MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: April 22, 2007

« April 15, 2007 - April 21, 2007 | Main | April 29, 2007 - May 5, 2007 »

April 28, 2007

Department of Veterans Affairs Backs Down, Allows Pentacles On Headstones

In March of 2006, I reported that the widow of a Nevada National Guardsman shot down in Afghanistan was trying to get permission from the Department of Veterans Affairs to have a pentacle engraved on her husband's headstone. Her request was denied.

Both the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed lawsuits against the Department of Veterans Affairs on behalf of families whose loved ones' headstones remained blank. The ACLU's suit involved three individuals and two churches. The DVA settled the suit brought by Americans United, an act which automatically settled the ACLU suit.

Under the terms of the settlement, which was reached April 23, the DVA will add the pentacle to its list of approved emblems of belief, and will provide appropirate headstones to the families who filed the lawsuits.

Provo, Utah Business Community Forms Blacklist Of Protesting Students

First, the Provo School District denied a venue to Brigham Young University students who wanted a place to hold an alternative commencement ceremony. The students, who did not want to attend the official ceremony with speaker Dick Cheney, had been promised space at a local high school, but then a memo suddenly appeared, telling all principals to deny use of their schools for the event. An anonymous member of the Provo School Board says that, in denying space to the students, the board is violating its own rental policy.

But that was just the beginning of the story. A local businesswoman has tipped off the students that their names are now also on a "do not hire" list circuated by local businesses. "Many businesses are noting the names involved," she says.

April 27, 2007

Bush's FBI/DOJ Neglect Hate Crimes and Other Civil Rights Cases

A few weeks back, Jonathan wrote about Bush being soft on crime, especially white-collar crimes. Following 9/11, GW restructured the FBI, tasking it with counter-terrorism efforts. Because the bureau was given no additional funds to handle the increased work-load, something had to go. Well, it turns out the FBI hasn't just neglected bank fraud and ID theft, civil rights cases have been ignored as well. Seattle Post Intelligencer reports that there were "two-thirds fewer investigations targeting abusive police officers, cross-burners and other purveyors of hate from 2001 to 2005." According to the FBI, it wasn't just the budget crunch that lead to the decrease, but that they gave up on investigating these types of crime because only 10 percent of the cases referred to the Justice Department were prosecuted. As Jonathan noted, the DOJ was maybe too busy with "show trial terror prosecutions" or was it the politicization of the department that had them otherwise engaged?

The Real Headline from the Dems' Debate: "Nothing Happened"

Every news outlet seems to be leading with the debate the Democratic presidential candidates had in South Carolina last night. The reporters had to mine a thoroughly uneventful evening for a news hook, and so if you look around the web you'll find stuff like, "Everyone attacked Obama!" or "Obama was great, Hillary was awful!" or "Democrats target Bush!" Or whatever. In reality, here's what happened: nothing.

Obama was Obama. Edwards was Edwards. Clinton was Clinton. They didn't lash out at anyone except President Bush, which they've been doing every day for months. Richardson talks too much. Joe Biden knows what he's talking about, but has no chance. Dennis Kucinich doesn't talk about issues, he talks about philosophies and how they lead to positions on issues. He doesn't have a chance either. Chris Dodd was a non-entity. Mike Gravel (pronounced Gruh-VELL) is crazy and hilarious and you don't know who he is. But let's emphasize this, he's really crazy. Brian Williams was a fine moderator until the last ten minutes, when he let things get out of control and Obama and Kucinich started bickering about bombing people.

Everyone was so careful and timid and uninterested in attacking their opponents that they could have debated for three days instead of 90 minutes and there wouldn't have been a single worthwhile news hook. And that's all you need to know.

April 26, 2007

Guess How Many People are Running for President? (Now Add One More)

Because former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore just announced he's in too.

If you're like, 'Jim who'? That's OK. It was my reaction and I'm from Virginia.

Gilmore is unknown to most Americans and a recent filing to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) showed that he has just $90,000 in his campaign account — well behind the totals reported by other Republicans. Gilmore said today that the presidential campaign is a “very long race” and that he will reach voters and increase his name recognition through the Internet. Gilmore’s speech was broadcast live over his campaign Web site. (NYT/CQ)

Love that his campaign is trying to spin his virtual announcement as a sign that he's web savvy. And not, you know, the guy who couldn't get reporters to come to his press conference.

Seriously, how many people are running for president? I've lost count.

Rare Lung Disease Found In Food-Flavoring Plant Employees

Bronchiolitis obliterans, a rare, life-threatening lung disease, has been found in eight in eight individuals who worked in California food-flavoring plants between 2003 and 2007. Contracting this disease was apparently the result of inhaling diacetyl, which is also linked to the occurrence of bronchiolitis obliterans in people who work in the microwave popcorn industry.

And the latest issue of Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report indicates that women who work in battery manufacturing plants have elevated lead levels.

"Bronchiolitis obliterans is a severe lung disease that can be prevented with appropriate measures, such as engineering controls, work practices, medical surveillance, and a respiratory protection program," according to report co-author Dr. Rachael Bailey, an epidemic intelligence service officer at the CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

There are no regulations governing U.S. food flavoring plants.

Gov't Watchdogs Call the OSC's Rove Investigation Dead in the Water

As Dan Schulman reported this week, the Project on Government Oversight—a reputable nonprofit dedicated to rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse in government—has expressed doubt that Scott Bloch and the Office of Special Counsel have the authority to investigate Karl Rove as they've promised to do. Today, POGO and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility issued a joint press release detailing their objections. First the obvious: OSC head Bloch is under investigation by the White House, so how can he impartially investigate the White House?

Bloch aside, PEER and POGO claim it is "unclear at best" whether the OSC has the authority to oversee White House (and RNC) activities. The office almost certainly doesn't have the authority to look into former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias's claim that his firing amounted to discrimination against an armed services member (one of the rationales the DOJ gave for firing him was that he was out of the office too often; he serves in the Navy Reserves). Finally, the OSC can issue subpoenas, but can't enforce them. Do you really think Rove would submit to such a weak legal request?

Finally, as Dan reported in the current issue of the magazine, Mr. Bloch has hardly been an overachiever in the past, and has very little experience conducting large-scale investigations. PEER director Jeff Ruch put it this way: "Scott Bloch brings the investigative acumen of an Inspector Clouseau to a very complicated and delicate matter."

Ecuador Asks Us to Pay for the Amazon

This dilemma cuts to the core of environmentalism today. Ecuador is asking for international financial compensation to leave alone a major oilfield in the heart of the Amazon. Ecuador's president says he will wait up to one year for a response before drilling. At stake are not only plant and animal species, but also the homeland of tribes living in voluntary isolation. Environmental groups are in disagreement. To pay or not to pay? Keep reading on The Blue Marble.

Military B.S. Alert

Remember James Yee, the poor Guantanamo chaplain who was charged with a laundry list of offenses, all of which were later dropped?

There's a new James Yee. His name is Lt. Col. William H. Steele. He's been accused of aiding the enemy, a charge that can bring a death sentence. The reason? He allowed detainees at Camp Cropper near the Baghdad airport to use an unsecured cell phone. All the charges against him sound suspiciously floppy:

He was also accused of illegally storing and marking classified information, disobeying orders relating to his possession of pornography, dereliction of duty regarding government funds and conduct unbecoming of an officer for fraternizing with the daughter of a detainee since 2005 and for maintaining "an inappropriate relationship" with an interpreter in 2005 and 2006.

The military is mum on the charges, but outside analysts who have seen them say the fraternizing charge probably did not involve a sexual relationship.

Now get this: The military accused Yee of disturbingly similar violations, including aiding the enemy, failure to obey a general order, adultery and storing pornography on government computers.

So the real question isn't whether detainees were using Steele's cell phone to harm Americans (much less whether Steele knew it, which would have to be proven for the charge to stick), it's what Steele did to piss off the Pentagon. Or is this simply an attempt to distract the public from the security surge's failure? (Now even Gen. Petraeus is saying things will get worse before they get better.) Stay tuned.

McCain Neglects to Vote on Iraq War Spending Bill and Everything Else, Really

I just updated my McCain post below with this news, but decided it deserved its own slot. The LA Times reports that presidential candidate John McCain was one of three senators who did not show up to vote today on the Iraq war spending bill (it just passed in the Senate). "This is the fourth major Iraq-related vote missed by McCain." But, it's not just Iraq votes that McCain skips. Politico points out that according to Congressional Observer Publications, McCain doesn't show up to vote for much these days. In fact, since January, he has missed one in three votes. Need a little context? The senator's Democratic cohorts, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have both missed just three.

FOX's John Gibson: Iraqis Are "Knuckle-Dragging Savages"

In a logically questionable and morally reprehensible tirade about how Americans are not responsible for the sectarian warfare in Iraq, FOX personality John Gibson said on his radio show, "Who is doing this killing? Give me a break. These are Iraqis killing each other. So what did we do? If you're saying it's our fault that we unmasked them as knuckle-dragging savages from the 10th century -- fine! I'll take credit."

Worse than Imus?

You have to smirk at the "They ruined our war!" petulance of the whole thing. We deconstruct more of John Gibson's idiocy here.

Somebody Needs to Put a Lid on McCain's Straight Talk Express

I know people seem to like John McCain's candid manner of speaking, but come on, there needs to be some sort of filter on the Straight Talk Express, right? Last month, as I'm sure all of you remember, McCain took a fair amount of heat for claiming the Baghdad market was safe enough for a leisurely afternoon stroll. Sure, sure, everything is safe with a cadre of more than 100 soldiers. But, I think our aging Senator has really hit a new level of carelessness, er... candidness.

On Tuesday, McCain made a guest appearance on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, during which Stewart asked about the aforementioned shopping excursion. McCain replied, "I had something picked out for you, too — a little IED to put on your desk." Not really funny, right? Am I being too uptight? Well, I'm "sticking to my guns" and going with "end the war slowly" John Murtha on this one. The Rep. from PA was livid when he heard about McCain's cracks about explosives. But there's more, McCain's response to Murtha was as straight-talking as one can get. On Good Morning America this morning, McCain sent this message to Murtha: Lighten up and get a life. The video is right here. Really? Lighten up about a war that costs this nation $1.9 billion a week and has taken more than 3,000 American lives? I think what upsets me the most is I can remember all too well a straight-talking presidential candidate that talked his way to the White House, twice.

Update: Apparently, McCain is too busy straight-talking to vote on the Iraq war spending bill that just passed in the Senate. This is the fourth Iraq-related vote the senator has missed.

I'm with Salon, All Roads Do Lead to Rove

Ok, so Jonathan and I are both on Rove's case today. See below for more haranguing.

Yesterday, Dan reported on the irony of a man like Scott Bloch, the head of the Office of Special Counsel investigating Karl Rove for his recently revealed dirty dealings. Bloch himself is under investigation by the Office of Personnel Management's inspector general, spurred on, in part, by his staff who claimed "he engaged in the very retaliatory practices his agency is charged with investigating." We're wondering, "courageous effort to expose White House malfeasance, or a last ditch attempt to save his own hide"?

Bloch and the OSC plan to investigate Rove's involvement in, among other things, that politicized power-point presentation given to political appointees at the General Services Administration (GSA) by a Rove deputy, which, once again, is front page news. Yes, Bloch's job just got even more involved. As Jonathan notes in his post about the Hatch Act below, there wasn't just one power-point presentation, but 20 given to 15 different agencies and all -- you guessed it -- by Rove deputies. I know, it's overwhelming and a little tough to keep track of the various transgressions these days by WH and government officials, but it might be more simple than it appears. I think Salon had some great foresight when they titled this piece: "All Roads Lead to Rove."

Violation of Hatch Act Now Clear: Rove's Team Gave 20 Partisan Briefings to Fed. Employees

I blogged yesterday about how the Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from using government resources on partisan political activities. One might argue that having Karl Rove as the deputy chief of staff is a violation of the Hatch Act in and of itself, since his only job, really, is to get Republicans elected. But that's not specific enough to be a real allegation. I understand.

You know what is specific enough? This:

White House officials conducted 20 private briefings on Republican electoral prospects in the last midterm election for senior officials in at least 15 government agencies covered by federal restrictions on partisan political activity, a White House spokesman and other administration officials said yesterday.

The violations of the Hatch Act seem pretty obvious:

In the GSA briefing -- conducted like all the others by a deputy to chief White House political adviser Karl Rove -- two slides were presented showing 20 House Democrats targeted for defeat and several dozen vulnerable Republicans.

At its completion, GSA Administrator Lurita Alexis Doan asked how GSA projects could be used to help "our candidates," according to half a dozen witnesses.

Currently, the administration's defense is that these were "informational briefings about the political landscape." Whatever that means.

Now, Henry Waxman will probably hold a hearing or two on this, but the entity specifically tasked with investigating violations of the Hatch Act is the disturbingly partisan Office of Special Counsel, who has a history of neglecting its core responsibilities and instead toeing the Bush line.

That's why we're worried the OSC's investigation of Karl Rove and his shop (for these partisan presentations and other things) is just a crafty diversion. We'll see.

White House Officials Admit They Don't Buy Bush's Iraq Rhetoric

President Bush has made two main claims when attacking the Democrats' push for an Iraq withdrawal timeline. The first is the Dems are legislating defeat. "The American people did not vote for failure and that is precisely what the Democratic leadership bill would guarantee," he said recently. The goal, obviously, is shame and embarrassment. No one wants to be a surrender monkey.

The second claim is that a bloodbath, both within Iraq's borders and without, will follow an American withdrawal. "[Withdrawal] could unleash chaos in Iraq that could spread across the entire region," the president has said. "It would be an invitation to the enemy to attack America and our friends around the world." In a different appearance, he said, "The security of our country depends directly on the outcome in Iraq." The idea here is to convince Americans (1) we have a moral obligation to protect the vulnerable, and (2) we have a national security reason to keep on fighting.

According to a new Newsweek article, however, the second claim is mostly PR pablum, and high-level officials within the administration know it.

One senior administration official with extensive knowledge of the region, who didn’t want to be identified discussing sensitive policy matters, tells NEWSWEEK that the chances of a regional war in Iraq are low in the event of a U.S. withdrawal. When asked if a regional war would break out, the official said: "Possibly, not probably. It’s more likely that other powers would support their favorite militias, as they’re doing already."

What's more, the ethnic cleansing many fear would tear through Iraq in the absence of U.S. troops is mostly fantasy.

The senior official said the genocidal bloodbath that Sen. John McCain outlined recently was also unlikely, pointing to the militias' ability to secure their own neighborhoods after the attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra in early 2006.

The Newsweek writers speculate that the reason Bush keeps pushing this doomsday talk is that it is a good way of keeping the pressure on the Democrats. It's all politics, they argue. I disagree. I think Bush believes his own spin. I think the positions he espouses now are the inevitable positions someone would hold if they believed almost messianically that they were doing the right thing every step of the way, and did not bother to hear dissent, from external experts or White House staffers, at any point.

It's psychological. (Cognitive dissonance? Correct me in the comments.) Bush already believes the war must go on, so he has to buy shoddy reasoning in order to square his belief. It reminds me of how we got into war: neocons in the administration believed the war had to happen, so they got on board with bad intelligence (either they believed it, or pretended to) in order to justify their belief.

(And PS -- I am legitimately scared at the idea of ethnic cleansing in the wake of our departure. But can the violence really get worse that it is now?)

EU and Iran Working to End Deadlock Over Tehran's Nuclear Program

Just an update to remind you that in some parts of the world, people still believe in diplomacy.

Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, said the talks were useful and had been conducted in a good atmosphere, although no huge breakthrough was immediately apparent.

"We have tried to understand each other better and that, without any doubt, is a very fundamental part of the resolution of the problem," Mr Solana added. "We have not made miracles, but have tried to move the dossier forward a little bit."

I'll take it. After all, slow-moving diplomacy worked before, just recently. The United States could learn something here. Even when we put down the sabers, the best we've been able to do is this.

April 25, 2007

Barbara Bush: Still the Nation's Best Source For Sick Humor

She asked us why she should waste her beautiful mind on such things as body bags and death.

Then, she comforted us (with a chuckle) by telling us how much better off the Katrina evacuees were hanging out in Houston's hurricane relief centers.

And yesterday, the former First Lady said it was okay for Mitt Romney to be "Mormon" (a term that is avoided by members of the Church of Latter Day Saints, but used by Larry King) because there are "wild people" in every religion. (Barbara should know--she is one wild Episcopalian.) She went on to explain: "I mean it was in 1897 that bigamy was outlawed in that church. You know we have a lot of Christian wild people too, and a lot of Jewish wild people and a lot of Muslim wild people. The Mormon religion takes care of its own, they don't have people on welfare."

In the world of Bush, that is the ultimate compliment.

While she and her husband were chatting with Larry King, George H.W. Bush remarked, without irony, that he thought the nation was suffering from "Bush fatigue," and therefore, Jeb could not run for president.

Thanks to The Heretik.

Arnold to EPA: I'll Be Back

Can you imagine being a bland, later middle-aged Washington bureaucrat, and having Arnold Schwarzenegger march into your office and threaten you...with a lawsuit? That's just what happened to Steve Johnson, the administrator of the EPA. Read more on the Blue Marble.

SNAP! A Spate of Subpoenas

The Dems are getting serious. Get this: They may subpoena Condi to get her to testify about her role in pumping the whole Niger uranium myth. The House Judiciary Committee also voted to grant former senior Justice aide Monica Goodling immunity in exchange for her testimony on the U.S. Attorney firings. A subpoena for Bush's Monica was approved but not issued (yet). My personal favorite—just because the Condi affair seems pretty stale at this point—is that Patrick Leahy wrote a note to Alberto Gonzales telling him to refresh his memory and report back in a week. (There was much the Attorney General couldn't recall in his testimony last week.) Subpoenas were also approved for members of the Republican National Committee, who the House hopes will shed some light on the slew of missing emails from Attorney-gate.

European Members of World Bank Spurn Changes to Family-Planning Policy

The Wall Street Journal reports today that, in a closed meeting yesterday at the World Bank, European members objected to a Washington-supported proposal to change the bank's family-planning policy, which would put in place age restrictions on family-planning assistance, including abortions. Cameron wrote a few weeks ago about Wolfowitz' denial of any changes to its family-planning policy, one that has long been an integral part of the bank's development strategy. The former Iraq war architect said, in response to accusations, "Let me make it very clear. Our policy hasn't changed." But the Government Accountability Project found documents that contradict his statement.

Wolfowitz' transgressions, past and present, are not making him any friends. Aside from the European members who "revolted" against the family-planning policy amendment, "rank-and-file" employees are wearing blue ribbons (good-governance ribbons) to signify that they don't trust him. Well, this is not news to us. Mother Jones hasn't trusted Wolfowitz for awhile. Here are a few of our reasons why.

Sex and Abortion in the City (Mexico City)

In Mexico, feminism never took. Gender relations there are pretty close to what they were in the United States in the early 60s. And because the country is largely Catholic, birth control isn't widely used among married or unmarried couples. (Arguably, the most effective contraceptive is the cultural convention of living with your family until you get married—a convention that leads to some embarrassingly heavy public petting.)

Mexico is also a country with a gaping maw of an income gap. The wealthy have live-in maids, whose own homes have dirt floors and no running water. The poor have virtually no education and no opportunities. Meanwhile, the wealthy fly to San Antonio to shop—and sometimes to have abortions, which were until yesterday illegal in Mexico except in cases of rape or serious danger to the woman's health. Yesterday, Mexico City legalized abortions in the first trimester. (Mexico City, one of the largest cities in the world, accounts for nearly a fifth of the country's total population.)

The timing couldn't be more ironic: The United States took a huge step backward on abortion earlier this month, banning a legitimate abortion procedure regardless of timing or circumstances. Mexico has been able to move forward recently (it also legalized same-sex marriage) due to increasingly open national and local elections, which have given power in the capital to liberals. The Times also attributes the change to the church's loss of prestige following the pedophile priest fiasco. Apparently, Mexicans are more attuned to hypocrisy than Americans, who continue to let people like Newt Gingrich and Ted Haggard preach sexual morality.

However, the Mexican conservatives—members of president Felipe Calderón's PAN party—have clearly taken a page from the religious right's playbook. PAN's Jorge Romero said legalizing abortion would "support juvenile imprudence"—a claim which is especially annoying in a country where maids, who have no idea what sex even is, are frequently raped by sons of the wealthy. And Catholic Lawyers, the main opposition group, in an echo of Mitt Romney's Desperate Conservatives move in Massachusetts, protested that the city government had violated the Constitution by ignoring a petition for a referendum on abortion.

Maybe instead of them cribbing from our shoddy, hypocritical playbook, we ought to shed our superiority complex long enough to learn a lesson or two from our neighbors to the South.

Tillman Family, Jessica Lynch Have Strong Words for Military

Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman's brother Kevin strongly challenged the government and the military in their statements yesterday before Henry Waxman's congressional committee. Lynch made it clear that the narrative of her capture and rescue put out by the military was overblown (though we already knew that) but stopped short of offering speculation as to why the military would distort the truth.

Kevin Tillman, on the other hand, did not hold back.

Speaking publicly for the first time since his brother was killed in Afghanistan three years ago, Kevin Tillman told a congressional hearing that the Army and administration officials had exploited his brother's death to divert attention from the detainee abuses at Abu Ghraib prison...

Kevin Tillman, who gave up a minor-league baseball career to enlist with his older brother after the 9/11 attacks and was nearby the day Pat Tillman was shot by fellow soldiers, said the military's early, heroic depiction of his brother's death was "utter fiction."

"To our family and friends, it was a devastating loss. To the nation, it was a moment of disorientation. To the military, it was a nightmare," Kevin Tillman said, his voice wavering with emotion. "But to others within the government, it appears to have been an opportunity. "

In his brother's case, he charged that evidence had been destroyed, an autopsy did not conform to regulations and eyewitness testimony "disappeared into thin air."

Here's Kevin Tillman's very moving and very damning opening statement.

And here's a link to the story I believe provides the best taste of Pat Tillman's unique personality and the clearest explanation of his death. It's from Sports Illustrated's Gary Smith, possibly the best sports writer on the planet.

Ahh, Now for the Good Stuff: Congress Subpoenas Condi Rice

The Democratic Congress is still moving forward with its various inquiries, but now it's adding the big kahuna to its list of targets: the mishandling, misuse, and misrepresentation of intelligence in the lead-up to the war in Iraq. Specifically, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (Waxman's at it again!) has subpoenaed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in order to investigate the now-disavowed claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. Isn't oversight grand?

Future BHO and John McCain to Duke it out on MySpace, and Maybe on TV

Today, MySpace and reality TV show producer Mark Burnett (Survivor and The Apprentice are his claims to fame, to name a few) announced they will be teaming up to produce a political reality show, wherein politicians-to-be will go head-to-head for $1 million, the Wall Street Journal reports. The show will appear on MySpace's social networking site but the duo is also looking to score a network spot. Apparently, the "venture is part of a bid by News Corp.'s MySpace to expand its video presence and better compete with Google's YouTube." It also appears to be a realization on the part of the company that in order to keep up with the intersection of technology, politics and citizen involvement, video is key. MySpace users can interact with the show's contestants using their profiles and the "topics that generate the most buzz on the site -- whether it's climate change or immigration reform -- will determine the kinds of 'challenges' created for the live network show."

There seems to be no disagreement about video's rising importance in politics. Google's YouTube has already flexed its political muscles with YouChoose '08, an initiative that allows candidates to strut their stuff in video form. In a recent discussion I had with blogger and Deputy Research Editor for ThinkProgress, Nico Pitney, he affirmed that video is definitely an important aspect to success within today's political landscape:

"Many people who are active in politics now grew up in the age of television. They’re much more comfortable with video as a medium and you can make points through video that have an emotional impact that you can’t communicate through text."

But the medium also has to entertain and as Gary pointed out a few weeks back, some of YouTube's YouChoose content is quite the "snoozefest." So, maybe MySpace has just the remedy. Reality TV. Of course. People engage in that, right? If people care enough to watch Donald Trump sit around a boardroom table and discuss his future lackey prospects, why not the next BHO wrangling with McCain II. And if they engage in dialogue about immigration or climate change? Well, then, all the better, I say!

Walter Reed Conditions Were Not New News (to DoD), Dpt. Held Focus Groups for Years

It turns out the Department of Defense held focus groups at Walter Reed Medical Center. The Force Health Protection and Readiness department met with wounded soldiers monthly to "monitor Army healthcare and provide military officials with direct information about it," Salon reports. That's a good thing, right? Well, not exactly. It turns out they've been holding these group discussions since before the start of wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, yet have neglected to employ the information garnered to affect any real change. But, how could they -- the DoD kept no records of the interviews.

This not only speaks to the blatant neglect on the part of the department to remedy problems within the system but shows that the DoD has not been forthcoming throughout the investigation into the conditions at Walter Reed. In February, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs Dr. William Winkenwerder Jr claimed all the accusations being thrown at the facility caught him by surprise. If the DoD was conducting focus groups, I am pretty sure the man tasked with overseeing military medicine would know it. Right? Although, I guess ignorance of your agency's actions is common practice within government departments under the Bush administration. I mean, AG Alberto Gonzales was "not involved" in the firing of nearly 10 percent of the nation's U.S. Attorneys.

In our last issue, Mother Jones provides more insight into the administration's maltreatment of the nation's soldiers.

OSC Investigation Into Rove Came After Fired U.S. Attorney Filed Complaint

There has been speculation that because of the Office of Special Counsel's horrible reputation for killing investigations damaging to the White House, the new investigation into Karl Rove might just be a way to obstruct or head off more aggressive congressional inquiries. (Mother Jones covers the OSC's rep in a feature story in our new issue.)

Well, the situation just got more complex. The spark for the Rove investigation may have come when former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias filed a complaint with the OSC charging that Rove violated the Hatch Act when he allegedly engineered the now-famous purge of eight U.S. Attorneys, a group that included the very vocal Iglesias. Iglesias filed the complaint on April 3rd and subsequently spoke with OSC head Scott Bloch, who made it clear an investigation was forthcoming. Iglesias can't say for a fact that his complaint is the genesis for the investigation, but he believes strongly that it was.

This would give hope that the investigation into Rove is legit, and not something dreamed up by the White House to keep other investigations at bay.

The Hatch Act, by the way, prohibits the use of government property for political activities. Like, for example, using the federal email system and tax payer-funded computers and Blackberries to gin up the firing of federal employees who are out-of-step with the White House's political agenda and won't use their prosecutorial power to influence elections directly before a midterm. Or, using work hours to present a PowerPoint presentation on how to reorient the activities of various federal offices to benefit Republicans politically.

We'll continue to follow the story on Mother Jones. Oh, and don't forget, Wolfowitz is still floundering!

April 24, 2007

Kucinich Moves to Impeach Cheney

Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich motioned to impeach Cheney today. Cheney, not Bush, he explained, because "if we were to start with the president and pursue articles of impeachment, Mr. Cheney would then become president.... you would then have to go through the constitutional agony of impeaching two presidents consecutively."

This is a one-man move, since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said impeachment is off the table. The party has strongly denied that it would ever impeach, in order to prevent the possibility from mobilizing the Republican base. Even though the motion is dead in the water, it's a powerful political statement.

Since Kucinich is putting himself in the limelight for another presidential run here, it's worth mentioning that he is not the liberal gold standard his radical supporters think. As Katha Pollitt pointed out, he has actually voted pro-life at every opportunity.

Kucinich said the imperative for impeachment is to prevent Cheney from leading us to war with Iran. Maybe this is too optimistic, but at this point, Congress has got to be too Democratic and too jaded to fall for that one again. If not, well, what's the use in cutting off the head of the hydra?

In a review of the impeachment lit, Tim Dickinson wrote last fall, "There's little doubt that, both legally and morally, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have earned an early retirement. Hell, the administration has even lost the father of modern conservatism, William F. Buckley Jr., who said of Bush in late July: 'If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we've experienced, it would be expected that he would retire or resign.' " .....[But] I'm confident the American people would far prefer a porn star or a midget, fairly elected—or, for that matter, two more years of the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush—than to see the White House change hands in what could only be described as an administrative coup." Read on....

Wall Street and the Rest of Us

Tony Soprano is right about the stock market: "You have to be high up in the corporate structure to make that sh-t work for you." Or, as economist Ilene Grabel of the University of Denver told me, "Stock markets prove profitable for a small proportion of the U.S. and global economy, but the relationship between the stock market and the underlying economy has never been established."

Have you ever wondered how the world might be a different—and better—place if Wall Street didn't demand ever-widening profit margins? The income gap would likely shrink, making 90 to 99.9 percent of Americans happier. And a broader view of corporate success might lead corporations to show some respect for the environment and their workers.

The New Yorker brings a little good news on this front (caveat: It's the magazine's job to make New Yorkers feel good about themselves). James Surowiecki calls bullshit on the "7 percent rule," a handy rule of thumb that sprung up during the dotcom boom, suggesting that any company announcing layoffs would see a 7 percent rise in its stock value.

Surowiecki argues that layoffs only make long-term financial sense when demand changes significantly—not, as they have become of late, as "a default business strategy, part of an inexorable drive to cut costs." Stock prices may feel as cold and hard as a surgical knife, but Surowiecki claims they generally reflect what you know is true if you've ever worked through a round of layoffs: "Downsizing may make companies temporarily more productive, but the gains quickly erode, in part because of the predictably negative effect on morale."

Stock prices consider my feelings? That feels a bit too cheerleader-y, so let's get back to the bad news. The flies in the ointment are, you guessed it, C.E.O.s and analysts. (What would the world look like without them?) Many analysts push companies to downsize, and companies have to act like they're listening even though the analysts aren't always right. And C.E.O.s are all about quick and dirty: "The average C.E.O.'s tenure today is just six years, long enough to see the benefits of downsizing (like a lower payroll) but not long enough to suffer costs that may appear in the long term."

Assuming no one will take my suggestion to abolish the stock market seriously, here's a few quick partial fixes that are good for the rest of us. Can you say labor unions, where wages are higher and layoffs more difficult? We could also stop paying C.E.O.s so much, at least in stock options. And less golf for bigwigs.