September 2005 Archives

Brownie: Go Home!
By Trevor on September 27, 2005 1:31 PM | No Comments

Anyone who's read the news over the past few days will note something almost shocking: Ousted FEMA Director Michael Brown is STILL on the FEMA payroll. He's like the vampire that keeps coming back from the dead - it appears we simply cannot be rid of him.

The most outrageous part about the entire matter is that he is being paid as a consultant to investigate the failure of the Federal Government to respond to Hurricane Katrina - um, the very response that he basically oversaw. Can we say bias, anyone?

It's clear that he's on the prowl and has been pushed to do so. Before he seemed nothing more than a yes-man (just look at any of the interviews in the days following Katrina - he's an idiot), but now he has strong words of criticism for just about everyone but himself. Brown, testifying before a Congressional Panel set up by Republicans to "investigate" the response, said that "my biggest mistake was not recognizing by Saturday that Louisiana was dysfunctional."

When his decisions were questions by members of the Panel, he arrogantly replied that "I've overseen over 150 presidentially declared disasters. I know what I'm doing, and I think I do a pretty darn good job of it." He failed to mention that in the days following Katrina, he had no idea what was ever going on - and that CNN Reporters had to inform him live on the air of the status in Louisiana. Yea, that's a heck of a job, Brownie.

In any case, the real question remains: how the fuck is it possible for this incompetent cronie to be hired as a consultant to the investigation largely focused on his former agency's failure? His presence and paycheck exposes the Republican-led "investigation" for what it is: a sham that will never really lay the blame on anyone at the Federal level.

Beyond DeLay: The Thirteen Most Corrupt Members of Congress
By Trevor on September 26, 2005 11:41 PM | No Comments

The Citizens for Reponsibility and Ethics has released a report (LA Times coverage of it here) detailing what it says are the 13 most corrupt officials in Congress.

Here is the LA Times description of the 13:

Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.): The report accuses him of violating federal campaign finance laws in how he disclosed a campaign loan. It also calls for an inquiry over his recent sale of stock in HCA Inc., his family's hospital corporation. The sale has raised questions about possible insider dealing. Frist aides confirmed Friday that the SEC was investigating. They have denied claims of campaign finance violations.
Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): The report criticizes him for trying to insert provisions into bills that would have benefited, in one case, a client of his lobbyist son and in another case, the employer of his lobbyist girlfriend, now his wife.
Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mo.): The report says that questions arose over $3 million in appropriations he earmarked for an Indian tribe in Michigan that was a client of lobbyist Abramoff. The senator received substantial campaign contributions from Abramoff and various clients.
"Sen. Burns did nothing wrong, and any accusation to the contrary is pure politics," said James Pendleton, his director of communications. He said Burns had earmarked the appropriation at the request of the Michigan congressional delegation.
Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio): The report says the chairman of the House Administration Committee went on a golf outing to Scotland in 2002, arranged by Abramoff, at a time when the congressman was trying to insert a provision into legislation to benefit one of Abramoff's tribal clients.
Ney reported to the House that the trip was paid for entirely by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank, which denied paying any of the costs. Ney has said he had been duped by Abramoff.
Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.): The report says he incorrectly reported that a golf trip to Scotland with Abramoff in 2003 was paid for by the National Center for Public Policy Research, which denied it. A Feeney aide said the congressman had been misled. Questions also have arisen about two other privately funded trips.
Rep. Richard W. Pombo (R-Ca.): He paid his wife and brother $357,325 in campaign funds in the last four years, the report says. He also supported the wind-power industry before the Department of Interior without disclosing that his parents received hundreds of thousands of dollars in royalties from wind-power turbines on their ranch.
Brian Kennedy, a spokesman for Pombo, said that "each of the charges is baseless." He called the watchdog group "a Democratic attack group, and all of their charges should be taken with a grain of salt."
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Ca.): The report cites a December 2004 Los Angeles Times investigation disclosing how members of the congresswoman's family have made more than $1 million in the last eight years by doing business with companies, candidates and causes that Waters has helped. Before publication of the Times investigation last year, Waters declined to be interviewed, but said of her family members: "They do their business, and I do mine."
Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.): The report says he encountered controversy over disclosures that Pennsylvania taxpayers paid for his children's schooling while they lived in Virginia. Santorum maintained he did nothing wrong, and has pulled his children out of the school, according to reports.
Reps. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Ca.) and William J. Jefferson (D-La.): Both congressional veterans are under federal investigation.
Cunningham, who has announced that he will not run for reelection, faces questions over his dealings with a defense contractor who allegedly overpaid him when he purchased Cunningham's house. Jefferson is under scrutiny for his role in an overseas business deal. Normally the House ethics committee does not hold inquiries while criminal investigations are underway.
Rep. Charles H. Taylor (R-N.C.): The report says that questions have been raised about his private business interests, including a savings and loan in Asheville, N.C., and personal business interests in Russia.
Rep. Marilyn N. Musgrave (R-Colo.) and Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.): Both second-term House members encountered criticisms tied to campaign activities, the report says.
Musgrave was accused of misusing her congressional office for campaign purposes. Renzi was accused of financing portions of his 2002 campaign with improper loans.
Embattled FDA Chief Resigns
By Trevor on September 23, 2005 8:00 PM | No Comments

Following heavy criticism from concerns with Vioxx and the outrageous delay of the morning-after pill, Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Lester Crawford resigned Friday without warning.

Vioxx aside, the delay of the Morning After pill despite widespread scientific support for doing so was a serious misstep for the agency. The FDA had said that the delay was due to concerns for how safe the drug might be for minors - though they acknowledged its safety for grown women. Women's groups decried this stalling measure. NOW had this to say: "For all intents and purposes, the FDA said that since they couldn't figure out how to deal with young women, then NO women could have access to EC as a non-prescription drug."

The decision to delay making emergency contraception more readily available led to FDA Office of Women's Health Director Susan Wood's resignation (see her resignation here) last month. In her letter of resignation, she openly criticized the FDA for its recent disregard for sound medical advice: "I have spent the last 15 years working to ensure that science informs good health policy decisions. I can no longer serve as staff when scientific and clinical evidence, fully evaluated and recommended for approval by the professional staff here, has been overruled. I therefore have submitted my resignation effective today."

It seems that the "cronie" problem as seen in other government organizations like FEMA are not restricted to any particular segement of the bureaucracy. With Crawford gone, a door has been opened to begin reforming the agency - but that's seems unlikely to happen as long as GW's in office.

NYTimes Clamps Down on Online Access
By Trevor on September 20, 2005 4:44 AM | No Comments

In a somewhat bold move, it appears that the New York Times has severely cut down on what content can be freely accessed via their website, www.nytimes.com. For quite a while, older content required a subscription or payment, but a free registration allowed access to much of their current content.

Today I made my daily visit to NY Times website to find that this was no longer possible. The very content that I had come to treasure from the Times - their Op-Ed Columnists - was now off limits to my mooching eyes. They certainly have every right to charge for this content, but they can also certainly expect a marked decline in online readership.

They are obviously banking on an expectation that the decline in readership online will not result in a loss of ad revenue greater than the revenue produced from the subscription service. I'm somewhat dubious that this will be the case. People are simply not yet willing to consider information online to be something worth paying for. Subscription services for content have again and again proved unsuccesful.

On the positive side, the subscription is not (as many others have been) terribly expensive. $7.95 a month or $49.95 isn't outrageous, but it's enough of a barrier to keep this graduate student from visiting their website on the daily basis that I used to. Hopefully this will prove to be a pilot that ultimately fails - as I do like my access to the Times online. If this is not the case and this "$$$ firewall" is here to stay, I will simply have to find other news sources. Any suggestions?

What Are You Going to Do With That?
By Trevor on September 17, 2005 2:57 PM | No Comments

The following is an essay I wrote for LAMBDA, UNC's LGBT Publication, as an alumni guest writer. I'm not sure if they're going to publish it - but I thought it would be a nice addition here either way:

As a Masters student in Human Sexuality at San Francisco State University, I had imagined our first reading assignment to be from the work of Foucault or Judith Butler or maybe even Alfred Kinsey. So you can imagine my surprise when, at the graduate student orientation, the Director of the program distributed the first Xeroxed reading - a speech given by Mark Danner to graduating students of the Department of English at the University of California at Berkeley in May 2005. Its title: "What Are You Going to Do with That?"

As the Director pointed out, this question will echo in our ears for years to come. It is the very same question that filled my parents' eyes when I told them where I was applying to graduate school. I heard it time and time again when I told fellow graduating seniors at UNC my post-graduation plans. Here in San Francisco, when I'm at a bar talking to a cute young gay men (and there are so many of them here), he will inevitably give a chuckle and ask, "So are you here to find fieldwork tonight?"

While the young man's question was certainly engaging, it is not the reason I find myself attending SFSU. When I helped junior Alice Newton and others to create the GLBT-Straight Alliance in the spring of 2002, I did not know that I was setting myself up for a series of decisions that would deeply affect my life. It was because of my involvement with them that I took classes like Sherryl Kleinman's "Sex and Gender in Society" (SOCI 24) and Karen Booth's "Transnational Queer Politics" (now WMST 102). Because of my membership, I was able to start a conference on LGBT issues and hear such amazing, moving speakers as Urvashi Vaid, Mandy Carter, Suzanne Pharr, Nomi Lamm, and countless others. These women impacted me deeply and shook my values to the core.

Had I not been involved in the GLBT-SA, I could be doing something entirely boring today like accounting or cell biology. However, the ordinary was not an option anymore. It is at least very difficult, in my mind, to have read great works of feminist theory and continue on to such things. Likewise, it seems downright impossible to me to have taken a class from Sherryl Kleinman and find yourself dreaming peacefully of a life dedicated to Corporate Law. Nor is it possible, at least in my eyes, to read a book by bell hooks and ever look at the world with the same eyes again.

Feminism is just one tool that can give you the thick, horn-rimmed glasses it so often takes to see clearly in America. Once you find yourself with not just one, but many of these critical tools, you too will find yourself losing sleep at night. This very crisis characterized my senior year at UNC-Chapel Hill. As a graduate of the Department of Political Science, the obvious choice for me was to take the LSAT and apply to a series of Law Schools I probably never could have gotten into. Having never been a fan of the obvious, I sought out the Master of Arts in Human Sexuality Program here at San Francisco State. It called to me in a way that other options did not.

Many of you are probably wondering what graduate school is like, though, and not how I came to be here. I cannot easily answer that because my program is just one out of hundreds of options. I will, however, tell you a bit about this Masters Program. Masters programs are generally two years long, and this one is not an exception. I am taking three courses this semester: "Socio-Cultural Foundations in Human Sexuality", "Research Methods in Human Sexuality," and a class titled "Sexuality and the Internet." The first two are required for everyone in the program. The first course provides new students with a history of sexuality in America and a theoretical foundation for the field of Human Sexuality. The second is a crash course in the many ways Human Sexuality researchers chose to do their research – including interviews, ethnography, observation, and surveys. The third course is an elective. All three classes meet once a week on Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday from 4:10 PM -- 6:55 PM. It is a great schedule.

You spend your first year in the program developing a research plan to be executed in your second year of study. This is a somewhat flexible schedule, but most students follow it. Some examples of research topics that second-year students are looking at include anything from burlesque dancers in San Francisco to the effects of online racism on black gay and bisexual men. I am not yet sure of my own research topic.

Finally, to answer the question posed by the title of this essay, there are many options for those who chose to dedicate their life to the study of Human Sexuality. Some students in the program will go on to a PhD program (sociology and anthropology being the most common) and from there will probably teach at a University. Others are interested in policy and hope to work for a "thinktank" like, for example, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's Policy Institute in New York. At least one student hopes to go on to law school and then do advocacy for LGBT people in the legal realm. More possibilities remain from reproductive rights advocates to sexual health educators.

Though I do not yet know my precise destination, I do ultimately know what I will do with my Master of Arts degree. I know that, whatever I end up doing, I will be working to make equality a reality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans. I may be lobbying to pass a piece of pro-LGBT legislation in California. Or I might be designing a public health campaign aimed at squashing new HIV infections. Who knows -- many years from now, I might even be teaching a sociology class on sexuality at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Whatever the case, I know exactly what I'm going to do with "that." It's the how that gets sticky.

I ? My Cohort
By Trevor on September 16, 2005 6:00 AM | No Comments

Tonight I had the pleasure of joining several members of my Human Sexuality cohort barhopping in the Castro and in the Mission. I met up with Ethan, Connor, Jessie, Liz (who was in the 2004 Summer Institute with me), and Libby at The Pilsner in the Castro and later at the Zietgiest in the Mission. Both are dive bars with a wonderful outdoor patios. We had a fabulous time drinking and chatting it up about our classes and faculty.

I also had the pleasure of meeting Louis, a PhD student in Pyschology who was a gem and who I hope to get to know better. The same is true for all of the members of my cohort - they are such an amazingly diverse and wonderful group of people who continue to challenge me and provoke me to think in new ways. And, at least half of them can certainly drink me under the table (which, I guess, doesn't say much).

In any case - I'm having a wonderful time in SF. Wonderful people, wonderful classes, and wonderful professors. More soon - I promise!

Wal-Mart: 30% of US Sales?
By Trevor on September 10, 2005 4:02 AM | No Comments

I was reading the news, when I read the most depressing projection EVER:

"Wal-Mart currently accounts for nearly 10 percent of the $4.1 trillion in U.S. retail sales but hopes to increase that to about 30 percent over time."

Honestly. That has got to be the most horrifying thought of all time!!! Of course this is a projection from Wal-Mart execs, but still just imagining an America in which 1 out of every 3 US Dollars spent by US Consumers would be spent at Wal-Mart is a pretty scary thought.

When CNN Starts to Get Critical, You Know Times Are Bad
By Trevor on September 4, 2005 5:50 AM | 1 Comment

You know - when CNN starts to directly contradict government officials, I start to think that there must be some deep crisis going on. That's what's been happening over the past few days with the Hurrican Katrina madness. I've staved off blogging on the issue until more is known and I can make some sense from all the different sources of information. It does appear that the Bush Admin and many government agencies will have a foul mess on their hands. It's almost as if it took until Friday for the stench of the sewage-infested waters in New Orleans to waft up to DC. Bush took a big wiff Friday - a bit too late, it seems.

So many things. Anderson Cooper's (who, by the by, is somewhat openly gay) nasty exchange with Senator Mary Landrieu. (Transcript thanks to mediabistro or look here for the video)

LANDRIEU: Anderson, tonight, I don't know if you've heard -- maybe you all have announced it -- but Congress is going to an unprecedented session to pass a $10 billion supplemental bill tonight to keep FEMA and the Red Cross up and operating.
COOPER: Excuse me, Senator, I'm sorry for interrupting. I haven't heard that, because, for the last four days, I've been seeing dead bodies in the streets here in Mississippi. And to listen to politicians thanking each other and complimenting each other, you know, I got to tell you, there are a lot of people here who are very upset, and very angry, and very frustrated.
And when they hear politicians slap -- you know, thanking one another, it just, you know, it kind of cuts them the wrong way right now, because literally there was a body on the streets of this town yesterday being eaten by rats because this woman had been laying in the street for 48 hours. And there's not enough facilities to take her up. Do you understand that anger?
LANDRIEU: I have the anger inside of me. Most of the homes in my family have been destroyed. I understand that, and I know all the details, and the President —
COOPER: Well, who are you angry at?
LANDRIEU: I’m not angry at anyone. It is so important for everyone in this nation to pull together, for all military assets to be brought to bare in this situation. I have every confidence this country is great and strong as we can be do to that, and that effort is under way. That effort is under way.
COOPER: Well, I mean, there are a lot of people here who are kind of ashamed of what is happening in this country right now, what is — ashamed of what is happening in your state. And that’s not to blame the people that are there, it is a terrible situation, but you know, who — no one seems to be taking responsibility. I know you say there’s a time and a place for kind of, you know, looking back, but this seems to be the time and the place. There are people that want answers, and people want someone to stand up and say: we should have done more.

Forgive me for posting yet another transcript, but this gets even better. Soledad O'Brian ripped into FEMA Director interview with FEMA Director Mike Brown after he noted that he hadn't learned about the Superdome situation until well after it had been widely broadcast by the media:

S. O'BRIEN: You know, when you hear the interviews with some of these families who are living on the street, completely and utterly unprotected from these armed roving troops of men who are attacking people and they're raping people, what are you doing to protect these people right now?
BROWN: Well, that's why we're trying to get additional boots on the ground, because we have to protect them.
And, Soledad, I want the American people to know that we understand how dire this situation is. And we're going to do everything we can to get that aid down to that individual level. You know, we're feeding stuff into the Superdome. When we found out about the Convention Center yesterday. We started diverting supplies to get them fed, too. And now we're finding literally as we do evacuations that more and more people are beginning to manifest and show themselves in areas that we didn't that they were there, and so we're doing everything we can to get to them.
S. O'BRIEN: You were unaware of the situation at the Convention Center until yesterday. When yesterday did you become aware?
BROWN: I think it was yesterday morning when we first found out about it. We were just as surprised as everybody else. We didn't know that the city had used that as a staging area. That shows how difficult communications are. And that is why we moved the USS Bataan, so that we could give the mayor a place to actually be able to communicate on a regular basis, to give us good intel about what he needs.
S. O'BRIEN: How is it possible that we're getting better intel than you're getting? We had a crew in the air. We were showing live pictures of the people outside of the Convention Center. We had a National Guardsman who was talking to us, who was telling us he estimated the crowd at 50,000 people. That was at 8:00 in the morning yesterday. And also, we've been reporting that officials have been telling people to go to the Convention Center if they want any hope of relief. I don't understand how FEMA cannot have this information.
BROWN: Well, we're busy doing life-saving and life-rescue efforts. We rely upon the state to give us that information. And, Soledad, I learned about it listening to the news reports.
S. O'BRIEN: FEMA has been on the ground for four days, going into the fifth day. Why no massive airdrop of food and water? In Banda Aceh, in Indonesia, they got food dropped two days after the tsunami struck.
BROWN: That's what we're going to do here, too. And I think...
S. O'BRIEN: But, sir, forgive me...
BROWN: Soledad, just a moment, please.
We're feeding those people in the Convention Center. We have fed over 150,000 people as of last night. That is happening.
S. O'BRIEN: But I guess the point is, as of last night -- sir, forgive me, I have to stop you here.
BROWN: What we're hearing, is that we're hearing people's frustrations. There are people that are beginning to manifest themselves out of the community that we didn't know that were there, and we're doing everything we can to find those individuals, case by case to get them help as quickly as possible.
S. O'BRIEN: But it begs the question, why are you discovering this now? It's five days that FEMA has been on the ground. The head of police says it's been five days that FEMA has been there. The mayor, the former mayor, putting out SOS's on Tuesday morning, crying on national television, saying please send in some troops. So the idea that, yes, I understand that you're feeding people and trying to get in there now, but it's Friday. It's Friday.
BROWN: Soledad, what's going on is in this situation, we have people who have gone, for example, to the Superdome, and we're feeding those people. And as we do the evacuations, as the water recedes, people begin to come out wherever they've been trying to keep themselves safe. They go to the bridges. They go to the overpasses. We find out about those people. We have every urban search-and-rescue team in this country out trying to find them now. We don't know where everybody is. And as they come out and they show themselves, we're rescuing them and moving them to places. I understand their frustration. I understand your frustration. This is a catastrophic event, and as these people continue to show themselves, we rescue them and take care of them.
S. O'BRIEN: Do you look at the pictures that are coming out of New Orleans? New Orleans? And do you say, I'm proud of the job that FEMA is doing on the ground there in a tough situation?
BROWN: Soledad...
S. O'BRIEN: Or do you look at these pictures and you say, this is a mess and we've dropped the ball; we didn't do what we should of done.
BROWN: Soledad, I look at these pictures and my heart breaks. My heart breaks just like the rest of the country's heart breaks. And so what we're doing is ramping up. I've asked the military to come in and help us and do -- I mean, I've mission assigned the Army, and the Coast Guard and the others to get those supplies in to all of those pockets.I don't want to see any American suffer the way some of these people are suffering, because of the consequences of this disaster.

And then today, I was reading today a CNN article on comments from Homeland Security's Secretary Michael Chertoff. The following are the lead paragraphs to an article whose headline was "Chertoff: Katrina scenario did not exist" and subhead, "However, experts for years had warned of threat to New Orleans":

"Defending the U.S. government's response to Hurricane Katrina, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff argued Saturday that government planners did not predict such a disaster ever could occur.
But in fact, government officials, scientists and journalists have warned of such a scenario for years."

You can find the full article here. It just amused me. So rarely do corporate mainstream news sources like CNN ever step out and seriously question anything that comes out of someone in the Administration. It's a glimmer of hope? Maybe? (Not, of course, that the corp media has somehow changed, but that the magnitude of this situation has yet to be fully disclosed or realized).

Ask me again in a week and we'll see.

Our Worst Fears Realized
By Trevor on September 3, 2005 11:51 PM | No Comments

Rehnquist. Dead.

Freedom. Dead.

As I've said before, if Roe v. Wade gets overturned, I'm moving to Canada. Who's coming with?