Bush vs. Amnesty International (and English)

President Bush got a little testy with Amnesty International today:

Asked about the recent Amnesty International report that censured the U.S. human rights record in detaining suspected terrorists, Bush reacted sharply, commenting on the criticism personally for the first time.

"I'm aware of the Amnesty International report, and it's absurd. It's an absurd allegation," Bush said. He said the United States "is a country that promotes freedom around the world" and fully investigates accusations of mistreatment "in a transparent way."

Bush said that "we've had thousands of people detained" and "we've investigated every single complaint against the detainees."

He added, "It seemed like to me they [Amnesty International] based some of their decisions on the word of and the allegations by people that were held in detention, people who hate America, people that have been trained in some instances to disassemble, that means not tell the truth."

Yes, you know all about "disassembling", don't you, Mr. President?

Amnesty didn't wait long to respond:

What is 'absurd' is President Bush's attempt to deny the deliberate policies of his Administration, which has detained individuals without charge or trial in prisons at Guantanamo Bay, Bagram Air Base and other locations. What is 'absurd' and indeed outrageous is the Bush Administration's failure to undertake a full independent investigation, and that completed reports into human rights violations in these prisons remain classified and unseen. The network of secret detention centers operated by the US around the world must be opened to scrutiny by independent human rights groups and those responsible for torture, no matter how senior, must be held accountable. It is also worth noting that this administration never finds it 'absurd' when we criticize Cuba, China, or when we condemned the violations in Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

It's also absurd that the Washington Post (along with many other mainstream press outlets) didn't bother to note that Bush only responded to charges of detainee abuse, and did not address any of the other rather uncontroversial facts about the US record that Amnesty included in its report. Indeed, that's the saddest part of this story — many of those violations have resulted from policies that this administration has fought for proudly and publicly.

"Deep Throat" Revealed

Apparently, Watergate's "Deep Throat" has just come out of the closet:

W. Mark Felt, who retired from the FBI after rising to its second most senior position, has identified himself as the "Deep Throat" source quoted by The Washington Post to break the Watergate scandal that led to President Nixon's resignation, Vanity Fair magazine said Tuesday.

"I'm the guy they used to call Deep Throat," he told John D. O'Connor, the author of Vanity Fair's exclusive that appears in its July issue.

Felt, now 91 and living in Santa Rosa, Calif., reportedly gave O'Connor permission to disclose his identity.

Is he really the one? Woodward and Bernstein are sticking to their pledge to reveal the name only after their source has died. Still, if it is Felt, I'm a little disappointed. Although I didn't have a particular person in mind, I was hoping it was someone in the White House inner circle — that really would have added some intrigue to the Watergate story's legacy. Ex-FBI guy going public to make a few bucks? Not so much.

Update: It looks like it's official — Woodward has confirmed it was Felt.

Buying Credibility

Well, the Discovery Institute certainly got what they wanted for their $16,000. They got a reception for an anti-evolution movie at the Smithsonian, co-sponsored by the museum itself, and an article about the soiree in the New York Times.

Fossils at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History have been used to prove the theory of evolution. Next month the museum will play host to a film intended to undercut evolution.

The Discovery Institute, a group in Seattle that supports an alternative theory, "intelligent design," is announcing on its Web site that it and the director of the museum "are happy to announce the national premiere and private evening reception" on June 23 for the movie, "The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe."

So, is the Smithsonian really in bed with the nouveau creationists? Not really. As they have done in the past, the Discovery Institute is using a respected venue to purposefully misrepresent the support that it has in the scientific community.

[Museum spokesman] Mr. [Randall] Kremer said he heard about the event only on Thursday. He added that staff members viewed the film before approving the event to make sure that it complied with the museum's policy, which states that "events of a religious or partisan political nature" are not permitted, along with personal events such as weddings, or fund-raisers, raffles and cash bars. It also states that "all events at the National Museum of Natural History are co-sponsored by the museum."

In the end, such qualifiers don't matter — this event will be promoted endlessly by the Discovery Institute's PR machine. The reason is simple: the Discovery Institute doesn't care about doing actual science, but only in being seen as part of the legitimate scientific establishment. Their goal isn't only to take evolution down, but to discredit the idea of a purely secular science from inside the academy.

Eating Crow

Two weeks ago, it was Newsweek that was in the dog house over its retracted story about Koran abuse at Guantanamo Bay. Now, it's everyone who put Newsweek in the dog house. From the Washington Post on Friday, in a piece headlined "Pentagon Confirms Koran Incidents":

Brig. Gen. Jay W. Hood, commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo, said investigators have looked into 13 specific allegations of Koran desecration at the prison dating to early 2002 and have determined eight of them to be unfounded, lacking credibility or the result of accidental touching of the holy book. Of the five cases of mishandling, three were "very likely" deliberate and two were "very likely accidental," he said. But Hood declined to provide details, citing an ongoing investigation.

The reaction on the right has been mostly to ignore this story, or to simply assert that all the detainee reports are lies. But there are two things to keep in mind here:

1. Detainee reports of Koran abuse disappeared after military put in place guidelines on the proper handling of the Koran in the wake of reports from the Red Cross. This sounds much more like cause and effect than mere coincidence, and it enhances the credibility of the detainee reports.
2. Scott McClellan and Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita come out of this episode looking like the huge liars that they are. The administration has been working overtime and going to absurd lengths to completely discredit the notion of Koran abuse, and yet they obviously knew that the allegations had merit the entire time.

Does any of this prove that a Koran was actually flushed down a toilet? No, and we may never know for sure if that particular incident ever happened. But those people who want to focus on that one detail and ignore the rest of the story are just fooling themselves at this point, because the rest of us have the bigger picture.

Friday Cat Blogging

Look at me, I am so tough.

Works for Me

I didn't really have a strong opinion when it came to prioritizing construction work on I-485. But I have to say, after getting caught in rush hour traffic after getting on from I-77 last month, I'm not disappointed that widening that southern stretch of road is happening first. Of course, work won't start for another 6 years, but so it goes.

Getting Some Perspective on Newsweek

Yes, Newsweek blew it, but before everyone gets all fired up and starts calling for the repeal of the First Amendment, let's keep a couple of things in mind:

1. Newsweek certainly wasn't the first media outlet to report on Koran desecration at Gitmo. In fact, such reports have been appearing for years. The retraction doesn't disprove these numerous reports; it simply means that the story's source couldn't confirm these allegations were included in a particular government report.
2. While all eyes are focused on what the magazine wrote, let's not forget that the White House has been talking trash and playing politics with this issue for the last few days. So when you hear Scott McClellan talk about irresponsible statements damaging our reputation abroad, try not to laugh out loud and instead take a moment to remember some of the victims of this administration's lies. Some are asking if McClellan should resign. A better question: shouldn't they all?

There, now that that's settled, let's move on the some more important things, shall we?

Victory for Vinophiles

For wine lovers everywhere who hate that nagging sense of illegality when ordering wine from out of state, today is a good day:

Wine lovers may buy directly from out-of-state vineyards, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, striking down laws banning a practice that has flourished because of the Internet and growing popularity of winery tours.

The 5-4 decision strikes down laws in New York and Michigan that make it a crime to buy wine directly from vineyards in another state. In all, 24 states have laws that bar interstate shipments.

When Mary and I were in Napa last November, the sales pitch at every winery included the same refrain. "Don't worry", we were told, "we ship out of state. And now that we know you, feel free to order from us in the future."

While that trip did net us a case and a half of fine wine, and while it was kind of cool knowing the secret handshake to enable repeat orders, it's also nice that we can now order from whomever we want, whenever we want, and not have to worry that something will go wrong.

Besides, these import laws were silly things to begin with; the Supreme Court did the right thing when it struck them down.

Look in the Mirror, Cal

Today Cal Thomas laments the sorry state of contemporary journalism as it becomes dominated by writers preaching to their own choir:

Increasingly, we are surrounded by people who write and speak to a single constituency — their own.

You mean, like nationally syndicated columnists who endlessly proclaim to their fundamentalist/conservative audience that everyone who doesn't worship the Almighty exactly the way that they do is a Godless heathen who hates America? Yeah, that might be a problem.

If At First You Don't Succeed…

Via Brad DeLong comes this report from Jason Furman of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities on Bush's proposal to "progressively index" Social Security benefits in order to restore full solvency to the system. Here's what Furman finds:

Because the sliding-scale benefit reductions (also called “progressive price indexing”) that the President has proposed would not start until 2012 and would be small initially, this proposal would move back the date when Social Security’s benefit costs will first exceed its tax revenues by only two months, to slightly later in 2017.

The sliding-scale benefit reductions would have a somewhat larger effect on the date when Social Security would become insolvent — the benefit reductions would move that date back by six years, from 2041 to 2047.

The President’s private accounts, however, would accelerate the date on which Social Security begins to have a cash-flow deficit, as well as the date of insolvency, because establishing the accounts requires diverting large sums from Social Security to the accounts. When the sliding-scale benefit reductions and the private accounts are considered together (i.e., when both components of the President’s plan are examined), the plan is found to move forward the year in which Social Security would become insolvent from 2041 to 2030. This result could be averted only by large cash transfers from the Treasury or additional benefit reductions or tax increases. The plan also would accelerate the year in which the program begins to run cash-flow deficits from 2017 to 2011.

And the bottom line:

When the private accounts are added in, however, the President’s plan as a whole is found to close only 30 percent of the 75-year gap. More than two-thirds of the gap would remain. Additional benefit reductions, new revenues, or large transfers from the rest of the budget would be necessary to fill the substantial remaining gap.

Given that Bush's "plan" doesn't fix the problem he says it does, then what's the point of putting it out there? My feeling is that we should look at progressive indexing with private accounts as phase one of the larger effort to kill the program completely. Bush & Co. will trot out their own experts who will contradict the critics, and the truth will get lost in the mess of he-said-she-said reporting we've gotten so used to seeing. But years down the road, when the critics have been proven correct, we'll hear something like "well, in for a penny, in for a pound" from the conservatives, and the push will be on to fully privatize Social Security. The failure of Bush's ill-conceived "reform" will be turned into a structural failure of Social Security itself, and with deep regret we'll be told again that private accounts are the only way to salvage even some of the benefits we worked hard to earn.

Faking Security

Via Avedon comes a reminder that the misnamed "REAL ID Act" is set to pass the Senate today. Much of the debate about a national ID card assumes from the start that such a thing would improve security. The only serious arguments seem to be about whether such an obvious increase in safety would be worth the resulting restrictions on personal privacy or the financial burdens placed on the states.

Security expert Bruce Schneier, however, convincing shows that the current debate is premature because the premise is false: national ID cards won't make us more secure. In fact, we will all be less safe in a system that relies upon the correct identification of individuals.

I'm all for having a real debate about what would be required to improve our nation's security, but I'm a little tired of having that debate short-circuited by Republican politicians like John Ashcroft and James Sensenbrenner. Better security isn't something you get by acting tough, it's something you get by being smart. And right now, we don't seem to have any smart people in charge.

Stuck in Traffic

I wait for these stats each year, and finally, the new transportation numbers are out. Washington, DC — my former home — ranks third in congestion overall, with 69 hours lost per traveler each year to traffic delays. That sounds impressive, but DC has been third for five years in a row, which might indicate a lack of effort. Fortunately, the trends favor a move up in the next year or two, as delays in the top two cities, Los Angeles and San Francisco, are dropping.

Charlotte, NC — my new home — comes in second in the mid-sized city category, with 43 hours of wasted time in traffic. Austin, TX is number one, and as someone who has ridden around that city recently, I can see why. Charlotte will have to try very hard to top Austin, but it's doable. According to the study's co-author Tim Lomax: "We show [Charlotte] as one of the leaders in congestion growth." Way to go!

While traffic was a real, daily issue for me in DC, here in Charlotte it's more of an abstraction. Mary's two-minute walk to work is hardly grueling, and my telecommute is even easier. Some of our friends no doubt wonder why we would choose to live downtown, but I wonder why anyone who works downtown chooses not to.

The Huffington Post

Arianna Huffington's new website went live today, and can you say "star-studded?" Bloggers include Ellen DeGeneres, John Cusack and David Mamet; David Frum is on board, too, no doubt serving as the comic relief.

The News Wire section looks to be the most interesting and sticky part of the site — a human-filtered aggregation of new stories from the mainline US news media and wire services, as well as some blogs and foreign press venues. It's a good mix, even if it does weigh a little heavy on the celebrity angle for my taste.

One complaint, however. The blogroll is a mile long, and I'm not on it. What's up with that?

No Surprise

When it comes to public perceptions of the local school system, race matters:

The quest to split Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools into smaller districts has more supporters than opponents in Mecklenburg County, especially among whites, a poll of 661 residents shows.

The telephone survey found that 54 percent of white residents support breaking CMS into two or more districts, while 64 percent of black residents oppose such a move.

[…]

The overwhelming majority of both races agree on top priorities for the district — safe schools, consistent discipline and a strong basic education. Blacks, though, are more likely than whites to say "very important" priorities include improving the quality of principals (81 percent vs. 62 percent), ensuring that low-income students aren't concentrated in a few schools (76 percent vs. 52 percent), ensuring that schools are racially diverse (77 percent vs. 48 percent) and renovating existing schools (69 percent vs. 49 percent).

Blacks are twice as likely as whites to say it's very important to move top teachers to schools with many at-risk students (51 percent vs. 24 percent).

Whites, on the other hand, are more likely than blacks to say assigning children to schools near home (69 percent vs. 41 percent) is very important.

But race isn't the only thing that matters. It's a good article — read the whole thing.

On the Side of Democracy

While the politics of the judicial filibuster issue continue to attract the most attention, it's important to remember that this is an issue with a substantive dimension as well. Lincoln Caplan's words bear repeating:

Because we count on judges' impartiality in making their rulings, Democrats are standing up for democracy in fighting to keep the filibuster. In the war over the courts, they recognize that it's a tool for ensuring that the president's nominees are worthy of life tenure — especially when Republicans insist on their right to pick judges because of ideology. The function of the selection process prescribed in the Constitution is to hold nominees accountable regarding their fitness for the bench. As [US Court of Appeals Judge] Stanley Birch reminded us in the Schiavo case, the payoff of responsible advice and consent is a well-chosen judge who, rather than weaken our system of checks and balances, will exercise his independence to reaffirm the strength of American democracy.

We've seen the kinds of judges that the Republicans would confirm if the Democrats weren't there to stop them, and it's not a pretty sight. At stake is nothing less than the independence of the judiciary — we want to keep it, they don't. It's as simple as that.

Friday Cat Blogging

The balls, they are everywhere. Here comes one now!

No Compromise

Jesse Berney over at Kicking Ass points to E. J. Dionne's column and makes an important point about the merits of negotiating now with Bush on Social Security:

Make no mistake: Bush's ideas will make Social Security weaker. They will include severe cuts in benefits to everyone in the middle class. Bush's proposal isn't the first step in a negotiation. It isn't the plan of someone who wants to fix Social Security's modest problems. It's a radical step toward the long-term Republican goal of dismantling Social Security entirely.

Dionne, however, makes a larger point about the Democrats' ability to negotiate meaningfully with the GOP on any issue, and it's a point I've made here before, too:

In the old days, when each house produced different versions of the same bill, a "conference" committee typically including members of both parties from both houses would thrash out the details and reach a compromise. Now the Republicans will concede whatever is necessary to get a bill out of the Senate, even as the lockstep-Republican House produces a right-wing version of the same proposal. In conferences, Republicans routinely freeze out all but the most pliable Democrats. The supposed "compromise" that emerges is not a compromise at all. Democrats who go along become enablers of a game being played with a stacked deck.

The Republican leadership's abuse of the conference committee reconciliation process means that Democrats routinely get locked out of the key discussions. Any compromise that emerges is one between the House and Senate Republicans only. As long as the GOP runs Congress the way it does today, compromise by Democrats is a fool's errand.

Confederate "Heritage" Week

Two months ago, Charlotte City Manager Pam Syfert ordered the removal of the Confederate battle flag that was flying over a city cemetery. Now, in response, County Commissioner Jim Puckett wants to declare next week "Confederate Heritage Week."

Puckett said Syfert's move spurred him to put the resolution on the agenda. He said the Confederate flag has been appropriated by hate groups, and he hopes his move will encourage discussion about "nonslavery issues that surrounded the reasons for the Civil War."

Rich Woods, commander of a local Sons of Confederate Veterans group, said the resolution would be "a very good thing. It's a part of our history. We went through it and it's important that people study it and learn it and learn it in the context of what actually happened in the time."

According to Puckett and Woods, then, it's all about history, education, and context. How reasonable that all sounds, until you crack the code.

Puckett's mention of "nonslavery issues" is a classic statement of the neo-Confederate contention that slavery was not a fundamental cause of the Civil War. Prof. Brooks Simpson unpacks the motive for that bit of historical revisionism:

There is a strange paradox here. These people deride what they call political correctness, and yet one of their first missions is to whitewash the Confederacy of any connection with slavery. They actually seem sensitive to any possibility that the Confederacy is linked with race, and want to absolve the Confederacy of any charges of racism at all.

You can see that in the fight over the Confederate flag, where the neo-Confederates say, “This is heritage, not hate. It has nothing to do with race at all.” At the same time they’re essentially defending white supremacy, they deny race has anything to do with it.

One can learn more about the true motives of Rich Woods and the local SCV group by visiting their website. Front and center is a banner calling for support of Denne Sweeney, who was elected head of the national SCV in July 2004 but later removed in the wake of a legal challenge. Sweeney is definitely Old South:

Sweeney's leadership is expected to resemble that of his predecessor, R.G. "Ronnie" Wilson. On his campaign Web site, Sweeney vows to continue the purge of Save the SCV members begun by Wilson, who suspended Hilderman and 300 other North Carolina SCV members for publicly calling for an end to racism within the SCV.

[…]

After the July Dalton election, Sweeney moved swiftly, appointing several hard-liners to key leadership positions. H. Rondel Rumberg, a member of two hate groups — the Council of Conservative Citizens (see Communing with the Council) and the League of the South — is the SCV's new national chaplain.

Paul Gramling Jr., a past Louisiana commander who has praised a novel that describes black violence against whites defending the Confederate battle flag… is the new chief of heritage defense. James "Jim" Dark, who is closely allied with Sweeney, is the new adjutant in chief.

Another hard-liner, Bragdon Bowling of Virginia, was named national press officer. In his first week, Bowling issued a series of press releases, including one charging that the NAACP had "lost its course as a true civil rights organization" and demanding that its tax-exempt status be revoked.

Also revealing is the donation of $600 by the local group to Southern Mercury program, an "unreconstructed" publication of the national SCV:

The Southern Mercury is thick with nostalgia for the antebellum South, and features revisionist takes on slavery. In one article, author Frank Conner argues that the SCV should fight to protect the "unique belief-system of the Old South" and goes on to describe desegregation efforts as an attack on that system.

"Beginning in the late 1950s, under the guise of providing the Southern blacks with civil rights, the Northern liberals sent the federal government to invade the South and systematically destroy the Old South and crush and suppress its belief system," Conner writes.

They can say try to disguise it however they want, but Puckett and Woods are seeking nothing less than official public recognition and approval of an obviously racist agenda. Let's hope the County Board sees through their charade and votes against the kind of "heritage" they really represent.

God vs. Microsoft

In this situation, it's hard to tell what's worse: that Microsoft sided with the bigots when faced with the threat of a boycott, or that the bigots made the threat in the first place, deploying hate in the name of Jesus and Dr. King.