An earmark could hide among 32,000
June 15

This might sound like conspiracy theory, but I thought of this when I read this paragraph in this story about the controversy in the House over the earmarks process:

Obey said his plan to insert earmarks into the bills just before they are reconciled with their Senate versions, rather than as they first reach the floor for a vote, would allow the Appropriations Committee staff to keep the bills on schedule. Republicans' failure to pass nine of 11 spending bills last year, and a long fight over the war spending bill passed last month, put the 2008 spending-bill cycle nearly a month behind. Besieged with more than 32,000 spending requests, Obey said vetting each one before the bills reached a vote would have delayed the process by weeks.

32,000 earmarks for 435 members averages 74 earmarks per member, and you have to figure they aren't evenly distributed. Thanks to the new Democratic rule that requires each earmark to include which member inserted it, it will be public who asked for each piece of pork. Could the Republicans be hoping there will just be too many earmarks for anyone to catch everything? Is that how they'll sneak things through, by having so much pork nobody will be able to find out what they've done, but they can still tell special interests they got their money? This isn't on of those Fox Opinion questions where I just pretend it's a question for when I get caught making it up. I really don't know. I would, if that were the case, be very embarrassed if it turns out Democrats are the big porkers. Maybe all congressmen are just that accustomed to giving earmarks to every big contributor and every provider of luxury vacations and private planes. I guess once we see the names and get the numbers, we'll know. Even Don Young might not be able to hide . Do go in-depth on the earmark controversy, and find out why it isn't quite as Republicans are trying to make it sound, read When Chutzpah is an Understatement.

Taxes are down and unemployment is up
June 13

Are these two headlines connected: "Minnesota tax burden is no longer in top 10," and "State tops U.S. jobless rate for the first time in 31 years"? The brief answer is I think so, but I recognize it isn't proven. There's certainly the logical rule that the coincidence in time doesn't mean they're connected, and I doubt any economist would be unable to suggest alternate explanations than one causes the other. However, the alternative explanations might not be better than the obvious one, that holding down taxes has required disinvestment in the state which is causing our unemployment rate to finally rise above the national average; and the logical rule doesn't mean the coincidental events aren't connected, just that you can't tell without looking into it further.

Looking a bit further, the necessity for ongoing investment in our own state has been a tough sell to Republicans. Republicans of this and the prior decade have been governed by their taxophobes, determined to cut taxes or prevent increases and damn the consequences. One of them is the incumbent governor, returned to office by a dinky plurality, and governed by his vice-presidential ambitions and the Taxpayers League. He's hardly alone though. Thanks to Pawlenty, his predecessor Ventura, and the Republicans in the legislature, education spending hasn't kept pace with inflation and population growth amounting to real cuts, higher education costs have shot up, infrastructure development has sat still, and local government aid cuts have caused cuts at the local level, such as layoffs of police in Minneapolis. Republicans will argue the effects of taxophobia are small and don't really matter, but that these have been the effects isn't what's in dou! bt.

What is in doubt is that the drop in the tax burden is causing Minnesota's economy to fall behind the rest of the country. It can't be proven conclusively, no. However, all but the most delusional conservatives have to admit the likelihood, or else it's just a coincidence that the most ardent no-tax states have the worst roads, the worst schools, the most poverty, the lowest per capita incomes, the most medically uninsured, etc., for year after year and decade after decade. Those who reply by saying things haven't fallen apart after spending cuts and delayed maintenance are correct, because we're still enjoying the fruits of past investments. Then again, Texas and Mississippi didn't get that way overnight, so I have to conclude that the long disinvestment in Minnesota is finally paying dividends.

The red truck is not the green bus
June 11

The story about Fred Thompson campaigning for the Senate in an iconic red pickup truck reminded me of another campaign vehicle, Paul Wellstone's green bus. Though both were symbols for senate campaigns, that's actually the end of the comparison. The differences are about what you'd expect when remembering that one candidate was a grassroots political activist fighting for the downtrodden, while the other was a lobbyist who played politicians on TV. I'd have to re-read Professor Wellstone Goes to Washington to recall whether the Wellstone campaign painted the old school bus green or found it that way, but I do know that an old school bus was what a shoestring campaign could afford. Contrast that to Thompson's campaign, which carefully chose a used, but not too old, pickup, and decided red would be the best color. Whereas Wellstone actually used the green bus, Thompson got caught driving the truck for a few blocks until the cameras were out of sight, and then he'd have a staff member drive the truck while he switched to his preferred luxury car.

One other difference between the genuine senator and the fake one: Wellstone's presidential campaign was stopped by a degenerative back disease. Thompson's will have to be stopped by enough voters wising up. Oh, right, Thompson put on bluejeans for a photo op. I guess he's one of us.

The secret is out about rural voters
June 11

I noticed after last year's election that a map of US House districts in the upper Midwest showed that Republicans were close to be confined to the suburbs. They hold only the suburban seats in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Democrats hold the at-large seats in the Dakotas, and three of four rural seats in Iowa. I have talked about this among other Democrats --- quietly, when I thought no Republicans were around, because I couldn't tell they knew the rural areas they counted had were going blue and preferred it be a surprise for one more election if possible. It's no longer possible. A poll and an NPR report have made the secret known, that Democrats are competitive in rural areas. We're no longer just an urban party. Now that the secret is there for the Republicans to get alarmed about, I have one thing to say to them:

It's just liberal bias! Come on, that's NPR for crying out loud, you can't believe anything on that liberal network. It's nonsense, the rural areas are safely Republican and can be ignored. OK everyone, back to your Draft Thompson rally!

Now that the Republicans are gone, I can't help recalling that NPR is one of only two mainstream news organizations (the other being Knight-Ridder, since purchased by McClatchy) that didn't need to apologize for its coverage of the sales campaign for the invasion of Iraq. I also recall that marvelous interview last October Robert Siegel had with Karl Rove where Rove had "the" math --- except he didn't.

At least Fox covers the celebrity stories
June 11

A recent study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism found MSNBC and CNN cover Iraq several times as much as Fox in terms of air time. The study covered the first three months of this year. However, don't despair Fox viewers. Apparently, you got much more coverage of Anna Nicole Smith.

We must counterpunch against attempt to blame opponents for Iraq
June 10

I've been saving up this one because it wasn't immediate, but it is important in that it presages what will happen once the occupation of Iraq is clearly reaching the end, or when even the most delusion conservatives admit failure. There will be a "who lost Iraq" debate, with the pro-war side trying to blame opposition at home for the failure of hopeless policies mixed with bad strategies and corruption. Think it can't work? Ask yourself who got blamed for Vietnam.If you answered "the media", you're right. If you answered "the protestors", you're right. If you answered "the idiots with the hopeless policies mixed with bad strategies and corruption", you're wrong. I don't want to spend a long time on the proposition that Vietnam was a huge factor in ending a liberal era and starting the conservative era just ended, so I'll leave it at that's my opinion, and more important, it's my opinion is that conservatives will try again. In fact, what prompted this line of thought is that they're already starting.

Recently, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-SC, said, "I believe a lot of the casualties can be laid at the feet of all the talk in Congress about how we've got to get out, we've got to cut and run." This statement didn't get much attention, but it deserved more counterpunching by our side. DeMint's just one nutjob now, but watch for this to become a standard topic of talk radio and Fox Opinion. When DeMint claimed again that Iraq had chemical weapons, we should have demanded that he prove that, and tried to make it a controversy. We need to respond to "Al-Qaida knows that we've got a lot of wimps in Congress," because DeMint will hardly be the last to say that. In the interests of counterpunching, Al Qaida may or may not think Congress includes wimps, but they sure must realize it includes a lot of idiots. Iraq isn't failing because Americans are insufficiently behind it, but because the whole idea was whacked from the beginning. Bush received warning from US intelligence predicted what actually happened, and those warnings came before Congress took any votes and when most of the public was behind Bush.

The next time any reporters or constituents get to ask DeMint a question, I suggest following up on this paragraph: "DeMint said a U.S. military officer who drove him around Iraq during a 2005 visit pointed out a site where the officer said there were chemical weapons. DeMint said the United Nations failed to enforce the requirement that Saddam destroy such weapons after the 1991 Gulf War." So Senator, if the requirement wasn't enforced, why couldn't inspectors find them? Who was this officer who pointed out the site to you? What site was this? Why didn't you or this officer or anyone else follow up at the time?

Wow, Alaska --- who knew?
June 9

Wow- Alaska --- who knew? We're used to hearing of corruption in Louisiana, Texas, Florida (which actually is involved with this story), and we've gotten used to Ohio, but Alaska? Who knew, except, it turns out, VECO, some state legislators, and the state's congressional delegation which includes Rep. Don Young, who may be looking at bribery charges, unless you accept that a congressman earmarks money outside his district that benefits a developer who just happens days before to make a big campaign contribution.

The gist of the story is that Daniel J. Aronoff, the owner of a bunch of land near a road that didn't have an interchange with the interstate, would enjoy a big increase in the value of his holdings if an interchange was built. Nobody else thought the interchange was a good idea, until Aronoff found $40,000 for Young, who then added $10 million for the interchange to a transportation bill. The representative for the district knew nothing about it. The county board keeps saying no. Young has given the matter considerable attention, telling the county that future federal funds would get scarce.

This can't be called a bribe because, well, I haven't figured out that part yet. Young isn't out of hope however. Even though he's giving the finger (literally) to reporters who ask about it, he can hope the problem Sen. Ted Stevens has with the contractors for his house renovations, namely that they sent the bills to VECO and now the FBI wants documents, keeps us distracted. Or maybe Stevens own earmark controversy will steal the limelight. They can both hope the state's other senator, Lisa Murkowski, gets caught having done something for the money she got from VECO, and maybe Alaska's media will focus on the indicted state legislators.

Roger Ailes denounces Democrats on Fox debates
June 6

When speaking of the Democratic candidates refusal to participate in a debate hosted by Fox Opinion, Roger Ailes said , "The candidates that can't face Fox, can't face Al Qaeda." He's right of course, and to keep things fair and balanced, the Democrats should also refuse to participate in debates sponsored by Al Qaeda. Though in that same fairness and balance, Ailes should explain why the Republicans refused Air America's invitation.

Jefferson and Libby scandals show difference on corruption
June 6

What's most notable about the William Jefferson scandal is the difference in how Republicans and Democrats have reacted to scandals among their own, and having the Libby story on the front page simultaneously makes this particularly clear. Democrats in Congress stripped Jefferson of his committee posts, his state party endorsed his opponent, and the liberal blogosphere repeatedly excoriates him and demands his resignation. CREW lists him as one of the most corrupt congressmen without a peep of protest from liberals, even when Melanie Sloan makes Jefferson the subject on Air America. Republicans, by contrast, deny there's a real crime, excuse the criminal because he's a good guy, denounce the prosecutors for being biased, "lose" the documents, blame the victims, refuse to hold hearings (fortunately, that one isn't available anymore), and generally react to the exposure of wrongdoing by calling for pardons and executive privilege instead of calling for full investigations. This is why Jefferson won't be nearly enough to end the "culture of corruption" charge.

Iraq Risks in CIA whitepaper from August 2002 not disclosed
June 5

Following up from a week ago when I pointed out the understressed aspect of the stories about Bush ignoring warnings about Iraq is that he didn't share these warnings with the public, a doozy just came out. The CIA produced a whitepaper with the unmistakable title "The Perfect Storm: Planning for Negative Consequences of Invading Iraq." This was August 2002. Did Bush tell the public in August 2002, or did he just tell us it would be a cakewalk? It's a lie by omission. If Bush was selling an investment by using a prospectus with the risks omitted, he would be jailed for fraud. If he sold a house and concealed known problems to the buyer, has has serious legal problems. So shouldn't there be consequences for selling a war by withholding the risks, even if he didn't believe them himself?

Soviet and Nazi torture methods just like Bush's
June 5

A couple old documents have recently been dug up which should alarm proponents and excusers of torture, or at least make them think (an optimistic thought, I know). The bigger splash has been made by Andrew Sullivan, who found a Gestapo interrogation manual including the euphemism for torture "Verschärfte Vernehmung", which has multiple translations including "enhanced interrogation". Sound familiar? If not, find a transcript of the last GOP debate and you'll find it.

The other document is an article from 1956, "Communist Interrogation," in The Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, about Soviet methods of interrogation. Like the Gestapo and the bushies, the Soviets didn't want to call what they did "torture", but American doctors of 50 year ago used that word to describe exactly the methods that don't bother John Yoo, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales, or their boss.

I've written before about how I dislike Nazi references, as well as the less loaded "fascist". I'll include "Soviet" in that group, since it's used much less often but in the same way, as an epithet for any disagreement. These comparisons lose their power when used casually, and I asked for a truce between left and right that would restrict the use of these terms to literal comparisons. Among the conditions I named as literal I'll add torture, which I somehow left out. The discovery of these documents and their use as comparison to Bush policies is a good example of how powerful these comparisons are when kept literal. All Americans should be shocked that their government would use the same euphemisms and methods as our former enemies who we considered the most cruel regimes of the 20th century. In the case of the Soviet methods, we didn't reinvent these methods entirely, but used Soviet methods as a template for our own.

Charges dropped on child soldier at Guantanamo
June 5

There are aspects to this story of charges being dropped against Omar Khadr worth giving some notice to. Particularly, he was 15 when he was captured, causing his attorneys to say, "The U.S. will be the first country in modern history to try an individual who was a child at the time of the alleged war crimes." If you want to know how a normal child can be turned into a vicious killer, read A Long Way Gone by Ishmael Beah, a young man who was conscripted at 13 into the government army in Sierra Leone's civil war. Of note is not only did he commit war crimes by any definition, but he was rehabilitated by a UN rehabilitation center in the capital before the war reached there and he escaped the country. Khadr was caught by US forces in Afghanistan and sent not to a rehabilitation center, but Guantanamo, where he has spent the last five years. Also note that his "crime" was killing an American soldier in battle, as one soldier killing another. When did that become a crime? He's not even charged with attacking civilians or mistreating prisoners. Clearly he should have gotten help, not suffered whatever mistreatment he suffered in prison. Moreover, unlike some prisoners who might be released if there was a place they could sent to without threat or more torture, Khadr is from Canada. Going home would seem a simple matter.

Above all, bear in mind this kid has been treated this way by the government that represents us. You know, the United States, former champion of human rights.

Conservatives find out what it's like
June 4

It's rather odd to hear conservatives surprised that Bush would describe conservative opponents of his immigration policy by saying they "don't want to do what's right for America." This has annoyed conservatives like David Frum and Peggy Noonan, and it should. It's an utterly unreasonable argument to say that if you disagree with me, you want to hurt your own country. Liberals weren't surprised however, because this is standard rhetoric for bushies and the acting president himself. By "bushies" quite frankly, I include the likes of Noonan, Frum, and the publications that published their dismay. You've used this tactic on us at least going back to when the acting president successfully stole his first election. It was only a matter of time until you used it on each other. Pardon my schadenfreude, but I hope you'll reconsider throwing this accusation around so easily next time you disagree with liberals. You don't hate your country just because you think a given instance of military force is a bad idea. Maybe it's patriotic to say it when the president is a megalomanic and his policies disastrous.

At last, Jefferson indicted
June 4

Finally, William Jefferson has been indicted. It looks like the delay was caused by a constitutional issue over the FBI search of his congressional office. Why that evidence was needed when it looked so overwhelming I don't know, but I do know that Jefferson has been doing his very best to undermine the culture of corruption charge against the Republicans. I know he's just one guy, but I doubt many Americans will count the corrupt of either party before deciding they're the same, by which I mean it won't take much Democratic corruption to even out the Republicans, no matter if the phrase "right wing" will describe a section of a federal prison.

The immediate question is whether, now that he's finally been indicted, he'll finally do the right thing and resign. I tried to contact him to ask him to resign, which I did sometime last year too, and got the same result: you can't e-mail this guy. His House site has nothing but a physical address and phone number, congress.org says he's one of those who doesn't take mail from outside his district, and I can't find a campaign site. I'm guessing he doesn't take non-constituent calls either. He doesn't want to be found, which says something. I'd hoped to appeal to his party loyalty or sense that he was disgracing the Congress, some residual sense of duty to country, something. Now I appeal to his constituents, please tell him to resign. His colleagues in Congress might not be able to expel him without a conviction, but they need to plead with him to go. Speaking of his constituents, looking at the comments on the linked story, at least some want him to go. One mentioned ! thinking Jefferson was less crooked than his opponent last year. I don't know if that's a common sentiment. I do know that if it's true, grassroots Democrats in that district need to get active and take over their local party. Whatever the state party is like, at a precinct level, you'll probably find a tiny number of volunteers who are grateful for more help.

Little Big Man
June 3

Recently I wrote about why I'm backing Dennis Kucinich for president. Mother Jones ran an article about him in 2003 which still applies, Little Big Man which was obviously about his 2004 campaign but nothing important has changed. For example, the last paragraph:

"In his freshman year of high school, Kucinich made third-string quarterback. Each day at practice, they would knock him down. He stood four feet nine and weighed 97 pounds. He would get back up. Every time."

The key question is asked in this paragraph:

"I realize that everyone, including myself, keeps asking the wrong questions about Dennis Kucinich. It is not, What makes him think he can be president. It is not, How can you hope to be elected if you are anti-war and want to take a whack at the Defense budget. It is not, How can you win in this polarized red-and-blue country with a plan for total health care. Here is the real question: How can you stand there in silence and let these thieving rich bastards get away with it?"

I like not just that Kucinich doesn't quit, but that he has come back from defeat and even humiliation. His policies show that he knows what it's like at the bottom, and liberal politics are supposed to be about protecting the weak against the strong. He's made mistakes and learned from them, and he's shown he can stick by a tough decision, which is why Cleveland still owns its municipal power company. Sticking by a decision isn't an admirable trait when the decision is wrong (insert bad decision by the acting president here), but Kucinich is almost alone among presidential candidates in having had the good judgement to oppose the bill authorizing the invasion of Iraq.

Gubernatorial corruption in the news
June 3

Don Siegelman is a former governor of Alabama who has been convicted of taking bribes from Richard Scrushy, former chairman of HealthSouth. Siegelman is appealing his conviction on the grounds it was politically motivated. Probably most corrupt elected officials claim at some point the investigation of their activity is politically motivated. Such a claim has more credence now thanks to the politicization of the Justice Department under Bush. That wouldn't mean Siegelman is innocent. He might be guilty as charged. I don't know. It probably isn't like the Georgia Thompson case, the railroading of an innocent for partisan purposes. However, the damage Gonzogate has done is now, even if Siegelman did it, we have to wonder. Justice is supposed to be neutral except towards lawbreaking, but only the uninformed and credulous believe that now. It could be he's innocent, it could be the case was properly handled, or it could be he's guilty but nonetheless singled out for partisan purposes. Even when real crooks are caught, we rightly wonder if they were pursued only for being Democrats, and if Siegelman would have been protected if he were Republican. These doubts will persist until Justice is cleaned out, starting with Gonzales. On a side note, if the name Scrushy sounds familiar, he was one of the corporate crooks, expect he found Jesus --- that is, he found Jesus a means of conning a jury.

Speaking of governors with corruption issues, Jim Gibson, governor of Nevada and before that a congressman, has been a load of fun. His election was endangered by allegations of inappropriate behavior with a waitress in a parking ramp, though prosecutors declined to indict. He's currently under investigation for bribery allegations, but he's also driven his approval rating to 28% by what appears to be incompetence in the rudiments of his job, plus a threat to shut down the state government over minor issues. What jumped out of the article as I read it was the similarity to my own Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, widely accused by his opposition of campaigning for vice-president at the expense of doing what's best for the state. Gibbons isn't campaigning for vice-president so far as I know, and Pawlenty hasn't been found taking bribes or grabbing the waitress in the parking ramp, but both governors ran on little besides taxophobia. If Gibbons shuts down the state, he'll be only the second governor to do so. The first was Pawlenty. Don't ask me how you do that and get reelected, but I suppose that's why Republicans put him on the VP short list. Both governors have also preferred letting the roads crumble over raising a tax. In Minnesota, this decision has cost us more in federal money than we would have paid in increased taxes. Maybe that's the case in Nevada. In terms of running a government Minnesota is undeniably better off, but we get less entertainment value.

One of those "spend more time with family" departures
June 1

I didn't realize until today's news about his departure that Dan Bartlett was close to the acting president for so long, going back to when he was candidate for Texas governor. So OK, to my list of the three people close to Bush who know where the proverbial bodies are buried (and with all the torture and secret prisons, maybe some real bodies) are buried, Alberto Gonzales, Karl Rove, and Harriet Myers, add Bartlett. This is why I'm wondering about his departure. According to released information, he's looking for a private sector job that will allow more time for family. So what's he hiding? That might not be a fair question. He hasn't been named in any scandals yet, that I recall. With so many scandals I hate to be so certain. It's just that the "more time with family" excuse is used by every crook who resigns under a cloud and isn't ready yet to admit the scandal. When there's no new job lined up, the "leaving for other opportunities" excuse looks weak. To give him the benefit of the doubt, no doubt his job had some long hours and he was away from home a lot. I don't want to live at work either, so maybe he's telling the truth. It's just that we're talking about the Bush administration, so truthful answers aren't a safe assumption. Watch for Bartlett to pop up in some scandal. Maybe this will be very informative.