Magpie

Saturday, April 26, 2003

Hmmmmm.

A headline on Saturday's Washington Times:

White House rules out theocracy led by Shi'ites

Unfortunately, the White House hasn't ruled out theocracy led by Christian fundamentalists.

| | Posted by Magpie at 11:50 AM | Get permalink

Santorum summary.

Salon has a compilation of what Republican leaders have said about Sen. Rick Santorum's homophobic comments of earlier this week.

For those of you who haven't yet had the pleasure, here's what Santorum said:

I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.

| | Posted by Magpie at 11:39 AM | Get permalink

Margaret Atwood.

The UK Guardian has a nice, long profile.

In Atwood's novels, topography is rendered with absolute fidelity: Toronto is the location for several of them, and, apart from an early draft of her first novel - where she invented the Canadian locations - when no one seemed to take Canadian-based fiction seriously, the roads, ravines and bridges are all identifiable. She has said: "The places in my novels are often real. The people and the experiences are imaginary," though this is, arguably, a trifle disingenuous.

Via also not found in nature.

| | Posted by Magpie at 11:28 AM | Get permalink

Oooooh, shiny!

Old dinosaur books. Lots of old dinosaur books. With pictures.

Via Larkfarm.

| | Posted by Magpie at 11:20 AM | Get permalink

So long, it's been good to know you.

The Peking Duck is leaving China for a new job in Singapore. He's posted some last thoughts on Beijing.

| | Posted by Magpie at 11:12 AM | Get permalink

WHO dashes hopes for lifting of SARS travel warning.

Despite optimistic statements from Canadian health authorities yesterday, officials of the World Health Organization say that there will be no immediate end to the travel warning for Toronto.

But Friday night, WHO officials told CBC News that they had agreed only to look at new data from Toronto as part of their routine analysis of troubled spots. No formal review of the advisory is planned, they said. The organization has previously said that the travel warning will stay in place for at least three weeks.

| | Posted by Magpie at 10:02 AM | Get permalink

I don't know if the Canadians should be relieved or not.

In an interview on CBC television on Friday, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said that the US won't retaliate against Canada for its lack of support for the US-led invasion of Iraq.

CBC's HENRY CHAMP:
On any number of occasions, Mr. Secretary, you have given reassuring statements about this current tense relationship between Canada and the United States, but I can tell you that Canadian officials, Canadian politicians and a good deal of the Canadian people believe that there is going to be some consequence for their stand at the United Nations prior to the war. They see a canceled presidential trip. They see some vague responses to their requests about participation in Iraq. What are the reassurances you can give now to the Canadian people about this relationship?

U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL:
Well, the first reassurance is I think self-evident. The United States and Canada have been great neighbors and friends for so many years. We have been through so many experiences together, war together, peace together, the NATO alliance, one of the greatest bilateral relations on the face of the earth, our unguarded borders, the trade that goes across our border. I could go on and on, the number of people who go back and forth. That's the real strength of the relationship between the United States and Canada.

Sure, we can have disagreements and issues come along that might make an outside observer say, "Oh heavens, something has been fractured," but there's no fracture in this relationship and there will be no consequences for Canada. [...]

HENRY CHAMP:
But the relationship issue between Canada and the United States is not just solely between Canada and the United States. At the beginning of the week, Vicente Fox in Mexico was talking about exactly about the same things, that there's disappointment being registered by Washington towards his government. Chilean diplomats talk about the possibility of sidetracking their free trade agreement because they, too, took a stand in the Security Council.

What is the future of relationships between the United States and some of their neighbors when the disagreements appear to be genuine and real from some of your neighbours?

COLIN POWELL:
Our neighbours are sovereign democracies who can determine what their positions should be. Obviously, we are going to press our case and hope you will join us in common cause on a particular issue. But with respect to Canada, with respect to Mexico, with respect to Chile, these are close friends of ours – all three – and we will work our way through with this. We are not plotting in the basement of the State Department or the Pentagon or the White House or anywhere else how to get even with these three friends.

Were we disappointed? Yes. Was there a tenseness as a result of that disappointment? Yes. Will we get over it? Sure, we will. The Chilean foreign minister will be here to see me on Monday, and I am sure she and I will have a great conversation.

| | Posted by Magpie at 9:56 AM | Get permalink

No-fly zone.

Members of the pilots union at Air India are refusing to take airliners into areas affected by SARS. A Times of India story is here, and a Hindustan Times story is here.

The Indian Pilots Guild (IPG) had said they would not fly to any SARS-affected destination unless AI provides certificates before each flight stating that the crew on the plane has not been to SARS-affected countries, primarily Singapore and Hong Kong, in the previous 10 days.

| | Posted by Magpie at 9:37 AM | Get permalink

SARS blog.

SARS Watch Org is an excellent blog covering all aspects of the epidemic—medical, social, economic, and political. I was particularly struck by this post on how pandemics in fiction are probably affecting the way that that we are looking at SARS.

Stories like these have sunk into our collective psyche, and they may affect our response to the present epidemic. My generation of young Americans grew up in the 1950s taking part in air-raid drills that were supposed to protect us from Soviet nuclear weapons ("duck and cover!"). The prospect of extermination hung over us, and did not really recede until after the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.

It may be that SARS is this generation's Cuban crisis: We confront something we have read about, worried about, but never quite believed could happen to us. Now that it is indeed happening to us, we have to weigh the evidence carefully and decide on the wisest response. Ducking and covering won't help. Nor will catching the last train out of Beijing. I'm not yet sure what will.

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:18 AM | Get permalink

Looking southward with trepidation.

Dave Pollard at How to Save the World explains why it is that the US scares Canadians.

Most Canadians also think the 'average' American (not to mention the average Republican president) is woefully ignorant of world history, geography, culture, and current events outside the US and Iraq. That may or may not be a fair assessment, but it underlies the Canadian perception that Americans see Canada as somehow utterly dependent on US largesse. By every standard except GDP, Canadian living standards are higher than those in the US. The trade interdependence is two-way: to a significant degree the 1990s US economic boom was sustained by handy access to Canadian labour that is more productive and 30% cheaper than their US counterparts', and by Canadians' willingness to sell them raw materials at bargain prices and then buy back the finished goods at a premium. And while Canadians would clearly be unable to defend themselves from an attack by a larger enemy, they also believe that no one else could or should defend Canada either, and that the best defence is hence neutrality, negotiation, consensus-building and a global reputation for peace-keeping and fairness.

Ironically, Canada's very proximity to the US seems to reinforce these differences and the fear they elicit among Canadians. Those Canadians who are conservative, materialistic, entrepreneurial and religious are far more likely to move to the US, widening the Canada/US worldview gulf further. Twice the proportion of Americans vs. Canadians believe in trying to convert non-Christians, and three times the proportion describe themselves as evangelical Christians or as 'born-again'. Twice the proportion of Canadians believe the government should guarantee adequate health, education and welfare for all citizens, but Canadians are even more opposed to government restrictions on civil liberties than Americans.

Canadians opened their hearts and wallets to help America after 9/11. They fought side-by-side with Americans in Afghanistan. It was Canadians who liberated the American hostages from Iran. But now 70% of Canadians fear retaliation from the neighbour with whom they are economically joined at the hip. They read that 30% of Americans would like to annex Canada. They hear about US boycotts of Canadian goods, and US demonstrations whose leaders propose to 'nuke Canada'. And they read that 70% of Americans support an administration that stands against almost everything Canadians stand for. They don't understand, and they're afraid.

Via Woods Lot.

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:09 AM | Get permalink

Friday, April 25, 2003

What time is it, kids?

Time for Flashback Friday over at Wampum.

BUSH IS VULNERABLE
John C. White, Washington Post
April 26, 1991

The Democratic doomsayers have been wringing their hands and beating their breasts for weeks now with great effect. In fact, it would sometimes appear that the thing the Democrats do best is hang crape at their own funerals. The columnists have had a field day mocking the Democratic candidates and possible candidates. The back-benchers at Duke's and Joe and Mo's have relegated the Democratic Party to the status of a cruel joke...

This crowgirl didn't care much for 1991 the first time. Why does the country have to live through it again?

| | Posted by Magpie at 4:16 PM | Get permalink

Better late than never, I suppose.

The US State Department has put up a web page about the looting of Iraq's cultural heritage.

On the other hand, this crowgirl has seen far better collections of links on this subject. Here, for example.

Via Paper Chase.

| | Posted by Magpie at 4:06 PM | Get permalink

Just a matter of emphasis.

What can be said about this?

To build its case for war with Iraq, the Bush administration argued that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but some officials now privately acknowledge the White House had another reason for war — a global show of American power and democracy.

Officials inside government and advisers outside told ABCNEWS the administration emphasized the danger of Saddam's weapons to gain the legal justification for war from the United Nations and to stress the danger at home to Americans.

"We were not lying," said one official. "But it was just a matter of emphasis."

Via just about everyone.

Update: Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo reminds us all that he warned us.

| | Posted by Magpie at 3:39 PM | Get permalink

Afflicting the poor.

One of the few ways that the US tax system gives real aid to low-income families is through the earned income credit (EIC). Without going into technical details, it's basically a way to give money to working families whose wage income falls below a level. Conservative Republicans have never liked the EIC much, and they charge that freeloaders are collecting EIC payments fraudulently. (Sounds like the old charges about 'welfare cadillacs,' doesn't it?)

Dubya's appointees in the Internal Revenue Service appear to be paying attention to these charges. According to the NY Times, the IRS has decided that, from now on, low-income taxpayers must submit a burdensome amount of documentation to prove their eligibility for EIC payments.

But some tax experts criticize the higher burden of proof as unfair and a wasteful allocation of scarce I.R.S. enforcement dollars. They say that corporations, business owners, investors and partnerships deprive the government of many times what the working poor ever could — through both illegal means and legal shelters — yet these taxpayers face no demands to prove the validity of their claims in advance with certified records and sworn affidavits.

Others warn that the proposed I.R.S. rules will set a standard of proof so high that it will be difficult, and in some cases impossible, for honest taxpayers to meet it. As a result, some people entitled to the tax credit will no longer receive it. And those who do manage to file successful claims will almost certainly have to pay commercial tax preparers more for helping them with the extra paperwork. [...]

The average tax credit, paid by the government by check, was $1,976 for households with children in 2001. That is less than the average food stamp benefit for households with children that year, $2,904. But the I.R.S.'s proposed rules would make it much harder to qualify for the tax credit than for food stamps.

| | Posted by Magpie at 2:57 PM | Get permalink

SARS more deadly than believed.

A report in New Scientist says that the SARS death rate is much higher than had been thought. Up until now, the WHO and other authorities had been saying that 4 percent of those who contract the disease will die. Corrections for statistical problems, however, now show that SARS is fatal for one out of 10 who fall ill.

The standard figure used to gauge the deadliness of any disease is the "case fatality rate" (CFR). This is the number of deaths divided by the number of cases of the disease.

Early in the SARS epidemic, the CFR was about four per cent. But the CFR calculated from statistics released on Thursday and Friday for Hong Kong, Canada and Singapore are now 7.6, 10.7 and 9.9 per cent respectively. These three places are the worst hit after the Chinese mainland.

The global CFR has risen steadily since the start of the epidemic but this is to be expected, say epidemiologists contacted by New Scientist. Early in an epidemic, a significant proportion of the total number of cases have neither recovered nor died. Some will eventually die and so move from the denominator to the numerator of the CFR, raising its value. The CFR moves towards the true value as time passes, unless the number of new cases explodes.

| | Posted by Magpie at 11:29 AM | Get permalink

SARS news roundup.

The UK Guardian has a good summary of how the disease developed in China, and the likely future path of the epidemic.

Time takes a realistic look at how much people should worry about SARS.

Asia Times suggests that the Chinese leadership's poor response to the epidemic is eroding China's claim to regional leadership.

The Toronto Star reports that the travel warning for Toronto could be lifted, possibly as soon as next Tuesday. The paper also reports on the severe economic impact that the travel warning and public fear of SARS are having in Toronto.

The Sydney Morning Herald has an article about threat of 'supercarriers'—people with a higher than average capacity for spreading the virus.

The New Zealand Herald looks at how the epidemic is threatening Beijing's control of Chinese news media.

The Melbourne Herald Sun examines how SARS is affecting the Asia and world economies. Reuters has a another article on this topic.

| | Posted by Magpie at 11:26 AM | Get permalink

Vote on lesbian/gay rights scuttled at UN.

An historic UN vote on the human rights of gay men and lesbians had been expected today, but parliamentary maneuvers by an alliance of Islamic countries has prevented the UN Commission on Human Rights from voting on the resolution. Amendments introduced by the Islamic countries (Egypt, Libya, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia) would remove any reference to discrimination because of sexual orientation—rendering the resolution moot.

The historic resolution on "human rights and sexual orientation" was originally tabled by Brazil at the UN commission on human rights, in Geneva, with the support of 19 other countries including Britain. It calls on all UN member states to promote and protect the human rights "of all persons regardless of their sexual orientation".

But the sentiments are anathema to many UN states; almost half outlaw gay sexual relations and more than 70 countries keep a total ban on homosexuality - in some cases it is punished by death.

| | Posted by Magpie at 10:30 AM | Get permalink

The power of blogging?

A UK man says his blog helped him win a dispute with his bank.

Mr Cox posted the story on his weblog and included a 'fantasy' response from Abbey National. In this response, Mr Cox suggested the bank should cancel the demand for the three months' missed direct debit payments.

"Eventually I got annoyed with the lack of real response and went onto Abbey's website and contacted them this way," said Mr Cox. "However, when I emailed them I didn't put anything in my mail except a link to my blog. They responded satisfactorily within days.

This crowgirl wonders if the Cox method would work with the IRS.

| | Posted by Magpie at 10:18 AM | Get permalink

Thursday, April 24, 2003

Russia calling.

Radio journalists Julia Barton and Alexander Kleimenov recently traveled across Russia, visting radio stations, meeting the people who make the stations work, and teaching those people new skills. Over at Transom.org the duo has written about their trip and and about broadcasting in that big chunk of the world that used to be the 'evil empire.' The differences from — and similarities to — North American radio are striking. There's also a board where they're conversing with Transom visitors about topics as diverse as making moonshine and what goes into a Russian newscast (or doesn't).

Make sure not to miss the Russian radio clips.

We visited radio stations that seemed surprisingly connected to the world, despite being in places that most of the world would think of as nowhere. We also visited stations whose reporters seemed frozen in a modern-day gulag with a mini-disc recorder. We worked with a lot of kids who’d been thrown on the air barely a clue as to what to do, but we also met respected announcers whose listeners brought them flowers and thanked them for years of good advice.

One thing is for sure: commercial radio in Russia is a lot more varied and interesting than in the United States. Sometimes we heard things that were discouraging, especially ads disguised (and not very well) as news stories, and silly DJ prattle that made us want to throw the radio out the window - except we were usually in the radio station at the time. Still, I have to give the stations credit. At least they HAVE news, and at least they HAVE DJs that are in the same town as the station, not pre-recorded into some computer in Florida. In fact, Russia’s under-staffed, inexperienced, overworked radio newsrooms reminded me of nothing so much as... your average local public radio station. [...]

"And now it's time for our regular program," a DJ says in a rush, "which is called We and the Music where we let you know about the latest music trends and the coolest music bands and the music we all like to hear so much, especially on our station, because that's the way our radio station is, and it's not in vain that we are even called that way ‘AllMusicStation’ because we tell you important information about music and we play that music for you and you like us for that, don't you?" This is a very typical excerpt from DJ banter on a Russian FM station. Although FM-radio has entered its 2nd decade in Russia, apart from Moscow - which is a world where rating science rules - many radio stations are still trying to figure out what they are on the air for. This puts their on-air talent face-to-face with a real problem: what to say and how?

| | Posted by Magpie at 10:44 PM | Get permalink

BC expanding socialism for the (US) rich.

Part of the Energy Plan being implemented by British Columbia's Liberal Party government calls for so-called minor changes to BC Hydro, the provincially owned power company. It turns out that one of those changes is handing over Hydro's power transmission system to a US company.

A report just issued by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives says that the handover will be a bad deal for the people of BC — especially in economic and environmental terms — and a bargain for the US.

(For those unfamiliar with BC politics, the BC Liberal Party is anything but. Well to the right of the national Liberal Party of Jean Chretien, the BC Liberals' policies are similar to those of the Thatcher government in the UK, or to those of the current regime in Washington— minus most of the religious fundamentalism.)

The most striking of the study's findings is that the operation and control of the BC electricity transmission system is being handed over to a U.S. organization--RTO West. "This is a stunning development," says Cohen. "Transmission will no longer be part of BC Hydro, but will be a completely separate legal entity--the BC Hydro Transmission Corporation--which will own the transmission lines and will collect rents associated with this ownership, but that is virtually all it will do. RTO West will not only decide who has access to the transmission system, but will also decide all prices paid on the system and the nature of all future investment. We are handing control of a major BC public asset over to a U.S. entity, yet the public is largely unaware of this change."

"The changes to BC Hydro--some of which have already occurred and some of which are awaiting legislation--will mean higher electricity prices for both residential and industrial consumers of electricity in BC, and an expansion of dirtier forms of generation," says Cohen. "That's because our entire electricity system is being re-oriented toward the export of electricity to the U.S. This will prove profitable for some private power producers, but it means BC consumers will be competing in a North American market for their own power, and it represents the loss of what has been a major advantage for the BC economy."

Under the Energy Plan, all new generation facilities will be built and owned by private companies. But as the paper documents, the public will continue to provide substantial subsidies to these private producers. "Private producers are being enticed with million of dollars worth of subsidies, yet the public will not own the resulting assets."

A pdf file of the report can be downloaded here.

This crowgirl thinks that the idea of having separate power generation and power transmission companies sounds just like the arrangement that's led to higher power rates and more frequent outages for California and other parts of the US.

Via rabble.

| | Posted by Magpie at 8:12 PM | Get permalink

'No smoking guns. But we know you have them.'

the eyeranian has a piece about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction written back in January. It seems just as pertinent now, perhaps even more so.

| | Posted by Magpie at 7:44 PM | Get permalink

SARS in China.

Some excellent coverage of how the Chinese government is dealing with (or not dealing with) the SARS epidemic is coming from reporter Christopher Horton at the Asia Times. The Peking Duck points to this story from yesterday, which uses China's handling of HIV/AIDS to get a handle on what it's doing with SARS. And today's issue has this one about the government's decision to put much major resources into keeping the disease out of Shanghai, and letting the rest of the country suffer as a result.

| | Posted by Magpie at 7:27 PM | Get permalink

Lock them up and throw away the key.

TalkLeft points at yet another erosion of civil liberties from Attorney General Ashcroft. Once again, Ashcroft's target is immigrants, who can now be held in jail indefintely without bail if the government feels that national security would be thratened by their release.

Ashcroft's opinion says the attorney general has broad discretion in determining the status of would-be immigrants. During an appearance Thursday in New Orleans, Ashcroft defended his decision and said aliens held without bond have the right to defend themselves in court. He said he would continue to seek new, legal ways to detain people suspected of terrorism.

Immigration advocates have been troubled by Ashcroft's continued influence over immigration policy after most of the nation's immigration apparatus was transferred to the Homeland Security Department March 1. Since then, Ashcroft has given the FBI, U.S. Marshals and local police authority to arrest people on immigration violations.

``As disturbing as this decision is, it's really not that surprising, because Ashcroft has managed to keep his finger in all the immigration-related pies and ensured he can exert his authority shoulder-to-shoulder with (Homeland Security Secretary) Tom Ridge,'' said Angela Kelley, deputy director of the National Immigration Forum.

| | Posted by Magpie at 7:13 PM | Get permalink

Sulk.

There was an earthquake right around here just after noon today, but it sure wasn't shaking anything over here.

This crowgirl never gets to have any fun.

| | Posted by Magpie at 6:52 PM | Get permalink

Head of BBC attacks 'gung-ho' US media.

According to this article in the UK Independent, BBC director general Greg Dyke thinks that coverage of the Iraq war in US radio and television was 'shocking' and 'unquestioning.' While the BBC's resistance of government pressure from for more favorable war coverage is well known — the Beeb's even-handed coverage was strongly criticized by members of Parliament — Dyke says no major US news operation is 'strong enough or brave enough' to withstand pressure from the military or the White House.

Mr Dyke said that since the 11 September terrorist attacks, many American networks had "wrapped themselves in the American flag and swapped impartiality for patriotism".

He said: "I think compared to the United States we see impartiality as giving a range of views, including those critical of our own Government's position. I think in the United States, particularly since 11 September, that would be seen as unpatriotic." Mr Dyke said that on a recent visit to America he was "amazed by how many people just came up to me and said they were following the war on the BBC because they no longer trusted the American electronic news media". Mr Dyke reserved some of his strongest criticisms for Clear Channel, the largest operator of radio stations in America. The company is likely to be a beneficiary of government plans to open up ownership of commercial radio in Britain.

He said: "We were genuinely shocked when we discovered that the largest radio group in the US was using its airwaves to organise pro-war rallies. We are even more shocked to discover that the same group wants to become a big player in radio in the UK."

Via Counterspin Central.

| | Posted by Magpie at 6:41 PM | Get permalink

Taking aim at Americans' civil rights.

The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund has been looking into how American's civil rights have faired during Dubya's first two years in office. The short answer is: Not Good. The longer answer is that the administration shows "a disturbing pattern of hostility toward the rights of minorities, women, immigrants, workers, and individuals with disabilities." And the thorough answer is contained in the new LCCREF report, The Bush Administration Takes Aim: Civil Rights Under Attack.

Over the last fifty years, there has been a bipartisan national consensus on the need to remedy past and present discrimination through the establishment of strong federal protections. But today, the national bipartisan consensus in favor of a federal role in protecting fundamental civil rights is beginning to fray.

President Bush and many of his appointees and congressional allies are using the rhetoric of the so-called “states’ rights” movement to undermine Congress’ ability to promote progress on civil rights issues. These right-wing policies and constitutional theories undermine the foundation on which federal civil rights protections stand. If Congress lacks the authority to remedy discrimination, if states cannot be sued in federal court when they discriminate, and if federal agencies do not vigorously enforce the landmark laws of the 1960s, then civil rights protections lack the federal guarantee promised in the 14th and 15th Amendments.

Via Paper Chase.

| | Posted by Magpie at 4:35 PM | Get permalink

We don't need no stinkin' 40-hour work week.

Magpie's favorite journalist from the Lone Star State, Molly Ivins, has a nice rant today about the Republican proposals to change longstanding federal rules about overtime pay and compensatory time off (comp time).

Big Bidness is lobbying hard on these bills. If you work overtime to pay your bills, look out. The trick is, employers get to substitute comp time for overtime, and the employers get the right to decide when -- or even if -- a worker gets to take his or her comp time. The legislation provides no meaningful protection against employers requiring workers to take time off instead of cash and no protection against employers assigning overtime only to workers who agree to take time instead of cash. Everybody gets screwed on this one, except the bosses. Isn't it lovely? [...]

The EPI [Economic Policy Institute] explains why Big Bidness loves these bills: "A company with 200,000 FLSA-covered employees might get 160 free hours at $7 an hour from each of them (160 hours is the maximum allowed under the bills). That's the equivalent of $224 million that the company wouldn't have to pay its workers for up to a year after the worker has earned it. Considering that, under normal circumstances, the employer might have to pay 6 percent interest for a commercial loan of this magnitude, it could save $13 million by relying on comp time to 'borrow' from its employees instead."

You can find the EPI's analysis of the Dubya proposals here and here.

Via Working for Change.

| | Posted by Magpie at 4:03 PM | Get permalink

Exit strategy? What exit strategy?

A Reuters reporter talked to a number of Mideast specialists outside Washington about the US occupation of Iraq. Not surprisingly, all of them see problems ahead.

"The longer we stay, the more Iraqi nationalism will get organized and become a unifying force, which will be expressed in increasingly strident opposition to the American presence," said Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

"But if we leave prematurely, the risk exists that a Shi'ite-led clerical government will emerge that is allied to Iran and professes an anti-American theocracy," she said. [...]

"I'm sure the Bush administration is shocked by the emergence of the Shi'ites but now they have unleashed something and I don't know what they can do to stop it," said J. Brian Atwood, a former head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, now dean of the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota.

"Having a U.S. administrator wandering around Iraq talking about introducing democracy as if he's selling an alien ideology is beside the point," Atwood said. [...]

"Overall, the administration has put stunningly little planning into how the political process might unfold in Iraq after the war," said Nancy Soderberg who served on the National Security Council under former President Bill Clinton and now works with the International Crisis Group in New York.

"Their ideological assumptions have constantly been confounded by reality," Soderberg said.

| | Posted by Magpie at 1:09 PM | Get permalink

Financial outlook for state governments is still "bleak."

A new report by the National Conference on State Legislatures shows the continuing financial tailspin that state governments have been in since the collapse of the dot-com boom and the onset of the current recession.

Already plagued by anemic revenue performance, lawmakers have been besieged by spending overruns - from Medicaid to homeland security to emergency snow removal," she [NCSL President Angela Monson] said. "The problems have been relentless as most states have run out of the simple, painless options."

During fiscal year 2003, which began on July 1 for most states, 37 states saw revenues failing to meet projections, while only three reported revenues exceeding budget levels. Forty-five states subsequently revised their forecasts, in nearly every instance downward.

The situation is not much brighter for fiscal year 2004. As states craft their budgets for the next fiscal year, estimates show 41 states facing a cumulative budget gap of $78.4 billion. Thirty-seven of those states reported a gap in excess of 5 percent of their general fund, while 19 of these exceed 10 percent.

Monson said the situation is bleak in many states. "Broad cost-cutting measures are being enacted everywhere. Lawmakers are leaving no stone unturned. Services once thought to be sacred are now on the chopping block. K-12 education, social services, Medicaid eligibility, corrections are all being scaled back as states struggle to bring their books into balance."

According to the report, State Budget Update: April 2003, 21 states are consider proposals that would affect funding levels for K-12 education including across the board cuts, reducing transportation funds, slashing state aid for teacher salaries and lowering per pupil state aid.

The NCSL press release on the report is here.

This crowgirl notices that Dubya has had no trouble finding the money to pay for tax cuts and the war — even though this spending means years of massive budget deficits ahead — but that he has been totally unable to locate any cash to help ease the states' financial woes.

| | Posted by Magpie at 11:33 AM | Get permalink

Wednesday, April 23, 2003

It figures, I guess.

The UK Independent has started charging for access to their commentary section, including the broadly cited pieces by Robert Fisk.

| | Posted by Magpie at 11:08 PM | Get permalink

Nation-building in the Mideast.

In the UK Guardian, veteran Mideast correspondent Charles Glass looks at the last time the US tried to do it. (Glass, incidentally, was taken hostage by Hezbollah while he was reporting on the civil war in Lebanon during the 1980s.)

People cheered when the US marines marched into the capital. At last someone would restore order, remove the thugs and murderers from the streets, and force an end to the chaos. Then a new government arrested and tortured dissidents. The US ordered the dissidents' outside backers, Syria and Iran, to stay away. Britain joined the US in policing the streets. With Washington supporting the government and training its army, the opposition strategy meant removing the Americans and the British. Syria and Iran helped the rebels. American soldiers shot and killed Shi'ite Muslims. American and British planes bombed their neighbourhoods. Soon, the American embassy and the marine headquarters were rubble. American and British civilians were taken hostage and displayed on television. Then, the American warships sailed away and took the marines with them. The experiment in nation-building was over.

This has already happened. The time: August 1982 to February 1985. The place: Lebanon. Can it happen again, on a larger scale, in Iraq?

| | Posted by Magpie at 11:03 PM | Get permalink

Iranian journalist arrested.

Reach'M High has information about the arrest of Iranian journalist and blogger Sina Motallebi, including links to this press release from Reporters without Borders and an online petition calling for Motallebi's release.

Online Journalism Review has this article on the how Persian and other bloggers are responding to the arrest:

Already, he [colleague Hossein Derakhshan] sees paranoia online due to the arrest, with people asking that their comments be removed from blogs because of fear that the Iranian government is watching. "I don't think they were going after Sina's content -- his last post was on Michael Jordan's retirement, I think," said Moallemian. "They're going after the blogging movement. If Hoder was in Iran, I'm sure he would be brought in. Blogging is just the latest avenue for young people to say something -- and they want to block that."

The government of Iran is generally tight-lipped about journalists detained, hasn't made an official statement about Motallebi, and haven't returned my emails. But the groundswell of support for Motallebi online might lead to his release -- thereby strengthening the resolve of bloggers (or making them paranoid the government is now taking notice).

That's the underlying Catch-22 here. Bloggers are under the radar of the hard-liners, and that gives them unprecedented freedom. Losing a prominent voice like Motallebi's is a blow to the community, but losing Net access would be an even more devastating blow. So while bloggers are asking for his release, they hope for the attention of human rights groups, the mainstream press and objective voices -- not the saber-rattling of some ideologues.

| | Posted by Magpie at 10:46 PM | Get permalink

More fun at the White House press briefing.

Skippy alerts us to an interesting exchange between Dubya's press secretary Ari Fleischer and a reporter determined not to let him get away without answering the question. (Since the permalink doesn't seem to work, scroll to the item "ari caught in a bald-face lie (pun intended)".

However, i noticed this other set of exchanges when I was looking through the briefing transcript for the portion Skippy excerpted. Fleischer was asked twice about the homophobic remarks made by Sen. Rick Santorum on Tuesday, once near the beginning of the briefing:

Q Just one other thing, if I can. Does the President know more about what Senator Santorum said? Does he have any feelings about his comments? Do they think they were inappropriate or appropriate?

MR. FLEISCHER: I haven't personally talked to the President about it, so I don't have anything direct from the President to share.

Q So you all are just making a conscious decision to just keep clear of this one?

MR. FLEISCHER: Let me put it to you this way. The President typically never does comment on anything involving a Supreme Court case, a Supreme Court ruling or a Supreme Court finding -- typically. And in this case, we also have no comment on anything that involves any one person's interpretation of the legalities of an issue that may be considered before the Court.

And again, near the end:

Q Ari, you said the President doesn't comment on Supreme Court cases, but he did weigh-in on the Michigan affirmative action case. I mean, is this Texas sodomy law too much of a hot potato with the Republican base, the President doesn't -- or the administration doesn't want to weigh-in?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's why I said the President typically doesn't. I think that what you saw on that case with the affirmative action in the Michigan case, the President held a news conference, addressed it, gave a speech about it. But that's a very, very rare event. Typically, the Supreme Court cases are things that happen scores of times a year without the President's participation.

Do you notice, perhaps, a teensy contradiction here?

| | Posted by Magpie at 10:23 PM | Get permalink

Keeping tabs on Congress.

Readers in the US will want to take a look at the National Freedom Scorecard from the ACLU. Put in your address or 9-digit ZIP code, and it returns a list of important civil liberties measures and how every one of your members of Congress voted on each measure.

Via Ruminate This.

| | Posted by Magpie at 9:57 PM | Get permalink

"The free flow of information and ideas is never more important than it is at times like these."

We Want the Airwaves points to this lecture given at the University of Kentucky on April 8th by Bob Edwards, host of NPR's Morning Edition news program.

Now why are the tough questions not being asked? Do journalists wearing their flag lapel pins on TV not want to appear unpatriotic in time of war? The answer is yes. Av Westin said it very well last month. Av Westin goes back to the glory days of network television news. He was a producer at CBS for 20 years and a producer at ABC for 21 more years. He said, ‘‘Since 9/11, the press has been watching the opinion polls almost as much as the administration, which explains why it has taken quite a while to assume the kind of normal adversarial relationship, much less the kind that was rampant during the Clinton years and the Nixon years.’’ He added, ‘‘There is a considerable amount of self-censorship going on in terms of pushing government officials on certain topics. But I’ve always believed our job was to ask questions that need to be asked, regardless of official reaction or public opinion.’’

He’s absolutely right. Being popular might be good for business at a time when newspapers are losing readers and TV networks are losing viewers. And the owners of today’s media, who are business tycoons, not journalists, would like us to be good representatives of the corporate brands. But that is not our job. We are supposed to be surrogates for the public — the eyes and ears of citizens who don’t have the access we have. We are to hold public officials to account, and if that makes them angry at us — well, that just goes with our job, and we have to take it. If pointed questions make public officials squirm — well, that just goes with their job, and they’re supposed to take it. That’s the price that comes with the privilege of serving the people.

The press didn’t wait until the intern scandal to ask tough questions of Bill Clinton, so why is the incumbent getting a pass? The country deliberately decided not to have a king. We show the President some deference because of the office he holds. We call him ‘‘Mr. President.’’ It is NPR policy never to refer to an incumbent President by last name only. He is ‘‘President Bush’’ or ‘‘Mr. Bush’’ — but never just ‘‘Bush.’’ Yet he is not a king. He is a citizen temporarily serving us, living in our house, drawing our pay, spending our money and acting in our name. We have the right and, yes, the duty, to expect him to perform at a high standard. If we don’t do this, we’re performing below the standard that should be expected of us.

When we were little, we thought it would be really cool to be a newspaper reporter or a TV or radio correspondent. Well, sometimes it really is cool.

But we don’t deserve to enjoy the cool part of the job if we’re not willing to do the heavy lifting that sometimes comes with it. Public officials are measured by how well they perform in times of crisis. If they can’t take the heat, they should be in another line of work. It should be the same way with journalists. We cannot take a dive just because the country is at war. Indeed, our responsibility grows in times like these. It is not unpatriotic to expect the best from our leaders. Likewise, the public should expect no less than the best from us.

| | Posted by Magpie at 3:19 PM | Get permalink

Remember Afghanistan?

The situation there isn't pretty, says veteran journalist Ahmed Rashid in this report for EurasiaNet.

Despite the progress on creating a national army, Afghanistan’s security situation looks shakier than it did shortly after the Taliban fell in late 2001. As reinvigorated Taliban and al Qaeda fighters have targeted both American military bases and reconstruction projects, aid agencies have fled many areas and violence has become more commonplace.

Via Counterspin Central.

| | Posted by Magpie at 1:07 PM | Get permalink

Where's the follow-up?

Writing in the Village Voice, Nat Hentoff points to several important ways that individual liberties and public safety are being threatened by Washington's obsession with "homeland security." And how the press (and presidential candidates, too) isn't following up with warnings and information regarding any of these threats.

Occasionally, a shard of information that can impact the way we conduct our daily lives appears in the press. But again, where's the follow-up? In the March 15 Daily News, there was an Associated Press report from Washington that more than 80 FBI planes and helicopters are being used to "track and collect intelligence on suspected terrorists and other criminals." Note the key word, "suspected."

Among the FBI's aircraft, the AP story continues, "are several planes, known as Nightstalkers, equipped with infrared devices that allow agents to track people and vehicles in the dark.

"Other aircraft are outfitted with electronic surveillance equipment so agents can access listening devices placed in cars, in buildings, and even along streets, or listen to cell phone calls. . . . All 56 FBI field offices have access to aircraft. . . . [Legally,] no warrants are necessary for the FBI to track cars or people from the air." The good news, as it were, is that the FBI does need warrants to monitor cell-phone calls, even if from a plane.

So where's the follow-up by the media?

Via Working for Change.

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:48 PM | Get permalink

Local news on television.

Get ready to kiss it goodbye, says Paul Schmelzer in a story for AlterNet.

Tune into the evening news on Madison, Wisconsin's Fox TV affiliate and behold the future of local news. In the program's concluding segment, "The Point," Mark Hyman rants against peace activists ("wack-jobs"), the French ("cheese-eating surrender monkeys"), progressives ("loony left") and the so-called liberal media, usually referred to as the "hate-America crowd" or the "Axis of Drivel." Colorful, if creatively anemic, this is TV's version of talk radio, with the precisely tanned Hyman playing a second-string Limbaugh.

Fox 47's right-wing rants may be the future of hometown news, but – believe it or not – it's not the program's blatant ideological bias that is most worrisome. Here's the real problem: Hyman isn't the station manager, a local crank, or even a journalist. He is the Vice President of Corporate Communications for the station's owner, the Sinclair Broadcast Group. And this segment of the local news isn't exactly local. Hyman's commentary is piped in from the home office in Baltimore, MD, and mixed in with locally-produced news. Sinclair aptly calls its innovative strategy "NewsCentral" - it is very likely to spell the demise of local news as we know it.

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:32 PM | Get permalink

Weapons of mass destruction?

Israel's got 'em. And MSNBC knows where they are, but has stashed the information in an obscure location. Ira Chernus has some interesting comments about the MSNBC graphic and about Israel's WMD capabilities.

Look at the graphic from the viewpoint of a military strategist in Damascus, or in Hamas headquarters in Gaza. You would see strength so overwhelming, it would be stupid even to dream of fighting against Israel, much less to think about it in realistic terms. Look at it from the viewpoint of a strategist in Istanbul or New Delhi. You would see a very appealing potential ally, one with far more firepower than you could even hope to produce in the near future. Look at it from the viewpoint of a strategist in Teheran or Islamabad. Would you want Israel as your enemy or your friend?

On the other hand, putting out the facts on Israel’s WMD may not be Israel’s idea at all. It may come from the nest of neo-conservative hawks in the highest reaches of the Pentagon. They want all those capitals throughout the Middle East and South Asia to get the idea. The neo-cons are planning a new order in that part of the world. They have announced quite openly that their conquest of Iraq was only a first step toward this new order. They plan to make Israel the military cornerstone of the new order.

Why should Middle East and South Asian leaders roll over and accept the new neo-con order? Just take a look at the MSNBC graphic. Incontrovertible military facts on the ground speak louder than words. Need we say more?

Via Cursor.

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:08 PM | Get permalink

Look out Blogger?

The same outfit that gave Movable Type to the blogging world has a new product. TypePad is a hosted version of Movable Type, with what sounds like a very interesting (to this blogger, anyway) template-building feature.

The item for TypePad in Six Apart's corporate blog is here. The press release is here.

Via Boing Boing.

Update: See this story about TypePad at the UK Guardian.

| | Posted by Magpie at 11:55 AM | Get permalink

Gay/lesbian Republicans denounce Santorum. Right-wing women's group comes to his defense.

The war of words over Sen. Rick Santorum's anti-gay remarks is in full swing among some Republicans and right-wingers.

The main organization of gay men and lesbians in the GOP—the Log Cabin Republicans—has issued two statements criticizing Santorum's comments. Most recently, the group has called the senator's response to criticism of his anti-gay remarks "woefully inadequate.

"Senator Santorum has a leadership role in coalition building as the Senate GOP conference chairman - you don't build coalitions by divisive and mean spirited statements. Without a more forceful apology from the Senator, it is hard to imagine that he can effectively promote the compassionate conservative message of President George W. Bush," said Log Cabin Executive Director Patrick Guerriero.

"The choice for Senator Santorum is whether he will embrace the inclusive and winning message of President George W. Bush or the rejected team of Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer and their grand total of zero electoral votes. The choice is clear for Senator Santorum," concluded Guerriero.

"As the largest gay and lesbian Republican organization in America, Log Cabin believes that Santorum's statements are neither compassionate or conservative. We work every day to insure that tolerance and inclusion become a permanent part of the American political landscape - these comments don't help that mission," added Guerriero.

The right-wing fundamentalist Concerned Women for America, on the other hand, has condemned the Log Cabin Republicans for their criticism of Santorum.

"The Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) have shown once again that they don't see any room in the 'big tent' for people who object to homosexual behavior on religious grounds," Rios said. "I would remind the Republican leadership that millions of voters who make up the GOP base agree with Santorum - not the 'gay' thought police."

Rios said: "The Philadelphia branch of the Log Cabin Republicans has joined other 'gay' pressure groups in calling on Sen. Santorum to step down from leadership. This ought to show the Republican leadership that they cannot espouse family values while embracing groups that are more loyal to deviant sexual behavior than the Republican cause." [...]

"The fact that LCR and other gay groups are linking their smear campaign to the black civil rights cause is an added insult to African American Republicans - and all black Americans," Rios said. "There are no ex-blacks, but there are thousands and thousands of ex-gays."

| | Posted by Magpie at 10:42 AM | Get permalink

Gee, isn't this good news?

The lead sentence of a story in today's LA Times:

The United States has regained the capability to make nuclear weapons for the first time in 14 years and has restarted production of plutonium parts for bombs, the Energy Department said Tuesday.

This crowgirl feels so much safer now.

| | Posted by Magpie at 10:17 AM | Get permalink

Tuesday, April 22, 2003

"This man used to make $300,000 a year."

The cover story of the April 13 issue of the NY Times Magazine profiled three formerly high-rolling men who lost their jobs in the economic downturn. Now they're out of savings and out of luck—and having to look for the same kind of jobs that a lot of the rest of us work at. In her current "Subject to Debate" column in The Nation, Katha Pollitt cries some crocodile tears for the affluent male victims of Bushonomics.

But wait. Those $10-an-hour jobs, the ones we're supposed to pity the men for having lowered their masculine dignity to take, look kind of familiar, don't they? They're the "good jobs" women on welfare are encouraged to get, the ones that are supposed to transform them from mooching layabouts to respectable, economically self-sufficient, upright and orderly citizens. (Of course, both Tom and his stay-at-home wife recoil at the possibility that she may have to get a job. I guess this is because, unlike poor single mothers, she's a "homemaker.")

What happened to all those homilies about personal responsibility and the dignity of a job--any job--that were trotted out to justify forcing welfare mothers to work off their checks at subminimum wage by cleaning toilets in public parks or scraping chewing gum off subway platforms? Somehow, those sermons don't apply to [article author Jonathan] Mahler's guys, but only to those single mothers of small children who get up at dawn for long bus rides to jobs as waitresses or hotel maids or fast-food workers--jobs that one calls "menial" at the risk of being tarred as an elitist snob by welfare-reform enthusiasts. The point is not so much work--the exchange of labor for pay and benefits--but work experience: work as behavior modification. For Mahler's subjects, work is about masculine identity, so a low-status job is worse than none. Poor women apparently have no dignity to be affronted. [...]

Maybe I lack sufficient regard for the male ego, but I found it hard to shed a tear for the men in Mahler's profile. They may have lost their dreams of financial glory, but this is not exactly King Lear. By the standards of normal life they're not doing so badly: They live in safe suburban neighborhoods, with food on the table and good schools for the kids. [...]

Zora Neale Hurston, a great writer who made quite a bit of money in her time, ended her days as a cleaning lady. That's what I call tragic. All over America, single mothers with nothing like the advantages or prospects of Jeff, Lou and Tom are being told to sink or swim, and their children along with them. That's tragic too.

| | Posted by Magpie at 11:16 PM | Get permalink

Spinsanity needs you!

The invaluable Spinsanity will be asking for money next week. Magpie plans to give. So should you.

We have tracked deception and unfair attacks from politicians ranging from President Bush to Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle; we were one of the first sites to debunk the work of pundits like Ann Coulter and Michael Moore; and most recently, we published our most popular piece ever -- a compendium of distortions in the debate over the war in Iraq.

Our work is having a significant impact. As many of you know, Spinsanity has been cited in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the New Republic, CNN, and literally dozens of other media outlets. We may not be profiled as much as some famous bloggers, but what we write influences the national debate on matters of substance every month.

Now, for the first time, we're making a concerted effort to raise funds to continue our work. Running the site is increasingly expensive, including fees for web hosting and our email list and subscriptions to the Nexis news database and a number of print and online publications. In addition, we are hoping to raise a small amount of money to compensate us for the hundreds of hours of work we devote to the site every month.

| | Posted by Magpie at 10:54 PM | Get permalink

Something else Washington didn't think about before invading.

As this story in the Washington Post points out, there are lots of fundamentalist Shiites in Iraq who would like to fill the power vacuum left by the fall of Saddam Hussein.

As the administration plotted to overthrow Hussein's government, U.S. officials said this week, it failed to fully appreciate the force of Shiite aspirations and is now concerned that those sentiments could coalesce into a fundamentalist government. Some administration officials were dazzled by Ahmed Chalabi, the prominent Iraqi exile who is a Shiite and an advocate of a secular democracy. Others were more focused on the overriding goal of defeating Hussein and paid little attention to the dynamics of religion and politics in the region.

"It is a complex equation, and the U.S. government is ill-equipped to figure out how this is going to shake out," a State Department official said. "I don't think anyone took a step backward and asked, 'What are we looking for?' The focus was on the overthrow of Saddam Hussein."

Complicating matters is that the United States has virtually no diplomatic relationship with Iran, leaving U.S. officials in the dark about the goals and intentions of the government in Tehran. The Iranian government is the patron of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the leading Iraqi Shiite group.

| | Posted by Magpie at 10:36 PM | Get permalink

ACLU trying to make public the rules used to compile "no fly" lists.

The American Civil Liberties Union has gone to federal court on behalf of two peace activists who were detained at San Francisco International Airport in 2002 because their names turned up on a "no fly" list. This and other transportation watch lists were created after September 11 as a way to keep terrorists from boarding commercial airliners. The ACLU is asking the court to order the FBI, Justice Department, and Transportation Security Administration to surrender all information about who is on the list, why they are on the list, and how they can get their names removed.

"At the San Francisco airport alone, hundreds of passengers were stopped or questioned in connection with the so-called ‘no fly’ list," said Jayashri Srikantiah, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California. "If that number is any indication, it is likely that thousands of individuals at airports across the country are being routinely detained and questioned because their names appear on a secret government list." [...]

The ACLU filed the FOIA and Privacy Act requests on behalf of itself and peace activists Jan Adams and Rebecca Gordon last November. Earlier in 2002, both women were told by airline agents that their names appeared on a secret "no fly" list at San Francisco International Airport (SFO). The women were briefly detained by San Francisco Police while their names were checked against a "master" list.

On March 12, the ACLU of Northern California filed a records request with airport officials under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance and the California Public Records Act. On April 8, airport authorities released nearly 400 pages of documents which confirm that approximately 339 air passengers, between September 2001 and March 2003, were stopped or questioned at SFO in connection with the "no fly" list and other watch lists. [...]

The scant public information that is available about transportation watch lists confirms that the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) maintains at least two watch lists: the "no fly" list and a "selectee" list that establishes which air passengers are singled out for additional security measures.

The ACLU press release on the lawsuit is here. The legal complaint is here.

| | Posted by Magpie at 9:54 PM | Get permalink

Lowering the standards of journalism.

It's definitely award day here at Magpie. This time, the Washington Post's Richard Cohen gives out the very first Murdoch Prize for the worst in journalism. From the name of the prize, it's no great stretch to figure out that the first winner is Rupert Murdoch (head of the media giant, News Corporation).

Pulitzer and even William Randolph Hearst were pikers compared with Murdoch, the first truly global media baron. He controls 175 newspapers around the world, with 40 percent of the newspaper circulation in Britain. He owns satellite TV worldwide and, in America, a movie studio and book publisher as well as newspapers and TV outlets. His political influence is immense as well as baleful. MSNBC now has conservative hosts, and all the cable outlets either flew the American flag somewhere on the screen or in some other way insulated themselves from potential criticism from the right.

A piece of me admires Murdoch. He is a buccaneer, a risk-taker who, seemingly, cares not one whit for the opinion of journalists such as myself. But as the war in Iraq has shown, he has infected American journalism with jingoism and intolerance. For that, he gets the very first Murdoch Prize -- a formal citation listing his sins and a bucket of slime with his name on it. It is well earned.

Via Bookslut (again).

| | Posted by Magpie at 4:24 PM | Get permalink

Loose lips sink ... well, something or other.

The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression has given out its 2003 Jefferson Muzzles, which are awarded to groups or organizations who have committed "the most ridiculous or egregious acts of censorship" during the previous year.

This year, of course, the winners included US Attorney General John Ashcroft and the 107th US Congress, for their work enacting the Patriot Act and abridging American's freedom to read without fear of government snoops looking into their reading habits. But some of the lesser known censors are every bit as interesting and, one could argue, show the degree to which the mania for secrecy in Washington circles is permeating the rest of the country.

"Employees will not respond to media stories or editorial. You will not write letters to the editor or telephone radio stations without my approval." --McMinnville [TN] City Administrator Herb Llewellyn

On August 14, 2002, a column appeared in the McMinnville, Tennessee newspaper The Southern Standard entitled "Eating at the Game Takes Guts." The column was written by Dale Stubblefield, a staff reporter for The Southern Standard, and contained what was obviously Stubblefield's personal opinion about the quality of food served at the city's ballpark concession stands. As the title of the column suggests, Stubblefield was highly critical of the taste of the ballpark food. Feeling unfairly criticized, two city employees who worked at the concession stands wrote letters to The Southern Standard challenging Stubblefield's assertions. Both letters appeared in the newspaper the following week.

In response to these letters, on August 27, McMinnville City Administrator Herb Llewellyn issued a notice to all city employees directing them not to write letters to the editor or make calls to local radio stations without seeking and receiving his prior approval. The notice, which was attached to city employees' paychecks, stated that it was the city mayor's duty to act as McMinnville's "official spokesman" and that commenting on how the city provides services is the mayor's job alone.

While it is true that some restrictions may be placed on the speech of public employees, Mr. Llewellyn's policy far exceeds the scope of such constitutionally permissible limits. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that restrictions on public employee speech on matters of "public concern," as opposed to speech involving only private matters, are rarely constitutional. Mr. Llewellyn's policy makes no such distinction. Even if a court were to hold that the two letters to the editor which precipitated Mr. Llewellyn's policy did not involve a matter of "public concern" (a position that, as a legal matter, is highly doubtful), such a finding would not justify the blanket gag that restricts the speech of McMinnville city employees regardless of the topic on which they wish to publicly comment.

Via Bookslut.

| | Posted by Magpie at 4:11 PM | Get permalink

The White House non-reacts to Sen. Santorum's anti-gay remarks.

An exchange between Ron Fournier of the AP and Dubya press secretary Ari Fleischer at today's White House press briefing:

Q: Secondly, Senator [Rick] Santorum [R-PA] said the other day, in talking about landmark gay rights legislation, quoted, "The Supreme Court says that you have a right to consensual sex within your home, that you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery, you have the right to anything." Does the White House agree with those views?

MR. FLEISCHER: I have not seen the entire context of the interview, and two, I haven't talked to the President about it. So I really don't have anything to offer beyond that.

Q: Do you need context?

MR. FLEISCHER: I haven't talked to the President about it; I haven't talked to Senator Santorum. So I just don't have anything for you on it.

Q: But is the White House satisfied to just let those words fly through the air?

Q: They've been out there for a couple days now.

MR. FLEISCHER: I just don't have anything more on it.

Q: Well, why -- because you're unaware that he said that?

MR. FLEISCHER: Because I've been a little busy focusing on other activities and events, and I haven't talked to the President about it.

Responses to Santorum's remarks have come from the Human Rights Campaign and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean. Interestingly, there has been no response so far from the Log Cabin Republicans.

Santorum, meanwhile, has issued a non-apology.

| | Posted by Magpie at 2:40 PM | Get permalink

Were they thinking at all?

Molly Ivins hands out some dipstick awards.

-- Donald Rumsfeld and the looting of Iraq's incomparable National Museum in Baghdad. This one is so simple it's embarrassing. Does no one in this administration have any manners? Where is Karen Hughes? When something even more horrible than is usually expected happens in the course of war -- even when it is not our fault -- what we say is: "What a terrible thing. We're so sorry that happened. Even though it was not our fault, we --ike all civilized people -- regret and mourn the irreplaceable loss to the history of civilization." That's all we have to say.

It is not necessary to become defensive and react as though the looting were some attack on one's professional competence, and it is certainly not necessary to become sarcastic and try to belittle the loss ("My goodness, were there that many vases?" asked Rumsfeld of the looting of 7,000 years worth of archaeological treasure. "Is it possible there were that many vases in the whole country?" he asked sarcastically. Well, yes.)

Is this really the face of America we want to show the rest of the world? Are there any grown-ups in this administration?

Salon did an interview with Ivins in February. Things haven't changed since then.

Via Working for Change.

| | Posted by Magpie at 1:40 PM | Get permalink

Breast feeding as an act of war.

This story is so appalling that there's no way to excerpt or summarize it.

Via This Modern World.

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:58 PM | Get permalink

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

A report in the UK Guardian says that the US is using former Ba'ath Party members to help it run Iraq—often giving them back the same jobs they had under the Saddam Hussein regime.

Seasoned bureaucrats at the oil ministry - including the brother of General Amer Saadi, the chemical weapons expert now in American custody - have been offered their jobs back by the US military. Feelers have also gone out to Saddam's health minister, despite past American charges that Iraqi hospitals stole medicine from the sick.

It has become increasingly apparent that Washington cannot restore governance to Baghdad without resorting to the party which for decades controlled every aspect of life under the regime.

It has equally become apparent that the Ba'ath party - whose neighbourhood spy cells were as feared as the state intelligence apparatus - will survive in some form, either through the appeal of its founding ideals, or through the rank opportunism of its millions of members.

Via Cursor.

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:50 PM | Get permalink

Going, going ...

An Australian government report leaked to the Sydney Morning Herald says that environmental devastation has brought the country's biological diversity to the brink of collapse, endangering at least 1600 species on the island continent. According to this story, the report by the National Land & Water Resources Audit estimates that at least AU $4.5 billion is needed to reverse the ravages of land clearing in only the worst-affected areas.

"One-third of the world's extinct mammals since 1600 AD are Australian," says the report . . . "Such a record is unparalleled in any other component of Australia's biodiversity, or anywhere else in the world."

In all, 346 vertebrates, eight invertebrates and 1241 plants are listed as threatened. And almost 3000 different types of ecosystem are now considered at risk.

Twenty-two Australian mammals are already extinct and a further eight species persist only on islands, says the report, Australian Terrestrial Biodiversity
Assessment 2002.

Australia has long had the worst record for mammal extinctions on Earth. But the crisis appears to be worsening, a direct result of environmental degradation, especially land clearing.

More details on the problems cited in the report are included in this other article from the Sydney Morning Herald.

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:20 PM | Get permalink

Another day, another briefing.

Yes, the rest of Toronto Star reporter Linda Diebel's report on Donald Rumsfeld's performance at the Defense Department press briefing yesterday is just as good as the conclusion:

And so, to sum up yesterday's Pentagon briefing, Rumsfeld said the United States has not found weapons of mass destruction, has not found Saddam Hussein, has no idea when the war will be over and has no plans for Iraq's future.

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:00 PM | Get permalink

Yes, there is a country north of the US.

And the people there aren't the same as Americans.

A study conducted by the Canadian Policy Research Networks outlines values shared by Canadians, and the ways that Canadians differ from their neighbors to the south. In this article in the Toronto Star, pollster Daniel Yankelovich says that Canadians see themselves as part of the world first, while Americans see themselves as part of the US.

"Canadians have a deeper sense of obligation towards other nations and feel more interdependence with them," said Yankelovich, an adviser on the study . . . "While Americans prefer to exercise leadership in concert with allies, they feel their power buys them independence from world opinion."

The study was based on focus groups containing more than 400 Canadians, and it was finished before the invasion of Iraq. Nonetheless, the the full report shows that participants were apprehensive about the relationship of Canada with the United States.

Some participants were worried about Canada’s close relationship with the United States. They were shocked by the fact that 87 percent of Canada’s exports go to the United States. With such heavy trade dependence, citizens were worried about Canada’s vulnerability to undue influence from the US in many different spheres. Most reacted by advocating greater trade diversification. Canadian control over its natural resources was also seen as an important element of sovereignity.

Other participants articulated misgivings about what they perceive to be the high degree of American influence over foreign, trade, environmental, social and cultural policies and programs. They want the Canadian government to stand up for Canada’s rights and interests and maintain a certain degree of political independence instead of so often agreeing with and accepting US government policy. More generally, they expressed concern about how growing American influence might limit their ability to create the kind of Canada they wanted to see for their children and what could be done about that.

| | Posted by Magpie at 11:43 AM | Get permalink

War insurance.

The head of the UN's weapons inspection commission has accused the US of trying to discredit the work of weapons inspectors in order to win Security Council support for a pre-emptive war against Iraq. In an interview just before meeting with the Security Council, Hans Blix said that US officials were responsible for allegations that UN inspectors had deliberately suppressed information on the results of their search for banned weapons in Iraq.

Mr Blix said that in the run-up to war, the US had seized on his alleged failure to include details of a drone and cluster bomb found in Iraq in his oral presentations to the Council.

"The US was very eager to sway the votes in the Security Council, and they felt that stories about these things would be useful to have, and they let it out," he said.

"And thereby they tried to hurt us a bit and say that we had suppressed this.

"It was not the case, and it was a bit unfair, and hurt us. [We] felt a little displeased about it."

He also reiterated his disquiet at how documents the International Atomic Energy Agency "had no great difficulty finding out were fake" managed to get through US and UK intelligence analysis.

Also disturbing, he said, was the question of who was responsible for the falsification.

The Security Council is currently discussing whether UN inspectors should resume their search for banned weapons in Iraq. Blix says that UN teams could be on the job again in as little as two weeks. The US has its own inspection teams in the field in Iraq, and it opposes any return of UN inspectors.

| | Posted by Magpie at 10:25 AM | Get permalink

"There is good money to be made."

It's unusual to see the reason why US business interests were so gung-ho about the war in Iraq stated as clearly as it is in this lead sentence for an AP story.

A new Iraq flush with free-flowing oil money, untapped markets and a teeming population is a tempting proposition for profit-hungry U.S. firms dealing in everything from credit cards to consumer goods.

| | Posted by Magpie at 9:59 AM | Get permalink

Monday, April 21, 2003

Sandy Denny (1 June 1947 – 21 April 1978)

Across the evening sky, all the birds are leaving
But how can they know it's time for them to go?
Before the winter fire, I will still be dreaming
I have no thought of time

For who knows where the time goes?
Who knows where the time goes?

Sad, deserted shore, your fickle friends are leaving
Ah, but then you know it's time for them to go
But I will still be here, I have no thought of leaving
I do not count the time

For who knows where the time goes?
Who knows where the time goes?

And I am not alone while my love is near me
I know it will be so until it's time to go
So come the storms of winter and then the birds in spring again
I have no fear of time

For who knows how my love grows?
And who knows where the time goes?

Who Knows Where the Time Goes? 1967

The BBC has a good short bio here.

| | Posted by Magpie at 10:50 PM | Get permalink

More bad SARS news from China.

As SARS turns up in its 26th country (the Philippines), this report in the UK Independent says that the increased effort to fight the disaes in China may have come too late.

The World Health Organisation said that the illness was now reaching the Chinese countryside, where 70 per cent of the 1.3 billion population live. [...]

In China, the WHO said, medical facilities in the provinces were poor and an epidemic would have disastrous consequences. Henk Bekedam, the WHO'S representative in Beijing, said: "I think we're going to have a very big outbreak in China. I think it will be quite a challenge to contain Sars within China, especially those provinces that have very limited resources." [...]

The WHO warnings were backed by Wen Jiabao, the Chinese premier, who said the health system in the countryside meant an epidemic would take hold "before we know it" and that the "consequences could be too dreadful to contemplate".

Meanwhile, the UK Guardian reports a gloomy warning from Luc Montagnier, one of the scientists who first identified the retrovirus that causes HIV. Montagnier says a health catastrophe will result if SARS starts spreading among people with AIDS.

According to the French biochemist, the twin dangers of a contagion among people with weak immunity systems would be an increase in the fatality rate - about 5% of Sars patients die - and the creation of an ideal breeding ground for the virus in bodies which are not able to fight back.

"This could happen in south China, where Sars broke out and where a large number of HIV patients are not adequately treated," Mr Montagnier said. "If Sars and Aids combine, it would be a disaster."

Public health experts in China warned that the dangers of this deadly viral cocktail were very real in Guangdong province where insufficient quarantine measures were in place to separate HIV/Aids and Sars patients.

According to one witness, at the hospital in Guangzhou where the first Sars cases were discovered, patients with HIV/Aids are being treated on the same floor as those with Sars. The groups are kept apart and use separate lifts but with so little known about Sars the risks of transmission are high.

| | Posted by Magpie at 10:21 PM | Get permalink

Your (US) government at work.

Uggabugga has the whole picture. Really.

Thanks to Food for Thought and Skippy for pointing this one out. This crowgirl had managed to visit Uggabugga a couple of times without noticing it. If you can imagine that.

| | Posted by Magpie at 9:34 PM | Get permalink

Elections in Iraq.

I think Aaron McGruder has an inside line.

| | Posted by Magpie at 9:20 PM | Get permalink

"Some people have a bartender. And others have us."

The NY Times has a great story about Rockit Scientist, a hole-in-the-wall record store in the Village.

Mr. Kioussis [the owner], for example, is happy to put on a record a customer is interested in buying, a vestigial record store courtesy. This charitable gesture, however, is subject, like most small, independent record store activities, to the wrath of the connoisseur.

"I don't mind playing an import or something obscure,'' he said. "The new Stones' remasters? You want to hear how good that sounds, I'll play it for you. But I shouldn't have to play you Led Zeppelin's first album. If you haven't turned on the radio in your 30 years of existence, I don't think you really deserve to be listening to Led Zeppelin at this point in time."

This crowgirl can almost hear the jewel boxes clacking.

| | Posted by Magpie at 4:36 PM | Get permalink

Torching the future.

LISNews points to a Washington Post commentary that muses on the question of what losing a library really means.

Few people appreciate the fragility of civilizations and the fragmentary character of our knowledge about them. Most students believe that what they read in history books corresponds to what humanity lived through in the past, as if we have recovered all the facts and assembled them in the correct order, as if we have it under control, got it down in black on white, and packaged it securely between a textbook's covers. That illusion quickly dissipates for anyone who has worked in libraries and archives. You pick up a scent in a published source, find a reference in a catalogue, follow a paper trail through boxes of manuscripts -- but what do you discover in the end? Only a few fragments that somehow survived as evidence of what other human beings experienced in other times and places. How much has disappeared under char and rubble? We do not even know the extent of our ignorance.

| | Posted by Magpie at 3:09 PM | Get permalink

Another great one is gone.

Singer Nina Simone died at age 70 at her home in France.

You can find her bio here, and late-90s interviews here and here.

How would you like to be remembered?

I want to be remembered as a diva from beginning to end who never compromised in what she felt about racism and how the world should be, and who to the end of her days consistently stayed the same.

This crowgirl can still remember the chills she got the first time she heard Nina Simone's voice.

| | Posted by Magpie at 3:02 PM | Get permalink

Give us 60 minutes and we'll give you what we want you to know.

Last Wednesday, Magpie had this post about a new Arabic-language news outlet that the US was planning for Iraq. Today, Salon has this article on US plans to launch a satellite broadcast to compete with Al-Jazeera and other Arabic broadcasters.

[T]his station will be run solely on funding from the U.S. government. And while journalistic independence from funders is always an issue, even for private sector news outlets -- pressures from advertisers or financial supporters often influence content in both subtle and obvious ways -- those questions will be more acute for this network, because its sole funder, the U.S. government, is creating the network itself as part of a larger political and public relations strategy. There's a paradox in its founding: Just as viewers in Arab countries are turning away from state-run programming and embracing independent networks like Al-Jazeera, the U.S. is trying to compete with what is essentially state-run programming, only run by the U.S., not an Arab government. [...]

The United States is not alone in its efforts to influence Arab minds through the media. In June, 2002, the Israel Broadcasting Authority created the Arabic-language Middle East Channel, hoping to compete against the more that 140 Arab satellite channels that the Israeli government fears is promoting violence against Israeli civilians.

But Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, says the new Israeli station is having virtually no impact on Arab public opinion toward Israel, and he is skeptical about the potential success of the new American-sponsored network.

| | Posted by Magpie at 1:18 PM | Get permalink

Rumsfeld says the US doesn't want Iraq bases.

The US Defense Secretary has denied reports that the US is seeking permanent bases in Iraq. Rumsfeld was responding to this report in yesterday's NY Times

But Rumsfeld, speaking at a Pentagon news briefing, did not directly respond to a question of whether he would rule out such a future arrangement.

"I have never, that I can recall, heard the subject of a permanent base in Iraq discussed in any meeting," Rumsfeld said.

"The likelihood of it seems to me to be so low that it does not surprise me that it's never been discussed in my presence to my knowledge," he added.

"Why do I say it's low? Well, we've got all kinds of options and opportunities in that part of the world to locate forces. It's not like we need a new place.

"We have plenty of friends and plenty of ability to work with them, and have locations for things that help to contribute to stability in the region."

The wording of Rumsfeld's denial strikes this crowgirl as being bureaucratese for 'Damn. You were't supposed to know we're planning this.'

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:59 PM | Get permalink

A "nonviolent pre-emptive attack" against the Patriot Act.

This story in the Washington Post looks at how local goverments in the US are defying the Patriot Act. While the strongest action has come from the northern California town of Arcata, whose city council passed an ordinance barring its top employees from voluntary compliance with Patriot, almost 90 other cities have passed resolutions urging their law enforcement agencies to refuse Patriot Act requests that violate the Constitution.

"We want the local police to do what they were meant to do -- protect their citizens," said Nancy Talanian, co-director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee in Florence, Mass., which gives advice to citizens groups on how to draft their own resolution.

Although cities across the country passed antiwar resolutions before the attack on Iraq with little notice from the administration, Talanian said that the anti-Patriot Act resolutions are "not quite as symbolic" as those that passed against the war.

"Normally, the president and Congress don't pay that much attention when it comes to waging war," she said. "But in the case of the Patriot Act, the federal government can't really tell municipalities that you have to do the work that the INS or the FBI wants you to do. The city can say, 'No, I'm sorry. We hire our police to protect our citizens and we don't want our citizens pulled aside and thrown in jail without probable cause.' "

In Hawaii, home to many Japanese Americans who vividly recall the Japanese internments during World War II, Democratic state Rep. Roy Takumi introduced a resolution on the Patriot Act as a way to raise debate, he said. Although the resolution may be seen as symbolic, he said, "states have every right to consider the concerns of the federal government and voice our opinions. If a number of states begin to pass similar resolutions, then it raises the bar for Congress, making them realize our concerns. I hope to see what we've done here plays a role in mobilizing people to take action."

Via Paper Chase.

| | Posted by Magpie at 10:42 AM | Get permalink

Now that the US has gone into Iraq. . .

How will it manage to get out? Zvi Bar'el of Haaretz looks at the options.

A new government has not yet been formed in Baghdad, but presumably an Iraqi administrative body will eventually be formed, and it will want to run an independent state and not an American province. Iraq is an Arab state which will seek international, Arab and Islamic legitimacy and herein lies the trap. As an American protectorate, it will have difficulty getting that legitimacy. On the other hand, without direct American control, Iraq may cease to exist as a state and become caught up in a bloody tangle of violent internal disputes the likes of which we have already seen in the past two weeks. Or it may be torn into autonomous provinces under ethnic, tribal or religious leaders.

Direct foreign rule brings with it the seeds of a guerrilla war against it. This is surely not surprising news to the U.S., which has experienced it in Lebanon, Somalia and Afghanistan.

Therefore very soon the administration will have to figure out how to get out of Iraq, but leave behind an American slant. If not, the U.S. will be left with only one achievement - getting rid of Saddam Hussein's regime. This, while important in itself, is insufficient to ward off the danger which Iraq may constitute in the not too distant future.

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:21 AM | Get permalink

Sunday, April 20, 2003

No sugar? No funding!

The trade association for the US sugar industry is being accused of using "tactics tantamount to blackmail in its efforts to prevent the release later this week of a World Health Organization report on healthy nutrition. If the so-called "dubious" report is issued, says this report in the UK Guardian, the Sugar Association is threatening to use its leverage in Congress to get the US to end its annual contributions to WHO operations. Last year, this amounted to US $406 million (£260 million).

The industry is furious at the guidelines, which say that sugar should account for no more than 10% of a healthy diet. It claims that the review by international experts which decided on the 10% limit is scientifically flawed, insisting that other evidence indicates that a quarter of our food and drink intake can safely consist of sugar.

"Taxpayers' dollars should not be used to support misguided, non-science-based reports which do not add to the health and well-being of Americans, much less the rest of the world," says the letter. "If necessary we will promote and encourage new laws which require future WHO funding to be provided only if the organisation accepts that all reports must be supported by the preponderance of science."

The association, together with six other big food industry groups, has also written to the US health secretary, Tommy Thompson, asking him to use his influence to get the WHO report withdrawn. The coalition includes the US Council for International Business, comprising more than 300 companies, including Coca-Cola and Pepsico.

A pdf file of the Sugar Association's press release on the WHO report is here.

| | Posted by Magpie at 11:54 PM | Get permalink

SARS' biggest victim could be the global economy.

The NY Times reports that SARS is taking an economic toll, particularly in Asia. Shipments of goods have slowed down, and buyers have been cutting out trips to China and other east Asian countries for fear of contracting the disease—even to places like Taiwan, where there are few reported SARS cases.

The main variable in every economist's calculation of the effects of SARS lies not in the number of industries affected but in how long the outbreak could last — a question that economists, like doctors, are at a loss to predict.

David A. Dodge, the governor of the Bank of Canada, spoke for many analysts assessing the economic effects of SARS when he said this past week that the disease would have a "short-term impact" on the Canadian economy, but warned that "an epidemic like SARS, if it carries on, is obviously going to be quite serious."

Indeed, economists face an even more puzzling question than doctors. Economists must guess not just how long the disease will persist, but they must also figure out how long fears about the disease will last.

If the outbreak and related fears prove enduring, one casualty could be the growing integration of the global economy, which has lately been extending beyond manufacturing to include service industries as well. Many companies have found gains in efficiency by moving operations to whatever country offers the highest productivity at the least cost, but some say they may have to reconsider these moves.

| | Posted by Magpie at 11:23 PM | Get permalink