War Timeline here.

March 8, 2007

Bring in the Cops! Schwarzenegger’s Bodybuilder Appointees are Chiropractic Fanatics!

Who needs to watch "Conan the Barbarian" when there’s the California Board of Chiropractic Examiners? The board, which includes two friends from Schwarzenegger’s bodybuilding days, one of whom played a part in the film, has launched a coup. They’ve ousted the board’s executive director and ejected their own lawyer, a deputy attorney general, from a meeting. The board is so mired in controversy, reports the Sacramento Bee, that five California Highway Patrol officers were called into a meeting last week to keep the peace.

The fracas centers around the regulation of California’s chiropractics industry, which, second only to Hollywood and bodybuilding, is to Schwarzenegger as oil is to Bush. The Governator holds an honorary degree from Cleveland Chiropractic College. In 1999, the Bee reports, he granted an interview to a magazine called Dynamic Chiropractic, in which he said, “People who don’t believe in chiropractic always ask me about it. I have now become like a spokesperson for chiropractic."

Schwarzenegger’s chiropractic crusaders include Franco Columbu, a two-time Mr. Olympia and occasional actor, and Richard Tyler, the editor of a bodybuilding magazine who picked up Schwarzenegger from the airport when he first arrived in California in 1968, the Bee reported. Both men are also chiropractors, and have bristled at what they see as too many restrictions on the industry. They approved a resolution last week supporting a controversial chiropractic practice known as “manipulation under anesthesia,” which was shot down in 2005 by the state’s Office of Administrative Law and is the subject of lawsuits filed against chiropractors in the state for unlicensed practice of medicine.

At a meeting of the board in December, shortly before director Catherine Hayes was ousted and Tyler took over as “interim director” of the board, the Bee recounted that she clashed with Tyler over what chiropractors were capable of curing:

Tyler insisted that he had cured earaches in children by adjusting the atlas, the vertebra closest to the head, and using homeopathic remedies.

He then took Hayes to task for signing a pending review of a case stating that “no forensic or scientific evidence” supports claims that chiropractic and homeopathic remedies are helpful in curing earaches, adding that there is more than 100 years of proof.

The debate, though imbued with Californian flapdoodle, ultimately sounds reminiscent of the creationist textbook wars in Kansas. And the Lord said, be gone, earache! (and that'll be $19.95, in four easy installments!) Political Muscle, the Arnold-centric LA Times political blog, seems to agree that this whole scandal defies credulity. “There is nothing left to blog after that,” they write. “Schwarzenegger has exceeded all expectations.”

UPDATE: In a follow-up piece in the Bee yesterday afternoon, Schwarzenegger threw fuel on the flames. Though the board's website says it's supposed to "protect Californians from fraudulent or incompetent" practices, Schwarzenegger told the Bee that the board "represents the chiropractors." Ouch, my ears are hurting. I guess I need my atlas adjusted.

Rove on U.S. Attorney Firings: This Is So Not A Big Deal

As TPMmuckraker reports, Karl Rove is on camera (above) discussing how not a big deal the recent mass purging of U.S. Attorneys is. Give it up for the Arkansas Times blog for spotting this gem. Rove was speaking at a Statehouse Convention Center in Little Rock. The president's Deputy Chief of Staff basically says (I'm paraphrasing): "U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, they can be fired for any or no reason at all, Clinton fired all of the U.S. Attorneys in place when he took office...blah, blah, blah." So, yes, Rove is correct. U.S. Attorneys do serve at the pleasure of the president, which mind you is why all eight of them prior to being subpoenaed before the House quietly and graciously accepted their forced resignations. But this type of cleanse, as was repeated ad nauseam on Tuesday in front of the House and Senate committees investigating the firings, is unprecedented. And the DOJ's constant flip-flop over why the USAs were canned looks rather fishy. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee leading the senate investigation, brought up this very point during his questioning of the attorneys. He said that USAs do serve at the pleasure of the prez and in his state, they "like to cycle as many people through this position as [they] can" (again, paraphrasing, I don't have my hearing notes in front of me). But, he noted that all four of the attorneys that appeared before the senate committee had been in office for a very long time, so if the DOJ had been unhappy with their performance, which is one of the many reasons given by the department for the attorneys' terminations, somebody was asleep at the wheel for quite a while.

Rove also attacks Carol Lam, claiming she refused to file immigration cases. This just isn't true. During the senate hearing, Lam testified that offices of comparable size file 400-800 cases each year, her office filed between 2400 and 3000 cases and doubled the number of immigration cases that went to trial between 2006 and 2007.

Scandal in Obama's Past Finally Revealed

Spotted in Salon's War Room, the Boston Globe is reporting today that Barack Obama paid $375 in late fees and fines for parking tickets racked up while he was at Harvard just two weeks before announcing his presidential bid. The man is clearly not presidential material: He should have had his daddy intervene on his behalf with the Traffic, Parking & Transportation Department. (Although I've heard it's more intractable than the draft board ever was.)

Slick Willie Version 2.0?

If you want to know why New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson's presidential campaign is having trouble getting off the ground, check out this Politico article on Richardson's "excessively personal" campaign style.

MoJoBlog on Richardson's expertise on nukes here and his all-around qualification for the country's highest office here.

Estonian Election Goes Digital

In random, but interesting news, Estonia recently completed its national parliamentary election, and with it, the largest scale non-Simon-Cowell-related online voting experiment in history. 30,000 citizens (about 1 in 30 voters), used their national ID cards and PINs to cast their ballots on a government website. Apparently, no security breaches occurred, and voter turnout was an all time high of 61%. The BBC points out that online voting will need to flush out all security concerns before gaining mass popularity, but still...in the future, imagine casting your vote to reelect President Jenna Bush from the comfort of your moon-beer-drenched LazyBoy...ah technology.

Mother Jones Nominated for WPA Magazine Awards

The Western Publications Association has announced this year's finalists for its annual Maggie Awards and Mother Jones has nabbed two. Chuck Bowden's tour de force, Exodus, which takes the reader deep inside the immigration debate in a way only Bowden, who has lived and worked on both sides of the line for decades, can, is up for Best Feature Article. And our entire September/October issue, featuring our Lie by Lie timeline, is a nominee in the Politics & Social Issues category. Winners of the 56th annual awards will be announced April 27th.

Newsweek Feeds My Huckabee Love Affair

If you read the blog yesterday, you know that I'm pushing for a Hagel-Huckabee Republican ticket. I think it makes a ton of sense for the conservative base, but it also sounds awesome and has a great odd couple feel to it. But these two have a lot of work to do if they're going make my wishes come true. Huckabee's working on it; he's got an interview in Newsweek that should increase his name recognition a little bit.

Here's a tidbit that should be familiar to regular MoJoBlog readers:

Q: What do you make of candidates like Giuliani, Romney and McCain — all of whom have moved to the right on social issues?

A: The first thing is: imitation is the most serious form of flattery. Some are having a late adult moment to come to a position I’ve held since I’ve been a teenager. Voters will have to determine if they’re seeing the politics of conviction or convenience.

ZING! Huckabee comes out swinging!

He's going to have to work on his global warming talking points, though. First of all, he's got to do some research. You'll see what I mean below. Second of all, he's got to respond to questions like this with a little more clarity.

Q: But do you believe there’s a human role in climate change?

A: There may be. But whether there is or there isn’t, it doesn’t release us from the responsibility to be good stewards of the environment. It’s the old boy scout rule: you leave your campsite in as good or better shape than how you found it. It’s a spiritual issue. [The earth] belongs to God. I have no right to destroy it. I think we work toward alternative energy sources. [We need to make it] like the Manhattan Project or going to the moon. We need to accelerate our energy independence.

Maybe this response is about Huckabee having his cake and eating it too. He wants to appeal to the (crazy and uninformed) portion of the Republican base that still doesn't believe global warming exists and resents the growing Al Gore-led environmentalist crowd that screams bloody murder over the issue (and demands lifestyle changes from them). At the same time, he also wants to appeal to the new and growing green evangelical movement. Whatever the case may be, as the campaign goes along Huckabee's going to have to make that response a more elegant one.

There's also a moment in the interview when Huckabee won't say whether or not he supports letting women preach in Christian churches and a heartfelt plea about retaining music and art programs in schools. And a series of questions about how fat he used to be. So, uh, yeah, there's lots of work to be done on Huckabee '08. How about some vision, buddy? And how can you go through a five-page interview and not mention your life story, or anything about who you are as a person? C'mon, Huckabee! Don't let me down!

Update on U.S. Attorneys Probe: DOJ Officials May Be Subpoenaed

The Senate Judiciary Committee, which is heading an investigation into the recent quick and dirty cleansing of 8 -- and maybe 9 -- U.S. Attorneys, will vote today on whether to subpoena five DOJ officials if they fail to appear. Those officials include the chiefs of staff for both U.S. Attornery General Alberto Gonzales and Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty (Kyle Sampson and Mike Elston, respectively), acting Associate Attorney General William Mercer, Director of the Executive Office of the United States Attorney Michael Battle (who has just resigned), and the Justice Department's White House liaison, Monica Goodling. During a marathon of hearings before the House and Senate this past Tuesday, the testimony by six of the U.S. Attorneys incriminated these officials. TPMmuckraker has a good rundown on their alleged involvement in the firings. For Mojo coverage of the senate hearing on Tuesday and further developments, click here, here and here.

March 7, 2007

No Child Left Behind? Iraqi Edition

Yesterday's Jordan Times adds another whopper to the myriad of bad news coming out of Iraq. Apparently, few of the estimated 172,000 to 230,000 school-aged Iraq War refugees living Jordan are enrolled in school. Those children, many of whom are from middle class Iraqi families, lack the proper residency status to qualify for public school, and their families lack the finances to enroll their children in private institutions. As a result, over a hundred thousand Iraqi children have been out of school for as many as 4 years now--and that's just counting those in Jordan. Musa Shteiwi, a sociology professor at the University of Jordan notes:

"Violating children’s rights to an education can have short- and long-term effects on their chances in life. They could turn to other things like begging, illegal employment and leading delinquent lives," Shteiwi told The Jordan Times.

The sociologist, who is director of the Jordan Centre for Social Research, added that the long term impact on Jordanian society may not be significant if the Iraqis are no longer here in a few years, but a short term impact is imminent and would add to social problems in the Kingdom.

What about the impact on Iraqi society? An estimated 40% of educated middle class Iraqis have fled since the invasion. Who will replace them in a future (free?) Iraq?

An Online Forum for Sexual Harrassment

UPenn law student Anthony Ciolli and insurance agent Jarret Cohen run a forum that promotes sexual harassment of law students. Women's pictures are posted without their consent, and they refuse to censor anonymous slander and hate speech. The defamation probably cost one woman a job. So if you have personal information about these two, post it right here. Personality quirks, sexual issues, insecurities large and small—get creative. Doesn't have to be true. Hey—It's freedom of speech! Because of the First Amendment, no one has any moral accountability for anything said.

Dear GOP, You are Not the Party of Lincoln

Excellent work from Eric Foner of the Nation (via Alternet) in which Foner smacks down the GOP's recent use of Lincoln quotes on the subject of treason. (Lincoln thought those who don't support the military should be "exiled or hanged," the Right claims, incorrectly.) I've always thought that any invocation of Lincoln by the Republicans was disingenuous history-twisting at its worst. After all, we're talking about the man who perhaps did more for African-Americans than any other American being used as a talking point by a party that viciously fought the civil rights movement and to this day uses minority vote-suppression to win elections in close races. "Party of Lincoln," my rear end. Lincoln technically belonged to the same party as these guys, but that's where the similarities end.

Anyway, Foner looks at Lincoln's congressional record pre-presidency and it turns out he was strongly anti-war. He led Congress in protest of James Polk's war with Mexico, which was sold on false pretenses and was largely "pre-emptive." There is no doubt that Lincoln would have fought harder than most against the war in Iraq.

Raise Your Hand if You Hate Maureen Dowd!

Every once in a while, I find Maureen Dowd funny, but ever since her Britney Spears train wreck in slow motion of a book, I've been seriously turned off.

Now this. Today's Daily Howler compares the Don't-Call-Me-Dowdy one to Ann Coulter. That's right. Coulter outright calls Dems "faggots," but Maureen Dowd almost compulsively describes them with belittling feminizing images. (It should be said that she adds -ie to the names of most Republicans.) Her last column about Gore before the 2000 election was a conversation between him and his bald spot called "I feel pretty…." Dowd's insults are every bit as pointed, but come in "simpering" sheep's clothing. And so, the Daily Howler concludes, Dowd does Dems more damage than the despicable Coulter.

It's Time for Hagel-Huckabee '08, Folks

Matt Yglesias has a typically great takedown of the Big Three Republican contenders, Giuliani, McCain, and Romney, over at the American Prospect. There's nothing new to report, but Yglesias illustrates why they are all basically ineligible for the Republican nomination with economy and some good humor ("Mitt Romney is the most freakishly transparent liar I've ever witnessed."). It's worth a read. I'll highlight one particularly insightful point here:

Given that they're all viewed skeptically by cultural conservatives, the only possible way for any of them to campaign for the nomination is with an escalating race to the right on national security, even though Iraq just led the GOP to disaster last November. Which vulnerable state that Bush won in 2004 is rendered more secure by making the Republican Party less committed to social conservatism but more committed to the Iraq project? Ohio? Virginia? Missouri? Nevada? Iowa? I don't see it. [Emphasis his.]

Yup, they're all screwed. That's why I've come to realize that a ticket with Mike Huckabee and Chuck Hagel would pretty much be unstoppable. I'm thinking Hagel for president because he has war experience, much better teeth, and is currently right on the biggest issue, Iraq. I'm thinking Huckabee for vice president because he seems cuddly (he doesn't swear!) and was a preacher for a long time. Also, he wrote a self-help book about losing weight and is named Huckabee, two things that probably disqualify him from the presidency.

By the way, I'm not really joking. In a week, there will be a Newsweek article about these two forming a ticket. Just watch.

U.S. Attorney Update: Domenici Lawyers Up

In a move that suggests he's feeling the heat, New Mexico Republican Pete Domenici hired a high-powered lawyer today. Fired attorney David Iglesias said Domenici's chief of staff called him just weeks before the November election and pressured him to be more aggressive in his ethics probe of a Democrat. The senator himself took the phone at one point and asked if Iglesias would produce indictments before the election. (For a full report on yesterday's congressional testimony, click here.)

I'm not sure if it's more comical or terrifying, but Domenici has hired the lawyer who represented Randy "Duke" Cunningham, the former Republican congressman who was found guilty on ethics charges brought by U.S. attorney Carol S. Lam—who was fired shortly thereafter. Comical because Cunningham is in jail; terrifying because the Republican wagons are circled pretty tight and they don't fight fair.

Air America 2.0 -- Any Different from the First Time Around?

In January, Clara wrote about the plan to sell the financially-troubled Air America to brothers Stephen and Mark Green. That deal was consummated yesterday and Mark Green celebrated the event by posting his vision for the new Air America (a/k/a Air America 2.0) on Huffington Post.

Unfortunately, having read Green's essay, I'm a bit skeptical of the "new" attributes of Air America. They sound an awful lot like the old attributes -- the ones that sent them into Chapter 11. Green asserts in the "Huff Po" that Air America will now:

"[Focus] on the radio fundamentals of making a strong line-up even stronger."

"[Connect] to other progressive membership organizations to be mutually fortifying."

"[Be] a multi-media content company involving other distribution platforms -- Internet, blogging, audio and video streaming, mobile, social networks, and more."

I think you can do all three of those things and still not make any money if the idea of progressive radio is a fundamentally flawed one, or if the execution of your core product is shoddy, or if there simply isn't a market for what you are selling. Green also says Air America will "be a business with a sharp point of view. The era of on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand liberalism is over" (what, AA didn't take a strong point of view before?) and that "Air America will aggressively cover national politics and policies in ways that will be informative, opinionated and entertaining."

Well, okay. It sounds a little like, "We're going to do it better this time!" but I'm willing to be optimistic. Air America covering and maybe even breaking news would be cool, and some genuinely funny content would be welcomed. Go for it, boys, and good luck.

Any readers who have heard Air America in the last few days (or in the next few) should leave their thoughts in the comments. Any material changes?

Update on U.S. Attorneys Investigation: DOJ Official Denies Allegations Against Him

Yesterday, former U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee (read my dispatch from the hearing here) that Mike Elston, the chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, made a threatening phone call to him. (