Corzine was speeding, too

What a moron. Not only was New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine not wearing a seatbelt, he was going way too fast.

The sport utility vehicle carrying Gov. Jon S. Corzine was traveling about 91 mph moments before it crashed, the superintendent of state police said Tuesday....

The speed limit along that stretch of the parkway is 65 mph.

Hey, I speed, too. But rarely do I go 26 miles over the limit, and in any event I wear a seatbelt.

Let's just touch briefly on the arrogance of a governor disregarding laws that apply to us mere mortals. Especially when those same governors occasionally sign tough anti-speeding measures into law. One might even be tempted to make a political issue out of it.

Unfortunately, Corzine has lots of bipartisan company in the speeding department.

Republicans
South Dakota's William Janklow killed a motorcyclist while speeding. He was a four-term Republican governor, and was a member of Congress at the time of the accident.

South Carolina's lieutenant governor, Andre Bauer, has a long history of speeding violations.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry tried to get out of a speeding ticket in June 2000.

Democrats
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson is a famous leadfoot.

As is Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell.

That doesn't excuse any of it, of course. It simply demonstrates that power often leads to arrogance.

Still, Corzine's a special case. He might be perversely thankful he's seriously injured -- it's probably the only thing saving him from a severe political butt-kicking for being dumb and arrogant.

politics, midtopia

Day of silence

This just sucks.

At least 33 people are dead in what may be the biggest mass shooting in modern American history.

I'm done blogging for the day. I'll leave you with one thought: an event like this happens two or three times a day in Iraq, which has less than a tenth of our population. Give thanks you live here, even if we have to deal with the occasional armed nutjob.

My thoughts and best wishes are with the students, the victims and their families.

politics, midtopia

Prosecutor bias in Wisconsin

As Alberto Gonzales prepares to testify before Congress, expect the case of Georgia Thompson to get an extensive airing.

Opponents of Gov. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin spent $4 million on ads last year trying to link the Democratic incumbent to a state employee who was sent to jail on corruption charges. The effort failed, and Mr. Doyle was re-elected — and now the state employee has been found to have been wrongly convicted. The entire affair is raising serious questions about why a United States attorney put an innocent woman in jail.

The conviction of Georgia Thompson has become part of the furor over the firing of eight United States attorneys in what seems like a political purge. While the main focus of that scandal is on why the attorneys were fired, the Thompson case raises questions about why other prosecutors kept their jobs.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which heard Ms. Thompson’s case this month, did not discuss whether her prosecution was political — but it did make clear that it was wrong. And in an extraordinary move, it ordered her released immediately, without waiting to write a decision. “Your evidence is beyond thin,” Judge Diane Wood told the prosecutor. “I’m not sure what your actual theory in this case is.”

What was so unusual about this case? A list:

1. It wasn't even within the jurisdiction of the U.S. attorney who prosecuted it, Steven Biskupic -- it was in the domain of Wisconsin's other U.S. attorney, Erik Peterson.

2. Thompson was accused of improperly awarding a travel contract to a politically connected firm. This ignored the fact that the contract was competitively bid. The firm in question won the contract by the simple expedient of having the lowest bid.

3. Thompson was but one of seven members of a committee that awarded the contract, and she wasn't even aware that the firm was a major contributor to Gov. Doyle.

4. Biskupic leaked the investigation to the media in late 2005, in violation of federal guidelines.

5. The prosecution was timed perfectly to conclude just before the November elections.

Yeah, that looks good.

Gonzales, politics, midtopia

Gonzales: "I have nothing to hide"

The Justice Department has released the opening statement -- all 25 pages of it -- that Alberto Gonzales intends to read at the start of his testimony tomorrow before Congress.

Critics will not be mollified.

He boldly asserts that while the prosecutor firings may have been handled badly, they were not improper. He proposes a simple criteria for impropriety: "The
replacement of one or more U.S. attorneys in order to impede or speed along particular criminal investigations for illegitimate reasons." He then adds: "Our record in bringing aggressive prosecutions without fear or favor and irrespective of political affiliations – a record I am very proud of – is beyond reproach."

He might not get past that statement, because it's demonstrably untrue. We know that several of the prosecutors were criticized for being insufficiently zealous about prosecuting voter fraud. Given that the "voter fraud" initiative overwhelmingly focused on Democrats, included some really questionable cases with big political implications and turned up little to no evidence of such fraud, it's hard to see how that could be construed as a nonpartisan effort. And that's without referring to the disputed study that concluded Democrats were investigated or indicted seven times as often as Republicans. So it's hard to see how Gonzales can make his claim with a straight face.

He now acknowledges that he was kept briefed on the progress of the prosecutor firings, including discussion of specific names, while saying he did not make any decisions about who should be fired. His explanation is reasonable -- he basically viewed the prosecutors as presidential employees, so his input didn' matter -- but not only does this contradict his earlier statements, but it's kind of stunning that the head of the Justice Department would take no role and no apparent interest in the firings of a tenth of his prosecutors. As several observers have noted, such detachment would appear to be de facto proof that Gonzales failed in his responsibility to protect the independence of federal prosecutors.

In that context, his acknowledgement that he was "less than precise" with his earlier words reads like a euphemism for "I lied." Especially given his tortured parsing of his earlier words, in which "I knew my chief of staff was involved in the process" is supposed to have meant "I was being briefed by him, even though I just said I was not involved in any discussions."

He points to changes he is implementing, notably starting an investigation by Justice's internal watchdog and improving communication with the current crop of U.S. attorneys.

The one mistake he acknowledges making is that the firings should have been handled in a more "personal and respectful" way. But mostly he deflects criticism toward Kyle Sampson.

That takes up 7 pages. Then he segues into a discussion of national security, notably defending the various eavesdropping and investigative tools authorized by the Patriot Act. But while he cites a short list of accomplishments, he doesn't demonstrate how those are connected to the powers in question. He only addresses the FBI's abuse of National Security Letters in the context of "we're improving oversight." The interesting news there is that the FBI is conducting a comprehensive review of NSLs at all 56 FBI field offices -- a far more extensive look than the four-office sample that led to the discovery of NSL abuses. And, of course, the even more egregious use of "exigent letters" is banned.

He also, rather comically, argues for a revison of FISA -- a law that as White House counsel he considered irrelevant, overridden by the president's "inherent authority." Having openly violated FISA for years, it's pretty nervy to now ask Congress to revise it.

And then he closes with this line: "We all recognize that we cannot afford to make progress in the War on Terror at the cost of eroding our bedrock civil liberties. Our Nation is, and always will be, dedicated to liberty for all, a value that we cannot and will not sacrifice, even in the name of winning this war. I will not accept failures in this regard."

Pretty funny coming from the guy most instrumental in eroding those liberties.

The rest of the testimony is dedicated to fairly noncontroversial items, like fighting crimes against children, drug abuse, and so on.

Dan Froomkin has some other thoughts on the matter, with links to other good examples of Gonzales word torture, as well as Sen. Pat Leahy's dismissive response.

And then there's this piece from the Albuquerque Journal (h/t: Moderate Voice), suggesting that at least one of the prosecutors -- David Iglesias -- was fired after Sen. Pete Domenici pressured President Bush. It indicates repeated pressure and questioning of Iglesias by Domenici, notably an aggressive attempt to increase corruption prosecutions -- over Iglesias' demurrals -- after Iglesias indicted two prominent Democrats in 2005.

Gonzales, politics, midtopia

Conservatives want Gonzales gone

Just in Time for Gonzales' Congressional appearance:

In what could prove an embarrassing new setback for embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on the eve of his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, a group of influential conservatives and longtime Bush supporters has written a letter to the White House to call for his resignation....

"Mr. Gonzales has presided over an unprecedented crippling of the Constitution's time-honored checks and balances," it declares. "He has brought rule of law into disrepute, and debased honesty as the coin of the realm." Alluding to ongoing scandal, it notes: "He has engendered the suspicion that partisan politics trumps evenhanded law enforcement in the Department of Justice."

Among the signers are Bruce Fein and Richard Viguerie, prominent Republican activists; David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union; Bob Barr, a former Republican Congressman; John Whitehead of the conservative Rutherford Institute.

As the story notes, many conservatives have disliked Gonzales for other reasons for years. But this just underscores the lack of support Gonzales has anywhere outside the White House -- and the political costs of his continued presence atop Justice.

Here's the full text of the letter.

Gonzales, politics, midtopia

Sperm cells from bone marrow

Might this turn the gay-marriage debate on its head?

Women might soon be able to produce sperm in a development that could allow lesbian couples to have their own biological daughters, according to a pioneering study published today.

Scientists are seeking ethical permission to produce synthetic sperm cells from a woman's bone marrow tissue after showing that it possible to produce rudimentary sperm cells from male bone-marrow tissue.

The researchers said they had already produced early sperm cells from bone-marrow tissue taken from men. They believe the findings show that it may be possible to restore fertility to men who cannot naturally produce their own sperm.

So it's a fertility treatment, that just happens to allow lesbians to conceive a child biologically related to both parents. It's also part of a larger effort to take bone marrow stem cells and try to coax them to differentiate into different kinds of cells.

It won't work for gay male couples, because they lack ovaries and eggs.

Also, because of the lack of a Y chromosome, all children of such unions will be female.

The science is still very young; they haven't actually made viable sperm yet. But it's intriguing.

Update: I've come up with one wrinkle to this potential procedure that raises ethical questions. It appears that it could allow a woman to produce a child entirely by herself: combining an egg from her ovaries with sperm taken from her marrow.

I'm not sure that's exactly unethical -- it's really just a do-it-yourself sperm-donor kit -- but given the inbreeding problem, it's probably a very bad idea. It would be banned for the same reason cousins aren't allowed to marry.

gay rights, stem cells, science, politics, midtopia

Views on the surge

The latest play-by-play on whether Bush's last chance is working:

Killings are down significantly in Baghdad -- 1,586 in the past two months, down from 2,871 in the two months before that.

But that's still an unacceptably high number, and in part the killing has merely shifted to other, less well-defended areas -- killings elsewhere are up by 500 people in that period. Still, as proof of concept, it's not bad. The idea all along was to secure Baghdad and then expand that security outward to the rest of the country.

What it does demonstrate, however, is that it will take far more troops to get killings in Baghdad down to a reasonable level -- never mind reduce killings elsewhere. Which has always been the suspected weakness of the surge: that it's too small, and unsustainable even so.

Unsurprisingly, Charles Krauthammer swears the surge is working. His evidence is skimpy: mostly military claims that Anbar Province, once almost given up for lost, has now "turned the corner." Even if true -- and Krauthammer places a lot of significance on what could easily be taken as light-on-details military "happy talk" -- it has little to do with the surge. It is good news that 14 of 18 Sunni tribes in Anbar have finally gotten sick of Al-Qaeda; but it remains to be seen whether that situation will hold, it doesn't address the problem with native Iraq insurgents, and it's unclear whether it holds relevance for the Sunni/Shiite sectarian violence that has been the prime driver of violence of late. If you believe that AQ is largely responsible for that violence, great; if you believe the violence is more broadly rooted than that, trouble.

He also cites news reports that various neighborhoods in Baghdad are safer than they were a few weeks ago -- which dovetails well with the reduced death toll.

Ironically, both developments, in passing, destroy two arguments advanced by war supporters.

The killing data from Baghdad further drives a stake into the ridiculous idea that Baghdad is only slightly more dangerous than some major American cities, even the reduced death rate translates to about 9,500 killings a year in a city of 7 million. By comparison, New York City endured 596 murders in 2006.

And the "Sunnis turning on AQ" news contradicts the idea that if we withdraw from Iraq, it will became a haven for Al-Qaeda. This is further refuted by the aftermath of the Parliament bombing. The local AQ affiliate claimed responsibility for the attack, which drew bipartisan criticism from prominent Iraqis -- emphasized by an unprecedented Friday session of Parliament. There are still major questions over how the bomber gained access to the Parliament building -- dark actions that could mean more than the encouraging lip service paid today. But unanimous condemnation is a starting point.

Whatever reasons we have to stay in Iraq, preventing it from becoming a safe haven for terrorism is not one of them.

terrorism, Iraq, politics, midtopia

Scandal roundup

Where to begin?

In the prosecutor probe, the Justice Department released hundreds of documents that Congress had been seeking, forestalling a possible legal standoff. Only partly mollfied, the Senate Judiciary Committee authorized subpoenas for documents and testimony from Justice's William Moschella and Karl Rove aide Scott Jennings.

Meanwhile, new revelations abound in the e-mail probe. The White House, after first saying lots of e-mails may have been deleted, now says some of them could have been related to the prosecutor firings.

Then it turns out that the RNC stopped automatically deleting e-mails by White House officials in 2004, and in 2005 specifically took away Karl Rove's ability to delete e-mails. Breaking it down, that means:

1. Four years worth of e-mails (2001-2004) are gone (unless there were backups and forensic examination can recover them).

2. After 2004, the only way e-mails would have been deleted is if the officials themselves specifically deleted them.

3. After 2005, there should be a complete record of Rove's e-mails. So if they're missing, something's not right.

Amid it all, the White House not only continues to refuse Congressional requests to question Rove and several key aides. It is expanding its "executive privilege" authority to include the RNC e-mails, and has the chutzpah to try to use the e-mail scandal as leverage:

Now that Democrats are also demanding access to the political e-mail, the White House took steps on Thursday to use those latest demands as leverage to force Democrats to accept the White House’s conditions for making Mr. Rove and the others available.

In a letter to Mr. Leahy and Representative John Conyers Jr., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Fielding, the White House counsel, said the administration was prepared to produce e-mail from the national committee, but only as part of a “carefully and thoughtfully considered package of accommodations” — in other words, only as part of the offer for Mr. Rove and the others to appear in private.

Mr. Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, issued a tart reply: “The White House position seems to be that executive privilege not only applies in the Oval Office, but to the R.N.C. as well. There is absolutely no basis in law or fact for such a claim.”

Somehow, I don't think that will work. The more revelations emerge, the more the White House refusal to allow questioning looks like a desire to hide something rather than a principled stand on Constitutional issues.

Up until the latest revelations, the White House had at least a wobbly leg to stand on. No longer. The more they delay and obstruct and refuse to cooperate, the worse it's going to be for them and the more political hay Democrats will make. It'll be interesting how far Bush is willing to push a losing hand -- and how much patience Congressional Republicans will have with him doing so.

Update: a make-you-think post from Glenn Greenwald noting the peculiar history of missing and deleted documents in the Bush administration.

Okay, the federal government is a big place. And the missing documents involve all sorts of different agencies and levels of that government. And if the government were truly competent, things they claimed were destroyed would not surface later -- they would actually be destroyed.

Still, there's a pattern here. And if it's not deception, then its incompetence and a massive credibility problem.

Update II: Rove's lawyer says Rove did not intentionally delete his own e-mails, and believed they were being preserved.

Separately, the newly released Justice documents appear to contradict some of Kyle Sampson's Senate testimony.

The documents show that beginning in a January 2006 e-mail to White House Counsel Harriet Miers, Sampson proposed some of the administration's most senior lawyers to replace U.S. attorneys in San Diego, San Francisco, Michigan and Arkansas.

But he told Congress something else:

"On December 7th [2007], I did not have in mind any replacements for any of the seven who were asked to resign," Sampson said then, under questioning from Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y.

Now, we could be talking about the difference between having replacements in mind and having them actually lined up. But Sampson's testimony was still a bit misleading.

And another document showed that among the criteria used for ranking prosecutors was whether they were members of the conservative Federalist Society. Only one fired prosecutor was a member: Kevin Ryan, who everyone seems to agree was fired for cause.

Finally, the White House floated the possibility that as many as 5 million e-mails may have been lost when the White House converted from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Outlook in 2001 and 2002.

Deliberate? Maybe not. Hugely, mind-bogglingly inexcusable? Yes.

Gonzales, politics, midtopia

N.J. Governor Corzine critically injured in crash

Don Imus claims another victim:

New Jersey Gov. Jon S. Corzine was in critical condition Friday but expected to recover after his SUV crashed into a guard rail while heading to a meeting between Don Imus and the Rutgers women's basketball team.

Despite the "critical" designation, his injuries aren't life-threatening and he's expected to recover fully:

The crash on the Garden State Parkway broke the governor's leg, six ribs, his sternum and fracturing a vertebrae. Authorities were still searching for a pickup truck driver whose actions were blamed for causing it.

Corzine, 60, won't be able to resume his duties as governor for several days, if not weeks, and he won't walk normally for months, Dr. Robert Ostrum said performing surgery on the governor Thursday night at Cooper University Hospital.

While he's out, State Senate President Richard Codey will be acting governor. Luckily, he's got a lot of experience for a temporary replacement:

The acting governor, Codey, also served as acting governor for about 14 months before Corzine took office last year following former Gov. James McGreevey's resigning over an extramarital affair with a man.

Hmm. Maybe Codey's some sort of gubernatorial bad-luck charm....

Best wishes to the governor for a full and speedy recovery.

Update: Corzine apparently wasn't wearing a seat belt. Dumb.

Corzine, politics, midtopia

Rethink those truisms

A couple of doses of cognitive dissonance for certain quarters of the political sphere:

1. Trickle-down theory doesn't work in the real world. The most relevant fact: the reason we need to tax the wealthy is because that's where the money is: since 1980, the inflation-adjusted median wage has actually fallen, while incomes for those in the top 0.1 percent earn four times what they did then. It's not class warfare to tax that discrepancy. And as the article argues, it will not result in top earners working less or taking fewer risk. The rest of the article points out a long list of areas where trickle-down theory disagrees with both classic economics and real-world experience.

2. Voter fraud probe comes up empty. You may recall that worries about voter fraud were the rationale for what otherwise might look like political investigations of Democrats. Now it turns out that those worries were, charitably, overblown. After five years of investigating, the Justice Department has precious little to show for it.

Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year.

Most of those charged have been Democrats, voting records show. Many of those charged by the Justice Department appear to have mistakenly filled out registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules, a review of court records and interviews with prosecutors and defense lawyers show.

That's not all. To keep the charade going a little longer, a federal panel edited a report on voter fraud, changing the conclusion from "little evidence" of fraud to "the pervasiveness of fraud is debatable."

And then there are the clear miscarriages of justice:

Mr. Ali, 68, who had owned a jewelry store in Tallahassee, got into trouble after a clerk at the motor vehicles office had him complete a registration form that he quickly filled out in line, unaware that it was reserved just for United States citizens.

Even though he never voted, he was deported after living legally in this country for more than 10 years because of his misdemeanor federal criminal conviction.

Fabulous.

Voter fraud is a crime. True fraud should be prosecuted vigorously. But it makes no sense to destroy people's lives for making mistakes, especially small ones. And it's just plain irresponsible for the White House and other Republicans to keep flogging the "widespread fraud" line when it's just not true -- and firing prosecutors for not being zealous enough in bringing nonexistent cases.

voter fraud, politics, midtopia

White House e-mails deleted

You know that brewing scandal over White House use of RNC e-mail addresses?

Well, it just got a lot, lot bigger:

Countless e-mails to and from many key White House staffers have been deleted -- lost to history and placed out of reach of congressional subpoenas -- due to a brazen violation of internal White House policy that was allowed to continue for more than six years, the White House acknowledged yesterday.

The problem:

Until 2004, all e-mail on RNC accounts was routinely deleted after 30 days. Since 2004, White House staffers using those accounts have been able to save their e-mail indefinitely -- but have also been able to delete whatever they felt like deleting. By comparison, the White House e-mail system preserves absolutely everything forever, in accordance with the Presidential Records Act.

The part that will have administration critics salivating:

The leading culprit appears to be President Bush's enormously influential political adviser Karl Rove, who reportedly used his Republican National Committee-provided Blackberry and e-mail accounts for most of his electronic communication.

Now one could argue that the problem, while real, was inadvertent, not done with evil intent. And I'm sure the familiar sight of administration incompetence partly explains the problem.

But it stretches credibility to think that someone as highly placed as Rove would not have understood the very clear White House rules governing e-mail:

"Federal law requires the preservation of electronic communications sent or received by White House staff," says the handbook that all staffers are given and expected to read and comply with.

"As a result, personnel working on behalf of the EOP [Executive Office of the President] are expected to only use government-provided e-mail services for all official communication."

The handbook further explains: "The official EOP e-mail system is designed to automatically comply with records management requirements."

And if that wasn't clear enough, the handbook notes -- as was the case in the Clinton administration -- that "commercial or free e-mail sites and chat rooms are blocked from the EOP network to help staff members ensure compliance and to prevent the circumvention of the records management requirements."

So we're left with three possible explanations:

1. Karl Rove is an idiot;

2. Karl Rove thought the rules didn't apply to him;

3. Karl Rove deliberately circumvented the records laws.

The answer, for now, appears to be #2:

For Rove, a noted Blackberry addict who holds the position of senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, that would have meant switching from one device to another when alternating from White House business to Republican party business. Apparently he didn't bother.

I wrote in my earlier post that as a blogger with multiple e-mail accounts, I can understand how staffers could have inadvertently used the wrong account on occasion. But this isn't inadvertent misuse; this is blatant disregard for the rules.

And it's not just Rove. Fifty White House staffers were issued RNC communications gear, and apparently many of them also used the RNC gear for official business and improperly deleted messages.

And in classic Bush administration fashion, it's nobody's fault:

So is anyone in trouble? Apparently not. Stanzel was careful to apportion blame widely and generically. "This issue is not the fault of one individual," he said. He refused even to acknowledge that it is the White House counsel's office that is responsible for the establishment and oversight of internal rules of conduct. The White House counsel during Bush's entire first term, of course, was Alberto Gonzales, now the embattled attorney general.

There's more. Read the whole thing. And check out the related coverage. Particularly note the case of Rove aide Susan Ralston, who deliberately used RNC accounts to communicate with Jack Abramoff. And if you want another indication that the White House was fully aware of the situation and that transgressions were not inadvertent, read this:

In another e-mail exchange revealed during the investigation of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a White House official was described as warning that "it is better to not put this stuff in writing in [the White House] . . . email system because it might actually limit what they can do to help us, especially since there could be lawsuits, etc." Abramoff responded in an e-mail that the message in question "was not supposed to go into the WH system."

It's hard to read that as anything other than a deliberate circumvention of the law. The Democrats are going to have a field day. And deservedly so.

Update: Sen. Patrick Leahy blows a gasket. Yikes.

RNC, Rove, politics, midtopia

Two major attacks in Baghdad

Not good news:

A suspected suicide bomber blew himself up in the Iraqi parliament cafeteria in a stunning assault in the heart of the heavily fortified, U.S.-protected Green Zone on Thursday, killing at least eight people, including two lawmakers, the American military said. At least 10 other people were wounded.

Thursday's attack came hours after a suicide truck bomb exploded on a major bridge in Baghdad, collapsing the steel structure and sending cars tumbling into the Tigris River below, police and witnesses said. At least 10 people were killed in that attack.

I'm kind of surprised the suicide bombers haven't targeted big bridges before this. It's an effective way to both kill people and paralyze the city.

The Parliament bombing is more troubling, considering the Parliament is deep inside the Green Zone. The bomber either got through several layers of security undetected -- which strikes me as unlikely -- or he had inside help. The implications of that could be huge.

It would appear the Parliament bomber was Sunni, because the dead were either Shiite or Kurd. In particular we can probably rule out Moqtada al-Sadr as a suspect, because six of the wounded were from his party.

Is this a comment on whether the "surge" is working? Not of the "smoking gun" variety. The Green Zone is a heavily fortified, high value target, so attacks there don't reasonably reflect security conditions elsewhere in the city. As for the bridge attack, not only is the surge still gathering steam, but it's pretty much impossible to prevent all attacks by suicide bombers. A checkpoint on the bridge might have helped stop that attack, but there's a limit to the number of potential targets the military can protect with limited forces. It's worth asking, though, if such a major piece of infrastructure was guarded -- and if not, why not. Baghdad is crisscrossed by rivers, notably the Tigris; lose enough bridges, and the city would essentially be cut in half.

All that said, inasmuch as this reflects a recent uptick in violence in Baghdad (after an initial decline), it could end up being part of a body of evidence that the surge produced only temporary benefits. But only time will tell.

Baghdad, surge, Iraq, politics, midtopia

The high price of animal shelters

Two years ago, our oldest cat died. A year ago, so did our second. Both were elderly; their deaths were sad but not unexpected. They're buried together in the woods in our back yard.

Four weeks ago, we decided it was time to have cats around again. So we visited several local shelters and finally adopted a pair of 3-month-old female kittens: a feisty short-hair calico and an affectionate black domestic longhair with extra toes on its front feet. I'll post pictures later when I get time.

We believe in adopting from shelters rather than buying purebreds for both humanitarian and economic reasons. And while we've always been sort of opposed to declawing -- my wife calls it "cutting off their fingers at the first knuckle" -- we reluctantly decided to have them declawed because we both work and wouldn't be able to spend the necessary time teaching them not to shred the furniture.

What floored me was the cost.

The adoption fee for each cat was $150 plus tax. That included a bunch of veterinary care prior to adoption, plus free microchipping and spaying afterward.

Both had colds -- a common ailment in shelters, where animals live in close proximity to each other -- so a vet visit and some antibiotics cost $50.

Declawing was another $200 apiece -- no charge for the extra toes. They also got their distemper boosters.

So four weeks in, we've invested more than $800 in these two "free" cats.

Declawing was a choice, of course. And the fees in the Twin Cities are far higher than those at shelters out in the country. But that's a staggering amount of money -- and it doesn't even include things like food, litter boxes or litter.

I understand that shelters need to cover expenses, and I don't begrudge them or the vets the money. We love the cats -- even if they keep us awake at night with their playing, or by jumping up on the bed and purring in our ears -- and can afford the cost.

But it has set me to wondering: At what point does the cost of adoption start interfering with their mission to save animals? A lot of families that might otherwise make wonderful homes for abandoned animals simply can't afford to spend that kind of money on a pet. Are the shelters dangerously narrowing their customer base in a pennywise, pound-foolish fashion?

Those thoughts came back to me after reading about research in adoption psychology. This refers to a growing trend among animal shelters to study the psychology of shelter animals, as well as that of people who give up pets and those who adopt them. The idea is to not only match people with compatible pets: the goal includes discovering why owners give up pets (in hopes of reducing the number of abandoned animals) and to develop shelter designs and training programs for abandoned animals that will make them more adoptable. The overall goal: greatly reducing the number of animals euthanized every year.

The article is flawed. It starts out strong, then devolves into a lightweight story about the author's decision to adopt a dog from the shelter he's writing about. But it makes some sobering points:

1. Of the 4 million dogs that enter animal shelters in the United States each year, half are euthanized.

2. The most heartbreaking scene was the description of the shelter's "disposition team", which has the emotionally wrenching job of assessing new arrivals and deciding, on the basis of a few minutes' interaction, which animals get sent to the adoption kennels and which get sent to the canine Treblinka of the euthanasia room.

3. While the main reasons for surrendering dogs are understandable -- biting, aggression, chewing on furniture, inability to house-train, moving, loss of job -- many are downright frivolous and reflect a shocking emotional disregard. Among the examples cited in the article: animals surrendered because they were "boring", or the owners were going on vacation, or the family had bought new furniture and the dog's coloring didn't match.

The most interesting argument the article makes is that pets are being forced to adapt to a changing human culture that they were never bred for. Most dog breeds were developed for specific outdoor purposes: herding, catching rats, hunting. These jobs not only selected for energy and intelligence, but were usually performed in the company of people or other dogs.

But our population is far more urban and suburban these days, and in many families the adults all work -- and work long hours. So those dogs are now forced to endure long days alone in a house or apartment, with the boredom and loneliness relieved only by the arrival home of their humans -- who after a long day of work are often too tired or stressed or busy to deal with the needs of their canine companions.

The article cites some successes -- including one here in Minneapolis, where "socialized" puppies were far less likely to be returned after adoption. Another training program in New Hampshire cut the euthanasia rate in half, while in Ohio an aggressive spay/neuter program has helped cut euthanasia by 40 percent while reducing the number of abandoned dogs by 16 percent.

Still, I was left wondering if there are any real solutions, or if the ethically numbing reality of animal shelters are simply the way things are. As long as adoption is expensive; as long as people have unrealistic expectations of their animals; and as long as substantial numbers of people refuse to have their animals spayed, there will always be more abandoned animals than there are people to adopt them. And that means there will always be disposition teams separating the lucky from the unlucky.

It strikes me that there is plenty of room for either states or private foundations to get involved here. I see a two-pronged approach.

1. A subsidy program to reduce the cost of adoption, thus broadening the base of potential adopters;

2. An aggressive education, subsidy and (perhaps) enforcement program to encourage widespread spaying/neutering of pets. Working with vets, say, to offer pet owners a one-year discount on vet services if they get their pet neutered (with the state picking up most of the difference). Or shelters requiring that anyone dropping off a litter of kittens or puppies must get the mother spayed. Or cities requiring spaying as part of their licensing process except for licensed breeders. The idea is to make spaying the default choice, so that it occurs unless the pet owner is highly motivated to avoid it.

Then, perhaps, shelters can do more of the sheltering part of their job and less of the emotionally numbing work that comes from serving as a triage center for society's carelessness.

Update: Picture of cute kitties added.

pets, animal shelters, politics, midtopia

Republicans claim "meaningful amendments" crown!

We're all of three months into the 110th Congress, so of course it's time to grade the Republicans. At least, that's what House Republicans seem to think.

This is a special sort of report card, in which they choose the categories and introduce them with a self-serving blurb. But what the heck. Here's what they have to say for themselves:

House Republicans have successfully passed more meaningful amendments in the first three months on 2007, than the Democrats were able to pass in the past 12 years. One prominent analyst remarked that House Republicans are creating "a series of substantaive wins" through effective use of procedural rights on the floor.

Wow. "More meaningful amendments." Anyone else impressed? The "prominent analyst," by the way, is lobbyist and conservative Washington Times op-ed contributor Gary Andres.

The ironic thing is that their relative success in this small-bore world can be ascribed to the Democrats not using the hardball tactics employed by Republicans when they were in the majority. Indeed, Andres speculates with apparent glee that the raging GOP success with "meaningful amendments" may lead Democrats to clamp down on that openness. I'm not sure why he considers that a good thing.

Next up: Online communication.

House Republicans are reaching out to the online community more aggressively than ever before; Rep. Cantor is proud to be a part of this effort. In the past three months, House Republicans have held a successful blog row, produced several online web ads, been in constant communication with the blogs, among other ideas. How successful do you feel these efforts have been?

Double wow. I thought we were supposed to be ranking their job performance, not their PR efforts.

Lastly, defining the stakes (or, as the secondary label puts it, "Showing that Democrats are wrong for America"):

House Democrats are making a lot of legislative mistakes; in just their first three months of holding power, they have passed the largest tax hike in American history, failed to fund America’s troops, and increased the federal budget by billions with pork projects. How effective do you feel House Republicans have been in highlighting these errors?

Nah, no spin there. And once again, why are we grading PR efforts?

That, by the way, is it. The entire report card you are encouraged to fill out.

I could tut-tut about this, but really it's the political equivalent of mind candy. And for people with any perspective at all, it would be all in good fun. I'm just not sure the designers of this report card actually have perspective, because they seem so serious about it. It's almost as if they don't realize how ridiculously blinkered they sound.

politics, midtopia

Business backs universal health care

I'm catching up on my reading, and just finished an interesting piece on the prospects for health-care reform.

I've argued before that health coverage needs to be de-linked from employment status. It's both a fairness factor for employees (why should I pay more for worse coverage simply because I work for a small business?) and an economic factor for employers, to whom rising health care costs represent a barrier to hiring and a competitive disadvantage versus foreign companies who bear no such burden.

Now, at last, business seems to be reaching the same conclusion. As Sen. Ron Wyden, a longtime advocate of universal coverage, notes, "The refrain from business was, 'We can’t afford to do universal health care.' Now the refrain is, 'We can’t afford not to do it.'"

Which is why you have the odd spectacle of a union-busting CEO, Steve Burd of Safeway supermarkets, joining former Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie to form the Coalition to Advance Health Care Reform, a business advocacy group that will push universal coverage.

One might be forgiven for being skeptical, and think this is just another Orwellian-named group whose actual agenda is to scuttle universal care. But Burd has been walking the walk for a while, giving talks to business groups promoting the idea. And one can certainly see the self-interest involved. The real trick will be in the details. Everybody wants universal care -- but what level of benefits? At what cost? Who pays? And who manages it? Those are the things that will need to be ironed out.

Still, it's good to see the various interest groups starting to line up behind the general idea of comprehensive coverage. It's only a first step, but a very important one.

Burd, health care, politics, midtopia

Republican pessimism for 2008

I've said before that if Bush doesn't do something to make Iraq a nonissue before the 2008 elections, Republicans will be battling Democrats to be the first to string him up.

Now Republicans are starting to make similar noises, openly worrying about the damage Bush and Iraq will do to them in the 2008 elections.

In interviews on Tuesday, the Republicans said they were concerned about signs of despondency among party members and fund-raisers, reflected in polls and the Democratic fund-raising advantage in the first quarter of the year. Many party leaders expressed worry that the party’s presidential candidates faced a tough course without some fundamental shift in the political dynamic.

“My level of concern and dismay is very, very high,” said Mickey Edwards, a Republican former congressman from Oklahoma who is now a lecturer in public policy at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton. “It’s not that I have any particular problem with the people who are running for the Republican nomination. I just don’t know how they can run hard enough or fast enough to escape the gravitational pull of the Bush administration.”

This on a day when John "Gaffe" McCain is trimming headquarters staff and trying to revitalize his candidacy -- by once again highlighting his support for the Iraq war.

Yeah, that'll work.

The story notes several things working against the Republicans besides Iraq:

1. That Democratic fundraising advantage is huge -- $78 million to $51 million.

2. The spectacle of the GOP frontrunners -- moderates as far as Republicans go -- transparently altering long-held positions in an attempt to appeal to the conservative base.

3. A general exhaustion after eight years of Republican rule.

All of the above is causing more and more people to identify themselves as Democrats. The shine may wear off of that over the next two years, but for now the momentum favors the Democrats.

It also appears that the politics of "wedge issues" may finally be exacting a toll on the party that invented them.

Alan K. Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming, said the party’s presidential candidates were being whipsawed as they tried to appeal to conservative voters who have a history of strong views on issues like abortion and gay rights. “These tests are destroying the Republican Party,” Mr. Simpson said.

Lord, one can hope so. Not to see the GOP destroyed, but to see such "tests" abandoned.

Abortion and gay rights, while legitimate issues, are not the sort of issues that are likely to ever be settled at the ballot box, turning as they do on rights rather than statute. Even if you hold strong views on those subjects, you're bound to get tired of having them dragged out time and again and forcing elections to focus on them without ever solving them, while more relevant and substantive -- and solvable -- issues are pushed to the side.

I hope the GOP gets at least some of its act together by 2008. My personal dream scenario would be the Dems winning the White House but losing one chamber of Congress -- say, the House. That would give Democrats control of policy initiatives (not to mention confirmation proceedings), while forcing them to deal with Republicans on legislation -- particularly budget legislation. I think that would be a recipe for compromise, with gridlock as a not-too-bad fallback position.

politics, midtopia

Delegating disaster

The White House is looking for someone to take over responsibility for Iraq and Afghanistan.

The White House wants to appoint a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies, but it has had trouble finding anyone able and willing to take the job, according to people close to the situation.

The snark in me is asking "isn't that Bush's job?" But I realize that's unfair. We're talking day-to-day management of the war, which isn't a presidential duty.

No, the real telling thing is that nobody wants the job.

At least three retired four-star generals approached by the White House in recent weeks have declined to be considered for the position, the sources said, underscoring the administration's difficulty in enlisting its top recruits to join the team after five years of warfare that have taxed the United States and its military.

"The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," said retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who was among those rejecting the job. Sheehan said he believes that Vice President Cheney and his hawkish allies remain more powerful within the administration than pragmatists looking for a way out of Iraq. "So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, 'No, thanks,'" he said.

You don't make general in the military without being able to smell a fiasco from miles away. Not that you really needed a special Spidey sense in this case. Not when the Pentagon is extending the tours of all Army soldiers in Iraq to 15 months, administration supporters like Bob Novak are saying the "surge" isn't working and Bush is preparing to sit down with Democrats to discuss ways to get continued funding for the wars.

What's more interesting is the view expressed by Sheehan, who retired after a 35-year career in the Marines.

"I've never agreed on the basis of the war, and I'm still skeptical," Sheehan said. "Not only did we not plan properly for the war, we grossly underestimated the effect of sanctions and Saddam Hussein on the Iraqi people."

In the course of the discussions, Sheehan said, he called around to get a better feel for the administration landscape.

"There's the residue of the Cheney view -- 'We're going to win, al-Qaeda's there' -- that justifies anything we did," he said. "And then there's the pragmatist view -- how the hell do we get out of Dodge and survive? Unfortunately, the people with the former view are still in the positions of most influence."

That, folks, is a Marine saying the war was a mistake, Cheney is a problem and we should be looking to withdraw, not get drawn in further.

Maybe Cheney can take the job.

Iraq, politics, midtopia

Iraq impasse

As a daylong battle raged in Baghdad's Sunni neighborhoods, President Bush invited Democrats to discuss war funding -- even while he was being pressured by a consortium of Republican legislators to reach a compromise.

For Bush, invitations to negotiate have historically been invitations to capitulate. And this time appears to be no different:

"We can discuss the way forward on a bill that is a clean bill — a bill that funds our troops without artificial timetables for withdrawal, and without handcuffing our generals on the ground," Bush said in a speech to an American Legion audience in nearby Fairfax, Va.

On the one hand, Bush extended an offer to meet with lawmakers Tuesday. On the other, the White House bluntly said it would not be a negotiating session.

What exactly is there to discuss, if the precondition is meeting all of the president's demands?

It bears an eery similarity to his diplomatic approach to Syria, Iran and North Korea, where he also demanded that the other side essentially surrender before talks could begin. That produced exactly zero results in those cases -- progress with North Korea was achieved only after the administration relented -- and isn't likely to go over big with Congress, so one is led to conclude that it is an approach carved into Bush's DNA, not one based on real-world experiences.

Indeed, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid quickly rejected the terms.

"What the president invited us to do was come to his office so that we could accept without any discussion the bill that he wants," Pelosi said at a news conference in San Francisco. "That's not worthy of the concerns of the American people, and I join with Senator Reid in rejecting an invitation of that kind."

The Republican delegation, meanwhile, throws an interesting wrench into the works by suggesting that Bush's Congressional support is not as strong as he thinks.

The group includes five Republicans, diverse in geography and ideology: Reps. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, Charles Boustany of Louisiana, Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska, Mac Thornberry of Texas and Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland. Of the five, only Gilchrest broke with his party to support a timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

Now, Gilchrest says the group will encourage the White House to compromise on negotiations with Syria and Iran and on setting a date for withdrawal from Iraq. And the group has national security bona fides that will help it be taken seriously....

The GOP negotiating team's argument will start with Gen. David Petraeus' public assertion that the war in Iraq cannot be won militarily but requires a comprehensive political solution. Part of that includes letting Iraq know the American commitment isn't open-ended, Gilchrest said.

It's unclear how much support the five GOPers have from the rest of their caucus. Other than Gilchrest -- who, if you believe the National Journal rankings, is the fifth most liberal Republican in the House -- the group is moderately to solidly conservative, though they're notably more moderate on foreign policy.

Consider this simple analysis: Thornberry is ranked as more conservative on foreign policy than 73 percent of the House. If the group crafts a compromise that is acceptable to him, it could conceivably be acceptable to those of the same rank or lower -- meaning a veto-proof majority. That's a really simple analysis, of course. Support for timetables is lower than opposition to the war in general, and that doesn't even count the effect of party discipline on voting behavior. But if the group can show it has support among rank-and-file Republicans, Bush will be forced to listen if he doesn't want to suffer a humiliating foreign-policy defeat.

Iraq, Bush, politics, midtopia

Subpoenas for Gonzales

Speaking of subpoenas, the House Judiciary Committee officially subpoenaed Alberto Gonzales for hundreds of as-yet-unreleased documents related to the prosecutor firings.

"We have been patient in allowing the department to work through its concerns regarding the sensitive nature of some of these materials," Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the judiciary panel's chairman, wrote Gonzales in a letter that accompanied the subpoena. "Unfortunately, the department has not indicated any meaningful willingness to find a way to meet our legitimate needs."

The Justice Department indicated it may fight the demand.

"Much of the information that the Congress seeks pertains to individuals other than the U.S. attorneys who resigned," Roehrkasse said. "Furthermore, many of the documents Congress is now seeking have already been available to them for review. Because there are individual privacy interests implicated by publicly releasing this information, it is unfortunate the Congress would choose this option."

Gonzales, meanwhile, is still AWOL from his job as he crams like a college sophomore for his upcoming Congressional appearance. One can hardly blame him, but I can't help thinking how all of this could have been avoided if he had devoted a fraction of the effort to preparing for his first appearance back in March, during which he lied -- er, inadvertently said things that weren't true.

Next week should be interesting.

Gonzales, politics, midtopia

Hypocrisy, Republican flavor

This is funny:

A Republican congressman who issued a large number of subpoenas for Clinton administration officials in the 1990s joined fellow Republicans in criticizing Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman for alleged overuse of subpoena authority....

[Rep. Dan Burton] chaired the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the 1990s, and became famous for issuing a wide variety of subpoenas to Clinton White House staff and other executive branch officials. In a report on the oversight activities conducted to date in the 110th Congress, Burton joined other House Republicans to warn Democrats not to "abuse" their authority.

"The minority is concerned the majority may abuse the deposition authority provided to this committee under the 110th House Rules. The minority also is concerned with the majority's practice of threatening subpoenas to witnesses unless they 'agree' to transcribed interviews," warned Burton with other Congress members.

Dems do the same thing, of course. Indeed, the article sounds a cautionary note for them, from former White House counsel Lanny Davis:

"We complained about Burton’s use of the subpoena power in the 1990s and need to show restraint and not use the same clearly partisan tactics," he argued.

Yep. Tempting as it is to play tit for tat, Dems need to take the high road. They were elected to oversee the executive branch, not bury it in partisan investigations. In the prosecutor case they have come dangerously close to overplaying their hand a couple of times, only to be saved by further White House bumbling. They can't count on getting that lucky all the time. They are probably convinced that the administration is a sea of corruption and vice. But the way to expose that is to find a thread and unravel it, not go on unjustified fishing expeditions.

Burton, politics, midtopia