Pam’s House Blend has the skinny on a new book that says Abraham Lincoln was likely gay. She also has the (predictably laughable) Freeper response. A must-read.
Gay Abe
Christmas in Red
Last night, in this glorious red state of mine, Mr. Shakes and I were (regrettably) heading into the local megastore-complex (Wal-Mart, Sears Hardware, Lowes, etc.), which is the only type of place we can shop now that every independent retailer has been bankrupted by Sam Walton and friends. At a big 4-way stop between all the various expansive parking lots was a man with a homeless-and-hungry sign.
There were at least 10, and probably closer to 20, cars that went through that stop sign before us. Ours was the only car that stopped, gave the man money, talked to him, and/or in any other way acknowledged that he was alive. Lest you think it's “compassion fatigue” on the part of my neighbors, this is the first homeless person I've seen in town in years.
Aside from just sorta bitching in general, I also wanted to post this to illustrate (yet again) how the Right is full of shit. If only I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard one of them wax faux-concerned about the needy and how the existing state-funded social programs don’t work. If only I had a dime for every time I’ve heard one them blather endlessly about how charity should be done locally, rather than compelling taxes to use on 'liberal' programs, i.e. welfare. (If only I had all those nickels and dimes, I would have given them to the guy I all-too-meagerly helped last night.) Well, here was a perfect opportunity to reach out to someone less fortunate, and I didn't see anyone else leaping at the opportunity to provide local, neighborly charity to a member of their community.
I guess they were just being compassionately conservative with their cash. Red state values in action. Merry fucking Christmas.
Quote of the Day 2
(Okay, I realize that there should really only be one Quote of the Day, but I rarely even do Quotes of the Day, so give me some latitude here…)
Rev. Jim Melnyk, associate rector of St. Mark's Episcopal Church in Raleigh, N.C., in a letter to the editor regarding another Raleigh church that recently paid $7,600 for a full-page newspaper ad urging Christians to spend their money only with merchants who include the greeting "Merry Christmas" in ads and displays:
"Why not simply require stores owned by Jews to put a gold star in their ads and on their storefronts?" the Rev. Jim Melnyk, associate rector of St. Mark's Episcopal Church in Raleigh, wrote in a letter to the editor.Yowza. I love it when men of the cloth get bitchy.
Quote of the Day
James Wolcott, on the awarding of the Medals of Freedom to Paul Bremer, Tommy Franks, and George Tenet:
My expertise in military strategy is somewhere above David Frum's and below Hillary Duff's, but I fail to be impressed by the victory of a high-tech superpower over a Third World weakling which had been bashed to bits during the first Gulf War and under sanctions for a decade after.
Watch Your Mouth
Paul Waldman has a great piece in The Gadflyer’s Fly Trap about the use of language when discussing issues such as religion. The whole thing, including the transcript of a short December 7 ABC News report about the celebration of Christmas, is worth your time to read, but of pertinent consideration is this:
[C]onservatives want people to hear "public" as "open" and "private" as "secret" when we're discussing this issue. But many people, particularly the lawyers who are sometimes called to discuss it, talk about "public" as "related to government" and "private" as "not related to government."
Banish this from your vocabulary. Don't discuss "posting the Ten Commandments in public buildings," talk about "taxpayers paying to put up religious texts in government buildings." Don't say "religion should be private," say "we shouldn't get government in the religion business." Because that's what it's really about.
Annie Get Your Gun
Pams’ House Blend links to a Washington Times report revealing the Army’s plan to move women to the front lines in Iraq, while denying they’re moving women to the front lines in Iraq:
Score another one for the administration in the ongoing game of Rampant Opportunism. No reason not to take advantage of the mothers, sisters, and daughters who are serving in Iraq—as long as they’re there and all—especially since we’re running out of backdoor draft options. It’s an amazing feat of acrobatic ability that this administration is now advancing military opportunism using its own previous political opportunism. Having declared our mission accomplished long ago and continuing to ignore the realities of the war makes it incredibly easy to deny the veracity of charges that chaotic insurgencies have undermined the traditional notion of the front line. I’d like to hear from a woman who finds herself in one of these units, where she is collocating “only with brigade-support battalions, which are not considered combat units,” but is more endangered “than would otherwise be the case,” and see if she doesn’t feel like she’s moving to the front lines of this increasingly random war.The Army's 3rd Infantry Division is scheduled to head to Iraq next month to bolster security before the Jan. 30 elections. When they leave, they could be the first division that deploys mixed-sex units near all-male combat units. […] The mixed-sex units, known as Forward Support Companies, would be on the ground near fighting, but not actively involved in combat.
[…]
[S]ome allege that "collocating" mixed-sex units with combat units violates a ban imposed in 1994. While the Army admits that it has considered altering the ban, it says the current proposal allows forward support units to collocate only with brigade-support battalions, which are not considered combat units. The Army also notes that the roles women would be performing would not be much different than the ones they perform now in other support units. It should be emphasized that this new method would not permit women to take on direct combat duties. What it does do is increase the risk to female soldiers performing their traditional combat support
duties.[…]
As Mr. Scarborough has reported, some inside the Pentagon see the proposal as "skirting" the existing 1994 ban, if not violating it. That very well could be the case. Events in Iraq have shown that insurgencies do not operate on a front, thereby removing the safety support brigades enjoy being "behind the line." Placing mixed-sex forward units with support brigades could endanger more female soldiers than would otherwise be the case.
[…]
Allowing women to serve in such support units might not be the best alternative, yet until the Army increases its retention and recruitment it seems to be the only available one.
And special honorable mention to the Army for their entry in the Jolly Euphemism Challenge. “Forward Support Companies” isn’t quite as good as “Clear Skies Initiative,” lacking an equivalent ironic jab, but it’s pretty good nonetheless.
Action Items
Protest Sinclair.
Buy Blue.
(Does it matter to you that Amazon.com made $100,000 in political contributions, 61% of which went to Republicans? It should. Especially when you can go to Barnes & Noble instead, who gave 98% of their $103,000 in political contributions to Democrats.)
Gobsmacked
From the You’ve Got to be Shitting Me Files:
President Bush on Tuesday bestowed the nation's highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, on three of the central architects and executors of the war in Iraq, one of the president's strongest efforts yet at putting a formal stamp of success on a war whose outcome is still a question.
The recipients were Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the overall commander of the invasion of Iraq; L. Paul Bremer III, the chief civilian administrator of the American occupation of the country; and George J. Tenet, the longtime director of central intelligence who built the case for going to war.
"Today this honor goes to three men who have played pivotal roles in great events," Mr. Bush said, surrounded by members of his administration in a ceremony in the East Room of the White House, "and whose efforts have made our country more secure and advanced the cause of human liberty."
If you need it explained to you why that’s an outrage of epic proportions, you probably wouldn’t believe me, anyway.
Judge Dread
The AP reports:
A judge refused to delay a trial Tuesday when an attorney objected to his wearing a judicial robe with the Ten Commandments embroidered on the front in gold.If this was the first time Judge McKathan showed up to court in his fancy new robe, I suspect it might have something to do with this. I have a hard time believing it’s a mere coincidence that within a week of the administration, via the Justice Department, pushing to allow a display of the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, a judge just happens shows up with them emblazoned across his front.
Circuit Judge Ashley McKathan showed up Monday at his Covington County courtroom in southern Alabama wearing the robe. Attorneys who try cases at the courthouse said they had not seen him wearing it before. The commandments were described as being big enough to read by anyone near the judge.
Since the election, and the alleged mandate which Rove & Co. attribute to the evangelicals, there has been much discussion as to whether the Bush administration will genuinely pursue a radically socially conservative agenda, or whether they intend to deliver just enough lip service to issues of concern to the religious right to keep them mollified. I suspect the reality lies somewhere in between, and this issue is a good example of the balance the administration is trying to strike. Ten Commandments in courtrooms is a topic that enrages many on the left, but there is a large contingent of moderate Democrats who don’t believe it’s a problem. (Recall that many Democrats voted for gay marriage bans on Nov. 3, too.)
However, there is a significant number of moderate Republicans who do believe it’s a problem. In other words, in the vast middle of the country (both literally and figuratively), you will find people who fall on both sides of the issue in both parties. And it galvanizes the extremes—the Right feels as though they’ve won a major battle and the Left feels as though they’ve lost one. I don’t believe this administration is prepared for how divisive this issue really is.
McKathan told The Associated Press that he believes the Ten Commandments represent the truth "and you can't divorce the law from the truth. ... The Ten Commandments can help a judge know the difference between right and wrong."Well, clearly not. Or else they wouldn’t be part of a fashion statement in a fucking courtroom.
He said he doesn't believe the commandments on his robe would have an adverse effect on jurors.I’m frankly amazed that a man so small-minded and self-righteous was even able to achieve a judgeship. It is impossible to understand how a man in his position could doubt the adverse effect such a display might have, such as distracting the jurors from their responsibility in the courtroom. The chance of a fair trial is uncertain at best when an outlandishly dressed judge competes for the attention of those selected to determine a defendant’s fate.
The case raised comparisons to former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was removed from office in 2003 for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments Monument from the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery.It’s interesting to see this getting turned into a crusade, isn’t it? We went in one story from McKathan saying, “The Ten Commandments can help a judge know the difference between right and wrong,” to Moore equating them with “the moral basis of our law.” The religious right movement in action right before our eyes—personal, guiding morality suddenly redefined as intrinsic societal construction. It’s complete bullshit, and it’s even more majestic than McKathan seems to have intended, but Moore, hero and martyr of the religious right, will repeat it often enough until there is no space for sunlight between his claim and the truth.
Moore said Tuesday he supports McKathan's decision to wear the Ten Commandments robe.
"I applaud Judge McKathan. It is time for our judiciary to recognize the moral basis of our law," Moore said.
What are they putting in the water in Alabama, for fuck’s sake?
The 2004 Koufax Awards
Nominations are now open for the 2004 Koufax Awards. Categories and past winners can be found here. (A link to the most recent nominations thread can also be found at the top of the page.)
Give your favorite Lefty bloggers some love.
The Tao of Rude
Two talking points are emerging on the Right in defense of Rummy’s little scrum with National Guardsman Thomas Wilson.
1. It’s just the perception of the Reservists. Real military men don’t complain like little sissyboys.
2. You people on the Left have no moral authority to question the administration’s decisions since you supported John Kerry, who, as everyone knows, given half the chance would single-handedly wring the neck of each and every American patriot and divert the entirety of the defense budget to the creation of the Department of Adorable Bunnies, of which he would immediately appoint Michael Moore as Secretary.
My response to each of these claims was “Fuck You,” which I thought was succinct, if not especially eloquent.
Graciously, the Rude Pundit has taken the time to properly address each of them more expansively, while retaining the insolent intent behind my two-word reply.
The Good News and the Bad News
In the spirit of ending on an optimistic note, let’s look at the Bad News first.
James Wolcott, in a discussion of the Kerik Kerfuffle, takes the Dems to task for falling down on the job (again):
Then, in one of the most heartwarming holiday tales in many a year, it all unravelled [sic] and keeps unravelling [sic] even Kerik after withdrew his name from consideration. The juicy stories keep popping out of the NY tabloids and the blogs like clowns from a clown car.Houston, we have a problem when the Right dishes up an opportunity like this and we don’t seize on it like a pitbull on a steak. Step one is pointing out the gaping intelligence whole we have if we can’t even vet our own guys effectively. Step two is pointing out the hypocrisy of an administration that seeks to criminalize marriage between one segment of the population to protect heterosexual marriage, but finds no problem with a man who actually managed to undermine the sanctity of his own marriage with affairs and possible bigamy.
[…]
I'm glad the press is having a dance party with this, because God knows the Democrats are frozen at the steering wheel. I just saw a segment on MSNBC (which has been all over the Kerik story today, bless Rick Kaplan's cyborg heart) pitting a Republican strategist against a Democratic one, and the Democratic spokesman--who goes by the name of Michael Brown--seemed to have washed down his weeny pills with warm Ovaltine. Instead of kicking Kerik and Giuliana between the uprights for three points, Brown fretted that vetting process for cabinet candidates was "going to far," and that we were in danger of discouraging people from public service. Oh no, we wouldn't want to discourage philandering, pocket-lining, deadbeat no-show bully-boys like Bernard Kerik from having the opportunity to muck around with our civil liberties in the name of "national security" and hold bigshot press conferences. I mean, if that sort of thing were to continue happening, people might start mistaking the Democrats for an opposition party and thinking that the press has an adversarial role to play, and we don't want that to happen, it might actually lead to signs of life in that mausoleum we call the nation's capital.
This Michael Brown wouldn't even criticize Alberto Gonzalez for botching the background check and vetting of Kerik.
In Good News, however, there’s this story from the AP, which tells me, if nothing else, that Harry Reid is nothing if not an enigma.
New Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said Monday his party will launch investigative hearings next year in response to what he said was the reluctance of Republicans to look into problems in the Bush administration.Signs of life! I’m feeling a little thrill thinking the Dems might actually do something resembling a coherent opposition.
"There are too many unasked and unanswered questions and the American public deserves better," the Nevada senator said at a news conference. He will formally succeed Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., as party leader next month.
Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who heads the Democratic Policy Committee, said the first hearing will be at the end of January and he suggested it might focus on contract abuse in Iraq. He said the policy committee, which has held occasional investigative hearings in the past, planned to convene at least one such hearing a month.
Dorgan said that with Republicans controlling the White House and both the House and Senate, "the congressional watchdog remains fast asleep in this Congress."
[…]
They said issues that "cry out" for closer investigation, in addition to contracting abuses in Iraq, include the administration's use of prewar intelligence and its reported effort to stifle information about the true cost of the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. Reid also mentioned global warming and the "No Child Left Behind" education program as topics that needed a closer look.
The Democratic-organized hearings would not have subpoena powers, but Dorgan said there are plenty of whistleblowers "anxious to tell their story."
The two senators said they would step aside whenever Republicans agreed to hold regular committee hearings on a topic, and they would ask Republicans to provide testimony or witnesses at the Democratic hearings. Dorgan said 12 to 15 Senate Democrats would lead the new oversight effort.
Now, is it too much to ask that they take the lesson from recent history? If you speak up as things happen, and make a move before things spiral out of control, you don’t need to convene investigative hearings covering four year’s worth of unaddressed scandals. And chances are, you don’t end up with the perpetrator staring down another four years of opportunity for his escalating madness.
Come on, Reid. Prove me wrong about you!
The Future is Passing Us By
Pam’s House Blend features this article about Romania’s new pro-gay, anti-corruption president:
Traian Basescu, the leader of the opposition, has been declared the new President of Romania, defeating the “leftist” Adrian Nastase, the Prime Minister.This is really interesting. On one hand, it’s quite encouraging to read something like that, and on that other, it’s disappointing that it wasn't here, and that we're not even close to electing someone like that.
The election victory gives hope to the Romanian gay community as Basescu is one of the few politicians in the country to publicly support gay rights.
His record on gay rights was one of the main issues that Social Democratic Party (CSD) opponents used against him in the presidential election.
It was in 2000 that Basescu, a former navy officer who commanded the largest ship in the Romanian navy for more than five years, became mayor of Bucharest. Then two years later, after he started a campaign for more tolerance towards gays, the government repealed Section 200 of Romanian law which dealt with sexual offences and opened the way to prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Mr. Shakes the Scotsman always moans about when "you Yanks are going to get it together and elect a woman. We sorted that out years ago, and you're still faffing around with that cowboy."
It is starting to feel like the rest of the world is moving faster than we are. Or, more accurately, that they’re moving forward, and we’re regressing. I’ve never felt that way before. It’s…disconcerting.
The Evils of Stem Cell Research
As I’m our sure you all know, our mighty leader, Herr Bush, has seen fit to ban any and all stem cell research in the United States. And who can blame him? If stem cell technology eradicated disease then where would Pfizer be? Everyone knows we can’t survive without Pfizer, and we’re lucky we have Mr. Bush to protect it. Why, if that John Kerry fella had been elected, our pharmaceutical companies would now have to actually bargain with the government over pricing, and even face competition from abroad! All so that ungrateful, selfish poor people could get affordable medicine! How would that have helped us build the oligarchic utopia we’ve all been dreaming of?
It’s obvious that only the mentally afflicted could support stem cell research, and here’s what one cripple had to say on the matter:
Question: What do you and your academic friends make of the debate over embryonic-stem-cell research in this country?
Dr. Hawking: In Britain, like most of the developed world, stem-cell research is regarded as a great opportunity. America will be left behind if it doesn't change policy.
So you see folks, only a retard would promote stem-cell research. Praise be to Jesus!
Are You Being Served?
Via BlondeSense, an article about a marine who sacrificed his finger to save his wedding band, and via Talking Points Memo, an article about a 70-year-old retired army colonel who was recalled to service in Afghanistan. Reading these two stories reminded me of another recent article about a paratrooper who lost his leg in Iraq re-enlisting.
Often, stories much like these are linked to and quoted on Lefty blogs (including this one), with the purpose of illustrating the real cost of the war. Rarely, however, is there even a mention of the inevitable content of the soldier’s continued enthusiasm for the war effort. I cannot overlook this ever-present thread—so many soldiers’ desire to serve no matter what. The men in the very situations that make my stomach churn are ready to go right back for more:
Marine Lance Cpl. David Battle:
The 19-year-old suffered a mangled left hand and serious wounds to his legs in a Nov. 13 firefight in Fallujah.Retired Army Colonel Dr. John Caulfield:
[…]
Doctors were preparing to cut off Battle's ring to save as much of his finger as they could.
"But that would mean destroying my wedding ring," he said.
[…]
With his approval, doctors severed his finger, but somehow in the chaos that followed, they lost his ring.
Although Battle was disappointed, his wife, Devon, said she was honored.
[…]
He hopes to eventually return to the Marines, and to replace his wedding ring, but that will have to wait until he recovers.
Dr. John Caulfield thought it had to be a mistake when the Army asked him to return to active duty. After all, he's 70 years old and had already retired - twice. He left the Army in 1980 and private practice two years ago.Army Pfc. George Perez:
"My first reaction was disbelief," Caulfield said. "It never occurred to me that they would call a 70-year-old."
[…]
He is one of about 100 over the age of 60 known to be serving. The Department of Defense couldn't provide exact figures.
[…]
Caulfield said he is glad to be able to help.
"I've been a soldier for 25 years," he said. "When your country asks, you do it."
His wife of 47 years, Patricia, said she thought a cruise through the Panama Canal they took after he gave up his private practice would be the most adventurous experience they would have after retirement.
"I feel a lot more comfortable than when he was in Vietnam," she said. "This is a great way to finish his career."
Perez, 21, lost his leg to a roadside bomb in Iraq more than a year ago, but despite the phantom pains that haunt him, he says he is determined to prove to the Army that he is no less of a man — and no less of a soldier.I have considered, as have (I believe) many on the Left, my horror at the injustice of stories like these indicative of my support of the troops. I was consistently rankled by accusations that liberals don't support the troops, and I believe still that the concern I hold for the men and women who serve is genuine, and can mutually coexist with my disdain for the war in which they fight.
"I'm not ready to get out yet," he says. "I'm not going to let this little injury stop me from what I want to do."
Perez is one of at least four amputees from the 82nd Airborne Division to re-enlist. With a new carbon-fiber prosthetic leg, Perez intends to show a medical board he can run an eight-minute mile, jump out of airplanes and pass all the other paratrooper tests that will allow him to go with his regiment to Afghanistan next year.
[…]
Doctors initially tried to save part of Perez's foot. But an infection crept up his leg, and Perez agreed to allow the amputation below the knee joint.
"I was going to stay in no matter what," he recalls telling the surgeons. "Do whatever would get me back fastest."
Perez was left with a rounded stump that fits into the suction cup of the black carbon-fiber prosthetic leg.
When he arrived at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., for his rehabilitation, Perez asked a pair of generals who visited his bedside if it was possible for him to stay in the Army.
"They told me, 'It's all up to you, how much you want it,'" he says. "If I could do everything like a regular soldier, I could stay in."
I am, however, beginning to realize that I do not understand the troops. The men quoted above are inexplicable to me.
The troops and their families supported Bush, for reasons I admit I simply cannot begin to comprehend. I am not from a military family, though people with my name have died defending this country. I am hopelessly confused by stories of homeless vets and poor treatment of soldiers, which seem to beg for my outrage, and stories like those above, which seem to ask for the same. Yet the men to whom the latter stories belong harbor no offense.
Support of the troops, like every other issue we collectively face, seems to be drawn among ideological lines. The Right sees it in black and white—either you support the troops or you don’t. (Troops who sour on the military are seen as nothing short of traitorous.) The Left sees it in shades of gray—each soldier’s experience is unique; some will believe in their mission, and some will question it, some will be left with ruined lives after losing limbs, and some will return to the battlefield as triumphant bionic men.
It is inconceivable to someone on the Right that a man mistreated by the military or critical of its aims during his service could be rightfully angry, yet still be a patriot. (See: John Kerry.) It is inconceivable to someone on the Left that a man who scavenges for scrap metal to arm his vehicle could vote for Bush, believe in the mission, and be anxious to get back to the battlefield should a serious injury remove him.
I feel that perhaps it's impossible to claim support of the troops when you don't really understand them, and in that sense, perhaps no one on either side can quite earnestly make that claim. In furtherance of the very worthy—and intimidating—goal of wrapping one's head around what our men and women are experiencing over there, I recommend the Operation Truth blog, which offers a perspective different from that you might see on the evening news.
Elsewhere in Blogville...
Digby tells is like it is.
World O’ Crap’s s.z. spreads Christmas cheer.
And James Wolcott reminds us that there’s still a reason to listen to Noam occasionally.
I’m Dreaming of a Caste Christmas
Voodoo economics in action, working its wonder during the magical season:
With less than two weeks of shopping left until Christmas, the nation's malls and stores stepped up discounts over the weekend, but business appeared to be mixed.Can’t you just feel the holiday spirit trickling down?
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. — which became more aggressive on pricing after a disappointing start to the holiday shopping season — continues to struggle. The Bentonville, Ark.-based retailer said on Saturday that for the week ended Friday, sales of winter merchandise were below expectations, and its general merchandise business was not as strong as food sales. However, the world's largest discounter is still sticking to its December sales forecast.
[…]
Meanwhile, business at luxury stores continued to be robust, with designer handbags, jewelry and items like $1,200 massage chairs being snapped up by well-heeled shoppers.
Karen MacDonald, a spokeswoman at mall operator Taubman Centers Inc., said business on Saturday at luxury chains was up in the high single-digit to double-digit percentages from a year ago. For the rest of the merchants, sales were even with last year or rose a modest single-digit percentage from a year ago.
"Retailers are all revved up, all ready to go, and the consumers are just taking their sweet time, walking around, checking out items, but not buying," said Marshal Cohen, senior industry analyst at NPD Group Inc., a market research company based in Port Washington, N.Y. He checked out malls in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut over the weekend, and noted that traffic was disappointing.
He added, "For the luxury market, it feels like Christmas, but to everybody else — the midlevel and lower-end customer — it is not going to be a great Christmas."
The Loyalist Leavitt
The AP reports that Bush has selected EPA chief Michael Leavitt to be secretary of Health and Human Services.
Bush praised Leavitt as a "fine executive" and "a man of great compassion." "He's an ideal choice to lead one of the largest departments of the United States government."What, exactly, makes him such an ideal choice? His tenure in the Bush administration has not been without controversy, and Leavitt sure hasn’t done anything to get them off the EPA’s shitlist.
In fact, when Leavitt was nominated to lead the EPA, there was significant opposition from environmental groups. See the Earthjustice press release, a letter from Earthjustice, Environmental Integrity Project, Friends of the Earth, Mineral Policy Center, National Environmental Trust, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Sierra Club, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group opposing Leavitt’s confirmation to the EPA, a letter from Campaign for America's Wilderness, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Environmental Integrity Project, Friends of the Earth, League of Conservation Voters, Mineral Policy Center, National Audubon Society, National Environmental Trust, Natural Resources Defense Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Refinery Reform Campaign, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 20/20 Vision, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group opposing Leavitt’s nomination, and more can be found here.
Amidst reports of his poor record on the environment are some things that seem to make him a questionable choice, at best, to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, whose motto is “Leading America to Better Health, Safety and Well-Being.”
From the Environmental Integrity Project, via Environmental Media Services:
He downplayed toxic releases reported by the mining industry - including releases of the neurotoxin mercury - by saying "in reality it is not pollution" (Deseret News, June 16, 1999; Mineral Policy Center)Despite his obviously and demonstrably unsuitability for this new position, though, he is viewed by the administration as an ideal candidate.
He sponsored policy resolutions of the Western Governors' Association in 2000 and 2002 to oppose environmental regulation of the mining industry and to limit public access to information about the mining industry's toxic pollution, respectively (WGA Policy Resolutions 00-13 and 02-19, www.westgov.org, Mineral Policy Center).
[…]
Under Governor Leavitt, water quality monitoring in Utah [was] well behind the national average for testing streams and rivers for water quality. The vast majority of Utah waters are not even monitored, according to EPA's most recent state water quality report (U.S EPA 2000 Water Quality Report to Congress).
[…]
Between 1995 and 2002, Utah's power plants slightly increased their emissions of nitrogen oxide - a pollutant linked to respiratory disease - while the rest of the country decreased such emissions substantially - by 21.8% on average - during the same period (U.S. EPA Toxic Release Inventory 2001).
While Utah has made progress in attaining the one-hour ozone standard, nearly half of the state's population live in a county that has not met clean air health based standards for one or more pollutant, compared to an average of 36.6% nationwide. Utah counties in nonattainment for criteria pollutants include: Particulate Matter (PM)-Ogden, Weber, Salt Lake and Utah counties; Sulfur Dioxide (SOx)-Salt Lake and Tooele counties; Carbon Monoxide (CO)-Provo and Utah counties. (U.S. EPA Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants, and Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality, PDF doc)
Leavitt, in the EPA job only a year, quickly won a reputation as a Bush loyalist. He also shares Bush's enthusiasm for technological and market-based approaches to fixing problems.Right. Because loyalty is the best (and perhaps only requisite) qualification for any job with the Bushies.
Damned Lies
In a totally unsurprising revelation, the L.A. Times reveals that Bush’s motives re: Social Security might not be totally altruistic:
Many Democrats accuse Republicans of intentionally making Social Security's future look bleaker than it is so that they can more easily sell their privatization proposals. The Republican agenda, they say, is more ideological than financial: the promotion of Bush's "ownership society."The ownership society includes a proposal to privatize Social Security, with workers diverting cash to glorified 401(k) accounts instead of having automatic withdrawals from each paycheck going in to a national coffer. This would be voluntary, meaning that if it seemed more attractive to you to have an extra $50 in your take-home pay each payday, you could continue to avoid saving for retirement just as many do now, but with absolutely no safety net waiting for you in old age. I have two big problems with this half-cocked plan. First, I have yet to hear the Bush administration’s explanation for what happens to the money already contributed by people in the middle of their working lives. Lots of money directed to Social Security already, but no return on investment. Kind of sets us back a few years in the old private accounts, guys. Secondly, the entire proposal is predicated on misinformation and fear-mongering:
Three times in the past week, Bush has created or used public relations events to promote his view that Social Security is facing a dire financial threat and needs major repairs. Most recently, Bush said in his Saturday radio address that "the system is headed towards bankruptcy down the road. If we do not act soon, Social Security will not be there for our children and grandchildren."But the truth is:
Critics of private accounts point out that the board that oversees Social Security estimates that the program will not run out of funds until 2042 — and even then, ongoing payroll taxes will be able to foot the bill for about 75% of full benefits.This is like selling your house because the porch light goes out. A sane person would, instead, change the light bulb. Democrats need to get busy on this issue, before our collective house gets sold by the asinine management team we put in charge of it.
That leaves plenty of time, they say, to assure Social Security's future with just a little nipping and tucking — slightly higher taxes, minimally smaller benefit increases, maybe a higher retirement age.
