Blog For Arizona

Secret E-Mail Skirting Presidential Records Act?

My ABA email newsletter caught my eye today. They generally don't deal with (and certainly don't lead) with political issues. But today the talk was about AG Gonzales' extraordinary claim not to use email. In fact, neither does Bush, Cheney, nor Condi, and even Rove and other top officials are said to limit their use of email, or only email through subordinates.

The obvious benefit to avoiding the modern world is the ability to avoid new e-discovery rules which are very adept at ferreting out electronic records, especially email, in case of litigation. There have been a great number of embarrassing and costly slips of the electronic lip in court cases in recent years. The Administration, being painfully aware of this trend, and desirous of avoiding the Presidential Records Act (PRA), which makes their every phone call, note, memo, and email the property of the American people, allege tthey simply choose not to use email. So, when the Congress, or some nosey-parker with a FOIA request, comes calling, there is simply nothing harmful to disclose.

Right....

They are claiming to simply not use one of the most efficient methods of non-synchronous communication available while running the most complex and powerful nation on earth. If they aren't just hopeless Luddite, then they are scandalously stupid. Well, maybe not so much... what if there is method to their madness?

Certainly, the official servers subject to the PRA back up their claims. There simply aren't any emails, or very few, from the Administration's top people. But, you know, needs for secret and confidential communication have a way of getting met on the internet, especially when you are powerful and have lots of resources. Meet GWB43.com. (the story is evolving fast, so a Google News search of the term is useful)

The RNC apparently runs a secret server that has been used extensively by White House officials in political work. Not only could this violate campaign finance rules (remember the furor over a few fund-raising phone calls from Gore VP office? campaign-related email from the White House via outside servers would also be verbotten), but could also run afoul of the PRA which requires preservation and archiving of all such communications.

It makes you wonder how much more of the White House's official communications have been diverted into party-run resources where they are unaccounted for, and not easily found for the purposes of PRA. In fact, if this practice has occurred, it is a criminal enterprise. How much longer do you think it will be before megabytes of emails from W and the gang spill forth, documenting the dirty little details of how they directed their minions in how to ruin the world? My guess? Any day now.

Arizona Congressional Delegation's Website Disclosures

Citizen journalists from the Sunlight Foundation evaluated congressional Web sites to determine whether they provided three kinds of information:

• Access to basic information on what our elected officials do in Congress (the bills they sponsor, the committees they serve on)


• information from or access to any of the legally-required disclosures they have to file (on personal finances or junkets they take)


• Any additional information that furthers transparency (their daily schedule, lists of earmarks they've asked for or gotten).

The Sunlight Foundation considered 40% a passing score; the average transparency score was 29%.

As you can see, only Raul Grijalva and, surprisingly, Trent Franks actually received a passing score. A little leeway should be given to our freshmen, Giffords and Mitchell, but we should expect, and demand some real improvement by all of our delegation.

Drinking Liberally 3/29

Drinking Liberally will be happening again this Thursday, as it does every Thursday, starting at 6pm (you can drop in later, we're generally there for at least 2-3 hours) at the Shanty on 4th Ave. (401 E. 9th Street).

This week, we are joined by Mohur Sidhwa, the 1st Vice Chair of the Pima Democratic Party and Chairperson of Legislative District 28. Mohur is going to share with us the latest party news, and join us in conversation about the future direction for our local party. Please come and share you views and concerns with her.

We are rolling out a new, and partly unfinished, website for the local Tucson chapter of Drinking Liberally today. Please stop in and give us your feedback. There are still some unfinished bits, but the main thing missing is a survey we are working on to get some systematic feedback on how to improve your Drinking Liberally experience. We will be sending out an email over our email list when it is ready, and posting it on the site.

Details On the Administration's 'Basis' For USA Charton's Firing

U.S. Attorney Charlton in Phoenix was fired for "repeated instances of insubordination, actions taken contrary to instructions, and actions taken that were clearly unauthorized." Documents released by the Administration also include a chain of e-mails from August 2006 in which Charlton tried to reach Gonzales to persuade him the death penalty was inappropriate for the case without the body.

On Aug. 16, Michael Elston in the deputy attorney general's office told Charlton: "The AG has denied your invitation to speak further about the case. Please file the notice." Later that day Charlton's office advised the federal court in Phoenix that it would seek death for Jose Rios Rico in the 2003 drug slaying of Angela Pinkerton.

In the Rios Rico case, the dispute centered on the Justice Department's refusal to look for Pinkerton's body, according to people familiar with the matter. Informants, who apparently were granted plea deals in the case, had tipped federal prosecutors that her body was buried in a Waste Management Inc. landfill in Mobile, Ariz. It would cost $500,000 to $1 million to find it, however.

Federal prosecutors "told us they knew where she was buried," said Annette Grzybowski, Pinkerton's sister. But she said Washington officials would not approve the expenditure. "I was extremely upset," Grzybowski said.

"It all took too long. It's been four years and we still haven't had a trial." Grzybowski's account was confirmed by an attorney knowledgeable about the details of the case.  "As a matter of policy, we don't comment on pending litigation," said Erik Ablin, a Justice spokesman.

Rios Rico's defense lawyer, Thomas Gorman, said: "If this woman's death merits a death prosecution, then her body should be found and returned to her family. The idea that they could leave it in a garbage dump is pretty disturbing."

It was only the second time Charlton had tangled with superiors in Justice over whether to seek the death penalty. Charlton also did not want to execute a Navajo, deferring to a long-standing informal policy based on the tribe's opposition to the death penalty. But Justice officials ordered him to seek a death sentence in the slayings of two women in a carjacking.

These are the official reasons why Charlton was forced to resign. Do you think that these are really the true reasons, or could it be that Charlton was investigating improper financial transactions involving the use of his elected office by Republican Congressman Dick Renzi?

What One Person Can Do

“I’m only one person, what can I do?”   How many times have you heard that, or said that yourself?

It's an attitude foreign to the American character, and to a great extent it is the reason we are where we are today.  I remind you of the words of Margaret Mead, "A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

The revolutionary changes in the world have generally come from one person, or a small group of people. Most people when they look at people who changed the world look to great leaders who engaged the passions and expressed the will of millions; think Washington, Churchill, Lincoln, and Roosevelt. But that is not the norm. New ideas and new ways of seeing and understanding the world are given to us by individual thinkers and scientists; think Einstein, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Watson and Crick. New ideas about how to create a just and moral social order are also created and championed by lone reformers; think Frederick Douglass, MLK, Gandhi, Samuel Gompers, and Betty Friedan. Whether in matters of spirituality (Jesus, Mohammed, Dalai Lama, and Martin Luther), literary and journalistic endeavor (Harriet Beecher Stowe, George Orwell, Horace Greeley, and Upton Sinclair), or any other field of human endeavor, great changes come from individual human beings.

The life of a nation does not consist only of a privileged or powerful few, but of millions of unique and influential lives. I'm currently reading "1001 People Who made America" by Alan Axelrod. He gives us a glimpse of the tremendous diversity of contributions that go into creating a great nation.

In each and every one of us there is the power to make a change, large or small. Here’s just a few of the things that don’t take much time or effort that one person can do to make a difference.  Sometimes one person can wholly remake the world, but that's rare. But think what could happen if everyone committed to change their little corner of it, just a bit, for the better.   

Here’s a (not-all-that-)short list of things you can do without having to be a revolutionary or a genius, only an American who cares where we go from here.

• Write a letter to your Representative
• Write a letter to the newspaper
• Send an email to a radio, cable or TV station’s website
• Sign a petition
• Tell your friends about a petition
• Attend a meeting
• Attend a march, a protest, a vigil
• Speak up when the opportunity presents itself
• Organize or attend a gathering of friends to discuss an issue
• Send out a press release
• Start a discussion group
• Serve as a conduit for information
• Attend a political meeting
• Speak up
• Put up posters that focus on an issue
• Write an editorial
• Hold a Party
• Show a film or DVD at your house
• Protest
• Send an email about an upcoming program to your friends
• Spread the word
• Organize a group
• Raise some money for a deserving candidate
• Organize a New England Town Meeting
• Ask a candidate to come speak to your group
• Work for a political candidate
• Send a check to your favorite cause
• Stay current with what’s going on
• Join your local political party
• Have a dessert party, a tea or some other function
• Bring together like-minded people
• Join an Internet group
• Sponsor your own mailing list
• Start a network or serve to connect two different organizations
• Write a newsletter
• Build a database of like minded people
• Get people engaged
• Start a group to protect civil rights, learn about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.
• Bring in a progressive movie to your local theatre
• Call up and complain about Right Wing dominated radio
• Don’t let the Right Wing have the last word

Congressional Oversight Authority and Severe Blows to the Head

Many GOP members and pundits need to be examined by a neurologist. They apparently have suffered severe short-term memory loss of a degree that would indicate severe head trauma.

They are claiming that the subpoenas and testimony under oath demanded of the White House Counsel, Chief of Staff and other key staff members is an unprecedented grab for power that overreaches the separation of powers. However, just a few short years ago, these exact requests were made and routinely responded to by the Clinton Administration, as documented ably by Rep. Henry Waxman's staff. Download 20070321152518-52323-1.pdf

In order to destroy a people's freedom, you first have to destroy their memory. The GOP may have successfully wiped their own memories, but ours are just fine, thanks.

MoveOn moves in with Pelosi | Salon News

I was annoyed by MoveOn's decision to deal with Iraq war legislation in a pragmatic and incremental fashion. I see a fundamental disconnect between their grassroots organizing and rhetoric on the one hand, and the pragmatic lobbying that led them to endorse Pelosi's rather weak bill on the other. A similar annoyance among many of MoveOn's members is the subject of Farhad Manjoo's latest article in Salon, MoveOn moves in with Pelosi.

The article is worth reading. I felt compelled to comment on the story, and I reproduce my comment here. I wrote recently about the difference between politicians who are leaders and those who are just along for the ride, which I think informs this issue, as well:

I always find it distressing and absurd when politicians bemoan that only so much of their agenda is politically possible, then proceed to do absolutely nothing to actually move the goal posts of possibility by spending their political capital. I am bemused by Congressional Democrats and their apologists who point out that only so much progress on ending the war can 'pragmatically' be made, and thus we must compromise and accomplish what little we can.

The political calculus they've summed is merely what currently is, not what might be. The only way to change that equation is to push the system beyond its tolerance through symbolic acts, changing the terms of debate, or direct action. It seems Democratic leaders are very distrustful of those who seek to change the political environment, and not terribly effective at doing any of this sort of political work themselves. They'll logroll with best of them, but they won't make legislative politics a real blood sport in the way the GOP does so well. This disconnect between many of our office-holders and our activist base is one of the great weaknesses of our party.

Even the harshest critics of Democratic anti-war activists can't point to a lack of commitment on their part. They have done massed demonstrations across the country, contacted their political representatives until they are blue in the face, and put their dollars where their hearts are. What is lacking is a commitment by MoveOn (whose job it is) and elected Democrats (whose job it is) to truly represent their foot soldiers. This agreement to compromise between MoveOn's leadership and the leadership of our elected Democrats was an utter failure to represent their constituencies. Perhaps they feel they know better, or are better placed to judge what is possible - or possibly they are just too limited in perspective to see beyond the beltway on this issue.

We don't need a Focus on the Family-type grassroots lobbying heavyweight on the left that tells us what to support. We need MoveOn to enable and cohere the sentiments of the grassroots and represent those views to those in power, no matter how unpopular, or 'unrealistic' those views may be. Pariser's move to cut Lee's Amendment out of the MoveOn dialog because it couldn't pass was a betrayal of the organization's mission to make yesterday's impossible, today's inevitable.

But My Lawyer Said I Could!

The excuse most often offered by the Bush Administration for many of its blatantly illegal acts, including torture, secret detention, extraordinary rendition, and the use of signing statements to refuse to enforce selected parts of Congressional legislation, is that these actions were justified as legally defensible, or simply legally non-controversial, by the Administration’s attorneys, including John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, and now-Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, among others. The Administration claims to have merely relied on the advice of the government’s own lawyers, so how could they possibly be held liable for criminal legal violations when they were told by government officials that those actions were in conformance with existing law?

A recent California Supreme Court case, in conjunction with existing U.S. Supreme Court precedents, points to a powerful jurisprudential argument for holding government officials legally liable for criminal acts taken under advice of counsel. In a line of cases beginning with Raley v. Ohio, the High Court recognized that constitutional Due Process required that citizens not be deprived of a legal defense when they rely on legal advice from the government. The legal defense goes by the abstruse name of ‘entrapment by estoppel’. It means that the person would not have done the illegal act but for the advice they got from government lawyers telling them that action wasn’t illegal at all. Seems fair. And for private citizens, reasonable reliance on such advice from government attorneys is, in fact, a valid defense to prosecution.

The problem crops up when a government official, who has an independent responsibility to discharge his duties with integrity and fidelity, tries to hide behind a government lawyer’s advice. The problem is especially acute when the attorney whose advice was relied upon serves at the pleasure of the official, or officials advised, and worse when that attorney’s duty is to advocate on behalf of the office the defendant holds. This situation was recently addressed by the California Supreme Court this February in People v. Chacon. The Chacon Court recognized the problems inherent in allowing government officials to assert such a defense, and found there can be no affirmative defense of entrapment by estoppel for governmental officials, except perhaps if the lawyers were strictly insulated against any political pressure. As the recent USA firings demonstrate, that would be a rare circumstance indeed where the President of the United States is involved. Perhaps Supreme Court advisory opinions might qualify, but our Supreme Court wisely doesn’t issue advisory opinions.

The Chacon situation is exactly analogous to that of President Bush and his cadre of compliant White House lawyers. To allow a defense of entrapment by estoppel in such a case would be antithetical to the strong public policy interest of enforcing conflict of interest statutes, the ethical standards of the legal profession, and would undermine the personal responsibility we demand of our public officials.

Chacon is not U.S. Supreme Court precedent, but it may yet come to pass that our Supreme Court will have to consider the validity of a defense in entrapment by estoppel by Bush Administration officials. Chacon provides a powerful and well-reasoned argument the Court would have to overcome in order to apply such a defense to government officials.

When deciding which paralegal schools might suit your needs in the area of paralegal training then you may want to consider online paralegal training or at least take a look at the pros and cons of an online paralegal certificate and see if it is right for you.

Rove Overboard!

It's time for another Irresponsible Speculation™!

Today the subject that flies to everyone's lips is the scandal in search of a -gate; the firing of 8 US Attorneys, apparently for political reasons. The situation looks dire (the author rubs in his hands hamster-fashion in the universal gesture of evil delight) for the Administration as they prepare to square off with Congress over that body's subpoena power. With the Administration's Dr. Goebbels already on record on the constitutional issues involved, things do not look good for the President. As they always say in Washington circles, it's not the crime that gets you, it's the cover-up.

In this case, the cover-up appears to be a doozy, possibly going to the political heart of the Administration, Karl Rove. The document dump that the Administration performed to try to stave off Congress appears to have an 18 day gap in it at the exact time the decision was made to bump off insufficiently Bushie USA's. But really, what does it matter who came up with the idea?

Until now, this is all simple well-known facts. Where, you might ask, is the Irresponsible Speculation™ you've come to expect? Here we go...

This is it. The  proverbial final straw. The Democratic Congress has been bending over backward to avoid confrontation with the Presidency, but it is just not in the nature of this Administration to leave well-enough alone. They have to push it. This time they are pushing on the Congress', and by extension the peoples', right to know. This is an assertion of Constitutional chutzpah that Congress cannot ignore and cannot accept if they wish to remain a coequal branch. The same could be said about several abuses of the rule of law by this President, but those were quiet back-alley muggings of the Constitution, stealing subtle principles most people, in their ignorance, won't miss. But this assault is very public, and seeks to steal away the fundamental right to question what our government is doing and has done. More importantly, the subject matter they seek to protect has no rational relation to national security or the 'war on terror' for the Administration to hid behind. Their claim of executive privilege is nothing more than the right to cover up a criminal conspiracy.

The last time Bushies pulled this stonewall trick was over Cheney's energy task force. The Republican Congress was unwilling to face down the President over the matter and let a very poor precedent lie in the DC circuit - the Democrats will have no such compunctions. In fact, they are going to have a ravening crowd at their heels urging them on. With the President's policies discredited and a majority of the public favoring impeachment, things will be different.

This may not bring down the President, though it certainly has the potential of destroying the icy reserve of the Democratic leadership who have so far resisted calls for impeachment. This scandal is a bullet aimed at Rove, but Bush or Cheney could easily become collateral damage. If Rove doesn't testify, the President is going to have 535 very pissed-off congress-critters of both parties to deal with, and likely the judicial branch as well. He won't be able to hold out long. If Rove does testify, and lies, he's going to join Scooter. If he testifies, and he tells the truth, he's almost certainly done for in this government. The calls for his resignation will be irresistible, along with anyone else in the chain of command on this dirty trick.

Ironically, this is the one scandal that won't roll off this Administration, even though at first glance it seems like the 'minor personnel matter' Alberto Gonzalez pronounced it to be. The reason this dirt will stick is because the plot is aimed at Bush's own appointees, and members of his own party - the Administration's long knives are pricking the Republicans' own constituency, something that they haven't felt until recently. Now it's not just Democrats who are getting cut, and Republicans are getting concerned.

The Scooter Libby trial gave the time and attention needed for it to sink into the public consciousness just how callous, puerilely political, and petty this Administration can be. The destruction of Valerie Plame harmed American national security for no other reason but petty partisan payback - even the most die-hard Bushie knows this in his shriveled little soul, and the knowledge burns. This yet-to-be-named-gate scandal drives home that every function of government, no matter how sacred a trust, no matter how apolitical, is only a means to advance a narrow political agenda to this Administration. And they don't care who they harm in the process. This scandal really drives home how fundamentally contemptible these people are. Nameless-gate may take several congress-critters down, too, but that's small change compared to the damage it seems set to do to the Administration. The longer this particular issue stays in the headlines, the more Republican support for the Administration will crater. The longer this Administration fights to defend the indefensible, the better I like it.

We've seen scandals that would have sunk any other President disappear from the media's radar within days, hours even, but this story has legs for every American. This is the one. I just heard a loud snap coming from the direction of that proverbial camel. Buckle your seat belts, we're in for a constitutional thrill ride in the coming weeks.

This has been an Irresponsible Speculation™.

Drinking Liberally 3/22

It's time for another weekly Drinking Liberally. Liberals will be meeting at the Shanty at 6pm (see the right-hand side bar) for drinks and discussion.

This week, our special guest is Dan Patterson, a well-known local activist who is exploring the possibility of running for the Democratic nomination for Mayor of Tucson. Come on down and meet Dan and let him hear your concerns and hopes for Tucson.

Dan will be speaking at 6pm and again at 8:45pm.

Full disclosure: Dan has asked me to be on his exploratory committee and I have agreed.

Dim Bulb

Question: How many members of the Bush Administration does it take to change a light bulb?

Nuclear Power in American Energy Strategy

The following is a posting by Guest Author Russell Lowes:

The media the Southeastern U.S. is pushing the resurgence of nuclear power as the solution to America's energy future quite uncritically. That may be because the epicenter for the new nuclear power industry is the old south, stretching from the Carolinas to Florida and Texas. The "new" vision for a nuclear-powered America is a re-hash of President Nixon’s plan for 1000 nuclear power plants, demonstrated by the promotional mantra the Bushies have rolled out:

"We need a thousand nukes."

While the media is hopping in Dixie, the media here in Arizona are nearly mute on this issue. Why? It could be because Arizona's only commercial nuclear plant has the worst U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission safety record in the country. It may be that John McCain wants to make it a centerpiece of his presidential campaign, and major media outlets here aren't willing to piss in his well. Or it could be because the conglomerates who own our media are giving Arizona Public Service, the manager of Palo Verde, the largest nuke in the nation (The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station has three reactors, with a total of 3810 megawatts output), time to get its financial house in order.

There is a lot of money at stake in reawakening the atomic power industry. Trillions, to be somewhat exact. Tens of them, to be still more exact. The industrial giants who stand to profit from a revivified nuclear power industry are seeking to bring the industry back from the economic grave it has mouldered in since the 1980s. Their aspirations indicate that, just as the planners of Iraq failed to internalize the lessons of Vietnam, nuclear industry boosters have failed to understand the reasons why the industry died the first time.

Let's examine the push for reawakening the nuclear industry through a very personal analysis. What might it do to you and I for nuclear energy to once again become a significant part of America's energy infrastructure?

Mortgage Tax Credit? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Mortgage Credit...

The Bush Administration wants the U.S. to build 1000 reactors. The last program, which built only 100 reactors, turned out to be an economic disaster, with billions and billions of dollars worth of nuclear plants canceled and more operating at steep subsidies. That orgy of reactor building left the ratepayers in those service areas, and taxpayers throughout America, under a heavy debt load to pay for the excesses of the power companies.

The atomic energy industry and the federal government are up to their old tricks again, but are even more audacious since they can count on the acquiescence and cooperation of an Administration that could care less about the public good. The industry and their enablers in this Administration are promising that it will be less expensive to build plants in the future than it was in the 1980s, knowing full well that construction cost overruns in the industry will once again be on the order of hundreds of percent, just as they were in the 1970s and 1980s.

Their scheme to pocket trillions in publicly subsidized construction costs threatens to cost you more than you save as a consequence of the tax credit for interest payments on your mortgage. Assuming you own, or are going to own a house, and your interest payments are a very modest $800 per month, or $9600 per year, the cost to you personally as a taxpayer to underwrite this nuclear building boom will far outstrip the tax savings homeownership affords you. If your mortgage is costing you $9600 per year in interest, the tax savings would likely be 20% of that, or $1920: call it $2,000 for simplicity.

One thousand atomic energy plants would cost you, and every other taxpayer, well over $2,000 per year. Those 1000 reactors would cost $5 trillion, conservatively. There is no way that ratepayers are going to be able to afford to finance this capital outlay through bonds or rate hikes, so the U.S. Government will have to step in to underwrite the program. When you add to the $5 trillion construction all the interest cost, taxes, insurance, the construction capital of these plants will cost well over $22.5 trillion over the next 40 years. If America’s average population during this time is 350 million people, the cost per person per year will be at least $2,143 per person per year. This is just for capital payback.Throw in the fuel cost, operation and maintenance and waste costs and you have trillions more to give away to the nuclear industry. Say goodbye to your home mortgage tax credit. With $2,143 per person per year going toward an outdated nuclear energy program, there may not be much money left for mortgage interest write-offs, or for sane energy options. And perhaps we can also forget any hope to afford national health care, serious investments in our educational system, public transportation, or any badly needed new government initiatives. Medicare, Social Security, and benefits for our armed services personnel could even be on the block to make room in the budget for such a big ticket item as Bush's 1000 new nukes.

We can't afford this Administration's pipe-dream to line the pockets of another favored industry. The alternative to such lightheaded thinking is to invest in the proven technologies of energy efficiencies, renewable power sources, while reducing our use of fossil fuels. Only one sixth of the power supplied in this country is supplied as electricity. The rest is supplied by car engines, space heating with gas, combined cycle heat production, etc. With only one sixth of our energy in electricity, and $750 billion per year going to supply less than one half of that sixth (i.e., less than one twelfth), how will we be able to afford development of other energy resources? We simply won’t. America's current total energy costs, including electrical generation and every other form of energy use, are about $900 billion per year. These “public servants” want to us to spend another $750 billion per year for 30 years, just to supply less than 8% of our total energy needs. Obviously, it will impossible for ratepayers to finance these sorts of outlays, to imagine that such a thing is even possible without a full-scale consumer revolt is absurd. Looked at in this bottom line fashion, the idea of supplying America's future energy needs with nukes just doesn't pencil out.

As you might guess, the backers of this multi-trillion dollar plan have a massive misinformation campaign. Pollution on the web is frequently found. So where do you go for decent information on nuclear energy? Here are some high-quality website addresses to browse, for starters:

http://www.nirs.org/
http://www.stormsmith.nl/report20050803/Introduction.pdf (PDF Download)

Just What is the Value of $750 Billion Per Year?

-- The total annual energy budget of the U.S. is about 7% of GDP, or roughly $900 Billion per year.

-- This $750 billion is equal to 6% of the total $13 trillion 2006 Gross Domestic Product.

-- 128% of $586 billion Social Security budget for 2006

-- 179% of the $419 billion U.S. Department of Defense budget for 2006

-- 13 times of the $56 billion U.S. Department of Education budget for 2006

-- The war in Iraq is expected by some to cost $1.5 trillion by the time it is completed, IF it is completed relatively soon. This is two years of construction capital payback for 1000 nukes. If these figures pan out, building 1000 nukes will be like funding 15 Iraq wars over 30 years.

On a final note, if each 8% of our energy cost $750 billion per year (not to mention the extras like fuel cost), the dollars for energy in America would be roughly $9.4 TRILLION per year, instead of the current $900 billion we spend on energy.

Russell J. Lowes, a financial management consultant and the Research Director for Power Plant Analysts, is the primary author of a book on the nation’s largest nuclear plant upwind of Phoenix, “Energy Options for the Southwest, Part I, Nuclear and Coal Power." The book played a principal part in the cancellation of two additional reactors at the Palo Verde plant. He can be reached at russ3lowes@netscape.net

With how energy needs are changing learning about Earth's ecology as a child is becoming as important as doing some math worksheets to learn Algebra or even just coloring and having fun with coloring pages to keep the learning process going.

Housekeeping

A few changes to the site I wanted to let you readers know about.

First, I added a GrandCentral button that allows anyone visiting the page to give me a phone call, where ever I might be. Grandcentral is a IP telephony product that uses the internet to route incoming calls and to provide a single voice mail for all your phone numbers. In this case, you can simply click on the badge below my picture, enter your phone number, and GrandCentral will call both you and me, and patch us together.

This way, I don't have to put my phone number in public, you can reach me where ever I might be, and there's no fees. I hope some of you will use this feature as a tip line, and to get information about Drinking or Reading Liberally. Also, GrandCentral has a great recording function, so if you would like to do an interview for BlogForArizona, this tool allows recording of the phone interview and easy posting of the audio file to the internet. I'm sure to use something similar as a referral tool if I ever go into private practice, so I'm trying it out now to see how it goes.

For the trolls out there who might contemplate mischief, you should know that it is trivial matter to block unwanted calls as well as to record the content of any call, so you will run out of phones to call from long before I am inconvenienced, and there will be a record of any harassment.

The second change is BlogForArizona's Greatest Hits. When people are new to a site that they've found on a search or through a link, they often want to see some of the other work of the blogger. I've selected a few postings that I really like, and that I think hold up over time, being largely expository or explanatory. Even if you aren't new to the site, I hope you'll check these articles out, they may be new to you.

UPDATE: I also added an RSS feed from my NetFlix queue to the side bar below my current reading list. All the cool kids are doing it... which I guess means that doing so is officially no longer cool. Anyhow, thought at least someone might be interested in what I'm watching. Of course, this is just a feed from my movie and documentary queue, I have a separate queue for series and multi-disc sets, but I'm not going to bother with that.

 

Democrats Failing to Deliver in Congress

I'm so angry I could spit.

The Democratic caucus in Congress is proving that they didn't understand the voters when we elected a Democratic majority. The election of 2006 was a referendum on the Iraq war and this Administration's handling of the 'War on Terror'. We handed our new Democratic Congress a mandate to provide oversight of the Administration and to bring the Iraq war to an end. Not to flounce non-binding resolutions about the chamber like so much toilet paper for the Administration to treat accordingly.

What do we get instead? A cowardly refusal to superintend or constrain the Administration's defense-related spending in Iraq. An abdication of the Constitutional powers of Congress to direct the conduct of war, or even to demand that the President obtain the consent of Congress prior to starting another war in Iran. A pusillanimous refusal to force the closure of the detention facility at Gitmo, which stains the honor of this nation every day it operates. A resolute trepidation pervades the Democratic ranks when it comes to setting any sort of time table for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. There are still opportunities, but the window for serious change is closing as the 2008 primary approaches. Already, it is all but accepted that we cannot possibly force Bush to withdraw from Iraq before his term expires. What a bunch of fucking pussies.

The Democratic caucus is proving to be utterly contemptible, and their only excuse is that they fear that voters will punish them should they take the bold actions they were hired to take. They should be worried about what we Democratic activists will do to them if they don't.

A wonderful example of the sort of mixed messages that our Democratic representatives think is good politics is the first bill sponsored by our own Gabby Giffords and her marvelous foreign adventure. Gabby wants to ensure that spare F-14 parts aren't going to be sold to Iran. This is fine policy, though of dubious military significance, but what does it really say and who does it speak to? First, it assumes that Iran is our enemy at a time when that is exactly the drum that the Bush Administration is beating so jingoistically. It gives the Administration's paranoid ravings credence and an appearance of bi-partisan support. There are fine and valid reasons for us not to supply the Iranian air-force, but the timing is cretinous.

Is this really the most important thing for Gabby to be spending her political capital on? Or is it a way for her to insulate herself from the seditious brush with which the Administration is trying to paint our caucus? Does it help the Democratic drive to end the war, and prevent new ones, for Gabby to be standing beside Kyl on their junket as Kyl whips up the Israelis about what a dire threat Iran represents and what a wonderful idea Bush's surge into Baghdad is? The junket to the Green Zone and Israel and her F-14 bill may have helped Gabby settle into her seat, but it did nothing for the larger goals of Democrats. I'm sure she's well-intentioned, as are all our Representatives and Senators (excepting Lieberman, perhaps), but when the road you are on is paved with good intentions, you are well advised to look for the sign that says where that road is leading you.

This sort of narrow, self-regarding view is rampant in our caucus. Far too few are willing to take the political risks required to stop a war-time President in his conduct of war and national security affairs. Frankly, I don't think anything short of an impeachment will do the trick, but I'd be pleased to be proven wrong. In any case, fanning the flames of fear and militarism is not what voters hired the new Democratic majority to do, nor is warming their seats by the heat of the conflagration. We hired them to end the war in Iraq and to restore sanity and mature reflection to the people's house. I'm disgusted at the compromises Democrats are making with a morally compromised lame-duck President with a sub-40% approval rating and his lick-spittle ethical black hole of a GOP caucus rump. I want to see some bare knuckles, people.

Have some pride and stand by a few principles, Democratic caucus - it's the reason we gave you the sovereign power of the Congress. Use it to stop this madness. You think that if you just stand by as this President runs this nation into the ground, he'll take the blame and you'll smell like a rose. Wrong. If you stand by and do nothing as Bush destroys this country, you will be judged more guilty than he. Bush at least thinks he's doing the right thing and is only monstrously wrong. You know that what is happening is wrong, and yet you still do nothing; you will be judged as moral cowards. Even should you ultimately fail, at least you will have failed trying. Don't just stand by impotently playing accompaniment to Nero's fiddling.

If Steve Jobs Ran Apple like Bush

Spot on the money satire. MadTV rules!

Farleygrams Again

Steve Farley is setting the standard for constituent communication with his newletter. You can and should join his mailing list, even if you aren't in LD 28. Steve's latest has a call to action for those on the Northwest side of Tucson to help save the state-run Health Care Group program:

We will see the fate of the bill once they allow it to be voted upon.
Or IF they allow it to be voted on--it is entirely possible that they
may never have the votes to kill HCG. One thing you can do right now
is to call Rep. Pete Hershberger's office (602-926-5839), and get all
your Northwest side friends to do the same. Tell him that you know
that HB2498 will kill HealthCare Group, and urge a No vote, for the
sake of all the small businesspeople in his district who would have
no other options for health care. This could come up for a third read
again tomorrow, so time is of the essence. Your efforts could make
all the difference.

Steve has some background on the GOP machinations to kill this wonderful program for those of you not familiar with the issue:

One of those votes that was delayed further was the final roll call
vote for HB2498, the bill  that would kill Health Care Group--the
excellent state-run health insurance plan for small businesses. The
Star printed an excellent editorial on Monday calling for the bill's
defeat, entitled "Effort to scrap health program is shortsighted,"
which is well worth reading at
http://www.azstarnet.com/opinion/172866.php

We did get through  18 of those other bills on third read today, but
they skipped 2498 because, thanks to a lot of hard work (see below),
it didn't have the votes. It is on the agenda for tomorrow, so the
arm-twisting will continue.

Last Thursday during a nearly 7-hour COW (Committee Of the Whole, as
you may recall), I was proud  to accept the Governor's request to
lead the floor fight to kill HB2498. We had a very spirited debate
that lasted for more than 90 minutes, and involved numerous exchanges
within the caucus and across party lines.

The  bill's sponsor, Kirk Adams, created a whole new amendment on the
floor that invented a couple of new ways to gut HealthCare Group
(HCG), to replace the other ways the previous amendments tried to
kill it. The most outrageous effort was to strip all coverage from
the spouses and children of current HCG members, dumping perhaps
10,000 people on the streets without health insurance. It would also
cut off from care 17 different small towns and fire districts whose
employees and dependents currently receive care under HCG.

The amendment also would place HCG under the auspices of the
Department of Insurance, under Title 20, a section of regulatory law
suited to companies that sell insurance, not companies that provide
health services. I called the Department of Insurance, and they
admitted that they weren't sure they knew what  they were supposed to
do, but that the companies that contract with HCG would then be
subject to such onerous requirements for reserves and audits that
they would simply quit working with HCG, in effect shutting HCG down
entirely.

I had spent most of the previous week planning the form of the
debate, which involved distributing testimonial emails from HCG
members to be read into the record, speeches on behalf of HCG, and
lots of scripted questions.

The latter is in response to parliamentary procedure whereby each
member can only speak once on  behalf of a bill in COW, but you can
ask as many questions of other members as you want. And if asked, you
can answer as much as you want. So I had several other sympathetic
members ask me questions which illuminated different aspects of HCG
and why the bill would kill it.

This strategy worked quite well in getting the information to the
other members and to the media and the general public. We put the
Republicans on the defensive, and it was gratifying to see so many
members of the majority party expressing just how much they liked HCG
(sincerely or not), considering how many of them have been trying to
kill it for years for ideological reasons.

Then the Republicans started  asking me to yield to their questions,
and I managed to turn the tables on them. I particularly enjoyed a
questioning from Kirk Adams where he ended up arguing that headlines
on newspaper articles were more accurate than the articles
themselves, and then tried to name and then discredit a state
official of the Department of Insurance.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell = Lie

Our military has always led the way in the desegregation of our society. It is, in many ways, the most meritocratic of our national institutions. It should be a fundamental right of Americans to help defend their nation by service in the armed forces, if they are physically capable. 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is fundamentally dishonest, and separates good soldiers from the service. The first item on a Democratic President's agenda should be the elimination of discrimination based on sexual preferences from our armed forces.

Why You Shouldn't Play With Big Brother

A really well done short video on the dangers of modern surveillance technology:

Napolitano says she does not support immediate Iraq pullout

Link: Napolitano says she does not support immediate Iraq pullout.

And she's simply wrong, but I think I understand why she's taken this position. She may not ready to oppose the war, over which she has no actual political control, because she judges the costs of doing so (which could be considerable) to not be worth the potential benefit (her opposition would have little effect on the policy).

From a career standpoint, she's probably doing the right thing by remaining neutral. Her strongest political influence is in her leadership in a Republican-controlled state, in which she has to maintain constructive relationships with the GOP state house, and her role in the National Governors Association, where she has to work constructively with Republican Governors on a number of important issues. To alienate her colleagues, and give her enemies ammunition by taking an empty political position would be foolish. Taking such a position could also have a long-term impact on her political career - if she were to run for Senate, for instance, or be nominated the Supreme Court, such a position could harm her.

None of these are sufficient reasons to remain non-committal about the waste (yes, I am specifically choosing this word) of the lives of our soldiers, but I do understand her choice, and I view the Governor's comments in that context. The war isn't something she chose, or had any say in, but she's not going to let it stop her from achieving what it is possible for her to achieve with her career.

Given that the great majority of Congress members of her party still do not support an immediate pull-out, hoping to avoid any political cost or responsibility for the utter failure of Bush's Iraq misadventure, it is not unusual or especially note-worthy that a moderate Governor of a moderately Republican state has taken the safe, moderate position. But the Governor's position most certainly does not in any way demonstrate that our continued occupation of Iraq is a wise or moral policy.

The 80% of rank and file Democrats who do support immediate withdrawal have our work cut out for us to show these 'leaders' that advocating withdrawal is safe. Or that failing to do so is manifestly less safe. Only then will our leaders take the difficult decision to get out ahead of this issue, rather than leading from safely within the herd.

Prisoner in the Pumpkin Patch

There is a moral sickness at work here:

"Ever since passing what its Legislature promoted as the nation's toughest laws against illegal immigration last summer, Colorado has struggled with a labor shortage as migrants fled the state. This week, officials announced a novel solution: Use convicts as farmworkers.

The Department of Corrections hopes to launch a pilot program this month — thought to be the first of its kind — that would contract with more than a dozen farms to provide inmates who will pick melons, onions and peppers.

Crops were left to spoil in the fields after the passage of legislation that required state identification to get government services and allowed police to check suspects' immigration status.

"The reason this [program] started is to make sure the agricultural industry wouldn't go out of business," state Rep. Dorothy Butcher said. Her district includes Pueblo, near the farmland where the inmates will work.

Prisoners who are a low security risk may choose to work in the fields, earning 60 cents a day. They also are eligible for small bonuses.

The inmates will be watched by prison guards, who will be paid by the farms. The cost is subject to negotiation, but farmers say they expect to pay more for the inmate labor and its associated costs than for their traditional workers."

So the pogrom against immigrant labor has a logical terminus in this: chain gangs of prisoners in the fields of America's farms. Instead of the sick irony of an agricultural system that feeds on cheap and desperate labor from Mexico's subsistence farms to produce the subsidized, below-market crops that we dump on Mexico's markets, driving campesinos off their farms and over the border, we will have the sick irony of America's booming, ever-expanding prisoner population that feeds off our own poor and minority population employed in the fields of industrial agriculture at the artificially low rate of 60 cents an hour, creating a constituency for creating yet more prisoners, each of which cost tax-payers as much per year as a year of Harvard education.

I have a hard time believing that even the most racist, vitriolic, jingoist anti-immigration activist wanted this result, but there it is. The inevitable result of making our nation more repressive and less welcoming to new citizens is to make us a less humane society - this particular instance is but one glaring example of that axiom.

Say what you will about illegal immigration, but it may be preferable to the alternatives.