Inspector General Web site

The IGs are sticking together. They have their own Web site.

More later,
Russ

If your government agency's Inspector General keeps nagging you about being corrupt, fire him!

In 1978, Congress decided some government agencies needed their own individual watchdogs to ensure that agency personnel didn't waste money or behave unethically. As a citizen, you might think the ability and character to do the right thing was part of the reason the leaders and underlings of various federal agencies were appointed/hired. Apparently not so according to an article in today's New York Times. Instead, a number of inspectors general are getting grief from the heads of their agencies for doing their jobs.

Section 2 of the act outlines the purpose of an inspector general as:

§ 2. Purpose and establishment of Offices of Inspector General; departments and agencies involved

In order to create independent and objective units--

(1) to conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of the establishments listed in section 11(2);

(2) to provide leadership and coordination and recommend policies for activities designed (A) to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration of, and (B) to prevent and detect fraud and abuse in, such programs and operations; and

(3) to provide a means for keeping the head of the establishment and the Congress fully and currently informed about problems and deficiencies relating to the administration of such programs and operations and the necessity for and progress of corrective action;

The Times article cites complaints from the very people inspectors general are required to report to: heads of the establishment (agency). It seems the heads of federal agencies have been effected profoundly by the Bush presidency. They seem to believe that everything they do or order done is right because they say so.

More later,
Russ

Government Corruption is bad for Business: Quick, somebody tell the Republicans!

The Financial Express, an English language daily in Bangladesh covering international, regional and national business, ran an editorial yesterday (Dec. 26) citing government corruption as the primary reason investors are reluctant to invest in Russian ventures.

The piece, labeled an editorial and written by Arkady Ostrovsky in Moscow, cites reports by Paris-based think-tank the Organisation for Economic Development and Co-operation, Transparency International, the Berlin-based corruption watchdog, and a joint study by the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) has also recorded an increase in the number of "unofficial payments" for licences and state procurement contracts. Unofficial payments? Those would be bribes.

Why worry about what a financial newspaper in Bangladesh has to say about the Russian government? First of all, it's not just The Financial Express saying it. It's several international groups that study business and government corruption. Someone arguing the other side can question their credibility, their data, and their methods, but two of the groups are directly related to international business. Second, a fairly sound argument can be made that government at all levels in the United States is more corrupt than it's been in a while (can't say it's all the Republicans' fault, but it has happened on 43's watch), and more business friendly that it's been in a while.

It can't happen here? It can if we let it.

More later,
Russ

Young people don't follow the news. Duh!

Having a PhD doesn't make a person wise or even knowledgeable. Take Dr. David T.Z. Mindich, author and chair of the Journalism and Mass Communication Department at St. Michael's College in Vermont, says that young people are "more tuned out than we think," even though a Knight Foundation survey of high school students suggests that just over half of the students surveyed (much higher than I would have guessed) check the mainstream news at least weekly. Of course, Dr. Mindich is the author of Tuned Out: Why Americans Under 40 Don't Follow the News (Amazon.com Sales Rank: #416,912), and book sales won't go up if he admits that young people do follow the news.

Mindich spoke at Plattsburgh State's (NY) annual Media Ethics and Law Conference, this year's theme was bringing young audiences back to the news. Mindich and his cronies: Plattsburgh State's Center for Communication and Journalism Co-Director Ron Davis, and vice dean and professor at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism David Klatell, seem to be purveyors of conventional wisdom when it comes to young people and the news. Their suggestions for news improvements included such things as bringing passion to the news with Fox News cited as a prime example (although it also was referred to as a "terrible propaganda factory," and praising The Daily Show for treating viewers intelligently.

The PhDs involved may or may not deserve the criticism suggested here, but coverage in the Plattsburgh Press Republican and at PoynterOnline does what modern media coverage often does: dumbs down the debate.

The final quote from Dr. Mindich in the Press Republican story gets to the heart of the matter. He says that young people should insist on quality journalism. Unfortunately, the definition of quality journalism is up for debate. The two extremes seem to be giving the audience/readers lowest common denominator news to get a big audience, or spinach news - what the editor thinks is good for you.

What's really happening to news is that we have many more sources and many more definitions of quality. News is no longer a homogenized product with - more or less - the same thing on every channel and on every front page. Too many academics are invested in what was, and so can't see clearly what's happening. Not unusual, just sad.

More later,
Russ

Bush Working to Make Domestic Spying Legal After the Fact

The Bush administration has spied on Americans. There's no doubt about that; Mr. Bush addmitted and even bragged about it. It's legal, say Mr. Bush and his advisors. So why does the administration need a bill to make domestic spying without FISA court approval legal? At least the bill may not pass.

Daily Kos: How Very Nixonian Of You, Mr. Bush:

How Very Nixonian Of You, Mr. Bush
by georgia10
Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 08:55:11 AM PDT

Do you remember that MoveOn ad, the one where Nixon's face morphs into that of President Bush?

When the domestic spying scandal broke, there was a huge focus on the President's lawyers ("he was just following their advice"), or on General Hayden ("it was his idea!") or on Vice-President Cheney ("it's just another step in Cheney's quest to restore executive power").

Well, let there be no doubt now. The President himself is leading a cover-up.

First, let's talk about recent developments with the Arlen Specter's bill. The bill, as you recall, does not require the President to submit the program for review to the FISA court. But, according to Specter, the President pinky-promised that he would seek approval of the program, so apparently, that makes everything better.

One bright spot, even if the bill passes to give the president permission for domestic spying, it seems to me that the courts could declare it unconstitutional.

More later,
Russ

Technorati tags: George W. Bush, NSA, domestic spying

Inhofe: Global Warming Is a Hoax

I don't get it. How can adults ignore scientific evidence? I haven't researched global warming extensively, but the only people who to deny its existence seem to be those with conflicts of interest about slowint or stopping global warming.

Think Progress � Sen. Inhofe: ‘Gore Is Full of Crap,’ ‘All Recent Science…Confirms This Thing Is A Hoax’:

Sen. Inhofe: ‘Gore Is Full of Crap,’ ‘All Recent Science…Confirms This Thing Is A Hoax’

Yesterday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) attacked Al Gore and global warming science, claiming that Gore was “full of crap” on global warming.

Appearing on Glenn Beck’s radio show and CNN television program, Inhofe said that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which concluded that global warming was real and caused by humans, used “one scientist.” Inhofe added: “[A]ll of the recent science…it confirms that I was right on this thing. This thing is a hoax.”

More later,
Russ

Technorati tags: Gore, global warming, Inhofe, greenhouse gasses, lies

Britain shows sense about assault on Hezbollah in Lebanon

I have no doubt that Hezbollah includes some nasty types. they have killed civilians, but Britain seems to be the only country that thinks bombing the hell out of civilians is not a good idea. As noted below, the Americans think Israel's plan of action is just dandy, and why shouldn't they, it's the same plan of action the Americans are using in Afganistan and Iraq. Of course, it's a plan that isn't working.

Britain fears assault on Hezbollah will backfire - Britain - Times Online:

Britain fears assault on Hezbollah will backfire
By Bronwen Maddox, Foreign Editor
BRITAIN fears that Israel’s assault on Hezbollah is failing to cripple the guerrilla group and that continued bombardment will bring huge civilian casualties in Lebanon for little military gain.

The rising concern that any further Israeli military action could intensify the crisis, expressed by senior officials yesterday, strikes a much more urgent tone than the American position, which accepts a continued Israeli campaign to crush the Shia militant group.

Yesterday was the heaviest day for civilian casualties since Israel’s bombardment began last week, with at least 63 killed and scores more wounded. A total of 315 Lebanese, mostly civilians, have been killed and hundreds injured since the start of the Israeli offensive.

Last night dozens of planes dropped 23 tonnes of explosives on what the Army said was a bunker in south Beirut used by Hezbollah’s leadership. The group said none of is leaders where killed in the attack.

Israel is already hated in the middle east. This won't help.

More later,
Russ

Technorati tags: Hezbollah, Israel, Britain, Lebanon

Rice Wants Israel to Crush Hezbollah Before Peace Talks

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice won't be going on a peace mission any time soon. Instead, she's going to wait until Israel makes the need for peace talks pointless by destroying Hezbollah, along with who knows how many civilians. Sure, Hezbollah kills civilians, too, but that doesn't make it right.

CNN.com - U.S. official: Israel needs time to 'defang' Hezbollah - Jul 19, 2006:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will not go on a peace mission to the Mideast before next week, giving Israel time to "defang" Hezbollah, a senior administration official said Wednesday.

Maybe Israel should listen to one of their own instead of a member of the Bush administration. This quote comes to mind:

"If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies." — Moshe Dayan

More later,
Russ

Technorati tags: Condoleezza Rice, Middle East, Hezbollah, Israel

Russia and China Inch Toward Iran Sanctions - New York Times

Nuclear proliferation is bad. But why, if it's bad for Iran, is it not bad for the United States and other nuclear powers? According to the Federation of American Scientists, the U.S. has more than 6,000 deployed nuclear warheads, and Russia less than 5,000. If Iran having one or two is dangerous, then why aren't we getting rid of our nukes?

Russia and China Inch Toward Iran Sanctions - New York Times:

PARIS, July 12 - Russia and China, crossing a diplomatic threshold in the effort to curb Tehran's nuclear ambitions, joined the United States and Europe on Wednesday by agreeing to seek a United Nations Security Council resolution ordering Iran to freeze some nuclear activities, or face sanctions.

The movement toward a resolution represented increased anger over Iran's refusal to respond to an offer of economic and energy incentives if it suspended its uranium enrichment.

Of course, we are the "good guys" so if we have nukes it's OK because we will never use them. But, the United States is the only country that ever has used nuclear weapons. Personally, I don't think anyone should have nukes, especially a country with a history like Iran's, but given the fact that the rest of the world, led by the United States, is willing to mount unprovoked invasions of multiple countries in the Middle East, I understand why Iran turned down the bribe and is going ahead with uranium enrichment. As President Bush has said, nations have the right to protect themselves from terrorists.

More later,
Russ

Assistant Attorney General Says Bush Is Above the Law

Not a big surprise. The Bush administration has bragged about torturing "terrorists" and illegally spying on Americans. I've included the link and the entire post below.

the s.n.a.f.u. principle: "I am the law!" :: proudly afflicted with unhinged liberal disorder since 1964:

"I am the law!"

This is the very definition of Godwin's Law.

"The President is always right." - Steven Bradbury, the Assistant Attorney General (Office of Legal Counsel) at the Department of Justice testifying before Congress. - July 12, 2006.

"The Führer is always right." - Robert Ley, Reichsorganisationsleiter (Reich Organization Leader) of the German Nazi party in a speech on November 3, 1936.

The implication, as Bradbury is an attorney speaking for the DOJ, is that Bush is the law.

More later,
Russ

Michigan Democratic Party Web Site Is All About One Republican

Nationally, Democrats are looking for big gains in the mid-term elections, but if the Michigan Democratic Party Web site is any indication, the Republicans have already won.

Of the eight headlines on the MDP home page June 27, five are about Dick DeVos, the Republican challenger to Democrat Jennifer Granholm. None are about Granholm.

Dig deeper into the Web site and it gets worse. The "News Archive" page on June 27, included 66 stories. Forty of the headlines were about Dick DeVos, focusing on all the bad things he has done or thought about doing, and all the lies he has told or thought about telling.

Negative campaigning is a valid thing to do, but the MDP doesn't seem to do much else, and some of the attacks are amateurish. One, dated April 18, actually reads "DeVos to Communist China President: “Welcome, Dear Comrade!” Redbaiting? In 2006?

President George W. Bush, or those dastardly Republicans in general, appeared in six headlines, two of which also included DeVos. Guilt by association, I guess.

Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox and Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land, both Republicans, were mentioned negatively in two headlines each. Ann Coulter even got a mention in a headline.

For news about Michigan Democrats and the Michigan Democratic Party, the "News Archive" included three headlines touting new television ads by the Michigan Democratic Party, one announcing the MDP's new Web site, one on Evan Bayh being the keynote speaker at the Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner, one on the passing of Detroit-area Democratic Leader Edward H. McNamara, one on Democratic National Committee rules and bylaws, one praising Michigan House Democrats, one on out-of-state trash (from Canada), one urging support of the Voting Rights Act, one about Cinco de Mayo celebrations, and one congratulating Sen. Carl Levin on being ranked one of the top ten senators in the nation by Time Magazine. While deserving of the notice, Sen. Levin isn't up for reelection this year.

Amazingly, at least to me, Michigan Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer is mentioned in nine headlines in the MDP Web site's News Archive. Some are attacks on DeVos, some are announcements or comments on events such as Cesar Chavez Day. One announces that Brewer will attend the Democratic National Committee meeting in New Orleans. That the DNC meeting was held in New Orleans is mildly interesting. That Mark Brewer attended the meeting is not.

The National Democratic Party has struggled to find a coherent message in recent years. The Michigan arm of the party seems to have found a message: "Don't vote for the other guys! They're all cheats and liars!"

I would rather vote for a good candidate than against a poor one, and I plan to vote for Jennifer Granholm... again, but not based on any information on the MDP Web site's News Archive. Her name appeared in a headline only once out of 66 stories. What's worse, she had to share the headline with DeVos.

If this is the best Democrats can do to make the case for being elected, no wonder so many Americans vote Republican.

More later,
Russ

Bush and Cheney may "allow" court oversight of N.S.A. wiretaps

The Bush administration may actually agree to obey the law. A New York Times article this morning notes that Congress and the White House are in negotiations to allow court oversight of the N.S.A. wiretapping program. On its face, the law already demands court oversight. This shouldn't be a negotiable issue. Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney (Mr. Cheney is reportedly doing the negotiating.) should be brought up on charges for ignoring the law. They are clearly abusing their power.

More later,
Russ

If a well-qualified minority candidate for a job isn't hired, is it racism?

This particular story is local to Mid-Michigan, but brings up questions that can occur anywhere.

The president of the teacher's union in East Lansing, Mich., has voiced discontent about the fact that a minority candidate for a middle-school principal position didn't get the job. Edwina Marshall "raised concerns" that because the one black candidate didn't get the job (he has since been hired as principal of an elementary school in the district), that the decision was racist.

I'm sure the decision could have been influenced by race, but there is nothing in the newspaper account to suggest it. Ms. Marshall seems to be reacting to an incident in which she was asked by the district human resources director, also black, to "balance the color in the room" by not sitting next to another black teacher during group interviews for the middle-school principal position. This was where we discovered that Ms. Marshall is black, or at least it is implied.

The union president had her lawyer write a letter to the school board about the "apparent racial discrimination."

What makes it apparent? The news account subtly makes it seem as if Ms. Marshall is expressing sour grapes that her preferred candidate didn't get the job. Is Ms. Marshall telling all she knows? If not, why not? If there was no racism involved, how can the East Lansing School Board prove it?

What do you think?

More later,
Russ

"Natural Family" Values

Kanab, Utah values the "Natural Family," according to the L.A. Times. The city council in Kanab passed a resolution stating that the council's top priority is to protect and nurture the natural family. Again, according to the Times:

"The resolution described the natural family as man and woman, duly married "as ordained of God," with hearts "open to a full quiver of children." The council decreed that such households are to be treasured as "the locus of the true common good," a bulwark against crime, delinquency, drug abuse and worse."

The resolution passed in January, and as you might imagine, controversy has been the result. The problem here is the resolution is based on a logical fallacy. A form of organization does not produce a community with good values. Community members who embrace those values produce a community with good values.

Kanab needs to identify the values it cherishes, and then figure out how to promote those values... without treading on anyone's rights.

More later,
Russ

Cheney On the Role of the Media: Traitors?

Apparently, Vice president Dick Cheney is unclear on what role the media plays in a democracy. A New York Times article yesterday reported Mr. Cheney's criticism of the media for disclosing a program that tracks banking transactions by Americans and others. Mr. Cheney said that the program was legal and essential to fighting terrorism.

Following the money is without a doubt an important tool in tracking terrorists. The role of the American media, however, is to discover information important to Americans and report it. Mr. Cheney's argument hinges on the idea that without secrecy, this program won't be effective, and maybe he's right. But, and this is a big but, given the way the Bush administration has made everything secret, and has been exposed by the media for programs that are apparently illegal, and has argued that they are legal because Mr. Bush says so, Mr. Cheney's credibility is nil.

Mr. Cheney seems to view the media -- broadly defined as anyone who reports anything to anyone -- as traitors. He should know that the media play a vital role in a democratic society, so there seem to be only two conclusions: 1) Mr. Cheney is truly ignorant about how American Democracy is supposed to work (unlikely, in my opinion), or 2) Mr. Cheney does not support American Democracy.

I dismiss a possible third conclusion, that we must give up our democratic principles in order to fight terrorism effectively.

More later,
Russ

Does the government need to protect us from ourselves? No, but if it's going to, it should do it better. Proposal: The Cholesterol Act of 2006

Michigan Governor Jennifer "I can't be president, darn it. I was born in Canada." Granholm, a Democrat, recently vetoed an attempt by the Republican-controlled Michigan Legislature to overturn the state's 30-year-old mandatory motorcycle helmet law. The bill included a requirement for more insurance to ride without a helmet, so why the veto? Because it's good for us.

Almost every adult here in Michigan wears a seat belt while driving because not wearing one invites a $65 ticket. Police officers, when they are not chasing felons or eating donuts, pull over the foolish few, write a ticket, and remind us all that we should wear our seat belts because it's good for us.

I'm sure the donut thing is just a stereotype. Cops have a reputation for eating them, but the truth seems more likely to be that the stress and irregular hours involved in being a police officer lead to poor eating habits. I understand. I sometimes eat badly due to stress, and I'm not even in law enforcement. But I see in high cholesterol and the other results of a poor diet an opportunity to give something back to law enforcement, or to anyone who has trouble eating well. Like the seat belt law, we should have a law that motivates us to eat better. Eating better will be good for us as individuals and as a society!

I have in mind a law -- heck, a whole plethora of laws -- that will help police officers and everyone else do what's good for them. I think we should start ticketing people whose cholesterol, or blood pressure, or blood sugar, or any other measure of good health, is not within a normal range.

It's the same basic logic as the seat belt law. Most people know what's good for them, but can't seem to do it without the threat of punishment. The same is true for institutions. Most states probably wouldn't have a seat belt law except for the fact that federal highway funds are tied to them.

Enforcing the Cholesterol Act of 2006 would be easy. Want a Big Mac? Great. Just slide your updated health ID through the card reader. Oops! Your LDL is too high. Trying to buy fatty beef with a bad cholesterol reading gets you a $50 fine and a mandatory salad with a diet cola and lite dressing on the side.

I can see the development of a whole new industry: fast food blood testing/individualized menu marketing. The first stop in the drive-thru will be the blood test. The results will flash on the computerized menu screen along with all of the allowable foods personalized for the driver and each passenger. Go ahead and order a Big Mac. Your heart can take a burger, but... no fries with that.

Of course, high end restaurants will provide a more refined experience. Patrons will inhabit private drawing rooms and discuss food preferences with personal chefs before being served individually designed meals in privacy-protected serving dishes. Privacy is important because no one needs to know a wealthy person's blood pressure, or what they eat because of it.

Family restaurants will likely provide various menu levels for different cholesterol, blood pressure, or glucose ranges. The more creative establishments will give discounts for parties with the best overall numbers. "Johnson, party of five, average cholesterol 161!" Get an even deeper discount if every member of your party orders from the lower-fat menu, even though they don't have to.

Monitoring home-cooked meals may be more problematic. The effect of some foods on health depends on how they are prepared and the quantities eaten. No doubt a few scofflaws will try to circumvent the good intentions of the Cholesterol Act by deep frying pounds of julienned potatoes in beef tallow rather than serving a small baked potato with a single pat of low-fat margarine.

The solution to such illegal activity will be at the grocery checkout counter. Bad numbers on the instant blood test will lead to fines, buying restrictions (Twinkies? I don't think so. Buy some apples instead.), and nutrition education (sort of like traffic school).

I'm sure someone will suggest that the Cholesterol Act infringes on the freedom of choice enjoyed by responsible adults. Nonsense on two counts! Responsible adults don't make poor food choices, and people certainly will enjoy good health more than they would enjoy eating mass quantities of so-called comfort food.

The result of the Cholesterol Act will be healthier Americans, particularly when the deterrent effect kicks in. Knowing that your neighbor has racked up $1,000 in fines due to his obsession with Double-Stuft Oreos will help you follow the recommendations on the food pyramid very closely.

Providing motivation for good behavior is what laws are all about. We should take better advantage of statutory strategies to encourage health. Of course, we also need to be careful not to lose the benefit of laws already on the books, such as the seat belt law.

We need to pass the Cholesterol Act to protect law enforcement officers so that they can protect us. The police have the incredibly difficult job of protecting us from our own bad behavior. We need to return the favor.

More later,
Russ

Oh say can you see... more hypocrisy?

The Washington Post published an update on the controversy over singing the National Anthem in Spanish. Turns out the United States Government posts Spanish versions of the Star-Spangled Banner on some .gov Web sites, and Mr. Bush himself may have sung the anthem in Spanish at a campaign event in 2000. So much for consistency.

More later,
Russ

Cold War tactics? Of course, the Bush administration has a cold war mentality.

This New York Times piece on United States' strategy toward Iran invokes the Cold War. I suspect we're seeing this strategy because Mr. Bush would like to take this country back to the 1950s.

More later,
Russ

Detainee abuse: Is the U.S. Government hypocritical or delusional?

How U.S. officials can feed this stuff to the media with a straight face is beyond me. Apparently, even the Bush administration says many (100s) of the detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility should be released. The U.S. Government wants to release them and send them back to their home countries. The U.S. won't release the detainees, however, because the governments in their home countries might torture them!

It's all right for the United States to torture the detainees, and it's all right to use extraordinary rendition to send people that the United States wants tortured to those same countries specifically so they will be tortured for any information they might have, but any torture not approved by the United States is not cool.

Interestingly, many of the detainees the United States wants to release are citizens of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (more than 100 from each country according to the NYTimes article linked above) -- U.S. allies. Also, the article reports that 267 detainees have already been sent home. These items leave me with some questions:

1) How have the 267 released detainees been treated at home? If the U.S. Government doesn't know what happened to them, does that mean this concern over detainee abuse is new? Can you say "mid-term elections"?

2) Why is the United States the only country that can decide when torture is acceptable? Moot point. Torture is never acceptable.

3) Why is the U.S. allied with countries that practice torture? I guess this one doesn't matter because we are the "good guys" which makes everything we do OK.

More later,
Russ

P.S. - The extraordinary rendition link above goes to a CBS News item on the practice. I thought about linking to the Wikipedia entry on the topic, but if you look at my last post, you'll see why I didn't.

Political dirty tricks invade Wikipedia

The Washington Times reports that political campaigns are using Wikipedia, the online, user-produced encyclopedia, to hype their own candidates and discredit their opponents. But of course, being the Washington Times, the story features mostly Democrats as evil doers, doing evil to each other, and it reprints the lies spread by the evil campaign staffers about Democratic candidates. Maybe there aren't any Republican candidates' campaigns fiddling with Wikipedia.

Does that seem as unlikely to you as it does to me?

More later,
Russ

Support the spirit of our national anthem, not the language

President Bush says "The Star-Spangled Banner" should only be sung in English. I don't get it. Our national anthem is about the spirit of the country. What difference does the language make? I guess he's playing to his political base.

The most interesting part of the story to me was the different ways the New York Times and Washington Times covered the story. Both paper's quoted Mr. Bush directly, and mentioned a proposed resolution by Senator Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., supporting the English version of the national anthem, but that's where the similarities end. The NY Times version quotes the song's producer and his reasons for producing a Spanish-language version of the anthem. The Washington Times story quotes no one in support of singing the anthem in Spanish and relies heavily on sources who actively support English as the national language. In fact, some of the Washington Times' sources make their living by promoting English. Can you say "conflict of interest"?

While I think the NY Times story isn't as strong as it could be (Why didn't they talk to more sources?), it presents the issue in a much more balanced way than the Washington Times. I know that shouldn't surprise me, but it does. I still think of journalists at purveyors of truth. My mistake.

More later,
Russ

Bush Says Lower Gas Prices By Destroying Environment

George W. Bush has to be the most transparent person who has ever been president of the United States. Every move he makes is obviously based on preserving his political agenda rather than on good policy. In today's Lansing State Journal, an article from the Gannett News Service tells us that Mr. Bush intends to lower gas prices by relaxing environmental regulations to free up gasoline supplies.

Mr. Bush's record on the environment has not been good. His announcement is nothing more than a political ploy to reduce gas prices in time for the midterm elections. The sad thing is that it will probably work.

More later,
Russ

Iranian General Says "Bring It On, Bush"

A line from "Limbo Rock" comes to mind: "How low can you go?"

How low has the world's opinion of the United States gone if an Iranian military official feels free to mock our ability to invade his country.

Of course, he's probably right, and that's why the Bush administration is allegedly considering a tactical nuclear strike instead of using conventional forces.

Today's Washington Times carried the story today. I didn't see it in email headlines from the New York Times, the Washington Post, or my local paper. The Washington Times seems to be supporting its reputation as a conservative newspaper. You could argue that by giving this story a lot of play, the paper is hyping military action against Iran. Hawks in and out of the government will take the taunts as a challenge and push for war to prove the general wrong.

Of course, papers with an allegedly liberal slant could use the story to show how much the Bush administration has hurt America's reputation in the world.

More later,
Russ

Walruses and Sea Ice From 2004

Today's Washington Post includes a story with the headline:

"Warming Arctic Is Taking a Toll: Peril to Walrus Young Seen as Result of Melting Ice Shelf"

The story is interesting, but it comes from an article in Aquatic Mammals that is based on a two-month cruise by a Coast Guard icebreaker -- with scientists on board -- in 2004. The scientists also measured that the water temperature in the area was six degrees warmer than the water temperature in the same spot two years earlier. That would be 2002.

Reading a newspaper should be enlightening, rather than leaving readers with questions. This article leaves questions. Although the Post article does mention other possible reasons for abandoned walrus calves, it presumes that Arctic warming and melting sea ice are the culprits.

People I talk to, even some smart ones, don't want to believe that global warming is real. One suggests this is just part of a general weather pattern that has been going on for centuries. Sometimes it gets warmer, he says, sometimes it gets colder. He's no expert on meteorology or climate, but reads the anti-global warming rhetoric.

I don't know if global warming is real. I suspect it is. But articles like this one from the Post don't provide answers because the reporter didn't follow up with good questions. That leaves the readers with questions of their own.

More later,
Russ

Georgia Student Suing for the Right to Verbally Bash Gays

***** READ THIS FIRST *****

DON'T MISINTERPRET MY MENTION OF NEO-NAZIS IN THIS POST. I AM NOT EQUATING CHRISTIANS WHO OBJECT TO HOMOSEXUALITY WITH NAZIS.

IN MY MIND, THE ONLY THINGS THE TWO GROUPS HAVE IN COMMON ARE THE DESIRE TO RECRUIT NEW "MEMBERS" (THE MOTIVATIONS TO RECRUIT ARE VERY DIFFERENT) AND THAT I DISAGREE WITH WHAT THEY SAY.

ALSO KEEP IN MIND THAT MY ULTIMATE CONCLUSION IS TO SUPPORT RUTH MALHOTRA'S RIGHT TO SPEAK HER MIND.

I'm all for tolerance, but I also am a strong, even radical, supporter of free speech, which leaves me somewhat ambivalent about what can be considered a free speech story in the April 10 Los Angeles Times. Here are the first few sentences:

ATLANTA -- Ruth Malhotra went to court last month for the right to be intolerant. Malhotra says her Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality. But the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she's a senior, bans speech that puts down others because of their sexual orientation. Malhotra sees that as an unacceptable infringement on her right to religious expression. So she's demanding that Georgia Tech revoke its tolerance policy.

I don't see this as a religious freedom issue. Someone might want to speak out against homosexuality (and plenty of other things that some people don't approve of) for other than religious reasons. Speech is the issue for me, and it's an issue that is receiving plenty of recent discussion here in Lansing, Mich.

Some members of the community are up in arms over a neo-Nazi rally scheduled here for April 22. There are plans for counter rallies and other demonstrations. My take is to just let them have their rally. Don't ignore it, but don't get all worked up about it either.

Arguing with people who spout hate speech or intolerant speech merely lends credibility to the speakers. Let them speak, and then evaluate their ideas calmly. You'll find that the ideas are easy to poke holes in, even if some of them are cleverly disguised as logical. Get to know the ideas you oppose. Get to know the underlying values of the people that spread these ideas. You can't refute what you don't know.

I can hear the objections now: "But what about the stupid people who will accept hateful ideas? We shouldn't let stupid people be exposed to hateful ideas." To this I say: GET OVER YOURSELF! I know that I have beliefs that don't square with my own values (I'm working on that.), and so do you. But the more we know, the more our beliefs will come into line with our values. At least that's what I believe. (And I'm pretty sure that squares with my values.)

Besides, espousing hateful or intolerant ideas doesn't require stupidity. Plenty of smart people believe hateful and intolerant things about their neighbors, but hate and intolerance generally can't stand up to scrutiny when we get to know each other. That's why the tolerant among us need to encourage discussion and take a few insults, or even hateful statements, and keep the discussion going.

More later,
Russ

U.S. and European Union Disrespect Democracy

It's official. the United States and European Union are cutting off aid to the duly elected Palestinian government because the Hamas party is in power. This action is the worst kind of hypocrisy. Specifically, President George W. Bush has said on many occasions that the United States supports democracy and democratically elected governments. What he apparently left out was that only U.S.-friendy and Israel-friendly governments are considered legitimate.

I guess it's only genocide when you do it in your own country

Saddam Hussein was charged April 4 with genocide in the deaths of 50,000 Iraqis. Hussein's soldiers did the dirty work; Hussein just gave the orders.

Estimates of the deaths of Iraqi civilians in Operation Iraqi Freedom, or whatever it's being called these days, run from 33,000 to 100,000, depending on who's doing the counting.

George W. Bush gave the orders that killed tens of thousands of Iraqis, so why isn't he being charged with genocide? Oh yeah, Americans are the good guys.

Too good to be true?

Massatchusetts has a plan for universal health care. That's great, I think. The New York Times story leaves some of my questions unanswered.

For example, the story says that businesses with more than 10 employees that don't offer insurance to their workers will be charged $295 per employee. I'd say that's a great deal for the employers. Insurance for my family through a former employer's COBRA plan was more than $850 a month and only lasted 18 months. A current employer offers insurance at more than $1,100 a month.

But as I read the story, employers don't have to pay for the insurance, they just have to offer it. I'm sure there's a cost associated with offering the insurance even without paying for it, but $295 per employee per year may be the lesser of the two costs.

The proposed employer fee may not matter much, Governor Mitt Romney says in the story that he will use his line-item-veto to get rid of it.

In any event, this isn't really universal health insurance coverage. The Massachusetts legislature is merely forcing insurance companies and employers to offer the insurance and forcing the citizens of the state to buy it. Goverment subsidies to help the working poor pay for insurance will be available, but in my experience, the working poor don't have anything to spare. The article doesn't answer my questions about how much people will be forced to pay. Seems like the same logic involved in Heath Care Savings Accounts -- the government will give you a tax break to self-insure by setting money aside for an emergency. If I had the money to set aside, I'd use it to buy insurance.

Evidence, schmevidence!

An article under the Opinion tab on TomPaine.com by John Prados tells us that Bush's Paper Trail Grows regarding the Downing Street memo. Wasted cyberspace!

If we know anything about the Bush administration, we know that factual evidence provides no deterrent. The whole point of the memo is to show that facts aren't a consideration for the Bushies.

Condi Rice embarrassed by protesters? What makes you think so?

The New York Times ran an article this morning headlined Rice Finds British Muslims Want to Give Her an Earful that says U.S. Secretary of State Rice faced "public embarrassment" from protesters. Perhaps the writer, Joel Brinkley, thinks Ms. Rice should be embarrassed, and maybe she should, but nothing in the article suggests that she is embarrassed. In fact, a quote lifted from another newspaper and included in Mr. Brinkley's article suggests that she isn't embarrassed at all, or at least doesn't want anyone to believe she is embarrassed.

"People can say whatever they wish," she told The Lancashire Evening Telegraph. "I know where I stand. We made the right decision" in Iraq. "I was fully supportive of the decision."

One of the things I learned early on in journalism school was that you can't report on what people think or feel. Reporters don't know what sources think or feel. Reporters only know what sources said. Mr. Brinkley made a mistake here, and his editors didn't catch it. The New York Times should be embarrassed -- again.

The Best April Fool's Day Pranks Fool People, but Don't Make Fools of Them

April Fool's Day should be more fun.

A NY Times Op-Ed suggests that what April Fool's Day needs is a "patron saint," and that may help, but I think targeting our creativity is the answer.

Most of the best April Fool's Day events have been imaginative hoaxes. "Fooling" others in a light-hearted way is the soul of April 1.

To really work, the hoax needs to be fairly widespread, not mean-spirited, and the hoaxer must let everyone know it's a hoax relatively quickly. The prank should also be the type of thing that lets the people taken in by the hoax laugh at themselves for being so gullible. It needs to spark a response without starting a fire.

April Fool's Day 2006 is over, but a good hoax takes considerable thought, so you'd better start planning your 2007 prank now.