Medicine's loss was journalism's gain.
Paige St. John would have been a great doctor or veterinarian. But somewhere during her studies at Southern Illinois University in Edwardsville she veered into what was then the nation's smallest accredited J-school and the die was cast.
Today, she holds the 2011 Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism, for a two-year-long investigation into fraud, failure and misfeasance in the Florida insurance industry, particularly in the field of home insurance against hurricanes.
We were on the road when the news broke last week. "Paige Wins Pulitzer!!!" said the text message from our son, John -- Paige's husband.
For the second consecutive year, Lois and I -- particularly Lois -- walked step by step in the shadow of a Pulitzer Prize winner on the trail of corporate corruption and greed. Lois was Dan Gilbert's "journalism stepmom" in pursuit of the oil and gas royalty scandal in Virginia that won the 2010 prize for public service.
We first met Paige when John's then wife-to-be visited us in Pennsylvania. She could transform a walk in the woods with the dogs into a series of enlightening mini-lectures on the flora and fauna to be observed around us. She exuded compassion for all things great and small. She might have succeeded in any number of careers, including music and science and medicine, but her commitment to journalism was total.
As a skeptic about the future of the craft -- megacorporate ownership already was diluting the quality of journalism across the land -- I feared for her future and John's. Our son, too, was still then an award-winning journalist who had been a finalist in the Pulitzer judging.
Having shepherded more than one Pulitzer Prize-winning effort ourselves, Lois and I knew the cost -- not just time and money but emotional toll, internal stress, political pressures, libel fears. As American media came under increasing pressure for profit rather than quality journalism, fewer and fewer information purveyors were willing to pay the price.
The Sarasota, FL, Herald-Tribune, where Paige landed in 2008, is one of the few surviving practitioners of that kind of old-fashioned journalism. None of her editors blinked when the project stretched on and on beyond the six months originally envisioned. None expressed purse-string concerns when the pursuit of the story took Paige to Monaco and Bermuda, where the really high rollers of re-insurance fraud frolicked. No editor panicked when the writing, editing, illustrating, re-checking and publishing of the reportage stretched over a full year. Nobody at the paper backed down when regulators, politicians and powerful corporate lawyers tried to block publication and smear Paige.
State Sen. Mike Bennett, a Bradenton Republican and member of the Banking and Insurance Committee, wrote:
Paige, you are one of the few that continues to uncover details and one of the few that the newspaper industry continues to support and finance.
Thank you from all consumers in the State of Florida.
Kurt Luedtke, probably the only man ever to win both a Pulitzer Prize in journalism and an Oscar from the film industry, and a subscriber to the Herald-Tribune, had made essentially the same point in an e-mail to the editor shortly before the Pulitzer was announced. He wrote that "enterprise and investigative reporting all over the place is diminished because of money problems, and the lack of it is, I think, a real problem for all things civic and maybe democracy itself.
"That said, here is the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, with resources which must be as threatened as anybody's, consistently turning out work that's damn good, and greatly relevant to its market, and well-written and well-presented to boot. And not easy stuff, either: I think about the insurance series as an example of difficult, time-consuming work which badly needed doing. . . If there were a big, fancy prize for quality work over, say, a five year period, you'd win it."
Paige told an interviewer that her husband was her first and best mentor in the art of investigative reporting, which he once taught at the University of Michigan. John responded that now the tables are turned. "She knows much more than I do. I could be her student."
So, I might add, could the entire Washington press corps. But that's another story. Maybe there's a Pulitzer in it for someone.
"Don't tell Momma I'm a journalist; say I play the piano in a whorehouse."
Monday, April 25, 2011
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Nice Music: Overture to a Sell-Out
The Old Gray Lady was positively ecstatic. "President Obama, Reinvigorated," she trilled in the headline on her editorial.
"For months, the original President Obama had disappeared behind mushy compromises and dimly seen principles," the New York Times editorial said. "But on Wednesday, he used his budget speech to clearly distance himself from Republican plans to heap tax benefits on the rich while casting adrift the nation’s poor, elderly and unemployed."
Please forgive the Pianist for failing to share the Lady's enthusiasm. Perhaps it's his accursed memory for familiar old tunes. Heckuvva speech, Barry. Fluid, firm, articulate, smooth, reassuring -- all the right notes.
Just like the campaign rhetoric on health care. "Insure every American." Except that we took universal single payer off the table before there even was a table. Except that we sold out to the pharmaceutical industry before there was even a plan. Except that every time the Republican minority shouted "Boo!" we gave away more benefits for the sick, the aged and the poor. Good speeches, though.
Just like the campaign speeches on the economy. Grand populist phrasing, bold pledges to "main street" -- and a total sell-out to Wall Street.
Just like the campaign speeches on war, on torture, on working people -- a moving, soaring hymn to our better angels. Except that we still torture shamelessly, have added a third war to our agenda and refused to stand shoulder to shoulder with the brave unionists of Wisconsin.
And now we're expected to believe that Dr. Kidglove will actually stand up to the Tea Pot House of Representatives on the phony issue of the Deficit Bogeyman and the Battle of the Budget ?
Good speech. Remindful of the exchange in the bleachers of old Tiger stadium when Norm Cash played first base in Detroit and hit the occasional home run. Norm swung at a fastball and missed by a foot. "Goof riffle," said one patriot. "He leads the league in good riffles," said his companion.
Don't mind the cynics, Barry. It was a good speech.
Of course we've heard this tune before. We have learned that it is but an overture, a stringing together of pleasant, hummable platitudes that won't be borne out when the curtain rises and the real action begins.
You could call it, "Prelude to the Cave-In."
He has said the pretty words -- with a few glaring hedges if you listened closely. Even the Old Gray Lady sort of noticed. "His plan relies on about two parts spending cuts to one part tax increases," its editorialist said. "It should have been closer to 50-50, broadening the sacrifice."
Sacrifice? How about reining in the war machine? Old Gray Lady? Old Gray? Hey, the war machine? Are you still there, Old Gray editorialist ?
Oh, never mind.
From yesteryear's presidential debates comes the distant sound of another pretender to be president, chiding his debate opponent.
"There you go again!"
"For months, the original President Obama had disappeared behind mushy compromises and dimly seen principles," the New York Times editorial said. "But on Wednesday, he used his budget speech to clearly distance himself from Republican plans to heap tax benefits on the rich while casting adrift the nation’s poor, elderly and unemployed."
Please forgive the Pianist for failing to share the Lady's enthusiasm. Perhaps it's his accursed memory for familiar old tunes. Heckuvva speech, Barry. Fluid, firm, articulate, smooth, reassuring -- all the right notes.
Just like the campaign rhetoric on health care. "Insure every American." Except that we took universal single payer off the table before there even was a table. Except that we sold out to the pharmaceutical industry before there was even a plan. Except that every time the Republican minority shouted "Boo!" we gave away more benefits for the sick, the aged and the poor. Good speeches, though.
Just like the campaign speeches on the economy. Grand populist phrasing, bold pledges to "main street" -- and a total sell-out to Wall Street.
Just like the campaign speeches on war, on torture, on working people -- a moving, soaring hymn to our better angels. Except that we still torture shamelessly, have added a third war to our agenda and refused to stand shoulder to shoulder with the brave unionists of Wisconsin.
And now we're expected to believe that Dr. Kidglove will actually stand up to the Tea Pot House of Representatives on the phony issue of the Deficit Bogeyman and the Battle of the Budget ?
Good speech. Remindful of the exchange in the bleachers of old Tiger stadium when Norm Cash played first base in Detroit and hit the occasional home run. Norm swung at a fastball and missed by a foot. "Goof riffle," said one patriot. "He leads the league in good riffles," said his companion.
Don't mind the cynics, Barry. It was a good speech.
Of course we've heard this tune before. We have learned that it is but an overture, a stringing together of pleasant, hummable platitudes that won't be borne out when the curtain rises and the real action begins.
You could call it, "Prelude to the Cave-In."
He has said the pretty words -- with a few glaring hedges if you listened closely. Even the Old Gray Lady sort of noticed. "His plan relies on about two parts spending cuts to one part tax increases," its editorialist said. "It should have been closer to 50-50, broadening the sacrifice."
Sacrifice? How about reining in the war machine? Old Gray Lady? Old Gray? Hey, the war machine? Are you still there, Old Gray editorialist ?
Oh, never mind.
From yesteryear's presidential debates comes the distant sound of another pretender to be president, chiding his debate opponent.
"There you go again!"
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Is There Anything These People Don't Hate?
Do you have to hate everything in order to be a new Republican?
You've got to hate women: the Republicans in Congress refused to accept any budget that funds the health and social services that millions of American women need just to eke out an existence. These are the kind of people who came up with "barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen."
You've got to hate animals: my Republican congressman wants to kill all the wolves in the southwest and other Republicans want to gut wildlife protections and endangered species laws. These are the kind of people who would shoot Bambi between the eyes, feed poison to Lassie, put Flicka in hobbles and filet Flipper.
You've got to really hate poor people. In a land where the richest one per cent of the are getting richer still by leaps and bounds, while the rest of fall further and further behind, the Republicans want to cut funding for programs to help the poor. When Barry Goldwater, the godfather of neoconservatism, was running for President, Bill Mauldin drew a cartoon depicting an impoverished woman in tattered clothes on a church step, with B.G. towering over her saying, "Quit whining. Go out and inherit a department store."
You've got to really hate the planet we inhabit. Let the filthy rich mining companies turn Grand Canyon and Arches National Parks into slag-filled swamps of bile and rot. Drill, baby, drill! Put the tree-huggers in concentration camps and make them drink from the streams befouled by mountain-top removal. These people never met a landscape they didn't want to defile.
You've got to really hate good health. The Republicans want to destroy the Environmental Protection Agency. Never mind that it prevents the polluters from causing cancer, diabetes, asthma and emphysema in millions of Americans. It's a damned nuisance for industries with billion dollar profits that don't pay a nickel of income tax. These are the kind of people who would make matchsticks out of Tiny Tim's crutch.
You've got to really hate the old and the sick. Republicans want to end Medicare and Medicaid as we know it. They detest what they call Obamacare. They think primitive tribes had it right: when you're old, infirm or sick, you should just crawl off into the wilderness and die. Except that if the Republicans had their way, there'd be no wilderness to crawl off into.
You've got to hate real people and love corporations. (See Supreme Court decision in Citizens United.) No wonder women are beginning to incorporate their uteruses: "It's a person, not a choice."
You've got to really hate liberals. Liberals, by definition, are open to new opinions and progress; they favor individual liberty in political and social affairs. Next thing you know they'll be wanting to inflict stuff like habeas corpus on us.
You've got to really hate working people. Republicans have already put 27 million Americans out of work, and now they're zeroing in on the unions that protect workers' rights. A variation on the idea in the Mauldin cartoon. These are the kind of people who would strangle the canary in the coal mine because it costs too much for birdseed.
But Republicans still love motherhood and apple pie. Unless, of course, mother is a liberal. Then, well, send her out into the wilderness!
You've got to hate women: the Republicans in Congress refused to accept any budget that funds the health and social services that millions of American women need just to eke out an existence. These are the kind of people who came up with "barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen."
You've got to hate animals: my Republican congressman wants to kill all the wolves in the southwest and other Republicans want to gut wildlife protections and endangered species laws. These are the kind of people who would shoot Bambi between the eyes, feed poison to Lassie, put Flicka in hobbles and filet Flipper.
You've got to really hate poor people. In a land where the richest one per cent of the are getting richer still by leaps and bounds, while the rest of fall further and further behind, the Republicans want to cut funding for programs to help the poor. When Barry Goldwater, the godfather of neoconservatism, was running for President, Bill Mauldin drew a cartoon depicting an impoverished woman in tattered clothes on a church step, with B.G. towering over her saying, "Quit whining. Go out and inherit a department store."
You've got to really hate the planet we inhabit. Let the filthy rich mining companies turn Grand Canyon and Arches National Parks into slag-filled swamps of bile and rot. Drill, baby, drill! Put the tree-huggers in concentration camps and make them drink from the streams befouled by mountain-top removal. These people never met a landscape they didn't want to defile.
You've got to really hate good health. The Republicans want to destroy the Environmental Protection Agency. Never mind that it prevents the polluters from causing cancer, diabetes, asthma and emphysema in millions of Americans. It's a damned nuisance for industries with billion dollar profits that don't pay a nickel of income tax. These are the kind of people who would make matchsticks out of Tiny Tim's crutch.
You've got to really hate the old and the sick. Republicans want to end Medicare and Medicaid as we know it. They detest what they call Obamacare. They think primitive tribes had it right: when you're old, infirm or sick, you should just crawl off into the wilderness and die. Except that if the Republicans had their way, there'd be no wilderness to crawl off into.
You've got to hate real people and love corporations. (See Supreme Court decision in Citizens United.) No wonder women are beginning to incorporate their uteruses: "It's a person, not a choice."
You've got to really hate liberals. Liberals, by definition, are open to new opinions and progress; they favor individual liberty in political and social affairs. Next thing you know they'll be wanting to inflict stuff like habeas corpus on us.
You've got to really hate working people. Republicans have already put 27 million Americans out of work, and now they're zeroing in on the unions that protect workers' rights. A variation on the idea in the Mauldin cartoon. These are the kind of people who would strangle the canary in the coal mine because it costs too much for birdseed.
But Republicans still love motherhood and apple pie. Unless, of course, mother is a liberal. Then, well, send her out into the wilderness!
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
But Thanks for the e-Mail, Anyway, Barry
President Barack Obama
The White House
Washington, DC
Dear Pres:
Thanks for the recent e-mail about your 2012 campaign, which mentioned my financial and other support of your election in 2008, and requested that I redouble my efforts on your behalf this time around.
Unfortunately, I cannot do that.
You wrote:
We've always known that lasting change wouldn't come quickly or easily. It never does. But as my administration and folks across the country fight to protect the progress we've made -- and make more -- we also need to begin mobilizing for 2012, long before the time comes for me to begin campaigning in earnest.
A quick review of the progress you've made turns up:
* continuation of the wars we elected you to end and the addition of a new one, initiated with the same kind of subterfuge and deception your predecessor used before invading Iraq. (A shady deal with Saudi Arabia to look the other way if it invaded Bahrain, provided the Saudis would muscle their Arab League cronies to support a bid for a UN "no-fly zone" over Libya. For shame!)
* continuation of, and then worsening of, your predecessor's denial of constitutional rights to citizens illegally detained at Guantanamo.
* continuation of your predecessor's illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens under the unconstitutional so-called Patriot Act.
* strengthening the corporate hold on all branches of government, until the last faint ember of democracy flickers and dies.
* total cave-in to a Congressional minority on health care, the economy and unemployment.
* summoning John Boehner to the White House, presumably to sell out to Tea Pot Republicans on funding for social services in order to pay for the sins of the filthy rich bankers who are raking in record bonuses on Wall Street since you bailed them out of a crisis of their own making.
Barry, old buddy, I fell for your eloquent line of bovine excrement once.
As your predecessor once tried to say, but typically messed up, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
My conscience will not permit me to support your re-election.
Recent Comments
(These comments appeared in Grasroots Press, which frequently re-posts commentary from A Bordello Pianist).
xandtrek
I agree with everything you say here, Mr. Wark. But until there is a viable 3rd party to the left of the Democratic Party, I will hold my nose and vote for whomever is a Democrat — and that includes Obama. I believe that much of Presidential elections are about the Supreme Court whose appointments are for a lifetime. We can hardly go any farther to the right on the Supreme Court, but we still have four votes to temper the out-of-control corporatist righties. And there is some movement to the left within many of the agencies who regulate our health, safety, and environment — although not as much as I would like. So as usual, I will be holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils — I’m just not willing to accede the future to the right.
Dan T
Mr. Wark, there is a choice. Obama versus–Trump/Palin/Bachmann. Not difficult, actually.
The White House
Washington, DC
Dear Pres:
Thanks for the recent e-mail about your 2012 campaign, which mentioned my financial and other support of your election in 2008, and requested that I redouble my efforts on your behalf this time around.
Unfortunately, I cannot do that.
You wrote:
We've always known that lasting change wouldn't come quickly or easily. It never does. But as my administration and folks across the country fight to protect the progress we've made -- and make more -- we also need to begin mobilizing for 2012, long before the time comes for me to begin campaigning in earnest.
A quick review of the progress you've made turns up:
* continuation of the wars we elected you to end and the addition of a new one, initiated with the same kind of subterfuge and deception your predecessor used before invading Iraq. (A shady deal with Saudi Arabia to look the other way if it invaded Bahrain, provided the Saudis would muscle their Arab League cronies to support a bid for a UN "no-fly zone" over Libya. For shame!)
* continuation of, and then worsening of, your predecessor's denial of constitutional rights to citizens illegally detained at Guantanamo.
* continuation of your predecessor's illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens under the unconstitutional so-called Patriot Act.
* strengthening the corporate hold on all branches of government, until the last faint ember of democracy flickers and dies.
* total cave-in to a Congressional minority on health care, the economy and unemployment.
* summoning John Boehner to the White House, presumably to sell out to Tea Pot Republicans on funding for social services in order to pay for the sins of the filthy rich bankers who are raking in record bonuses on Wall Street since you bailed them out of a crisis of their own making.
Barry, old buddy, I fell for your eloquent line of bovine excrement once.
As your predecessor once tried to say, but typically messed up, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
My conscience will not permit me to support your re-election.
Recent Comments
(These comments appeared in Grasroots Press, which frequently re-posts commentary from A Bordello Pianist).
xandtrek
I agree with everything you say here, Mr. Wark. But until there is a viable 3rd party to the left of the Democratic Party, I will hold my nose and vote for whomever is a Democrat — and that includes Obama. I believe that much of Presidential elections are about the Supreme Court whose appointments are for a lifetime. We can hardly go any farther to the right on the Supreme Court, but we still have four votes to temper the out-of-control corporatist righties. And there is some movement to the left within many of the agencies who regulate our health, safety, and environment — although not as much as I would like. So as usual, I will be holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils — I’m just not willing to accede the future to the right.
Dan T
Mr. Wark, there is a choice. Obama versus–Trump/Palin/Bachmann. Not difficult, actually.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Notes to a Friend on an Open Letter to the Left
A friend who is as passionately anti-war as I am -- and has been for the same, long time -- has engaged me in a friendly disagreement regarding the war in Libya.
As part of the dialogue he has sent me Juan Cole's recent internet posting, "An Open Letter to the Left on Libya."
Most of Cole's arguments are reasonable, his assessments of the situation sound, his sincerity indisputable. The case he makes is essentially what weighed heavily on my mind as I considered what President Obama and his advisors finally decided to do in Libya.
Cole, however, fractures his own case for a reasoned, dispassionate discussion on the left with this paragraph:
If the Left opposed intervention, it de facto acquiesced in Qaddafi’s destruction of a movement embodying the aspirations of most of Libya’s workers and poor, along with large numbers of white collar middle class people. Qaddafi would have reestablished himself, with the liberation movement squashed like a bug and the country put back under secret police rule. The implications of a resurgent, angry and wounded Mad Dog, his coffers filled with oil billions, for the democracy movements on either side of Libya, in Egypt and Tunisia, could well have been pernicious.
Neither I nor Dennis Kucinich nor many others who share our views "acquiesce in Qaddafi's destruction of a movement embodying the aspirations of most of Libya's workers and poor." Cole's accusation is baseless and insulting.
As for the rest of the paragraph, I compliment Mr. Cole on his ability to see into the future. Perhaps some day he will help me pick a few stocks to invest in.
My concern about President Obama's action involves the United States Constitution. It placed the war-making power solely in the hands of Congress. In 1973 the Congress itself muddied the waters with a War Powers Act that presidents have used ever since to make war whenever they damn pleased. Obama has done this in the case of Libya.
The United Nations Security Council cannot repeal the United States Constitution or any part thereof. Even in the muddied water of the 1973 Act , President Obama overstepped his authority on this matter.
The humanitarian objectives of the United Nations resolutions could have been met in time to prevent "destruction of a movement" for democracy in Libya by using the armed forces of those nations that endorsed the resolutions and were able to act immediately under their own laws and constitutions.
President Obama could have joined them in support of the anti-Qaddafi forces after consulting with Congress as required in the 1973 law.
I still have questions in my own mind about the initiative for the Arab League request to the U.N. that resulted in the Libya resolutions by the Security Council. The fact that none of the Arab League members rushed to join the combat caused me to wonder if arms were twisted -- perhaps unethically, perhaps even illegally -- in the deep diplomatic background before the UN action. My friend points out that Qatar recently joined the affray, which still to me smacks of the quasi-legitimacy of the Bush II "coalition" in the invasion of Iraq.
But the real concern is the addition of yet another precedent to support the notion that Presidents of the United States have war-making powers. The framers clearly did not intend that he or she should have such power. They vested it solely and absolutely in the Congress.
If that Constitutional mandate is outdated in today's world, there is a process for amending it. The 1973 War Powers nonsense does not fulfill that process. A constitutional amendment, with ratification by two-thirds of the states, is what it takes.
Obviously that hasn't happened. Instead, the door has been wedged open a bit further for this President and subsequent ones to bomb and otherwise make war upon any head of state who disagrees with U.S. policy. This in turn tends to prolong the endless war policy of the United States corporatocracy that I, Cole and my anti-war friend all oppose with every fiber of our being.
As part of the dialogue he has sent me Juan Cole's recent internet posting, "An Open Letter to the Left on Libya."
Most of Cole's arguments are reasonable, his assessments of the situation sound, his sincerity indisputable. The case he makes is essentially what weighed heavily on my mind as I considered what President Obama and his advisors finally decided to do in Libya.
Cole, however, fractures his own case for a reasoned, dispassionate discussion on the left with this paragraph:
If the Left opposed intervention, it de facto acquiesced in Qaddafi’s destruction of a movement embodying the aspirations of most of Libya’s workers and poor, along with large numbers of white collar middle class people. Qaddafi would have reestablished himself, with the liberation movement squashed like a bug and the country put back under secret police rule. The implications of a resurgent, angry and wounded Mad Dog, his coffers filled with oil billions, for the democracy movements on either side of Libya, in Egypt and Tunisia, could well have been pernicious.
Neither I nor Dennis Kucinich nor many others who share our views "acquiesce in Qaddafi's destruction of a movement embodying the aspirations of most of Libya's workers and poor." Cole's accusation is baseless and insulting.
As for the rest of the paragraph, I compliment Mr. Cole on his ability to see into the future. Perhaps some day he will help me pick a few stocks to invest in.
My concern about President Obama's action involves the United States Constitution. It placed the war-making power solely in the hands of Congress. In 1973 the Congress itself muddied the waters with a War Powers Act that presidents have used ever since to make war whenever they damn pleased. Obama has done this in the case of Libya.
The United Nations Security Council cannot repeal the United States Constitution or any part thereof. Even in the muddied water of the 1973 Act , President Obama overstepped his authority on this matter.
The humanitarian objectives of the United Nations resolutions could have been met in time to prevent "destruction of a movement" for democracy in Libya by using the armed forces of those nations that endorsed the resolutions and were able to act immediately under their own laws and constitutions.
President Obama could have joined them in support of the anti-Qaddafi forces after consulting with Congress as required in the 1973 law.
I still have questions in my own mind about the initiative for the Arab League request to the U.N. that resulted in the Libya resolutions by the Security Council. The fact that none of the Arab League members rushed to join the combat caused me to wonder if arms were twisted -- perhaps unethically, perhaps even illegally -- in the deep diplomatic background before the UN action. My friend points out that Qatar recently joined the affray, which still to me smacks of the quasi-legitimacy of the Bush II "coalition" in the invasion of Iraq.
But the real concern is the addition of yet another precedent to support the notion that Presidents of the United States have war-making powers. The framers clearly did not intend that he or she should have such power. They vested it solely and absolutely in the Congress.
If that Constitutional mandate is outdated in today's world, there is a process for amending it. The 1973 War Powers nonsense does not fulfill that process. A constitutional amendment, with ratification by two-thirds of the states, is what it takes.
Obviously that hasn't happened. Instead, the door has been wedged open a bit further for this President and subsequent ones to bomb and otherwise make war upon any head of state who disagrees with U.S. policy. This in turn tends to prolong the endless war policy of the United States corporatocracy that I, Cole and my anti-war friend all oppose with every fiber of our being.
Correction
A post mistakenly put up on this site yesterday contained nonfactual statements and erroneous data. It was removed instantly upon discovery of the mistake. The unedited material concerning General Electric Corp. and United States unemployment data should not have been posted. The operator of this blog regrets the errors. -- TW.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
What to Think of Our New War in Libya?
By now Americans are so benumbed by their country's wars that they'd approve bombing Lourdes if they believed an Islamic terrorist was hiding there. Thus the polls showing public support for Obama's Libya adventure are no surprise.
Two-faced Republican criticism is no surprise either. Typically, the Boehners and McCains et al who were clamoring for a no-fly zone two weeks ago now assail the president for doing exactly what they once called for. This practice has become so common among the Tea Pot party that if Republicans were Pinnochios, their collective noses would form a bridge to Mars.
It's not so simple for Democrats with the slighest leftward persuasion. A dampened finger to the wind suggests a majority of leftish Democrats oppose the action. A few, whose natural bent is to sympathize with pro-Democracy protesters in any dictatorship anywhere in the world, reluctantly support this particular use of force.
Obama's action, as your Pianist has noted previously, would apperar to have been legitimized by the UN Security Council's action in response to a request by the Arab League for a no-fly zone.
But now that the time has come to actually participate in the UN's so-called coalition, Arab states are conspicuously absent. One wonders how much Arab initiative was behind the "request" to the UN, and how much arm-twisting was done by western nations, particularly the United States and France.
In short, the UN coalition is looking more and more like another Sham a la Iraq.
And then there are the pesky questions of the United States Constitution and the War Powers Act of 1973. The latter seems to be in direct conflict with the former, which confers war-making powers absolutely and without exception upon the Congress. The 1973 act, as a Constitutional law expert once put it to me, "gives away the farm."
Can the Congress legally cede to the executive a power the Constitution places exclusively in its hands? The 1973 act has never been tested in court.
But even though Congress rendered itself virtually powerless to send or not send American military forces into combat, it did reserve to itself certain vestiges of control. It would seem that Obama, in the case of Libya, has failed to meet even these minimal requirements of "consulting" and "advising."
Rep. Dennis Kucinich's recent statement that the Libya action "may be an impeachable offense" holds legal water. In a true democracy, this would be cause for a serious action in the Congress.
But in a corporatocracy, whose oligarchs profit in direct proportion to the number and duration of our wars - legal or illegal, it matters not to them, those in power pay no attention to the likes of Rep. Kucinich. "Conscience of a Conservative" is an oxymoron in today's United States.
And the people, as a class, don't give a damn. Most of them think we invented democracy in 1776 and made it the 11th Commandment of the Christian religion. And so if what's called "news" on television informs them that the people fighting against Ghadaffi in Libya are "for democracy," then let's bomb the hell out of the bad guys on their behalf and go watch another episode of "American Idol."
Never mind the fine points of the law. For Tea Party America, the law is a ass.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Speak Not Truth Lest Ye Be Fired (III)
Carlos Pascual, a veteran diplomat who had been U.S. ambassador to Mexico since 2009, was forced to resign recently because of leaked embassy cables that bluntly described the shortcomings of Mexico's efforts to control its drug cartels.
His criticism was absolutely true, as anyone who lives close to the border can attest.
The cables were in the trove of material passed by WikiLeaks to certain news media.
Pascual wisely pushed to retool American aid in Mexico's drug war to place greater emphasis on improving judicial institutions and civic involvement than on weaponry and violent raids.
Pascual's assessments decried Mexico's interagency rivalries and called the Mexican army "risk averse."
The truth hurt Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who complained to Dr. Kidglove on a visit to Washington.
For added titillation, some accounts of his dismissal alluded to Pascual's recent dating relationship with the daughter of a leader of the principal rival party to Calderon's.
His criticism was absolutely true, as anyone who lives close to the border can attest.
The cables were in the trove of material passed by WikiLeaks to certain news media.
Pascual wisely pushed to retool American aid in Mexico's drug war to place greater emphasis on improving judicial institutions and civic involvement than on weaponry and violent raids.
Pascual's assessments decried Mexico's interagency rivalries and called the Mexican army "risk averse."
The truth hurt Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who complained to Dr. Kidglove on a visit to Washington.
For added titillation, some accounts of his dismissal alluded to Pascual's recent dating relationship with the daughter of a leader of the principal rival party to Calderon's.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Spencer Bachus v. We the People
Spencer Bachus, Republican chair of the House Financial Services Committee, has been quoted as saying, "“In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks.”
This is but a narrower view of the entire Republican agenda, which is that government exists to serve Big Business -- financial, energy, defense, mining, whatever.
Acting upon the quaint idea that perhaps, once in a while, government should fret just a little bit about just plain people (the real kind, not the corporate kind), Democrats in the last Congress, while giving away almost the entire store to the big banks, saved a piece of candy for John Q, Public. It authorized the creation of something called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Protect real people! Bachus wants no part of that!
The force behind the idea for the agency is Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor and expert on financial law who chaired the Congressional Oversight Panel to investigate the Troubled Assets Relief Program that bailed out the big banks that almost destroyed the U.S. economy in 2008-2009. She used the post as a bully pulpit to promote the idea of protecting common people from the ruthless madness of the greed-driven honchos of the humongous banks.
After Congress put the consumer bon-bon into the law that gave all the other candy to the banks, President Obama named Warren as an adviser, with the task of setting up the new bureau and recommending a director for it. For the nonce, it's an ethereal thing, caught between darkness and dawn.
Warren herself, obviously, is the best person to head the bureau . The Republicans, obviously, are gunning for her. At a congressional hearing, Bachus told Warren her inchoate agency would be a "self-regulated, unchecked body governed by one person."
Nonsense, Warren responded. "If we had had this agency six years ago, eight years ago, we would not be in the mess we are today," she said.
Bachus has already enlisted Timmy Titmouse in his war on Warren. (That would be Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, the big banks' man in Washington.) In a letter to Timmy, he wrote: "(R)eports about the role played by political appointees in the Treasury department — including those affiliated with the [CFPB], an agency that does not yet have any regulatory or enforcement authority — raise further questions about the [mortgage settlement] process.”
A more accurate way of putting this would be, "State attorneys general, frustrated by Republican friends of the big banks, asked Warren for advice about dealing with the mortgage settlement crisis."
The crisis is that hundreds of thousands of homeowners struggling to stave off foreclosure have been left in limbo by a government program that encourages mortgage companies to modify their loans. Delays by the banks in handling their cases have even left some homeowners worse off than before they entered the program. Fraudulent abuse of paperwork filings have further muddied the waters.
This in itself is a screaming example of exactly why we need the consumer protection bureau and need someone like Elizabeth Warren to head it.
But Big Business owns Bachus, as it owns Geithner, and virtually all of government, including the Supreme Court. (Why won't Thomas and Scalia let the public see their travel records? Have they Koched up something that's not quite kosher?)
Folks, we're in a card game where the deck is stacked against us. And we keep re-electing the same crooked dealers.
This is but a narrower view of the entire Republican agenda, which is that government exists to serve Big Business -- financial, energy, defense, mining, whatever.
Acting upon the quaint idea that perhaps, once in a while, government should fret just a little bit about just plain people (the real kind, not the corporate kind), Democrats in the last Congress, while giving away almost the entire store to the big banks, saved a piece of candy for John Q, Public. It authorized the creation of something called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Protect real people! Bachus wants no part of that!
The force behind the idea for the agency is Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor and expert on financial law who chaired the Congressional Oversight Panel to investigate the Troubled Assets Relief Program that bailed out the big banks that almost destroyed the U.S. economy in 2008-2009. She used the post as a bully pulpit to promote the idea of protecting common people from the ruthless madness of the greed-driven honchos of the humongous banks.
After Congress put the consumer bon-bon into the law that gave all the other candy to the banks, President Obama named Warren as an adviser, with the task of setting up the new bureau and recommending a director for it. For the nonce, it's an ethereal thing, caught between darkness and dawn.
Warren herself, obviously, is the best person to head the bureau . The Republicans, obviously, are gunning for her. At a congressional hearing, Bachus told Warren her inchoate agency would be a "self-regulated, unchecked body governed by one person."
Nonsense, Warren responded. "If we had had this agency six years ago, eight years ago, we would not be in the mess we are today," she said.
Bachus has already enlisted Timmy Titmouse in his war on Warren. (That would be Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, the big banks' man in Washington.) In a letter to Timmy, he wrote: "(R)eports about the role played by political appointees in the Treasury department — including those affiliated with the [CFPB], an agency that does not yet have any regulatory or enforcement authority — raise further questions about the [mortgage settlement] process.”
A more accurate way of putting this would be, "State attorneys general, frustrated by Republican friends of the big banks, asked Warren for advice about dealing with the mortgage settlement crisis."
The crisis is that hundreds of thousands of homeowners struggling to stave off foreclosure have been left in limbo by a government program that encourages mortgage companies to modify their loans. Delays by the banks in handling their cases have even left some homeowners worse off than before they entered the program. Fraudulent abuse of paperwork filings have further muddied the waters.
This in itself is a screaming example of exactly why we need the consumer protection bureau and need someone like Elizabeth Warren to head it.
But Big Business owns Bachus, as it owns Geithner, and virtually all of government, including the Supreme Court. (Why won't Thomas and Scalia let the public see their travel records? Have they Koched up something that's not quite kosher?)
Folks, we're in a card game where the deck is stacked against us. And we keep re-electing the same crooked dealers.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
What Will Be the Lesson of Fukushima?
As someone who lived a gentle breeze away from Three Mile Island when its nuclear emergency took place, I have long been concerned about the proliferation of the technology to meet our increasing energy needs.
All of the chemical engineers I have known -- particularly my own brother, who was not a nuclear expert, and my favorite hiking companion, who was -- tried to persuade me that nuking was safe, clean, efficient and, while not perfect, still the best alternative to fossil fuel energy. Their arguments -- particularly regarding improved safety technology since TMI -- were cogent.
Once, atop a mountain in southwest Virginia, my hiking friend and I looked eastward where once treed peaks filled the horizon, and were horrified to see moonscapes of mountaintop removal projects to obtain coal to fuel power plants. At that moment the arguments for nuclear energy seemed particularly compelling. After all, Chernobyl could never happen again. Nor could TMI.
Now, tragically, we know otherwise. We know that something unspeakably terrible can happen even in a technologically advanced society that has employed the best available science to make its nuclear plants safe. Surely our hearts bleed for the people of Japan, on whom we inflicted Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as they now suffer the horrors of a powerful earthquake, a tsunami and new nuclear disaster.
Today we know not how all of this will end. Workers have returned to the Fukushima nuclear plant to attempt to prevent the unspeakable from happening. None of the world's nuclear experts who have been commenting on the disaster in Japan knows if this can be done. Like us, they can only hope.
But this much is clear: Nuclear power is neither safe nor clean. And, as the slogan elsewhere on this page reminds us, "Nature bats last." Our planet has a fiery core; it has fault lines; its thin envelope of compatibility with human life has been tampered with by the very humans it protects. We will have earthquakes; we will have tsunamis; we will have hurricanes; and we will pay the price of our tampering with Nature.
Nuclear plants leak radioactive waste from underground pipes and radioactive waste pools into the ground water at sites all over the world. Science has yet to devise a method for adequately and safely handling long lived radioactive wastes. Nuclear waste disposal was my hiking companion's particular sub-specialty. He spent the twilight of his working career trying to deal with the waste problem at the Hanford site where the first atomic bombs were created.
Despite his faith in technology and his fellow scientists, there is still no safe, satisfactory way to deal with nuclear waste.
Several nuclear plants in this country are sited on, or perilously close to, fault lines. Perhaps that fact alone will prod us away from further nuclear dependency, away from filthy fossil fuels, and toward safe, renewable energy sources. Technically feasible renewable energy sources in the world are capable of producing up to six times more energy than current global demand. Even now, nuclear plants around the globe deliver less energy than renewable sources of power.
Consider the recent coal mining disasters. Consider the cost in money and wars of sucking a finite supply of petroleum out of the earth. Consider the environmental consequences of gas and oil drilling. Consider TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima.
Wind farms and solar panels do not kill.
All of the chemical engineers I have known -- particularly my own brother, who was not a nuclear expert, and my favorite hiking companion, who was -- tried to persuade me that nuking was safe, clean, efficient and, while not perfect, still the best alternative to fossil fuel energy. Their arguments -- particularly regarding improved safety technology since TMI -- were cogent.
Once, atop a mountain in southwest Virginia, my hiking friend and I looked eastward where once treed peaks filled the horizon, and were horrified to see moonscapes of mountaintop removal projects to obtain coal to fuel power plants. At that moment the arguments for nuclear energy seemed particularly compelling. After all, Chernobyl could never happen again. Nor could TMI.
Now, tragically, we know otherwise. We know that something unspeakably terrible can happen even in a technologically advanced society that has employed the best available science to make its nuclear plants safe. Surely our hearts bleed for the people of Japan, on whom we inflicted Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as they now suffer the horrors of a powerful earthquake, a tsunami and new nuclear disaster.
Today we know not how all of this will end. Workers have returned to the Fukushima nuclear plant to attempt to prevent the unspeakable from happening. None of the world's nuclear experts who have been commenting on the disaster in Japan knows if this can be done. Like us, they can only hope.
But this much is clear: Nuclear power is neither safe nor clean. And, as the slogan elsewhere on this page reminds us, "Nature bats last." Our planet has a fiery core; it has fault lines; its thin envelope of compatibility with human life has been tampered with by the very humans it protects. We will have earthquakes; we will have tsunamis; we will have hurricanes; and we will pay the price of our tampering with Nature.
Nuclear plants leak radioactive waste from underground pipes and radioactive waste pools into the ground water at sites all over the world. Science has yet to devise a method for adequately and safely handling long lived radioactive wastes. Nuclear waste disposal was my hiking companion's particular sub-specialty. He spent the twilight of his working career trying to deal with the waste problem at the Hanford site where the first atomic bombs were created.
Despite his faith in technology and his fellow scientists, there is still no safe, satisfactory way to deal with nuclear waste.
Several nuclear plants in this country are sited on, or perilously close to, fault lines. Perhaps that fact alone will prod us away from further nuclear dependency, away from filthy fossil fuels, and toward safe, renewable energy sources. Technically feasible renewable energy sources in the world are capable of producing up to six times more energy than current global demand. Even now, nuclear plants around the globe deliver less energy than renewable sources of power.
Consider the recent coal mining disasters. Consider the cost in money and wars of sucking a finite supply of petroleum out of the earth. Consider the environmental consequences of gas and oil drilling. Consider TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima.
Wind farms and solar panels do not kill.
Monday, March 14, 2011
For Tea Potters, Reality is SO Yesterday
The new breed of Tea Pot Republican is utterly oblivious to both fact and law. That they win elections is testimony to the deliberate ignorance of too many American voters. This is perhaps the core reason for pessimism about the American democratic experiment.
One of the worst examples to come to light is Martin Harty, a Barrington Republican elected to the Vermont legislature. He's a nonagenarian who, according to his own party members in the legislature, is "constantly confused, easily swayed, hard of hearing, and prone to offer up unrelated commentary or go off on unrelated tangents." He recently told a constituent who manages a community mental health program that there are "too many defective people," and that such people should be "shipped to Siberia to freeze to death and clean up the population."
Then there's Michelle Bachmann, the Minnesota congresswoman whose lack of knowledge of American history would have disqualified her from voting under state regulations in many southern states before passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. She thinks the Battle of Concord took place in New Hampshire.
Republican folly and lawlessness is not limited to isolated fruitcakes like Harty, Bachmann and Rand Paul. The entire majority leadership of the House of Representatives qualifies.
For purely political purposes, these geniuses demanded that President Obama unilaterally declare and enforce a no-fly zone over Libya -- a clear act of war under international law. We're already bleeding our military and our treasury fighting two other illegal, unwinnable wars. These fools want us to launch a third?
If, indeed, a no-fly zone is an effective instrument in bringing down a ruthless dictator and assisting a democratic revolution in Libya, the Arab League has offered a legal way of doing it by petitioning the United Nations to establish a no-fly zone.
As neighbor states to Libya, they act in strict accord with the United Nations Charter, Articles 41 and 42. The first gives the Security Council authority to decide what measures NOT involving military force may be taken against any nation which mounts a breach of the peace. Article 42 allows military actions, such as the no-fly zone, when non-military tactics fail.
But the half-cocked crazies in the house majority can't be bothered with legal procedures and nuances of the law. They're NRA card-carryin' whoop-de-doo Bush II cowboys who shoot first and ask questions later.
As long as someone else's sons and daughters are doing the real fighting.
Remember, too, that these great humanitarians told us, when Bush II's wars were squandering our surplus and plunging us into debt, that Saint Ronald the Reagan had proved that "deficits don't matter."
Except when you can make political capital by demonizing Obamacare, destroying unions and ruthlessly cutting funds for programs that millions of common citizens and unemployed Americans desperately need. Then suddenly the tea brains tell us the Deficit Bogeyman has to be slain this very minute.
Fact? Law? That's real world stuff. Don't disturb their Tea Pot fantasies with reality.
One of the worst examples to come to light is Martin Harty, a Barrington Republican elected to the Vermont legislature. He's a nonagenarian who, according to his own party members in the legislature, is "constantly confused, easily swayed, hard of hearing, and prone to offer up unrelated commentary or go off on unrelated tangents." He recently told a constituent who manages a community mental health program that there are "too many defective people," and that such people should be "shipped to Siberia to freeze to death and clean up the population."
Then there's Michelle Bachmann, the Minnesota congresswoman whose lack of knowledge of American history would have disqualified her from voting under state regulations in many southern states before passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. She thinks the Battle of Concord took place in New Hampshire.
Republican folly and lawlessness is not limited to isolated fruitcakes like Harty, Bachmann and Rand Paul. The entire majority leadership of the House of Representatives qualifies.
For purely political purposes, these geniuses demanded that President Obama unilaterally declare and enforce a no-fly zone over Libya -- a clear act of war under international law. We're already bleeding our military and our treasury fighting two other illegal, unwinnable wars. These fools want us to launch a third?
If, indeed, a no-fly zone is an effective instrument in bringing down a ruthless dictator and assisting a democratic revolution in Libya, the Arab League has offered a legal way of doing it by petitioning the United Nations to establish a no-fly zone.
As neighbor states to Libya, they act in strict accord with the United Nations Charter, Articles 41 and 42. The first gives the Security Council authority to decide what measures NOT involving military force may be taken against any nation which mounts a breach of the peace. Article 42 allows military actions, such as the no-fly zone, when non-military tactics fail.
But the half-cocked crazies in the house majority can't be bothered with legal procedures and nuances of the law. They're NRA card-carryin' whoop-de-doo Bush II cowboys who shoot first and ask questions later.
As long as someone else's sons and daughters are doing the real fighting.
Remember, too, that these great humanitarians told us, when Bush II's wars were squandering our surplus and plunging us into debt, that Saint Ronald the Reagan had proved that "deficits don't matter."
Except when you can make political capital by demonizing Obamacare, destroying unions and ruthlessly cutting funds for programs that millions of common citizens and unemployed Americans desperately need. Then suddenly the tea brains tell us the Deficit Bogeyman has to be slain this very minute.
Fact? Law? That's real world stuff. Don't disturb their Tea Pot fantasies with reality.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Speak Not Truth, Lest Ye Be Fired (Part II)
Yesterday, P.J. Crowley, the State Department media spokesman, told an audience at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that the military treatment of Pfc. Bradley Manning was "ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid." This is absolutely true.
The Quantico brig's torture and humiliation of Manning, who is accused of giving documents to WikiLeaks, is also barbaric, uncivilized, illegal and revolting.
Today President Obama fired Crowley.
No further comment is necessary.
The Quantico brig's torture and humiliation of Manning, who is accused of giving documents to WikiLeaks, is also barbaric, uncivilized, illegal and revolting.
Today President Obama fired Crowley.
No further comment is necessary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)