Sec. Alphonso Jackson, still at it in HUD

Remember that Secretary Alphonso Jackson of the HUD that I have that grudge against? And my later follow up? Well, it looks like he's still at it.

After Philadelphia's housing director refused a demand by President Bush's housing secretary to transfer a piece of city property to a business friend, two top political appointees at the department exchanged e-mails discussing the pain they could cause the Philadelphia director.

"Would you like me to make his life less happy? If so, how?" Orlando J. Cabrera, then-assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, wrote about Philadelphia housing director Carl R. Greene.

"Take away all of his Federal dollars?" responded Kim Kendrick, an assistant secretary who oversaw accessible housing. She typed symbols for a smiley-face, ":-D," at the end of her January 2007 note.

Cabrera wrote back a few minutes later: "Let me look into that possibility."

The e-mails, obtained by The Washington Post, came to light as a result of a lawsuit provoked by HUD's decision last September to strip the Philadelphia Housing Authority of as much as $50 million in federal funds. In December, it declared the agency in violation of rules that underpin its ability to decide precisely how it will spend federal housing funds. Kendrick was the official who formally notified the authority that she had found it in violation.

What a lovely group they do seem to have in that office. "Nice city ya gots there. It'd be a pity if something were to happen to it, know what I mean?"

Noted in passing

"Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president's policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the Centcom region," [suddenly retiring Centcom CINC Admiral William] Fallon said in a statement Tuesday in which he announced his resignation as head of U.S. Central Command, arguably the most important in the U.S. military....

"I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility," Fallon said in his statement Tuesday, and he regretted "the simple perception that there is."

In keeping with one of my own pet peeves here, I would point out that their having the same objectives, doesn't mean they necessarily share views on how to achieve those objectives. The statement as is still leaves that possibility wide open, and military commanders don't really have any business choosing (big picture) objectives anyway; they're supposed to be figuring out how to achieve those objectives handed down to them. What we call the means to an end. So he's really not denying what he's trying to give the appearance of denying, here.

Furthermore, the second quoted paragraph there leaves open the possibility that there are differences in other areas. Not that I think there's likely much to that, but it does strike me as rather odd that he would specify and limit the policy in question that way. Why?

All told, he certainly seems to exude the air of somebody going out of his way to give the appearance of denying something, without actually denying it. Lying without lying, one might say.

Counting the costs

This story in The Australian ties in rather well with my current reading, and helps bridge the gap of the decade since it was written.

THE Iraq war has cost the US 50-60 times more than the Bush administration predicted and was a central cause of the sub-prime banking crisis threatening the world economy, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.

The former World Bank vice-president yesterday said the war had, so far, cost the US something like $US3trillion ($3.3 trillion) compared with the $US50-$US60-billion predicted in 2003....

Professor Stiglitz told the Chatham House think tank in London that the Bush White House was currently estimating the cost of the war at about $US500 billion, but that figure massively understated things such as the medical and welfare costs of US military servicemen.

The war was now the second-most expensive in US history after World War II and the second-longest after Vietnam, he said.

The spending on Iraq was a hidden cause of the current credit crunch because the US central bank responded to the massive financial drain of the war by flooding the American economy with cheap credit.

"The regulators were looking the other way and money was being lent to anybody this side of a life-support system," he said.

That led to a housing bubble and a consumption boom, and the fallout was plunging the US economy into recession and saddling the next US president with the biggest budget deficit in history, he said.

Professor Stiglitz, an academic at the Columbia Business School and a former economic adviser to president Bill Clinton, said a further $US500 billion was going to be spent on the fighting in the next two years and that could have been used more effectively to improve the security and quality of life of Americans and the rest of the world.

The money being spent on the war each week would be enough to wipe out illiteracy around the world, he said.

Just a few days' funding would be enough to provide health insurance for US children who were not covered, he said.

The public had been encouraged by the White House to ignore the costs of the war because of the belief that the war would somehow pay for itself or be paid for by Iraqi oil or US allies.

"When the Bush administration went to war in Iraq it obviously didn't focus very much on the cost. Larry Lindsey, the chief economic adviser, said the cost was going to be between $US100billion and $US200 billion - and for that slight moment of quasi-honesty he was fired.

"(Then defence secretary Donald) Rumsfeld responded and said 'baloney', and the number the administration came up with was $US50 to $US60 billion. We have calculated that the cost was more like $US3 trillion.

"Three trillion is a very conservative number, the true costs are likely to be much larger than that."

This is just the kind of thing Shutt is going on about in this book. (My reading in it is currently far ahead of my posting about it.)

Afterthought (added 03-01): I might also point out that that sum comes to around $10,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. Enjoy your tax cuts!

Recommendation from a fine businessman

President Bush, State of the Union, 2007:

When America serves others in this way, we show the strength and generosity of our country. These deeds reflect the character of our people. The greatest strength we have is the heroic kindness, courage, and self-sacrifice of the American people. You see this spirit often if you know where to look -- and tonight we need only look above to the gallery....

After her daughter was born, Julie Aigner-Clark searched for ways to share her love of music and art with her child. So she borrowed some equipment, and began filming children's videos in her basement. The Baby Einstein Company was born, and in just five years her business grew to more than $20 million in sales. In November 2001, Julie sold Baby Einstein to the Walt Disney Company, and with her help Baby Einstein has grown into a $200 million business. Julie represents the great enterprising spirit of America. And she is using her success to help others -- producing child safety videos with John Walsh of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Julie says of her new project: "I believe it's the most important thing that I have ever done. I believe that children have the right to live in a world that is safe." And so tonight, we are pleased to welcome this talented business entrepreneur and generous social entrepreneur -- Julie Aigner-Clark. (Applause.)

Now:

More than a half-million Chinese-made products were recalled Thursday, including "Pirates of the Caribbean" and Baby Einstein toys, because they contain dangerous levels of lead.

Coin-shaped "Pirates of the Caribbean" flashlights and soft, textured Baby Einstein blocks were among the 555,200 products recalled, the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced.

You're doing a heckuva job, Julie. (And Disney, to be fair.)

While we're at it, why didn't Bush ever tout his own entrepreneurial success in that speech? Surely, it would've fit right in with those others.

You keep using that word....

If I might borrow TPM's video...

I especially like how, at around 4:45 left to play, it seems he gets confused whether to say "Petraeus" or "Betray-us".

But, on a slightly more serious note:

And tonight, our moral and strategic imperatives are one: We must help Iraq defeat those who threaten its future and also threaten ours....

Eight months ago, we adopted a new strategy to meet that objective, including a surge in U.S. forces that reached full strength in June. This week, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified before Congress about how that strategy is progressing....

The premise of our strategy is that securing the Iraqi population is the foundation for all other progress....

Anbar province is a good example of how our strategy is working....

General Petraeus also recommends that in December we begin transitioning to the next phase of our strategy in Iraq.

I don't care how many times you keep using that word, it still does not mean what you think it means.

Nothing he talked about amounts to a "strategy" yet. Piling on more troops is not a "strategy", not even a "tactic". It's a relic of good old attrition warfare.

Some say the gains we are making in Iraq come too late. They are mistaken. It is never too late to deal a blow to al Qaeda. It is never too late to advance freedom. And it is never too late to support our troops in a fight they can win.

Sounds like he's making his excuses in advance on the off chance we ever catch bin Laden, or even if he just eventually dies of natural causes: "See? We finally got him, seventeen years later! That's not too late. Right? Let that be a lesson to the evildoers in the world! Freeance! Peance!"

Technology Keeps Getting Better

You know, I had to read The Rude Pundit's post twice because I didn't understand what he was saying and so mad about...until I realized that car contained a living GW Bush and NOT a cardboard cutout. Although both pictures look like it, the one where the worker isn't smiling certainly looks more cartoonish and one dimensional than the other. So when did they start developing cameras that could capture the essence of your soul?

Welcome, Komrads!

Per the New York Times:

President Bush has signed a directive that gives the White House much greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy.

In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president’s priorities.

This strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts. It suggests that the administration still has ways to exert its power after the takeover of Congress by the Democrats.

The White House said the executive order was not meant to rein in any one agency. But business executives and consumer advocates said the administration was particularly concerned about rules and guidance issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Political officers, anyone? Could they be much more obvious about it?

Don't turn around, oh oh
Der Kommissar's in town, oh oh
And if he talks to you
And you don't know why
You say your life
Is gonna make you die...

Alles klar, Herr Kommissar?

SotU Snark

Just a little tidbit out of last night's State of the Union address that jumped out at me as sounding a bit odd. Near the end of his speech, as he was wrapping things up, Bush addressed the country as a whole, and said, "We've been through a lot together." Both my roommate and I had the same thought—"Is he breaking up with us, or what?"

I just wish he were.

About time already!

Dissatisfied with the reporters' prickly questions, Bush went about answering his own. He said abandoning Iraq would allow terrorists to launch new attacks on America. "How do I know that would happen?" Bush asked himself. "Because that's what the enemy has told us," he answered.

Oh, did he finally get and read that PDB titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S."?

P.S. Mr. President, do you always take your intelligence cues from the enemy?

Ignoring the Elephant in the middle of the... closet?

Reader DK @ TPM cracks wise, but I'll try to outdo him:

As a precaution, the governor [Jeb Bush] was ushered into a T-station supply closet and stayed there until the crowd left.

When I said Republicans were on the run, this isn't quite what I had in mind.

When I said there were a lot of Republicans in the closet, this isn't quite what I had in mind.

---

Note: Another new feature added: When I'm quoting liberal sources, the quotes will be in blue; when I'm quoting right wing sources, the quotes will be in red. More or less neutral sources (typically the media) will remain in orange. I might slowly apply this to the archives as well.

Patriot games

To the Bush voters and their ilk who would question my patriotism, and have questioned the patriotism of my ilk, I ask this:

Why do you claim to love America? Is it for the hope of freedom, of liberty, of justice? The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Or is it just because it's the nation that happened to be blessed with your presence? If you'd been born anywhere else, wouldn't you now be insisting that God (or, God forbid, Allah) had made the place of your birth the most perfect nation on His Earth? Does America have anything else going for it than having been lucky enough to be the host of your over-worthy person? Does America exist for the sole purpose of ensuring your physical safety and your family's from scary people?

What makes you think America is so special?

Late update: I found this over at Staring At Empty Pages which said pretty much the same thing, a few weeks earlier, and better, of course; via Carnival of the Liberals.

On Means and Ends: Torture

I found some possible examples of means becoming ends regarding the recent torture debate (on which more soon). One even cites Aristotle on the matter, in a way similar to but distinct from my own formulation.

From Jason Vest at the National Journal via Digby at Hullabaloo:

The moral dimensions of torture, [former CIA Moscow station chief Burton L.] Gerber adds, are inextricably linked with the practical; aside from the fact that torture almost always fails to yield true or useful information, it has the potential to adversely affect CIA operations. "Foreign nationals agree to spy for us for many different reasons; some do it out of an overwhelming admiration for America and what it stands for, and to those people, I think, America being associated with torture does affect their willingness to work with us," he says. "But one of my arguments with the agency about ethics, particularly in this case, is that it's not about case studies, but philosophy. Aristotle says the ends and means must be in concert; if the ends and means are not in concert, good ends will be corrupted by bad means...."

"If you talk to people who have been tortured, that gives you a pretty good idea not only as to what it does to them, but what it does to the people who do it," [Merle L. Pribbenow, 27-year veteran of CIA's Directorate of Operations] said. "One of my main objections to torture is what it does to the guys who actually inflict the torture. It does bad things. I have talked to a bunch of people who had been tortured who, when they talked to me, would tell me things they had not told their torturers, and I would ask, 'Why didn't you tell that to the guys who were torturing you?' They said that their torturers got so involved that they didn't even bother to ask questions." Ultimately, he said -- echoing Gerber's comments -- "torture becomes an end unto itself."

Amanda at Pandagon:

But the thing that jumped out at me is that because torture isn’t really an effective means to an end but an end in and of itself, once it becomes policy, absolutely everything is considered a reason to torture someone. No “ticking time bombs” necessary, but you already knew that.

Executive Interpretation

Remember back when we weren't sure yet whether Bush would become President, on November 22, 2000, he came up with this little nugget?

The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law.

At the time, everybody thought it was just Bush misspeaking again, and assumed he knew better than that, that that's the job of the judiciary branch.

Maybe not. Apparently, his Press Secretary, Tony Snow, agrees with him, and officially says it's so:

Me [Eric Brewer, I think]: But isn’t it the Supreme Court that’s supposed to decide whether laws are unconstitutional or not?

Tony: No, as a matter of fact the president has an obligation to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is an obligation that presidents have enacted through signing statements going back to Jefferson. So, while the Supreme Court can be an arbiter of the Constitution, the fact is the President is the one, the only person who, by the Constitution, is given the responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend that document, so it is perfectly consistent with presidential authority under the Constitution itself.

Add onto that heap of ignorance, that Tony didn't even know that John Yoo was one of the big guys in claiming more and more power unto the Executive. He assumed that Yoo's editorial was an attack on Bush, because of the outrageousness of Yoo's claims, I suppose. And had to defend his President from this "attack" that was published in the New York Times editorial section, written by his former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, who dared to claim that, “the White House has declared that the Constitution allows the president to sidestep laws that invade his executive authority."

Logic says they don't get the contract.

Dallas Business Journal:

After discussing the huge strides the agency has made in doing business with minority-owned companies, [HUD Secretary Alphonso] Jackson closed with a cautionary tale, relaying a conversation he had with a prospective advertising contractor.

"He had made every effort to get a contract with HUD for 10 years," Jackson said of the prospective contractor. "He made a heck of a proposal and was on the (General Services Administration) list, so we selected him. He came to see me and thank me for selecting him. Then he said something ... he said, 'I have a problem with your president.'

"I said, 'What do you mean?' He said, 'I don't like President Bush.' I thought to myself, 'Brother, you have a disconnect -- the president is elected, I was selected. You wouldn't be getting the contract unless I was sitting here. If you have a problem with the president, don't tell the secretary.'

"He didn't get the contract," Jackson continued. "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."

There's been something about him claiming it was just a joke, and it never really happened, but I don't care whether it's just a joke. (Although I do care about whether it happened.) Regardless, it conveyed the message to his audience that they'd better go along with the Administration if they want in on those juicy contracts. And that's bad enough by itself to call for his head, whether or not he ever actually turned a contractor down for saying such a thing.

[The Real Estate Executive Council] attendee Junior Glymph, a defensive end for the Dallas Cowboys, said he could see Jackson's point.

"Everyone is entitled to their opinion," he said. "But in politics, you have to watch what you say."

But this wasn't supposed to be politics—this was supposed to be about government. You know, actually running the country, not running for the office.