Lots O' Thoughts

Neil Cavuto Makes Fat-Jokes About Prisoners

2009-08-12T17:07:00.014-04:00

On June 17, Neil Cavuto had a segment on his show titled "Living Large? Do healthy physiques of ex-Gitmo detainees dispel rumors of mistreatment in the detention facility?"

The obvious answer to Cavuto's question is a simple "no." The Uighur detainees never made any allegations that they were subjected to forced starvation, so the relative physiques of these formerly accused prisoners are completely irrelevant.

On top of that completely obvious point (Neil Cavuto should know better), it should also be noted that these Uighurs were cleared for release by the Department of Defense years ago, and they have lived separately from the other detainees for a very long time. The only reason they were still at Guantanamo was because we couldn't send them back to their home country of China, where they would suffer religious persecution and possibly torture (our treaty obligations prevent us from sending people to countries where they face torture). Therefore, Neil Cavuto's point was misguided on two separate levels. He used an irrelevant point to knock down an imaginary argument.

Rather than working on getting his facts right, Mr. Cavuto apparently prepared for this "news" segment by writing a bunch of fat jokes to make about these men. Here are some Cavuto quotes from the segment:

"Uighurs wobble, but apparently they do chow down."
"Is it me, or does it look like they've been enjoying the good life for quite a while?"
"I'm looking at these guys, and they look like me."
"They don't look like they're doing for a lack of visits to the refrigerator"
"They can twist it around and say, they forced us to eat all this good food and we didn't really want to." (presumably a reference to the force-feeding some hunger-strike detainees at Guantanamo have endured)
"They'll try to turn it around and say, look, you know, we may look like the late John Candy but we didn't intend to."
"What about bakery products? Ring Dings? Yodels? Anything?"

That really sums up the Neil Cavuto segment right there.

Neil Cavuto, however, fails to provide any back-story for who these men are, and how they came to be where they are now. Basically, these are ethnically Turkish men who once lived in China, but fled in order to escape oppression. According to Amnesty International, China "continues to brutally suppress any peaceful political, religious, and cultural activities of Uighurs, and to enforce a birth control policy that compels minority Uighur women to undergo forced abortions and sterilizations." Human Rights Watch has put out its own lengthy report on China's abuse of the Uighur people.

This has long been the case, and the United States government has repeatedly recognized the brutal conditions facing the Uighur people under communist China's rule (see here). Furthermore, it has only gotten worse over the past few years, as the United States Department of State has recognized that "[t]he [Chinese] Government used the international war on terror as a justification for cracking down harshly on suspected Uighur separatists expressing peaceful political dissent and on independent Muslim religious leaders."

Given all this, the Uighurs Neil Cavuto is currently ridiculing as fat decided to flee their oppressive conditions and start a new life elsewhere. You can read their own personal accounts of their flight from China, as told to the Combatant Status Review Tribunals, here.

As the Federal Court in Parhat v. Gates, 532 F.3d 834, 837 (C.A.D.C. 2008), explained, the Uighurs that were held at Guantanamo (and recently released) had all fled to nearby Afghanistan. There, in the mountains near Pakistan, they built a village for Uighur ex-patriates from China. The village stood there until October 2001, when it was destroyed by bombs in the war against Afghanistan. The surviving Uighur villagers fled their now-destroyed village into the mountains of Pakistan, where they were taken in by local Pakistanis.

At about the same time, leaflets were "dropping like snowflakes in December in Chicago" that promised Pakistani villagers "wealth and power beyond your dreams" if they turned in Taliban members fleeing across the border. The leaflets promised cash rewards in the "millions of dollars" and "enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life" (these are all phrases that actually appeared on the leaflets). The Pakistani villagers who took in the Uighurs saw these flyers and quickly turned in the Uighurs to Pakistani officials. According to Freedom of Information Act documents later obtained, the Pakistani villagers received $5,000 for each of the Uighurs they turned over.

Once in the hands of Pakistani officials, half of the Uighurs were turned over to China, and the other half were turned over to the United States. The half that went to China were quickly executed. The half that went to the United States were allegedly beaten prior to being sent to Khandahar and then Guantanamo.

Given this unfortunate series of events, and the questionable motives of those who had turned them in, the United States government had decided that some of them were not enemy combatants even before (!) their CSRT hearings. Others were quickly cleared for release, as well. By 2005, fifteen of the Uighurs at Guantanamo had been cleared for release (although some were still held in solitary confinement, and some were being shackled to the floor) by the U.S. Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs). This, in itself, is pretty telling, since the CSRTs have been roundly criticized by human rights groups ("the CSRT relies predominantly on evidence a detainee cannot see; affirmatively prohibits the assistance of counsel; freely admits statements gained by torture and other coercion; and routinely refuses detainees’ requests to call witnesses or present exculpatory evidence"), and have even been called "inadequate" by the United States Supreme Court itself. The Supreme Court's ruling in Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S.Ct. 2229 (2008), allowed the remaining detainees to seek non-CSRT review in a federal habeas corpus proceeding, where they have been ordered to be released. See, e.g., Parhat v. Gates, 532 F.3d 834 (C.A.D.C. 2008) ("It is undisputed that he is not a member of al Qaida or the Taliban, and that he has never participated in any hostile action against the United States or its allies. . . . Accordingly, we direct the government to release Parhat, to transfer him, or to expeditiously convene a new Combatant Status Review Tribunal to consider evidence submitted in a manner consistent with this opinion.").

All of these men have been cleared.

In the end, this is just a sad story. These men were persecuted in China, had their village bombed in Afghanistan, and were sold by bounty hunters in Pakistan. On top of that, they were held for years by the United States government, even after they had been cleared of all charges, due to the fact that they faced near-certain torture and death in their home country (it has been tough to resettle some of the Uighurs even in other countries, due to the fact that China had been "pressuring other countries not to accept the prisoners").

It is also a very complicated story (ending in vindication of the Uighurs by the CSRTs and federal courts), that deserves serious news coverage from serious newscasters. We need intelligent journalists to explain this very clearly and coherently, and to ask tough questions of the government officials who have been involved.

So what does Neil Cavuto do? He cracks fat-jokes, and says, "Uighurs wobble, but apparently they do chow down."

UPDATE: Neil Cavuto, by the way, has three shows on FOX News, is the Vice President of Business News at FOX News Channel, and is the Senior Vice President & Managing Editor of Business News at FOX Business Network.

UPDATE II: Jason Pinney, one of the attorneys for the Uighurs, had some interesting testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, available here (pdf).

UPDATE III: This FBI report (pdf) from 2004 is also pretty interesting:

"The Uighurs are moderate Muslims who occupied East Turkestan, which was taken over by the Chinese and renamed the Xinjiang province of China. The Uighurs were offered land in Afghanistan in order to gather personnel opposing Chinese oppression. They were often inspired by Radio Free Asia, which [redacted] was often a broadcaster for. The Uighurs considered themselves to be fighting for democracy, and they idolized the United States. Although the Uighurs are Muslim their agenda did not appear to include Islamic radicalism. They claimed to have no political connection to Islamic terrorists or the Taliban. However, their camp in Afghanistan was bombed, and they fled to Pakistan. The Uighurs were captured by the Pakistanis, with half being transferred to US custody, and half being remanded directly to Chinese officials. It was alleged that the Uighurs who were transferred directly to the Chinese were immediately executed. At the time of my TDY, US officials were considering whether to return the Uighurs to the Chinese, possibly to gain support for anticipated US action in the Middle East. The Uighur detainees at GTMO were convinced that they would be immediately executed if they were returned to China."

(h/t Hilzoy)

UPDATE IV: For more on the CSRT process, see this report by Mark Denbeaux (who was attorney for two Guantanamo detainees).

"Torture"

2009-07-18T13:55:00.003-04:00

One of the Guantanamo Bay detainees recently had a hearing on a motion to suppress some of his statements as a product of torture. Yesterday, the motion was granted. According to Federal District Court judge Ellen Huvelle, Jawad's "motion to suppress his out-of-court statements is GRANTED as conceded and therefore, the Court will suppress every statement made by petitioner since his arrest as a product of torture [emphasis added]."

I've written previously about Guantanamo detainee Mohammad Jawad (you can read a little bit more about his case here). It's definitely an interesting one. Even the man originally in charge of prosecuting Jawad (Lt. Col. Darrell Vandeveld) has written op-ed pieces and a sworn declaration in favor of Jawad's release.

FOX News Has the Story - Part XXI

2009-07-08T13:23:00.001-04:00

Part I: Sex Robots
Part II: Sex Teachers
Part III: Lingerie Bowl
Part IV: Panty Bandits
Part V: Hooters Haircuts
Part VI: Sexy Stripper Scam
Part VII: Stripper Fitness
Part VIII: Exotic Erotic Ball
Bonus: FOX Attacks
Part IX: Drunk Upskirt Pictures
Bonus: FOX Porn
Part X: Bunny Bar
Part XI: Teens Seen Grinding
Part XII: Porno-Tax!
Part XIII: Sexy Teacher
Part XIV: Sugar Mamas and Boy Toys
Part XV: Sexy Part-Time Job
Part XVI: Hot Cops
Part XVII: Sex Sells
Part XVIII: Playboy Halloween
Part XIX: More Women Turning Towards Exotic Dancing During Recession
Part XX: X-Rated Site?

FOX News Has the Story - Part XX

2009-06-19T21:53:00.004-04:00

Jameel Jaffer and David Rivkin Discuss FOIA Lawsuit

2009-06-10T15:47:00.001-04:00

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Security Here and Abroad

2009-05-21T23:39:00.001-04:00

Jane Mayer and Philippe Sands Discuss Torture Policy

2009-05-20T23:30:00.001-04:00

Scott Horton: Torture Memos

2009-05-10T17:25:00.001-04:00

This Week's Links: Torture Memos, Prosecution, and Impeachment

2009-04-20T13:19:00.006-04:00

Apologies for the long absence. Things have been pretty busy over here. In the meantime, there is plenty for you to read:

The International Red Cross Report on detainee abuse has been made public. It includes, among other things, "Beatings by use of a collar held around a detainees neck and used to forcefully bang the head and body against the wall." [ICRC Report]
The ACLU lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act has finally resulted in the release of the OLC memos authorizing torture techniques and abuse against detainees. [OLC Memos]
It appears, however, that Obama does not want to prosecute the OLC memo's authors, either. [AP]
The Spanish, however, are still seeking prosecution. [The Public Record]
Prof. Manfred Nowak, U.N. Rapporteur for Torture, says that refusal to prosecute is a violation of the Convention Against Torture (which compels investigation and prosecution of those accused ot torture). [Der Standard]
UPDATE: Now it's not even clear whether or not Obama wants to prosecute those who created the torture policies, walking back Rahm Emanuel's comments from the other day ("[A]dministration officials said Monday that Mr. Emanuel had meant the officials who ordered the policies carried out, not the lawyers who provided the legal rationale."). [The New York Times]
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said that it's "certainly possible that an impeachment inquiry is warranted" into torture memo author Bybee (currently a federal judge in the Ninth Circuit). I doubt that Whitehouse will step up to the plate, though. [Rachel Madow]
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) says that "grounds for impeachment can be made" against Bybee based on the OLC memos. [Russ Feingold]
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) says that "I would support impeachment hearings for Judge Bybee." [Center For American Progress]

FOX News Has the Story - Part XIX

2009-03-26T15:34:00.001-04:00

Mark Danner Discusses ICRC Report on C-SPAN

2009-03-17T19:39:00.001-04:00

This Week's Links: Torture, Civil Liberties, and Voting Rights

2009-03-16T14:46:00.003-04:00

Mark Danner has written a must-read account of detention and interrogation techniques over the past few years, based on the Red Cross report on torture. [New York Review of Books] [The New York Times]
Letting go of the phrase "enemy combatants" isn't really that big of a deal. [The Los Angeles Times]
The Washington Post editorial page calls for election reforms. [The Washington Post]
Andy Worthington compiles a list of all the Guantanamo Bay inmates ever held, and their ultimate status. This is a great resource. [Anti-War.com]
Jane Mayer wrote a great article on the use of Black Sites back in 2007. [The New Yorker]

Presidential Address to Congress

2009-02-25T00:06:00.000-05:00

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Bill O'Reilly's Right to Privacy

2009-02-10T16:21:00.001-05:00

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Bill O'Reilly's Right to Privacy

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Funny Political News
Joke of the Day

This Week's Links

2009-02-05T21:57:00.008-05:00

On Monday, major First Amendment figure Irving Feiner passed away. [The New York Times]
Leon Panetta's Senate hearings are posted on the C-SPAN website, for those who care. [C-SPAN]
Barack Obama writes an op-ed for the Washington Post about the stimulus bill. It looks like he's going to be taking a more active role in the debate from now on. [The Washington Post]
The Department of Justice is changing. [The New York Times]
The ACLU debunks a few myths about Guantanamo. [ACLU]. Their website on the topic is worth a read, too. [ACLU].
According to Reuters, "Two senior British judges accused the United States on Wednesday of threatening to end intelligence cooperation with Britain if they published evidence about the alleged torture of a Guantanamo detainee." [Reuters]
Guantanamo detainee Benyam Mohammad alleges abuse in Moroccan prison. [The Guardian]
Debunking some more myths about the effectiveness of torture. [Vanity Fair]
Scott Horton discusses the British judges linked above. [Harper's]
Don't mess with Obama's French Fries. [Boston Phoenix]

Karen Greenberg on Closing Guantanamo

2009-02-05T21:32:00.003-05:00

Karen Greenberg also has a book coming out in March about the first 100 days at Guantanamo.

Rendition Policy Under the Obama Administration

2009-02-01T20:27:00.015-05:00

Under current law (Convention Against Torture), it is illegal to "extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture." This has been a controversial process over the past eight years under President Bush, since we have in fact rendered persons in our custody to torture-friendly countries such as Egypt. One man, Abu Omar, was sent to Egypt where he was sodomized and had electric shocks applied to his genitals (he is now a free man, since his initial arrest was apparently just a bad case of mistaken identity).

Thankfully, President Obama issued an Executive Order reaffirming the "obligations of officers, employees, and other agents of the United States Government to comply with all pertinent laws and treaties of the United States governing detention and interrogation, including . . . the Convention Against Torture." That same Executive Order went even further, establishing a commission:

"to study and evaluate the practices of transferring individuals to other nations in order to ensure that such practices comply with the domestic laws, international obligations, and policies of the United States and do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture or otherwise for the purpose, or with the effect, of undermining or circumventing the commitments or obligations of the United States to ensure the humane treatment of individuals in its custody or control."

So it looks like we'll finally be complying with our legal obligations.

Despite this, the Los Angeles Times has just printed an article ominously warning that Obama has left open the door to the use of "rendition," which it refers to as being "equally controversial" to President Bush's policy of torture, and use of secret prisons (which Obama has also ordered closed, throug Executive Order). However, it seems that this article is susceptible to the common misunderstanding of the difference between "rendition" (a broader term that includes perfectly legal processes, such as extradition) and "extraordinary rendition" (the practice of shipping people off to torture-friendly countries, in violation of our legal obligations). Even though there are some who object to some uses of rendition, "rendition" itself is not nearly as controversial as the use of torture. Therefore, you should take the Los Angeles Times article with a grain of salt, and understand what's actually going on here.

The conservative National Review would do well to take that advice. In a recent column, one of its authors desperately seizes on this article and snidely comments: "Let's give all of the folks who fumed about rendition under Bush a day to voice their outrage over this."

I have a better idea. Let's give the folks at the Los Angeles Times and National Review a day to read up on the topic and correct their mistakes.

UPDATE: Scott Horton at Harper's sees it, too. In this article, he picks apart the Los Angeles Times editorial.

UPDATE II: Glenn Greenwald also commented on the article this afternoon.

UPDATE III: It looks like somebody clued in the National Review. Good for them.

UPDATE IV: Scott Horton discusses the issue (at around the 3:00 mark) on the Rachel Maddow show. Maddow's comments on the Clinton administration aside, it's an okay discussion.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

UPDATE V: Scott Horton and Michael Ratner discuss the issue here.

UPDATE VI: Richard Clarke has an article on the topic here.

Lt. Col. Vandeveld Discusses Why He Resigned as a Guantanamo Prosecutor

2009-01-31T22:12:00.004-05:00

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Lt. Col. Vandeveld also discusses his role at Guantanamo in this Washington Post op-ed, and in this sworn declaration in support of Mohammad Jawad's habeas petition.

60 Minutes: Time Running Out For A Two-State Solution?

2009-01-28T23:07:00.001-05:00

60 Minutes: Growing Number Of Israelis, Palestinians Say Two-State Solution Is No Longer Possible

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) is a Liar

2009-01-28T21:50:00.005-05:00

The title pretty much says it all. It's pretty despicable how Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) is telling outright lies about the stimulus bill. For instance, he lied when he said that it includes "$300,000 for a sculpture garden in Miami." The stimulus bill contains no such thing. He also lied when he said that, "For every dollar that is spent to help small businesses, $4 is being spent to help upkeep the grass on the lawns of Washington." Again, this is demonstrably false.

There's a difference between principled opposition, on the one hand, and disingenuous obstructionism, on the other. Eric Cantor is a liar and an obstructionist. It's really that simple.

"Fisting"? Really?

2009-01-23T20:36:00.001-05:00

Guantanamo Bay Prison Set to Close Within the Year

2009-01-21T17:22:00.026-05:00

President Obama has issued an Executive Order (pdf) ordering that "[t]he detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than one year from the date of this order." Rather than holding people indefinitely, for years on end, without any available legal recourse to bring a challenge based on innocence, we will now be reviewing each individual detainee's case. On the one hand, I'm glad to see that some detainees "shall be evaluated to determine whether the Federal Government should seek to prosecute the detained individuals." This means that our system of justice will evaluate the evidence against the detainees, and sort out the guilty from the innocent.

On the other hand, however, the Executive Order leaves open the door for torture-obtained confessions to be used against other detainees when it says that for "any individuals currently detained at Guantánamo whose disposition is not achieved under [the subsections dealing with prosecution], the Review shall select lawful means, consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice, for the disposition of such individuals." This line seems to be hinting that they are leaving the door open to military commissions, similar to the awful system in place right now. Maybe I'm just being overly-cynical, due to the Justice Department's behavior over past eight years. Nonetheless, it seems suspicious that this Executive Order would leave room for an option other than (1) releasing/transferring the prisoners to another country, or (2) prosecuting them based on the evidence we have legally obtained.

In case you think that it's okay to create a third option, other than release/transfer or prosecution, I highly recommend reading up on Mohammad Jawad's case (pdf). It will give you a sense of the legal process the Guantánamo prisoners have been through so far. Even Jawad's former prosecutor (Lt. Col. Darrell Vandeveld) has been so disgusted with the man's treatment that he has resigned and written a sworn declaration in support of Jawad's Habeas petition.

UPDATE: Lt. Col. Darrell Vandeveld also wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post recently, titled "I Was Slow to Recognize the Stain of Guantanamo."

UPDATE II: It looks like I'm not the only one to see this. The Center For Constitutional Rights is similarly pleased with the Executive Order, but cautious about the provision I just highlighted:

The government has to charge the rest of the detainees in federal criminal court. There can be no third way, no new schemes for indefinite or preventive detention or alternative national security courts. Any move in that direction would discredit all of the new administration’s efforts in the eyes of the world.

They also provide copies of the recently-issued Executive Orders:

I'm pretty happy, on the whole.

UPDATE III: The Congressional Republicans who support torture and indefinite detention without charge are predictably raising the temperature of their fear-based demagoguery. According to Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), "Closing Guantanamo Bay presents a clear and present danger to all Americans"

Unsurprisingly, Rep. Smith voted to authorize the war in Iraq, voted for the USA PATRIOT Act, voted for the Military Commissions Act, and has received dismal ratings from pretty much every Civil Rights organization.

Rush Limbaugh has similarly argued that this was a "political" move, done at the expense of national security, and that "They're going to have to be held accountable in any future attacks as a result of this."

UPDATE IV: Here is video of the signing.

UPDATE V: In the last days of the Bush administration, you may have heard that the Pentagon informally declared that 61 former Guantanamo prisoners "returned to terrorism." Don't believe it. We've actually seen this song and dance before. The Pentagon had previously made the same claim, only to be embarrassed that their claim was faulty. This time around, unless you include "participating in an anti-Guantanamo documentary" and "having your lawyer write a critical op-ed" as "returning to terrorism," this is a pretty weak case to make.

Attorney Mark Denbeaux picks apart the claim here:

UPDATE VI: Michelle Malkin is a classic example of a torture apologist. She has gone so far as to write a horrible book in defense of the mass internment of Japanese citizens we sadly conducted earlier this century (for which, we have since apologized). She has been rightly criticized by historians, civil liberties advocates, and the Japanese American Citizens League for her "desperate attempt to impugn the loyalty of Japanese Americans during World War II to justify harsher governmental policies today in the treatment of Arab and Muslim Americans." Therefore, it's no surprise that she is still an awful human being.

UPDATE VII: According to conservative host Laura Ingraham, "our country is less safe today" because we have decided to actually charge the people we have imprisoned for years on end.

How is it that people like Laura Ingraham have so much faith that we have detained the right people, yet so little faith that we can put together a compelling case in court to that effect?

UPDATE VIII: Once again, that "61" number is flat-out wrong.

UPDATE IX: I have to agree with Steve Benen on this one. I really didn't expect to see this bizarre "NIMBY" talking point to become so prominent.

There was bound to be some pushback against Barack Obama's decision to close the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, but this isn't the one I was expecting.
Fox News personalities argued last week that the Obama would bring dangerous terrorists "to our soil, right here." Karl Rove argued over the weekend that Obama will change his mind about Gitmo because "there will be an uproar in the U.S." about detaining suspects on American soil. John McCain told Fox News yesterday, "I don't know of a state in America that wants them in their state. You think Yucca Mountain is a NIMBY problem? Wait till you see this one."
Elana Schor reports that the most likely facility is the military's maximum-security prison in Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas -- which, by the way, is where Candidate McCain wanted to send the detainees when he endorsed closing Gitmo -- but that's facing resistance, too. Sen. Sam Brownback (R) and three House Republicans are pushing a measure that would prohibit the transfer of any suspects from Cuba to Kansas. (We're seeing a similar response from Republicans in South Carolina over the Charleston Naval Brig and Republicans in California over Camp Pendleton.)
I can appreciate the discomfort one might feel in the proximity of a psychotic religious fanatic, but as the Not-In-My-Backyard phenomenon goes, this is pretty silly.

As Glenn Greenwald explained the other day, there are already all kinds of suspected terrorists, including those associated with the 9/11 attacks, in federal detention right here on U.S. soil. As far as I can tell, no one much cares, and there have been no protests from conservative commentators, lawmakers, or activists about moving them out of the country.

I'm not even sure what the complaining is about, exactly. That the Gitmo detainees might break out of incarceration? If conservatives trust federal officials to administer a system of indefinite detention in Cuba, they should probably trust federal officials to keep the bad guys locked up effectively.

Some, meanwhile, have gone so far as to suggest that terrorists could be freed if their allies "crashed a plane into the prison to faciliate [sic] an escape."

Highlights From the Eric Holder Hearings

2009-01-18T21:49:00.004-05:00

Part 1: Senator Patrick Leahy's Opening Remarks (Did you know that Leahy was a voice actor in the animated Batman series, and had a cameo in The Dark Knight?)

Part 2: Sen. Arlen Specter Complains About Time Constraints, and Sen. Patrick Leahy Sets Him Straight (Specter has been trying - and failing - to turn these hearings into a spectacle)

Part 3: "Waterboarding is Torture" (This is pretty obvious, but it's good to see that we will finally have an Attorney General who is not delusional/dishonest on the topic)

Part 4: The Right to Bear Arms

Part 5: Federal Media Shield Law (I don't know much about this one)

Part 6: Pledge to Review Extremist OLC Opinions on Executive Power (I'm glad to see that Dawn Johnsen has been chosen to head the Office of Legal Counsel under Obama)

Part 7: Mark Rich Pardons Under Pres. Clinton

Saying Goodbye...

2009-01-17T21:24:00.003-05:00

On Tuesday, we'll finally be rid of President George W. Bush. On his way out, Human Rights Watch looks back on the past eight years and "places the major responsibility for the decline in human rights squarely on the Bush administration which opted to renege on the Geneva Conventions and use torture, rendition, and illegal detention in the War on Terrorism." The Center for American Progress similarly looks back and compiles a list of the 43 worst political appointments made over the same time period. The list includes Monica Goodling, the woman who graduated from Pat Robertson's dismally-ranked law school and was somehow given awesome powers over the Justice Department, as well as George Deutsch, the college dropout and Bush-campaigner who was somehow put in charge of NASA's press relations (where he promptly downplayed the Big Bang and tried to muzzle climate scientists from talking to the press).

The past eight years have carried scandals over the use of torture, domestic surveillance in violation of federal statutes, war based on lies, a politicized Justice Department, political appointments made in vioaltion of civil service laws, etc. I haven't used this blog to talk about George W. Bush personally over the past few years, but I just wanted to take this opportunity to say "Goodbye."

UPDATE: I'm not a Keith Olberman fan. At all. Also, I'm not 100% on-board for everything in the video below. However, I highly recommend watching this eight-minute segment for some highlights (lowlights?) of the past Presidency.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Department of Justice Report on Bradley Schlozman and Improper Actions at DoJ

2009-01-13T21:56:00.006-05:00

You might have heard something about Bradley Schlozman and the improper politicization of the Department of Justice over the past few years. However, this recently-released inspector-general report (pdf) titled "An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring and Other Improper Personnel Actions in the Civil Rights Division" is pretty incredible. Election law attorney Richard Hasen has some highlights here, including Schlozman's bizarre rants about "libs" and "commies," as well as his sociopathic "need to scream with a blood-curdling cry at some commie, partisan subordinate," and forwarded e-mails about "black and bitter" colleagues.

According to the Department of Justice, Schlozman "violated federal law - the Civil Service Reform Act - and Department policy."

All you can say is "wow." What moron thought it would be a good idea to make Bradley Schlozman the Head of the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division?

UPDATE: McClatchy has an article on this issue here, titled "Internal probe slams Bush Justice official for illegal hiring."

This Week's Links: Advice to a Future President

2009-01-12T12:09:00.004-05:00

Jameel Jaffer and Ben Wizner counsel Obama: "Don't replace the old Guantánamo with a new one." [Salon]
Paul Krugman offers some economic advice. [The New York Times]
Glenn Greenwald suggests that Obama re-read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. [Salon]

Eric Holder Speaks at American Constitution Society

2009-01-10T18:25:00.001-05:00

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

This is Barack Obama's pick for Attorney General.

Dawn Johnsen on the role of the Office of Legal Counsel

2009-01-09T16:29:00.001-05:00

This is Barack Obama's choice to head the Office of Legal Counsel.

This Week's Links: Intelligence Appointments, Minnesota Recounts and the New Deal

2009-01-08T12:02:00.006-05:00

The Wall Street Journal wrote yet another hyperventilating op-ed about the Minnesota Senate recount. Once again, they have filled it with baseless innuendo and allegations of voter fraud. In this link, Nate Silver goes through the editorial "paragraph by paragraph" and tears it to pieces. [FiveThirtyEight]
Recount Judge Edward Cleary calls out the Wall Street Journal on its "groundless attack," and highlights the recount board's bipartisan, unanimous votes. A highly entertaining read. [Minnesota Post]
Scott Horton and others discuss legal accountability and oversight for the United States torture program. I highly recommend giving it a listen, if you're interested in what happens next. [NPR]
Glenn Greenwald discusses Obama's selection of Dawn Johnsen to head the Office of Legal Counsel. This link has plenty of extended quotes from Johnsen herself, and plenty of comparisons to former OLC member John Yoo (the guy who wrote the infamous torture memo). [Salon]
Hilzoy points out that "despite all the brouhaha after the election, it turns out that African-Americans' level of support for Prop 8 was not as high as reported, and is moreover almost entirely explained by their levels of church attendance." [The Washington Monthly]
Paul Krugman debunks some conservative myths about F.D.R. and the New Deal (as you may have noticed, "there’s a whole intellectual industry, mainly operating out of right-wing think tanks, devoted to propagating the idea that F.D.R. actually made the Depression worse."). [The New York Times]
David Sirota piles on, and also debunks some of the conservative myths about Roosevelt and the New Deal. [The Seattle Times] [The Huffington Post I] [The Huffington Post II]
Not surprising anyone, FOX News and Neil Cavuto present some bizarre rants about how "everybody agrees ... that the New Deal failed" because Roosevelt "waged ... a jihad against private enterprise." You can't make this stuff up. [Media Matters for America]

Watch David Shuster Make an Ass of Himself

2009-01-08T00:54:00.002-05:00

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

It's not like there's no news left in the world to cover.

Elizabeth Holtzman Discusses Her Bid For the New York Senate Seat

2009-01-07T16:03:00.006-05:00

From the description:

Elizabeth Holtzman, former Congresswoman (D-NY 16th), and the author of The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens, discusses her bid to fill Hillary Clinton's Senate seat.

She's also a former Brooklyn D.A., and was in Congress during Nixon's impeachment. It's way past time that some other names were floated out there in the media.

UPDATE:

UPDATE II: Here is the transcript and video of a 2005 interview with Amy Goodman.

COVER UP: Behind the Iran-Contra Affair (1988)

2008-12-28T22:57:00.001-05:00

UPDATE: Today, Oliver North is employed as a political commentator for FOX News. You can't make this stuff up.

National Review Is Still Filled With Partisan Hacks

2008-12-28T14:27:00.010-05:00

According to Victor Davis Hanson, environmentalists want to cause mass starvation and human suffering: "Surely, the world right now is sort of what the radical Gorists wanted to see, since the current cutback in gasoline usage, and general economic slowdown are radically restricting the burning of fossil fuels."

The obvious response to this is a simple "No." Environmentalists are not thrilled to see our current wave of financial suffering any more than the average person. Nor has it ever been their goal to see the world as it is now, with rising unemployment and general human suffering. What the environmentalists really just want is to cut back on fossil fuel use without devastating people's lives (not "at all costs," like Victor Davis Hanson thinks). In fact, they have been explicitly arguing for a while now that switching off of fossil fuels will save us from future oil price-shocks, leave us more energy independent in general, and create millions of jobs. This is why they're always using the phrase "Green Collar Economy," and writing books like this one.

What Victor Davis Hanson is doing here is setting up a straw-man argument. It's no different from when former National Review contributor Ann Coulter covered the same topic and said (more explicitly) that "Liberals want mass starvation and human devastation."

UPDATE: In its earlier days, the National Review wrote columns like this one (pdf), titled "Why the South Must Prevail." In it, the National Review asked "'whether the white community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically?" After citing to the "cultural superiority of white over Negro," the National Review concluded that "Yes—the white community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race."

Meanwhile, On FOX News. . . .

2008-12-25T21:09:00.002-05:00

Church Members Dress Like Jesus to Protest Secularization of Christmas: “Members of a church in Kansas City, Ks., are protesting the secularization of Christmas by dressing like Jesus at their jobs, malls and restaurants.”

Happy Christmas

2008-12-25T11:23:00.001-05:00

Senate Report on Detainee Abuse

2008-12-21T01:23:00.009-05:00

The Senate Armed Services Committee recently released a report (available here) (pdf) recounting our recent policy of detainee abuse. It also recounts the approval process, and concludes that "[t]he abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 was not simply the result of a few soldiers acting on their own." Rather, the report finds that these policies were the direct result of Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld's "message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees in U.S. military custody."

Aside from linking Rumsfeld to the Abu Ghraid atrocities, the report is a good read just for its timeline of events. It's still bizarre to look back at how these policies came to be implemented, despite such strong opposition, and warnings that they risked violating anti-torture statutes.

For more on the detainee abuse issue, you can watch this video interview with Janis Karpinski (the former Commanding General of Abu Ghraib), who was told by her superiors that "You have to treat them like dogs." The ACLU also has some interesting resources to look at on their website.

GTMO is going to be a major issue in the coming months, so you had all better do your homework.

UPDATE: One of the big misconceptions about Guantanamo is that it is filled with people who are almost certainly guilty of conspiring in terrorist plots. In the words of Donald Rumsfeld himself, these people are "the worst of the worst." While I don't doubt that there certainly are some very bad people there, it's still shocking to look back and see that 520 of the 775 detainees have already been released without charge. Furthermore, it's troublesome to see that 86% of the people detained were turned over by Afghan and Pakistani citizens, who had been offered "millions of dollars ... enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life."

UPDATE II: The New York Times Editorial Board concludes that "A prosecutor should be appointed to consider criminal charges against top officials at the Pentagon and others involved in planning the abuse." They also highlight this:

One page of the report lists the repeated objections that President Bush and his aides so blithely and arrogantly ignored: The Air Force had “serious concerns regarding the legality of many of the proposed techniques”; the chief legal adviser to the military’s criminal investigative task force said they were of dubious value and may subject soldiers to prosecution; one of the Army’s top lawyers said some techniques that stopped well short of the horrifying practice of waterboarding “may violate the torture statute.” The Marines said they “arguably violate federal law.” The Navy pleaded for a real review.
The legal counsel to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time started that review but told the Senate committee that her boss, Gen. Richard Myers, ordered her to stop on the instructions of Mr. Rumsfeld’s legal counsel, Mr. Haynes.

I think that the internal opposition to these policies is very important to keep in mind.

UPDATE III: Failed Presidential candidate Duncan Hunter (R-CA) thinks that this is all "left-wing rubbish." Scott Horton dresses Hunter down here:

Hunter is right that the Defense Department reports made no accusations against Rumsfeld. But isn’t it worth asking why? Rumsfeld was the boss of the authors of the reports; he commissioned them and carefully set the guidelines within which the generals who wrote the reports could operate. They were not permitted to comment upon the conduct of any officials up the chain of command. However, Major General Antonio Taguba, who authored the principal report, left no question about his conclusions. “Serious war crimes were committed with the approval of senior Bush Administration officials,” he said to an audience at New York University two weeks ago (I spoke at that event as well), “there is no question about that. The only question is whether there will be accountability for the political figures who are responsible.”

Hunter demonstrates another failing. He supposes that in the absence of a “smoking gun” linking Donald Rumsfeld directly to the abuses at Abu Ghraib Rumsfeld is in the clear. Of course, that smoking gun exists in the form of the Rumsfeld memos, but is not necessary. Under the doctrine of command responsibility, Rumsfeld faces per se liability for the abuses at Abu Ghraib assuming he knew or had reason to know of the abuses and failed to take steps to stop them (now well established, as the Levin-McCain Report notes).

UPDATE IV: For a longer account of the entire detainee abuse story, and its approval process, I highly recommend checking out Jane Mayer's excellent book The Dark Side.

UPDATE V: Taxi to the Dark Side is also a pretty good account.

UPDATE VI: Another popular misconception is that torture works, and has provided us with reliable information in the past. Interrogator Matthew Alexander has recently published a book pushing back against this myth, and David Rose has written an excellent article debunking the previous claims made by the current administration.

This Week's Links: Torture and Community Reinvestment

2008-12-19T09:47:00.003-05:00

Former senior interrogator Matthew Alexander recounts how United States officials engaged in conduct that "often resulted in torture and abuse." Alexander, who "refused to participate in such practices," details his own successful methods. It's a good read. [The Washington Post]
I know that many people have written much on the topic, but this is still one of the most under-covered stories of the past decade: "A bipartisan Senate report released today says that former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other top Bush administration officials are directly responsible for abuses of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and charges that decisions by those officials led to serious offenses against prisoners in Iraq and elsewhere." [The Washington Post]
Paul Krugman debunks some of the myths and falsehoods about Fannie and Freddie (back in July) [The New York Times]
Joseph Stiglitz doesn't care for Alan Greenspan. [Vanity Fair]
ABC News exaggerates the wages of United States auto workers. [F.A.I.R.]
Howard Kurtz is not a very good media critic. [Media Matters for America]
Have your conservative friends and family members been holding up the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 as the root of all our current economic problems? If so, you might want to give this one a read. [Media Matters for America]
Media Matters debunks some of the common myths about the Community Reinvestment Act. [Media Matters for America]
Eric Boehlert debunks the $70/hour autoworker myth. [Media Matters for America]
The New York Times debunks the $70/hour autoworker myth. [The New York Times]
Bob Somerby suggests a better headline for the previous New York Times article. [The Daily Howler]
Michelle Malkin is still a reflexive partisan hack. [ThinkProgress]
Barry Ritholtz debunks the "intellectually silly argument" that the Community Reinvestment Act is the root of all our economic problems. [The Big Picture]
Slate thinks that it is "not merely offensive, but entirely wrong" to blame our current economic woes on the Community Reinvestment Act. [Slate]
The Westboro Baptist Church now wants to take advantage of Olympia's open forum to put up a religious display of their own, saying "Santa Claus Will Take You To Hell." [Seattle Post Intelligencer]
Newsweek writes up the whistleblower who revealed the warrantless wiretap program. [Newsweek]

Rick Warren to Deliver Invocation at Obama's Inauguration

2008-12-17T22:35:00.014-05:00

Pastor Rick Warren thinks that it is a "humanitarian issue" and a moral imperative that homosexual couples never be granted the right to enjoy the same legal rights and benefits that heterosexual couples currently have in the United States. He advocates for Constitutional amendments specifically singling out and excluding them from the right to marry, so that not even a democratic majority vote could grant them equal marriage rights.

Here is Rick Warren, attempting to justify his call to discrimination:

Take note of how he explicitly lies and says that no culture, in 5,000 years, has granted homosexuals the right to marry. I guess that Canada does not have a culture. Spain must not have a culture, either. Same goes for Connecticut and Massachusetts. Mr. Warren seems to have either recklessly forgotten that these regions explicitly recognize homosexual marriages (which is just as bad as outright lying), or to have deliberately lied in order to bolster his point.

Also take note of how Mr. Warren tells another untruth, and says that no religion in 5,000 years has recognized the right of homosexual couples to marry. I guess that the United Church of Christ is not a religious organization. Same goes for the Unitarians. Mr. Warren has either recklessly forgotten their existence or deliberately lied about them.

In sum, Rick Warren is an asshole who advocates for institutional discrimination and tells lies to bolster his phony arguments. It's especially discouraging to see such bile coming from such a nice-guy facade (same goes for Mike Huckabee, who has compared homosexual marriages to bestiality and pedophilia).

It's sad to see that Barack Obama has selected Warren to deliver the invocation. I suppose, though, that most other major religious leaders would be making the same thin arguments in favor of the same discriminatory policies.

UPDATE: I also particularly hate that endlessly stupid language fetish: "We can't let 2% of the population change the definition of marriage." We all know that that's not the real issue. We're always altering state marriage laws and customs, to permit or deny no-fault divorce, common law marriage, interracial marriage, inter-denominational marriage, property rights, custody issues, etc. Marriage, as a legal institution, has always been in flux, and always will be in flux. Warren's "can't change the definition" argument is pure bullshit, and everybody knows it. What this is really about is people like Warren trying to avoid any kind of institutional recognition or acceptance of homosexuality (which has been around for much more than 5,000 years).

UPDATE II: Warren and Huckabee are like two peas in a pod.

UPDATE III: Rick Warren is a creationist, by the way:

Do you believe Creation happened in the way Genesis describes it?
WARREN: If you're asking me do I believe in evolution, the answer is no, I don't.

Dana Milbank Sucks At Journalism

2008-12-17T18:31:00.006-05:00

Dana Milbank is always on MSNBC, yet he persistently manages to say nothing of substance. It's always safe and easy to spout off "conventional wisdom" and crack jokes about the topic of the day. Yet it never adds anything to the discussion, and it's always terribly shallow. Milbank continued to do what he does in the Washington Post today:

Next up in Obama's insomnia treatment was an acceptance speech by the previously unknown nominee, followed by the president-elect's own blend of convoluted and passive answers to questions...The whole thing might have ended in snores if [Chicago Tribune reporter John] McCormick hadn't piped up about Blagojevich.

Milbank will be chasing after this one like the O.J. and Ana Nicole stories. He just wants to be entertained with a sexy story. No time to report on agricultural policy and our bizarre farm subsidy problems, because that's no fun. Never mind that these people will be making important and complex decisions about our country's food and energy policies. Dana Milbank wants to be entertained.

UPDATE: See this previous post.

UPDATE II: Bob Somerby is a national treasure:

On Monday, Obama announced that his office’s “full review of this” would be withheld until next week, at Patrick Fitzgerald’s request. And Fitzgerald’s office confirmed the fact that they had made this request. But McCormack plowed ahead anyhoo, asking a question that plainly wouldn’t get answered. And then, on cable, the children started wailing, about Obama’s bad conduct.
Which part of “the information will be withheld until next week, at Fitzgerald’s request” don’t these life-forms understand?

The caterwauling was widespread on cable; for Digby’s account of one exchange, just click here. But as always, the silliest Villager was the Post’s Dana Milbank, who put his low IQ on display in this morning’s “Washington Sketch.” If the insider press is our dumbest elite, Milbank is its perfect town crier. Like Bush, he’s straight outta Skull and Bones. And as he neared the end of his “sketch,” he again seemed determined to prove it.

Classic Milbank! This is how the Post’s “sketch” artist described one part of yesterday’s session—an event at which Obama introduced his nominee for Secretary of Education. As always, Milbank found himself bored by the day’s dismal dullness:

MILBANK (12/17/08): Next up in Obama's insomnia treatment was an acceptance speech by the previously unknown nominee, followed by the president-elect's own blend of convoluted and passive answers to questions: "We're going to have to work through a lot of these difficulties, these structural difficulties that built up over many decades, some of it having to do with the financial industry and the huge amounts of leverage, the huge amounts of debt that were taken on, the speculation and the risk that was occurring, the lack of financial regulation, some of it having to do with our housing market, stabilizing that."

The whole thing might have ended in snores if McCormick hadn't piped up about Blagojevich.

Milbank began with a brainless jibe at the “previously unknown” Arne Duncan. In fact, Duncan has been head of Chicago’s public schools for the past seven years, though no one in Milbank’s circle has heard. Then, the crier took a familiar tack; he complained that Obama’s quoted answer was too “convoluted” —too long. In fairness, Obama’s answer did stretch to a punishing 71 words, and Village attention spans are quite short. At least Obama hadn’t used too many big words, the brainless complaint the Bonesman raised against dull, verbose and know-it-all Gore when the exceedingly tiresome fellow once tried to discuss his new best-selling book (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/30/07). Gore had used such terms as “the marketplace of ideas” and the ”exchange of goods and services”—and this had led to a long, loud complaint. Ponder the plight your nation faces when Boneheaded fellows of such low distinction control the shape of its discourse.

“The whole thing might have ended in snores if McCormick hadn't piped up about Blagojevich,” the Bonesman explained, helping us see his cohort’s sad culture. Again, the truth about this dullest elite: They’re constantly drowning in their own dismal dullness. Only the thrill of scandal/sex/wardrobe/personality tales rescues them from their own cosmic dullness. Big Dem pols who don’t offer such treats will be accused of using big words—of giving “convoluted answers.” Almost everything puts them to sleep. Low-income kids can be damned.

Yesterday, the nonsense was general all over cable, but no one is ever much dumber than Milbank. As he described McCormick’s Q-and-A, we got to peep inside the head of the Village’s emptiest Bonesman:

MILBANK: [T]he Chicago Tribune's John McCormick didn't want to talk basketball. He wanted to know about contacts that Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, had with disgraced Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

"John, John, let me just cut you off," Obama interrupted, "because I don't want you to waste your question." The president-elect said the "facts are going to be released next week”—when he, by random coincidence, will be enjoying Christmas vacation in Hawaii—and "it would be inappropriate for me to comment" before then. "So, do you have another question?"

McCormick tried to rephrase the question, to no avail. "John, John," Obama repeated, reproachfully. "I said, the U.S. attorney's office specifically asked us not to release this until next week."

Can you get dumber? We’re not sure. But try to grasp how bad it can get when these life-forms start offering snark. Again, Fitzgerald’s office confirmed the fact that they asked Obama to wait till next week before discussing Emanuel’s contacts. The Bonesman, though, interjected some “tude” into his account of this matter. He suggested that the release of the info next week was some sort of slick Obama trick, designed somehow to coincide with the gentleman’s Christmas vacation.

No, that doesn’t really make sense. But this is the Village’s Bonesman.

Let us repeat what we’ve told you before. There is no way to understand this group without understanding a basic fact: Your “press corps” is a D-plus elite—our slowest, dumbest professional cohort. For the record, we’ve been surprised by the way they’ve behaved in the ten days since the Blago tale hit. They’ve been dumber—and faker—than we would have dreamed. Nothing derails their sad culture.

Thomas Tamm Interview

2008-12-16T10:22:00.001-05:00

Newsweek has a portrait of Tamm here.

Interrogation Tactics

2008-12-15T00:00:00.001-05:00

"There's No Evidence of Any Wrongdoing, But. . . ."

2008-12-14T13:51:00.007-05:00

Kevin Drum nails it:

...I've lost count of the number of op-eds and TV talking head segments over the past week that have started out with something like this: "There's no evidence that Barack Obama was involved in Rod Blagojevich's pay-to-play scheme -- in fact just the opposite -- but...." After the "but," we get a couple thousand words with some take or another on why this is casting a "lengthening shadow" over Obama even though there's precisely zero evidence that he had even a tangential involvement in the whole thing.
Look, I get it: it was kind of a slow news week, reporters are tired of Obama the Savior stories, the Blagojevich story is theatrically sexy, and everyone is desperately trying to find a way to turn it from a local story to a national one. But there's no there there. Maybe Republicans still haven't learned their lesson from the 90s, but that's no reason the press has to follow them over a cliff once again.

Jamison Foser gets it, too:

...this week brought signs that much of the media is set to resume the absurd and shameful behavior that defined the 1990s -- guilt by association, circular analysis whereby they ask baseless questions about non-scandals, then claim they have to report on the "scandal" because the White House is "besieged by questions," grotesque leaps of logic, downplaying exculpatory information, and too many other failings to list.

If that happens -- if the media continue to behave as they did in covering Whitewater -- they will damage the country. It's really that simple. We cannot afford to be distracted from serious problems by overheated conjecture and baseless insinuation masquerading as journalism.

UPDATE: The RNC is already milking this for all it's worth, putting out a video with scary music and zero substance. Since they have no evidence of any wrongdoing, they have instead titled the video "Questions Remain."

UPDATE II: Matt Yglesias sees it, too.

But this morning on MSNBC there was a lengthy discussion of Obama's involvement in Blagojevich's corruption. Of course, there was no evidence of any involvement on Obama's part. Nor, despite this being a news channel, was there any original reporting of any kind whatsoever. There was, however, a ton of time spent criticizing the Obama campaign's PR strategy with regard to this issue - the suggestion being that had Obama adopted a better PR strategy, then people wouldn't be on television making evidence-free guilt-by-association accusations against him.

This strong me as odd. The people making the accusations kept acknowledging that they had no evidence. One might think that communicating to television personalities the fact that there was no evidence of wrongdoing on Obama's part would constitute a good PR strategy. Given that they knew there was no evidence of wrongdoing, they should have ceased implying that there was wrongdoing. But they didn't do that at all. Not, I would submit, because of any failings on Obama's part, but because Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, John Heileman, Mark Halperin, and Pat Buchanan don't care at all about the accuracy of the impression their coverage gives.

Greta Van Susteren Is Insane

2008-12-12T18:26:00.008-05:00

FOX News host Greta Van Susteren just wrote this post for FOX News:

oh oh - what does this mean?

by Greta Van Susteren

I just read an article in the Chicago Tribune about big Dem operative close to Congressman Rahm Emanuel…his name is Jimmy DeLeo…the Trib tried to find him in several of his haunts including - get this - the Excelsior Casino in Aruba!! That is where Joran met Natalee Holloway! As soon as I get off the train I will link the whole article…but this sure is odd!!

That's just so embarrassing to read.

Also, are people still talking about Natalee Holloway? I know that it's a tragedy and all, but this is one person who disappeared about half a decade ago. There are 50,930 active missing adult cases in the United States right now. Why focus on this one so obsessively? Is it just because she's an attractive blonde woman? Why pay so much attention to this rather than, say, disappearing mass graves in Afghanistan?

And just what is Van Susteren suggesting, anyway? That Jimmy DeLeo, Rahm Emanuel, and Barack Obama are kidnapping murderers? That "Questions Remain" about whether or not they're kidnapping murderers? I don't get it. . . .

Blagojevich Charged With Corruption

2008-12-09T21:14:00.014-05:00

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-IL) has been charged with criminal corruption.

With Barack Obama (D-IL) leaving his Senate seat vacant, Gov. Blagojevich had the responsibility of filling it with the best public servant he could find. However, Blagojevich recognized that this Senate seat was "a fucking valuable thing," and decided that "you don't just give it away for nothing." Instead, he would "drive a real hard bargain" and try to "get something real good." If that didn't work out, then "shit, I'll just send myself, you know what I'm saying."

He apparently tried to get campaign contributions, a job for his wife, a personal appointment, a new editorial board at the Chicago Tribune, etc. He also threatened to cut $8 million in funding for a children's hospital (apparently because he wanted $50,000 in campaign contributions from the hospital's executive, and he wasn't paying up).

This is the second Illinois Governor in a row to be accused of corruption. The last Illinois Governor, George Ryan (R-IL), is currently living in a federal prison, serving his sentence on a corruption conviction.

You can read the criminal complaint here (it's 78 pages long). The shorter description is on the blue shirt, pictured above.

UPDATE: The "analysis" from journalists like Liz Sidoti was way too predictable:

AP reporter Liz Sidoti, fresh off a stint delivering donuts to John McCain, pens an "analysis" of the Blagojevich indictment that begins: "President-elect Barack Obama hasn't even stepped into office and already a scandal is threatening to dog him."

Then, in the very next sentence, Sidoti admits "Obama isn't accused of anything." And that pretty much sets the tone for the "analysis" -- ominous warnings that Obama could be implicated in the scandal, followed by concessions that he, you know ... isn't.

...

So there's a great big ball of nothing here, yet Sidoti continues to pretend that Obama is caught up in the scandal, writing "There were signs the continuing investigation could still involve Obama."

Well, no. The "signs" Sidoti pointed to were the fact that someone who works for Obama once worked for Blagojevich (ah-ha!) and that court papers appear to refer to "Obama friend Valerie Jarrett, an incoming senior White House adviser," who removed herself from consideration for the Senate seat Obama is vacating. Blagojevich is charged with trying to sell an appointment to that seat. Jarrett removed herself from consideration for it. How that constitutes a sign that the investigation "could still involve Obama" is clear only in Sidoti's imagination.
Still, Sidoti is technically correct: the investigation could still involve Obama. But it is grossly unfair to suggest that possibility absent any evidence. That's something Liz Sidoti apparently doesn't understand -- though one suspects she would understand the unfairness of suggesting, absent any evidence, that she could be taking payments from the GOP to write garbage like this.

Sidoti concludes: "More details on the case could be forthcoming." Hard to argue with that.

So what do we have? According to Liz Sidoti:

1) "Obama isn't accused of anything"
2) "prosecutors were making no allegations that Obama was aware of any scheming"
3) "Blagojevich himself, in taped conversations cited by prosecutors, suggested that Obama wouldn't be helpful to him"
4) There is no evidence, indication, or hint that Obama was aware of scheming, or did help Blagojevich.
5) Nevertheless, "more details on the case could be forthcoming"
6) Therefore, a "scandal" is "threatening to dog" Obama.

This is nothing short of sleazy. With no evidence whatsoever, Sidoti is suggesting ties between Obama and the scandal that simply do not exist. Whatever this is, it isn't "analysis" and it isn't "journalism."

UPDATE II: The often crazy Michelle Malkin's coverage was also way too predictable. In a column titled "The Democrat Culture of Corruption," Malkin skips over the fact that the previous Republican governor is currently serving a jail term for corruption, uses words like "corruptocrats," and tries her best to suggest that there is something ominous or underhanded going on with Barack Obama ("declaring Team Obama’s hands clean — especially with Blago crony and indicted Obama donor Tony Rezko in the middle of it all — is premature. . . . this raises more questions than it answers about who on the transition team may have talked to Blago and his shakedown artists about what and when"). It also contains her generic claims of "liberal media bias" and speculation about how they would have behaved if it were a Republican (which it was with the previous Illinois Governor).

As an aside, I'd just like to point out again that Michelle Malkin is a crazy person, who writes books in defense of ethnic internment camps and publicly berates consenting adults for creating pornographic films for other consenting adults.

UPDATE III: In another column, titled "This is what patriotism looks like," Malkin offers a childish vision of patriotism that apparently involves not much more than reflexively assuming that the government and military can do no wrong:

A naturalized American from Korea loses his entire family in the military jet crash that wrecked his house and killed his infant daughter, toddler daughter, wife, and mother-in-law. But he refuses to blame the pilot or bash the military. Reader Mitch in San Diego e-mails: “I’m not even religious and I’ll say a prayer for this man. He has my utmost admiration. Truly an amazing gesture of forgiveness and patriotism on his part. There would be no discussion about immigration, illegal or otherwise, if this was the caliber of most coming here. Amazing.”
Keep Dong Yun Yoon in your prayers.

If I were Dong Yun Yoon, I might want to at least ask some questions. It doesn't involve "bashing the military" to want to know what went wrong, and how it came to be that a military jet crash could happen on top of your house. I know that this man went through a lot, but I don't see how this makes him a hero and a patriot, and I don't respect how Malkin uses his story to prop up her own vision of patriotism (which apparently also involves internment camps).

UPDATE IV: Rush Limbaugh is still an intellectually dishonest partisan.

UPDATE V: All 50 Democratic Senators Call on Blagojevich To Step Down

UPDATE VI: Tony Soprano vs. Rod Blagojevich: Can you tell which is which?

UPDATE VII: Glenn Greenwald is always right about everything. You should all read his column every day.

Religious Displays

2008-12-06T22:38:00.003-05:00

I'm not going to write a detailed post about it (since I've been pretty busy here lately), but I just want to say that the religious display controversy playing out in Washington right now is hilarious.

This Week's Links

2008-12-05T17:49:00.008-05:00

"[L]egions of anti-Obama bloggers are so convinced he was born in Kenya that they’ve filed more than a dozen lawsuits nationwide." There is an interesting legal question involved here (through what procedure would one bring a challenge based on the Constitution's "natural born citizen" clause?), but let's not forget that the people filing this lawsuit are insane conspiracy theorists. [McClatchy D.C.]
"The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide the most fundamental question yet concerning executive power in the age of terror: Can the president order the indefinite military detention of people living in the United States?" Let's see if Justice Kennedy (a Ronald Reagan appointee) does the right thing here. [The New York Times]
Roger Lowenstein believes that the ratings agencies deserve a good measure of blame for our recent economic troubles. [The New York Times]
Even Michelle Malkin believes that the "Kenyan birth" conspiracy theorists are insane. [Michelle Malkin]
Open Congress (a great website) puts up video highlights of the Big Three bailout hearings. [Open Congress]
Charles Rangel writes in to the New York Times to complain about their coverage of him. The New York Times responds. [The New York Times]
Now is not a good time to be working in Legal Aid. [The New York Times]
Tom Daschle (D-SD), the next Secretary of Health and Human Services (who happens to wear weird red glasses), says that health care reform will be a "top priority" for the next administration's economic recovery plan. [Bloomberg]
Did I mention that the "Kenyan birth" conspiracy theorists are insane? [Mother Jones]
Yogurt and Cucumber do not seem like appealing soda flavors. [The Onion]
If you have a Netflix account, I recommend that you watch Street Fight and Lake of Fire. Two very good documentaries. [Netflix]
Bill O'Reilly is giving up his radio show. However, he will keep appearing on television and will presumably keep comparing everyone to Nazis. [Daily News]

UPDATE:

Larry Kudlow Accountability Watch

2008-12-01T17:53:00.006-05:00

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) just confirmed that we have been in a recession since December 2007.

This is what leading conservative economic expert, and graduate school dropout, Larry Kudlow had to say about the economy in that same month:

There is no recession. Despite all the doom and gloom from the economic pessimistas, the resilient U.S economy continues moving ahead—quarter after quarter, year after year—defying dire forecasts and delivering positive growth. In fact, we are about to enter the seventh consecutive year of the Bush boom.

The pessimistas are a persistent bunch. In 2006, they were certain a recession was just around the corner. They were wrong. Instead, the economy posted two consecutive quarters of near or above four-percent growth.

Earlier today, a doom and gloom economic forecast from Macro Economic Advisors was released predicting zero percent growth in the fourth quarter. This report is off by at least two percentage points. These guys are going to wind up with egg on their faces.

Looks like the "pessimistas" were right, and Kudlow was wrong.

Brian Lehrer and Lawrence Lessig Discuss Copyright Law

2008-11-30T19:12:00.001-05:00

This Week's Links

2008-11-28T21:57:00.012-05:00

Thanksgiving Pardon

2008-11-25T06:53:00.001-05:00

In Thanksgiving Tradition, Bush Pardons Scooter Libby In Giant Turkey Costume

Ben Stein vs. Neil Cavuto: Whoever Wins, We Lose

2008-11-23T15:25:00.004-05:00

Ben Stein and Neil Cavuto are both kinda crazy. Neil Cavuto thinks that national healthcare is a "breeding ground for terror," blames Obama for the stock market decline (relying on economic experts such as Hollywood's Kelsey Grammer), and has hosted an entire panel discussion devoted to the topic: "Do married men hate Hillary because she sounds like their nagging wives?" In addition to using his show to promote partisan hackery, Cavuto also likes to focus on topics such as these: "KNOCKOUT GIRLS: GIVING MEN 'HOT' HAIRCUTS," "LINGERIE BOWL," "NEW DATING SERVICE HOOKS UP 'SUGAR MAMAS' WITH 'BOY TOYS,' " and "PORNO-TAX!"

Ben Stein, on the other hand, is a creationist who frequently compares scientists to Nazis, and once compared the police officers who caught homosexual Senator Larry Craig in a public restroom to Nazis.

In the above video, the two men shout at each other about something.

Marc Elias Sets the Wall Street Journal Straight

2008-11-21T14:04:00.010-05:00

Ever since election night, the Wall Street Journal's editorial page has been huffing and puffing and insinuating that Al Franken is trying to "steal the election," "conjure up. . . disqualified[] ballots," "invent votes," etc. They utterly fail to back up any of their voter fraud claims, and just rattle on and on about how they see "funny business" and "potential fraud."

Today, Marc Elias (Franken's attorney) goes through the Wall Street Journal's ridiculous claims, one-by-one, and tears them apart. On the Wall Street Journal editorial page itself, no less.

UPDATE: On FOX News, in their never-ending quest to de-legitimize the state-mandated recount process, they are now falsely claiming that Minnesota Secretary of State Ritchie is a "former member of the Communist Party." That is a shameful lie, and the crudest kind of propaganda.

UPDATE II: Former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough (R-FL) is now saying that "Al Franken only needs to steal 130 more votes to win that thing," apparently insinuating that Franken is a brazen vote-thief, hatching a plot to steal the votes and steal the election. Scarborough, of course, does nothing whatsoever to substantiate his claims. The best he can do is make vague allusions to the discredited votes-in-the-car meme ("he can . . . hide 130 votes in the back of a station wagon"), which Marc Elias thoroughly debunked.

UPDATE III: Without citing any evidence, Rush Limbaugh jumps on board:

The Democrats are in the process of stealing the Franken-Coleman election in Minnesota. They're doing it. They're finding all these votes. . . . They're stealing that Senate race right under everybody's nose. . . . I think our elections have been corrupted. In fact, there's no doubt in my mind the elections have been corrupted.

UPDATE IV: FOX News' Fred Barnes is also peddling the votes-in-the-car meme.

FOX News Has the Story - Part XVIII

2008-11-21T00:24:00.001-05:00

This Week's Links

2008-11-21T00:02:00.005-05:00

"Another Black Eye for the Bush Administration's Detention Policy," Harper's
"Brawl on Voter Fraud Allegations Breaks Out in Senate Judiciary Committee Report on U.S. Attorney Firings," Election Law
"Five Detainees Ordered Released 'Forthwith' After Seven Years at Guantanamo," Salon
"FOX News' Napolitano Falsely Smears Minnesota Secretary of State Ritchie as a 'former member of the Communist Party,' " Media Matters
"Has There Been Too Much Bipartisanship or Too Little?," Salon
"Judge Orders Release of Five Guantanamo Detainees," McClatchy D.C.
"The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus," American Meteorological Society
"Preliminary Thoughts and Facts About Eric Holder," Salon

Daniel Henninger Has a Crazy Theory About Our Economic Problems

2008-11-20T16:29:00.010-05:00

Daniel Henninger is the "deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page." This major, nationally circulated newspaper pays Henninger a salary to come up with intelligent and insightful commentary about politics, culture and the economy.

Daniel Henninger has failed at his job. His latest article is a serious candidate for Worst Op-Ed of the Year, blaming our current economic woes on atheism and "the disappearance of [the phrase] 'Merry Christmas.' " Seriously.

This year we celebrate the desacralized “holidays” amid what is for many unprecedented economic ruin — fortunes halved, jobs lost, homes foreclosed. People wonder, What happened? One man’s theory: A nation whose people can’t say “Merry Christmas” is a nation capable of ruining its own economy.

Over the past year, the United States has lost 1.2 million jobs, consumer sales have plummeted, the automobile sector has bled money and failed to move its inventory, retail sales have plummeted, oil price shocks have driven down transportation and demand, banks have failed, and institutional investors have gone under, bringing with it a credit freeze that fundamentally affects the entire economy.

Daniel Henninger blames "Northerners and atheists" who are "throwing out nurturers of useful virtue." All because some retailers prefer to use the more expansive "Happy Holidays" phrase, in an attempt to reach out to non-Christian shoppers.

It has been my view that the steady secularizing and insistent effort at dereligioning America has been dangerous. That danger flashed red in the fall into subprime personal behavior by borrowers and bankers, who after all are just people. . . .

The point for a healthy society of commerce and politics is not that religion saves, but that it keeps most of the players inside the chalk lines. We are erasing the chalk lines.

Feel free: Banish Merry Christmas. Get ready for Mad Max.

Seriously. This man got paid by a nationally circulated newspaper to write and print this. Can you believe it?

UPDATE: Here is a video of Henninger being stupid:

UPDATE II: This is pretty spot-on:

[E]ach of Henninger's points seems more ridiculous than the last. There is no "dereligioning" of America. "Dereligioning" isn't even a word, but more importantly, the United States is the most religious of any industrialized democracy, and among the most religious countries on the planet. "Happy Christmas" has not been banned. The financial crisis is not the result of secular values. Morality is not being "erased."

Why anyone would attach their name to such transparent foolishness is a mystery to me. Why anyone would publish such inanity is even harder to understand.

Cardinal Stafford Cries "Hot, Angry Tears" Over the Election

2008-11-18T22:59:00.008-05:00

Cardinal James Stafford recently had this to say about the election of Barack Obama:

"His rhetoric is post-modernist and marks an agenda and vision that are aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic. Catholic weep over his words. We weep over the violence concealed behind the rhetoric of our young president-to-be. What should be do with our hot, angry tears of betrayal?"

What should Mr. Stafford do with his "hot, angry tears"? Maybe he should go to his bedroom and release his anger on an electronic drum.

No word on whether he had similar "hot" tears when his organization enabled serial child predators to access and abuse innocent children. In fact, Stafford tried to pin the abuse of children on "homosexuality" instead of his own organization's high-level negligence, saying of the children abuse scandal that "I think it's more of an acting out homosexually."

In other news, the U.S. Conference of Bishops released a statement saying that "A Catholic cannot vote for" Obama, a South Carolina priest has called it a "mortal sin" to vote for Obama, and a high level Republican has been denied communion for voting for the President-elect Obama.

Despite all this, "Obama won the Catholic vote 54 percent to 45 percent."

UPDATE: Oh no! Postmodern!

UPDATE II: McClatchy has more here.

Down the Tubes

2008-11-18T21:53:00.002-05:00

It looks like convicted felon Ted Stevens (R-AK) will not be serving another term in the Senate. After a long vote-count process, the race has just been called for this guy.

WorldNetDaily

2008-11-16T23:21:00.009-05:00

According to WorldNetDaily, evolution is "an element of witchcraft" and Harry Potter is a clear and present danger to your children (WorldNetDaily refers to these children's books as being "pro-bigotry" and possibly leading to children practicing the occult). It's not unusual to go to this website and see a line such as this: "Liberals want mass starvation and human devastation."

Basically, WorldNetDaily is a news outlet for unhinged, angry and paranoid conservatives with little regard for facts or rational discussion.

If you don't believe me, then please take the time to read this WorldNetDaily article by Janet Folger. She writes it from the perspective of a prisoner in the future, who has been put in jail by Hillary Clinton simply for being a Christian.

Nov. 20, 2010
To the Resistance:
I'm writing this letter from prison, where I've been since the beginning of 2010. Since Hillary was elected in '08, Christian persecution in America has gotten even worse than we predicted. . . .

For a while now, as you might have guessed, WorldNetDaily has made it their mission to pass along any anti-Obama story it could, no matter how baseless and absurd. They first argued that Obama was a gay coke-fiend. That didn't pan out, as their career criminal source failed a polygraph test.

Next, they argued that Obama was planning to create a "massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army , Navy, Marines and Air Force put together" (false), that his energy plan consisted of nothing more than tire inflation (false), that he supports cash reparations to blacks for slavery (false), etc.

Lately, WorldNetDaily has been promoting the myth that Barack Obama was born in Africa, and thus is ineligible to serve as the President of the United States. Their sources, as usual, are nutcases who have utterly failed to substantiate any of their claims.

These psychopaths will never rest.

UPDATE: As you might have guessed, college fail-out Rush Limbaugh frequently uses WorldNetDaily as a source. It's all a big crazy circle.

UPDATE II: They use actor Chuck Norris to argue against the scientific theory of evolution, for God's sake!

UPDATE III: WorldNetDaily recently settled a libel claim after baselessly asserting that an Al Gore supporter was "a suspected drug dealer."

UPDATE IV: My favorite WorldNetDaily headline is this: "Soy is Making Kids 'Gay' "

UPDATE V: Here is another actual WorldNetDaily headline: "Is Obama Devotee of Monkey-God Idol?"

Reminder: Mos Def Is Insane

2008-11-16T21:51:00.002-05:00

First, Mos Def ruined the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Then he went on national television to say that (1) Bin Laden was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks, (2) the moon landing was faked, (3) O.J. Simpson didn't kill his wife, and (4) Bigfoot is real. Now I see that he has a video claiming that "Bush knocked down the towers." Even though the song is kinda catchy, this serves as a reminder that Mos Def is insane and/or stupid.

Michael Barone and Dennis Miller Are Hacks

2008-11-14T20:31:00.003-05:00

The post-election coverage on cable news has left us with a wealth of asinine commentary. However, what I find most mind-boggling is how several wacko (and sadly influential) conservatives have created some sort of weird psychodrama martyr out of Sarah Palin. For example, conservative columnist Michael Barone recently made the off-the-wall absurd argument that "The liberal media attacked Sarah Palin because she did not abort her Down syndrome baby." Conservative comedian Dennis Miller similarly argued that "the Left hate her — mostly women on the Left hate her — because to me from outside in it appears that she has a great sex life, all right?"

What's wrong with these people?

UPDATE: Sarah Palin herself once argued that her critics were just "ticked off" at the idea "that normal Joe six-pack American is finally represented in the position of vice presidency."

How on Earth Did This Happen?

2008-11-14T16:04:00.002-05:00

The International Herald Tribune recently ran this headline: "Saudi Arabia to lead UN talks on religious tolerance"

Seriously?

The first half of the first sentence in this article reveals how absolutely bizarre this situation really is: "Saudi Arabia, which deploys a special police force to ensure that only one narrow sect of Islam predominates in the kingdom. . . ."

Stop right there. This is too ridiculous.

UPDATE: See also Bill Donohue.

Reminder: Bill Donohue Is Insane

2008-11-13T21:39:00.002-05:00

Video proof is here. In responding to an atheist group's self-advertising in a public place, Donohue first compares the group to "gay terrorists," then to Jeffrey Dahmer ("Jeffrey Dahmer had a conscience, too -- You know what he did, he destroyed his victims and he ate them -- we saw what happened"), and finally to "Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao." Donohue concludes that there are "fifty million people dead because of this man's philosophy."

This man is insane.

This Week's Links

2008-11-11T13:23:00.004-05:00

"Anti-Gay, Anti-Family," The New York Times
"Drawing Lines," Columbia Journalism Review
"Fixing Election Administration," Election Law
"Guantanamo Down To 250 Detainees, Future Uncertain," McClatchy D.C.
"Joe Lieberman, The Progressive Who Lost His Way," Center For American Progress
"Joe Scarborough: Hoisted By His Own Sanctimonious Petard," Glenn Greenwald
"Oral Arguments in Summum Case," Ed Brayton
"A Senior Fellow at the Institute of Nonexistence," International Herald Tribune

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) is a Cazy Person

2008-11-10T23:22:00.010-05:00

Back in July, Obama gave a speech about national service, and made a comment about how we can't just rely on our military to achieve our goals. Rather, we also needed "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful."

Reasonable people interpreted this as Obama "talking about expanding a range of domestic and international agencies such as AmeriCorps, the Foreign Service, and the Peace Corps — and adding some new ones"

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) (left), however, is not a reasonable person. Rather, he is a crazy person who interpreted this as Obama openly declaring that we needed some sort of Marxist Gestapo:

"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force. I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may -- may not, I hope not -- but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism. That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did. When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."

You were right the first time, Broun. It does sound crazy and off base.

But Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) is not the only unhinged maniac to make crazy statements this past week. Over in Poland, Polish MP Arthur Gorski had this to say:

"Someone regarded by the (American) Republican right as a crypto-communist has become the leader of the world's greatest power ... and al Qaeda are rubbing their hands with glee that the new president wants peace, not war. . . . The black messiah of the new left has crushed the Republican candidate John McCain, and America will soon pay a high price for this quirk of democracy. . . . Obama is an approaching catastrophe. This marks the end of white man's civilisation," he said in an address.

Just to repeat, Gorski thinks that Obama marks "the end of white man's civilisation."

In other news, there are still crazy people who desperately insist that Obama was born in Africa (despite the fact that this myth has been repeatedly debunked).

UPDATE: Broun also said this: "We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential of going down that road."

UPDATE II: You may remember that Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) also tried to spread some false rumors about Barack Obama during the primaries. Why does Georgia elect so many crazy people to Congress?

UPDATE III: Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) has also introduced legislation prohibiting adult military personnel from purchasing and possessing pornography. I'm really sick of Congressmen like Broun dictating what consenting adults can and cannot view.

UPDATE IV: Broun is not the first conservative wacko to compare Obama to Hitler (FOX News, Jonah Goldberg, Ann Coulter, and Ben Stein have all done it at various times). However, this deserves mention because it is an actual Congressman.

UPDATE V: Broun just released a statement defending his crazy remarks.

The Electoral College and National Popular Vote

2008-11-08T11:22:00.002-05:00

Rush Limbaugh, In a Nutshell

2008-11-07T14:59:00.011-05:00

For the past ten months, the United States economy has lost jobs. A lot of jobs. 1.2 million in 2008, to be precise. The automobile sector has been hit hard, bleeding money and failing to move their inventory. Retail sales have plummeted. We've seen banks fail and major institutional investors go under, bringing with it a credit freeze that fundamentally affects the entire economy.

This has been the major story of 2008. The other day brought even more bad news, as unemployment figures were higher than most expected.

Given all this, how does Rush Limbaugh explain yesterday's stock market decline?

By blaming Barack Obama, of course (see Obama Recession in Full Swing, November 6, 2008).

According to Limbaugh, "his ideas are killing the economy." In this bizarre alternate universe, all of the most obvious explanations are cast aside in order to pin blame on the guy Limbaugh insists is "an Arab" and a "man-child." The overwrought Limbaugh thinks that "His ideas are killing Wall Street. . . . He's causing it! He is causing the sinking economy." He also insists that "the market sell-off is Obama fear-based. There's no question." Limbaugh, of course, does not cite any evidence to back up his claims. He does, however, shout a few times.

UPDATE: FOX News, of course, is following suit.

Gretchen Carlson: “There’s a lot of feeling in the market not reacting very well to the election of Barack Obama.”

Fred Barnes: “We have seen the stock market go down over 800 points the last two days. There is great uncertainty out there about [Obama’s] policies.”

Dick Morris: “Now the other thing that I predicted in “Fleeced” is that the stock market would go crazy after he was elected. Not just because he’s a radical, not just because he’s a Democrat, but because he’s going to raise the capital gains tax. […] Its going to continue to tank.”

UPDATE II:

UPDATE III: The Dow rose 250 points on Friday. I wonder if these people will attribute that to Obama, as well.

UPDATE IV: The Los Angeles Times sees it, too.

UPDATE V: Sean Hannity predictably joins the chorus.

"Wall Street keeps sinking. Could it be the Obama recession: the fear that taxes are gonna go up, forcing people to pull out of the market?"

Not So Fast On Proposition 8

2008-11-07T04:07:00.004-05:00

Under California law, simple "amendments" to the state constitution may be added by a simple popular vote ballot initiative. "Revisions" to the state constitution, on the other hand, require that you meet higher demands. Instead of requiring a simple popular vote, "revisions" demand that each state house first approve the measure by a 2/3 vote before it can be submitted to a popular vote.

The California state constitution is apparently not entirely clear on what separates "amendments" from "revisions."

On Tuesday, the people of California passed Proposition 8 by a closely divided popular vote. Although it was described as an "amendment," Prop 8's opponents point out that it actually stripped what California considers to be a "fundamental right" (the right to marry) from a "suspect class" of people (homosexuals). In legal jargon, "suspect class" just means that this group of people is the likely subject of discrimination, and that reviewing courts should use heightened scrutiny when reviewing legislation that tends to work to their disadvantage. In practice, Prop 8's foes argue, this should work to classify Prop 8's changes as a major "revision" (requiring a higher procedural hurdle) rather than a simple "amendment" (requiring a simple popular vote majority).

The classification of Prop 8 (as an "amendment" or a "revision") is important. It is highly unlikely that the California legislature (which has twice voted to extend marriage benefits to same-sex couples) would vote to deny marriage to homosexuals (especially by a large, 2/3 margin).

Dale Carpenter has a brief summary of the opposing legal arguments here. Legal groups are now challenging Prop 8 in court.

Meet Your New White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs

2008-11-06T12:21:00.001-05:00

I love this clip, and I think that this guy would make an excellent White House Press Secretary. For more information on Andy Martin and the Sean Hannity interview, check out this excellent article by Glenn Greenwald.

The Next President of the United States of America

2008-11-05T02:14:00.007-05:00

I'm happy to say that the man I voted for in the primaries and in the general election has won the Presidency. It's been a long campaign season, and I can finally take down all of my election and polling bookmarks.

Now comes the hard part (after a well-deserved breather).

UPDATE: What to expect, with respect to Iraq:

...with respect to energy policy:

UPDATE II: More information on Obama's cabinet and transition is available at this page.

Yes, This Really Happened

2008-11-05T02:05:00.001-05:00

Voting Machines Elect One of Their Own As President

2008-11-04T12:13:00.001-05:00

Voting Machines Elect One Of Their Own As President

Why I'm Voting For Barack Obama

2008-11-02T23:31:00.000-05:00

I. Energy Policy:

Summary: This is one of the most important issues for me in the 2008 election. As I see it, we need to reach three goals: (1) change our auto fleet so that it is no longer dependent on oil as a fuel source; (2) reduce greenhouse gas emissions from our power plants; and (3) make sure that our energy policy isn't written by industry lobbyists, and that it doesn't ignore informed expert opinions. These are all tough goals to reach, and each will require a future President to be both honest and aggressive.
(1) Dependence on Oil: With respect to the first goal (which is long-term), Obama simply has a better plan. First of all, Obama will increase fuel efficiency standards by 4% every year. This is a very important step, and is really integral to reducing our dependence on oil. McCain, on the other hand, only promises to enforce existing fuel economy standards. In fact, he has actively opposed increasing fuel economy standards in the past (in 2003 and 2005). This is simply bad policy. Without updating our fuel economy standards, we'll continue to be the world's largest consumer of oil. McCain's hands-off approach means more fuel-inefficient cars, and more oil consumption for the foreseeable future. This approach simply hasn't worked for the past 20 years. If we keep this hands-off approach up, we'll only get hit harder by future price shocks.

In addition to fuel economy, Obama also supports Amtrak funding and increased public transportation. McCain does not. In fact, he has actively opposed increased public transportation funding, and has attempted for years to dissolve Amtrak.

Both candidates propose tax credits for the purchase of efficient vehicles, but Obama's proposal is better (it's $2,000 more than McCain's, and not as restrictive in where it applies). This is important, because the best end-result we could hope for is plug-in electric vehicles that cost less than traditional gas-powered vehicles. Tax credits are important because they encourage both investment and future purchases.

McCain gets some points for his "$300 Million Prize To Improve Battery Technology For Full Commercial Development Of Plug-In Hybrid And Fully Electric Automobiles," but Obama still has better investments to promote similar technologies and make electric cars commercially available.

In addition to falling short on these important issues, McCain has made a big lie the centerpiece of his energy plan. McCain has repeatedly told the public that drilling in the protected OCS areas would lead to consumers "pay[ing] less" at the pump. It wouldn't, and McCain is lying when he says that it would. In reality, the Department of Energy estimates that OCS drilling in the protected areas would only result in an additional 200,000 barrels of oil per day at peak production (in the year 2030, by their estimates). This, they say, would have an "insignificant" impact on the price of gas. Even the National Petroleum Council (which exists "to represent the views of the oil and natural gas industries") only argues (unrealistically) that we would see an extra 900,000 barrels of oil per day at peak production in the year 2025. When you compare that to a world market that currently consumes 86 million barrels of oil per day today (and will consume much more in 2025 and 2030), that works out - at best - to a savings of pennies per gallon. "Insignificant" is the right word. Yet McCain has consistently pretended that he has the power to reduce the price of gas by tapping these "insignificant" resources. If he wants to argue that this will reduce our trade deficit, that's one thing (though not the most compelling argument). But to lie about its effect on the price of gas is ridiculous.

McCain and his lobbyist advisers have also repeatedly lied about the environmental risks of increased OCS drilling in the protected regions, telling us that "not even Hurricanes Katrina and Rita could cause significant spillage." In reality, they did. The Department of Homeland Security estimated the total oil spills at 9 million gallons. The Mineral Management Services' pipeline damage report measured 113 destroyed platforms and 124 offshore spills, resulting in 734,000 gallons (17,700 barrels) of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico. You could even see the oil slicks, 10 miles wide, from space.

McCain also loses points for his ridiculous "gas tax holiday" proposal (which would starve public transportation of funding and increase our dependence on oil).

Finally, McCain constantly touts nuclear power as something that will lead to a "reduction in our dependence on foreign oil." The problem here is that only 3% of our electricity here in the United States comes from oil. Our dependence upon oil comes pretty much entirely from our auto fleet (as well as from home heating). Yet McCain opposes increases in fuel efficiency standards, and his official spokesman George Allen has already said that "John McCain does not wish to mandate any particular building standards for energy efficient homes or buildings." So unless McCain is proposing nuclear powered cars (he's not), he's simply not being honest about our country's oil use.

(2) Greenhouse Gas Emissions: With respect to the second goal, both candidates have cap-and-trade policies. However, both are not equal under this category. What I find most telling are the added subsidies and incentives proposed by both candidates. Even though McCain constantly touts himself as the candidate of renewable energy, he has explicitly come out against subsidies and benefits for renewables. Yet he feels perfectly comfortable proposing $2 billion in taxpayer subsidies every year to the coal industry. I don't know how McCain expects wind and solar energy to take over a significant portion of the energy market when he keeps on subsidizing their competition and giving them nothing. Did I mention that McCain's campaign team is packed with energy industry lobbyists?

In addition to poorly allocating government subsidies, McCain has missed key votes that would have extended crucial tax credits to wind and solar energy. He preferred to grandstand over his "drill now, pay less" lies. This is an important point point to keep in mind, because those tax credits were really needed by the wind and solar industry.

But it's not just that McCain was negligent in missing these votes. He has actively opposed tax credits for renewable energy in the past. In 2004, he introduced an amendment that would have eliminated the tax credit entirely. In 2006, he voted against the extension of the tax credits. After that, he just stopped showing up. McCain missed key votes on the tax credits in March 2007, June 2007, December 2007 (this one failed by a single vote), and February 2008 (this one also failed by a single vote). Despite all this, McCain has the nerve to say "I have a long record of that support of alternate energy. … I have always been for all of those and I have not missed any crucial vote." This is quite simply a bald-faced lie. There is no kind way of putting this. What McCain said is 100% untrue.

McCain has also opposed renewable energy portfolios at every turn.

Obama, on the other hand, supports tax credits for renewable energy. He also proposes renewable energy portfolios so that we get 10% of our electricity from renewablesnt> by 2012 and 25% by 2025. I'm not too happy about Obama's similar support for "clean coal" technology, but it's still far better than McCain's plan.
(3) Industry Lobbyists: Despite McCain's bald-faced lies that "I’m the only one the special interests don’t give any money to," he has received plenty in contributions from them. Yet, even more important than that, his entire team is run by industry lobbyists. Twenty-two of his advisers and fundraisers have lobbied on behalf of oil companies. Most notably, McCain's senior political adviser Charlie Black has lobbied for Occidental Petroleum, among others. His adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer was the top lobbyist for Koch Industries (which has been responsible for 300 oil spills alone) for years. These are the people who have McCain's ear. These are the people who filter all of McCain's information before he hears it. These are people who have a vested interest in promoting industry-friendly positions to McCain, and these are the people who are crafting McCain's policies and talking points. The fact that he is completely surrounded by them should be troubling to voters who are looking for impartial positions that work in favor of the public interest. Hell, until recently, Charlie Black was conducting his lobbying activities on board the Straight-Talk Express itself (seriously - you can't make this stuff up).

[UPDATE: McCain has already picked an American Petroleum Industry lobbyist to head his transition team.]
Running Mates: It also doesn't speak well for McCain that his "soul mate" and running mate Sarah Palin says things like this: "I beg to disagree with any candidate who would say we can't drill our way out of our problem." She also says this about global warming: "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made." When she's puffing up her credentials, she says things like this: "I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy." Keep in mind that in reality, according to the Department of Energy, Alaska only provides 3.5% of the country's domestic energy supply. The non-partisan Annenberg Political Fact Check also called Palin out on this lie (which McCain himself repeated: "This is a very dynamic person. [Palin's] been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply."). Now, McCain cluelessly says things like this: "She knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America." If McCain seriously thinks that is true, then I don't want him anywhere near the White House.

II. The Federal Budget:

The nation is already $10,000,000,000,000 in debt. This is a really big, but often overlooked, problem. This section is still a work in progress, but for now you can just read through this non-partisan analysis of the candidates' positions, and these two independent fact-checks (1, 2) calling McCain out for his dishonesty/confusion on the issue. This report (pdf) is also worth a read. So is this post, and this Wall Street Journal article (contrast that with this one). Also, take note whenever McCain's top economic adviser says something like this: "I would like the next president not to talk about deficit reduction."

III. Health Care

This section is also a work in progress. For now, I suggest reading through this Wall Street Journal op-ed, and this New York Times op-ed. This one is also pretty good.

IV. Social Security

John McCain recently said this: "Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace, and it's got to be fixed." Now let's be perfectly clear about this. Having current workers pay for the benefits of current retirees is how Social Security has always worked. That's what makes it Social Security. That's how the federal government has managed to dramatically cut the number of senior citizens living in poverty, and to maintain that dramatic success for the better part of a century. The alternative to such a system is to have private accounts, where current workers pay for their own social security benefits, and risk those payments on the stock markets. As demonstrated by the recent turmoil in the stock markets, this looks like a very bad idea.

Furthermore, McCain has explicitly said this: "Without privatization, I don't see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits." He has also said "I want to fix the system without raising taxes." Even though he now protests that "I'm not for quote privatizing Social Security, I never have been, I never will be," McCain has consistently made his preferences clear. McCain wants to at least partially privatize Social Security. When he says that privatization is necessary, and that he wants to "fix the system without raising taxes," he doesn't have any options left other than privatizing or cutting social security.

Now, this may not matter to a millionaire like John McCain, who comes from one of the wealthiest families in Arizona, who left his first wife to marry a millionaire heiress, who paid $500 for a pair of shoes, who appeared on the show 24, who has hosted Saturday Night Live, who has appeared in the movie Wedding Crashers, who can't keep track of how many houses he owns, who has a $273,000 budget for household staff, and who can't even remember that he drives an expensive Cadillac CTS. As McCain himself observed, "It's easy for me to go to Washington and, frankly, be somewhat divorced from the day-to-day challenges people have." But for people who depend on Social Security, this is a really big deal.

Obama's plan, on the other hand, simply involves raising the payroll tax on individuals who make more than $250,000. This is how it's been amended and fixed in the past, and for good reason.

V. General Intelligence:

Summary: The next President will be making some very important decisions, managing one of the largest organization on the planet, and dealing with some very complex issues. Therefore, he must be a very, very smart person. He has to be able to think on his toes and quickly come to understand the problems (and potential solutions) at hand. Although it is a tough thing to quantify, general intelligence is one of the most fundamental requirements for the next President.
Obama: When it comes to general intelligence, Obama certainly has the credentials. Obama studied at Columbia and Harvard on scholarship, where he received degrees in international relations and law. He even became President of the Harvard Law Review, which is one of the highest academic achievements a young lawyer could hope to reach. Afterwards, Obama taught Constitutional Law (something important for a future President to know) at one of the nation's top law schools. These are things that you can't accomplish unless you are really, really smart.

During interviews, as well, you'll notice that Obama is very thoughtful and careful to address the questions actually being asked. Even when a question has multiple parts, he'll go through them one-by-one. Rather than mindlessly repeating the campaign's talking-points, he listens, understands, and responds. This isn't the most remarkable feat in the world (everyone should be capable of understanding and addressing basic questions), but Obama's basic communication skills just make McCain's bloopers and blunders look all the worse in comparison.
McCain: When it comes to general intelligence, McCain looks really bad on paper. McCain graduated fifth from the bottom of his class (894/899) at the Naval Academy, and holds no other degrees.

During debates and interviews, McCain consistently looks like a fool. Whether he is dodging questions, misunderstanding issues, forgetting his own position, or mindlessly falling back on talking points, McCain has an uncanny ability to make me cringe. Just look at these clips:

McCain didn't make it into politics based on his big ideas or intellectual credentials. He made it there based on his compelling personal story.

VI. Temperament and Diplomacy:

Summary: In the world of politics and diplomacy, you won't be in agreement with all of the people all of the time. Especially on the global scale, you'll find yourself in situations where compromise is necessary. You can't just be an irrational hot-head. You need to keep your bearings and keep the peace without unnecessarily making concessions to irrational positions. It's a tough balance to strike, and a tough thing to predict. Nonetheless, it is one of the most important traits for a potential President to possess, and we can get an idea of how a future President would act by looking back at their past efforts to behave as adults.
McCain: Although McCain has indeed taken some positions contrary to that of his party (although he's pretty much flip-flopped back on all of those by now), he has often been inflexible and undiplomatic in those contrary positions.

For example, McCain once bucked his party on immigration reform (though he has since flip-flopped back on the issue). However, in bipartisan meetings to negotiate the bill, Sen. Cornyn (R-TX) raised some objections to the judicial appeals process for immigrants. McCain exploded at Cornyn, shouting "Fuck you! I know more about this than anyone in the room!" He added, "This is chickenshit stuff!"

On a separate occasion, during a select committee meeting in the Senate, McCain "mocked Grassley to his face and used a profanity to describe him" (Chuck Grassley is a Republican Senator from Iowa, who was at the same meeting). After Grassley requested an apology, McCain stood up from his chair and refused to show Grassley any civility. Instead, "[t]here was some shouting and shoving," which Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE) had to break up. McCain called Grassley "a fucking jerk" and they stopped talking altogether for a long time.

The list goes on. Pretty much everyone who has worked with McCain in the Senate agrees. That's why he saw so little support from the GOP during his last run for President. Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH) has said "His temper would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger. In my mind, it should disqualify him." So when it comes to reaching across the aisle and engaging in diplomacy, I doubt that McCain would seriously do either.

In addition to these temper tantrums, McCain has made some childish formulations of how he would conduct his diplomacy. For example, at the height of Sunni/Shia violence in Iraq, McCain said this: "One of the things I would do if I were President would be to sit the Shiites and the Sunnis down and say, ‘Stop the bullshit.’ " He has also insulted
Obama: This subsection is a work in progress. For now, I recommend reading through this FOX News article (seriously).

VII. Federal Agency Appointments

This section is a work in progress. McCain has already picked an American Petroleum Industry lobbyist to head his transition team. It isn't very encouraging that "once elected, Palin hired friends and lashed foes." As far as McCain goes, it also isn't very encouraging that he tapped someone as clueless as Sarah Palin to serve as Vice President.

VIII. Federal Judges

This section is a work in progress. However, I don't care for the fact that McCain has falsely said that "The Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation," and Sarah Palin is unable to name a single Court decision she dislikes, other than Roe v. Wade, when prompted.

IX. The First Amendment and Civil Rights

Free Speech: Take note that McCain pushed to ban flag burning, and Palin repeatedly pestered her town librarian to find out how she could go about banning books (asking her on three separate occasions about it). Keep in mind that at the same time, Palin's church was pushing to remove the book "Pastor I Am Gay" from bookstores. When the librarian refused to comply, Palin said that she would be fired (for not fully supporting Palin). Palin now says (implausibly) that she was only asking a "rhetorical" question (on three separate occasions). That is absurd on its face, and any thinking adult should find it obvious that Palin is now lying.
Church and State: The United States Constituion only mentions religion twice. First, it says this: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" (Article VI). Second, it says this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (The First Amendment). Just to underscore the point, Congress unanimously signed the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, saying this: "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." The reason for this separation, as stated by James Madison (father of the Constitution), is that "religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together." When James Madison objected to a bill granting public land to a Baptist church, this is what he told the protesters: "Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself."

John McCain, on the other hand, says things like this: "The Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation." This comment is precisely backwards. Whether he is insincerely pandering to what he thinks people want to hear (as the BeliefNet interviewer himself suspected) or truly clueless, I think that we have to hold McCain accountable for his off-the-wall wrongness.

McCain also says equally absurd things about the United States being "a nation founded on Christian principles." If he really believes this, I'd like for McCain to explain a few things. Which religious belief informed the Founding Fathers to create a Democracy? That concept is nowhere to be found in the Bible.

Which religious belief informed the Founding Fathers to allow freedom of speech and of the press? That concept is nowhere to be found in the Bible, which actually advocates the death penalty for heresy ("anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death").

Which religious belief informed the Founding Fathers to create a system of checks and balances? Separation of powers? Bicameralism? Those concepts are totally alien to the Bible, and are secular in origin.

I'm really getting tired of people like John McCain trying to pretend that the Constitution was based off of the Christian Bible. It wasn't. The United States government is a completely separate institution, which performs a completely separate function. As a practical matter, the blurring of these lines could lead to a McCain administration funneling more tax dollars to exclusively religious institutions, as well as appointing federal judges who erode the line of separation
Don't Ask, Don't Tell: One of the big issues (that has been building for years now) is the right of homosexuals to serve in the military without lying about their sexual orientation. Under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy we currently have, homosexuals are allowed to serve in the military only if they conceal the fact that they are in fact gay. This is an extraordinarily silly (and immoral) policy.

Unfortunately, John McCain supports this kind of discrimination in the military. Not only does he support it, but he says things like this: "Open homosexuality within the military services presents an intolerable risk to morale, cohesion, and discipline." He also calls it a threat to national security. As if the military will fall apart if homosexuals tell the truth. John McCain needs to grow up.

But that's not all. McCain also says things like this: "I believe polarization of the personnel and breakdown of unit effectiveness is too high a price to pay for well intentioned but misguided efforts to elevate the interests of a minority of homosexual servicemembers above those of their units." But it hardly seems like a misguided effort to elevate your interests when all you're asking for is to not get fired for being who you are. Since the DADT was first implemented, more than 11,000 servicemembers have been discharged for just that (many of whom even had special skills needed by the military).

Furthermore, this is hardly a question about "unit cohesion." Charles Moskos, the principle author of DADT himself, has stated: "Fuck unit cohesion. I don't care about that...I should not be forced to shower with a woman. I should not be forced to shower with a gay." It should be perfectly clear to any observant person that this is a question of whether or not the private prejudices of certain individuals within the military should be sufficient to bar an entire class of people from military service. The answer to that question is clearly "no."

In contrast, Obama has said that he would repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. However, he won't make this a litmus test for his appointees to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Eh, at least that's not nearly as bad as McCain's position.
Defense of Marriage Act: This subsection is a work in progress. Suffice it to say that McCain voted for this horrible bit of legislation. McCain also campaigned in Arizona in favor of a ban on gay marriage, running political ads devoted exclusively to the issue. Because of people like John McCain, homosexual couples and families will be materially worse-off.

X. Honesty and Integrity

This section is a work in progress. For now, you can check out these examples of McCain dishonesty. There is plenty more on the way.

XI. Science and Technology

This section is a work in progress. You can read about Obama's plan here, and McCain's plan here. I also recommend watching this video.

XII. Ultimate Fighting

I happen to be a fan of Ultimate Fighting. Therefore, I don't like the fact that McCain, a lifelong boxing fan, has made it his personal crusade to shut down the sport.
From Slate:
"When I tell people I'm an ultimate fighting fan, they invariably respond: "Don't people get killed all the time doing that?" But no one has ever been killed at the UFC--though boxers are killed every year. No one has even been seriously injured at the UFC. On the rare occasions when a bout has ended with a bloody knockout, the loser has always walked out of the ring.
But this does not impress boxing fans, who are the most vigorous opponents of extreme fighting. McCain sat ringside at a boxing match where a fighter was killed. When I asked him to explain the moral distinction between boxing and ultimate fighting, he exploded at me, "If you can't see the moral distinction, then we have nothing to talk about!" Then he cut our interview short and stormed out of his office."
As far as I know, Obama isn't in the business of shutting down UFC.

XIII. Abstinence-Only Education:
Congress spends a lot of money on abstinence-only education. About $87.5 million each year. Recently, Congress commissioned a study from Mathematica to find out if it was really worth it to spend so much money on such programs. It turns out, abstinence-only education doesn't really do anything: "The impact results from the four selected programs show no impacts on rates of sexual abstinence." The American Medical Association, Office of National AIDS Policy, Institute of Medicine, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute of Health, and American Academy of Pediatrics all agree: comprehensive sexual education would be much better. As it stands, we're basically flushing millions of dollars down the toilet, doing nothing other than subsidizing certain groups to proselytize and spread misinformation about condom failure rates. This is madness, and I'd rather not have another President who is unreasonable and fiscally irresponsible enough to extend these programs.
It's also worth noting that federal funding of abstinence-only education has a history of subsidizing religious proselytization. For example, over $1 million in federal funds were spent on the Silver Ring Thing, an abstinence-only group that attempted to achieve its goal by handing out silver rings lined with bible quotes. Currently, the Stop and Think program is receiving funds for abstinence-only education in Oregon. This group requires that its supervisors “possess an authentic relationship with Jesus Christ; possess knowledge of the Word of God, and the ability to communicate it’s [sic] truth; exhibit a loving and merciful spirit; [and] attend a Bible believing local church or fellowship.”
On this particular issue, John McCain "strongly opposes efforts by the Democratic-controlled Congress to eliminate abstinence-only sex education classes for school-aged children." This is an irrational position, and a waste of money.
This bizarre exchange with a reporter speaks for itself:
Q: “What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”

Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”

Q: “I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?”

Mr. McCain: (Laughs) “Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it.”

Q: “But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?”

Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) “Get me Coburn’s thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn’s paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I’ve never gotten into these issues before.”

Links:

Happy Halloween

2008-10-31T18:41:00.001-04:00

McFast & McFurious

2008-10-26T21:52:00.001-04:00

...is the election over yet?

Press Secretary's 'Zumtrel Flooby' Answer May Be Attempt To Evade Question

2008-10-24T22:12:00.000-04:00

Press Secretary's 'Zumtrel Flooby' Answer May Be Attempt To Evade Question

Intermission

2008-10-23T07:40:00.002-04:00

http://view.break.com/592648 - Watch more free videos

...is the election over yet?

Democracy Now: ACORN Debate

2008-10-18T21:12:00.002-04:00

Democracy Now hosts a debate between ACORN chief organizer Bertha Lewis and Cleta Mitchell, a Republican attorney specializing in election law
Video
Transcript

Bill Moyers: Mark Crispin Miller on Voter Fraud

2008-10-18T20:51:00.002-04:00

Video
Transcript

John Flannery Addresses FOX News' Concerns Over "Vote Fraud"

2008-10-18T14:12:00.003-04:00

People like Laura Ingraham are going way overboard on this one. The basic facts are that: (1) ACORN registered 1.3 million new voters; (2) of that 1.3 million, ACORN was legally obligated to turn in all of them - even the questionable ones that they themselves flagged; (3) some of ACORN's workers filled out nonsense names, celebrity names, or just made-up names in an attempt to get paid for doing nothing; (4) of the 1.3 million new registrations turned in, a small percentage (but still in the thousands) were flagged either by ACORN itself, or due to some discrepancy in the records (which includes people changing addresses, misspelling words, and using the name "Tim" instead of "Timothy"); (5) the made-up people will not be voting on election day; (6) it would be prohibitively difficult for a major organized campaign to hire enough people to fraudulently double-vote in the election, since it would require a massive amount of people, those people would risk getting recognized at the polls, and those people would have to forge individual IDs under multiple names; and (7) the Department of Justice under our current President has been called out previously, by Republicans, for chasing ghosts on this alleged "widespread fraud" (keep in mind that this was the basis for the U.S. Attorney purge stemming from the 2006 elections).

Al Smith Dinner

2008-10-17T00:03:00.000-04:00

Part I

Part II

Debate #3: Hatchet/Scalpel '08

2008-10-15T23:04:00.016-04:00

Once again, the viewer reaction polls have Obama winning by wide margins (see here and here).

UPDATE:

UPDATE II: There's a new post-debate ad up.

UPDATE III:

UPDATE IV: From Steve Benen: " 'Joe the Plumber' isn't a licensed plumber, isn't a political independent, doesn't make more than $250,000, and his name isn't even 'Joe.' "

UPDATE V: Meanwhile, in Bizarro World, Rush Limbaugh made this observation: "I saw somebody who seemed irritated when McCain was speaking." Does that sound 100% backwards to anybody else? There is also this gem, where Limbaugh combines backwards analysis with unhinged paranoia: "I saw somebody who almost was close to blowing his cool in terms of facial expressions, and I saw the director cut away from Obama at those times so as to assist Obama in having his facial expressions not broadcast as much as possible." Limbaugh goes on to say that the people at FOX News (yes, that FOX News) are "elites" for saying that Obama won the debate.

UPDATE VI: Make sure to check in with Fact Check after every debate.

UPDATE VII: As a Decided Voter, I've already made up my mind. This was more of a political theater for me. Therefore, I'm happy to see all this post-debate satire (?) floating around.

Eh, it's something. When will this election be over?

UPDATE VIII: McCain-JoeThePlumber '08

Dick Lugar (R-IN) Endorses Barack Obama (D-IL)

2008-10-15T19:44:00.005-04:00

Sen. Lugar (R-IN), the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, just announced his endorsement of Sen. Obama (D-IL) for President. Back in 2006, the two men teamed up to pass the bipartisan Lugar-Obama non-proliferation bill.

FOX News on Colin Powell

2008-10-15T19:34:00.004-04:00

FOX News recently ran this line on their website:

Colin Powell showed off his hip-hop moves at an 'Africa Rising' celebration in London Tuesday, fueling speculation that the former secretary of state is about to endorse Barack Obama for president.

Who on earth would make that kind of inference based simply on the fact that Powell engaged in some "hip-hop dancing"?

UPDATE: CJR knows it.

Anger and Shame

2008-10-11T18:03:00.019-04:00

McCain is now spending pretty much 100% of his advertising money on attack ads, going so far as to falsely accuse Obama of wanting to teach kindergartners how to have sexual intercourse. His wife is out on the campaign trail, arguing that a potential President Obama would be a threat to her son's life and safety ("The day that Senator Obama decided to cast a vote to not fund my son when he was serving sent a cold chill through my body"). His soul mate is also out on the campaign trail, arguing that Obama is so anti-American that he has decided to team up with terrorists ("Our opponent ... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.... This is not a man who sees America as you see America and as I see America"). The people who introduce McCain at rallies are increasingly calling him "Hussein."

It's worth pointing out that drug-thief and adulterer Cindy McCain is being dishonest on this one. By her own metric, her own husband John McCain "cast a vote not to fund" her son, since he voted against a budget that included timetables for withdrawal (which are supported by the Iraqi Prime Minister himself and a majority of Americans). McCain has also received abysmal ratings from veterans groups. Did this also put a "cold chill" through her body?

It's also worth pointing out that Sarah Palin was also being dishonest in her incendiary claims. Obama did not "pal around" with terrorists. I recommend reading this article from Annenberg Political Fact Check, and this article from Politifact. Flautist Palin is wildly exaggerating here.

The result of this untrue, misleading and inflammatory rhetoric was obvious. Now, McCain is seeing the results as his supporters get angrier and angrier in their own rhetoric.

From Steve Benen:

The McCain campaign has deliberately been whipping the angry, far-right Republican base into a frenzy. That includes increasing frequency of "Hussein" references, but it also includes looking the other way while campaign supporters exclaim "treason!," "terrorist!," and "kill him!" during official rallies.

On Wednesday, during a McCain harangue against Obama, one man could be heard yelling, "Off with his head!" On Thursday, Republicans erupted when an unhinged McCain supporter ranted about "socialists taking over our country." Instead of calming them down, McCain said the lunatic was "right."....Slate's John Dickerson described the participants' "bloodthirsty" tone.

This video from outside a McCain-Palin rally shows a sample of the anger.

Thankfully, McCain has apparently become ashamed of this circus. At a recent town hall, McCain had to literally grab the mic from a woman who started her question by expressing her fear over Obama because he was "an Arab" (which is actually untrue, despite the fact that prescription drug addict and college fail-out Rush Limbaugh has said the same thing on his nationally broadcast radio program).

McCain is not the only one who gets embarrassed when this anger gets exposed to the public at large. CBS recently filmed a crowd at another McCain-Palin rally, and they focused on an older man holding a toy monkey with an Obama sticker on its forehead. When the man realized that he was on film portraying an African American politician as a monkey, he slowly crumpled up the Obama sticker and handed the toy monkey off to some random child in shame.

Watch CBS Videos Online

UPDATE: I guess he wasn't so ashamed of his monkey before he went inside.

UPDATE II: More here.

UPDATE III: More here.

UPDATE IV: This is what happened to CNN's Ed Henry when he went to cover a McCain-Palin rally.

"CNN sucks!," yelled one voter at Henry. "Communists go home," shouted another"

At one point, Henry was hit with a flying pack of chewing gum.

Toward the end of McCain's speech -- which a handful of especially passionate activists ignored to hurl insults at Henry and other reporters -- a chant went up: "We want Fox, we want Fox."

UPDATE V: Not only are they throwing objects at reporters, they're also throwing racial epithets and assaulting reporters. This is getting ridiculous.

UPDATE VI: McCain isn't ashamed enough to stop. He's now making a big robo-call push - a tactic he himself condemned as recently as 2007 - in which he tells voters, "You need to know that Barack Obama has worked closely with [a] domestic terrorist." He also tell them that Obama and the Democrats "aren't who you think they are." According to the McCain campaign, Obama and Biden "want to give civil rights to terrorists," ally themselves with those who "killed Americans," and deny babies medical care. He's also calling Obama's payroll tax cut for those unable to pay income taxes a "welfare" policy that amounts to "socialism," and that the Obama campaign is complicit in "one of the greatest frauds in voter history ... maybe destroying the fabric of democracy."

McCain knows exactly what he's doing, and he knows exactly what the consequences are. In a word, McCain is an asshole.

UPDATE VII: It continues.

Someone slashed the tires of at least 30 vehicles parked outside the Crown Coliseum on Sunday during a rally for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, authorities said.
Sheriff's deputies are investigating. The tires were cut while people were inside the Crown Coliseum listening to speeches, said Maj. E. Wright of the Cumberland County Sheriff's Office...

Sarah Revis, who lives on Wilkes Road, said the slashed tires left several women, including a single mother and a toddler, stranded and upset. At least four tow trucks were sent to move the vehicles from the Crown, Revis said.

"This is an embarrassment to this city and to me as a citizen," Revis said. "I've seen women out here crying and men cussing. This is a crying shame."

UPDATE VIII: Another example.

UPDATE IX:Yet another example.

Obama Ad: "Lose"

2008-10-10T20:42:00.002-04:00

Joe Biden: McCain is "an angry man, lurching from one position to another"

2008-10-09T18:38:00.000-04:00

This Week's Links

2008-10-09T17:23:00.006-04:00

500,000 Gallons of Oil Spilled Due to Ike (CBS)
Ex-Rival Says Palin Lacks Substance (The Harvard Crimson)
The Fraudulent Fraud Squad (Dallas Morning News)
GOP Sound and Fury Over ACORN is a Little Bit Nutty (Michigan Messenger)
Make-Believe Maverick (Rolling Stone)
Obama, Ayers, and Chicago School Reform (Education Weekly)
The Purge Surge: Why the GOP is Nuts About ACORN (Huffington Post)
Schadenfreude Watch: Hewitt Edition (Washington Monthly)
Sean Hannity, Robert Gibbs and Anti-Semitism: How to Go on FOX News (Salon)
Vote Rigging and Suppression (Greg Palast)

These People Are Ridiculous

2008-10-08T19:18:00.001-04:00

Second Presidential Debate

2008-10-08T09:25:00.001-04:00