Judge Bates Bodyslams Bush

The answer of Federal District Court Judge John D. Bates to the Bushies argument for why Karl Rove, Harriet Miers et al. can blow off a subpoena to appear before Congress can be condensed to this:

"The Executive presents a litany of contrary arguments, all of which are unavailing."

Last June, Congress subpoenaed former Bush legal counsel Harriet Miers to answer questions about the political retribution firings of numerous United States Attorneys in the Justice Department. Even though Miers had left the Bush administration and was a private citizen, she said she was told by Bush that she could not testify before Congress. On what grounds? That the President had deciderered that all senior presidential staff have absolute immunity to refuse to testify before Congress -- forevah. 

So Congress took Miers, Bush and the whole crooked crew to federal district court. Republican, Bush-appointed federal judge John Bates heard the case and bodyslammed Bush. Here are some quotes from Judge Bates' 93-page decision. [Note: In Bates' decision, "Executive" refers to Bush; "Committee" is the House Judiciary Committee.]

Judge Catches Bushies Telling Him Lies

"[T]he Executive takes the Committee to task for failing to utilize its inherent contempt authority.  But there are serious problems presented by the prospect of inherent contempt, not the least of which is that the Executive is attempting to have it both ways on this point."

"At the very least, however, the Executive cannot simultaneously question the sufficiency and availability of an alternative remedy but nevertheless insist that the Committee must attempt to “exhaust” it before a civil cause of action is available."

"The Court does not understand why separation of powers principles are more offended when the Article I branch [Congress] sues the Article II branch [President] than when the Article II branch sues the Article I branch."

The Court is the Deciderer

"Put another way, the historical record dating back to United States v. Nixon suggests that the political branches have negotiated with one another against the backdrop of presumptive judicial review, mindful of that very real possibility.  Thus, contrary to the Executive’s contention, declining to decide this case would be the action most likely to “alter” the accommodations process between the political branches." 

"Significantly, immunity is strictly a legal issue, and it is the judiciary that must “say what the law is” with respect to that matter."

"Rather than running roughshod over separation of powers principles, the Court believes that entertaining this case will reinforce them. Two parties cannot negotiate in good faith when one side asserts legal privileges but insists that they cannot be tested in court in the traditional manner.  That is true whether the negotiating partners are private firms or the political branches of the federal government."

Judge finds Bushies "Odd" and Hard to Understand

"The notion that the Framers contemplated that Congress would be required to shut down the operations of government before an Article III court could exercise its traditional role of resolving legal disputes is an odd one." [This is in response to a fascinating Gingrichian/Norquistian claim by the Bushies that if Congress is upset that Miers or Rove won't respond to a subpoena, Congress can always shut down the government. At least they are predictable.]

No Such Thing As Absolute Immunity

"The Executive cannot identify a single judicial opinion that recognizes absolute immunity for senior presidential advisors in this or any other context.  That simple yet critical fact bears repeating: the asserted absolute immunity claim here is entirely unsupported by existing case law. In fact, there is Supreme Court authority that is all but conclusive on this question and that powerfully suggests that such advisors do not enjoy absolute immunity.  The Court therefore rejects the Executive’s claim of absolute immunity for senior presidential aides." 

"The derivative, “alter ego” immunity that the Executive requests here due to Ms.Miers’s and Mr. Bolten’s close proximity to and association with the President has been explicitly and definitively rejected, and there is no basis for reaching a different conclusion here."

"Similarly, if the Executive’s absolute immunity argument were to prevail, Congress could be left with no recourse to obtain information that is plainly not subject to any colorable claim of executive privilege.  For instance, surely at least some of the questions that the Committee intends to ask Ms. Miers would not elicit a response subject to an assertion of privilege; so, too, for responsive documents, many of which may even have been produced already.  The Executive’s proposed absolute immunity would thus deprive Congress of even non-privileged information. That is an unacceptable result."

The Court Can Hear the Case

"The mere fact that this case involves a dispute between the political branches -- or that such disputes are normally settled through negotiation and accommodation -- is not sufficient to render the Committee’s right non-judicially remedial.  That argument is foreclosed by precedent dating back to <i>United States v. Nixon</i> including case law involving subpoena disputes between the two political branches. The Court therefore rejects the Executive’s argument that the DJA does not permit the Committee to have its day in court."

The Power of Congressional Investigation is also a Right

"Article I, the Committee asserts, provides Congress with an implied right to investigate in furtherance of its legislative function.  That right has been recognized by the Supreme Court, which has also held that it carries with it a necessary corollary that Congress may rely upon compulsory process to enforce its investigative authority." 

"The exercise of Congress’s investigative “power,” which the Executive concedes that Congress has, creates rights.  For instance, by utilizing its power to issue subpoenas and proceed with an investigation via compulsory process, Congress creates a legal right to the responsive information that those subpoenas will yield.  To hold that Congress’s ability to enforce its subpoenas in federal court turns on whether its investigative function and accompanying authority to utilize subpoenas are properly labeled as “powers” or “rights” would elevate form over substance.  The Court declines to do so. [Footnote:  Not all rights or privileges are express in the Constitution.  Of note here, the Constitution makes no reference to executive privilege or absolute immunity either.]"

The Judiciary Decides What the Constitution Means

"It is the judiciary, rather than Congress, that is traditionally regarded as the arbiter of constitutional rights and it is self-evident why courts do not look to congressional intent when construing the Constitution."

This was the answer of Federal District Court Judge John D. Bates to the Bushies claim that Karl Rove, Harriet Miers et al. can blow off a subpoena to appear before Congress: <blockquote>"The Executive presents a litany of contrary arguments, all of which are unavailing."</blockquote>
And then it got worse.
As all TPM readers know, last June Congress subpoenaed former Bush legal counsel Harriet Miers to answer questions about the <a href="http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/harriets_got_what_the_hjc_want.php">political firings of numerous United States Attorneys</a> in the Justice Department. Even though Miers had left the Bush administration and was a private citizen, she said she was told by Bush that she could not testify before Congress. On what grounds? That the President had deciderered that <i>all senior presidential staff</i> have absolute immunity to refuse to testify before Congress -- forevah. So Congress took Miers, Bush and the whole crooked crew to court. Republican, GWB-appointed federal judge John Bates heard the case and bodyslammed Bush. Here are some quotes from <a href="https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2008cv0409-49">Judge Bates' 93-page decision.</a> [Note: In Bates' decision, "Executive" refers to Bush; "Committee" is the House Judiciary Committee.] <b>Judge Catches Bushies Telling Him Lies</b> <blockquote>"[T]he Executive takes the Committee to task for failing to utilize its inherent contempt authority. But there are serious problems presented by the prospect of inherent contempt, not the least of which is that the Executive is attempting to have it both ways on this point." "At the very least, however, the Executive cannot simultaneously question the sufficiency and availability of an alternative remedy but nevertheless insist that the Committee must attempt to “exhaust” it before a civil cause of action is available."</blockquote> <b>The Court is the Deciderer</b> <blockquote>"Put another way, the historical record dating back to <i>United States v. Nixon</i> suggests that the political branches have negotiated with one another against the backdrop of presumptive judicial review, mindful of that very real possibility. Thus, contrary to the Executive’s contention, declining to decide this case would be the action most likely to “alter” the accommodations process between the political branches." "Significantly, immunity is strictly a legal issue, and it is the judiciary that must “say what the law is” with respect to that matter." "Rather than running roughshod over separation of powers principles, the Court believes that entertaining this case will reinforce them. Two parties cannot negotiate in good faith when one side asserts legal privileges but insists that they cannot be tested in court in the traditional manner. That is true whether the negotiating partners are private firms or the political branches of the federal government."</blockquote> <b>Judge finds Bushies "Odd" and Hard to Understand</b> <blockquote>"The notion that the Framers contemplated that Congress would be required to shut down the operations of government before an Article III court could exercise its traditional role of resolving legal disputes is an odd one."* "The Court does not understand why separation of powers principles are more offended when the Article I branch sues the Article II branch than when the Article II branch sues the Article I branch."</blockquote> *This is in response to a fascinating Gingrichian/Norquistian claim by the Bushies that if Congress is upset that Miers or Rove won't respond to a subpoena, Congress can always <i>shut down the government.</i> At least they are predictable. <b>No Such Thing As Absolute Immunity</B> <blockquote>"The Executive cannot identify a single judicial opinion that recognizes absolute immunity for senior presidential advisors in this or any other context. That simple yet critical fact bears repeating: the asserted absolute immunity claim here is entirely unsupported by existing case law. In fact, there is Supreme Court authority that is all but conclusive on this question and that powerfully suggests that such advisors do not enjoy absolute immunity. The Court therefore rejects the Executive’s claim of absolute immunity for senior presidential aides." "The derivative, “alter ego” immunity that the Executive requests here due to Ms.Miers’s and Mr. Bolten’s close proximity to and association with the President has been explicitly and definitively rejected, and there is no basis for reaching a different conclusion here." "Similarly, if the Executive’s absolute immunity argument were to prevail, Congress could be left with no recourse to obtain information that is plainly not subject to any colorable claim of executive privilege. For instance, surely at least some of the questions that the Committee intends to ask Ms. Miers would not elicit a response subject to an assertion of privilege; so, too, for responsive documents, many of which may even have been produced already. The Executive’s proposed absolute immunity would thus deprive Congress of even non-privileged information. That is an unacceptable result."</blockquote> <b>The Court Can Hear the Case</b> <blockquote>"The mere fact that this case involves a dispute between the political branches -- or that such disputes are normally settled through negotiation and accommodation -- is not sufficient to render the Committee’s right non-judicially remedial. That argument is foreclosed by precedent dating back to <i>United States v. Nixon</i> including case law involving subpoena disputes between the two political branches. The Court therefore rejects the Executive’s argument that the DJA does not permit the Committee to have its day in court."</blockquote> <b>The Power of Congressional Investigation is also a Right</b> <blockquote>"Article I, the Committee asserts, provides Congress with an implied right to investigate in furtherance of its legislative function. That right has been recognized by the Supreme Court, which has also held that it carries with it a necessary corollary that Congress may rely upon compulsory process to enforce its investigative authority." "The exercise of Congress’s investigative “power,” which the Executive concedes that Congress has, creates rights. For instance, by utilizing its power to issue subpoenas and proceed with an investigation via compulsory process, Congress creates a legal right to the responsive information that those subpoenas will yield. To hold that Congress’s ability to enforce its subpoenas in federal court turns on whether its investigative function and accompanying authority to utilize subpoenas are properly labeled as “powers” or “rights” would elevate form over substance. The Court declines to do so. [Footnote: Not all rights or privileges are express in the Constitution. Of note here, the Constitution makes no reference to executive privilege or absolute immunity either.]"</blockquote> <b>The Judiciary Decides What the Constitution Means</b> <blockquote>"It is the judiciary, rather than Congress, that is traditionally regarded as the arbiter of constitutional rights and it is self-evident why courts do not look to congressional intent when construing the Constitution."</blockquote>

<a href="http://www.intel-dump.com/posts/1203696668.shtml">It is not news that U.S. soldiers often do not have the equipment they need.</a> So let me get this straight. If you point out that combat soldiers are often forced to train and fight without important pieces of equipment that they are supposed to have, that means you don't "support the troops." But if you call these combat soldier <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/179784.php">liars</a> and insist that they have all the equipment they need -- even when they don't -- that is a sure sign that you "support the troops." Just checking. If a unit gains access to enemy weapons, and they are safe and usable, they will use them, especially if their own supplies and supply chains are not reliable at the moment. The bigger point, in which I agree with what Barack Obama <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21text-demdebate.html">actually said</a>, is that if the U.S. had not invaded Iraq, there is little doubt that soldiers in Afghanistan would be better equipped in every way possible than they have been. That is axiomatic. Fighting two wars on the opposite side of the Earth at the same time inevitably puts enormous stresses on any military force and military supply chain. None of this is earth shattering. Ronald Reagan was very reluctant to commit U.S. troops into vulnerable positions after Lebanon for precisely this reason and he was wise for doing that. Rumsfeld's quote "you go in with the army you've got, not the one you want ..." is exactly the attitude Reagan counseled against, and in fact, it was one of his justifications for bolstering the defense budget and military readiness. If you examine what Barack Obama actually <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21text-demdebate.html">said,</a> it boils down to the proposition that invading Iraq was not a good idea and that this <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak">doubleplusungood </a>decision has had many unintended, but easily foreseeable consequences, including real and acute impacts on U.S. soldiers serving in Afghanistan. This is not an earth-shattering observation. It is mundane. it certainly is not unpatriotic or treasonous.

You can’t triangulate a bloody, endless, directionless, filthy, depressing war of colonial occupation.

Ask LBJ how it worked for him.

Or ... to put it another way …

There is no good way to implement a horrible idea.

These are the millstones that Hillary Clinton has decided to wear as pendants for this election.

I believe this is why she will not win the Democratic nomination.

I have listened curiously to the New England Patriots cheating. So much concern, so much emotion, so much real, for true, discussion and analysis. So much focus on the facts.

In this observation I cannot help but notice how much higher our expectations and standards are for a sports team and its coach than the President of the United States and this country's Department of Justice.

It seems as if we now believe the U.S. government to be so perverted and dysfunctional that like East Berliners in 1972 we have given up all hope and expectation.

So like a life ring we cling to Sports as the last bastion of civility and normalcy and playing by the rules that we can expect to not be violated. We do this because we have long given up expecting our elected officials to behave at the ethical level we expect from athletes and their coaches.

Hence the recent comment by New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson:

"You know something is wrong when the New England Patriots face stiffer penalties for spying on innocent Americans than Dick Cheney and George Bush.”

Our Public Commons is so poisoned and fetid from being shat upon, that when a Bill Belichick or Barry Bonds gets caught breaking the rules of Sports we get doubly upset. They have burst two of our bubbles.

Sports is the bubble of ethics and fair play we retreat into precisely because our Real World of Laws is tainted and perverted and destroyed beyond repair. Bubble One and Bubble Two.

And when the Sacred Bubble of Sports becomes popped and ulcerated and bilious due to the same greed and corruption that has infected and popped the Bubble of our Public National Weal -- that has us now in an illegal war for nearly 5 years -- our heads blow a gasket. We can't take it anymore. We leak brain fluid.

This post is not about what it seems to be about.

This post is about the Hockomock Swamp in Easton, Massachusetts. The Hockomock is a 6,000 acre swamp that is now celebrating its 15,000th anniversary. It is the wildest, most impenetrable land left in southeastern Massachusetts, the home of Massasoit and his son Pometacom, whom the Pilgrims first met. The Hockomock is the soul of the birthplace of the United States.

The Hockomock Swamp is the tiny crystal galaxy attached to the collar of Orion the Cat in "Men in Black." It has survived 15,000 years and is now dying from the collective paper cuts of strip malls, highways, power lines, malls, condos, golf courses, condominiums. The Governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick, wants to kill what is left of the Hockomock by running a high speed rail line through the heart of it, solely because his "aides" do not even know the Hockomock Swamp exists.

To them, the Hockomock is just a swamp. Just as the Constitution is just a piece of paper.

If taken care of, both can live forever. Both can be completely destroyed in just a few years.

Once destroyed, neither the Hockomock nor the Constitution can be brought back.

Many top echelon Justice Dept. officials have resigned since TPM broke the US attorney scandal. All were to a great extent "loyal Bushies."

In contrast, few barnacles are more stubborn than Alberto Gonzales, in his loyal clinging to the side of the Presidential hull.

Why ?

Normal Presidential protocol holds that if an underling becomes a public embarrassment or liability, the underling must resign, since they are no longer "pleasuring" the President satisfactorily.

Alberto Gonzales meets this standard, being described by Jon Stewart as willfully playing the role of a "low-functioning pinhead" in order to pleasure the President.

The Bush Administration is a weird one, running on physical laws more akin to a universe on the other side of a wormhole.

In Bushworld, it is of no matter that Gonzales is universally ridiculed and considered guilty of at least serial dishonesty. These traits, it seems, are features -- not bugs -- in Bushworld.

Gonzales is deeply loyal to George Bush. So loyal that he is willing to repeatedly put himself up as national laughingstock to protect Leader Dearest.

So long as Gonzales remains the Little Barnacle That Could, he can shut down Congressional subpoenas and inquiries into White House doings by running aground contempt of Congress actions.

By endlessly rephrasing and reshading his comments for respinning by Tony Snow, Gonzales can muck up and muddle the toy thought train of media's talking heads, spinning a web as complex as it is purposely purposeless.

Gonzales is Bush's monkeywrench, his sugar in the gas tank, his silly string.

Team Bush have studied the Watergate game tapes for many years. Now we are seeing the fruits of their monomania. They know Watergate was winnable, but failed only because of a stupid tape recorder, a communist Supreme Court, and Nixon's less than steely nerve.

Nixon nor Ford nor Agnew ever shot a man in the face. All Liddy did was burn his own hand to impress some low level Cubans. Campfire girls, all of them. Little leaguers. Warren Burger was a weenie.

Bush et al. intend to Win Watergate this time. Their core strategy is simple -- run out the clock.

Keeping Gonzales as AG is critically important -- just as the loss of AG John Mitchell spelled Nixon's doom.

"Here's something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts."

The above is from a new book called "The Edge of Evolution" by creationist and tenured Lehigh University biochemistry professor Michael Behe.

In this new book, Behe claims that because the tiny parasite which causes malaria has such an "exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts" it must have been designed by a Designer ... err ... God ... err ... Someone Big.

Oddly, Mr. Behe asserts the recent appearance of highly drug resistant malaria is not due to the hand of God, but is due to good old Darwinian evolution.

Apparently, according to Behe, evolution can only improve upon the diseases and scourges devised and approved by the Grand Old Plaguemaker himself.

Shorter Behe: Evolution can explain observed differences within a species, but cannot explain how one species could evolve into another species.

This is like saying that the laws of physics can explain the observed differences within various sedimentary rocks but cannot explain how a sedimentary rock could become a metamorphic rock.

It's really that stupid.

As shown by the title of his book, "Edge of Evolution," Behe argues that evolution is a "weak force" that only goes so far -- and not far enough to explain the origin and diversity of life on Earth. Something else is needed to explain that, but Behe never says what it is, except to evasively say it is "something" other than known, natural forces. Yawn.

Behe admits that evolution can fully explain the ability of malaria to become resistant to a drug, chloroquinone, but then says evolution cannot explain how the little animal that causes malaria, Plasmodium, evolved in the first place.

This is yet another iteration of Behe's 'irreducible complexity' idea, that things in nature seem so perfectly fitted and planned out that they can have no explanation except being the Creation of an Intelligent, Overseeing, Planning Something or Other.

Mr. Behe starts and ends with a circular argument, ie. that the proven fact the Plasmodium parasite is very adept at invading and living in human red blood cells is proof that "someone" designed it just for that purpose.

Let's leave aside that the "Designer" of malaria must really hate human beings, given the unique, long-term and special type of suffering that malaria causes afflicted humans.

Mr. Behe fails to consider the alternate explanation:

Parasites that are really crappy at parasitizing go extinct very quickly.

Obviously, the only parasites that can exist are those "exquisitely" arranged to parasitize an organism.

If wood ticks, for example, were not "exquisitely" arranged to be able to gather and use animal blood as food, they wouldn't be very successful at being wood ticks. In fact, they wouldn't be wood ticks. They would be extinct or would be something other than a wood tick.

The same could be said for all specialist organisms. Mr. Behe is like a guy who smoked his first joint of marijuana and suddenly finds everything to be utterly amazing and unbelievable.

Did you ever look at your hand. I mean, really look at it ?

Behe tries to play "gotchya" and ends up getting got. While admitting to the clear physical evidence that natural genetic mutations in the Plasmodium parasite have recently created a drug resistant strain of malaria, Behe tries to simultaneously argue that this same process is so "rare" in real life that this same process could not have also created the various species of the Earth, including the malaria parasite itself.

As noted by others, both the mathematical and genetic premises of Behe's specific, probabilistic malaria argument are refuted by numerous lines of independent and detailed evidence.

But the real problem with Behe's claim is that it does an excellent job of refuting itself and the entire Creationist Canard. Talk about shooting one's cause in the foot, and the gut just to make sure it's not just a flesh wound.

Behe concedes that natural mutations and selection pressure alone are sufficient to create a new and highly drug resistant variety of the parasitic animal that causes malaria. Behe has to concede this fact because the specific mutations have been physically observed and documented by geneticists. So Behe has to admit that random, periodic natural genetic mutations alone can transform a malaria parasite that is killed by chloroquinone into a malaria parasite that can survive it.

Now think of it. A tiny organism (Plasmodium) that can "make itself" immune to a sophisticated drug (chloroquinone) has performed quite a remarkable feat, especially when it has no brain and no "idea" what it is doing. In fact, little Plasmodium has prevented its own extinction in just a few decades. Not bad for a microscopic parasite without a degree in advanced medicine.

Behe admits that regular, Darwinian evolution has done this. But he then argues that this same process is so "weak" that it could never create a new species. Only an Intelligent Designer could do that.

Which brings us to dogs. The selective breeding of dogs is commonplace and is due to regular evolutionary processes. Even Behe would admit that a dog breeder doesn't just "pray to God" that the next batch of Labrador Retriever puppies will be Labs instead of poodles or Great Danes.

Without Darwinian evolution the selective breeding of dogs would be impossible. It would be impossible for a dog breeder to select for certain features (long ears, short nose, etc. ) and have any assurance of the desired result. Without Darwinian evolution, dog breeding would be totally random and uncontrollable. Two Saint Bernards mating could just as easily produce a litter of chihuahas as a litter of Saint Bernards.

Behe tries to claim there is an unclimbable, inpenetrable wall between the type of Darwinian evolution that can turn a wild gray wolf into a Saint Bernard, poodle or a chihuaha through repeated selective breeding -- and the force necessary to create a true "species."

Here's why this makes no sense.

In his book "The Ancestor's Tale", Richard Dawkins tells of two European grasshopper species which do not interbreed in the wild (the key definition of speciation) but have been induced to interbreed in captivity.These two grasshopper species are physiologically capable of accepting each others' sperm and egg and making viable babies. But, in the wild, they never do. Why ?

Mating calls. Each species has a different mating call. The female of grasshopper species A will not respond or mate with a male of grasshopper species B even though, physiologically, the two could mate and produce viable offspring. As such, in the wild, the two grasshopper species never interbreed -- even though they are perfectly capable of doing so. As Dawkins correctly notes, groups of animals that do not and will not interbreed with each other solely due to behavioral reasons meet the 'species' definition just as much as if there were a geographic or other physical barrier preventing interbreeding.

The female chihuaha - male Saint Bernard dilemma is even more profound than Dawkins' grasshopper example because in a physiological sense it is probably impossible for a female chihuaha to survive mating, impregnation and birth with a male Saint Bernard.

If not for our intimate knowledge of their domesticated roots, no intelligent human would ever claim that a chihuaha and a Saint Bernard are the same species. Nobody would claim that a female and male of the two dogs could successfully have offspring without massive human medical intervention.

But we know that, genetically, Saint Bernards and chihuaha are exactly the same species. They are Canis lupis, the gray wolf, with body shapes and sizes radically altered by selective breeding. So radically altered that interbreeding is now virtually impossible. And unlike the grasshoppers, it is impossible even if the female and male wanted to.

Dog breeds are now so specialized and domesticated that few if any can survive in the wild and give birth to offspring that can also survive in the wild. If all of the domesticated dogs of the world were turned out of their human homes and forced to fend completely for themselves, they would all quickly go extinct. There is no record of domesticated dogs successfully reverting to fully wild animals. This means that selective breeding, directed by humans, has alone been sufficient to create a new species of dogs, ie. animal which can no longer interbreed with their own wild selves. This is the definition of species.

Evolution makes no distinction between "artificial" selection and "natural" selection, any more than gravity makes a distinction between you falling off the Empire State Building or the edge of the Grand Canyon.

What Behe tries to do is create a false separation between well known Darwinian selection in domestic animals and disease resistance and the exact same processes in the "wild."

Dog breeders don't clasp Rosary beads and pray for a St. Bernard instead of a Pekinese. A malevolent God or Designer did not suddenly in 1971 tweak His malaria parasite so it could survive a dose of chloroquinone.

In the end then, the core of Behe's argument is that the delta of sand you see today forming at the mouth of a river could not possibly be the same mechanism that created sandstone at the mouth of an ancient river, and therefore, that all sandstone must have been made from whole cloth by a "Designer."

It is really that retarded.

At the Agonist, Sean-Paul Kelley's excellent essay asks: what happens if everyone in the world aspires to and achieves a material life similar to that of upper middle class United States citizens today?

The rub, as suggested by Sean-Paul, is that the Earth lacks the material resources to sustain such an event, ie. sufficient fossil fuels, and the pollution from attempting to burn what fossil fuels exist in order to try to do this will via global warming wreak havoc on the same respiratory system that keeps alive life as we know it on Earth.

I agree with him. More importantly, the laws of physics and chemistry agree with him. See www.realclimate.org.

Sean-Paul then asks, who are "we" (ie. living it up in the Big Top in the U.S.) to tell someone from China or Mali or Malaysia they are forbidden from living exactly as many of us do in the U.S., with 2.4 monstrous cars in a monstrous suburban subdivision, consuming scads and scads of finite fossil-fueled power ?

I agree with Sean. Marines, for example, lead by example. Isn't that tell-tale "tut tut" sound just hypocrisy mixed with condescension ? Is this the glass house homeowners' society trying to outlaw stones ?

We in the U.S. need to clean up the trash in our own yards before worrying too much about the trash that might blow over the fence from the folks next door.

And in the area of using our energy and technology intelligently, we have a lot of trash to pick up. We are a supremely wasteful society. Waste is considered a virtue, a badge of honor, a sign of making it, a manly manly thing. To conserve is to surrender, to capitulate, to not live the good life, to be somehow cowering and cringeful. Real men leave all the lights on, the windows open and the thermostat at whatever. These are the values we are consciously and subliminally pummeled with from birth in America. Sexual politics plays a great role. Men select autos as phallic symbols. Small car = small penis. Small engine = small penis. Small car = small bank balance = small penis. Just watch any car advertisement.

Part of this, I believe, is because the United States as a whole has no tradition of stewardship or of rootedness. The U.S. is a weird amalgam of recent immigrants, former slaves of those immigrants and the indigenous people whose land was stolen by the immigrants. Any review of U.S. history shows that the need to "conserve" was always outvoted by the prospect of new and fresh lands to conquer as the immigrants moved westward. Why buy the cow when you can milk the next one for free?

The psychological fabric of the U.S. States has long been profoundly alien to the concept of stewardship, of limits and of the inherent value of using resources carefully and wisely.

But at the same time, the same observer will notice that the modern concept of natural resource conservation was also born in the United States, particularly in the mind of Henry Thoreau, who rejected the whole kit and kaboodle by saying, among other things,"It is not enough to be busy. So are the ants," and having the nerve to suggest a 500 year old forest might be worth more alive than reduced into endless boxes of disposable toothpicks.

Our native wisdom is dying in the United States. It is not trivial that the sodium lights of strip malls and suburbs and metro-cities prevent us even from showing our children the constellations in the sky. It is not trivial when we cannot even name or show any degree of familiarity or knowledge of the trees, plants and animals that live near us -- or used to. Who living along the Atlantic coast has ever seen an American shad or knows what it is ? A great deal of introspection on our part -- today -- will vastly increase the value of anything we might have to say to the people of China or Ethiopia or Malaysia today. But for right now, I think we Americans should shut up and clean up our own yard. Beneath all the trash, it is still a beautiful place.

Just a thought.

As many of you old people will recall, this country's news media goes in a 10 year cycle of lavishing attention to the destruction of Planet Earth, and then just as quickly forgetting about it.

We are now in a brief period when the major news media suddenly ... "cares" ... and now we have the requisite 10 year old recycled stories carrying the moniker of ...

"50 Simple Things You Can Do to Save the Planet."

Stories recycled straight from the same stale stories written in 1977, 1987 and 1997.

Stories destined to go down the memory hole just as fast as they did in 1977, 1987, and 1997.

The one Simple Thing you can do to save the Planet is to become scientifically literate.

To be scientifically literate about Planet Earth you must, as a basic element, understand Plate Tectonics. It's been proven since the 1960s. That's 40 years.

Think about it. If most Americans are not aware of or understand Plate Tectonics 40 years after its acceptance by geologists, when will Americans understand it? 100 years from now? 200? 300?

This is troubling, since Plate Tectonics has been part of the basic high school science curriculum in the United States since the 1970s and yet only a tiny fraction of Americans is even familiar with the term.

Okay ... how about Continental Drift ? I remember Dr. Chet Raymo, astronomy professor at Stonehill College in Easton, Mass. giving us 5th graders in Easton a lecture on Continental Drift back in 1975. He showed us how the coastlines of eastern South America and western Africa curiously fit together, especially if you included the continental shelves. Then he explained Plate Tectonics. We, as 5th graders, understood it. Why is this type of basic scientific literacy not passing up through to U.S. adults 30 years later ?

As a journalist, I am an inveterate student and observer of journalism. I see the trends come and go. The "environmental" trend in newspapers petered out in the late 1990s and now is suddenly "coming back."

Why? It's not as if the massive environmental problems documented in the late 1990s went away. In fact, they have become worse and worse and worse from 2000 to today. So why has the news media walked? And why are the news media only now suddenly "rediscovering" the importance of clean air and clean water?

People and animals did not stop needing clean air and water between 1996 and today any more than newspapers stopped needing advertising revenue between 1996 and today.

So when you read in the next few weeks a story about the "planetary crisis" in the big, expensive press, ask yourself at what point between 1997 and 2007 did people and animals not need clean air and water to live.

Think about this. Do you really need the big media to tell you that clean air and water is important to you and your kids? And if you do, what does that say about your intelligence?

Better yet, talk about this with your kids. It is their future and their planet that is now being flushed down the toilet. As Woody Guthrie said, it is your kids land. For better or worse.

Right now the leading "media" are very deliberately refusing to tell us the truth about what our land will look like in 30 years, when our young, hapless and tooth-losing kids will be our age and sitting in our chairs and talking to their tooth-losing kids.

I will talk more about the responsibility of 30-40 year old journalists to young children. Their future depends on our veracity. TPM is kicking ass in this respect.

This post is inspired by this site and its intrepid reporters. You folks are doing an incredible job.

---

Mr. Joshua Marshall sees the forest through the trees regarding U.S. Attorney Carol Lam, the now-fired prosecutor of incarcerated U.S. Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham:

"What people tend to overlook is that for most White House's a US attorney involved in such a politically charged and ground-breaking corruption probe would have been untouchable, even if she'd run her office like a madhouse and was offering free twinkies to every illegal who made it across the border. Indeed, when you view the whole context you see that the idea she was fired for immigration enforcement is just laughable on its face. No decision about her tenure could be made without the main issue being that investigation."

The job of a U.S. attorney is to successfully prosecute those who have broken federal law. Res ipsa loquitur.

U.S. Attorney Lam did this -- and up to her recent firing -- was doing this in spades.

So how could Ms. Lam be fired for "performance problems" ?

For putting U.S. Congressmen into jail for committing serious crimes while in office?

Wouldn't this be called exemplary performance by any metric of prosecutor effectiveness?

So putting people in jail who committed substantial and damaging crimes is now a bad thing?

And a "performance problem" ?

These are the questions Mr. Gonzales, the White House and Congressional Republicans now must answer.

Is putting Congressmen who break the law into jail now grounds for the dismissal of a U.S. Attorney ?

How is what Mr. Gonzales has done different from what Richard Nixon asked Attorney General Elliott Richardson to do about special Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox ?

What role does Mr. Gonzales now play in the Bush White House, as its walls begin to creak and plaster chips fall from the ceiling into the tomato soup ?

Mr. Robert Bork, meet your doppelganger, Mr. Gonzales.

Postscript:

The firing of 8 U.S. attorneys in quick succession carries the stench of the "multi-tasking approach" the Bush administration used to justify invading Iraq: rely on overlapping, internally contradictory explanations to cover the logical flaws in the whole thing and each part of the whole thing, respectively.

As Mr. Joshua Marshall points out, Alberto Gonzales could not just fire U.S. Attorney Carol Lam without it looking like an obvious move to quash a corruption investigation that is politically damaging to the Republican party.

The solution?

Lump Ms. Lam's firing in with a whole bunch of others and let the resultant flotsam and jetsam confuse and conceal what had just occurred until the debris has either sunk or floated well down past the river bend.

And hand some nice plum appointments to loyal staffers as a way of keeping them loyal and not so apt to jump ship and bite back (the image of mollifying hyenas suddenly comes to mind, I don't know why).

Thoughts ?

There is no value in being stupid. Illiteracy bears no dividends. Then why does America worship illiteracy and cringe from intelligence like a barefoot maiden attacked by a sadistic field mouse? This bothers Bill Gates a great deal and it bothers me.

Bill Gates, whose charitable foundation has given away more than $3 billion since 1999 for educational programs and scholarships, noted that about 30 percent of U.S. ninth-graders fail to graduate on time. "As a nation, we should start with this goal: Every child in the United States graduating from high school," he said.

A federal study released last month showed about a third of high schoolers fail to take a standard-level curriculum, which is defined as including at least four credits of English and three credits each of social studies, math and science.

"We simply cannot sustain an economy based on innovation unless our citizens are educated in math, science and engineering," Gates said.

As long as the culture and news media of the United States continues to consider being smart as an aberrant "geeky" thing on par with halitosis, this country is in deep trouble.

This country celebrates non-intelligent people who deliberately choose to not be intelligent. Hence, Dear Leader.

When your local newspaper employs more reporters to cover high school sports than to cover old people going without food or heat, something is deeply wrong.

This administration has declared war on science. It is no different than the Catholic bishops who ordered Galileo to deny and renounce what he saw with his eyes through a telescope aimed at Jupiter.

FOX news is the official network of those medieval bishops. FOX news wants our young children to put down their science books and spend their time instead cheering on their favorite Black NASCAR star.

There is no difference between global warming deniers and evolution deniers. If only because they are usually the same people. Like the Rev. Jerry Falwell, for instance.

As a matter of introduction, I won all of my school's science fairs in middle school, junior high school and high school. Being very crappy at calculus, I majored in English in college rather than physics.

It disturbs me greatly when science is abused; when I observe scientific illiteracy run rampant in the United States; and when I watch large corporations manipulate people due to their scientific illiteracy.

If you wish to study the phenomenon of scientific illiteracy up close, talk to someone who declares themself a global warming "skeptic" or "denier."

If you wish to study the phenomenon of psychological denial up close, talk to a person who possesses a science degree who identifies themself as a global warming "skeptic."

Examples of both species can be observed interacting with real climate scientists at the website http://www.realclimate.org. The confrontation is not pretty, yet remarkably predictable. When the climate "skeptics" bring their best, A-1 skeptical stuff to battle against the realclimate.org experts, they are always and inevitably crushed to powder. Just look at any one of the comment threads at www.realclimate.org

What is left after this peer-reviewed scientific pummeling are willful lies and delusions, the "sources" the paid for shills of ExxonMobil.

Here's a question. Why does the U.S. not have a formal, public scientific debate on Global Warming? Each side picks its champion. Each side agrees to a Moderator? Why not?

The reason is obvious. No credible atmospheric scientist would publicly adopt the "No Global Warming" position any more than a credible astronomer would adopt the "Young Earth Creationist" view of astronomy or biology.

Here's a question. Why has Albert Gore been nominated for a Nobel Prize? Why has no Global Warming 'Skeptic' been similarly nominated?

Here's a question. Why has Albert Gore's low budget movie explaining the basic, underlying science of Earth's climate system been awarded an Academy Award for Best Documentary?

If Mr. Gore's scientific overview is absolutely 100 percent wrong -- as Dr. Falwell and others hotly contend -- where is the outrage amongst the world's climate and atmospheric scientists ?

The beauty of science is that we all can verify its findings ourselves. I can look at Jupiter in a small telescope in my back yard and see its four brightest moons just as Galileo did.

The beauty of science is precisely that science is not about belief. Science is, has been and will always be that which we can see with our own eyes and check with our own minds. Science is that which you can confirm and check by yourself.

That is why I like science. That is why scientific illiteracy in the United States scares the hell out of me. Without scientific literacy, you and I are left to believing or disbelieving the words of those whom we put trust in, with no way of independently confirming for ourselves if the facts support what they say. That is a condition of ignorance, of believing that baby mice are born from piles of rags on a cellar floor because that's where they run from when the rag pile is disturbed.

Do we in 2007 really want to descend back to the intellectual pedigree and standards of proof held by Europeans in 1387?

"He replied, that I must needs be mistaken, or that I said the thing which was not. (For they have no Word in their language to express Lying or Falsehood)."

-- A Voyage to the Country of the Houyhnhnms, Jonathan Swift.

Lemuel Gulliver, please meet Lt. General Kevin Kiley, U.S. Army Surgeon General, the man responsible for the care of wounded U.S. soldiers at Building 18 of the Walter Reed Medical Center, Washington, D.C. who told Judy Woodruff of PBS this week:

Oh, I think the repairs are going to be done by the end of the week, with the exception of one thing, which is a leaky roof, which we need to wait for the roof to dry. The contractors have already told us we'll get that sealed up. ... I guarantee you that the health care here is of the very highest order and has been. The issues, as you've heard in several press conferences, have been about the quality of life, specifically some of the issues in Building 18, and then the bureaucracy, which is not a function of letting soldiers languish.

Excuse me, but these are pretty disgusting and disingenuous words coming from a Lt. General in the U.S. Army charged with providing decent, modern care and treatment for badly wounded soldiers who was caught red-handed not providing it.

What we have here is a Lt. General simultaneously stating there are no problems and the problems are being fixed as quickly as possible. What we have is a General simultaneously saying that soldiers have always been getting the finest treatment possible and that all of the existing deficiencies in their treatment are being corrected. Except for the leaking roof of course, which can't be fixed until it dries out.

Is this guy running a U.S. Army hospital or trying to rent a slum?

We can't fix the leaking roof until it dries out. ?

What if it rains ?

Perhaps the most galling part of the Lt. General's comments were his haughty and transparent efforts to re-spin the story, to tell the reporters they did not see what they could plainly see, or as Lt. Gen. Kiley bluntly described his task ... to reset their thinking:

It is our responsibility to look at the process through the eyes of our patients. And we need to be well-focused on that. And those great, young Americans deserve nothing but the very best health care, which I believe they're getting. I want to reset the thinking that, you know, while we have some issues here, this is not horrific, catastrophic failure at Walter Reed. I mean, these are not good. But you saw rooms that were perfectly acceptable.

Let's now catalog the General's quantum spin:

1. So long as a few rooms are "perfectly acceptable", we should ignore all the rooms that are covered with mold and mildew. Again, is Lt. Gen. Kiley a slumlord in his spare time? Does he run a cheap motel that advertises "Some Rooms Perfectly Acceptable" ? Or a restaurant where "Some Food Not Tainted" ?

2. So long as the disgusting conditions at Building 18 at Walter Reed do not constitute a "horrific, catastrophic failure" of health care, this is really much ado over nothing, and it's your fault, the press, for blowing this all out of proportion. Implication: I would not be standing here if not for the Washington Post's meddling -- and I deeply resent it.

3. "I want to reset the thinking that ..." Translation: I want to reset your thinking. I want to change the subject. I want to rewrite your story. Let's talk about all the good things we're doing. How come you only come down to Walter Reed to do negative stories. Why can't you write about the rooms we've got that aren't covered with mildew and the roofs that aren't leaking? Why do you hate America so much?

Now we get to the thing which is not:

"I guarantee you that the health care here is of the very highest order and has been."

Here we have the U.S. Army Surgeon General at a hastily called press conference, showing off rooms with still-wet paint to cover up the mold and mildew, with a leaking roof that he says can't be fixed until it "dries out," all of which was only made public by several months of undercover reporting by the Washington Post, and he claims the health care at Building 18 has always been of the "highest order."

If so, why the need for all the fresh paint, fixing the roof, or even the press conference ? Doesn't the singular fact that 20 news crews and the Lt. General are in the same location at a hospital building with just-painted-over mold and mildew and a still-leaking roof provide object evidence that health care at Walter Reed has not lately been of the "highest order" ?

Here's where Lt. General Kiley demonstrates how stupid we and the press are. The deplorable conditions in the patient rooms at Building 18 -- as all health care professionals know -- are not "health care related issues." They are merely "quality of life issues" and are thus totally separate and distinct from the quality of the health care the wounded soldiers receive in the actual treatment rooms. It's perfectly normal for hospital rooms to be filled with mold and mildew and mice feces, so long as the treatment rooms themselves are somewhat clean. You see, laypeople like us do not appreciate this difference. Just like a broken clock is right twice a day. And a leaky roof stops leaking once the rain stops.

Let's remember what Lt. General Kiley would prefer we forget. If not for two journalists working undercover for many months, Building 18 at Walter Reed would be just as decrepit today as it has been for many months, and the U.S. Dept. of Defense would still be doing absolutely nothing to fix it.

Except saying the thing which is not.

Michael Hirsh of Newsweek:

The U.S. Army has also stopped pretending that Iraqis—who have failed to build a credible government, military or police force on their own—are in the lead when it comes to kicking down doors and keeping the peace. And that means the future of Iraq depends on the long-term presence of U.S. forces in a way it did not just a few months ago. “We’re putting down roots,” says Philip Carter, a former U.S. Army captain who returned last summer from a year of policing and training in the hot zone around Baquba. “The Americans are no longer willing to accept failure in order to put Iraqis in the lead. You can’t let the mission fail just for the sake of diplomacy.”

Many U.S. military experts now believe that, if there is any hope of stabilizing Iraq, the Petraeus plan is the only way to do it. The critical question now, they say, is whether we have anywhere near enough troops committed to the effort, and whether America has the political will to see the strategy through to the end.

Now this is just stupid. Why does "the future of Iraq depend on the long-term presence of U.S. forces in a way it did not just a few months ago" ?

Why ?

Does that mean things were a lot better in Iraq in December and suddenly things got much worse in January and February ?

That is, technically, what the above sentence says.

So what happened since December to wreck all the good things that were happening?

What good things ?

Can you be specific, Mr. Hirsh ?

Does Tony Blair and the British troops in Basra know anything about these good things ?

Why are you, Mr. Hirsh, and the Associated Press, keeping these good things a secret from us ?

Why is Mr. Hirsh of Newsweek quoting as a principal source a U.S. soldier, Capt. Philip Carter, who has been stateside since this past summer? How is Mr. Carter an authority on what is happening in Iraq at this moment ? How is Mr. Carter aware of things that soldiers in Baghdad right now are unaware of?

Who are these American "military experts" who have told Mr. Hirsh the "Petraeus plan is the only way" to stabilize Iraq ? Do they have names and ranks ? Have they, like former Capt. Philip Carter, been stateside for the past 8 months ? Do they actually know anything or are we just supposed to blindly trust that they do ?

Most interesting is Mr. Hirsh's declaration that U.S. combat troops must stay in Iraq for a long time and any time shorter than a long time would be a de facto defeat:

Even so, because the Petraeus plan will likely extend well into the next presidency, much will depend on the views and actions of whoever is elected in 2008. Ultimately, if we do withdraw prematurely, we may end up doing what embattled British Prime Minister Tony Blair has just announced he's doing in the southern Iraqi city of Basra: declare victory (though there is scant evidence of one), and go home. But not if Dave Petraeus and his dream team can help it.

Again, what does this idiocy mean? That the only victory is to stay forever? That leaving Iraq is a prima facie admission of defeat?

And what the hell is the purpose of this "dream team" quote? Is Mr. Hirsh smoking angel dust through a lead pipe? Why on Earth would U.S. soldiers want to be associated with the lawyers who represented Orenthal James Simpson?

Err ... and also ...

Does the following quote really sound like a live, candid spoken utterance by a real U.S. combat soldier coming back from duty in Iraq?

We’re putting down roots ... The Americans are no longer willing to accept failure in order to put Iraqis in the lead. You can’t let the mission fail just for the sake of diplomacy.

Since when does one U.S. Army Captain speak for the entire United States joint military force?

What is this crap ?

Our journalist friends from France briefly explain why solar and cosmic radiation make manned space travel to Mars or beyond not feasible -- unless you want to die quickly.

"A theorised solution would be to generate a huge magnetic or electrostatic shield around the ship to repel the particles, although the energy expenditure would be huge and the solution itself may pose hazards to health.

"Cost alone is likely to make these ideas unfeasible, leaving mission deciders with the nightmarish task of determining what is an acceptable level of risk for the men and women who will go to Mars."

Let's hope sobering stories like this put to death the childish, escapist notion that we can willfully destroy the only known living planet in the Universe because we can always go somewhere else.

It is axiomatic that if we could somehow make Mars livable, we should be able to keep the Earth livable. The vice versa is axiomatic as well.