Alternative Thot

Well, if you can't tell the blog's on a hiatus of sorts.  Life, kids, home repairs and work is making the blog more of a burden than anything else.  I gave it a good year test run and learned a few new things about the blogosphere which has been fun.  By no means am I giving up the fight for what's humane or right.  I continue to protest and work in social action groups where I feel I can make a difference - I encourage everyone to do the same.  Just making a conscious effort to reduce a little complexity in my life right now.

Keep up the fight!

Checks and balances.  That's gone.  The executive branch is flexing it's king-like muscles, a thing that hasn't been seen since Nixon and has, at this point, far surpassed tricky Dick.  If Congress can't hold anyone in contempt, can't subpoena, can't seemingly question anything, then there is truly nothing for them to do.  Checks and balances.

Washington Times Article Here:

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

The position presents serious legal and political obstacles for congressional Democrats, who have begun laying the groundwork for contempt proceedings against current and former White House officials in order to pry loose information about the dismissals.Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."

But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts.

"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen."

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly, added: "It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, the constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys."

Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing."

"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."

The administration's statement is a dramatic attempt to seize the upper hand in an escalating constitutional battle with Congress, which has been trying for months, without success, to compel White House officials to testify and to turn over documents about their roles in the prosecutor firings last year. The Justice Department and White House in recent weeks have been discussing when and how to disclose the stance, and the official said he decided yesterday that it was time to highlight it.

 

From www.defcon.org:

DefCon Poll Shows Rift in Religious Right
The new anti-science Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, has nothing of value to teach about the development of life on Earth -- but that doesn't mean we haven't learned anything from it.
A new poll released by DefCon reveals the enormous schism within the religious right represented by the museum. The poll shows that 95% of Evangelicals reject the Creation Musuem's strange, dino-friendly version of Creationism. In addition, only 10% of self-identified Evangelicals support Intelligent Design. While religious right leaders like James Dobson lump all forms of anti-evolution together, the new Creation Museum is showing us just how deeply divided the religious right really is.
You can download the full poll results here (PDF), or click here to read an analysis by the Cincinnati Enquirer (the museum's own home-town newspaper).
The other main lesson we've learned from the museum is just how concerned many Americans are about the continued assault on science education from the religious right. Nearly 25,000 people from across the country have signed our petition condemning the museum's anti-science agenda. If you haven't already, click here to sign the petition, spread the word, or get your own DefCon Creation Musuem bumper sticker.

Bush Again Bows to Religious Right on Stem Cells
Once again, with overwhelming support from the American people and the medical establishment, Congress passed a bill this Spring to relax restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. And once again, President Bush has caved in to the only major group opposing the potentially life-saving research -- the religious right -- in vetoing the bill.
Since last May, DefCon supporters have sent more than 100,000 emails to President Bush and congressional leaders urging them to support embryonic stem cell research. In light of the president's unwillingness to buck the religious right on this crucial issue, it is clear that our best hope is securing a veto-proof majority. Click here to contact your senators and ask them to put lives above the religious right's agenda.

Attorney General Gonzalez Visits the Discovery Institute
Last month, Attorney General Gonzalez became the latest political official to speak at an event sponsored by the Discovery Institute, the leading proponent of Intelligent Design. While Gonzalez's speech focused on intellectual property and cybercrime, his decision to pay a visit to an organization leading the campaign to undermine science education in America is troubling. Senator John McCain made a similar trip to a Discovery Institute event in February.
Perhaps the most worrying aspect of the parade of politicians pandering to the Discovery Institute is that the Institute's main financial backer, Howard Ahmanson, has a long history of attempting to undermine the separation of church and state. He spent 20 years on the board of the Chalcedon Foundation, an organization dedicated to replacing American civil law with "Biblical law."
That the head of the Justice Department decided to make a special visit to Ahmanson's current pet project raises deep concerns. Visit the DefCon blog for more information on Gonzalez's speech to the Discovery Institute.

Yet again, former administrators and health officials are coming forward to state that the Bush administration in 7 years has promoted wiping out scientific research in favor of bad, fundamentalist and religious approaches to complex problems.  Is there any better example that we should not want our country ruled by ideological zealots who cannot see past their limited world view?  I certainly don't want my kids' health determined by the narrow religious viewpoint of government officials bowing down to fundamental Christian thought.  If you believe these things, if you essentially want to believe the world if flat and we'd all be better off living in the 15th century, then by all means follow your path.  But leave the rest of the country alone.  These dangerous streams of un-scientific thought have no place in public policy or government.

Washington Times Article Here:

Former surgeon general Richard H. Carmona yesterday accused the Bush administration of muzzling him on sensitive public health issues, becoming the most prominent voice among several current and former federal science officials who have complained of political interference.

Carmona, a Bush nominee who served from 2002 to 2006, told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that political appointees in the administration routinely scrubbed his speeches for politically sensitive content and blocked him from speaking out on public health matters such as stem cell research, abstinence-only sex education and the emergency contraceptive Plan B.

"Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological, theological or political agenda is often ignored, marginalized or simply buried," he said. "The problem with this approach is that in public health, as in a democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds."

In one such case, Carmona, a former professor of surgery and public health at the University of Arizona, said he was told not to speak out during the national debate over whether the federal government should fund embryonic stem cell research, which President Bush opposes.

"Much of the discussion was being driven by theology, ideology, [and] preconceived beliefs that were scientifically incorrect," said Carmona, one of three former surgeons general who testified at yesterday's hearing. "I thought, 'This is a perfect example of the surgeon general being able to step forward, educate the American public.' . . . I was blocked at every turn. I was told the decision had already been made -- 'Stand down. Don't talk about it.' That information was removed from my speeches."

White House spokesman Tony Fratto rejected claims of political interference, saying Carmona had all the support he needed to carry out his mission. "As surgeon general, Dr. Carmona was given the authority and had the obligation to be the leading voice for the health of all Americans," Fratto said. "It's disappointing to us if he failed to use his position to the fullest extent in advocating for policies he thought were in the best interests of the nation."

Carmona said that when the administration touted funding for abstinence-only education, he was prevented from discussing research on the effectiveness of teaching about condoms as well as abstinence. "There was already a policy in place that did not want to hear the science but wanted to just preach abstinence, which I felt was scientifically incorrect," Carmona said.

Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), the House panel's chairman, called for Congress to take steps to insulate the office from political influence. "We shouldn't allow the surgeon general to be politicized," he said. "It is the doctor to the nation. That person needs to have credibility, independence and to speak about science."

Carmona, a former deputy sheriff in Arizona with expertise in emergency preparedness, came to the administration's attention because of his work helping local governments plan their response to terrorist attacks. A high school dropout and former Army Special Forces medic, Carmona eventually received undergraduate and medical degrees from the University of California at San Francisco.

He is the latest in a string of government employees to complain that ideology is trumping science in the Bush administration.

In January, the leader of the National Institutes of Health's task force on stem cells, Story Landis, said that because of the Bush policy -- which aims to protect three-day-old embryos -- the nation is "missing out on possible breakthroughs." And in March, NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni called the Bush policy "shortsighted."

Last year, NASA scientist James E. Hansen and other federal climate researchers said the Bush administration had made it hard for them to speak in a forthright manner about global warming. In 2005, Susan F. Wood, an assistant FDA commissioner and director of the agency's Office of Women's Health, resigned her post, citing her frustration with political interference that was delaying approval of over-the-counter sales of Plan B.

Bush claims executive privilege and the standoff between Congress and the Executive Office begins in earnest.  It seems Congress will press the issue but are the courts so stacked with political favor in Bush's lap that justice and law cannot be upheld?  Executive privilege is an interesting claim.  Executive privilege to avoid criminal and unconstitutional behavior reaching the public record.  The evidence is astounding and the on-the-record testimony of the individuals requested is of utmost import to the American public.  I can't help but think that 10 years down the road, history books will describe the Bush Administration as one of secrecy, hidden agendas, covert criminal activities and a complete disregard for the US Constitution that makes Richard Nixon look like a saint.

NY Times Article Here:

President Bush invoked a broad interpretation of executive privilege on Monday in his confrontation with Congress over the dismissal of federal prosecutors, refusing to comply with subpoenas for documents and blocking testimony from former White House aides.

Mr. Bush’s counsel, Fred F. Fielding, in a combative letter to the Democratic chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, said the White House and the two legislative panels had reached an impasse. The letter, which also said the White House would refuse to turn over materials explaining Mr. Bush’s legal claims, appeared to place the executive and legislative branches on a collision course.

Mr. Fielding wrote that Mr. Bush would not turn over any records related to the dismissals and that he had instructed Sara M. Taylor, the former White House political director, and Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel, to refuse to testify in hearings this week.

With Democratic lawmakers comparing President Bush’s stance to President Richard M. Nixon’s refusal to turn over evidence during Watergate, Congressional aides said they were going ahead with the hearings. Ms. Taylor has been summoned to appear on Wednesday before the Senate judiciary panel, and Ms. Miers is scheduled to appear on Thursday before the House one.

The Bush administration had offered to allow Ms. Taylor, Ms. Miers and other aides, like Karl Rove, the senior White House political adviser, to meet privately with the committees in informal sessions with no transcripts, but lawmakers have refused that arrangement.

Neither side has shown any willingness to back down. But several separate steps would be needed before the House or Senate could vote on a contempt measure to compel compliance with its subpoenas. Such a contempt citation could send the constitutional conflict into court.