Search Results for: ’

After years of fawning coverage in local media, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was backpedaling last week. It had help.

The reason was a two-part investigative story by the Los Angeles Times, begun on Sunday, 1-7-07, and reprinted on the front page of the Seattle Times, which reported that

“…the Gates Foundation has holdings in many companies that have failed tests of social responsibility because of environmental lapses, employment discrimination, disregard for worker rights, or unethical practices…. hundreds of Gates Foundation investments – totaling at least 41% of its assets – have been in companies that countered the foundation’s charitable goals or socially concerned philosophy.”

The practices of many of those companies, we learned, “are hurting many of the people its grants aim to help….”

The high-powered local executives running the world’s largest charitable organization, with some $70 billion or more in existing or pledged assets, might not have paid much attention to bad ethical investing. But they act quickly when bad publicity strikes. Wednesday, in an exclusive interview, we learned in the Seattle Times that:

“The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is planning a systematic review of its investments to determine whether it should pull its money out of companies that are doing harm to society…”

So far, so good. Only one problem: the Seattle Times pulled a major punch. It made no mention of one of the major threads of the L.A. Times stories:

“…investing in destructive or unethical companies is not what is most harmful….Worse is investing purely for profit, without attempting to improve a company’s way of operating.”

Gates, in responding to the bad publicity, made no mention of whether it would join the movement in American philanthropy to push companies to change their business practices. By their silence, we could presume the foundation would continue to keep its highly influential hands off the companies it invested in. And the Seattle Times let Gates get away with it.

And, it turns out, there was another problem: talk is cheap, and, it quietly emerged, fully retractable. Two days after that, on Friday, the web site NewsCloud.com broke a story bluntly headlined “Gates Foundation Revokes Pledge to Review Portfolio.” Our beneficent local philanthropists got their message out, and then changed it. Or, as NewsCloud put it:

“Shortly after that [Seattle Times] interview, the Gates Foundation took down their public statement on this [from their web site] and replaced it with a significantly altered version which seems to say that investing responsibly would just be too complex for them and that they need to focus on their core mission: ‘There are dozens of factors that could be considered, almost all of which are outside the foundation’s areas of expertise.’…”

The Seattle Times, however, was not done making up for the error of its ways. Yesterday, our local apologist for all things Bill Gates featured what seemed to be something like an official’s makeup call in sports: a makeup feature for having reprinted the L.A. Times expose the previous Sunday. Sympathetically titled “Gates Foundation faces multibillion-dollar dilemma,” the article literally let our heroes have it both ways:

“As the Gates Foundation embarks upon a review of how its $32 billion endowment is invested, officials insist they won’t change their basic investment philosophy.”

Aside from greatly understating the Gates’ endowment, this sentence raises a rather basic dilemma of its own: what’s the point of “a systematic review of investments” if foundation officials “won’t change their basic investment philosophy”?

Let’s review, then: caught in a well-researched investigative piece, published by one of the nation’s most prominent newspapers, that looked (and was) really bad, a beloved local institution scrambles to put a good face on things. It announces this good face through the ever-pliant hometown paper, which already has probably fired an editor or two for reprinting the expose in the first place. It then promptly issues a meek, Gilda Radneresque “Never mind!,” which our local paper utterly ignores in a makeup feature devoted to those hard, hard, hard choices wealthy philanthropists must sometimes make.

What we have, then, is a massive investment firm (embedded in a multi-billion dollar philanthropy) smoothly reassuring the public while changing its odious practices not a whit; and the hometown paper first publicizing the odious practices and then, obediently, helping make it all right and sunshiney again.

The only losers are the millions of people around the globe victimized by the practices of firms invested in by the Gates Foundation; and local news consumers who think that the Seattle Times, for once, cast an unfettered, critical eye on a feelgood local institution. In both cases, it’s bad news.

In writing about the Black Rock project it wasn’t really my intent to trash the notion of a new Yakima basin reservoir. Mainly, I saw the $2 billion miscalculation as an opportunity to chide Eastern Washington voters for constantly complaining about tax dollars flowing East to West (they don’t) when in fact the irrigation, electrification and transportation infrastructure that makes their economy possible was large built courtesy of huge state and federal subsidies.

I understand the imperative to maintain the Yakima region as a productive agricultural center in the face of the increasing strain placed on the water supply by climate change and population growth, so I don’t want to dwell on the negative side of this project without sufficiently educating myself on the details. But an astute observation by HA regular Roger Rabbit deserves broader consideration. In the comment thread Roger asks what should have been an obvious question: “Is Black Rock a Perpetual Motion Machine?”

One of the alleged “benefits” touted by Black Rock promoters is hydroelectric generation. Apart from the 600% error in calculating power sales, let’s examine where the water that generates the power will come from in the first place.

It will be pumped UP to Black Rock Reservoir, elevation 1778 feet, from Priest Rapids Dam, elevation 390 feet. Then it will flow through turbines at Black Rock dam and into the Yakima River, which flows into the Columbia River below McNary Dam, elevation 340 feet.

Someone please explain how you get net power generation from pumping the water that generates the power uphill in order to generate the power? Are these folks saying the water in Black Rock Reservoir will generate more power than is consumed getting the water up there?

[…] When they talk about Black Rock hydropower generation, all they’re talking about is recapturing a small percentage of the energy that was used to get the water up to the reservoir.

The Yakima Basin Storage Alliance originally touted revenue from power generation at $2.4 billion over forty years, but after discovering a calculation error, revised that figure downwards to only $412 million. But if the Black Rock Reservoir sits at a higher elevation than its source, then any power generated by Black Rock’s turbines could only amount to a fraction of the power it takes to pump the water into the reservoir in the first place. Indeed, the Bureau of Reclamation estimates the annual energy costs alone for operating the pumps at $62 million — that’s $2.48 billion over the same forty year period. (I asked my 9-year-old daughter, and she assures me that $412 million is indeed less than $2.48 billion.)

But this post isn’t really about math. It’s about honesty.

Understand that whatever their accuracy, the YBSA’s power revenue projections were put forth within the context of a discussion over recouping the estimated $4.2 billion cost of construction. But since the laws of physics dictate that it will take more energy to pump the water into the reservoir ($62 million annually) than could possibly be generated drawing the water out ($10.1 million annually,) any discussion of energy “benefits” within this context is entirely bogus. And always has been.

Yet it took the sometimes rabid Roger Rabbit to do the minimal legwork necessary to dispel the YBSA’s misinformation — legwork that consisted of little more than browsing the source documents and applying a little logic. For even after the YBSA admitted a 600 percent miscalculation, the journalists covering this story never bothered to challenge the underlying assumption that energy revenues could be used to offset the cost of construction.

I thank my friends in the legacy media for calling this story to my attention. But chalk one up for the blogosphere for setting the record straight.

Earlier today you may have seen the post by Rep. Adam Smith, in which he explains his reasoning for opposing escalation in Iraq:

After the meeting I considered the President’s argument and reviewed the available information, including the Iraq Study Group report. In the end, even though I gave the President’s argument due consideration, I don’t find it persuasive. A troop surge is not the answer in Iraq.

But the big question is whether or not Rep. Smith is willing to use Congress’ constitutional power of the purse to limit the President’s ability to send additional troops to Iraq. [See the update below]

I don’t want to put the troops in a political fight between Congress and the President, and Congress should carefully consider the consequences of any attempts to block funds for a surge. We cannot put our forces in Iraq at greater risk. But a troop surge is not the answer in Iraq.

But Congressman, it is the President who has put the troops in this fight between himself and Congress! Let’s be clear: Democrats should fund the troops who are currently engaged, but not a single soldier more. Let’s draw a line in the sand. I think the working class folks of the 9th District would appreciate a congressman who sticks up (and always has, I might add) for the grunts who could be shipped out in a “surge.” Let’s make sure Rep. Adam Smith knows we’ve got his back on this!

Speaking of ‘speaking out,’ I’m seeing a trend starting to work its way around the blogosphere. Lefties are flying off the handle at perceived slights and sins of omission. Like this:

Our Senators have been remarkably quiet about Iraq for a long time. Until lately, Iraq wasn’t even on Patty Murray’s website. They’re doing better lately, but I was disappointed that they had no thoughts about the most important issue facing the country.
Did I miss something? I thought the Republicans were supposed to come up with right wing ideas, and Democrats were supposed to come up with left wing ideas. Instead, Murray and Cantwell are letting Bush and Cheney do all the thinking (no, I can’t read that with a straight face either). They are content to respond.

I’m getting worn out with folks runnin’ off half-cocked, with goofy ideas about exactly what senators and congressfolk ought to say and when they ought to say it. Senators Murray and Cantwell have some power to wield. Attention Democrats!! We’ve got power now!! This means it doesn’t matter what they say so much as what they do. As Kos says, just because Murray and Cantwell aren’t angrily denoucing Bush’s plan before he releases it doesn’t mean they’re not ready for a fight.

And in this fight, even the soldiers are with us.

UPDATE:

Rep. Adam Smith was on KUOW today and said it was “appropriate to place limits” on the President regarding the increase of troop levels. He’s open to the idea, but is concerned that it might not be possible. He wants to make sure such a move doesn’t hurt the troops, which is his first concern (as it should be).

Rep. Adam Smith / Guest post:

Yesterday several of my colleagues and I met with President Bush and senior members of the Administration to discuss his plans for a “troop surge”. The meeting included the Vice President, Secretary Rice, Secretary Gates, and Karl Rove. Other members of Congress present included Representatives Skelton, Harman, Edwards, Reyes, Lantos, Dicks, and Berman.

I went to the meeting highly skeptical that escalating our troop presence in Iraq by approximately 20,000 personnel is the right answer in Iraq. I hoped to learn more about the administration’s thinking and to ask tough questions about his rationale. The President and his advisors laid out a plan to use a troop surge to support an Iraqi-led effort to “clear and hold” areas of Baghdad to help restore credibility for the Iraq government. They are obviously committed to their plan, but it was clear that they understand the hole they are in. There was no swagger – but it remains to be seen if they truly listen to Congress and to the American people who have deep and justified concerns about such an escalation.

After the meeting I considered the President’s argument and reviewed the available information, including the Iraq Study Group report. In the end, even though I gave the President’s argument due consideration, I don’t find it persuasive. A troop surge is not the answer in Iraq.

I’m concerned that the President continues to view this as a military problem, not a political problem. We have tried troop increases in Baghdad before with very limited results. We need to see from the Administration a real commitment to a broader diplomatic and political effort if we are to have any sense of minimal stability in Iraq. So far, the Administration has talked about such efforts, but not backed them up with resources and action. We simply cannot afford more of the same.

We also have to keep in mind that the global war on terror is exactly that: global. How does our commitment in Iraq affect our ability to prosecute the wider war? As I said yesterday in an interview, the recent air strikes against al-Qaeda targets in Somalia are a reminder that Iraq does not constitute the entire war on terror, and we have to remember that the battle in Iraq does not necessarily determine success or failure in the broader struggle.

In the weeks ahead, I’ll have the opportunity to participate in Armed Services Committee hearings, especially in the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities (which I will chair) to more fully examine the President’s plan.

I don’t want to put the troops in a political fight between Congress and the President, and Congress should carefully consider the consequences of any attempts to block funds for a surge. We cannot put our forces in Iraq at greater risk. But a troop surge is not the answer in Iraq.

Rep. Adam Smith
[Rep. Smith is a Democrat, representing Washington’s 9th Congressional District]

Some folks like to knock Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Seattle) for not being like other congressmen, for not being a log-roller or a guy who “brings home the bacon.” The guy is very vocal on Iraq, and does lots of good work on Africa, and pushes a good healthcare plan that will likely never become law, but he doesn’t do things the same way some of his colleagues do them. Some folks (Josh Feit, Joel Connelly and, uh, me) have mused openly about how we’d like to see the guy retire sometime soon in favor of some new blood.

With all of this taken into account, I come across this at Postman:

Congressman Jim McDermott was on his way to an “Open House to Celebrate the People’s House” this morning to celebrate the new Democratic majority and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s ascension.

But he also had some business to do. He was looking to corner Pelosi or Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., to lobby to get 2nd District Rep. Rick Larsen a permanent seat on the Agriculture Committee.

Just then Miller walked by on his way into the Cannon Caucus Room. Or tried to. McDermott grabbed him, pulled out some notes, and gave Miller the pitch: Larsen would be the only Northwest representative on the committee and he’s a good guy doing a good job.
Miller said he’d do what he could. And that was good enough for McDermott. “If you want to make sure Nancy hears it, tell George,” he said.

Fuckin’ nice! A liberal guy like McDermott doing what he can to help out a super centrist like Larsen, that’s class. What’s so great about this move? Rep. Rick Larsen represents the only district west of the Cascades that has lots of agricultural business. This means he’s Washington’s only Democrat to represent agriculture in Washington D.C. This will do good things for Larsen as far as keeping the GOP out of the 2nd District, which also happens to be (I heard this somewhere, correct me if I’m wrong) the only Democratic-held district in WA that is actually trending towards the GOP.

If Jim shows he’s playing the game this well in the majority, we’ll just have to postpone that retirement party.

Note: Jim! Come to Drinking Liberally when you’re back in town! We want war stories!

On Saturday I documented some ways that the Special Iraqi Criminal Tribunal—the extra-judicial Tribunal under which Saddam Hussein was convicted—was a sham. The root of the problem is that the U.S., while acting as an occupying power, needed to create the Tribunal for ideological reasons: to avoid the International Criminal Court so despised by Bush, and to ensure that capital punishment would be on the menu. The Tribunal was a sham in numerous ways:

1. The Tribunal was created by an occupying power, which is prohibited by long-standing treaties and conventions
2. The Tribunal’s process was an American style adversary-accusatorial system rather than an Iraqi style inquisitorial system (modeled after French law)
3. The Tribunal’s charges were in violation of the nullum crimen legal principle (and Article 19 of the Iraqi Constitution)
4. The implementation of the tribunal included numerous procedural flaws like an indictment issued seven months into the trial

My point wasn’t to defend Hussein. Rather, I argued that the U.S. and Iraqis, in prosecuting a dictator for his abuse of judicial power, should have taken the moral and legal high ground, and set an example for the world of good democracy. The prosecution of Hussein should have been unimpeachable—not for Hussein’s sake, but for the sake of restoring some credibility for American democracy (you know, after illegally invading a sovereign nation under false pretenses) and to empirically establish legitimacy for the new Iraqi government.

So, we missed that badly needed opportunity.

Today’s New York Times further documents illegitimacy in carrying out the sentence:

The American role extended beyond providing the helicopter that carried Mr. Hussein home. Iraqi and American officials who have discussed the intrigue and confusion that preceded the decision late on Friday to rush Mr. Hussein to the gallows have said that it was the Americans who questioned the political wisdom—and justice—of expediting the execution, in ways that required Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to override constitutional and religious precepts that might have assured Mr. Hussein a more dignified passage to his end.

Uh-huh. The U.S. government had concerns and questions about what was going on. But, in the end, they handed over Hussein anyway.

That works for me about as well as the excuse “but…but…but, Your Honor, I really did have concerns and questions about the legitimacy of robbing that bank….”

One political concern was realized during the execution. A video of the hanging showed an…

…unruly, mocking atmosphere in the execution chamber.

This continued, on the video, through the actual hanging itself, with a shout of “The tyrant has fallen! May God curse him!” as Mr. Hussein hung lifeless, his neck snapped back and his glassy eyes open.

The cacophony from those gathered before the gallows included a shout of “Go to hell!” as the former ruler stood with the noose around his neck in the final moments, and his riposte, barely audible above the bedlam, which included the words “gallows of shame.” It continued despite appeals from an official-sounding voice, possibly Munir Haddad, the judge who presided at the hanging, saying, “Please no! The man is about to die.”

The Shiites who predominated at the hanging began a refrain at one point of “Moktada! Moktada! Moktada!”— the name of a volatile cleric whose private militia has spawned death squads that have made an indiscriminate industry of killing Sunnis — appending it to a Muslim imprecation for blessings on the Prophet Muhammad. “Moktada,” Mr. Hussein replied, smiling contemptuously. “Is this how real men behave?”

Of course, the issue isn’t about dignity for Hussein. The concern was that by coming off as a Shi’ite lynch mob, the execution further contributes to the sectarian divide in Iraq. It will fuel the civil war. It will translate into more dead and maimed Iraqis and U.S. soldiers. And that Hussein came off as dignified in the face of a lynch mob is a symbolic failure for the U.S. in “fostering democracy” in the Mideast.

The U.S. was correct when it…

…counseled caution in the way the Iraqis carried out the hanging. The issues uppermost in the Americans’ minds, these officials said, were a provision in Iraq’s new Constitution that required the three-man presidency council to approve hangings, and a stipulation in a longstanding Iraqi law that no executions can be carried out during the Id al-Adha holiday, which began for Iraqi Sunnis on Saturday and Shiites on Sunday.

It was Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki who pushed for an immediate execution. The largest snag for Maliki was that, by the Iraq constitution, he needed

…a decree from President Jalal Talabani, signed jointly by his two vice presidents, upholding the death sentence, and a letter from the chief judge of the Iraqi High Tribunal, the court that tried Mr. Hussein, certifying the verdict. But Mr. Talabani, a Kurd, made it known that he objected to the death penalty on principle.

Rather than adhering to the Iraqi constitution and law, Maliki developed a work-around.

The Maliki government spent much of Friday working on legal mechanisms to meet the American demands. From Mr. Talabani, they obtained a letter saying that while he would not sign a decree approving the hanging, he had no objections. The Iraqi official said Mr. Talabani first asked the tribunal’s judges for an opinion on whether the constitutional requirement for presidential approval applied to a death sentence handed down by the tribunal, a special court operating outside Iraq’s main judicial system. The judges said the requirement was void.

Apparently, everyone was willing to be convinced by the Tribunal judges who opined that the legislation creating the Tribunal (Law No. 10, passed on 9 Oct 2005) took precedence over Article 70 of the Iraqi constitution that requires the President to “[r]atify death sentences issued by the competent courts.” But, the Tribunal cannot override the Constitution; Article 92 prohibits “Special or exceptional courts.”

Without presidential ratification, the hanging violated the clear rule of law (as codified in the Iraqi constitution). It really was a lynching.

The fact that Iraqi law prohibits executions on holidays was never fully addressed. Instead, the Iraqis used simple psychological tricks on us to secure Hussein:

‘Who is going to execute him, anyway, you or us?’ The Americans replied by saying that obviously, it was the Iraqis who would carry out the hanging. So the Iraqis said, ‘This is our problem and we will handle the consequences. If there is any damage done, it is we who will be damaged, not you.’”

To this, the Iraqis added what has often been their trump card in tricky political situations: they telephoned officials of the marjaiya, the supreme religious body in Iraqi Shiism, composed of ayatollahs in the holy city of Najaf. The ayatollahs approved.

It is untrue that there would be no damage to the U.S. The U.S. needed the trial and execution of Hussein to be above reproach. There is only one way that the U.S. can achieve something resembling a “victory” in Iraq, and that would be to leave behind a functioning democracy.

Instead, we have replaced a lawless Sunni dictator with a lawless Shi’ite theocracy. And Iraq is led by a Prime Minister who has now committed one of the crimes that Hussein was guilty of: a lawless execution.

And to what end? What difference would it have made if Hussein’s execution had to wait for a week or wait for several years until a new President was elected?

None of the Iraqi officials were able to explain why Mr. Maliki had been unwilling to allow the execution to wait.
[…]

But the explanation may have lain in something that Bassam al-Husseini, a Maliki aide closely involved in arrangements for the hanging, said to the BBC later. Mr. Husseini, who has American citizenship, described the hanging as “an Id gift to the Iraqi people.”

Hey, well, you know…whatever it takes for Happy Holidays.

Saddam Hussein was hanged early this morning in Baghdad. (He was hanged, not hung—big difference there.)

President Bush said he was “executed after receiving a fair trial.”

Fair trial, my ass.

Hussein was found guilty of crimes against 148 Iraqis from al-Dujail who were accused of trying to assassinate him in 1982. The people were convicted, sentenced to execution, and then executed. Hussein admitted that he ordering the trial of the 148 individuals, but argued that he was entitled to do so under the laws of Iraq. Apparently, Hussein’s crime was to use his powers as dictator to deny justice to these individuals. The 149 people were convicted by a court that likely failed judicial independence—in short, a kangaroo court.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not defending Saddam for any of his crimes. Hussein had a well-deserved reputation as a murderous and brutal dictator. It seems likely that he committed numerous crimes that warrant execution.

My problem with Hussein’s conviction and execution is that he was tried in a kangaroo court. The judicial process that Hussein was tried and executed under was highly flawed—essentially, little better than the kangaroo court Hussein used to execute other people.

Let me take a moment here for a preemptive strike against our treasured Wingnut readers. My arguments here involve complex issues of international law and the Iraq legal system. If you are not willing to read this essay carefully, just shut the fuck up and go smoke your little green footballs or whatever it is you do to maintain a postmodern haze over reality. If you read carefully, you will learn that this essay isn’t about Hussein. Rather, it is about flaws in the process used to convict him—a process ill conceived by the arrogance and stupidity of the Bush administration. They fucked up another opportunity to offer Iraq some semblance of legitimacy.

All Americans have common ground in wishing for a peaceful, legitimate Iraq. It would solve our collective needs to get the hell out of Iraq and stop hemorrhaging money and American lives in support of the Bush administration’s past mistakes. Until late 2006, the Neocons wanted to pretend that Iraq was stabilizing, that the government was achieving legitimacy within and outside of Iraq, and that the U.S. had made the right decisions for post invasion Iraq. No more.

Last July when Bush held a joint press conference with Putin, he said (video):

I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world, like Iraq where there’s a free press and free religion, and I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia would do the same.

To which an incredulous Putin sniped back:

We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy that they have in Iraq…quite honestly.

Free press and free religion is a joke for a nation under the grip of violence and chaos. (That Bush would even suggest something so idiotic to Putin is beyond belief!)

The Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (SICT or Tribunal), likewise, has caused harm to any semblance of legitimacy that the Iraqi government may have had. There are many reasons for this. Some reasons result from the execution of the Tribunal itself, but ultimately the problems boil down to (1) uninformed decisions made under the rule of the Coalition Provisional Authority (i.e. while the U.S. occupied Iraq), (2) prior “issues” the Bush administration had with the International Criminal Court (ICC), and (3) rotten decisions made under the fog of wingnuttery.

The realization of the Tribunal was a debacle from the get-go. We all cringed in embarrassment as Hussein managed to make a mockery of the court’s early proceedings. The whole world squirmed as events unfolded. We squirmed as two defense lawyers were killed—not just because the murder of a defense lawyer is unconscionable (although “spraying” one in the face with bird shot can be pretty darned entertaining), but because replacement of a defense lawyer threatens the integrity of the defense. Didn’t we all want to take the high-road by convicting Hussein through an unimpeachable process? We squirmed when one judge was killed. Finally, we flinched in embarrassment as the Iraqi government removed the chief judge in a second Tribunal for making minor statements that appeared sympathetic to Hussein. What integrity remains knowing that the government removed a judge for some minor statements? Can we really believe that judges in the first trial were completely free to weigh the evidence for and against Hussein with judicial disinterest?

In fact, the SICT was established outside the normal Iraqi judicial system. It was enacted on 10 Dec 2003 as the Iraqi Special Tribunal (IST) under Order No. 48 of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). The Iraqi government later abolished the IST and reestablished it, nearly wholesale, as the SICT under Law No. 10 on 9 Oct 2005.

The IST is at the root of the court’s kangarooness. The laws under which Hussein was tried were, largely, a U.S. concoction that fails standards of international law, Iraqi law, and even U.S. law.

You may recall an awkward period following the capture of Hussein when the Coalition had no idea what to do with their prized prisoner. Would there be an international tribunal in The Hague (a la Bosnia)? Would there be an Iraqi tribunal with assistance of the International Criminal Court (a la Rwanda Sierra Leone)?

In fact, neither of these happened. The Coalition (i.e. the U.S.) could not accept oversight by an international court for a number of political reasons, like the fact that the Bush administration had been openly hostile to and attempted to undermine the ICC, and eventually withdrew from the treaty. Perhaps the most important political consideration, though, was that any oversight by the ICC would exclude the death penalty for Saddam Hussein. That was “unacceptable to the Iraqi people,” as the Bush administration told us. But more importantly it was unacceptable to the Bush administration.

Instead of relying on the ICC, BushCo decided to “roll their own” and they established a Tribunal that took an unprecedented, and legally questionable, track: they established an Iraqi national extra-judicial process to prosecute Hussein and others for international crimes. This had never been done before. In fact, such special additions to a national judicial system by an occupying power are explicitly prohibited by article 23 of the Hague Regulations of 1907 and Convention IV of the Fourth Geneva conventions of 1949. The short story is that these binding international conventions prohibit occupying powers (i.e. the U.S. at the time) from changing the legal system, changing the status of judges, changing the penal system, changing any tribunals, or even prosecuting anyone for acts committed prior to occupation. In legal parlance, the construction of the IST effectively made it an instrument of victor’s justice, the very thing that international laws attempt to prohibit.

Finally, the Tribunal violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that requires fairness, openness, and competence in trials, requires independent and impartial justice, that is conducted by established applicable law (i.e. it explicitly prohibits special tribunals). As I explain below, the Tribunal bore no real resemblance to Iraqi law.

The Tribunal’s difficulties began immediately. Salem Chalabi, nephew of the infamous Ahmed Chalabi, was appointed General Director of the IST upon its establishment in May of 2004. He, in turn, created the structure for the IST, and appointed the initial panel of seven judges and prosecutors. Whether or not Salem Chalabi was qualified for the position (he is a U.S. educated lawyer), his appointment by the Executive branch, and the nepotism, certainly gave the appearance that the U.S. was running the show. This was confounded by serious conflicts of interest in his U.S. business and ties to “Neocon Central”—The Project for a New American Century. In August, 2004, an arrest warrant for suspicion murder was issued against Salem Chalabi while he was in London. The charges were later dropped, but Chalabi resigned as the IST General Director. The U.S. took over administration for the duration of the IST, a clear violation of judicial independence that further undermined any sense of legitimacy.

With much fanfare, Paul Bremer announced that the IST would be funded by $75 million from the U.S., a figure that was to double. The U.S. Department of Justice subsequently provided teams of investigators and prosecutors to collect evidence and develop legal strategies. The U.S. trained all the Iraqi judges and prosecutors.

In 2005, the Iraqi government took the IST decree and passed it legislatively as the Iraqi Special Criminal Tribunal, thus lending the Tribunal some legitimacy. The damage was done, however. A Tribunal initiated in violation of international and domestic law is a pariah, and can, at best, achieve bastard status in the eyes of Iraqis and the international community after being patched. Unfortunately, the ISCT was not changed to be consistent with the Iraqi system of laws. Nor did it correct other legal problems as they existed in the IST. As the courtroom drama played out, there was nothing to dispel the perception that the victor’s justice was being served.

An immediate concern with the Tribunal law was that Iraqi law had no prior provisions for crimes against humanity, war crimes, or some other crimes that the Tribunal was charged with investigating. Thus, the Tribunal violates the nullum crimen principle that is fundamental to every modern legal system. This principle prevents retroactive application of criminal laws against a defendant. If the laws were not on the books prior to 2003, Hussein and his henchmen cannot be prosecuted for violations of a law decreed (by the occupying power) in 2003 and passed legislatively in 2005. Note that if the ICC had prosecuted the case, this would not be an issue, since these laws were established internationally. But, international prosecution would have excluded a capital sentence. Here is a clear example where a Bush administration political requirement undermined the integrity of the process.

A huge difficulty with the Tribunal is that its procedures bear no resemblance to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, it is based on the U.S. legal system. Iraq’s laws are based on the Egyptian legal system which, in turn, is modeled after the French legal system. Under the French inquisitorial system, the judge acts as an investigator, using evidence provided by prosecutors prior to trial. The U.S. legal system is an adversary-accusatorial system complete with introduction of new evidence and cross-examination occurring during the trial. The roles of judge, prosecutor, and defense lawyer differ significantly under the two systems.

It can hardly be surprising then that the Tribunal started off with an air of incompetence. None of the participants had any experience with the American-style legal system. And it showed. As one scholar described it:

The proceedings were choreographed as an American hearing where an investigative judge read an indictment and asked the defendant to plead guilty or not guilty, and was thus more American than Iraqi. There is no such procedure in the Iraqi criminal justice system. The investigative judge, sitting behind a table facing Saddam, was obviously uncomfortable. On the table where he sat facing Saddam Hussein was a copy of the 1971 Iraqi Code of Criminal Procedure, which does not provide for such an American-style arraignment procedure. The investigative judge asked Saddam to enter a plea, something unknown in the Iraqi system, and Saddam, who has a law degree, realized this.

As a result, Hussein not only succeeded in disrupting the proceedings, but he succeeded in undermining the court’s credibility. Imposing a system so foreign enforced the idea that this was a kangaroo court. When the arraignment took place on 1 Jul 2004, both supporters and detractors saw an illegal concoction, created by an occupying power, and designed simply to convict and execute Hussein and other Ba’ath party officials.

This view was reinforced by numerous anomalies in this case. For example, the indictment against Hussein was apparently not handed down until 15 May 2006, almost two years after the arraignment and seven months into the trial. This violates all legal principles (including International and Iraq domestic law). Due process demands that a defendant be promptly notified of the charges brought against him prior to the start of trail.

It is easy to say that Saddam Hussein got what he had coming to him. However, the Tribunal, to be successful, had to administer real justice in a way that lent credibility to the fledgling (but now failing) Iraqi government. Instead, Saddam Hussein was convicted and executed under a cloud of illegitimacy not unlike that he used to execute 147 residents of al-Dujail in 1982. Sadly, his execution will make him a martyr to some and will deepen the civil war.

What bothers me about this is that it could have been done correctly. An international court exists and has the experience and mandate to prosecute crimes against humanity and war crimes. A conviction in that court (with the likely outcome of permanent incarceration) would have avoided making Hussein a martyr and likely would have been far less disruptive of the Iraqi government. Now it’s too late.

Chalk it up to another massive fuck-up by a Bush administration driven by incompetence and ideological extremism.

I remember when it happened.

It was the fall of ’04. In the P-I was a puff piece about Mariners players and how they were going to vote in the presidential election. No surprise, as the team favored Bush by a large margin. Mariners second baseman Bret Boone was quoted saying this:

“I wouldn’t say I’m a hard-core conservative, but I don’t like a lot of Democratic views,” second baseman Bret Boone said. “I don’t like big government. I like small government.”

Considering Boone’s former workplace, Safeco Field, is a publicly funded facility, you have to ask: was this guy hit in the head a few too many times? Does he understand that a “big government” handout provided him a means to make a salary? What a goof!

So, that’s “when it happened,” or in other words, when I stopped supporting government subsidies for professional sports.

It wasn’t always that way for me. I supported the Mariners and the Seahawks in their effort to build new stadiums. After all, the Kingdome was a dump. It was an awful place to watch baseball. For football, it was only slightly better than Memorial Stadium. I felt the argument could be made that they needed new digs. I also believed, erroneously it turned out, that pro sports were a boost to the economy. In any case, I like baseball and football, so who cares, right?

The Sonics were too busy winning during the 90’s to worry about asking for public money for a new stadium. Still, in 1996, they got one. Key Arena opened, with all the idiots in City Hall and the newspapers talking about how great it was that an arena could be financed so “creatively.” Turns out it was a bunch of bullshit, and that the Sonics couldn’t keep making payments out of their luxury boxes because, well, they couldn’t sell many of them at Sonics home games. See, the deal was that the Sonics would pay rent from revenues produced trough selling certain amenities at Key Arena like luxury boxes. This worked well during the “Reign Man” and “The Glove” era. Boxes are easy to sell when the team is winning. But when the team started sucking, new ownership, in the form of coffee dork Howard Schultz, wanted out of the deal.

Schultz saw how much money was being made around the NBA by owners with teams in pimped-out, ultra-modern facilities. Howard also wanted the revenue earned by the arena when the Sonics weren’t even playing (like a Paul McCartney concert, or a comic book convention, or whatever). Other owners in other cities were able to sweet talk government into paying for these arenas, making them even more profitable for ownership. (Read lots more about the reality of pro basketball stadiums here)

When Schultz went to Olympia to get his money for a new building, he was turned down, and went home in a huff. He and his group sold out to Oklahoma City business folks headed by Clay Bennett. I don’t hold any ill will against Bennett for buying the team and subsequently doing his best to get public money to build an arena in Renton or Bellevue, but I still don’t want to give it to him. I’m not of the same mind as Goldy; I don’t think that a dollar used to refurbish a stadium is necessarily a dollar taken out of a Washington state classroom, but it’s starting to feel that way. When Rep. Ross Hunter rules out any kind of state income tax on election night while some government leaders are jumping out of their skins at the chance to fork over public dough to sports teams (hello, Sen. Margarita Prentice!), a guy can get a little pissed off.

Here’s the new plan. Until the NBA can fix it’s business model, no public dough. If it means the Sonics are gone to OKC, that that’s a-OK with me. Oklahoma City is dying for a team (they wanted to keep the New Orleans Hornets, but they flew home after the flood). Let them have the headache of pro sports. I’m finished with assholes likes David Stern who come into our house trying to shake us down for cash. Fuck him. If the NBA can do without Seattle, then Seattle can do without the NBA. Same goes for those NASCAR guys. Until their plan for a speedway in Kitsap County looks less like a pyramid scheme and more like a good investment, no money should be spent.

If we’re going to subsidize sports, let’s put some cash into Chehalis’ rodeo park (whatever the fuck that is). Let’s build that hockey venue in Kent so the Seattle Thunderbirds can ditch the Key Arena, which has always sucked for hockey. We should fix up baseball stadiums in Yakima and Spokane. Pierce County and Tacoma should look into a new ballpark, with the State Legislature chipping in. How about a new ballpark right down by the water, near downtown? We could extend that dope streetcar right to the ballpark. Tacoma folks, chime in and tell me what’s what.

Our leaders should never close the door to investing in sports, but we’ve got to draw the line somewhere. Let’s say “no” to whoring ourselves to the NBA and say “yes” to our minor league teams and the cities that host them. At twenty bucks for a family of four, Tacoma Rainiers baseball at Cheney Stadium is a mighty fine deal. That’s where I’ll be this spring. With a cold one, of course.

Happy Festivus! Here’s Gov. Jim Doyle (D-WI) with his Festivus pole.

• EFFin’ Unsound is fast becoming a must-read, in large part to it’s author Carl Ballard and contributor TheHim. The both of them never let a stupid post at a conservative blog go unmocked. Here’s a recent gem.
• Public financing of judicial races isn’t enough, says Lynn.
  

  My question is, “Why stop there?” The timing is good to jump on public financing for the judicial races given the insane amounts of money that was spent on the three Supreme Court races between the primary and the general elections. I understand that. Plus, Gregoire is cautious by disposition. But what an opportunity to go all the way and ask for public financing of all statewide and legislative races.

  I’m very interested in any blogger who has a credible arguement AGAINST public finance, as I’m sure one exists.

• If you have iTunes, download this now, while it’s still free.
• There’s been excessive spinning over whether or not the Governor actually made a decision regarding the Viaduct. Dan’s satisfied:
  

  The fact is, if she had decided to take it upon herself alone to decide a matter that’s more a Seattle concern than anyone else’s, she would have been lambasted for overstepping her authority and power.

  If she had chosen in favor of a replacement viaduct, she would have pissed off one half of the people, and if she had decided on a tunnel she would have pissed off the other side.

  Count me as one of those that thinks she made the correct decision[…]

  If the replacement option is “financial viable”, and the tunnel option isn’t (according to the Governor herself), why vote between the two? Why present voters an option that isn’t paid for? No, I think the real “punt” the Governor made was by advocating that Seattle vote between two options, only one of which is feasable. As Josh Feit says, this will result in selection of the rebuild option. The Seattle City Council, which lists another Viaduct as its third choice, ought to be sharpening their knives over the Governor’s actions.

• How to replace a popular county executive: Pierce County Edition.

Because relatives are visiting from New York this week, the cellulose-based legacy media is finding its way into my house. I spotted this interesting introduction to an Op-Ed piece by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann in today’s New York Times:

HERE is the redacted version of a draft Op-Ed article we wrote for The Times, as blacked out by the Central Intelligence Agency’s Publication Review Board after the White House intervened in the normal prepublication review process and demanded substantial deletions. Agency officials told us that they had concluded on their own that the original draft included no classified material, but that they had to bow to the White House.

Indeed, the deleted portions of the original draft reveal no classified material. These passages go into aspects of American-Iranian relations during the Bush administration’s first term that have been publicly discussed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; former Secretary of State Colin Powell; former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage; a former State Department policy planning director, Richard Haass; and a former special envoy to Afghanistan, James Dobbins.

These aspects have been extensively reported in the news media, and one of us, Mr. Leverett, has written about them in The Times and other publications with the explicit permission of the review board. We provided the following citations to the board to demonstrate that all of the material the White House objected to is already in the public domain. Unfortunately, to make sense of much of our Op-Ed article, readers will have to read the citations for themselves.

The term redacted is, of course, a euphemism for censored. The Times printed the Op-Ed with the censored sections of text blacked out.

Why the White House feels so threatened by a series of facts contained in the original draft—all drawn from public sources— that they would engage in such gratuitous censorship is beyond me.

I suppose it could be because the article documents how Bush double-crossed Iran after a period of fruitful cooperation in the early years of the war in Afghanistan. I suppose the White House was a little miffed by being exposed as squandering opportunities to get Iran’s help in fixing the Iraq civil war quagmire. But neither of these reasons justifies government censorship of the press or the free speech rights of the authors. It is clear from numerous sources—the censored Op-Ed, the authors’ statement, the statement of CIA Publication Review Board, and the cited sources—that the Op-Ed contained no classified information or information that compromised national security.

Simply put, the only rationale the White House had for censoring this article was to save the Administration a little embarrassment. And that is outrageous. Every American, regardless of political persuasion, should be alarmed by the realization that the White House even bothers to intervene in newspaper Op-Ed pieces, not to mention that they gratuitously censor embarrassing material.

Apparently, it’s A-okay for a politically connected mega-church preacher to say shit like this:

“Even Jewish merchants ought’a be gathered around their cash registers singing ‘what a friend we have in Jesus.'”

Silly me. I guess I should just learn my place.

The Stranger’s Eli Sanders has more on Seattle’s “Jewish Problem.” It’s a must read.

As Dan Savage reported yesterday on Slog, in assisting with Rev. Ted Haggard’s “restoration,” his New Life Church is conducting a sexual witch hunt, soliciting the public’s help in uncloseting other sinners amongst its staff and leaders. Well, score…

New Life Church — still reeling from the fall of its charismatic founder — was stunned when a second church pastor left due to sexual impropriety.

Christopher Beard, 35, who led the young-adult leadership program twentyfourseven, resigned after telling New Life’s Board of Overseers about a one-time sexual encounter he had several years ago, before he was married.

In a statement released Monday evening, New Life said Beard had “displayed poor judgement in several decisions throughout his tenure. This poor judgement included one instance of consensual sexual contact with another unmarried adult several years ago.”

Officials for the 14,000-member church declined to say anything more about the encounter.

Beard’s resignation came a little more than a month after the Rev. Ted Haggard, New Life’s senior pastor for 21 years, was dismissed after allegations he had a three-year sexual tryst with a male escort. The escort also said he saw Haggard use methamphetamine.

Gees… I sure hope Beard didn’t get a blowjob in Georgia. He could do hard time.

I first heard about Gov. Gregoire’s viaduct “punt” last Friday following the big wind storm right as I was in the middle of a two-hour commute from Redmond to U-Dub. (Yeah…I know I should have stayed home, but I didn’t really have a choice.) Normally, my commute is 25 minutes by car or an hour by bus. On Friday, however, the SR520 floating bridge was shut down to repair wind damage. At about the one hour mark, crawling along at under 10 mph on I-405, I was contemplating the many ways my quality of life would decline if the SR520 bridge decided to sink. And then the news broke about Gregoire’s statement.

Frankly, I was irritated by another delay in replacing a failing piece of critical infrastructure. Gregiore had her chance to be The Decider™ and she decided to punt. Or so I thought from the media account.

After the sting of a painful commute faded, I looked into Gregoire’s statement and it became clear to me that she had, in fact, made nearly all of the important decisions. She decided that all options were out except the tunnel and the rebuild. Essentially, Gregoire validated (politically and practically) the engineering, environmental, and fiscal analyses found in DOT’s Supplemental Draft, Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that rejected all but these two options. And eliminating the fringe options is a good decision.

The DEIS dealt with each fringe option in turn. I’ll only mention the so-called no-replacement option because, I believe, Goldy disagrees with me on it. The DEIS finds that the no-replacement option isn’t viable:

• Replacing the viaduct with a four-lane surface street would substantially increase congestion for most of the day and part of the evening on I-5 through downtown Seattle, downtown streets, and Alaskan Way. These congested conditions are predicted to occur even if improvements were made to downtown streets and transit ridership substantially increased.
• I-5 through Seattle doesn’t have room for additional trips since it’s already congested through much of the day and into the evening. However, under the No Replacement concept, many trips that currently use the viaduct would shift to I-5, causing it to become even more congested.
• Downtown street traffic would increase by 30 percent, though traffic increases to specific areas like Pioneer Square and the waterfront could exceed 30 percent.
• With a four-lane roadway, traffic on Alaskan Way would quadruple to 35,000 to 56,000 vehicles per day compared to about 10,000 vehicles today. This traffic would make it difficult for patrons to get to waterfront businesses and would create more conflicts between vehicles and the many bicyclists and pedestrians that use Alaskan Way.
• Neighborhoods west of I-5 (Ballard, Queen Anne, Magnolia, and West Seattle) would have less direct connections to and through downtown; therefore, travel times for trips to and through downtown would increase for drivers from these areas.

A four-lane Alaskan Way would create more congestion on I-5 and downtown streets than the Surface Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIS. The project partners dropped the Surface Alternative because it didn’t meet the AWV Project’s purpose, which is to “maintain or improve mobility, accessibility, and traffic safety for people and goods along the existing Alaskan Way Viaduct Corridor.”

More congestion, longer trip times, and greater susceptibility to accidents, construction, and events? No thanks. The no-replacement option would make a trip to (or through) downtown Seattle less desirable than a field trip through a rendering plant. If anything, it’s a plan to slowly strangle downtown Seattle.

I’m also not convinced by reports that other cities have removed capacity with minimal long term effects. Such decisions are generally not made randomly—there is engineering judgment that precedes such a drastic move. With I-5 at capacity and downtown already too congested at peak times, the engineering judgment suggests that the Seattle waterfront is not a good candidate for capacity reduction.

Gregoire made another important decision. She decided that the decision between the tunnel option and the rebuild option would come down to a vote of the people. But not just any people. She put it up to a vote by the people who would gain the greatest benefit. Oh…and the people who would have to pay the price difference for a tunnel.

The Seattle Times editorial board refers to this as Gregoire’s pragmatic punt.

Effectively, Gregoire is saying, “we will go with the rebuild option because the State has an obligation to replace an important and failing part of the highway infrastructure and, by the way, Seattle, if you want a tunnel instead let us know (soon!) and, if so, include your credit card number.”

What some consider a “punt” is really an offer of an upgrade option for Seattle.

The tunnel upgrade option for Seattle is good politics, too. If the voters decide to spend a couple billion of their own dollars for the tunnel, who can deny them? Or if the voters cheap-out and decide that a rebuilt monstrosity along the waterfront is good enough, then…well, then let them lie in their own noise pollution.

This morning on KUOW’s Weekday, Joni Balter and Joel Connelly had a mini-debate over the Governor’s decision. Balter considered the decision strategically sound. Why? Because Gregoire knows that House Speaker Frank Chopp will do everything he can legislatively to kill the tunnel. And Mayor Nickels will interfere with any attempt to implement the rebuild option. As Balter points out, there is one power higher than Gregoire, and that is the voters.

Joel Connelly, on the other hand, felt that Gregoire offered a shanked punt. We pay her to be The Decider™, and she ought to decide. In case you haven’t figured it out, I find Balter’s arguments more compelling.

Clearly, Gregoire favors the rebuild option; she probably expects Seattle to fail in coming up with either the public support or the funding for a tunnel. The ball is now in Nickels’ court to both build public support and convert his fantasy funding plan into something grounded in reality.

The DEIS prices the tunnel at between $3.6 and $4.3 billion, and the elevated rebuild from $2.5 to $2.9 billion. Funding for the rebuild is almost in place, as there is now $2.45 billion committed to the project, including $2.2 billion from the State, $0.24 billion from the Feds, and $0.016 billion from Seattle.

The tunnel option would likely draw an additional $500 million from Seattle and $200 million from the Port of Seattle. Other potential funding sources include a local improvement district (actually, this was proposed by Goldy) that could provide $250 million, a regional ballot measure (i.e. new taxes), additional Army Corps of Engineers funding for the seawall part of the project, and additional Federal highway and emergency relief funding.

In the long run, the tunnel option offers significant advantages. Most importantly, it will remake the downtown Seattle waterfront. Have you ever walked from the Pike Place Market to the waterfront? Man…talk about an unpleasant experience! A tunnel would …

…dramatically decrease noise levels by about 12 A-weighted decibels (dBA) along the waterfront. This would sound like cutting the noise level by more than half. Noise along the central section of the project corridor is currently loud and would not change much if the Elevated Structure Alternative is built.

The way I see it, the tunnel option is a long term investment, and one that will be appreciated by generations of Seattleites. I can imagine thirty years from now, two lovers will be strolling down to the waterfront, hand in hand. Under one scenario they’ll excitedly discuss their future life together as they take in the pleasant views. Under the other scenario, one will bellow at the other , “I can’t believe they built a fucking freeway through the waterfront!”

So I hope Seattle goes for the option…who knows what kind of difference it could make. I’m just sayin’.

After getting pummeled in races all over the Eastside, you’d think GOP clowns might wonder how they lost the confidence of suburban voters. While Republicans got horsewhipped on all sorts of issues, no issue united moderate suburban swing voters more than transportation.

A little background…

In ’05, the GOP lined up in favor of I-912, while Eastside cities voted against it. Sen. Luke Esser, citing his personal pledge to always send tax increases to a vote of the people, turned down a billion dollars for a new 520 bridge. In ’06, voters turned Luke Esser out on his ass. Bellevue Republicans like Jennifer Dunn tried to block a Federal grant for Sound Transit. Today, Bellevue city leaders are arguing over exactly how Sound Transit light rail should go through downtown Bellevue. The Eastside is trending Democratic because, in many cases the GOP is against the kind of “big government” suburban folks seem to want more of.

Where are GOP activists on transportation these days? Eric Earling is on the case, and he defends spending money on light rail because, well, people seem to want it:

The honest truth is a region composed of suburbs surrounding an urban center needs both transit options and significant spending on roads. Both are necessary for reasons of transportation planning and political demand.

Stefan is not convinced that supporting the RTID package is worth it if we get more “awful” light rail:

Exactly how is light rail “necessary”? And at what price is it still desirable? And since when is existence of “political demand” a good reason for voters and taxpayers to support a disastrous policy?

Anti-government types cannot fathom how folks would want to pay more sales tax for something that’s going to get them out of traffic. Perhaps light rail is a bad idea, but it seems to be a very popular bad idea.

In cities where light rail is built, folks are always skeptical. Why not just pour more money into buses? It’s cheaper! You hear folks say that. In Tacoma, their light rail line started as a bus line. During the first year light rail operated, the ridership had quintupled. Five times as many people rode rail as rode the bus! Buses don’t have that appeal, and they don’t go as fast, and they don’t spur development. There’s no wonder why Tacoma residents are demanding that the line be extended.

Even though Sound Transit’s initial light rail line isn’t finished, plans are being made for expansion east over I-90 to Bellevue and perhaps to Redmond. As a former Eastsider, I can tell you, folks out there are not quite as “gung-ho” on transit investment as your typical Seattle types. Don’t get me wrong, they like their Park & Rides, and they like those fancy commuter busses. Eastside leaders have done their homework and asked tough questions of Sound Transit. On the Eastside, folks of both political parties have come to the conclusion that light rail is something they want, and will benefit their cities well into the future.

Perhaps the most compelling argument I’ve seen for increased investment in transit comes from an unlikely source: conservative/libertarian columnist Paul Weyrich. Here are his thoughts on the issue.

I have written [articles] making the conservative case for rail transit, including streetcars. It seems the public agrees with us because while in State after State conservatives have won ballot initiatives in many of these same States transit initiatives also have won. The libertarians have made the case that money for public transit is a waste. They want more roads. That is a form of subsidized transportation as well. But they don’t see it that way because individuals can drive. However, in city after city which has adopted light rail an overflow crowd has elected to use it as opposed to driving.

Also, this amazing fact:

In 2004 the huge transit program in Denver, promising 118 miles of new rail lines, passed with support from Republican counties. The Democratic counties in the transit district voted no. Before any more propaganda is put forth by libertarians on the issue of support for public transit, folks ought to look at the facts. Who has voted for transit? And who is riding it once it is built? When those facts are evaluated the libertarian arguments go up in smoke. [Emphasis added]

If the GOP in friggin’ Denver can understand the benefits of light rail, why can’t these guys?

Seems up here in the dark, rainy Pacific Northwest, we had a little stink on our hands that’s made national news, especially among those phony “War On Christmas” types who can never keep their facts, or religions, straight.

You see, over at Sea-Tac International Hyphenated Airport, they put up the usual, you know, Christmas trees. And some rabbi threatened to sue if they didn’t also put up a display of a Menorah to commemorate Hanukkah. Just like they put up at the City of Seattle and any number of other government-owned properties in the region. So what did the Hyphenated Airport brain trust do? Against the pleadings of the rabbi and his lawyer, the airport took the trees down instead.

And then, if you’ll pardon the Satanic reference, all Hell broke loose. That includes Bill O’Reilly, pronged tail and all.

The upshot now is that the airport has redecked its halls with trees, the rabbi says the whole thing has been blown way out of proportion (and he won’t sue), and some panel will meet — after the holidays, naturally –- to discussion among themselves how to be more inclusive.

And the Hell of it is (there’s that word again), the Christmas tree is not a Christian symbol. It predates the birth of Christ by a couple thousand years. As does the yule log, mistletoe, gift giving, the works. That whole just-after-the-longest-night rebirth of life thing. I’m even betting the fat guy with the reindeer and sleigh didn’t come from old Judea, either.

Most of what we know as Christmas, in other words, originated with the pagans (and, in some cases, the Romans), and was appropriated by Christians to celebrate the birth of Christ at the one time of year He couldn’t possibly have been born. The Bible is imprecise on this point, but we do know the shepherds were out tending their flocks — which doesn’t happen in the dead of winter. Desert winter nights are cc-c-o-l-d.

So, speaking on behalf of all Neo-Pagan and Wiccan types out there, perhaps I should threaten to sue Sea-Tac to include our religion, too –- but that’s no good, because they’re already using our symbol! Christians attacked us! (And isn’t that the way of the world?) More precisely, Christians attacked Christmas. But they were just the first of a long list.

Yeah, Christians have attacked Christmas. So have capitalist greed, insane consumerism, and the seeming lack of familiarity of many Christians with the basic tenets of their namesake, aka The Prince of Peace. Don’t believe me? Try combining, with a straight face, Bill O’Reilly’s name with any of the following phrases: Forgiveness. Turning the Other Cheek. The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth. Go ahead. I double-dare you. Lose and you have to watch his show, and vice versa: if you have to watch his show, you lose.

Or, as Gandhi said, “The only people in the world who don’t know Christ was a pacifist are Christians.”

(I should add that some of my best friends are Christians, and the ones I know that do try to follow their faith are wonderful, inspiring people. And, in my experience, a minority.)

And so we get tempests in treepots like this year’s airport fiasco. The reports are already swirling wildly that the rabbi demanded the trees be removed (he didn’t), that the Jews and the godless secularists at the ACLU are in cahoots (we should be so lucky), and that the liberals in Hollywood, hearing the word “war,” are scouting for a movie treatment (probably true). This preposterous nonsense is sort of like the run-up to the Iraq War, and, oddly enough, is being propagated by many of the same people. It’s fiction, based sorta loosely on what might once have been a fact, being harnessed in the service of a preordained and flatly ridiculous conclusion.

It’s a bunch of rich white guys, the folks screwing 90% of America, trying to create a fake controversy so they can stand with (as opposed to on) the little folks. What war on a holiday? By whom? How can the 80 percent of this country that calls itself Christian be under serious attack, let alone the threat of annihilation, by anyone, unless it’s some idiot who talks to and hears from God constantly and has his finger on the nuclear button?

Oh.

Seriously, Christianity under attack by Jews, the ACLU, secular humanists and godless atheists? That’s like saying Burkina Faso is about to wipe out every member of the U.N. Security Council.

And, granted, such an attack would be the religious equivalent of Gallipoli. Where do I sign up? I want my trees back. While you’re at it, stop using the maypole, too. Go make your own springtime life-is-never-ending holiday. Call it “Easter.”