We Are ND...

So I'm watching Glenn Beck the other day (HA!), and what do I see? My Torts professor, suggesting that the Obama Administration is basically coercing people into aborting disabled babies...

(I can't embed it, but you can see the Youtube clip here.)

Orlando Carter Snead is a former member of the Bush administration, and is a current Associate Professor at Notre Dame Law School. As the former General Counsel of George W. Bush's Counsil on Bio-ethics. He was last seen agreeing with Glenn Beck's assertion that the Obama administration was promoting eugenics. Who's got two thumbs, a shaved head, and helped supress stem cell research for years? This guy.

Also in the faculty here at ND is William Kelley, the former Deputy white House Counsel who was veeeeeeeery involved in the U.S. Attorney Firing scandal (and who was part of the Ken Starr investigations of President Clinton). So is Professor Charles Rice, who compared Obama to Adolf Hitler and stands with the "birthers" in claiming that "pending lawsuits... raise serious questions as to Obama's eligibility for the office."

I'm beginning to wonder what the hell is going on around here. But one thing's for sure; the next time someone complains about the liberal nature of higher education, I have a simple response: Go Irish.

Read more...

“You Give Me a Water Board, Dick Cheney and One Hour, and I'll Have Him Confess to the Sharon Tate Murders”

Never thought I would quote Jesse Ventura, but what the hell.

Jesse Ventura, former Navy SEAL, former Governor of Minnesota on CNN's Lary King Live:

“You Give Me a Water Board, Dick Cheney and One Hour, and I'll Have Him Confess to the Sharon Tate Murders”

Funny stuff as linked from LLPN: video here.

Read more...

The State of the Union is Smug

So, here I sit on my couch with my laptop, realizing that I have no idea where I want to go with this. In the end, I'll try to pick up and the things that catch my ear and offer-up some snark to go along with it. I encourage my fellow contributors to either update and add to this peice, or add your own snippets and snark in the comments...or whatever.

9:09 pm, after 9 minutes of introductions and ceaseless clapping, did Nancy Pelosi alomost stumble over saying it was a distinct pleasure to introduce the President?

He made a point to say that 110th Congress will affect the security of our nation for years to come, and to recognize our obligations and keep them. This came up again, several times, especailly with regard to his coverage of the progress in Iraq and the Middle East in general. He essentially spent a lot of time on variations of the "don't pull out of Iraq" theme. Whatever you may think of being there, staying there, or leaving, he's clearly challenging the Democrats. And given the Dems' track record on his challenges...they'll buckle.

Pelosi looked like she was going to laugh when he said he reached an agreement with her. I bet she thought he was gonna say "boner" instead of Boener. Because I think it every single time.

Awwwww, George made a funny! He starts with saying that letting a tax decrease expire is essentially an increase, which is splitting hairs. He goes on to say that there are some people who are happy to pay higher taxes. He's happy to say the IRS accepts checks or money orders. Smug motherfucker.

Of course, he went on to say that Congress must make tax relief permanent. There is no problem with that George. So long as you also see that you either fund the war, fund education, fund corporate welfare, or fund health care, but not all three on a diminishing pot of money.

He says he'll veto any tax increase bill. If one were being discussed, I don't believe this Congress would have the political will to even send him one.

I like how he wants to eliminate $18 Billion in sending by eliminating wasteful programs. I can't wait to see the list of wasteful programs. Apparently, health insurance for poor kids is one of those wasteful programs...

I loved this one: families have to balance their paychecks....so should their government. A yes, I think that's Chapter 6 of the Book Of Irony. $734 Billion in deficit (down from a $431 billion surplus in 2001) and $9.2 trillion in debt (up from $5.7 in 2001) anyone?

Oh, gods. Earmarks...blah blah...he'll veto budget bills with earmarks and, via executive order, will require federal agencies to ignore earmarks that haven't been voted on. Again, I can't wait to see what qualifies as an earmark, or better yet, what doesn't.

He moved on to health care and the importance of patients and doctors making their own medical decisions, and to make health care affordable and accessible for all Americans. Okay...cool. Universal, maybe? No!! He says it must be based on consumer choice, not government control. That said, there are plenty of warnings about a "Canadian" health care system, many of which are not exactly accurate, but the status quo of competitive consumer choice is not getting us much of anywhere other than the richest nation in the world being unable to cover all of its citizens.

The doozy is his reiteration that medical decisions are made in the privacy of your doctor's office, not the halls of congress. Chapter 43 in the Book Of Irony. Terry Shiavo, anyone?

Ah yes. He'd like a new $300 Million Pell Grant for Kids program to "liberate poor children trapped in failing public schools" ...by giving them a government grant to send them to private and religious schools. You know, instead of revamping and rescuing...or, um, fully funding, public schools.

Wow: "embolden the purveyors of false populism in our hemisphere"...how many times did he have to practice that phrase?

Okay. Congress needs to reauthorize a program for displaced workers to get new skills and find new jobs.

In the middle of his focus on energy...did Nancy Pelosi just get passed a note??? Dying to know what that said.

Back to energy: he wants us to generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions. Good. Let's waste time on coal energy that's not really, you know, renewable, rather than focusing on the renewable stuff. One question: what are you going to do with the carbon emissions you capture? Send them to Guantanamo? Anyway, all the other big points were touched. Emissions-free nucular power. Advanced batteries, rebewable fuel. International clean technology fund to urge our neighbors to use clean energy (uh, our neighbors, I recall, asked us to do the same...) Every major economy must participate, nobody gets a free ride (kinda like...our free ride?).

He said global climate change! Hey hey!

Ah yes. He wants us to entrust and empower our scientists to pursue the breakthroughs of tomorrow. Of course. Except, you know, stem cells and global warming studies. Those are bad breakthroughs.

A call on congress to double our funding for physical sciences to maintain our edge. That we have lost to all the other countries who don't limit their scientific studies by (worse) corporate dogma.

Oh goody. Stem cells. We need to find new treatments...blah blah...skin cells...blah blah...use that rather than destoying human life. WE'RE THOWING THEM AWAY!!! Dont't destroy...what we're going to destroy. Jesus I am sick of this mantra.

Bush wants us to assure that all life is treated with the dignity it deserves. He wants Congress to ban unethical practices like buying, selling, cloning, etc. Question: who the fuck is talking about cloning humans? And I am pretty sure it's been illegal to sell human for quite some time now. Oh, wait, that's not what he means??

Curious...the constitution means what it says, according to Bush. Chapter 2 in the Book Of Irony.

Americans are volunteering. Charitable donations are higher than in years. For this, I am very happy.

So they will hold the North American Summit in NOLA. So, for the citizens of that fine city, another 10-block section will finally get rebuilt.

Hey! Immigration! No way! Secure borders. Fucking fences. Double border agents. We should apparently never secure our border against foreign workers to come here and support our economy. Because nothing says "send us your poor, your tires, your hungry" like a 14-foot fence with razor wire spiraling across the top.

9/11. Only twice, though. Imagine President Giuliani...

Aha. 3,200 Marines will be sent to Afghanistan. Maybe we should have done that 6 1/2 fucking years ago.

Ah, The Surge. He's really making the case that we're so successful, we have to stay. Largely, aspects of The Surge have been successful, which bodes well for the long-term. No joke here. Our military command and intelligence have done a great job.

To our military: in the fight ahead, you'll have all you need to protect our nation. Gee...thanks. That'd have helped, say, 6 or so years ago.

And back to the opening theme: any further drawdown will be based on conditions in Iraq and the input of the generals.

Democratic Isreal and Democratic Palestine...side by side...stop fighting, establish Palestine. Can't argue.

Tehran/Iran. I didn't really listen to this. I had to get some water.

I hear we need to pass liability protection for companies who thought they were acting in our best interests. Fuck. No.

We apparently now also oppose genocide in Sudan. Not a lot of troops going there though.

Expansion of an Agriculture program to purchase food grown in developing countires. Michigan State University has been doing this for some time, and it's pretty cool. Can't argue here.

$30 Billion over 5 years to fight AIDS. Again, cool. But I bet he won't want it to include condom use.

Expand access to child care for military families, allow military spouses to transfer unused education benefits to their spouse, and establish hiring preferences for military spouses. Hell yes.

Dem Response: really, truly uninspired. The message was okay. Health care, education, economic stimulus can't be just this $300 but has to instead be ongoing for the middle class, peace in the Middle East, etc. But the delivery? Boring and uninspired. Kinda like our Democratic COngress. Shit, she didn't even take the opportunity to beat the shit out of the weakened Administration. So add "spineless" to uninspired.

Have at it.

Read more...

Iraq is not Vietnam. Iraq is not Vietnam. Iraq is not... oh, wait, never mind.

For years now, President Bush has refused to acknowledge the parallels between the war in Iraq and the Vietnam war. This week, he modified that stance ever so slightly, by telling us that it is exactly like Vietnam.

Now personally, I have never agreed that Iraq is "another Vietnam." After all, Vietnam was primarily a military struggle. The United States fought the armed forces of a foreign nation for the better part of a decade. In Iraq, the United States fought the Iraqi army for the better part of two weeks (hence the "Mission Accomplished").

If I had to compare Iraq to anything (and Smitty I'm hoping you can either back me up or tell me to shut my trap), it reminds me of Somalia. First, because of the scenic desert vistas and mild climate. And second, because the United States is not a part of the primary struggle, but rather we are in the middle of an internal conflict. If we were to leave, the Iraqis wouldn't care about kiling Americans; they'll preoccupied with the Sunni/Shia/Kurdish power struggle. In Vietnam, there was at least a realistic potential that Communism could end up spreading to our shores; I don't see Iraqiism taking root in central America any time soon.

And like Somalia, when we leave, it won't be America that suffer the most. It will be the Iraqis. Somalis celebrated when they "chased" the Americans away, but it plunged their country further into chaos. And I feel like many Iraqis will celebrate their 'liberty' from the Americans when we leave, but it may indeed prove Pyrric. Unless, of course, they think that democracy is overrated (which is a concept that, as a government employee, I often ponder myself...). I'm curious what everyone thinks.

But hey, who could have predicted this? Oh, wait, never mind...

Read more...

Can't Touch This

I'm MC Rove!

Dear God. Crooks and Liars has the goods.

The clip is from the Radio/Television Correspondents' Association dinner last night. Apparently, Rove like to go home, have a drink (nonalcoholic, of course, which immediately undermines his credibility here at Around the Keg), and "tear the tops off of small animals."

Nice.

I'm still looking for the audio clip of Buish's remarks, where he pokes fun of such hilarious snippets such as his low approval ratings and the veep shooting a guy. Ha ha.

Read more...

Scandalous

I am frankly underwhelmed by the whole Scooter Libby verdict. First, it's no rel surprise. Let's say it's as much of a surprise as the impending pardon will be. Second, as everyone says (including the jury), wrong guys. So Scooter lied. Big deal. It's who he lied for and why that I really want to know, and we never will. With Scooter's conviction, this whole issue goes away. The federal prosecutor didn't charge anyone with the "outing" of Valerie Plame because he didn't think there was anything there that would stick. But again, now that Scooter got smacked, I think we're at the end of this whole deal. Scooter took the hit for Rove and/or Cheney and this investigation is done. Color me...bored.

I see a lot of hay being made about this. I see there is something cathartic about someone in this administration finally...finally being held accountable for something. But the "victory," for what it's worth, is empty. The people who should pay won't. Cheney was exposed as the architech behind the smear campaign of Joseph Wilson, but h is not going to be held accountable for it.

The Dems on Capitol Hill are pointing out that this is one more thing that confirms the administration's lies to get us into Iraq. A concerted effort from the White House to suppress information from the CIA that proved the "yellowcake" charge was bullshit, stemming apparently from Cheney (as the trial showed), is the root of the idea the Dems are pursuing. But I think it's a chasm of distance between the root reason behind why we're pissed off - being lied to - and Libby's conviction, which strikes me as a bit more about retribution against those who we really can't touch (but really, really want to. In a bad way) than justice.

There seems to be a lot of grasping at what is going to be "really really big." Libby's conviction was going to be "really really big" and expose all sorts of...whatever. Well, he's convicted. Sure, he lied in a big, illegal way and essentially tried to block an investigation. But an investigation to what? To nowhere. The federal fucking prosecutor sees no case that will stick. So the "big thing" turns into a bit of a mediocrity.

The firing of the six U.S. Attorneys is being touted as the next "big thing." Maybe. Maybe we'll burn another Republican Senator over it, but I certainly don't smell jail time. It is tough to prove there is some White House conspiracy here to fire guys who might be leading an investigation against administration people and replace them with hacks. Well, we know they replaced them with hacks. But why? How long will it take to find out? And will it nail anyone who means anything?

Nothing makes me more furious than how we treat our wounded troops. I can hardly listen to the NPR reports or read the Newsweek article without wanting to cry. Dudes in DC are getting fired or quitting all over the place about this. But it's not the first time our Government have fucked our injured troops (what do they mean Agent Orange is eating their skin off?), and the worse that Bush himself is guilty of in this collassal fuck-up is political gamesmanship. It rrrreeeeeaaaallllyyy pisses me off that he does it with our injured troops. But we're burning all the people who ought to be burned for it. Sure, it shows more lack of leadership from the Bushies, but if you want to talk about inept leadership when it comes to dealing with our injured troops, you've got to blame every administration since the end of WWII. As a veteran, this shit has got to get solved by someone pretty damn quick. It's been wrong from a long time.

What this is is a sum of all evils; an indication of poor leadership and a group of people so sure of their own power that they don't even try to hide the bullshit. Mostly because...what exactly are we going to do when we find out? Convict a Fall Guy and celebrate a great victory? Pretty hollow.

Read more...

These Aren't Toy Soldiers

This post should have been up last night. Long story.

Given that, thanks to Balloon Juice, who thanks Obsidian Wings for this post. As Cole on Balloon Juice says, my first reaction was "this has me so god damned mad I can’t even write a restrained and reasonable post."

But I did some thinking about it, and am basing my response on what I know Executives do to budgets at the State and Federal level, drawing on my experience as a lobbyist. It is equally infuriating and equally depressing, but I see why it is happening, or at least it's what I think is going on. To set the stage for those of us who are a little lazy to click the links:

Iraq War veteran Christopher Carbone said he wouldn't mind a decrease in his medical benefits if it meant that additional federal dollars would be used for armored Humvees on the battlefield.

But Carbone, a survivor of an improvised explosive device attack in Iraq in October 2005, couldn't help being a little jarred when he learned the Bush administration planned to cut funding for veterans' health care by 2 percent in 2009 in order to balance the federal budget by 2012.

"It's kind of surprising," Carbone, 28, of North Haledon, said Monday. "It's one of those things that you always expect to be taken care of after everything you do." (...)

That's where my blood begins to boil. To the men and women who are shot, blown up, depressed, etc., we at least owe them the resources to become whole, or as close to whole as they can become. I disagree with the Chairman's explanation and thoughts on what this surprising cut means.

The proposed cuts are unrealistic in light of recent VA budget trends, sowing suspicion that the White House is simply making them up to make its long-term deficit figures look better, critics say.

"Either the administration is willingly proposing massive cuts in VA health care," said Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas, chairman of the panel overseeing the VA's budget, "or its promise of a balanced budget by 2012 is based on completely unrealistic assumptions."

OK. Maybe I can see that this Administration might base something on unrealistic assumptions. They kinda have that track record. But I don't think they are willingly proposing massive cuts in VA healthcare.

A common tactic from the Executive level when introducing a budget proposal is to cut deep into some sacred cows. You do some sacred cows of your opposition party to show solidarity within your own, and you do some of your own to provide political cover to your own party for them to support a program that may not be possible to pay for without cutting the opposition's sacred cows.

So Bush proposes a cut to VA benefits. This throws people into fits while at the same time forcing them to vote for increases in the VA and DOD budgets that they may not have otherwise. It provides cover to the Rs to go the way the President needs them to go; it allows them to "buck the President" and become hometown heroes by restoring funding to VA benefits. It's good for the Rs because it allows them to again separate themselves from the Prez and add it to the "stuff they've done right." It allows the Ds to beat the shit out of the Prez a little more, but it certainly diverts their attention away from the Rs in Congress.

Thus, the plan all along is to fully-fund VA benefits. Other stuff is going to have to get cut to do that, and the Ds will suffer themselves some of their own sacred cows so they don't have to cut VA benefits. The Rs get to buck the Prez, show some leadership, and also increase VA benefits. The Prez? He gets an increase in VA benefits on his watch. Everybody wins, and the Rs may come out a little on top in that the Ds may have to cut some other Really Important Programs in order to fund the VA benefits.

The depressing part here is the field the game is being played on. They're not cutting Bridges to Nowhere or corn production studies at Mid-West Universities. They are playing an unbluffable poker game on the backs of our troops that got broken. In my mind it is more cynical and shameful that a common budgetary game is being played on the emotional ties of the troops and their families who want to see them fixed. A game of this magnitude, on the backs of these types of programs, have devastating results. Play this game with Corn Studies. Then, a grad student has to wait a little longer before she gets her project funded. This poker game takes a while to resolve itself. Given the time it takes, this is what happens.

Sad, and infuriating.

Read more...

Reconstruction Deconstructed

Let's set the stage. Bush unveiled his budget today (and by unveiled, I mean like the kind where you went to a strip club, but it turned out to be a drag show...that kind of "unveiled) for a whopping $2.9 Trillion.

Of that $2.9 Trillion, including $624.6 billion in Defense spending, which is an 11.3% raise from last year.

On its face, this is not awful. It includes, among other things, a 3% raise for troops. A whopping 3% raise. Thanks George. Inflation, by the way, is at 3.1%.

Here's where it gets fun. The figure includes $93.4 billion in aditional money for the war this year, and $141.7 billion in "anticipated" costs for next year to repair, replace and retool. No problem; war tends to beat equipment up.

Interestingly, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments:

Steven Kosiak, an analyst with the private Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said the president's proposed increases bring the Defense Department budget back up to where it was during the 1980s, a peak period for Pentagon spending, when calculated in today's dollars.

"An 11.3 percent increase is the kind of increase we had right after 9/11 and in the four or five years of the (President) Reagan buildup," Kosiak said. "So by historical perspectives, it's a pretty big jump."

The stage is set.

I seem to remember Paul Wolfoqitz saying:

“There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]

Remember, back in '03, how Wolfowitz dressed-down the General at the time by saying the war wouldn't cost as much nor would reconstruction require the level of troops that the General (Shinseki) said it'd require? A reminder, compliments of the February 28 edition of the New York Times:

Mr. Wolfowitz spent much of the hearing knocking down published estimates of the costs of war and rebuilding, saying the upper range of $95 billion was too high, and that the estimates were almost meaningless because of the variables.

Moreover, he said such estimates, and speculation that postwar reconstruction costs could climb even higher, ignored the fact that Iraq is a wealthy country, with annual oil exports worth $15 billion to $20 billion. "To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong," he said.

Just sayin'.

And speaking of the "cost" of war, take a quick listen to Ted Koppel's report about who we don't hear about: the number of civilian contractors killed in Iraq. Their casualty figures are not reported in the DOD statistics, and they are used more now than ever before (Koppel's report focused on comparing contractor involvement in Vietnam and Iraq. And keep them as much in you thoughts as anyone else.

Read more...

A Perfect Storm

First of all, this picture, at first quick glance, made me laugh pretty hard.

It also sums up what James Baker may actually think of the Boy King's Administration and their botch of the training of Iraqis, and this whole mess in the first place. Well, it would if that actually were his middle finger. But really, at first glance, it looked like it.

The Iraq Study Group contends that the wrong agencies were sent to Iraq to train Iraqi police and shape their judicial system.

The U.S. erred by first assigning the task of shaping the judicial system in a largely lawless country to the State Department and private contractors who "did not have the expertise or the manpower to get the job done," Hamilton and Meese said in testimony obtained by The Associated Press.

In 2004, the mission was assigned to the Defense Department, which devoted more money to the task. But department officials also were insufficiently trained for the job, Hamilton and Meese said.

As a result, Iraq has little if any on-the-street law enforcement personnel or a functioning judicial system free of corruption, they said.

Justice Department officials, they said, should lead the work of transforming the system. Police executives and supervisors should replace the military police personnel now assigned.

I know. I know. You're shocked and awed that this too was botched. I could hardly believe it myself. That being said, under the grand leadership of Alberto Gonzales, I am not so sure that the Judicial system in Iraq would be any better. I guess they could fire all the existing attorneys in Iraq and replace them with strict anti-Iranian, pro-Isreali attorneys who have spent all their time doing political opposition research. Hasn't that happened somewhere else?

Anyway, read the rest of this article for more on the Police and Judicial system. One of the recommendations, as seen in the above quote, is to have cops train cops, not MPs train cops. Totally different mindset. Ask any cop.

On my way into work this morning, there was a 3 or so minute piece from Ted Koppel on NPR. Check it out here. It's an audio clip right now, not yet in writing, but is excellent. It is a clip about how dishonest the Iraq debate is, from both parties.

Koppel picks holes in both the strategy of troop increases and in the strategy of an immediate withdrawal. Interestingly, he contends that the debate and resulting timeline for withdrawal ought to focus on completion of certain benchmarks, not on failure to complete certain benchmarks. It's a great point.

The way it's being pitched now, if Iraqis fail to meet a benchmark, we will leave, leaving them worse off. Instead, if they meet a benchmark, which we can play a role in helping them get to, then we can leave and they're better off. Seems intuitive.

He spent a moment to define what the Administration means by "the Region (as in withdrawal will make things worse in the region):" not Iraq, but the total oil-rich region. He then contends that despite "Cheney's bravado" that things really are worse in the region and Iraq. If oil is what we want, alluded to by Koppel, we have actually made it harder to keep secure.

He does, nonspecifically, take the Dems' part of the debate to task as being dishonest as well, most likely meaning it was more for their own poliical gain than to actually fix Iraq. But hey, I agree. It got 'em elected. Prove us wrong, and show you're really interested in fixing Iraq, not just in being exactly the opposite of Bush.

Read more...

Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?

It seems that Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas is having second thoughts about housing the library for President George W. Bush.

Yep. The George W Bush Presidential Library. This is too easy. [insert joke here]

Says Rev. Bill McElvaney, professor emeritus of SMU's School of Theology:

I would love to see it somewhere else. I don't think it serves SMU well. Given the secrecy of the Bush administration, I have concerns about what papers will be turned over in the first place.

A damning quote indeed from the people supposedly on "his" (Bush's) side. The question Rev. McElvaney is raising involves the release of Presidential documents to their individual libraries for study and research into their terms. There is certainly value in a University's ownership of such documents, as it pulls researchers and biographers to that University. The Rev. McElvaney, however, seems to be questioning the value of such documents, and indeed the library, if they really reveal nothing about Bush's Presidency other than his favorite White House menus and his travel schedule. I can't imagine the library would house, say, his favorite books.

Mirroring the concern of the Good Reverend is SMU's Faculty Senate President Rhonda Blair:

The faculty as a whole are most concerned that academic freedom in all of its forms be protected as much as possible and supported as much as possible, which to my mind means respect across the entire political spectrum

I guess I would be concerned too, in that again, there is little value in a Presidential Library that is empty. I understand documents that are of national security concern, but with this Administration's track record of what is and is not of grave national concern, I have doubts that the docuemtns scholars would seek would be of much value.

Not all Presidential Library negotiaitons go smoothly. The article points out that the Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon libraries were also quite controversial. But ultimately, having such a library on-campus attracts the type of people you want there. But again, it's a question of the value of the documents therein.

It seems, though, that another grave concern for SMU is that in addition to the library, they will also be getting the Bush Institute, a conservative think tank. Again, insert joke here.

It seems that this think tank, which could be of benefit to the University, is going to report to the Bush Foundation, and not to the University the way the library will (or may). The University, an institution of Higher Learning, will be shut out of this think tank's studies. Seems...well...you get it.

For now, this project is a "go." However, according to the article, the Faculty Senate held a meeting without SMU's President so they could have a more frank and open discussion of their concerns. If I had more time and research capability myself, I would like to see where SMU's President falls in terms of contributions to W. For him to not be involved in these Faculty Senate hearings says to me (however uninformed it may be) that he is complicit in the development of this library and is too convinced of its "rightness" that he won't truly listen to the faculties concerns, or that there is some sort of rift between the faculty and him (possibly from this, possibly from many "thises," who knows).

I really don't know how "open" other Presidential libraries are in terms of how many documents each Administration brings of what kind of relevance, but it seems that many libraries eventually make each Administration surprisingly transparent. Look at how much we now know, for better or worse (I always think for better in this case), of FDR's advanced knowledge of Pearl Harbor, massive rifts in Lincoln's Cabinet, Washington's underwhelming second term and Nixon in general. This open access to this information is good for us and good for our Democracy, and this Administartion does not have the kind of history that says we'll be able to get the inner picture of what they were really up to any time soon, if at all.

I do understand the value of such a research library to any University. I guess I would ask if there are any credible Universities (not Bob Jones) that wouldn't have such concerns over this particular library.

Read more...