Torture enabler coming to Fairbanks: We See Yoo!

As you can tell by the title of my post, I am in no way neutral when it comes to the crime committed by John Yoo, who enabled the torture of prisoners by the United States through his vile legal opinion for the Bush Administration. He has sullied the term "lawyer," and it is astonishing to me that he is still licensed to practice law. There is a warrant for his arrest for war crimes in Spain. (See also Fire John Woo! for more information.)

Yoo is coming as a guest speaker for the Alaska Bar Association convention, to be held at the Princess Hotel May 4, 5, & 6. Yoo is a featured speaker on Friday:

The Balance Between Security and Civil Liberties in Wartime

This program will be moderated by Jeff Feldman, and will put the views advanced by Professor Yoo and Mr. Wax on trial through an interactive program of cross-examination and Socratic dialog. Please join us in what we expect to be an electric discussion of the most pressing constitutional issues of our time.

Steve Wax is a federal public defender and the author of the book, Kafka Comes to America: Fighting for Justice in the War on Terror. This segment of the conference is scheduled from 8:30 am to noon on Friday in the Edgewater Room, according to the conference program.

After the conference, the ACLU and the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship will hold a potluck and discussion with Wax at 6:30 pm.

Perhaps a little review of the history would be helpful. First, here's a definition of torture under US legal code.

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

Note that those who conspire to commit torture are subject to the same punishment as those who actually do the torture:

(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—

(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.

(c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

John Yoo wrote the infamous "Torture Memo" that provided the Bush Administration with the justification it needed to commit torture (see the PDF: part 1 and part 2). The memo was eventually rescinded, but the man who authored it continues to defend it, and several others he wrote. By inviting John Yoo to speak at the convention, the Alaska Bar Association has, in effect, legitimized his position. It gives the appearance that he's seen not as a criminal of the very worst kind running around loose on a convoluted technicality; instead, he is a respected scholar with a defensible viewpoint. That is detestable, and shameful.

And the United States government, our CURRENT administration, continues to try to get the whole icky business swept under the rug.

I think the good people of Fairbanks need to get their feet on the street and protest the abomination that this man enabled, and protest the fact that he is out, free, and on the lecture circuit.

Gerry Mander in Alaska

It has been an insanely busy month, and more excitement is coming down the pike.

The big news is from ol' Gerry Mander hisself, from a recent triumphant presentation in Alaska of How to Screw the Voters. Here's what will happen to the districts in which Goldstream and Ester lie, according to the News-Miner:

One notable shift at home: Ester, Fox and much of the Goldstream Valley would join a giant rural House district that includes scores of communities from across the state. It would straddle the Fairbanks area and stretch completely across Alaska — from the southwestern village of Holy Cross north to Arctic Village and southeast again to Chitina.:

Does this make sense at ALL? There was some of this before, too, almost as ridiculous: Coghill's district stretches from North Pole to Valdez.



Here's what Wikipedia says about gerrymandering:

In the process of setting electoral districts, rather than using uniform geographic standards, Gerrymandering is a practice of political corruption that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating geographic boundaries to create partisan, incumbent-protected, and neutral districts. The resulting district is known as a gerrymander.…

The two aims of gerrymandering are to maximize the effect of supporters' votes and to minimize the effect of opponents' votes. One strategy, packing, is to concentrate as many voters of one type into a single electoral district to reduce their influence in other districts. In some cases this may be done to obtain representation for a community of common interest, rather than to dilute that interest over several districts to a point of ineffectiveness. A second strategy, cracking, involves spreading out voters of a particular type among many districts in order to deny them a sufficiently large voting bloc in any particular district. The strategies are typically combined, creating a few "forfeit" seats for packed voters of one type in order to secure even greater representation for voters of another type.

Gerrymandering is effective because of the wasted vote effect. By packing opposition voters into districts they will already win (increasing excess votes for winners) and by cracking the remainder among districts where they are moved into the minority (increasing votes for eventual losers), the number of wasted votes among the opposition can be maximized. Similarly, with supporters holding narrow margins in the unpacked districts, the number of wasted votes among supporters is minimized.

While the wasted vote effect is strongest when a party wins by narrow margins across multiple districts, gerrymandering narrow margins can be risky when voters are less predictable. To minimize the risk of demographic or political shifts swinging a district to the opposition, politicians can instead create more packed districts, leading to more comfortable margins in unpacked ones.

There is a public hearing in Fairbanks April 19, Tuesday, 2 to 6 pm at the Fairbanks City Hall, City Council Chamber on the 2nd floor: If you would like to comment on the utter monstrosity of a jerrymandered redistricting, please come to this hearing! If you are in another city, other hearings are taking place also and you can find out more from the Alaska Redistricting Board's website. PLEASE NOTE that I have also heard that these hearings will end at 4 pm, not 6, so I don't know if they've been curtailed, expanded, or if this is just a rumor. Getting there early if you can will be important. I will be taking time off work to get there.

Interesting how they timed it for most people's working hours, hmm?

At any rate, you might consider whether it is equitable or reasonable for Ester's Senate district to include--and no, I am NOT kidding--Sitka, or for us to be in the same district as, say, Arctic Village. This won't help the Bush and it sure won't help Ester or Fairbanks or Goldstream (or Sitka or Holy Cross) to be properly represented. This is sheer stupidity. There are two official options, both of which are clearly attempts to split voting blocks, with no regard for whether the residents of these areas have any commonalities of need or location. This won't serve anybody well. There are a few privately-suggested plans, also shown on the Board's website. There are several organizations proposing options.

The Onion's got it right

Again.

Congress Deadlocked Over How To Not Provide Health Care

"Both parties understand that the current system is broken," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Monday. "But what we can't seem to agree upon is how to best keep it broken, while still ensuring that no elected official takes any political risk whatsoever. It's a very complicated issue."

"Ultimately, though, it's our responsibility as lawmakers to put these differences aside and focus on refusing Americans the health care they deserve," Pelosi added.

The legislative stalemate largely stems from competing ideologies deeply rooted along party lines. Democrats want to create a government-run system for not providing health care, while Republicans say coverage is best denied by allowing private insurers to make it unaffordable for as many citizens as possible.

"We have over 40 million people without insurance in this country today, and that is unacceptable," Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said. "If we would just quit squabbling so much, we could get that number up to 50 or even 100 million. Why, there's no reason we can't work together to deny health care to everyone but the richest 1 percent of the population."

"That's what America is all about," he added.

Thank the gods for the Onion.

Senator Baucus: bought and paid for?

Well, this is one possible answer to my question on why, if Senator Baucus thinks we have such a terrible health care crisis in this country, he isn't (as chair of the hearings) allowing single-payer advocates a seat at the table:

One of the Baucus 13, Kevin Zeese, recently summarized Baucus’ career campaign contributions:

“From the insurance industry: $1,170,313;
health professionals: $1,016,276;
pharmaceuticals/health-products industry: $734,605;
hospitals/nursing homes: $541,891;
health services/HMOs: $439,700.”

In other words: his campaigns have been financed by the for-profit health industry.

Interesting, wouldn't you say?

Let's just take a look at WHY single-payer reduces expenses so dramatically. Here's the United States' system as it currently stands:



Rather messy, no? Convoluted, even.

And here's Canada's single-payer system:



Much simpler. It's the complexity of the US system that breeds an expensive wastefulness, and the profit motive that creates an incentive to whittle away people's coverage and endurance through (again wasteful) quantities of paperwork, etc.

These graphic representations of health care systems are from Neil Davis' book, Mired in the Health Care Morass, which I published last year. Reading that book made it very very clear just why Congress' and the White House's approach on this is so wrong-headed, and doomed to failure--from a health care standpoint. It will work beautifully from an investor's profit-making standpoint, so long as you don't care that people will be dying and sickly and going broke as a result.

About freakin' time!

One of the more amazing things about the Bush years was the willingness by the White House, various members of Congress, and a huge number of the (supposedly) Christian crowd to embrace the use of torture (so long as that icky word wasn't used). This country descended into a pit of depravity and destructive amorality so fast the supersonic boom of horror it left stunned those of us who blithely assumed that Americans would of course understand it for the evil that it is. The Bad Guys, the guys in Black Hats, those were the people who did that kind of thing.

Lest anyone forget, our congressional delegation all--every single one of them (count them, the three of them)--supported "harsh interrogation techniques." Ol' Uncle Ted, Sweet Lisa, and Yon Dung.

And still, the Obama White House and the Democratic-led Congress can't seem to recognize how important it is that war crimes and abominations like these policies, even if described with pretty words, are still abominations and the people responsible for them need to be brought to justice. That's called complicity.

But the Spaniards are finally calling the Bush White House on its shit.

An oil industry bias

I've been rather busy the last week due to the upcoming John Trigg Ester Library Lallapalooza and the Perennial Problem of Paper Production (which ALWAYS takes far longer than I anticipate), so I haven't been posting here of late, despite the fascinating news stories abounding. So I'll try to make up for that in the next couple of days.

First up: after all the brouhaha with certain saurian Republican legislators chastising UA President Hamilton for the supposed 'anti-development attitude' of University of Alaska students who dared to come down to Juneau and (gasp!) express doubts about particular mining projects, I received an interesting press release from PEER about Professor Rick Steiner, who is getting his NOAA grant yanked by Sea Grant.

It seems that last year, Dr. Steiner, a marine scientist, protested a pro-oil industry bias that he saw in Sea Grant programs.

Hmmm.

Here's an excerpt from the release:

Professor Rick Steiner, a noted marine scientist and environmentalist with the University of Alaska Marine Advisory Program, incurred the wrath of NOAA officials by protesting a pro-industry slant in Sea Grant programs to promote oil drilling in Alaska’s Bristol Bay. Shortly after Steiner’s March 18, 2008 letter [PDF] and press conference, his dean was approached by National Sea Grant Deputy Director Jim Murray, who according to an e-mail from Dean Denis Wiesenburg recounting the conversation, indicated that NOAA had “an issue with Rick Steiner” because “he was acting as an advocate and asked if he was being paid with Sea Grant funds”, adding that “one agent can cause problems nationally”.

As the basis for urging that Prof. Steiner “not be paid with Sea Grant funds” NOAA’s Murray cited manual guidance that Sea Grant extension agents should strive to be “neutral brokers of information”. Ironically, Prof. Steiner, a tenured professor, had been publicly protesting that the Sea Grant program was violating its own principle of neutrality by stacking a program to favor offshore oil development and improperly minimizing potential resource damage to Bristol Bay fisheries and marine life.

“Under Bush, NOAA programs, including Sea Grant, were ordered to lubricate oil company initiatives,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch whose organization is urging incoming NOAA Administrator-designate Jane Lubchenco to strengthen the Sea Grant role in ocean protection. “The Sea Grant program needs a thorough housecleaning starting with its leadership.”

As a result of the NOAA threat, Dean Wiesenburg recommended in December that Professor Steiner’s Sea Grant funding be terminated because Steiner “has chosen to be a maverick and work independently,” noting that “Mr. Steiner has devoted some of his energy during the review period to publicly attacking the Alaska Sea Grant program,” and that “Steiner regularly takes strong public positions on issues of public debate.” Significantly, the dean did not mention the quality or quantity of Prof. Steiner’s award-winning marine conservation extension efforts.

“The present crisis in our nation’s marine and coastal ecosystems requires a clear and urgent national response,” said Prof. Steiner. “But instead of responding to the ocean crisis, this new de facto gag order from NOAA Sea Grant will have a chilling effect on scientists who want to advocate for greater ocean protection and restoration.”

Nonsustainable industry practice: stupid wanton waste

This extremely pertinent question was posted on Fiery Blazing Handbasket, and picked up by Kodiak Konfidential, but it's just too barbed a point not to repeat once again:

Does anyone else find it odd that the Bering Sea pollock trawlers can catch and discard as bycatch over 100,000 king salmon per year while the small, community-based fishing effort has to shut down? That we haven't even managed to let enough kings by on the Yukon to meet our treaty obligation to the Canadians?

All so Americans can eat cheap fish sticks?

It's real stupidity, and corruption in action, that's what it is. Bycatch waste has got to be the stupidest shortsighted cut-off-your-nose practice in the fishing industry. It costs fisherfolk a lot of effort, time, money, and bad press--but it's the bottom trawlers and big industrial-size factory fishing boats and nets that do the real damage. "Bycatch" is dead dolphins in the tuna harvest (finally got some protections there, after a long, long fight), king salmon in the pollack harvest, dead sea turtles, dead sharks, dead birds, and so on and so on....and it's a HUGE problem. According to Global Chefs magazine, something like 25% of all fisheries catch is wasted.

Bycatch.org has a database of bycatch reduction methods, and NOAA has a whole Fisheries Feature devoted to the issue.

But, as Global Chefs and others point out, consumer action can have quite an effect. And it's the big fleets and megacorps, not the little Yukon River villages, that do the most damage.

Here's an interesting article from March 1999 from the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations on the management issues regarding sustainability, with a good bit of background on the present problems.

One week left

And the Thief in Chief will GO!

Let's hope the Hague prosecutes the mother for war crimes, because it still looks pretty unlikely that a special prosecutor will be appointed by Obama....

at least Guantanamo will be closed.

Back to the political grind

Hans snorted out loud this morning when he heard the news about Senator and not-so-honorable Jerry Ward. Yet another corrupt Republican. Ben has yet to be bagged, and Don's still spending money on defense lawyers in anticipation of, well, something he doesn't want to tell us about. The Democrats down south now have their token crook (we've been hearing about that over and over again, too), and apparently he's a foul-mouthed so-and-so. Not a civil servant, indeed not.

And just in case you thought it was cold up here in the Frozen North, Sarah Palin's hometown church was recently torched.

Ah, politics!

Things for Obama to consider

Obama isn't going to have an easy time of it. He knows that already, of course. Not only does he inherit the headaches left to him by the Bush and Clinton (and Bush and Reagan and Carter) administrations, he also gets to inherit the temptations—which are considerable, thanks to George Junior.

Giving up power is harder than it sounds. Obama's attorney general will have to craft new limits and new methods of accountability. This, in turn, may invite intense scrutiny of what happened in the immediate past. Both Congress and the public may demand to know about secret orders and opinions authorising torture, domestic spying or other forms of illegal activity. Obama and his advisers will have to decide whether political prudence and national security require them to conceal the previous administration's dirty little secrets.

And there are all those issues that nobody talked about during the campaign, one of which is eloquently explored by Michael Pollan in his letter to the President-Elect:

It may surprise you to learn that among the issues that will occupy much of your time in the coming years is one you barely mentioned during the campaign: food. Food policy is not something American presidents have had to give much thought to, at least since the Nixon administration — the last time high food prices presented a serious political peril. Since then, federal policies to promote maximum production of the commodity crops (corn, soybeans, wheat and rice) from which most of our supermarket foods are derived have succeeded impressively in keeping prices low and food more or less off the national political agenda. But with a suddenness that has taken us all by surprise, the era of cheap and abundant food appears to be drawing to a close. What this means is that you, like so many other leaders through history, will find yourself confronting the fact — so easy to overlook these past few years — that the health of a nation’s food system is a critical issue of national security. Food is about to demand your attention.

Yep, the man's got all kinds of fun ahead of him. I don't envy him one bit.

Senator Stevens might be able to serve, even in jail

According to Constitutional scholar Sandy Levinson, the Senate may not actually be able to expell Stevens (not legally, anyway), and Stevens thus might be able to serve as our Senator, even from the Gray Bar Hotel:

Let's begin with this question: Could a state require that a candidate for the Senate not be a convicted felon? One might believe that the answer would be "of course," but I take it that the meaning of the Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995), is that states cannot add to the bare qualifications set out by the Constitution itself, which are limited to "hav[ing] attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Ciizen of the United States, and who shall..., when elected, be an Inhabitant of the State in which he shall be chosen."

His full argument is on Balkinization, and rather interesting. He asks, "If a "sovereign"... state can't add to the list of qualifications, why in the world can Congress?" He also has either a keen satiric wit, or more faith in the electorate than I do:

If the people of Alaska want to be represented by a felon, then why not? To be sure, if he is sentenced to jail, there might be some additional problems, but then the good folks of Alaska might have considered that when casting their vote for Sen. Stevens.

Read the commentary, too: lots of good discussion on the issue.

Skulduggery by Nenana Creative Arts

that, or ineptitude. Alaskans for Clean Elections just sent out a press release regarding some dirty tricks perpetrated by the Don Young campaign via an Anchorage sign vendor, Nenana Creative Arts, owned by Joseph Law. It seems that canvassers hired by the company were given flyers bashing Ethan Berkowitz (Young's Democratic contender) that had a disclaimer on it that said "Paid for by Alaskans for Clean Elections." Well, er, actually, the flyers were paid for by the Young campaign. Nenana Creative Arts, which apparently has been involved in dodgy shenanigans before, was paid $6,403 for signs and sign placement by Young's campaign.

Alaskans for Clean Elections is NOT pleased: they are nonpartisan, and state categorically that "AFCE had no part in, nor does the group participate in partisan campaign activities." They are quite probably going to file an FEC complaint (the flyer was not only fraudulent in claiming who paid for it, it had no contact address on it, as required by federal law).

It really would make no sense for Alaskans for Clean Elections to support any given candidate, as it would hurt their credibility as a nonpartisan campaign finance reform group. But it would certainly give a veneer of credibility to be endorsed by them. Briefly. Until anybody with half a brain figured it out that a partisan hit piece would most certainly not be instigated or paid for by a group working to clean up campaigns.

Progressive Alaska has a bit more information on this. The best bit is that the flyer, which talks about how Berkowitz received some money from VECO, naturally does not say that Don Young received 116 times as much from them as did Mr. B.

Ted Stevens: a man of convictions

All 7 counts, in fact. Stevens keeps exclaiming that he did nothing wrong. But, apparently, he did, and still doesn't recognize that what he did was in fact, wrong, illegal, and, um, corrupt.

Alaskans have voted a dead man in office before, and a barbie doll into the governor's mansion, so it wouldn't surprise me if they voted a felon back into the Senate. But I sure hope not. We don't need any more Corrupt Bastards running around, and I don't care what party they are from. It was internal corruption that brought Soviet Russia down, and it'll bring us down too if we don't clean up.

Interestingly, one Alaskan can no longer vote for him: Stevens himself. I used to think this policy was a good one, of removing the right to vote from felons, but I no longer do. I started to change my mind on this when I began to learn more about prison conditions and the skewed rates of conviction in the US.

Amy Goodman arrested!

So what the hell is it with these cops arresting peaceful protesters? and journalists? and lawyers? This is freaking CRAZY! Here's the press release and video from Democracy Now! And where the hell is NPR on this? Why aren't they covering these arrests on All Things Considered? They've been going on for three days! Bozos. But that might interfere with the policies set up by the Republican stooge at the head of NPR these days...can't have any negative publicity about the Republican National Convention, can we? just lots and lots of coverage of Ms. Beauty Queen Palin.

And guess what, folks: the FBI is involved. The Federales, the Minnesota state police, the locals. This is criminal. They should be going after real criminals and not intimidating people simply exercizing their first amendment rights to freedom of speech, assembly, and press!

The Jamestown Press reports that a small group of protestors (idiots!) attacked the Connecticut delegation on "Monday afternoon", and then the cops got involved, and all hell broke loose. This doesn't, however, explain the horrendous behavior by the cops on the 30th and the 31st.

However, this also puts in me in mind of the plants put in protest crowds in Seattle during the World Trade Organization talks and in other places around the world.

And the prosecution SLAM-dunks the Stevens' defense volley!

Ah, yes, the Great Alaskan Sporting Event: watching the Elected Officials vs. the Prosecuting Attorneys. The ADN's Alaska Politics blog has got some great info on the latest legal motions, courtesy Erika Bolstad and David Hulen. (What a time for Libby Casey to be in Washington!) First, Stevens and his lawyers claim the case against him should be dropped, dismissed, tossed out, because, well, this, that, and the other...but not because the charges might be false (of course, he did plead not guilty).

But the prosecution was ready for 'em: a hard fastball of motions and out comes the promise of MORE EVIDENCE! More unreported gifts: a Jeep Cherokee! a secret interest-free loan! an unpaid-for backup generator at the infamous Girdwood residence! this last at Stevens' request!!!

And then there's that job for one of Stevens' sons! with--wait for it--VECO! and as if that wasn't enough--for a grandson, too!

Good god almighty.

But there's more--Stevens' "Non-Legislative Acts" concerning the natural gas pipeline, the Sakhalin oil fields, and the Pakistani pipeline (also a few other things). From the indictment:

It was a part of the scheme that STEVENS, while at the same time concealing his continuing receipt of things of value from ALLEN and VECO from 1999 to 2006, received and accepted solicitations for multiple official actions from ALLEN and other VECO employees, and knowing that STEVENS could and did use his official position and his office on behalf of VECO during that same time period. These solicitations for official action, some of which were made directly to STEVENS, included the following topics: (a) funding requests and other assistance with certain international VECO projects and partnerships, including those in Pakistan and Russia; (b) requests for multiple federal grants and contracts to benefit VECO, its subsidiaries, and its business partners, including grants from the National Science Foundation to a VECO subsidiary; and (c) assistance on both federal and state issues in connection with the effort to construct a natural gas pipeline from Alaska's North Slope Region.

Basically, Stevens' claim is that his actions were legislative and innocent, and protected by what's known as the Speech or Debate Clause, intended to protect those activities that a member of Congress might undertake that are integral to his or her duties. The prosecution is claiming, on the other hand, that while the legislative activities might be protected, the concealment of the benefits he received for certain actions is definitely not, and

evidence will be offered at trial for the purpose of demonstrating Senator Stevens' intent and his motive to conceal the substantial benefits he received from VECO by, among other things, lying on his mandatory, financial disclosure forms.

Did you notice that? They wrote "among other things", implying that there is even more muck to rake.

And that muck is assuredly oily: undertaking, lessee, official actions on an international scale so that a particular company can get rich?

Ah, but the prosecution's not worrying about that sort of thing. It's the dishonesty they're hopped up about.

Boy, howdy, is this going to be an interesting couple of months.

Stevens argues that it's who catches him that matters, not what he did

Essentially, that's what he's argued. From the Associated Press story by Matt Apuzzo (here reprinted in the Guardian UK):

Sen. Ted Stevens accused the Justice Department of trampling on the independence of Congress, arguing Thursday that the corruption case against him should be thrown out.

That legal argument will test the limits of a court ruling that prosecutors fear could limit their ability to investigate corruption on Capitol Hill. Stevens said FBI agents went too far when they questioned his Senate aides....Stevens said the FBI's long-running corruption probe intruded on his Senate affairs. He cited the Constitution's speech-or-debate clause, which prohibits the executive branch from using its law enforcement authority to interfere with legislative business.

And, apparently, he's confused his personal house expansion with "Senate affairs."

The branches of government need to be carefully balanced, I agree. But the Justice Department MUST be able to investigate wrongdoing. And I bet they've nailed him, but good, and the man knows his only way out of prison is to slither on out via technicality. I'm not so sure this particular technicality holds any weight, though.

Richard Fineberg's written an article for me this month on Uncle Ted and his stinky, stinky surroundings, from the SeaLife Center and a peculiar little land deal, to his good friend Bill Allen.

If you can't redact 'em, eliminate 'em

Ah, yes, ol' George just keeps coming up with those doozies. Remember the scandal when it was revealed that Bush administration officials were redacting the scientific reports on the environment, etc., to conform to what the administration wanted? Politicization of science and perversion of editing á la Stalin--check out the 138-page report (PDF).

Well, now, Bush has proposed simply eliminating the scientific review process for the Endangered Species Act altogether. Much simpler. As reported by the Washington Post:

The Bush administration yesterday proposed a regulatory overhaul of the Endangered Species Act to allow federal agencies to decide whether protected species would be imperiled by agency projects, eliminating the independent scientific reviews that have been required for more than three decades.

But Sarah Palin ought to like this travesty:

The new rules would also limit the impact of the administration's decision in May to list the polar bear as threatened with extinction because of shrinking sea ice.

Isn't this just loverly?

That's Trouble with a capital T, my friends

That's Grumpy with a capital G and that's G and that rhymes with T and that spells TROUBLE, my friends, and why? I'll tell you why. Because that Gray Gray sky keeps throwing water at us! It's soggy and wet and miserable out there, and the berries are getting knocked off the bushes or are rotting right on them, and the sun is a barely remembered memory from a long-ago childhood dream. Salcha is washing away (well, it would, it's RIGHT NEXT to the river) and the only reason Fairbanks isn't is because of the Chena Flood Control Project. (We'll just see how much water that puppy can hold, won't we?)

So, to cheer ourselves up, my husband is reading that enthralling and oh-so-upbeat book, The Dark Side, by Jane Mayer. He reads bits to me. It's horrible. Not the book--that's excellent--but what she's written about. Here's a few reviews: From Tim Rutten, of the Los Angeles Times:

[I]f you intend to vote in November and read only one book between now and then, this should be it. ...[W]hat Mayer makes abundantly clear is how much more perilous the domestic situation might have become had there not been the modest degree of push back the White House has received from Congress and other rather courageous members of the executive branch. Former Sen. Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), for example, tells Mayer how George W. Bush's then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales sought a last-minute congressional resolution that "would give President Bush the authority to round up American citizens as enemy combatants, potentially stripping them of their civil liberties."

From Alan Brinkley, the New York Times:

There is no happy ending to this sordid and shameful story. Despite growing political pressure, despite Supreme Court decisions challenging the detainment policy, despite increasing revelations of the once-hidden program that have shocked the conscience of the world, there is little evidence that the secret camps and the torture programs have been abandoned or even much diminished. New heads of the Defense and Justice Departments have resisted addressing the torture issue, aware that dozens of their colleagues would face legal jeopardy should they do so. And the presidential candidates of both parties have so far shown little interest in confronting the use of torture or recommitting the country to the Geneva Conventions and to America’s own laws and traditions.

Interesting, isn't it? Our leaders just don't care. Why not? And why is this not screaming from the top of every newspaper, every radio station, every presidential campaign stop? I mean, I know that this isn't all one can talk about, being a newspaper publisher myself, but I do come back to this theme again and again. But not enough.

Here's an interview on Democracy Now! with the author, too.

Another review, from Salon, by Louis Bayard:

But who exactly was being interrogated? Mayer's big find is a classified CIA report from the summer of 2002, in which a senior analyst concludes that one-third of the camp's 600 prisoners have no connection to terrorism whatsoever. That figure was later amended by an FBI counterterrorism expert, who argued that no more than 50 of the detainees were worth holding. These findings directly contradicted administration assertions that Guantánamo harbored only "the worst of the worst." Not surprisingly, the administration refused to review the detainees' cases, with the result that many of them are still there, years after their initial incarceration -- and still without legal recourse because they have never been charged with a crime.

Yet, this could have been us. And our Congresspeople ALL voted to support the administration on these kinds of horrors.

So yeah, we're feeling cheery and sunny and optimistic and Happy!

Not.

Called on account of bad taste

The gathering scheduled for July 30 at Ted Stevens' Fairbanks campaign headquarters has been canceled: the point has been made by the Justice Department.

He's so indicted! He just can't hide it!

We know, we know, we know and he just can't hide it!

Senator Ted Stevens has been indicted for corruption. Here's the indictment (PDF).

It's international news.

This is mixed news for Alaska. On the one hand, it is very good to get this into the courts and dealt with: either he's innocent or he's guilty. One hopes that if they had enough that a grand jury indicted him, that the prosecutors have enough evidence to convict him, especially someone in such a public position and with such financial and political resources. You just DON'T do this without that backup. (Should always have this in any case, but when the indictee is such a powerful figure, your career is toast if you don't have your ducks lined up properly.)

So, assuming that the senator's ass is grass, Alaska has just lost the seniority, skill, and knowledge he possessed. We've lost a good chunk of that even without a conviction: his influence is now near-moot. Stevens has supported many good things for Alaska: science research, basic infrastructure funding, et cetera. He's also, to my mind, supported some horrific legislation and unconstitutional and immoral practices. So I am very glad, in this respect, for his downfall. He would have retired in one way or another anyway, and we would have lost his influence then.

It's Ray Metcalfe who kept at it and kept at it and finally exposed the maggots under the seats in our legislature and in our Congressional delegation. Vindication must be bittersweet.