Month: May 2009

.

Not so long ago …

Would it be strange to combine recent developments … perhaps Syria has no blame in Hariri’s death and the UN is looking at another regional power who possesses such sophistication in murder by commando squad.

"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

 EUROPEAN ELECTIONS 

Cross-posted from the Th!nkaboutit euroblogging campaign.

The Irish Times has just produced a new poll directly comparable to the one I analysed two weeks ago in Data, Data, Data.  The general picture over the past two weeks of the campaign is remarkably stable, with few changes greater than the 2% margin of error.  The overall results for party support (if a general election were held today) are:

Fianna Fáil, 20 per cent (down 1 point)

Fine Gael, 36 per cent (down 2 points)

Labour, 23 per cent (up 3 points)

Sinn Féin, 8 per cent (down 1 point)

Green Party, 3 per cent (no change);

Independents/others, 10 per cent (up 1 point).

Up until now Irish politics has been dominated by Fianna Fail and Fine Gael – two more or less conservative parties arising out of the Irish Civil War (1922-23) – with Labour, Sinn Fein, the Greens and some minor parties playing bit part roles as members of Government coalitions or the Opposition. It would indeed be a change of historic proportions if these figures were reflected in the next general election, as Fianna Fail would slip from being the largest party (in every election since its formation in 1926) to third place.  Labour would become the second largest party, and arguably, Irish politics would adopt the left-right dialectic so common in European politics.  
However the Irish electorate traditionally give the Government of the day something of a kicking in mid-term elections like the European, Local and the two Irish Parliamentary bye-elections which are being held on June 5th., and it remains to be seen whether such a dramatic change in party support will actually materialise at the next general election (due within three years at the latest, but much sooner if the Fianna Fail Green coalition breaks up).

However in the terms of the European Elections, the picture is hardly any more promising for Fianna Fail who are already down to an historic low at the last election.  Based on a detailed constituency level analysis of the polls, Fianna Fail (4 EP seats last time) is likely to go down to 3,  and Fine Gael (5) is likely to go down to 4 seats, Labour (1)is likely to go up to 2 or 3 seats, Sinn Fein will hold their single seat, and the two independents may either stay at 2 seats or go down to 1.  What these figures show, however, is that Labour, not Libertas, has been the primary beneficiary of the political upheaval following the collapse of the economy.

Because the Irish system of proportional representation means that you vote for candidates, rather than parties (as in a list system), it is necessary to look at the individual votes going to each candidate in each constituency in order to make such predictions.  N.B. The candidate lists below are not exhaustive because not all candidate figures are include in published reports of the poll.  Virtually all the major candidates are included, however.

Dublin Constituency

There are four sitting MEPs for a constituency now reduced to three seats so one has to lose out.  Support for the leading contenders in the current poll (with the last poll’s figures (14 May) in brackets) are as follows:

Gay Mitchell (Fine Gael) 28% (26)

Proinsias De Rossa (Lab) 25% (21)

Mary Lou McDonald (Sinn Féin) 11% (14)

Eoin Ryan (Fianna Fáil) 9% (11)

Joe Higgins (Socialist) 9% (7)

Deirdre De Búrca (Greens) 6% (n/a)

Patricia McKenna (Ind. – former Green MEP) 5% (n/a)

Eibhlín Byrne (Fianna Fáil) 5% (n/a)

Caroline Simons (Libertas) 2% (n/a)

As Gay Mitchell and Proinsias De Rossa exceed the 25% quota (in the 3 seat constituency), they are likely to be elected on the first count (when only first preference votes are counted).

The bottom candidates are then eliminated in turn and their votes are redistributed in accordance with the 2nd. and 3rd. etc. preferences shown on their voters’ ballot papers.  Eoin Ryan can expect to get the bulk of his party colleague, Eibhlín Byrne’s votes which should move him marginally ahead of Mary Lou McDonald.  However Mary Lou McDonald is likely to do better with transfers from fellow anti-Lisbon candidates Joe Higgins (Socialist), Patricia McKenna and Caroline Simons (Libertas) and fellow female candidate Deirdre De Búrca (Greens) (women candidates tend to transfer in slightly greater numbers to fellow women).  So on these figures, Mary Lou McDonald would be the slight favourite to hold her seat, with Joe Higgins (Socialist) also having an outside chance of winning it.

Failing to win a seat in the Capital would be a real blow to Fianna Fail’s Leader and Taoiseach Brian Cowen’s credibility.

East Constituency

Mairéad McGuinness (Fine Gael) 29% (33)

Nessa Childers (Labour) 21% (17)

Liam Aylward (Fianna Fail) 20% (19)

John Paul Phelan (Fine Gael) 7% (n/a)

This race looks like a straightforward call for the top three candidates, which means Labour win a seat at the expense of Fine Gael

South Constituency

Brian Crowley (Fianna Fail) 30% (27)

Seán Kelly (Fine Gael) 16% (17)

Colm Burke’s (Fine Gael) 10% (10)

Alan Kelly (Labour) 12% (13)

Kathy Sinnott  14% (12)

Toireasa Ferris (Sinn Féin) 10% (12)

Kathy Sinnott (current Independent MEP) has pulled ahead of Labour’s Alan Kelly, and now looks more likely to retain her seat when Sinn Fein’s candidate is eliminated and her votes transferred based on her voters second preferences.

North West Constituency

Former MEP Pat “The Cope” Gallagher (FF) 20% (19)

MEP Marian Harkin (Independent) 19% (18)

MEP Jim Higgins (Fine Gael) 17% (20)

Joe O’Reilly (Fine Gael) 10% (8)

Declan Ganley 9% (9%)

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fáil) 7% (n/a)

Paschal Mooney and Joe O’Reilly’s votes will transfer disproportionately to their party colleagues Pat “The Cope” Gallagher and Jim Higgins respectively, ensuring their election. Declan Ganley has failed to improve his position in the past two weeks and now looks extremely unlikely to be elected.

Prediction (based on poll 2 weeks ago)

Fianna Fail 3 (seats down from 4 in last EP)

Fine Gael 4 (5)

Labour 3 (1)

Sinn Fein 1 (1)

Independents 1 (2)

The main change from the prediction based on the poll two weeks ago is that it is now more likely that Kathy Sinnott (Independent) will retain her seat in Ireland South and that Labour will therefore only win two seats.  There is now also a small chance that the last seat in Dublin will go, not to Sinn Fein, but to the Socialist party candidate, Jim Higgins.  This would be a major blow to Sinn Fein morale as they are not polling well despite the economic downturn and the implosion of Fianna Fail’s vote.

When I was growing up it never occurred to me that the United Nations would issue a report in my lifetime citing America for a ‘deplorable’ human rights record. Part of that was a bit of innocence I had about our judicial system, but I never expected to see something like this:

A summary from the report follows below. But the body of the document doesn’t pull any punches either.

Here is what Alston says about at least five detainee deaths at Guantánamo: “The Department of Defense provided little public information about any of the five detainee deaths.”

He calls wrongheaded the failure of the United States to track civilian casualties in Iraq or Afghanistan, and he thinks that with a few rare exceptions, the military has done a pitiful job holding soldiers — or even more so, their superior officers — accountable for unlawful killing in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Numerous other cases have either been inadequately investigated or senior officers have used administrative (non-judicial) proceedings instead of criminal prosecutions,” he wrote. “It appears that no U.S. officer above the rank of major has ever been prosecuted for the wrongful actions of the personnel under his or her command.”

He notes “credible reports” of at least five deaths caused by torture at the hands of the CIA. Except for one case of a CIA contractor, however, “No investigation has ever been released and alleged CIA involvement has never been publicly confirmed or denied.”

Alston doesn’t think the Justice Department has done a bang-up job either. “U.S. prosecutors have failed to use the laws on the books to investigate and prosecute (contractors) and civilian agents for wrongful deaths, including, in some cases, deaths credibly alleged to have resulted from torture and abuse.”

Without naming President Obama, Alston clearly thinks the president’s plan to simply move on won’t work. “A refusal to look back inevitably means moving forward in blindness,” he wrote. Instead, he advocates a “national ‘commission of inquiry’ tasked with carrying out an independent, systematic and sustained investigation of policies and practices that lead to deaths and other abuses.”

We like to debate interrogation techniques. The real debate should be about murder. I’m not surprised that the UN understands this. Why don’t we?

Bush cleared brush to prove he’s a regular guy. Obama eats burgers. The strange thing about it is that he’s got more of a reputation as a health-conscious eater than as someone who powers down Five Guys’ burgers. Michelle set up the organic garden on the White House grounds. And their chef specializes in healthy menus. But the real question is, why does the Obama administration hate Pepsi?

What’s on your menu?

Hello again painting fans.

This week we’ll be continuing with the painting of the 1949 Hudson.  The photo that I’m using is seen directly below.

I’ll be using my usual acrylics on an 8×10 canvas.

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.

     

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

 

There comes a point in the evolution of a painting where things finally start to come together.  After dragging along for several weeks, this one has now finally reached that important point.  After darkening the background with another layer of paint, the effect that I was hoping to achieve finally seems to be happening.  The lit front end of the car stands prominently against all of the other shadowed elements to the rear.

That front end now includes the old blue paint and surface rust as seen in the painting.  I’ve continued to refine the grille, which will see more work in the next few weeks.  The chrome is now a bit better defined.  Here too, more definition will be coming soon.

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.

The president has gotten considerably closer to some on the right who until recently may have been supposed to be among his strongest critics.  There are some possible explanations for this, but from a progressive standpoint no satisfactory answers.

For more on pruning back executive power see Pruning Shears.

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

When the aggrandizement of the executive branch began during the Bush administration I expected conservatives to be supportive because it was consistent with their history.  On spending, for example, Ronald Reagan had no problem with profligate boondoggles as long as they were in his preferred area – even famously dismissed the entire concept of fiscal probity by quipping that the deficit was “big enough to take care of itself.”  This, remember, is the president the GOP most fondly remembers and reveres of at least the last fifty years, maybe since Lincoln.  If its standard bearer couldn’t be bothered what does that say about the rest of the party?

So I expected the same expedient attitude towards principle once George Bush began to claim that he had nearly limitless (in practice) authority to do what he wanted as long as it was to protect the country.  When a Republican is in the White House the president is the principle, and all prior rhetoric must be retrofitted to the new executive’s actions.  It was no less outrageous for being anticipated but it still lived down to my expectations.

I did make one huge error in judgment, though: I assumed those claims would be mothballed as soon as a Democrat won the presidency.  When Barack Obama won I couldn’t wait to see the right try to walk back all that “Commander In Chief is a law unto himself” nonsense it has been so enthusiastic about.  That is not what has happened, though.  As Obama has embraced key parts of the Bush national security policies the right has largely applauded him.  I expected kicking and screaming.  I feel a little better about failing to see it because I’m not alone; as Glenn Greenwald pointed out, “During the Bush years, it was common for Democrats to try to convince conservatives to oppose Bush’s executive power expansions by asking them:  ‘Do you really want these powers to be exercised by Hillary Clinton or some liberal President?'”  As it turns out, the answer is an emphatic “yes!”

Why are conservatives fine with this?  Publius suggested it was simple political posturing and Steve Benen added that it was a tactic “predicated on Republican hopes that public fear will outweigh public reason.”  It isn’t that they have they been painted into a corner by their previous support; rather, they see it as one of the few issues where they could have an advantage that pays substantial dividends.  The more worrisome possibility they mention is that advocates of authoritarian measures were so traumatized by 9/11 that they are still driven by a primal fear.  Perhaps many on the right believe these measures are necessary for a president – even a Democratic one – to have because the threat we face is so dire.  It seems much of the country has in the succeeding years tried to come to rational grips with the magnitude and nature of the threat we face from terrorism, but a significant part of it feels the violence of that day almost as immediately as it did in the initial aftermath.

Obama’s embrace of these policies, the people who champion them and the philosophy that underlies them is in direct conflict with what he has repeatedly said he believed.  Greenwald has been dogged in tracking these changes, both from what Obama claimed when running for president as well as from his brief tenure.  There is no obvious way to reconcile the two.  Andrew Sullivan has tried to by claiming Obama is playing a long game, meaning that the issues he is giving ground on will inevitably be taken back by a combination of court rulings, changing public opinion and a reinvigorated Congress (and that he is saving his political capital to spend on the highest profile issues like health care).

That may be true, but as a strategy it is also too clever by half.  Courts have generally struck down Bush’s most expansive claims but there is no guarantee they will continue to do so.  Public opinion can be diverted with a determined enough effort or a fabulous enough sideshow.  And I for one would not count too heavily on aggressive action from any body that counts Harry Reid among its leadership.  The risk, that part or all of the Bush vision of counterterrorism will be enshrined across party lines and presidential administrations, is extraordinarily severe.  If that really is what he is thinking he must be very confident of his ability to foresee how it all will unfold – and also must believe he has a very long spoon.

.
Listed at Open Left by amberglow

Why Obama and DoD want these photo’s blocked – Detainee abuse photos ‘show rape’

"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

Because it’s going to be two or three months before the Senate actually holds a vote on the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, I’ve been a little reluctant to respond to every lunatic comment that comes down the pike. I mean, if you want to go after a nearly 55-year old woman for menstruating then you either need a biology lesson or a crash course in political sensitivity…or both.

What’s becoming clear, though, is that a certain element of the Republican Wurlitzer is severely off-key. To a certain degree, there are always fringes on both wings that do little service to the people actually responsible for winning elections. Caught up in their own echo-chamber of self-righteousness, MoveOn.org put an ad in the New York Times accusing our commanding general in Iraq of betraying his country. The pulse of the anti-war movement was gone the next day. MoveOn’s huge mailing list isn’t really fringe at all, but they were marginalized (and essentially censured by Congress) by tin-ear leaders who let their strong sense of right and wrong overpower their political senses. At the same time that catastrophe was unfolding another catastrophe was unfolding among right-wing activist groups who let their hatred of Latinos overpower a cool analysis of demographic reality. In shooting down President Bush’s effort at immigration reform, the right did severe damage to John McCain’s campaign, and to the campaigns of Republicans all over the country. It’s likely to be lasting damage, and their treatment of Sonia Sotomayor indicates that they are content to drive over the same cliff more than once.

With Republican talking heads calling Sotomayor a ‘racist’, a ‘schoolmarm’, a member of the ‘KKK’ without the hoods or the nooses’, stupid, and temperamental, there is no way for either women or latinos to conclude anything else but that the GOP doesn’t like them. And here’s the thing. Normally, political advocates argue their case in a way that they think will ultimately help their party win elections. Sometimes, their desire to win leads them to trim their sails a bit about how they really feel. But these Republicans are letting it all hang out without any regard whatsoever for the essentially suicidal rhetoric they are using.

A lot of liberals are almost gleeful to see them take all the rope and hang themselves with it. Well, I’m not gleeful. I really don’t like having an openly racist party in this county, let alone one that is the only realistic alternative to the Democrats. It’s not healthy and it’s not safe. And I want someone to come along and put this GOP party out of its misery before it comes back to power through the power of inertia.

Libertarians need to get their crap together. Or someone.

Since my store has been defunct for over a year, I finally decided to replace my store with a donate button. You should see it in the top line of the page on the right. If you really want some vintage Booman Tribune t-shirts, coffee cups, or bumper stickers, I can still get them for you if you email me through the Contact page.

I’ve been relying on all of you to keep the site running ever since the economy tanked and advertising dried up. You been extremely generous at the end of each month, giving me enough in donations to pay my rent and server costs, and sometimes a little extra for stuff like food and bills. That’s why, this month, I didn’t want to burden you by asking for additional contributions to replace my broken laptop. Instead, I created a Facebook Group called Help Replace BooMan’s Broken Laptop. You can go there and show your support by becoming a member. A lot of people are doing fundraising drives right now in the blogosphere, so it might not be the best time to ask. But I really need a new laptop. I am headed to DC soon for a conference and I won’t be able to take this ancient desktop with me.

As always, I am grateful for and humbled by all your support.

You can become a Facebook follower of Booman Tribune here.

Still surprising:

Last night, shortly after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told journalists that the Obama administration “wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called a confidante. Referring to Clinton’s call for a settlement freeze, Netanyahu groused, “What the hell do they want from me?” according to his associate, who added, “I gathered that he heard some bad vibes in his meetings with [U.S.] congressional delegations this week.”

In the 10 days since Netanyahu and President Barack Obama held a meeting at the White House, the Obama administration has made clear in public and private meetings with Israeli officials that it intends to hold a firm line on Obama’s call to stop Israeli settlements. According to many observers in Washington and Israel, the Israeli prime minister, looking for loopholes and hidden agreements that have often existed in the past with Washington, has been flummoxed by an unusually united line that has come not just from Obama White House and the secretary of state, but also from pro-Israel congressmen and women who have come through Israel for meetings with him over Memorial Day recess. To Netanyahu’s dismay, Obama doesn’t appear to have a hidden policy. It is what he said it was.

“This is a sea change for Netanyahu,” a former senior Clinton administration official who worked on Middle East issues said. The official said that the basis of the Obama White House’s resolve is the conviction that it is in the United States’ as well as Israel’s interest to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “We have significant, existential threats that Israel faces from Iran and that the U.S. faces from this region. It is in our mutual interest to end this conflict, and to begin to build new regional alliances.”

Netanyahu needed to engage Obama directly, the former official said. “Now that he has done so, and also sent a team of advisors to meet [special envoy to the Middle East George] Mitchell, he has very clearly received a message: ‘I meant what I said on settlements. No natural growth. No elasticity. There will be a clear settlement freeze.'” …

… “Over the past 15 years, settlements have gone from being seen in Washington as an irritant, to the dominant issue,” says Georgetown Univeristy Middle East expert Daniel Byman. He pointed out that key figures in the Obama administration — Mitchell, who headed the Mitchell Commission, which recommended a halt to settlements; national security advisor Gen. Jim Jones — see the Jewish settlements in the West Bank, home to some 290,000 people, as a key obstacle to getting a peace settlement. “I don’t think the logic is hidden,” Byman said.

It’s not just the administration that’s delivering Netanyahu that message, however. Whereas in the past Israeli leaders have sometimes eased pressure from Washington on the settlements issue by going to members of Congress, this time, observers in Washington and Israel say, key pro-Israel allies in Congress have been largely reinforcing the Obama team’s message to Netanyahu. What changed? “Members of Congress have more willing to follow the leadership of the administration … because [they] believe it is in our national security interest to move toward ending the conflict and that it is not a zero sum for Israel,” the former senior Clinton administration official said.

“Netanyahu and [Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor] Lieberman are probing, looking for areas they can get space gratis from the United States,” says Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow at the American Task Force for Palestine. “And they are not finding it.”

“We’ve been watching the move in Congress, especially among certain high profile Jewish American members — people like Representative Gary Ackerman, Representative Robert Wexler, and Representative Howard Berman,” Ibish said. “What has occurred — and this has been greatly intensified by the election of Obama: There has been a growing sense of members of Congress who are well-informed on foreign policy … that peace is essential to the American national interest and the Israeli national interest. And there’s been a growing sense that the possibility of a two-state agreement is time-limited and that things like the settlements are incompatible with the goal of creating two states.”

That’s some Hopey McChange. I hope it leads somewhere.