Prairie Weather

An evangelical changes his mind

Don't miss the latest interview.  Evangelical minister and former vice president of the National Association of Evangelicals, Richard Cizik was fired almost two years ago because of an interview he gave Terry Gross on "Fresh Air."  In that interview, Cizik told Terry that he supported civil unions -- not gay marriage but civil unions for gays. That was too much for the right wing evangelicals.

Cizik came back the other day for a follow-up talk on "Fresh Air" and reveals that, though he has stuck with his church, his faith, and his dedication to his work, his mind continues to open and change.  His appearance in '08  on "Fresh Air" and his subsequent firing by the National Association of Evangelicals has brought, he assures Terry, nothing but good.

Terry Gross:  From your point of view as an insider, how did the evangelical movement damage evangelical witness in American culture?

Rev. CIZIK: It damaged it because it became perceived by millions and millions of Americans as captive to a conservative ideology, not captive to Jesus or to the Gospel but captive to an ideology that has departed from, in so many ways, from historic evangelicalism.

And so the movement has always been susceptible to reactionary movements. It was born out of reaction to the liberal, 19th-century biblical criticism in biology in which evangelicals reacted against that and moved away.

And yet the new evangelicals, the new evangelicals of the early 20th century, they saw the fallacy of that kind of approach towards society. But, ah, after a number of decades, that kind of neo-evangelicalism that was founded by the National Association of Evangelicals, well, it's fallen back into the same kind of subservience to reactionary-ism.

And so evangelicalism is known today by what it's against, not what it's for. And we're trying to say: We're for these things. And among those is, you see, this command to first and foremost in everything, follow Jesus, not the Republican Party or Rush Limbaugh or anyone else, but to follow what the Gospel says.

TG: You mention the Republican Party and Rush Limbaugh. Do you think that some of the positions that evangelicals have been taking politically are to keep that alliance with the Republican Party and with powerful people with microphones like Rush Limbaugh?

Rev. CIZIK: Oh, of course. In other words, there are strong forces within evangelicalism against change. Alfred North Whitehead, excuse me for quoting him for those of you who don't like him, he said change is inevitable.

Well, it is, and yet these evangelicals aren't willing to change even with the times about anything, and they've wedded themselves to a conservative political ideology, and it's impacted their view on things such as climate change and all the rest.

BP buying up Gulf scientists

A report on NPR today goes into BP's continuing efforts to control scientists and other experts studying the oil spill.

NPR:  The BP oil spill is on its way to becoming the most massive tort litigation ever.  And as both sides "lawyer up," as they say, they're also trying to hire the best and brightest scientists to help make their case.  But, as NPR's Tovia Smith reports, that's raising concerns:

Smith:  As soon as the magnitude of the Gulf oil spill became clear, it was all hands on deck.

"This is the black mangrove.  Their distribution and range has expanded over the past 20 years in coastal Louisiana.  You wouldn't have seen this 20 years ago."

Smith:  For the months now, local scientists like LSU wetlands expert, Andy Nyman, have been out on Gulf waters advising the cleanup and measuring the damage. 

"Some of the carbon being photosynthesized by these marsh grasses today will be part of the menhaden that will end up in a piece of chicken that you cook on your stove."

Smith:  But there is growing concern that the best minds are being sidelined since they've signed on as paid consultants to BP. 

"Everybody's arming up for the big day in court."

Smith: Richard Shaw, director of Louisiana State University's Coastal Fisheries Institute, is one of many concerned that BP is buying up too much of the region's brain power. 

"You would think you'd want to bring all the intellectual resources to bear.  It's pretty frustrating."

Smith:  Shaw says he has not been approached by BP, but many colleagues have.

"I got a phone call from lawyers representing BP..."

Smith:  [That's] University of South Alabama Bob Shipp [who] says BP's lawyers tried to hire his whole department of marine sciences to do research for them.  Under the deal, the scientists could only discuss their results if BP said so.  Otherwise they'd have to keep it secret for three years.

"They wanted the oversight authority to keep us from publishing things if, for whatever reason, they didn't want them to be published.  People were muzzled as part of the contract. They were muzzled and certainly that's not something we can live with." 

Smith:  But other professors did accept BP offers -- at LSU, Texas A&M, and the University of Southern Mississippi.  After a blast of public criticism, however, the Mississippi professors had a change of heart and backed out.  They declined to comment.  It's touchy -- not just because of the academic integrity issue but also public opinion. 

"I am a little concerned about everyone hating me if I was working for BP, so..."

Smith:  LSU wetland's scholar, Andy Nyman, chose instead to work for a lawyer suing BP.  His deal calls only for expert testimony, not research, and he's not subject to any hush clause.  But Nyman says he can only surmise how many others are, either for BP or for the government agencies who will oppose them in court.

"I'm guessing, from the volume of people of people who are wetland experts that you do not hear from in the press right now, that everyone but me is locked in."

Smith:  BP declined BP to be interviewed for this report, but in a statement the company says its deals vary, from large, "no-strings-attached" grants to universities to "scientific experts for the purpose of litigation" that need to be confidential.

"It's the way things work. This happens every day, and no one should be surprised."

Smith:  Mark Davis, who heads Tulane Law School's Institute on Water Resources Law and Policy [says] in some ways BP is doing what other oil, tobacco and pharmaceutical companies have done in the past — hiring scientists to do research they want kept secret.  But in a case like this, Davis says, the public will pay a big price if BP can constrain the free flow of scientific data.

"When the best fishery scientists actually may have evidence that would work against you, but they're not able to present it to the other side or to the public, well then, you've essentially bought some silence."

Smith:  Attorney Robert Wiygul says, "It's a cagey legal strategy but I do think it's a problem from a public standpoint."  Wiygul represents businesses, fishermen, and environmental groups who are suing BP.  He says the public interest really depends on access to a relatively small pool of specialists.

"When you talk about the red snapper fishery or black mangrove swamps, there are maybe half a dozen people who fully understand those resources. There needs to be full exchange of data so that we can all understand what happened to these public resources."

Smith:  To many in academia, an underlying problem is the lack of other options for research.  Richard Shaw says universities have all but cut back and federal grant money has all but dried up.

"There's a bunch of frustration.  I mean, believe me.  All the scientists want to get out there and contribute, for crying out loud!  This is in our back yard.  So we're sitting there, chafing at the bit, trying to get into the mix."

Smith:  It only makes a lucrative offer like those from BP, Shaw says, all the more enticing.

The most basic problem for Democrats and America

Republicans have worked out a way of avoiding accountability.  Matthew Yglesias writes about the importance of ending abuse of the filibuster which has been used by Republicans in the Senate as a way of obstructing economic recovery and avoiding accountability.

The relatively recent arrival of the routine filibuster ... simply turns on its head the basic idea that voters should reward success and punish failure. Relatively few people follow the procedural wrangling on Capitol Hill in detail or have a particularly impressive knowledge of the issues. What people do know is their own lives and their own communities, and they have a tendency to re-elect incumbents who are making things better and throw out those who are making things worse.

What we have today, however, is a situation in which the lines of responsibility are completely obscured. Voters are angry at the Obama administration for failing to deliver a robust economic recovery -- and rightly so -- but relatively few of them realize that the administration's efforts to deliver additional economic boosts have been repeatedly stymied by a minority of senators. Similarly, the environmental community has been thrown into a maelstrom of recriminations and finger pointing, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has become the object of anger, over the failure of a climate bill that seems to have been supported by a majority of legislators in both houses. 

This breakdown of accountability has ill-served the progressive agenda over the past 18 months, but it has quite scary implications for the country as a whole. Economic performance is the main determinant of election outcomes. If political parties recognize that the smart play for the minority party at any given moment is to use its powers of obstructionism to attempt to deliberately spike economic performance, the implications for forward-looking growth are quite bleak.

Ultimately, a country governed in that manner won't survive very long. Which is why Republicans are almost certain to put a stop to filibustering whenever they happen to achieve control of the three branches of government. If Democrats have any sense, they won't let themselves get beaten to the punch and will act decisively in January 2011 to restore accountability and effective government. ...Matthew Yglesias

Booting Nancy Pelosi

The earlier blanket of self-confidence that the Republicans pulled around themselves seems to be falling away.  They're now talking about scenarios in which they don't win the House but manage to pull some Democrats into their power circle.  Deputy Republican whip Kevin McCarthy lays out the fallback position on CSpan.  His not-so-confident confidence is there for all to see . 

The Hill summarizes McCarthy's bluster.

Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the GOP's chief deputy whip and director of recruiting new candidates, suggested there are scenarios in which Republicans could still win the speakership -- or, at the very least, enjoy de facto control of the House -- even if they don't win the 39 seats needed to gain an outright majority.

"We need 39 seats. Take it, for instance, say we win 34," McCarthy said in an interview on C-SPAN's "Newsmakers" program, which is scheduled to air this weekend but was posted online Friday.

He suggested that if that happens, some Democrats might not support Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) as speaker, and may opt to vote with Republicans to pursue their priorities.

"Why would they want to keep her [Pelosi]? And why wouldn't they want to go with other people to be able to produce it?" McCarthy asked. "Why do you think that if we don't win 39, we still couldn't be able to get speaker?"

His musings suggest the GOP is looking at options to make now-House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) the speaker of the House by pursuing a coalition with Democrats.

Pelosi won the speakership the last two Congresses with unanimous support from the Democratic Caucus. But some members have suggested an openness to bucking the powerful speaker.

One commenter at the Hill rejoices at the prospect in part because it means reversing all progressive legislation and particularly the law which handed over gun control in the US to the United Nations.  Remember that law?

Republican backers accused of security fraud, tax evasion

The pictures of the Wyly brothers of Dallas painted by the media now are not very pretty.  Two very, very rich Texas brothers -- entrepreneurs and philanthropists -- are under scrutiny by the SEC for securities fraud and by the IRS  for tax evasion.  All on a fairly massive scale. 

Stories like these have a bitter edge for people who are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, people who are jobless and homeless, and many who believe they won't even get away with forgetting to dot an "i" on their tax forms.

In case you're not familiar with the Charles and Sam Wyly, here's a reminder from Robert Siegel and Peter Overby on NPR yesterday:

SIEGEL: The Wylys have an extensive and interesting history as political donors. What is the political side of the Wyly brothers?

OVERBY: Heavily Republican. They have given millions of dollars to Republican candidates and committees over the years. They were both big fundraisers for President George H.W. Bush. Charles was a fundraiser for President George W. Bush. They both gave dollars $10,000 to Swiftboat Veterans for Truth in the 2004 campaign attacking...

SIEGEL: The group that went after John Kerry.

In other words, a pair of charmers. 

Nailing the brothers may get complicated.  They've been under investigation by DOJ and the IRS for years.  And some Republicans began to return campaign contributions from the Wylys.  But prosecuting them gets complicated, according to a report in the Times.

Over a period of seven years, the S.E.C. contends, the two men transferred to the offshore companies options and warrants on millions of shares of Michaels Stores, Sterling Software and Sterling Commerce, companies they founded or controlled. The transfers were made in exchange for annuities that would pay out the value of the securities over time.

Such an arrangement would not be illegal if the trusts were operated independently of the Wylys. But the S.E.C. contends that the brothers directed all of the investment activity of the trusts and transferred proceeds from some transactions — which they characterized as loans — into their own bank accounts in the United States.

The trusts and offshore corporations individually owned small percentages of the shares of each company. But the S.E.C. also asserts that those trusts were in fact controlled by the Wylys, and therefore the aggregate holdings, which were 16 to 36 percent of the companies’ total shares, should have been disclosed.

Other legal scholars say that the S.E.C. could have trouble proving at least parts of its case. Jonathan R. Macey, a professor at Yale Law School who is not affiliated with the case but who was recommended as an insider-trading expert by the Wyly legal team, said he believed the insider trading portion of the S.E.C. charges rested on a novel and suspect legal theory.

“The question is whether it is possible to engage in insider trading when the information you are trading on is something that you thought up yourself,” Professor Macey said. “They had an idea to talk to other companies about a merger. It’s a pretty edgy notion.” ...

___

Whatever they're found to have done, the Wylys' case revolves around huge sums of money -- a grandeur of criminal intent on a different scale from the relatively petty grafting Charlie Rangel is accused of.  Nonetheless, letting Rangel off with a reprimand -- particularly after all the self-righteous brouhaha about the "swamp" -- seems to be a poor political move at best.

The panel that oversaw a two-year ethics inquiry into Representative Charles B. Rangel’s conduct recommended that the Harlem congressman be punished with a reprimand, rather than a more serious censure or expulsion from office, the chairman of the panel said Friday.

The recommendation appears to be carrying significant weight with the full 10-member House ethics committee, which will decide Mr. Rangel’s fate. On Friday, the full committee spent hours behind closed doors debating whether to agree to a settlement that would require the congressman, a Democrat, to admit to wrongdoing in exchange for receiving a reprimand and avoiding a public trial on his conduct.

But the full House has to make the final decision, not the Ethics Committee.  There is a suggestion that part of the deal may be Rangel's resignation.

Even some Democrats seemed to grow more uncomfortable with Mr. Rangel’s continued presence in the House. Since the charges were detailed, three Democratic members have called for him to step down, joining three members who had previously asked him to leave the House ....NYT

What a horror. Americans are saving more and ruining the economy.

Result:  economic growth has slowed down.

It's all our fault.

“We’re seeing a sort of handover from consumer spending to capital spending,” said John Ryding, chief economist at RDQ Economics. “The consumer also looks to have saved more than we thought before, which means they’re perhaps further on road to financial adjustment than we thought they were previously.”

Growth in consumer spending, which is usually a leading indicator of a recovery in part because it accounts for such a large share of the economy, has been leveling off. It grew at an annual rate of 1.6 percent in the second quarter, after an annual increase of 1.9 percent in the previous quarter. 

The personal savings rate in the second quarter was estimated to have been 6.2 percent of disposable income, significantly higher than the 4 percent that had been estimated.

Maybe we need to switch to an economy that doesn't depend entirely on consumer spending.  You know:  stuff like manufacturing and exporting well-made goods.  Meanwhile, the future is more greyish than rosy. 

“Given how weak the labor market is, how long we’ve been without real growth, the rest of this year is probably still going to feel like a recession,” said Prajakta Bhide, a research analyst for the United States economy at Roubini Global Economics. “It’s still positive growth — rather than contraction — but it’s going to be very, very protracted.”