Blog For Arizona

Doonesbury takes on GOP voter suppression

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Think that Gary Trudeau was joking in today's excellent Doonesbury strip?  Think again. 

The Republican National Committee has set up a "vote fraud" page at its web site http://www.gop.com/ycmtu.htm, and the GOP's media arm at Fox News has been promoting a "voter fraud" hotline (voterfraud@foxnews.com) for several weeks now.  The Raw Story | Dead voters: Fox continues to push 'voter fraud' claims

I'm pretty sure that it is a violation of federal law for a political party to coordinate its unlawful "voter suppression" efforts (The RNC is still subject to a court order for past violations of law) with a federally licensed broadcast network, but someone with far greater knowledge of the arcane FEC and FCC rules and regulations will have to examine this.

This blog's friend Brad Friedman at BradBlog has taken a particular interest in Fox's "voter fraud" investigations. He enthusiastically endorses that readers feel free to email Fox News this link: http://www.bradblog.com/CoulterFraud documenting the one actual case of voter fraud by Ann Coulter in Palm Beach County, Florida.

Doonesbury, Sunday July 6, 2008

Saddlin' Up at the McCain Ranch

by David Safier

John had spent a few too many hours at the ranch with his feet up and a mug of Cindy's beer in his hand, so he decided it was time to look over some of his other property. There's a lot of property to visit, and John was having some problem deciding where to go.

(Note: If the text below is too small, click on the picture once to enlarge it a bit, then when a new version comes up, click on it again to get to full size.)

A Level Educational Playing Field: Unexpected Complications

by David Safier

I'm back in town and haven't had time to catch up on local Ed news, so here's a national item while I get back up to speed.

Everyone wants a level educational playing field where all children learn to their full potential, right? Maybe not -- at least not if it means less opportunity for your own children.

I wrote a few months ago that Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, along with other high quality, high priced universities have pledged to give students from families with lower and middle class incomes nearly free tuition, room and board. It's a great idea. It allows the best and the brightest to get the finest educations our country can offer, regardless of their ability to pay. That's obviously good for the country, since it means the talent pool will be broadened. Our finest young minds will be given the education to help move this country forward. How can there be a downside?

The answer is, now that more young people from the lower and middle classes are being admitted to the finest universities, fewer students from the most exclusive prep schools are getting in, and their rich parents aren't happy about it.

The math is simple. When more students can dream of going to top universities without fear of incurring debt they'll spend the rest of their life paying off, more qualified students will apply. That means the prep school students have more competition from the "great unwashed," many of whom are brighter and more hard working than the privileged applicants. Bingo! A poor kid form Osh Kosh, Wisconsin, and another from East L.A. take up two slots that otherwise would have gone to graduates from the prestigious east coast prep schools.

Will the ultra-rich figure out a way to pressure the top universities into some twisted version of affirmative action, where a few slots will be reserved for students from each of the rich kids' schools? We'll have to wait and see. My suspicion is, the top universities will make concessions to their most powerful alumni, and the concept of "legacy," that long standing but rarely criticized affirmative action program for the rich ([cough] George Bush [cough]), will be expanded so we Leave No Rich Child Behind.

This raises a larger, very important question.

Everyone gives lip service to the idea of quality education for every child. But if our educational system were a pure meritocracy, and if intelligence and drive are qualities more-or-less equally distributed in all racial, ethnic and economic groups, all these groups would be represented at the finest universities based on their percentage of the population. Theoretically, that could mean the children of the wealthiest and most powerful 10% of our society would only represent 10% of the population of Harvard, Stanford, Yale and Princeton.

It would also mean that the most capable members of our society would rise to the top in all fields, and those with less ability would slide down the social and economic ladder, no matter their parentage. Our society might benefit from a resurgence of intellect and creativity and economic growth, but would the rich and powerful let that happen? Will they really allow their children to compete with the rest of society on a level playing field?

Clark's "Swift" Comment

WTF? If you only listened to the commentary after the fact and the subsequent right-wing blogoviation about Gen. Wesley Clark's comment about McCain's military service, you would think he said something absolutely terrible about the man.

What he said was that McCain hasn't any military command experience that would be relevant to being President. Getting shot down, captured and tortured is a character-building experience, no doubt, but not a qualification for Commander in Chief. That's it. That's what he said. And he's right.

But the right wing noise machine is treating Clark's comments like a personal attack on his patriotism, heroism, and character. And this comes even as McCain hires one of the original Swift Boaters for his campaign. Oh, the irony...

Clark's comment was not an attack denying his heroism or service, and people who are in the know (which now includes you) should push back against that narrative.

Here's a TPM Media compilation of Clark's comments and the media reaction:

After seeing Clark's performance in this whole affair, I have to say he looks more like Vice Presidential material to me.

The Truth About America's Energy - Part 1

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

For the past couple of weeks, John McCain and the GOP have been hitting the airwaves to sell McCain's "new" energy policy.  There is nothing "new" about his policy - it is essentially Dick Cheney's secret Energy Commission Plan from 2001. 

The only thing "new" is that McCain has reversed his previous opposition to lifting the moratorium on off-shore drilling in environmentally sensitive coastal areas, although he continues to oppose drilling in the environmentally sensitive ANWR in Alaska.  I suppose this is his attempt to maintain the fiction of his "maverick" image by opposing his party on an issue it supports, and a vain attempt to convince people he is an environmentalist.

Add to Cheney's Energy Commission Plan McCain's gimmickry of a summer gas tax holiday (which only benefits oil producers) and his newfound interest in being Monty Hall on Let's Make a Deal by giving a $300 million prize to whomever invents the next generation electric car battery.  Newsflash John, it already exists! 

Each of Detroit's big three auto makers and the Japanese auto makers already have hybrids, flex-fuel vehicles, and all-electric vehicles in the production pipeline for the 2009 and 2010 model years (they are already running advertising campaigns).  Exxon-Mobil is currently running a television ad about its lithium-ion battery, and Toshiba announced its lithium-ion battery in December 2007.  Market forces are already leading the way to innovation, not government game show gimmicks. 

McCain and the GOP have been allowed to frame the debate over high oil (gas) prices as a simple supply and demand problem by our economically ignorant news media, most of whom never even took Econ 101 in college, and if they did, I suspect they received no better than a gentleman's "C" and have since forgotten anything they ever learned.  Economics news today is limited to "the stock market went up/down today by ___ points.  Moving on to other news..." 

What has been almost entirely absent from the discussion of high oil (gas) prices is any discussion of the role that U.S. fiscal policy and budget policy play in the price of oil, and the role of speculators hedging against inflation and the devaluation of the dollar in unregulated index fund markets.  (More on this in later posts).

The price of oil and how we came to this place is far too complex a subject to explain with a simple explanation.  But let's begin with addressing the GOP over-simplification that this is a simple supply and demand problem.

Supply and Demand

There are really two supply issues: the short-term supply-to-demand ratio, and long-term "peak oil" production. 

You may recall that in 1999 there was a surplus in oil production of almost 7 million barrels per day over daily demand.  The price of oil fell below $20 per barrel (as low as $10 per barrel for some domestic crude), and U.S. retail gas prices at the pump dipped below $1 per gallon.  In response, U.S. oil companies shut down and capped oil wells in the U.S. because it was no longer profitable for them to produce oil in a surplus market.  OPEC also adjusted its oil production output as well.

It did not take long before this adjustment in oil production output reduced the surplus supply-to-demand ratio to only 1 million barrels per day over daily demand (adjusted for increased demand on the world market from emerging markets such as China and India).  This was not enough of a cushion to cover a disruption in the oil supply.  This allowed oil producers to charge a premium based upon short supply and any market concerns over disruptions to the oil supply (i.e., 9/11, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, saber rattling against Iran, etc.)  The surplus supply-to-demand ratio has recently improved somewhat to around 2 million barrels per day over current daily demand, largely due to reduced U.S. demand (Americans are driving less because they cannot afford the price of gas, and the U.S. economy is sliding into recession).

The current GOP talking point is that the U.S. can domestically drill its way out of dependence on foreign oil.  This is delusional.  The U.S. has less than 3% of proven oil reserves, but consumes 25% of the world's oil supply.  Even if all proven domestic oil reserves were somehow magically in production today - a fantasy - it would only last for a relatively brief period of time, and would only have a marginal effect on the price of oil (world demand for oil is projected to increase 37% over 2006 levels by 2030). There is also no guarantee that the oil produced domestically would be available exclusively for U.S. consumption.  It would, per usual, be sold on the world oil market to any bidder.

The U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources has issued a report entitled "The Truth About America's Energy." Facts and figures provided by the Energy Information Administration and the Department of Interior clearly illustrate that oil producers already have the means to increase domestic oil and gas production even without ANWR or lifting the moratorium on off-shore drilling in environmentally sensitive areas:

On the Outer Continental Shelf, 82 percent of federal natural gas and 79 percent of federal oil is located in areas currently open for leasing. Onshore, 62 percent of oil and 84 percent of natural gas resources are either fully accessible under standard lease stipulations designed to protect lands and wildlife, or will be accessible pending the completion of land-use planning or environmental reviews. Between 1999 and 2007, drilling permits for oil and gas development on public lands increased more than 361 percent. Since 2004, the Bureau of Land Management has issued 28,776 permits to drill on public land; in that same time, only 18,954 wells were drilled. Oil and gas companies have stockpiled nearly 10,000 extra permits to drill that they are not using to increase domestic production.

Onshore, of the 47.5 million acres of federal lands leased by oil and gas companies, only about 13 million acres are producing oil and gas. Offshore, only 10.5 million of the 44 million leased acres are producing oil or gas. Combined, oil and gas companies hold leases to nearly 68 million acres of federal land that are not producing oil and gas. The 68 million acres of leased, inactive federal land could produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day. That would nearly double total U.S. oil production, and increase natural gas production by 75 percent.

* * *

[T]here are nearly 91 million acres currently open to leasing in the Arctic region of Alaska, including onshore and offshore lands. Oil and gas companies have leased only 11.8 million of that acreage. Within the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, oil companies have leased 3 million of 22.6 million acres available to lease. No production has occurred on any of those lands and industry has drilled only 25 exploratory wells there since 2000.

* * *

Development of and production from the 68 million acres currently under lease but not in production would cut U.S. imports of oil by one third. Add to this mix the thousands of existing wells in states such as Texas and Oklahoma that were capped off after imported oil dropped to $10 a barrel and could be reopened to immediately increase production.

Editorials - newsjournalonline.com (by Agnes Witter).  This is worth repeating.  Oil companies could double domestic oil production and reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil imports by one-third with the 68 million acres currently under lease but not in production.

So ask yourself, why are Republicans in Congress demanding that ANWR and additional off-shore leases be opened up to the oil companies when the oil companies have failed to fully utilize the leases already available to them? 

This is really about a federal land grab by the oil companies and their willing accomplices in Congress.  Making more federal land available for oil leases will not result in any more oil being produced for domestic consumption.  Oil companies will determine the supply-to-demand ratio based upon the world market and their profit motive.

A related GOP talking point is that the oil companies have not built a new oil refinery in the U.S. in over 30 years.  This is true.  In 1982, the earliest year for which the Energy Information Administration has data, there were 301 operable refineries in the U.S. which produced 17.9 million barrels of oil per day.  Today there are only 149 operable refineries (or fewer) which produce 17.4 million barrels of oil per day.  This is not enough capacity to meet our current daily demand of around 20 million barrels per day. 

There was a surplus of refining capacity in the 1980s and 1990s, so refiners shut down unprofitable refineries.  The head of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association testified at a House hearing that the rate of return on investment in refining averaged just five and a half percent between 1993 and 2003.  (At the rate of 150,000 barrels per day, a refinery would have to operate for almost 13 years before its profits outweighed the cost of building it).

In 2001, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) presented to Congress a report demonstrating that refinery closings were calculated business decisions intended to increase oil company profits.  Fewer refineries meant less production in circulation, which meant a lower supply-to-demand ratio and more profit.  Wyden's report contained internal memos from the oil industry indicating that this reduction was a deliberate attempt to curtail profit losses.  See, FactCheck.org: Does the U.S. lack sufficient oil refining capabilities?

So the truth is that there is not presently a shortage of oil production, but a short-term supply-to-demand ratio being manipulated by the oil producers, i.e., OPEC and the oil companies, who are maintaining the supply-to-demand ratio in short supply to charge a premium and maximize their profits.  Oil producers could marginally increase output to create a larger daily surplus, but that could reduce the price of oil.  There is no financial incentive for them to increase production beyond a short supply surplus.

Peak oil supply is an entirely different matter.  The theory has been extensively written about since M. King Hubbert developed his "Peak Theory" in 1956.  The theory postulates that "peak oil" is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline. Prices increase rapidly as finite supplies of oil are exhausted.

Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens recently testified before the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that "I do believe you have peaked out at 85 million barrels a day globally."  The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO) predicted in their January 2008 newsletter that the peak in all oil (including non-conventional sources), would occur in 2010.

The issue we face today is our national commitment to end our addiction and dependency on oil before we are confronted with the economic crisis of peak oil.  There is little time.  But the policy proposals being made today only seek to prolong our addiction to oil with short-term increases in oil supply to reduce the price of gas at the pump, rather than to end our dependency on oil.  We are still putting off to tomorrow what we should be doing today.  Conservation, new technologies, higher energy efficiency standards, higher CAFE standards, flex-fuel and all-electric vehicles, and the rapid development of renewable energy resources (solar/wind/geothermal/wave) would begin reducing U.S. demand for oil.  But this is only the beginning.  Much will remain to be done, and it will take a national commitment over decades to truly achieve energy independence.

Andy Thomas' Bad Case of Fascist Disease

Andy Thomas, the Maricopa County Attorney, is asking the Arizona State Supreme Court [PDF] to declare him above the obligatory ethical standards of his profession. He wants to be declared exempt from the system of self-governance by which the ethical standards of the legal profession are enforced under the supervision and authority of the courts. Because he was elected, Andy claims to be untouchable, unquestionable and exempt from investigation by the state Bar.

His argument boils down to the fairly absurd idea that he is both the embodiment of the state and the attorney for the state; thus, everything he does in his job is protected by the attorney-client or executive privileges. He's claiming to be both client and attorney! Thus, even if there is an allegation that he has violated the ethics of his profession by his conduct in office, he asserts he cannot be held to account by a mere jury of his professional peers (which is an odd thing for a prosecutor to believe in...).

Andy has fallen victim to peculiar movement-conservative meme that posits elected officials are only accountable to the electorate, and then only at elections, and cannot be thwarted, investigated, or in any way made accountable by any other power. This is the fascist electoral theory of democracy and it has become a common virus circulating in certain conservative circles these days. I call it the "Fascist Disease". The most obvious symptom of the disease is criminal investigation, indictment, and conviction - as the disease causes its victims to believe themselves above the law. Many conservatives are showing these quite obvious symptoms these days.

Democrats aren't doing much to stem the spread of the outbreak, unfortunately. They allow a terribly virulent infection to fester at the heart of our political system, and it is spreading the contagion like wildfire: the Bush Administration, despite being a pack of criminals who have declared themselves above the law, continue to rule despite their obvious derangement by the disease. The Congress refuses to quarantine the infection by impeachment, and the disease is thereby encouraged to spread. Now it has claimed poor Andy Thomas.

The Arizona Bar, in their response to Andy's brief [PDF], use a nice analogy for Andy's theory about his immunity to the Bar's disciplinary system. The Bar's disciplinary system is essentially inquisitorial in nature: they function as both the police (investigating allegations of ethical violations instead of crimes) and the court (hearing evidence and making a decision on the merits). When the Bar receives a complaint, or creates a complaint based on press or court information, it first investigates to see if there is cause to continue taking evidence on the complaint. This is called screening and most complaints die a deserved death at this juncture.

Andy is asking the Court to take several complaints away from the Bar, even before a screening investigation begins. He doesn't want the Bar even to have the power to investigate complaints against him: it's as if he's a defense attorney asking an appeals court to take a case away from the police investigating a complaint and declare the police can't investigate the defendant - at all- for any reason - ever. It's about as bad an infection of Fascist Disease as I've ever diagnosed. Not only does Andy claim to be above the law, but he's above investigation by cops on his beat.

It's typical the fascist disease that its victims believe that the mystical power the electorate has invested in them cannot be abused, no matter how it's used. Well, we know better. Sorry, Andy, the law does constrain you; and the Bar, of which he is a member, has the power to discipline even a high-muckety office-holder like Andy, or Terry Goddard, or Janet Napolitano.

The Bar system is designed to screen complaints that haven't any merit. Already, 4 of the 7 complaints which Andy is asking the Court to take away from the Bar have been dismissed for lack of merit by the Bar. But the Bar is sensitive to any impression that the discipline process may not be perfectly objective and so they have offered to appoint a special master to handle the remaining complaints. If Andy was really so sure that these remaining complaints lack any merit, why not just let independent special master do his or her job? Or perhaps the problem is that Andy knows that these remaining complaints - specifically those stemming from his behavior during the New Times Affair - have a bit too much merit to risk allowing any objective screening of them? Perhaps the cop on the ethics beat will notice how badly Andy screwed up in his zeal to punish the newspaper hounding his buddy, Sheriff Joe "Biggest Joke of a Sheriff in America" Arpaio?

I won't presume to prejudge whether the complaints against Thomas and his bestest Kahuna, Dennis Wilenchik, have any merit (oh, who am I kidding? These guys are as ethical as two-dollar whores...) or whether the Bar's independent special master will even proceed with them (I sure hope so...). But I will eat my hat if the Supreme Court grants Andy an endorsement of his Fascist Disease-inspired fever dreams of unchecked power.

Bee-trayal

Tim Bee has just proven with this year's Arizona budget exactly how effective he'll be in working with a Democratic majority in Congress. I couldn't be happier to learn that even if Bee pulls off a miracle and beats Gabby, Tim has shown himself an utter pipsqueak who will knuckle under to Democrats without even extracting a political fig leaf.

Timmy conspired with Democrats to pass a budget with a grand total of just 8 Republican votes, four of whom do not face primaries. In fact, it would be entirely justified to view this year's budget as a Democratic budget that Bee gave a few Republicans cover to vote for. That's fantastic! My heart is a-flutter to know that when the chips are down, Timmy will fold.

Slightly more troubling, and deeply revelatory of Bee's true character, is the move that Bee hopes will save his bacon with his base for selling them down the river on the state budget: a gay marriage ballot referendum. In a very real sense, this legislative Kristalnacht is the major accomplishment of his Speakership, and the hallmark of his leadership. Bee doesn't have the stones to deliver a Republican budget, but he sure as hell can bash on the new Jews.

Congratulations Senator Bee, you've managed to reconcile the leadership styles of Neville Chamberlin and Adolph Hitler. That's an historic accomplishment.

Your Favorite Book

by David Safier

I'm traveling, which means I'm both busy and out of the loop. So I'm going to turn things over to you. I'd call this an assignment, but that makes it seem like work, doesn't it?

In the comments, write about the favorite book you've read in, say, a year -- though if you want to go back further, who's going to know? Give us about 50-100 words about the book -- though if you want to write more, who's going to stop you?

It's summer. People tend to read more. Let's help each other broaden our horizons.

Betrayal by the GAGA Arizona Democrats

Certain Arizona Democrats continue to Go Along to Get Along with the Bush agenda. Giffords and Mitchell voted to continue to fund the war in Iraq and to immunize tel-comms who broke the law at the behest of the Bush Administration, incidentally preventing discovery in those pending civil cases that could produce further evidence of criminality by this Administration.

Do you think that Tim Bee or any of the GOP wannabees in CD 5 would have voted any differently than these Democrats on these issues? Of course not - that's the point of these GAGA Dems 'strategy': to deny their GOP opponents a contrast issue. But if there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans on these key issues, how will people see a difference between the parties when it comes time to go to the polls? They won't - and they'll stay home, which is the worst thing possible for the Democratic party. Apathy is good for the GOP and these Democrats are doing their best to ensure that voters will be apathetic about their ability to affect the most important issues of our time.

Why are Giffords and Mitchell goldbricking on the hardest political work facing our Party? Perhaps it's because they don't believe Democratic positions on these issues are the right ones, or because they feel those positions are too hard to explain to a public conditioned by fear for the past 7 years. In either case, one has to wonder if candidates who won't fight for and vote for Democratic positions are the best representatives of for the Democratic Party in their districts. If they won't fight for positions our Party overwhelmingly supports (withdrawal from Iraq and fighting for the rule of law with an outlaw Administration) then perhaps it is time to consider whether we need to find candidates who will take on the difficult issues without always putting their fingers in the wind first, and aping the positions of their GOP colleagues to avoid a fight.

Giffords and Mitchell are not only betraying our troops by keeping them in a pointless war of attrition that is undermining American security, and betraying our Constitution by letting this Administration violate Congressional laws and immunize their co-conspirators, they are betraying the Democratic Party by ensuring that voters won't see a difference between the parties on the issues that matter most in November. That might work to their advantage in their own races (I personally am of the opinion that they are wrong to think that), but it will certainly not help our Party rally public opinion to make the major course correction this country so desperately needs.

Gabby Giffords' Votes:

Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 - Vote Passed (268-155, 12 Not Voting)

The House approved this $165.4 billion bill to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq through FY2008 and the beginning of FY2009.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords voted YES 

---

FISA Amendments Act of 2008 - Vote Passed (293-129, 13 Not Voting)

The House passed this intelligence bill that would revise U.S. surveillance laws.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords voted YES 

Harry Mitchell's Votes:

Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 - Vote Passed (268-155, 12 Not Voting)

The House approved this $165.4 billion bill to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq through FY2008 and the beginning of FY2009.

Rep. Harry Mitchell voted YES 

---

FISA Amendments Act of 2008 - Vote Passed (293-129, 13 Not Voting)

The House passed this intelligence bill that would revise U.S. surveillance laws.

Rep. Harry Mitchell voted YES 

Contrast the GAGA Dems' votes on these issues with those of a real progressive Democrat like Rep. Grijalva. I have to wonder if Raul is regretting his early and strong support for Gabby in the 2006 primary. Without that support we might now have a real progressive in Congress voting like Grijalva on these vital issues.

Raul Grijalva's Votes:

Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 - Vote Passed (268-155, 12 Not Voting)

The House approved this $165.4 billion bill to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq through FY2008 and the beginning of FY2009.

Rep. Raul Grijalva voted NO

---

FISA Amendments Act of 2008 - Vote Passed (293-129, 13 Not Voting)

The House passed this intelligence bill that would revise U.S. surveillance laws.

Rep. Raul Grijalva voted NO 

So which is it Gabby and Harry: is Grijalva undermining our national security with his thoroughly Democratic votes? Or are you undermining your own Party's credibility on these vital issues by voting against your caucus and siding with the wrong-headed GOP?

And in case you think I'm letting him off the hook: No, Obama's wrong on this issue, and playing the same short-sighted game as the GAGAs.

Dr. McCain's Nuclear Prescription

by Russell Lowes

Senator McCain announced a new prescription for energy for America in a recent speech. He is now calling for 45 nuclear reactors to be completed by 2030 and an additional 55 reactors to be completed thereafter.(1) He had been promoting nuclear energy as a solution to global warming for years. But
now. . .

So much for nukes being the solution for global warming. With McCain's 45/100 nukes, even if we had  100 nukes tomorrow and even IF THEY DID reduce carbon emissions, 100 nukes would not be enough to play a significant role.

However, John McCain probably wants to get his foot in the door and push for many more, eventually. The infamous 2003 MIT study postulated 1000 nukes.(2) Some organizations and individuals since then have postulated many more.

The reason that 100 nukes will amount to about a drop in a bucket is this. The United States generates about 6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.(3) Even if that electrical production was used to displace coal, and CO2 production of the twenty steps of the nuclear energy cycle was not counted, then it would save coal plants from putting about 400 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. 400 million is only 7% of 6 billion U.S. CO2 emissions.

However, much of this nuclear capacity would displace solar, energy efficiency technologies, natural gas, etc. These technologies produce far less CO2 than coal, so the displacement would be much lower.

It is important to remember that nuclear energy has twenty steps of CO2 production, from mining to waste management. It produces a huge amount of CO2.
   
Let's focus on the costs of McCain's 45/100 Rx.

In the early part of this decade, nuclear reactors were projected by the industry to cost $1500 to 2000 per kilowatt of capacity. Then about two years ago, a utility put the cost at $2600. Then estimates started really climbing. Over the last two years, estimates have increased all the way to $10,000 per kilowatt, 5-7-fold what the projection was just a few years ago.
   
With these new cost estimates flying out of the utilities' planning staffs, the 100 reactors would cost about $9-10 billion each if they averaged 1000 megawatts each. Most reactor designs these days are larger, though, ranging from 1100 to 1600 megawatts. So let's say the average size changes from the current 1000 to the future 1350 MW. At the most recent utility estimate of $10,000 per kilowatt, 100 reactors would total $1.35 trillion.

If these plants were all finished in the same year, to make it simple, and the payback (levelized fixed charge rate) was 15% per year, the annual payback would average $202.5 billion per year. If we shared that expense over 350 million U.S. citizens over 30 years, that would be $579 per person per year for each of those 30 years.

To put this into another perspective, the total energy bill for our country is about $900 billion per year. That is for gas for our cars, electricity, all manufacturing, commercial and residential consumption for heating, cooling, everything. Just for this measly 100 reactors, with a boost from 19% of energy to probably 25% or so (considering we won't have any money left to spend on energy efficiency or renewables, so energy growth will remain high), there will simply not be enough benefit to outweigh the costs.

All this nuclear plant capacity for $579 per citizen of the U.S. for 30 years, and we haven't even put on the costs of fuel, operation and maintenance, waste storage, environmental remediation from terrorist or other environmental breaches!

Notes:
1) Public Record
2) Energy Information Administration
3) Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Future of Nuclear Power, 2003.

The Double Talk Express: McCain is a Fraud on Campaign Finance Reform (Updated)

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Senator John McCain should get an award for his method acting.  He puts on his serious face and talks in measured words imbued with a solemn tone so that his base in the news media will think that he is saying something really important that they ought to report - while on the inside, he is laughing at them with derision at how easy it is for him to manipulate them into dutifully reporting every word he says, when he knows that he is LYING HIS ASS OFF!

The most recent example of this Kabuki theater was the McCain campaign getting the vapors and hyperventilating about Senator Barack Obama's announcement that he will not participate in public financing in the general election campaign.  (There is something surreal about a Republican complaining that a Democrat will not spend the public's money).

McCain's base in the news media dutifully reported his campaign's spin on Obama's announcement like good little stenographers - "he broke his promise!" - without reporting that McCain has unclean hands, that he has violated the campaign finance law which ironically bears his name and FEC regulations for which several complaints are currently pending before the FEC.  I have addressed McCain's campaign finance fraud at length in my earlier post Blog For Arizona: The Double Talk Express: McCain is a Fraud on Campaign Finance Reform.

Update: The DNC announced last week that it will refile a lawsuit previously dismissed on grounds it was premature this Tuesday. DNC TO FILE COMPLAINT AGAINST MCCAIN CAMPAIGN FOR FEC VIOLATIONS, HOLDING MCCAIN RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO.

The Democratic National Committee today announced that it will file a suit with the U.S. District Court in D.C. next week to compel the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to investigate John McCain's decision to unilaterally withdraw from the FEC's matching funds program despite using the program to financially benefit his campaign, which is clearly against the law. While John McCain talks about transparency and running a different kind of campaign, his actions and rhetoric clearly don't square as he continues to skirt FEC law.

Let's be clear. Obama did not "promise" to participate in public financing as McCain falsely asserted.  In completing a survey from a public interest organization, Obama checked a box for "yes" and added a detailed explanation that his participation was conditioned upon his ability to negotiate an agreement with the Republican nominee, if he were the Democratic nominee, to limit campaign spending to public financing, i.e., to limit the independent expenditures traditionally engaged in by the RNC and DNC, and attempt to limit spending from affiliated independent campaign committees.  McCain and the news media have focused only on the check off box, and disingenuously disregarded Obama's detailed explanation to paint an inaccurate and misleading picture.

Lawyers for the two campaigns recently met but did not reach an agreement, i.e., the condition precedent that would give rise to a promise did not occur.  There was never any meeting of the minds that gave rise to a promise.  You don't have to be a lawyer to understand this most basic legal concept.  (In reality, neither campaign really wanted such an agreement).

Fortunately, there are some in the news media who still do their job.  The fullest factually accurate discussion of this matter that I could find was this discussion between Keith Olbermann from Countdown and Howard Fineman from Newsweek.

See the video after the 'Continue'...

John McCain's Lobbyist Friends

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Democratic National Committee has put out this video which summarizes nicely several of the points I have made in earlier posts about Senator John McCain and his all too-cozy relationship with K Street lobbyists.  These people do not represent "good government" reform.

McCain, Lobbyists and the Air Tanker Deal

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

You may have read several articles since last Wednesday when the GAO released an auditor's report condemning the U.S. Air Force for its bid process on a new air tanker deal Audit Says Tanker Deal Is Flawed - NYTimes.com:

The auditors, with the Government Accountability Office, agreed with Boeing that the Air Force unfairly evaluated the merits and overall cost of the Boeing bid, and urged the Air Force to reopen negotiations. The tanker contract, which could eventually grow to $100 billion to build a fleet of 179 refueling planes, is one of the most lucrative ever awarded by the Pentagon.

“Our review of the record led us to conclude that the Air Force had made a number of significant errors that could have affected the outcome of what was a close competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman,” said the G.A.O., the agency that Congress has designated to review federal contract disputes. “We therefore sustained Boeing’s protest,” it added.

The Times continued:

One of the leading players in the tanker contract dispute is Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, who scuttled an initial deal between the Air Force and Boeing in 2004 as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

That plan, in which the Air Force was to have leased the tankers from Boeing, collapsed in a corruption scandal that sent two Boeing executives to prison and later cost the chief executive his job.

* * *

Mr. McCain’s top advisers, including a co-chairman of his presidential campaign, were lobbyists for EADS. And Mr. McCain had written to the Defense Department, urging it to ignore a trade dispute between the United States and Europe over whether Airbus received improper subsidies. Mr. McCain said that he was asking the Air Force only to maintain a level playing field as it considered the two bids.

Michael Isikoff at Newsweek adds additional context Military: McCain’s Boeing Battle Boomerangs | Newsweek Periscope | Newsweek.com:

The auditor's ruling has also cast light on an overlooked aspect of McCain's crusade: five of his campaign's top advisers and fund-raisers—including Tom Loeffler, who resigned last month as his finance co-chairman, and Susan Nelson, his finance director—were registered lobbyists for EADS.

Critics, including some at the Pentagon, cite in particular two tough letters McCain wrote to Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England in 2006 and another to Robert Gates, just prior to his confirmation as Defense secretary. In the first letter, dated Sept. 8, 2006, McCain wrote of hearing from "third parties" that the Air Force was about to redo the tanker competition by factoring in European government subsidies to EADS—a condition that could have seriously hurt the EADS bid. McCain urged that the Pentagon drop the subsidy factor and posed a series of technical questions about the Air Force's process. "He was trying to jam us and bully us to make sure there was competition by giving EADS an advantage," said one senior Pentagon official, who asked for anonymity when discussing a politically sensitive matter. The assumption within the Pentagon, the official added, was that McCain's letters were drafted by EADS lobbyists. "There was no one else that would have had that level of detail," the official said. (A Loeffler associate noted that he and Nelson were retained by EADS after the letters were drafted.)

* * *

McCain said last week his "paramount concern" was "that the Air Force buy the most capable aerial refueling tankers at the most reasonable cost." But some defense analysts say the controversy over the Air Force rebid—and the higher costs that will result—have taken some of the shine off McCain's efforts. "This shows how a sort of naive crusade for good government can actually backfire," said Loren Thompson, of the Lexington Institute, a defense think tank.

The GAO auditor report raises legitimate concerns whether Senator McCain used his senate committee position either to steer a contract to EADS, or to financially benefit members of his campaign staff who were working as lobbyists for EADS.  Or could it be the case that McCain was easily manipulated by these slick lobbyists into doing their bidding? 

Once again, McCain's all too-cozy relationship with K Street lobbyists has tarnished his phony reputation as a reformer and raised the specter of a scandal reminiscent of the Keating Five scandal.

A Meeting with our Future Commander-in-Chief

by John Adams

Last Wednesday, June 18, in Washington, I had the privilege of joining a group of thirty-seven retired generals and admirals in a meeting with Senator Barack Obama, to discuss national security issues. 

I entered the meeting with Hope, believing with all my heart that Barack Obama can bring the change our country needs, to restore our safety and prosperity.  I left the meeting with Fulfillment, knowing that this is a leader who is ready to be our Commander-in-Chief today.

A small but revealing digression...as our group waited for our meeting to start, greeting each other, including (for me) some whom I hadn't seen for years (previous assignments in the Middle East, the Balkans, the Pentagon), speaking of why we were together, suddenly we recognized -- literally in our midst -- the voice we've all come to know, that of Barack Obama.  The room hushed immediately.  Barack told us he was running about fifteen minutes late, and he wanted to let us know that he regretted the delay, but we'd get down to business soon.  He could have sent someone to tell us, of course, but that's not his style.  Instead, he told us himself. 

The mark of a leader who respects others...

As the outlines of the meeting have been reported in the press, I'll take the liberty of commenting on the atmospherics within the bounds of discretion, as the points of our discussion must remain "closed-door."

Senator Obama opened the meeting with a heartfelt thanks to all of us -- and to those who wear the uniform of the United States of America -- for our service.  He asked us not to hold back in the discussion on national security issues -- encouraging us always to do the right thing, to speak our minds with absolute candor.  His demeanor was calm, relaxed, purposeful, and completely businesslike. 

Throughout the meeting, he genuinely listened -- and responded appropriately to -- our concerns.  His tone of urgency and determination to address the serious issues facing our country inspired all of us to voice our concerns in the same spirit.  And Barack's encouragement -- to speak our minds honestly and directly -- found success.  No one held back. 

And though Senator Obama was clearly in charge of the meeting (setting the broad topics, responding thoughtfully and knowledgably to our observations), he listened to our group far longer than he spoke to us. 

The mark of a leader who values counsel...

Senator Barack Obama is both brilliant and wise.  Vitally important for a Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America, he knows how to lead, and how to call professionals to duty in service to our Constitution.  He knows the national security issues facing our country internationally -- and domestically.  He understands the process by which our national security strategy should be derived -- and he also understands how the process can go off the rails. 

Most important for Americans who trust in his leadership and wisdom, he is already tackling national security issues with both urgency and determination...as a Senator and as our Party's standard bearer now, but looking forward to the challenges he'll face in office.  Barack Obama leans forward.

The mark of a leader with his priorities straight...

We've all seen how masterfully Barack has run the most successful primary campaign in recent memory, harnessing the energy of tens of millions of Americans, a host of committted volunteers, as well as a skilled professional staff, to build a movement that overcame all the odds to win.  Now we can see he has hit the ground running in the general election campaign. 

Among other things, I took away from our meeting last Wednesday that Barack Obama feels a solemn duty to Americans to restore our national security after eight years of the Bush Administration's disregard for our safety and prosperity.  As Barack quotes Martin Luther King, this movement is about "the fierce urgency of now"...

The mark of a leader who serves the American people...

And you can believe -- on national security as on all the other urgent issues crying out for leadership and competence -- President Barack Obama will hit the ground running in January.

Oregon is Behind the NCLB Ed Curve, and Should Have Stayed There

by David Safier

A quick post from Portland, Oregon, where I taught for 30-some years and am now visiting.

Late in the standardized-testing day, Oregon has decided that students need to pass standardized tests in math, reading and writing to graduate high school. Unlike Arizona, the tests were only being used for graduation requirements in a few Oregon school districts where the administrators decided they wanted to be the best little boys and girls in the state.

The District where I taught was one of those "good little boys and girls" districts. I was a member of the loyal opposition who complained about high stakes testing at every opportunity, but I too taught my English students how to pass them. Otherwise, if some of my students didn't pass because I hadn't taught them the tricks that earn them a few extra points (I'm talking about testmanship, not cheating), I would have let them down.

The irony is, it looks like the standardized testing wave has crested and is poised to slope downward into a more benign position. No Child Left Behind is reviled by the left, the right and by teaching groups. Some states are turning their backs on all the high stakes testing nonsense, realizing, I hope, that the right wing that crafted the bill (and sucked Ted Kennedy and some other liberals into foolishly supporting it) was looking for ways to harm, not help, public education.

So Oregon, at the forefront of many innovative ideas, is now hitching onto the back end of a train that looks like it's about to chug its way off to a side spur in the train yard and be decommissioned.

There's another touch of ironic humor here -- or self-parody, if you will. It took Arizona years to figure out it needed alternative ways for students to pass AIMS so we wouldn't be faced with large numbers of students who didn't graduate. Oregon has those buy-outs built in from the beginning. The "everyone has to pass the tests to graduate" edict has been amended before it even goes into effect. Isn't it great when people start out knowing how ridiculous it is to do what they're doing, but they go ahead and do it anyway?

Actually, It's the Taxes, Stupid

Greg over at Espresso Pundit is on the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) soapbox claiming that the current budget crunch in Arizona is not the result of the GOP majority constantly hacking away at our tax base and shifting it to more cyclical revenues (like sales tax, which is also more regressive), but due to run-away spending. Not only is the idea that spending is out of control in Arizona risible, but his favored solution, a TABOR in Arizona, is a simply the latest disastrously irresponsible idea from a party best known of late for its disastrous ideas and tragically poor judgment.

Here's the neat-o graph Greg thinks proves something:

What we see here is actual Arizona state budgets (The blue line) compared to a TABOR-limited hypothetical budget limit (the green line with triangles) that caps state expenditure growth to population increase plus inflation. Greg thinks that this proves that a TABOR-limited budget would have imposed greater spending discipline.

He might be right that state government spending would be less, but TABORs tend merely to shift costs off the books, not to reduce overall governmental costs. Local governments, special taxing districts and mechanisms, and other accounting tricks are used to meet citizens real needs while producing the accounting targets the TABOR requires.

And what essentail services can't be hidden from the reach of the TABOR's meat axe are often just hacked into indiscriminately. Now, I suppose that's fine for some conservatives... until and unless their own preferred state services are affected. How about we let a bunch of felons out of prison to save on incarceration costs? How about we stop building needed roads and other infrastructure, creating a massive investment deficit that will cripple our economy in the long-term? How about we under-invest in our schools and leave an entire generation without the skills to compete in a global economy?

Taxes are how a society invests in itself and accomplishes goals and functions no private citizen can. Conservatives seem to have forgotten that.

The main reason a TABOR is a poor substitute for a democratically responsive representative body making decisions about the public interest and providing the revenue to meet societies needs is that the formulaic approach of a TABOR makes a key assumption that is terribly naive and misinformed. TABORs assume that the grow in population plus inflation is always sufficient to deliver vital services.

There are a number of reasons why (PDF) that central assumption is as dumb as a box of rocks.

First, “no existing measure of inflation correctly captures the growth in
the cost of the kinds of services purchased in the public sector, so the
inflation adjustment generally is not sufficient to allow the continuation
of existing services. State governments spend much of their money on
education and health care, which typically have cost increases greater
than the general rate of inflation. Within the Consumer Price Index
(CPI) itself, medical care and education have been growing at twice the
rate of the overall CPI.”

Second “the subpopulations that state governments serve tend to grow
more rapidly than the overall population growth used in the formula. For
example, while total population grew by 15.4 percent from 1990 to 2002
[in Colorado], total state prison population grew by 83 percent, disabled
children in schools grew by 35 percent, and the number of elderly and
disabled persons on Medicaid grew by 70 percent. Over the next 40
years, the elderly population will grow at twice the rate of general
population growth.”

Third, the population growth plus inflation formula “fails to take into
account the possibility that court, voter, or federal mandates may require
a state to take on new responsibilities. Mandates, whether internal or
external, may increase the responsibilities and costs borne by the state
without any proactive policy change on the part of state lawmakers.
Rigid tax and expenditure limits, such as those based on population
change and inflation, inadequately reflect the potential costs that may be
imposed on state and local governments.”

Fourth, “state governments inevitably face spending needs that cannot
be anticipated. Natural disasters, public health emergencies, economic
changes, and other such occurrences place expensive but unexpected
demands on state and local governments.”

And finally, because the “population growth plus inflation adjustment is
applied to the amount of actual expenditures or revenue in the prior
year,” when a states annual budget shrinks, a ratchet effect creates a
“new base [each year] to which the population growth and inflation
adjustment is applied [and in this case of a budget decrease] the level of
public services is permanently ratcheted down.”

TABORs are just simplistic and politically appealing suicide pacts. They destroy essential services and further infantilize our political culture by placing real desicion-making outside the reach of the political institutions where that power is supposed to reside. We should demand that our political leaders make real decisions regarding public revenue and expenditures, and be accountable for those decisions, instead of asking voters to so bind the government that it cannot even accomplish the basic function of deciding what revenue is needed to perform essential public functions.

Arizona Ed Legislative Update

by David Safier

Here are two legislative items to mull over while we wait for the State to pass a budget.

First, Steve and Mariana, members of the Blog for Arizona community, report the disheartening news that their bill to mandate a 30 minute recess in elementary schools is dead in committee. According to Steve, "The Democrats wanted to include charter schools in the bill but the Republicans objected." Which raises the question, would it have passed without the inclusion of charter schools? And if so, should the Dems have added a deal breaker? My advice would be, get recesses in public schools and worry about charter schools later. But I don't know the whole story.

Second, a bill claiming to protect religious expression in public schools is working its way through the State Senate. The purpose of HB2713, according to its Republican supporters, is to assure that schools follow the requirements in the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing freedom of religious expression.

The problem this bill and similar legislation they've tried to pass is, what they really want to protect is forms of hate speech in the guise of religion. If people can wear T shirts saying they support gay rights, the bill's supporters say, someone else should be able to wear a shirt saying their religious beliefs teach that homosexuality is wrong.

There's a clear distinction here. A shirt that is for gay rights, to use example in the article, is an affirmation of personal belief. A shirt that makes a religious condemnation of homosexuality is an attack on other students' ideas and possibly their sexual orientation as well.

"Jesus loves me" is fine in my book. So is "Gay and proud of it." "Jesus says homosexuality is a sin" moves into a troublesome area, and "Gays are going to Hell" is downright offensive in a school setting. So is "Islam rocks. Christians are wrong." So is "God chose the Jews, not the Christians." So is "Jesus [or Mohammed or Buddha] can go to Hell."

All of those T shirts are acceptable on the street, but a school is a different situation. A small community of young people are forced to be in close quarters with one another. They can't simply walk away from perceived insults written across the chest of someone sitting in the desk next to them. "Free speech" has a more limited meaning inside schools walls, and, though I'm a big First Amendment guy, I agree with imposing stricter limits on speech in schools than in the outside world.

As always, the question is, where do we draw the line in limiting speech? It's always a tough call, and it won't be made any clearer by passing this bill.

I have to warn those God fearing folks who want to pass a law that would allow the use of religious expression as a way to condemn others. They had better be ready to see and hear the beliefs they hold sacred mocked and condemned as well. Freedom of religious expression doesn't begin and end with the interpretations of religion preferred by the legislators writing these bills. It cuts all ways, for all expressions of religious belief and disbelief.

Why do Neoconservatives hate the Constitution and the rule of law?

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The modern Republican Party is not your father's GOP.  There was a time when the civil libertarian wing of the old Republican Party staunchly defended the civil liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.  And they firmly believed that not even a President of the United States was above the rule of law and the constraints on government power imposed by the U.S. Constitution. 

No longer.  Traditional Republicans have been turned out of the party by the radical Neoconservatives.

I remember when Arizona's own Senator Barry Goldwater and Congressman John Rhodes walked to the White House to tell President Richard M. Nixon that he no longer had the support of Congress and he should resign.  They firmly believed in the Constitution and the rule of law.  But where are these Republican defenders of the Constitution and the rule of law today? 

Today's Republican Party views the Constitution and the rule of law as an inconvenience and impediment to executive power.  That is precisely what the Founding Fathers intended.  They had just fought a revolution against the tyrant King George III.

Today's Republican Party, led by Senator John McCain, express contempt for the U.S. Supreme Court for its decision in Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. U.S., affirming that the ancient writ of habeas corpus is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. McCain stated "These are people who are not citizens. They do not and never have been given the rights that citizens in this country have." (Actually, senator, some of the prisoners at Guantanamo are American citizens).

McCain apparently believes that only U.S. citizens have rights presumably "given" to them by the government.  To the contrary, the rights and liberties recognized in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are natural rights possessed by man.  Rights are not "given" by any government, but people "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." (Declaration of Independence).  You know, that whole "democracy is on the march" thing George W. Bush used to talk about.

The writ of habeas corpus had its origins in the Magna Carta which was forced upon the tyrant King John by the Barons of England at Runnymeade in 1215.  The Magna Carta was the first document forced onto an English King by his subjects in an attempt to limit his powers by law.  It required the King to renounce certain rights, respect certain legal procedures and accept that his will could be bound by the law. It explicitly protected certain rights of the King's subjects, most notably the writ of habeas corpus, allowing appeal against unlawful imprisonment.  The writ of habeas corpus has historically been an instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary government action.

The Magna Carta was the most significant early influence on the historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law today.  it influenced the development of the Anglo-American common law, and our own Constitution.

When the American colonies became a constitutional Republic in which the people are the sovereign ("We the People of these United States..."), any person, in the name of the people, acquired authority to initiate such writs.  The due process for such petitions incorporates the presumption of non-authority. The official who is the respondent has the burden to prove his authority to do or not do something. Failing this, the court must decide for the petitioner.

The U.S. Constitution expressly recognized the English common law procedure of habeas corpus in the Suspension Clause in Article 1, Section 9, strictly limiting the power of the government to suspend the right only under extraordinary circumstances:

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."

Further, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) that:

"The guarantees of protection contained in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution extend to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to differences of race, of color, or of nationality."

Non-citizens within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States are thus afforded due process under the Constitution and our rule of law, because the United States is a nation of laws, not a transitory set of edicts issued at the whim of a malicious tyrant.

Now you may say "But wait - what about the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ex Parte Quirin?" in which the court held that Nazi saboteurs could be denied habeas corpus and tried by a military commission, stating that:

"…the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful."

This opinion is distinguishable on the grounds that it was decided upon the law of war during the exigency of World War II, and did not turn upon interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.  This was the same court which upheld the internment of Japanese-American citizens in concentration camps (including here in Arizona) during the exigency of World War II in Korematsu v. United States (1944), a decision which even uber-conservative columnist George Will ranks among the worst decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. George F. Will - Contempt Of Courts - washingtonpost.com

As Mr. Will correctly notes about the Boumediene decision, "None [prisoners] will be released by the court's decision, which does not even guarantee a right to a hearing. Rather, it guarantees only a right to request a hearing. Courts retain considerable discretion regarding such requests."  And courts in their discretion may deny such requests.

Only the most despotic nations of the world do not have a writ of habeas corpus or similar judicial procedure.  Do Americans really want to emulate the most despotic nations of the world?

What exactly are the radical Neoconservatives frothing at the mouth over?  Why the dire predictions that "we will lose an American city" simply because a prisoner may now file a writ of habeas corpus, as Neoconservative acolyte Newt Gingrich stated?  (I would submit to you that if America suffers another terrorist attack, it will be due to the gross incompetence of this administration and our intelligence agencies, as it was on 9/11, not because of a pleading filed by a prisoner - likely under  court seal). 

Could it be that all this hysterical hyperventilating by radical Neoconservatives is really not about the writ of habeas corpus at all, but rather something much more near and dear to their malignant hearts?  (Read on)

McClatchy Investigates "Guantanamo: Beyond the Law"

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A remarkable eight-month McClatchy investigation of the detention system created after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks has found that the U.S. imprisoned innocent men, subjected them to abuse, stripped them of their legal rights and allowed Islamic militants to turn the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba into a school for jihad. The 5-part investigative series is reported by Tom Lasseter.

Links to the full articles are provided below and I strongly recommend that you read the full articles.  McClatchy has posted numerous related reports, video diaries and an archive of documents reviewed in its investigation for this series at its web site www.mcclatchydc.com. It is a compendium of the war crimes of the Bush administration. Highlighted snippets from the 5-part investigative series follows below.

Contact your television and newspaper editors and demand that they report this remakable piece of investigative journalism.

Part 1

McClatchy Washington Bureau | 06/15/2008 | America's prison for terrorists often held the wrong men

America's prison for terrorists often held the wrong men

* * *

An eight-month McClatchy investigation in 11 countries on three continents has found that Akhtiar was one of dozens of men — and, according to several officials, perhaps hundreds — whom the U.S. has wrongfully imprisoned in Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere on the basis of flimsy or fabricated evidence, old personal scores or bounty payments.

McClatchy interviewed 66 released detainees, more than a dozen local officials — primarily in Afghanistan — and U.S. officials with intimate knowledge of the detention program. The investigation also reviewed thousands of pages of U.S. military tribunal documents and other records.

This unprecedented compilation shows that most of the 66 were low-level Taliban grunts, innocent Afghan villagers or ordinary criminals. At least seven had been working for the U.S.-backed Afghan government and had no ties to militants, according to Afghan local officials. In effect, many of the detainees posed no danger to the United States or its allies.

The investigation also found that despite the uncertainty about whom they were holding, U.S. soldiers beat and abused many prisoners.

Prisoner mistreatment became a regular feature in cellblocks and interrogation rooms at Bagram and Kandahar air bases, the two main way stations in Afghanistan en route to Guantanamo.

Much more after the Continuation...

Another Twist in the Cyber School $6.4 Million Funding Chase

by David Safier

I have to admit, the more I read about the $6.4 million overfunding related to Arizona Cyber Charter Schools, the more confused I get. I thought I had this issue pretty well sorted out, but a comment by AZ Interested has me wondering.

The Performance Audit of TAPBI Schools (TAPBI is the term used to describe cyber schools) talks about a $6.4 million overfunding, but it says "the TAPBI program" was overfunded, not the TAPBI schools. It may sound like a distinction without a difference, but looking at this carefully, it could be a very significant difference.

A reasonable portion of the overfunding may have gone to brick-and-mortar schools who shared students with the Cyber Charter Schools, not to the Cyber schools themselves. An example of the overfunding in the audit shows a Cyber school getting its proper proportion of funds based on the proportion of time a student spent at the school, while the public brick-and-mortar school was funded as if the student was there full time, not part time. That would result in overfunding, but, contrary to what I wrote before, the beneficiary was the public school, not the Cyber school.

Other problems with overfunding that went directly to the Cyber Charter schools are clearer. Some of the schools enrolled more students who were not previously in public schools than was allowed by law. Also, the Dept of Ed funds students who take summer courses at the Cyber schools, while it doesn't fund summer school students in public schools. Both of those resulted in more money going to TAPBI funding than would have been spent if the students had attended brick-and-mortar schools.

Put all three types of overfunding together, and you get a total of $6.4 million.

If what I've written here is correct, my concerns about overfunding of the charter schools have been overstated. Other issues, like the administrative costs, which are double those of the average public schools, and some very high salaries for top administrators, are still troubling. The performance audit also raises questions as to whether the overall per-student funding is higher than it should be relative to the costs of educating students online. But it looks like the issue I was focusing on was of less concern than I thought.

If I find out I've got it wrong this time, I'll write another post.