Portland joins the ranks.

I watched it happen live on Channel 2 (public access) last night. Portland City Council voted nearly unanimously (one dissenting vote) on an anti-war resolution Monday night, becoming one in a growing list of communities around the country to do so.

The resolution, sponsored by Councilor Karen Geraghty, calls on the Bush administration to give United Nation inspectors additional time and states its opposition to pre-emptive U.S. military action without UN authorization. An amendment offered on the floor by my own Councilor Jim Cohen, added wording supporting the efforts of the US troops whatever should occur over the next few months. Supporters of the resolution emphasized Maine's budget crisis and the threat of destabilization in the Middle East and spurring terrorist attack against the US and its allies.

The overwhelming majority of the comments from the public were in support of the resolution. Only three or four individuals spoke in opposition. And while there were the traditional peace activists voices (which of course one should never take for granted), what was striking was the diversity of the supporters as a whole. There were doctors, lawyers, teachers, business owners, labor leaders, parents. students and even a small child. Former immigrants, civil rights activists and veterans of WWII, Korea and Vietnam. Most poignant were the words of veterans from the first Gulf War. This small city of 64,000 individuals, the largest in Northern New England (if you don't count Nashua, which really is part of Massachusetts anyway) sent a message to Washington that its residents wanted a sane and rational foreign policy.

Let's hope the trend continues. Ask your city councilors to do the same. Have them join this growing list.


[note: While impending war wears heavily on most people's minds, I noted last night the level of anxiety over the economy was just as great. I don't think the Administration is going to get a lot of mileage out of a "short war", as Americans recognize that every day we're involved in a billion dollar-a-day conflict is less money to schools and social programs.]

Okay, so sports is not in the list of subjects on the subtitle...sue me

Sunday night we watched the game. Yesterday the headlines read:

UConn unanimous in replacing Duke at No. 1

Now, why a team with 58 straight wins was ever ranked #2 is beyond comprehension in the first place. But their solid trouncing of Duke, 77-65 (at one point the Husky lead was 28) put them back where they belonged, with 100% of the 44 first-place votes from the national media panel which determines all this stuff.

In case you think that this household is one of those who jumps on the winning bandwagon late in the game, let me set you straight. My partner, at our wedding reception seven years ago, snuck off to watch the Huskies play in the NCAA finals. Granted, he was a late convert, since as a Berkeley alum he really didn't understand the power of "the Force" until he moved east to join a matrilocal tribe. But his enthusiasm led me to overlook his earlier heathenish tendencies.

What was rather stunning about the game (besides the talent of the women on the court) was the commentary by the announcers on ESPN. Since I came in a little late, I don't know who exactly was calling the game, but ESPN had two personalities, as usual, the somewhat overbearing older male and a woman with much more of a clue, probably a former player herself. Halfway through the game, the latter began a long and impassioned speech on the merits of Title IX, and how the women playing that night wouldn't be there without it. I was enthralled. Of course, halfway through the male announcer must have gotten the word in his earpiece from higher-ups at ESPN, and he started speaking over her to essentially choke off her editorializing. Funny how political discourse is muzzled even in sports media these days.

My first foray into public political life began at age 14 when I was asked by a classmate to become the spokesperson for a Title IX suit she and a few other girls at my high school were bringing against the district. They wanted a soccer team, and although the boy's had three (freshman, junior varsity and varsity teams), the girls were denied even one. First they were offered a "club", and then when that was rejected (the girls wanted an intermural team), they were told they could play on the boy's freshman or junior varsity teams, "if they made the cut". The boy's teams at our high school were state champions. Only one girl, my good friend who asked me to speak for her, made the team, but was never allowed to play in a game. So they decided to use a newly discovered tool, Title IX. I remember it was an unusually balmy spring evening when the school board met. (How is it that I still remember that nearly 25 years later?) I stood before the board with a packed-to-the-rafters crowd in the elementary school's auditorium, and presented our case. We were denied. The next day, attorneys from the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union contacted us, and the suit was prepared and filed. That was it. We heard about the case sporadically, more from the press than the attorneys. When I was a senior in college, the state supreme court decided in our favor. That was 1986, two years after Grove City v. Bell, which had essentially made our case moot. But in 1988, overriding a Reagan veto, Congress reinforced the original law with the Civil Rights Restoration Act, which mandates that civil rights law applies to all operations of any school that gets federal funds, and my high school, which had added a girl's intermural soccer team a few years before due to overwhelming student demand, never mentioned its loss. And for me, at 24, I was now a veteran activist, my baptism under Title IX propelling me headlong into another worthy cause, the anti-nuclear movement under Reagan.

Its important to note that Title IX is not just about equal access to the basketball court or soccer field. When politicians speak about weakening Title IX rules, they are attempting to open the whole can of gender-equality-in-education worms. Its just another assault on affirmative action by the right, as women, like ethnic minorities, in their mind deserve no special treatment, no leveling of the playing field. Under this Administration, the battles we thought long over and won, may have to be refought again and again.

I'll go off and start coffee this morning with words of Shirley Ann Jackson who in 1999 became president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, my dad's alma mater. (Although RPI had been "co-educational" since the 1940s, my dad's graduating class in 1958 had 8 women.)

Oh, the irony of it all.

You know those few minutes before you fall asleep, when, like bloggers the world around, you think about just what you might want to blog on the next day. Well, last night, as a direct result of living in a bi-lingual household such that I often am left to find LeMonde pulled up on my browser by my Francophone partner, I thought to myself, I really have to blog on recent events in Côte d'Ivoire.

Of course when I awoke this morning, I found myself surfing first rather than writing. At my normal jaunt over to Eschaton, I noted Atrios' link to Tim Dunlop, who had excoriated Glenn Reynolds' off-the-cuff comments on the lack of French coverage of the Columbia loss, insinuating that they did it on purpose because they hate us. Reynolds' wrote:

ANOTHER UPDATE: It's a big deal in India, but not in France:

Just thought you might be interested in knowing that none of the major French channels (TF1, A2, FR3, M6) have, as of this moment, even bothered to interrupt programming to announce the Columbia news. I live in Switzerland and have been zapping back and forth between CNN, MSNBC, BBC and various Swiss, German and French channels. The French apparently haven't noticed yet (or don't care?)

Best regards from Lausanne,

James Wade

Hmm. That's representative, too.

(Insty later provides a half-hearted retraction by noting that some French papers and websites did pick up the story.)

Now, my first reaction when I read Reynolds' remarks was a big, no huge, "DUH!". France currently has 16,000 French citizens at risk in a country a thousand miles away which is going through a complete and utter meltdown. Not only "at risk", but who are presently TARGETS of mass rioting and violence. French troops had to take over the airport at the capital city of Abidjan to prevent a potential massacre of evacuating French nationals, many of whom were women and children. These people were taunted, physically struck, pelted with rocks and had their possessions ripped out of their hands by thousands of angry supporters of the president, Gbagbo, the same supporters who have been indicted in the beatings and murders of hundreds of poor African nationals working in Ivory Coast. So maybe the French are a tad distracted at the moment and while poignant, the loss of an American spacecraft and seven astronauts really might not be sufficient to warrant more than heartfelt condolences in the face of pending disaster elsewhere in Africa.

I was prepared to write off Reynolds' comments as carrying the weight of those of a spoiled child or ignorant clod, but then I stumbled back into the Insty archives of January 29th, when he expounded,

"FRANCE IS BLOWING IT IN ITS NEOCOLONIALIST UNILATERAL ACTION IN AFRICA:

Just when it was reveling, downstage-center, as a marquee player in international discussions on Iraq, France has collided with an African crisis that may more cruelly mark out the limited character of its diplomatic and practical powers.

This reality bites: A French-engineered peace agreement meant to bring to calm to the Ivory Coast after a months-long rebellion - signed here with the trappings of inviolability over the weekend in the presence of President Jacques Chirac and a handy phalanx of plumed Gardes Republicaines - has imploded.

This article is damning. The French military force is called "invisible," the word "neocolonialist" is used, and, most humiliating of all, it says that France was "outfoxed" in the diplomatic negotiations. The Ivory Coast, it suggests, indicates the limits of French power.

Check out the photo accompaning [sic] this article with signs calling Chirac a criminal and boosting the USA. And doesn't it figure that the French have their own Republican Guard.

What's really infuriating about Reynolds' conclusions is that its pretty clear that his understanding of the exceptionally complex Ivory Coast crisis, beyond the dozen or so paragraphs in the IHT and diatribes from other right-wingers on France's supposed "unilateralist intervention" (even though a dozen other African countries have sent troops into Ivory Coast, also at President Gbagbo's request), could probably fit into a thimble. Apparently he's not aware that the Ivory Coast and France have a military co-operation pact dating back to 1962, soon after Ivory Coast threw off French colonialism. Under that pact, France has maintained a military base with upwards of 600 troops (prior to the recent crisis.) The United States maintains similar military bases in countries around the world, including former colonial holdings or occupied lands. Would Reynolds consider it "unilateral intervention" into a foreign country's domestic policy if say, South Korea or Kuwait, dissolved into political chaos, and the troops in those bases were used to guarantee the safety of thousands of American nationals while they evacuated? Can one imagine his stance should the US face another civilian hostage situation like that in Iran twenty-five years ago? Its absolutely amazing that Reynolds bangs the war drums for the invasion of a sovereign country in order to liberate aluminum tubes, but cares not a whit for tens of thousands of civilians fleeing a country in the midst of a bloody civil war. Oh, by the way, Professor, some of those nationals the French forces are protecting are Americans (and English, Japanese, Egyptian, etc., etc., ad nauseam.)

Did I mention that the peace deal brokered by the French is supported by the Bush Administration? And that Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary general, has agreed to chair a summit of African leaders to enforce the Paris accords? And according to Reuters, some of the crowds for whom Reynolds seems to hold an certain affinity, chanted while calling for Bush's intervention , “We are xenophobes and so what,” referring to the anti-Muslim and anti-foreigner sentiment fomented by Gbagbo and much of the Abidjan political elite since the 2000 elections. That a mass grave of over 100 foreign workers was unearthed in December, victims of a government-sponsored massacre. Ivorian state television has since October opined that "the key to victory over the rebels is to expel all Burkinabe immigrants from Ivory Coast." As I mentioned previously, its a very complicated situation, too much so for this post, but a good synopsis can be found at the BBC's website on the Ivory Coast conflict.

Reynolds, of course, has no time for such trivial matters as facts. As he has admitted, most of his information is now sent to him, as in these two above-mentioned instances. He's certainly betting that the majority of readers have as much a clue as to the reality in West Africa as he does. The current riots only make a blip on Reynolds' radar in so much as they are useful for whipping up anti-French sentiment in response to France's intractability in a UN-approval-stamped Iraqi invasion. Its enough for him to suggest that the anti-French protests by supporters of Gbagbo should be used to discredit the all french foreign policy - or a least that which does not jibe with the Bush Administration's. Oh, and the pro-Bush sentiment expressed by the pro-Gbagbo protesters? Just icing on the cake.

But then, didn't Reynolds make a big deal recently about protesters and the company you keep.....?

Quote of the day:

"Instead of investing sufficiently to protect current Medicaid beneficiaries, [Bush] is 'permitting' states to kick some people off the rolls so others can come on. If that's not shortsighted, then shortsighted has no meaning."

Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), ranking member of the health subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which handles Medicaid

Of course, the news is released just in time for the weekend papers...

This is really just so damned depressing...

Medicaid Proposal Would Give States More Say on Costs
By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 — The Bush administration proposed fundamental changes in Medicaid today that would give states vast new power to reduce, eliminate or increase benefits for millions of low-income people, including many who are elderly or disabled.

The proposal, coming at a time when states face huge deficits, would do away with federal rules that now apply to one-third of all Medicaid recipients and two-thirds of all Medicaid spending.

Essentially, the states would no longer have to cover the disabled, elderly or pregnant women, unless they meet the exceedingly strict current poverty level Medicaid guidelines. Guess Bush wasn't able to get his way with restricting ER access for the poor, so he had to figure out another way to screw 'em.

(Note: One of the reasons this accounts for 2/3s of Medicaid spending is that the bulk of Medicaid "discretionary" expenses, as Bush now considers them, come from providing services for disabled children and adults. Thus, since autism is a neurological disease, all children can have many of their services covered under Medicaid, which is particularly important as most private insurers will not cover (or harshly limit) basic treatments and therapies. Since treatment can cost over $50,000/year, only wealthy parents will be able to afford these services, and many early interventions will slow down to a trickle if states deem the programs too expensive. This is, of course, not limited to individuals with autism. It will effect services for all the disabled, many of whom can no longer afford private insurance coverage. At a time when our national goals should be universal healthcare coverage, this is what we get from our purported leader.)

{Update} The Boston Globe gives a good basic synposis as to how the change will effect Medicaid funding:

The administration's plan would also alter the basic funding structure of the 38-year-old, $250 billion program. Now, every Medicaid dollar spent by the states is matched by the federal government at a rate that ranges from one federal dollar for every state dollar in the richest states to about $3.35 to $1 for the poorest states. There is no limit to the state outlay that Washington will match.

Under the Bush plan, funding for participating states would be limited. The federal payment would be determined by a formula that considered medical inflation. But during rough economic times, when unemployment rises and the number of people without health coverage increases, states could no longer increase their federal Medicaid payment by increasing their own spending.

Flashback Friday

To humor myself, I thought I'd start a habit of weekly cyber-documenting the parallel political and economic universes we appear to share with the first Bush administration. The following are from various papers around the US on this date in 1991, midway through his first (and only) presidential term. Its also easier to click, cut and paste than write text when holding a sick, sleeping baby.

COULD THE 'R' IN THE ECONOMY REALLY BE A 'D'?
January 31, 1991, Robert Lenzner, Boston Globe Staff

NEW YORK -- The "D" word. Hardly anyone in Wall Street dares use it. It conjures up images of the 1930s -- soup kitchens, 25 percent unemployment, bank closings.
No one is predicting the calamity that drove the Dow Jones industrial average down 90 percent from October 1929 to March 1932. But, the concept of depression is being considered a possibility by some respected economists.


VA. JOBLESS RATE UP TO 4.9 PERCENT: LEVEL AT 4-YEAR HIGH, STATE SAYS
Anne Swardson, Washington Post
January 31, 1991

Virginia's unemployment rate reached its highest level in four years last month, rising to 4.9 percent, the Virginia Employment Commission announced yesterday.The news was particularly unpleasant in Northern Virginia, which the report showed has lost 12,400 jobs in the last 12 months. By contrast, the state as a whole still is gaining jobs.The figures provide a prelude to the December unemployment statistics for the entire Washington metropolitan area scheduled to be released ...

State Budget-Cutters Look at Welfare
Chicago Tribune, January 31, 1991

As the political infighting begins over whose budget will be cut to meet Gov. Jim Edgar's austerity demands, state officials are considering the reduction or elimination of monthly General Assistance payments of $165 each to an estimated 80,000 single, unemployed people in Chicago.

The General Assistance program, which was budgeted this year at approximately $180 million, has come under cost-cutting consideration because state budget ...

EDUCATION GROUP PROPOSES TESTING
January 31, 1991, Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- A new education advocacy group proposed yesterday that Congress require public and private high schools to administer a standard achievement test to all seniors. Educate America -- a nonprofit, nonpartisan group headed by former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean -- proposed the nationwide exam because current achievement measures do not adequately establish schools' progress toward meeting the education goals established by President Bush...

THE DOMESTIC AGENDA
Washington Post
January 31, 1991

THE DOMESTIC sections of the State of the Union address were aimed as much at deflecting action as at encouraging it. The president paid lip service to the agendas of both right and left -- everything from empowerment to infrastructure and a national energy policy -- but committed himself to very little. In part that is a reflection of circumstance, but in part it bespeaks temperament and choice as well. The country is both at war and in a recession...

Greenspan Ties Recession to Length of War
The Los Angeles Times
January 31, 1991

Alan Greenspan told the New York Times in an interview conducted before President Bush's State of the Union address Tuesday that he expected a quick recovery from the current recession if the war is "relatively short" and if the oil fields in the Gulf do not suffer serious damage.

DORMANT WEAPON WAITING, PREPARING FOR IRAQI TERRORISM
January 31, 1991, Jonathan Kaufman, Boston Globe Staff

BERLIN -- Saddam Hussein is doing what he said he would do: launch missiles at Israel, use oil as a weapon, engage the United States in land battle. Which is why experts are becoming increasingly nervous about one of the still-unused weapons in Iraq's arsenal -- terrorism.

Signs of a `short, mild' recession
Chicago Tribune
January 31, 1991, Marianne Taylor

The government's chief economic forecasting gauge crept up 0.1 percent in December, reversing its trend of previous months and leading analysts to conclude the recession may be short-lived.

"The suggestion from this report is that it is looking more and more like a short, mild recession, a relatively modest contraction," said James Annable, economist for First National Bank of Chicago...

Hmmm...In 12 years, will North Korea be our ally in the "War on Terror"?

PAKISTAN CONDEMNS AID CUT
From News Services, Washington Post
January 31, 1991

Pakistan's top nuclear official berated the United States for an aid cutoff and said Islamabad would never give up its controversial atomic development program.Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Munir Ahmed Khan also said in a speech in Lahore that Pakistan would not accept unilateral nuclear restrictions. The United States suspended $564 million in aid Oct.

And finally...so it was Poppy who invented it...

DATA NETWORK FUNDING MAY BE FIRST STEP TOWARD U.S. 'TECHNOLOGY POLICY'
Evelyn Richards, Washington Post
January 31, 1991

The White House appeared to signal this week that the administration will provide funding in its new budget for initial development of a nationwide data network that would connect thousands of universities and companies throughout the country on a sort of superhighway for information. As envisioned, the network would allow information to be exchanged at the rate of 50,000 single-spaced typed pages a second -- at least 1,000 times faster than all but a few of the data networks in use...

As Goes Maine, Redux

As I posted way back here, Maine is currently the state closest to implementing a universal coverage, single-payer health plan (which passed the State House and was hung up in the Senate by one vote - the Democrats now control both houses and as well as Blaine House, the governor's manse.) Today, a long awaited study was released which could now pave the way for the reintroduction and passage of LD1277.

Today's Economics Quiz, Part I

What does this:

Natural Gas Prices Up as Mercury Falls

and this:

Crude climbs on war fears

Have to do with this?

Dow Chemical Posts Loss; Cuts 4,000 Jobs

According to Reuters,

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Dow Chemical Co. , the No. 1 U.S. chemical maker, said on Thursday it would eliminate up to 4,000 jobs this year as high energy costs and an asbestos charge widened its fourth-quarter loss.

The high cost of crude oil and natural gas wiped out a 9 percent rise in revenue. That, combined with weak U.S. industrial demand, pushed Dow to pare 8 percent of its work force and cut capital spending by $400 million for 2003.

Shouldn't the Administration have forecast such a scenario, thus moderating its rosy projections for a robust recovery?

From the DOE's Winter Fuels Outlook, 2002-2003, the predicted trend for natural gas prices:

While here is the actual trend in natural gas futures:

Stay tuned for Part II, or "What does this mean for consumers?"

A small victory and a big check

Two pieces of mascot-related news; first, from UPI (via email from Jenny),

In an op-ed on the Journal-Star's announcement, Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist John Levesque mused,

"The journalist in me is inclined to agree. We're supposed to be dispassionate, fair and careful not to distort the truth. If there's a team out there called the Redskins, our readers ought to be aware of it, no?

But my inner citizen, who clearly has seen too many Keith Jackson telecasts, is thinking, "Whoa, Nellie! If the Pekin Chinks were still around today, would we use the team nickname in the paper?"

I don't think so.

Pekin, a town in central Illinois not far from Peoria, is thought to be named for the Chinese capital. Its high school teams were the Chinks until 1981, when public sentiment forced a change to Dragons."

Read his whole column for more background and a journalists perspective on the controversy.

And second, a group of kids to be held as role models for all (via the Casper Star-Tribune);

You can help fund future scholarships by visiting the Fighting Whites website.

Lies, damn lies and statistics

I think Mark Twain said that - or was it Disraeli?

I really can't blog much today, as my 6-month old Keziah (aka Kezzie or Kez in a pinch) is sick with the plague which has been moving through our household. My eldest has had it for almost 2 weeks, and I thought that since Kez in exclusively breastfed, we might have dodged that bullet. No such chance. However, even as wonderful Emma was running the numbers for Bush Deux's (Duh?) SOTU speech, I was doing the same for Bush I and II. I warned you I'm perserverating on these two.

Here are few others:

Word Count	1991	2003
Total	3829	5400
Saddam	6	19
AIDS	1	12
Education	3	2
Nuclear/Nukular	0	12
Freedom	15	5
Tax cut/relief/reduction	3	10
Jobs	5	2
Threat/threaten	3	17
Terrorists	0	13
% of time on Terrorism & Iraq	25%	55%

A couple of things to note. When Bush II took office, the unemployment rate was 3.4%, the lowest in the post-WWII period. Now its 6%. When Bush I took office, unemployment figures, which began at 5.4 percent, dipped slightly in early 1989, then started their ascent in early 1990. By the time Bush II gave his "Thousand Points of Light" speech less than two weeks after the start of the Persian Gulf War, unemployment was at 6.2%. It would rise in the months afterwards to 7.8%. However, even at this point, Bush I's numbers look fairly comparable, especially when you take into account the number of jobs lost (I, 1.2 million, II 2.1 million) and other less obvious stats such as the increase in the median rent payment (up 15% in Bush I, 21% in Bush II.) Consumer confidence is way down with both. Bill Gates, speaking at Davos last week, warned that there should be no expectations that the tech sector will be rebounding anytime soon. Mayors around the country, at their annual meeting last week, echoed that sentiment, saying that it could take as much as a year after the recovery actually begins, for employment levels to increase again. Bush I's reign saw what was the beginnings of a rebound in the summer of 1992, but it was too little too late. If the recovery had begun six months earlier, the Clinton Miracle may never have had a chance to develop. It also indicates that should Bush's policies, as well as a weak economic picture continue, Bush may not survive the primary season, let alone the general election.

Well off to tend to sick infant. Did I mention I've got it too? So any mistakes can be blamed on too much Benadryl.

Oil Futures

A piece of analysis from the Cincinnati Enquirer which struck a chord this morning:

"The run-up in oil prices since November has had the same effect as a $50 billion tax increase, he said. If war pushed oil prices beyond $40 a barrel for any length of time, that could tip the nation back into recession."

I have to say that other than expressing a modest amount of price shock to the receptionist at our local oil company when I last ordered our tank filled, I haven't been thinking much about oil prices. So after reading the above quote, I started Googling around, and found the price of "light sweet crude" has in fact increased since November by as much as 25%, or just under $10/barrel, and although down slightly, sits at $32.65.

There are reasons beyond a concern over war in Iraq which can account for the increase, namely the political crisis in Venezuela. But its hard not to still find fault with the Administration, since its myopic, and hence neglectful foreign policy has led not only to worsening situations on the Korean peninsula and in Israel and the Occupied Territories, but in our own hemisphere. In addition, the irony of the first part of the Enquirer's analysis is particularly striking (or galling?) in that the effect on consumers is equivalent to a $50 billion tax increase, but that revenue is lining the pockets of oil company executives, not lowering the federal deficit or paying for programs like prescription drug coverage. In home heating oil alone, the jump in prices will cost our household $800 this winter. That is, if prices do not increase further. At $80/barrel for the three remaining heating months, we'll experience a $3,000 "tax" increase. Of course, that doesn't include the extra cost of gas, food, essentially anything and everything tied in our economy to oil production. To put these extra consumer costs in perspective, Bush's dividend tax cut, the largest piece of his "stimulus" plan, would average out to $30 billion per year (over 10 years.) So 100% of Americans got a $50 billion "tax" increase while the Administration proposed icing on the cake to the tune of $684 billion in cuts, mostly going to less than 10% of taxpayers.

If this Administration does choose to invade Iraq, three scenarios regarding oil prices have been proposed. Bush's economic team suggest that OPEC's recent increase in production will provide enough of a buffer to prevent anything more than a skittish spike, and that once they "liberate" the Iraqi oil fields, prices will in fact drop. Of course, they fail to mention the effect plummeting prices might have on the political stability of oil-revenue dependent oligarchies such as Saudi Arabia, but, hey, who really cares, right? (For a glimpse down that path, check out Neela Banerjee's October New York Times' analysis.) Besides, the first Gulf War was great for the stock market, at least for those with extra oil revenue or cash from an upcoming dividends tax cut.

The second scenario takes us to the opposite extreme, according to Anthony Cordesman with The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS):

"Cordesman figures there is a chance - 10 percent or less - that the war will take a significant turn for the worse. Damage to oil fields, high casualties, or effective use of WMD would send the price of oil surging to $80 per barrel, according to CSIS economists. Motorists would pay $3 per gallon at the pump. Further, it would take two years for the price of oil to return to pre-war levels."

The third is somewhere in between and possibly, in light of our somewhat ineffective occupation of Afghanistan, may be the one most likely to occur. Under such a scenario, Hussein would be overthrown relatively quickly, but Iraq would dissolve into civil war, greatly hampering its oil exports, keeping prices high enough to undermine economic recovery in the industrialized world. In addition, turmoil might spread to Iraq's neighbors. The US might not plunge back into deep recession, but the economic recovery the Bush Administration now needs to be returned to office in 2004 may just slip away.

When only old Christian spirituals will put the baby to sleep....

Well, I know we have a wonderful lefty site named Nitpicker, but also check out Nitpickers. I've been looking up sources that the Coen brothers used for O Brother Where Art Thou (anyone have a good link to 30's historic folk music recorded under the WPA please let me know) and came across this site. Reminded me of the shifting backpack in Stripes.

And don't forget to check out the O Brother soundtrack if you haven't. Kudos to the Coen brothers for actually using true historic music for the film (which I also loved, btw.)

Smoke Signals from the Iraqi Oilfields?

From the editorial desk of the Denver Post:

Plummeting polls: More Deja Vu?

A number of lefty bloggers have been discussing George W.'s plummeting polls ratings, particularly within the context of how the media chooses to report these numbers. Atrios and MHO, citing this wonderful graph by Pollkatz, take the media to task for their pandering to Bush II, much as they did to Reagan.

I've been thinking about Dubya's poll numbers as well, although within the framework of my most recent preoccupation with Bush I vs. Bush II. With PollingReport as a resource on the present Administration's numbers and a scouring of a range of media archives for previous Gallup poll ratings on Bush-pere, I put together the following graph, overlaying GHWB's favorables and unfavorables over the coinciding dates (though obviously different years) of those for GWB.

Its interesting to note that George HW Bush's highest ratings came during military actions, the invasion of Panama in mid-1989 and the beginning of the Persian Gulf War in January 1991. George W.'s approvals shot up after 9/11/01, however, like his father's early highs, have been sliding ever since.

I think that these similar patterns can be accounted for in a number of ways, but correspond most notably with the trends visible in the two graphs below, both from the Bureau of Labor Statistics's website (a great resource, until the current Administration figures a way of pulling it offline):

George W. Bush has done a fairly impressive job of convincing the media that he is not his father, and thus will not succumb to the same fate: I think he's done this primarily through asserting he'll never make the "Read My Lips" mistake and alienate his conservative base. Ironically, his economic and social policies are so like his father's that when placed within the context of a similar economic climate, history does in fact appear to be repeating itself.

On this date...

An astute pundit in Atrios' commentary box yesterday observed in reference to my "Headlines" post,

"that the headlines were from late 1991, which was on the eve of the primary season. Now the Bush administration has an entire year to change the focus from hard times to "morning in America" before the Democrats ramp up their presidential campaigns."

The first part of Dean's concerns I'll address now; the remainder, including a post which I've now been working on for a few days, will have to come later today, as its still not complete. So while I concede that I did purposely include headlines from late 1991, my motivations were pure trickery: Although I removed the year, I wanted the dates to seem recent, and so chose headlines mostly from November and December. However, there was no dearth of material in any of the archives I utilized for a range of dates beginning in late autumn 1990. It is within that premise that every few days for the foreseeable future I will be adding timely flashbacks to news and commentary from the corresponding timeframe within the reign of Bush I.

While my original headlines were chosen in part for their oblique references to particular persons within the first Bush Administration, I'm no longer so constrained. However, although it has been obvious for years now that Bush II has recycled much of his father's staff, it is no less astounding to see it in print, day after day. Funny too, how the journalists and commentators have also remained the same. My first selection is from this date, January 25th, 1991, only a week after GHW Bush invaded Iraq, with the support of the UN Security Council, dozens of European, Arab and Asian allies, and, contrary to contemporary punditry's remarks (last paragraph), high public approval.

Who pays their fact checkers?

I found today's Washington Post article on Bush's plunging poll numbers regarding support for military action against Iraq strangely reassuring, as it re-establishes a modicum of faith in both the American public and the Post's willingness to report bad news for the Administration. In just a few short weeks, support for Bush's Iraq policy has dropped: "50 percent of Americans said they approved of Bush's handling of the Iraqi situation, down from 58 percent a month ago", according to the Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Something, however, which I found somewhat disturbing in the Post's coverage was its willingness to use an outside source's analysis, without checking that source's facts against information available in its own archive. According to the article,

Such levels of support are far below the near-unanimous support for an attack against Afghanistan; support for that operation exceeded 90 percent in the weeks before military action began. Eric Larson, who studies national security and public opinion at the Rand research group, said that was a "unique case" because of the direct link to an attack on U.S. soil. A better comparison, Larson said, was the 1991 Persian Gulf War, when support for war was 45 percent before the attack began but quickly rallied. "In comparison to other historical incidents, this seems to be extraordinarily high support for a military option," Larson said.

The emphasis is mine. The reason I'm fixating on this is that on Monday, I was digging through the Post's archives looking for polls numbers prior to the Gulf War, and came across this article;

GULF POLL MOST AMERICANS WANT HILL TO BACK BUSH
CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL OF FORCE ALSO FAVORED

Richard Morin Washington Post Staff Writer
January 8, 1991; Page a12

Most Americans want Congress to more actively support President Bush's Middle East policies, but an equally large majority still expects Bush to ask lawmakers before using military force to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News Poll The survey also found growing support for Bush's handling of the Persian Gulf crisis, as well as continued strong backing for overall U.S. policy objectives in the region. The survey found that more than six out of 10 Americans support war with Iraq if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein does not withdraw his troops from Kuwait by next Tuesday's U.N. deadline.

But once the shooting starts, public support for a war with Iraq may quickly evaporate in the face of even modest U.S. casualties, according to the poll.

Many Americans remain hopeful that the crisis can be resolved without a war. Nine out of 10 said they supported Bush's decision to have Secretary of State James A. Baker III meet with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz in Geneva Wednesday. And about half of those questioned said that U.S.-Iraqi talks will lead to a peaceful end to the five-month crisis.

Interviews with a national sampling of 1,057 randomly selected adults Friday through Sunday found broad support for the administration's handling of the crisis and growing acceptance of a military solution. Margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

According to the survey, 67 percent of those questioned said they approved of the way Bush was handling the situation in the gulf -- the highest level in a Post-ABC News survey since early September.

Once again, the emphasis is mine. From my search of the WP archives, this is the last WP-ABC poll taken before the start of the war ten days later. Now its quite possible that Larson's information may have been different from the Post's - but its seems to make sense to see if the assertions made by your informants jibe with data which would have a direct bearing on your most current poll, being from the same source and asking the same question, albeit surveyed 12 years previous.

My reasoning behind my search for original documentation (other than it being rather OCD behavior for an archaeologist) was that I wasn't exactly comfortable with the lack of historical perspective in the present-day Iraqi debate. Many people, both in the media and in the blogosphere, have made assertions that Bush's poll numbers would bounce just like his father's once an invasion got under way. Furthermore, its been speculated that if that should in fact happen, Bush II would be unbeatable in the next election. Fortunately, if history does in fact repeat itself (despite my favorite Split Enz song telling me that it doesn't) even with Bush deux's warmongering, a rosy future for him is not at all guaranteed. In fact, the opposite may be true.

I have lots more to write on this, but it will have to wait. I have a 6 year old with a nasty virus who needs to see her ped, and that will not wait.

California Autism Epidemic Continues: 10 new case per day

[This article comes via the FEAT newsletter. Rick Rollens is a well-known autism advocate, parent of an autistic child, and former Secretary of the California Senate.)

Increases in Autism Diagnosis in California keep rising

From Rick Rollens:

According to the latest figures just released by the California Department of Developmental Services, in 2002 California experienced an astounding 31% one year increase in the number of new children professionally diagnosed with the most severe cases of autism entering it's developmental services system. The 31% one year increase from 2001 to 2002 represents an all time record number of new cases in the system's 33 year history.... 3,577 new severely autistic children added in just the past 12 months. The figures reported by the Department DO NOT include persons with PDD-NOS, Asperger's, or any other autism spectrum disorders, just those who have received a professional diagnosis of level one, DSM IV autism.

According to the Department, eight years ago, in 1994, there were 5,108 cases of level one autism in the entire system, as of January 6, 2003, there are now 20,377 cases of level one autism in the system. From 1971 to 1980, California consistently added one to two hundred new cases a YEAR. In 2002, California added 3,577 new cases. Since 1980, the documented start of California's autism epidemic, the numbers of new cases have exploded to where we are today with California adding, on average, 10 new children a day, 7 days a week with the most severe form of autism to it's system, an increase of over 2 additional new children per day over the 2001 rate of 8 children a day. Keep in mind that from January 1994 to January 1995, California added on average 2 new children a day.....today we are adding 10 children a day.

One only needs to examine the age distribution of the persons in the system to recognize the genesis of this epidemic. Over 81.5% (8 out of 10) of the autism population in the system were born AFTER 1980.... with 2 out of 3 persons in the system currently between the ages of 3 and 13 years old, compared to 18.5% (less then 2 out of 10) who were born BEFORE 1980. Autism now accounts for 40% of all of the new intakes to the system, making level one autism the number one disability entering California's DD system. (The other eligible conditions besides level one autism are mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and other conditions similar to MR.)

Around the Blogosphere

Go. Read. Now. (But don't forget to come back and take the Headlines quiz below).

Julia at Sisyphus Shrugged has been all over the Bushies and their attempts to dress up their affirmative action stance in Condi-Colin clothing. (Not putting in a permalink, as you should read the last week's worth, if you haven't already (and why haven't you?))

Lisa at Ruminate This on Freepers, A.N.S.W.E.R. and the growing anti-war protests. Her post is also a fitting response to anti-anti-war-protest sentiment over at Daily Kos.

A little late, but Eric at the Hamster blogs on Senator John Edward's attempts to derail the Bush Administration's assault on the Clean Air Act. (I posted on the new rule changes way back here.)

So what's remarkable about these headlines?

WHEREFORE ART THOU, RECOVERY?
Published on December 5: Charlie Stein, Boston Globe Staff

The latest statistics out of Washington confirm what most people already suspected: The sluggish recovery is threatening to stall altogether.

The economy grew at an annual rate of 1.7 percent in the third quarter, the Commerce Department reported yesterday, down from a previous estimate of 2.5 percent. The revision showed that inventories were higher and sales weaker than originally thought, a pattern that does not bode well for the fourth quarter...


INDEX SHOWS ECONOMY STAGNANT BUSH SAYS, 'WE CAN'T SIT BACK AND HOPE FOR THE BEST'
Published on December 4: John D. McClain, Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- The government's chief measure of future economic health edged up an anemic 0.1 percent in October, casting new doubts on the economic recovery.

"It tells me that whatever recovery we had is gone," said economist Paul Getman of Regional Financial Associates in West Chester, Pa. "The economy is in imminent danger of slipping back into recession."
In Bradenton, Fla., President Bush said he understands the plight of Americans who have lost jobs and...


ECONOMISTS TAKE DIM VIEW OF USING TAX CUTS TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY
Steven Mufson, Washington Post Staff Writer
December 18; Page a18

It's two and a half times the food stamp program. It's roughly the size of the entire budget of the Transportation Department. It's nearly as big as the contributions the Persian Gulf countries made to cover the cost of Operation Desert Storm. It may be dubbed the Great Tax Giveaway, and it's one of the latest ideas underconsideration by the Bush administration and other Republican leaders. It would give $200 to $300 to every American taxpayer, or a total of $300...


U.S. FACTORY PRODUCTION FELL 0.4% IN NOVEMBER
Steven Mufson, Washington Post Staff Writer
December 17; Page c1

The nation's industrial production fell 0.4 percent last month, the government said yesterday. It was the biggest decline in eight months and a sign that the economy might shrink during the final quarter of the year, analysts said. The drop in output at the nation's factories, mines and utilities was twice as severe as most economists had been expecting and heightened expectations that the Federal Reserve would decide to cut interest rates when its policy-making open market ...


ADMINISTRATION RETRACTS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CURBS MOVE FAILS TO MOLLIFY CRITICS
Published on November 22, Author(s): Michael K. Frisby, Boston Globe Staff

WASHINGTON -- The White House retreated yesterday from a proposed directive that would have eliminated federal affirmative action programs and crippled private-sector ones. But the action did not quiet a storm of protest over the changes circulated by his legal counsel.


AMERICANS GRADE THEIR HEALTH CARE
Richard Morin, Don Colburn, Washington Post Staff Writers
December 31; Page z6

Most Americans are satisfied with the quality and availability of their health care, but anxieties about cost prompt an overwhelming majority to favor key changes in the health insurance system, a nationwide Washington Post-ABC News poll shows three out of four of those surveyed favor efforts to expand health insurance either by requiring businesses to provide coverage to all employees or by a national health care plan run by the government and financed by taxpayers...


Dream of Striking It Rich Fading in Silicon Valley Technology: Severe business restructuring and recession alter face-and attitude-of electronics Mecca.
The Los Angeles Times; Los Angeles, Calif.; Sep 9; JONATHAN WEBER;

No one believes that Silicon Valley is withering away as a center of innovation. Indeed, it is likely to remain a premier technology hub and a powerful economic driver for the state and nation. But many in the high-tech community agree that when it emerges from the recession, Silicon Valley probably will look more like any other vibrant industrial region rather than ...


State's Long-Term Jobless Corps Grows 50% in Year Recession: Thousands have exhausted their unemployment benefits and are still without a job.
The Los Angeles Times; Los Angeles, Calif.; Sep 8; JESUS SANCHEZ;

Diane Dixon is one of a fast growing number of Californians who have exhausted their unemployment benefits before finding work in a recession-battered job market. The state's corps of long-term unemployed jumped 50% over year-before levels to about 36,000 in July, the latest month for which figures are available from the state Employment Development Department.


TWO VISIONS OF US ENERGY FUTURE
Published on November 4: Ross Gelbspan, Globe Staff

The US Senate's vote Friday to derail action on the Bush administration's massive energy bill provided a vivid reminder of the nation's profound division over how best to provide for its energy needs in the 21st century.

The president's bill foundered primarily on opposition to oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but underlying that issue is a far broader disagreement over priorities...


RECORD NUMBER OF JOBLESS LEFT WITHOUT BENEFITS
Chicago Tribune; Chicago, Ill.; Stephen Franklin

The number of workers in the U.S. who have exhausted their jobless benefits and are ineligible for further assistance hit a record high in July, according to a Washington-based research group.

Officials with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said that 318,000 workers nationwide, and 17,293 in Illinois, used up their unemployment benefits in July. The nationwide figure is the highest since monthly ...


US EXPECTED TO RESTRICT USE OF RACE-BASED SCHOLARSHIPS
Published on December 4: Anthony Flint, Boston Globe Staff

In a move that is sure to revive a thorny civil rights issue for President Bush, [the] Education Secretary is expected to propose a rule today prohibiting colleges from restricting scholarships to individual racial groups, although race can be a factor in awarding aid.
Under the proposed regulation, scholarships must be open to "all comers," whether white or black or from other groups, a Department of Education official said yesterday...


ADMINISTRATION RETRACTS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CURBS HINTS OF WHITE HOUSE ADRIFT
Published on November 22: John W. Mashek, Boston Globe Staff

WASHINGTON -- A White House lawyer's attempt to reverse two decades of affirmative action on the eve of a presidential ceremony to sign a new civil rights bill was the most serious of several recent blunders and miscalculations by President Bush and his aides.
The episode, despite Bush's hasty and clumsy attempt to undo the damage, left the president embarrassed and gave the appearance of a White House careening out of control...


PRESCRIPTIONS FOR AN AILING ECONOMY
December 22; Page h1. Washington Post Staff

What is to be done about the economy? Focus on long-terminvestment? Extend jobless benefits? Jump-start housing and construction through federal spending? Cut interest rates even more? As President Bush huddles with his advisers in search of a new strategy, a cross-section of experts offered their advice about the best path to follow...


BUSH APPROVAL RATING SLIPS TO 47%
POLL RESULTS, REFLECTING ECONOMIC FEARS, ARE WORST OF HIS PRESIDENCY

Dan BalzWashington Post Staff Writers
December 17; Page a1

Fed by surging doubts about his handling of the economy, President Bush's popularity has fallen to the lowest level of his presidency, with fewer than half of those questioned in the latest Washington Post-ABC News Poll saying they approve of the way he is doing his job. Bush's approval rating has dropped to 47 percent, marking the first time it has slipped below 50 percent in Post-ABC News surveys. Only about six weeks ago, 59 percent of the public approved of the way he was...


Figured it out yet?

They're all from 1991.

Friendly Ghosts

I don't know if its because he's autistic or just plain three, but my youngest son has become fascinated with our combination fax/answering machine. Its one of the newer ones, with a built-in chip rather than a tape, and stores about 35 messages. I often forget to erase old messages, as it plays only new messages unless cued by a dial on the face of the machine. Its that dial which captured my son Jonah's interest earlier this week. While sitting down at dinner, from the study where the machine is located came a voice literally from the grave. Well, actually two, but in light of Jim Cappozola's poignant essay on the loss of his friend, Richard Silbert, it was the first which has echoed in my head for days. The second was from my mom, who died suddenly a few months ago, but that's a different ghost which haunts me.

Its not that I didn't know the first message was there. From the moment in late September of 2001 when I realized it was still on the machine, I purposely left it there. And every once in a while I think of it. On the first anniversary of the events of September 11th, I actually considered deleting it.

The message is from my friend, James Roux. Like Richard Silbert to Jim C., my relationship with Jim was both professional and personal. He was my son's lawyer in his lead poisoning case, but he was also a savvy political ally and friendly ear. The last time we met was for coffee at Border's, where I sought his advice regarding my recently torched Sienna, and he sought mine regarding a feud with the mayor. I also got a chance to meet his son. The message on my machine was to arrange that meeting.

Jim also told me about a new romance, and his plans to head West to try and arrange for her emigration to the US. A few weeks later, annoyed at his flightiness over my son's case, but otherwise happy for him, I received a letter letting me know he was closing up his practice. It wasn't until September 18th that I read his name on the list of passengers on United flight 175. We were on vacation, and although I had seen the plane, time and time again, flown into the south tower of the WTC, I didn't know my friend was on it. It wasn't until I arrived home and played through all my messages did I find the old one from Jim.

I don't know if it has something to do with reaching a certain point in your life - Jim Capozzola and I are the same age it seems. Does the meaning of mortality somehow change as we go through time? Even though I lost a close childhood friend in my late teens, I hadn't faced death for quite some time until more recently. Then, in the span of four years, I lost both my parents, a couple of friends and very nearly my son. I think of it so much more differently now then when I was young, single and childless. And I'm much more selfish about missing them. The holes their absences leave in my life seem much bigger now, but I also sadly realize that those holes will only increase as I get older, making me into somewhat a block of Swiss cheese.

Fortunately, this aging phase that I'm going through does not let morbidness run amuck, and as soon as I made the cheese metaphor, I started to think about all the positive things about good cheese. Well, in spite of the fact I'm lactose intolerant. And I'm really more of a Havarti-kinda gal. So maybe I need to skip the metaphors. And maybe erase the answering machine.

Three strikes you're out.

No, not for criminals. For the poor and disabled.

President Bush, circumventing Congressional intent in 1997 Medicaid legislation which moved many benefit recipients into managed care plans, but safeguarded basic care rights, has ruled that states can in fact place restrictions on those protections. The new rules do not specify particular regulations, but many states, such as Louisiana, are looking at limiting emergency room visits to an arbitrary number, such as three per year.

Conservatives often throw out the red herring of Medicaid abuse with stories of the use of ambulances for transportation to routine doctor visits, or using an ER for a hangnail. Medicaid billing fraud, by massive corporations such as the Frist family's HCA, do vastly more to drive up medical costs than the use of emergency rooms by the poor. While there may be instances of misuse, the vast majority of Medicaid recipients work within the system, as best as they can. With fewer doctors taking Medicaid patients due to low reimbursements, many individuals are forced to use emergency facilities for care generally provided in a practitioners' office.

Average Americans need to think hard about what this really means. In order to qualify for Medicaid in most states, you must be either unemployed, disabled, working poor, pregnant or a child from a family of limited means. Under two of those conditions, disabled or pregnant, the very idea of limiting ER visits to three is just simply beyond reason. Serious complications can arise at any hour of the day, not just doctor office hours of 9-5. I personally cannot count the number of times I ended up in the ER in my most recent pregnancy, with complications of placental abruption, hyperemesis and preterm labor. At least twice I've taken my children into the ER in the middle of the night, with symptoms an HMO administrator may not agree were life-threatening. My eldest daughter, presenting with stomach pains, was suffering from an intussusception (bowel blockage). Three years later, my youngest son presented the same symptoms; that time it was severe lead poisoning.

Its now been well documented that the poor suffer more from chronic, yet often life-threatening, conditions such as asthma, diabetes and hypertension. Five thousand deaths are attributed to asthma every years, including hundreds of children. As an asthmatic and the mother of an asthmatic, seldom do attacks occur at times most convenient for our doctors. For the working poor, add to that the limitations imposed by inflexible work schedules.

The Bush Administration, after having foisted a fiscal crisis of catastrophic proportions on state governments through its tax cutting policies, is now waging outright war on the poor, elderly and disabled. The states, begging for the federal government to lift the lifeboat, are instead being told to toss the most vulnerable into the sea.

The beginning of the end for the ADA and IDEA?

On January 7th, President Bush began laying the groundwork to dismantle the one significant piece of legislation for which his father is remembered, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He did this with the nomination of Ohio lawyer and former Justice Scalia clerk, Jeffrey Sutton. However, the danger is not just to the ADA, but to nearly every piece of legislation Congress has enacted under the "Spending Clause", including IDEA, Medicaid, and even the President's pet legislation, No Child Left Behind.

In simple terms, under the "Spending Clause", which derives from the 10th Amendment, Congress seeks to compel states to act in accordance with federal law through its funding of related program, e.g. funded mandates. However, in Alexander v Sandoval, Sutton argued to the Supreme Court that Congress cannot use its power under the Spending Clause to authorize individuals to sue the states to enforce their rights. He argued the same to a Michigan federal court in Westside Mothers v. Haveman, where a group of individuals were suing the state to secure basic medical care under Medicaid for their economically disadvantaged or disabled children. Sutton argued that Medicaid and other Spending Clause laws, such as the Rehabilitation Act and the IDEA, are merely contracts between the federal and state governments, and not supreme federal law. Thus, only the federal government, and not individuals, may take action against the states if the states do not comply with federal laws. In the case of Westside Mothers, the court stated that the only way to enforce Medicaid rights is for the federal government to withhold Medicaid funds to the states -- a ridiculous remedy, as it would result in the same Medicaid recipients still not receiving needed services.

Sutton's attack on the ADA is not limited to the Spending Clause. Fitting a member of the Federalist Society, in Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, Sutton convinced the Supreme Court’s conservative majority to rule that Congress had no power to allow state employees to sue their employers for damages under Title I of the ADA. In a 5-4 split,

[t]he Supreme Court noted that Congress may not base its abrogation of the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity upon the powers enumerated in Article I. However, Congress may subject non-consenting states to suit in federal court when it does so pursuant to a valid exercise of it power authorized under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In order to authorize private individuals to recover money damages against the states, there must be a pattern of discrimination by the states which violates the Fourteenth Amendment, and the remedy imposed by Congress must be congruent and proportional to the targeted violation. In the present case, the Supreme Court determined that Congress failed to show in the ADA's legislative history that a pattern of discrimination upon the disabled by the states in employment situations existed, and that there was a need to remedy such discrimination. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority by subjecting states to suits in federal court for money damages under the ADA.

In a similar vein, Sutton argued for the state of Georgia before the Supreme Court in Olmstead v. L.C., where he asserted that unnecessarily keeping people with disabilities segregated in institutions versus in community care settings was not a form of discrimination. Sutton also urged the Supreme Court to hold that "the Americans with Disabilities Act does not impose a 'least restrictive treatment' requirement on the States", a ruling which would have profound implications for IDEA and the education of special needs children as well. Fortunately, the present Court rejected this interpretation. For now.

Its important to note that groups which support Jeffrey Sutton's nomination argue that cases such as Garrett are about "state's rights" under the Eleventh Amendment, not rolling back protection for the disabled. Judicial Selection (dot org) asserts that Sutton's arguments in Garrett have been so misinterpreted:

Contrary to what some are saying, Garrett was not about disabilities issues. It was not about rolling back the rights of the disabled. It was about whether Congress could ignore the Eleventh Amendment when it had no constitutional authority to do so.

- The Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution prevents individuals from suing states in federal court.
- Congress may get around this through legislation, but only where it both unequivocally intends to do so and acts under a valid grant of constitutional authority.
- For Congress to get around that part of the Constitution in this case (with the ADA), it would have to show that the states themselves were deliberately discriminating against the disabled.
- Congress did not demonstrate that was happening, at all. Instead, the legislative history of the ADA shows that states were actually engaging in a clear practice of protection and preferential treatment toward the disabled.
- Therefore, Congress had no authority to attempt an end-run around the Constitution.

If Sutton's role in the Garrett case was unprecedented, this argument might hold water. However, throughout his relatively short career (Sutton is only 42), he has time and again sought out cases challenging the rights of the poor and disabled:

Mr. Sutton's role in Westside Mothers is instructive not only for the radical nature of his legal arguments but also for his active, and questionable, intervention into the case. As reported by Nina Totenberg on National Public Radio, Mr. Sutton did not represent any parties in the case. Rather, he purported to represent an organization of municipalities, even though municipalities are not entitled to immunity under the Constitution and had no apparent interest in protecting the states' immunity. However, when the lawyer for the children and families made a routine request to confirm whether the organization's members had authorized Mr. Sutton's involvement, the trial judge denied the request and fined the children and families $6,000. [source: Justice For All]

While I heartily support Dwight Meredith's vision of Democratic "mojo as a renewable resource", one has to wonder if the renomination of Charles Pickering was in fact a cynical attempt to distract attention from even more objectionable, due to age and track record for inflicting widespread damage, nominees. While ADAWatch has been on the case of Jeffrey Sutton since his name first appeared on Bush's wish list back in 2001, the objections of over a hundred civil rights organizations to his nomination to the 6th Circuit have been mostly ignored by the media. In fact, although I was cognizant of Sutton's potential nomination when it was originally discussed, I was not aware that Bush had submitted his name to the Senate until reading Atrios' post during my 5 month-old's 3am breakfast. Kudos to him and Jeff Hauser on not letting this one slip by.

A new breed of drug pusher...

The Washington Post this morning has an article on more American kids being prescribed psychiatric drugs. According to the report, a recent University of Maryland study "found that by 1996, more than 6 percent of children were taking drugs such as Prozac, Ritalin and Risperdal, and the researchers said the trajectory continued to rise through 2000."

The study looked at the medical records of 900,000 children either enrolled in Medicaid or a private HMO. There are a number of troubling aspects of this issue, most of which are discussed in the article, such as the lack of research on the long-term effects of these drugs on developing children and increased marketing by pharmaceuticals towards this age group. Also discussed was the possibility that these drugs are being prescribed because they are viewed as less expensive than other methods of treatment, such as counseling or other therapy. Particularly worrisome is the higher prescription rates among lower incomes; "Such powerful medications, normally meant to treat schizophrenia, were increasingly being prescribed to children on Medicaid, said the study's lead author, Julie Zito -- possibly as a way to restrain difficult children."

Although the Post article focuses on the use of these meds to treat psychiatric problems, they seem to miss the fact that many of these drugs, Prozac, Ritalin and Risperdal in particular, are now widely used to treat neurodevelopmental diseases, such as ADHD and autism. And while Risperdal in particular has recently shown promise in use by autistic children, its main benefit was to help them to learn better. But Risperdal also is known to have very serious lifelong side-effects, and no long-term studies have been done in children.

The only proven effective treatment for children with autism and other developmental disorders is Applied Behavioral Analysis, or ABA. ABA is intensive, generally one-on-one therapy, which, according to Lovaas' studies in the 1980s essentially "recovered" approximately 50% of its participants, and led to significant improvement in nearly the remaining 50%. ABA is the preferred therapy in many school districts around the US, including my own. Problem is, its very expensive, with per pupil costs generally surpassing $50K per year. Of course, in the long run its also cost effective, as 50% of its participants not only do not need the life-long care previously required for almost all individuals with autism, they are "indistinguishable from their peers", requiring few, if any, further special education assistance. But in the short run, in light of looming budget deficits, ABA seems a perfect target for the budget axe.

One would think that the safeguards incorporated in IDEA would protect students from such cuts. Currently, those protections are there, but often school districts, when given the choice between litigation and providing children expensive services, will forego the latter for the former, gambling on many American's reluctance to sue those they're supposed to trust, their children's school. In addition, proposed changes in IDEA by the Bush Administration could have a profound effect on the interpretation of IDEA , particularly by Bush's new federal bench. Its quite possible that the benchmarks used to ascertain "improvement" may be modified to favor those more easily accomplished by merely medicating, rather than actually teaching, our special needs children, and at a greatly reduced cost over methods such as ABA.

The big winners in all this are the pharmaceuticals, some currently under the IOM's microscope as possible culprits in the increase of neurodevelopmental disorders. The irony of it all.

So why is it the actor who plays the President acts more Presidential than the man appointed as President?

Actor Martin Sheen leads anti-war rally

AFP - US movie star Martin Sheen on Saturday led thousands of people in a rowdy protest march in Los Angeles against President George W Bush's plans for a possible war with Iraq.

Sheen, who plays a fictional US president on the hit television show The West Wing, called for Americans to fight for a peaceful approach to the Washington administration's crisis centring on Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

"A lot of people have been silenced for a long time but that is ending," he said.

"We are telling the world that we are patriotic Americans but we do not support going to war with Iraq.

"From this time forth, may all our thoughts and deeds be a non-violent response to violence," he told the cheering crowd.

Funny, I can actually picture him saying this, with his hands in his pockets, of course.

[link via Skippy]

(as a side note, I'd like to point out that nearly an equal number of Mainards came out to protest racism against Somalis yesterday)

Maybe the not-so-"liberal" media is finally getting a clue

This AP story has been picked up by a couple dozen news outlets in the past two hours. Certainly doesn't portray our Dr. Senator in the most positive light.

WASHINGTON -- Shortly after Sen. Bill Frist introduced legislation limiting suits against vaccine makers, the drug industry's trade group gave $10,000 to the surgeon-turned-politician's political action committee.

Throughout his political career, the new Senate majority leader has supported the health care industry and the industry has supported him.

Frist, R-Tenn., has raised more than $2 million from doctors, health insurers, drug companies and others in the health care industry. That's roughly 20 percent of all the contributions to his two Senate campaigns.

Here's the rest of the story.