Turns out the assistant city manager is going to have to twist in the wind a little longer before enjoying his elevation.
Apparently, the council is going to go through one of its sham deliberations before anointing him. In response to a query by the Coalition for a Livable City about the council's intentions for tonight's show, outgoing city manager McCarthy responded that, "[o]ver the next month or more the City Council will be meeting periodically in closed session for the purposes of considering the credentials of applicants for City Manager. This will include review of resumes and interviews. Wednesday is the first of those meetings. The City Council is keenly aware of the requirements of the Brown Act, and has received advice from the City Attorney about how to proceed in a manner that respects both the candidates' privacy and the public's interest under the law."
While it's certainly good news that, however belatedly, "[t]he City Council is keenly aware of the requirements of the Brown Act," what possible reason is there for star chamber interviews with the candidates? Privacy? This is the public's business and it should be conducted in public. If a candidate has something that it would be better to keep private, he or she is free not to apply for the job.
It's equally good news that there's more time now to consult the community about the qualifications desired of the next manager. For starters, the council should make public the names and cvs of the manager wannabes. Once the council has narrowed the list down to three or four, a community meeting can be convened where SaMo residents and organizations can evaluate the finalists for themselves and where the council can see how the candidates handle themselves in relation to the natives.
Action: The Earth Charter Initiative
"The Earth Charter is an authoritative synthesis of values, principles, and aspirations that are widely shared by growing numbers of men and women in all regions of the world.
"The principles of the Earth Charter reflect extensive international consultations conducted over a period of many years. These principles are also based upon contemporary science, international law, and the insights of philosophy and religion. Successive drafts of the Earth Charter were circulated around the world for comments and debate by nongovernmental organizations, community groups, professional societies, and international experts in many fields." -- from the website. <http://www.earthcharter.org/>
"The principles of the Earth Charter reflect extensive international consultations conducted over a period of many years. These principles are also based upon contemporary science, international law, and the insights of philosophy and religion. Successive drafts of the Earth Charter were circulated around the world for comments and debate by nongovernmental organizations, community groups, professional societies, and international experts in many fields." -- from the website. <http://www.earthcharter.org/>
Rush to Misjudgement
Wednesday evening (2005-10-26), a special meeting of the Santa Monica city council will be convened to determine who will reign over the burg as city manager.
You may wonder, what's the rush? Who is being considered for
this high-paid, professional position? Why hasn't there been a well-publicized hunt for the best qualified person? Why has the process been conducted in secret? And why hasn't the community been consulted?
If Pam O'Connor and Bob Holbrook, the council members who have been charged with finding a new manager, believe that city hall-denizen Gordon Anderson is qualified to be city manager, as it is rumored they do, then surely they would find him capable of serving for a time as acting manager, while a responsible search is conducted.
The rush -- and the secrecy -- is almost certainly meant to head off growing concern in the community about the qualifications of the next manager. The last thing most people in this town want at city hall is more of the same -- more fiscal irresponsibility, more inefficiency, more insensitivity, more arbitrariness, more bureaucratic stasis.
We need a change. New blood. A new point of view.
It was a mistake to follow autocratic John Jillili with his understudy, Susan McCarthy, especially without enlisting the support of the citizenry. It will be a disaster to follow McCarthy with another insider, especially if rushed through without due attention to process. The McCarthy-Anderson regime turned a well-run municipality into a model of administrative mediocrity; they presided over a polity increasingly under the thumb of an unresponsive, arrogant and aggressive beadledom, an outside occupying force with little or no stake in the community it oppresses.
We need a deliberate, well-publicized campaign to recruit a new manager. And the process of selection must include extensive consultation with the community. To do otherwise is not only arrogant and irresponsible, but stupid. It will only lead to further trouble down the line.
At a recent council meeting, citizens described some of the qualities they'd like to see in a city manager. Ted Winterer from the Ocean Park neighborhood association said
the new city manager should be “responsive and sensitive to community concerns and have a willingness to meet annually with neighborhood organizations and other local stakeholders.” Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights co-chair Denny Zane suggested the new manager should be “comfortable with a range of political philosophies, but at the same time share important community priorities.” He also argued that the new manager should “not see their career success as tied to planning some big development projects or tied to the fiscal health of the community but have a broader range of concerns.”
Winterer also insisted that the three or four finalists for the job should be asked to meet with the neighborhood organizations so that the latter could advise the council on which finalist should be hired.
An even better plan would be to require the candidates to meet with all the stakeholders in the community, not just the neighborhood groups. This could be accomplished efficiently by holding a public meeting with all the candidates present. From the dais, with the council members watching, the finalists could take questions from residents and representatives of organizations active in the community -- neighborhood associations, business districts, the Chamber of Commerce, the unions, parents of school age children, beach users, bus riders, the hospitals, Santa Monica College, Neighborhood Watch, Heal the Bay, service agencies like Step Up and Clare, Community Corp., in short anyone who comes into contact with city hall.
Is Candidate A committed to open government? Is Candidate B a sweet talker who slips past every question without touching it? Does Candidate C have a plan for creating more affordable housing? Is Candidate D an arrogant technocrat who can barely deign to look a citizen in the eye?
After seeing the candidates in action, council members would be in a much better position to make a judgement on what is arguably the most important decision of their incumbencies. And the candidates themselves would benefit from a crash course in the issues that are on the minds of the people they will be hired to serve.
In the meantime, there's still an slim chance to head off Gordon Anderson. His appointment would guarantee business as usual; instead, we need a change of direction: we need accountability; we need to replace obscurantism and manipulation with openness and sensitivity; we need a new ethic of service. Tell the council that Gordon Anderson is not acceptable. It's nothing personal. No one from within the current bureaucracy can be allowed to have this job.
It's not as though it isn't generally understood that something is amiss with the way Santa Monica governs itself. The council has a rare opportunity to start to do something about it. Let them know you'll support them if they act courageously on your behalf. And hold them accountable if they don't.
The council's collective email addresses are council@smgov.net and council@santa-monica.org.
You can leave phone messages at 310.458.8301. Faxes go to 310.458.1621.
The mailing address is Santa Monica City Council, P.O. Box 2200, Santa Monica, CA 9044407-2200.
Individual emails:
Richard Bloom: richard@bloomlaw.net
Ken Genser: city@genser.org
Bob Holbrook: robert-holbrook@santa-monica.org
Herb Katz: herb-katz@santa-monica.org
Kevin McKeown: publicprocess@mckeown.net
Pam O'Connor: pam-oconnor@santa-monica.org
Bobby Shriver: bobby@bobbyshriver.com
"Imagining the Next City Manager" (Santa Monica Mirror)
You may wonder, what's the rush? Who is being considered for
this high-paid, professional position? Why hasn't there been a well-publicized hunt for the best qualified person? Why has the process been conducted in secret? And why hasn't the community been consulted?If Pam O'Connor and Bob Holbrook, the council members who have been charged with finding a new manager, believe that city hall-denizen Gordon Anderson is qualified to be city manager, as it is rumored they do, then surely they would find him capable of serving for a time as acting manager, while a responsible search is conducted.
The rush -- and the secrecy -- is almost certainly meant to head off growing concern in the community about the qualifications of the next manager. The last thing most people in this town want at city hall is more of the same -- more fiscal irresponsibility, more inefficiency, more insensitivity, more arbitrariness, more bureaucratic stasis.
We need a change. New blood. A new point of view.
It was a mistake to follow autocratic John Jillili with his understudy, Susan McCarthy, especially without enlisting the support of the citizenry. It will be a disaster to follow McCarthy with another insider, especially if rushed through without due attention to process. The McCarthy-Anderson regime turned a well-run municipality into a model of administrative mediocrity; they presided over a polity increasingly under the thumb of an unresponsive, arrogant and aggressive beadledom, an outside occupying force with little or no stake in the community it oppresses.
We need a deliberate, well-publicized campaign to recruit a new manager. And the process of selection must include extensive consultation with the community. To do otherwise is not only arrogant and irresponsible, but stupid. It will only lead to further trouble down the line.
At a recent council meeting, citizens described some of the qualities they'd like to see in a city manager. Ted Winterer from the Ocean Park neighborhood association said
the new city manager should be “responsive and sensitive to community concerns and have a willingness to meet annually with neighborhood organizations and other local stakeholders.” Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights co-chair Denny Zane suggested the new manager should be “comfortable with a range of political philosophies, but at the same time share important community priorities.” He also argued that the new manager should “not see their career success as tied to planning some big development projects or tied to the fiscal health of the community but have a broader range of concerns.”Winterer also insisted that the three or four finalists for the job should be asked to meet with the neighborhood organizations so that the latter could advise the council on which finalist should be hired.
An even better plan would be to require the candidates to meet with all the stakeholders in the community, not just the neighborhood groups. This could be accomplished efficiently by holding a public meeting with all the candidates present. From the dais, with the council members watching, the finalists could take questions from residents and representatives of organizations active in the community -- neighborhood associations, business districts, the Chamber of Commerce, the unions, parents of school age children, beach users, bus riders, the hospitals, Santa Monica College, Neighborhood Watch, Heal the Bay, service agencies like Step Up and Clare, Community Corp., in short anyone who comes into contact with city hall.
Is Candidate A committed to open government? Is Candidate B a sweet talker who slips past every question without touching it? Does Candidate C have a plan for creating more affordable housing? Is Candidate D an arrogant technocrat who can barely deign to look a citizen in the eye?
After seeing the candidates in action, council members would be in a much better position to make a judgement on what is arguably the most important decision of their incumbencies. And the candidates themselves would benefit from a crash course in the issues that are on the minds of the people they will be hired to serve.
In the meantime, there's still an slim chance to head off Gordon Anderson. His appointment would guarantee business as usual; instead, we need a change of direction: we need accountability; we need to replace obscurantism and manipulation with openness and sensitivity; we need a new ethic of service. Tell the council that Gordon Anderson is not acceptable. It's nothing personal. No one from within the current bureaucracy can be allowed to have this job.
It's not as though it isn't generally understood that something is amiss with the way Santa Monica governs itself. The council has a rare opportunity to start to do something about it. Let them know you'll support them if they act courageously on your behalf. And hold them accountable if they don't.
The council's collective email addresses are council@smgov.net and council@santa-monica.org.
You can leave phone messages at 310.458.8301. Faxes go to 310.458.1621.
The mailing address is Santa Monica City Council, P.O. Box 2200, Santa Monica, CA 9044407-2200.
Individual emails:
Richard Bloom: richard@bloomlaw.net
Ken Genser: city@genser.org
Bob Holbrook: robert-holbrook@santa-monica.org
Herb Katz: herb-katz@santa-monica.org
Kevin McKeown: publicprocess@mckeown.net
Pam O'Connor: pam-oconnor@santa-monica.org
Bobby Shriver: bobby@bobbyshriver.com
"Imagining the Next City Manager" (Santa Monica Mirror)
Some notes on community organizations
In the section of Santa Monica where I live, the neighborhood organization, the Ocean Park Association, is trying to decide how it should govern itself.
People join community organizations for many reasons. Some look for community. Some are political animals. Some have political ambitions. Some want to help improve the place where they live. Some are passionate about a particular issue. There are probably as many different reasons as there are people in an organization.
Any successful community organization must overcome a basic contradiction: in order to encourage people to join, it must have very low barriers to entry.
It has to be friendly and unintimidating, undaunting in complexity, undemanding (of time, money, energy, expertise). In order to retain members, on the other hand, it needs to be disciplined and effective. And in order to be disciplined and effective, it needs to access people's time, money, energy, expertise, and loyalty.
Any organization that is easy to join is going to have a lot of members riding for free. This puts a tremendous drain on the leaders and active members, and it has a tendency to be self-perpetuating. The committed members make every effort to get things done, but in so doing they let the easyriders off the hook. Why should I give (time, money, whatever) to an organization if it is getting the job done without me? The leaders and activists, meanwhile, feel used and abused; inevitably, they burn out.
One very seductive response to this problem is not to grow. This has typically been the choice of the community groups in Santa Monica, which have mostly settled for being small clubs focused on the issues that move their handful of members. City Hall has liked this solution because it fits comfortably with its manipulative approach to community involvement. Much easier to handle a clique than a mass movement.
A way to resolve the contradictions between recruitment and retention is decentralization. Among the many advantages of decentralization: it lessens the burdens of leadership, it provides more opportunities for effective participation, and it is flexible.
An organization like OPA, for example, could benefit enormously by keeping itself as unstructured as possible. If, instead of modeling itself on the rigid hierarchy employed by government and business bureaucracies, OPA were to think of itself more along the lines of a political movement, many of the difficulties that have plagued other neighborhood assemblies could be avoided.
The real work of almost any organization is done in committee. Small groups are easier to organize, they are better at identifying the strengths and weaknesses of participants, the necessary work is more apt to get done both because it is more focused -- a small group is likely to be organized around one or a few issues that energize its members -- and because there is much greater peer pressure to commit the resources, especially time, needed to complete whatever project is at hand.
If the committees are where the action is, do we need a board at all?
Alas, yes, because there are certain minimal fiduciary and organizational responsibilities that have to reside somewhere; but when in doubt, it is always better to err on the side of too much democracy than too little.
It can be argued that the primary job of a community organization is to inform the community. In Santa Monica, we have a thin political crust resting uneasily on a thick, smothering mantle of bureaucracy. The last thing we need is another level of government. Instead, we should be enabling an informed and active citizenry to influence the direction and resolve of its elected representatives.
Here, offered for further consideration, are a few ideas that have come up in recent discussions of ways that OPA might think about its structure:
Every resident of Ocean Park is a member at large of OPA.
Decisions about OPA policy and direction are made at monthly (if necessary; possibly fewer) membership meetings.
Voting members include: the elected officers of the organization; the elected chairs (or co-chairs) of committees officially established by the organization at a previous meeting (a committee has at least three members); residents of Ocean Park (over 16 years old?) who have attended at least two of the previous three meetings (or, less restrictively, one of the previous two meetings); certain others (the editor of the newsletter?, the webmaster?) if designated by the membership.
Elected officers will consist of a chair, a vice-chair, a secretary and a treasurer, elected annually. The principal job of the chair will be to build the organization by recruiting and mentoring committee leaders; by actively working to increase membership; by acting, when directed to do so by the general meeting, as the public face of the organization; by being responsible for organizing and facilitating a permanent communications committee to inform the members (i.e., the residents of Ocean park) about the issues confronting the neighborhood; and by convening and chairing an oversight committee of elected officers and permanent committee chairs or co-chairs.
The principal job of the vice-chair will be to conduct general membership meetings (including the preparation and distribution of agendas; the vice-chair will be expected to be familiar with and abide by Roberts Rules of Order as accepted and amended by the general membership). The secretary will keep a record of all meetings and act as historian/institutional memory for the organization. The treasurer will keep the books and be responsible for fund-raising.
A goal will be to keep the responsibilities of the elected officers to a minimum to allow them as much time as possible to participate in committees and issues that interest them.
Committees will be considered the fundamental organizational structure of OPA.
All committees associated with OPA must be approved by the membership at a regular meeting. Committees will be designated as official, ad hoc, affiliated or unofficial; the OPA chair will be expected to make an informed recommendation about the acceptance and designation of committees.
* An official committee will be a more or less permament association (probably most often these will meet an organizational need -- newsletter, website, fundraising -- or will correspond to a more or less permanent area of interest -- traffic, parking, noise, development).
* An ad hoc committee will be an officially designated group with a specific task or deadline (an ad hoc committee will go out of business at a date certain or when its assigned task is completed).
* The chairs and co-chairs of official and ad hoc committees will be able to vote at membership meetings; official and ad hoc committees will be expected to report at membership meetings; chairs of permanent committees will meet periodically jointly with officers to discuss and make recommendations on the overall direction of OPA.
* Committees will elect a chair or co-chairs; otherwise, committees will be responsible for their own organizational structure, meeting schedule, etc. Actions taken in the name of OPA must be approved by the membership.
* An affiliated committee is an independent group with which OPA has formal ties (possibilities might include a joint committee on Lincoln Boulevard or with the Main Street Merchants; an organization cleaning Santa Monica beaches; etc.); but (unless the general meeting decided otherwise) it will not have the privileges or expectations attached to official and adhoc committees.
* An unofficial committee/entity will be one that is invited to keep OPA informed of its activities, but with which OPA has no formal ties (Ballona Creek; Main Street Merchants; the Constitution Day Parade; the Library; the Church in Ocean Park; the schools, are possibilities); it will not have the privileges or expectations attached to official and ad hoc committees.
The elected officers and the chairs or co-chairs of the permanent committees will meet together regularly to consider the direction and growth of OPA and to provide general support to the committees, especially to those attached to the membership and communications functions (fundraising, membership, events, outreach, newsletter, website).
In other words, let's keep OPA simple. Let's keep it focused on whatever issues the neighborhood indicates -- by starting and joining committees -- are important. Let's make changes in the rules as circumstances dictate by taking them up at membership meetings, instead of trying in advance to dot every i and cross every t. <http://www.opa-sm.com/>
People join community organizations for many reasons. Some look for community. Some are political animals. Some have political ambitions. Some want to help improve the place where they live. Some are passionate about a particular issue. There are probably as many different reasons as there are people in an organization.
Any successful community organization must overcome a basic contradiction: in order to encourage people to join, it must have very low barriers to entry.
It has to be friendly and unintimidating, undaunting in complexity, undemanding (of time, money, energy, expertise). In order to retain members, on the other hand, it needs to be disciplined and effective. And in order to be disciplined and effective, it needs to access people's time, money, energy, expertise, and loyalty.Any organization that is easy to join is going to have a lot of members riding for free. This puts a tremendous drain on the leaders and active members, and it has a tendency to be self-perpetuating. The committed members make every effort to get things done, but in so doing they let the easyriders off the hook. Why should I give (time, money, whatever) to an organization if it is getting the job done without me? The leaders and activists, meanwhile, feel used and abused; inevitably, they burn out.
One very seductive response to this problem is not to grow. This has typically been the choice of the community groups in Santa Monica, which have mostly settled for being small clubs focused on the issues that move their handful of members. City Hall has liked this solution because it fits comfortably with its manipulative approach to community involvement. Much easier to handle a clique than a mass movement.
A way to resolve the contradictions between recruitment and retention is decentralization. Among the many advantages of decentralization: it lessens the burdens of leadership, it provides more opportunities for effective participation, and it is flexible.
An organization like OPA, for example, could benefit enormously by keeping itself as unstructured as possible. If, instead of modeling itself on the rigid hierarchy employed by government and business bureaucracies, OPA were to think of itself more along the lines of a political movement, many of the difficulties that have plagued other neighborhood assemblies could be avoided.
The real work of almost any organization is done in committee. Small groups are easier to organize, they are better at identifying the strengths and weaknesses of participants, the necessary work is more apt to get done both because it is more focused -- a small group is likely to be organized around one or a few issues that energize its members -- and because there is much greater peer pressure to commit the resources, especially time, needed to complete whatever project is at hand.
If the committees are where the action is, do we need a board at all?
Alas, yes, because there are certain minimal fiduciary and organizational responsibilities that have to reside somewhere; but when in doubt, it is always better to err on the side of too much democracy than too little.
It can be argued that the primary job of a community organization is to inform the community. In Santa Monica, we have a thin political crust resting uneasily on a thick, smothering mantle of bureaucracy. The last thing we need is another level of government. Instead, we should be enabling an informed and active citizenry to influence the direction and resolve of its elected representatives.
Here, offered for further consideration, are a few ideas that have come up in recent discussions of ways that OPA might think about its structure:
Every resident of Ocean Park is a member at large of OPA.
Decisions about OPA policy and direction are made at monthly (if necessary; possibly fewer) membership meetings.
Voting members include: the elected officers of the organization; the elected chairs (or co-chairs) of committees officially established by the organization at a previous meeting (a committee has at least three members); residents of Ocean Park (over 16 years old?) who have attended at least two of the previous three meetings (or, less restrictively, one of the previous two meetings); certain others (the editor of the newsletter?, the webmaster?) if designated by the membership.
Elected officers will consist of a chair, a vice-chair, a secretary and a treasurer, elected annually. The principal job of the chair will be to build the organization by recruiting and mentoring committee leaders; by actively working to increase membership; by acting, when directed to do so by the general meeting, as the public face of the organization; by being responsible for organizing and facilitating a permanent communications committee to inform the members (i.e., the residents of Ocean park) about the issues confronting the neighborhood; and by convening and chairing an oversight committee of elected officers and permanent committee chairs or co-chairs.
The principal job of the vice-chair will be to conduct general membership meetings (including the preparation and distribution of agendas; the vice-chair will be expected to be familiar with and abide by Roberts Rules of Order as accepted and amended by the general membership). The secretary will keep a record of all meetings and act as historian/institutional memory for the organization. The treasurer will keep the books and be responsible for fund-raising.
A goal will be to keep the responsibilities of the elected officers to a minimum to allow them as much time as possible to participate in committees and issues that interest them.
Committees will be considered the fundamental organizational structure of OPA.
All committees associated with OPA must be approved by the membership at a regular meeting. Committees will be designated as official, ad hoc, affiliated or unofficial; the OPA chair will be expected to make an informed recommendation about the acceptance and designation of committees.
* An official committee will be a more or less permament association (probably most often these will meet an organizational need -- newsletter, website, fundraising -- or will correspond to a more or less permanent area of interest -- traffic, parking, noise, development).
* An ad hoc committee will be an officially designated group with a specific task or deadline (an ad hoc committee will go out of business at a date certain or when its assigned task is completed).
* The chairs and co-chairs of official and ad hoc committees will be able to vote at membership meetings; official and ad hoc committees will be expected to report at membership meetings; chairs of permanent committees will meet periodically jointly with officers to discuss and make recommendations on the overall direction of OPA.
* Committees will elect a chair or co-chairs; otherwise, committees will be responsible for their own organizational structure, meeting schedule, etc. Actions taken in the name of OPA must be approved by the membership.
* An affiliated committee is an independent group with which OPA has formal ties (possibilities might include a joint committee on Lincoln Boulevard or with the Main Street Merchants; an organization cleaning Santa Monica beaches; etc.); but (unless the general meeting decided otherwise) it will not have the privileges or expectations attached to official and adhoc committees.
* An unofficial committee/entity will be one that is invited to keep OPA informed of its activities, but with which OPA has no formal ties (Ballona Creek; Main Street Merchants; the Constitution Day Parade; the Library; the Church in Ocean Park; the schools, are possibilities); it will not have the privileges or expectations attached to official and ad hoc committees.
The elected officers and the chairs or co-chairs of the permanent committees will meet together regularly to consider the direction and growth of OPA and to provide general support to the committees, especially to those attached to the membership and communications functions (fundraising, membership, events, outreach, newsletter, website).
In other words, let's keep OPA simple. Let's keep it focused on whatever issues the neighborhood indicates -- by starting and joining committees -- are important. Let's make changes in the rules as circumstances dictate by taking them up at membership meetings, instead of trying in advance to dot every i and cross every t. <http://www.opa-sm.com/>
Wireless Access: Fed-Up Cities Seek to Provide Net Access (LATimes)
By Michael Hiltzik (LATimes, 2005-10-20)
Of all the monopolies, oligopolies and other arrangements that subvert progress merely to benefit the few, perhaps the most pernicious is the conspiracy by telephone and cable companies to exercise control over high-speed Internet access.
DSL and cable modem connections provided by these companies account for roughly 98% of all high-speed, or broadband, service in the country. But their success at discouraging competition has left them gorging on a pitifully small pie: In recent years, the U.S. has fallen from third place to 16th globally in the penetration rate of broadband service. (Chauvinists can take pride that we're still ahead of Portugal.)
It's unsurprising, therefore, that many local communities have taken matters into their own hands by building or contracting for their own municipal Internet systems. Generally these blanket an area with transmitters based on Wi-Fi wireless technology to bring Web access to residents and small businesses.
The rest of the story: <http://www.latimes.com/>
Of all the monopolies, oligopolies and other arrangements that subvert progress merely to benefit the few, perhaps the most pernicious is the conspiracy by telephone and cable companies to exercise control over high-speed Internet access.
DSL and cable modem connections provided by these companies account for roughly 98% of all high-speed, or broadband, service in the country. But their success at discouraging competition has left them gorging on a pitifully small pie: In recent years, the U.S. has fallen from third place to 16th globally in the penetration rate of broadband service. (Chauvinists can take pride that we're still ahead of Portugal.)
It's unsurprising, therefore, that many local communities have taken matters into their own hands by building or contracting for their own municipal Internet systems. Generally these blanket an area with transmitters based on Wi-Fi wireless technology to bring Web access to residents and small businesses.
The rest of the story: <http://www.latimes.com/>
No Comment Department
In its annual report on income in America, published just before the arrival of Katrina made things much worse, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that the poverty rate increased in 2004 for the fourth straight year. Thirtyseven million (37,000,000) Americans -- 12.7% of the population -- live in the government's not-very-generous definition of poverty, four million more than in 2001 and the highest level in a decade (Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance in 2004, pdf).
The Silver Lining
"The worst storm in our history proved perfect for exposing this president because in one blast it illuminated all his failings: the rampant cronyism, the empty sloganeering of 'compassionate conservatism,' the lack of concern for the 'underprivileged' his mother condescended to at the Astrodome, the reckless lack of planning for all government operations except tax cuts, the use of spin and photo-ops to camouflage failure and to substitute for action." -- Frank Rich, NYTimes, 2005-09-18
Not all the news is bad
A new study by a University of Scranton professor, Jon Vinson, has found that coffee is the best natural source of antioxidants, substances in many foods that, according to the National Cancer Institute, help protect cells in the body from damage caused by unstable molecules known as free radicals. Among other harms, free radicals may cause cancer.
Along with other good news -- that red wine improves cardiovascular health and life expectancy and wards off the common cold; that dark chocolate helps prevent diabetes and lowers blood pressure; that virgin olive oil, is not only good for the heart, but also helps block the development and spread of colon cancer; and that garlic, the staff of life, will cure everything from cardiovascular disease to the plague -- I feel blessed to have spent so many years doing the right thing.
Given what she was told, your mother was doing the best she could when she tried to get you to eat your broccoli, but she might have done better to have poured a little vino on your Cocopops.
And now, it turns out, java is superior in the antioxidant department to such foods as carrots, collard greens, wheat germ and kale that we have been made to feel guilty about not eating. It only remains for someone to document the incontrovertable health benefits of Häagen-Dazs coffee & almond crunch....
Along with other good news -- that red wine improves cardiovascular health and life expectancy and wards off the common cold; that dark chocolate helps prevent diabetes and lowers blood pressure; that virgin olive oil, is not only good for the heart, but also helps block the development and spread of colon cancer; and that garlic, the staff of life, will cure everything from cardiovascular disease to the plague -- I feel blessed to have spent so many years doing the right thing.
Given what she was told, your mother was doing the best she could when she tried to get you to eat your broccoli, but she might have done better to have poured a little vino on your Cocopops.
And now, it turns out, java is superior in the antioxidant department to such foods as carrots, collard greens, wheat germ and kale that we have been made to feel guilty about not eating. It only remains for someone to document the incontrovertable health benefits of Häagen-Dazs coffee & almond crunch....
Senator Clinton for President -- not
On another trip to the East Coast. There's got to be something in the water. Right coast liberals, apparently without irony, pine for a Hillary Clinton run at the White House.
No candidate put forth by the Democratic Leadership Council ought to be taken seriously by real Democrats, nor, unless we are completely incapable of learning from
experience, will any be. Bill Clinton aside, Democrats can't win as GOP-lite. And though it may be gaining her ground in troglodytic villages upstate, Mrs. Bill's recent, um, flexible embrace of "moderation" doesn't recommend her as the standard bearer of the people's party.
President Clinton -- bless his icy heart, he'd clobber the Republicans again if only he could run -- was the greatest Republican president since Lincoln, but we don't need another.
It is way past time for a Democratic candidate for president who stands for something, in the manner of FDR, HST and LBJ.
Senator Clinton is positioning herself as the next John Kerry; how do you expect that will turn out? The last thing needed is another "progressive" campaigning on the promise that s/he will run the empire better than the other guy.
How about this?: Let's move the 2008 convention up to, say, next week. Let's nominate Hillary and, so we can feel really good about ourselves, let's make the candidate for veep someone, such as the sainted Barack Obama, we might actually wish to have as president.
Then, facing certain defeat anyway with the newly "centrist" Senator Clinton heading the ticket, we can concede immediately, and save ourselves a lot of time, money and heartbreak.
No candidate put forth by the Democratic Leadership Council ought to be taken seriously by real Democrats, nor, unless we are completely incapable of learning from
experience, will any be. Bill Clinton aside, Democrats can't win as GOP-lite. And though it may be gaining her ground in troglodytic villages upstate, Mrs. Bill's recent, um, flexible embrace of "moderation" doesn't recommend her as the standard bearer of the people's party.President Clinton -- bless his icy heart, he'd clobber the Republicans again if only he could run -- was the greatest Republican president since Lincoln, but we don't need another.
It is way past time for a Democratic candidate for president who stands for something, in the manner of FDR, HST and LBJ.
Senator Clinton is positioning herself as the next John Kerry; how do you expect that will turn out? The last thing needed is another "progressive" campaigning on the promise that s/he will run the empire better than the other guy.
How about this?: Let's move the 2008 convention up to, say, next week. Let's nominate Hillary and, so we can feel really good about ourselves, let's make the candidate for veep someone, such as the sainted Barack Obama, we might actually wish to have as president.
Then, facing certain defeat anyway with the newly "centrist" Senator Clinton heading the ticket, we can concede immediately, and save ourselves a lot of time, money and heartbreak.
So you're the little woman who stopped the Iraq war
The Bush-Cheney-Rove conspiracy's reputation for political genius is undeserved. They may have successfully seized power in the United States, but with the Democrats apparently comfortable in the role of the 98-pound weakling, the GOP's dominance is that of the schoolyard bully.
Imagine if Lyndon Johnson or Bill Clinton was president when Cindy Sheehan came knocking. Either would have come down to the driveway, embraced Sheehan, listened to her, cried with her, felt her pain. It matters not, politically, whether the presidential gesture was heartfelt or calculated: it would have instantly neutralized Sheehan as a focal point for opposition to the war.
But, as Frank Rich points out in the Times (The Swift Boating of Cindy Sheehan, New York Times, August 21, 2005), the only political weapons at the disposal of this administration are blunt and ugly. "The most prominent smear victims," Rich writes,
That pattern continued when Sheehan blundered into the vacuum created by the lack of political leadership opposing the president. When it became clear that opposition to the war finally had a focus, Faux News instantly filled with tales about Sheehan's divorce, her angry Republican in-laws, her supposed political flip-flops, her incendiary sloganeering, her association with card-carrying opposers of the brave and noble president. "But this time," Rich concludes, "the Swift Boating failed, utterly, and that failure is yet another revealing historical marker in this summer's collapse of political support for the Iraq war."
Because, make no mistake, by setting up camp in Crawford, Sheehan has changed the political landscape. As Paul Harris reported in the Observer (Mother Tips the Balance against Bush, The Observer UK August 21, 2005 ), Cindy Sheehan's vigil outside Bush's vacation spot has galvanized the anti-war movement. The president's little war hasn't been going splendidly for some time, but, though widespread, opposition has been diffuse. It appears that the sight of Cindy Sheehan's beat-up red, white and blue bus, with "Impeachment Tour" scrawled on its side, has provided the tipping point to turn isolated unease and discontent into a national movement (see, Cindy, Don, and George: On Being in a Ditch at the Side of the Road by Tom Engelhardt).
As Harris concludes, Sheehan's lone voice has kick-started a chorus. Whether Bush agrees to her demand for a meeting, the political legacy left by her summer of protest will last far longer than the ramshackle tents of Camp Casey lining the roads outside Bush's ranch. If the media spotlight turns away tomorrow, as it likely will, Sheehan has given many others confidence that they didn't have before to speak out against the war. Finally, its OK in America to be anti-war, and that turnaround will help to put steel in the spines of politicians who have been fearful of getting out in front of the public in fighting the party of war.
The 1647 vigils last week in support of Cindy Sheehan demonstrated the antiwar movement's growing numbers, but with the attack on Sheehan and her supporters becoming increasingly vitriolic, it is important that the movement demonstrate the same degree of dedication and fearlessness as Sheenhan herself. Locally, Santa Monica's Peace Table is not waiting for MoveOn.Org and True Majority to call another action. They'll hold a Vigil for Cindy Sheehan & 4000+ Dead on Thursday at 6:30 p.m. at the entrance to the Santa Monica Pier where thousands of people will be passing on their way to the summer concerts series. You can join them by showing up or send an email to PeaceTable@earthlink.net for more information.
Imagine if Lyndon Johnson or Bill Clinton was president when Cindy Sheehan came knocking. Either would have come down to the driveway, embraced Sheehan, listened to her, cried with her, felt her pain. It matters not, politically, whether the presidential gesture was heartfelt or calculated: it would have instantly neutralized Sheehan as a focal point for opposition to the war.
But, as Frank Rich points out in the Times (The Swift Boating of Cindy Sheehan, New York Times, August 21, 2005), the only political weapons at the disposal of this administration are blunt and ugly. "The most prominent smear victims," Rich writes,
have been Bush political opponents with heroic Vietnam resumes: John McCain, Max Cleland, John Kerry. But the list of past targets stretches from the former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke to Specialist Thomas Wilson, the grunt who publicly challenged Donald Rumsfeld about inadequately armored vehicles last December. The assault on the whistle-blower Joseph Wilson - the diplomat described by the first President Bush as "courageous" and "a true American hero" for confronting Saddam to save American hostages in 1991 - was so toxic it may yet send its perpetrators to jail.
That pattern continued when Sheehan blundered into the vacuum created by the lack of political leadership opposing the president. When it became clear that opposition to the war finally had a focus, Faux News instantly filled with tales about Sheehan's divorce, her angry Republican in-laws, her supposed political flip-flops, her incendiary sloganeering, her association with card-carrying opposers of the brave and noble president. "But this time," Rich concludes, "the Swift Boating failed, utterly, and that failure is yet another revealing historical marker in this summer's collapse of political support for the Iraq war."
Because, make no mistake, by setting up camp in Crawford, Sheehan has changed the political landscape. As Paul Harris reported in the Observer (Mother Tips the Balance against Bush, The Observer UK August 21, 2005 ), Cindy Sheehan's vigil outside Bush's vacation spot has galvanized the anti-war movement. The president's little war hasn't been going splendidly for some time, but, though widespread, opposition has been diffuse. It appears that the sight of Cindy Sheehan's beat-up red, white and blue bus, with "Impeachment Tour" scrawled on its side, has provided the tipping point to turn isolated unease and discontent into a national movement (see, Cindy, Don, and George: On Being in a Ditch at the Side of the Road by Tom Engelhardt).
As Harris concludes, Sheehan's lone voice has kick-started a chorus. Whether Bush agrees to her demand for a meeting, the political legacy left by her summer of protest will last far longer than the ramshackle tents of Camp Casey lining the roads outside Bush's ranch. If the media spotlight turns away tomorrow, as it likely will, Sheehan has given many others confidence that they didn't have before to speak out against the war. Finally, its OK in America to be anti-war, and that turnaround will help to put steel in the spines of politicians who have been fearful of getting out in front of the public in fighting the party of war.
The 1647 vigils last week in support of Cindy Sheehan demonstrated the antiwar movement's growing numbers, but with the attack on Sheehan and her supporters becoming increasingly vitriolic, it is important that the movement demonstrate the same degree of dedication and fearlessness as Sheenhan herself. Locally, Santa Monica's Peace Table is not waiting for MoveOn.Org and True Majority to call another action. They'll hold a Vigil for Cindy Sheehan & 4000+ Dead on Thursday at 6:30 p.m. at the entrance to the Santa Monica Pier where thousands of people will be passing on their way to the summer concerts series. You can join them by showing up or send an email to PeaceTable@earthlink.net for more information.
Broadband Reality Check:Americans woefully behind in internet access
A new report by Free Press, the Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union shows that affordable, high-speed internet access in the U.S. lags far behind what's available in the rest of the digital world, this in contrast to the rosy picture painted recently by an FCC communique.
"Despite claims to the contrary, the digital divide in America remains large and will continue to grow unless some real changes are made," said Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press. "By overstating broadband availability and portraying anti-competitive policies as good for consumers, the FCC is trying to erect a façade of success. But if the president's goal of universal, affordable high-speed internet access by 2007 is to be achieved, policymakers in Washington must change course."
In July, a report by the FCC hailed recent progress in improving broadband access here. Upon closer scrutiny, however, according to an independent study by Free Press research fellow S. Derek Turner, the claims made by the feds - repeated in a subsequent WSJ op-ed bloviation by FCC chairman Kevin Martin - are, to be kind, wildly optimistic.
Broadband Reality Check, the new study from the consumers' groups calls into question the FCC's findings. Among its conclusions:
"The FCC is trying to put the best face on this problem it can, but the people who can't afford or don't have access to high-speed internet know the truth," said Mark Cooper, research director of the Consumer Federation of America. "Affordable high-speed internet means stronger economic growth, more educational opportunities and exposure to diverse points of view. If the FCC continues to ignore reality, the gap between the haves and have-nots will become too wide to bridge."
The three groups call on Congress to enact clear policies that will free the broadband market from domination by a handful of large cable and telecommunications companies. Their recommendations include ensuring open access to all high-speed communications networks, removing restrictions on public entities that seek to offer broadband services to consumers, and opening up more of the broadcast spectrum for wireless internet applications.
"Fudging the facts won't provide high-speed internet access to those who need it most," said Jeannine Kenney, senior policy analyst for Consumers Union. "If the FCC is content to let cable and phone companies control the broadband market, then consumers need a third option - wireless broadband that is less expensive and which doesn't depend on DSL or cable modems. It offers the best and perhaps now the only way to close the digital divide."
Waiting on a Congress bought and paid for by telecommunications giants or on the city council in Santa Monica, crippled as it is by bureaucratic ossification, is pointless. Santa Monicans needs to move now to create a city-wide cooperative to provide free access to everyone.
To read Broadband Reality Check in full, please go here: <http://www.freepress.net/docs/broadband_report.pdf>
See previous IPSM posts on this topic:
Needed: Universal Wi-Fi Access
Municipal broadband is coming...but is it coming here?
Falling Behind
Did we come in lower than Old Sturbridge Village?
Some Free Wi-Fi Spots in Santa Monica
Free Press: <http://www.freepress.net/>
Consumer Federation of America: <http://www.consumerfed.org/>
Consumers Union: <http://www.consumersunion.org/>
"Despite claims to the contrary, the digital divide in America remains large and will continue to grow unless some real changes are made," said Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press. "By overstating broadband availability and portraying anti-competitive policies as good for consumers, the FCC is trying to erect a façade of success. But if the president's goal of universal, affordable high-speed internet access by 2007 is to be achieved, policymakers in Washington must change course."
In July, a report by the FCC hailed recent progress in improving broadband access here. Upon closer scrutiny, however, according to an independent study by Free Press research fellow S. Derek Turner, the claims made by the feds - repeated in a subsequent WSJ op-ed bloviation by FCC chairman Kevin Martin - are, to be kind, wildly optimistic.
Broadband Reality Check, the new study from the consumers' groups calls into question the FCC's findings. Among its conclusions:
# The FCC overstates broadband penetration rates. The FCC report considers a ZIP code covered by broadband service if just one person subscribes. No consideration is given to price, speed or availability of that connection throughout the area.
# The FCC misrepresents exactly how many connections are "high-speed." The FCC defines "high-speed" as 200 kilobits per second, barely enough to receive low-quality streaming video and far below what other countries consider to be a high-speed connection.
# The United States remains 16th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. The United States also ranks 16th in terms of broadband growth rates, suggesting our world ranking won't improve any time soon. On a per megabit basis, U.S. consumers pay 10 to 25 times more than broadband users in Japan.
# Despite FCC claims, digital divide persists and is growing wider. Broadband adoption is largely dependent on socio-economic status. In addition, broadband penetration in urban and suburban in areas is double that of rural areas.
# Reports of a broadband "price war" are misleading. Analysis of "low-priced" introductory offers by companies like SBC and Comcast reveal them to be little more than bait-and-switch gimmicks.
# The FCC ignores the lack of competition in the broadband market. Cable and DSL providers control almost 98 percent of the residential and small-business broadband market. Yet the FCC recently eliminated "open access" requirements for DSL companies to lease their lines, rules that fostered the only true competition in the broadband market.
"The FCC is trying to put the best face on this problem it can, but the people who can't afford or don't have access to high-speed internet know the truth," said Mark Cooper, research director of the Consumer Federation of America. "Affordable high-speed internet means stronger economic growth, more educational opportunities and exposure to diverse points of view. If the FCC continues to ignore reality, the gap between the haves and have-nots will become too wide to bridge."
The three groups call on Congress to enact clear policies that will free the broadband market from domination by a handful of large cable and telecommunications companies. Their recommendations include ensuring open access to all high-speed communications networks, removing restrictions on public entities that seek to offer broadband services to consumers, and opening up more of the broadcast spectrum for wireless internet applications.
"Fudging the facts won't provide high-speed internet access to those who need it most," said Jeannine Kenney, senior policy analyst for Consumers Union. "If the FCC is content to let cable and phone companies control the broadband market, then consumers need a third option - wireless broadband that is less expensive and which doesn't depend on DSL or cable modems. It offers the best and perhaps now the only way to close the digital divide."
Waiting on a Congress bought and paid for by telecommunications giants or on the city council in Santa Monica, crippled as it is by bureaucratic ossification, is pointless. Santa Monicans needs to move now to create a city-wide cooperative to provide free access to everyone.
To read Broadband Reality Check in full, please go here: <http://www.freepress.net/docs/broadband_report.pdf>
See previous IPSM posts on this topic:
Needed: Universal Wi-Fi Access
Municipal broadband is coming...but is it coming here?
Falling Behind
Did we come in lower than Old Sturbridge Village?
Some Free Wi-Fi Spots in Santa Monica
Free Press: <http://www.freepress.net/>
Consumer Federation of America: <http://www.consumerfed.org/>
Consumers Union: <http://www.consumersunion.org/>
Benefit: 10th Ellen's Run includes concert with Foreigner
Tomorrow is the tenth annual iteration of Ellen's Run!, this year including a concert on Tuesday evening, as well as a mini auction and barbecue tonight.
The 10K run -- well, run, walk, hop, skip, jump...however you choose to do it -- takes place Sunday, August 21 at 9 a.m. -- rain or shine -- from East Hampton High School.
Tonight's mini auction and barbecue, at a home in town right off the main drag, is from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. If you want to join in, call 631-907-1952 for more information and directions.
Proceeds from Ellen’s Run have benefitted important programs such as a new mammography center for the South Fork, a screening program for women on the Shinnecock Reservation, a unique support program for women undergoing chemotherapy at the Post-Treatment Resource Program of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, and Ellen’s Well providing psychosocial support under the leadership of a specially trained certified social worker for breast cancer survivors on Long Island’s East End.
Foreigner, Garland Jeffreys and Suzanne Vega headline (who knows who'll show up to sit in) the "I Want to Know What Love Is" benefit concert for Ellen's Run, East
Hampton Day Care and Project Most on Tuesday (Aug 23) on the East Hampton High Athletic Field, 2 Long Lane. The gates open at 4:30 and the concert runs for four hours starting at 6:30 p.m. General admission is $50, reserved V.I.P. seating is $300, and $500 gets you a "Velvet Rop"e V.I.P. ticket that includes a party after the show. For more information call the benefit hotline, 631-725-7862, or visit http://www.hamptonsconcert.com/.
The 10K run -- well, run, walk, hop, skip, jump...however you choose to do it -- takes place Sunday, August 21 at 9 a.m. -- rain or shine -- from East Hampton High School.
Tonight's mini auction and barbecue, at a home in town right off the main drag, is from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. If you want to join in, call 631-907-1952 for more information and directions.
Proceeds from Ellen’s Run have benefitted important programs such as a new mammography center for the South Fork, a screening program for women on the Shinnecock Reservation, a unique support program for women undergoing chemotherapy at the Post-Treatment Resource Program of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, and Ellen’s Well providing psychosocial support under the leadership of a specially trained certified social worker for breast cancer survivors on Long Island’s East End.
Foreigner, Garland Jeffreys and Suzanne Vega headline (who knows who'll show up to sit in) the "I Want to Know What Love Is" benefit concert for Ellen's Run, East
Hampton Day Care and Project Most on Tuesday (Aug 23) on the East Hampton High Athletic Field, 2 Long Lane. The gates open at 4:30 and the concert runs for four hours starting at 6:30 p.m. General admission is $50, reserved V.I.P. seating is $300, and $500 gets you a "Velvet Rop"e V.I.P. ticket that includes a party after the show. For more information call the benefit hotline, 631-725-7862, or visit http://www.hamptonsconcert.com/.
Community Input: Santa Monica General Plan
On Tuesday, August 16th at 6:30 p.m. at Ken Edwards Center, 1527 4th Street, the City's Planning and Community Development Department will host one of its pro forma community meetings to shape the discussion of its Opportunities and Challenges report, the second part of its Shape the Future 2025/Motion by the Ocean marketing campaign to build support for the city staff's version of new Land Use and Circulation Elements for the City of Santa Monica’s General Plan. While the staff makes an effort to keep a tight rein on these sessions and generally ignores the public's input in their aftermath, still they remain one of the few opportunities to have your say before the city rushes through adoption of the plan that will control the development of Santa Monica for the next two decades.
The report is available online <http://www.shapethefuture2025.net/pdf/oc_report_web.pdf>, at all branches of the Santa Monica Library and at the city planning department's public counter in city hall. Public hearings are currently scheduled for September 7 at the planning commission and at the September 27 city council meeting, with staff reports available prior to each meeting.
The report is available online <http://www.shapethefuture2025.net/pdf/oc_report_web.pdf>, at all branches of the Santa Monica Library and at the city planning department's public counter in city hall. Public hearings are currently scheduled for September 7 at the planning commission and at the September 27 city council meeting, with staff reports available prior to each meeting.
Nightlife: John Pisano/Thom Rotella
featuring
Thom Rotella
Tuesday, August 16 (8:00pm-12:00)
Spazio
4755 Ventura Blvd-Sherman Oaks (east of the 405 freeway)
818-728-8400(NO COVER CHARGE)
John Pisano and Thom Rotella-guitars
John Belzaguy-bass
Kendall Kay-drums
Some Free Wi-Fi Spots in Santa Monica
Panera - Wilshire and Fifth
CremaLita - 332B Santa Monica Blvd
Diedrich Coffee - 732 Montana Avenue
Temporary Main Library - 1324 5th Street - 310-458-8600
Infuzion Cafe - 1149 3rd St. #100 - 310.721.1754
Velocity Cafe - 2127 Lincoln Blvd - 310.314.3368
Apple Store - 3rd St. Promenade
Bolivar - cafe & gallery - 1741 Ocean Park Blvd - 310 581-2344
The Office - 256 26th St., Suite 101
18th St. Coffee House - 1725 Broadway - (310) 264-0662
Earth, Wind and Flour - 2222 Wilshire Blvd - (310) 829-7829
Hotel Carmel - lobby area and some rooms - 201 Broadway - (800)-445-8695
Travelodge - guest rooms - 3102 Pico Blvd - 310-450-5766
Radisson Hotel - rooms and public areas - Santa Monica Airport
CremaLita - 332B Santa Monica Blvd
Diedrich Coffee - 732 Montana Avenue
Temporary Main Library - 1324 5th Street - 310-458-8600
Infuzion Cafe - 1149 3rd St. #100 - 310.721.1754
Velocity Cafe - 2127 Lincoln Blvd - 310.314.3368
Apple Store - 3rd St. Promenade
Bolivar - cafe & gallery - 1741 Ocean Park Blvd - 310 581-2344
The Office - 256 26th St., Suite 101
18th St. Coffee House - 1725 Broadway - (310) 264-0662
Earth, Wind and Flour - 2222 Wilshire Blvd - (310) 829-7829
Hotel Carmel - lobby area and some rooms - 201 Broadway - (800)-445-8695
Travelodge - guest rooms - 3102 Pico Blvd - 310-450-5766
Radisson Hotel - rooms and public areas - Santa Monica Airport
Karl Rove is not the problem
Is Karl Rove going down? Maybe. Should we care either way? Not much.
Not that the evidence against him isn't compelling. Or at least it is compelling enough to inspire John Dean, who is something of an expert in the highly specialized high crimes and misdemeanors field, to write "It Appears That Karl Rove Is in Serious Trouble" for FindLaw.com.
Although he argues that the Identities and Protection Act is too vague and too complex to be of much bother to the White House deputy director, Dean believes "there is increasing evidence that Rove (and others) may have violated one or more federal laws."
As Dean sees it, Rove et al are vulnerable to prosecution under Title 18, United States Code, Section 641, a law that prohibits theft (or conversion for one's own use) of government records and information for non-governmental purposes. Its broad language covers leaks, according to Dean, and it has been used by the Bush Justice Department in a similar, but far more trivial, case.
"I am referring," Dean writes
Add to that the fact that Rove immediately alerted the no. 2 White House security adviser about the interview and told him he had tried to steer the journalist away from allegations being made by the operative's husband that the administration was misusing faulty intelligence about Iraq's nuclear weapons program to promote war, and you have evidence that "the architect," as the president likes to call him, knew what he was doing. A July 11, 2003 e-mail, obtained by the AP, from Rove to then-deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley, is proof that at least one intelligence official knew Rove had talked to Matthew Cooper in time to intervene before the Time magazine reporter divulged undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity.
On the other hand, in the phone conversation as described by Cooper -- which was initiated by the reporter, not Rove, after all -- the White House aide sounds less like a Machiavellian political mastermind and more like a mid-level government bureaucrat trying to score points with a media contact. Don't forget how school yard this all is. These people may have enormous power, but it's important to keep in mind that most of them are like kids playing dress-up in their daddies' clothes. "Double super secret background." Please.
While it would be satisfying to see Rove humiliated -- and with his fortunes now also tied to developments in the burgeoning scandal around the Democrats' #2 nemesis, Tom DeLay, it seems increasingly possible that he will be, his departure won't result in any changes in Bush administration policies. The Rove affair will not be a repeat of Watergate. The special prosecutor can find proof that Bush gave Rove an explicit written order to out Plame, and it won't matter. It won't lead to Bush's resignation. It won't bring the officials who made torture an instrument of public policy any closer to justice. It won't end the war.
As Daniel Schorr wrote in yesterday's Christian Science Monitor, the "Rove Leak Is Just Part of a Larger Scandal."
"Let me remind you," Schorr begins,
A step on the path to accountability is outlined by former U.S. Representative Elizabeth Holtzman in a brief published in the July 18 edition of The Nation. The one-time Brooklyn D.A. is outraged that in the 16 months since "the terrible revelations of torture at Abu Ghraib hit the front pages in April 2004, no senior officials in the US military or the Bush Administration have yet been held accountable.
"The scandal has shamed and outraged many Americans," she continues,
"No less a figure than Alberto Gonzales," Holtzman says,
But whatever its relevance to Afghanistan, the War Crimes Act is unquestionably applicable to detainee abuse at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Holtzman writes that,
"Under well-established principles of international law," argues Holtzman, "officials in the chain of command who order inhuman treatment or who, knowing about it, fail to stop it are responsible. The 'chain of command' doctrine is undoubtedly applicable to War Crimes Act prosecutions. But even if it weren't, higher-ups could be held responsible under the principles of conspiracy or aiding and abetting the crime under normal federal criminal law."
The president likes to blame a few "bad apples" for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, but any cataloging of the rotten fruit would have to include General Antonio Sanchez, who ordered the harsh interrogation techniques at Abu Ghraib while serving as the top military officer in Iraq, and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, who similarly issued directives permitting coercive interrogation that were modified only after protest by military lawyers. It certainly appears that Rumsfeld and General Sanchez violated the War Crimes Act, as did anyone who followed illegal orders without complaint.
Does responsibility fall on the president himself? If he wants to marshal cliches, how about a simple admission that "the fish rots from the head" instead of the tireless effort to pass the blame to alleged rotten apples at the bottom of the barrel? What in this sordid mess is more shameful than the determination by the military brass and their political overlords to leave privates and corporals holding the bags of detritus they've created? Whatever happened to "the buck stops here"? If we're offended by nothing else, we should at least be outraged by the behavior of generals and cabinet ministers who would let grunts do time for their crimes.
The Washington Post, meanwhile, has found additional evidence that Bush's suspension of the ban on torture under American law and the Geneva Conventions was ordered over the objections of the judge advocate generals (JAGs to you crime show fans) for the Army, the Air Force and the Marine Corps.
In the months since the cruelties at Abu Ghraib became public knowledge, the chief talking point among Bush defenders has been that the president never gave an order that resulted in the torture of detainees in Afghanistan, Iraq or Guantanamo, though there is no way of knowing if this is true because whatever he ordered is secret. But what should we make of the attempt by Bush Justice Department to redefine torture in the hope that this would inoculate officials from possible prosecution under American laws that prohibit torture? You can't claim to not know that you're committing a crime and simultaneously be planning the trial strategy for your defense.
Where is George Orwell when you need him? (Not on Fox or CNN, that's for sure.)
Holtzman cites "tantalizing suggestions that Bush may have condoned or possibly authorized coercive interrogation techniques. For example, a May 22, 2004, FBI agent's memo about interrogations in Iraq, made public under the Freedom of Information Act, repeatedly cites an executive order issued by President Bush that authorized 'sleep deprivation, stress positions, loud music, etc.' (The administration denied this and the FBI refused to comment.)" Also left open is whether the CIA was given a wink and a nod by the White House with regard to its use of torture in interrogating Afghani and Iraqi prisoners. What's bad for the FBI may be okay for the CIA.
"To resolve the question, then, of the responsibility of higher-ups for torture and inhuman treatment in Iraq," Holtzman continues,
To take the full measure of your disgust at the brutalities conducted in your name, take a look at "Defining Humane Down," Marty Lederman's ongoing analysis of the Schmidt report on Guantanamo. Yes, the Schmidt report says, the treatment of detainees was "abusive and degrading," but it was also "humane." And, besides, the Army Field Manual 34-52, since the 1960's the guide to interrogation techniques that are acceptable within the military, can be shown to permit a certain amount of discomfort even for POWs nominally protected by the Geneva Conventions. You may have to allow for a certain amount of degradation of language since the 1960s to arrive at this conclusion, but if there is any lesson in recent history it is that nothing is as it ever was anyway.
A benefit of the Schmidt report, which is otherwise largely an apologia for abuse, is that it makes clear that nearly all of the flourishes of humiliation and torture enjoyed in the Abu Ghraib home videos were pioneered at Gitmo. It turns out that Charles Graner and the hapless Lynndie England are not the Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker of torture. In their movies, they barely rise to the level of cartoon characters, so it's no surprise to find out that they were just following orders, albeit enthusiastically, when they forced Muslim prisoners to masturbate each other wearing women's underwear on their heads. Instead, we learn that what the Schmidt report calls "the creative application of authorized interrogation techniques" was, well, authorized, that is to say, policy, pure and simple.
"If you recall Abu Ghraib," as Andrew Sullivan reminds us, "you will remember how almost every one of these techniques was deployed on the night shift. This is a critical point. The kind of techniques used in Abu Ghraib - sexual humiliation, hooding, use of dogs, tying prisoners up in 'stress positions,' mandatory nudity, humiliating prisoners for their religious faith, even the famous Lynndie England leash - were all developed at Guantanamo Bay under the strictest of supervision. What we were told were just frat-guy, crazy techniques on the night shift had been deployed by the best trained, most tightly controlled, most professional interrogation center we have. The Schmidt report argues that, while some of this was out of bounds, it was only because of some extra creativity, not because the techniques themselves were illicit, or unauthorized by Rumsfeld and Bush. Abu Ghraib is and was policy - just policy absorbed by ill-trained, unprofessional hoodlums. But those hoodlums didn't get their ideas from thin air. They got them from the Pentagon and the White House."
There is no way of knowing at this stage whether the leaders of this administration will finally be taken to task for their actions. You can almost feel sympathy for poor Karl Rove, subject of the attentions of a special prosecutor while crimes so much more serious than his go unattended (in fact, seeing your petty offense used as one more excuse not to look at the real bad guys). And there is no way at this point to predict whether the special prosecutor in the leak case will attempt to make his bones by bringing down a powerful Washington figure like Rove or be content to assure his welcome in the Bill Frist or Lindsay Graham administration by sitting by while the likes of Judith Miller does time for, well, nothing.
"In the final analysis," as Elizabeth Holtzman has it, "there is no sure way to compel the government to investigate itself or to hold high-level government officials accountable under applicable criminal statutes. But if the public does not seek to have it happen, it will not happen. Those in the public who care deeply about the rule of law and government accountability must keep this issue alive. Failure to investigate wrongdoing in high places and tolerating misconduct or criminality can have only the most corroding impact on our democracy and the rule of law that sustains us."
Lastly, though, Dan Schorr is right that it is the illegal and unconscionable war and how Americans were deceived into supporting it that is most in need of addressing. In Salon yesterday, Joe Conason called for "An Honorable Withdrawal." "The sooner we get out of Iraq," he wrote, "the sooner we will be able to reunite the Western alliance, reestablish alliances with modern Arab and Muslim governments, and refocus our forces and resources on the real threats to our security." He's right, of course, except that no more than anyone else has he an idea how this extrusion is to be accomplished.
"The immediate departure of coalition troops might well plunge the entire country into a sectarian bloodbath," he worries, "and leave it to the mercies of Baathist murderers or Iranian mullahs. Having promised freedom and democracy to the Iraqis, and cost them many lives and incredible damage to their heritage and infrastructure, we owe them better than that." But beyond suggesting that maybe we can work something out by negotiating with the Sunnis, how we pay what we owe is left for a future column.
Many of those on the left who opposed the attack on Iraq in the first place and predicted that it would be a "quagmire" find themselves in a particularly impossible position, at once convinced that we are no place we should have ever been and yet fearful that our hasty withdrawal will precipitate a disaster for Iraq, for the Middle East and for the United States beyond anything we've witnessed thus far.
But maybe we shouldn't be looking to changes in policy toward Iraq as the first step. Maybe, before anything else, we need not a change in policy but a change in policy-makers. Maybe -- can it really have come to this? -- maybe we need to consider once again using the constitutional mechanisms available to us, in this case to hold accountable the people who have undermined our values, destroyed our reputation among nations, bankrupted us, lied to us, and killed nearly two thousand of us along with untold numbers of Iraqis (to begin with only the most obvious complaints in the indictment). Maybe the naive peace activists have been right all along. Maybe Cynthia McKinney and Rep. Jan Schakowsky aren't so wacky after all. Maybe Rep. Barbara Miller was courageous, not foolhardy. Maybe it's worth your time to pay a visit to http://www.impeachnow.org/. Maybe Ralph Nader and Kevin Zeese are right when they write in the Boston Globe that it is time to consider using The I Word.
Maybe the only way to get the U.S. out of Iraq will be to get Bush out of Washington.
Not that the evidence against him isn't compelling. Or at least it is compelling enough to inspire John Dean, who is something of an expert in the highly specialized high crimes and misdemeanors field, to write "It Appears That Karl Rove Is in Serious Trouble" for FindLaw.com.
Although he argues that the Identities and Protection Act is too vague and too complex to be of much bother to the White House deputy director, Dean believes "there is increasing evidence that Rove (and others) may have violated one or more federal laws."
As Dean sees it, Rove et al are vulnerable to prosecution under Title 18, United States Code, Section 641, a law that prohibits theft (or conversion for one's own use) of government records and information for non-governmental purposes. Its broad language covers leaks, according to Dean, and it has been used by the Bush Justice Department in a similar, but far more trivial, case.
"I am referring," Dean writes
to the prosecution and conviction of Jonathan Randel. Randel was a Drug Enforcement Agency analyst, a PhD in history, working in the Atlanta office of the DEA. Randel was convinced that British Lord Michael Ashcroft (a major contributor to Britain's Conservative Party, as well as American conservative causes) was being ignored by DEA, and its investigation of money laundering. (Lord Ashcroft is based in South Florida and the off-shore tax haven of Belize.)Whether or not Rove gets away with his claim that he didn't know he was leaking "classified information," it's pretty clear from his insistence to Matt Cooper, as described in the reporter's emails, that their conversation was on "double super secret background," at the least Rove recognized that the information he was peddling was sensitive.
Randel leaked the fact that Lord Ashcroft's name was in the DEA files, and this fact soon surfaced in the London news media. Ashcroft sued, and learned the source of the information was Randel. Using his clout, soon Ashcroft had the US Attorney in pursuit of Randel for his leak.
By late February 2002, the Department of Justice indicted Randel for his leaking of Lord Ashcroft's name. It was an eighteen count "kitchen sink" indictment; they threw everything they could think of at Randel....Randel, faced with a life sentence (actually, 500 years) if convicted on all counts, on the advice of his attorney, pleaded guilty to violating Section 641. On January 9, 2003, Randel was sentenced to a year in a federal prison, followed by three years probation. This sentence prompted the US Attorney to boast that the conviction of Randel made a good example of how the Bush Administration would handle leakers.
Add to that the fact that Rove immediately alerted the no. 2 White House security adviser about the interview and told him he had tried to steer the journalist away from allegations being made by the operative's husband that the administration was misusing faulty intelligence about Iraq's nuclear weapons program to promote war, and you have evidence that "the architect," as the president likes to call him, knew what he was doing. A July 11, 2003 e-mail, obtained by the AP, from Rove to then-deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley, is proof that at least one intelligence official knew Rove had talked to Matthew Cooper in time to intervene before the Time magazine reporter divulged undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity.
On the other hand, in the phone conversation as described by Cooper -- which was initiated by the reporter, not Rove, after all -- the White House aide sounds less like a Machiavellian political mastermind and more like a mid-level government bureaucrat trying to score points with a media contact. Don't forget how school yard this all is. These people may have enormous power, but it's important to keep in mind that most of them are like kids playing dress-up in their daddies' clothes. "Double super secret background." Please.
While it would be satisfying to see Rove humiliated -- and with his fortunes now also tied to developments in the burgeoning scandal around the Democrats' #2 nemesis, Tom DeLay, it seems increasingly possible that he will be, his departure won't result in any changes in Bush administration policies. The Rove affair will not be a repeat of Watergate. The special prosecutor can find proof that Bush gave Rove an explicit written order to out Plame, and it won't matter. It won't lead to Bush's resignation. It won't bring the officials who made torture an instrument of public policy any closer to justice. It won't end the war.
As Daniel Schorr wrote in yesterday's Christian Science Monitor, the "Rove Leak Is Just Part of a Larger Scandal."
"Let me remind you," Schorr begins,
that the underlying issue in the Karl Rove controversy is not a leak, but a war and how America was misled into that war.If we are going to pursue the goal of seeing political criminals brought to account, the focus must remain on the architects of war and torture like Bush and Rumsfeld, not on political handymen like Rove or corrupt hacks like DeLay. Did getting rid of Newt Gingrich -- fun though it was -- advance the fortunes of the Republic? Hard to see how. Neither will saying farewell to Rove and DeLay so long as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their interchangeable henchmen continue unimpeached and the Right maintains its grip on Congress.
In 2002 President Bush, having decided to invade Iraq, was casting about for a casus belli. The weapons of mass destruction theme was not yielding very much until a dubious Italian intelligence report, based partly on forged documents (it later turned out), provided reason to speculate that Iraq might be trying to buy so-called yellowcake uranium from the African country of Niger. It did not seem to matter that the CIA advised that the Italian information was "fragmentary and lacked detail."
Prodded by Vice President Dick Cheney and in the hope of getting more conclusive information, the CIA sent Joseph Wilson, an old Africa hand, to Niger to investigate. Mr. Wilson spent eight days talking to everyone in Niger possibly involved and came back to report no sign of an Iraqi bid for uranium and, anyway, Niger's uranium was committed to other countries for many years to come.
No news is bad news for an administration gearing up for war. Ignoring Wilson's report, Cheney talked on TV about Iraq's nuclear potential. And the president himself, in his 2003 State of the Union address no less, pronounced: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Wilson declined to maintain a discreet silence. He told various people that the president was at least mistaken, at most telling an untruth. Finally Wilson directly challenged the administration with a July 6, 2003 New York Times op-ed headlined, "What I didn't find in Africa," and making clear his belief that the president deliberately manipulated intelligence in order to justify an invasion.
One can imagine the fury in the White House. We now know from the e-mail traffic of Time's correspondent Matt Cooper that five days after the op-ed appeared, he advised his bureau chief of a super-secret conversation with Karl Rove who alerted him to the fact that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and may have recommended him for the Niger assignment. Three days later, Bob Novak's column appeared giving Wilson's wife's name, Valerie Plame, and the fact she was an undercover CIA officer....retaliation against someone who had the temerity to challenge the president of the United States when he was striving to find some plausible reason for invading Iraq.
The role of Rove and associates added up to a small incident in a very large scandal - the effort to delude America into thinking it faced a threat dire enough to justify a war.
A step on the path to accountability is outlined by former U.S. Representative Elizabeth Holtzman in a brief published in the July 18 edition of The Nation. The one-time Brooklyn D.A. is outraged that in the 16 months since "the terrible revelations of torture at Abu Ghraib hit the front pages in April 2004, no senior officials in the US military or the Bush Administration have yet been held accountable.
"The scandal has shamed and outraged many Americans," she continues,
in addition to creating a greater threat of terrorism against the United States. But it has prompted no investigative commission (in the manner of the 9/11 commission) with a mandate to find the whole truth, or full-scale bipartisan Congressional hearings, as occurred during Watergate.A veteran of the Watergate hearings, Holtzman believes that "higher-ups can be held to account. Difficult as it may be to achieve, our institutions of government can be pressured to do the right thing. If the public and the media insist on thorough investigations and appropriate punishments for those implicated -- all the way up the chain of command -- they can prevail.
Indeed, it is as though the Watergate investigations ended with the prosecution of only the burglars, which is what the cover-up was designed to insure, instead of reaching into the highest levels of government, which is what ultimately happened.
"No less a figure than Alberto Gonzales," Holtzman says,
expressed deep concern about possible prosecutions under the War Crimes Act of 1996 for American mistreatment of Afghanistan war detainees.Holtzman wonders "whether the gimmick of 'opting out' of the Geneva Conventions for the war in Afghanistan will provide Gonzales's promised 'solid defense' to any War Crimes Act prosecution."
This relatively obscure statute makes it a federal crime to violate certain provisions of the Geneva Conventions. The Act punishes any US national, military or civilian, who commits a "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions. A grave breach, as defined by the Geneva Conventions, includes the deliberate "killing, torture or inhuman treatment" of detainees. Violations of the War Crimes Act that result in death carry the death penalty.
In a memo to President Bush, dated January 25, 2002, [then White House counsel] Gonzales urged that the United States opt out of the Geneva Conventions for the Afghanistan war--despite Secretary of State Colin Powell's objections. One of the two reasons he gave the President was that opting out "substantially reduces the likelihood of prosecution under the War Crimes Act."
But whatever its relevance to Afghanistan, the War Crimes Act is unquestionably applicable to detainee abuse at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Holtzman writes that,
"(a)lthough the term 'inhuman treatment' is not defined in the War Crimes Act or in the Geneva Conventions, there is little doubt that US personnel subjected Iraqi detainees to inhuman treatment by, for example, forcing hooded prisoners into stressful positions for lengthy periods of time, using dogs to bite and intimidate naked prisoners, compelling prisoners to engage in or simulate sexual acts, dragging naked prisoners on the ground with a leash around the neck, beating prisoners, and on and on.The real question is not whether prisoners in Iraq (and at Gitmo -- as American as Kansas and just as fully under the authority of the Constitution) were subjected to cruel and inhuman treatment -- we, and the whole world, saw the pictures -- but how high up responsibility goes for these brutal crimes.
Even beyond the notorious Abu Ghraib photos, there is a huge body of evidence documenting inhuman treatment. Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba's inquiry found 'sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses.' The report issued by a panel headed by former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger found 'widespread' abuses. And the International Red Cross repeatedly protested the treatment of Iraqi prisoners.
"Under well-established principles of international law," argues Holtzman, "officials in the chain of command who order inhuman treatment or who, knowing about it, fail to stop it are responsible. The 'chain of command' doctrine is undoubtedly applicable to War Crimes Act prosecutions. But even if it weren't, higher-ups could be held responsible under the principles of conspiracy or aiding and abetting the crime under normal federal criminal law."
The president likes to blame a few "bad apples" for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, but any cataloging of the rotten fruit would have to include General Antonio Sanchez, who ordered the harsh interrogation techniques at Abu Ghraib while serving as the top military officer in Iraq, and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, who similarly issued directives permitting coercive interrogation that were modified only after protest by military lawyers. It certainly appears that Rumsfeld and General Sanchez violated the War Crimes Act, as did anyone who followed illegal orders without complaint.
Does responsibility fall on the president himself? If he wants to marshal cliches, how about a simple admission that "the fish rots from the head" instead of the tireless effort to pass the blame to alleged rotten apples at the bottom of the barrel? What in this sordid mess is more shameful than the determination by the military brass and their political overlords to leave privates and corporals holding the bags of detritus they've created? Whatever happened to "the buck stops here"? If we're offended by nothing else, we should at least be outraged by the behavior of generals and cabinet ministers who would let grunts do time for their crimes.
The Washington Post, meanwhile, has found additional evidence that Bush's suspension of the ban on torture under American law and the Geneva Conventions was ordered over the objections of the judge advocate generals (JAGs to you crime show fans) for the Army, the Air Force and the Marine Corps.
A law enacted in 1994 bars torture by U.S. military personnel anywhere in the world. But the Pentagon working group's 2003 report, prepared under the supervision of general counsel William J. Haynes II, said that "in order to respect the President's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign ... [the prohibition against torture] must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority." Haynes -- through Daniel J. Dell'Orto, principal deputy general counsel for the Defense Department -- wrote a memo March 17 that rescinded the working group's report, and Dell'Orto confirmed that withdrawal yesterday at the hearing. According to a copy of the memo obtained by The Washington Post, the general counsel's office determined that the report "does not reflect now-settled executive branch views of the relevant law."As inattentive as Bush likes to appear, it beggars belief that such a broad exception could have been entertained without consultation with the White House and the Justice Department. The memorandum urges that torture should be considered legal for anyone anywhere as long as the president wants it. You have military lawyers opposing the use of torture. You have the secretary of state, an experienced military leader, advising against its employment. And yet the White House lawyer is ordered to prepare a legal strategy to immunize officials from being arrested and tried for promoting or condoning torture. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that the Bush White House, far from being ignorant of the abuses, was driving them.
In the months since the cruelties at Abu Ghraib became public knowledge, the chief talking point among Bush defenders has been that the president never gave an order that resulted in the torture of detainees in Afghanistan, Iraq or Guantanamo, though there is no way of knowing if this is true because whatever he ordered is secret. But what should we make of the attempt by Bush Justice Department to redefine torture in the hope that this would inoculate officials from possible prosecution under American laws that prohibit torture? You can't claim to not know that you're committing a crime and simultaneously be planning the trial strategy for your defense.
Where is George Orwell when you need him? (Not on Fox or CNN, that's for sure.)
Holtzman cites "tantalizing suggestions that Bush may have condoned or possibly authorized coercive interrogation techniques. For example, a May 22, 2004, FBI agent's memo about interrogations in Iraq, made public under the Freedom of Information Act, repeatedly cites an executive order issued by President Bush that authorized 'sleep deprivation, stress positions, loud music, etc.' (The administration denied this and the FBI refused to comment.)" Also left open is whether the CIA was given a wink and a nod by the White House with regard to its use of torture in interrogating Afghani and Iraqi prisoners. What's bad for the FBI may be okay for the CIA.
"To resolve the question, then, of the responsibility of higher-ups for torture and inhuman treatment in Iraq," Holtzman continues,
"there needs to be full disclosure of directives issued by President Bush and other top officials on the treatment of detainees and a full inquiry into what they knew about the serious mistreatment of detainees and what steps they took to stop the mistreatment once it came to their attention.
"If the President did authorize inhuman treatment -- or, knowing that such treatment was ongoing, failed to stop it -- is he punishable under the War Crimes Act? White House counsel Gonzales did not specify any limits on who might be subject to prosecution in his January 2002 memo. And Attorney General Ashcroft in his Congressional testimony specifically denied that President Bush committed any crime. In making that statement, the Attorney General may have been relying on a doctrine advanced in the Justice Department's August 2002 torture definition memorandum, which argued that, under the Constitution, a Commander in Chief's capacity to conduct a military campaign cannot be constrained by US laws. In other words, as a law unto himself, the President cannot violate laws, because he doesn't have to obey them. During his confirmation hearings to replace Attorney General Ashcroft, Gonzales was repeatedly asked to repudiate the position that a President has the right as Commander in Chief to break US laws, but refused to do so.
The claim that a President, whether Bush or any other President, is above the law strikes at the very heart of our democracy. It was the centerpiece of President Nixon's defense in Watergate -- one that was rejected by the courts and lay at the foundation of the articles of impeachment voted against him by the House Judiciary Committee.
Of course, President Nixon's national security claims in Watergate were entirely bogus. Breaking into a psychiatrist's office and wiretapping journalists and White House staff phones had nothing to do with national security; they were blatantly political efforts to get damaging information on electoral opponents. And getting the CIA to stop the FBI's investigation into campaign funds was purely an obstruction of justice.
Courts have not directly ruled on a President's powers to violate the US anti-torture statute or the War Crimes Act. But they have found limits on a President's claims of unchecked power as Commander in Chief. The Supreme Court rejected President Truman's contention that as Commander in Chief he could seize steel mills during the Korean War to keep them running. Similarly, the Supreme Court repudiated President Bush's claim that as Commander in Chief he had unlimited powers to incarcerate prisoners at Guantanamo. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stated, "A state of war is not a blank check for the President."
To take the full measure of your disgust at the brutalities conducted in your name, take a look at "Defining Humane Down," Marty Lederman's ongoing analysis of the Schmidt report on Guantanamo. Yes, the Schmidt report says, the treatment of detainees was "abusive and degrading," but it was also "humane." And, besides, the Army Field Manual 34-52, since the 1960's the guide to interrogation techniques that are acceptable within the military, can be shown to permit a certain amount of discomfort even for POWs nominally protected by the Geneva Conventions. You may have to allow for a certain amount of degradation of language since the 1960s to arrive at this conclusion, but if there is any lesson in recent history it is that nothing is as it ever was anyway.
A benefit of the Schmidt report, which is otherwise largely an apologia for abuse, is that it makes clear that nearly all of the flourishes of humiliation and torture enjoyed in the Abu Ghraib home videos were pioneered at Gitmo. It turns out that Charles Graner and the hapless Lynndie England are not the Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker of torture. In their movies, they barely rise to the level of cartoon characters, so it's no surprise to find out that they were just following orders, albeit enthusiastically, when they forced Muslim prisoners to masturbate each other wearing women's underwear on their heads. Instead, we learn that what the Schmidt report calls "the creative application of authorized interrogation techniques" was, well, authorized, that is to say, policy, pure and simple.
"If you recall Abu Ghraib," as Andrew Sullivan reminds us, "you will remember how almost every one of these techniques was deployed on the night shift. This is a critical point. The kind of techniques used in Abu Ghraib - sexual humiliation, hooding, use of dogs, tying prisoners up in 'stress positions,' mandatory nudity, humiliating prisoners for their religious faith, even the famous Lynndie England leash - were all developed at Guantanamo Bay under the strictest of supervision. What we were told were just frat-guy, crazy techniques on the night shift had been deployed by the best trained, most tightly controlled, most professional interrogation center we have. The Schmidt report argues that, while some of this was out of bounds, it was only because of some extra creativity, not because the techniques themselves were illicit, or unauthorized by Rumsfeld and Bush. Abu Ghraib is and was policy - just policy absorbed by ill-trained, unprofessional hoodlums. But those hoodlums didn't get their ideas from thin air. They got them from the Pentagon and the White House."
There is no way of knowing at this stage whether the leaders of this administration will finally be taken to task for their actions. You can almost feel sympathy for poor Karl Rove, subject of the attentions of a special prosecutor while crimes so much more serious than his go unattended (in fact, seeing your petty offense used as one more excuse not to look at the real bad guys). And there is no way at this point to predict whether the special prosecutor in the leak case will attempt to make his bones by bringing down a powerful Washington figure like Rove or be content to assure his welcome in the Bill Frist or Lindsay Graham administration by sitting by while the likes of Judith Miller does time for, well, nothing.
"In the final analysis," as Elizabeth Holtzman has it, "there is no sure way to compel the government to investigate itself or to hold high-level government officials accountable under applicable criminal statutes. But if the public does not seek to have it happen, it will not happen. Those in the public who care deeply about the rule of law and government accountability must keep this issue alive. Failure to investigate wrongdoing in high places and tolerating misconduct or criminality can have only the most corroding impact on our democracy and the rule of law that sustains us."
Lastly, though, Dan Schorr is right that it is the illegal and unconscionable war and how Americans were deceived into supporting it that is most in need of addressing. In Salon yesterday, Joe Conason called for "An Honorable Withdrawal." "The sooner we get out of Iraq," he wrote, "the sooner we will be able to reunite the Western alliance, reestablish alliances with modern Arab and Muslim governments, and refocus our forces and resources on the real threats to our security." He's right, of course, except that no more than anyone else has he an idea how this extrusion is to be accomplished.
"The immediate departure of coalition troops might well plunge the entire country into a sectarian bloodbath," he worries, "and leave it to the mercies of Baathist murderers or Iranian mullahs. Having promised freedom and democracy to the Iraqis, and cost them many lives and incredible damage to their heritage and infrastructure, we owe them better than that." But beyond suggesting that maybe we can work something out by negotiating with the Sunnis, how we pay what we owe is left for a future column.
Many of those on the left who opposed the attack on Iraq in the first place and predicted that it would be a "quagmire" find themselves in a particularly impossible position, at once convinced that we are no place we should have ever been and yet fearful that our hasty withdrawal will precipitate a disaster for Iraq, for the Middle East and for the United States beyond anything we've witnessed thus far.
But maybe we shouldn't be looking to changes in policy toward Iraq as the first step. Maybe, before anything else, we need not a change in policy but a change in policy-makers. Maybe -- can it really have come to this? -- maybe we need to consider once again using the constitutional mechanisms available to us, in this case to hold accountable the people who have undermined our values, destroyed our reputation among nations, bankrupted us, lied to us, and killed nearly two thousand of us along with untold numbers of Iraqis (to begin with only the most obvious complaints in the indictment). Maybe the naive peace activists have been right all along. Maybe Cynthia McKinney and Rep. Jan Schakowsky aren't so wacky after all. Maybe Rep. Barbara Miller was courageous, not foolhardy. Maybe it's worth your time to pay a visit to http://www.impeachnow.org/. Maybe Ralph Nader and Kevin Zeese are right when they write in the Boston Globe that it is time to consider using The I Word.
Maybe the only way to get the U.S. out of Iraq will be to get Bush out of Washington.
"What I Told The Grand Jury" by Matthew Cooper
"What I Told The Grand Jury"
By Matthew Cooper
Time Magazine
By Matthew Cooper
Time Magazine
Monday 25 July 2005 Issue
Matthew Cooper reveals exactly what Karl Rove told him--and what the special counsel zeroed in on.
It was my first interview with the President, and I expected a simple "Hello" when I walked into the Oval Office last December. Instead, George W. Bush joked, "Cooper! I thought you'd be in jail by now." The leader of the free world, it seems, had been following my fight against a federal subpoena seeking my testimony in the case of the leaking of the name of a CIA officer. I thought it was funny and good-natured of the President, but the line reminded me that I was, very weirdly, in the Oval Office, out on bond from a prison sentence, awaiting appeal--in large part, for protecting the confidence of someone in the West Wing. "What can I say, Mr. President," I replied, smiling. "The wheels of justice grind slowly."
LAObserved observed
The Los Angeles Independent has a nice profile of Kevin Broderick 
and his newsblog, LAObserved.com. In The Man Who Watches Over L.A., the former LATimesman is called "possibly the most respected journalist in town." LAObserved, writes the Independent, "is a forum on local politics, the media and Los Angeles that has become an online salon for journalists and political junkies, especially early in the day when the Web site often offers a condensed compilation of the best stories in the Times, The Daily News and other newspapers or weeklies that morning."
and his newsblog, LAObserved.com. In The Man Who Watches Over L.A., the former LATimesman is called "possibly the most respected journalist in town." LAObserved, writes the Independent, "is a forum on local politics, the media and Los Angeles that has become an online salon for journalists and political junkies, especially early in the day when the Web site often offers a condensed compilation of the best stories in the Times, The Daily News and other newspapers or weeklies that morning."
Crosswalks, again
I'd never advocate this, of course, because, as Richard Nixon said in another context, 
it would be wrong, but I'm amazed that by now some good souls have not chosen to sneak down to Main Street in the middle of the night to paint mid-block crosswalks between Ashland and Hill and between Hill and Ocean Park. With the staff preoccupied with redeveloping downtown, it could be months or years before anyone in City Hall notices they're there, and even then it would only be fair if it took a staff report and the hiring of consultants before they could be painted out again. In the meantime, walkers will be crossing the street more safely, especially if the midnight safety commandos also happen to install a couple of those mid-street traffic markers you see in other towns (I like the ones that depict a policeman holding up his hand, especially if it's full-sized). As I've said before, the cemeteries are full of people who were alive and kicking when the Ashland-Hill crosswalk was first promised. How long does this neighborhood have to wait for an improvement even this minuscule?
it would be wrong, but I'm amazed that by now some good souls have not chosen to sneak down to Main Street in the middle of the night to paint mid-block crosswalks between Ashland and Hill and between Hill and Ocean Park. With the staff preoccupied with redeveloping downtown, it could be months or years before anyone in City Hall notices they're there, and even then it would only be fair if it took a staff report and the hiring of consultants before they could be painted out again. In the meantime, walkers will be crossing the street more safely, especially if the midnight safety commandos also happen to install a couple of those mid-street traffic markers you see in other towns (I like the ones that depict a policeman holding up his hand, especially if it's full-sized). As I've said before, the cemeteries are full of people who were alive and kicking when the Ashland-Hill crosswalk was first promised. How long does this neighborhood have to wait for an improvement even this minuscule?
The Left Coaster: "We're Right"
For some time, I've been meaning to add The Left Coaster to the links on this page, but their current discussion of the Republican damage-control memo, "Talking Points For Treason: Joseph Wilson and Dick Cheney," inspired me to get the job done. The Left Coast's considered answer to the question, "Does the GOP's Talking Points For Treason(TM) document offer evidence for their claim against Joseph Wilson?" is no.
(The Left Coaster, "An outside-the-Beltway perspective on current events, politics, media, and the arts. We are proud to be part of the Reality-Based Community.")
(The Left Coaster, "An outside-the-Beltway perspective on current events, politics, media, and the arts. We are proud to be part of the Reality-Based Community.")
"Outing Mrs. Wilson…Was Treacherous, if not Treasonous"
Such was the headline on a letter Rep. Henry Waxman sent to his colleagues in the House of Representatives:
"Outing Mrs. Wilson…Was Treacherous, if not Treasonous."
Retired CIA Agents Larry Johnson, Michael Grimaldi, and Brent Cavan (Oct. 24, 2003)
Dear Colleague:
Many Republicans are trying hard to minimize Karl Rove’s disgraceful conduct in outing the identity of a covert CIA agent. The fact is that Mr. Rove, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff and the President’s closest advisor, and perhaps others in the White House, put politics ahead of protecting our national security.
Much has been written about this issue, but I want to make sure you have the following quotes as you think about this shameful breach. These comments, more than anything else I have read, explain why Karl Rove’s actions matter to every American. They are the views of former President and CIA Director George H.W. Bush and ten former CIA officials:
* "I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors." Former President and CIA Director George H.W. Bush, Washington Times (Apr. 27, 1999).
* "We also want to send a clear message to the political 'operatives' responsible for ‘outing’ Mrs. Wilson. Such action was treacherous, if not treasonous. ... This has set a sickening precedent. The "senior Administration officials" who did this have warned all U.S. intelligence officers and the Intelligence Community that any one individual may be compromised if providing information or factual analysis the White House does not like." Testimony of Former CIA Officials Larry Johnson, Michael Grimaldi, and Brent Cavan (Oct. 24, 2003).
* "The disclosure of Ms. Plame’s name was an unprecedented and shameful event in American history and, in our professional judgment, has damaged U.S. national security, specifically the effectiveness of U.S. intelligence gathering using human sources. Any breach of the code of confidentiality and cover weakens the overall fabric of intelligence, and, directly or indirectly, jeopardizes the work and safety of intelligence workers and their sources." Letter to House Speaker Dennis J. Hastert from Former CIA Officials Larry C. Johnson, James Marcinkowski, Michael Grimaldi, Brent Cavan, Marc Sageman, MD, Ph.D., James A. Smith, John McCavitt, Ray McGovern, Ray Close, and William Wagner (Jan. 20. 2004).
As an independent branch of government, we shirk our constitutional responsibilities if we continue to ignore this serious violation of our national security interests.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman
Ranking Minority Member
"Outing Mrs. Wilson…Was Treacherous, if not Treasonous."
Retired CIA Agents Larry Johnson, Michael Grimaldi, and Brent Cavan (Oct. 24, 2003)
Dear Colleague:
Many Republicans are trying hard to minimize Karl Rove’s disgraceful conduct in outing the identity of a covert CIA agent. The fact is that Mr. Rove, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff and the President’s closest advisor, and perhaps others in the White House, put politics ahead of protecting our national security.
Much has been written about this issue, but I want to make sure you have the following quotes as you think about this shameful breach. These comments, more than anything else I have read, explain why Karl Rove’s actions matter to every American. They are the views of former President and CIA Director George H.W. Bush and ten former CIA officials:
* "I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors." Former President and CIA Director George H.W. Bush, Washington Times (Apr. 27, 1999).
* "We also want to send a clear message to the political 'operatives' responsible for ‘outing’ Mrs. Wilson. Such action was treacherous, if not treasonous. ... This has set a sickening precedent. The "senior Administration officials" who did this have warned all U.S. intelligence officers and the Intelligence Community that any one individual may be compromised if providing information or factual analysis the White House does not like." Testimony of Former CIA Officials Larry Johnson, Michael Grimaldi, and Brent Cavan (Oct. 24, 2003).
* "The disclosure of Ms. Plame’s name was an unprecedented and shameful event in American history and, in our professional judgment, has damaged U.S. national security, specifically the effectiveness of U.S. intelligence gathering using human sources. Any breach of the code of confidentiality and cover weakens the overall fabric of intelligence, and, directly or indirectly, jeopardizes the work and safety of intelligence workers and their sources." Letter to House Speaker Dennis J. Hastert from Former CIA Officials Larry C. Johnson, James Marcinkowski, Michael Grimaldi, Brent Cavan, Marc Sageman, MD, Ph.D., James A. Smith, John McCavitt, Ray McGovern, Ray Close, and William Wagner (Jan. 20. 2004).
As an independent branch of government, we shirk our constitutional responsibilities if we continue to ignore this serious violation of our national security interests.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman
Ranking Minority Member
Segways dangerous on the bike path
Used as we are to having the safety rules on the Santa Monica Bike Path honored mostly in the breach, it was still dismaying to see the photograph in Friday's Santa Monica Daily Press of the gaggle of Segways blocking the route.
The rule against motorized vechicles on the bike path is clear and unambiguous. It's also one of the few regulations that is routinely enforced, and for good reason: the margin of safety on the path is already dangerously compromised without the addition of heavier, self-propelled vehicles piloted by unskilled, often juvenile drivers.
Segway probably figures that as a national corporation with a showroom in Santa Monica, they can get away with ignoring laws that, if you are a young weekend visitor to Venice, can get you a moving violation if you dare to venture north of Navy on your rented scooter. If Segway wants to hold sales pitches by the beach for buyers of its pricey gadget, there is a huge, nearly empty parking lot south of Pico that the city is always happy to rent.
As admirable as these vehicles may or may not be (and, personally, I'd be happy see them clogging our streets; but, remember, there are enough questions about their safety for bans to have been considered or imposed in locales as divergent as Toronto, San Francisco and Disneyland), whether or not they are a solution to our commuting woes, they don't belong on the bike path.
The rule against motorized vechicles on the bike path is clear and unambiguous. It's also one of the few regulations that is routinely enforced, and for good reason: the margin of safety on the path is already dangerously compromised without the addition of heavier, self-propelled vehicles piloted by unskilled, often juvenile drivers.
Segway probably figures that as a national corporation with a showroom in Santa Monica, they can get away with ignoring laws that, if you are a young weekend visitor to Venice, can get you a moving violation if you dare to venture north of Navy on your rented scooter. If Segway wants to hold sales pitches by the beach for buyers of its pricey gadget, there is a huge, nearly empty parking lot south of Pico that the city is always happy to rent.
As admirable as these vehicles may or may not be (and, personally, I'd be happy see them clogging our streets; but, remember, there are enough questions about their safety for bans to have been considered or imposed in locales as divergent as Toronto, San Francisco and Disneyland), whether or not they are a solution to our commuting woes, they don't belong on the bike path.
Do we come in lower than Old Sturbridge Village?
"Intel's 3rd Annual Most Unwired Cities survey ranks the top 100 U.S. cities and regions for the greatest wireless Internet accessibility. This year's survey reveals a growing number of diverse locations - both indoors and outdoors - where people can log on and connect to the Internet without wires. Today, wireless hotspots can be found at coffee shops, colleges and hotels, but they're also popping up at skate parks, pipe shops, gas stations, bowling alleys and golf courses." Here's a link to Intel's top 100 unwired cities and regions. Orange County is #10 and San Diego is #11, Sacramento is #18, Los Angeles-Long Beach are at #24, Vallejo-Fairfield-Napa are #40, Ventura is 51#, Fresno is 54#, Riverside-San Bernardino come in at #74, the Stockton-Lodi area is #81 and Bakersfield is #98. Guess who's not on the list.
Municipal broadband is coming...But is it coming here?
Governments as diverse as West Virginia's and Culver City's are sensibly treating wireless access as a public utility. Culver's redevelopment agency, for example, spent around $20,000 putting a network together to provide about a square mile of downtown with free wi-fi access.
The internet itself was developed using the public's money and, right wing propaganda notwithstanding, the US has a long and successful history of municipal ownership of utilities supplying water, electricity, buses, trains,and other services, continuing down to present-day L.A. Companies like SBC, Verizon and T-Mobile will do their best to undermine these efforts -- SBC recently got monoply control of fee-based wireless access in California's parks and beaches, but they may have a harder time if Arizona Senator John McCain, New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg and some of their cohorts succeed in passing legislation they've introduced with the goal of ensuring that cities and counties can provide community-wide broadband should they choose to. The solons want to amend the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in order to prevent state and federal legislative actions, backed by the telecommunications giants, that are aimed at keeping local governments out of the broadband business (just as the big real estate owners were able to get the California state legislature to put an end to local rent control). As many as 14 states have passed laws limiting municipal broadband services, mostly in response to lobbying by the large internet providers.
The internet itself was developed using the public's money and, right wing propaganda notwithstanding, the US has a long and successful history of municipal ownership of utilities supplying water, electricity, buses, trains,and other services, continuing down to present-day L.A. Companies like SBC, Verizon and T-Mobile will do their best to undermine these efforts -- SBC recently got monoply control of fee-based wireless access in California's parks and beaches, but they may have a harder time if Arizona Senator John McCain, New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg and some of their cohorts succeed in passing legislation they've introduced with the goal of ensuring that cities and counties can provide community-wide broadband should they choose to. The solons want to amend the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in order to prevent state and federal legislative actions, backed by the telecommunications giants, that are aimed at keeping local governments out of the broadband business (just as the big real estate owners were able to get the California state legislature to put an end to local rent control). As many as 14 states have passed laws limiting municipal broadband services, mostly in response to lobbying by the large internet providers.
Why is the City of Santa Monica afraid of an open and democratically accountable development process?
Here is the concluding paragraph of an open letter delivered today by a number of community leaders to assistant Santa Monica city manager Gordon Anderson regarding the public review process for any future proposal for the redevelopment of Santa Monica Place.
"...We urge the City to adopt a public process that is meaningful and fair and designed to have residents' voices and choices be heard. A meaningful public process is one preceded by a development proposal for Santa Monica Place that clearly shows the height and density of the actual proposed buildings, includes a comprehensive environmental report that accurately assesses the traffic impacts, and includes an accurate financial analysis of the City’s direct and indirect costs and contributions to the proposed development."For more information about the proposal by the Macerich Corporation to vastly enlarge Santa Monica Place and about the activities of the SM Coalition for a Livable City, please got to this website: smclc.net
The only solution traffic congestion in Santa Monica is...
...More traffic!
Let's face it. Only if the traffic tangle gets immeasurably worse than it is already
will we get light rail. And only when we Santa Monicans cease going to our own downtown altogether, because it's just too damn hard, will we be offered other ameliorations like minicabs, pedaltaxis, and Tide-sized buses to all parts of town.
If you favor the development of a rational public transportation system, you've got to look on gridlock as your ally and friend.
Planning and development and even growth are not the enemy, by the way. The enemies of the good life in Santa Monica are bad and wasteful planning, mediocre development, and growth that is unaccompanied by the planned and managed creation of a workable infrastructure.
Growth is going to come. The only question is how we will manage it for the better.
If you are a progressive, you probably favor development: development means jobs, it means housing, it means improved infrastructure, it means public transportation.
And if you are concerned about the environment, then you must have realized that the on
ly solution to urban sprawl, to the loss of farmland, recreational opportunities, plant and animal diversity, water resources, and so on, resides in encouraging the creation of much denser urban environments. And you have to ask yourself where in Southern California the concentration of development should occur if not in the zone that puts the least drain on the infrastructure and the environment by needing neither air-conditioning in the summer nor much in the way of heating in the winter. There is also a huge benefit to having a large population within a short hop to the beach.
In Santa Monica, a successful future can be expressed in a simple two-part formula: Develop the commercial areas! Protect the neighborhoods!
This means allowing new construction of mixed-use housing and commercial developments along the commercial streets, while doing everything possible to protect the character and density of the purely residential neighborhoods.
In the meantime, while we wait for the traffic grind to a halt, there are many
alternatives to automobiles for getting around our little (3 mile x 3 mile) town. Those who are are neither lame nor lazy can easily walk from our neighborhoods to downtown or to other parts of the city. Although City Hall has pursued traffic policies over the past decade that have made it increasingly dangerous to ride, the climate and the basically flat topography make Santa Monica almost ideal for commuting by bicycle (and, while it is true that riding safely here requires great alertness, it is equally true that as more of us do it, the safer it will become). Why is it left to a city like Long Beach to pioneer a downtown bicycle valet service while Santa Monica relies on bike lanes to nowhere and ridiculous "Share the Road" signs?
Finally, we are lucky in having a relatively efficient and inexpensive bus system. The Big Blue Bus is cheap, clean, and safe (at least for people on the bus), and with innovations like the Tide shuttle linking the major hotels to downtown and Ocean Park and the new express bus to LAX, Santa Monica's bus company has demonstrated a willingness to think outside the lane. And Metro's red express buses connect Santa Monicans to a growing county-wide transportation system.
See Travel: ExperienceLA.com
Let's face it. Only if the traffic tangle gets immeasurably worse than it is already
will we get light rail. And only when we Santa Monicans cease going to our own downtown altogether, because it's just too damn hard, will we be offered other ameliorations like minicabs, pedaltaxis, and Tide-sized buses to all parts of town. If you favor the development of a rational public transportation system, you've got to look on gridlock as your ally and friend.
Planning and development and even growth are not the enemy, by the way. The enemies of the good life in Santa Monica are bad and wasteful planning, mediocre development, and growth that is unaccompanied by the planned and managed creation of a workable infrastructure.
Growth is going to come. The only question is how we will manage it for the better.
If you are a progressive, you probably favor development: development means jobs, it means housing, it means improved infrastructure, it means public transportation.
And if you are concerned about the environment, then you must have realized that the on
ly solution to urban sprawl, to the loss of farmland, recreational opportunities, plant and animal diversity, water resources, and so on, resides in encouraging the creation of much denser urban environments. And you have to ask yourself where in Southern California the concentration of development should occur if not in the zone that puts the least drain on the infrastructure and the environment by needing neither air-conditioning in the summer nor much in the way of heating in the winter. There is also a huge benefit to having a large population within a short hop to the beach.In Santa Monica, a successful future can be expressed in a simple two-part formula: Develop the commercial areas! Protect the neighborhoods!
This means allowing new construction of mixed-use housing and commercial developments along the commercial streets, while doing everything possible to protect the character and density of the purely residential neighborhoods.
In the meantime, while we wait for the traffic grind to a halt, there are many
alternatives to automobiles for getting around our little (3 mile x 3 mile) town. Those who are are neither lame nor lazy can easily walk from our neighborhoods to downtown or to other parts of the city. Although City Hall has pursued traffic policies over the past decade that have made it increasingly dangerous to ride, the climate and the basically flat topography make Santa Monica almost ideal for commuting by bicycle (and, while it is true that riding safely here requires great alertness, it is equally true that as more of us do it, the safer it will become). Why is it left to a city like Long Beach to pioneer a downtown bicycle valet service while Santa Monica relies on bike lanes to nowhere and ridiculous "Share the Road" signs?Finally, we are lucky in having a relatively efficient and inexpensive bus system. The Big Blue Bus is cheap, clean, and safe (at least for people on the bus), and with innovations like the Tide shuttle linking the major hotels to downtown and Ocean Park and the new express bus to LAX, Santa Monica's bus company has demonstrated a willingness to think outside the lane. And Metro's red express buses connect Santa Monicans to a growing county-wide transportation system.
See Travel: ExperienceLA.com
ACLU Report: Restrictions on Scientific Research and Publication
Science Under Siege: The Bush Administration's Assault on Academic Freedom and Scientific Inquiry (42 pages, pdf): <http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=18533>
Science Under Siege Executive Summary (pdf): <http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=18535>
"The American Civil Liberties Union released a report today examining government policies and practices that have hampered academic freedom and scientific inquiry since September 11, 2001" (press release): <http://www.aclu.org/>
Science Under Siege Executive Summary (pdf): <http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=18535>
"The American Civil Liberties Union released a report today examining government policies and practices that have hampered academic freedom and scientific inquiry since September 11, 2001" (press release): <http://www.aclu.org/>
The Ties That Bind China, Russia and Iran (Asia Times)
I never expected to one day miss Henry Kissinger. Though a misguided architect of empire, Kissinger at least knew how to protect his creation. While the current administration squanders lives and wealth in Iraq and fixates on sideshows like North Korea and Venezuela, consider the growing axis of power discussed in this article from The Asia Times of June 4, 2005 (posted at Japan Focus on June 6).
--------------------------------------
By Jephraim P. Gundzik
The military implementation of the George W Bush administration's unilateralist foreign policy is creating monumental changes in the world's geostrategic alliances. The most significant of these changes is the formation of a new triangle comprised of China, Iran and Russia.
Growing ties between Moscow and Beijing in the past 18 months is an important geopolitical event that has gone practically unnoticed. China's premier, Wen Jiabao, visited Russia in September 2004. In October 2004, President Vladimir Putin visited China. During the October meeting, both China and Russia declared that Sino-Russian relations had reached "unparalleled heights". In addition to settling long-standing border issues, Moscow and Beijing agreed to hold joint military exercises in 2005. This marks the first large-scale military exercises between Russia and China since 1958.
The rest of the story: <http://japanfocus.org/article.asp?id=303>
--------------------------------------
By Jephraim P. Gundzik
The military implementation of the George W Bush administration's unilateralist foreign policy is creating monumental changes in the world's geostrategic alliances. The most significant of these changes is the formation of a new triangle comprised of China, Iran and Russia.
Growing ties between Moscow and Beijing in the past 18 months is an important geopolitical event that has gone practically unnoticed. China's premier, Wen Jiabao, visited Russia in September 2004. In October 2004, President Vladimir Putin visited China. During the October meeting, both China and Russia declared that Sino-Russian relations had reached "unparalleled heights". In addition to settling long-standing border issues, Moscow and Beijing agreed to hold joint military exercises in 2005. This marks the first large-scale military exercises between Russia and China since 1958.
The rest of the story: <http://japanfocus.org/article.asp?id=303>
Congressman Conyers Hammers the Post
By Congressman John Conyers | Letter
Mr. Michael Abramowitz, National Editor; Mr. Michael Getler, Ombudsman; Mr. Dana Milbank
The Washington Post, 1150 15th Street, NW Washington, DC 20071
Dear Sirs:
I write to express my profound disappointment with Dana Milbank's June 17 report, "Democrats Play House to Rally Against the War," which purports to describe a Democratic hearing I chaired in the Capitol yesterday. In sum, the piece cherry-picks some facts, manufactures others out of whole cloth, and does a disservice to some 30 members of Congress who persevered under difficult circumstances, not of our own making, to examine a very serious subject: whether the American people were deliberately misled in the lead up to war. The fact that this was the Post's only coverage of this event makes the journalistic shortcomings in this piece even more egregious.
In an inaccurate piece of reporting that typifies the article, Milbank implies that one of the obstacles the Members in the meeting have is that "only one" member has mentioned the Downing Street Minutes on the floor of either the House or Senate. This is not only incorrect but misleading. In fact, just yesterday, the Senate Democratic Leader, Harry Reid, mentioned it on the Senate floor. Senator Boxer talked at some length about it at the recent confirmation hearing for the Ambassador to Iraq. The House Democratic Leader, Nancy Pelosi, recently signed on to my letter, along with 121 other Democrats asking for answers about the memo. This information is not difficult to find either. For example, the Reid speech was the subject of an AP wire service report posted on the Washington Post website with the headline "Democrats Cite Downing Street Memo in Bolton Fight". Other similar mistakes, mischaracterizations and cheap shots are littered throughout the article.
The article begins with an especially mean and nasty tone, claiming that House Democrats "pretended" a small conference was the Judiciary Committee hearing room and deriding the decor of the room. Milbank fails to share with his readers one essential fact: the reason the hearing was held in that room, an important piece of context. Despite the fact that a number of other suitable rooms were available in the Capitol and House office buildings, Republicans declined my request for each and every one of them. Milbank could have written about the perseverance of many of my colleagues in the face of such adverse circumstances, but declined to do so. Milbank also ignores the critical fact picked up by the AP, CNN and other newsletters that at the very moment the hearing was scheduled to begin, the Republican Leadership scheduled an almost unprecedented number of 11 consecutive floor votes, making it next to impossible for most Members to participate in the first hour and one half of the hearing.
In what can only be described as a deliberate effort to discredit the entire hearing, Milbank quotes one of the witnesses as making an anti-semitic assertion and further describes anti-semitic literature that was being handed out in the overflow room for the event. First, let me be clear: I consider myself to be friend and supporter of Israel and there were a number of other staunchly pro-Israel members who were in attendance at the hearing. I do not agree with, support, or condone any comments asserting Israeli control over U.S. policy, and I find any allegation that Israel is trying to dominate the world or had anything to do with the September 11 tragedy disgusting and offensive.
That said, to give such emphasis to 100 seconds of a 3 hour and five minute hearing that included the powerful and sad testimony (hardly mentioned by Milbank) of a woman who lost her son in the Iraq war and now feels lied to as a result of the Downing Street Minutes, is incredibly misleading. Many, many different pamphlets were being passed out at the overflow room, including pamphlets about getting out of the Iraq war and anti-Central American Free Trade Agreement, and it is puzzling why Milbank saw fit to only mention the one he did.
In a typically derisive and uninformed passage, Milbank makes much of other lawmakers calling me "Mr. Chairman" and says I liked it so much that I used "chairmanly phrases." Milbank may not know that I was the Chairman of the House Government Operations Committee from 1988 to 1994. By protocol and tradition in the House, once you have been a Chairman you are always referred to as such. Thus, there was nothing unusual about my being referred to as Mr. Chairman.
To administer his coup-de-grace, Milbank literally makes up another cheap shot that I "was having so much fun that [I] ignored aides' entreaties to end the session." This did not occur. None of my aides offered entreaties to end the session and I have no idea where Milbank gets that information. The hearing certainly ran longer than expected, but that was because so many Members of Congress persevered under very difficult circumstances to attend, and I thought - given that - the least I could do was allow them to say their piece. That is called courtesy, not "fun."
By the way, the "Downing Street Memo" is actually the minutes of a British cabinet meeting. In the meeting, British officials - having just met with their American counterparts - describe their discussions with such counterparts. I mention this because that basic piece of context, a simple description of the memo, is found nowhere in Milbank's article.
The fact that I and my fellow Democrats had to stuff a hearing into a room the size of a large closet to hold a hearing on an important issue shouldn't make us the object of ridicule. In my opinion, the ridicule should be placed in two places: first, at the feet of Republicans who are so afraid to discuss ideas and facts that they try to sabotage our efforts to do so; and second, on Dana Milbank and the Washington Post, who do not feel the need to give serious coverage on a serious hearing about a serious matter - whether more than 1700 Americans have died because of a deliberate lie. Milbank may disagree, but the Post certainly owed its readers some coverage of that viewpoint.
Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.
------------------------------------------------------
For background on the development if the Downing Street memos and the other sources of information about official lies in the buildup to the attack on Iraq, please visit Greg Palast's website at <http://www.gregpalast.com/index.cfm>.
Mr. Michael Abramowitz, National Editor; Mr. Michael Getler, Ombudsman; Mr. Dana Milbank
The Washington Post, 1150 15th Street, NW Washington, DC 20071
Dear Sirs:
I write to express my profound disappointment with Dana Milbank's June 17 report, "Democrats Play House to Rally Against the War," which purports to describe a Democratic hearing I chaired in the Capitol yesterday. In sum, the piece cherry-picks some facts, manufactures others out of whole cloth, and does a disservice to some 30 members of Congress who persevered under difficult circumstances, not of our own making, to examine a very serious subject: whether the American people were deliberately misled in the lead up to war. The fact that this was the Post's only coverage of this event makes the journalistic shortcomings in this piece even more egregious.
In an inaccurate piece of reporting that typifies the article, Milbank implies that one of the obstacles the Members in the meeting have is that "only one" member has mentioned the Downing Street Minutes on the floor of either the House or Senate. This is not only incorrect but misleading. In fact, just yesterday, the Senate Democratic Leader, Harry Reid, mentioned it on the Senate floor. Senator Boxer talked at some length about it at the recent confirmation hearing for the Ambassador to Iraq. The House Democratic Leader, Nancy Pelosi, recently signed on to my letter, along with 121 other Democrats asking for answers about the memo. This information is not difficult to find either. For example, the Reid speech was the subject of an AP wire service report posted on the Washington Post website with the headline "Democrats Cite Downing Street Memo in Bolton Fight". Other similar mistakes, mischaracterizations and cheap shots are littered throughout the article.
The article begins with an especially mean and nasty tone, claiming that House Democrats "pretended" a small conference was the Judiciary Committee hearing room and deriding the decor of the room. Milbank fails to share with his readers one essential fact: the reason the hearing was held in that room, an important piece of context. Despite the fact that a number of other suitable rooms were available in the Capitol and House office buildings, Republicans declined my request for each and every one of them. Milbank could have written about the perseverance of many of my colleagues in the face of such adverse circumstances, but declined to do so. Milbank also ignores the critical fact picked up by the AP, CNN and other newsletters that at the very moment the hearing was scheduled to begin, the Republican Leadership scheduled an almost unprecedented number of 11 consecutive floor votes, making it next to impossible for most Members to participate in the first hour and one half of the hearing.
In what can only be described as a deliberate effort to discredit the entire hearing, Milbank quotes one of the witnesses as making an anti-semitic assertion and further describes anti-semitic literature that was being handed out in the overflow room for the event. First, let me be clear: I consider myself to be friend and supporter of Israel and there were a number of other staunchly pro-Israel members who were in attendance at the hearing. I do not agree with, support, or condone any comments asserting Israeli control over U.S. policy, and I find any allegation that Israel is trying to dominate the world or had anything to do with the September 11 tragedy disgusting and offensive.
That said, to give such emphasis to 100 seconds of a 3 hour and five minute hearing that included the powerful and sad testimony (hardly mentioned by Milbank) of a woman who lost her son in the Iraq war and now feels lied to as a result of the Downing Street Minutes, is incredibly misleading. Many, many different pamphlets were being passed out at the overflow room, including pamphlets about getting out of the Iraq war and anti-Central American Free Trade Agreement, and it is puzzling why Milbank saw fit to only mention the one he did.
In a typically derisive and uninformed passage, Milbank makes much of other lawmakers calling me "Mr. Chairman" and says I liked it so much that I used "chairmanly phrases." Milbank may not know that I was the Chairman of the House Government Operations Committee from 1988 to 1994. By protocol and tradition in the House, once you have been a Chairman you are always referred to as such. Thus, there was nothing unusual about my being referred to as Mr. Chairman.
To administer his coup-de-grace, Milbank literally makes up another cheap shot that I "was having so much fun that [I] ignored aides' entreaties to end the session." This did not occur. None of my aides offered entreaties to end the session and I have no idea where Milbank gets that information. The hearing certainly ran longer than expected, but that was because so many Members of Congress persevered under very difficult circumstances to attend, and I thought - given that - the least I could do was allow them to say their piece. That is called courtesy, not "fun."
By the way, the "Downing Street Memo" is actually the minutes of a British cabinet meeting. In the meeting, British officials - having just met with their American counterparts - describe their discussions with such counterparts. I mention this because that basic piece of context, a simple description of the memo, is found nowhere in Milbank's article.
The fact that I and my fellow Democrats had to stuff a hearing into a room the size of a large closet to hold a hearing on an important issue shouldn't make us the object of ridicule. In my opinion, the ridicule should be placed in two places: first, at the feet of Republicans who are so afraid to discuss ideas and facts that they try to sabotage our efforts to do so; and second, on Dana Milbank and the Washington Post, who do not feel the need to give serious coverage on a serious hearing about a serious matter - whether more than 1700 Americans have died because of a deliberate lie. Milbank may disagree, but the Post certainly owed its readers some coverage of that viewpoint.
Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.
------------------------------------------------------
For background on the development if the Downing Street memos and the other sources of information about official lies in the buildup to the attack on Iraq, please visit Greg Palast's website at <http://www.gregpalast.com/index.cfm>.
Baggage, Indeed
One of the truly pleasurable SoCal travel experiences is flying in to and out of Long Beach Airport. With it's WPA-ish terminal -- actually, it predates the New Deal by a decade -- and lack of such refinements as miles-long passageways and cramped loading funnels, boarding and deplaning are swift and enjoyable.
On foggy nights, climbing up the back stairs to steerage on JetBlue's red-eye to New York or Florida, you feel like Louie and Rick on the tarmac in Casablanca.
So it's dismaying to learn from a report in the Times that "[b]usiness leaders, led by the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce and JetBlue, want a modernized airport terminal of up to 133,000 square feet that offers more amenities." <The Los Angeles Times>
This is about money, natch. The business leaders in question argue that the city has failed to take advantage of business opportunities, such as concessions -- there is a restaurant, a fast-food outlet, a gourmet coffee kiosk, and a gift shop, and is thus missing out on tax revenue. They also are trying to make an argument for the project out of the fact that fewer than 1% of the facility's 3 million annual passengers stayed overnight last year, though its hard to see why more flights would make anyone look with greater favor on the prospect of hanging around Long Beach.
According to the Times' Nancy Wride, foes of a proposed expansion of the "cozy" terminal worry it will lead to pressure to lift the city's limit on flights, currently maxed out at 41 (compared to the OC's 130 and LAX's 900), and lead to violations of legal noise limits. It's not hard to sympathize with people who hope their neighborhood won't turn into Inglewood.
Proponents of the project want to increase the capacity of the Art Deco facility by adding an annex of up to 133,000 square feet. According to Wride, the existing building, which provides about 58,000 square feet of passenger area including 23,750 square feet of temporary wooden space that resembles a ferry terminal, is a historic landmark, which means even its color can't be changed without the approval of several commissions. And architectural review boards and landmark commissions almost never say yes to anything.
Facing a city council that seems disinclined to support the full extent of the Chamber/JetBlue proposal, the developers are threatening a referendum, an end run around representative government that will not only cut elected officials out of the process but also eliminate the unpleasantness of an environmental review to determine how much the project will degrade the quality of life in Long Beach and vicinity by adding to the noise, traffic congestion, and dirty air.
Even though it is off the beaten track for most Los Angeles and Orange Country travelers, the airport has boosted JetBlue by providing cheap and easy parking, short lines, painless baggage handling, and quick boarding and deplaning. Will people from Beverly Hills and Irvine continue to make the trek to Long Beach to get the same endless corridors, parking sharking and other niceties already much closer to hand at LAX and John Wayne? Compare your recent two-a-half hour ordeal in Southwest's LAX abattoir with the comfort of being dropped at the door in Long Beach.
If you ask me, Long Beach would be better off leaving the airport more or less as is. Some revenue could be generated by improving the ground floor amenities -- the gift shop and fast food outlets -- and by inviting a world-class restauranteur to turn the beautifully situated, three-tiered eatery on the second level into a regional dining destination. With its excellent view of one of the busiest fields in the country for private aircraft and its almost unlimited parking, the Long Beach Airport restaurant would be hard to beat for a romantic evening out.
If you like the airport in Long Beach the way it is, you should let city officials and JetBlue know. Not only would keeping the airport intact benefit residents and travelers, but JetBlue may find that unintended consequences -- like increased competition: the city will be hard-pressed to keep other airlines out of an expanded airport -- and the loss of frequent fliers like me, who may not see low fares alone as sufficient to justify the long haul to what in New York would be one of the outer boroughs, for no other reason than to save a couple of bucks on a plane ticket -- aren't worth the trouble.
On foggy nights, climbing up the back stairs to steerage on JetBlue's red-eye to New York or Florida, you feel like Louie and Rick on the tarmac in Casablanca.
So it's dismaying to learn from a report in the Times that "[b]usiness leaders, led by the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce and JetBlue, want a modernized airport terminal of up to 133,000 square feet that offers more amenities." <The Los Angeles Times>
This is about money, natch. The business leaders in question argue that the city has failed to take advantage of business opportunities, such as concessions -- there is a restaurant, a fast-food outlet, a gourmet coffee kiosk, and a gift shop, and is thus missing out on tax revenue. They also are trying to make an argument for the project out of the fact that fewer than 1% of the facility's 3 million annual passengers stayed overnight last year, though its hard to see why more flights would make anyone look with greater favor on the prospect of hanging around Long Beach.
According to the Times' Nancy Wride, foes of a proposed expansion of the "cozy" terminal worry it will lead to pressure to lift the city's limit on flights, currently maxed out at 41 (compared to the OC's 130 and LAX's 900), and lead to violations of legal noise limits. It's not hard to sympathize with people who hope their neighborhood won't turn into Inglewood.
Proponents of the project want to increase the capacity of the Art Deco facility by adding an annex of up to 133,000 square feet. According to Wride, the existing building, which provides about 58,000 square feet of passenger area including 23,750 square feet of temporary wooden space that resembles a ferry terminal, is a historic landmark, which means even its color can't be changed without the approval of several commissions. And architectural review boards and landmark commissions almost never say yes to anything.
Facing a city council that seems disinclined to support the full extent of the Chamber/JetBlue proposal, the developers are threatening a referendum, an end run around representative government that will not only cut elected officials out of the process but also eliminate the unpleasantness of an environmental review to determine how much the project will degrade the quality of life in Long Beach and vicinity by adding to the noise, traffic congestion, and dirty air.
Even though it is off the beaten track for most Los Angeles and Orange Country travelers, the airport has boosted JetBlue by providing cheap and easy parking, short lines, painless baggage handling, and quick boarding and deplaning. Will people from Beverly Hills and Irvine continue to make the trek to Long Beach to get the same endless corridors, parking sharking and other niceties already much closer to hand at LAX and John Wayne? Compare your recent two-a-half hour ordeal in Southwest's LAX abattoir with the comfort of being dropped at the door in Long Beach.
If you ask me, Long Beach would be better off leaving the airport more or less as is. Some revenue could be generated by improving the ground floor amenities -- the gift shop and fast food outlets -- and by inviting a world-class restauranteur to turn the beautifully situated, three-tiered eatery on the second level into a regional dining destination. With its excellent view of one of the busiest fields in the country for private aircraft and its almost unlimited parking, the Long Beach Airport restaurant would be hard to beat for a romantic evening out.
If you like the airport in Long Beach the way it is, you should let city officials and JetBlue know. Not only would keeping the airport intact benefit residents and travelers, but JetBlue may find that unintended consequences -- like increased competition: the city will be hard-pressed to keep other airlines out of an expanded airport -- and the loss of frequent fliers like me, who may not see low fares alone as sufficient to justify the long haul to what in New York would be one of the outer boroughs, for no other reason than to save a couple of bucks on a plane ticket -- aren't worth the trouble.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
