Trustiness

An editorial in the NYT, The Trust Gap, enumerates a number of reasons why the Bush Administration does not deserve the "trust" of the County. Domestic Spying. The Prison Camps. The War in Iraq. The list could go on. And on. As the Times put it:

We can't think of a president who has gone to the American people more often than George W. Bush has to ask them to forget about things like democracy, judicial process and the balance of powers and just trust him. We also can't think of a president who has deserved that trust less.

This has been a central flaw of Mr. Bush's presidency for a long time.

* * * *

Like many other administrations before it, this one sometimes dissembles clumsily to avoid embarrassment. (We now know, for example, that the White House did not tell the truth about when it learned the levees in New Orleans had failed.) Spin-as-usual is one thing. Striking at the civil liberties, due process and balance of powers that are the heart of American democracy is another.

Snow Room

Sun Room, originally uploaded by JudiPhilly.

Our Sun Room has become a Snow Room for the day.

Snow days are fairly rare in Philly and this is the "real deal" (about a foot of snow).

I also know that I've become a real Philadelphian (after 20 years here), because we bought both bread & milk yesterday. Of course, the fact that we needed both because we were out helped. But running to the grocery store to buy bread & milk upon hearing a forecast of snow is a Philadelphia phenomena.

Cartoon of the Day

*RJ Matson, Roll Call 

Second Verse, Same as the First

Last week, I wrote about the efforts of the Bush Administration to stifle the opinions of a government expert on global warming, in Science, Intelligent Design Style.

Now, none other than that Liberal rag, the Wall Street Journal, has reported on another example, in Expert on Congress's Power Claims He Was Muzzled for Faulting Bush. The piece notes:

A dispute involving a researcher at the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service is fueling a debate over whether analysts throughout the government are being muzzled to prevent criticism of Bush administration policies.

Louis Fisher, a 36-year veteran of the agency and an expert on the separation of powers, said his superiors wrongly punished him for giving interviews and publishing scholarly articles under his own name that contained criticism of the White House. Top officials deny those allegations, saying they were simply trying to protect the agency's reputation for nonpartisanship and objectivity.

The dispute has thrust the research service, a branch of the Library of Congress, into a debate about whether the Bush administration is trying to control the flow of information to lawmakers and the public. Earlier in the week, a political appointee resigned from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration after coming under fire for limiting access to an expert on global warming. The White House also faces accusations that it misled lawmakers about the true cost of the new Medicare drug benefit.

* * * *

Mr. Fisher has testified before Congress 38 times and recently took the extraordinary step of filing his own friend-of-the-court brief at the Supreme Court, where he told the justices that President Bush had overstepped his authority in establishing a system of special military courts to try suspected foreign terrorists. He has written 16 books and hundreds of scholarly articles.

"His writings are considered the gold standard," said Robert Spitzer, the State University of New York scholar who edited the book. "If he has a slant of any kind, it's a pro-Congress one. He believes that Congress should stand up for itself more against the administration."

Imagine that. Congress as separate, but equal, branch of Government. What a concept. We should try it some time.

Cartoon of the Day

*M.e. Cohen 

Cartoon of the Day

*Chris Britt 

A Rose is a Rose, by Any Other Name

The Christian Science Monitor writes about a new "data-collection system that could troll news, blogs, even emails" and asks the question, "Will it go too far?"in an article entitled US plans massive data sweep, reporting:

The US government is developing a massive computer system that can collect huge amounts of data and, by linking far-flung information from blogs and e-mail to government records and intelligence reports, search for patterns of terrorist activity.

* * * *

"We don't realize that, as we live our lives and make little choices, like buying groceries, buying on Amazon, Googling, we're leaving traces everywhere," says Lee Tien, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "We have an attitude that no one will connect all those dots. But these programs are about connecting those dots - analyzing and aggregating them - in a way that we haven't thought about. It's one of the underlying fundamental issues we have yet to come to grips with."

The core of this effort is a little-known system called Analysis, Dissemination, Visualization, Insight, and Semantic Enhancement (ADVISE).

ADVISE involves data-mining or "dataveillance," as it is now being called. Give you a sense of Deja vu, perhaps? It should. Think TIA redux. Remember TIA, Total Information Awareness?

Privacy concerns have torpedoed federal data-mining efforts in the past. In 2002, news reports revealed that the Defense Department was working on Total Information Awareness, a project aimed at collecting and sifting vast amounts of personal and government data for clues to terrorism. An uproar caused Congress to cancel the TIA program a year later.

ADVISE "looks very much like TIA," Mr. Tien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation writes in an e-mail. "There's the same emphasis on broad collection and pattern analysis."

Gonzo 2-fer

It's Friday, so it's time for watching a few good video clips. The Daily Show and The Colbert Report both do take-offs on the Attorney General's appearance at the NSA Hearings. Enjoy!

Crooks and Liars: Glower of Attorney

onegoodmove: Real Science

Best line: Pat Leahy: "Of course, I'm sorry Mr. Attorney General, I forgot you can't anwer any questions that might be relevant to this."

Truth in Reporting?

Dan Froomkin's column, White House Briefing, in the Washington Post, discusses a journalistic faux pas by Time magazine in the Plame leak scandal. As Froomkin explains:

Media Matters , the liberal media watchdog Web site, raises an interesting point about Time Magazine's coverage of the Valerie Plame affair.

Back in this October 2003 story, the magazine reported: "White House spokesman Scott McClellan said accusations of Rove's peddling information are 'ridiculous.' Says McClellan: 'There is simply no truth to that suggestion.'"

It is now clear that several reporters and editors at Time knew very well that McClellan's statement was false.

Media Matters writes: "But despite that knowledge, they participated in the publication of an article containing that quote, with no indication that it was untrue. They participated in the publication of that article, which, in reporting that 'Rove was initially accused by Wilson of being the man behind the leak,' implied that Rove was no longer under suspicion -- even though they all knew that Rove was, in fact, [Matt] Cooper's source."

Is there any excuse for a news organization to print a statement that they know is untrue, without at least trying to clue their readers into the truth? That seems to defeat the central purpose of journalism.

So what should Time have done? One option might have been to go to Rove and say: We know McClellan isn't telling the truth. You either need to tell us the truth, on the record, or tell him the truth.

What if Rove had refused? One option might have been to go to McClellan and tell him that they had reason to think his statement was not accurate.

And if McClellan brushed them off? They should have stopped at nothing until they found a way to report what they knew to be the truth.

This should be a major embarrassment for Time, but sad to say, I don't think it is. To the contrary, in the age of "Truthiness" it hasn't even gotten much, if any, "press" in the media. How can a reporter intentionally withhold information which the reporter personally knows proves the premise of the article to be untrue? Is this omission substantially different than plagiarism or other ethical lapses that journalists have engaged in in recent time? In the end, in each of these instances, the reader is mislead by the reporter.

We are living in an age where everything is categorized as partisan. There are no plain, unvarnished, truthful facts anymore. Spin has been elevated to an art form. Everything has to have a bias, everyone has an agenda. Journalists have allowed themselves to be dragged into this game. There is the so-called "liberal media" in print and on TV and talk radio, right wing pundits abound. The result is that overall, journalism suffers, because it's credibility is compromised.

Shame on Time.

Family Time

Time to go:

Claude Allen, President Bush's principle domestic policy adviser, has resigned. A White House spokesman told the Chicago Tribune that Allen wanted to spend more time with his family.

Republicans who know Allen are uncertain why he stepped down so suddenly. Late last week, he was in good spirits as he briefed allies and surrogates about the President's State of the Union message. On Tuesday, he attended a conference in PA on the president's faith based initiative.

Allen enjoys a warm relationship with moral conservative groups in Washington. As a senior political appointee at the Department of Health and Human services, he was the administration's point person on abstinence initiatives.

(Via Eschaton)

"Moral" and conservative Bush appointee leaves job rather quickly "for family reasons."

Let's guess. Will it be an indictment or a sex scandal? My bet is the latter.

Cartoon of the Day

*Signe Wilkinson, Phila Daily News 

Bye Bye Bill

Or, as the Philadelphia Daily News put it, Scranton sings his Swann song.

Not suprisingly, Bill Scranton has dropped out of the Republican race for Governor of Pennsylvania. The only surprise is that he was pressured to do so even before the Republican State Committee endorsement, which was to occur this week-end.

Usually, the pull out happens shortly after the party selection, when great pressure is brought to bear on the unendorsed candidate. After all, for Republicans, it is a section, not an election, process. Why have two fellow Republicans contesting each other, with voters choosing the candidate? The party knows best and should decide on the candidate to run in the general election against those nasty Democrats.

I fully expected Scranton to drop out, the timing is the only part that is unusual. Can't have a future in the party if you don't fall in line, after all.

Cartoon of the Day

*Ward Sutton, Village Voice 

The End is Near?

As we get into the NSA hearings, a recent piece by Martin Garbus in the Huffington Post, How Close Are We to the End of Democracy? provides perspective on what's at stake:

We have today seen President Bush's legal defense for the surveillance program. There is, he tells us, an unparalled crisis.

* * * *

There is no crisis today that justifies suspending the constitution. There is a constitution in effect today. That constitution has endured for over 200 years.

* * * *

No president in over 200 years of our history has ever before claimed the "unitary powers" that Bush claims are his. Not President Lincoln during the Civil War, not President Wilson during World War I, not President Roosevelt during World War II, not President Truman during Korea, and not Presidents Johnson and Nixon during Vietnam.

Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison all saw the danger -- they never arrogated that power to the presidency.

* * * *

The President claims that he has the right to interpret laws "in a manner consistent with the Constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as the Commander-in-Chief and consistent with constitutional limitations on judicial power."

Bush bridled when asked by a reporter if "unchecked" presidential powers were dictatorial, angrily said, "I disagree with your view of unchecked power. There is the check of people being sworn to uphold the law for starters. There is oversight. We're talking to Congress all the time . . . to say unchecked powers is to ascribe dictatorial powers to the president, to which I object."

His objection is dishonest.

What does "unitary powers" mean? It means that if the President alone decides that the country is faced with what he alone defines to be a critical problem, his authority is unchecked. In other words, he decides where the powers lies in the Constitution -- he decides the contour of his power. This sounds more like a monarchy, more like authoritarianism than a democracy.

The taking of this power is not a coup d'état because the people today have the power of the vote in 2008. But it is dangerously close on that path -- the Founders recognized the danger of a too-powerful President.

* * * *

Samuel Alito, John Roberts (in his Circuit Court decisions), Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, and wunderkind John Yoo give the President unchecked domestic and foreign powers to create that world. Bush can start his own wars, preemptive or otherwise, is the ultimate interpreter of foreign treaties, he defines enemy combatants as he wishes, he detains prisoners for as long as he wishes, he continues surveillance on foreign intercepts for as long as he wishes, he tortures as he wishes, he can ignore Congressional directives and statutes such as those creating FISA, as well as essential elements of our Constitution.

This litany has no end. We cannot now anticipate all the ramifications of the "unitary" president and his claim of "inherent powers," except that it clearly allows him to fully take over the government.

* * * *

The Bush Administration ignore centuries of Constitutional decision-making that limits the President, decisions during the Civil War, World War II, World War II and the Korean, Vietnamese and Cold Wars. In the unlikely event the new Supreme Court does not give him all he wants, he will ignore those decisions as well.

That is truly what a "unitary" president means. If America did not pay attention before, it must now.

Cartoon of the Day

*Drew Sheneman

Quote of the Day

"The enemy isn't conservatism. The enemy isn't liberalism. The enemy is bullshit."
-Lars-Erik Nelson

I always knew that George Bush was enemy # 1.

Hahbahtdem Stillers

This blogger, a former Pittsburgher, reminisces What Steelers Mean to Pittsburgh---and PA Governor Race at Daily Kos. He brings back a lot of fond memories of my days in Pittsburgh as he discusses the Steelers and Pittsburgh in the 70s and 80s (the time I was there), and about how Pittsburgh suffered a great decline in the mid-80s, after the steel mills closed, which is when we left. I was surprised to see that during this period, the city also lost half it's population. It's an interesting read.

Also, he has posted some great Steeler's Super Bowl pictures at his website: Dreaming Up Daily. Steeler fans should check them out.

His post also discusses former Steeler Lynn Swann, who is the likely Republican-anointed Candidate for Governor of Pennsylvania. The man is lucky. Steeler mania is publicity you can't buy. Makes me worry for Ed. Rendell is the type of man I hate to love, but I must admit that he won me over during his years as Mayor of Philly. He certainly has his foibles, but he did a damn good job making Philly a better place. I also think he's done a good job as Governor in a difficult environment, with a republican controlled legislature more interested in making him look bad than doing what's right for the state. More to come on this topic as the race progresses.

Thumb's Up

The WINNERS!!!
It was a long time coming, but well worth the wait.
Go Pittsburgh!

Cartoon of the Day

*m.e. Cohen

From the City of Brotherly Love

Here's to the Steelers in the Super Bowl (at least from 1 of the 2 Steeler fans in Philly). We lived in Pittsburgh for 10 years (law school and several years beyond in the early 80's) and were there for 3 of the 4 Super Bowl Wins.

I'm not a sports fan, Lord knows, but I still remember the phrase "One for the Thumb." Maybe the Thumb will finally get it today.

We've adorned the sunroom of our house (see picture) with Steeler paraphernalia for my husband, a big Steelers fan. Of course, since most of Philly hates Pittsburgh (and the Steelers), we don't dare hang a "Terrible Towel" in the window.