Nothing Aside

Don't Recess Diplomats

If the Senate won't be your rubber stamp, just ignore them!  That's the message coming out of the White House today concerning John Bolton.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Monday did not rule out the possibility of sidestepping the Senate by naming John Bolton as U.N. ambassador in a recess appointment, as it urged an up-or-down Senate vote on the nomination.

"It is critical that we get him in place," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said of Bush's controversial nominee.

What kind of message does this send to the rest of the world?  The U.N. ambassador would lack the confidence of the U.S. Senate.  He would be weak in the eyes of the rest of the world.  A recess appointment may be acceptable for a judiciary appointment, but for a diplomatic appointment, it shows weakness - something we needn't volunteer to the rest of the world.

Bush can wait.  All he has to do is hand over the documents requested by a few senators.  Who's "obstructing" now?  It's simple: hand over the documents and you'll get your "up-or-down vote."

Iran's Unfortunate Choice

Maybe this is a horrible analogy, but I think it points out some interesting contrasts:

In 2002 French President Chirac was reelected after defeating right-wing extremist Le Pen in the run-off.  Socialists had to hold their noses and vote for the Conservative Chirac because the alternative was so right-wing that he would have destroyed the country from the inside. 

If Iran were the same as France, moderately more conservative former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani would also win in a landslide.  But I don't expect that to happen.  Yes, he probably will win (if only because throwing an election that dramatically would be way too obvious and the mullahs have a known quantity in Rafsanjani), but if the Supreme Council pulls its weight, the overwhelmingly reformist-minded Iranian people will magically "elect" the super-conservative mayor of Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In Iran, the young, reformist population will have to hold its nose and vote for Rafsanjani.  There clearly is a strong resistance to the idea of a sharp, dramatic show of popular opposition against a conservative government.  The Iranian people have experienced too many sharp changes of political direction in their lifetime to push for yet another.  While reform will not advance much with another Rafsanjani presidency, at least it wouldn't get more oppressive.

At least that's the hope.  Here's hoping Iranians can get the best that what has been left for them by the powers that be.

Don't Like The Truth? Change The Facts

Remember a few days ago when Philip Cooney, the White House's chief of staff for its Council on Environmental Quality, was quietly pushed out the backdoor after it was reported that he had completely altered a report on global warming to suggest that it was all a big liberal myth?  He went on to join up with Exxon Mobil a day later, confirming long-time suspicions that the Bush administration's environmental policy experts are nothing more than energy lobbyists. 

Well perhaps it is happening again.  This time the subject is the environmental impact of cattle grazing on public lands.

The Bush administration altered critical portions of a scientific analysis of the environmental impact of cattle grazing on public lands before announcing Thursday that it would relax regulations limiting grazing on those lands, according to scientists involved in the study.

A government biologist and a hydrologist, who both retired this year from the Bureau of Land Management, said their conclusions that the proposed new rules might adversely affect water quality and wildlife, including endangered species, were excised and replaced with language justifying less stringent regulations favored by cattle ranchers.

Grazing regulations, which affect 160 million acres of public land in the Western U.S., set the conditions under which ranchers may use that land, and guide government managers in determining how many cattle may graze, where and for how long without harming natural resources.

The original draft of the environmental analysis warned that the new rules would have a "significant adverse impact" on wildlife, but that phrase was removed. The bureau now concludes that the grazing regulations are "beneficial to animals."

They aren't even trying anymore.  There is no way that such a change is merely a slight alteration made for clarity.  This is a complete turn around on what scientific results have shown.  And for what?  To benefit ranchers who favor Republican candidates.  When fact and fiction collide in this White House, it seems that fiction always prevails. 

A bureau official acknowledged that changes were made in the analysis and said they were part of a standard editing and review process. Ranchers hailed the regulations as a signal of new openness from the administration.

"We're hopeful that some of the provisions will strengthen the public lands grazing industry and give our members certainty in their business," said Jenni Beck of the National Cattlemen's Beef Assn. "We are encouraged that this [environmental impact statement] demonstrates the benefits of grazing on public lands."

Yes, this statement does support such a conclusion - if it were true and not completely altered 180 degrees from the truth. 

Bud Cribley, the agency's manager for rangeland resources, said the report was written by a number of specialists from different offices within the BLM. When it was finished, in November 2003, the agency believed it "needed a lot of work," Cribley said.

"We disagreed with the impact analysis that was originally put forward. There were definitely changes made in the area of impact analysis. We adjusted it.

"The draft that we published we felt adequately addressed the impacts. We felt the changes we did make were based on good science."

Huh?  Good science?  It's actually the opposite of good science since when the data came in, and it disagreed with administration beliefs, the good science was summarily rejected.  Of course the agency believed the report "needed a lot of work." Moving 180 degrees from the truth would require a lot of effort.  No doubt it takes a lot of blind confidence as well to stand up and declare that the "adjustments" made were made "based on good science." The audacity is incredible. 

Nicias' Lesson

Athenian general Nicias, warning his fellow Athenians about the potential drawbacks of an intervention in Sicily, 415 B.C. (Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War):

We must not disguise from ourselves that we go to found a city among strangers and enemies, and that he who undertakes such an enterprise should be prepared to become master of the country the first day he lands, or failing in this to find everything hostile to him.

Flash forward to present day:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - The military announced the killing of four more U.S. soldiers over the weekend, pushing the American death toll past 1,700 - more than double what it was a year ago. Since last June 13 - when 825 members of the U.S. military had died in Iraq - the insurgency that took shape with the fall of Saddam Hussein has increased its toll on American forces and Iraqi soldiers and civilians alike.

Now, I'm not saying that our involvement in Iraq will lead to the collapse of American hegemony like Athenian involvement in Syracuse did, but Nicias' words are certainly still prescient today.

Quote of the Day

See if this sounds familiar:

The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiques are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows. It is a disgrace to our imperial record, and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure. We are to-day not far from a disaster.

That's T.E. Lawrence, writing about British involvement in Iraq in the Sunday Times, August 22, 1920.  Some things never change.

Is Your Senator Pro-Lynching?

Okay, that is an unfair question.  Put more accurately, is your senator one of about twenty who did not co-sponsor Senate Resolution 39 and who was absent from the unanimous voice vote that took place last night that officially apologized for decades of filibusters and inaction by the U.S. Senate on the issue of lynching?  Additionally, was your senator one who sought to have a voice vote instead of a roll call vote so as to avoid having to come out publicly to his or her constituents as being in favor of apologizing for years of complacency on lynching? 

Here is a list of those senators who sat this one out:

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Michael Crapo (R-ID)
Michael Enzi (R-WY)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Trent Lott (R-MS)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
John Sununu (R-NH)
Craig Thomas (R-WY)
George Voinovich (R-OH)

Now, I've been trying to think of some less than cynical reasons why a senator would miss a symbolic vote like this.  Here are some of the reasons, cynical and more practical that some senators might have missed an opportunity to go on the record as opposing justice by lynch mob:

• Legislative ineptitude.  For the most part, a senator's professional life is run by his staff.  Perhaps they didn't know about the resolution or bother to tell their politically sensitive boss.  If that's the case, OOPS.  Someone should get fired.
• Principled opposition to the idea of the current U.S. Senate apologizing for the actions of a past U.S. Senate. Okay.  I can get behind this one.  We saw this during the judicial showdown.  Some senators are sticklers for tradition and the honor of the body they are a part of and didn't think that changing the rules was worth the outcome.  In this instance, maybe some principled senators felt that it was not the responsibility of the current Senate to apologize for a past Senate.  If that is the case, I can support that.  However, you would still think that these senators would not want to be cast as opponents of regulated (state) law and order and as defenders of the despicable practice of lynching.  In this instance such a principled position seemingly would not be worth the political cost.  Which leaves us with the most troubling reason why these senators were silent...
• Fear of offending the prejudices of bigoted constituents.  Frankly, it is hard to not come away with this conclusion.  Why push for a voice vote instead of an on-the-record roll call vote?  It gives these senators anonymity and the ability to not have to come out in favor of an apology if his or her constituents are known to be proud of that lynching past.  If this is the case, those senators should be ashamed.  Completely and utterly ashamed. 

Another thing: It is hard for me to believe that it is a mere coincidence that all but one of the senators on the list above is from the Republican Party.  If this were an issue of legislative incompetence, there should be a better balance.  And frankly, I have a hard time believing that that many senators have the same principled position opposing  apologies for past Senate actions (or inaction, as the case may be). 

Which leaves us with option #3.  I'll let you come to your own conclusions on that one.

Religious Right Under Attack? Hardly

This is getting ridiculous.  It's bad enough when Democratic politicians run into the pulpits of black churches in the weeks leading up to a big election to pander for votes, but now the Republican Right is going twelve steps further: Texas Governor Rick Perry is signing bills into law in places of worship.

Even for Texas, the scene was remarkable: The governor, flanked by an out-of-state televangelist and religious right leaders, signing legislation in a church school gymnasium amid shouts of "amen" from backers who just as well could have been attending a revival.

It wasn't just the blatant blend of church and state that made the gathering in Fort Worth unusual. Advance publicity also attracted about 300 angry protesters - unheard of for the routine business of ceremonial bill signings.
...

Ohio televangelist Rod Parsley and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council in Washington were among the religious conservatives who shared the stage with Perry at the Fort Worth bill signing. Parsley linked homosexuality and disease rates, and about 1,000 supporters cheered attacks on "activist judges" and the media.

Objections to Perry using a church school as a backdrop to a bill signing preceded his visit, with critics mostly focusing on separation of church and state.

"This is one of the most outrageous misuses of a house of worship for political gain that I've ever seen," said Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Washington, D.C.-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Perry shrugged off the complaints.

"We could have signed it in a lot of different locations," Perry said on Fox News. "We could have signed it in a Wal-Mart parking lot, and those who are against people of faith being involved in the electoral process would still have been very much against this bill."

Rick, Rick, Rick.  No one is trying to stop "people of faith from being involved in the electoral process."  That is simply not what this is about and everyone knows it.  What is with the constant self-victimization of the Religious Right?  No one is trying to deny them anything other than the ability to interfere in the lives of the rest of us.  No one is out to get you!  And quite frankly, it is offensive that Gov. Perry thinks that only he and his Religious Right allies are "people of faith."  But that's a topic for another time.

Perkins said he sees nothing wrong with signing legislation at a Christian school, and he pointed to a consistent theme of the bill-signing: Forces are at work to exclude the religious-minded from political and civic debate.

"People of faith are not backing up, we are not giving up, we are here to stay," he said.

Fine, cool.  You're right.  Everyone who believes in something (i.e. "people of faith") will continue to stand tall against the strong-arm tactics of the Religious Right to define morality and ruin the word "values" for all of us.

Iranian Women Fight Back

And it's not just in China.  Oppressed people worldwide know how to take the initiative if there are enough people with a common complaint.  And I'd say that the oppression of women in Iran would definately produce a sizable pool of potentially pissed off people.

TEHRAN, June 12 - Hundreds of women staged an unauthorized demonstration in Tehran today, protesting sex discrimination under Iran's Islamic leadership just days before the June 17 presidential elections.

The protest was the first public display of dissent by women since the 1979 revolution, when the new regime enforced obligatory veiling. "We are women, we are the children of this land, but we have no rights," they chanted. More than 250 marched outside Tehran University, and about 200 others demonstrated two blocks away after hundreds of riot police swarmed in and barred them from joining the main protest.

There were reports that the police clubbed several women, though there were no hospital reports of injuries. Demonstrators said they saw some women being detained and dragged away by officers. But the situation appeared to stabilize, and after about an hour of demonstrating, the women disbanded without further incident.

"We will continue such protests because it shows that women are aware of their rights," said Roohi Afzal, 52, a translator who was at the protest. "It seems that our presence today really hurts the government, that it has deployed so many forces. Maybe it will react and respond to our demands."

Maybe.  This coming presidential election will probably not produce a big surprise like we saw in 1997, but you never know.  Here's hoping that reform can grip Iran and hold for once. 

Dissent in Today's China

There is rarely a lot of good political news coming out of China these days, especially with the anniversary of the pro-democracy Tienanmen Square protest and subsequent brutal suppression.  But maybe opposition to the Communist regime needs to happen with a more subtle finesse.  A recent we-aren't-going-to-take-this protest by hard working elderly peasants may signal the way to show dissent in authoritarian China today.

HUAXI, China -- A hard rain had fallen most of the night. Xu Juxian, a wiry farmer's wife with straggly black hair, said the downpour leaked copiously into the ragged tents where elderly protesters had been camping for more than two weeks. As a result, recalled Xu, they were all damp, uncomfortable and wide awake in the still hour just before dawn.

So Xu, 79, and the others immediately heard the commotion when dozens of government cars and buses wound into Huaxi beginning at 4:30 a.m. on April 10, carrying an estimated 3,000 policemen and civilians assigned to destroy the tents. To alert people in this gritty farm town that police were pouring in, watchful residents set off fireworks by the hundreds.

By the time dawn broke, up to 20,000 peasants from the half-dozen villages that make up Huaxi township had responded to the alarm, participants recounted, and they were in no mood to bow to authority. For four years, they had been complaining that industrial pollution was poisoning the land, stunting the crops and fouling the water in their fertile valley surrounded by forested hills 120 miles south of Hangzhou. And now their protest -- blocking the entrance to an industrial park -- was being put down by force.

A pitched battle erupted that soggy morning between enraged farmers and badly outnumbered police. By the end of the day, high-ranking officials had fled in their black sedans and hundreds of policemen had scattered in panic while farmers destroyed their vehicles. It was a rare triumph for the peasants, rising up against the all-powerful Communist Party government.

Read the whole profile in the Washington Post.  While this incident didn't make a huge splash, it may show the way for dissent in China.

Something To Cheer About

When it comes right down to it, we all want the same basic freedoms.  American, Iranian, French, Korean and Bolivian.  Sometimes I get wrapped up in the bubble of politics and forget that most people just don't care about a lot of the stuff I spend a lot of time reading about.  And that's fine.  In fact it's probably much healthier.  Witness Iran:

TEHRAN, June 8 - People across this city took to the streets in joy on Wednesday after the Iranian soccer team qualified for the World Cup finals by beating Bahrain, 1-0.

Drivers poured onto the streets honking their horns and shouting, "Iran! Iran!" In Africa Street, thousands of people danced to loud music played over sound systems in cars as the police watched in silence. Women took off their mandatory head scarves and danced with men who apparently were strangers. In another area, Ressalat, shopkeepers closed their stores and distributed flowers.

Women also scored a victory when about 200 of them forced their way into the stadium to watch the game. Women have been barred from viewing stadium events since Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution. The women were allowed to enter after they chanted for hours, "My right is also a human right." One woman's leg was broken when security guards tried to shut the gate to keep them out.

The celebrations remained apolitical even though Iranians will go to the polls in less than three weeks to elect a new president. Some people in cars that carried flags with pictures of Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful politician and presidential candidate, said they did so only because they wanted to wave Iran's flag at other cars and the flags were given to them free.

"Is this better now?" asked Amir Hossein, 21, as he made a hole in the middle of his flag to cut out Mr. Rafsanjani's portrait. "I don't care about any of the candidates. I am just happy that we made it to the World Cup."

One young man, who introduced himself as Asghar, 19, and held a poster of Mr. Rafsanjani over his chest, was approached by a middle-aged women who grabbed the poster and tore it up. "You are not a real man if you vote for any of them," she shouted, as a crowd applauded in joy. "Don't ruin our happiness tonight with this."

They couldn't care less about which theocrat will be running their country.  Perhaps they have given up hope that things really matter (after the Khatami bailout a few years back, it's easy to see why), but I think it is much simpler than that. It's the World Cup. That's definately something worth dancing in the streets about.