Prairie Weather

Un-oil, compassion (remember "compassion"?), and hope. Oh, and decency. Welcome to 2006 of the Bush era. ¡Ole!

In a post, a few minutes ago, at the New York Times  a preview of el Presidente's discurso:

President Bush plans to tell Americans tonight that they must not retreat from challenges at home and abroad, that they make the economy of the United States the best in the world, but that they must break a national "addiction" to oil.

"In a complex and challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and invited, yet it ends in danger and decline," Mr. Bush says in his State of the Union address, according to excerpts issued in advance by the White House.

Right.  Next?

The president calls again for the United States to stay on the offensive in fighting terrorism, and to do so not just by military means but by "encouraging economic progress, fighting disease and spreading hope in hopeless lands."

That's Bush, not Bill Clinton, by the way.

The president, who is known to have gone through dozens of drafts of the speech with its writers, dwells on one of his favorite themes, what he has called the character and compassion of the American people. "Our greatness is not measured in power or luxuries, but by who we are and how we treat one another," he says. "So we strive to be a compassionate, decent, hopeful society."

Okay, Mr. P.  Y'all do it first.  Y'all start the new Bush era by being compassionate, decent, and hopeful.  Hear what I'm sayin'?  Be a leader.  Tell the truth, for god's sake. Be genuinely compassionate, decent, and hopeful, not the mean, lyin', cynical bastard you've been for five years.  That's what leadership means! You do it first.

Profits in the election machine subsidiary

Troubles today with Typepad and (separate problem) troubles with the satellite connection.  Even so, it's nice to get online with this headline:

Diebold reports 76 percent decline in fourth-quarter earnings

However, here's part of the breakdown:

Swidarski expressed optimism about the Diebold Election Systems subsidiary, which he formerly led. The voting machines segment has been criticized over concerns that the touch-screen machines can be hacked and votes changed.

"Many states and jurisdictions continue to see the benefits of electronic voting as evidenced by the way our equipment performed in the November 2005 election," Swidarski said.

Ohio has 41 counties that used Diebold touch-screen voting machines equipped with a voter verifiable paper audits for first time in November, he said. Diebold reported election systems revenue of $161.3 million in 2005, about 6 percent of overall Diebold sales but 79 percent better than the $90 million recorded in 2004. It projected election systems revenue of $100 million to $125 million in 2006.

What to do what to do

Paul Waldman has some very interesting things to say about a Dana Milbank article in the Washington Post dissing Democrats.  Definitely worth a read and we all enjoy the sharp little ouchies sent flying in Milbank's direction.  I particularly like Waldman's answer to what the Dems should do about all the flak they get in the media:

What should Democrats do? Do what Republicans do - consider the press your enemy. Understand that their only goal is to make you look bad. Don't give them what they want. And most of all, stop trying to please them. They have nothing but contempt for you, and that won't change until you start showing you're tough and win some elections.

Paul Waldman doesn't need huge variations in print size, but we do.  More on lolly-gagging, mommy-clutching, divided Dems later.  Meanwhile, let's start by referring to Dana Milbank as "she."

Is Bush back? ...thanks to Alito?

Steve Clemons thinks the ascension to the Supreme Court of Samuel Alito means that Bush's lame duck status ends.   I think that's far-fetched. (Or is it that I hope it's far-fetched.)  Seems more likely it's the last goody the Senate will hand Bush... ever.  We'll see.  Here's what Clemons writes today:

Alito will contribute to a vast expansion of Executive Power, and this will seriously harm our democracy. No one "owned" this battle in the progressive community, and those who rallied troops at the end were encouraged by the cynical electioneering stances of John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and others. I believe Ted Kennedy's opposition was real, as was Pat Leahy's -- but the machine against Alito should have been launched day one...

...Dems will rue the day that they let Alito pass; so will moderate Republicans; and so will independent-minded Americans who value our system of checks and balances. I think that there have been some real heroes doing their best against Alito -- but the Democratic establishment is still inchoate and without the backbone to fight consistently against the White House.

Quite unbelievably, Alito's win reverses the lame duck status of the Bush presidency, the night before the State of the Union address.

An honest accounting puts Bush back in the game with a lot of juice -- and Dems and Republican moderates have to figure out how to throw him off-balance again. It will take a while.

Missing testimony from domestic surveillance document

The following email just came in from the Project on Government Secrecy (FAS)'s director Steven Aftergood (emphases mine):

THE MYSTERY OF THE TWO JAMES BAKER STATEMENTS

In a 2002 statement presented to the Senate Intelligence Committee, James A. Baker of the Justice Department Office of Intelligence Policy and Review questioned the constitutionality and the necessity of a proposal by Senator Mike DeWine to lower the legal threshold for domestic intelligence surveillance of non-U.S. persons from "probable cause" to "reasonable suspicion."

But for yet unknown reasons, Mr. Baker's remarkable statement is found in two distinct versions.

"If we err in our analysis and courts were ultimately to find a 'reasonable suspicion' standard unconstitutional, we could potentially put at risk ongoing investigations and prosecutions," Mr. Baker said in the more expansive version of his statement.

Moreover, "If the current standard has not posed an obstacle, then there may be little to gain from the lower standard and, as I previously stated, perhaps much to lose."

Yet even as Mr. Baker was expressing concerns about lowering the probable cause threshold, the government was doing precisely that in the NSA domestic surveillance activity.

Baker's testimony was highlighted last week by blogger Glenn Greenwald and cited in the Washington PostNew York Times. Strangely, however, the testimony in which Mr. Baker presented those concerns cannot be found anywhere on the public record except for the Federation of American Scientists web site.

The testimony that is posted on the Senate Intelligence Committee web site does not contain the three paragraphs in which Mr. Baker questions the propriety of going beyond the probable cause standard as proposed by Senator DeWine.    

Likewise, only the truncated version of Mr. Baker's testimony was archived in the Nexis database and published by the Government Printing Office in its printed hearing record.

"I am going to check into this," a Justice Department official told Secrecy News on January 27.  "Maybe we can clear this mystery up."

No one has suggested that the FAS version of the Baker statement is inauthentic. In fact, an Associated Press story from the day of the hearing (July 31, 2002) includes this sentence: "Baker said the Justice Department is still reviewing that [DeWine] proposal and hasn't decided whether such a change would be needed or if it would be constitutional."

This sentence, by AP reporter Ken Guggenheim, does not correspond to anything in the truncated Baker statement or in his transcribed remarks at the hearing.  But it does reflect the contents of the full version of his statement that was posted on the FAS web site, indicating that the AP had the same document.

Citing Mr. Baker's testimony, Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked the Senate Intelligence Committee to investigate the apparent contradiction between his remarks and the conduct of the NSA surveillance program.

"I hope that the Committee's review of this entire matter will include inquiring whether the failure to brief the Committee as required by law was compounded by testimony which was at best misleading, and at worst, false," Sen. Feinstein wrote.

In a second letter, she noted the discrepancy between the Baker testimony on the FAS web site and the official Committee version.  "I do not know why the two transcripts are different, and I have asked my staff to investigate."

Both letters from Senator Feinstein are posted here.

And the FAS website is here.

Eleven billion. Thank god for Katrina.

Soaring energy prices lifted Exxon Mobil Corp.'s fourth-quarter profit to nearly $11 billion, leaving the world's biggest publicly traded oil company with a $36.13 billion profit in 2005 - a record in U.S. corporate history.

The results, reported Monday, rest on nearly $100 billion in sales, putting Exxon Mobil's fourth quarter on a par with New Zealand's economy for the full year. They also surpassed most analysts' already bullish forecasts in what has been a year of unparalleled profits for Big Oil.

The profits come at a time when U.S. consumers, complaining about price-gouging, have criticized Irving, Texas-based Exxon Mobil , among others, for not doing enough to develop new sources of fuel.

Let's not leave this day without noting that Exxon Mobil got lucky.  The "soaring energy prices" that "lifted" their profit sounds like the hand of god taking care of them.  But it doesn't work that way.  The prices at the pump that you and I paid came from their greed, not their good luck, unless you call a hurricane-driven oil worries and troubles in Nigeria good luck.

"There is a great deal of public interest in global energy prices," CEO Rex Tillerson said in a statement. "We recognize that consumers worldwide want and need reliable supplies of affordable energy -- to fuel their vehicles, light and heat their homes and run their businesses," he said. "Our strong financial results will continue to allow us to make significant, long-term investments required to do our part in meeting the world's energy needs."

Isn't Rex noble!  Of course "meeting the world's energy needs" also means price gouging making another spectacular god-given profit in coming quarters, don't it, Rex!  Let's put Exxon's profits in perspective:

Exxon Mobil's annual sales are worth more than the gross domestic products of countries such as Sweden, Taiwan and Indonesia and its cash reserve is more than enough to cover the entire foreign debt of the Philippines.