The ends are gruesome. And so are the means:

Today, a non-partisan coalition of eight government watchdog groups condemned a new set of proposals under consideration by House Republican leaders that dramatically weakening House ethics rules. The proposed changes, which are scheduled for consideration this week – the opening week of the new Congress – reportedly include:
-Dropping a key standard for ethics violations. Currently, it is a violation of House ethics rules to act in such a way that creates the appearance of corruption. The new proposal would eliminate that ethics standard and make only actual criminal behavior or illegal activity a violation of ethics rules.
-Deadlocking the ability of the ethics committee to investigate complaints. If the bipartisan House ethics committee ties along party lines whether to conduct an investigation, a complaint automatically triggers an investigation within 45 days. The new proposal would require a majority vote to initiate any investigation.
-Punishing members of the ethics committee who scolded Rep. Tom DeLay for ethics transgressions. A few months ago, the bipartisan House ethics committee unanimously voted to admonish Majority leader DeLay for offering his endorsement to a colleague’s son in exchange for a floor vote, for appearing to link campaign donations with legislation, and for diverting Federal Aviation Administration resources to chase after legislators over a partisan squabble. Rep. Joel Hefley, the Republican chair of the ethics committee, and perhaps other Republican members of the committee who voted for the admonishment, are now facing a drive to remove them from the committee. The eight members of the Congressional Ethics Coalition all join in calling upon Congress to stop this assault on House ethics rules.

Make of this what you will:

The Democratic National Committee Web site has an appeal for donations to tsunami victims right up at the top of the DNC home page. The Republican National Committee Web site doesn’t even mention the disaster, though it does have a lovely story about President Bush, inappropriately titled “Rising Tide.”

Looks like some Democrats may put up a fight against Gonzales after all:

During upcoming confirmation hearings for Attorney General-nominee Alberto Gonzales, senior Democrats want to screen infamous videotapes showing Iraqis being abused at Abu Ghraib prison, top sources tell the Drudge Report…The Bush White House counsel will be grilled about his role in formulating the administration’s legal policies on coercive techniques in interrogations — techniques some Democrats believe led to outright torture. Yet it’s the grainy prison videos, shot by a soldier’s cellphone and never before viewed by the public, that threaten to turn the New Year ugly: A video of a handcuffed prisoner beating his head against a wall; a video of a group of hooded men shown masturbating. The Pentagon and the White House hold the videos in their possession and have not authorized any public release, including to the senate…

Anyone wondering just where the buck stopped should check out Seymour Hersh’s Chain of Command. Chilling.

Looks like some people still believe there should be restrictions on the government’s ability to disappear people it doesn’t like:

A reported U.S. plan to keep some suspected terrorists imprisoned for a lifetime even if the government lacks evidence to charge them in courts was swiftly condemned on Sunday as a “bad idea” by a leading Republican senator. The Pentagon and the CIA have asked the White House to decide on a more permanent approach for those it was unwilling to set free or turn over to U.S. or foreign courts, the Washington Post said in a report that cited intelligence, defense and diplomatic officials. Some detentions could potentially last a lifetime, the newspaper said. Influential senators denounced the idea as probably unconstitutional. “It’s a bad idea. So we ought to get over it and we ought to have a very careful, constitutional look at this,” Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said on “Fox News Sunday.”

Steven Greenhouse on the National Labor Relations Board’s ongoing assault on just labor relations:

The Republican-dominated board has made it more difficult for temporary workers to unionize and for unions to obtain financial information from companies during contract talks. It has ruled that graduate students working as teaching assistants do not have the right to unionize at private universities, and it has given companies greater flexibility to use a powerful antiunion weapon – locking out workers – in labor disputes. And in a decision that will affect 87 percent of American workers, the board has denied nonunion employees the right to have a co-worker present when managers call them in for investigative or disciplinary meetings. The party-line decisions have been applauded by the Republican Party’s business base, which sees them as bringing balance after rulings that favored labor during the Clinton administration. But some academic experts on labor relations say the recent rulings are so hostile to unions and to collective bargaining that they run counter to the goals of the National Labor Relations Act, the 1935 law that gave Americans the right to form unions.

“These decisions come close to or even match the Reagan board in their intensity and vigor in promoting employer powers,” said James A. Gross, a professor at Cornell University who has written several books about the board. “They are pressing the outer limits of what could be a reasonable or legitimate interpretation of the balance between employer prerogatives and worker rights. In my mind, this is fundamentally inconsistent with the purpose of the National Labor Relations Act, which is to encourage the practice and procedures of collective bargaining.” Robert J. Battista, the labor board’s chairman, denied that the panel was stretching the law to help corporations. “All the cases that we’ve decided have been well reasoned,” Mr. Battista said. “They’re certainly consistent with the act. I wouldn’t characterize them as pro-business or pro-union. I’d like to say they’re pro-employee.”

These decisions are about as pro-employee as a hole in the head.

Of course, not all Americans are happy to see our government chipping in to save lives in Asia:

The reason politicians can get away with doling out money that they have no right to and that does not belong to them is that they have the morality of altruism on their side. According to altruism–the morality that most Americans accept and that politicians exploit for all it’s worth–those who have more have the moral obligation to help those who have less. This is why Americans–the wealthiest people on earth–are expected to sacrifice (voluntarily or by force) the wealth they have earned to provide for the needs of those who did not earn it. It is Americans’ acceptance of altruism that renders them morally impotent to protest against the confiscation and distribution of their wealth. It is past time to question–and to reject–such a vicious morality that demands that we sacrifice our values instead of holding on to them.

Outrageous as this argument is, it follows naturally from the “If you want less of something, tax it, and if you want more, subsidize it” logic preached by a good many more mainstream conservatives and libertarians.

Our aid finally multiplies as the death toll rises:

While it was possible to count bodies in some places, chaos enveloped many stricken areas, and officials offered little more than guesses. For example, Indonesia raised its estimate yesterday from 80,000 to 100,000 dead. Serious injuries were estimated at more than 500,000, and officials who warned of the threat of epidemics said the numbers could surge much higher. There were no reports of widespread starvation, and epidemics of cholera and other diseases have not yet materialized, but clean water vital to human survival and sanitation was scarce in many areas. It was clear that the relief effort, for all its global reach and pledges of millions, was in a race against time to save as many as five million people left homeless and destitute by what is now regarded as one of history’s worst calamities.

…In Europe, where 7,000 residents were reported to be among the missing tourists in Asia, national flags in Sweden, Norway, Finland and Germany flew at half staff. Paris draped black mourning crepe on the trees of the Champs-Élysées. Some Italian cities canceled fireworks and parties and sent the money to charities for the victims. Thailand and Malaysia called off official festivities. Australia and other countries observed a minute of silence at midnight. In spirit and on paper, the relief program gathered momentum yesterday. President Bush increased the initial American pledge of $35 million to $350 million after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and other officials told him the need would increase sharply in the weeks ahead. The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, said pledges of assistance by dozens of governments, the United Nations, the World Bank, hundreds of private charities and millions of ordinary people had added more than $500 million, and it was clear there would be more to come.

I don’t much feel like trying at a “Year in Review” here. But just for fun, here’s a post from each month of 2004:

January: Dean, Clinton, and Healthcare

February: Nader and the Democrats

March: Barack Obama and the Future of Environmentalism

April: The March for Women’s Lives

May: Where’s John Kerry When You Need Him?

June: Disenfranchised Voters

July: The NLRB Turns on Graduate Students

August: Anarchists in the Times

September: The First Debate

October: What’s the Word?

November:An Election We Should Have Won

December: The Speech We Deserve From the Democrats

As always, thanks for reading. Happy New Year.

Israel’s latest Unity Government coalesces:

Labor Party Chairman Shimon Peres yesterday waived his demand to serve as vice prime minister in the upcoming coalition, and instead will be a deputy premier. The compromise resolves one of the main problems that has been threatening to delay establishment of the new government next week. Now it appears Prime Minister Ariel Sharon will present his new coalition for Knesset approval Monday. MK Haim Ramon (Labor) reached a deal yesterday with the head of the Likud’s negotiation team, attorney Yoram Rabed, specifying that Peres will hold the most senior position among ministers. According to the coalition agreement, Peres’ position will not legally affect the authority of Vice Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. If a situation arises whereby Sharon cannot fulfill his duties as prime minister, Olmert will automatically assume the role. Prior to yesterday’s compromise, Labor Party sources had harshly criticized Sharon for not stepping up efforts to form a new coalition, particularly conducting talks with United Torah Judaism. Peres’ responsibilities in the new government are still undefined, and the final agreement will be reached between Sharon and Peres. Senior Labor officials said the party has achieved its demands: seniority in the government and a complete partnership.

John Conyers writes to Barbara Boxer:

As you know, on January 6, 2005, at 1:00 P.M, the electoral votes for the election of the president are to be opened and counted in a joint session of Congress, commencing at 1:00 P.M. I and a number of House Members are planning to object to the counting of the Ohio votes, due to numerous unexplained irregularities in the Ohio presidential vote, many of which appear to violate both federal and state law. I am hoping that you will consider joining us in this important effort to debate and highlight the problems in Ohio which disenfranchised innumerable voters. I will shortly forward you a draft report itemizing and analyzing the many irregularities we have come across as part of our hearings and investigation into the Ohio presidential election.

3 U.S.C. §15 provides when the results from each of the states are announced, that “the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any.” Any objection must be presented in writing and “signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received.The objection must “state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof. When an objection has been properly made in writing and endorsed by a member of each body the Senate withdraws from the House chamber, and each body meets separately to consider the objection. “No votes . . . from any other State shall be acted upon until the [pending] objection . . . [is] finally disposed of.” 3 U.S.C. §17 limits debate on the objections in each body to two hours, during which time no member may speak more than once and not for more than five minutes. Both the Senate and the House must separately agree to the objection; otherwise, the challenged vote or votes are counted. Historically, there appears to be three general grounds for objecting to the counting of electoral votes. The language of 3 U.S.C. §15 suggests that objection may be made on the grounds that (1) a vote was not “regularly given” by the challenged elector(s); and/or (2) the elector(s) was not “lawfully certified” under state law; or (3) two slates of electors have been presented to Congress from the same State.

Since the Electoral Count Act of 1887, no objection meeting the requirements of the Act have been made against an entire slate of state electors. In the 2000 election several Members of the House of Representatives attempted to challenge the electoral votes from the State of Florida. However, no Senator joined in the objection, and therefore, the objection was not “received.” In addition, there was no determination whether the objection constituted an appropriate basis under the 1887 Act. However, if a State – in this case Ohio – has not followed its own procedures and met its obligation to conduct a free and fair election, a valid objection -if endorsed by at least one Senator and a Member of the House of Representatives- should be debated by each body separately until “disposed of”.

120,000 dead:

The overall toll was revised dramatically upwards after the Indonesian health ministry raised its official figure by nearly 30,000 to 79,940. The counting was far from complete, officials added. In Sri Lanka, people climbed onto the roofs of their houses while others fled from the coastline after authorities used fire engines equipped with loudspeakers to urge residents to move to higher ground. The country’s military urged people to be alert, but not to panic, while an earthquake expert said the aftershocks were probably not strong enough to produce tsunamis.

But with neighbouring India ordering an evacuation of coastal areas, instructions that were heard on radios in Sri Lanka, some people did panic. “There is total confusion here,” said Rohan Bandara, a resident of the coastal town of Tangelle. “The aim of all the people is not to see the waves again, so they are leaving.” Cars, vans and motorbikes jammed roads leading away from coastlines. Some people hauled their most valuable possessions stuffed into plastic bags. “Some people whose houses weren’t so badly affected by Sunday’s tsunami are also now running toward welfare centres,” said Suresh Devaraj, of Trincomalee, another coastal town. India denied having issued a fresh warning but said it had urged people to take precautions after information that several aftershocks in the region had pushed up the water level. An estimated 5.7 magnitude underwater earthquake was recorded at 5.18am local time (2118 GMT yesterday) off the coast of Sumatra. Other tremors were felt in Thailand and Burma. As aid agencies struggled to cope with the scale of the disaster, the World Health Organisation warned that the next few days would be critical in controlling any potential outbreak of waterborne diseases.