"LONDON -- Unchecked global warming will devastate the world economy on the scale of the world wars and the Great Depression, a major British report said Monday."
read more | digg story
Monday, October 30, 2006
Bush Appointee Said to Reject Advice on Endangered Species
A senior Bush political appointee at the Interior Department has rejected staff scientists' recommendations to protect imperiled animals and plants under the Endangered Species Act at least six times in the past three years, documents show.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Sunday, October 22, 2006
NY Mag: Stephen Colbert Has America by the Ballots
Stephen Colbert Has America by the Ballots -- New York Magazine:
The former Jon Stewart protoge created an entire comic persona out of right-wing doublespeak, trampling the boundary between parody and politics. Which makes him the perfect spokesman for a political season in which everything is imploding.
The former Jon Stewart protoge created an entire comic persona out of right-wing doublespeak, trampling the boundary between parody and politics. Which makes him the perfect spokesman for a political season in which everything is imploding.
Saturday, October 21, 2006
La Crosse (WI) Tribune: Quaker statement on gay marriage
Quaker statement on gay marriage
By DAVE CHAKOIAN | Viroqua, Wis.
La Crosse Tribune
Published - Friday, October 20, 2006
On November's ballot, Wisconsin will vote on a constitutional ban on same-gender marriages. We of Religious Society of Friends believe the movement to isolate and scapegoat homosexuals, to promote hatred against them, and to impose in law one group's religious beliefs on us all, is blatantly immoral and contrary to Jesus' teachings.
With half of marriages ending in divorce, unquestionably the right thing to do is to strengthen marriages. But diverting the question to whether two people of the same sex can have legal rights together completely loses track of the problem of frail marriages.
The proposed constitutional amendment really has nothing to do with marriage; it is a thinly veiled attack on gays and lesbians, part of a pattern of discrimination and institutionalized hatred. It is a strategy of power practiced by would-be tyrants throughout history.
Some have portrayed persecution and hatred of gays as a Christian thing to do. We can find nowhere that Jesus said anything about homosexuality. Nor did Jesus ever suggest encoding Christian teachings into a Sharia-like law to force religious beliefs on society.
We believe that God loves us all equally, and that we are called to treat each other with the same love in which God created us. We have no need to hate, or to discriminate against, any group for any reason. It is simply not Christian to do so.
David Chakoian is clerk of the Kickapoo Valley Monthly Meeting, Religious Society of Friends (Quaker).
By DAVE CHAKOIAN | Viroqua, Wis.
La Crosse Tribune
Published - Friday, October 20, 2006
On November's ballot, Wisconsin will vote on a constitutional ban on same-gender marriages. We of Religious Society of Friends believe the movement to isolate and scapegoat homosexuals, to promote hatred against them, and to impose in law one group's religious beliefs on us all, is blatantly immoral and contrary to Jesus' teachings.
With half of marriages ending in divorce, unquestionably the right thing to do is to strengthen marriages. But diverting the question to whether two people of the same sex can have legal rights together completely loses track of the problem of frail marriages.
The proposed constitutional amendment really has nothing to do with marriage; it is a thinly veiled attack on gays and lesbians, part of a pattern of discrimination and institutionalized hatred. It is a strategy of power practiced by would-be tyrants throughout history.
Some have portrayed persecution and hatred of gays as a Christian thing to do. We can find nowhere that Jesus said anything about homosexuality. Nor did Jesus ever suggest encoding Christian teachings into a Sharia-like law to force religious beliefs on society.
We believe that God loves us all equally, and that we are called to treat each other with the same love in which God created us. We have no need to hate, or to discriminate against, any group for any reason. It is simply not Christian to do so.
David Chakoian is clerk of the Kickapoo Valley Monthly Meeting, Religious Society of Friends (Quaker).
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
"...different families or something"
New York Times
October 17, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
Can You Tell a Sunni From a Shiite?
By JEFF STEIN
Washington
FOR the past several months, I've been wrapping up lengthy interviews with Washington counterterrorism officials with a fundamental question: "Do you know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?"
A "gotcha" question? Perhaps. But if knowing your enemy is the most basic rule of war, I don't think it's out of bounds. And as I quickly explain to my subjects, I'm not looking for theological explanations, just the basics: Who's on what side today, and what does each want?
[...]
But so far, most American officials I've interviewed don't have a clue. That includes not just intelligence and law enforcement officials, but also members of Congress who have important roles overseeing our spy agencies. How can they do their jobs without knowing the basics?
[read the full story for all of the frightening details]
October 17, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
Can You Tell a Sunni From a Shiite?
By JEFF STEIN
Washington
FOR the past several months, I've been wrapping up lengthy interviews with Washington counterterrorism officials with a fundamental question: "Do you know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?"
A "gotcha" question? Perhaps. But if knowing your enemy is the most basic rule of war, I don't think it's out of bounds. And as I quickly explain to my subjects, I'm not looking for theological explanations, just the basics: Who's on what side today, and what does each want?
[...]
But so far, most American officials I've interviewed don't have a clue. That includes not just intelligence and law enforcement officials, but also members of Congress who have important roles overseeing our spy agencies. How can they do their jobs without knowing the basics?
[read the full story for all of the frightening details]
Friday, October 13, 2006
YoBimbo: What Would Happen if Humans Disappeared from the Earth Today?
A fascinating timeline of the effect of the extinction of humans from Earth:
What Would Happen if Humans Disappeared from the Earth Today?
What Would Happen if Humans Disappeared from the Earth Today?
Bush denies Congressional infringement on incompetent hires
Bush cites authority to bypass FEMA law
Signing statement is employed again
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff October 6, 2006
WASHINGTON -- President Bush this week asserted that he has the executive authority to disobey a new law in which Congress has set minimum qualifications for future heads of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Congress passed the law last week as a response to FEMA's poor handling of Hurricane Katrina. The agency's slow response to flood victims exposed the fact that Michael Brown, Bush's choice to lead the agency, had been a politically connected hire with no prior experience in emergency management.
To shield FEMA from cronyism, Congress established new job qualifications for the agency's director in last week's homeland security bill. The law says the president must nominate a candidate who has "a demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management" and "not less than five years of executive leadership."
Bush signed the homeland-security bill on Wednesday morning. Then, hours later, he issued a signing statement saying he could ignore the new restrictions. Bush maintains that under his interpretation of the Constitution, the FEMA provision interfered with his power to make personnel decisions.
The law, Bush wrote, "purports to limit the qualifications of the pool of persons from whom the president may select the appointee in a manner that rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office."
The homeland-security bill contained measures covering a range of topics, including terrorism, disaster preparedness, and illegal immigration. One provision calls for authorizing the construction of a 700-mile fence along the Mexican border.
But Bush's signing statement challenged at least three-dozen laws specified in the bill. Among those he targeted is a provision that empowers the FEMA director to tell Congress about the nation's emergency management needs without White House permission. This law, Bush said, "purports . . . to limit supervision of an executive branch official in the provision of advice to the Congress." Despite the law, he said, the FEMA director would be required to get clearance from the White House before telling lawmakers anything.
Bush said nothing of his objections when he signed the bill with a flourish in a ceremony Wednesday in Scottsdale, Ariz. At the time, he proclaimed that the bill was "an important piece of legislation that will highlight our government's highest responsibility, and that's to protect the American people."
The bill, he added, "will also help our government better respond to emergencies and natural disasters by strengthening the capabilities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency."
Bush's remarks at the signing ceremony were quickly e-mailed to reporters, and the White House website highlighted the ceremony. By contrast, the White House minimized attention to the signing statement. When asked by the Globe on Wednesday afternoon if there would be a signing statement, the press office declined to comment, saying only that any such document, if it existed, would be issued in the "usual way."
The press office posted the signing-statement document on its website around 8 p.m. Wednesday, after most reporters had gone home. The signing statement was not included in news reports yesterday on the bill-signing.
[...]
Bush's use of signing statements has attracted increasing attention over the past year. In December 2005, Bush asserted that he can bypass a statutory ban on torture. In March 2006, the president said he can disobey oversight provisions in the Patriot Act reauthorization bill.
In all, Bush has challenged more than 800 laws enacted since he took office, most of which he said intruded on his constitutional powers as president and commander in chief. By contrast, all previous presidents challenged a combined total of about 600 laws.
At the same time, Bush has virtually abandoned his veto power, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Bush has vetoed just one bill since taking office, the fewest of any president since the 19th century.
Earlier this year, the American Bar Association declared that Bush's use of signing statements was "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers."
Last month, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concluded that Bush's signing statements are "an integral part" of his "comprehensive strategy to strengthen and expand executive power" at the expense of the legislative branch.
© Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
[Full story here]
Signing statement is employed again
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff October 6, 2006
WASHINGTON -- President Bush this week asserted that he has the executive authority to disobey a new law in which Congress has set minimum qualifications for future heads of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Congress passed the law last week as a response to FEMA's poor handling of Hurricane Katrina. The agency's slow response to flood victims exposed the fact that Michael Brown, Bush's choice to lead the agency, had been a politically connected hire with no prior experience in emergency management.
To shield FEMA from cronyism, Congress established new job qualifications for the agency's director in last week's homeland security bill. The law says the president must nominate a candidate who has "a demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management" and "not less than five years of executive leadership."
Bush signed the homeland-security bill on Wednesday morning. Then, hours later, he issued a signing statement saying he could ignore the new restrictions. Bush maintains that under his interpretation of the Constitution, the FEMA provision interfered with his power to make personnel decisions.
The law, Bush wrote, "purports to limit the qualifications of the pool of persons from whom the president may select the appointee in a manner that rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office."
The homeland-security bill contained measures covering a range of topics, including terrorism, disaster preparedness, and illegal immigration. One provision calls for authorizing the construction of a 700-mile fence along the Mexican border.
But Bush's signing statement challenged at least three-dozen laws specified in the bill. Among those he targeted is a provision that empowers the FEMA director to tell Congress about the nation's emergency management needs without White House permission. This law, Bush said, "purports . . . to limit supervision of an executive branch official in the provision of advice to the Congress." Despite the law, he said, the FEMA director would be required to get clearance from the White House before telling lawmakers anything.
Bush said nothing of his objections when he signed the bill with a flourish in a ceremony Wednesday in Scottsdale, Ariz. At the time, he proclaimed that the bill was "an important piece of legislation that will highlight our government's highest responsibility, and that's to protect the American people."
The bill, he added, "will also help our government better respond to emergencies and natural disasters by strengthening the capabilities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency."
Bush's remarks at the signing ceremony were quickly e-mailed to reporters, and the White House website highlighted the ceremony. By contrast, the White House minimized attention to the signing statement. When asked by the Globe on Wednesday afternoon if there would be a signing statement, the press office declined to comment, saying only that any such document, if it existed, would be issued in the "usual way."
The press office posted the signing-statement document on its website around 8 p.m. Wednesday, after most reporters had gone home. The signing statement was not included in news reports yesterday on the bill-signing.
[...]
Bush's use of signing statements has attracted increasing attention over the past year. In December 2005, Bush asserted that he can bypass a statutory ban on torture. In March 2006, the president said he can disobey oversight provisions in the Patriot Act reauthorization bill.
In all, Bush has challenged more than 800 laws enacted since he took office, most of which he said intruded on his constitutional powers as president and commander in chief. By contrast, all previous presidents challenged a combined total of about 600 laws.
At the same time, Bush has virtually abandoned his veto power, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Bush has vetoed just one bill since taking office, the fewest of any president since the 19th century.
Earlier this year, the American Bar Association declared that Bush's use of signing statements was "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers."
Last month, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concluded that Bush's signing statements are "an integral part" of his "comprehensive strategy to strengthen and expand executive power" at the expense of the legislative branch.
© Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
[Full story here]
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Cancel the elections-- the REAL contest is for money anyway
Isthmus
Oct 5, 2006
Madison, WI
Cancel the elections!
Let's put all that TV ad money to better use
Oct 5, 2006
Madison, WI
Cancel the elections!
Let's put all that TV ad money to better use
If we were honest about the sorry state of our democracy, we would admit that elections have become mostly irrelevant. In almost every contest, we could avoid a lot of fuss and bother - and get the same result - if, instead of holding an Election Day vote, we just tallied which candidate raised the most money and declared that person the winner.
"It would save us the facade of going through the motions," agrees Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause in Wisconsin. Who spends the most wins the race. That's almost always the case."
[...]For the big, important races, money rules the day. And nearly all of this money goes to the same end: buying ads on TV. Our democracy has been subverted into a battle for the hearts and minds of people so politically shallow they actually make choices based on 15- and 30-second TV spots.
Since you're reading Isthmus, you're probably not in this category. But if you know folks who are - people who cite a TV ad when explaining how they plan to vote - you need to grab them by the shoulders, shake them violently and scream into their face: "You should not be voting! You don't know enough! Stay home, and leave the job to those who know what's going on."
It's probably hopeless. There are multitudes of Americans who feel entitled to vote even though they don't pay any real attention to the issues or candidates. Most of the media encourage this irresponsible behavior at every turn. As a result, our democracy is being destroyed from within.
"Studies show that 75% to 80% of voters in the country get most of their political information from television, and most of that is from commercials," says Heck, adding that the public's level of political engagement has been declining for decades. "Most people, their lives are too busy, too distracted. They don't tune into politics until the very end." And then the ubiquitous TV ads are there to tell them how to vote.
[...]Maybe the argument could be made that the system is working as it should — that candidates win by getting individuals and special interests to give more money to them than to the other guy. If that's the kind of democracy we want, we should be thrilled with the one we have.
But why bother with the voting? Let's just pick the winner based on cash totals and give the money that would have gone to those commercials to worthy causes...
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
NYTimes.com: "The Underbelly of Globalization"
A tragic story that highlights just how much we take for granted as we eat and burn and build and acquire the goods that produce hazardous waste.
INTERNATIONAL / AFRICA | October 2, 2006
Global Sludge Ends in Tragedy for Ivory Coast
By LYDIA POLGREEN and MARLISE SIMONS
To save costs, a global oil company dumped toxic waste on the doorstep of some of the world’s poorest people, spreading illness and killing eight.
Monday, October 02, 2006
NYT: Trading Votes for Pork Across the House Aisle
Trading Votes for Pork Across the House Aisle
Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania is best known on Capitol
Hill for turning pet spending projects into power....
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/washington/02murtha.html
Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania is best known on Capitol
Hill for turning pet spending projects into power....
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/washington/02murtha.html
Krugman on Foley scandal
From today's Paul Krugman editorial in the NY Times about the demise of the right-wing coalition.
It will be interesting, by the way, to see how Dr. Dobson, who declared of Bill Clinton that “no man has ever done more to debase the presidency,” responds to the Foley scandal. Does the failure of Republican leaders to do anything about a sexual predator in their midst outrage him as much as a Democratic president’s consensual affair?Full Story: http://select.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/opinion/02krugman.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
