Team Obama demonstrated remarkable discipline during the presidential campaign. From raising an unprecedented amount of money to milking every advantage from the Internet to grabbing lots of delegates from inexpensive caucus states, they left nothing to chance.
And now the administration has scored a major legislative victory in an extraordinarily short period of time. Less than 700 hours after taking the oath of office, President Barack Obama signed the largest spending bill in American history.
Nevertheless, this fast start can't overcome a growing sense the administration is winging it on issues large and small.
Take the vetting of cabinet nominees. Mr. Obama's aides ignored a federal investigation of New Mexico's Gov. Bill Richardson that started last August for a possible pay-for-play scandal. Mr. Richardson had to withdraw after being named to become secretary of commerce.
The administration treated as inconsequential the failure of its choices for Treasury secretary and White House performance officer, as well as its labor secretary-designate's spouse, to pay taxes. It failed to uncover Tom Daschle's problems with more than $102,943 in previously unpaid taxes, penalties and interest -- and once it did, aides assumed Mr. Daschle would be given a pass.
Team Obama promised Gen. Anthony Zinni he'd be ambassador to Iraq, then cut him loose without explanation. After the Bill Richardson fiasco, it romanced Republican Sen. Judd Gregg for commerce secretary -- then ignored his advice on the stimulus and wouldn't trust him with running the department, moving supervision of the Census into the White House. Mr. Gregg withdrew himself from consideration.
Then there is the stimulus itself. Mr. Obama's economic team met with congressional leaders in December to green light a bill costing up to $850 billion. But they described less than $200 billion of what they wanted in the envelope. In return for outsourcing the bill's drafting to Congress, the administration took on two responsibilities: running polls to advise Hill Democrats on how to sharpen their marketing, and putting the president on the road to sell a bill others wrote.
Read all of Karl Rove's commentary here.
Thinking about ethics and current events (Began 1 April 2008)
Thursday, February 19, 2009
US Role at Durban II
Yesterday the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA), released a statement welcoming what he described as President Obama’s decision to “launch a high-level diplomatic effort” to change the direction of the Durban II conference, by sending a delegation to the preparatory meeting this week in Geneva. Berman put the decision in the context of moral leadership:
It is critical that the United States regain its moral voice at the U.N. by jumping into the fray and stipulating clear redlines for re-focusing Durban II, including the removal of language in the Outcome Document attacking Israel or singling it out for criticism.
Berman said that, by going to the Geneva preparatory meeting and telling the participants “we refuse to accept outright anti-Semitism or an attempt to single out Israel,” we are “reasserting our moral leadership in world affairs.”
What we are witnessing, however, is anything but a “high-level diplomatic effort.” The State Department announced on Saturday, February 14, that it was sending a delegation to the meeting, scheduled to begin on Monday, February 16, to “engage in negotiations on the text” of the conference document and “try to change the direction” of Durban II. The announcement did not state who was leading the delegation nor name its members.
At the State Department press briefing on February 17, two days into the meeting, the spokesperson could not identify the leader or members of the delegation:
QUESTION: Can you talk about who is in the delegation, who’s leading the delegation?
MR. DUGUID: I can only - I’ll have to take the question, because I know that the delegation left on Saturday. I didn’t get a full readout of who was in the delegation.
At yesterday’s State Department press briefing, the question was raised again:
QUESTION: Do you have any update of the talks about the Durban conference in Geneva?
MR. DUGUID: The - I haven’t had a readout yet. Our group is there on the ground. It is made up of officials from our U.S.-UN - the U.S. Mission to the UN in Geneva as well as private partners in that. I don’t have a readout now. . . .
Marty Peretz wrote yesterday that the delegation consists of three people “made up of small fry so if they come home with nothing not much will have really been lost.”
Obama is in the process of making either a low-level, half-hearted diplomatic effort before withdrawing from Durban II, or a low-level, half-hearted diplomatic effort before participating in it: we will learn which in due course. But what is currently going on is not a “high level diplomatic effort” involving “moral leadership.” Moral leadership will occur if Obama decides to withdraw from Durban II - if, in other words, he decides to do what George W. Bush did in connection with Durban I.
Read it here.
It is critical that the United States regain its moral voice at the U.N. by jumping into the fray and stipulating clear redlines for re-focusing Durban II, including the removal of language in the Outcome Document attacking Israel or singling it out for criticism.
Berman said that, by going to the Geneva preparatory meeting and telling the participants “we refuse to accept outright anti-Semitism or an attempt to single out Israel,” we are “reasserting our moral leadership in world affairs.”
What we are witnessing, however, is anything but a “high-level diplomatic effort.” The State Department announced on Saturday, February 14, that it was sending a delegation to the meeting, scheduled to begin on Monday, February 16, to “engage in negotiations on the text” of the conference document and “try to change the direction” of Durban II. The announcement did not state who was leading the delegation nor name its members.
At the State Department press briefing on February 17, two days into the meeting, the spokesperson could not identify the leader or members of the delegation:
QUESTION: Can you talk about who is in the delegation, who’s leading the delegation?
MR. DUGUID: I can only - I’ll have to take the question, because I know that the delegation left on Saturday. I didn’t get a full readout of who was in the delegation.
At yesterday’s State Department press briefing, the question was raised again:
QUESTION: Do you have any update of the talks about the Durban conference in Geneva?
MR. DUGUID: The - I haven’t had a readout yet. Our group is there on the ground. It is made up of officials from our U.S.-UN - the U.S. Mission to the UN in Geneva as well as private partners in that. I don’t have a readout now. . . .
Marty Peretz wrote yesterday that the delegation consists of three people “made up of small fry so if they come home with nothing not much will have really been lost.”
Obama is in the process of making either a low-level, half-hearted diplomatic effort before withdrawing from Durban II, or a low-level, half-hearted diplomatic effort before participating in it: we will learn which in due course. But what is currently going on is not a “high level diplomatic effort” involving “moral leadership.” Moral leadership will occur if Obama decides to withdraw from Durban II - if, in other words, he decides to do what George W. Bush did in connection with Durban I.
Read it here.
Brainless Claims About Darwin
PAUL JOHNSON Catholic Educational Resource CenterIt is one of the tragedies of humanity that brain-power is so seldom accompanied by judgment, sceptical moderation or even common sense.
The more I see of the intellectual world and its frailties, the more I appreciate the truth of G.K. Chesterton’s saying: ‘When people cease to believe in God, they do not believe in nothing. They believe in anything.’ It is one of the tragedies of humanity that brain-power is so seldom accompanied by judgment, sceptical moderation or even common sense. The vacuum left by the retreat of formal religion is most commonly filled, today, by forms of pantheism …
The atheistic pantheists who have now taken to advertising their beliefs on buses stand close to those who wish to deify Charles Darwin, and have taken the opportunity to do so on the 200th anniversary of his birth. Of course they are not the first. Leslie Stephen, a former clergyman who lost his faith as a result of On the Origin of Species, ‘admired Darwin as a god’, and some of the things he wrote, about his centrality in modern intellectual history, have the flavour of the Apocalypse. Much rubbish is currently being published about Darwin as a ’super-scientist’ and ‘transcendental prophet of the humanist triumph’ (two expressions I have noted in the last week, one on the BBC). They do not do the poor man justice, for he was not only a fine scientist but a modest man of rare decency and dignity who would have found his current apotheosis repellent and frightening. If ever a good man needed to be saved from his followers, it is he.
Read it all here.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Tension Between Journalists and European Commission
The European Commission fears that its confidential documents are increasingly at risk from spies. "We are not only pointing the finger at journalists. It could be the pretty trainee with the long legs and theblonde hair," Commission spokeswoman Valerie Rampi said yesterday, after a report in the German newspaper the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung quoted from a confidential letter from the director of the Commission's security services to its director of human resources.
"Recent cases show that the threat of espionage is increasing day by day. A number of countries, information seekers, lobbyists, journalists, private agencies and other third parties are continuing to seek sensitive and classified information," said the Commission memo, which dates back to December.
"We need to remind the Commission that investigative journalism is in thepublic interest. Journalists have to look also for 'sensitive and classified' documents in order to inform the public and to placei nformation in a truthful context. It is a legitimate and essential part of a democracy to allow reporters to ask searching questions and get access to documents some politicians and officials would prefer for their own vested interests to keep out of sight," said Lorenzo Consoli, the President of API."
The Commission has a poor record of its treatment of investigative journalists. For instance, we are still waiting for an official response from them to take responsibility and apologise over their bogus complaint against German Stern reporter Hans-Martin Tillack, who was cleared last month of wrong-doing in his work to expose corruption in the European Union," said White.
The EFJ has called on the Commission to investigate how its officials came to make the false accusation of bribery against Tillack and to carry out an independent inquiry into the case that for years cast a shadow over relations between Brussels journalists and the Commission.
"Now the suggestion is that every journalist is a potential spy -- it's the worst kind of scaremongering," said White.
The EFJ represents over 260,000 journalists in 30 countries. API represents 500 journalists accredited to the EU Institutions.
For further information on the Tillack case, see: http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/99732
"Recent cases show that the threat of espionage is increasing day by day. A number of countries, information seekers, lobbyists, journalists, private agencies and other third parties are continuing to seek sensitive and classified information," said the Commission memo, which dates back to December.
"We need to remind the Commission that investigative journalism is in thepublic interest. Journalists have to look also for 'sensitive and classified' documents in order to inform the public and to placei nformation in a truthful context. It is a legitimate and essential part of a democracy to allow reporters to ask searching questions and get access to documents some politicians and officials would prefer for their own vested interests to keep out of sight," said Lorenzo Consoli, the President of API."
The Commission has a poor record of its treatment of investigative journalists. For instance, we are still waiting for an official response from them to take responsibility and apologise over their bogus complaint against German Stern reporter Hans-Martin Tillack, who was cleared last month of wrong-doing in his work to expose corruption in the European Union," said White.
The EFJ has called on the Commission to investigate how its officials came to make the false accusation of bribery against Tillack and to carry out an independent inquiry into the case that for years cast a shadow over relations between Brussels journalists and the Commission.
"Now the suggestion is that every journalist is a potential spy -- it's the worst kind of scaremongering," said White.
The EFJ represents over 260,000 journalists in 30 countries. API represents 500 journalists accredited to the EU Institutions.
For further information on the Tillack case, see: http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/99732
Jonathan Lopez Gets an A+
On Nov. 24, 2008, Los Angeles City College speech professor John Matteson interrupted and ended Jonathan Lopez’s presentation mid-speech, calling him a "fascist bastard" in front of the class for speaking about his faith, which included reading the dictionary definition of marriage and reciting two Bible verses. Instead of allowing Lopez to finish, Matteson told the other students they could leave if they were offended. When no one left, Matteson dismissed the class. Refusing to grade the assigned speech, Matteson wrote on Lopez’s evaluation, "Ask God what your grade is."
One week later, after seeing Lopez talking to the college’s dean of academic affairs, Matteson told Lopez that he would make sure he’d be expelled from school. Matteson’s treatment of Lopez during his speech follows an earlier incident in which Matteson told his entire class after the November election, "If you voted yes on Proposition 8, you are a fascist bastard."
In a letter to Alliance, Dean Allison Jones said she had met with Lopez, considered his complaint "extremely serious in nature," and had begun a disciplinary investigation. Jones said in the letter she could not elaborate because of concerns for Matteson's privacy.
Jones wrote that two students had been "deeply offended" by the speech, and one of them said that "this student should have to pay some price for preaching hate in the classroom."
The lawsuit names Matteson, the Los Angeles Community College District, its board of trustees and several administrators.
Read more here and here.
One week later, after seeing Lopez talking to the college’s dean of academic affairs, Matteson told Lopez that he would make sure he’d be expelled from school. Matteson’s treatment of Lopez during his speech follows an earlier incident in which Matteson told his entire class after the November election, "If you voted yes on Proposition 8, you are a fascist bastard."
In a letter to Alliance, Dean Allison Jones said she had met with Lopez, considered his complaint "extremely serious in nature," and had begun a disciplinary investigation. Jones said in the letter she could not elaborate because of concerns for Matteson's privacy.
Jones wrote that two students had been "deeply offended" by the speech, and one of them said that "this student should have to pay some price for preaching hate in the classroom."
The lawsuit names Matteson, the Los Angeles Community College District, its board of trustees and several administrators.
Read more here and here.
Livni: Israel Peace and Durban II
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told visiting American Jewish leaders on Monday that Israel must give up part of its land "in order to remain a Jewish and democratic state."
"I do believe Israel is fighting for existence not only because it's the only democracy in the Middle East, but also because it's the only Jewish state in the world," Livni told a delegation of about 100 leaders from the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, currently holding its annual leadership mission in Israel. "No refugee can enter Israel as part of the peace process," Livni said. "Their [Palestinian] national aspiration gets an answer in a different place," she added, reiterating comments she has made at least twice in the past few months.
She also told the delegation that Israel must take the initiative and come forward with its own peace plan to head off international programs. "Any plan put on the table will not be in our interest," she said.
During her address, Livni also appealed to the United States not to participate in the UN-sponsored Durban II anti-racism conference, set to be held in Geneva this April.
"Israel expects the free world not to participate in Durban II," she said, repeating Jerusalem's concerns that the meeting will be used by Arab nations and others as a forum to criticize Israel.
The U.S. State Department said it would send diplomats next week to participate in preparatory meetings for the conference, which some countries including Israel have already decided to boycott.
Read it all here.
"I do believe Israel is fighting for existence not only because it's the only democracy in the Middle East, but also because it's the only Jewish state in the world," Livni told a delegation of about 100 leaders from the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, currently holding its annual leadership mission in Israel. "No refugee can enter Israel as part of the peace process," Livni said. "Their [Palestinian] national aspiration gets an answer in a different place," she added, reiterating comments she has made at least twice in the past few months.
She also told the delegation that Israel must take the initiative and come forward with its own peace plan to head off international programs. "Any plan put on the table will not be in our interest," she said.
During her address, Livni also appealed to the United States not to participate in the UN-sponsored Durban II anti-racism conference, set to be held in Geneva this April.
"Israel expects the free world not to participate in Durban II," she said, repeating Jerusalem's concerns that the meeting will be used by Arab nations and others as a forum to criticize Israel.
The U.S. State Department said it would send diplomats next week to participate in preparatory meetings for the conference, which some countries including Israel have already decided to boycott.
Read it all here.
Secularist Johann Hari on Free Speech
The UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights has always had the job of investigating governments that forcibly take the fundamental human right to free speech from their citizens with violence. But in the past year, a coalition of religious fundamentalist states have successfully fought to change her job description. Now, she has to report on "abuses of free expression" including "defamation of religions and prophets." Instead of defending free speech, she must now oppose it.
I argued this was a symbol of how religious fundamentalists -- of all stripes -- have been progressively stripping away the right to freely discuss their faiths. They claim religious ideas are unique and cannot be discussed freely; instead, they must be "respected" -- by which they mean unchallenged. So now, whenever anyone on the UN Human Rights Council tries to discuss the stoning of "adulterous" women, the hanging of gay people, or the marrying off of ten year old girls to grandfathers, they are silenced by the chair on the grounds these are "religious" issues, and it is "offensive" to talk about them.
This trend is not confined to the UN. It has spread deep into democratic countries. Whenever I have reported on immoral acts by religious fanatics -- Catholic, Jewish, Hindu or Muslim -- I am accused of "prejudice", and I am not alone. But my only "prejudice" is in favor of individuals being able to choose to live their lives, their way, without intimidation. That means choosing religion, or rejecting it, as they wish, after hearing an honest, open argument.
A religious idea is just an idea somebody had a long time ago, and claimed to have received from God. It does not have a different status to other ideas; it is not surrounded by an electric fence through which none of us can pass.
Read it all here.
I argued this was a symbol of how religious fundamentalists -- of all stripes -- have been progressively stripping away the right to freely discuss their faiths. They claim religious ideas are unique and cannot be discussed freely; instead, they must be "respected" -- by which they mean unchallenged. So now, whenever anyone on the UN Human Rights Council tries to discuss the stoning of "adulterous" women, the hanging of gay people, or the marrying off of ten year old girls to grandfathers, they are silenced by the chair on the grounds these are "religious" issues, and it is "offensive" to talk about them.
This trend is not confined to the UN. It has spread deep into democratic countries. Whenever I have reported on immoral acts by religious fanatics -- Catholic, Jewish, Hindu or Muslim -- I am accused of "prejudice", and I am not alone. But my only "prejudice" is in favor of individuals being able to choose to live their lives, their way, without intimidation. That means choosing religion, or rejecting it, as they wish, after hearing an honest, open argument.
A religious idea is just an idea somebody had a long time ago, and claimed to have received from God. It does not have a different status to other ideas; it is not surrounded by an electric fence through which none of us can pass.
Read it all here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)