Beheading the Hydra--Again
There is every reason to acknowledge with all haste that the Bush cabal is attempting to subvert, control, and censor the information we receive on a daily basis. In order to continue their apparent attempts to subvert American democracy, they will necessarily have to control the information we receive.
This is just common sense and should not be all that hard to acknowledge and accept as a Bush agenda.
The facts of the matter are before us on a daily basis, and no matter whether one is liberal, conservative, Republican, or Democrat, we all have the same love for our country and our liberty.
We must realize that depriving Americans of their freedoms is essential to whatever plan is at work in this (so-called) elected administration.
We must realize that not all Republicans are guilty of this treason, nor are all Democrats free from hidden agenda, and we must realize through the efforts of our honest and hard-working press that treasonous and criminal conspirators are as guilty of these acts as our press indicates.
That Tom Delay is now holding a seat on the subcommittee overseeing the Justice Department and consequently the current investigation and prosecution of Jack Abramoff is indication enough that this putsch will not stop their nefarious business just because they are discovered and outed by our press.
Time after time, when the press has reported on the questionable, criminal, and traitorous acts of this administration, those acts have continued.
This many-headed Hydra which is the current administration has a drive to continue to subvert the very fabric of American freedom and democracy that has never before been seen in this country.
We must wake up.
We must question every act that the Bush administration performs.
We must get this group of traitors out of office with all haste while we can still do so.
Every day that passes with the Bush administration in office is a further erosion of the principles of American democracy and freedom.
Any fool can see what is happening.
Why are we not crying out for immediate change?
____________________________________________________________________________
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCERhttp://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/258773_youngs09.htmlBe a careful media consumer
Thursday, February 9, 2006
JULIA A. YOUNGS P-I COLUMNIST
Warning -- the article you are about to read is biased.
Of course, we expect to find opinions on the Editorial page -- that's kind of the point. But the warning applies to every article you read. Yes, as you have long suspected, the media are biased. To the left? Yes. But also to the right. Communication does not occur in a socio-politico vacuum, and each of us runs it through our contextual filters.
Here in Seattle, we pride ourselves on being a well-informed, educated lot, and to a certain extent, that has been true. We read our papers, watch our newscasts and even catch a bit of NPR on the radio. But, beware: Our cultural value of "being informed" can no longer be maintained by using our old patterns.
News bias occurs in one of three ways: intentional misreporting, topic selection and spin. Obviously, the least subtle and least common is intentional misreporting. At least, we hope it is. Of course, the cynics among us often wonder if it is possible that Walter Cronkite truly believed that we lost the Tet offensive when he recorded his now infamous "We are Mired in Stalemate" report, or if CBS/Dan Rather actually believed the phony Bush service memos to be true for as long as he publicly asserted them so.
Topic selection is another form of bias: In its most flagrant form it is simply lack of coverage of those aspects of life contrary to a given position. Usually, however, it is much more subtle, and even unintentional. If it's not on the contextual radar, it may not get reported. For example, how many of us heard about Diwali on Nov. 1 last year? Not many, but it is very significant to the Hindus among us -- newsworthy, in fact. In the same way, unintentional ideological bias can creep into news reporting. Additionally, it is difficult to convincingly present an alternative viewpoint that you cannot fathom a rational person holding.
Finally there is the issue of content spin -- how something is reported. We all know Greg Nickels is mayor of Seattle but how many of us in our city of intellectual elitism know that Nickels never graduated from college? Still, spin can be unintentional as well. Perhaps Dan Rather did think, beyond all seeming common sense, that those memos were real. Perhaps The New York Times editors really did believe the staged missile photo to be legitimate. Of course, the cynical side will note that the old saying in journalism about stories that editors really want to run: "too good to check." And we wonder: Were these stories just too good to check?
Then of course, there is the issue of sensationalism -- embodied by the phrase "if it bleeds, it leads." Gore and drama have always caught our attention. Unfortunately in our present sound-bite culture, we often will not stick around if a piece is not relentless in its sensational presentation. For example, last week marked the end of a trial in Spokane, one that I had the opportunity to observe. The next day, I read the 405 words allocated by The Associated Press to summarize the almost four-week trial and its result. It's amazing that the article spent most of its few words on the three most sensational and inflammatory aspects of the case, and completely neglected to mention what the party's contentions actually were. Sensationalism sells but it doesn't necessarily inform.
So, if all media are biased, what's an enlightened news-media consumer to do? First, sigh in relief that we now have the resources to recognize and remedy the problem in relatively short order. Despite assertions to the contrary, the issue is not a new one. The phrase "yellow journalism" was coined in the late 19th century and biased journalism has been largely credited with our entry into the Spanish-American war. Even God has had troubles with faulty reporters -- Adam was not exactly unbiased in his reports on Garden of Eden activities.
Second, recognizing that all reports are biased, be careful in media consumption. If something strikes a passionate chord, pursue it. In modern times, mainstream media are merely a jumping-off point. Check facts, find background stories and consider why something is emphasized, or not. We may not be omniscient but we do have the Internet, and we have friends and libraries to show us how to use it.
The best tools that we have are critical thinking, and an open mind. We must always remember that our favorite sources may not be our best ones, even, or perhaps especially, if they think like us.
Julia Youngs is a Kirkland attorney, and can be reached by e-mail at juliayoungs@hotmail.com.
© 1998-2006 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
_________________________________________________________________________
February 9, 2006
Editorial
Censoring Truth
The Bush administration long ago secured a special place in history for the audacity with which it manipulates science to suit its political ends. But it set a new standard of cynicism when it allowed NASA's leading authority on global warming to be mugged by a 24-year-old presidential appointee who, quite apart from having no training on that issue, had inflated his résumé.
In early December, James Hansen, the space agency's top climate specialist, called for accelerated efforts to reduce industrial emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases linked to global warming. After his speech, he told Andrew C. Revkin of The Times, he was threatened with "dire consequences" if he continued to call for aggressive action.
This was not the first time Dr. Hansen had been rebuked by the Bush team, which has spent the better part of five years avoiding the issue of global warming. It was merely one piece of a larger pattern of deception and denial.
The administration has sought to influence the policy debate by muzzling the people who disagree with it or — as was the case with two major reports from the Environmental Protection Agency in 2002 and 2003 — editing out inconvenient truths or censoring them entirely.
In this case, the censor was George Deutsch, a functionary in NASA's public affairs office whose chief credential appears to have been his service with President Bush's re-election campaign and inaugural committee. On his résumé, Mr. Deutsch claimed a 2003 bachelor's degree in journalism from Texas A&M, but the university, alerted by a blogger, said that was not true. Mr. Deutsch has now resigned.
The shocker was not NASA's failure to vet Mr. Deutsch's credentials, but that this young politico with no qualifications was able to impose his ideology on other agency employees. At one point, he told a Web designer to add the word "theory" after every mention of the Big Bang.
As Dr. Hansen observed, Mr. Deutsch was only a "bit player" in the administration's dishonest game of politicizing science on issues like warming, birth control, forest policy and clean air. This from a president who promised in his State of the Union address to improve American competitiveness by spending more on science.
· Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
_____________________________________________________________
Senators Mull an Internet With Restrictions
by CELIA VIGGO WEXLER & DAWN HOLIAN
[posted online on February 8, 2006]
It may have been the first and last hearing the US Senate holds on Net neutrality--the principle that Internet users should be able to access any web content or use any applications they choose, without restrictions or limitations imposed by an Internet service provider. In the time it takes to watch Wedding Crashers, nine experts on Tuesday galloped through testimony before a handful of Senate Commerce Committee members in a hearing room packed with telecommunications and cable lobbyists.
The experts largely fell into two camps. Representatives of major telephone and cable companies and conservative academics urged government to get out of the way, encourage the growth of high-speed Internet networks and enable Internet system operators to "recoup their investments" without statutory or regulatory constraints. On the opposing side were the Internet "evangelists" and innovators who urged Congress to enact into law longstanding principles that preserve an open Internet where no company can restrict any individual's access to content or place barriers on any lawful application or activity.
Those representing telephone and cable companies promised that they would never--ever--interfere with the public's ability to access any lawful information on the Internet. Walter McCormick Jr., president of the United States Telecom Association (USTA), pledged, "We will not block, impair or degrade content, applications or services" that customers want to access. "Our culture, our history, our business has been focused for more than a century on connecting our customers with those they choose." He added that if a phone customer wants to call Sears, "We don't connect them with Macy's."
Unfortunately, the heads of the companies that the USTA represents have not been making the same promises. Indeed, Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota noted that the Washington Post story he had read on Tuesday "while eating my Cheerios" cited Verizon vice president John Thorne accusing Google of "enjoying a free lunch" at the expense of Verizon and other network builders.
"Verizon accused Google of freeloading," Dorgan said. "I've had both DSL and broadband from cable, and I've paid for [both of those services].... This is not a free lunch for any one of these content providers, to come into my home or the home of anyone in this country. The access lines are being paid for by the consumer."
Kyle McSlarrow, president of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, urged Congress to "let the marketplace develop, as it has, without government regulation." The cable companies he represents, he said, won't block access to content over the public Internet, but they do want the "ability to manage the network."
The USTA's McCormick stressed that Net neutrality "isn't a problem that Congress needs to address. Consumers expect Internet freedom. And if we don't provide it, then the consumer will choose to do business with someone else."
Google vice president and "Internet evangelist" Vinton Cerf disagreed. "There is not enough competition" for high-speed Internet, Cerf said, noting that only 53 percent of Americans have any choice among broadband service providers and that 19 percent of Americans have no access to high-speed Internet.
In an argument that some senators seemed to have difficulty following, Cerf, Stanford Law School professor and open-access guru Lawrence Lessig, and Vonage head Jeffrey Citron argued that one could not assume the continued existence of the freewheeling Internet that fosters innovation. That is because the FCC changed the rules, upending a forty-year commitment to open access and nondiscrimination. That decades-old commitment made it possible for "innovation without permission" and the development of the World Wide Web, Yahoo, Google and Amazon, Cerf said.
Those policies were altered in 2002, noted Lessig, when the FCC changed how it would regulate Internet service providers. Companies that built and maintained the Internet pipes had been regulated like telephone companies, and they were not permitted to discriminate among content providers or Internet applications.
Under the FCC's current regulatory regime, these old constraints are gone. That leaves the door open for companies like Verizon and AT&T to drastically change the rules, hogging bandwidth for their own products, like the films and games they'd like to sell to subscribers, and charging other content providers a premium for quality access to their customers, leaving little space for other content and applications. "The only companies that could afford to buy access to the fast lanes on the Internet...are companies that already have succeeded in the marketplace," Lessig said. "The next generation of Yahoos and Googles...would face barriers to entry."
"At the root, the network neutrality debate is about who will control innovation and competition on the Internet," Citron added. "Imagine if the electric company could dictate which television or toaster you could plug into the wall.... What would happen tomorrow if one of the network operators decided to block Google, Vonage, Yahoo or Amazon? What would be the legal recourse?... There is nothing in the statute or regulation today that protects consumers or Internet application providers from potential network discrimination."
Republican Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, chair of the Commerce Committee, called Net neutrality "one of the most difficult but important" issues on his committee's plate. Tuesday's hearing was one of thirteen on various aspects of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which Congress will rewrite in the next year or two. What wasn't clear is to what extent Stevens and his committee will revisit Net neutrality. At the end of the hearing, Stevens thanked the participants for coming a long way and having so little time to speak their piece. One hopes that for all our sakes, Stevens and his committee find the time to contemplate the implications of what they do or fail to do as they legislate the future of the Internet.
This article can be found on the web at http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060220/wexler
___________________________________________________________________________________
DeLay Lands Coveted Appropriations Spot
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press WriterWed Feb 8, 5:39 PM ET
Indicted Rep. Tom DeLay, forced to step down as the No. 2 Republican in the House, scored a soft landing Wednesday as GOP leaders rewarded him with a coveted seat on the Appropriations Committee.
DeLay, R-Texas, also claimed a seat on the subcommittee overseeing the Justice Department, which is currently investigating an influence-peddling scandal involving disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his dealings with lawmakers. The subcommittee also has responsibility over NASA — a top priority for DeLay, since the Johnson Space Center is located in his Houston-area district.
"Allowing Tom DeLay to sit on a committee in charge of giving out money is like putting Michael Brown back in charge of FEMA — Republicans in Congress just can't seem to resist standing by their man," said Bill Burton, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
GOP leaders also named California Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon as chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee. Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, vacated that post after winning a campaign to replace DeLay.
McKeon is a seven-term conservative who has a generally good relationship with educators. He authored a 2001 law to remove disincentives for workers who would have lost part of their Social Security benefits when switching jobs to become public school teachers.
DeLay was able to rejoin the powerful Appropriations panel — he was a member until becoming majority leader in 2003 — because of a vacancy created after the resignation of Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif. Cunningham pleaded guilty in November to charges relating to accepting $2.4 million in bribes for government business and other favors.
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press.
This is just common sense and should not be all that hard to acknowledge and accept as a Bush agenda.
The facts of the matter are before us on a daily basis, and no matter whether one is liberal, conservative, Republican, or Democrat, we all have the same love for our country and our liberty.
We must realize that depriving Americans of their freedoms is essential to whatever plan is at work in this (so-called) elected administration.
We must realize that not all Republicans are guilty of this treason, nor are all Democrats free from hidden agenda, and we must realize through the efforts of our honest and hard-working press that treasonous and criminal conspirators are as guilty of these acts as our press indicates.
That Tom Delay is now holding a seat on the subcommittee overseeing the Justice Department and consequently the current investigation and prosecution of Jack Abramoff is indication enough that this putsch will not stop their nefarious business just because they are discovered and outed by our press.
Time after time, when the press has reported on the questionable, criminal, and traitorous acts of this administration, those acts have continued.
This many-headed Hydra which is the current administration has a drive to continue to subvert the very fabric of American freedom and democracy that has never before been seen in this country.
We must wake up.
We must question every act that the Bush administration performs.
We must get this group of traitors out of office with all haste while we can still do so.
Every day that passes with the Bush administration in office is a further erosion of the principles of American democracy and freedom.
Any fool can see what is happening.
Why are we not crying out for immediate change?
____________________________________________________________________________
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCERhttp://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/258773_youngs09.htmlBe a careful media consumer
Thursday, February 9, 2006
JULIA A. YOUNGS P-I COLUMNIST
Warning -- the article you are about to read is biased.
Of course, we expect to find opinions on the Editorial page -- that's kind of the point. But the warning applies to every article you read. Yes, as you have long suspected, the media are biased. To the left? Yes. But also to the right. Communication does not occur in a socio-politico vacuum, and each of us runs it through our contextual filters.
Here in Seattle, we pride ourselves on being a well-informed, educated lot, and to a certain extent, that has been true. We read our papers, watch our newscasts and even catch a bit of NPR on the radio. But, beware: Our cultural value of "being informed" can no longer be maintained by using our old patterns.
News bias occurs in one of three ways: intentional misreporting, topic selection and spin. Obviously, the least subtle and least common is intentional misreporting. At least, we hope it is. Of course, the cynics among us often wonder if it is possible that Walter Cronkite truly believed that we lost the Tet offensive when he recorded his now infamous "We are Mired in Stalemate" report, or if CBS/Dan Rather actually believed the phony Bush service memos to be true for as long as he publicly asserted them so.
Topic selection is another form of bias: In its most flagrant form it is simply lack of coverage of those aspects of life contrary to a given position. Usually, however, it is much more subtle, and even unintentional. If it's not on the contextual radar, it may not get reported. For example, how many of us heard about Diwali on Nov. 1 last year? Not many, but it is very significant to the Hindus among us -- newsworthy, in fact. In the same way, unintentional ideological bias can creep into news reporting. Additionally, it is difficult to convincingly present an alternative viewpoint that you cannot fathom a rational person holding.
Finally there is the issue of content spin -- how something is reported. We all know Greg Nickels is mayor of Seattle but how many of us in our city of intellectual elitism know that Nickels never graduated from college? Still, spin can be unintentional as well. Perhaps Dan Rather did think, beyond all seeming common sense, that those memos were real. Perhaps The New York Times editors really did believe the staged missile photo to be legitimate. Of course, the cynical side will note that the old saying in journalism about stories that editors really want to run: "too good to check." And we wonder: Were these stories just too good to check?
Then of course, there is the issue of sensationalism -- embodied by the phrase "if it bleeds, it leads." Gore and drama have always caught our attention. Unfortunately in our present sound-bite culture, we often will not stick around if a piece is not relentless in its sensational presentation. For example, last week marked the end of a trial in Spokane, one that I had the opportunity to observe. The next day, I read the 405 words allocated by The Associated Press to summarize the almost four-week trial and its result. It's amazing that the article spent most of its few words on the three most sensational and inflammatory aspects of the case, and completely neglected to mention what the party's contentions actually were. Sensationalism sells but it doesn't necessarily inform.
So, if all media are biased, what's an enlightened news-media consumer to do? First, sigh in relief that we now have the resources to recognize and remedy the problem in relatively short order. Despite assertions to the contrary, the issue is not a new one. The phrase "yellow journalism" was coined in the late 19th century and biased journalism has been largely credited with our entry into the Spanish-American war. Even God has had troubles with faulty reporters -- Adam was not exactly unbiased in his reports on Garden of Eden activities.
Second, recognizing that all reports are biased, be careful in media consumption. If something strikes a passionate chord, pursue it. In modern times, mainstream media are merely a jumping-off point. Check facts, find background stories and consider why something is emphasized, or not. We may not be omniscient but we do have the Internet, and we have friends and libraries to show us how to use it.
The best tools that we have are critical thinking, and an open mind. We must always remember that our favorite sources may not be our best ones, even, or perhaps especially, if they think like us.
Julia Youngs is a Kirkland attorney, and can be reached by e-mail at juliayoungs@hotmail.com.
© 1998-2006 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
_________________________________________________________________________
February 9, 2006
Editorial
Censoring Truth
The Bush administration long ago secured a special place in history for the audacity with which it manipulates science to suit its political ends. But it set a new standard of cynicism when it allowed NASA's leading authority on global warming to be mugged by a 24-year-old presidential appointee who, quite apart from having no training on that issue, had inflated his résumé.
In early December, James Hansen, the space agency's top climate specialist, called for accelerated efforts to reduce industrial emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases linked to global warming. After his speech, he told Andrew C. Revkin of The Times, he was threatened with "dire consequences" if he continued to call for aggressive action.
This was not the first time Dr. Hansen had been rebuked by the Bush team, which has spent the better part of five years avoiding the issue of global warming. It was merely one piece of a larger pattern of deception and denial.
The administration has sought to influence the policy debate by muzzling the people who disagree with it or — as was the case with two major reports from the Environmental Protection Agency in 2002 and 2003 — editing out inconvenient truths or censoring them entirely.
In this case, the censor was George Deutsch, a functionary in NASA's public affairs office whose chief credential appears to have been his service with President Bush's re-election campaign and inaugural committee. On his résumé, Mr. Deutsch claimed a 2003 bachelor's degree in journalism from Texas A&M, but the university, alerted by a blogger, said that was not true. Mr. Deutsch has now resigned.
The shocker was not NASA's failure to vet Mr. Deutsch's credentials, but that this young politico with no qualifications was able to impose his ideology on other agency employees. At one point, he told a Web designer to add the word "theory" after every mention of the Big Bang.
As Dr. Hansen observed, Mr. Deutsch was only a "bit player" in the administration's dishonest game of politicizing science on issues like warming, birth control, forest policy and clean air. This from a president who promised in his State of the Union address to improve American competitiveness by spending more on science.
· Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
_____________________________________________________________
Senators Mull an Internet With Restrictions
by CELIA VIGGO WEXLER & DAWN HOLIAN
[posted online on February 8, 2006]
It may have been the first and last hearing the US Senate holds on Net neutrality--the principle that Internet users should be able to access any web content or use any applications they choose, without restrictions or limitations imposed by an Internet service provider. In the time it takes to watch Wedding Crashers, nine experts on Tuesday galloped through testimony before a handful of Senate Commerce Committee members in a hearing room packed with telecommunications and cable lobbyists.
The experts largely fell into two camps. Representatives of major telephone and cable companies and conservative academics urged government to get out of the way, encourage the growth of high-speed Internet networks and enable Internet system operators to "recoup their investments" without statutory or regulatory constraints. On the opposing side were the Internet "evangelists" and innovators who urged Congress to enact into law longstanding principles that preserve an open Internet where no company can restrict any individual's access to content or place barriers on any lawful application or activity.
Those representing telephone and cable companies promised that they would never--ever--interfere with the public's ability to access any lawful information on the Internet. Walter McCormick Jr., president of the United States Telecom Association (USTA), pledged, "We will not block, impair or degrade content, applications or services" that customers want to access. "Our culture, our history, our business has been focused for more than a century on connecting our customers with those they choose." He added that if a phone customer wants to call Sears, "We don't connect them with Macy's."
Unfortunately, the heads of the companies that the USTA represents have not been making the same promises. Indeed, Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota noted that the Washington Post story he had read on Tuesday "while eating my Cheerios" cited Verizon vice president John Thorne accusing Google of "enjoying a free lunch" at the expense of Verizon and other network builders.
"Verizon accused Google of freeloading," Dorgan said. "I've had both DSL and broadband from cable, and I've paid for [both of those services].... This is not a free lunch for any one of these content providers, to come into my home or the home of anyone in this country. The access lines are being paid for by the consumer."
Kyle McSlarrow, president of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, urged Congress to "let the marketplace develop, as it has, without government regulation." The cable companies he represents, he said, won't block access to content over the public Internet, but they do want the "ability to manage the network."
The USTA's McCormick stressed that Net neutrality "isn't a problem that Congress needs to address. Consumers expect Internet freedom. And if we don't provide it, then the consumer will choose to do business with someone else."
Google vice president and "Internet evangelist" Vinton Cerf disagreed. "There is not enough competition" for high-speed Internet, Cerf said, noting that only 53 percent of Americans have any choice among broadband service providers and that 19 percent of Americans have no access to high-speed Internet.
In an argument that some senators seemed to have difficulty following, Cerf, Stanford Law School professor and open-access guru Lawrence Lessig, and Vonage head Jeffrey Citron argued that one could not assume the continued existence of the freewheeling Internet that fosters innovation. That is because the FCC changed the rules, upending a forty-year commitment to open access and nondiscrimination. That decades-old commitment made it possible for "innovation without permission" and the development of the World Wide Web, Yahoo, Google and Amazon, Cerf said.
Those policies were altered in 2002, noted Lessig, when the FCC changed how it would regulate Internet service providers. Companies that built and maintained the Internet pipes had been regulated like telephone companies, and they were not permitted to discriminate among content providers or Internet applications.
Under the FCC's current regulatory regime, these old constraints are gone. That leaves the door open for companies like Verizon and AT&T to drastically change the rules, hogging bandwidth for their own products, like the films and games they'd like to sell to subscribers, and charging other content providers a premium for quality access to their customers, leaving little space for other content and applications. "The only companies that could afford to buy access to the fast lanes on the Internet...are companies that already have succeeded in the marketplace," Lessig said. "The next generation of Yahoos and Googles...would face barriers to entry."
"At the root, the network neutrality debate is about who will control innovation and competition on the Internet," Citron added. "Imagine if the electric company could dictate which television or toaster you could plug into the wall.... What would happen tomorrow if one of the network operators decided to block Google, Vonage, Yahoo or Amazon? What would be the legal recourse?... There is nothing in the statute or regulation today that protects consumers or Internet application providers from potential network discrimination."
Republican Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, chair of the Commerce Committee, called Net neutrality "one of the most difficult but important" issues on his committee's plate. Tuesday's hearing was one of thirteen on various aspects of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which Congress will rewrite in the next year or two. What wasn't clear is to what extent Stevens and his committee will revisit Net neutrality. At the end of the hearing, Stevens thanked the participants for coming a long way and having so little time to speak their piece. One hopes that for all our sakes, Stevens and his committee find the time to contemplate the implications of what they do or fail to do as they legislate the future of the Internet.
This article can be found on the web at http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060220/wexler
___________________________________________________________________________________
DeLay Lands Coveted Appropriations Spot
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press WriterWed Feb 8, 5:39 PM ET
Indicted Rep. Tom DeLay, forced to step down as the No. 2 Republican in the House, scored a soft landing Wednesday as GOP leaders rewarded him with a coveted seat on the Appropriations Committee.
DeLay, R-Texas, also claimed a seat on the subcommittee overseeing the Justice Department, which is currently investigating an influence-peddling scandal involving disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his dealings with lawmakers. The subcommittee also has responsibility over NASA — a top priority for DeLay, since the Johnson Space Center is located in his Houston-area district.
"Allowing Tom DeLay to sit on a committee in charge of giving out money is like putting Michael Brown back in charge of FEMA — Republicans in Congress just can't seem to resist standing by their man," said Bill Burton, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
GOP leaders also named California Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon as chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee. Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, vacated that post after winning a campaign to replace DeLay.
McKeon is a seven-term conservative who has a generally good relationship with educators. He authored a 2001 law to remove disincentives for workers who would have lost part of their Social Security benefits when switching jobs to become public school teachers.
DeLay was able to rejoin the powerful Appropriations panel — he was a member until becoming majority leader in 2003 — because of a vacancy created after the resignation of Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif. Cunningham pleaded guilty in November to charges relating to accepting $2.4 million in bribes for government business and other favors.
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press.
posted by FancyRage at 1:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home