Too clever by half?

A little while ago, facing almost certain defeat in the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, GWB pulled the nomination of Sam Fox as Ambassador to Belgium. This backtrack was especially sweet for Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), Dubya's opponent in 2004, because Fox was one of the biggest contributors to the so-called "Swift Boat" campaign that libeled Kerry's standing as a genuine hero of the Vietnam war and effectively derailed his momentum.

This past Wednesday, though, Bush decided to use his "recess appointment" power, while the Senate was on its Easter and Passover break, and filled in the office anyway. While this happened a few days ago, I want to comment on it because this I think is stretching the intent of the Founding Fathers to the nth degree -- not as if Bush hasn't done that already with his "signing statements" and the Gitmo gulag.

It may be true that such appointments can be made if there is a deadlock or filibuster in the Senate. But the original meaning, as I see it, was to fill in vacancies in case of a death or resignation during a recess; or to put in a worthy person if the full Senate was obstructing for purely partisan reasons, to prove they were up to the task at hand. (Actually, the Constitution doesn't even mention committees -- they were created by Congress shortly after its first sitting in 1789 only because the workload was already getting overbearing.)

Perhaps the most famous example of a recess appointment is when Eisenhower picked Earl Warren as Chief Justice of the US, rather than promoting one of the sitting associate justices when Fred Vinson died from a heart attack. Eisenhower later regretted the appointment (confirmed by the Senate when Warren's "recess term" expired) as well as that of Bill Brennan, but at the time it proved to be genius.

It not only got rid of a potential rival to the White House, as Warren was Governor of California and leader of the party's liberal wing (a role now assumed by Arnold Schwarzenegger) but Warren was able to break the deadlock on the school segregation cases; turning what would have been a narrow 5-4 judgment to a 9-0 slam dunk, effectively forcing Eisenhower's hand on the issue of civil rights.

But Fox is no Warren. It's not just the issue of patronage that makes the appointment of Fox stink like sulphur. It's the possibility it might be illegal in its entirely. Mary Ann Akers of WaPo suggested the other day that federal law prohibits someone from volunteering in a government job if the job has a fixed salary, such as ambassadorships; even if the appointee offers to serve in the post voluntarily. One could probably get around this technicality by donating any paycheques to charity -- that might have been how John Bolton was able to serve as UN Ambassador. The problem, though is that Fox gets use of the Ambassador's residence as well as an expense account which comes with the package.

Setting aside the legality of it, it's just morally wrong. How can a President declare defeat by pulling a nomination, then ram that appointment through the backdoor while Senators mark one of the most solemn parts of the Jewish and Christian religious calendars? This isn't just a flip-flop, it's a flip-flop-flip. There should be a principle that when a nomination is pulled, it is pulled until the next Congressional election at the very earliest. Or, if Bush was going to put in Fox all along, he should have demanded a vote on the full Senate floor no matter what the committee was going to recommend.

The Senate would have been duty bound to vote on it, just as it did 20 years ago on the ill-fated appointment of Bork. I don't think it was a given that the full Senate would have filibustered Fox -- after all, Swift Boat was three years ago and even Kerry himself said he's moved on. But if it did, then and only then would Bush have had a leg to stand on. This time, while it may be technically legal albeit from a radical interpretation of law, it's certainly not what Washington and Madison and Jefferson would have wanted.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Most ridiculous item of the week (2007-04-07)

Happy Easter, folks.

I'm sure most of you have heard about the shouting match between Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo Rivera that took place on the former's show Thursday night. To see two total morons -- the worst of the worst at Fox News -- go at it the way they did was extraordinary in itself. But what surprised me the most was that it was Rivera that claimed the moral high ground.



What was it that made it so ridiculous? Not just that Rivera who was the hero -- getting an unprecedented honourable mention from no less than archenemy Keith Olbermann. It was the fact that O'Reilly had the gall to try to tie a fatal drunk driving accident to the issue of illegal immigration. Rubbing salt in the wounds of a grieving family by suggesting that the accident would never have happened if the suspect had been deported set an all-time low for O'Reilly; and I thought he had gotten low enough when he libelled US military personnel not just once but twice regarding a Nazi-organized massacre in Malmédy, Belgium in the closing days of WWII.

Trying to confuse the issue like this is racism, pure and simple. Rivera had it right: Most illegal immigrants are otherwise law-abiding persons more so than the general population. O'Reilly has long past the point of being a mere buffoon -- Rivera covered that ground years ago with his infamous "Al Capone's vault" stunt and a later police drug raid he covered live that turned out to be a woman just doing house painting at night. And even when he's called out, O'Reilly finds a way out to prove he's never wrong.

Being a high school teacher as he once was and a media personality are two different things. The simple fact is, O'Reilly regressed into a ten year old throwing a temper tantrum. Maybe he should go on Jeff Foxworthy's show on the sister main network just to prove, as most of us already know, that he's not "smarter than a 5th grader."

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Taking a break

Barring unforeseen international events, I will take a break from blogging until late Saturday night or early Sunday. Have a happy Easter.

The one child policy

There's a lot of pressure growing on Mainland China to reverse its long-standing "one child only" policy for most families. It was introduced 30 years ago in an attempt to stem the population explosion but it's had an unintended effect -- inverted families where one child is expected to take care of both parents and four grandparents in their later years. Support that would have in the past been shared by a number of siblings. In reality, the one child policy applies mostly to urban areas; in rural parts of the country parents are allowed to have a second if the first child is female and/or disabled. Not to mention the struggle of three or even four men fighting for the heart of just one woman.

That doesn't mean there have been abuses -- and they have been outrageous. Factory supervisors monitoring female employees' menstrual cycles. Parents being forced to have abortions against their will for unplanned pregnancies. And while the law forbids parents from finding out what the sex of their baby will be, that doesn't stop parents from finding out anyway -- and if it is a female they either get an abortion or murder the child soon after it's born. Or leave it up for adoption, further straining the social service system.

Moreover, fines which are supposed to be paid to compensate the state for child born "illegally" are often waived, if one has the right connections. This is usually middle and upper class families who can afford the risk; peasant farmers in rural areas simply cannot.

Perhaps the "one child policy" was a reaction to Chairman Mao's misguided "Great Leap Forward," but restricting family rights is just as cold-hearted and mean spirited. In my opinion, common sense should prevail. Families should be able to decide for themselves how many children they can afford to support and/or will need to support them in later years. China really no longer needs the rule and should dump it. The "one-two-four" dilemma is just the tip of the iceberg.

Besides, kids with siblings are often better off psychologically -- the intense feelings of loneliness of only children can be potentially damaging and hurtful. Take it from someone who knows.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Promise not kept

PMS thinks that by having the provinces and territories agree to provide a wait time guarantee on one aspect of health care of their choosing that means his promise has been met. No, it hasn't.

For one thing, each jurisdiction can choose what they will guarantee a "drop dead" date for surgery -- whether it's cataracts, breast cancer, hip replacements. And it differs from one province to another. As most Canadians understood the "promise" it was to ensure that there would be a guarantee on most non-emergency surgeries with an offer of transportation and accommodation in another city within Canada -- or even out of the country -- if such could not be met. Any non-emergency surgery.

But it goes to another thing: Integrity. One expects a leader to keep his or her promises and to be transparent about what they're doing. Harper lied about the so-called "child care credit," implying it would be taxable at the lowest bracket but in fact is clawed back at rates as high as 90%. He lied about openness in government and became more secretive, even refusing to announce when Cabinet holds its meetings. He lied about the principle of no floor crossings. and recruited floor crossers. Now, he's been caught in another lie and our public health care system is only going to get worse and not better.

Enough is enough. As Sitting Bull once said, no more lies.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

British hostages free, Ahmadinejad bashes women

Some good news this morning, as Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the 15 British sailors and marines captured a couple weeks ago will be released as a good-will gesture. I do find one part of his statement rather perplexing though. He had the chutzpah to single out the lone woman in the group, Faye Turney -- saying the British had no business sending a woman on a mission when she should have been home taking care of the husband and kids.

Oh great. So on top of being an anti-Semite and wanting to get his hands on nuclear weapons like Kim Jong-Il did, Ahmadinejad is also a misogynist.

Makes me glad I don't live in the Middle East. On the other hand, his anti-female comments would actually be welcomed by anti-feminist groups within NATO countries, many of which are run by -- surprise -- women who wish things went back to the way they used to be.

That Mad Mahmoud has his attitudes is no surprise at all. That women in this part of the world -- including Christians who hate his brand of Islam -- would want to forfeit their own God-given rights and actually agree with the maniac is.

Just another reason why I am a feminist. Repression is repression is repression, and I will not tolerate any kind.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Bush bashes Pelosi tour

A few years back, when Clinton was still in power and Jesse Helms was the unofficial "king" of the US Senate, the two clashed numerous times on foreign policy and in particular the United Nations. At one point, Helms was actually invited by the US delegation at the UN to detail his gripes about Turtle Bay to the Security Council and why he was blocking America's annual dues to the organization -- and while I disagree with Helms on just about everything (except for his stance on trade with China, he turned out to be absolutely right there) I actually got a sense of Schadenfreude watching Helms using his freedom of speech telling off not only the UN itself but also the ambassadors of countries which put human rights at the bottom of their respective agendas.

The whole point of the exercise was, America tolerates legitimate dissent towards the government -- as well as that of other countries. It will even stand aside if people who oppose the official line try to broker peaceful settlements themselves. Jimmy Carter is a good example of someone who's rubbed his nose into every President who succeeded him -- usually with good cause.

This week, US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is doing a tour of the Middle East just talking with leaders there and trying to get a sense of whether there may be some momentum to finally solve the impasse over Gaza, Judea and Samaria, and the Golan. Today, she had a meeting with Syria's President. What does the Bush White House do? It goes on record saying that Pelosi is trying to undermine its peacemaking efforts.

Uh, yeah. A White House that is captive to the most extreme elements within the evangelical commmunity who refuse to recognize that there is a Palestinian "issue" and who claim repeatedly that "There is only Israel." A White House that has engendered more rocket attacks against Israel launched from the Occupied Territories as well as Lebanon precisely because of the Iraq War and because rogue elements within Mesopotamia are financing the terrorist attacks. A White House that refuses to recognize Syria's right to exist when in fact that country may hold the key to resolving the "Palestinian Question" as well as to an end of the war in Iraq.

Who has undermined the peacemaking process? By any reasonable measure, it's been Bush, not Pelosi.

I do not underestimate the enormity of the challenges involved, especially what to do with refugees displaced in 1948 and the years since. But we've heard more of the same from successive Republican and Democratic regimes. Isn't it time there were alternate voices? Especially from the third most powerful person in the country? Maybe they have a better idea.

And even if they don't, there's nothing wrong with talking. It's what freedom of speech is all about. What America is supposed to be about.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Requiem for 7th Heaven

Looks like I'll have to find another guilty pleasure -- 7th Heaven is going off the air on May 13th after eleven seasons. It feels like déjà vu all over again; the show was cancelled last year but got a reprieve; but it looks like this time it's for real.

7H is perhaps the last of its breed -- not just the last show to be produced by the late Aaron Spelling but also the last real family friendly show, one that could be appreciated by traditional and non-traditional families, kids from stable households and broken ones, as well as bridging the Red State - Blue State divide. It did get quirky at times and one season will go down as the worst -- the sixth, the one where Matt and Sarah eloped after their first date; and Robbie dated a no-hit wonder Latina singer. But the quality of writing from the early years as well as the later ones were top-notch and I find it unconscionable that Hollywood didn't even give the show a single Emmy nomination, let alone reward.

I felt privileged to have written commentaries for most episodes from seasons 7 to 10 under the handle "The Big Show." (From a time when I still liked professional wrestling -- today it's complete bullshit.) They're out there on the USENET group alt.tv.7th-heaven and archived for posterity in Google Groups so have fun reading them if you want to look back. This opened the doors to a number of e-mail pen pal friendships that exist to this day and I hope will go on for a long time to come.

I think many of the younger stars on the show have bright future ahead of them. Jessica Biel and Barry Watson are the most obvious ones, but I think Beverly Mitchell and Mackenzie Rosman will have no trouble finding work for the short term. As for the adult stars, Stephen Collins and Catherine Hicks, kudos to them for taking such a huge risk during the mid-90s, at a time when most people had written their careers off. Their characters, as well as them as real life personalities, stood as good role models in a town where divorce court is a revolving door and children are dispensable. (Collins is happily married to actress Faye Grant while Hicks is married to Kevin Yagher, the guy who designed "Chucky" in the Child's Play movies; and both couples have stable families of their own as well.) With the show's departure will come another excuse for Hollywood to promote anti-family values and even more oddball couples.

(And yes, I'm praying every day that Katie Holmes and her kid manages to escape the Scientology prison created by her husband Tom Cruise and his sisters. And don't get me started on Angelina Jolie -- she doesn't deserve any kids for how she ruined Jennifer Aniston's life.)

As Bob Hope would say, Thanks for the memories.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Free Alan Johnston!

It's been three weeks since the BBC's Alan Johnston, who reports on the Gaza Strip, was kidnapped. No one has claimed responsibility, and no one knows what his current status or condition is.

It seems totally contradictory to me that some of the very people that Johnston was trying to help, the Gaza residents who live under very trying conditions even at the best of times, would want him dead or disappeared. The only way to ensure the word gets out is for reporters like him exercise their freedom of speech and here are people who would like nothing less than to see it destroyed.

Enough is enough. The terrorists have more than made their point, completely needlessly, and it's time to release Johnston. If you agree, add your name to the BBC's online petition here.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Why build a simple bridge when complicated will do?

The Red Hill Parkway is opening as early this summer in Hamilton, connecting Lincoln Alexander with Queen Elizabeth Way, and will finally give some very welcome relief to the often jammed open-access routes that climb up and down the Escarpment; especially Centennial Parkway. Truly impressive is the concurrent rehabilitation of Red Hill Creek itself, once a toxic waste dump but now a river where salmon can actually swim upstream; as well as how few trees that had to be cut down (the originally projection of 47,000 turned out to be something like 17,000 and the rest have been replanted either through the valley or in other "brownfield" parts of the city).

One loose end that has to be tied up is a long-needed pedestrian link over the QEW between Lake Ontario and the rest of the trail that parallels the highway. A very simple bridge, like what exists over the 403 adjacent to the Lincoln Alexander interchange, would suffice and might cost -- $3 million, tops.

Instead, city planners want the council to approve a $7.5 million bridge that would allegedly "distract" drivers coming in from the Niagara region who usually notice the industrial district as they wind through the city. Distract them, because it would have an arch that replicates the northbound lanes of the Burlington Skyway a full six kilometres up the road.

Keep it straight and simple, folks. If you're going to spend that kind of money, then do it fixing our roads, especially those effing year-round potholes on Garth Street -- or if it absolutely has to be spent on economic development, open a "gateway" centre on Fifty Road, ten kilometres to the east of where they want to put this ugly duckling bridge. The Niagara Discovery Centre, over the county line and at the next interchange at Casablanca, is a good example of what works to attract tourists who want information about wine country as well as the usual cheesy fare in Niagara Falls.

Of course, it's Hamilton where city council has always done stupid stuff rather than run the city like a business.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

SCOTUS scores another blow in favour of clean air

PMS might want to sit up and take notice of two very important decisions made by the US Supreme Court today, both on environmental issues. Once again, the "tree huggers" on the Court have won the day albeit in one case barely. In the first case, Massachusetts v. EPA (05-1120), the court overturned the DC Court of Appeal and by a vote of 5-4 found that, contrary to Dubya's arguments, Congress did in fact give the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks and in fact said the agency must investigate how those releases contribute to global warming.

In the second, Environmental Defense Fund v. Duke Energy (05-848), SCOTUS said unanimously that a power plant must apply for a permit to increase emissions if pollutants increase on an overall annual basis, not just hourly. In other words, the "intensity" defence went out the window. However, there are some technical issues on which Duke can still make its case so the case was remanded back to the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia.

Pollution is a cross-border concern as we well know (after all, the Nanticoke thermal plant is a pain in the ass for Western New York). That being said, it's good to see that despite its overwhelmingly conservative stance the US Supremes still understand just how bogus "intensity" is. One can not make real reductions in pollution if companies or individuals are allowed merely to emit less but the overall total remains the same because other companies or individuals just come in and take their place. Let's not forget, the original Clean Air Act in 1970, a law that covered just 3 percent of the world's then population, allowed for a substantial improvement in water quality in Antarctica even though the first year the total releases went down just a few percentage points.

So if PMS wants to talk about real reforms to our clean air legislation, he should forget about "intensity" and instead accept the recommendations of the Parliamentary committee and not call an election on the issue. True, there may be some short-term inconvenience. But the growth opportunities in terms of developing cleaner technology and processes can't be underestimated -- and we are more than capable of growing it ourselves rather than buying it off the shelf overseas.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Phelps and Co. threatens Swedish princess

Once again, the Westboro Baptist "Church" of Topeka, Kansas is up to its First Amendment-backed agenda of hate. This time, they've set their sights on Princess Madeleine of Sweden, jamming her personal fax line with dozens of abusive anti-gay messages. Why her? Seems that her father King Carl XVI Gustav and her siblings -- Crown Princess Victoria and Prince Carl Philip -- were all out of the country last week, so Madeleine was acting head of state.

Westboro has really been ramping up the pressure on Sweden ever since a minister in that country was convicted for violating the country's anti-hate laws. But the anger should be aimed towards the country's elected officials, not the royal family which as in other constitutional monarchies is above politics.

I cannot begin to express how much contempt I have for the "Reverend" Fred Phelps. (I did here, a couple of years ago.) Picketing funerals of dead American POWs and praising their deaths because of the perceived "threat" of gays and lesbians -- as if every serviceperson is "that way" which of course they're not -- is one thing. But threatening a foreign national, someone who theoretically could be a future Queen, is a step too far. There should be no hestitation here -- if Phelps and his posse violated the laws of another country, then they should be extradited to Sweden to face justice and imprisonment.

No precedent would be set. There's a difference between criticizing a communist or authoritarian country from abroad because you want to effect regime change and actually threatening to kill a pillar of a democratic state. A huge one.

No doubt others will take the place of the Westboro Hate Society -- but when you're dealing with a pandemic like Westboro the only solution is to isolate it and cast it out.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

How much more can the Solomon Islands take?

I mean really. A timber industry prone to wild price fluctuations (sound familiar?), a civil war that created a refugee crisis so bad that Australia had to intervene militarily ... and now, a tsunami.

The wave doesn't appear to be the monster that devasted the Indian Ocean region back in December 2004, but it's still caused quite a bit of damage to the Solomons. As I write this, officials in Australia don't appear to be too worried but beaches up and down the east coast and in Tasmania have been closed as a precaution.

Keep in mind, the Solomons are in the Pacific region where there's supposed to be a comprehensive earthquake and tsunami warning system. But communications are not the best there -- even with a shaky ceasefire, the islands have no TV and only radio and people were probably just getting up to start their day.

My prayers are with the people across the Pacific Rim tonight that no further damage will be done. As for You Know Who, he'd better not politicize this when he offers aid money tomorrow.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

What? Me worry? (Stockwell Day edition)

The very first step in a twelve step program is to admit that there's a problem and that things have become unmanageable. Incredibly, Stockwell Day can't seem to admit there is a crisis of confidence at the RCMP. Not only have many of its rank and file members who wear the Red Serge have lost faith in their senior command, but Canadians in general are beginning to question the very competence of a police and paramilitary force that until recently was seen around the world as being at the forefront of forensic science and counterintelligence measures.

These aren't just "problems that have come up," as Day suggests. These are very serious issues. The release of false information about Maher Arar to US authorities, the possible mismanagement of pension funds, and allegations of sexual harassment are just the tip of the iceberg. Not to mention some glaring inconsistencies between what the official record says what happened a couple years ago at Mayerthorpe, Alberta and what actually happened; and the possibility the Mounties apparently failed to follow up on a lead that James Roszko may have murdered someone several years before or how Roszko managed to beat the RCMP on sexual assault charges levied against him.

Naturally, Day will just say, "It all happened under the Liberals -- it's all their fault." Sorry, doesn't work like that. Ministerial responsibility requires the person in charge, whoever and whenever that is, to step up to the plate. An internal review with a limit of only 90 days is not acceptable. Even a review by another police force won't suffice. On the other hand, a judicial review would in my opinion take too long. But the cumulative lack of competence shown thus far compels Day to call for a special prosecutor with a reasonable time limit to file charges -- I'd give him or her twelve months.

Of course, the Conservatives think they're holier than the Pope, so it's not gonna happen. We expect the Mounties to have a degree of independence but in exchange there is an expectation that their trust and confidence will not be shaken. If there is attrition as a result of all these scandals, people will point their finger at the top -- the political top, not the bureaucratic one.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Dobson changes mind about environment -- NOT!

In my inbox this morning was a mass e-mail from Bob Darden, the editor of the Christian humour magazine Wittenburg Door. It is a copy of a letter supposedly from James Dobson of Focus on the Family in which Dobson admits he was wrong to say a little while ago that the evangelical movement should not focus on the environment, because it distracts from other social issues like abortion and "family rights."

It took me about 30 seconds before I realized this is an April Fool's Joke. Here's the "letter," which I present without further comment.

Colorado Springs, CO – Dear friends and supporters:

Since my ill-advised attack on my dear friend Dick Cizik a few days ago, I have had an extraordinary week of reflection and spiritual enlightenment.

Through the counsel of godly men, such as the Rev. Dr. Jack Hayford, the Rev. Rick Warren, Richard Stearns (President, World Vision), David Neff (Editor, Christianity Today) and other members of The Evangelical Climate Initiative (www.Christiansandclimate.org), I’ve come to see that my assessment of Dick’s motives and, in fact, “global warming,” have been in error as well.

I have been guilty of a particularly pernicious form of short-sighted Dispensationalism, believing that since the earth has no future with the blessed Second Coming nigh, we, as Christians, have no responsibility to care for Creation.

Through loving testimony, instruction and careful study of the Bible with these and other mentors, I no longer believe that Dick is – as I said earlier, much to my regret -- guilty of a “relentless campaign” to save the planet at the expense of what I called more “serious” issues, such as same-sex marriage. I see now that I have strictly exploited those issues and others like them to manipulate my audience and as a calculated and callous form of fund-raising.

As part of my penance for my unmerited attacks on a courageous, godly man, I have initiated contact with both the Rev. Jerry Falwell and Don Wildmon, with the earnest desire to convince them of the error of their ways as well. While both continue to condemn what they call “earthism worship,” I will continue to pray that this revelation will be made available to them as well.

As for the rest of my penance, I will devote the rest of my career – however long the Lord sees fit to continue in this capacity – to working with my Christian brothers and sisters to insure that all life on the planet, God’s first and greatest gift to us, is protected and cherished.

God bless you all,

Jim Dobson
Focus on the Family
8605 Explorer Drive
Colorado Springs, CO
80995
1-800-232-6459
www.family.org

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.