February 16, 2008

100 things Congress could do that would matter more to me than steroids in baseball

by emptypockets

The House spent some quality time this week with Roger Clemens at hearings that occupied both the attention of Representative Henry Waxman's Committee on Oversight and Government Reform as well as a big chunk of my morning paper's front page. These hearings were, to all extents and purposes, completely useless.

Leaving aside the fact that Congress has not seen fit to include baseball under the activities it regulates as interstate commerce (at least to my shaky understanding, as of 1972's Flood v. Kuhn) and therefore has given itself no jurisdiction over the sport, leaving aside that other star entertainers like 50 Cent, Wyclef Jean and Timbaland have also been accused of steroid use but have not been pulled before Congress (and that's not to mention pro wrestling), leaving aside that both Waxman and Clemens now say the hearings were unnecessary -- leaving aside all of that -- whether pro athletes or other entertainers use steroids is simply not something that's at the top of my priority list, and certainly not what I want my Congress to work on.

If Congress has run out of ideas for what to do, or finds itself unsure where my priorities lie, here are 100 things Congress could work on that would matter more to me than investigating steroids in baseball.

Continue reading "100 things Congress could do that would matter more to me than steroids in baseball" »

January 10, 2008

Article III folds. But wait! Is that a sign of life in Article I?

by Kagro X

The story so far: CIA tortures terror suspects, videotapes it, tells 9/11 Commission tapes don't exist, tells courts tapes don't exist, tapes do exist, court orders government not to destroy tapes, government destroys tapes. And now?

Judge Won't Inquire Into CIA Tapes Case
AP NewsBreak: Judge Refuses to Investigate the Destruction of CIA Interrogation Videos
By MATT APUZZO
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON

A federal judge refused on Wednesday to delve into the destruction of CIA interrogation videos, saying there was no evidence the Bush administration violated a court order and the Justice Department deserved time to conduct its own investigation.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy was a victory for the Bush administration, which had urged the courts not to wade into a politically charged issue already being investigated by the Justice Department, CIA and Congress.

The CIA has acknowledged last month that in 2005 it destroyed videos of officers using tough interrogation methods while questioning two al-Qaida suspects. Lawyers for other terrorism suspects quickly asked Kennedy to hold hearings, saying the executive branch had proved itself unreliable and could not be trusted to investigate its own potential wrongdoing.

Kennedy disagreed, ruling that attorneys hadn't "presented anything to cause this court to question whether the Department of Justice will follow the facts wherever they may lead and live up to the assurances it made to this court."

Oh yeah! Of course! The DOJ is a fantastic self-policer! Absolutely!

Continue reading "Article III folds. But wait! Is that a sign of life in Article I?" »

November 26, 2007

Trent and Mitch

by emptywheel

As you've no doubt heard, Trent Lott will announce that he has decided to spend more time with his K Street friends.

Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) is planning on resigning from the Senate this year and may make a formal announcement as soon as today.

If he resigns, Lott would become the sixth Republican senator to announce they were stepping down this election cycle. His term expires in 2012; and a resignation would prompt a special election to fill the remainder of his term.  Gov. Haley Barbour (R-Miss.) would be tasked with appointing a replacement for Lott to serve before the special election is held.

I'm glad to see Trent go (though Haley Barbour is bound to appoint someone just as awful to replace him). But I'm most intrigued by what Trent's departure will do to Senate leadership. After all, the Republicans have actually done better in the minority than they were doing in the majority. That's partly because Republicans just better at obnoxiously obstructing legislation than actually governing. But it's also because Mitch McConnell and Trent Lott are masters of parliamentary procedures. So switching Bill Frist, in the majority, for McConnell and Lott, in the minority, was a significant step up for the Republicans.

Well, the Republicans may lose Lott imminently, and McConnell is facing a surprisingly tough re-election campaign in KY.

I've long said that I could be happy with any of the top three Democratic candidates for President, but that we'd really be much better off with five more Senate seats in Democratic hands. Imagine how much more fun we'd have--if we got those five seats--without Mitch and Trent to muck things up in the Senate.

Update: Chris Bowers has the best analysis of Trent's fork in our eye I've seen yet.

November 17, 2007

Ten Years and Counting

By Mimikatz

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released its fourth report (summary here), which synthesizes for policymakers attending the forthcoming UN conference in Bali  the three reports that it issued earlier this year as part of its Fourth Assessment Report.  Some of its conclusions are that

climate change is "unequivocal", that humankind's emissions of greenhouse gases are more than 90% likely to be the main cause, and that impacts can be reduced at reasonable cost.

But climate change may also bring about "abrupt and irreversible impacts" such as glacial melting and extinction of species.

"Approximately 20-30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5-2.5C (relative to the 1980-1999 average)," the summary concludes.

Other potential impacts highlighted in the text include:

  • between 75m and 250m people are projected to have scarcer fresh water supplies than at present
  • yields from rain-fed agriculture could be halved
  • food security is likely to be further compromised in Africa
  • there will be widespread impacts on coral reefs

One problem with the IPPC consensus process is that it takes a great deal of time, and thus it is not clear whether the newest report takes into account the accelerated arctic melting seen this year.  But it is clear that things are happening faster than anticipated, the BBC reports:

"If you look at the overall picture of impacts, both those occurring now and those projected for the future, they appear to be both larger and appearing earlier than we thought [in our 2001 report]," Martin Parry, co-chair of the impacts working group, told BBC News.

"Some of the changes that we previously projected for around 2020 or 2030 are occurring now, such as the Arctic melt and shifts in the locations of various species."

There are indications that projected increases in droughts are also happening earlier than expected, he said, though that was less certain.

Interestingly, the IPPC finds that absent human factors, the climate would have cooled over the last 50 years (due to volcanoes and solar changes); only models that simulate human effects produce warming over this period.  Warming is greatest in the northern polar regions and then in the north temperate and tropical zones (with the exception of the ocean area influenced by the jet stream).  It is least in the southern temperate zone and southern seas.  Human influences are "very likely" to have led to sea level increases.

The IPPC consensus now exhibits greater confidence in projections about droughts, heatwaves and floods, and their adverse consequences, plus stronger evidence of adverse impacts now on vulnerable ecosystems, such as polar and high-mountain regions and coral reefs. 

In the ffuture, as temperatures rise, Africa and Asia will be particularly hard hit, in part because they already face shortages of good water and areas of extreme drought.  Overall dry areas will become drier, low-lying areas will be wetter, smaller islands will be imperiled.  Arctic areas will be transformed.  Climate and weather will become more extreme.  The widely-held impression that North America will suffer the least seems to be somewhat true, although serious effects are anticipated in cities that already experience heat waves, as are water shortages in the West, significant variability in agricultural impacts, increased intensity of Atlantic hurricanes and stress on coastal areas generally.    

Projected changes are accelerating, and will persist for a millenium even if changes are made, raising the specter of whether, and how soon, we are facing irreversible changes or a "tipping point."  Most serious seems to be accelerating Arctic ice melting, as this could cause meters of sea level increases, beyond what the models anticipate.  The Jet Stream looks safe to the end of the century, despite some slowing, which will help moderate rising temperatures in Europe.  (In case you were wondering, Dubai's spectacular islands have been designed to withstand at least a half meter rise in sea level, which was the high end anticipated by the end of this century.  Some projections are now for three times that.) 

Dealing with climate change has costs, but so does failing to deal with climate change, given the near certainty of the trajectory of change.  The report concludes that

There is high agreement and much evidence that all stabilisation levels can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that are either currently available or expected to be commercialised in coming decades, assuming appropriate and effective incentives are in place for their development, acquisition, deployment and diffusion and addressing related barriers.

But we need "substantial investment flows" and "effective technology transfer," meaning lots of money and getting the solutions to where they are needed.  The longer we wait, the harder it is, because we need to begin to reverse that nasty increasing trendline, and the longer we wait, not only is it getting steeper, but because of the persistence of greenhouse gases, the stabilization level, and the attendant changes (such as temperature and sea level increases), will be higher.  It looks from the chart like we have about ten years if we want things to stabilize at or near 2005 levels of greenhouse gases.  If the CO2 peak comes after the 2010-2030 period, the resulting world will look very different from what we have now.

Update:

Surprise, surprise.  The US representative tried to water the report down.   More of the Bush/Cheney regime's attempts to make policy by denying reality.  By contrast, the UN chief Ban Ki-moon calls for action.

November 15, 2007

You're still still not getting your oversight.

by Kagro X

Six months have passed since I told you that a year had passed since I told you you weren't getting your oversight.

And you're not. Because Rahm Emanuel says so:

House Democrats have postponed a vote until December on contempt resolutions against White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers, delaying for now any constitutional showdown with the White House over the president’s power to resist congressional subpoenas.

Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) has been pushing for the contempt vote, arguing that the White House must be held accountable for ignoring subpoenas issued by his panel as part of the U.S. attorney firing scandal. Other top Democrats, including Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), have argued that the House should put off that fight while debates over Iraq funding and electronic eavesdropping dominate the floor. The contempt vote had been tentatively scheduled for Friday before Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) informed his colleagues that it was being delayed.

“[Emanuel] has been saying that this week is not the time to do this, that it will step on our message on Iraq and FISA,” said a top House Democratic leadership aide.

Only guess what? The message on Iraq and FISA and these subpoenas is all the same: George W. Bush thinks there are no Congressional checks and balances against his "inherent powers."

Continue reading "You're still still not getting your oversight." »

November 06, 2007

Mukasey Gets the Nod From Senate Judiciary

By Mimikatz

The nomination of Michael Mukasey for Attorney General has just been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 11-8.  Senators Feinstein and Schumer were the only Dems voting aye.

With his confirmation now assured, we will get to see whether having Mukasey instead of an acting loyal Bushie in charge really makes any difference.  Somehow I doubt it, as long as David Addinton is the legal consigliere for the Bush/Cheney regime.

DiFi's website seems to be down, indicating perhaps some incoming criticism of her.  I had intended to suggest she redeem her recent transgressions by voting against the Unhealthy Diet Promotion Act, aka the current Farm Bill.  It subsidizes the large producers of corn for high-fructose corn syrup and corn-fed beef, while giving only a buy-off to producers of the fruits and vegetables we are all supposed to be eating to improve our health and contributing to the coninued impoverishment of third-world farmers.  One of the largest recipients of federal largesse is a cotton-growing enterprise in California's Central Valley.  At last report neither DiFi nor Barbara Boxer had declared on the bill or it's alternative, the Fresh Act.  IN an ironic twist, Bush threatens a veto because the bloated bill is fiscally irresponsible and would violate various WTO agreements.  Sure to be another triumph of party over principle and money over good policy.

October 30, 2007

John Tanner Doesn't Know Jack

By Mimikatz

John Tanner is the head of the Voting Rights section at DOJ,  He's the one who believes Georgia's voter ID law discriminates against whites because fewer elderly have photo ID's and Black people "don't age like white people, they die first."  It is ugly but entertaining to watch him squirm under questioning by Artur Davis and Keith Ellison.  Artur Davis pointed out that in Alabama actually a higher percentage of Black people vote than white people, and got Tanner to admit that he did not look at actual statistics, he is going by his prejudices.  Ellison tries to get him to see what was wrong with his comment, but Tanner just doesn't get it, except that his "tone" and "clumsy phrasing" hurt people.

But what no one seems to realize is that Tanner is just dead wrong statistically.  You can look it up.

It is commonly known that at birth the life expectancy of white people is higher than Black people, about 6.4 years for men, 4.5 years for women), although the difference has been shrinking and the discrepancies between men and women within each race are about as high (+5 years for white women, +7 years for Black women).  The differences between the races persist at about the same rate into the mid thirties.  But then they begin to shrink, year by year, and by age 65 are down to about a year and a half.  By age 80 the difference has disappeared, and after 80, Black people actually have a higher life expectancy than whites within each gender.  And the life expectancy for Black women is actually higher than white men at every age.  (But we all know women don't really count.)  So Tanner is not only insensitive, but wrong.

Just another example of the Bush-Cheney regime making policy based on prejudice and with GOP dominance as their goal.  And just another example that things that "everyone knows" sometimes aren't really true.

October 29, 2007

Once again, nobody for Attorney General.

by Kagro X

One by one, Senators are coming out to express their reservations about the nomination of Michael Mukasey for Attorney General. From John McCain and Lindsey Graham (both of whom, to be frank, everyone should expect to roll over in the end), to John Kerry, to Bernie Sanders, Senators have expressed puzzlement and astonishment at Mukasey's inability to take a clear position on whether or not waterboarding is torture.

Still worse, if that's possible, is the fact that Mukasey remains unwilling to say definitively whether or not the President of the United States is bound by statutory law of any kind.

In a NYT op-ed published last week, Prof. Jeb Rubenfeld of Yale Law School identified an answer given by Mukasey that should prove far more troubling than the horrifying but considerably narrower answer he gave to the torture question:

AT his confirmation hearings last week, Michael B. Mukasey, President Bush’s nominee for attorney general, was asked whether the president is required to obey federal statutes. Judge Mukasey replied, “That would have to depend on whether what goes outside the statute nonetheless lies within the authority of the president to defend the country.”

Continue reading "Once again, nobody for Attorney General." »

October 24, 2007

Madame Secretary Finally Accepts an Invitation

by emptywheel

Frankly, I've been holding my breath since I first saw this (tentatively) on Selise's weekly hearing schedule. After all, Waxman has been trying to get Condi Rice to appear before the Oversight Committee since early spring. But they've now announced the hearing, so I'm breathing again.

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will hold a hearing entitled, “The State Department and the Iraq War” on Thursday morning, October 25, 2007, in 2154 Rayburn House Office Building.

The hearing will examine unanswered questions regarding the performance of the State Department on several significant issues relating to the Iraq war, including the impact of the activities of Blackwater USA and corruption within the Iraqi ministries on the prospects of political reconciliation in Iraq. The Committee may also discuss with the Secretary allegations of wrongdoing associated with the construction of the new U.S. Embassy Compound in Baghdad, as well as other matters under investigation by the Committee.

WHO: The Honorable Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State

That said, I imagine Condi's neatest piece of diplomacy since taking over as Secretary of State was this hearing (granted, the competition isn't all that stiff). The Crypt reports that Condi will face a wide range of questions.

Condoleezza Rice is scheduled to appear before the House Oversight and Goverment Reform Committee Thursday to answer questions about corruption within the Iraqi government, the possibility of political reconciliation in that war-ravaged country and the department's controversial security contract with Blackwater USA, according to a release from the committee.

Oversight Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) has been pressing Rice and other agency officials for months to testify about corruption and the department's contract with Blackwater. According to the release, committee members will also be asking about allegations of misconduct in the construction of the U.S. embassy compound in Baghdad. [my emphasis]

Which is to say, don't expect Condi to answer any questions about why her NSC put the Niger claims into the 2003 SOTU after having been forced to take it out of a speech three months earlier.

FWIW, I suspect Condi agreed to appear in a desperate attempt to pitch State's recent attempts to exercise oversight over contractors as real progress. Consider: Congress has the ability to take much of the freedom on contracting out of the hands of State, which would devastate State's initiatives in Iraq (not to mention the CIA's). So if Condi wants to avoid ceding all of Iraq to DOD, she needs to convince Congress she has this under control and that her recent changes will work.

Too bad she always comes off so unconvincingly when she testifies before Congress.

Update: More evidence Condi is trying to arrive in front of Waxman to make assurances she has fixed everything at State:

The State Department's security chief announced his resignation on Wednesday in the wake of last month's deadly Blackwater USA shooting incident in Baghdad and growing questions about the use of private contractors in Iraq.

Richard Griffin, the assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, announced his decision to resign at a weekly staff meeting, according to an internal informational e-mail sent to colleagues.

October 19, 2007

Nobody for Attorney General

by Kagro X

Michael Mukasey is certainly qualified to be Attorney General of the United States, if Alberto Gonzales sets any precedent. And while that may be the least convincing recommendation anyone can ever be given for the job, consider that Mukasey yesterday gave perhaps the least convincing answer to one of the most important questions asked of him -- by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)-- in his confirmation hearing:

Continue reading "Nobody for Attorney General" »

Recent Posts

Where We Met

Blog powered by TypePad