The leaders of South Korea and North Korea met yesterday in an historic, literal "stepping-across" the line . . . together . . . that separates the two divisions. South Korean President Moon Jae-in was waiting for his counterpart, Kim Jong-un of North Korea -- who took the step across the concrete separating line as they shook hands. Then, holding hands, they stepped together back across the line into North Korea, and then back into the South. Then for their meeting they went into the Peace House, built in the demilitarized zone for just such meetings.
This summit between North and South has been carefully orchestrated by Moon and Kim; but its value is largely symbolic, even if highly important. What happens next, in the upcoming meeting between Kim and President Trump will be determinative. Here's why.
In 1950, North Korea invaded South Korea, setting off a bloody war. The United Nations backed a response to the North's, largely made up of United States troops. China backed the North, but the fighting was largely done between North Korean troops on one side and South Koreans and U.S. troops on the other. After millions were killed, a truce was agreed on in 1953, but no peace treaty was ever signed. The war officially has never ended. And we still have tens of thousands of troops stationed there.
Because of the way it was structured, with the U.S. as the lead force, the South Koreans cannot by themselves officially end the war on their own. The U.S. has to do that.
However, President Moon is being very assertive in trying to lead the North and the U.S. to such an agreement. So here's what happened in the summit between Moon and Kim yesterday.
1. They made many declarations and gestures to indicate that they are one people and do not wish to be divided again by war but to work toward a peace treaty to officially end the Korean War of the 1950s.
2. They pledged to "work toward" the common goal of "complete denuclearization" of the Korean peninsula.
3. There was no attempt to define "complete denuclearization."
Note that these are intentions stated. Neither side made any concrete concessions or promised any specific actions. But it was a great symbolic gesture and sets the stage for the upcoming summit between Trump and Kim.
President Trump, for his part, has made positive statements supportive of the Moon-Kim summit. He refers to "complete denuclearization" -- but does he mean the same thing they do by these words? In the past, it seems that Trump assumed that North Korea would actually give up its nuclear weapons and destroy its capability of making more. That's not what Kim has actually promised -- in words, he said only he would pause in testing or making more. And then he talks about a common goal of complete denuclearization. But it's not clear exactly what that means.
But at the same time, Kim has also seemed to encourage the positive mood created by the impression that Trump has. In fact, many analysts think that Kim's motive in acquiring nuclear weapons was transactional: as a negotiating power to gain acceptance on the world stage.
Now that he is getting that recognition -- a negotiating summit with the U.S. president -- he might actually be willing to trade them for the freedom from sanctions, plus economic assistance, that will allow him to bring his impoverished nation into the kind of economic growth that he must envy in his neighbor and his backer to the south: China.
The optimist in me wants to believe that Kim, who has had members of his own family assassinated to maintain his own power, now has a different kind of motive -- one that genuinely wants to be the father of an economically successful nation that can take its place on the world stage.
Experienced analysts caution that we've been here before. Kim and his father and grandfather have made promises that they didn't keep. So we should not be naive. But neither should we ignore the positive signs coming from Kim Jong-un.
One good sign that Trump may not be quite the loose cannon we fear. He sent out a tweet saying: "Things have changed very radically since my name-calling of the North Korean leader." I do believe that's as close to an apology as I've ever heard from Trump.
Or, if not an apology, at least it's an attempt to reset rather than double down.
Ralph
Saturday, April 28, 2018
Friday, April 27, 2018
Oh, NOOO-ooo-ooo-oo
In arguing before the Supreme Court in defense of President Trump's third travel ban, Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued that Trump has adopted a more moderate stance since his campaign. He no longer wants to ban all Muslims, only travelers from some Muslim-majority nations.
"President Trump," Mr. Francisco argued, "has made crystal clear that Muslims in this country are great Americans, and there are many, many Muslim countries who love this country, and he has praised Islam as one of the great countries of the world."
Uh huh. Oh, dear. Even when they seem to be trying . . . they just can't get it right. Time to repeat fourth grade geography class, Donny. Show us on this globe, please, exactly where the country of Islam is located.
"President Trump," Mr. Francisco argued, "has made crystal clear that Muslims in this country are great Americans, and there are many, many Muslim countries who love this country, and he has praised Islam as one of the great countries of the world."
Uh huh. Oh, dear. Even when they seem to be trying . . . they just can't get it right. Time to repeat fourth grade geography class, Donny. Show us on this globe, please, exactly where the country of Islam is located.
Scott Pruitt excoriated in subcommittee hearing; he deserved every word of it.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt testified before the House Energy and Commerce Environmental Subcommittee on Thursday.
He was soundly raked over the coals by Democrats for his excessive spending, his vindictive firings/reassignments of whistle blowers, his reversal of standards for protecting the environment, and his conflicts of interest and ethical violations. It was rough -- and entirely deserved. A few Republicans were mildly critical also, but others spouted the Trumpian charge of witch hunt, and gave Pruitt a pass.
Not surprisingly, from his past responses, Pruitt maintains that none of this is his fault. For example, he says he simply told his staff he wanted a secure phone in his office. They are the ones who built him a $43,000 state of the art secure phone booth -- when his building already has two secure locations he could use in the admittedly "rare" occasions he really needed such a secure phone. It was his security detail who insisted he had to fly first class for his own safety. And on and on.
In fact, Pruitt takes no responsibility for any of this. Which led one committee member finally to say: "Then I'm concerned that you have no idea what is going on in your name in your agency."
Here's my favorite line, delivered by Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD):
"As head of the EPA, you are wearing the mantle of public trust. . . . But, unfortunately, you've become the poster child for the abuse of public trust."
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) was even more blunt:
"I think your actions are an embarrassment to President Trump. So much for 'draining the swamp.' You're unfit to hold public office. If I were the president, I wouldn't want your help. I'd just get rid of you."
This was after several others had told him he should resign. It's hard to see how he can survive this -- especially since it played out on television. If Pruitt had any shame, he would resign on his own and not wait to be fired.
And don't forget -- he's ruining our planet as well.
Ralph
PS: On other personnel matters: Adm. Ronny Jackson withdrew his name from consideration for VA Chief. Mike Pompao was narrowly confirmed by the senate to be the next Secretary of State.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, with bipartisan support -- four Republicans joined all the Democrats on the committee -- passed a bill that would allow a special counselor, if fired by the president, to appeal his firing in a federal court. Mitch McConnell has already said he won't bring the bill up on the senate floor; Paul Ryan won't bring it up in the house either. Nor would Trump sign it, if passed. However, it's still a very important step.
He was soundly raked over the coals by Democrats for his excessive spending, his vindictive firings/reassignments of whistle blowers, his reversal of standards for protecting the environment, and his conflicts of interest and ethical violations. It was rough -- and entirely deserved. A few Republicans were mildly critical also, but others spouted the Trumpian charge of witch hunt, and gave Pruitt a pass.
Not surprisingly, from his past responses, Pruitt maintains that none of this is his fault. For example, he says he simply told his staff he wanted a secure phone in his office. They are the ones who built him a $43,000 state of the art secure phone booth -- when his building already has two secure locations he could use in the admittedly "rare" occasions he really needed such a secure phone. It was his security detail who insisted he had to fly first class for his own safety. And on and on.
In fact, Pruitt takes no responsibility for any of this. Which led one committee member finally to say: "Then I'm concerned that you have no idea what is going on in your name in your agency."
Here's my favorite line, delivered by Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD):
"As head of the EPA, you are wearing the mantle of public trust. . . . But, unfortunately, you've become the poster child for the abuse of public trust."
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) was even more blunt:
"I think your actions are an embarrassment to President Trump. So much for 'draining the swamp.' You're unfit to hold public office. If I were the president, I wouldn't want your help. I'd just get rid of you."
This was after several others had told him he should resign. It's hard to see how he can survive this -- especially since it played out on television. If Pruitt had any shame, he would resign on his own and not wait to be fired.
And don't forget -- he's ruining our planet as well.
Ralph
PS: On other personnel matters: Adm. Ronny Jackson withdrew his name from consideration for VA Chief. Mike Pompao was narrowly confirmed by the senate to be the next Secretary of State.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, with bipartisan support -- four Republicans joined all the Democrats on the committee -- passed a bill that would allow a special counselor, if fired by the president, to appeal his firing in a federal court. Mitch McConnell has already said he won't bring the bill up on the senate floor; Paul Ryan won't bring it up in the house either. Nor would Trump sign it, if passed. However, it's still a very important step.
Thursday, April 26, 2018
Midweek news briefs
1. Trump's Muslim ban (third): The Supreme Court held hearings Wednesday on Trump's twice revised ban on travel from (some) Muslim countries. This time it was not just a temporary stay decision but the legality of the ban itself.
Justice Kennedy, the Republican most likely to be the swing vote, joined the Democratic Justices in sharp questions to the government's Solicitor General who was arguing the case. Much of it had to do with Trump's motivation in instigating the ban, with the government saying that anti-Muslim statements made by Trump during the campaign should not be considered. Kennedy particularly took issue with this. On the other hand, some noted that Kennedy was also sharp in his questioning of those challenging the ban. A decision is expected by the end of June.
2. Judge ends Trump's ending of DACA: A third federal judge has now delivered the harshest blow yet to Trump's end to the DACA program, which shields undocumented immigrants who were brought here as children and who have passed strict vetting that rules out any blemishes on their records. U.S. District Judge John D. Bates called Trump's abrupt action last September to end the program "virtually unexplained" and therefore "unlawful." He also called it "arbitrary" and "capricious" because it did not adequately explain why it said the program was unlawful.
Still, he gave the administration 90 days to provide more solid reasoning for ending the program. If they do not, then presumably the ending of DACA will be overturned. Thus Judge Bates' decision goes beyond others in that it provides for restarting the program and accepting new applications, assuming the government does not meet the 90 requirement.
3. Trump still trumpets a lie about Iran deal: Even though French President Emmanuel Macron was standing with him and obviously knows the lack of truth in his statement, President Trump repeated his claim on Tuesday that: "The Iran deal is a terrible deal. We paid $150 billion. We gave $1.8 billion in cash. That's actual cash, barrels of cash. It's insane. It's ridiculous." At another point, in Macron's presence, he spoke of "giving them [Iran] $150 billion."
None of that is true. Here are the facts. If Trump really doesn't know this, then he is unfit to be president. If he knows it, and claims it's true anyway, then he is doubly unfit to be president. Facts, as reported by the Associated Press: There was no $150 billion payout from the U.S. Treasury. The money he refers to represents Iranian assets held abroad that were frozen until the deal was reached and Tehran was allowed to access its funds." The money has belonged to Iran all along.
The payout of about $1.8 billion is a separate matter. That dates to the 1970s, when Iran paid the U.S. $400 million for military equipment that was never delivered because the government was overthrown and diplomatic relations ruptured. But it was money they had paid -- and didn't get what they paid for.
"That left people, businesses and governments in each country indebted to partners in the other, and these complex claims took decades to sort out in tribunals and arbitration. For its part, Iran paid settlements of more than $2.5 billion to U.S. citizens and businesses." So, on this one, they actually paid us more than we paid them -- because they owed more, and they paid up, just as we did.
4. Trump's nominee to head VA in trouble: Admiral Ronny Jackson, the president's personal physician in the White House, was Trump's choice to head the sprawling bureaucracy that is the second largest and perhaps the most complex in the government. It's has 366,000 employees, is responsible for the medical treatment of 9 million veterans, and has to oversee hospitals all over the country. Already, Adm. Jackson, who seems a very affable man who gave Trump a glowing health report, was causing concerns. It's become obvious that Trump does not vet people he nominates for important positions; he simply goes with his gut or with expediency or because no one else wants the job.
Here, it's pretty obvious that Adm. Jackson knew how to flatter the flattery-addicted president. The thing he lacks is any experience running a large, complex organization. So questions were being raised about that. But now, according to the ranking Democrat on the Veterans Affairs Committee, more than 20 people have come forward who are current or former members of the medical corps who worked under him or had first hand knowledge. They have put forth charges that go well beyond lack of large-scale, managerial experience.
They claim that Adm. Jackson creates a hostile work environment; one focus group rated morale as a 2 out of 10. Others referred the difficult working relationship, attributed primarily to Adm. Jackson, with a fellow physician-chief. In addition, there are charges of being drunk while on duty protecting the president, especially on overseas trips -- and of freely handing out sleeping and wake-up meds inappropriately to others on the trip. The Republican chair of the committee has delayed the hearings which were scheduled for Tuesday. Trump has given mixed signals but says he will leave it up to Adm. Jackson to decide whether to withdraw.
This is a particular problem, and it's particularly bad. It also points to a general problem about this administration. They apparently don't even begin to vet potential appointees. Trump just doesn't seem to care. He trusts his own instincts more than facts.
5. Searching for some news not involving Trump: I'll keep looking. Something is bound to turn up. Ah! Here it is. No, the Democratic candidate for the special election to fill an open congressional seat from Arizona did not win. But she came within 5% points in a congressional district that Trump won by 21% points in 2016. This follows the same pattern in Georgia 06 and several other states where Democrats cut deeply into Republican majorities in deep-red states. In fact, Democratic candidates have sharply cut into the winning margins in virtually every one of these special elections in deep-red districts -- and have won a few where the odds were not so great.
And these are on top of those actual surprise wins, like Alabama and Virginia.
Ralph
PS: 6. Then there was the evening breaking news: (a) Rudy Guiliani, as Trump's new lawyer, has met with Special Counsel Mueller and says that he is trying to get Trump to agree to an interview with Mueller. (b) Trump's other lawyers sent a letter to Mueller saying that he wants to personally be able to go through the documents seized in the Michael Cohen raid and take out anything that has attorney-client privilege. (c) Michael Cohen has sent an affidavit to the judge in his case saying that he will take the 5th amendment rather than testify in the civil case involving payment to Stormy Daniels.
Justice Kennedy, the Republican most likely to be the swing vote, joined the Democratic Justices in sharp questions to the government's Solicitor General who was arguing the case. Much of it had to do with Trump's motivation in instigating the ban, with the government saying that anti-Muslim statements made by Trump during the campaign should not be considered. Kennedy particularly took issue with this. On the other hand, some noted that Kennedy was also sharp in his questioning of those challenging the ban. A decision is expected by the end of June.
2. Judge ends Trump's ending of DACA: A third federal judge has now delivered the harshest blow yet to Trump's end to the DACA program, which shields undocumented immigrants who were brought here as children and who have passed strict vetting that rules out any blemishes on their records. U.S. District Judge John D. Bates called Trump's abrupt action last September to end the program "virtually unexplained" and therefore "unlawful." He also called it "arbitrary" and "capricious" because it did not adequately explain why it said the program was unlawful.
Still, he gave the administration 90 days to provide more solid reasoning for ending the program. If they do not, then presumably the ending of DACA will be overturned. Thus Judge Bates' decision goes beyond others in that it provides for restarting the program and accepting new applications, assuming the government does not meet the 90 requirement.
3. Trump still trumpets a lie about Iran deal: Even though French President Emmanuel Macron was standing with him and obviously knows the lack of truth in his statement, President Trump repeated his claim on Tuesday that: "The Iran deal is a terrible deal. We paid $150 billion. We gave $1.8 billion in cash. That's actual cash, barrels of cash. It's insane. It's ridiculous." At another point, in Macron's presence, he spoke of "giving them [Iran] $150 billion."
None of that is true. Here are the facts. If Trump really doesn't know this, then he is unfit to be president. If he knows it, and claims it's true anyway, then he is doubly unfit to be president. Facts, as reported by the Associated Press: There was no $150 billion payout from the U.S. Treasury. The money he refers to represents Iranian assets held abroad that were frozen until the deal was reached and Tehran was allowed to access its funds." The money has belonged to Iran all along.
The payout of about $1.8 billion is a separate matter. That dates to the 1970s, when Iran paid the U.S. $400 million for military equipment that was never delivered because the government was overthrown and diplomatic relations ruptured. But it was money they had paid -- and didn't get what they paid for.
"That left people, businesses and governments in each country indebted to partners in the other, and these complex claims took decades to sort out in tribunals and arbitration. For its part, Iran paid settlements of more than $2.5 billion to U.S. citizens and businesses." So, on this one, they actually paid us more than we paid them -- because they owed more, and they paid up, just as we did.
4. Trump's nominee to head VA in trouble: Admiral Ronny Jackson, the president's personal physician in the White House, was Trump's choice to head the sprawling bureaucracy that is the second largest and perhaps the most complex in the government. It's has 366,000 employees, is responsible for the medical treatment of 9 million veterans, and has to oversee hospitals all over the country. Already, Adm. Jackson, who seems a very affable man who gave Trump a glowing health report, was causing concerns. It's become obvious that Trump does not vet people he nominates for important positions; he simply goes with his gut or with expediency or because no one else wants the job.
Here, it's pretty obvious that Adm. Jackson knew how to flatter the flattery-addicted president. The thing he lacks is any experience running a large, complex organization. So questions were being raised about that. But now, according to the ranking Democrat on the Veterans Affairs Committee, more than 20 people have come forward who are current or former members of the medical corps who worked under him or had first hand knowledge. They have put forth charges that go well beyond lack of large-scale, managerial experience.
They claim that Adm. Jackson creates a hostile work environment; one focus group rated morale as a 2 out of 10. Others referred the difficult working relationship, attributed primarily to Adm. Jackson, with a fellow physician-chief. In addition, there are charges of being drunk while on duty protecting the president, especially on overseas trips -- and of freely handing out sleeping and wake-up meds inappropriately to others on the trip. The Republican chair of the committee has delayed the hearings which were scheduled for Tuesday. Trump has given mixed signals but says he will leave it up to Adm. Jackson to decide whether to withdraw.
This is a particular problem, and it's particularly bad. It also points to a general problem about this administration. They apparently don't even begin to vet potential appointees. Trump just doesn't seem to care. He trusts his own instincts more than facts.
5. Searching for some news not involving Trump: I'll keep looking. Something is bound to turn up. Ah! Here it is. No, the Democratic candidate for the special election to fill an open congressional seat from Arizona did not win. But she came within 5% points in a congressional district that Trump won by 21% points in 2016. This follows the same pattern in Georgia 06 and several other states where Democrats cut deeply into Republican majorities in deep-red states. In fact, Democratic candidates have sharply cut into the winning margins in virtually every one of these special elections in deep-red districts -- and have won a few where the odds were not so great.
And these are on top of those actual surprise wins, like Alabama and Virginia.
Ralph
PS: 6. Then there was the evening breaking news: (a) Rudy Guiliani, as Trump's new lawyer, has met with Special Counsel Mueller and says that he is trying to get Trump to agree to an interview with Mueller. (b) Trump's other lawyers sent a letter to Mueller saying that he wants to personally be able to go through the documents seized in the Michael Cohen raid and take out anything that has attorney-client privilege. (c) Michael Cohen has sent an affidavit to the judge in his case saying that he will take the 5th amendment rather than testify in the civil case involving payment to Stormy Daniels.
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
Scott Pruitt will continue destroying our climate right up until he's fired.
The Washington Post reports that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is proposing a new rule that would be a sweeping change in how scientific studies are used (or excluded from use) in forming policy on climate change.
This new rule would only allow the EPA to consider scientific studies "for which the underlying data are made available publicly." This is being sold as an advance in transparency, but critics point out that it will block the use of many long-standing, landmark studies linking air pollution and pesticide exposure to harmful effects on human health. Not because the authors of those studies are trying to conceal anything; it just was not considered before now to be part of published studies unless it was relevant.
What a load of BS. Scott Pruitt doesn't care about transparency; since when did he begin to think that the public wants to be able to comb over the methodology or the data on the subjects behind scientific analysis?
No, this is nothing more than another way this corrupt man has found to try to eliminate any scientific advances that protect our environment, if it costs the industry that needs regulating. Let me explain.
When you do a large study that involves human subjects, certain amounts of demographic data are collected on subjects of the study so that study subjects and control subjects can be matched with rough equivalence on a number of those demographic data, such as age, urban vs rural environment, health issues, etc. But only on data relevant to the study.
The study's methodology, including how well these groups are matched, is evaluated by editors of journals before publication, or by supervisors who oversee studies done with grant money. These are the scientific world's guarantors of the soundness of the methodology. It's not ordinarily something the public -- and especially politicians -- care to look at.
Only now that we are so divided politically does this become an issue; not because either side has suddenly become scientific but because we no longer trust each other. What Pruitt and his ilk do not understand is that, until recently, science stood above all that and could be trusted (although now even that is breaking down as the academy has become tainted by money and politics).
Even so, it can't be that Pruitt is genuinely mistrustful of science done 30 years ago. He's manipulating public opinion to sow distrust in the public for political purposes. He's casting doubt on the long-accepted, landmark studies that have formed the basis for our scientific approach to efforts to combat the pollution that is affecting our climate, the purity of our water and air, and the future geography of our national shores.
Pruitt piously declared in a New York radio interview: "That's transparency. It gives people the opportunity in real time to peer review. It goes to the heart of what we should be about as an agency."
A number of scientists have said that such a requirement, going far beyond what peer-reviewed journals require, "will limit the information the EPA can take into account when setting federal limits on everything from power-plant emissions to which chemicals can be used in agriculture and in homes." A group of 985 scientists signed a letter organized by the Union. of Concerned Scientists urging Pruitt not to go ahead with this policy change.
Their letter states: "There are ways to improve transparency in the decision-making process, but restricting the use of science would improve neither transparency nor the quality of EPA decision-making. If fully implemented, this proposal would greatly weaken EPA's ability to comprehensively consider the scientific evidence across the full array of health studies."
Right. And that is exactly Pruitt's purpose: to weaken EPS's ability to consider scientific evidence. Make no mistake about that. This man is corrupt through and through -- from his habits of excessive spending of government money on himself, to his sweetheart deals in buying expensive homes he could not afford in Oklahoma, to his misuse of his office to destroy the very purpose of the agency he leads.
You only need to consider another of his decisions early in his tenure at EPA. He ruled that anyone who had received an EPA grant for their own scientific work could not serve on an EPA advisory board. Yet, if he's so concerned about conflict of interest, then why did he fill these vacancies with representatives of the very industries that the EPA tries to regulate -- or did, before Scott Pruitt took charge.
Andrew Rosenberg, director to the Union of Concerned Scientists' Center for Science and Democracy, summed it up: "First, they came after the agency's independent science advisers; and now they're going after science itself. What is transparent is the unabashed takeover of EPA leadership by individuals who have demonstrated disinterest in helping communities combat pollution by using the best available science."
Scott Pruitt is in the process of self-destructing, however. Each day brings new revelations of his financial corruption -- not only now in Washington, but going back years in Oklahoma. His former great champion and supporter, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) says that he had not known about any of Pruitt's financial and spending habits; and he is now concerned and supports an investigation. As do an increasing number of Republicans in congress.
Ralph
This new rule would only allow the EPA to consider scientific studies "for which the underlying data are made available publicly." This is being sold as an advance in transparency, but critics point out that it will block the use of many long-standing, landmark studies linking air pollution and pesticide exposure to harmful effects on human health. Not because the authors of those studies are trying to conceal anything; it just was not considered before now to be part of published studies unless it was relevant.
What a load of BS. Scott Pruitt doesn't care about transparency; since when did he begin to think that the public wants to be able to comb over the methodology or the data on the subjects behind scientific analysis?
No, this is nothing more than another way this corrupt man has found to try to eliminate any scientific advances that protect our environment, if it costs the industry that needs regulating. Let me explain.
When you do a large study that involves human subjects, certain amounts of demographic data are collected on subjects of the study so that study subjects and control subjects can be matched with rough equivalence on a number of those demographic data, such as age, urban vs rural environment, health issues, etc. But only on data relevant to the study.
The study's methodology, including how well these groups are matched, is evaluated by editors of journals before publication, or by supervisors who oversee studies done with grant money. These are the scientific world's guarantors of the soundness of the methodology. It's not ordinarily something the public -- and especially politicians -- care to look at.
Only now that we are so divided politically does this become an issue; not because either side has suddenly become scientific but because we no longer trust each other. What Pruitt and his ilk do not understand is that, until recently, science stood above all that and could be trusted (although now even that is breaking down as the academy has become tainted by money and politics).
Even so, it can't be that Pruitt is genuinely mistrustful of science done 30 years ago. He's manipulating public opinion to sow distrust in the public for political purposes. He's casting doubt on the long-accepted, landmark studies that have formed the basis for our scientific approach to efforts to combat the pollution that is affecting our climate, the purity of our water and air, and the future geography of our national shores.
Pruitt piously declared in a New York radio interview: "That's transparency. It gives people the opportunity in real time to peer review. It goes to the heart of what we should be about as an agency."
A number of scientists have said that such a requirement, going far beyond what peer-reviewed journals require, "will limit the information the EPA can take into account when setting federal limits on everything from power-plant emissions to which chemicals can be used in agriculture and in homes." A group of 985 scientists signed a letter organized by the Union. of Concerned Scientists urging Pruitt not to go ahead with this policy change.
Their letter states: "There are ways to improve transparency in the decision-making process, but restricting the use of science would improve neither transparency nor the quality of EPA decision-making. If fully implemented, this proposal would greatly weaken EPA's ability to comprehensively consider the scientific evidence across the full array of health studies."
Right. And that is exactly Pruitt's purpose: to weaken EPS's ability to consider scientific evidence. Make no mistake about that. This man is corrupt through and through -- from his habits of excessive spending of government money on himself, to his sweetheart deals in buying expensive homes he could not afford in Oklahoma, to his misuse of his office to destroy the very purpose of the agency he leads.
You only need to consider another of his decisions early in his tenure at EPA. He ruled that anyone who had received an EPA grant for their own scientific work could not serve on an EPA advisory board. Yet, if he's so concerned about conflict of interest, then why did he fill these vacancies with representatives of the very industries that the EPA tries to regulate -- or did, before Scott Pruitt took charge.
Andrew Rosenberg, director to the Union of Concerned Scientists' Center for Science and Democracy, summed it up: "First, they came after the agency's independent science advisers; and now they're going after science itself. What is transparent is the unabashed takeover of EPA leadership by individuals who have demonstrated disinterest in helping communities combat pollution by using the best available science."
Scott Pruitt is in the process of self-destructing, however. Each day brings new revelations of his financial corruption -- not only now in Washington, but going back years in Oklahoma. His former great champion and supporter, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) says that he had not known about any of Pruitt's financial and spending habits; and he is now concerned and supports an investigation. As do an increasing number of Republicans in congress.
Ralph
Tuesday, April 24, 2018
Catching up with recent news briefs
1. Attorney General Sessions says: If Trump fires Rosenstein it might mean that he would have to resign too. Is Jefferson Beauregard just being coy? Why didn't he make it as a direct threat? 'If he goes, I go too.' Perhaps he's leaving himself wiggle room, but why? On the other hand, maybe it's that Sessions knows Trump wants to get rid of him too; and a direct threat might give Trump ideas of getting 2 for 1.
2. House Republicans demanded Comey's notes on meetings with President Trump be released to them. Some suggested that they were trying to set up a situation where Rosenstein's anticipated refusal could be used as a pretext for firing him. If so, it backfired. Rosenstein did release the 15 pages of notes, with some redactions of names. In addition, the notes themselves back up Comey's other statements, both in his congressional hearings and in his book. So, nothing to see here, folks.
3. Rudy Guiliani says that he will be joining the Trump legal team specifically to bring the investigation to an end; and he hopes to do that within two weeks. Some think that it's Rudy's connections with the New York federal prosecutor's office, which is handling the Cohen case and which Rudy used to head that is the reason. He has connections with FBI agents there who have leaked to him in the past. Rudy may add political power to the team, but he is no longer a legal heavyweight. He's way past his prime and into FoxNews punditry, such as it is.
4. It seemed that EPA's corrupt administrator Scott Pruitt was a step away from being fired -- and that foot was starting to slip on a banana peel -- when the news week was grabbed by the raid on Michael Cohen's home and offices. It's dominated the news ever since, which some people think is a lucky break for Pruitt. Don't count on it holding. The EPA Inspector General is investigating, as are several news organizations. They continue to find more and more evidence of wrong-doing -- especially things like meetings with lobbyists that had been previously denied. We've rarely seen someone come in to head a federal agency and so quickly turn it into his own private, personal corrupt machine. I'd give him three more months, at most.
[Later addition: It was reported Monday night that word has gone out from the White House to Republicans: stop defending Pruitt. This comes after another revelation of a meeting with a lobbyist for a client, when Pruitt had previously said this lobbyist had no business before the EPA. And BTW, this lobbyist's wife is the one who gave Pruitt the $50 a night condo rental. Also, lots of corrupt and suspicious stories coming out about Pruitt's time as AG of Oklahoma too. The senate has just confirmed the appointment of a #2 person for the EPA, so there will be someone to take over when Pruitt gets fired.]
5. And baby makes 5: Kate and William, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, have had their third baby, born Monday night, weighing a healthy 8 pounds 7 ounces. How does she do it? Less than 24 hours after giving birth, Kate walks out the front door of the hospital -- along with Dad William and siblings George and Charlotte. Kate is looking almost daisy-fresh, carrying the baby herself; and the adoring crowd waiting outside the hospital goes wild. They drive away in an SUV driven by Prince William himself.
The new baby, whose name has not yet been announced, is fifth in line for the British throne: The line of succession being Charles, William, George, Charlotte, and [new baby]. Harry would come next -- unless it's after William's children have children of their own first. This admirable and adorable young family is restoring the Brit's love affair with their royalty. Too bad Charles will have to have his reign as king before William.
6. Finally, back home: an amazing parallel. In the Watergate break-in, the DNC filed a lawsuit against the Nixon campaign within three days. The 2018 DNC has just filed a similar lawsuit against the Trump campaign, albeit not within 3 days. But here's the ironic factoid: The judge to whom the current case was assigned actually worked on the Watergate case as a young, assistant prosecutor, some 40+ years ago.
Remember the outcome? Nixon eventually resigned from the presidency rather than face the inevitable impeachment trial that was being prepared by congress.
Ralph
2. House Republicans demanded Comey's notes on meetings with President Trump be released to them. Some suggested that they were trying to set up a situation where Rosenstein's anticipated refusal could be used as a pretext for firing him. If so, it backfired. Rosenstein did release the 15 pages of notes, with some redactions of names. In addition, the notes themselves back up Comey's other statements, both in his congressional hearings and in his book. So, nothing to see here, folks.
3. Rudy Guiliani says that he will be joining the Trump legal team specifically to bring the investigation to an end; and he hopes to do that within two weeks. Some think that it's Rudy's connections with the New York federal prosecutor's office, which is handling the Cohen case and which Rudy used to head that is the reason. He has connections with FBI agents there who have leaked to him in the past. Rudy may add political power to the team, but he is no longer a legal heavyweight. He's way past his prime and into FoxNews punditry, such as it is.
4. It seemed that EPA's corrupt administrator Scott Pruitt was a step away from being fired -- and that foot was starting to slip on a banana peel -- when the news week was grabbed by the raid on Michael Cohen's home and offices. It's dominated the news ever since, which some people think is a lucky break for Pruitt. Don't count on it holding. The EPA Inspector General is investigating, as are several news organizations. They continue to find more and more evidence of wrong-doing -- especially things like meetings with lobbyists that had been previously denied. We've rarely seen someone come in to head a federal agency and so quickly turn it into his own private, personal corrupt machine. I'd give him three more months, at most.
[Later addition: It was reported Monday night that word has gone out from the White House to Republicans: stop defending Pruitt. This comes after another revelation of a meeting with a lobbyist for a client, when Pruitt had previously said this lobbyist had no business before the EPA. And BTW, this lobbyist's wife is the one who gave Pruitt the $50 a night condo rental. Also, lots of corrupt and suspicious stories coming out about Pruitt's time as AG of Oklahoma too. The senate has just confirmed the appointment of a #2 person for the EPA, so there will be someone to take over when Pruitt gets fired.]
5. And baby makes 5: Kate and William, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, have had their third baby, born Monday night, weighing a healthy 8 pounds 7 ounces. How does she do it? Less than 24 hours after giving birth, Kate walks out the front door of the hospital -- along with Dad William and siblings George and Charlotte. Kate is looking almost daisy-fresh, carrying the baby herself; and the adoring crowd waiting outside the hospital goes wild. They drive away in an SUV driven by Prince William himself.
The new baby, whose name has not yet been announced, is fifth in line for the British throne: The line of succession being Charles, William, George, Charlotte, and [new baby]. Harry would come next -- unless it's after William's children have children of their own first. This admirable and adorable young family is restoring the Brit's love affair with their royalty. Too bad Charles will have to have his reign as king before William.
6. Finally, back home: an amazing parallel. In the Watergate break-in, the DNC filed a lawsuit against the Nixon campaign within three days. The 2018 DNC has just filed a similar lawsuit against the Trump campaign, albeit not within 3 days. But here's the ironic factoid: The judge to whom the current case was assigned actually worked on the Watergate case as a young, assistant prosecutor, some 40+ years ago.
Remember the outcome? Nixon eventually resigned from the presidency rather than face the inevitable impeachment trial that was being prepared by congress.
Ralph
Monday, April 23, 2018
A free press is essential to democracy
I finally got around to watching the Stephen Spielberg film, "The Post," about Washington Post's decision to join the New York Times in publishing the Pentagon Papers -- a major step in ending the Viet Nam War.
It wasn't high on my priority film list; because, frankly, I had lived through that era, and I knew how it turned out. But, now having watched the film, I highly recommend it . . for anyone. It's a terrific history lesson. But, even more, it reminds us why a free press is essential to our democracy.
By the way, the issue that was decided by the Supreme Court was whether the government can exercise prior restraint over what can be published. The papers had been scrupulous in avoiding printing anything that could have put our troops in danger or otherwise damaged the nation, which would be exceptions to the press freedom, similar to the proscription of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater.
SCOTUS voted 6 to 3 in favor of the freedom to publish. Justice Hugo Black's majority opinion was stated in the film, using a bit of dramatic license but essentially faithful to his meaning, as:
"The Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill it's essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors."
Ralph
It wasn't high on my priority film list; because, frankly, I had lived through that era, and I knew how it turned out. But, now having watched the film, I highly recommend it . . for anyone. It's a terrific history lesson. But, even more, it reminds us why a free press is essential to our democracy.
By the way, the issue that was decided by the Supreme Court was whether the government can exercise prior restraint over what can be published. The papers had been scrupulous in avoiding printing anything that could have put our troops in danger or otherwise damaged the nation, which would be exceptions to the press freedom, similar to the proscription of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater.
SCOTUS voted 6 to 3 in favor of the freedom to publish. Justice Hugo Black's majority opinion was stated in the film, using a bit of dramatic license but essentially faithful to his meaning, as:
"The Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill it's essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors."
Ralph
Sunday, April 22, 2018
Postal workers' passive revolt -- tradition
One of those minor news items caught my eye today. It's a report about an "overwhelmed" postal worker in New York who just stashed bags of mail rather than delivering them. He claims that he did deliver the "important" letters, but was simply too overwhelmed by the volume of other mail.
Investigators found mail dating back to 2005 in his home, car, and work locker. Personally, I can sympathize with him. Just having to empty my curbside mail box and tote all that junk mail (about 85% of my total) to the garbage can gets me down too.
But the story also reminded me whose good company this 2018 postal worker associates with in the history of the post office. Almost 100 years ago, before William Faulkner wrote those gorgeous, complex novels that won for him the Nobel Prize in Literature, the struggling young writer had a part time job working in the campus post office of the University of Mississippi.
Part of the Faulkner folklore is that, working the night shift sorting mail, he would become bored -- or seized by the urge to write -- so he would just dump the rest of the mail in the trash.
When this was discovered, Faulkner was fired. From such lack of responsibility, one might have predicted failure in life. But that didn't reckon with this blazing talent that just couldn't be bothered with such trivial and vapid correspondence -- when he had Nobel Prize novels to write.
Not that I'm condoning irresponsibility, and the U.S. Mail has to be treated as sacrosanct. But Faulkner was a poor choice for such a job. He should have been fired. As was inevitable, he found a way to write some of the world's all-time great literary novels: The Sound and the Fury, As I Lay Dying, Light in August, and Absalom!, Absalom! That's the top tier; the second tier is also pretty great. Even the few, less successful ones are better than most fiction.
Ralph
Investigators found mail dating back to 2005 in his home, car, and work locker. Personally, I can sympathize with him. Just having to empty my curbside mail box and tote all that junk mail (about 85% of my total) to the garbage can gets me down too.
But the story also reminded me whose good company this 2018 postal worker associates with in the history of the post office. Almost 100 years ago, before William Faulkner wrote those gorgeous, complex novels that won for him the Nobel Prize in Literature, the struggling young writer had a part time job working in the campus post office of the University of Mississippi.
Part of the Faulkner folklore is that, working the night shift sorting mail, he would become bored -- or seized by the urge to write -- so he would just dump the rest of the mail in the trash.
When this was discovered, Faulkner was fired. From such lack of responsibility, one might have predicted failure in life. But that didn't reckon with this blazing talent that just couldn't be bothered with such trivial and vapid correspondence -- when he had Nobel Prize novels to write.
Not that I'm condoning irresponsibility, and the U.S. Mail has to be treated as sacrosanct. But Faulkner was a poor choice for such a job. He should have been fired. As was inevitable, he found a way to write some of the world's all-time great literary novels: The Sound and the Fury, As I Lay Dying, Light in August, and Absalom!, Absalom! That's the top tier; the second tier is also pretty great. Even the few, less successful ones are better than most fiction.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
