August 2002 Archives

Speechwriter Andrei Cherny rightly criticizes our political leaders for their plans to memoralize the September 11 terrorist attacks with words from the past rather than their own new thoughts about that day's meaning. He writes:

In a moment still crying out for context and guidance, our democratically elected officials have decided to turn to the ideas and words of the past. Instead of offering their own thoughts that day, New York Gov. George Pataki will recite Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey will read from the Declaration of Independence, and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg will recount Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms. It would appear they have decided that they cannot find words equal to the occasion. Fearing a miss if they swing for the fences, they have decided to bunt.

Yet today, with al Qaeda intact, Osama bin Laden's whereabouts unknown and little required of us at home save witnessing the bizarre spectacle of old ladies being patted down at airports, some wonder whether America is ready to meet that challenge.

September 11 presented a test. For a few months, it appeared that the United States was willing to meet it. Our collective failure to confront it will make the next challenge--and be it another terrorist attack, an economic crash, or an environmental adversity there will be another--all the more difficult to solve.

By choosing merely to read history speeches, our political leaders are missing a crucial opportunity.

September 11's memorials should seek to pay tribute to those lost. They should also prepare us for the present and future challenges our nation will inevitably face. We should not settle for high school speech recitals.

At a time when its protections could hardly be more important, a new poll finds that 49 percent of Americans feel the First Amendment provides too many protections.

The Freedom Center's press release also notes that Americans remain ignorant of the protections provided by the First Amendment:

The survey also found, as in previous years, that many Americans are unable to name the five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment. The percentages of those responding who were able to identify individual freedoms:

58% — freedom of speech
18% — freedom of religion
14% — freedom of the press
10% — freedom of assembly/association
2% — freedom of petition

Oh, of course not.

There is no connection between campaign contributions and end-of-session legislative schenanigans.

All of the examples contained within this Los Angeles Times editorial are simply mere coincidences.

It is time to tackle this delusion. How much longer must we tolerate legislative "pay-to-play"?

It is time for public campaign financing.

E.J. Dionne asks an excellent question:

The president says he feels no pressure to make a quick decision about Iraq. That being the case, why not pursue an alternative to war that, if war should come, would make it much less likely that the United States would be out there all alone?

The Christian Science Monitor editorial writers outline the numerous advantages of public campaign financing:

Such a move – in which candidates would receive money if they agree to certain limits in both fundraising and campaign spending – has many merits. But most of all, it gives candidates a way out of the entrenched practice of taking money from special interest groups to pay for costly campaigns.

Steve Chapman writes:

In the usual sequence, a nation is presented with a powerful cause for war and then proceeds to fight. After Sept. 11, Americans didn't need tortured explanations of why the United States should invade Afghanistan. But in the case of Iraq, the Bush administration began by making plans to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and realized only later that it might need to explain why.

Robert Novak writes that some Republicans on the Hill, including Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) are going to investigate the FBI's handling of the anthrax letter investigation.

Writing about the treatment "person of interest" Dr. Steven Hatfill has received, Novak notes that:

"[l]aw enforcement sources confirm that he passed a polygraph test administered by the FBI last fall."

Congress needs to take this seriously. It is time to investigate. It is time to get some answers. It is time to hold people accountable.

Christopher Elliott thinks last fall's taxpayer-financed bailout of the airline industry has proven to be a huge waste.

USA Today's Blake Morrison today reports that resignations within the Air Marshal program have reached the "rate of about a dozen a week."

Morrison first reported about these Air Marshal problems on August 15. Sources within the Transportation Security Agency deny that there is a problem, despite what Morrison's documents and reporting suggest.

Just how absurd is the baseball strike threat? (Yes, "extraordinarily" is the correct answer to that question.)

But, for a chuckle, you may wish to click on the link below to see an e-mail I received today putting it all in perspective.

Remember...only you can help in this time of need.

Slate's Timothy Noah has read an advance copy of Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) upcoming book, finding a hint from McCain inside that suggests he won't run for president in 2004.

USA Today makes a brilliant case for the need for national redistricting reform.

This is an issue requiring attention now so we can ensure that fair redistricting plans are in place for 2010.

The Houston Chronicle is concerned about the investigation into the massive arrests of teenagers in a Kmart parking lot earlier this month.

The Houston Chronicle's editorial writers observe that the city's leadership is so far missing in action:

Houston residents have been justifiably upset to learn over the span of a few days that city law officers so enthusiastically participated in the sort of sweeping citizen roundup that is a common feature of the garden variety police state, that the police conducted a similar raid on a nearby James Coney Island restaurant a day earlier, and that the officer in charge, Capt. Mark Aguirre, has regularly organized wholesale arrests in other parts of town. And now it is becoming increasingly clear that the kind of leadership that might be expected from a mayor with as extensive a law enforcement background as Brown has is not to be forthcoming.

Thomas Friedman asks several important questions of those midguided people protesting the the fact that University of North Carolina incoming freshmen are being asked to read a book about the Koran.

Friedman correctly argues that the protesters are making a grave error in judgment.

Why? Because it exhibits such profound lack of understanding of what America is about, and it exhibits such a chilling mimicry of what the most repressive Arab Muslim states are about. Ask yourself this question: What would Osama bin Laden do if he found out that the University of Riyadh had asked incoming freshmen to read the New and Old Testaments?

He would do exactly what the book-burning opponents of this U.N.C. directive are doing right now — try to shut it down, only bin Laden wouldn't bother with the courts. It's against the law to build a church or synagogue or Buddhist temple or Hindu shrine in public in Saudi Arabia. Is that what we're trying to mimic?

Salman Rusdie warns that foreign policy double standards make enemies.

Yes, I think demanding $27,000 in unpaid rent from the estate of a September 11 victim is enough to earn that title.

Wondering what's going on at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa? Your local paper, like many U.S. media outlets, underreporting or failing to cover it?

Then check out The Daily Summit. It's a blog about the WSSD meetings, offering "instant news and comment."

And another example of how cool this blogging thing can be.

Matthew Miller argues that, of all the 2004 presidential hopefuls, Vermont Gov. Howard Dean is the "only Democrat aspirant so far willing to discuss an agenda bold enough to challenge [President] Bush."

Paul Krugman's take on the Bush Administration's new forest plans discusses all of the environmental issues, but he also makes another vital observation: why is the Bush Administration once again supporting expanding subsidies and corporate welfare?

Krugman writes:

Wouldn't it be nice if just once, on some issue, the Bush administration came up with a plan that didn't involve weakened environmental protection, financial breaks for wealthy individuals and corporations and reduced public oversight?

James Bamford compares the Justice Department's insistence on secrecy and increased power to detain people without check to the tribulations faced by Joseph K. in Franz Kafka's classic book "The Trial."

Actually, as Bamford notes, the situation today may even be worse than the one facing the fictional Joseph K.

Recently, in two federal cases, the Justice Department argued that it is within the president's inherent power to indefinitely detain, without any charges, any person, including any United States citizen, whom the president (through the Justice Department) designates an "enemy combatant." Further, the person can be locked away, held incommunicado and denied counsel. Finally, Mr. Ashcroft argues that such a decision is not subject to review by federal or state courts. This situation is beyond even Kafka, who in his parable of punishment and paranoia at least supplied Josef K. with an attorney. (emphasis added)

National Review On-Line's Jonah Goldberg got to meet a nice representative from the South Dakota State Police during his continuing trip back from Alaska. Jonah's recap of their conversation is worth reading.

The Houston Chronicle editorial writers argue that the recent warning about government abuses from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court should:

"...also serve as a lesson for people who are quick to question the patriotism of those who believe in freedom and justice and who regard government with a healthy skepticism."

O. Ricardo Pimentel explains why it is important for Congress to force the Justice Department explain how it is using the expanded powers Congress gave it in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks. These questions fall well within Congress' responsibility to ask in oversight of the executive branch.

Pimentel writes:

Streamlined, these questions simply ask Ashcroft whether he is keeping his pledge not to trample rights. But this apparently is hush-hush, strictly on a need-to-know basis.

Sorry - all of us need to know. It's difficult to discern how releasing aggregate numbers on these topics threatens national security or current investigations.

So, we have the makings of a major showdown between Congress and the administration over the simple question of whether this war on terrorism on the domestic front has been conducted legally.

Matt Welch (you can read his blog here) contributes an excellent commentary to Canada's National Post about the loudest U.S. supporters for the Saudi regime. He writes:

With each deteriorating week, as in the 49 previous weeks, a curious cadre of Americans has stood up to defend the oppressive House of Saud against its critics in the democratic United States. No, it is not the academic multiculturalists, or the effete bi-coastal elites -- still favourite whipping boys, nearly a year later, of those agitating for the next U.S. war.

The real apologists have far more influence and access to power than all that, earned through decades of high-profile government employment. They are the former U.S. ambassadors to Saudi Arabia, and they have carved out a fine living insulting their own countrymen while shilling for one of the most corrupt regimes on Earth.

Vice President Cheney today surprised pundits with a speech outlining the Administration's case for a preemptive war against Iraq.

No one should ever doubt Cheney's ability to give a good speech. As this one was. While I remain unconvinced (anyone remember that war on terror, Osama bin Laden, the chaos in Afghanistan?), it is about time the White House joined the debate.

It is a shame, however, that the Vice President could not quite escape his tendency to imply that those who disagree with him are either a) stupid, b) unpatriotic, or c) de facto members of Al Qaeda. In this case, skeptics are charged with a and b.

What we must not do in the face of a mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or willful blindness.

Only Alaska and Minnesota require police to record their interrogations of suspects. The San Jose Mercury News argues that California, and the other 47 states, should also make it a requirement.

Jonathan Turley says that we should feel fortunate that the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court warned us about the Justice Department's previous abuses of its powers and Attorney General John Ashcroft's current plans to use it to circumvent the Fourth Amendment.

Turley writes:

Ashcroft went to the secret court to declare that, among other changes, it would now "be used primarily for a law enforcement purpose" and not its original foreign intelligence-gathering purpose. The court refused to sign on to such an interpretation and refused to allow the expanded use of FISA material. Undeterred, Ashcroft is now appealing to the secret appellate court (once anyone can remember where it is or who is on it).

Abandoning its past custom of absolute secrecy, the court released this opinion as a warning to citizens. We should not expect the luxury of a second shot across the bow.

The Los Angeles Times editorial writers are unimpressed with Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien's recent critical comments about the United States political system.

Republican "rebels" are working overtime to keep an extra few billion dollars of spending from being enacted in the name of fiscal conservatism.

But, of course, they won't touch that more than trillion dollar tax cut.

Save a few billion here, lose a couple trillion there. Corporate accounting has reached Capitol Hill.

Peter H. Raven and Alan I. Leshner of the American Association for the Advancement of Science explain how science can help raise living standards around the world. But they caution that:

The solutions exist and many scientists are ready to help. Their participation will be meaningless, however, unless industrialized and developing nations around the world commit themselves to cooperation in building a scientific infrastructure everywhere. And society - both North and South - must offer broad support.

Debra Saunders aptly sums up the horrible choice Californians face this November in the gubernatorial race between Gov. Gray Davis (D) and Bill Simon (R):

Voters in the world's fifth largest economy face a bitter choice in November: Bill Simon, the worst gubernatorial candidate in recent memory, versus Gray Davis, the most rapacious governor in recent memory.

The Houston Chronicle editorializes again on last week's horrific massive round of arrests of teenagers in a KMart parking lot. The editorial argues:

A contingent of op-ed and letter writers to the Chronicle has taken the position that arresting 278 young people during a raid on a shopping center and restaurant parking lot last weekend was entirely justified because of the annoying late-night loitering and drag racing that had become typical at that spot. But the problem with the raid is not that police officers tried to arrest lawbreakers in and around the 24-hour Kmart Super Center parking in the 8400 block of Westheimer. It is with the contemptuous attitude police showed toward the citizenry by not bothering to sort out the good from the bad.

John Payton, immediate past president of the District of Columbia Bar, explains why the rule of law is so vital -- even in the war on terrorism. He writes:

The function of the rule of law is crucial in exactly these circumstances. Right after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, an Egyptian student was accused of having an aviation radio in his hotel room, which overlooked the World Trade Center, and was charged in connection with the attacks. The FBI interrogated him without counsel and represented to a federal judge that he had confessed. The federal prosecutor, the defense counsel and the judge all now agree that the student was innocent. The claim that there was an aviation radio in his room was false, as was the confession. The judge has ordered an investigation into how the false confession was obtained.

Do we need new judicial procedures to handle the war on terror? Of course. We will create them much more quickly once the Bush Administration gets over its "we know best, don't you dare try to question us" policy.

Thomas Friedman notes all the ways oil complicates United States foreign policy in this op-ed.

The sooner we decide to deal with our national addiction to fossil fuels the better.

When did the United States become the "can't do it" country? When did we decide to assume failure? Are you really prepared to argue that the United States could not end its reliance on fossil fuels within 20 years if we decided today to make this a national priority?

Of course we could it. Of this I have no doubt.

And the benefits of moving away from fossil fuels -- a cleaner environment, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, better energy security, improved national security, and less need for hypocritical foreign policies -- are worth the short-term research and development costs.

I am waiting for a major national political figure to try leading the American people toward a real 21st Century economy.

Dr. Steven Hatfill, a "person of interest" in the investigation of last fall's anthrax letter attacks, has filed a complaint about the FBI and Attorney General John Ashcroft's actions against him.

It is well past time for the FBI to make a definitive statement about Hatfill. Did Hatfill fail three polygraph tests as has been reported by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof? Matt Drudge reports that Hatfill denies that charge.

Now challenged by Hatfill, the FBI should come clean on this investigation. Were there three polygraphs? Did Hatfill fail them? That should be easy to confirm or deny.

Just where does this investigation stand? I demand answers. The American people should as well.

TalkLeft notes that 1 of every 32 adults in America is now in prison, on probation or on parole.

That number should bother you.

Bill Keller argues that people should consider the backgrounds and biases of those who are skeptical about attacking Iraq. He writes:

But in the debate over the next round of war — a debate that is now, thank heaven, bursting into full flower — it is worth considering what baggage the critics bring, especially when they wear the badge of statesman. The histories, interests and attitudes of the war skeptics are as relevant as whatever psychodrama President Bush may be playing out by finishing off his father's archenemy, or whether the drive against Iraq represents some dubious alignment of American interests with Israel's.

(Among this writer's concerns: Will an Iraqi adventure take needed resources away from the war on terrorism? Is removing Saddam Hussein a higher priority right now than eradicating Al Qaeda? Is starting a preemptive war before other tactics have been tried really in the long-term interest of the United States? Is the United States willing to do what is necessary to rebuild a stable Iraq afterwards -- something that is not apparent from our present failures in Afghanistan?)

A discussion over going to war with Iraq may have started too early for the Bush Administration's liking. They should embrace it, however, and make their case.

I was avoiding the subject of former President Bill Clinton's possible talk show. But Ben Stein writes about it in today's New York Times.

So consider this a plug for Stein rather than one for Clinton.

Stein, when not mentioning the rumored $50 million salary offer made to Clinton, gets to the core of why the former President should avoid television talk.

First of all, on a "talk show," the host has to let someone else talk. Even an informed, lovable former president does not get to talk the whole time. Are you prepared to let the woman whose husband has left her for a younger man, the sex expert, the makeover stylist or the free-trade economist be the center of attention? That yearly salary of almost $50 million doesn't seem like so much now, does it?

A.M. Rosenthal suggests that someone needs to create a new tourist guidebook.

This one would not focus on prices. Rosenthal insteads wants a guidebook to help travels know to whom they need to talk to find out the real story about the country they are visiting. For example, he writes:

Visitors to China should know that the law there orders Christians to attend only Communist Party-regulated churches. If you don't like that, you can search out underground churches for free worship. Trouble is, everybody knows these churches all bear invisible signs over their doors: Enter here, ye who long to be tortured in prison camps. But usually, no harm in asking questions.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg continues to pull off the seemingly impossible. His latest triumph? Getting the State Department to agree to plans to crack down on illegal parking by diplomats.

Paul Krugman reviews a paper, "Executive compensation in America: Optimal contracting or extraction of rents?" published in December by the National Bureau of Economic Research. He writes:

What they show is that the official theory of the corporation, in which the C.E.O. serves at the pleasure of a board that represents shareholder interests, is thoroughly misleading. In practice, modern C.E.O.'s set their own compensation, limited only by the "outrage constraint" — outrage not on the part of the board, whose members depend on the C.E.O.'s good will for many of their perks, but on the part of outside groups that can make trouble. And the true purpose of many features of executive pay packages is not to provide incentives but to provide "camouflage" — to let C.E.O.'s reward themselves lavishly while minimizing the associated outrage.

Why has the United States failed to condemn the death by stoning sentence against Nigeria's Amina Lawal? Derrick Z. Jackson says it is all about the oil. He writes:

For obvious reasons, the United States cannot protest capital punishment itself, but it could easily decry its inhumane application. For months, European nations have condemned the sharia sentences of stoning for merely having a baby outside of marriage. Only this week has the Bush administration said anything at all, when a State Department spokesman, Philip Reeker, expressed hope that the court would proceed in a manner ''that affords protection of due process, fairness, and justice.''

That is far from a condemnation. The meekness of the United States has to be because of oil. In July, the State Department's top African envoy, Walter Kansteiner, met with Obasanjo in Lagos. Nigeria is the fifth-largest supplier of crude oil to the United States and looms large as the Middle East remains volatile.

Let me say state the obvious, even though it may sound a bit radical:

Perhaps oil is the problem. Perhaps we should undertake a major national effort to end our reliance on it. Perhaps we should create a 21st Century energy economy for which future generations can thank us.

The Boston Globe's Scot Lehigh correctly argues that President Bush should (must!) ask Congress for a Declaration of War before any military action against Iraq.

Congress needs to reassert its constitutional role and fight back against the Bush Administration's attempts "to fundamentally alter the relationship between executive branch agencies and Congress."

Howard Bashman, the man behind the excellent (you need to read it) How Appealing blog, contributes an excellent article to Slate.

He writes about the recent Supreme Court ruling declaring the death penalty for mentally retarded inmates to be cruel and unusual punishment. National public opinion polls entered into the decision. Bashman argues:

Whether one believes that the meaning of the Constitution is static and immutable or continuously evolving, turning to the blunt instrument of opinion polls to derive constitutional principles is the worst way to go about making law.

TalkLeft notes that tonight's Nightline will focus on one of the many absurdities in our national war on drugs. Quoting the daily Nightline e-mail:

Get caught with five grams of crack cocaine, and the mandatory minimum sentence is five years. Five grams of powder cocaine? Probably not much will happen, especially if you're affluent or famous. It takes five hundred grams of powder cocaine to get the same five years sentence. In other words, it takes one hundred times the amount of powder to get you the same sentence as a crack user would get.

Norah Vincent explains in today's Los Angeles Times why libertarians who argue against public smoking bans are missing the point. Why?

First, by ignoring one of the central tenets of libertarian philosophy; that is, the oft-cited adage that my right to throw my fist ends at the tip of my neighbor's nose. An oldie but goodie. I can do what I like with my own body, true, so long as--and here's the part sophists omit--what I do doesn't harm anyone else...

Second, another keystone of libertarianism is the notion that freedoms come with responsibilities attached. Being free doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want; that's license.

(One of the great features of blogs is that they can allow writers to expand and engage in a dialogue about their efforts.)

A short point/counterpoint in today's New York Daily News.

James Phillips says yes. Chris Matthews says no.

(I still agree with Mr. Hardball.)

Ian Johnson, the World Bank’s vice president for environmentally and socially sustainable development, writes about an issue that could be one of the most difficult for governments to face in the near future: providing access to clean water.

Ted Van Dyk writes about Vice President Cheney's chances of remaining on the 2004 Republican presidential ticket:

Bush could not have been elected in 2000 without Cheney on the ticket. Cheney lent weight and experience to the untested Texas governor. Cheney probably won his nationally televised debate with Lieberman. He then ran the presidential transition and helped select key appointees.

That was then. This is now.

George Will may disagree with those people, like former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, who are against attacking Iraq.

Yet Will makes an important point about the war skeptics:

It is semantic vandalism to say that Scowcroft and others who share his apprehensions are "appeasers." Appeasement is the policy of resolving a conflict by making concessions to the most truculent side. Scowcroft believes, probably mistakenly, that containment and deterrence -- which, when applied to the Soviet Union, resulted in regime change -- can suffice to make Saddam Hussein's regime something America can live with. Or at least Scowcroft believes that the risks of reliance on containment and deterrence are less than those of regime change by war and its aftermath. This may be wishful thinking; it is not appeasement.

I've gotten a late start to my blogging today because I needed to prepare for (and attend) a press conference held earlier today.

Redefining Progress, the nonprofit for which I work, is a joint plaintiff in a class action lawsuit filed today against junk fax broadcaster Fax.com.

The lawsuit, organized by philanthropist Steve Kirsch, seeks to end the practice of unsolicited junk faxes. Junk faxes waste time, resources, and money. They also block communication and correspondence that organizations, businesses, and individuals actually want to receive.

You can read more about the issue, and see today's press release, at Junkfax.org.

New York Democratic gubernatorial candidate Carl McCall has come under fire again for giving work contracts to major campaign contributors.

McCall, presently New York State Comptroller, faced a similar scandal in 1998. The New York Observer editorializes:

"Mr. McCall’s track record on these issues is abysmal. It suggests poor judgment and a blind eye to public perception. The State Comptroller, even when running for higher office, should be seen as an impartial protector of the state’s finances, not as a political hack who hands out jobs—lucrative jobs—in exchange for campaign contributions.

That is, moreover, just one of public campaign financing's benefits.

Michael Kelly thinks the Bush Administration is losing ground on important policy matters. He opens his column with today's quote of the day:

The Economist magazine -- which endorsed George W. Bush for president, and which stands almost alone among Europe's best papers as a consistent friend to the United States -- headlined a recent article "The Disappearing Presidency." Someone might want to boil those three words down to a length suitable for the president's attention span and stick it under his nose.

Well, now we know that Washington Post executives have a malfunctioning sense of decency.

Earlier this month, Washington Post reporter Terry Neal began a new on-line column called "Talking Points."

This naturally annoyed Joshua Marshall, writer of the famous Talking Points Memo blog. As Marshall wrote when the controversy initially broke:

True enough, "talking points" is a common phrase. But for another column which is a) online, b) about politics, and c) based in Washington, DC. can't they find another title?

Well, the Washington Post is not interested in finding a new name. Daily Pundit William Quick has all the details. The Washington Post argues that there is no legal requirement for them to change the name of Neal's on-line column. Even if that is true, the Washington Post should recognize what is fair.

Marshall, in his initial post, later wrote:

What gives? The corporate media behemoth can just run roughshod over the small independent?

That seems to be the idea.

Samuel G. Freedman argues that we need to develop a better name to identify and remember the September 11 terrorist attacks:

As our nation marks the first anniversary of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington that killed nearly 3,000 innocents, we should absorb these lessons about the importance of language to memory. Our ubiquitous name for the mass murder, "9/11," is devoid of both history and poetry. It dishonors the spirits of the dead and averts the eyes of the living from what truly happened on that crystalline Indian-summer morning.

Thomas Friedman writes about the United States' hypocritical policies when it comes to promoting democracy.

The Bush team is advocating democracy only in authoritarian regimes that oppose America, not in authoritarian regimes that are ostensibly pro-American — even though it is America's support for the autocratic regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia that has made many of their citizens so anti-American and contributed to the fact that 15 Saudis and one Egyptian played key roles in 9/11.

Frida Ghitis writes: "Imagine being stoned to death for having sex outside of marriage." Nigeria's Amina Lawal faces precisely that fate after a ruling from an Islamic court.

The Los Angeles Times editorializes that the United States must keep pressure on Egypt to become more democratic and to release jailed democracy activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim.

Cragg Hines says that President Bush cannot be looking forward to his upcoming trip to California. He writes:

President Bush, although not a masochist by nature, returns to California this week. It could get kind of kinky. He will find a state Republican Party that is short on cash, in open warfare and struggling to hold on to a single statewide elective office (which it's unlikely to do) in the November election. And that's the easy part to explain.

The president is scheduled to hop around the state Friday and Saturday raising money for the Republican gubernatorial campaign of William E. Simon Jr., whose family investment firm has just been fined $78 million by a Los Angeles jury for cheating a former partner (who happened to be a drug dealer).

The California GOP should have been worried when incumbent Gov. Gray Davis (D) successfully spent millions of dollars during the Republican primary to tear down former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan. Simon won the Republican nomination in an upset: exactly the result Davis wanted.

California's GOP activists got a conservative nominee. Unless something major happens, they will not win the election.

The Houston Chronicle editorial board thanks the police officers who broke department policy and spoke to a reporter in the aftermath of the disgraceful weekend arrest of hundreds of young people in a Houston Kmart shopping lot.

Steve Neal reviews The Emerging Democratic Majority, a new book by John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira.

Steve Friess is a Big Brother. He volunteers his time to help a young kid in his community.

Instead of being congratulated and supported, people like Friess are under attack. Because he is gay. Friess writes:

This month, Focus on the Family launched an all-out attack on local chapters of Big Brothers Big Sisters of America for allowing homosexuals to serve as mentors to fatherless boys and motherless girls. Chapters from Arizona to Philadelphia have received hundreds of calls and e-mails in protest.

Here's an interesting nugget from Chris Matthews' Hardball blog last week:

Here’s Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, “The Clinton-Rubin economic policies that worked so well during the 1990’s really do work well..”

With Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) and Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) both losing primary races on Tuesday, Taegan Goodard asks on his Political Wire blog: Will 2002 be dubbed "the year politics got serious?"

James Pinkerton thinks that during this war on terror the nation needs an United Nations ambassador of unquestioned distinction.

He cites as an example JFK's appointment of rival Adlai Stevenson, putting Stevenson in a position to handle the Soviet ambassador during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

So, who does Pinkerton suggest? A real longshot: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Dave Winer predicts that "In five years every member of the US House will have a weblog and will be communicating directly with the electorate."

I hope he is correct. Wise politicians, moreover, will sense the advantages of blogging and quickly join the blogosphere.

Salon's Eric Boehlert wonders why the communications breakdowns on September 11 have not been investigated.

Yet behind that brave face of selfless heroic deeds, now almost uniform agreement has emerged within the fire-service community that the FDNY's rescue effort on Sept. 11 was seriously flawed and that perhaps dozens, if not hundreds, of firefighters died unnecessarily when the twin towers collapsed.

Here's a column that may surprise you.

Thomas Oliphant writes about recent commentary about the potential for war with Iraq:

Through a combination of press oversimplification and partisan spin from opponents (and, ironically, proponents) of war, the impression has been created of widespread disagreement with the administration on the part of Republican and Democratic predecessors, including senior policy makers in the administration of Bush's father.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Melvin Goodman wonders when we will seek real solutions to our nation's intelligence failures.

Crispin Sartwell takes a poke at Washington, D.C.'s, electoral troubles.

Heads had better roll in reaction to this police travesty from Houston. This story represents police overreaction and misconduct so outrageous that no one can excuse it or allow it to pass without the strongest of judgments against those responsible.

Houston Chronicle reporter S.K. Bardwell follows up on the story linked above:

Houston Police Chief C.O. Bradford ordered an investigation Monday into the weekend arrests of hundreds of people gathered peacefully at a westside parking lot by police who were assigned to stop illegal drag racing.

Officers on the scene called the arrests "utterly, utterly senseless" on Monday, and said the captain in charge, Mark Aguirre, ordered them to round up everyone who was outside the 24-hour Kmart Super Center or eating at the Sonic Drive-In next door.

Bardwell continues his report:

"But we got out there, and no one was racing," said one of the [police] supervisors. "So [Captain] Aguirre just said, `Arrest them all for trespass.'

"It was like, `Kill them all and let God sort them out,' " said the other supervisor. "I guess we're just lucky he didn't order us to fire warning shots into the crowd or anything."

Both supervisors said many of the people arrested were not in cars. Many were eating food from the Sonic, which was open until 2 a.m., or had been shopping at Kmart.

No Houstonian -- no American -- should accept this misuse of police power.

The Bush Administration's conflict against our government's co-equal legislative branch continues. The Washington Post editorial writers argue:

"The administration's reflexive distaste for accountability to other branches of government is not healthy. There is nothing hostile or dangerous in responsible oversight; to the contrary, it is a critical check and balance in our system. Already, the administration is endorsing new enhancements to its powers. A prerequisite for even considering these suggestions should be a full and complete understanding of how the previous round of new authorities is being used."

If companies are going to extort tax credits or payments from states and cities, governments should insist on accountability. Better yet: they should drop out of this game.

(Remember these subsidies the next time someone lectures you about the "free market.")

The California Assembly should stop stalling (read: capitulating to the financial services industry and their donations) and pass a bill that would "require financial institutions to get your consent before selling your personal information to third parties."

One might think that promoting energy source diversity in California would be a given after the state's recent power crisis. Unfortunately, it's not.

Robert Novak wonders if the Federal Reserve's decision not to cut interest rates last week is a sign that Alan Greenspan is losing control of the nation's central bank.

Mona Charen weighs in on the FBI's (mis)handling of the anthrax terrorism investigation, and the leaks pointing the finger at Dr. Steven Hatfill:

"A spokesman for the FBI denies tipping the press, but those helicopters and news trucks did not arrive due to clairvoyance. Not only does it look like the FBI was fingering a man against whom it has very little evidence in order to obscure the FBI's lack of progress in finding the anthrax terrorist or terrorists, it further looks like the FBI has bull-headedly followed only one possible scenario -- the lone American scientist -- in its search."

James A. Haught reasonably argues that "Sept. 11 should be preserved as a global day of warning, cautioning humanity to beware of the ghastly mix of religion and hate."

Thomas Oliphant continues his lonely quest to get people to take Washington's fiscal crisis seriously. His first task is to pin the blame where it belongs: not just on the GOP White House, but also on the Congressional Democrats.

"When the House Democratic leader, Dick Gephardt, changes the subject to warn against privatizing Social Security, when majority leader Tom Daschle and Connecticut's Joe Lieberman offer theater criticism of the soporific summit, they are in fact confessing their unwillingness to propose a different policy to return a languid economy to vigorous growth."

"[Sen.] Hollings also argues that attention should be paid to the overall federal debt, once again on the rise, that could drive interest rates higher and make vigorous growth impossible. Using the administration's own figures, which show this debt rising to $6.2 trillion this year from $5.8 trillion, Hollings subtracts and comes up with $412 billion as the ''true deficit,'' representing all borrowing from all trust funds to cover operating red ink. The figures show this measure of debt escalating to $7.5 trillion four years from now."

Our nation's economic future has once again been put into jeopardy by damaging federal deficits and an exploding national debt. With few exceptions, our political leaders do not seem to care.

Our Congressionals are campaigning right now for your votes this November. You may want to ask them about the red ink they are leaving for future generations to pay.

MORE: The fiscal games also grow in state and municipal budgets. Michael H. Granof is and Stephen A. Zeff explore this problem:

"Current corporate accounting scandals notwithstanding, governments are still looking to balance their budgets the old-fashioned way--with accounting legerdemain. The results can be as pernicious as those of the bookkeeping abuses in the corporate world. Governments pile up off-the-balance-sheet debts that will have to be repaid by taxpayers of the future."

Jim Hoagland writes about the tensions that threaten to reignite the Pakistan-India conflict.

The Sacramento Bee editorializes that California Gov. Gray Davis' (D) fund raising "stinks."

"Davis has been wringing money from everybody who has anything to do with state government for so long that you'd think everybody's nasal receptors would be burned out by now. But, jeeze, things are smelling even worse than usual these days."

Thomas L. Friedman writes that nations should "never launch a war that you can't explain to your people and the world on a bumper sticker."

Maureen Dowd wonders if there was a deeper message buried within former Nation Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft's Wall Street Journal op-ed against attacking Iraq. Dowd writes:

"No one who knows how close Mr. Scowcroft is to former President Bush — they wrote a foreign policy memoir so symbiotic they alternated writing paragraphs — believes he didn't check with Poppy first. Did 41 allow his old foreign policy valet to send a message to 43 that he could not bear to impart himself?"

Zev Chafets writes that Attorney General John Ashcroft's actions are harming the Bush Administration.

Joseph Siegle, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, criticizes the Bush Administration for policies that undermine democracy around the world.

Steve Chapman writes about the Bush Administration's unnecessary preoccupation with secrecy:

"But it's not just Congress that is being insulted. It's the American people, who have been deprived of the information they need to judge whether the president and the attorney general have acted responsibly in the war on terrorism. An administration that assumes it doesn't need public support may eventually find that it does need it, but no longer has it."

Westwood One radio "Business of Sports" commentator Evan Weiner writes about the hidden cable fees people pay to subsidize major college and professional sports teams. He writes:

"If and when the Major League Baseball Players Association walks out, there will be plenty of accusations directed at Commissioner Bud Selig and baseball's 29 team owners along with Players Association Executive Director Donald Fehr and the players.

But two other entities will go largely unnoticed, and they will deserve a good deal of the blame as well: Congress and the Federal Communications Commission."

Cynthia Tucker writes about Zimbabwe's growing disaster. The country's dictator, Robert Mugabe, is seizing farms owned by whites and turning over the spoils to his supporters. Food production has crashed, and nearly half of Zimbabwe's population is near famine.

Of course, Americans have a tendency to ignore Africa's problems. As Tucker writes:

"If a racist white dictator were creating conditions that starved millions of black Africans, the Congressional Black Caucus would have demanded severe sanctions, and a long line of African-American celebrities would be lining up to picket the nation's embassy, taking turns getting arrested and handcuffed for the TV cameras. But Mugabe's thuggery has barely roused America's black elite."

Daniel Schorr writes about Dr. Steven Hatfill, the man the FBI has attacked through leaks as the anthrax letter terrorist:

"Whether Steven Hatfill ultimately turns out to be innocent remains to be seen. But he has done what no FBI target has done before: summon the news media to proclaim his patriotism and to put the FBI on the defensive for its manipulation of the all-too-eager media."

The U.S. State Department has asked Judge Louis Oberdorfer to dismiss a troubling case against ExxonMobil because it might harm United States relations with Indonesia.

Mike O'Donnell writes about the trial. The procedings would find out whether, as the International Labor Rights Fund charges:

"ExxonMobil Corporation looked the other way when its security guards, who are members of Indonesia's military, carried out torture, rape, and extrajudicial execution while guarding its plant in war-torn Aceh."

Bruce Watson writes a letter on behalf of his seven-year-old son to Texas Rangers shortstop Alex Rodriguez and New York Yankee owner George Steinbrenner about the potential baseball strike:

"If you could just explain why it's fair for you to play games with the faith of a young boy, then I might cough up $150 for a game. But if you can't explain, then the game is even more foul than I expected. And when my son asks where baseball went, I'll have to tell him that, like a ball that flew into the bushes, it just vanished."

Paul Krugman sees troubling similarities between Japan's post-bubble economy and our own.

The writers on the Wall Street Journal editorial page would love to know where the Saudis stand on the war against terrorism. It sure does not seem like they are with us.

"As if to prove the point, last week Riyadh repaid American military support all these years by declaring Saudi airfields off-limits for any U.S. attack against the neighbor who would have eaten the kingdom for lunch a decade ago had the U.S. not stopped him. Then Crown Prince Abdullah sends his foreign-policy adviser on tour in America to insist that Saudi Arabia is a free, open society where hate messages aren't tolerated."

Human Rights Watch's Tom Malinowski argues that:

"Supporters and critics of the [International Criminal Court] ought to agree on one thing: The fate of the world is not at stake in the debate over this institution. Yet the administration's obsession with the remote possibility of the ICC's pursuing an American has begun to trump its pursuit of virtually every other important national interest."

E.J. Dionne says that if the United States is to fight Iraq, we should be clear on the reasons we are waging the war.

"One Iraq war would be preemptive but, in principle, defensive in character. The argument for it is that Saddam Hussein is building weapons of mass destruction that he will someday use or pass on to others. In this view, Hussein will always manage to foil the outside inspections he agreed to after his defeat in 1991. We need to take him out because that is the only way we can be sure of taking out his weapons.

The second Iraq war would be a much bolder enterprise. Its goal is to revolutionize the entire Middle East. If Hussein is driven from power, the idea goes, Iraqis will then build a thriving democracy. A free Iraq will become a model for Arab and Muslim nations. The Arab-Israeli dispute will become less intractable and moderation will become contagious."

The Heritage Foundation's Brian Riedl describes why the recently passed Farm Bill is such a bad deal for American taxpayers. His column debunks a laughable report defending this hideous bill recently published by the House Agriculture Committee. Riedl writes:

"To understand why they're still glad-handing us, take a closer look at the legislation. With economic stagnation and a depressed stock market drying up the revenues needed to fight the war on terrorism, Congress voted to spend a record $180 billion on farm subsidies. Nearly three-quarters of these funds will go to the wealthiest 10 percent of farmers — most of whom earn more than $250,000 per year — or to such needy "farmers" as Ted Turner, Scottie Pippen, David Rockefeller and a dozen Fortune 500 companies."

USA Today's Blake Morrison is reporting that the Air Marshal program is in disarray.

''This used to be an elite, great group. This used to be the baddest people you could find -- war heroes,'' says one marshal who joined the program just after the terrorist attacks. ''Now they've turned this into a laughingstock.''

Let me know when the federal government decides to take airline security seriously. People should ask their Congressionals about this as they campaign in their districts this month.

Des Moines Register columnist David Yepsen warns former Vice President Al Gore that his winning either the 2004 Iowa caucuses or the Democratic presidential nomination is not inevitable.

Mike McCurry and Larry Purpuro hope lawmakers and regulators do not go too far in their efforts to ban commerical spam. They explain:

"No one likes commercial spam. It is irrelevant and untargeted and can be highly intrusive and even offensive. But as a sophisticated society, it's time to differentiate commercial spam from very different unsolicited e-mail sent by political candidates to voters."

Newsday's editorial writers rightly criticize the White House for its position on the preventive detentions of enemy combatants.

"Defining the term enemy combatant and determining who fits the designation are matters strictly for the military, according to administration lawyers. That's just not good enough. The White House is handling war-related defendants in so many different ways that it appears a matter of convenience when the Constitution applies and when it doesn't."

Brent Scowcroft, National Security Advisor under Presidents Ford and Bush 41, urges the present Administration to keep its priorities in order. Writing today in the Wall Street Journal, Scowcroft argues:

"But the central point is that any campaign against Iraq, whatever the strategy, cost and risks, is certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism. Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time. So long as that sentiment persists, it would require the U.S. to pursue a virtual go-it-alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive. The most serious cost, however, would be to the war on terrorism. Ignoring that clear sentiment would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism. And make no mistake, we simply cannot win that war without enthusiastic international cooperation, especially on intelligence."

What is Chinese leader Jiang Zemin thinking about American policy and his legacy? Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland gives us a peek into Zemin's mind.

Richard Cohen uses Ann Coulter's own words against her. Few things are more satisfying.

Coulter complains about liberals and their meanness. Oh? As Cohen writes:

May I say something about Ann Coulter? She is a half-wit, a termagant, a dimwit, a blowhard, a worthless silicone nothing, physically ugly and could be likened to Eva Braun, who was Hitler's mistress. As it happens, these are all descriptions or characterizations Coulter uses for others in her book, "Slander." It ought to be called "Mirror."

The continuing (!) Voyager missions are technological triumphs. These spacecraft continue to provide useful information and will soon become truly interstellar craft.

It is time for humanity to reach for the stars again.

This is excellent news. The Associated Press reports:

"After more than 20 years of research and scores of studies on the effects of moderate alcohol consumption on health, beer is slowly bubbling to the top as a beverage that not only lifts spirits but delivers protection against major ailments such as heart attacks, stroke, hypertension, diabetes and dementia.

The fact that Thomas Friedman needs to devote a column to discuss why the United States should promote democracy within the Muslim world is depressing.

It should be obvious.

Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial page editor Cynthia Tucker explains why Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) may lose a primary election next week. She writes:

"Instead, McKinney has become not famous but infamous, embracing a paranoid worldview that borders on the irrational. She picks fights with those who ought to be her allies. She recklessly plays the race card. She engages in high-octane rhetoric guaranteed to keep her on the political fringe."

Just how much longer will the American people tolerate Attorney General John Ashcroft's excesses?

George Washington University Constitutional Law Professor Jonathan Turley writes:

"Ashcroft's plan, disclosed last week but little publicized, would allow him to order the indefinite incarceration of U.S. citizens and summarily strip them of their constitutional rights and access to the courts by declaring them enemy combatants.

The proposed camp plan should trigger immediate congressional hearings and reconsideration of Ashcroft's fitness for this important office. Whereas Al Qaeda is a threat to the lives of our citizens, Ashcroft has become a clear and present threat to our liberties."

TransAfrica Forum President Bill Fletcher, Jr., wonders when we will stop neglecting Africa.

Fletcher writes of the Bush Administration's actions at the recent G-8 meeting:

"What is striking about these three points - Arafat, Iraq and Russia - is that regardless of the merits or demerits of each issue, none was focused on the issue of the day - Africa. Instead of acting on the pressing needs of Africa - the HIV/AIDS pandemic, debt cancellation and taking the lead in pushing the G-8 - Bush advanced his own narrow political agenda."

Even if the person caught had no ill intent, congratulations are due to the security team at the San Jose International Airport for spotting a loaded handgun in a backpack.

(It is only fair to congratulate on a job well done if one is going to criticize mistakes.)

Claudia Rosett argues (rightly) that the United States should no longer tolerate Arab repression and despotism.

Tony Blankley does not think it is a coincidence that Henry Kissinger and the excellent analysts at Stratfor.com on Monday both described a new "unstated" war aim for any action with Iraq.

Blankley sums up this new idea:

In other words, we must break the will and pride of all those in the Islamic world who would dare terrorize us and the international system.

The Arizona Republic endorsed two gubernatorial candidates, both of which are running using Clean Money public financing.

As Arizona Clean Elections Institute Executive Director Cecilia Martinez notes, "Arizona can make history this election season by electing the first governor in the history of our nation to use public funds."

The Boston Globe's Joan Vennochi writes:

"In a recent editorial, The Pilot, the official newspaper of the Boston Archdiocese, rebuked Governor Frank Keating of Oklahoma, the chairman of a national panel on the church's handling of clergy sexual abuse, saying Keating urged Catholics ''to commit a mortal sin'' by suggesting they boycott Sunday Mass. But the thinking Catholic cannot help but wonder, what is the bigger sin? Failing to attend Mass or failing to protect children?

How much longer will Cardinal Law be allowed to embarass Catholics anyway?

This Houston Chronicle editorial examines how incumbancy and redistricting have shaped Houston-area Congressional races, and explains why:

"These forces produce a strong undertow that weakens the traditional expectation that the party out of power will pick up seats during an off-year election."

E.R. Shipp disagrees with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's proposal to ban smoking in bars and restaurants in the city. She writes:

Call me cranky. Call me kooky. Call me contrarian. But more than anything, call me a New Yorker. The kind who existed before Sept. 11, 2001.

And it is that - being a New Yorker of the old school - that makes me cringe at Mayor Bloomberg's attempt to impose upon us his personal opposition to the smoking of cigarettes.

Radical students from the free speech loving 1960s have created Kafkaesque speech codes and disciplinary courts in their years in control of America's college campuses.

Debra Saunders writes about these shameful edicts, rules that University of Pennsylvania history professor Alan Charles Kors argues are a part of "a generational swindle."

Junk faxes are annoying. The California legislature needs to update state law to help end these abuses.

As the San Jose Mercury News editorializes:

Junk faxes are not about free speech. They are about shifting advertising costs from advertisers to consumers, who end up paying for paper, toner and wear-and-tear on their fax machines. They tie up fax machines, sometimes for hours on end, at schools, hospitals and businesses that need them for critical operations. They are illegal. They must be stopped.

The Seattle Times criticizes the FBI for its handling of the anthrax accusations against Steven J. Hatfill:

Once again, the investigators are becoming the story. Hatfill's guilt or innocence needs to be dictated by the evidence produced, not the news stories generated by leaks and innuendoes.

USA Today's two-part series recounting how authorities cleared the nation's skies of 4,500 flights that were in the air as the September 11 terrorist attacks unfolded continues with its second installment today.

Former Senators Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.) and Warren Rudman (R-N.H.), the co-chairmen of The Concord Coalition, argue against the Do-Nothing Social Security plan in a Washington Post op-ed.

Kerrey and Rudman rightly take those who oppose the partial privatization of Social Security to task for relying on unsustainable promises in their critiques. While the pro-privatization side has recklessly downplayed the transition costs to a fully funded system, foes of the idea continue to pretend that the federal government will have no problem meeting its benefit promises as the baby boomers retire.

But doing nothing about Social Security has its costs. As Kerrey and Rudman write:

Suppose that a member of Congress introduced legislation called "the Social Security Do Nothing Act." Under this bill, promised retirement benefits would be cut by 16 percent for today's 30-year-olds, by 29 percent for today's 20-year olds and by 35 percent for today's newborns. Alternatively, payroll taxes would go up by roughly 40 percent in 2041. How many politicians would rush to endorse this bill? And yet these are the choices under the Do Nothing Plan.

The Washington Post editorializes about Steven J. Hatfill, the scientist who yesterday announced that he had nothing to do with last year's anthrax letter attacks. Hatfill has been fingered as the suspect by many analysts and media outlets during the past few months. The Post argues:

If the science of profiling is inexact enough to confuse a Berkeley math professor living in a shack in Montana with a well-dressed menial laborer, it is probably capable of confusing an American biological weapons scientist with, say, an al Qaeda operative. Until more evidence is in hand, both the bureau and the public should refrain from drawing firm conclusions about Mr. Hatfill and should not rule out other suspects, foreign or domestic.

Simon Anderson examines the U.S. bargain with Saudi Arabia. He writes:

Before Sept. 11, the U.S.-Saudi relationship hid behind a veil of obscurity with public attention focused on the simple trade-off of reliable supplies of reasonably priced oil in return for protection against external threats. Most people accepted this bargain.

Since Sept. 11, and the preponderance of Saudis among the hijackers and those detained at Guantanamo Bay, the U.S.-Saudi relationship has assumed a new, more sinister aspect. Even in the past, it was not a liaison that stood up well to public scrutiny. Now it certainly does not.

USA Today today begins a special report recounting how the FAA, airline pilots, and others made the decisions that cleared the nation's skies of 4,500 flights that were in the air as the September 11 terrorist attacks unfolded.

It is an excellent report. Full of details about what these people were thinking as the crisis came into focus.

Edward Wasserman wonders why the dot-com financial manipulations have yet to show up on the corporate scandal radar.

Augustus Richard Norton writes an excellent column outlining the United States's shameful lack of support of jailed Egyptian human rights and democracy activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim.

As I noted earlier this month, an Egyptian court acting on orders from Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak sentenced Ibrahim to seven years of hard labor.

The Houston Chronicle thinks that government spokespeople should strive to provide full information to the public. How naive.

Robert Novak reports that President Bush is listening to voices urging restraint when it comes to launching an unilateral war with Iraq. He writes:

The climate is not propitious for a major U.S. military initiative. Official opposition from Germany, Saudi Arabia and Jordan underlined the isolation of American power. A deteriorating situation in Afghanistan builds the one-war-at-a-time argument. The steadfast Republican voices of Jack Kemp and Brent Scowcroft urge restraint. So do members of Congress from both parties, with House Majority Leader Dick Armey last Thursday warning against an unprovoked attack on Iraq.

When did Bill O'Reilly become such a crybaby?

Time's Michael Weisskopf reports that former Vice President Al Gore may have trouble raising the money he would need to run a competitive race in 2004.

George Will writes an excellent column about baseball's economic situation.

California political analyst Tony Quinn writes that California Republicans and Texas Democrats are learning another hard lesson about the danger of nominating a political amateur in a large-state race for the governor's office.

The California Assembly should seek to expand the use of solar power, and not vote to subvert recent advances.

At a time when airline security officers are forcing women to drink their breast milk, confiscating 2-inch plastic G.I. Joe gun toys, and searching for guns in wallets, today's Boston Globe editorial provides a welcome shot of clarity:

Amid all the talk about the best way to honor the first anniversary of Sept. 11, the worst way would be to retreat from deadlines Congress set for improving airport security. But the House of Representatives has already called for backing off from the Dec. 31 date for inspection of all checked baggage, and some congressmen say the new Transportation Security Administration should not be held to the Nov. 19 deadline for replacing all private airport screening personnel with federal employees.

For a nation that mobilized as quickly as it did to fight World War II, such defeatism in the campaign against terrorism is dispiriting. The Bush administration has gotten high marks for freeing Afghanistan of the Taliban regime, which was harboring Al Qaeda terrorists, but its record in improving defenses of soft targets like airplanes is poor.

Charles Levendosky praises U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler's order requiring the Justice Department to release of the names of those detained in the September 11 terrorist investigations.

Much of this message may be on target, but it is hard to imagine a worse messenger to deliver it.

Robin Toner and Sheryl Gay Stolberg write in the New York Times:

Ten years after a health care crisis threw American politics into turmoil, many experts see another one looming on the horizon.

We have to break the connection between employment and health care. Workers will rebel against the "creative destruction" that makes our economy so strong and innovative if they must fear losing their health care in the process.

Our employer-based health care system is an historical accident created through a provision in the tax code. It is time for us to replace it.

The Washington Post's Peter Finn reports:

Iran has quietly detained and expelled to Saudi Arabia 16 al Qaeda fighters who sought refuge in the country after fleeing neighboring Afghanistan, the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud Faisal, said today.

Iranian authorities handed over the al Qaeda fugitives, all Saudis, knowing that whatever intelligence was obtained from them during interrogation in Saudi Arabia would be passed on to the United States for use in the war against terrorism, Saud said.

The former Army doctor who has been accused in the media of being the anthrax mailer is now publicly denying involvement in the attacks.

Steven J. Hatfill's life has been destroyed through the media-inspired accusation. If he is guilty, he will have much more coming to him.

I remain extremely skeptical of this FBI "lone American" anthrax theory. For example, on July 17, I linked to an excellent David Tell story the Daily Pundit pointed out wondering why the FBI is focusing on Hatfill and seems so disinterested in investigating...

"...a Pakistani immigrant [from New Jersey] who'd recently completed a suspicious purchase of the expensive machinery necessary to weaponize toxic organisms."

As we learned with the false accuations against Richard Jewell, it is not a good sign when investigators reach the point where they leak to the media to justify their activities. They should plug the leaks and try to get this investigation right.

This Washington Post story about the technology use in campaigns outlines a fairly quiet 2002 on-line campaign cycle.

Reporter Thomas B. Edsall explains that there has yet to be an exciting on-line development akin to Gov. Jesse Ventura's use of the internet to win the Minnesota Governor's race in 1998 or Sen. John McCain's fundraising success after winning the GOP New Hampshire primary in 2000.

A former Jehovah's Witness elder was excommunicated last month because he established a forum to monitor alleged sexual abuses within the church. Four others have met with a similar fate for accusing the Jehovah's Witnesses of covering up other abuses.

A Senator acting hypocritically? A development that should surprise few people.

The latest example: Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.). His position? You better take that polygraph test or face dismissal from your job. But, don't you dare ask me to do the same...

You mean it is wrong for corporate directors and executives to use the company as a no-risk bank? (Of course it is, unless you are a director or executive.)

San Jose Mercury News reporter Dawn Chmielewski writes:

"In a boardroom drama rivaling its courtroom battle with Hollywood, SonicBlue's chairman and chief executive, Kenneth Potashner, was ousted Thursday after he demanded board members repay more than a half million dollars in loans they gave themselves to buy stock in an affiliated company.

Slate's Jack Shafer digs into Rand Corp. analyst Laurent Murawiec's background, and what he finds is a bit disturbing.

Some background: Murawiec earlier this week became the focus of media scrutiny after his July presentation before the Defense Policy Board, where he argued that Saudi Arabia is an enemy, was made public in a Washington Post story by Thomas Ricks.

I, for one, celebrated the story with: "A few members of our government finally appear to have stumbled into the truth about Saudi Arabia." My distain (to be kind) for the Saudi regime is no secret to Political Parrhesia readers.

Shafer decided to learn more about the newly important Murawiec. After searching the web he goes to Nexis. Shafer writes:

"His only other Nexis-able byline is a dusty one from the Jan. 23, 1985, edition of the Financial Times, which describes Murawiec as "the European Economics Editor of the New York-based Executive Intelligence Review weekly magazine."

Executive Intelligence Review, as scholars of parapolitics know, is a publication of the political fantasist, convicted felon, and perpetual presidential candidate Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. It's not clear exactly when Murawiec left the LaRouche orbit."

"Now that Murawiec has assumed such a vocal place in the policy debate, the man who gave him the lectern owes us the complete back-story. Over to you, Richard Perle."

The Florida law requiring women to publish their detailed sexual history in newspapers before they can put their unwanted babies up for adoption is horrible. Florida lawmakers need to rethink it.

The latest from the "professionals" supposedly securing our nation's airline system: security guards at JFK airport in New York forced a woman to drink her own breast milk to prove it was not dangerous before allowing her to board the plane.

Civil rights lawyer Ron Kuby, of WABC Radio and MSNBC fame, has urged her to sue. She should. This is outrageous.

The guards in question here should be fired. Immediately. And the Transportation Security Agency can feel free to get serious about airline security any day now.

The state legislators here in California cannot pass a state budget (its now six weeks late), but they are finding the time to host many fundraisers.

Some state vendors have not been paid since July 1, but the evening cocktail circuit remains at full power.

Chalk this up as yet another reason why we need public campaign financing.

Slate's William Saletan explains why Rep. John Dingell's Michigan Democratic victory over Rep. Lynn Rivers was not the real story of Tuesday's elections.

The real story, Saletan argues, is how these two incumbents ended up in the same Congressional District in the first place. This is why people should pay attention to redistricting process.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld distanced the U.S. government from yesterday's report of a Defense Policy Board briefing that argued the Saudis were our enemies.

Time to put those blinders back on. Since our government under several presidents has supported the Saudi government over U.S. citizens, Rumsfeld's statement is not surprising.

But, I wish State Department Spokesperson Philip T. Reeker would try to remain somewhat realistic. Does anyone believe that the U.S. and Saudi governments, as Reeker contends, "...share a broad array of interests, including a common vision of peace, stability and prosperity in the region"?

One hopes not. Previous abuses of U.S. citizens and the Saudis support for terrorists should make that clear. The Saudis, moreover, are not going to allow the U.S. to use Saudi soil for an attack on Iraq. So much for "common interests."

Our support and tolerance of the Saudi regime's abuses can be explained, but not exused, by its root in one fact: our addiction to oil.

Justice Department lawyers have refused to comply with a judge's order to turn over additional information to support the charge that Yaser Esam Hamdi is an enemy combatant.

Instead of claiming the sole right to judge, the Bush Administration should work with Congress to create a new system to handle situations like this one.

As Stuart Taylor explained in July:

"History shows that preventive detention is prone to abuse. We should be concerned that starting down that road could undermine the Bill of Rights and infect the entire criminal justice system. But these dangers can be controlled by wise legislation."

Lobbyists want special rights in the U.S. Capitol Building so they can move more easily through the complex.

"I think it’s very important that the building is accessible to people who are bringing information to members of Congress to help them make informed decisions," [Rep. Jim] Davis [D-Fla.] said. "It's clear we need to do a better job of balancing access and security."

I am sure Rep. Davis did not mean to suggest the only worthwhile information Congressionals receive is from paid lobbyists. This was just a slip, an ill-considered remark.

Right?

Timothy Noah takes a look at today's Associated Press report showing how more federal spending has been diverted to GOP districts since the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994 and finds the real story:

"What the AP is describing, then, appears to represent not only a spending shift from Democratic congressional districts to Republican ones, but also, and more significant, a spending shift from low-income people to middle- and upper-income people. The GOP, it seems, is every bit as bent as the Democrats on redistributing income; the only difference is that while Democrats want to redistribute income downward, to the poor, Republicans want to redistribute it upward, to the rich."

The latest from the "professionals" supposedly securing our nation's airline system: confiscating 2-inch replica G.I. Joe guns.

They will not scan all luggage. But they will disarm G.I. Joe. Remember, knowing is half the battle.

Prosecutors say that over 4,000 people took advantage of a September 11 computer glitch to steal $15 million from the Municipal Credit Union in New York City.

A federal judge has ordered an investigation to find out how the FBI forced a false confession from an innocent Egyptian about his alleged involvement with the September 11 terrorist attacks.

A few members of our government finally appear to have stumbled into the truth about Saudi Arabia. The Washington Post's Thomas Ricks reports:

"The Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot-soldier, from ideologist to cheerleader," stated the explosive briefing. It was presented on July 10 to the Defense Policy Board, a group of prominent intellectuals and former senior officials that advises the Pentagon on defense policy.

"Saudi Arabia supports our enemies and attacks our allies," said the briefing prepared by Laurent Murawiec, a Rand Corp. analyst. A talking point attached to the last of 24 briefing slides went even further, describing Saudi Arabia as "the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent" in the Middle East.

ASIDE: Later, Ricks reports about how this could affect the war with Iraq. Neocons believe that regime change in Iraq would allow the United States to diversify its oil sources enough to finally take on the Saudis.

Perhaps. But we could also end our reliance on Saudi oil by ending our addiction to fossil fuels. Shouldn't the only nation to put humans on the moon at least try?

An Egyptian court, acting on orders from Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, has sentenced democracy activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim to seven years of hard labor.

What did our government do? Is the United States State Department doing all it can to ensure Ibrahim's release? Are we considering sanctions or a reduction of the $2 billion of annual aid we give to the Mubarak government?

Of course not. Our Department of State just said that it was "deeply disappointed".

As Thomas L. Friedman explains:

"Disappointed"? I'm disappointed when the Baltimore Orioles lose. When an Egyptian president we give $2 billion a year to jails a pro-American democracy advocate, I'm "outraged" and expect America to do something about it.

I'm also frightened, because if there is no space in Egypt for democratic voices for change, then Egyptians will only be left with the mosque. If there is no room in Egypt for Saad Ibrahims, then we will only get more Mohamed Attas — coming again to a theater near you.

An 80-year-old World War II veteran was arrested at Hartford's Bradley International Airport after he made an inappropriate joke to one of the security screeners.

Don't you feel safer about getting on an airplane?

We cannot screen all checked luggage. We cannot make sure that people travel with their luggage. But we can arrest 80-year-olds who are cranky after a long travel day.

I am pleased we are taking the terrorism threat so seriously.

The Boston Review has an excellent series of articles about reclaiming our common assets. Americans must claim our shared resources -- like the atmosphere, our electoral system, the broadcast spectrum, or the hidden trust economy that is the foundation of a functioning market system -- and connect them to our lives.

Jules Witcover explains that Congress "has finally gotten around to raising serious questions about the wisdom and ramifications" of the Bush Administration's plans to attack Iraq.

Former Vice President Al Gore urges his fellow Americans "to stand up to the powerful on behalf of the people" in a Sunday New York Times op-ed. The first step: giving Democrats control of Congress.

Senators Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) charged yesterday that Saudi Arabia is aiding and funding Hamas and the suicide bombers.