![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
the boy who cried havoc (part 2)
Jan. 11th, 2003 09:15 amparable time at PLA. Go already.
Jan. 11th, 2003
is democracy unamerican?
Jan. 11th, 2003 09:56 amLet's be clear about this: Democracy is not a sport. We are not rooting for a football team here. Questioning the behavior of our leaders, and declining to support their every action, doesn't make you a traitor.
In a democracy, we are best served by having an open and lively debate on the direction we take as a nation. This does not change in wartime. Indeed, in a war such as this one, where our democratic institutions are being directly challenged by right-wing religious fanatics, it is even more important to preserve the right to speak freely.
It's quite clear that those who accuse dissenters of "aiding the enemy" are interested primarily in quieting any dissent, and shutting down any kind of thoughtful debate. They argue, like football cheerleaders, that it's more important to present a unified front than it is to keep core democratic principles alive and vibrant. (At least, this is their argument, though in the case of Bush supporters, one can't help but believe their core motives are base partisanship.) They're the same kind of folk who try to claim that "America is a republic, not a democracy" -- thereby revealing their own animosity to democracy itself.
Put another way, they are actually aiding and abetting those terrorists who hope to destroy America's democratic institutions.
The truth of the matter is that an open debate enables Americans to participate in the direction the nation takes, so when we do take action, it deepens our resolve, and makes our unity genuine instead of artificially imposed upon us.
Many on the American right like to compare G.W. Bush to FDR. But during World War II, FDR was under regular attack from those on the right who questioned his every move. It began with the right-wing demands to intern Japanese-Americans, to which FDR quickly acceded. It continued throughout the war, with regular accusations that FDR's administration was infiltrated by communists, and later, that it was coddling Japanese-Americans because the administration had failed to make life in the concentration camps severe enough for their tastes -- they wanted the "Japs" to be punished. Perhaps the most bellicose of these was Martin Dies, the founder of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee.
Importantly, neither FDR nor any of his cronies ever accused Dies or the administration's many other critics of being "anti-American" or "pro-Nazi."
But then, that's perhaps because FDR was a real president.
In a democracy, we are best served by having an open and lively debate on the direction we take as a nation. This does not change in wartime. Indeed, in a war such as this one, where our democratic institutions are being directly challenged by right-wing religious fanatics, it is even more important to preserve the right to speak freely.
It's quite clear that those who accuse dissenters of "aiding the enemy" are interested primarily in quieting any dissent, and shutting down any kind of thoughtful debate. They argue, like football cheerleaders, that it's more important to present a unified front than it is to keep core democratic principles alive and vibrant. (At least, this is their argument, though in the case of Bush supporters, one can't help but believe their core motives are base partisanship.) They're the same kind of folk who try to claim that "America is a republic, not a democracy" -- thereby revealing their own animosity to democracy itself.
Put another way, they are actually aiding and abetting those terrorists who hope to destroy America's democratic institutions.
The truth of the matter is that an open debate enables Americans to participate in the direction the nation takes, so when we do take action, it deepens our resolve, and makes our unity genuine instead of artificially imposed upon us.
Many on the American right like to compare G.W. Bush to FDR. But during World War II, FDR was under regular attack from those on the right who questioned his every move. It began with the right-wing demands to intern Japanese-Americans, to which FDR quickly acceded. It continued throughout the war, with regular accusations that FDR's administration was infiltrated by communists, and later, that it was coddling Japanese-Americans because the administration had failed to make life in the concentration camps severe enough for their tastes -- they wanted the "Japs" to be punished. Perhaps the most bellicose of these was Martin Dies, the founder of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee.
Importantly, neither FDR nor any of his cronies ever accused Dies or the administration's many other critics of being "anti-American" or "pro-Nazi."
But then, that's perhaps because FDR was a real president.
CHICAGO - Gov. George Ryan will empty Illinois' death row by issuing a blanket commutation covering all 156 inmates, his spokesman said Saturday.
"He's been talking about this for a few days, and in only a handful of cases was he considering, for a variety of reasons, not to include (them) in the commutations," spokesman Dennis Culloton said.
"Ultimately, late yesterday, he came to the decision this was the only thing to do," Culloton said.
via Atrios
"He's been talking about this for a few days, and in only a handful of cases was he considering, for a variety of reasons, not to include (them) in the commutations," spokesman Dennis Culloton said.
"Ultimately, late yesterday, he came to the decision this was the only thing to do," Culloton said.
via Atrios
When George W. Bush was running for president, he did not campaign as an enemy of the federal government. But he claimed that he would limit its growth and power. And he derided his opponent, Al Gore, as an advocate of "big government."
In a speech to California Republicans, Bush said he shared former President Ronald Reagan's belief that "you can't be for big government and big bureaucracy and still be for the little guy." He promised that if he won, Washington would "give options, not orders. At its best," he added, "government can help us live our lives, but it must never run our lives."
Bush didn't stop there. In placing himself squarely in the conservative tradition that holds that limited government is the best guarantee of freedom, he called for a return to a concept of federalism respectful of states' rights and local authority. When it comes to education, he said, he would fight any scheme that would transfer power from parents and teachers to "some distant central office." Asked about the economy, he said he would keep government modest, because "the surest way to make sure prosperity slows down is to expand the role and scope and size of the federal government."
That was then. Now that Bush is running the federal government, its size doesn't bother him so much. Two years after taking office, Bush is presiding over the biggest, most expensive federal government in history. He has created a mammoth Cabinet department, increased federal spending, imposed new federal rules on local and state governments, and injected federal requirements into every public school in America.
Meanwhile, the U.S. military is expanding too, and not only because it is scouring the world for Sept. 11-style threats. It now seeks to fulfill a more expansive vision of America's role that mirrors Bush's more expansive vision of government in general. Gone is the Bush who spoke of "humility" in foreign affairs and warned against "nation-building" and overextending America's military. Now the administration talks about meeting America's "unparalleled responsibilities" as it maintains a quarter-million troops abroad, garrisons in more than two dozen countries and smaller detachments in 114 others. As it does so, the administration must reinforce the military and intelligence infrastructure here to help sustain missions abroad.
Money is one measure of the new era of big government. Federal spending, measured as a share of the gross domestic product (GDP), declined every year from fiscal 1991, when the Cold War ended, through fiscal 2000, the final full year of the Clinton administration. It fell from 22.3 percent of GDP to 18.4 percent in that decade, but began edging back up in the first year of Bush's presidency and is projected to hit 19.6 percent this year...
In a speech to California Republicans, Bush said he shared former President Ronald Reagan's belief that "you can't be for big government and big bureaucracy and still be for the little guy." He promised that if he won, Washington would "give options, not orders. At its best," he added, "government can help us live our lives, but it must never run our lives."
Bush didn't stop there. In placing himself squarely in the conservative tradition that holds that limited government is the best guarantee of freedom, he called for a return to a concept of federalism respectful of states' rights and local authority. When it comes to education, he said, he would fight any scheme that would transfer power from parents and teachers to "some distant central office." Asked about the economy, he said he would keep government modest, because "the surest way to make sure prosperity slows down is to expand the role and scope and size of the federal government."
That was then. Now that Bush is running the federal government, its size doesn't bother him so much. Two years after taking office, Bush is presiding over the biggest, most expensive federal government in history. He has created a mammoth Cabinet department, increased federal spending, imposed new federal rules on local and state governments, and injected federal requirements into every public school in America.
Meanwhile, the U.S. military is expanding too, and not only because it is scouring the world for Sept. 11-style threats. It now seeks to fulfill a more expansive vision of America's role that mirrors Bush's more expansive vision of government in general. Gone is the Bush who spoke of "humility" in foreign affairs and warned against "nation-building" and overextending America's military. Now the administration talks about meeting America's "unparalleled responsibilities" as it maintains a quarter-million troops abroad, garrisons in more than two dozen countries and smaller detachments in 114 others. As it does so, the administration must reinforce the military and intelligence infrastructure here to help sustain missions abroad.
Money is one measure of the new era of big government. Federal spending, measured as a share of the gross domestic product (GDP), declined every year from fiscal 1991, when the Cold War ended, through fiscal 2000, the final full year of the Clinton administration. It fell from 22.3 percent of GDP to 18.4 percent in that decade, but began edging back up in the first year of Bush's presidency and is projected to hit 19.6 percent this year...
It's sort of good news that the Republican Convention is coming to New York in 2004. It's nice to see support from the Red country for the Blue city. It's a pity, though, that we will have to fork over some $50 million to defray G.O.P. expenses. I hope predictions based on Philadelphia's experience in 2000 will prove true and the event will bring in three times that amount, helping revive our battered tourist trade.
But if Philadelphia is to be our model, we shouldn't count on a riveting event. That was a tightly scripted affair about "compassion," featuring people of color performing for a snowy white audience of delegates. Maybe next year the theme will be updated from race to class, with a stageful of the unemployed and uninsured singing the virtues of tax cuts.
Or perhaps there's another way to bring production values up to Big Apple standards. Let's recall the first such event to be broadcast on mass media (in that case, radio): the 1924 Democratic National Convention, held at Stanford White's old Madison Square Garden on 26th Street.
It was the first held in New York since 1868. Most Western and Southern Democrats had resisted returning, feeling the city was, in the words of a popular prohibitionist poem, "heartless, Godless, Hell's delight / rude by day and lewd by night." Herbert Bayard Swope, the executive editor of The World, had spent a year selling them on the city. Liquor would be banned from the convention hall. The police would round up pickpockets (although William Jennings Bryan's pocket watch eventually got lifted inside the arena). Swope got a thousand restaurants and hotels to pledge not to increase prices.
As the convention neared, the city was plastered with signs for its favorite son, Gov. Al Smith. One likely reason the California politician William Gibbs McAdoo Ñ Smith's chief rival for the nomination Ñ acquiesced in giving New York the convention was a desire to run against the metropolis. The minute he arrived by train he called it "sinister, unscrupulous, mercenary and sordid." (A bit much, perhaps, from a man who had spent 30 years as a Wall Street lawyer.)
Thus provoked, New Yorkers turned waspish. Locals mocked McAdoo's followers as "apple knockers" and mimicked their drawls. Each delegation had a city block dedicated to it. This sounded hospitable enough to the (largely anti-Catholic) Texans, until they discovered their block contained St. Patrick's Cathedral.
Smith was nominated on June 26. Franklin D. Roosevelt made a witty speech offering "the Happy Warrior" to the convention. The moment he finished, a wave of sound slammed through the hall, generated by mechanical noisemakers, fire sirens, cowbells and a half-dozen bands. Outside, taxi drivers and chauffeurs honked horns; shredded paper showered through the Garden's open skylights. The cacophony continued for an hour while furious McAdoo delegates formed squares around their women.
After this, matters degenerated rapidly...
But if Philadelphia is to be our model, we shouldn't count on a riveting event. That was a tightly scripted affair about "compassion," featuring people of color performing for a snowy white audience of delegates. Maybe next year the theme will be updated from race to class, with a stageful of the unemployed and uninsured singing the virtues of tax cuts.
Or perhaps there's another way to bring production values up to Big Apple standards. Let's recall the first such event to be broadcast on mass media (in that case, radio): the 1924 Democratic National Convention, held at Stanford White's old Madison Square Garden on 26th Street.
It was the first held in New York since 1868. Most Western and Southern Democrats had resisted returning, feeling the city was, in the words of a popular prohibitionist poem, "heartless, Godless, Hell's delight / rude by day and lewd by night." Herbert Bayard Swope, the executive editor of The World, had spent a year selling them on the city. Liquor would be banned from the convention hall. The police would round up pickpockets (although William Jennings Bryan's pocket watch eventually got lifted inside the arena). Swope got a thousand restaurants and hotels to pledge not to increase prices.
As the convention neared, the city was plastered with signs for its favorite son, Gov. Al Smith. One likely reason the California politician William Gibbs McAdoo Ñ Smith's chief rival for the nomination Ñ acquiesced in giving New York the convention was a desire to run against the metropolis. The minute he arrived by train he called it "sinister, unscrupulous, mercenary and sordid." (A bit much, perhaps, from a man who had spent 30 years as a Wall Street lawyer.)
Thus provoked, New Yorkers turned waspish. Locals mocked McAdoo's followers as "apple knockers" and mimicked their drawls. Each delegation had a city block dedicated to it. This sounded hospitable enough to the (largely anti-Catholic) Texans, until they discovered their block contained St. Patrick's Cathedral.
Smith was nominated on June 26. Franklin D. Roosevelt made a witty speech offering "the Happy Warrior" to the convention. The moment he finished, a wave of sound slammed through the hall, generated by mechanical noisemakers, fire sirens, cowbells and a half-dozen bands. Outside, taxi drivers and chauffeurs honked horns; shredded paper showered through the Garden's open skylights. The cacophony continued for an hour while furious McAdoo delegates formed squares around their women.
After this, matters degenerated rapidly...
a reasonable question
Jan. 11th, 2003 12:40 pmWhat game does the Bush administration think it's playing in Korea?
That's not a rhetorical question. During the cold war, the U.S. government employed experts in game theory to analyze strategies of nuclear deterrence. Men with Ph.D.'s in economics, like Daniel Ellsberg, wrote background papers with titles like "The Theory and Practice of Blackmail." The intellectual quality of these analyses was impressive, but their main conclusion was simple: Deterrence requires a credible commitment to punish bad behavior and reward good behavior.
I know, it sounds obvious. Yet the Bush administration's Korea policy has systematically violated that simple principle.
Let's be clear: North Korea's rulers are as nasty as they come. But unless we have a plan to overthrow those rulers, we should ask ourselves what incentives we're giving them.
So put yourself in Kim Jong Il's shoes. The Bush administration has denounced you. It broke off negotiations as soon as it came into office. Last year, though you were no nastier than you had been the year before, George W. Bush declared you part of the "axis of evil." A few months later Mr. Bush called you a "pygmy," saying: "I loathe Kim Jong Il Ñ I've got a visceral reaction to this guy. . . . They tell me, well we may not need to move too fast, because the financial burdens on people will be so immense if this guy were to topple Ñ I just don't buy that."
Moreover, there's every reason to take Mr. Bush's viscera seriously. Under his doctrine of pre-emption, the U.S. can attack countries it thinks might support terrorism, whether or not they have actually done so. And who decides whether we attack? Here's what Mr. Bush says: "You said we're headed to war in Iraq. I don't know why you say that. I'm the person who gets to decide, not you." L'état, c'est moi.
So Mr. Bush thinks you're a bad guy Ñ and that makes you a potential target, no matter what you do.
On the other hand, Mr. Bush hasn't gone after you yet, though you are much closer to developing weapons of mass destruction than Iraq. (You probably already have a couple.) And you ask yourself, why is Saddam Hussein first in line? He's no more a supporter of terrorism than you are: the Bush administration hasn't produced any evidence of a Saddam-Al Qaeda connection. Maybe the administration covets Iraq's oil reserves; but it's also notable that of the three members of the axis of evil, Iraq has by far the weakest military.
So you might be tempted to conclude that the Bush administration is big on denouncing evildoers, but that it can be deterred from actually attacking countries it denounces if it expects them to put up a serious fight. What was it Teddy Roosevelt said? Talk trash but carry a small stick?
Your own experience seems to confirm that conclusion...
That's not a rhetorical question. During the cold war, the U.S. government employed experts in game theory to analyze strategies of nuclear deterrence. Men with Ph.D.'s in economics, like Daniel Ellsberg, wrote background papers with titles like "The Theory and Practice of Blackmail." The intellectual quality of these analyses was impressive, but their main conclusion was simple: Deterrence requires a credible commitment to punish bad behavior and reward good behavior.
I know, it sounds obvious. Yet the Bush administration's Korea policy has systematically violated that simple principle.
Let's be clear: North Korea's rulers are as nasty as they come. But unless we have a plan to overthrow those rulers, we should ask ourselves what incentives we're giving them.
So put yourself in Kim Jong Il's shoes. The Bush administration has denounced you. It broke off negotiations as soon as it came into office. Last year, though you were no nastier than you had been the year before, George W. Bush declared you part of the "axis of evil." A few months later Mr. Bush called you a "pygmy," saying: "I loathe Kim Jong Il Ñ I've got a visceral reaction to this guy. . . . They tell me, well we may not need to move too fast, because the financial burdens on people will be so immense if this guy were to topple Ñ I just don't buy that."
Moreover, there's every reason to take Mr. Bush's viscera seriously. Under his doctrine of pre-emption, the U.S. can attack countries it thinks might support terrorism, whether or not they have actually done so. And who decides whether we attack? Here's what Mr. Bush says: "You said we're headed to war in Iraq. I don't know why you say that. I'm the person who gets to decide, not you." L'état, c'est moi.
So Mr. Bush thinks you're a bad guy Ñ and that makes you a potential target, no matter what you do.
On the other hand, Mr. Bush hasn't gone after you yet, though you are much closer to developing weapons of mass destruction than Iraq. (You probably already have a couple.) And you ask yourself, why is Saddam Hussein first in line? He's no more a supporter of terrorism than you are: the Bush administration hasn't produced any evidence of a Saddam-Al Qaeda connection. Maybe the administration covets Iraq's oil reserves; but it's also notable that of the three members of the axis of evil, Iraq has by far the weakest military.
So you might be tempted to conclude that the Bush administration is big on denouncing evildoers, but that it can be deterred from actually attacking countries it denounces if it expects them to put up a serious fight. What was it Teddy Roosevelt said? Talk trash but carry a small stick?
Your own experience seems to confirm that conclusion...
Key Republican senators are raising objections to President Bush's $670 billion tax cut proposal, an early sign that the White House will face a tougher fight than it did on two previous rounds of tax reductions.
Although the president and his aides have signaled they intend to fight fiercely, at least five GOP senators have now voiced serious doubts about Bush's plan, especially the centerpiece elimination of the dividend tax. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said yesterday, "we may not be able to sell it."
Grassley, whose committee handles tax legislation, raised the prospect that Bush's proposal to repeal the dividend tax could be dropped altogether. "We should sell the whole thing or not at all," he said, suggesting that other forms of tax cuts might be more achievable. "It would be easier to do something on capital gains than on double taxation of dividends," he said.
Soon after the president detailed his plan Tuesday, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a longtime Bush antagonist, signaled his objections, and Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.) said he could not support it.
Though much of the protest has come from GOP moderates, Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) also raised concerns. "It's heavy; it's big," he said. "I don't think it will give us the shot in the arm or rev us up like I think we need to be revved up."
Voinovich said lawmakers need to focus more on eliminating the federal deficit, which some economists predict will exceed $350 billion in 2004, the highest ever in dollar terms. "As far as the eye can see, I see red," the senator said.
Two moderate Republicans, Sens. Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, will seek major changes to Bush's proposal. "The elimination of tax dividends is very controversial," Collins said. "I would guess that will be the piece changed the most." Collins is considering calling for the dividend portion to be dropped from the economic package.
Bush aides, who plan to send the president on a road show to sell the tax cut as he did his $1.35 trillion, 10-year tax cut in 2001, brushed aside concerns about wavering Republicans and broad opposition from Senate Democrats. Vice President Cheney defended the tax plan in a speech yesterday. On CNBC last night, Cheney predicted the package that survives "will be fairly close to what the president recommended."
Although the president and his aides have signaled they intend to fight fiercely, at least five GOP senators have now voiced serious doubts about Bush's plan, especially the centerpiece elimination of the dividend tax. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said yesterday, "we may not be able to sell it."
Grassley, whose committee handles tax legislation, raised the prospect that Bush's proposal to repeal the dividend tax could be dropped altogether. "We should sell the whole thing or not at all," he said, suggesting that other forms of tax cuts might be more achievable. "It would be easier to do something on capital gains than on double taxation of dividends," he said.
Soon after the president detailed his plan Tuesday, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a longtime Bush antagonist, signaled his objections, and Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.) said he could not support it.
Though much of the protest has come from GOP moderates, Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) also raised concerns. "It's heavy; it's big," he said. "I don't think it will give us the shot in the arm or rev us up like I think we need to be revved up."
Voinovich said lawmakers need to focus more on eliminating the federal deficit, which some economists predict will exceed $350 billion in 2004, the highest ever in dollar terms. "As far as the eye can see, I see red," the senator said.
Two moderate Republicans, Sens. Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, will seek major changes to Bush's proposal. "The elimination of tax dividends is very controversial," Collins said. "I would guess that will be the piece changed the most." Collins is considering calling for the dividend portion to be dropped from the economic package.
Bush aides, who plan to send the president on a road show to sell the tax cut as he did his $1.35 trillion, 10-year tax cut in 2001, brushed aside concerns about wavering Republicans and broad opposition from Senate Democrats. Vice President Cheney defended the tax plan in a speech yesterday. On CNBC last night, Cheney predicted the package that survives "will be fairly close to what the president recommended."
more about the Eli Lilly provision repeal
Jan. 11th, 2003 12:49 pmHooray! but at the same time...
...A second provision of the agreement would repeal language relaxing a proposed ban on issuance of homeland security contracts to companies that create foreign tax havens to avoid paying U.S. taxes. The earlier language would have allowed federal contracts to be awarded to such companies to cut costs or save jobs. Under yesterday's agreement, only national security concerns could be considered. [Keep in mind that we aren't allowed to ask what those are]
The third provision would broaden criteria under which a university could compete for funding to carry out research for the Homeland Security Department. Critics had charged that the original language was so narrowly drawn that it would stack the deck for Texas A&M University, which has had powerful patrons in Congress. [oh, for crying out loud, Trent Lott. Can you say Trent Lott? Let's say it together. Trent freaking Lott]
The new provision provides that all eligible schools can compete for research contracts, with the secretary of the new department setting criteria for the research... [presumably in consultation with the Chairman of the Rules Committee]
...A second provision of the agreement would repeal language relaxing a proposed ban on issuance of homeland security contracts to companies that create foreign tax havens to avoid paying U.S. taxes. The earlier language would have allowed federal contracts to be awarded to such companies to cut costs or save jobs. Under yesterday's agreement, only national security concerns could be considered. [Keep in mind that we aren't allowed to ask what those are]
The third provision would broaden criteria under which a university could compete for funding to carry out research for the Homeland Security Department. Critics had charged that the original language was so narrowly drawn that it would stack the deck for Texas A&M University, which has had powerful patrons in Congress. [oh, for crying out loud, Trent Lott. Can you say Trent Lott? Let's say it together. Trent freaking Lott]
The new provision provides that all eligible schools can compete for research contracts, with the secretary of the new department setting criteria for the research... [presumably in consultation with the Chairman of the Rules Committee]
As many as 20 million acres of the nation's wetlands may lose federal protection from industrial pollution or unlawful development as a result of new guidelines announced yesterday by the Bush administration.
Officials said the step was necessary to comply with a Supreme Court ruling, but environmentalists said it was part of an industry-backed effort to gut key protections under the 30-year-old Clean Water Act.
Yesterday's announcement stems from a regulatory guidance letter, which was prompted by a 2001 Supreme Court ruling that denied Clean Water Act protection to isolated, nonnavigable ponds and wetlands contained in a single state. The letter was issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Regional offices of the EPA and Army Corps were formally instructed yesterday to withhold clean water protection from those types of isolated wetlands and to seek guidance from headquarters in determining whether to protect other small intrastate streams and waterways that enjoy federal protection.
EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and other officials said the new guidelines "reaffirm federal authority over the vast majority of America's wetlands." [< >] The new regulation would shift responsibility from the federal government to the states for protecting as much as 20 percent of the 100 million acres of wetlands in the Lower 48 states, according to official estimates...
more:
The Bush administration has opened the possibility that up to 20 percent of the nation's wetlands - 20 million acres in all - could lose protections they currently enjoy under the Clean Water Act. This is a door that should have remained closed.
At issue is a controversial Supreme Court decision in 2001 in which the court ruled that the Clean Water Act did not protect isolated ponds and wetlands based solely on their value as habitat for migratory birds. Christie Whitman, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said yesterday she intended to ask for public comment on whether the court decision required other changes in established rules that have saved these isolated wetlands from commercial development.
Even though the court ruled that they can no longer be protected simply because they are used by migratory birds, they can, under existing law, be shielded for other reasons - if they are used for fishing, for example, or for recreation. Mrs. Whitman's request for comment suggests, disturbingly, that even these safeguards could be lifted...
Officials said the step was necessary to comply with a Supreme Court ruling, but environmentalists said it was part of an industry-backed effort to gut key protections under the 30-year-old Clean Water Act.
Yesterday's announcement stems from a regulatory guidance letter, which was prompted by a 2001 Supreme Court ruling that denied Clean Water Act protection to isolated, nonnavigable ponds and wetlands contained in a single state. The letter was issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Regional offices of the EPA and Army Corps were formally instructed yesterday to withhold clean water protection from those types of isolated wetlands and to seek guidance from headquarters in determining whether to protect other small intrastate streams and waterways that enjoy federal protection.
EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and other officials said the new guidelines "reaffirm federal authority over the vast majority of America's wetlands." [< >] The new regulation would shift responsibility from the federal government to the states for protecting as much as 20 percent of the 100 million acres of wetlands in the Lower 48 states, according to official estimates...
more:
The Bush administration has opened the possibility that up to 20 percent of the nation's wetlands - 20 million acres in all - could lose protections they currently enjoy under the Clean Water Act. This is a door that should have remained closed.
At issue is a controversial Supreme Court decision in 2001 in which the court ruled that the Clean Water Act did not protect isolated ponds and wetlands based solely on their value as habitat for migratory birds. Christie Whitman, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said yesterday she intended to ask for public comment on whether the court decision required other changes in established rules that have saved these isolated wetlands from commercial development.
Even though the court ruled that they can no longer be protected simply because they are used by migratory birds, they can, under existing law, be shielded for other reasons - if they are used for fishing, for example, or for recreation. Mrs. Whitman's request for comment suggests, disturbingly, that even these safeguards could be lifted...
the australians have all the good names
Jan. 11th, 2003 02:42 pmGummo Trotsky of the Tugboat Potemkin brings us great moments from Australian pre-history by way of The Road to Surfdom (see?)
May 13, 1787: First Fleet sets sail from Portsmouth.
July 1, 1787: Convict George Michael [no relation] on The Prince of Wales, former pickpocket and amateur accordionist, begins composition of a new ballad to commemorate the voyage, under the working title Tooralie, Ooralie, Addity.
July 3, 1787: After complaints from fellow convicts and members of the ship's crew, Michael's accordion is confiscated and thrown overboard.
July 7, 1787: Midshipman David Beckham [no relation], of The Prince of Wales, reports the possible theft of his comb which he alleges was in the pocket of his pea-jacket when he went below to inspect the convict quarters.
July 8, 1787: After a search of The Prince of Wales' convict quarters, Midshipman Beckham's comb is found in the possession of George Michael, along with several sheets of tissue paper which were not itemised in the ship's manifest...
May 13, 1787: First Fleet sets sail from Portsmouth.
July 1, 1787: Convict George Michael [no relation] on The Prince of Wales, former pickpocket and amateur accordionist, begins composition of a new ballad to commemorate the voyage, under the working title Tooralie, Ooralie, Addity.
July 3, 1787: After complaints from fellow convicts and members of the ship's crew, Michael's accordion is confiscated and thrown overboard.
July 7, 1787: Midshipman David Beckham [no relation], of The Prince of Wales, reports the possible theft of his comb which he alleges was in the pocket of his pea-jacket when he went below to inspect the convict quarters.
July 8, 1787: After a search of The Prince of Wales' convict quarters, Midshipman Beckham's comb is found in the possession of George Michael, along with several sheets of tissue paper which were not itemised in the ship's manifest...
love me some preacher
Jan. 11th, 2003 03:11 pm“I’ve never seen that before - a duck on a roof.”
“So what. I saw something I’d never seen before when I changed the baby’s diaper this morning. Exactly how many raisins did you feed her last night?”
“I don’t know, 70 maybe. Listen, do you think that duck could be a sign from God?”
I’d been watching “Nanook of the North” the night before, a stunning silent movie, and the raisins kept the baby happy. I admit I was using the “Sign from God” angle as an avoidance technique. This is the kind of thing I do even though I never get away with it.
“No, dumb-ass, I do not think the DUCK is a sign from GOD. Do NOT feed the baby that many raisins.”
This conversation wasn’t doing much for me, so I went back outside and looked at the duck again. He quacked a few times and then flew away. He’s never been back.
For the record, I don’t think the duck was a sign from God. By that, I mean I don’t think God sent a duck to my roof to get my attention...
“So what. I saw something I’d never seen before when I changed the baby’s diaper this morning. Exactly how many raisins did you feed her last night?”
“I don’t know, 70 maybe. Listen, do you think that duck could be a sign from God?”
I’d been watching “Nanook of the North” the night before, a stunning silent movie, and the raisins kept the baby happy. I admit I was using the “Sign from God” angle as an avoidance technique. This is the kind of thing I do even though I never get away with it.
“No, dumb-ass, I do not think the DUCK is a sign from GOD. Do NOT feed the baby that many raisins.”
This conversation wasn’t doing much for me, so I went back outside and looked at the duck again. He quacked a few times and then flew away. He’s never been back.
For the record, I don’t think the duck was a sign from God. By that, I mean I don’t think God sent a duck to my roof to get my attention...
sic semper teenaged radicals
Jan. 11th, 2003 05:38 pmCould you tie this?
Boy, that's quite an outfit you have there (flowered tshirt, undershirt, pink summer dress with cherries and strawberries, white socks, black winter gloves with hot pink maribou trim)
yep
Now that you know where both your gloves are at the same time, why don't you put them away in your glove drawer.
I want to wear them.
They're too warm for inside the house. If you want to wear maribou in the house, you can put on your wrist puff.
(goes back to washing dishes)
Boy, that's quite an outfit you have there (flowered tshirt, undershirt, pink summer dress with cherries and strawberries, white socks, black winter gloves with hot pink maribou trim)
yep
Now that you know where both your gloves are at the same time, why don't you put them away in your glove drawer.
I want to wear them.
They're too warm for inside the house. If you want to wear maribou in the house, you can put on your wrist puff.
(goes back to washing dishes)
another take
Jan. 11th, 2003 06:43 pmMike Finley has a few words to say about Mr. Lileks.
I think he's remarkably generous, but Lileks bugs the crap out of me, so I would.
I think he's remarkably generous, but Lileks bugs the crap out of me, so I would.
Find the "Them" in this story
Jan. 11th, 2003 09:25 pmA Muslim gas station attendant was being hailed as a hero for saving a Brooklyn synagogue yesterday from being torched by a man he described as "totally out of control."
Syed Ali, 35, was working at the Amoco station on Ocean Ave. in Sheepshead Bay at about 4 a.m. when he sold $2 worth of fuel to the alleged would-be arsonist.
The Pakistani immigrant said he watched in disbelief as Sead Jakup, 22, took the canister across the street and began dousing the Young Israel of Kings Bay synagogue.
Ali quickly called 911, and cops arrived before Jakup, a Bosnian Muslim, could set the temple ablaze.
"Mr. Ali saved the shul [synagogue]," said Allen Popper, president of the synagogue. "He's a hero."
Ali said that Jakup first asked to pump gas into a plastic bucket. Assuming the man's car had run out of fuel, Ali gave him a gas can to fill up.
He said he "couldn't believe my eyes" when Jakup marched straight to the synagogue.
"I saw him spilling gas on the sign in front of the synagogue," Ali said. "Then, he started spilling it onto the door - that is when I called 911."
But as Ali waited for the cops, Jakup returned, demanding a refill.
"He was totally out of control," said Ali, adding that Jakup was screaming, "I want more gas!" as he kicked the cashier's booth Ali was in.
Police cars and fire trucks pulled up as Jakup allegedly tried to smash the booth's glass door with a trash can.
Ali declined to accept the mantle of hero, saying he did only what any responsible person would do. "It's a sacred place he was going to destroy," Ali said...
Syed Ali, 35, was working at the Amoco station on Ocean Ave. in Sheepshead Bay at about 4 a.m. when he sold $2 worth of fuel to the alleged would-be arsonist.
The Pakistani immigrant said he watched in disbelief as Sead Jakup, 22, took the canister across the street and began dousing the Young Israel of Kings Bay synagogue.
Ali quickly called 911, and cops arrived before Jakup, a Bosnian Muslim, could set the temple ablaze.
"Mr. Ali saved the shul [synagogue]," said Allen Popper, president of the synagogue. "He's a hero."
Ali said that Jakup first asked to pump gas into a plastic bucket. Assuming the man's car had run out of fuel, Ali gave him a gas can to fill up.
He said he "couldn't believe my eyes" when Jakup marched straight to the synagogue.
"I saw him spilling gas on the sign in front of the synagogue," Ali said. "Then, he started spilling it onto the door - that is when I called 911."
But as Ali waited for the cops, Jakup returned, demanding a refill.
"He was totally out of control," said Ali, adding that Jakup was screaming, "I want more gas!" as he kicked the cashier's booth Ali was in.
Police cars and fire trucks pulled up as Jakup allegedly tried to smash the booth's glass door with a trash can.
Ali declined to accept the mantle of hero, saying he did only what any responsible person would do. "It's a sacred place he was going to destroy," Ali said...
post-feminism
Jan. 11th, 2003 09:35 pmI want to be a nurse.
(well meaning but slightly-behind-the-curve father, who I will talk to later) Just a nurse?
Just a nurse.
(father again, and we _will_ talk) Not a doctor?
If I can't become a nurse, I'll be a doctor.
Of course, that was minutes ago. Now she wants to be Judy Garland.
(well meaning but slightly-behind-the-curve father, who I will talk to later) Just a nurse?
Just a nurse.
(father again, and we _will_ talk) Not a doctor?
If I can't become a nurse, I'll be a doctor.
Of course, that was minutes ago. Now she wants to be Judy Garland.
Stella D'Oro, the Bronx-based baker of cookies and breadsticks, was founded in 1932 by an Italian immigrant couple, but in one of those lyrical convergences of ethnicities that gives New York City its special flavor, Stella D'Oro's cookies have for 45 years held a special place in the hearts of many Orthodox Jews.
The reason: they are one of the few widely available cookies made without milk or butter, and thus are able to be eaten immediately after meat by those who adhere to Jewish dietary laws. Even Stella D'Oro's Swiss Fudge cookies Ñ so treasured for their chocolate centers that they have been nicknamed shtreimels, the Yiddish term for round fur hats worn on the Sabbath Ñ are pareve, meaning with no trace of meat or dairy products and so servable as an all-purpose dessert.
That longtime allegiance explains why aggravation rippled through the streets of Flatbush and Borough Park and the cul-de-sacs of Monsey, N.Y., and Lakewood, N.J., a year ago when word got out about a cost-cutting move by Kraft Foods, the new parent company of Stella D'Oro. Kraft had decided to use a less expensive, milk-infused chocolate, which meant that Stella D'Oro cookies could no longer be eaten after meat.
But last week the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, the nation's largest certifier of kosher products, let it be known that Kraft had rescinded the plan...
On the savings scale, the decision to substitute dairy chocolate for the more expensive pareve type in the Stella D'Oro line was trivial, but the fallout was large, not only among the Orthodox. The lactose-intolerant also look for the pareve label.
Mr. Kornreich, a freelance writer who does the family shopping, said he spotted a Stella D'Oro deliveryman in a Flatbush supermarket a couple of months ago and asked him, "Do you guys know how much business you're losing?"
"Boy, do we ever!" he remembered the deliveryman replying.
The Stella D'Oro labels, featuring an OU-D, for Orthodox Union Dairy, rather than the longtime OU-P, for Orthodox Union Pareve, were changed far in advance of the recipe so kosher consumers could become accustomed to the idea that soon they could no longer eat the cookies with meat, rabbis for the Orthodox Union said.
But as a result of the reaction, said Rabbi Yosef H. Goldberg, a rabbinic coordinator at the Orthodox Union's kashrut division, "they now want to get the word out that the products never were anything but pareve, and they're still pareve."
Ms. Wenner of Kraft said that the Swiss Fudge cookies would be relabeled as pareve immediately.
The reason: they are one of the few widely available cookies made without milk or butter, and thus are able to be eaten immediately after meat by those who adhere to Jewish dietary laws. Even Stella D'Oro's Swiss Fudge cookies Ñ so treasured for their chocolate centers that they have been nicknamed shtreimels, the Yiddish term for round fur hats worn on the Sabbath Ñ are pareve, meaning with no trace of meat or dairy products and so servable as an all-purpose dessert.
That longtime allegiance explains why aggravation rippled through the streets of Flatbush and Borough Park and the cul-de-sacs of Monsey, N.Y., and Lakewood, N.J., a year ago when word got out about a cost-cutting move by Kraft Foods, the new parent company of Stella D'Oro. Kraft had decided to use a less expensive, milk-infused chocolate, which meant that Stella D'Oro cookies could no longer be eaten after meat.
But last week the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, the nation's largest certifier of kosher products, let it be known that Kraft had rescinded the plan...
On the savings scale, the decision to substitute dairy chocolate for the more expensive pareve type in the Stella D'Oro line was trivial, but the fallout was large, not only among the Orthodox. The lactose-intolerant also look for the pareve label.
Mr. Kornreich, a freelance writer who does the family shopping, said he spotted a Stella D'Oro deliveryman in a Flatbush supermarket a couple of months ago and asked him, "Do you guys know how much business you're losing?"
"Boy, do we ever!" he remembered the deliveryman replying.
The Stella D'Oro labels, featuring an OU-D, for Orthodox Union Dairy, rather than the longtime OU-P, for Orthodox Union Pareve, were changed far in advance of the recipe so kosher consumers could become accustomed to the idea that soon they could no longer eat the cookies with meat, rabbis for the Orthodox Union said.
But as a result of the reaction, said Rabbi Yosef H. Goldberg, a rabbinic coordinator at the Orthodox Union's kashrut division, "they now want to get the word out that the products never were anything but pareve, and they're still pareve."
Ms. Wenner of Kraft said that the Swiss Fudge cookies would be relabeled as pareve immediately.