danner vs. kinsley on downing street and iraq

Tom Dispatch prints an interesting exchange between Mark Danner and Michael Kinsley on the Downing Street Memo. I like them both quite a bit for different reasons or, rather, purposes. But Kinsley is wrong here.

more wackery

The pressing issue of "globotaxes" is the reason for lack of transparency and skirting of democratic procedure!

back-scratch fever

Crooks and Liars finds this:

Back Scratch Fever

Digby has this on Roberts: "In case anyone is wondering if Roberts really is a partisan hack or not, Jeffrey Toobin's book "Too Close To Call" sheds some light on that subject:

The president's first two nominations to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia curcuit --- generally regarded as the stepping-stone to the Supreme Court --- went to Miguel Estrada and John G Roberts Jr., who had played important behind-the scenes roles in the Florida litigation."

By the way, it's a great book.

gop talking points on john roberts

Swing State Project gets the GOP talking points for John Roberts. Here's a sample below on environmental issues, although, of course, Roe v. Wade is the issue on which most other coverage will focus. Look for these responses on the talking heads shows.

Attack: Roberts is anti-environment.

Opponents will again state that Roberts' successful argument on behalf of the government in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130 (1992), indicates a callous disregard for the environment. They will cite as support his recent decision, writing for a unanimous panel, which included Judges Henderson and, significantly, Tatel, in Sierra Club v. EPA, 353 F.3d 976 (D.C. Cir. 2004), holding that the EPA's actions in using particulate matter as a substitute for hazardous air pollutants in regulating emissions from copper smelters were reasonable, despite being arguably different than regulations applied to a different industry.

Response: Characterization of a ruling regarding the jurisdiction of Courts as anti-environment or pro-environment is irresponsible and misrepresents the issues before the Court. The government's position in Lujan demonstrated a healthy respect for the proper division of power between the Courts and Congress, and in adopting that position, the Court helped curtail judicial overreaching in cases better left to the political process. The standing doctrine advocated by the Government in Lujan has kept the Court out of numerous disputes where a party that has suffered no injury seeks to use the Courts to make a political point. Roberts' consistent refrain regarding Lujan has been that, far from being the wholesale revision to the law its opponents claim, it upheld precedential standing doctrines by requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate an injury-in-fact that was not apparent in the record before the Court.

Judge Roberts' decision for the Court in Sierra Club v. EPA is notable for a couple of reasons. First, it was joined by Judge David Tatel, a Clinton appointee and one of the more liberal jurists on the D.C. Circuit. Second, it merely deferred to the Executive Branches interpretation of federal law, indicating a proper respect for the limited role of the Courts in our government.

In any event, in private practice Roberts successfully represented environmentalists fighting development around Lake Tahoe in Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, in which the Court adopted Roberts' position against those of the developers and property owners, over the dissent of Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas. As in Lujan, Tahoe-Sierra demonstrates nothing more than Robert's excellent advocacy on behalf of his clients, and cannot be read to suggest he is either pro-environmentalist or anti-property rights.

iran - iraq axis

Juan Cole discusses the new relationship between Shiite Iraq and Iran in this interesting essay: The Iraq War is Over, and the Winner Is... Iran. This is in Salon (subscription or day pass).

Here's another place to read this article without going through Salon's ads: Truthout.

liberation

This is becoming increasingly serious.

niger food crisis

Amartya Sen showed that famine and food crises are not caused by a lack of food but by distributional problems. The present Niger food crisis is similar. And, as Jan Egeland at the UN notes,

...the $30m requested for both short - and long-term aid "was nothing".

"Europeans eat ice cream for $10bn a year and Americans spend $35bn on their pets each year."

UPDATE (22 July, 1:13pm):

Aid Agencies in Scramble to Help Famine-Hit Niger

the looting of iraq

Chalmers Johnson. Read the article. A tidbit:

...President Bush's supporters have talked endlessly about his global war on terrorism as a "clash of civilizations." But the civilization we are in the process of destroying in Iraq is part of our own heritage. It is also part of the world's patrimony. Before our invasion of Afghanistan, we condemned the Taliban for their dynamiting of the monumental third century A.D. Buddhist statues at Bamiyan in March, 2001. Those were two gigantic statues of remarkable historical value and the barbarism involved in their destruction blazed in headlines and horrified commentaries in our country. Today, our own government is guilty of far greater crimes when it comes to the destruction of a whole universe of antiquity, and few here, when they consider Iraqi attitudes toward the American occupation, even take that into consideration. But what we do not care to remember, others may recall all too well.

india to get us nuclear support

India is to receive US nuclear power support despite India's insistence on not allowing monitoring of its nuclear development. Now, what to say to Iran? North Korea? Or, for that matter, Pakistan and China?

Here's the rub. If you're going to play geopolitics, you have to be able to convince others that your game plan is worth following. Otherwise, no one plays the game and you end up playing with yourself. That's the nature of legitimacy, even for hegemons. The US, despite its self-image, does not have the capacity to play beyond the rules. This is one of the lessons of Iraq for the rest of the world -- the US is no longer a hegemon whose hegemony is based in international norms of legitimacy. So, if you're willing then to break agreements in order to gain some other advantage, it's good if you can break your agreements in such a way that others do not view the new arrangement as a threat. Failing this, the implied threat ought to gain some advantage for a nation playing the neo-realist game of self-advantage above all.

What else can be read into this maneuver? Yes, Bush has given up on nuclear non-proliferation as an international regime and substituted it with a relativistic policy of nuclear non-proliferation only among states the administration dislikes. The real level of threat of these states is notoriously unclear, but the rhetorical level of threat is heartily manipulated by the administration. But the principle of non-proliferation has been tossed on the trash-heap. Nothing against India. It is a powerful state that deserves a seat in the sphere of international affairs. But the basis of this move is a disaster, coming especially upon American denial of India's claim to a seat at the UN Security Council.

First, it tells Pakistan to screw itself. This will be the end of any hope for capturing Bin Laden.

Second, it tells China to screw itself. At a time when there's more saber (or warhead)-rattling over Taiwan, this is really poor timing.

Third, the US now more than ever perhaps needs to rebuild international faith in its ability to build a more peaceful world. This administration has done absolutely nothing in this regard. In fact, it does the opposite by further undermining the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

But, fourth, even if looking at the "national interests" of the US, one wonders what is gained here. There are some obvious answers beyond the platitudes of "largest democracy" and so on. These answers might include simply developing ties with a burgeoning economy, a large and intelligent society, a geopolitically important state, etc. But, and this is speculation, could we also see this as a sign of a failed Middle East policy? That is, given the massive, failing attempt to gain a foothold in the Middle East and Central Asia, does India become the less aggressive geopolitical answer? And then, further, to what goal?

Mr Bush said he would "seek agreement from Congress to adjust US laws and policies" and work with "friends and allies to adjust international regimes" for cooperation and trade with India.

Many experts said such a move, which rewards the atomic arsenal India manufactured in secret, would undermine US efforts to prevent Iran and North Korea from doing the same.

It would also incense Pakistan, India's nuclear-capable neighbour.

There was also some scepticism that the Nuclear Suppliers Group, consisting of 40 countries that control exports of sensitive nuclear material and technology, would acquiesce to US requests for an exception to be made for Indian projects.

"Members like Brazil and South Africa, who gave up nuclear weapon technology under the international rules, will be angry that India has been rewarded after breaking the rules for so long," said Praful Bidwai, a New Delhi-based analyst who has written extensively on India's nuclear programme.

But it appears larger geopolitical considerations have prevailed in the White House....

...But the Indian security establishment is less enthusiastic about the deal. The Indian nuclear programme was designed to be self-sufficient. The problem is that it has run into an acute shortage of uranium, the fuel essential for nuclear reaction.

It is this, and the need for expertise in a hi-tech fast-breeder programme, that has led it to seek some accommodation with Washington.

"I am bothered by the fact we went and signed this at all. Really, if Delhi had stockpiled enough uranium when there were no bans on India making such purchases we would not be in Washington," said Bharat Karnad of the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi.

"We have a weapons programme that really cannot be split into two and part overseen by the Americans. It is not in our national interest."

See also this Washington Post editorial.

UPDATE (20 July, 10:24):

See also this in the IHT.

And this discussion from Stephen Cohen at the Brookings Institution.

truth deficit

This is a bit of a "no shit" article for those who follow globalization issues and aren't entirely beholden to US-specific notions of truth and feasibility. But worth a read. It comes from the NY Times, the ostensive paper of note.

...American political debate is enveloped by the ideology of free trade, but "free trade" does not actually describe the global economic system. A more accurate description would be "managed trade" - a dense web of bargaining and deal-making among governments and multinational corporations, all with self-interested objectives that the marketplace doesn't determine or deliver. Every sovereign nation, the United States included, uses its vast arsenal of policies to pursue its national interest.

But on the crucial question of how policy makers define "national interest," Washington stands alone. Western Europe, whatever its problems, manages economic policy to maintain modest trade surpluses. Japan manages to insure far larger surpluses in recessions (its export income subsidizes inefficient domestic employers). China strives to acquire a larger, more advanced industrial base at the expense of worker incomes and bank profits. Germany and Japan, despite vast differences, both manage to keep advanced manufacturing sectors anchored at home and to defend domestic wage levels and social guarantees. When they do disperse production and jobs overseas, as they must, they do so strategically.

By contrast, Washington defines "national interest" primarily in terms of advancing the global reach of our multinational enterprises. Elites are persuaded by the reigning orthodoxy that subsidiary domestic interests will ultimately benefit too. The distinctive power of America's globalized companies is reflected in trade patterns. Nearly half of American exports and imports are not traded in open markets - the price auction idealized by neoclassical economics - but within the companies themselves, moving materials and components back and forth among their far-flung factories. A trade deficit does not show on the company's balance sheet, only on the nation's. In recent years, much of the trade deficit has reflected the value-added production and jobs that companies moved elsewhere....

with us or against us

keep an eye on chavez

Chavez is an interesting character. This article is titled "Chavez Stokes Confrontation Over US Role in Venezuela." But Chavez has good reason to be suspicious of the American administration, as we all do. It remains to be seen whether he's another demagogue or not, but many signs show him to be an interesting innovator for new forms of development in Latin America -- various combinations of socialism with capitalism. Keep watching. There may be a lot we can learn here.

more keyboard kommandos

the durian responds

Laser this, assholes.











Photo: Jim Richter

fruit alert

In fruit news, tattooed fruit is replacing stickered fruit. The new technology will solve several problems encountered by people in Texas.

Sticker-removal duty took Jean Lemeaux of Clarksville, Tex., half an hour one day last week.

"I was picking all the little stickers from the Piggly Wiggly off my plums and my avocado pears and my peaches," said Ms. Lemeaux, 76. "Then I had to make fruit salad out of the ones that got hurt when I took the stickers off, and then I had to wash the glue off the other ones before I put them in the fruit bowl."

"One time," she said, "I got up the next morning and looked in the mirror and there were two of them up in my hair."

We should be grateful for no longer living the sticker-up-in-my-hair terror Ms. Lemeaux's case tragically exemplifies. But are the tattoos, or "stickerless technology," the answer? Will they make us more secure from stickers? And might they help us remember the rest of our grocery list?

The stickerless technology has a broader purpose, too: it is part of the produce industry's latest effort to identify and track, whether for profit or for security, everything Americans eat. Since 9/11, the industry has been encouraged to develop "track and trace" technology to allow protection of the food supply at various stages of distribution. In addition, next year federal regulations will require all imported produce to be labeled with the country of origin....

No one knows exactly when every piece of fruit will be traceable, but the trend is clear: Wal-Mart is already requiring all pallets delivered to its headquarters in Bentonville, Ark., to be fitted with radio frequency identification tags, so that they can be tracked by a satellite....

"With the right scanning technology the produce could even be bar-coded with lots of information: where it comes from, who grew it, who picked it, even how many calories it has per serving," said Fred Durand III, president of Durand-Wayland. "You could have a green pepper that was completely covered with coding. Or you could sell advertising space."

One might cringe at the idea of a swoosh, McD logo, or Mr. Clean on the side of one's fruit. But growth in the fruit tattoo industry could provide jobs for graphic artists and boost the economy. The NY Times even suggests fine artists might -- however reluctantly -- join in the celebratory act:

Students of still-life painting might agree. "For literally hundreds of years, artists have immersed themselves in the color and curvature of the perfect peach or apple," said Joseph Rishel, a curator at the Philadelphia Museum of Art who specializes in Cézanne. "So a tattoo sounds like a desecration."

"But then again," Mr. Rishel said, "there are those who say that Cézanne himself used artificial fruit."

Mr. Durand then adds another nugget of clarity and distinctness to the issue:

Mother Nature isn't interested in making it easy for us to label her, I guess," Mr. Durand said. "If she was, all fruit would be red Delicious apples."

Helmut wonders whether the laser etchings might enable us to better understand whether he should place his fruit in a fruitbowl or a fishbowl.

christian terrorist rudolph sentenced [but not tortured]

Juan Cole calls a spade a spade.

Finally, a victory in the war on terror.

Oh, and check out Wikipedia on Rudolph's religious background, one shared by others on the right.

Christian Identity

Especially this passage:

A relatively new tenet gaining popularity among some Christian Identity believers justifies the use of violence if it is perpetrated in order to punish violators of God's law, as found in the Bible and interpreted by Christian Identity ministers and adherents. This includes killing interracial couples, abortionists, prostitutes and homosexuals, burning pornography stores, and robbing banks and perpetrating frauds to undermine the "usury system."; Christian Identity adherents engaging in such behavior are referred to as Phineas Priests or members of the Phineas Priesthood. This is an appealing concept to some Christian Identity's members who believe they are being persecuted by the Jewish-controlled U.S. government and society and/or are eagerly preparing for Armageddon.

nanny nanny boo boo

News You Can Ewes: By the way, does everyone here know that Jude Law banged his nanny? And had to apologize for the bangin' to his fiancee? And that her publicist had no comment? And that Jude Law felt very very sorry for the trouble he has caused his family for having banged the nanny?

Or if that doesn't float your nanny boat, how about the nanny du jour?

From Atrios, nanny expert (but, oh, there are endless others):

Slimed by the Times

I'll have more later on why yesterday's wanker was deserving of such a high honor 'cause I think a lot of people don't quite get it.

Until then, here's more commentary on the subject:

Helaine Olen

Helaine Olen

Helaine Olen

Helaine Olen

Helaine Olen

Helaine Olen

Helaine Olen

uranium from uranus

Josh Marshall sums up the Iraq-uranium link that so many Rove-Bush-Cheney-Scooter-Puppy-Eating Etc. Iraq War apologists are now returning to in the hope that our wee American memory-spans are already shot to hell by sharks, hurricanes, and runaway brides:

But why mess with preliminaries? The Iraq Survey Group more or less owned Iraq for more than a year, had access to all the evidence leading up the war, all the evidence in Iraq, all the scientists arrested by the US military, everything we've learned since the war. And, as Ivo Daalder pointed out a few days back, the ISG concluded that Saddam's regime had not sought uranium either at home or abroad since 1991, period.

What else is there to say?

Rove + Scooter = Jailhouse Love

Top Aides Reportedly Set Sights on Wilson, LA Times.

Nuke 'em

Next time some talking head suggests that anti-war comments bolster the insurgent or terrorist or whatever cause, recite Tancredo's utterly inane remarks below. Next time someone blows off Muslim concerns about proliferating holy war, read them this. And next time you have the tiny little passing thought that maybe the right has a point in all this mess, remember this:

Congressman Suggests Way to Retaliate for Nuclear Terror

"Well, what if you said something like -- if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites," Tancredo answered.

"You're talking about bombing Mecca," Campbell said.

"Yeah," Tancredo responded.

The congressman later said he was "just throwing out some ideas" and that an "ultimate threat" might have to be met with an "ultimate response."

UPDATE (19 July 10:57pm):

Tancredo: No Apology