Of Puppies and Pirates

/39 Comments/in /by

bo1_blog.thumbnail.jpgSo here’s a Happy Easter story of puppies and pirates.

There once was a Portuguese Water puppy that lived, for a time, with older cousins at a big estate in Hyannisport, MA. Because the puppy’s cousin’s people were Democrats, the puppy learned not only basic puppy manners, but also a fine respect for Democratic institutions, including social services, tolerance, and solidarity with other working breeds.

There came a time when that Portuguese Water puppy moved from the big estate in Hyannisport to a different big estate in the nation’s capital. At this new estate, there were no cousins for the puppy to play with, but there were two young girls who were just as much fun. The people at this new estate, like the ones at the old estate, valued those same Democratic principles, including solidarity.

At this new estate, though, the Portuguese Water puppy’s new people talked–even more than at the old estate–about big worries. Banks collapsing and people losing their jobs and their health care. And pirates.

The Portuguese Water puppy wanted to help its new people, particularly because, having learned the value of solidarity, he wanted to help the captain captured by pirates on the other side of the world. After all, who had more solidarity with a captain than a Portuguese Water puppy? 

So the puppy created a distraction.

He donned a rainbow lei (remember, those people at Hyannisport taught this puppy tolerance) and wowed the press. Everyone was talking about this new puppy in the estate in the capital. The two young girls finally had their puppy!

Even the pirates were distracted.

The puppy’s fellow seamen snuck in and rescued the captain held hostage on the other side of the world. 

And that’s how the Portuguese Water puppy reminded everyone to count their Easter blessings. Happy Easter, everyone!!

Credit Where Due: Keith Olbermann Edition

/46 Comments/in , , /by

I watch Keith Olbermann, and his Countdown show on MSNBC, pretty much daily, but I have been critical of him in the past, most notably in his unflinching willingness to blindly support Barack Obama’s adoption of Bush/Cheney policies on civil liberties/surveillance and torture/detention. A prime example of this was my response to Olbermann and John Dean when they conjured up a ridiculous explanation to cover for Obama’s about face on FISA retroactive immunity last summer prior to the election. In The Obama & Olbermann Master Plan For Criminal FISA Prosecutions, I said:

Okay, the words "Master Plan" in the title are a joke. So is the idea of criminal prosecutions, by a future Obama Administration, for Bush era FISA violations that has been hawked, to the point of near belligerence, by Keith Olbermann both on his show and in a running flame war with Glen Greenwald. The instant article will attempt to relate some of the glaring reasons, from a practical criminal justice perspective, that the Obama/Olbermann master plan is naive, almost to the point of being comical. Comical that is if we were not literally discussing the life and spirit of the Fourth Amendment and the health and well being of the Constitutional rule of law in this country.

Well that was then, this is now. That was the right thing to say then, but now it is time to give Keith Olbermann some very deserved credit. The last two nights, Countdown has dedicated substantial time to the depressing and maddening adoption by the Obama Administration of the tricks and artifices of the Bush/Cheney regime. For a review of Keith’s work in this regard Monday night with guest Jonathan Turley, see Glenn Greenwald at Salon who, in writing this, I have discovered had the same urge to give credit where due that I feel here.

Tonight, Keith had on Kevin Bankston of the EFF, who has been on the front line of the consolidated suits pending in front of Judge Vaughn Walker from the outset, and is lead on the new hot button case of Jewel v. NSA described here by Marcy. As the EFF press release states about Jewel:

The Obama Administration goes two steps further than Bush did, and claims that the US PATRIOT Act also renders the U.S. immune from suit under the two remaining key federal surveillance laws: the Wiretap Act and Read more →

White House Flowers: Make a Statement

/50 Comments/in /by

picture-95.png

The WaPo reports that White House Chief florist Nancy Clarke is retiring, after 31 years. The WaPo’s most interested in the change this may bring to the style of flower arrangements in the White House–rather than oversized balls of flowers, we may get leaner, more contemporary arrangements.

But observers note her departure allows the Obamas to try some new things.

"Basically what we’re looking at is less is more," said Robin Sutliff of Georgetown’s Ultra Violet Flowers. ‘There are all kinds of ideas for being more progressive."

"When I see flowers at the White House, they all seem to be these big round balls," said Allan Woods, a favorite florist of D.C. decorators. "They’re very stiff and formal. The flower look could become looser and more contemporary. It would be fun to see them do more edgy arrangements. On the other hand, it is the White House."

But I’m more interested in the one thing that, Clarke says, has changed the most during her tenure at the White House: the globalization of flower production.

The biggest change? Thirty years ago, the florists were limited to locally grown, seasonal blooms until they started flying in fresh flowers from around the globe. "The whole world opened up," she said.

Yes, the whole world opened up. And with it much needed trade for developing countries, along with some absolutely horrible conditions for the workers in those countries. Most notably, Colombia, which has grown to become the world’s second-biggest flower exporter (after the Netherlands). Over that time, workers have been fighting for some protection from some of the abuse–exposure to toxic pesticides, insecure working conditions, and repetitive work injuries. This video, Poisoned Flowers, portrays both the problem and the progress–largely in response to European pressure–towards certifying some of the flowers based on the work conditions used in production.

Michelle Obama set a great example by starting an organic White House garden. This is another area where she can make a statement (particularly against the background of ongoing discussions of a Colombian trade pact): pick a new edgier florist. But also pick one who will use only flowers that are certified to have been grown and processed under conditions that are safe for the workers.

Lobbyists Wailing about Delicious Hell for Lobbyists

/29 Comments/in , /by

Remember how last Friday I was jumping up and down with glee at the delicious hell that Obama had set up to prevent lobbyists from gaming stimulus funds?

With this memo.

Sec. 3. Ensuring Transparency of Registered Lobbyist Communications.

(a) An executive department or agency official shall not consider the view of a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1601 et seq., concerning particular projects, applications, or applicants for funding under the Recovery Act unless such views are in writing.

(b) Upon the scheduling of, and again at the outset of, any oral communication (in-person or telephonic) with any person or entity concerning particular projects, applications, or applicants for funding under the Recovery Act, an executive department or agency official shall inquire whether any of the individuals or parties appearing or communicating concerning such particular project, application, or applicant is a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. If so, the lobbyist may not attend or participate in the telephonic or in-person contact, but may submit a communication in writing.

(c) All written communications from a registered lobbyist concerning the commitment, obligation, or expenditure of funds under the Recovery Act for particular projects, applications, or applicants shall be posted publicly by the receiving agency or governmental entity on its recovery website within 3 business days after receipt of such communication. [my emphasis]

Remember how I predicted big money would be finding ways to have employees avoid registering as lobbyists?

I like it (though I expect big money is already inventing a new way around registering as lobbyists).

Big money is so damned predictable.

The restrictions, which began taking effect unevenly this week, have angered lobbyists already upset with Obama’s repeated shots at them for wielding too much influence. Critics charge it may be unconstitutional to bar certain people — registered lobbyists — from speaking to government officials.

"What disqualifies lobbyists from exercising their First Amendment rights?" said J. Keith Kennedy, a top lobbyist for the Washington firm Baker Donelson.

William Luneburg and Thomas Susman, co-authors of the American Bar Association’s manual on lobbying laws, said they knew of no previous administrations curtailing lobbyists’ conversations with government officials.

[snip]

Since the prohibition applies to registered lobbyists, some firms are thinking about having some of their lobbyists rescind their registrations, which could let them pitch stimulus projects to government officials. Read more →

Did Chuck Todd Ask about Sacrifice because He’s Been Asked to Sacrifice?

/8 Comments/in , /by

This might explain why Chuck Todd was so hot to call for sacrifice the other night:

NBC News has instituted an across-the-board freeze on raises for its executives and talent, even those with contracts guaranteeing them salary bumps.

A tipster tells us that NBC News—and probably all of NBC Universal, though we’re not sure—is discreetly calling around and asking its on-air and off-air employees to take one for the team and voluntarily delay any contractually obligated salary increases for six months.

Is it possible that a crack journalist like Chuck Todd doesn’t know that Main Street has been facing what amount to be pay cuts for some time? Since about 1972?

It’s all about Chuck Todd, you know. 

Declining Justice: DOJ Lets Statute Run On Bush Criminality

/30 Comments/in , , , , /by
graphic by politicalbase

graphic by politicalbase

On March 10, 2009 Emptywheel noted that the five year statute of limitation on the initial criminal wiretapping acts by the Bush/Cheney Administration were expiring.

…the statute of limitations on the potentially criminal March 11 wiretaps of Belew expire today. By all appearances, that means the statute will expire without George Bush being punished for illegally wiretapping an American citizen, even though clear evidence of that criminal wiretapping almost certainly exists.

This is because the one period of time that it is crystal clear that the Bush/Cheney surveillance program was operating without legal sanction was subsequent to the hospital incident:

On March 11, 2004, remember, the warrantless wiretap program was operating without the approval of the Acting Attorney General. After Jim Comey refused to recertify the program on March 9, after Andy Card and Alberto Gonzales tried to get John Ashcroft to overrule Comey from his ICU bed on March 10, Bush reauthorized the program using only the legal sanction of then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales on March 11.

Thus, even if the rest of the program were somehow deemed legal (which it wouldn’t be, because it violated FISA, which is the question at hand), it would be not be deemed legal on March 11, 2004, because the program didn’t have sanction from the Attorney General.

There are, or were at least, three critical dates on which the lawyers for the al-Haramain organization knew themselves to be wiretapped that occurred during the period in which criminality would undoubtedly attach, March 10, 11 and 25 of 2004. It is believed that the program was reinstated under formal footing (as opposed to being run on Alberto Gonzales’ worthless signature as was the case in the days after the hospital incident) in early April, 2004. So, while Emptywheel gave the obituary on the expiration of the first two dates of known criminal culpability, I am here to give the post mortem on the last. It died at 12 pm Eastern time last night.

Now the one entity that has, and has had all along, the proof of the Bush/Cheney criminality in its hot little hands is the United States Department of Justice. You would think that the national press would be swimming with articles about the DOJ declining to pursue Executive Branch crimes in the biggest conspiracy against American citizens in the history of the country. But nary a peep. Read more →

Obama Creates Delicious Hell for Stimulus Lobbyists

/12 Comments/in /by

With this memo.

Sec. 3. Ensuring Transparency of Registered Lobbyist Communications.

(a) An executive department or agency official shall not consider the view of a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1601 et seq., concerning particular projects, applications, or applicants for funding under the Recovery Act unless such views are in writing.

(b) Upon the scheduling of, and again at the outset of, any oral communication (in-person or telephonic) with any person or entity concerning particular projects, applications, or applicants for funding under the Recovery Act, an executive department or agency official shall inquire whether any of the individuals or parties appearing or communicating concerning such particular project, application, or applicant is a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. If so, the lobbyist may not attend or participate in the telephonic or in-person contact, but may submit a communication in writing.

(c) All written communications from a registered lobbyist concerning the commitment, obligation, or expenditure of funds under the Recovery Act for particular projects, applications, or applicants shall be posted publicly by the receiving agency or governmental entity on its recovery website within 3 business days after receipt of such communication.

(d) An executive department or agency official may communicate orally with registered lobbyists concerning general Recovery Act policy issues; provided, however, that such oral communications shall not extend to or touch upon particular projects, applications, or applicants for funding, and further that the official must contemporaneously or immediately thereafter document in writing: (i) the date and time of the contact on policy issues; (ii) the names of the registered lobbyists and the official(s) between whom the contact took place; and (iii) a short description of the substance of the communication. This writing must be posted publicly by the executive department or agency on its recovery website within 3 business days of the communication.

(e) Upon the scheduling of, and again at the outset of, any oral communications with any person or entity concerning general Recovery Act policy issues, an executive department or agency official shall inquire whether any of the individuals or parties appearing or communicating concerning such issues is a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. If so, the official shall comply with paragraph (d) above.

I like it (though I expect big money is already inventing a new way around registering as lobbyists).

So how do we get a memo like this for Read more →

The Geithner Master Plan To Recover The AIG Bonuses

/92 Comments/in , /by

Pretty much the only news this week has been outrage over the bogus bonuses paid to individuals in the AIG Financial Products division (yes, they have already been paid) and discussion among the political class as to how to remedy the situation. The moment we have all been waiting for has arrived. Yep, Tim Geithner has announced his master plan to recover the ill begotten booty from the 73 individuals raking at AIG.

The first report came on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, who related the following:

"Breaking news out ot the AIG bonus outrage, in a letter to Nancy Pelosi, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is revealing how he’d like to get the bonus money back. He wants that company to pay back all the $165 mil of bonus money by cutting that amount out of AIG’s operating budget. In addition as sort of extra punishment, geitner wants to take the upcoming $30 bil going to AIG and deduct another $165 from it, and deduct the same amount from an upcoming $30 bil additional payment."

Well that is simply brilliant. Jeebus, Geithner is going to impose punitive treble damages on ……. ourselves (we own and fund AIG). All the while taking the focus off the freaking 73 mopes that are skating with the loot after burning down the bank. Where did Geithner get this plan, from Goober and Gomer over at the filling station?

Never fear, there is another version. Not surprising, every Administration official in sight has been hemming, hawing and sidestepping since Monday morning on this issue. Here is how Yahoo News reports:

Geithner sent a letter late Tuesday to congressional leaders informing them that he was working with the Justice Department to determine whether any of the AIG payments could be recovered. He cited a provision in the recent economic stimulus law that gave him authority to review compensation to the highest-paid employees of companies that already have received federal assistance.

Like I said, these guys are all over the road. And they don’t appear to have a map or a plan. Interesting if the plan is now to hand off the hot potato to AG Holder, because just yesterday they were saying they would not go to court. Summers said the same thing earlier today.

Bottom line is the Administration is flailing wildly and they are not telling American citizens the straight story.

Win the Super Bowl? Win a Long Trip to Ireland!!!

/17 Comments/in /by

A nice touch, announcing this on St. Paddy’ Day:

President Barack Obama today announced his intent to nominate Steelers owner Dan Rooney as ambassador to Ireland.

In a statement from the White House, Mr. Obama said, "I am honored and grateful that such a dedicated and accomplished individual has agreed to serve as the representative of the United States to the Irish people. Dan Rooney is an unwavering supporter of Irish peace, culture, and education, and I have every confidence that he and Secretary [of State Hillary] Clinton will ensure America’s continued close and unique partnership with Ireland in the years ahead."

Beats the hell out of winning a trip to Disney World, I say!

Greg Craig Won’t Tell You How Obama Disappeared the Whistleblowers

/37 Comments/in , /by

Charlie Savage has an article chronicling Chuck Grassley’s objection to something I objected to last week–Obama’s signing statement undermining whistleblowers.

But that’s not the really creepy part of the article. The creepy part is the way some Obama Administration official, who happens to have the same legal credential and sophist argumentative technique as Greg Craig, provided input for the article.

The White House press office referred questions to an administration official, imposing the condition that he not be identified by name or title.

The official, a lawyer, said Mr. Obama was “committed to whistle-blower protections.” He declined to define every kind of instance in which the president’s power to keep a matter confidential would trump a whistle-blower protection statute, but he did say the administration had no intention of going further than did Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in signing statements concerning similar provisions.

“I don’t think President Obama’s signing statement injects a new level of uncertainty into the law,” he said.

[snip]

The administration official pointed to a memorandum Mr. Obama issued on March 9 laying out a signing statements policy. The document, which does not mention legislative intent, says he will employ only “legitimate” interpretations of statutes. Mr. Obama’s challenge in this case, the official said, is consistent with that principle.

So, let’s review here: They’ve got Charlie Savage talking to a mysterious lawyer on the condition that the lawyer not be named. Said lawyer refuses to explain what the signing statement means for whistleblowers, but claims this doesn’t create any new uncertainty. And then said lawyer asserts that the signing statement from last week was–by definition–a "legitimate" interpretation of statute, legislative intent be damned.

Yup. This is the way we bring transparency to the White House alright.

Chuck Grassley’s ire at Obama’s childish games with whistleblowers will remain a story, so I’m happy Savage covered it. But at some point, Obama’s just as ridiculous approach to discussing legal issues with the press needs to become the story. I realize Greg Craig just recently came fromWilliam & Connolly, where the off-the-record manipulation of the press may be second nature, but he’s working for the American people now, and these things he’s talking about are actually supposed to be laws. It’d be really nice if Greg Craig had the decency to tell us what the laws in this country are.