Photo Credit: Alan D. Wilson/Creative Commons license

We've written here several times about the Senator's defense of the polar bear, and on the occasion of their addition to the endangered species list as 'threatened', it's time to revisit the topic.There's still work to be done, but yesterday was a huge step in the right direction, and the Senator marked the victory with a statement, and a warning:

“Today’s announcement is both a victory and a lifeline for our last remaining polar bears. The next step is to secure the long-term survival of the species by ensuring that the polar bear habitat in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas is protected from the threat of oil and gas drilling. Even while the Interior Department was taking steps to give these bears ESA protection, the Bush Administration opened almost 30 million acres of polar bear habitat to oil and gas exploration, which -- by their own admission -- may ultimately kill polar bears. We need to protect the bears’ habitat, and we must do so now. The polar bear has become the mascot of all we could lose to climate change and it is critical that we fight to save this species even as we wage a larger battle against global warming.”

A year ago this week, Senator Kerry introduced the `Polar Bear Protection Act of 2007'. In January of this year, he proposed S. 2568, a moratorium on leasing in the Chukchi and Beaufort Sea Planning Areas, which stipulates that no drilling occur unless and until "oil and gas exploration and development activities can be conducted in the Chukchi and Beaufort Sea Planning Areas without posing a risk of substantial adverse impact to wildlife or wildlife habitat and subsistence."

I think most people can agree that life without the polar bear is not a good trade off for the possibility of few more gallons of gas in the Hummer. It's not our right, obviously, to spoil the planet, it's our responsibility to protect it, and there are better ways to feed our energy habit than to destroy these beautiful living beings and threaten the culture and livelihood of the local people.

Of course, the administration sneaked in the drilling lease by delaying the endangered species designation. It is, after all, what they do. Thank goodness, though, not for much longer.

I'm guessing that most of us make hundreds of choices every day, maybe more, from how many times to hit the snooze button in the morning to whether it's really a good idea to stay up to watch Colbert. For me, some are as simple as deciding what to say to you nice people every morning. Today, for example, there was a choice between Senator Kerry's interview on MSNBC and Senator Obama's on CNN. I chose neither, because sometimes the choice is very clear and sometimes, there really isn't a choice at all. In the case of Myanmar, the survivors of that devastated country had no choice but to watch as their homes were destroyed and their neighbors and family members perished in the aftermath of the Cyclone Nargis.

And in the case of a compassionate nation, there's no choice but to empathize with their plight and come to their aid. It was no surprise to me who lead the Senate in that effort. I can't imagine he felt he had a choice.

“At this tragic moment, the United States has a responsibility to help the Burmese people and push the junta to allow humanitarian aid to get to the people who need it the most, freely and rapidly. This could be remembered as the moment when the United States and the world came to the aid of the Burmese people and made it clear that while we loathe the junta that has isolated Burma from the world and oppressed its citizens, we find common cause with the people of Burma and we will be there by their side at this difficult time.”
 

Even before the storm hit, the people of Myanmar (Burma) survived under a repressive government in a sometimes violent struggle for democracy. Senator Kerry has spoken on the topic in the recent past, and has pointed to the need for the US to show our solidarity with the people of Burma.
As Myanmar fights to recover from the effects of Cyclone Nargis, our hopes and prayers are with them. And if the government of Myanmar allows, our country's humanitarian aid as well. Let's hope they make the right choice.

If you watched the Obama speech last night, you know it's a little tough to follow that with video of a nomination hearing. But there is still the work of the American people to get done, and although it may not make the evening news, confirming diplomatic nominees is important stuff.

On Thursday, Senator Kerry chaired a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing with the nominees.

Mr. Robert Stephen Beecroft
    to be Ambassador to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
Mr. James B. Cunningham
    to be Ambassador to the State of Israel
Mr. Richard E. Hoagland
    to be Ambassador to the Republic of Kazakhstan
Mr. Joseph Evan LeBaron
    to be Ambassador to the State of Qatar

Here are the Senator's opening remarks. The full video is available at the committee website.

As Obama said in his speech last night, it's about everybody. So in that spirit, here's a bit of Obama for those of you who missed it.

It's strange, I think, that the term 'tree hugger' is used as a pejorative by some folks. I have a close family member who I've heard use the phrase in a derogatory way, and I'm bothered by it. What's more, she used it to describe me, who wouldn't be seen in public in a pair of Birkenstocks, really can't be bothered to go hiking, and puts on a suit to go to work most mornings. I'm more likely to grab a donut than a bowl of granola, although I will eat it if there's no Cap'n Crunch, and the last time I rode a bike, I think I was twelve. But because I buy carbon credits, have changed my light bulbs to CFLs, and I insist on 35 mpg when I buy a car, things I consider sound economic and environmental judgment, to her that makes me a tree hugger. Well, so be it then.

There's something about the environmentally aware that bothers the environmentally ambivalent, and I'm not too sure what that is. But I've decided to embrace the label, and am giving her a copy of This Moment On Earth next Christmas just to see her reaction. I'll buy the paperback in case I'm forced to hit her over the head with it.

What tree-hugger detractors don't consider is that trees are a lot more than something that you'll never see anything lovelier than. They're crucial to the health of the planet, and necessary in the fight against climate change. And what's really scary is that deforestation is happening at an alarming rate, and all of us, tree-huggers and non-tree-huggers alike, are going to end up paying the price.

Photo: Jami Dwyer/Wikimedia Commons

Although deforestation contributes approximately 20 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change, there is currently no provision in international climate treaties that addresses the problem. In this Earth Day hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Kerry discusses the problem of deforestation, describes what he's seen of it in his travels, and asks witnesses Stuart Eizenstat, Dr. Kevin Gurney, David Hayes and Dirk Forrister for their insight.

Senator Kerry was at home in Massachusetts this weekend for the Third Middlesex Area Democrats Honorees Brunch, where Loretta Lillios, Richard Mucci and Donna Greska were honored with the Senator John F. Kerry Leadership Award, and where he spoke on the issue of climate change. The Senator is introduced by Middlesex DA Gerry Leone.

 Listen here

It's often referred to as a 'situation', but I think the word is a bit too sterile and evasive to describe the carnage in the Darfur region of Sudan. 'Situation' is a pretty good word to use when your waiter tells you your card's been rejected, or when your kid gets caught lifting something from the Target or when your hot water heater is on the fritz. Because when asked about it, you can always say, "we had a little 'situation', but it's OK now."

No, I really don't think the word is a good one to use to describe what's happening in Darfur.

Hard to imagine, isn't it? Watching your child starve to death or be taken to fight in a war before he's big enough to carry a gun. It's unfathomable to most of us, and yet it happens every day in the Sudan, and we've not done nearly enough to stop it. We say that we'll never allow it to happen again, but while we're fighting a civil war in a country that has done no harm to us, atrocities like Darfur continue, and the result of our inaction looks like this child and his mother.

We say 'never again', but in Darfur, 400,000 lives have been lost and 2.3 million of the six million citizens of Darfur are displaced. And as the Janjaweed continues to rape and murder, to destroy villages and torture the innocent, the Sudanese government turns a blind eye to the atrocities.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the Darfur genocide yesterday. Here's Senator Kerry questioning U.S. envoy to the Sudan, Richard Williamson. You can view the hearing in its entirety at C-Span.

Photos courtesy Wikimedia Commons

OK. I'm from Pennsylvania and I'm a little bitter, so you're just going to have to excuse this post as the long repressed result of my ire. Because I have spent practically every evening for the last nine months writing about what John Kerry has done for this country and for Massachusetts, sometimes barely able to keep up with the legislation and the speeches and the hearings, and now a bunch of obstructionist, warmongering, Bush-enabling, knuckle-dragging jerks are claiming he's not doing enough?

Screw you, NRSC and your weak-kneed, loser candidates.

Who has kept us in Iraq, despite the legislation Senator Kerry introduced to get us out? Who has racked up massive debt, squandered our hard-earned taxpayer dollars, lied us into a trillion dollar war that has cost thousands of lives, and practically destroyed the good name of the United States of America while letting the people who attacked us escape? Who is responsible for $3.30 gasoline, the loss of our good jobs to outsourcing and the fact that many of us still don't have health care?

Who obstructed more Senate business last year in half the time of any previous Congress?

Well, I'll give you a hint, it wasn't John Kerry. So if you want to talk about what he hasn't done, fine. Because he hasn't done any of that. What he has done is this. Go ahead, look at it. Anything there look good to you? How about getting out of Iraq responsibly, or help for small business, or veterans care, or 'kids first'? There are hundreds of good pieces of legislation listed, and if any of it didn't get passed, go find a Republican and ask him why.

Listen, I just finished my taxes, and this is not a good day to mess with me. I'm sick of watching good legislation die because some idiot Republican in Congress thinks it's more important to suck up to George Bush than to help the American people. Don't like the bill? Well, just say so, but don't lie and say the Democrats -- especially John Kerry -- haven't done anything. Because I've written about 300 posts here in the past nine months that say otherwise.

OK, I'm done. For now. But you can bet I'll write a post about every bill, every amendment this sorry lot of Republican reprobates has blocked if they keep this up. I'm sick of politicians who think Americans are so stupid we can't see for ourselves who is acting in our best interest. We've been bamboozled by Republican dirty tricks one too many times, and, to borrow a phrase from the liar in chief, we won't get fooled again.

Senator Kerry's internet director explained this all in a bit calmer fashion in his post at BlueMassGroup, so I'm just going to re-post it here and you can see what all the fuss is about. Sorry I couldn't give this a better intro, BriVT, but despite what you might be hearing from Hillary, we Pennsylvanians are a little angry these days.

Re-posted from BlueMassGroup

The National GOP Attack On Kerry
by: BriVT
Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 18:07:51 PM EDT
(Facts are such stubborn things! - promoted by David)

{disclaimer: I'm John Kerry's Internet Director}

It's always fun when the GOP attacks these days. What with gas pushing $4 a gallon, their nominee calling for 100 years in Iraq (or a thousand, make it a million!), and our economy rampaging toward recession, it's kind of tough to run on the issues. And when you have a bench as bare of credible candidates as MA ... whaddya gonna do?

Lie. Avoid the issues. And put a picture of Britney Spears on it.

The gruesome details (with bad pop culture references) below ...
As much as it pains me to do this to you, I must give you those gruesome details by embedding this YouTube from the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC):

John Kerry has authored and shepherded a number of bills into law. In fact, Knowlegis named Kerry the 12th most powerful Senator because of his effective advocacy for Massachusetts and progressive issues.

Here's a blog post with a sampling of some of them. Short version: help for veterans. Fairness for our fisheries industry. Ethics reform. And more.

As my friend (and fellow JK staffer) David Wade said:

NRSC must stand for 'nobody really shows competence.' When people get their facts this wrong they usually lose on the first round of 'Are You Smarter Than a 5th grader.' In just the last two years, John Kerry has written and passed legislation that denied congressional pensions to corrupt members of Congress like Duke Cunningham, passed legislation to establish eye injury centers for Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, secured $13 million in disaster assistance for Massachusetts fishermen, and put the Senate on record condemning Burma's military junta.

OK, attacks are part of politics. But, note to NRSC, when you attack, can you please just get the basic modicum of facts right? I mean, really. If you are going to come in to Massachusetts from your GOP DC offices and attack our legislators, I, for one, would really appreciate it if you wouldn't be so obvious and bald with your lies.

If I can get "meta" for a second, the NRSC is mostly just trying to raise money for itself. It's far, FAR behind the DSCC in fundraising, and their entire online fundraising haul amounts to a rounding error in a day of Barack Obama's online fundraising. So they're trying to juice it any way they can. I'd feel pity, if they had the basic sense to keep their attacks in the realm of reality.

But, the question is, what are our esteemed Republican Senatorial candidates going to do about it? Are they going to allow the NRSC to destroy (well ... further destroy) the GOP's name in Massachusetts in order to fundraise for themselves? Or are Scott, Beatty, and Ogonowski going to move past lying politics and distance themselves from it?

With the ideology and policies of the GOP so thoroughly discredited, I'm sure it seems easier to run on gimmicks like these, but as much as I'm making fun of them here, this is serious. The decisions and work Senators do can make a real difference in people's lives. It can be the difference between health care for children, or those children going without. It can make the difference between a veteran getting support they need when they get home, or having to go it alone. It can make the difference between a future with new energy sources and a cleaner environment, or one with a warming planet and environmental catastrophes.

As much as the NRSC would like us to think otherwise, politics matters. Results matter. And lies just don't cut it.

For all the fuss about General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testifying to the Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees yesterday, I have to say I wasn't impressed. The problem in Iraq, as everyone including Petraeus admits, is not one that will be resolved militarily, so having the big military guy there doesn't help answer the real question of how we get out. As Sen. Kerry says, the military, including General Petraeus, are implementers of a strategy they didn't craft.

The problem with Petraeus is that he's the wrong guy to answer the real questions.

So where are the crafters? They stick this military guy up in front of the Senate and the world to talk about some military progress that doesn't address the larger issue. But it feeds the media and allows the administration to put someone in front of the American people who can actually point to some kind of accomplishment, and hope no one notices how badly Bush and company continue to screw things up.

I guess if nothing else, it was a good opportunity for the American people to see the presidential candidates at work. Rarely does the Senate get this much attention in the traditional media, so at least something good came out of the hearings. McCain, of course, still doesn't get it. Not only does he ignore the larger issue, but he continues to misrepresent the Dem position by insisting it calls for precipitous withdrawal when both Obama and Clinton and every other Dem who's spoken out about Iraq has specifically stated that their plans involve getting out in an orderly and measured manner, and helping Iraq and the neighbors to resolve the political differences. It's what Sen. Kerry has been saying for years, and it's the only responsible plan. McCain, of course, bypasses all that, and doesn't seem to want to look beyond a few military successes. Because he's got nothing else.

According to the McCain strategy, we can continue to have military successes and keep the General's champagne bottle in the back of the fridge for a hundred years at a cost of billions of dollars a week. That still won't get us any closer to resolving the political issues.

The problem with Petraeus is that he can't answer the real questions about how we resolve this. The problem with McCain is that he can't either.

I'm not saying Gen. Petraeus shouldn't testify before Congress. He should, and it was important to hear his testimony. But the problem isn't his to resolve, and the media and John McCain are missing that overarching reality.

So, who is the right person to fix Bush's massive blunder? Certainly, failed Secretary of State Condi Rice, who was laughingly floated last week as a potential VP pick for McCain, won't tell us anything we haven't heard from this administration before. It's going to take a Democratic president to shift the focus to the real threat and get us out of this quagmire, which is costing the American people three billion dollars a week and not making us any safer.

As Senator Kerry told Larry King last night, a lot of questions were asked yesterday, most were not answered. I don't think we'll get our answer until January.

So while yesterday didn't accomplish much except to give the American people a false sense of complacency and the media something to talk about for the next few days, at least we got to see the Senate. That's cool, I guess.

John McCain may not care if we stay in Iraq for a hundred years, but with over 4,000 American lives lost and many thousands wounded, countless thousands of Iraqis dead or displaced, the destruction of a country, a total cost to the United States in the trillions of dollars and the loss of our moral authority, the rest of us want out. McCain and Joe 'Zell' Lieberman are part of a shrinking minority in the Senate who don't want this war to end, with decent Republicans like Chuck Hagel supporting the Dem position that Kerry-Feingold proposed nearly two years ago and that Sen. Kerry has been talking about for much longer. At a time when 81% of Americans think this country is headed down the wrong path, it's incredible that McCain, who has embraced Bush's economic and foreign policies, has any support at all.

I suppose we'll focus on McSame's irrational policies as soon as we have a nominee. The media, except for Keith Olbermann and Dan Abrams have pretty much given him a pass, but I don't see how that can last. McCain really is Bush, only older. In some respects he's worse, if you can imagine. And no one wants that.

Anyway, back to Iraq. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a series of hearings last week, and on Wednesday they addressed both the military and political prospects of our continued presence. I think 'get out' was a common theme.

As Senator Kerry reminds us in this exchange with three retired generals, we are now in our fifth war in Iraq. I wonder how many John McCain wants?

The Senate was back from spring break this week, and Senator Kerry hit the ground running, with what might be a personal best in appearances, at least in my recent memory -- on the Senate floor, in a week long series of hearings on Iraq, in the Foreign Relations Committee, Finance on anti-terrorism, and in Commerce --culminating in a media blitz on cable news and radio. Oh, and THK made an appearance with Michelle Obama, so we'd like to show you that as well.

There was so much Kerry, in fact, that Kerstin and I had to poll our friends to see what they wanted to watch first. We are Democrats, after all, so we did the democratic thing and voted on it. Floor speech on home foreclosures was the clear winner, so here it is. As it happens, the Senator spent part of his 'break' with constituents who are caught in the foreclosure nightmare, so he had a lot to say on the subject.

Kerry, Smith Push for Reform to Help 80,000 American Families Struggling with the Housing Crisis

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) pushed for Senate passage of their Mortgage Revenue Bond proposal today, which would provide an additional $10 billion of tax-exempt private activity bond authority to be used to refinance subprime loans, providing thousands of mortgages for first-time homebuyers, and multifamily rental housing.

“Washington needs to show the same commitment to Main Street Americans struggling to keep their homes as it has to the big lenders on Wall Street,” said Kerry. “By including $10 billion in targeted mortgage help, we are delivering relief to those who need help the most. With an expansion of the mortgage revenue bond program, our bill would keep more families facing foreclosure in their homes and help first-time homebuyers get a safe, fair mortgage.”

“Owning a home should provide stability, not uncertainty and stress,” Smith said. “Refinancing options will help families stay in their homes and keep neighborhoods on solid footing. Steadying housing prices will help steady the economy. Action is not just prudent, it is necessary.”

At a time when families across the nation desperately need help to avoid foreclosure, these funds will provide thousands of safe, fair mortgages to homeowners facing foreclosure and families looking for their first home. In Massachusetts alone, the National Association of State and Local Housing Finance Agencies estimates that 1,110 new loans could be provided. Nationally, it could result in almost 80,000 new loans. For Oregon, the increased bond cap will translate to roughly $122 million in new bond authority to address the state’s housing needs.

Approximately 1.7 million subprime ARMs worth $367 billion are expected to reset during 2008 and 2009. According to the National Association of Home Builders, every new mortgage revenue bond home loan produces almost two full-time jobs, $75,000 in additional wages and salaries and $41,000 in new federal, state and local revenues. Also, each new home loan results in an average of $3,700 in new spending on appliances, furnishings, and property
alterations.

Keeping people in their homes is not only good for those families who are caught up in the mortgage crisis, but for our economy. And right now, both need all the help they can get.

And the KerryVision team was lucky to participate. While we didn't get to ask questions, most of what we were curious about was answered anyway. The Senator does not leave out any details.

The call was originally billed as a Massachusetts blogger call, and the topic of discussion was to center around the Senate reelection campaign and Mass.- central issues. Well, you can imagine how that worked out! We had Mass. bloggers, Kerry-centric bloggers, and supporters participating in what ended up being a wide-ranging and informative conversation.

The Senator was having a rather busy day at the Capitol on Thursday - 50 votes or more on the budget bill, at least - so he was delayed by a few minutes getting on the line with us. Once he did, however, he hit the ground running, telling us that he is fully engaged in his reelection campaign, and takes nothing for granted. (The campaign has organized an event for this upcoming Saturday to have the Senator and volunteers collect signatures in the Boston area, with food and drinks for everyone afterwards.)

'....we're down here usually Monday through Friday. We've got a lot of votes - we'll be voting all day today. I don't know what we'll wind up with - 30,40,50 votes....we're voting on the budget with some major confrontations on the tax issue, such as who gets the tax breaks. We're trying to keep the breaks for the middle class and keep them away from the wealthiest and most powerful interests in the country....', Senator Kerry informed us. Just that morning the Senate passed a major AIDS bill he had written six years ago with Senator Frist, that added $ 50 Billion in aid and assistance to go around the world.

After this intro, we then launched into the Q and A session of the call:

On strategy against his Senate re-election opponents on each side - O'Reilly and Ogonowski:

- I'm just doing my job. I'm not going to change suddenly. I'm going to do things the people sent me down here to do. I've led the fight to end the war; I was the individual who put the amendment on the floor in August of 2006 against the advice and to the delight of many of my colleagues and we got 13 votes. Then we got 30 votes when I brought it back later, and finally we got 52 votes. So it is now the majority position of the US Senate.

I don't think anybody could lead more effectively or stronger than I did on that issue, and we got it done. We built a majority in the Senate to actually vote to set a date and begin to redeploy the troops. I also believe you have to do it in a responsible way that recognizes out interests in the region and I'm doing that.

So, I'll just do my job - continue what I'm doing, and let the record speak for itself.

On possible concerns in certain geographical areas and voting blocs that might need special attention:

- I'm going to work everywhere. I've constantly been moving around the state, but I always do that. It's not a matter of only doing that during an election year. I try to get around the state as much as I can, meeting with mayors, different constituencies, etc. My attitude is "don't leave any stone unturned" and we won't. '

On what the major challenges are for Massachusetts in this election year:

- I think the single biggest challenge on people's minds is the economy: how to create more jobs, how to hold on to the pay levels people have and to be able to pay the bills. Pay the mortage, the energy costs, pay tuitions which have gone up. Most of the costs to the average person are going up and wages are NOT going up commensurate with that.

So, jobs, the environment, national security, energy costs, are the really big issues.

At this point, Senator Kerry was called away for a vote on the floor. He was very apologetic and asked if he could put us on hold. Umm, Senator? We surely don't mind being placed on hold for something as important as voting on the country's future. Besides, your hold music is rather pleasant to listen to!

And while we're on hold, let's take a look at some recent work JK has been involved in for MA:

Yesterday, we wrote about dissent, something that's not tolerated in the Bush administration. In the interest of fairness, I thought we'd write today about something they seem to be OK with.

The Washington Monthly has published a series of essays in their current issue from a number of leading politicians and high ranking military officials on the subject of America's use of torture, including one from Senator Kerry. The conclusion by all?

Stop.

Nothing has done more to undercut America's struggle against extremism than the Bush administration's squandering of our nation's good reputation. The torture, abuse, unlawful detention, and related un-American practices associated with Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and CIA interrogations at "black sites" have been as unwise as they have been unprincipled. Most of us can agree that sometimes, in the name of national security, it is necessary to make difficult ethical decisions to protect the American people. However, the administration's dangerous and counterproductive choice to employ torture has severely weakened our ability to win the struggle against extremism. It has also wasted our greatest asset: our moral authority. - John Kerry

The purpose of the series of articles, as Republicans prepared to uphold President Bush's veto of ban on torture, is to encourage the three Presidential candidates to speak out on the topic. All three have in the past, although Senator McCain, in his lust for the presidency, has recently changed his position. Seems he was against torture before he was for it. Pretty shocking from someone who was actually subject to torture back in his POW days, and sad that McCain is willing to set aside his sense of right and wrong and hang on to Bush's threadbare coattails.

The issue has come up on the Democratic side, with Barack Obama citing a Clinton quote where she wavered in her opposition. For the most part, both have spoken out strongly against the use of torture, although Clinton has cited exceptions.

Even if the Republicans in Congress and the Bush administration are not willing to consider the moral implications, they should at least consider the lack of success in intelligence gathering via torture, as a new study - Epistemic Systems - has shown:

KEY FINDINGS FROM THE STUDY

• Torture is not an effective means to gather information.
• Torturers do not know the truth when they hear it. Torture victims understand this fact and therefore hide the truth.
• Torturers cannot make a believable promise to stop torture when they hear the truth. Torture victims understand this fact and therefore hide the truth.

Some, though, have been consistent in defending America's moral values. We've posted this video before, but it's worth a replay. Senator Kerry spoke on the Senate floor in September, 2006 in opposition to the Republican torture bill.

"The bedrock of America’s greatest advances—the foundation of what we know today are the defining values of our country—was formed not by cheering on things as people saw them and as they were, but by taking them on and demanding change."

"So here today we must insist again that fidelity, honor, and love of country and untrammeled debate and open dissent take place. At no time is that truer than in the midst of a war rooted in deceit and justified by continuing deception."

"Dissent" is my favorite John Kerry speech. It is uniquely American, and speaks to the foundations of our democracy. I really don't think it's George Bush's favorite, though. Actually, he probably doesn't have a favorite John Kerry speech, if you can believe that.

Which brings me to my point.

Admiral William "Fox" Fallon stepped down as head of U.S. Central Command yesterday, effective the end of the month. Why, you might ask, would a 40 year veteran resign from such an important post? The Admiral explains:

"Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president's policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the Centcom region.''

He left because of perceived differences with Bush's strategy on Iran. So even the perception of dissent is enough to warrant the pink slip from this administration.

In an Esquire interview, the magazine called Fallon " ... the rarest of creatures in the Bush universe: the good cop on Iran, and a man of strategic brilliance." Well, that's enough of a disconnect right there. No one would accuse the Bush administration of 'strategic brilliance'. But did he leave, as Defense Secretary Gates stated, of his own accord, or was he pushed out? The Bush administration is not known as a big fan of dissent. As the Esquire article concludes, "... time will tell whether being reasonable will cost Admiral William Fallon his command." It didn't take long.

Senator John Kerry made the following statement today about the retirement of Admiral William Fallon. Kerry pressed Congress to pose tough questions about whether Fallon was dismissed for voicing dissent against a rush to war with Iran.

“Congress needs to determine immediately whether Admiral Fallon’s resignation is another example of truth tellers being forced to the sidelines in the Bush Administration. His departure must not clear the way for a rush to war with Iran.

Admiral Fallon has been a voice of common sense and truth in an Administration where candor has been in tragically short supply. He was correct in warning that we diverted resources from Afghanistan to fight a war of choice in Iraq, and correct in warning of the risks of a rush to war with Iran.

Over these last seven Bush years, we’ve seen those who toe the company line get rewarded and those who speak inconvenient truths get retired. We know that George Tenet got the Medal of Freedom for “slam dunk” evidence on non-existent WMD’s and General Shinseki got retired for telling the truth about the troop levels needed in Iraq.

The looming question now is whether the cost of Admiral Fallon’s candor was his job.”

Senator Kerry has always been a champion for Veterans' causes, so when he and Senator Snowe introduced the Military Reservist and Veteran Small Business Reauthorization and Opportunity Act (S. 1784) last year, it was in keeping with this tradition.
The bipartisan bill was designed to increase loans and business training resources to veterans and help reservists to keep their businesses going during a possible deployment.

“Massachusetts’ 477,000 veterans, including the more than 28,000 who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, will now have access to real opportunities to start and grow their businesses. Our veterans who put their lives on the line for our national security deserve economic opportunity when they come home, and this bipartisan achievement is one small way we can repay them for their hard work and sacrifice.”

The bill was actually signed into law by Bush earlier this month, which should be a good thing, right? Wrong! And the following exchange between Senator Kerry and Small Business Administration chief Steven Preston shows why:

KERRY: The bottom line is, we’d like to know how much money, if in fact it’s an issue of not having money, we want to know how much it is, because that’s a priority program for the Committee and it’s kind of an unfortunate charade if veterans are being told that Congress passed a bill to help them get into the business, and then they try to do it and we say there is no money. We did not intend for that. We thought that was contained within the fees. The current fees were supposed to be able to pay for that.

PRESTON: Well, my colleague just gave me the number we have in the veteran’s piece. Assuming a billion dollar program, the cost would be about $42 million. And I think last year we had just over $900 million in veteran’s loans, so that should be a good indicator.

…

KERRY: Is the veteran’s component contained within your budget request now?

PRESTON: No, it’s not.

KERRY: Is there a reason why not? Would that not be a major priority for this administration?

PRESTON: Well the veteran’s bill was just passed, so it’s not something we would have been able to reflect in our budget, and I know we’ve been having conversations…

KERRY: How will we get at it now? Will they ask for it in the supplemental? Will they agree to raise this amount?

PRESTON: What we would need to do is work with you in the appropriations process…

KERRY: Will the administration support funding for that?

PRESTON: I don’t know at this point, I would need to work with my colleagues in the administration and bring back an answer for you.

KERRY: So you don’t know at this point whether or not you’re willing to fund the veteran’s program that was signed into law by the President? Sign it into law and not fund it?

PRESTON: I don’t have an answer for you on specifically subsidizing the veteran’s 7(a) program.

KERRY: Can you get that for us?

PRESTON: Yeah.

KERRY: How long will it take to get that?

PRESTON: I don’t know, but we’ll be in touch with your staff right after this hearing.

KERRY: Thank you.

There you have it. Once again, the Bush administration showed its true colors. "Sure, let's sign a bill into law to make us look good (can we say No Child Left Behind? I thought we can), but then let's just ignore it from here on out and especially let's not waste any of the intended funds on it!"

It really should come as no surprise that, yet again, an important program goes unfunded, and as usual it's one of the expendable groups taking the hit. The boondoggle in Iraq is costing the government 400 Million Dollars a day. That leaves precious little cash for worthier causes, even if they are bills that have been signed into law.

In a press conference this week, Joe Biden called Afghanistan the forgotten war, and Pakistan the neglected frontier. Yesterday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, intent on insuring the new opportunities resulting from post-election Pakistan are not neglected, questioned Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte on the Bush administration's plans for working with the newly elected Pakistan parliament.

As Senator Kerry noted:

"We have seen elections where nothing happens after the fact... We made certain that what we heard from President Musharraf, that his commitment to help Pakistan return to civilian rule remains genuine. An election alone does not make for real democracy, let alone a functioning government."

Of course, the future Pakistan is largely in the hands of the new parliament, and the election results are a hopeful sign, as well as a real opportunity for the US to forge a new relationship with what we all hope will be a real functioning democracy. The senators urged that we seize upon this chance to significantly increase non-military aid in addition to refocusing on the training and support of the Pakistan military to deal with militant extremists and the various indigenous insurgencies.

There is, of course, the Senator's original plan with respect to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to 'talk them to death', but that would require a whole lot more Senators, so probably best to go with plan 'B'.

Eat your vegetables.

This hearing -- and I like hearings -- was about as exciting as the title of this post. I tried to jazz up the title a bit, but it's pretty representative of the three hours of statements and testimony the way it is. As a friend who watched the hearing with me later said, it's like eating your vegetables. I guess you gotta. Besides, if you were looking for a hearing with pizzazz, the Roger Clemens steroid fib-fest was happening at the same time. You may have seen that one, it was live on every cable news channel.

Don't get me wrong. It was an important three hours. We're talking about a $39.5 billion dollar budget for things like counter-insurgency, reconstruction, humanitarian aid, and other projects related to our relations with the rest of the world. And I will apologize to the Senators and Sec. Rice in advance for this because I know it's gotta be done, but the best description I heard of this hearing was 'substantive'. It was. That means dull, by the way.

Really, we should thank the SFRC members for actually sitting through this stuff. As the Senator notes, several of the committee members didn't, and left during questioning. I feel their pain.

Maybe I'm just used to fiery JK speeches about dissent and patriotism and taking on the status quo, and not sitting through hours of Senators talking to Condi Rice about how much money we need for this or that project in Afganistan. It just seems unusual to have Condi testify to the SFRC and not blast her on Bush's failed policies and out of control spending. But as much as I liked watching the SFRC hold this administration's feet to the fire, I won't miss Condi and her pals when they're gone.

During this primary season, it's difficult even for folks in the same party to get along. But we've found an issue that the left, the right, and all of us in between can agree on.

And Senator Kerry is leading the way.

Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and John Ensign (R-Nev.) led a bipartisan group of legislators today to introduce a bill that would expedite the adoption of electronic prescribing technology in every doctor’s office in America. Prescribing electronically instead of by-hand has been proven to save lives and cut costs on a massive scale.

As a result of prescription errors, American hospital patients are hit with 1.5 million injuries each year, according to the Institute of Medicine. Medication errors will kill at least 7,000 Americans in 2007. Of the more than three billion prescriptions written each year, doctors report nearly one billion require a follow-up between providers and pharmacies for clarification. The health-care system costs are in the billions.

Kerry’s bill would foster the adoption of e-prescribing by providing permanent Medicare funding for payment bonuses to physicians who acquire e-prescribing technology. In addition, for every Medicare prescription a doctor writes electronically, they will be paid an extra 1% bonus. Starting in 2011, Medicare physicians who are not electronically prescribing would face financial penalties.

In November, Senator Kerry, chair of the Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Innovation, held a hearing on carbon sequestration and introduced S.2323 The Carbon Capture and Storage Technology Act of 2007 which funds technology to reduce the impact of carbon emissions and slow the growing threat of global climate change. Although the ultimate solution lies in renewables, coal as a source of energy is not going away any time soon, and the need to address the negative effect of coal-fired power plants is urgent.

“If the United States continues to turn a blind eye to dangerous emissions, we will be forced to climb an even steeper hill in battling global climate change,” said Senator John Kerry. “Carbon capture and storage technologies hold enormous potential to reduce our emissions as we power our economy. This legislation and today’s hearing offer a chance to embrace smart solutions the American way: by harnessing technology to help combat the climate change threat.”

Here's the CRS summary of the bill:

One of the recurring topics in the current Presidential race and probably the most serious problem our country is facing today is our flagging economy. The Fed's rapid-fire rate cuts are an attempt to stop the bleeding. Congress and the administration have proposed an economic stimulus package to the same end. Some argue that this is all just an attempt to throw a bucket of cold cash on the raging flames of this administration's economic failures. Probably true, but I don't think it's the wrong thing to do. Perhaps at this point, it's the only thing to do. If it's done it the right way.

Now I'm no expert, but even someone like me who has trouble keeping her checkbook balanced can see that if the point is to infuse the economy with cash, the key to making the stimulus work is to get the money to those who are likely to spend it. That's why it makes sense to include low income workers and seniors, who are likely to put the money immediately back into the economy. But simply handing out cash to folks so they can pay a few bills and buy more Chinese made stuff is putting a band-aid on a gaping wound. So the Senate is attempting to tackle the problem a bit more holistically, and is focusing not just on cash rebates, but help with the more deep rooted issues. One of those, perhaps the biggest and nastiest, is subprime loans. That's where the Kerry-Smith plan hopes to make a real difference. If people can afford their mortgages, they'll pay them, boost the economy, and keep their homes, something that's much more likely to reverse our downward economic spiral and improve the lives of low income families than a $600 check.

The Senate Finance Committee agrees that we have to include more in the stimulus than rebates, and the Kerry-Smith plan passed the committee with strong bipartisan support. The full hearing is available at C-SPAN's video library.

He's going to try, but I don't think Bush's attempt at a pocket veto will fly. For one thing, it only works when the Congress is not in session, and the Senate is currently in session. Even if the President closes his eyes and clicks his heels and wishes very, very hard, they're still in session and he can't change that since the Constitution says Congress is the decider here, not Mr. Bush.

It should be understood that the President possesses no pocket veto power as such. A pocket veto is something the Congress causes. It is the result that occurs when Congress waives its right to reconsider legislation when its adjournment prevents the return of the bill. CRS Report

The way I interpret it is that the Congress decides when they can accept a bill from the Executive, since the Constitution states explicitly that Congress makes their own rules. So, in my opinion, the pocket veto doesn't apply unless the Congress says it does.

Regardless, the Senate is in session, thanks to Harry Reid and some east coast Senators who were willing to come to work over break (it's what you get for living that close to the office), and Nancy Pelosi has the House covered.

When adjourning before Christmas, the House instructed the House clerk to accept any communications -- such as veto messages -- from the White House during the monthlong break.

Yesterday, the Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee held a hearing in the wake of the recent San Francisco oil spill on the impact and the need for preventive rules that will protect our waterways and coastlines from this hazard.

Senator Kerry spoke on the topic and specifically on the impact of the Buzzards Bay spill, the Coast Guard opposition to the Massachusetts legislation, and the continuing effort to recover from the 2003 disaster.

“The Buzzards Bay oil spill caused severe damage to the bay's fragile ecosystem and shellfishing activities. It’s incredible that almost five years later, the community is still dealing with the after effects, and the Coast Guard is still fighting new protective measures,” said Senator Kerry. “1.6 billion gallons of fuel travel through Buzzards Bay each year, and local entities have the specialized knowledge to help prevent future oil spills. While the Coast Guard has done a good job responding to the oil spill, they haven’t been nearly as constructive preventing the next disaster. Preempting the State law which will help prevent future oil spills is a mistake we can’t afford. The number and severity of oil spills in Buzzards Bay are proof enough that this area needs the preventative actions that the state law intended.”

The Senator's statement on the FISA bill from johnkerry.com:

FISA, Congress, and the Constitution

by John Kerry on December 17th, 2007

There’s been a lot of discussion about the FISA bill today.

I was one of ten Senators to vote against cloture on the initial motion to proceed to the bill, along with Senator Feingold, Dodd and others.

Here’s the statement I filed with my vote, which is now part of the Congressional Record for today’s discussions:

Mr. President, today I voted against cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 2448 as reported by the Senate Intelligence Committee because I believe that we should instead be taking up on the Senate floor the far better bill reported out by the Judiciary Committee.

Congress has a duty to protect the American people — and to protect the Constitution. That’s the oath we take. It’s a solemn pledge, and in my judgment the Judiciary Committee bill better reflects the oath we each swear to uphold. Why? The Judiciary Committee’s bill gives the President the added flexibility he needs to hunt and capture terrorists who would strike our homeland — but it strikes an appropriate balance between protecting the privacy rights of American citizens and providing the President adequate tools to fight international terrorism.

This is no small issue. It’s the job of Congress to find the right balance between protecting privacy and safeguarding national security. The Judiciary bill makes critical improvements to the Protect America Act to ensure independent judicial oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). It allows the secret FISC greater authority to act as an independent check on unfettered Executive power.

The Judiciary bill provides the court the authority to assess the government’s ongoing compliance with its wiretapping procedures, places limits on the way the government uses information acquired about Americans, and lets the court enforce its own orders.

The Judiciary bill also safeguards Americans against widespread warrantless spying. It reaffirms that FISA is the exclusive statutory authority for conducting foreign intelligence surveillance, prohibits limitless “fishing expeditions” — so-called “bulk collection” of all communications between the United States and overseas, and ensures that the government cannot eavesdrop on Americans under the guise of targeting foreigners — what is known as “reverse targeting.”

Most importantly, unlike the Intelligence bill, the Judiciary bill does not provide retroactive amnesty to telecommunications providers that were complicit in the Administration’s warrantless spying program. I fear this Administration is deliberately stonewalling to avoid an adverse court decision finding its surveillance program to be unconstitutional. It is seeking political security in the name of national security.

The heart of the matter is that allowing Americans their day in court — introducing some kind of accountability, affording some kind of objective authority (in lieu of the Bush Administration) to adjudicate competing claims — will shed much-needed light on the Administration’s secret surveillance program.

If the lawsuits are shielded by Congress, the courts may never rule on whether the Administration’s surveillance activities were lawful. We must hold the Administration to account. And an impartial court of law insulated from political pressure is the most appropriate setting in which to receive a fair hearing.

If the telecoms were following the law, they should get immunity, as Congress explicitly provided under the original FISA law. But our courts should decide, not Congress — and that is a matter of principle protected in the Judiciary bill, which is the bipartisan bill that should be under consideration.

I’m gratified that Senator Reid has pulled the bill from the floor for now, to give all of us more of a chance to debate the bill and make sure we get legislation that protects our national security without infringing on our Constitutional rights.

He won't tell us why, but despite overwhelming objections of Senators and House members from both sides of the aisle, including Senators Kerry, Obama, Lott and Dorgan, and against the warnings of FCC Commissioners Copps and Adelstein and the will of 70% of the public, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is refusing to delay an attempt to relax media ownership rules on Tuesday. If successful, Martin will deliver his gift to big media just in time for Christmas, although the ensuing backlash may look more like the Fourth of July.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) asked Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin to delay a vote on media ownership until the FCC has followed the will of Congress and established a commission to look into minority and women media ownership. Kerry and Obama made clear that if Martin once again bucked the Congress, they would ask the Appropriations Committee to deny funding for implementation of the rule produced by the forced vote.

“This is a show-down with an FCC Chairman who is letting the FCC do the bidding of big corporate conglomerates without giving smaller media outlets a chance to fight back,” said Senator John Kerry. “I want to thank Sen. Obama for joining with me to help hold the FCC accountable, and ensuring that it promotes a more diverse, independent media in America.”

The Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing on Thursday to discuss media ownership. In it, Senator Kerry urged a delay on the rule change pending further scrutiny.

JK was on Larry Kudlow's show yesterday, which is always interesting. It's one show that I really have to focus on when I watch, since a lot of what's discussed goes right over my head. The issue of Sarbanes-Oxley, though, is one I understand fairly well, and feel is critical. It ensures the safety of the business, shareholders and the general public, with the intent of avoiding another 'Enron'. But there is a drawback.

The problem with Sarbox (aka SOX) is that it's incredibly labor intensive and expensive for small businesses to comply. No doubt this extension will keep a lot of them from either noncompliance or inability to stay afloat trying to meet the reg. Nice work by Kerry and Snowe.
In addition to Sarbox, the Senator and Kudlow discussed subprime lending, the AMT, technology and investment, IPOs, why some companies are choosing to go private, and the dreadful management of economic issues by the Bush administration. A lot of stuff, and a really good interview.

On second thought, it might be dangerous. The warning specifically mentions red lipstick, which is neither my nor Sen. Boxer's color, but Sen. Feinstein is definitely a red lipstick wearin' gal. And although the test doesn't mention other shades, I think I'll consider going au naturale for the time being.

This is truly bizarre. I've been protected from putting lead based paint on my walls since 1978, but I can still put it on my lips? I thought they stopped using lead in makeup during the reign of Queen Elizabeth when they discovered it killed people. There is something seriously wrong here.

Earlier this week, Senators Kerry, Boxer and Feinstein wrote to the FDA regarding lead levels in lipstick.

“I was surprised to learn that lipsticks worn every day have been found to contain dangerous levels of lead. The Food and Drug Administration needs to fully investigate the potential health risks posed by lead in lipsticks. And federal guidelines may be needed to safeguard women’s health and reduce the amount of lead in cosmetic products,” U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein said.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, who issued the report, points out that the FDA has not set a limit for lead in lipstick. High levels of lead are of particular concern to pregnant women, because high doses of lead can have significant impacts on the early brain development of babies and toddlers. Lead has been linked to learning and behavioral problems in children, such as reduced IQ, poorer school performance and aggression.

November 19, 2007

Andrew C. von Eschenbach, M.D.
Commissioner of Food and Drugs
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, MD 20857

Dear Commissioner von Eschenbach:

We are writing to express our concern regarding a series of recent news articles highlighting elevated levels of lead in many lipstick products.

As you know, the FDA currently does not regulate lead in lipstick or other cosmetic products. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics recently conducted tests of 33 red lipsticks and found that 61% of the lipsticks contained lead at levels ranging from .02-.65 parts per million. One third of the tested products exceeded the FDA recommended limit for lead in candy, which represents the permitted lead ingestion level by children.

In response to these results, we request that FDA consider taking two actions to address lead levels in lipstick and other cosmetics:

1. FDA has indicated an interest in re-testing the same lipsticks tested by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. We encourage FDA to perform these tests on a wide range of other lipstick brands in a variety of colors, and to publicly report the results.

2. If the FDA reaches the same conclusions as the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, we respectfully encourage the FDA to take immediate action to reduce consumers’ lead exposure to lipstick and other cosmetic products. The FDA should issue guidance to industry, establishing a recommended maximum level of lead in lipstick and other cosmetic products, set to correspond with the lowest detectable levels found in laboratory tests.

Thank you for your attention to this issue, and we look forward to a timely response to our concerns.

Sincerely,

John F. Kerry
Barbara Boxer
Dianne Feinstein

CC: Linda Katz, Director, FDA Office of Cosmetics and Colors

If you recall from yesterday's video, The Kerrys' book covers at length the effect of toxins in the products we use, and it's also a focus of Teresa's conferences on Women's Health and the Environment.

Here's part 3, in which the Senator and Teresa continue the Q&A and the discussion of consumer product safety.

Tomorrow: The conclusion.

.....said an exasperated Kerry to the Bush administration's Science Advisor, after the latter refused to concede that the Global Climate Change situation is urgent. Dr. Marburger continued to dodge the rather direct question posed to him by Senator Kerry.

It was a dance that would have had Mikhail Baryshnikov blanch with envy, and the New York City Ballet talent scouts pounding on Marburger's door, convinced they had found their new male lead for 'Giselle'.

The exchange was part of a larger hearing by the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee which focused on the need to improve the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

While this excerpt was certainly one of the highlights, I highly recommend watching the hearing in its entirety at the Commerce, Science, and Transportation website.

Do you watch Congressional hearings? I do. Senate, mostly, and for good reason. A lot of what happens in the Senate happens off the floor. Unlike TV news and blogs and newspapers and often the Senate floor itself where the rubber frequently meets the roadblocks, in hearings you regularly see Senators from both sides get down to the business of the people they were elected to serve. There isn't the same formality in hearings that you typically see on C-SPAN if you limit yourself to gavel to gavel coverage of House and Senate proceedings, and witnesses in hearings are often asked some pretty tough questions.

So, if you're interested in the policy more than the politics, and need to kill some time during those long quorum calls, hearings are where it's at. You can watch a lot of them live and archived on committee websites and on C-SPAN and listen to live audio at CapitolHearings.org. You may even learn the answer to that really big question philosophers have been asking for centuries. Well, at least in the context of Senate hearings.

I wish I could post something like this every day.

As the Senator often reminds us, corporations are beginning to realize that being a friend to the environment is not only the right thing to do, it's profitable. Texas Instruments is one example that was highlighted in the Kerrys' book This Moment on Earth, but there are others.

In the case of TI, they were able to reduce their energy consumption to the degree that it was cost effective for them to keep their plant in the U.S. rather than moving it overseas. So, not only was it good for the company's bottom line and good for the environment, but a whole lot of Americans got to keep good, high paying jobs. That's a whole lot of good.

So, this week, NBC goes green. Green shows, green website, green peacock, even. They're still not getting me to switch from C-SPAN except to watch Keith, but I do applaud their effort.

Green tie. Nice touch, Senator.

Stay tuned for more on Sen. Kerry and Sen. Boxer's upcoming trip to Bali to lead the U.S. delegation at the next round of international talks on climate change.

When I first heard the term 'Voter Caging', I had no idea what it meant. All I could imagine were multiple arrests on election day under bogus charges to keep these particular folks from going to the polls that day. Not that this idea is so far-fetched. We all know about purging the voter rolls, so who is to say that there couldn't be a step further into that direction?

Alas, I was wrong. Voter Caging is a different, but equally disturbing and disgusting practice:

A political party or a campaign collects lists of registered voters and sends fairly innocuous mailings marked 'do not forward' or 'return to sender' to these individuals. If the mail is returned, that particular person's voter registration gets challenged on the grounds that the person is not living at the residence listed on the registration.

Typically, the main targets of such mailings are minorities and people living in minority neighborhoods. Many times, active duty military are targeted, as well. In 2004, voter caging lists were prepared in Florida (who'da thunk?), Ohio (surprise, surprise!), and Pennsylvania. (I believe it).

While not everyone agrees with Greg Palast's assessment that the 2004 election was stolen, this following youtube piece is invaluable as an explanation of how voter caging was done, and the effects it might have had.

Part Two below the fold.

The state of emergency declared in Pakistan will be imposed for "as long as it is necessary," Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz told reporters Sunday, a day after President Pervez Musharraf announc