World Bank Bets on Chad and Loses

This story isn't getting much play in the US media, but it's been on the radar of World Bank watchers for a while:

BBC NEWS | Business | World Bank warns Chad on oil law: "The World Bank has warned that it could take action against Chad after the country's parliament changed a law governing the use of oil revenues.

World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz said the law was a deciding factor in the bank's financial support for a massive oil pipeline project in 1999.

It guaranteed that oil revenues were used to help reduce poverty in Chad.

The new legislation gives the Chadian government more control over how it uses the money.

It abolishes what was known as the "future generations fund", which had kept 10% of the country's oil revenues for use in tackling poverty in Chad.

The government wants to use the $36m (£21m) held in the fund to deal with some of the country's financial problems, which include months of unpaid salaries."

That's not the only thing the government wants to use the money for. According to a BBC report I heard on the radio last night, the government's security forces -- which have been locked for years in a quiet and brutal struggle with rebellious groups in the country's south -- will assume "priority" status for funding alongside health and education under the new legislation. This was emphatically not the deal that the Bank signed onto.

We can all hope for a forceful response from the World Bank, but the history of this particular deal gives little reason to expect one. The Bank proceeded with this project despite Chad's use of its "signing bonus" to purchase arms, and despite Deby's imprisonment and persecution of his political opponents in the 1999 "elections." It should have been starkly clear at that point that Deby's government was not to be trusted and that the oil revenues were unlikely to bring real benefits to the impoverished people of Chad. But with multinational profits, a major oil reserve, and no doubt plenty of Bank careers in the balance, the Bank failed to act on the obvious when it had the most leverage.

How the Bank responds in these circumstances may be the first high-profile evidence of Wolfowitz's leadership style and his approach to difficult political-economic development issues. Stay tuned for more news.

SRI

I've just now made my first foray into investing, and decided that while I was at it I should support socially responsible investing. I scraped together enough cash to make the minimum investment in the Winslow Green Growth Fund (WGGFX) and went for it. It's a new and somewhat volatile fund but generally gets very high returns, and it feels good to invest in a rigorous environmental fund as opposed to a fund that just avoids tobacco and firearm stocks.

My biggest concern is that it focuses (inexplicably) on domestic securities, which may be a problem in the short-to-medium term when our structural deficits and current account imbalances finally catch up to us. Seems like a fund dedicated to environmental investments should take strong interest in European firms that are far ahead of us on alternative energy and carbon-saving technologies. But we'll see how this goes.

Jihad of the Gay Vegan Commies

Why did Bush resort to the extreme measure of circumventing the pliant FISA Court in order to carry out NSA surveillance? Maybe because NSA was engaging in stuff like this:

F.B.I. Watched Activist Groups, New Files Show - New York Times: "Counterterrorism agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted numerous surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations that involved, at least indirectly, groups active in causes as diverse as the environment, animal cruelty and poverty relief, newly disclosed agency records show."

Bush's Support Jumps After a Long Decline

The Washington Post tells us that Bush's recent speechifying has given him a bump in the polls:

Bush's Support Jumps After a Long Decline: "President Bush's approval rating has surged in recent weeks, reversing what had been an extended period of decline, with Americans now expressing renewed optimism about the future of democracy in Iraq, the campaign against terrorism and the U.S. economy, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News Poll.Bush's overall approval rating rose to 47 percent, from 39 percent in early November, with 52 percent saying they disapprove of how he is handling his job. His approval rating on Iraq jumped 10 percentage points since early November, to 46 percent, while his rating on the economy rose 11 points, to 47 percent. A clear majority, 56 percent, said they approve of the way Bush is handling the fight against terrorism -- a traditional strong point in his reputation that nonetheless had flagged to 48 percent in the November poll."

But, as I suspected, the bump is attributable almost entirely to the return of the base -- Republicans disillusioned with Bush's flailing under fire.

Bush's pre-Christmas rebound was fueled largely by a sharp increase in support among his core supporters. In the past month, the proportion of Republicans approving of the president's performance rose nine percentage points, to 87 percent. And among conservatives, three in four said Bush was doing a good job, up 12 points from November. Among Democrats, independents and moderates Bush's support remained unchanged or increased only modestly.

Now that the Dear Leader is back in fighting form and uttering fine sweet nothings, they're willing to give him high marks on the economy and terrorism. I wonder if it ever bothers Bush that he is no longer really the president of this country -- just the president of partisan Republicans.

Power As Principle?

A propos my post yesterday, the New York Times today puts the NSA spying scandal in the proper context:

Behind Power, One Principle as Bush Pushes Prerogatives - New York Times: "A single, fiercely debated legal principle lies behind nearly every major initiative in the Bush administration's war on terror, scholars say: the sweeping assertion of the powers of the presidency."

Except to elevate a power grab to a "legal principle" gives the Administration too much credit, methinks. What's ironic is that the abuses this Administration has committed in shoring up this "principle" will only undermine the legitimacy and authority of the executive in the long run.

So, specific authorization of an agency to illegally spy on American citizens -- high crime and misdemeanor? Perhaps, and had Bush been a Democrat he would have been long gone, but with this Congress we'll never know. Nonetheless, I reiterate Brad DeLong's familiar refrain:

IMPEACH GEORGE W. BUSH. IMPEACH RICHARD CHENEY. DO IT NOW.

Abramoff's Massive Web

Wow. Who has Abramoff NOT corrupted? From BusinessWeek Online:

Op-Eds for Sale: "A senior fellow at the Cato Institute resigned from the libertarian think tank on Dec. 15 after admitting that he had accepted payments from indicted Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff for writing op-ed articles favorable to the positions of some of Abramoff's clients."

Surely there are others.

Conservative opinion. Best opinion money can buy.

Big Brother Dubya

The New York Times reveals today that in 2002, President Bush authorized the shadowy National Security Agency (NSA) to begin monitoring the e-mail, faxes, telephone conversations, and even individual movements of possibly thousands of Americans with suspected links to terrorism:

Bush Authorized Domestic Spying: "President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge of the program said last night.

The super-secretive NSA, which has generally been barred from domestic spying except in narrow circumstances involving foreign nationals, has monitored the e-mail, telephone calls and other communications of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of people under the program, the New York Times disclosed last night."

The real rub for me here is not just that such surveillance happened -- it's an ugly reality in an age of terrorism that this kind of intelligence, much like Britain's MI-5 collects, may be necessary -- but the way in which the Administration went about it. See, we have a democratic safeguard in place to make sure that domestic surveillance is undertaken in a fair and accountable manner: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That Act established a special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court responsible for issuing authorization for electronic and physical surveillance, as well as searches, of suspected spies and terrorists. This mechanism established a workable compromise between the prerogative of the executive to guard our security, and the need of the public to exercise some check over abuses of that prerogative.

The catch is that the NSA operates outside the jurisdiction of the FISA court. In authorizing the NSA to carry out this operation, then, Bush circumvented the normal procedures and may have broken the law, which states very clearly that domestic surveillance is not to occur without explicit authorization by statute or by the FISA court. This is not just an isolated policy decision, either -- it's consonant with the governing "philosophy" of this Administration that the executive enjoys unbridled and unfettered powers when it comes to any area even tenuously related to national security -- whether it be indefinite and secret detention of American citizens and foreigners, use of torture in interrogations, airline safety regulations, even energy policy. There's clearly a modus operandi at work here. This is, quite simply, a lawless Administration.

One last tidbit worth mentioning in the article:

"The Times said it held off on publishing its story about the NSA program for a year after administration officials said its disclosure would harm national security."

So, last year this kind of revelation would have harmed national security, but now that the election's over and Bush's ratings are in the tank it's OK? What's the explanation for this? Cowardice, a need to appear "balanced" that has now attenuated, some specific authorization from the Administration? None of these makes me feel any better about the Times...

Cohen Finally Gets It Right

Richard Cohen's willfully blind "pox-on-both-houses" style of writing normally irritates me -- but today he wins me over with a hearty condemnation of Hillary Clinton's flag-burning bill. Money quote:

Star-Spangled Pandering: "The First Amendment is where you simply do not go. It is sacred. It protects our most cherished rights -- religion, speech, press and assembly -- and while I sometimes turn viscerally angry when I see the flag despoiled, my emotions are akin to what I feel when neo-Nazis march. Repugnant or not, popular or not, it is all political speech. Her sponsorship of the flag measure calls for reconsideration all around -- either by Hillary Clinton and her support of the flag bill or by liberals and their support of her."

His point is that Hillary is really a centrist rather than a liberal, but her bill goes beyond what centrists should advocate and in fact "courts reactionaries." I tend to agree, but Cohen undercuts himself by mentioning that 70% of Americans support a flag-burning ban. I haven't verified this (it's an outrageously high number, but not implausible and possibly dependent on the way the question is asked). Nonetheless, there are some areas of lawmaking you just don't pander to the crowd, and the First Amendment -- as Cohen points out -- is one of them.

Screw Loose at FOX News?

As reported in Dan Froomkin's latest column in the WP:

"Greg Kelly of Fox News is pursuing a story no one else seems to want to touch. On Tuesday, he filed this report: 'Twice last month in speeches to military audiences, the president attacked Democrats and fired back at their accusations that pre-war intelligence was manipulated by his administration. . . .

'The attacks against critics at military settings may have put troops in the awkward position of undermining their own regulations. A Department of Defense directive doesn't allow service members in uniform to attend 'partisan political events.' . . .

'Several members of the military told FOX News that Bush is inviting the troops to take sides in a partisan debate in his speeches.' 'This is a very bad sign,' said retired Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar, who led Central Command in the early 1990s and is an administration critic. 'This is the sort of thing that you find in other countries where the military and political, certain political parties are aligned.' '"

Who is this malcontent, and why does Roger Ailes tolerate his existence?

More Dispatches From the Ministry of Propaganda

Brad DeLong uses TimesSelect so we don't have to, and gives us this tidbit from Paul Krugman's column "The Promiser-in-Chief":

It's worth noting in passing that Mr. Bush hasn't even appointed a new team to fix the dysfunctional Federal Emergency Management Agency. Most of the agency's key positions, including the director's job - left vacant by the departure of Michael "heck of a job" Brown - are filled on an acting basis, by temporary place holders. The chief of staff is still a political loyalist with no prior disaster management experience. One FEMA program has, however, been revamped. The Recovery Channel is a satellite and Internet network that used to provide practical information to disaster victims. Now it features public relations segments telling viewers what a great job FEMA and the Bush administration are doing.

U.S. Delegation Walks Out of Climate Talks

A fittingly disgraceful end to two weeks of shameful stonewalling on climate change, by an Administration that refuses to act on scientific knowledge when it contradicts its ideology or the demands of its financiers.

U.S. Delegation Walks Out of Climate Talks - New York Times: "Two weeks of treaty talks on global warming neared an end today with the world's current and projected leaders in emissions of greenhouse gases, the United States and China, still refusing to take any mandatory steps to avoid dangerous climate change. The Bush administration was sharply criticized by other governments and by environmental groups for walking out of a round of informal discussions shortly after midnight that were aimed at finding new ways of curbing gases."

UPDATE: Remember what is like back when we had a real President? And apparently Clinton's address on the final day of the conference of the parties in Montreal made the Bushies go apoplectic...apparently threatening the walk-out which they ended up doing.

A Moment of Silence For The Beloved Routemaster

Alas, those charming and dilapidated London buses are being put out to pasture:

CNN.com - Last ride for iconic London bus - Dec 8, 2005: "LONDON, England (AP) -- It was the end of the line Thursday for London's red Routemaster buses, trundling into retirement after half a century of rickety but reliable service.Fans of the double-deckers traveled from across Britain to take a last ride on the hop-on, hop-off buses, whose curved lines and cheery scarlet livery have inspired affection among drivers and passengers alike."

Having ridden both the Routemasters and the modern double-deckers quite a bit while my girlfriend was living in London, I have to admit that the modern buses are safer and quieter, and much more spacious and comfortable. Still, hopping on and off the tail end of a Routemaster is probably one of the most exhilarating experiences one can have on public transportation (except, of course, for the urban and inter-urban buses in Guatemala, which are not so much exhilarating as terrifying...)

U.N. Official Faults U.S. Detentions

The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights yesterday attacked the use of severe interrogation tactics by C.I.A. officers, and the C.I.A.'s practice of "rendering" prisoners to third countries that engage in torture:

U.N. Official Faults U.S. Detentions: "Arbour's statement said that the 'absolute ban on torture, a cornerstone of the international human rights edifice, is under attack. The principle once believed to be unassailable -- the inherent right to physical integrity and dignity of person -- is becoming a casualty of the so-called 'war on terrorism.'

John R. Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, criticized Arbour, calling it 'inappropriate' for her to choose a Human Rights Day celebration to criticize the United States instead of such rights abusers as Burma, Cuba and Zimbabwe. He also warned that it would undercut his efforts to negotiate formation of a new human rights council that would exclude countries with bad rights records."

No, Mr. Bolton, it is entirely appropriate to call out the U.S. on Human Rights Day. This country used to be considered a leader in recognizing and protecting the value and dignity off the individual. Now, our leaders brazenly argue that torture, indefinite detention, and show trials are acceptable in this post-9/11 world. If the United States sends that message, who will have the moral authority to make demands of Burma, Cuba, and Zimbabwe? Being a practitioner of torture 'lite' is not a moral high ground.

Mr. Bolton, if we end up being alone on this "new human rights council," it won't be because of Arbour or Chirac or Merkel. It will be because you and your Administration have undercut our reputation, by your words and actions. And speaking of that council, if it ever gets off the ground I'll be very interested to see which of our remaining allies are on it -- maybe Russia? maybe Saudi Arabia? Any of them practice torture?

Oceania Has Always Been at War With Eastasia*

Jacob Weisberg has a great column in Slate on the "planting" of pro-U.S. news stories in Iraqi papers, and how it fits into a pattern of propagandistic behavior on the part of this Administration that goes way beyond the spin we normally hear from our national leaders. Money quote:

In a way, what's most troubling about the Bush's administration's information war is not its cynicism but its naiveté. At phony town hall meetings, Bush's audiences are hand-picked to prevent any possibility of spontaneous challenge. At fake forums, invited guests ask the president to pursue his previously announced policies. New initiatives are unveiled on platforms festooned with meaningless slogans, mindlessly repeated ('Plan for Victory'). Anyone on the inside who doubts the party line is shown the door. In this environment, where the truth is not spoken privately or publicly, the suspicion grows that Bush, in his righteous cocoon, has committed the final, fatal sin of the propagandist. He is not just spreading BS but has come to believe it himself. (emphasis added).

On a tangentially related note, check out Jefferson Morley's article today in the WP, on the Department of State's elimination of a long-standing web site reporting on foreign media coverage of U.S. policies. I guess with only four in ten Americans approving of his performance in office, the Torture President can't afford to spend taxpayer dollars gathering information that casts him in an unfavorable light. Maybe he even hopes we won't figure out on our own how much of an international pariah our country has become under his leadership. Fortunately, unlike Bush, some of us still actually read the papers.

*Again, to steal from Brad DeLong, I'll stop calling this Administration Orwellian when they stop using 1984 as an operations manual.

Another Casualty In the War on Christmas

No one tell Bill O'Reilly -- even the Dear Leader has succumbed to the liberal secular onslaught:

'Holiday' Cards Ring Hollow for Some on Bushes' List: "What's missing from the White House Christmas card? Christmas.

This month, as in every December since he took office, President Bush sent out cards with a generic end-of-the-year message, wishing 1.4 million of his close friends and supporters a happy 'holiday season.'

Many people are thrilled to get a White House Christmas card, no matter what the greeting inside. But some conservative Christians are reacting as if Bush stuck coal in their stockings."

What I don't understand is why the avalanche of complaints has come this year, since Bush has done the same card for the last four years. For that matter, I don't understand why the "War on Christmas" hysteria among conservatives seems especially hysterical this year. But rest assured, it's not keeping me up at night...

Why, Hillary? Why?

Picked up from DailyKos:

Newsday.com: Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law: "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is supporting new legislation to criminalize desecration of the United States flag _ though she still opposes a constitutional ban on flag attacks. Clinton, D-N.Y., has agreed to co-sponsor a measure by Republican Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah, which has been written in hopes of surviving any constitutional challenge following a 2003 Supreme Court ruling on the subject. "

Sigh.

Yes, as Kos notes, Hillary wants to curry favor with "moderates" (what an extraordinary political era we live in, in which curtailing harmless but "unpatriotic" speech is a "moderate" position). And yes, it's largely symbolic legislation (probably unconstitutional anyway) and maybe liberals should swallow it if it will help attract the voters needed to finally influence the really critical issues on the policy agenda (health care/Medicare, the federal budget, war in Iraq).

Yet, I've always regarded flag-burning laws and, even worse, flag-burning amendments as particularly pernicious, and a gesture that liberals should forego especially given the prevailing jingoistic mood in this country. First, as noted, these laws arbitrarily target one harmless form of political expression for censure merely because some find it "unpatriotic" or objectionable. That these laws wrongly infringe our First Amendment rights seems clear to me, and that alone should end the argument. But second, having conceded that flag desecration is an unacceptable form of political speech, where is the new line to be drawn? How many other forms of speech will be struck down? I don't think this is a road we want to go down.

Where oh where are the principled liberals who will put their feet down and stand up for the eminent patriotism of freedom of speech? Why don't we argue that the best way to honor our country, and the sacrifices of those who have put their lives on the line for this country, is to protect all forms of political expression? Is that really so hard? And won't that win over at least a few libertarians? We're not likely to win over the flag-amendment crowd anyway...

I'm Glad I'm Not Condoleezza Rice

Because if I were, I would have to fly to Europe and defend the Torture President's recently disclosed policy of flying suspected terrorists to secret prisons so the CIA can do to them there what it cannot do on US territory, offering only this revolting mixture of disingenuous denials and veiled threats:

First, the disingenuous denial:

"She said the US would use "every lawful weapon to defeat these terrorists", who were often essentially stateless and did not fit into any traditional military or criminal justice system...But she said the US always...abided by the law and did not allow torture."

Oh really? Well, if our tactics are so unimpeachable, maybe Rice would care to explain why we have to go to such efforts to secretly shuffle prisoners to countries with poor human rights records, instead of questioning them on US soil. Maybe she could explain too why the Administration so earnestly resists even a confidential judicial assessment of its methods. And maybe she could explain exactly what rises to the level of "torture" in the Torture President's lexicon, just so we can make sure we're all on the same page.

But oh wait, we can't discuss such things in public because, as Rice also explained (via CNN),

"We cannot discuss information that would compromise the success of intelligence, law enforcement, and military operations. We expect other nations share this view."

Next, the veiled threats: should any uppity European governments dare to launch an inquiry into what the CIA has been doing in European airspace or at European airports, Rice warns them that the US government won't take the hit alone...

"It is up to those governments and their citizens to decide if they wish to work with us," she said, "and decide how much sensitive information they can make public...The United States has fully respected the sovereignty of other countries that have cooperated in these matters."

And let's face it, Europe, you love torture as much as we do, even if you aren't willing to admit it publicly: Rendition, she said,

has helped prevent terrorist attacks and saved lives "in Europe as well as in the United States and other countries."

"So now before the next attack," Rice said, "we should all face the hard choices that democratic governments face."

This from the Torture President's chief diplomat. Clearly the goal here is not so much to allay the popular concerns of European electorates, which this Administration has already written off as impossible to win over, but to bludgeon European governments into suppressing any investigation or questioning of CIA activities on European soil. My guess is that many of these governments either knew exactly what was going on or decided not to ask so as not to be held responsible later. This is Rice's way of telling them that they can't have their cake and eat it too -- they can't cooperate with us, then fake indignation to assuage voters and let the US take the fall.

My expectation and my hope is that this will backfire in a big way. Hungry opposition leaders and a very angry public are baying for the truth. And these kinds of statements will only fan those flames.

I hope.

To again paraphrase Brad DeLong:

Impeach the Torture President and the Torture Vice-President. Do it now.

As If We Needed More Reasons to Abandon Internet Explorer

A programmer has discovered a flaw in Internet Explorer that allows malicious Web sites to retrieve data through Google Desktop, including Quicken and database files. Just another reason to use Firefox or better yet, jettison Windows altogether and buy a Mac.

Off to NYC this afternoon to visit some friends -- signing off for the weekend...

Dispatches From the Ministry of Propaganda

Interesting that this article doesn't mention the Armstrong Williams payola scandal, the illegal "news videos" put out by CDC, DHHS, Census Bureau and others, and the "rating" of journalists and PBS/NPR programs by government employees and contractors. For an Administration that prides itself on not following or obsessing about the media, manipulating and even fabricating coverage are a clear and paradoxical modus operandi. That the Administration would use these tactics in Iraq should take no one by surprise.

Military Says It Paid Iraq Papers for News: "The U.S. military command in Baghdad acknowledged for the first time yesterday that it has paid Iraqi newspapers to carry positive news about U.S. efforts in Iraq, but officials characterized the payments as part of a legitimate campaign to counter insurgents' misinformation.

In a statement, the command said the program included efforts, 'customary in Iraq,' to purchase advertising and place clearly labeled opinion pieces in Iraqi newspapers. But the statement suggested that the 'information operations' program may have veered into a gray area where government contractors paid to have articles placed in Iraqi newspapers without explaining that the material came from the U.S. military and that Iraqi journalists were paid to write positive accounts."

To steal a phrase from Brad DeLong, I'll stop calling this Administration "Orwellian" when they stop using "1984" as their field handbook.

SUV Sales Down Sharply

The Washington Post today reports a dramatic decline in sales of SUVs compared with 2004:

SUV Sales Down Sharply: "The sales spiral of the Ford Explorer demonstrates consumers' shifting tastes. It was once one of the nation's most popular vehicles, but Ford sold fewer than 12,000 last month, a 52 percent drop from November 2004...GM also felt the SUV crunch. In November, sales of the Chevrolet Suburban and Cadillac Escalade dropped 46 percent and 48 percent, respectively, from November 2004."

Evidently the spike in gas prices following Hurricane Katrina, against a backdrop of steadily increasing prices since 2000, has made consumers aware that a) $0.99 per gallon isn't coming back and b) unexpected shocks can send already high prices to unprecedented levels. Both of these factors are important: no doubt Katrina played a dominant role in depressing this year's sales -- after all, average US gas prices now are only about $0.20 higher than at this point last year -- but a decline in SUV sales was well under way by the time Katrina struck. In other words, I doubt this is merely a "panic" reaction that will give way to a rebound in SUV sales next year, certainly not in the large SUV segment. All I can say is, I'm sure glad I drive a Civic getting 35 mpg, and really glad I live close enough to bike or walk to school and the grocery store...

New Jersey - One Afternoon Is Enough

Mocking New Jersey is one of my favorite pasttimes. For those who
share this hobby, be sure to check out the clip from The Daily Show
entitled "Garden Statement," by Jason Jones.

Favorite punchline: "New Jersey should promote its finer attributes. For example, individuals wishing to travel to Delaware from New York find New Jersey a convenient place to pass through."