Bush unchastened: business as usual at the White House

By Nancy Jane Moore

Apparently Bush thinks that all he needs to do to co-opt the new Democratic majority in Congress is toss around the word bipartisan and fire Rumsfeld.

The smart thing to do when Bush starts acting like Mr. Nice Guy is to ignore what he says and watch what he does. In the last week, he's done two things that tell me he wasn't really listening to the electorate on Nov. 7:

• He's renominated four right wingers to serve as judges on the federal courts of appeal. Even The Washington Post says this hits a "discordant note."
• He's allowed his Secretary of Health and Human Services to appoint a man who objects to birth control as head of the family planning office.
  

The appointment of extremists as judges should make it clear to the Democrats that Bush has no intention of compromising. He's going to continue to pretend he has a mandate, which, given that he didn't even get the popular vote in 2000 and barely squeaked by (assuming you believe the votes were counted properly) in 2004, is an insult to the people of this country. He's never had a mandate; he's just had a lapdog Congress. Now he doesn't even have that.

The appointment of Eric Keroack to head family planning is scarier, though, because the Senate doesn't get to confirm him. According to Slate, Keroack has served as medical director for an organization that not only opposes abortion, but asserts birth control is degrading to women.

By the way, claiming that birth control and other family planning is bad for women is the latest strategy from the anti-birth-control forces: They're claiming to protect women from the unscrupulous people who want to force them to have sex and abortions -- as if women can't make these decisions for themselves. Stephanie McMillan nailed them in her cartoon on the South Dakota extreme abortion law. We need to watch out for movements such as this that claim to be pro-women while actually working to limit women's rights and options.

Slate says Keroack has distorted scientific research to allege that premarital sex causes women chronic emotional pain, affects their oxytocin levels, and will keep them from bonding with their babies -- a theory that has been exposed as pseudoscientific balderdash. This is the man who is going to develop guidelines for family planning clinics and decide how federal dollars will be spent.

As The New York Times says, "It sounds like a late-night parody of President Bush's bad habit of filling key posts with extreme ideologues and incompetents." The Times goes on to observe:

Americans who were expecting a more moderate administration in the wake of this month's elections may find all this shocking. But to the unchastened Bush White House, apparent opposition to contraceptives, abortion and science was the opposite of disqualifying. It was a winning trifecta.

What worries me the most, though, is how many other Keroacks the Bush administration has appointed to significant policy posts that don't require Senate confirmation. There are likely hundreds, maybe thousands, of ideologues and hacks currently ruining government programs.

And if you figure the Democrats will block the right wing judges and your response to appointments like that of Keroack is "Oh, well, it's only two more years," I have one more scary example for you: War with Iran.

In the Nov. 29 issue of the New Yorker, Seymour Hersh writes:

A month before the November elections, Vice-President Dick Cheney was sitting in on a national-security discussion at the Executive Office Building. The talk took a political turn: what if the Democrats won both the Senate and the House? How would that affect policy toward Iran, which is believed to be on the verge of becoming a nuclear power? At that point, according to someone familiar with the discussion, Cheney began reminiscing about his job as a lineman, in the early nineteen-sixties, for a power company in Wyoming. Copper wire was expensive, and the linemen were instructed to return all unused pieces three feet or longer. No one wanted to deal with the paperwork that resulted, Cheney said, so he and his colleagues found a solution: putting "shorteners" on the wire -- that is, cutting it into short pieces and tossing the leftovers at the end of the workday. If the Democrats won on November 7th, the Vice-President said, that victory would not stop the Administration from pursuing a military option with Iran. The White House would put "shorteners" on any legislative restrictions, Cheney said, and thus stop Congress from getting in its way.

Remember signing statements? Have you noticed how Bush ignores even the Supreme Court, no bastion of liberalism? He isn't listening. The election improved our odds of reining in this imperial and incompetent administration, but we can't just sit back and rely on the slim Democratic majority. We have to keep up the fight.

We're slowing things down for Thanksgiving

By Diane Silver

We're going to slow things down on In This Moment for the Thanksgiving holiday here in the U.S. , so expect sporadic posting through the weekend.

Meanwhile, last night we celebrated my son's 21st birthday. Wahoo! What a fine man he has turned out to be. I think we are all lucky to have him in this world, and yes, I am totally biased. Also, a special hello to the very important person who is under the weather right now. Get well soon!

For all of us, a huge Kansas sky to provide a break from the hullabaloo of politics.

Kansas: "Anti-schools" education head resigns & walks off with $11,000 severance

By Diane Silver

No surprise: Kansas Education Commissioner Bob Corkins resigned today rather than waiting to be fired when the new moderate Board of Education takes over in January.

That's good news No. 1. The second bit of good news is that the board named Dale Dennis as the interim education commissioner. The current deputy commissioner of finance, Dennis is a longtime professional in the department.

I knew him when I covered the Statehouse for The Wichita Eagle. Unless he has changed enormously, Dennis is a solid pro who can be trusted to do a good job. This is in stark contrast with Corkins who got the job without having any education experience and with a reputation for trying to limit funding for public schools.

The Lawrence Journal-World also reports that Corkins received a severance package worth $11,000. I suppose that's fair and legal, but given the damage he may well have done to education in this state, I'm not certain Corkins should receive anything. Once again incompetence is rewarded.

The Lawrence Journal-World has the full story, including this choice quote from a moderate board member.

Board member Janet Waugh of Kansas City said that with Corkins, "who is basically anti-schools," at the helm, the public image of the state"s public education system had been hurt.

I have more on Corkins here.

Janet Reno & Republicans detail the horrors of the Military Commissions Act

Former Attorney General Janet Reno, two former U.S. attorneys appointed by Ronald Reagan and other former justice department officials are going public about their concerns about the Military Commissions Act and George W. Bush's treatment of detainees.

Their concerns are detailed in a friend-of-the-court brief filed in the case of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri. The Washington Post reports this is the first time Reno has spoken out against the administration. The brief is well worth reading.

(W)e are gravely concerned that indefinite imprisonment of individuals within the United States will become increasingly common -- that the government will choose to avoid criminal prosecutions and the rights associated with them, such as the defendant's right to counsel and the government's obligation to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In other words, they can lock you up and throw away the key, and you are helpless to defend yourself. This is about as un-American as a law can get.

Kansas evolution standards to evolve slowly towards science

For many of us the needed "spring cleaning" of the mess left by the Religious Right-dominated state Board of Education can't come too soon.

Apparently, though, the anti-evolution, intelligent design-festooned science standards won't be overhauled immediately. The new pro-science majority takes over the board in January.

The cause of the delay isn't sinister, AP reports. It's the wish to "do it right," says Steve Case, associate director of The University of Kansas' Center for Science Education.

That sounds OK to me as long as the changes come as soon as possible.

The Kansas Evolution Aftermath: Corkins' fate may be decided today

By Diane Silver

This afternoon at 3:30, ultra-conservative Education Commissioner Bob Corkins may well be out of the job -- or, at least, that's the speculation of Kansas newspapers.

The state Board of Education meets in a private conference call at that time. Conservatives are still in control of the board and will be until new board members take office in January. However, the mysterious meeting is said to involve "nonelected personnel." Stay tuned.

Corkins, of course, is most well known for having absolutely no education experience before taking office and for constantly searching for ways to funnel public money to private schools.

The sooner he is out of office and the search begins for a qualified commissioner, the better.

Washington is getting a woman as chief of police

By Nancy Jane Moore

Incoming DC Mayor Adrian Fenty has selected Commander Cathy L. Lanier to serve as the city's next Chief of Police, subject to the approval of the City Council.

All I know about Lanier is what I read in The Washington Post and what it says in the very fast bio of her that is now up on Wikipedia, so I won't pretend that I know whether she'll be a good chief.

But I'm thrilled to see a woman named to the job. The more women we have in jobs that were once assumed to be the sole province of men, the more steps we'll take toward real gender equality in this country.

Lanier certainly has good credentials: She started out as a patrol officer and worked her way up to commander in 16 years. She currently heads the special operations unit, which includes counterterrorism and homeland security. Along the way she not only put herself through college, but also picked up a couple of master's degrees, according to The Post.

And like Fenty, she's young -- The Post gives her age as 39. She's also white.

The part of her bio that impressed me the most, though, is that she dropped out of high school in the ninth grade and had a child at 15. Yet here she is, with a solid career about to take a high-profile job. It's good to see someone who didn't let youthful missteps hold her back.

At this point, I'm rooting for her. We'll have to wait and see how well she does the job.

Beating back a marriage ban by making gays invisible & comments on the state of the movement

By Diane Silver

For this very busy day I'm afraid the update will be limited to a couple of links and a few thoughts.

First, The Washington Post analyzes Arizona's defeat of a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. The Post argues that gay rights advocates in Arizona did it by pretending lesbians and gays didn't exist and focusing on the impact on straight folks, particularly on unmarried elderly couples.

When I have a bit of time, I want to talk about this in more detail. Debate over this kind of strategy is important. In fact, such a discussion (yelling match?) was one of the biggest inside-the-campaign battles of the 2005 effort to stop a marriage ban in Kansas.

I'm not certain there's an easy answer on this one. If this kind of strategy works to help protect lesbian and gay families, though, more states may need to try it. However, using that strategy won't come without a cost.

More later on that subject.

Meanwhile, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Executive Director Matt Foreman talked about the state of the gay rights movement (pdf) in a speech to the Creating Change conference in Kanasas City this month.

You want to know the state of our movement on November 10, 2006? We are strong, unbowed, unbeaten, vibrant, energized and ready to kick some butt.

We know that as far as we've come, we still have a very, very long way to go.

A post about marriage equality wouldn't be complete without a photo of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon. Together for 50 years when this was taken, the photo was shot when they were married in San Francisco in 2004.

Martin and Lyon were the first couple to take vows in San Francisco in those incredible days of official civil disobediance. Although their marriage was later legally voided, that fact says nothing about the commitment and love the two have for each other.

The Supremes take on global warming

By Nancy Jane Moore

The effort to make the US wake up and start dealing with global warming hits the Supreme Court on Nov. 29.

On that date, the court will hear oral argument on whether or not the US Environmental Protection Agency should regulate car emissions that are contributing to climate change -- specifically carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons. EPA, which has been noticeably less aggressive in pursuing its mandate to clean up the environment during the Bush years, in 2003 denied a 1999 petition seeking such regulation, saying that the Clean Air Act does not permit it to regulate air pollutants associated with global warming.

Outraged by this ruling, a number of states -- led by Massachusetts -- and major environmental groups sued to change the policy. With one judge dissenting, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed with EPA, and the petitioners asked the Supreme Court for review.

Here's the issue in a nutshell as described by the petitioners in their brief on the merits (PDF):

Physical or chemical matter that is emitted into the ambient air is an "air pollutant" under the Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. 7602(g). The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) "shall" set standards for air pollutants emitted by new motor vehicles when, in the Administrator’s judgment, they "cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(1). "Climate" and "weather" are components of "welfare." 42 U.S.C. 7602(h).

Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons are physical and chemical matter. They are emitted into the ambient air by motor vehicles. A prodigious amount of scientific evidence indicates that they are changing our climate. Several parties asked EPA to regulate these chemicals under section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act because they are "air pollutants" that "may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare."

EPA denied the petition. Its decision rested on two fundamental errors of law. First, EPA concluded that it had no authority under section 202(a)(1) to regulate air pollutants associated with climate change, and that therefore the chemicals at issue here are not "air pollutants" within the meaning of the Act. Second, the agency decided that even if it had such authority, it would not exercise it, on account of various ad hoc policy considerations not enumerated in section 202(a)(1). The same mistake dooms both legal conclusions: EPA distorted two statutory terms ("air pollutant" and "judgment") and ignored a third ("welfare") in order to inject its own policy preferences into a statute that does not embody them.

EPA's misguided legal conclusions diverted it from the serious scientific inquiry at the heart of section 202(a)(1).

This might be the most significant case before the high court this term. At issue is whether our agency charged with taking care of the environment is going to take global warming seriously or not. EPA's decision in this matter shows how an administration opposed to the true mission of a government agency can corrupt it. I'm sure many career EPA employees are horrified at the agency's refusal to regulate in this area, but they have no clout.

The federal government focused on technical legal arguments in its response brief (PDF): They said the petitioners lack standing -- meaning that they claim Massachusetts and the other parties haven't shown they'll be injured by EPA's refusal to act:

Petitioners have failed to carry their burden of establishing that they will be harmed by the specific agency action they challenge -- EPA's decision not to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles within the United States, which involves only a tiny fraction of global greenhouse gas emissions -- or that their anticipated injuries would be materially alleviated by the judicial ruling they seek. Moreover, petitioners' theory of causation and redressability depends on predictions by their declarants that EPA regulation will set in motion an elaborate sequence of events involving independent choices by non-federal actors, including foreign governments.

Those predictions are far too speculative to establish Article III standing.

They also argue that EPA was reasonable in determining that it doesn't have authority in this matter. And any authority it might actually have is discretionary, not mandatory.

Several states and a number of motor vehicle manufacturer associations intervened in the case. Nine states -- Michigan, Alaska, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, and Utah -- joined together in a response brief on the merits (PDF) that presents a separate argument. They point out that the states are required to meet EPA-set national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) within their borders and argue:

The Act, however, does not contain any provision for States to reduce air pollution from sources outside of the United States. Therefore, if international sources of air pollution are contributing to a State's inability to meet a NAAQS, it would be impossible for that State to meet the national standard because of the lack of authority to limit such emissions.

They go on to argue:

Section 202 does not, however, allow EPA to set emission standards that would be an exercise in futility where the sources primarily generating the air pollution are outside the United States and where emission reductions from within the United States will have no meaningful effect on protecting public health and welfare.

This is an interesting argument and could carry some weight, though given the seriousness of the issue, I would suggest that states with a significant foreign pollution problem would be well-advised to do everything in their power to control pollution sources they can regulate.

And I would respect their point more if the states that were raising it were not tied so heavily to either the automobile manufacturing industry (Michigan) or the oil industry (particularly Alaska, Ohio, and Texas). One wonders whether their concern is driven more by protecting those businesses than by an argument that they can't clean things up because of pollution from foreign sources.

It is obvious to anyone who drives in the US that car emissions are a significant factor in air pollution. Given the many other improvements to cars over the past 15 years, I have no doubt that the automakers can make reasonably affordable cars that pollute much less if they are forced to do so.

And despite the ravings of James Inhofe, the science-challenged senator from Oklahoma who thinks global warming is a myth, human-caused climate change is the most important issue facing the world today. Under the Republican-controlled Senate, Inhofe has chaired the Environment & Public Works Committee, which is one of the reasons that the federal government has done virtually nothing to address global warming. Fortunately, with the return of the Democrats to power, this situation will change. I don't know how much progress they'll be able to make, but at least the key Senate committee will not be in the hands of an idiot who is refusing to look at real science. See the Real Climate blog for actual information from climate scientists on global warming.

Here are the states, cities, territories, and organizations that have joined with Massachusetts in challenging the EPA position:

California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, New York City, Baltimore, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Advocates, Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, International Center for Technology Assessment, National Environmental Trust, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

In addition to the states who signed onto the brief, those government entities and organizations supporting EPA are:

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, National Automobile Dealers Association, Engine Manufacturers Association, Truck Manufacturers Association, CO2 Litigation Group, Utility Air Regulatory Group, and the State of Idaho.