Reality High

Oil Executives & the Bush Administration: Links & Investigations

2005-11-17T12:12:00.000-08:00

(1)A White House document shows oil executives met with Vice President Dick Cheney's 2001 energy task force which critics say secretly formed energy policy favorable to the industry, The Washington Post reported on Wednesday. The document, obtained this week by the newspaper, shows that officials from four major oil companies met in the White House complex with Cheney aides who were formulating the Bush administration's energy policy, the report said. The newspaper said the document shows that officials from Exxon MobilCorp. , Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met with the Cheney aides.

(2)When Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., asked last week during a hearing on oil industry profits whether any of the companies' representatives had participated in the task force, four of the executives said they did not and the fifth said he did not know. The oil executives weren't put under oath at the hearing, but it is still a crime to lie to Congress, reports CBS News correspondent Bob Fuss. Lautenberg wants the Justice Department to look into it. "It's bad enough to hide the truth to the American people, but it's illegal to make false statements to the Congress, whether you've raised your right hand or you haven't," Lautenberg said.

Here's the deal: the oil companies were there to answer questions about recent prces, especially after Katrina, and suddenly with this leaked information, this story as gotten legs. As a New deal Democrat, the whole situation strikes me as one of the greatest bell-wethers of what's to come. This is the test of wether America is once again home to the Robber-Barons, and this time they're not building libraries. Sources: (1)Oil execs met Cheney task force: WP - ABC News, November 16 (2)Congress To Oil Execs: Clarify - CBS news, November 17

Polling vs. Voting in Ohio: Something's gotta give.

2005-11-17T10:52:00.000-08:00

In this past election, Ohio had several different measures on the ballots including several different rules that would effect the voting rules in that sate. All measures about voting failed however a critical financial matter also on the ballot passed. Here's where it gets interesting: All of the measures were going to pass based on polling before the vote. The numbers on the first measure were as close as anyone could hope for:

(1)A poll run on the front page of the Columbus Dispatch on Sunday, November 6, showed Issue One passing with 53% of the vote. Official tallies showed Issue One passing with 54% of the vote. The polling used by the Dispatch had wrapped up the Thursday before the Tuesday election. Its precision on Issue One was consistent with the Dispatch's historic polling abilities, which have been uncannily accurate for decades. This poll was based on 1872 registered Ohio voters, with a margin of error at plus/minus 2.5 percentage points and a 95% confidence interval. The Issue One outcome would appear to confirm the Dispatch polling operation as the state's gold standard.

Ok, so we know that the poll was dead on when it came to the first measure, but here's where it gets interesting...

(2)ISSUE 2 (Allow easier absentee balloting) PRE-POLLING: 59% Yes, 33% No, 9% Undecided FINAL RESULT: 36% Yes, 63% No ISSUE 3 (Revise campaign contribution limits) PRE-POLLING: 61% Yes, 25% No, 14% Undecided FINAL RESULT: 33% Yes, 66% No ISSUE 4 (Ind. Comm. to draw Congressional Districts) PRE-POLLING: 31% Yes, 45% No, 25% Undecided FINAL RESULT: 30% Yes, 69% No ISSUE 5 (Ind. Board instead of Sec. of State to oversee elections) PRE-POLLING: 41% Yes, 43% No, 16% Undecided FINAL RESULT: 29% Yes, 70% No

Issue Five is the really important ones because it goes right after the person charged with running the voting, the Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell. And things only get better from there. Everyone in Ohio voted on electronic voting machines brought in by Blackwell. These have many problems in the past and look like they have continued to have issues as seen in the other article linked below about Lucas County. While I haven't put foreword any views on these yet, from what I know about them, they are unstable, unreliable, and easy to tamper with. Also, a paper trail is not a suitable solution to the problems. I'll try to hit on all that in the future. Something's goota give. Who was right? The polls or the election machines? For that matter, when these two started diverging, why did all the networks running the exit polls say, "Oops, we must have been wrong." What we need is to be able to step back and say, waitaminute, something's wrong here. If the networks really want a scoop here it is. Get your crews exit polling in 2006. Sources: (1)Has American Democracy died an electronic death in Ohio 2005's referenda defeats? - Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, November 11 (2)The Staggeringly Impossible Results of Ohio's '05 Election - Huffington Post, November 13 (3)State plans to investigate voting chaos; Tuesday's problems are latest for Lucas County - Toledo Blade, November 10

The GAO Report on the FDA's Plan B Rejection

2005-11-17T10:36:00.000-08:00

So there's been real news on Plan B which I discussed breifly last week and it comes in the form of a GAO report on how the FDA decided not to approve Plan B for over the counter use. The following comes from the report abstract which you can reach here.

GAO was asked to examine (1) how the decision was made to not approve the switch of Plan B from prescription to OTC, (2) how the Plan B decision compares to the decisions for other proposed prescription-to-OTC switches from 1994 through 2004, and (3) whether there are age-related marketing restrictions for prescription Plan B and other prescription and OTC contraceptives. To conduct this review, GAO examined FDA's actions prior to the May 6, 2004, not-approvable letter for the initial application.

While FDA followed its general procedures for considering the application, four aspects of FDA's review process were unusual. First, the directors of the offices that reviewed the application, who would normally have been responsible for signing the Plan B action letter, disagreed with the decision and did not sign the not-approvable letter for Plan B. The Director of the Office of New Drugs also disagreed and did not sign the letter. Second, FDA's high-level management was more involved in the review of Plan B than in those of other OTC switch applications. Third, there are conflicting accounts of whether the decision to not approve the application was made before the reviews were completed. Fourth, the rationale for the Acting Director's decision was novel and did not follow FDA's traditional practices.

The third count is the one that has really come to life as several people have said that the decision to reject the OTC (over the counter) use of Plan B may have been made before the scientific information (the information that the FDA is suposed to make its decision on) had come in. Sources: Report Abstract GAO - November 14 Decision Process to Deny Initial Application for Over-the-Counter Marketing of the Emergency Contraceptive Drug Plan B Was Unusual GAO - November 1

Thank you Senator Rockefeller

2005-11-08T16:27:00.000-08:00

Thank you, Senator Rockefeller, for two very important things. Thank you for saying that you would not have voted for this war if you knew what you know now. Also thank you for explaining simply why the closed session was necessary.

(1)BLITZER: Senator Rockefeller, you were among those who voted to give the president the authority to go to war. And you made some very strong statements in advance of the war suggesting that the Iraqis under Saddam Hussein had all sorts of weapons of mass destruction. Let me play this soundbite from what you said on the Senate floor October 10, 2002. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ROCKEFELLER: There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons. And will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress that Saddam Hussein has been able to make in the development of weapons of mass destruction. (END VIDEO CLIP) BLITZER: You want to revise and amend those words, Senator? ROCKEFELLER: Of course. I mean, I was dead flat wrong. And as soon as we -- since I'm on the Intelligence Committee, and as soon as we did our report on weapons of mass destruction or before we completed it, I realized that I had just been living off this information, this false information, intelligence. We blasted the folks who created the intelligence. And I went down to the floor of the Senate and I said, look, I'm wrong. I would never vote for a war knowing what I know now. But the point also is, Blitz, that the Senate of the United States doesn't take us to war. It is the president of the United States that takes us to war. It is the president of the United States that takes us to war. It's the vice president of the United States that takes us to war. That's where the whole theory that within several days of 9/11 in New York City, that the president, the vice president, and Donald Rumsfeld were already thinking not just about getting into Afghanistan, which was the right thing to do, but also declaring war on Iraq. And that taking place within a week after the end of the happening of 9/11. BLITZER: Senator Rockefeller, here is how The Wall Street Journal summed it up on Thursday in an editorial. "The scandal here isn't what happened before the war. The scandal is that the same Democrats who saw the same intelligence that Mr. Bush saw, who drew the same conclusion, and who voted to go to war are now using the difficulties we've encountered in that conflict as an excuse to rewrite history." What do you say about that? ROCKEFELLER: No. We're not trying to rewrite history. We're trying to figure out what history actually was. We did that with the weapons of mass destruction. And Senator Allen knows as well as I do that probably the only weapons of mass destruction left over were those that were used in the ten-year war of Iraq against Iran prior to 1990. But, the point was that we have waited now 20 months to go into this so-called phase two. Not just the collection of intelligence, but the use or the misuse of intelligence by the executive branch or anybody else. And that is what we have been trying to get at. We have been denied the opportunity to even conduct a phase two discussion. That is why we shut down the Senate floor, closed it off. And in two hours we have accomplished more than we had in 20 months.

My Emphasis added. Sources: Interview With Senators Rockefeller, Allen; Interview With British Defense Secretary John Reid - CNN, November 6

Sex, Drugs, and Politics: Plan B and HPV Vaccine

2005-11-03T09:43:00.000-08:00

Welcome to the Bush administration where progess is bad. This may just be because they've branded "Progressives" as bad. In a related note, a concervitave friend of mine refered to himself as a "Progressivbe Republican." Man, that's something I'd ike to hear more often. But, back to the title line. There are two very big things going on in sexual medication right now and it's not a new ED drug. The first is how the FDA has been handling Plan B, an emergency contraceptive, which is trying to be approved for over the counter use. This Emergency Contraception Timeline takes you from July 1999 to September 2005 and is the most complete that I could find. Of particular interest are the following:

(1)December 16, 2003: FDA’s own independent panel of scientific experts votes 23 to 4 to recommend Plan B be made available over-the-counter, with no age restriction. The panel also voted unanimously that Plan B is safe for nonprescription use. January 21, 2005: FDA fails to issue a decision on the Plan B application by the deadline imposed under the federal law governing performance standards for drug approvals. August 26, 2005: Crawford [FDA Commisioner] announces that because of the unique regulatory issues in having the same product sold over-the-counter for one age group and by prescription for another, a public comment period is needed.

That public comment period ended this past Tuesday. The FDA received over 10,000 responses. The current proposal is for the drug to be sold only to those 17 and up over the counter and with a perscription for those aged 16 and under. The drug must be ingested within 72 hrs of unprotected sex and so access is critical. Someties waiting to get a perscription may be waiting too long. So what are the arguments against offering plan B?

(2)The method has become embroiled in the politics of abortion because, while it usually prevents ovulation or fertilization, it may also work after conception, by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting. Social conservatives also argue that making Plan B available over the counter would enable statutory rapists to cover up their abuse, expose women to medical problems, and encourage promiscuity and risky sexual behavior, especially by teenagers.

Without going into the abstinance only education debate, let me say that I believe that there are enough STDs and consequences to having unprotected sex without having to worry about pregnancy. That brings us to the new HPV Vaccine. The human papilloma virus, specifically those types which cause genital warts, have been directly linked to cervical cancer.

(3)Clinical trials for vaccines against the human papilloma virus (HPV), strains of which cause cervical cancer and genital warts in women, show that the medication is nearly 100 percent effective, according to recent company reports and studies published in two leading journals, Nature and the Journal of the American Medical Association. Two separate vaccines are being developed by pharmaceutical giants Merck and GlaxoSmithKline. Cervical cancer afflicts nearly 10,000 women each year, killing 4,000. .... Most public health experts recommend that the vaccine be given to girls at or prior to puberty to reduce the risk of transmission. Some are even recommending making the vaccine a prerequisite for attending school. But religious and other socially conservative groups oppose such policies, fearing that requiring the vaccinations could inadvertently encourage sexual activity.

There's that same argument papping up again. The effects of this are easily seen. Around 75% of cervical cancers could be prevented by this vaccine, that's 3000 women per year and there are people who would want to stop this in the hopes that they're kids won't have sex until mairage. Franky, it's just not worth giving those lives. With the effectiveness of these vaccines, we have the opportunity to effectively wipe out annother disease the way that we did polio. If you thought that the right wing was only going after homosexual freedom, you've been misguided. They're going after heterosexual rights too. Sources: (1) Emergency Contraception Timeline - Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, September 9 (2)Critics' focus on morning-after pill may spur use - Miami Herald, November 2 (3)Cervical Cancer Vaccine Raises ‘Promiscuity’ Controversy - The New Standard, Nov 2 (4)A Vaccine to Wipe Out Cervical Cancer - ABC News, Nov 1 (5)Plan B (0.75mg levonorgestrel) Tablets Information - FDA.gov, August 31

Senate "Hijacking": Rule 21

2005-11-03T00:36:00.000-08:00

(1)Frist said Democrats had "hijacked" the Senate, and Democrats threatened to close the chamber each day until Republicans agreed to move forward with the investigation. "This is an affront to me personally," said Frist, a Tennessee Republican. "This is an affront to our leadership. It is an affront to the United States of America, and it is wrong."

The first thing that you need to know is that you can't hijack a body using its own rules. This should be obvious. Sorry Frist, no dice. While Frist was wrong about that one, Frist was right about the next point, this is an affront to his leadership. This totally undermines his leadership - tough. The Senate isn't like the House in many ways, and one is that it's agenda is not set by the majority leader the way that it is in the House. Finally, Frist is back to wrong when he says that this is an affront to the USA and is wrong. The minority party was meant to have a voice in the Senate and it is credit to this country when they do. So what exactly is rule 21? Why don't I hear much about it? Well, here it is:

(2)Standing Rules of The Senate RULE XXI SESSION WITH CLOSED DOORS 1. On a motion made and seconded to close the doors of the Senate, on the discussion of any business which may, in the opinion of a Senator, require secrecy, the Presiding Officer shall direct the galleries to be cleared; and during the discussion of such motion the doors shall remain closed. 2. When the Senate meets in closed session, any applicable provisions of rules XXIX and XXXI, including the confidentiality of information shall apply to any information and to the conduct of any debate transacted.

Well the first reason that there isn't much to say about rule 21 is that there's not much to it. The second reason is clause 2, which states that everything that goes on under the cover of rule 21 is off limits to discussion outside of the Senate. Most people are calling this a "stunt", and you know what, it pretty much is. But this is a stunt pulled with the best of intentions. The Democrats did not feel that the investigation currently underway in the Senate which was gathered to look at how the administration used prewar intelligence was not going foreword. This is directly tied into the CIA Leak investigation and after the headlines were stolen by the nomination of Judge Alito. This "stunt" brings the focus back onto the case for war. It's great that the Dems showed some spine. I'm not sure when the last time that I heard "democratic leadership" and "Senate" in the same sentence but even if the President is proved to have purposefully misled people, the Senators are still saying that they would have signed the authorization form. It's about time for them to really step up to the plate and offer a real opposition party. Sources: (1) Roberts blasts closed session 'stunt' CNN - November 2 (2) Senate Rule 21 - Senate.gov

Year One

2005-11-01T21:06:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow will be the one year anniversary of this blog. Wow, It has been 365 days, 75 posts, 5 political cartoons, and most recently, a podcast. In the past year this blog tackled two major stories. The first was the Andrea Stewart Cousins / Nicholas Spano race. The second being the president's Social Security Privitization plan. I tried to countered the president's 60 stop tour with a 20 stop tour of my own, but only managed to make it to 15. And also took on the President's claims about certain quotes from FDR which actually put me somewhere I never expected to be: # 3 on a google search for "fdr quotes". After the social security plan fizzled out, I sort of lost my way here, but as election day rolls around, I realized that I was coming up on the one year mark. I have given quite a bit of thought to shutting the blog down entirely. Given that I now do the radio show, I stopped using this as an outlet, but increasingly, I find that I want to look deeper into things, take a look at issues from multiple sides, and most importantly, go back to the very basic documents and sources that all the talk comes from. I watched the documentary "Left of the Dial" again today and immediately remembered why I started this blog. I remembered the helplessness that was eventually empowering. I will tell you now that I am planning to continue my work here on this blog. I am quite proud of what I have done with some issues, and there is certainly more to do. Late tomorrow I'll reveal the next stories that I'll be focusing on. Thanks to everyone who reads and refers. Year one in the bag, year two coming up.

Take it to the Air (The Burn Ward)

2005-09-18T21:11:00.000-07:00

One of my recent interests has been radio. Recent being within the past year and while I have tried not to spill my life and hobbies into this blog, this is different - there's a relevant point here. WITR, RIT's radio station has allowed be to become a member of one of the most exciting talk shows in the area. The Burn Ward is live on air and streaming internet Thursdays at 8pm EST. Last week was my first on with a regular spot and I've started a podcast of the burn ward for your listening pleasure. I'm looking into wether or not I have the bandwidth to put this into the iTunes directory, but for now, those of you who use clients such as iPodder can use the following address to get the Burn Ward weekly: http://www.rhcomic.com/audio/burnward/burnward.xml . It will be updated during the day Friday. Enjoy. Comming later this week I'll post info on how to listen live and call in or IM the hosts on air.

Away

2005-08-04T09:19:00.000-07:00

Reality High will continue to be down for the remainder of the summer. Updates will resume in September.

July 4th

2005-07-04T09:09:00.000-07:00

Happy July 4th. While you celebrate today at picnics, BBQs, and fireworks, I hope that everyone will celebrate not only those who fought so long ago but also those who are fighting today. In my opinion, there is no better way to support our troops than to go to Operation Truth and get your facts on their situation from them. The most immediate issue facing out veterans is a shortfall in the the VA budget. The bill to make up for these deficits is different in both the House and Senate. The Senate has approved $500 million more than the House bill. The two bills will be reconciled after the holiday and Op Truth is asking people to support the Senate version (1). Sources: (1)House and Senate Disagree Over Veterans' Affairs Funding Op Truth - July 1

Maddow Moments: Time Magazine and Valerie Plame

2005-07-01T13:51:00.000-07:00

(1)ith one of its reporters facing an imminent jail sentence, Time magazine said yesterday that it would provide documents concerning the reporter's confidential sources to a grand jury investigating the disclosure of the identity of a covert C.I.A. operative, Valerie Plame. The magazine's decision to give in to the demands of federal prosecutors followed the Supreme Court's decision on Monday to reject appeals by the magazine and its reporter, Matthew Cooper, as well as a reporter for The New York Times, Judith Miller. In an interview, Norman Pearlstine, Time Inc.'s editor in chief, said he had made the decision after much reflection. "I found myself really coming to the conclusion," Mr. Pearlstine said, "that once the Supreme Court has spoken in a case involving national security and a grand jury, we are not above the law and we have to behave the way ordinary citizens do." .... "My hope," Mr. Pearlstine said, "is that the special counsel concludes that he does not need Matt's testimony and does not need his incarceration."

This whole story revolves around that last line. The special prosecuter has said that he does not need to get the names of the sources because he already has them. So why are they going to jail? What's going on here?!? This is really nuts. Listen to Rachel Maddow lay it down: EDIT: I was never able to make this function properly and so have removed it. NOTE: Quicktime May Be Necessary; Issues on IE. I'm working on these issues. Sources: (1) Time Inc. to Yield Files on Sources, Relenting to U.S NY Times - July 1 (2) Bush Recasts Message on Social Security LA Times - April 29 More: Maddow Moments

The Patriot Act & Civil Liberties Hearing

2005-06-13T12:24:00.000-07:00

"Are we afraid of learning about misconduct?" - Jerrold Nadler, D-New York After a rowdy hearing where Chairman Sensenbrenner was obviously aggravated by Democrats wanting to ask questions about our civil liberties. To his credit, the meeting may have been often off-topic and did run for almost two hours. Whether he was stopping these hearings because of regulatory reasons or political ones, the most in-depth discussion that has been had on the subject was stopped illegally by the Republican s in the Judiciary Committee. From the office of Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz:

(1)Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in her new role as a member of the Judiciary Committee, today witnessed first hand the disrespectful conduct of the Republican majority at a Committee hearing today, requested by the Democratic minority, to hear testimony on civil rights and civil liberties abuses resulting from the USA Patriot Act. “What happened today was not only an attempt to silence Democratic Members of Judiciary, it was a silencing of Democracy in America,” said Rep. Wasserman Schultz. “As a new member of the Judiciary Committee, I was appalled by the treatment we received today and the disrespect that Minority Chairman Conyers was shown. Minority Chairman Conyers has dedicated over forty years of his life to this country as a member of the House of Representatives --he and the Americans who are deeply concerned about the Patriot Act deserve better.”

Luckily, it looks like the Democrats are fighting back.

(2) House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said this afternoon that she wanted an apology from Sensenbrenner. "I will ask Speaker Hastert to order Mr. Sensenbrenner to apologize for his behavior to the witnesses at the hearing today, and to promise that this will never again happen," she said in a statement.

This should be on the front page of every newspaper and news show and maybe even every talk show. It's not. That's wrong. This is almost as bad as when the they struck from the official record a Democrat asking for international observers in our elections. Also not front page news at the time. This one party dominance in he House is - although not illegally - close to the way the House was expected to operate by the men who wrote our Constitution. The Senate is different. It is more balanced, more restricted. For those of you keeping up with these things, that is why keeping the filibuster important important.

(1)Particularly shameful acts of the majority Republicans during this morning's Judiciary Committee Hearing: 1. The most egregious abuse was that the Chairman clearly violated the Rules of the House by adjourning the hearing based solely on his own authority. In order to end a hearing, the Chair must make a Unanimous Consent request or a motion to adjourn. Mr. Sensenbrenner did neither. Additionally, he adjourned the hearing based solely on his own authority while Mr. Nadler was attempting to raise a point of order (arguably to highlight this fact), which constitutes a clear abuse of House Rules. Subject to our discretion, this could constitute a privilege to be raised on the House floor. It can also be argued that this violation was particularly egregious given that this was the Minority’s day of hearings. (begins at 1:51:00 on video) 2. After the Chairman illegally adjourned the hearing, the Majority then attempted to cut the microphone of Mr. Nadler who was attempting to raise a point of order about the adjournment. (begins at 1:52:25 on video) 3. The Chairman refused on numerous occasions to recognize Members attempting to raise Points of Order or Points of Personal Privilege. For example, he refused to recognize both Ms. Jackson Lee Ms. Wasserman Schultz at the beginning of the hearing. (begins at 17:45 on video or 19:15) 4. During the hearing, the Chairman clearly referred to comments that had just been made by Ms. Jackson Lee, calling them “irresponsible.” (begins at 1:49:57 on video) 5. The Chair gave one of the witnesses an order for information he wanted submitted to the Committee and gave a deadline of one week even though other witnesses in previous hearings have not been given such deadlines. (begins at 1:50:45 on video) 6. The Chairman at the beginning of the hearing read a list of Members – calling them by name – who signed the letter requesting an additional day of hearings but were not present at that moment at the hearing (the Rules of the House clearly state that Members cannot be disparaged on the record by name). Additionally, a number of the Members so disparaged were present at that moment and some had been present from before the hearing even began. (begins 5:30 on video) 7. The Chairman instituted a policy of cutting off witnesses responding to questions by Members in mid-sentence. Additionally, he would not let witnesses answer questions that were posed to them by Members before the Member’s five minutes ended (begins at 1:32:30 on video). While not a violation of the Rules, these actions clearly violated the Traditions and Practices of the House Judiciary Committee. Chairman Sensenbrenner usually allows witnesses to finish their sentences – and usually their broader point – before moving to the next Member. In addition, the usual practice is to allow witnesses to briefly respond to questions posed to them, even if the five minutes of the Member expired before they began to answer (begins at 1:47:00 on video). 8. The Chairman also suggested that he might strike from the record any testimony that was not directly related to the 16 expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act. (begins at 10:50 on video) At no time has it ever been suggested or threatened that a witness’s testimony (or a Member’s statements) would be stricken from the record. Additionally, in previous hearings, the Majority’s witnesses, as well the Majority Members have made statements that were technically outside the bounds of the hearing topic.

Sources: (1)Democracy thwarted at Judiciary Committee Hearing on the Patriot Act Office of Debbie Wasserman Schultz - June 10 (Link to movie from press release) (2)Tempers Flare in Judiciary Committee Dust-up The Hill - June 10

Nuclear Disarmament

2005-05-11T15:40:00.000-07:00

This is an op-ed peice that I had to write for class. I thought I'd post it here too. If the United States wants to prevent nuclear proliferation, then it must lead by example. A nuclear state can never promote nonproliferation to a non-nuclear state. First of all, nuclear weapons are valuable. They are both economically and strategically valuable. The case can be made that a certain state should not have nuclear weapons, but this can prove problematic. All states suffer from periods of instability. Possibly the greatest nuclear threat in the last quarter century is post-Soviet Russia. A nuclear state without the means to keep track of its nukes is downright scary. How then, can we be certain enough a state as stable as say, France, will not have another revolution? This is leads us to a unilateral stance on the issue. The only way to make a case for universal anti-proliferation is to argue that nuclear weapons are not morally permissible. If a state believes this, then they must also be perusing Complete Nuclear Disarmament (CND). There are two important parts to CND. The first and most important is that nations that are currently nuclear powers must be willing to disarm. The second part is that the non-nuclear powers must be willing to give up their nuclear aspirations. Assuming that each state controls its own nuclear desires, these two conditions are incredibly hard to reach. Because of this, we need to look more closely at what single states can do to bring about CND. A good first guess would be coercive diplomacy. Any foray into coercive diplomacy must meet a number of conditions to be successful. First, the demands must be clear and must be able to be met. We will assume that the threat is clear. Unless domestic repercussions are so great that the nation cannot abandon development of nukes, then the demand is attainable. Next, the threat must be credible. This, of course, varies with the threat. One option that absolutely cannot be used as a threat is a nuclear weapon. The use of a nuke here would only show the opposing nation the strength of being a nuclear power. In addition, using nuclear force as a threat would violate the very principles of CND. Finally, the consequences of not complying with the demand must be worse than those suffered by caving in. This means that a state would essentially need to trump the prospect of nuclear power without using nuclear power. Or is that true? If a state is going to get rid of its nukes anyway, why not get something for them? What if disarmament was traded for nonproliferation? Although it is hard to think of a nation such as the United States diminishing its nuclear stockpile to stop, say, North Korea from going nuclear, remember that both the US and the Soviet Union participated in cooperative threat reduction during the cold war. Essentially, in order for CND to occur states must be willing to put nuclear disarmament above their own relative power. No debate on CND would be complete without including the United Nations. To be denied a nuclear arsenal by the international community is a constraint on any state. CND would be a restraint on all states. This type of rule would be an international rule and as such it would need to be enforced somehow by the international community. The only current forum for this is the United Nations. It is possible that a forum such as the Geneva Convention might be called and then all nations who choose to can forego nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, this would take the "complete" out of CND.

Resolution in Florida

2005-05-06T06:06:00.000-07:00

So that case about Florida wanting to deny a 13 year old the right to make her own decision has ended in her favor. A couple small notes follow this story. Like what Jeb Bush who fought so hard on the Teri Schiavo case: < class = "quote">(1)"Look, if the judge has ruled, it's time to move on," Governor Bush said. "It's a tragedy that a 13-year-old child would be in a vulnerable position where she could be made pregnant, and it's a tragedy her baby will be lost. There's no good news in this at all." The reversal was a striking change for Governor Bush, who has intervened in several recent cases to fight for what he calls the sanctity of life. In 2003, he asked a court to appoint a guardian for the fetus of a severely retarded rape victim, persisting with the case even after a judge ordered that the pregnancy be carried to term. He lost on appeal.

In addition, the Judge who ruled on the case may be denied communion. Not my church, not my issue, but I thought someone might find that interesting. Sources: (1) Florida Halts Fight to Bar Girl's Abortion New York Times - May 4 (2) Diocese employee says judge in abortion case should be denied communion Palm Beach Post - May 6

More on that abortion case in Florida

2005-05-02T06:00:00.000-07:00

Sorry to boot out annother post so soon but there's some amazing stuff in this article I just found (thx Rachel Maddow) and here it is

(1) "Why can't I make my own decision?" ... "I don't know," Circuit Judge Ronald Alvarez replied, according to a recording of the closed hearing obtained Friday. "You don't know?" replied the girl, who is a ward of the state. "Aren't you the judge?" .... "I think if I want to make the decision, it's my business and I can do that," she told the judge. .... "I don't think I should have the baby because I'm 13, I'm in a shelter and I can't get a job," the girl said as Alvarez and her guardian ad litem, assigned to shepherd her in the legal system, questioned her. L.G. laid out different reasons for wanting an abortion. "DCF would take the baby anyway," she said, but later added: "If I do have it, I'm not going to let them take it." She also questioned the health risk of carrying the fetus to term. "Since you guys are supposedly here for the best interest of me, then wouldn't you all look at that fact that it'd be more dangerous for me to have the baby than to have an abortion?" she asked. Alvarez called that "a good point."

This more or less confirms that the this whole thing is INSANE. At least this girl is fighting for herself. This story has been building for about 4 days now. Over the weekend it hit Newsweek. Hopefully this will benefit her. Sources: (1)Fla. agency gets teen's abortion blocked The Mercury News - April 27 (2)Girl, 13, argues right to abortion Newsweek - April 30

Two Stories for your Monday

2005-05-02T05:28:00.000-07:00

A pregnant 13-year-old in Florida is being denied an abortion by the state.

(1)The ACLU in its appeal on the girl's behalf cited Florida statutes that protect a minor's decision to decide on an abortion. "No (Department of Children & Families) regulation or state law can override a constitutional right as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court," said Howard Simon, the organization's executive director for Florida. "But putting aside the legalisms, forcing a 13-year-old to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term against her wishes not only is illegal and unconstitutional, it's cruel." The girl learned she was pregnant two weeks ago and planned to have an abortion Tuesday. Her caseworker arranged for transportation and help. But the state Department of Children & Families asked a Palm Beach County juvenile judge Tuesday morning to block the procedure.

The good news is that this injunction is currently only until the state doies an evaluation to see if she is in her right mind. The bad news is that time is running out. She's now more than 13 weeks in. Abortion is a hard, important decision and to force this girl to carry the baby against her will is something that nobody should be proud of. Let's hope that the court deems her worthy of making probably the most important decision of her life so far. Over to security, there is no good segway between these two things. Remember when US troops shot at that Italian reporter? The report came out, censored, of course... or was it?

(2)The report was issued as an Adobe PDF file, and if you use Acrobat's Save as Text feature, you get the unredacted report, with the censored material left in. The full text, it seems, was sitting there in the background, even though you couldn't see it in the PDF document itself.

Fortunately or unfortunately, it is not filled with any revealing secrets, or at least not at first glance. Sources: (1)Fla. agency gets teen's abortion blocked The Mercury News - April 27 (2)The Uncensored Censored Adobe Acrobat Document PC World - May 1 (3)Copy-and-Paste Reveals Classified U.S. Documentst Slashdot - May 1

Social Security Tour Stop 15: The Coverup

2005-04-29T07:42:00.000-07:00

The Coverup? Yeah, the coverup. This is a stretch for the tour but I'm running out of time here. So what happened yesterday besides the pres conference that you absolutely MUST know about? The budget! Passed in stunning 1993 form without a single Democratic vote. Why is 1993 important? This is when the Republicans came out with the Contract with America and trampled into the congress the next year. Now the same thing has happened in the other direction. And Republicans did cross the isle. How close were the votes? House: 214-211 Senate: 52-47 So, where are the priorities? Medicaid got cut $10 billion and taxes got cut ten times that much! This budget gives an additional $106 billion in tax cuts and leaves a $386 billion deficit. WOW. That's right, this stuff is nuts. Here's a quote from the Seattle Times:

(1)The compromise calls for $40 billion in savings in Medicaid, farm programs and other fast-growing entitlement programs over five years.

Read "savings" as "cuts." That's right they cut important programs for tax cuts and they wouldn't have had to make any cuts if they had only given less of a tax cut. This all happens in the midst of the Bush Press conference and will go largely under the radar. Sources: (1) GOP agrees on budget for 2006 Seattle Times - April 29 (2) House Passes Budget Plan, 214-211, Senate Passes 52-47 Daily KOS - April 29 More on: The Social Security Tour | Medicaid

Social Security Tour Stop 14: Welcome To The New Bush Plan

2005-04-29T07:14:00.000-07:00

Hello and welcome to the new bush plan. It's different, it's better, it's still nowhere near good. Sorry for not posting in a while (way too long) but school has been doing that to me. Anyway, today was the unveiling of the new plan on social security. Part 1: Private Accounts That's right, this is still in there. It's not going to go away, this is what Bush isn't budging on. No news here, and unfortunately that's not good news. Part 2: Cuts This is new, a $3 trillion cut to social security that is supposed to go mostly onto to the wealthier people in the system. Most people are reading this as an olive branch because this would be a progressive cut. Is the fact that the cut is progressive a good thing? Yes. Ok, so this one is bad because it is a huge cut, but it's not SO bad. Part 3: Double Standard Ok, here's the good stuff. Wealthy people will have their benefits tied to inflation instead of wages. Let me make this clear, I don't know how this will work out. Here's the thing though: this creates two different systems. If, say, the price of gas is going up but you have no increase in your paycheck, then those who have more in our society's benefits are going up and yours are not. Sources: Fact Sheet: Strengthening Social Security For Those In Need White House - April 29 Bush Recasts Message on Social Security LA Times - April 29 The press conference: more details emerge Club for Growth (yeah I linked the CFG - get over it) - April 29 More on: The Social Security Tour | Social Security

Social Security Tour Stop 13: Social Security and Stability

2005-04-18T06:30:00.000-07:00

Energy, stability, due attention to liberties, and the republican form are were - and are - essential to the government.

That's from a post that I made last week on the attack on the filibuster and the Judiciary. But why is it that important to have energy, stability, and protection of liberties in a government? They must be present because society, because people need them. Here's the neat thing: Social Security touches every one of them. Stability is the most obvious of the three. If you get hurt at work, Social Security is there. When you get too old to work, Social Security is there. When you need it most, it's a safety net what is more important to your personal stability, your personal security than Social Security. Energy is new life granted to those who need it. It is the ability to have mobility in society. If you are born to the son of a mill worker you MUST be able to become a Senator. After you retire you should be able to be free enough How can your liberties be protected if you have no money. Remember that FDR, the founder of Social Security, regards a quality of life and the freedom from fear as a part of this category. If you have no money and no way to get it and two children who need to be fed, are you scared? This is the category of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and Social Security is needed to protect each one. The same people who are attacking the stability in our government are attacking your personal security by trying to take out Social Security. Sources: The attack on Stability More on: The Social Security Tour | Social Security

Social Security Tour Stop 12: FDR Remembered

2005-04-18T06:17:00.000-07:00

Roosevelt's vision gave conservatives in both parties apoplexy in 1944 and it would still drive them crazy today. But the truth is that during the 1950's and 60's the nation made substantial progress toward his wonderfully admirable goals, before the momentum of liberal politics slowed with the war in Vietnam and the election in 1968 of Richard Nixon. .... Roosevelt was far from a perfect president, but he gave hope and a sense of the possible to a nation in dire need. And he famously warned against giving in to fear. The nation is now in the hands of leaders who are experts at exploiting fear, and indifferent to the needs and hopes, even the suffering, of ordinary people. "The test of our progress," said Roosevelt, "is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." Sixty years after his death we should be raising a toast to F.D.R. and his progressive ideas. And we should take that opportunity to ask: How in the world did we allow ourselves to get from there to here?

How did we get here from there? That's not annother post; it's annother book or five. The question is more importantly this: Where do we go from here to get back to there? The tipping point that Herbert identifies is Vietnam. Maybe this new war on the other side will tip it back. Sources: A Radical in the White House New York Times - April 18 More on: The Social Security Tour | Social Security | FDR | Roosevelt

The attack on Stability

2005-04-10T11:43:00.000-07:00

Stability is a critical part of our government. In, "Concerning the Difficulties of the Convention in Devising a Proper Form of Government," one of the Federalist Papers, Madison points out that one major failing of some governments is a lack of "moderation" or stability.

It is a misfortune, inseparable from human affairs, that public measures are rarely investigated with that spirit of moderation which is essential to a just estimate of their real tendency to advance or obstruct the public good; and that this spirit is more apt to be diminished than promoted, by those occasions which require an unusual exercise of it.

Madison goes on to further explain four basic parts of a good government that each contradict the others.

Among the difficulties encountered by the convention, a very important one must have lain in combining the requisite stability and energy in government, with the inviolable attention due to liberty and to the republican form. Without substantially accomplishing this part of their undertaking, they would have very imperfectly fulfilled the object of their appointment, or the expectation of the public; yet that it could not be easily accomplished, will be denied by no one who is unwilling to betray his ignorance of the subject. Energy in government is essential to that security against external and internal danger, and to that prompt and salutary execution of the laws which enter into the very definition of good government. Stability in government is essential to national character and to the advantages annexed to it, as well as to that repose and confidence in the minds of the people, which are among the chief blessings of civil society.

Energy, stability, due attention to liberties, and the republican form are were - and are - essential to the government. Each part is clearly represented in out government. The most convoluted part is probably due attention to liberties, which in context is talking about the rights of the states, not the rights of the people. Due attention to liberties is then addressed by the relationship between the states and the federal government in the Federal system. The Republican form is the House and energy comes in the executive branch. Stability is represented in the Senate and the Judiciary. Is it really any surprise that the party in power would lash out against the parts of government that represent stability? These are the obstacles in the way of their complete rule. These aspects are, however, key to our government. Our federal judiciary must make decisions independently of political pressure. This, in light of recent events and remarks, is a post in of itself for another time. For now, let's just say that the Judiciary has life terms because they should not be accountable to any representative once named to their position. The Senate, which is also another post for another time, is the most stable elected branch of government. It has terms of six years elected on a rotating 2 year schedule. No more that slightly over one third of the entire body changes at once and each official has their seat for longer than either the House or President on a per term basis. They were supposed to be our public face to the world along with the president. One key tool of this stability is the Filibuster, which makes the minority party in the Senate stronger. This limits the power of the majority party and that lends itself to stability. The recent remarks from Republicans about obstructionism will also be covered in another post, but in a bigger picture sort of way, let me say that anyone who does not respect the stabilizing forces in our government misunderstands their importance. The Filibuster in the Senate and the lack of accountability of our Federal Judiciary is essential and must remain intact. Source: Concerning the Difficulties of the Convention in Devising a Proper Form of Government (Federalist 37) Daily Advertiser - January 11, 1788 (hosted online by Oklahoma College of Law)

Social Security Tour Stop 11: Censorship at FDR Library

2005-04-10T07:31:00.000-07:00

(1) The national debate over the future of Social Security took on a new twist when the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library in Hyde Park, New York, called a halt to a forum that would have criticized the federal program's privatization. Library Director Cynthia Koch said she had been advised by legal counsel for the National Archives and Records Administration that the program - which was to feature Democratic Rep. Maurice Hinchey, a critic of President Bush's proposed reforms - lacked the balance that would make the library's Wallace Center an appropriate venue. Sponsored by the Hudson Valley Chapter of the Older Women's League, the American Association of University Women Poughkeepsie Branch, and the League of Women Voters of the Mid-Hudson Region, the forum was scheduled for April 9 at the library whose namesake launched Social Security 70 years ago. The Associated Press reported April 1 that the women's groups received a letter from Koch stating that the law bars the use of federal facilities for partisan events and that the program lacked a speaker who could talk about the merits of President Bush's proposed changes to Social Security.

Now, to be fair, you'd have to find merits first. I kid. Because the American Libraries Online piece didn't go enough into detail, let's turn to the Washington Post, which points at the bush double standard in the mess of all this surprising anyone who actually both watches Fox News and reads the Washington Post.

(2) "If you cannot provide at least one speaker who will speak on the features and merits of the administration's plan for Social Security, then I must ask that you find another venue for your program," the library's director, Cynthia M. Koch, wrote on March 31 to one of the groups sponsoring the forum. .... The National Council of Women's Organizations had protested the move by Koch. "In keeping with the Bush administration's determination to quash anyone who disagrees with them, federal agencies now consider it 'partisan' to hold any opinion that is not identical to the president's," the group said in a statement. It pointed out that yesterday, Bush promoted his plan at a federal facility -- the Bureau of Public Debt in West Virginia -- without giving time to anybody opposed to personal accounts.

Finally we come to a source that is certainly one sided, if admittedly so. This is a first hand account of the events and has not been put together with any corroborating evidence. That said, let's look at what went up over on the Daily KOS.

(3) The AAUW, OWL, and LWV are non-partisan groups which have organized this forum on Social Security to include three panelists from Washington, as well as invited all three members of Congress representing Dutchess County (Representatives Kelly-R, Sweeney-R, and Hinchey-D). Congressman Maurice Hinchey was the only member to accept the invitation to participate. Kelly and Sweeney both failed to respond to invitations.

Aha! Take that. If you don't think that you can argue your side coherently, all you have to do is refuse to show up and poof, no event. Funny how that works. This story certainly does not compare to those of people who were removed from Bush events, but it has gone much more unnoticed. The fact that the venue where this incident happened is named for the creator of Social Securit is icing on the cake. The word is spreadding about the plan and the word is not with Bush. Sources: (1) FDR Library Nixes Social Security Forum Amarican Libraries Online - April 8 (2) FDR Library Blocks Social Security Forum Washington Post - April 6 (3) BREAKING! Soc.Sec. Censorship at FDR Library Daily KOS - April 1 More on: The Social Security Tour | Social Security

Social Security Tour Stop 10: What He Said

2005-04-10T07:07:00.000-07:00

Just a warning, I've got quite a few things saved up from the week. Midterms framed my week and so here we are and here we go. When you quote something the first thing that you must always do is make sure that the quote is accurate. Next, and at least as important as the first point in the political realm, is making sure that you did not misrepresent what you are quoting. Finally, you must correctly attribute the quote to its source. As far as the GOP is concerned, two out of three ain't bad.

(1)On Thursday, privatization-pushers released a deceptive “research briefing” with excerpts from news stories on recent Social Security town-hall meetings. The article snippets give the impression that President Bush’s privatization plan enjoys nationwide backing; indeed, the document’s bold, italicized headline reads, “More Americans Support Call To Strengthen Social Security.” Just one problem – several of the individuals quoted in the press release explain in the excerpted articles that they actually oppose privatization: .... The pull-quote: Scott Savelkol, Recent Graduate From Dickinson State University: “Doing Nothing Is Not An Option.” The full quote: Scott Savelkol, who recently graduated from Dickinson State University, said he also opposes to private accounts [sic]. He would prefer lawmakers lift a $90,000 cap on wages taxed for Social Security. “Doing nothing is not an option,” Savelkol said.

This is just one of the quotes that was misrepresented, head over to Think Progress for more. To be fair, this doesn't surprise me much after the whole Jeff Gannon controversy. I think maybe what I like best is that some of the quotes that made it to the GOP's page weren't even that supportive.

(2)“Venus Blake, A Retired School Teacher And Accountant, Said Social Security Is More Important In North Dakota Than Other States Because Of The Number Of Rural Residents And Small Businesses.” (Dave Kolpack, “Social Security Overhaul Discussed At Hearing In Fargo,” The Associated Press, 3/23/05

In the end, a quote is used to represent annother person. Intentionally misrepresenting them is a great disservice, especially if it changes the meaning of the statement. When it comes to what he said, make sure that WAS what he said. Sources: (1) Privitizers Getting Desperate Think Progress - March 28 (2) RNC Research Briefings GOP - March 24 More on: The Social Security Tour | Social Security

Official Opinion on the Terri Shivo Law.

2005-04-06T19:25:00.000-07:00

A popular epithet directed by some members of society, including some members of Congress, toward the judiciary involves the denunciation of "activist judges." Generally, the definition of an "activist judge" is one who decides the outcome of a controversy before him according to personal conviction, even one sincerely held, as opposed to the dictates of the law as constrained by legal precedent and, ultimately, our Constitution. In resolving the Schiavo controversy it is my judgment that, despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers’ blueprint for the governance of a free people — our Constitution. Since I have sworn, as have they, to uphold and defend that Covenant, I must respectfully concur in the denial of the request for rehearing en banc. I conclude that Pub. L.109-3 ("the Act") is unconstitutional and, therefore, this court and the district court are without jurisdiction in this case under that 1 special Act and should refuse to exercise any jurisdiction that we may otherwise have in this case.

This is from the US Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit. Judge Geoge W. Greer wrote the opinion. There you have it. This law, as I said, was unconstitutional. These are the very basic principles of this great land that were violated and thank goodness at least one branch of government understands this. Frankly, in my previous post I was complaining about other things but this is a much better argument than mine was and so I'll treat you to a little more.

It is axiomatic that the Framers established a constitutional design based on the principles of separation of powers. See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 176 (1803) (noting that separation of powers is one of the governmental principles “on which the whole American fabric has been erected”). The Framers established three coequal but separate branches of government, each with the ability to exercise checks and balances on the two others. And to preserve this dynamic, the “Constitution mandates that ‘each of the three general departments of government [must remain] entirely free from the control or coercive influence, direct or indirect, of either of the others.’” Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 380, 109 S. Ct. 647, 659 (1989) (quoting Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602, 629, 55 S. Ct. 869, 874 (1935)). Because of the important constitutional role assigned to the judiciary by the Framers in safeguarding the Constitution and the rights of individuals, see Federalist No. 78 (A. Hamilton), the execution of this constitutional mandate is particularly important when legislative acts encroach upon the independence of the judiciary. See INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 961, 103 S. Ct. 2764, 2789 (1983) (Powell, J. concurring) (citing Federalist No. 48 for the proposition that the Framers enshrined in the Constitution separation of powers principles because of past legislative interference with the judiciary); Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipeline Co., 458 U.S. 50, 60, 102 S. Ct. 2858, 2866 (1982) (“[T]he independence of the judiciary [must] be jealously guarded.”). Accordingly, we risk imperiling our constitutional design if we do not inquire as to whether Pub. L. 109-3 infringes on the independence of the judiciary guaranteed by Article III of the United States Constitution. .... Against these most elementary of constitutional principles, Section 1 of Pub. L. 109-3—which states that the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear a suit regarding alleged violations of rights held by Mrs. Schiavo “under the Constitution or laws of the United States”—is not facially unconstitutional. If the Act only provided for jurisdiction consistent with Article III and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Act would not be in violation of the principles of separation of powers. The Act, however, goes further. Section 2 of the Act provides that the district court: (1) shall engage in “de novo” review of Mrs. Schiavo’s constitutional and federal claims; (2) shall not consider whether these claims were previously “raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings”; (3) shall not engage in “abstention in favor of State court proceedings”; and (4) shall not decide the case on the basis of “whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted.” Pub. L. 109-3, § 2. Because these provisions constitute legislative dictation of how a federal court should exercise its judicial functions (known as a “rule of decision”), the Act invades the province of the judiciary and violates the separation of powers principle.

Source: Complete Opinion Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals - March 25

Social Security Tour Stop 9: Apples and Oranges

2005-04-01T08:49:00.000-08:00

If I have two apples in one hand and two oranges in the other, is what I have in each hand equal? Better yet, IIf I have an an 8 oz glass milk and a scoop of ice cream in one hand and a 6oz. cup of milk and a scoop of ice cream in the other hand are they equal? Of course not.

Doesn't it make sense for members of Congress to give younger workers the opportunity to do the same thing with their money that they get to do in their retirement system?" the president asked this week in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, baiting his congressional opponents. "Frankly, if it's good enough for federal workers and elected officials - putting aside some of your own money in a personal savings account - it ought to be good enough for all workers in America." What Bush fails to mention is that his accounts differ from Thrift Savings Plan accounts in a key way: They would be carved out of the Social Security taxes nongovernment workers pay. By contrast, federal employees get their accounts in addition to a traditional Social Security benefit check.

You see, the missing 2oz of milk in one hand got turned into ice cream but the ice cream in the other hand is in addition to the original glass of milk. You can't compare apples and oranges and get away with it no matter who you are. Source: Bush Social Security analogy questioned Kansas City Star - April 01 More on: The Social Security Tour | Social Security