U.S. Proposes Easing Rules on Emissions of Mercury By JENNIFER 8. LEE, NYTimes

The Bush administration is proposing that mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants should not be regulated in the same way as some of the most toxic air pollutants, reversing a stance on air pollution control taken by the Clinton administration in 2000. …

The agency is suggesting that mercury emissions be removed from the most stringent regulations of the Clean Air Act that have been used to limit the most toxic air pollutants. Among those are asbestos, chromium and lead, which have been known to cause cancers and neurological disorders. …

Environmental groups criticize the market-based proposal, saying it would allow hot spots of mercury contamination to build up. Mercury, a known neurotoxin, accumulates in the environment and builds up in the tissue of fish and the species, including humans, that eat them. It is considered particularly hazardous for pregnant women because of the developmental effects on fetuses.

“Mercury is a serious public health threat,” said Carol M. Browner, who served as E.P.A. administrator under President Bill Clinton. …

This is the administration’s second major policy shift on power plant regulations in the last month, both of which have come after extensive industry lobbying. In November, E.P.A.’s chief of enforcement, J. P. Suarez, told his staff that the agency would stop pursuing Clean Air Act enforcement cases against coal-burning power plants.

Pentagon Allows Lawyer for U.S.-Born Taliban Suspect Reuters

The Pentagon said on Tuesday it will allow an American-born man captured in Afghanistan two years ago and held at a U.S. Navy jail as ”an enemy combatant” to have access to a lawyer.

Yaser Esam Hamdi, 22, who is held in Charleston, South Carolina , and has not been charged, will be given access to a lawyer “as a matter of discretion and military policy” because interrogators have finished collecting intelligence in questioning him, the Defense Department said.

Notice that after violating this American’s constitutional rights for two full years, the Pentagon still says they don’t have to ‘give’ any of these rights to one of our citizens. This is exactly why the Constitution exists — to prevent abuses of authority. mjh

See also If you read this, does that make you an Enemy Combatant?

[From Judge Diana Gribbon Motz’s dissent:] As the Framers well understood, the Executive branch must be subjected to checks on its power if individual liberties are to be preserved….

The Executive’s treatment of Hamdi threatens the freedoms we all cherish….

Baghdad visit gives big boost to Bush By Stephen Dinan, The Washington Times

A new poll shows President Bush has received a ”substantial immediate” boost in popularity and approval ratings after his surprise visit with the troops in Iraq on Thanksgiving.

The National Annenberg Election Survey compared polling from the four days before Thanksgiving with the four days following the holiday and found significant changes on everything from Mr. Bush’s personal likability to his job performance to the country’s direction.

Well, I had my own ”daily outrages” before I ran across Matt Bivens’. I recommend you check out his blog (Thanks, Jas!) mjh

the daily outrage by Matt Bivens, The Nation

Welcome to ”The Daily Outrage,” your last best hope to keep up with the blizzard of Bush-era bad news. Whether they’re cutting down your forests, raiding your retirement funds, reading your email or shrinking your constitutional rights, the Republican (sometimes it’s bipartisan) assault advances by the hour. The outrages come so fast that it’s hard for even well-read citizens to stay abreast. So this column will provide you with a regular update on their doings. Pass it on.

Bush Baghdad trip distracts media from black sheep brother By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles for independent.co.uk news

[T]he sight of the President serving Thanksgiving turkey to the troops has also served to overshadow – at least for the moment – a catalogue of potential political embarrassments created by his younger brother. Neil Bush caused trouble for their father, President Bush the first, more than a decade ago because of his role in the collapse of a savings and loan company that ended up costing American taxpayers $1.3bn (£750m). Now he is in trouble again, largely as a result of the startling revelations from a highly acrimonious divorce. …

Potentially more damaging revelations – certainly for the Oval Office – concern business rather than pleasure, and the strong impression that Neil might have taken brazen advantage of his membership of America’s most powerful political family to make a killing on business deals. …

Whether any of this might damage the President or not, it adds to a conviction that the Bush family has been trading off its political connections for years.

So, Duhbya’s little brother cheats on his wife, sleeps with numerous prostitutes, takes large sums from others for nothing more than access. Where is the moral outrage of the holier-than-thou Right? Or are they too busy planning to run Neil after Jeb’s 8 years in the White House? mjh
(Thanks to Jas. for the news)

Newsday.com – President’s Brother Has $2m Contract In China By Warren Vieth and Lianne Hart, LOS ANGELES TIMES

Neil Bush, a younger brother of President George W. Bush, has a $400,000-a-year contract to provide business advice to a Chinese computer chip manufacturer, according to court documents. …

“There’s certainly the appearance of influence being sought,” said Charles W. McMillion, a Washington business consultant who advised a congressional commission on U.S.-China policy. “If nothing else, it doesn’t look good.” …

[T]he president’s brother acknowledged that he knew little about the industry he had just joined.

A Bush in Bed With Beijing? from The Daily Outrage, by Matt Bivens, The Nation

Now consider the case of Neil Bush — the former president’s son, current president’s brother — whose frank admissions in court testimony to screwing around in Thailand and Hong Kong, and taking huge sums of money from Chinese political players for murky services, are somehow barely even news — much less front-page, what-the-heck, what-does-Congress-think news.

Shifts in States May Give Bush Electoral Edge By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE, NYTimes

Beyond issues like Iraq and the economy is one political reality that both the White House and Democrats say is already shaping next year’s presidential race: If President Bush carries the same states in 2004 that he won in 2000, he will win seven more electoral votes.

That change, a result of a population shift to Republican-friendly states in the South and West in the last several years, means the Republicans have a slight margin of error in 2004 while the Democrats will have to scramble just to pull even. …

”Before a vote is cast, we’ve increased our margin,” Matthew Dowd, chief strategist for Mr. Bush’s campaign, said. ”In a race that’s very close, those small readjustments in the electoral map will have significance.”

Because of those shifts, both sides predict that 15 states may be up for grabs: Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New Hampshire, Maine and Florida. …

“No matter how well the economy is doing, no matter how well we’re doing in Iraq, and even if we’re running the best campaign in the world, this election will be decided within a margin of 4 or 5 percent,” Mr. Dowd said.

Op-Ed Columnist: Hack the Vote By PAUL KRUGMAN, NYTimes

Inviting Bush supporters to a fund-raiser, the host wrote, ”I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.” No surprise there. But Walden O’Dell — who says that he wasn’t talking about his business operations — happens to be the chief executive of Diebold Inc., whose touch-screen voting machines are in increasingly widespread use across the United States.

For example, Georgia — where Republicans scored spectacular upset victories in the 2002 midterm elections — relies exclusively on Diebold machines. …

[Y]ou don’t have to believe in a central conspiracy to worry that partisans will take advantage of an insecure, unverifiable voting system to manipulate election results. Why expose them to temptation?

[L]et’s be clear: the credibility of U.S. democracy may be at stake.

See also Can we trust electronic voting machines?