Month: January 2009

What’s it like to be a freshman congressperson? Jared Polis (D-Boulder) says it’s a lot like being a freshman in college.

New members have a lottery for our rooms (offices). We “rush” for our committee assignments and elect a class president (Martin Heinrich of New Mexico).

We wander around aimlessly, clutching maps, trying to find our way around “campus.” There are even intramural sports; I played baseball in high school and hope to join the congressional team.

And just like college, newbies are often lumped together and collectively, even mockingly, referred to as “The Freshmen.” Some of the upper classman are a bit snooty and don’t talk to us lowly fish, but others are friendly and eager to help.

Rep. Polis is the first openly gay man to ever get elected as a freshman to Congress. He’s a good writer, too. He paints a fun picture of what it’s like to get your feet wet as a newly minted politician. He serves on the Education & Labor Committee and the Rules Committee.

I don’t think they’d ever let me be a congressman.

Who is the worst columnist in America?

Why does God hate Sarah Palin Alaskans?

Let me ask you a question. Is there any way to read the following tripe from Mark Steyn without coming to the conclusion that he values sexually transmitted diseases for their deterrent effect on promiscuity and that he does not want to reduce the transmission and occurrence of STD’s?

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, is on TV explaining the (at this point the congregation shall fall to its knees and prostrate itself) “stimulus.” “How,” asks the lady from CBS, “does $335 million in STD prevention stimulate the economy?”

“I’ll tell you how,” says Speaker Pelosi. “I’m a big believer in prevention. And we have, er… there is a part of the bill on the House side that is about prevention. It’s about it being less expensive to the states to do these measures.”

Makes a lot of sense. If we have more STD prevention, it will be safer for loose women to go into bars and pick up feckless men, thus stimulating the critical beer and nuts and jukebox industries. To do this, we need trillion-dollar deficits, which our children and grandchildren will have to pay off, but, with sufficient investment in prevention measures, there won’t be any children or grandchildren, so there’s that problem solved.

The more interviews Speaker Pelosi gives explaining how vital the STD industry is to restarting the U.S. economy, the more I find myself hearing “syphilis” every time she says “stimulus.”

There are probably many appropriations that would be more directly stimulative to the economy than money that goes towards the prevention of STD’s, but treating STD’s does cost money and states will save money if they have less cases of STD to treat. I’m not concerned with Steyn’s critique of the efficacy of STD prevention as a stimulus. What concerns me is that he seems to think that preventing STD’s will lead to a culture where women (not men, interestingly) will feel free to have sex with whomever they want. Steyn would much rather have STD’s occurring with significant enough frequency that women feel constrained in picking their partners and display much less promiscuity.

He’s quite open about this. And, even if we posit that there is some socially beneficial advantage to less female promiscuity (beyond lowering the incidence of STD’s), we have to wonder about a person that wants people to get a disease as a lesson for others. Isn’t is possible for people to be less promiscuous without the threat of STD’s? And why doesn’t any of this apply to men?

Introduction to the translated version of the Speigel report.

“Spiegel database” of West Bank settlements and outposts
Developed by the Israeli Ministry of Defense

Enclosed are translations of excerpts from a classified Israeli government database never before released to the public. This database has been in assembly since 2004, when then-Minister of Defense Shaul Mofaz tasked Brigadier General (Res.) Baruch Spiegel with building a database to include up-to-date reference for all statutory aspects of settlements and outposts in the West Bank.

The report data demonstrates:

Over 30 settlements – including longstanding settlements such as Ariel, Kochav Yaakov, Beit El, Elon Moreh and Ofrah – that were to some extent built on private Palestinian land.

Construction activity within settlements being conducted without necessary building permits or in direct violation of the building plans.

The extent and locations of unauthorized building in outposts across the West Bank.

January 30, 2009

Secret database shows Israeli government to be active partner in settlement land grab is Philip Weiss’ title to this story printed in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz (from Mondoweiss). Weiss describes the story as “huge”: Secret Israeli database reveals full extent of illegal settlement The story outlines a database created by the Israeli defense establishment to gather:

credible and accessible information at the ready to contend with legal actions brought by Palestinian residents, human rights organizations and leftist movements challenging the legality of construction in the settlements and the use of private lands to establish or expand them.

Perhaps what is left out of the story is the extent to which Israeli occupation forces over the years collaborated with settler teams to wrest Palestinian land from its owners, using harassment, violence, house demolitions, and destruction of farmlands and orchards (see Israel’s land grab caper: how it works, Daily Kos).

Now we have admission on the part of the military of this collaboration in building the settlements, all of which are illegal according to international law.
.
Weiss says,

The (Haartez) article adds, “the painstakingly amassed data was labeled political dynamite.”

Well the dynamite has exploded.

There is much that can, and will, be said about this report. The initial take home message is that whenever you read or see a story where the Israeli government is presented as a counter balance to the “radical settler movement” you now know this is false. The Israeli government has been supporting and expanding the settlement project in the occupied territories all along, and it is now documented. The settlements have long been viewed as an exception, out of the government’s control, an issue that will be dealt with later. They should now be viewed as the rule. This point is made clear by a settler leader himself:

“Nothing was done in hiding,” says Pinchas Wallerstein, director-general of the Yesha Council of settlements and a leading figure in the settlement project. “I’m not familiar with any [building] plans that were not the initiative of the Israeli government.”

Dror Etkes, an anti-settlement activist with the Israeli NGO Yesh Din has now published an analysis of the database today, along with an English translation of excerpts (the Ha’aretz article contains the database in Hebrew). Etkes says:

There is no doubt that this is the most important database that has ever been exposed on this issue, covering the activities of the State of Israel in the context of the settlement enterprise. It includes reference to additional statutory issues that until now have never been dealt with in public, and in fact proves a colossal violation of the law in nearly every aspect, applicable to most of the settlements – building without permit, land-theft, etc. This proves again that the State and the settlers have an unwritten agreement that divides the work between them: While settlers, through public bodies which they control, actually perform most of the illegal construction and trespassing, the State finances and provides sweeping and ongoing immunity to these criminal activities.

The Etkes analysis and the English translation of parts of the database can be downloaded from Mondoweiss.

Not a few people think it’s time to draw a line in the sand about politicians that play by their own set of rules and don’t pay their taxes while writing the laws that prescribe punishment for us if we don’t pay ours. Tom Daschle’s tax issues are an embarrassment that we don’t need or deserve. I applauded his nomination to be Secretary of Health & Human Services because I thought (and still do) that his good relations on the Hill would make it much easier to usher through Obama’s health care package. But, in these difficult economic times, it’s impossible to defend someone that piles up hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid taxes while he is tooled around in limousines. Daschle has no excuse, and none of us should be put in the position of trying to defend his actions. Howard Dean might not have equivalent connections and political savvy, but he does understand health care and he does deserve a job in the Obama administration. I say that the Obama administration should withdraw Daschle’s nomination and replace him with Howard Dean.

Welcome back.

This week we’ll be continuin with the painting of the 1952 Hudson.  The photo that I’m using is seen directly below.

I’ll be using my usual acrylics ona  9×12.

Seen in a period advertisement directly below is a similar Hudson.

When last seen, the painting appeared as it does in the photo directly below.

Sine that time I have continued to work on the painting.

I have done an underpainting of various colors unlike the last piece.  Except for the ochre, I’ve chosen the colors rather randomly.  The ochre will (hopefully) enhance the rust on the car.  Although the underpainting will likely only show in small traces in the final piece, it is used here to define the major elements.

It is said that Underpainting also changes somewhat the overlaying colors.  It will be interesting to see how that works here.

The current state of the painting is seen in the photo directly below.

That’s about it for now. Next week I’ll have more progress to show you. See you then. As always, feel free to add photos of your own work in the comments section below.

Earlier paintings in this series can be seen here.

For a political party and a President that promised “Change you can believe in” there sure has been an awful lot of news stories about politically corrupt Democrats here in the last month.  Granted, most of the stuff they’ve done is just plain stupid (and nothing in comparison to the rank illegality of Bush/Cheney mind you) but there’s a pattern here, and after ten days of the Obama administration I’m already sick and tired of it.

The ongoing “pay-to-play” investigation into Bill Richardson and Blago’s impeachment are the most serious.  But there’s still plenty of ethical questions involving Hillary Clinton’s relationship to international donors to her husband’s foundation, the increasingly bizarre Caroline Kennedy/David Paterson/Kirsten Gillibrand  imbroglio,  and the fact that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner can’t do his own taxes correctly.

And now another major problem rears its ugly head:  HHS nominee Tom Daschle has his own tax problems.

After being defeated in his 2004 re-election campaign to the Senate, Daschle in 2005 became a consultant and chairman of the executive advisory board at InterMedia Advisors.  

Based in New York City, InterMedia Advisors is a private equity firm founded in part by longtime Daschle friend and Democratic fundraiser Leo Hindery, the former president of the YES network (the New York Yankees’ and New Jersey Devils’ cable television channel).  

That same year he began his professional relationship with InterMedia, Daschle began using the services of Hindery’s car and driver.  

The Cadillac and driver were never part of Daschle’s official compensation package at InterMedia, but Mr. Daschle — who as Senate majority leader enjoyed the use of a car and driver at taxpayer expense — didn’t declare their services on his income taxes, as tax laws require.  

During the vetting process to become HHS secretary, Daschle corrected the tax violation, voluntarily paying $101,943 in back taxes plus interest, working with his accountant to amend his tax returns for 2005 through 2007.

(Daschle reimbursed the IRS $31,462 in taxes and interest for tax year 2005; $35,546 for 2006; and $34,935 for 2007, a Daschle spokesperson said, adding that Daschle had asked his accountant to look into the tax implications of the car and driver five months before Obama won the presidency.)  

The Daschle spokesperson told ABC News that the senator, facing questions from the committee, has said “he deeply regretted his mistake. When he realized it was a mistake he corrected it rapidly.”

Now we see why Geithner was confirmed.  Daschle had the same problem.

Is it too much to ask for the Obama guys to find people who aren’t doing stupid crap like this and putting them in critical positions?  Our economy is all but done, our health care system is on life support, and we’ve got Obama putting in tax cheats to run his damn programs?

Is it truly that hard to find decent Democrats that don’t have records that make them look like Bush-era nepotists and cronies?  Honestly?  We’ve had eight years of this shit and I’m altogether sick and tired of the same excuses, the same backslapping, the same bullshit from the last eight years.

No, I don’t want the Republicans back in power.  Yes, I do want competent and decent Democrats in the Cabinet because I know they exist, and Obama has managed to find a lot of them to his credit.  But aren’t we in enough trouble here as it is, Mr. President?  Don’t we need a clean slate here at a time where crap like this has gotten this country to the brink of economic disaster?

Maybe I’m holding Obama to a higher standard.  But frankly after Bush/Cheney nearly destroyed this country, we all should be holding our entire government to a higher standard.  Period.

OK, rant over.  Resume Obama administration.

The new president has made some encouraging moves in his first days.  Many, however, will only come into focus later – and some already suggest a fondness for his predecessor’s way of doing things.

For more on pruning back executive power see Pruning Shears.

No Associated Press content was harmed in the writing of this post

President Obama has received largely positive reviews for his early performance, and there certainly have been some welcome breaks with the Bush administration.  The executive orders (EO) closing Guantánamo and the black sites are probably the most important.  His instruction to federal agencies to err on the side of openness with Freedom of Information Act requests is also a great sign.  There are plenty of reasons to feel encouraged so far.  But since he has been in office less than two weeks these positive actions are still largely theoretical.  The devil is in the details, and until we see how they translate into action it is premature to start celebrating.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) decided to dive right in by “calling on the Justice Department [JD] to release Bush administration documentation pertaining to torture, surveillance and other controversial national security policies.”  The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued dozens (via) of secret documents during the Bush years, to the point that the nature of the office itself changed.  Instead of providing well reasoned legal opinions that placed adherence to the law above political considerations, it was used as a shadow legislature.  Its rulings gave the president cover (so we are told) to act with impunity and ignore the law, or more pointedly that OLC rulings were the law.  Will president Obama allow this system to see the light of day and be scrutinized?  Will he seek to keep it hidden from public view?  Or will he try to split the difference by putting the ACLU requests into a purgatory of “review” that will never be finalized?

Moreover, we should not be looking to the executive branch to fix executive branch excesses.  EO’s are under a cloud these days because of the legal theory Marcy Wheeler comically (and brilliantly) belittles as Pixie Dust: “the claim that the President can just ignore his own executive orders.”  The Bush administration took just such a position and its validity is currently being worked out in the courts.  But for the moment at least they are subject to the whims of the president and not exactly strongly binding.  Even if the courts eventually decide that EO’s cannot be modified on the fly they are still subject to quick reversal by succeeding presidents.  For as nice as the new orders are, some are only as durable as future presidents decide they are.

Most coverage has seemed to characterize the new president’s direction as either a complete repudiation of Bush’s policies or a halfhearted one being rhetorically presented as wholehearted.  But as the Wheeler link shows, Obama’s  White House Counsel Greg Craig appears to endorse the Pixie Dust theory.  If the Obama administration is prepared to endorse dubious and odious novelties like that right out of the gate it indicates there may be more continuity with the last president than many are willing to acknowledge.  Concrete actions like closing Guantánamo cannot be done right away, but basic principles about and stances toward the law can be established literally from day one.  Some of them so far are not very comforting.

Jack Shafer pointed out another bad habit that seems to have carried over:  The near-obsessive use of background briefings by the White House.  Instead of going on the record, administration officials have insisted on almost presumptively being anonymous in everything they say – even when no weighty considerations are in play.  Since the reporters know who these people are, their identities are an open secret in Washington.  Shafer concludes, “The only people left in the dark are citizens and readers. Why can’t we trust them with the identities of background briefing? As long as it’s a new administration, why not turn on a few lights?”

Some in Congress are trying.  John Conyers’ subpoena of Karl Rove will be an early test.  JD lawyers must respond to it by February 18th, and John Byrne writes that when it does we will get a sense of “how broadly Obama will interpret executive authority and whether he will change course.”  (In a related article Byrne also notes “Obama might also effectively protect Rove and President Bush by retaining a broad interpretation of executive privilege.”)  This and other early issues seem especially important because they will indicate the tone we can expect for the next four years, and whether or not the president will look to preserve much of the assertions and power grabs that have bothered so many of us for the last eight.  And in any event it is not enough for us to hope a benevolent new president grants us the concessions the last one took away.  We have to be prepared to grab back, and yank hard.

I finally heard from my friend Majdi in Gaza. Our conversation was very brief. Here is a transcript of what he said before we were cut off.

We faced death for more than 2 weeks. The tanks were just few meters from my apartment. Every Palestinian in Gaza says that he didn’t face such a crisis like the last one, even a 90 years old one told me this.

But believe me Hamas is a very big problem for us. I don’t want the word Gaza to be associated with Hamas.

Do you know on one day when the tanks were around us very closely I was afraid that one Hamas fighter could enter our building. Then a  massacre could happen
Furtunately, there were no Hamas fighters.

I know that what I am telling you is strange, but even the chance of having Hamas fighters gives excuses to them to massacre.

I can tell you that there was not a resistance. The resistance was minimal and if it was more you could expect more victims.

Hamas people now say that at a neighborhood where Israelis occupied at the center of Gaza City there were only 6 fighters.