August 2005 Archives
|
 |
That bird is not honest that filleth his own nest.
—John Skelton, Poems Against Garnesche
Mea culpa. All during the years in which John Ashcroft embarrassed the country by serving as U.S. Attorney General, I told anyone who would listen that I waxed nostalgic for the halcyon days when Edwin Meese was attorney general. Poor memory permitted me to believe and say that the only offensive thing Edwin Meese did as attorney general was to cause taxpayers to pay $472,190 to help him prove he was an honest man and worthy of holding the office to which he acceded after an investigation into his pre-nomination conduct concluded he was not a crook, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding.
The refreshing of my memory was compelled by the recent disclosure in the New York Times that Mr. Meese: “played a central role in strategy sessions with conservative leaders and representatives from the White House” in the nomination of Judge Roberts to succeed Sandra Day O’Connor on the United States Supreme Court. It also revealed that he was one of the architects of the so-called “nuclear option” proposal to block filibusters of judicial nominees by democrats. My refreshed review of his career extinguished my nostalgia.
Mr. Meese was nominated to become attorney general in January 1984 by the Ronald Reagan. He was not confirmed until February 23, 1985. The intervening months were not spent idly by him. They were devoted to proving himself an honest man. The task was made difficult because of his prior conduct.
Mr. Meese was one of President Reagan’s most trusted advisors and instrumental in recommending and securing appointments to high level jobs for a number of people. After he was nominated it was learned that many of those whom he promoted had helped him in earlier days.
When Mr. Meese had to sell his house in California in order to move to Washington he was not a wealthy man. Thomas Barrack loaned a purchaser of Mr. Meese’s house $70,000 so he could buy the house. The buyer gave the $70,000 to Mr. Meese as a down payment. Thereafter, Mr. Barrack received a job as deputy under secretary of the Interior Department. Thereafter, Mr. Barrack forgave the $70,000 loan.
John McKean was Mr. Meese’s CPA. He loaned Mr. Meese $60,000. When asked about the loan Mr. Meese said he paid interest in a timely fashion. Subsequent investigation showed that to have been a lie. No interest was paid by him until after the reporter inquired. According to the General Accounting Office, the unpaid interest should have been reported by Mr. Meese as a gift.
Instead of foreclosing on Mr. Meese’s California house when Mr. Meese missed 15 consecutive loan payments, a California bank loaned him an additional $20,000 so he could bring his payments current. The bank’s president became an alternate delegate to the United Nations. Another bank officer became chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board.
Mr. Meese hired lawyers to prove to senators that he was an honest man. They worked at the task for 13 months and charged him $720,924. When the proof was in he was confirmed as Attorney General. He asked a federal court to order the government to pay his legal bill under the 1978 Ethics in Government Act that permits a federal official investigated by a special prosecutor who is cleared to ask for reimbursement. It ordered taxpayers to pay $472,190 of the bill. His lawyers forgave the balance. He became attorney general and served for 3 years.
Meese's departure, like his arrival, required a team of lawyers to prove he was a man of integrity. That is because in 1988, while serving as Attorney General he was the subject of an investigation that today, sounds very Halliburton-Cheney like. The charge against Meese was that he helped Bechtel, a defense contractor, get a defense contract in Iraq to install a pipeline. Mr. Meese was cleared of the charge but resigned from the Attorney General's post shortly thereafter.
But not before he could make some odd assertions. Odd, back in the halycon days of Reagan, of couse. But oddly familiar today.
As Attorney General Mr. Meese suggested that local school boards should be free to institute drug-testing programs for teachers seeking tenure. As he explained in a speech in Mississippi, “Drug testing has been upheld when applied to transportation workers. . . and it seems to me almost an insult to teachers to maintain that their jobs are any less important.”
In 1986 he criticized a Supreme Court decision upholding the applicability of Brown v. Board of Education to the Little Rock public schools saying that the executive and legislative branches should follow their own view of the Constitution rather than always bowing to the view of the court.
One can only hope that Mr. Meese’s involvement in the selection of Judge Roberts says more about George Bush than it does about Judge Roberts. Mr. Bush’s past conduct gives little cause for sanguinity.
Wed 06:17 PM | permalink | printer-friendly version | email this article
|
|
Tell the president that the way to solve his problem is to find that one man who would turn out to be . . . possessed of high competence, great physical vigor, and a passion for anonymity.
—Tom Jones, private secretary to Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin
[1936]
A secret’s just not a secret anymore. In days of yore, a secret was treated with the greatest respect. A person to whom a secret was imparted treated the secret as inviolate, refusing to disclose it to another for any price. Today the person to whom a secret is entrusted is transmogrified into a faceless conduit for the information. The only thing that is secret about a secret is the name of the person who is passing on the confidence. So long as that information is not made public, the informer believes no confidence has been breeched. A few examples from the New York Times, randomly taken within the space of four days, make the point. Any four days would do.
In a story on July 25 reporting on a discussion Senator Durbin of Illinois had with John Roberts, the Supreme Court nominee, it was disclosed that Senator Durbin had asked questions dealing with the interplay of religious doctrine and civil law. Two officials privy to the conversation described the discussion in some detail. They did not permit themselves to be identified because the meeting was confidential.
On July 26, 2005 there was a story describing how seriously George Bush takes his responsibility for hiring good people. The story described the technique used by the president when interviewing Judge Roberts. Knowing that Mr. Bush learned a great deal about Mr. Putin because, as he put it after first meeting him: “I was able to get a sense of his soul” it came as no surprise to learn that much of Mr. Bush’s interview relied on visceral reaction to such things as Mr. Roberts’ description of his childhood. An administration official said that one of the questions Mr. Bush asked was “Why do you want to do this.” The reason he asks such a question, the official said, is that businessmen who sign up for government work lose millions of dollars by leaving the private sector. Having imparted that fascinating insight into what passes for the presidential mind, the official asked that his name not be disclosed. That, the Times said, is because Mr. Bush doesn’t like for people to talk about internal White House matters. Since the speaker wasn’t identified, we have not learned anything about internal White House matters.
On the same day as the foregoing was described, it was announced that the U.S. Army plans to relocate units returning from Iraq. Two Pentagon officials said the relocation would be completed by 2008. The officials went into some detail about what the relocation would entail. They insisted on anonymity, however, because the official announcement was to be made the following week.
On July 27 there was a story discussing the leak inquiry pertaining to Valerie Plame. That is in itself, a story about secrets but I won’t discuss that here. One of the things that has been going on in connection with that story is a grand jury investigation into the issue of who gave away Ms. Plame’s secret. Her secret was whom she worked for: The CIA.
The special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald asked that people appearing before the grand jury not discuss anything about the case. Ari Fleischer, the former White House press secretary testified. His testimony was really interesting and everyone wanted to know what he said. A few people in the know imparted some information about his testimony to reporters. They did so anonymously. As the Times explained: “The people who discussed the testimony of Mr. Fleischer and other witnesses asked not to be named because . . . the special prosecutor, has asked anyone involved in the case not to talk about it.” Presumably the informers were involved with the case else they’d not have known whereof they spoke. By remaining anonymous, one concludes, they were not violating the special prosecutor’s injunction. The anonymous informers can explain better than I why that is.
In July 28 a story crediting an aide traveling with Donald Rumsfeld during his recent trip to Iraq revealed some of what Mr. Rumsfeld said to the Iraqis in private meetings. The aide insisted that his identity not be disclosed since the meeting was private. By not disclosing his identity no confidences were breeched and the meeting remained private. The Iraqis will have no trouble understanding that.
If you haven’t figured it by now, the new rule is quite simple. If you have a secret you want to share, share it. Just don’t let the person you share it with tell anyone from whom the information was received. That way all confidences will be preserved inviolate.
Wed 05:00 PM | permalink | printer-friendly version | email this article
|
|
I count religion but a childish toy, and hold there is no sin but ignorance. —Christopher Marlowe,The Jew of MaltaSunday, August 14 promises to be a great day for the Lord. Not that it's the only exciting day. George Bush gave Him another in early August. But I get ahead of myself.
August 14 is Justice Sunday II. That's the day that's been selected by those who support the nomination of John Roberts to the United States Supreme Court to make a joyful noise in support of remaking the Supreme Court. The event will be broadcast from Nashville, Tennessee. The roster of speakers is as impressive as the roster of non-speakers.
One of the most impressive speakers is the scourge of all things that creep and crawl, large and small, Tom DeLay. Commenting on Mr. Bush's Faith Based Initiative in 2002 he said; “I see it as a great opportunity to bring God back into the public institutions of the country. God has been removed from all of our public institutions.” Now he can show support for bringing to the Court new Justices acquainted with his God.
Another distinguished participant is James Dobson of Focus on the Family. He recently drew attention by comparing stem-cell research to Nazi experiments conducted on prisoners during the Holocaust. He suggested that “if you wanted to take the time to read about it, there would have been some discoveries there that benefited mankind.” He did not identify them but presumably he got his information from the Lord and it should not be doubted by the likes of me. His comments probably pleased the right wing as much as Sen. Bill Frist’s displeased them.
That may explain why Sen. Frist is not on the roster. Instead of comparing stem cell research to the holocaust Sen. Frist permitted his political instincts to guide his medical instincts and announced his support for stem cell research, something his medical instincts had formerly opposed.
Also left out: Pat Robertson. Judging from his website, it seems Mr. Robertson wants to be known for his invention of Pat’s Shake which is available at GNC stores around the country. On his website he describes it as a “delectable shake that will help you build muscle and lose fat.” People who’ve taken it have “achieved remarkable weight-loss, lowered their blood pressure and cholesterol, increased their energy, and even improved the quality and texture of their skin.” When not promoting the Shake, Mr. Robertson can be found preparing his “Age-Defying Protein Pancakes” that combat the build-up of plaque and provide “complex carbohydrates to keep your system running at its best.” There are also cooking tips to help “make your pancakes light and fluffy.”
In addition to his cooking skills, Mr. Robertson is a man of the Lord. Why he was not invited to participate in Justice Sunday II is unknown. It was he who suggested a prayer he asked his viewers to offer up. It goes like this: “Take control, Lord! We ask for additional vacancies on the court.”
That seems unchristian, suggesting that the prayer’s offerer is asking the Lord to end one or more lives of those now serving on the court in order to create vacancies. Although some of its members are old and in the case of Justice Rehnquist ill, it nonetheless seems inappropriate to ask the Lord to hasten whatever it is he has in store for them. Probably the Lord knows that that kind of a prayer is inappropriate and may well conclude that Mr. Robertson should quit talking to Him and concentrate more on shakes and pancakes.
In addition to the excitement generated by the upcoming event, during the first week in August George Bush waded into the debate about intelligent design. Ignoring those who would suggest that his occupancy of the White House gives proof, if proof is needed, that there is no such thing as “intelligent design” Mr. Bush said the theory should be taught in the public schools as a companion to another interesting idea called “evolution.” As he explained to reporters: “I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought.” His comments helped fuel the textbook debate now being fought in Odessa, Texas over a book that will now be used in the classroom in that city. The book reportedly includes a statement that NASA scientists are now able to prove that somehow two days of time has gone missing since earth was created thus proving that the bible was speaking literally when it made reference to the sun standing still.
All in all, it’s been a great August for the religious right. It’s not so good for the rest of the country.
Wed 07:18 PM | permalink | printer-friendly version | email this article
|
|
E=mc2So marvelous are the benefits that it almost makes a human being giddy. Congress passed an energy bill before its members hurried home to their well-earned rest. (By September 3, when they return, they will have vacationed for 90 days and worked for 153 days. And when a piece of legislation becomes law that provides each of us as many benefits as this legislation does, all those days of vacation can be forgiven.) Although the energy bill does lots of wonderful things for human beings, corporations were not overlooked. The difference between how humans are treated and how corporations are treated is that corporations get bigger and longer lasting benefits than do individuals. The final cost of the bill will be between $12.3 billion and $15 billion. Eight hundred million will go to those of us who are homeowners and another $874 million to those who buy alternate fuel vehicles over the next decade. It is impossible to describe all the benefits corporations get in a space as short as this. But here are a few: A 30% business tax credit for the purchase of fuel cell power plants and a 10% credit for the purchase of stationary microturbine power plants; a 15 year write off for natural gas distribution lines (down from the former 20 years); ability to expense 50% of the cost of refinery equipment through 2012; significant financial aid for companies building nuclear power plants; (Taxpayers will, therefore, not only help pay for the new plants but pay again when they get their electric bills from those plants. ) The list of benefits for large corporations goes on and on and the reader would grow weary in a column such as this were I to continue the description. The important thing is that many of the benefits are not limited in size or duration. And that is what distinguishes them from the benefits conferred upon those of us not lucky enough to be corporations. The best news for non-corporations is that we get things called “life time credits.” The worst thing is they are tiny and assume we’ll all be dead before 2008. The most significant benefit for the individual human being who is also a homeowner is a 30% tax credit for installing qualifying residential solar water heating, photovoltaic equipment and fuel cell property. And, of course, not believing in frivolity Congress did not make the credit available for systems used to heat swimming pools and hot tubs. The maximum credit is $2000, which will probably not buy the best system on the market and the property must be placed in service after 2005 and before 2008. Otherwise the credit is lost. Other benefits for homeowners are less generous. A taxpayer who makes qualifying energy saving improvements to an existing home may claim a lifetime credit of up to $500 for those improvements. Only $200 of that credit, however, may be applied to the cost of replacing windows. That means that Congress is willing to help pay for most of the cost of replacing all the windows in a house that only has one window. Since it’s a lifetime credit, after replacing the window, the taxpayer still has a $300 lifetime credit that can be applied to other useful energy savings programs around the house such as the installation of an advanced main air-circulating fan. That would generate a credit of $50. But qualified natural gas, propane, or oil furnaces or hot water boilers are entitled to a $150 credit. The size of the benefits bestowed on human beings is not the only feature that distinguishes what individuals get from what corporations get. Whereas many of the benefits bestowed upon large corporations have no identifiable ending period, most of human beings’ lifetime credits must be used after 2005 and before 2008. Assuming congress does not intend for us to all die before 2008, the use of the word “lifetime” joins other words in the Washington vernacular that mean something when they're uttered inside the Beltway. Continuing that logic, a taxpayer who plans on replacing a window at other taxpayers’ expense should wait until January 1 of next year to accomplish that task and should make sure the window is placed in service by New Year’s Eve, 2007. There is one area in which congress has deigned to give generous benefits to individuals. It has continued benefits bestowed on those buying alternate fuel vehicles including hybrids, electric cars and cars using alternative fuels. Those all last beyond 2007 but have varying cut off dates and amounts. But after reading this, some may wonder why most of the goodies flow to corporations. Here’s the answer. Corporations contribute more money to members of Congress than do individuals. It is only fair that they get greater rewards from the objects of their bounty. See, life is fair.
—Albert Einstein
Thu 06:46 AM | permalink | printer-friendly version | email this article
