http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Fri, 3 Feb 2006 18:34:15 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/02/03/183415.php David R. MarkThe White House and its friends in the conservative media would have you believe that Democrats are alone in protesting President Bush's warrantless surveillance program.For example, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said on Jan. 22:Senate Democrats continue to engage in misleading and outlandish charges about this vital tool. ... It defies common sense for Democrats to now claim the administration is acting outside its authority. ...Don't believe the empty spin. Grover Norquist, a long-time conservative leader, declared the surveillance program illegal:Referring to what some see as a choice between fighting terrorists and upholding civil liberties, Norquist said: "It's not either/or. If the president thinks he needs different tools, pass a law to get them. Don't break the existing laws."Norquist is the latest Republican to suggest the program is in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and circumvents rules that say the National Security Agency must obtain a warrant before proceeding.George Will called Bush's actions a mistake. William Safire said he sided with Bush's critics. Bruce Fein, former deputy attorney general in the Reagan Administration, and Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute have actually suggested Bush's personally authorizing the surveillance was an impeachable offense.Additionally, at least 11 Republican Senators have publicly questioned the program: Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, as well as Sam Brownback of Kansas, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins of Maine, Larry Craig of Idaho, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Dick Lugar of Indiana, John McCain of Arizona, Olympia Snowe of Maine and John Sununu of New Hampshire.The question that should be asked is: what will it take for the 44 other Republican Senators to agree?***This item first appeared at JABBS. Politics43135@blogcritics.org Fri, 3 Feb 2006 18:34:15 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/02/02/135011.php David R. MarkMSNBC's David Shuster is reporting that the White House -- in a "flip-flop" from statements made last year -- is not releasing Hurricane Katrina-related documents or making senior officials available for a Congressional investigation.We've been down this road before.Substitute "9/11 Commission" or "Discussions On Warrantless Surveillance" or "Pre-War Intelligence" for "Katrina Investigation," and you get some insight into how the Bush Administration regards sharing information.It doesn't.Why? Perhaps the administration doesn't want to create the opportunity for dissenting opinion. Perhaps because the less people really know, the larger the vacuum for administration spin. How else can one explain a history of fighting against the truth?FIGHTING THE 9/11 COMMISSIONInitially, the administration was against forming the 9/11 Commission. Later, it took the unusual step of having President Bush and Vice President Cheney meet informally -- not under oath -- with the commission.Shuster reports that the administration wants similar informal meetings with White House advisors now, rather than formal -- under oath -- testimony before Congress.LIMITED DISCUSSION ON WARRANTLESS SURVEILLANCEThe administration claimed that it met with senior members of Congress before proceeding with its warrantless surveillance program. But various senators have said that they were either misinformed at the time about what the administration wanted to do, or not given a chance to express disapproval with the plan.Although Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) suggested that Congress would consider legislation to allow for warrantless surveillance, Bush has said he isn't interested in releasing details of the program, to allow for Congressional consideration. (Note: The Justice Department considered including a provision to cover warrantless surveillance in 2003 legislation, but later nixed those plans.)YOUR INTELLIGENCE IS NOT MY INTELLIGENCEThe administration has repeatedly said it had access to the same pre-war intelligence as Congress. But the non-partisan Congressional Research Service disputed that, saying in a Dec. 15 report that the White House has access to a much broader ranger of intelligence reports than Congress.The CRS report identified nine key U.S. intelligence "products" that aren't generally shared with Congress. These include the President's Daily Brief, a compilation of analyses that's given only to the president and a handful of top aides, and a daily digest on terrorism-related matters.***And now we have White House resistance on investigating Hurricane Katrina. It's a far cry from what Bush said in September:BUSH: "I want to know what went right and what went wrong. I want to know how to better cooperate with state and local government, to be able to answer that very question that you asked: Are we capable of dealing with a severe attack or another severe storm? It's in our national interest that we find out exactly what went on ... so that we can better respond.Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), overseeing the Congressional investigation, alleged last week that the Bush administration's refusal to cooperate has killed the Katrina investigation. "There has been a near-total lack of cooperation that has made it impossible, in my opinion, for us to do the thorough investigation we have a responsibility to do."***Certainly there are limits on what information the White House should share. And there is room for debate as to what should remain classified.But Katrina was made worse by government failures in action and communication, as President Bush admitted. That's why people compare Katrina with the failures by the Clinton and Bush administrations that led to 9/11.We as a nation can only learn from our mistakes -- and thus be better prepared to deal with disasters -- if we know what those mistakes are, and how to correct them. It's a lesson any school child would understand. Why not the Bush White House?***This item first appeared at JABBS. Politics43084@blogcritics.org Thu, 2 Feb 2006 13:50:11 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/02/01/163407.php David R. MarkIn a system of two parties, two chambers, and two elected branches, there will always be differences and debate. But even tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone, and our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger. To confront the great issues before us, we must act in a spirit of goodwill and respect for one another -- and I will do my part. Tonight the state of our Union is strong -- and together we will make it stronger.-- President Bush, State of the Union, 2006Should the president be taken at his word? Or is this empty spin designed to appease a nationwide television audience?In the first five years of Bush's presidency, it's as if Republican politicians and the conservative noise machine have defined "bipartisanship" as "my way or the highway."If Democrats are willing to agree with Republicans, that's bipartisanship. If Democrats want to go a different way, that's a time for Republicans to turn to name-calling and misrepresentation of ideas -- otherwise known as "partisanship."Earlier yesterday, Sean Hannity demonstrated this definition of bipartisanship vs. partisanship on his nationally syndicated radio show. Interviewing liberal pundit Arianna Huffington, Hannity showed off his skill as a conservative spin-meister.He asked Huffington a series of pointed questions, which fit in well with conservative spin. Here's the gist of Hannity's questions -- questions being posed throughout the conservative noise machine:-- Support Bush's handling of the war on terror? Or do you want to let Al Qaeda run amok?-- Support Bush's handling of the Iraq War? Or do you want to cut and run?-- Support warrantless surveillance? Or do you not want to gather intelligence?-- Support Bush's judicial nominees? Or do you want liberal activist judges?-- Support Bush's handling of the economy? Or are you a tax-and-spend liberal?-- Support Bush? Or are you a Bush-hater?These kind of questions are just grown-up versions of the kinds of things schoolyard bullies say. They are black-and-white questions designed to offer no alternatives.Either you're with us or you're against us. Either you support the Iraq war or you support Saddam (or as Hannity would say, "Either you believe Iraqis are better as a free democracy, or you support their living in tyranny under Saddam.") Either you support the war on terror, or you want to coddle Osama Bin Laden.That's the sort of partisanship that has occurred over the past five-plus years of Bush as president. It's led Vice President Cheney to meet only with the Republican leadership to plan out a legislative agenda. It's led the White House to confer with select Republican leaders on issues such as warrantless surveillance. There's no spirit of bipartisanship, let alone the execution of such.If President Bush wants to change the Washington culture, and be a "uniter, not a divider," as he suggested when he was candidate Bush back in 2000, great. He'll find willing partners among the Democrats. But if it's more of "my way or the highway," then he should expect more of the same response.There's another reason Bush and the Republicans should reach out across the aisle. Beyond helping the country -- in theory, the reason they chose elected office -- the reality is that with mid-term elections barely nine months away, the Republicans can't afford to have their popularity drop any further. And the American people are increasingly blaming the Republicans for whatever failures they see -- from high gas prices to mounting casualties in Iraq.We'll know in a few months whether the above statement from Bush's address was empty spin or an outstretched arm. Democrats know what they'd prefer.***This item first appeared at JABBS Politics43050@blogcritics.org Wed, 1 Feb 2006 16:34:07 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/01/30/011826.php David R. MarkWhen Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) tried to diagnose Terri Schiavo from an hour's worth of videotape -- saying that "footage, to me, depicted something very different than persistent vegetative state" -- the conventional wisdom was that he was looking at the famous images of Schiavo smiling and seemingly responding to family members.But today, on NBC's Meet the Press, viewers learned that Frist based his opinion on "court-appointed video by a board certified neurologist who came to the conclusion that she was not in a persistent vegetative state."That neurologist was almost certainly Dr. William Hammesfahr.JABBS readers should be very familiar with how the conservative media used Hammesfahr to try to present the "other side of the story."Viewers of several conservative shows -- MSNBC's Scarborough Country, Fox News' Hannity & Colmes and Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club -- were not told that Hammesfahr's testimony was discredited by multiple courts for failing to back up his claims with actual facts. For example, a 2003 article in the St. Petersburg Times said that video supplied to Florida Circuit Judge George Greer showed Hammesfahr giving Schiavo 105 commands and 61 questions. The court reported it could not determine whether Schiavo's responses were more than random motions.Was that the video that Frist watched?The conservative media pushed Hammesfahr -- even falsely claiming he was a "Noble Prize nominee" -- to rally the troops against all the things it hates: the dreaded "liberal media," and those "liberal activist judges."As a heart surgeon, Frist should have done his homework before trying to diagnose Schiavo via video. He should have spoken to her doctors. He should have been briefed that Hammesfahr's testimony had been discredited.As a legislator, Frist should have known that 10 courts and 19 judges sided with Schiavo's husband and upheld Florida law. He should have known that as governor of Texas, President Bush signed the 1999 Advance Directives Act, which allows a patient's surrogate to make end-of-life decisions -- and is consistent with the current Florida law.Sadly, Frist did what a lot of conservative politicians did during the Schiavo ordeal -- ignore facts, ignore legal precedents and ignore science, and instead kowtow to their base and the loud voice of the Religious Right. Today, long after an autopsy proved Schiavo's doctors and husband were correct, and that Hammesfahr was wrong, Frist relied on the same empty conservative spin today to defend his actions.Here's a portion of the interview with NBC's Tim Russert:FRIST: ... Now, the video footage that I looked at, it wasn't what you saw on TV, it was court-appointed video by a board certified neurologist who came to the conclusion that she was not in a persistent vegetative state. RUSSERT: But, Senator, you will acknowledge that people who looked at this believed, suggested that you were trying to diagnose from your office, that the Senate was kept in session over the weekend. The president flew back from his ranch. For something that happens a thousand times a day, in terms of removing tubes, and ... (a)nd that this was used in a way to exploit politics and to play to the conservative base of the Republican Party. ... Do you regret going to the floor of the Senate and saying, "I watched the videotape and that's not a persistent vegetative state."FRIST: No, I don't. I'm a physician. I was watching a board-certified neurologist...RUSSERT: Were you wrong in your diagnosis?FRIST: I didn't make the diagnosis. I raised the question of whether or not she's in a persistent vegetative state. ...RUSSERT: No regrets?FRIST: Well, I'll tell you what I learned from it, which is obvious, is that the American people don't want you involved in these decisions. ...Well, at least Frist has learned one thing from this embarrassing time in his Senatorial career.***This item first appeared at JABBS Politics42925@blogcritics.org Mon, 30 Jan 2006 01:18:26 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/01/29/180919.php David R. MarkScience teachers in Hillsborough County, Florida, last week voted to use biology textbooks that don't mention intelligent design.Nancy Marsh, the district's high school science supervisor, told the Tampa Tribune that teachers based their decision on which book would best meet state science standards. Science supervisors in nearby Pasco and Pinellas counties don't expect intelligent design will become an issue for them either when they choose their science textbooks next month.It's the latest blow for supporters of the controversial belief, which argues that a higher being designed the complex universe. The belief has been championed by conservative Christian leaders as an alternative to evolutionary theory worthy of being taught in public schools. But it has been fought by supporters of separation of church and state, who see intelligent design as a thinly veiled way to teach religion in public schools.How thinly veiled? "I believe this is the class that the Lord wanted me to teach," wrote teacher Sharon Lemburg, whose "Philosophy of Design" class was shut down by El Tejon Unified School District in California earlier this month.The school district chose to cancel the philosophy course rather than face a lawsuit from parents. The suit was brought forth because the class relied almost exclusively on videos that presented religious theories as scientific ones, including titles such as Chemicals to Living Cells: Fantasy or Science? and Astronomy and the Bible, according to the suit. Lemburg is the wife of an Assembly of God minister."This sends a strong signal to school districts across the country that they cannot promote creationism or intelligent design as an alternative to evolution whether they do so in a science class or a humanities class," Ayesha N. Khan, legal director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told the Associated Press. The group had filed the suit on behalf of eleven parents.Last month, Americans United participated in a lawsuit that blocked the Dover, Pennsylvania, school system from teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in high school biology classes. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that school board members' true motive in approving the intelligent design policy was to promote religion.And a federal judge recently ruled that it was unconstitutional for Cobb County, Georgia, to require the placement of stickers in biology textbooks reading: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."That decision is currently under review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.The next battlefronts are Kansas and Michigan. Can science continue to trump thinly veiled religious belief? For the sake of the public school kids, let's hope so. This item first appeared at JABBS. Politics42906@blogcritics.org Sun, 29 Jan 2006 18:09:19 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/01/29/005634.php David R. MarkThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been slow to force states to collect and report required data on lead levels in drinking water and has little information on schools and child-care facilities, according to a recently released government study.The Government Accountability Office study found that the EPA's database lacks some information on more than 70 percent of the nation's water systems. In addition to broadly improving data collection and communication among local, state and federal agencies, it recommended more information be collected on the water in schools and child-care facilities, few of which test for lead, according to the findings.Benjamin H. Grumbles, who oversees the EPA's Office of Water, said through a spokeswoman Wednesday that the federal Lead and Copper Rule has been effective in keeping lead levels below federal limits in 96 percent of the nation's large water systems.It's a nice statistic, but 96% of how many water systems? How can we know what's safe and what's not, if we don't have sufficient data? Sen. James M. Jeffords (I-VT), one of three congressmen to request the GAO study, said the EPA needed to continue to improve its oversight and implementation."This GAO report confirms that there are large holes in federal safe drinking water regulations, Jeffords said in a written statement. "The EPA has failed to act in a meaningful way to plug these gaps, even after the drinking water in the nation's capital was 'off-limits' for months."Jeffords has offered legislation that would create stricter oversight, but the legislation has failed to gain traction in the Republican-led Congress.***This item first appeared at JABBS Politics42891@blogcritics.org Sun, 29 Jan 2006 00:56:34 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/01/29/005310.php David R. MarkThe federal budget deficit will likely be at least $337 billion this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.That's up from $319 billion in 2005, following a record $412 billion in 2004.And the $337 billion figure is likely understating what the real deficit will be this year. The White House Budget Office is projecting the number will top $400 billion, with the difference coming from costs related to Hurricane Katrina.But the number could go even higher than that, if other emergency spending measures have to be undertaken. In 2005, the Bush Administration asked for $10.5 billion of emergency spending for Hurricane Katrina and $82 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.So can the Bush Administration claim it is conquering the budget deficit? Amazingly, it was just last month that the White House released a "fact sheet" listing the Bush Administration's "accomplishments," including "We Remain On Track To Cut The Budget Deficit In Half By 2009."That goal seems far-fetched -- the CBO estimate for 2006-2010 has Bush missing. But of course, by 2009 Bush will have left office.How out of control is the deficit? As JABBS wrote earlier this month, the White House will soon ask Congress to raise the government's debt ceiling, now capped at $8.18 trillion. It will be the fourth time in five years that the administration will seek to increase the debt limit.Remember, Republicans are the "fiscally conservative" party.***This item first appeared at JABBS Politics42890@blogcritics.org Sun, 29 Jan 2006 00:53:10 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/01/29/004316.php David R. MarkCan you yell "fire" in a crowded theater and get away with it?If the Bush Administration was deciding, it would likely depend on whether you were a liberal or a conservative.Universal Press Syndicate columnist Ann Coulter "joked" during a Thursday speech that liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens should be poisoned."We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee," Coulter said at Philander Smith College in Little Rock, Ark. "That's just a joke, for you in the media."And by all accounts, no action was taken against Coulter, save for a smattering of boos from the audience.Christian conservative leader and former Republican presidential candidate Pat Robertson declared a fatwa on Aug. 22, calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez."If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said of Chávez on his show, The 700 Club. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop."Robertson first lied about what he said, claiming the Associated Press "misrepresented" his words. He later apologized. And again, by all accounts, no action was taken against him.Now, JABBS is completely in favor of free speech. A favorite movie moment is the speech given by Michael Douglas' character, President Andrew Shepherd, at the end of the 1995 film, The American President:DOUGLAS: America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've got to want it bad, because it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil who is standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."And JABBS has to assume that the Bush Administration feels the same way -- even if Douglas' character was an obvious Democrat.Coulter? She was joking. Robertson? He quickly apologized. Right?If it were that simple, there wouldn't be much to discuss. The problem is that the Bush Administration has been woefully inconsistent in how it views First Amendment rights. Strangely, while a public call for the murder of a Supreme Court Justice or the assassination of a foreign leader go seemingly unchecked, other lesser demonstrations of free speech have led the administration to take action.Consider these examples:A married couple was removed from a Bush presidential campaign event in West Virginia in the summer of 2004 after revealing anti-Bush T-shirts. A Utah man was visited later in the year by the Secret Service for an anti-Bush bumper sticker on his car. Last spring, the Secret Service sent agents to investigate a college art gallery exhibit of mock postage stamps, one depicting Bush with a gun pointed at his head. The military is shutting down some soldiers' blogs it says reveal sensitive information about the Iraq War; others claim the military's real goal is censorship.In the face of such perceived inconsistency, it seems fair to ask whether the Bush Administration puts party before country when considering first amendment rights.JABBS doesn't expect, nor does it desire, to have Coulter or Robertson visited by Secret Service agents or arrested. But a consistent interpretation of the law would be appreciated.***This item first appeared at JABBS Edited: [GH] Politics42889@blogcritics.org Sun, 29 Jan 2006 00:43:16 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/01/26/162717.php David R. MarkUnder President Bush, conservative Christian leader Pat Robertson's international "charity" Operation Blessing has increased its annual revenue from government grants from $108,000 to $14.4 million.Ironically, Robertson expressed public misgivings about the Bush Administration's "faith-based initiatives" back in 2001. "I really don't know what to do," Robertson told viewers of his TV show, The 700 Club. "But this thing could be a real Pandora's box. ...What seems to be such a great initiative can rise up to bite the organizations as well as the federal government. And I'm a little concerned about it, frankly."Guess he had a change of heart.***Why should you be concerned that your tax dollars are helping to fund Robertson's charity?Consider that Operation Blessing has come under fire for questionable activities:QUESTION MARK ONE: In the late 1990s, it was learned that Operation Blessing was diverting its medical missionary planes in Africa in order to pick up equipment for Pat Robertson's gold mining operations in Zaire. Robertson refunded the charity out of his own pocket, supposedly to avoid prosecution.QUESTION MARK TWO: Operation Blessing practices discriminatory hiring -- it only hires Christians. (That's not liberal speculation. It was confirmed last week by Deborah Bensen, the charity's director of media and government relations.)QUESTION MARK THREE: All grantees are required to follow guidelines that say federal money must not be used for "inherently religious activities." But that's a gray area. Operation Blessing provided money for a refrigerated trailer and computers for Lighthouse Mission on Long Island, New York, which proclaims on its Web site. "Through the love of God, the volunteers at the Mission help people in need on a daily basis through prayer and God's Word."Doesn't that mean federal money is being used for "inherently religious acitivities"? Operation Blessing says no. Others say yes.The Bush Administration? It apparently has no plans to investigate, perhaps because it doesn't want to upset its large conservative Christian base.***This item first appeared at Journalists Against Bush's B.S. Politics42800@blogcritics.org Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:27:17 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/01/23/130520.php David R. MarkOn yesterday's edition of Fox News Sunday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told host Chris Wallace that he didn't think President Bush had "legal authority" to engage in warrantless domestic spying:WALLACE: But you do not believe that currently he has the legal authority to engage in these warrant-less wiretaps.MCCAIN: You know, I don't think so, but why not come to Congress? We can sort this all out. I don't think -- I know of no member of Congress, frankly, who, if the administration came and said here's why we need this capability, that they wouldn't get it. ***The news is not that McCain spoke out against Bush's apparent circumvension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which says that the National Security Agency must obtain a warrant before conducting surveillance. McCain also spoke out against the program last month -- one of at least 11 Republican senators to question the program.The news is that McCain contradicts a key piece of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' defense of Bush's program -- that Congress wouldn't have authorized it anyway. Gonzales, who as White House counsel approved the program, will try to defend the program in Senate testimony next month.As Gonzales said last month: "We've had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be -- that was not something we could likely get." In other words, someone is lying. ***This item first appeared at Journalists Against Bush's B.S. Politics42647@blogcritics.org Mon, 23 Jan 2006 13:05:20 EST