That was short-lived

Today's Congressional hearing was supposed to be a woodshed moment for BP's CEO Tony Hayward. Instead, it was overshadowed by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex) making the following apology TO HIM.

"I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday. I think it is a tragedy in the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown -- in this case a $20 billion shakedown -- with the attorney general of the United States, who is legitimately conducting a criminal investigation . . . participating in what amounts to a $20 billion slush fund that's unprecedented in our nation's history . . . "I'm only speaking for myself. I'm not speaking for anyone else, but I apologize."

Other House Republicans, including Georgia's Tom Price and Michele Bachmann, have also been grumbling about it. But the House Republican leadership saw the political damage and went into swift action. By mid-afternoon, Barton himself had been taken to the woodshed by John Boehner and Eric Cantor, who threatened to strip Barton of his ranking membership on the committee if he did not immediately apologize for his apology.

Which he promptly did -- saying he should not have used the word "shakedown," and he regretted the implication that BP should not have to pay for the damages and compensation.

Boehner and Cantor at least must have realized that defending BP is not a political winner right now. You have to admire the swiftness and effectiveness of their discipline. But there's absolutely nothing else to admire in them.

Ralph

No accountability required

Barack Obama and his administration have disappointed us progressives on many counts. I have been one who has defended him in spite of disappointment on specific issues, because I realize that there are limits to what can be accomplished in the current political and congressional environment; and Obama has to consider the total picture of multiple problems, not just individual issues.

I know that in 90% of my disappointments, Obama would like to accomplish what I had hoped he could and that, if he had the votes in Congress to get it all done, he would.

But I am increasingly coming to admit that a pattern has emerged of his failing to exert bold leadership when it might have changed what is politically possible. In a few instances (much having to do with reversing Bush positions on executive power, surveillance of citizens, and support for torture), his administration has defended positions in court, which had nothing to do with forging political alliances and making trade-offs to get a bill passed.

His avoidance of holding the previous administration accountable is a historic mistake, I believe. Perhaps he is convinced that investigating the Bush administration's multiple outrages and illegal actions would result in such backlash from Republicans in Congress that nothing could be accomplished. I still think it's a historic mistake. We have almost total obstructionism from Republicans, anyway.

The latest example involves the case of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who was arrested in a New York airport in 2002 and sent to Syria, where he was held for nearly a year and repeatedly tortured. Ultimately it was determined that his arrest as a terrorism suspect was based on incorrect information from the Canadian Mounted Police; he was completely innocent. Long ago, they admitted the mistake. The Canadian government cleared him, formally apologized, and paid him over $9 million as compensation.

The U. S. government has refused to do any of that. The best the Bush team could muster was a bland statement by Condi Rice in a hearing that it was not handled "as it should have been." Think about it: Canada apologized and gave him $9M for having been mistaken about his identity. We arrested him and sent him to Syria, knowing he would be tortured, in fact BECAUSE he would be tortured, hoping to get information -- and kept him there for nearly a year. We not only have done nothing to make it up to him, we have fought his lawsuit in the courts -- and won.

His case has finally made it to the Supreme Court on appeal, and they have refused to hear it, leaving the lower court decision intact. Worse, the Obama Department of Justice urged the Court not to take the case because investigation might damage diplomatic relations and affect national security. Further, the assistant Solicitor General wrote the Court that it might raise questions about "the motives and sincerity of the United States officials" who sent him to Syria for interrogation.

Well, at least that is candid. But who gives a rip-roaring f--k about protecting the "motives and sincerity" of Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Gonzales/Rove & Co? Covering up such moral perfidy in public office leaves our country with a deep stain that needs to be expunged. Decisions such as this only allow it to go deeper. White wash, even by a black president in the White House, just won't do it.

I do not understand Obama's obsession with protecting the Bush/Cheney thugs.

Ralph

Idea III: Everybody's mad at the NRA

Liberals are, of course, mad at the NRA about a thousand issues concerning gun control.

But conservatives are hopping mad at them too. It seems that NRA's cutting a deal to get an exemption has made passage of the campaign finance disclosure bill more likely. So conservatives are blaming them for "denying free speech to the American people."

If that needs a little parsing, here it is. The bill in question would require disclosure of the identity of donors who give large amounts of money to entities like the NRA, which then takes the money and lavishes it on political campaigns to buy their way into control of legislation.

Conservatives wanted to defeat the bill -- claiming it limited freedom of speech (code for limiting their ability to buy elections). They see NRA as betraying their cause, because conservative Democrats beholden to the NRA will now vote for it.

I'm just happy for anybody to be mad at the NRA, whatever the reason.

Ralph

I have an idea II

Re yesterday's "I have an idea" post, about the House compromise with NRA backers. Here's a quote from Senator Dianne Feinstein.

I strongly oppose any special exemption for the National Rifle Association in the DISCLOSE Act. The purpose of this bill is to make sure that elected representatives are not beholden to special interests, yet here is special interest # 1 receiving a deal to exempt it from an otherwise very good bill.

This is bad policy. The law should apply to the NRA, just like any other group. If the NRA, or any similar group, is going to spend millions on political ads, the American public has a right to know who is funding them.

The bill is the DISCLOSE Act, not the 'Everyone Except the NRA DISCLOSE Act.'

The NRA claims they need an exemption to protect their First Amendment rights, but that argument simply doesn't hold up. The Supreme Court has stated clearly that although all are free to speak and advocate their positions, when a group runs ads for and against candidates, disclosure requirements are appropriate.

If Feinstein is joined by all Republicans in opposing the bill, it will doom the whole thing.

Dilemma: this special exemption for the most powerful special interest may be the only way to get an otherwise good bill passed. Is it worth it? What message does such a craven pandering to get votes send?

Ralph

June 16th

Happy Bloomsday to All !!

"Bloomsday is being celebrated around the world today as fans come together to appreciate James Joyce's classic novel "Ulysses." The book, widely considered to be one of the greatest modern novels ever written, takes place over the span of just one day -- June 16, 1904 -- and follows the musings and adventures of two men living in Dublin, Leopold Bloom and Stephen Dedalus." [Huffington Post]

Celebrations will be held from Oslo to Buenes Aires to Sydney -- and even Alabama. But nothing listed on their web site for Atlanta.

Lest we forget what all the shouting is about, here's an excerpt from Molly Bloom's soliloquoy that ends the novel:

"... and how he kissed me under the Moorish wall and I thought well as well him as another and then I asked him with my eyes to ask again yes and then he asked me would I yes to say yes my mountain flower and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes."

Ralph

Improving political news

An AP-GfK Roper poll shows that, although only 24% approve of the way Congress is doing its job and 55% want a new representative, they still want the Democrats to be in control by 46% to 39%.

This is up from April when 44% to 41% preferred the Repubs to be in charge. The poll was conducted well into the Gulf oil disaster time frame, and 87% called it a major problem. Obama gets a 52% disapproval rating for handling the crisis, but I think it reminds people of Katrina -- and they are able to distinguish Obama and his team from Bush and Brownie.

Ralph

Short bits

1. Rwanda, one of the poorest of the third world countries, provides national health insurance that covers 92% of its people. True, it is limited and has no frills. But it covers maternity and most major illnesses.

2. Sweden's government pays for men to take paternity leave from their jobs, and according to a New York Times article, it is changing the definition of "manly" in that country. It is not mandatory, but about 80% take it. Reportedly divorce rates have declined, and there are more shared custody cases when they do divorce. Portugal has a mandatory paternity leave, but only for one week. Iceland has just passed a law giving three months financial support to new fathers who take leave.

3. And, by the way, Iceland has just legalized gay marriage -- by a unanimous vote of their Parliament. Other countries: Netherlands (2000), Belgium (2003), Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), and Sweden (2009). Israel, France, and Japan recognize marriages performed in other countries. In the U.S., Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.

4. Finally, some sanity among the Supremes. In a 7 to 2 decision, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that a man on death row, whose court appointed attorney missed the deadline for filing an appeal, must be granted an appeal hearing anyway. Scalia and Thomas voted no. Apparently, to them, the law is the law and deadlines are deadlines. If you have the misfortune to have an incompetent lawyer supplied for you by the system, that's just the tough breaks of life and -- in this case -- death.

Ralph

I have an idea

I have an idea: Let's just put the government up for sale to the highest bidder.

It would save time. And we could quit agonizing about what's the right thing to do. Make it simple. Let's just be honest and say: We're auctioning off the people's rights.

Today's cave-in to the NRA is jaw-droppingly astonishing.

The Democrats were trying to do something to counter the Supreme Court's awful decision that allows unlimited campaign contributions from corporations -- in essence, treating corporations as if they were people with free speech rights. They had crafted a bill with strict financial disclosure requirements. It wouldn't stop the cash, but at least we would know who was paying for the ads.

But, to get the votes of the 40 or 50 Blue Dog Dems who will not go against the NRA, they had to carve out an exemption to the disclosure that is so tailored to the NRA that only a few other 501(c)(4) groups fit and will qualify for the exemption: Humane Society (yes), AARP (yes), AFL-CIO (no), Chamber of Commerce (no), MoveOn.org (no). Is there any rationale there? No.

"It truly is amazing," said Paul Helmke, a spokesman for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "We are not talking 2nd Amendment issues at all. We are not talking gun bans or background checks. We are talking campaign finance disclosure. I have never seen this before. I have seen people get earmarks for things. Here it seems like the NRA has tooth marks instead."

I don't think House leaders wanted to do this, but it was the only way to get it passed. It's also the price of winning control of the House. To do so, Rahm Emanuel recruited conservative Dems to run in Repub-leaning districts -- and won. So we got control of the agenda and the committees -- and this is the price to pay.

Ralph

Which ones to discharge?

Are we being naive and too easily dismissive of problems on military bases when gay men and women are allow to serve openly? Other nations have eliminated the discriminatory ban, and it seemed to be no big deal.

A news item on Huffington Post brings this into focus:

Two Marines have been arrested for allegedly beating a gay man in Savannah, Georgia. Keil Cronauer and Christopher Stanzel are accused of attacking Kieran Daly so badly that he suffered bruises on his brain. . . . In addition to the bruises, Daly suffered two seizures immediately after the attack. His friends performed CPR. . .

The soldiers were caught running from the scene in Savannah's Johnson Square early Saturday morning.

While Cronauer and Stanzel told police that Daly was harrassing them, Daly explained that the two were mad because they thought that he had winked at one of them.

"The guy thought I was winking at him," Daly said. "I told him, 'I was squinting, man. ... I'm tired.'"

Along with others, I have scoffed at soldiers quaking in fear that a gay man might look at them in the showers. But maybe our American macho men are just too insecure to tolerate this stimulation of their homophobic anxiety. (I've turned macho into an acronym: M.A.C.H.O. = "Masking Anxiety Caused by Homo Obsession.")

This attack occurred off base and had nothing to do with Don't Ask, Don't Tell. But some will use this incident to say, 'See, that's why we need to keep DADT."

But suppose Daly had also been a Marine? Which one(s) do you think would have undermined unit cohesion? The one who winked, or the ones who beat the winker into convulsions? Which one(s) should be discharged as unfit for military service? IMO, if the Marines really must have fighting animals, they should keep them in cages between battles.

The problem is not homosexuality; it is homophobia.

Ralph

Wow

First we had Laura Bush doing interviews for her book and looking like a live and likeable real person instead of the frozen first lady icon -- even expressing her belief, and obvious acceptance, that "same-sex marriage will come."

Now we have 28 year old daughter Barbara interviewed on FoxNews today, saying:

"Why do, basically, people with money have good health care and why do people who live on lower salaries not have good health care? Health should be a right for everyone."

Barbara is the founder of the Global Health Corps, a non-profit organization that "connects outstanding young leaders with organizations working on the frontlines in order to promote global health equity" in both Africa and impoverished parts of the U.S.

Asked what she thought of Obama's health care reform bill, she said:

"Obviously the health care reform bill was highly debated by a lot of people, and I'm glad the bill was passed."

What's going on with these Bush women? Have they had these progressive views all along? Are they being deployed to try to soften the Bush legacy? Or is it that Dick Cheney no longer writes the scripts?

Until I learn otherwise, I'm going to assume that Laura and Barbara, at least, are speaking for themselves now. They both seem far more genuine than when they were in the White House.

Ralph

When all else fails, play the "our troops" card

Elena Kagan is so eminently qualified to be a Supreme Court justice that Republicans are floundering to come up with something to make noise about. Their outcry -- that she has had no judicial experience -- died when Justice Antonin Scalia, of all people, came to her defense and said he thought that was a good thing. They already have plenty of former judges on the Court, he said.

Now, in today's AJC, we have their other non-issue, laid out in an op-ed from Alabama's Senator Jeff Sessions, about Kagan's handling of military recruitment at Harvard Law School while she was dean. He accuses her of not supporting our troops, because she limited when and how military recruiters could have access to students. When all else fails, conservatives trot out the "support our troops" card.

Kagan was responding, of course, to the clash of values between the military's need for recruitment on university campuses vs Harvard's non-discrimination policy. And, of course, the military does discriminate against gays and lesbians in their hiring and firing. Civilian corporations with a discrimination policy were treated equally.

Here's a letter I have just sent to the AJC and hope they will print:

"To the Editor:

"My comment addresses only one of Senator Jeff Sessions' several disingenuous assertions about military recruitment at Harvard Law School (Opinion, June 13). He states that Dean Elena Kagan 'used her authority to hinder -- rather than help -- the soldiers who fight and die for our freedoms.'

"Which soldiers, Senator?

"If every single member of the Harvard Law School classes since 1993 had been recruited to join the military, they would not replace the 13,000 gay men and women who were discharged under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy during that time."

Ralph