Political News

Will Republicans block Obama's jobs plan?

2011-08-18T22:17:00.000-07:00

President Obama is preparing to unveil a new plan to fight unemployment and boost the economy, and he's daring Republicans to simply slam the door

"We could do even more if Congress is willing to get in the game," President Obama has said during his tour of the Midwest. Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images

President Obama, promising to unveil specific proposals in September to combat the unemployment crisis, all but dared the GOP to block his plan in Congress. Republicans have signaled that they are unlikely to support new spending on infrastructure, unemployment benefits, or a payroll tax break — setting up yet another showdown with the White House. Since jobs are America's top concern, will the GOP really take Obama up on his dare? And if so, who stands to win the spin war?

Obama should relish this fight: Obama's a little late with his "specific plan" to create jobs, says Eric Zorn in the Chicago Tribune. "But assuming it's ambitious and contains a significant proposal for job-creation," he should channel Larry the Cable Guy by relentlessly challenging the GOP House to "Get it done." When they don't — and they won't — "he'll be able to remind voters next summer and fall who had ideas and who had ideologies."
"Obama slogan should channel Larry the Cable Guy"

Republicans needn't fear Obama: Running against a do-nothing Congress might have worked for Harry Truman, but this isn't 1948, and Obama isn't "give 'em hell" Harry, says Chris Stirewalt in Fox News. "The professorial Obama's shift to confrontation" might shore up his dispirited base, but it will look "somewhat forced" to everyone else. So when Obama submits whatever un-passable plan he comes up with, Republicans can rest easy swatting it down.
"Professor Barry channels Give 'Em Hell Harry"

Obama needs less talk, more hardball: Running against Congress may or may not help Obama, but it certainly won't help the unemployed, says Ezra Klein in The Washington Post. "Voters want more than stunts," and if Obama is truly determined to get job-creating proposals through Congress, he has to act as "intransigent and obsessive" as the GOP is about spending cuts. All the browbeating in the world won't work if Obama isn't "willing to strap on some pads and play by the new rules."
"How would Republicans fight for jobs?"

Original here

The Marijuana Tipping Point Is Already Here

2011-07-11T02:11:00.000-07:00

Graphic: NewsReview.com

By Jack Rikess

Toke of the Town

Northern California Correspondent

The writer and social critic, Malcolm Gladwell, defines the 'Tipping Point' as the moment of critical mass, the threshold, the boiling point; the point at which the buildup of minor changes or incidents reaches a level that triggers a more significant change or makes someone do something they had formerly resisted.

Another way of saying it would be that point in time and space when everything changes and there's no turning back.

Every day there are more encouraging headlines appearing in newspapers and on the Web from California to Maine supporting medical marijuana legislation suggesting the tide is turning.

Even when the cynics call medical marijuana a joke and claim the real goal of this smokescreen movement is legalization of pot, there are medi-jane supporters with valid and logical arguments to counter-balance any archaic rhetoric with which the anti-pot forces continue to misinform.

New Jersey passed one of the most restrictive medical marijuana rights and benefits program on the books so far. The state with a very conservative governor will soon have medical marijuana. Why? Because the people wanted it.

It does seem like Time is marching on, but when is it gonna get there?

We're zeroing in on something but when is the Tipping Point going to kick in fully regarding medical marijuana?

What possible signs do we need to see before we believe that it works?!

Here are some small recent events that may prove someday to have influenced the way we think, tipping the scales our way towards a bigger picture...

Photo: KSL.com

Utah Atty. Gen. Mark Shurtleff opposed medical marijuana -- then he got cancer.

1) Okay, this guy never ever got high and he's for Medical Marijuana!

June 12th: How much straighter do they have to come?

Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff approves of medical marijuana after battling cancer.

Shurtleff said he would support the legalization of medical marijuana after experiencing months of intensive cancer treatment.

Shurtleff said never used marijuana himself, but had talked to other patients who had traveled out-of-state to receive marijuana treatment.

Photo: 99Post

Miss USA Alyssa Campanella: "Medical marijuana is very important to help those who need it medically"

2) Not innocent enough. Okay, as they say, from the mouth of babes...

June 26: Miss USA and medical marijuana

During the question-and-answer part of the competition, Miss California Alyssa Campanella was asked about her perspective on the medicinal cannabis.

"Well, I understand why that question would be asked, especially with today's economy, but I also understand that medical marijuana is very important to help those who need it medically," Alyssa said.

"I'm not sure if it should be legalized, if it would really affect, with the drug war," she said. "I mean, it's abused today, unfortunately, so that's the only reason why I would kind of be a little bit against it, but medically it's OK."

She got Miss USA.

When's the last time you had the crown on the line and you spoke the truth?

I actually can understand why someone could dismiss a beauty queen and a cancer patient as being not scientific enough. They're just regular people.

3) What about Big Business. They have scientists? They have economists? They understand the world...? Don't they?

June 13: Good Weeds, Bad Weeds - High Hopes at Miracle-Gro In Medical Marijuana Field

Scott's Miracle-Gro Company has long sold weed killer. Now, it's hoping to help people grow killer weed.

In an unlikely move for the head of a major company, Scott's Chief Executive Jim Hagedorn said he is exploring targeting medical marijuana as well as other niches to help boost sales at his lawn and garden company.

"I want to target the pot market," Mr. Hagedorn said in an interview.

"There's no good reason we haven't."

4) We've heard from the People, Big Business, and now from across the aisle comes...

June 22: Ron Paul, Barney Frank to jointly offer bill to end war on weed

Congressmen Ron Paul, Barney Frank and others will introduce legislature Thursday that aims to end a major part of the war on drugs -- namely the battle against marijuana.

Reps. Paul (R-Texas) and Frank (D-Mass.), though technically on opposite sides of the aisle, have often spoken out against the war on drugs and will propose a bill "tomorrow ending the federal war on marijuana and letting states legalize, regulate, tax, and control marijuana without federal interference," according to a statement from the Marijuana Policy Project via Reason.

The bill would allow the individual states to decide how they want to deal with pot.

The legislation, co-sponsored by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Oakland), is the first of its kind to be proposed in Congress that would end the 73-year-old federal marijuana prohibition that began with the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.

.......

These four events that just transpired in the last month couldn't be more current, more 'now.' What is it going to take in order for that cosmic plate to tilt to our side? And stay that way!

Entrepreneurs and forward thinkers are testing the waters of the medical marijuana Industry with venture capitalists abroad throwing dollars into edible research think-tanks and other esoteric ganja-related enterprises.

Politicians and law enforcement from all walks and talks of life are coming forward, decrying that the time is now to lose the campaigns that have never worked and to embrace a new way of thinking. To challenge the uncommon wisdom and to end the wars on law abiding citizens who because they ingest a specific weed, they could have their lives ruin because we, as a nation and a society refuse to change.

Sixteen states support medical marijuana. Every poll taken shows public support for medical marijuana. GW Pharma (Weed) and Novartis (Ritalin, Excedrin) have become partners in Sativex (medical marijuana spray) licensing pact overseas and now, in America.

"My professional view of cannabis as a substance is that it appears to be a remarkably safe substance in comparison to most medicines prescribed today," said Dr. Geoffrey Guy, chairman of GW Pharmaceuticals. "The more I learn about this plant the more fascinated I become. It has through its various constituents multiple effects of therapeutic interest, many of which are now being validated by the enormous growth in basic cannabinoid research."

What is it about marijuana that makes us afraid to go forward and embrace a new safer tomorrow? Pharmaceutical giants are moving forward with patents and marketing. You would think that the data from research geeks would be refutable, they're the same people who give us our aspirin, for gosh sakes.

The data's coming in like a Haboob through Phoenix. Unstoppable. Marijuana has applications that can help certain people. That's it. It can't be changed.

Marijuana does some good. It's proven.

You can't go backwards with that. Only thing you can do is not open your eyes to what's in front of them.

Why aren't we coming together as a nation over this issue when people with perspectives as different as those of Miss USA to the Mormon Attorney General of Utah support medical marijuana?

When law enforcement officials and Ex-President Jimmy Carter come forward to say the War on Drugs not only doesn't work, it's unwinnable. A waste of money.

Speaking of money, when Wall Street, Main Street and Home Depot all say the time is right to build the future fields of dreams of medical marijuana that only Weed-Gro can protect. What more do we need to hear?

Do we need Nancy Reagan in her Chanel housecoat to come forward to say she was wrong? Would that be the final straw? Would that be our national Tipping Point? To have someone other than ourselves say it is okay for us to have this weed? Mommy, please say its okay because in 1937, someone said it was bad.

Right now President Obama has alienated the Ganja Nation with his reversal on leaving the medical marijuana community alone. More and more his obtrusive agenda is forcing the hand of medical marijuana to take a stand, one way or another in various localities. Howard Zinn said you can't be neutral on a moving train.

Opinion is sliding to the side where the weed grows green and high. Mendocino County is aggressively constructing a platform that is workable for growers and law enforcement alike. Not perfect, but a start.

Growers are paying taxes in exchange for their right to grow medical marijuana. They pay just like anyone else.

The Tipping Point is already here. Embrace it.

Photo: Jack Rikess

Toke of the Town correspondent Jack Rikess blogs from the Haight in San Francisco.

Jack Rikess, a former stand-up comic, writes a regular column most directly found at jackrikess.com.

Jack delivers real-time coverage following the cannabis community, focusing on politics and culture.

His beat includes San Francisco, the Bay Area and Mendocino-Humboldt counties.

He has been quoted by the national media and is known for his unique view with thoughtful, insightful perspective.

Original here

Attorneys For Schaeffer Cox Want Murder Conspiracy Charges Thrown Out

2011-07-11T00:13:00.000-07:00

Schaeffer Cox

Attorneys for Schaeffer Cox have asked a court to throw out murder conspiracy charges against their client, who is accused of plotting to kill a federal judge, because of the way the grand jury was conducted.

Cox, a self-proclaimed sovereign citizen and leader of the Alaska Peacemakers Militia, was arrested in March, along with Coleman Barney, Lonnie and Karen Vernon, and Michael O. Anderson, for allegedly stockpiling weapons as part of a plot to kill two Alaska State Troopers, an IRS employee, and the federal judge.

In two motions filed last week, Cox's attorneys argued that the grand jury process was mishandled and treated like "high school," and therefore the murder conspiracy charges should be thrown out.

In one motion, Cox's attorney Robert John argued that the grand jury was not properly instructed on the burden of proof necessary for indictments. In the other motion, the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner reports:

In one of the filings in the Cox case, attorney Robert John quotes a prosecutor in the grand jury transcript who appears to pick a foreperson out of the grand jury for arriving late, saying "that's what you get for showing up late. It's just like high school."
The procedure violates the criminal rule that a grand jury itself or a judge should pick the foreperson, John says in the filing.

"Schaeffer Cox has the constitutional right to be indicted by a grand jury, not by a high-school teacher and the class he teaches," the motion says.

Prosecutors on Wednesday also filed a motion to block the release of Coleman Barney. Barney's attorneys have been pushing for his release on bail because, as they argue, he "has a history of contributing to the community, not destroying it." Superior Court Judge David C. Stewart reduced Barney's bail from $2 million to $100,000 in June, though Barney's attorneys must still convince a federal judge of the same.

But in the motion filed this week, prosecutors provided additional evidence against Barney in protest of his release. They also detailed the weapons allegedly found in his trailer -- including body armor, hand cuffs, a gas mask, a number of grenades, and "assorted" guns and ammunition.

Stephen Skrocki wrote in the motion:

The Coleman Barney, father of five, business owner and member of the community referenced in the defense pleadings and in letters of support is not the same Coleman Barney who elected to arrive to an illegal arms sale wearing body armor and carrying two loaded pistols. It is not the Coleman Barney who, during this arms sale held and examined with his own hands what he thought were live hand grenades, and a pistol silencer combination. It was not the same Coleman Barney who sought to purchase tactical weapons which only exist to kill either violently, secretly, or furtively.

"Despite the order of the state court," Skrocki wrote, "which may have not been in command of these facts due to the volume of discovery, Coleman Barney's motion for bail
must be denied. The risk to the community, the danger to the community and the risk of flight or absconding are simply too great."

Full coverage of Cox et al here.
Original here

Wisconsin Flyer Calls For Conservatives To Vote For Fake Candidate In Dem Primary

2011-07-11T00:11:00.000-07:00

Wisconsin Democrats face the next hurdle in the state Senate recalls on Wednesday, with primaries being held in the races to go up against six Republican incumbents -- and they'll have to beat the fake Democrats before they can take on the real Republicans.

Soon after the recall elections were triggered, Republicans declared a strategy to plant fake candidates in the Democratic primaries -- which they have called "protest candidates" -- in order to delay the general elections from July to August, while the GOP incumbents run unopposed. Also, it turns out the whole scheme will cost local governments throughout the state over $400,000.

Now, Greg Sargent has obtained a flyer being distributed by a group called "Patriot Advisers," 18th District race against GOP incumbent Randy Hopper -- encouraging conservatives to go vote in the open Democratic primary, for Republican plant John Buckstaff against real Dem Jessica King.

On the one hand, it's possible to look at this as a dirty trick. On the other hand, how could the Dems ever hope to take on the real Republicans if they can't drub the fake Dems first?

The flyer refers to the fake Dem candidate John Buckstaff as "Pro-Wisconsin," and declared: "He'll roll up his sleeves and work with Governor Walker to eliminate special privileges for government unions."

As for the official Dem candidate Jessica King, she is called "Pro-Union Extremist," with the added description: "King is taking tens of thousands of dollars from pro-union groups. She will put their agenda first -- even if it bankrupts Wisconsin."

To be clear, the Dems specifically rejected entreaties by labor to respond in kind and run fake Republicans, in order to prevent this kind of shenanigans.

Original here

U.S. Is Deferring Millions in Pakistani Military Aid

2011-07-11T00:06:00.000-07:00

Kuni Takahashi for The New York Times

Pakistani soldiers trained last year at Pubbi Hills, 75 miles southeast of the capital, Islamabad.

By ERIC SCHMITT and JANE PERLEZ

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is suspending and, in some cases, canceling hundreds of millions of dollars of aid to the Pakistani military, in a move to chasten Pakistan for expelling American military trainers and to press its army to fight militants more effectively.

Coupled with a statement from the top American military officer last week linking Pakistan’s military spy agency to the recent murder of a Pakistani journalist, the halting or withdrawal of military equipment and other aid to Pakistan illustrates the depth of the debate inside the Obama administration over how to change the behavior of one of its key counterterrorism partners.

Altogether, about $800 million in military aid and equipment, or over one-third of the more than $2 billion in annual American security assistance to Pakistan, could be affected, three senior United States officials said.

This aid includes about $300 million to reimburse Pakistan for some of the costs of deploying more than 100,000 soldiers along the Afghan border to combat terrorism, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars in training assistance and military hardware, according to half a dozen Congressional, Pentagon and other administration officials who were granted anonymity to discuss the politically delicate matter.

Some of the curtailed aid is equipment that the United States wants to send but Pakistan now refuses to accept, like rifles, ammunition, body armor and bomb-disposal gear that were withdrawn or held up after Pakistan ordered more than 100 Army Special Forces trainers to leave the country in recent weeks.

Some is equipment, such as radios, night-vision goggles and helicopter spare parts, which cannot be set up, certified or used for training because Pakistan has denied visas to the American personnel needed to operate the equipment, two senior Pentagon officials said.

And some is assistance like the reimbursements for troop costs, which is being reviewed in light of questions about Pakistan’s commitment to carry out counterterrorism operations. For example, the United States recently provided Pakistan with information about suspected bomb-making factories, only to have the insurgents vanish before Pakistani security forces arrived a few days later.

“When it comes to our military aid,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told a Senate committee last month “we are not prepared to continue providing that at the pace we were providing it unless and until we see certain steps taken.”

American officials say they would probably resume equipment deliveries and aid if relations improve and Pakistan pursues terrorists more aggressively. The cutoffs do not affect any immediate deliveries of military sales to Pakistan, like F-16 fighter jets, or nonmilitary aid, the officials said.

Pakistan’s precise military budget is not known, and while the American aid cutoff would probably have a small impact on the overall military budget, it would most directly affect the counterinsurgency campaign. The Pakistani Army spends nearly one-quarter of the nation’s annual expenditures, according to K. Alan Kronstadt of the Congressional Research Service.

While some senior administration officials have concluded that Pakistan will never be the kind of partner the administration hoped for when President Obama entered office, others emphasize that the United States cannot risk a full break in relations or a complete cutoff of aid akin to what happened in the 1990s, when Pakistan was caught developing nuclear weapons.

But many of the recent aid curtailments are clearly intended to force the Pakistani military to make a difficult choice between backing the country that finances much of its operations and equipment, or continuing to provide secret support for the Taliban and other militants fighting American soldiers in Afghanistan.

“We have to continue to emphasize with the Pakistanis that in the end it’s in their interest to be able to go after these targets as well,” Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta told reporters on Friday en route to Afghanistan.

Some American officials say Pakistan has only itself to blame, citing the Pakistani military’s decision to distance itself from American assistance in response to the humiliation suffered from the American commando raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan, that killed Osama bin Laden, as well as rising anger from midlevel Pakistani officers and the Pakistani public that senior military leaders, including Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the powerful army chief of staff, are too accommodating to the Americans.

Pakistan shut down the American program to help train Pakistani paramilitary troops fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the lawless border regions near Afghanistan, prompting the Americans to take with them equipment Pakistani troops used. The Central Intelligence Agency has been relying more heavily on flying armed drones from Afghanistan since Pakistan threatened to close down a base the C.I.A. was using inside the country.

But in private briefings to senior Congressional staff members last month, Pentagon officials made clear that they were taking a tougher line toward Pakistan and reassessing whether it could still be an effective partner in fighting terrorists.

“They wanted to tell us, ‘Guys, we’re delivering the message that this is not business as usual and we’ve got this under control,’ ” one senior Senate aide said.

Comments last week by Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also reflected a potentially more confrontational approach to Pakistan. Admiral Mullen, who is retiring in two months, became the first American official to publicly accuse Pakistan of ordering the kidnapping, torture and death of the journalist, Saleem Shahzad, whose mutilated body was found in early June.

Besides the growing tensions, the slowdown in aid can also be attributed to tightening military budgets as lawmakers seek deeper cuts in Pentagon spending to help address the mounting government debt.

There is growing opposition on Capitol Hill to sending security assistance to Pakistan. Last week, the Republican-controlled House approved a Pentagon budget bill that limits the Defense Department from spending more than 25 percent of its projected $1.1 billion budget for training and equipping Pakistani troops next year, unless the secretaries of defense and state submit a report to Congress showing how the money will be spent to combat insurgencies.

The Pakistani military is the most important institution in the country. But it has been under intense domestic and international pressure because of the humiliation of the Bin Laden raid, an attack on Pakistan’s main navy base in Karachi weeks later, and continuing fallout from the arrest and subsequent release of a C.I.A. security contractor, Raymond A. Davis, who shot and killed two Pakistanis in January in what he said was a robbery.

The United States has long debated how hard it can push Pakistan to attack militant strongholds in the tribal area. Washington, however, depends on Pakistan as a major supply route into Afghanistan. American officials also want to monitor as closely as they can Pakistan’s burgeoning nuclear weapons arsenal.

The decision to hold back much of the American military aid has not been made public by the Pakistani military or the civilian government. But it is well known at the top levels of the military, and a senior Pakistani official described it as an effort by the Americans to gain “leverage.”

A former Pakistani diplomat, Maleeha Lodhi, who served twice as ambassador to the United States, said the Pentagon action was short-sighted, and was likely to produce greater distance between the two countries.

“It will be repeating a historic blunder and hurting itself in the bargain by using a blunt instrument of policy at a time when it needs Pakistan’s help to defeat Al Qaeda and make an honorable retreat from Afghanistan,” Ms. Lodhi said of the United States.

Washington imposed sanctions on Pakistan in the 1990s, and in the process lost influence with the Pakistani military, Ms. Lodhi said. Similarly, the Obama administration would find itself out in the cold with the Pakistani Army if it held up funds, she said.

Within the Pakistani Army, the hold on American assistance would be viewed as “an unfriendly act and total disregard of the sacrifices made by the army,” said Brig. Javed Hussain, a retired special forces officer.

Eric Schmitt reported from Washington, and Jane Perlez from Islamabad, Pakistan. David E. Sanger contributed reporting from Washington, and Ismail Khan from Peshawar, Pakistan.

Original here

CITY HUNTER

2011-07-10T04:10:00.000-07:00

SHOW INFORMATION

Title : 시티헌터 (RSiti Heonteo)
English Title : City Hunter
Country : Korea
Episodes : 20
Broadcast Network : SBS

SERIES DESCRIPTION

City Hunter is based on world-famous Japanese Manga by Tsukasa Hojo. Lee Yoon-Sung (Lee Min-Ho) works at the Blue House's National Communication Network Team and received his Ph.D at M.I.T.Kim Na-Na (Park Min-Young) is a bodyguard at the South Korean President's residence, the Blue House . Na-Na lost her parents by car accident since then she made a living by doing part time jobs. She became a bodyguard at the Blue House and she falls in love with Lee Yoon-Sung.

Original here

Bill Clinton: Debt is Republicans' legacy

2011-07-08T00:59:00.000-07:00

Bill Clinton blames Republicans for doubling the debt after he left office.

By DARREN SAMUELSOHN

Bill Clinton bashed Republicans as hypocrites on Wednesday, saying their policies created the huge budget deficits that the GOP is now using to demand economically harmful spending cuts.

"Why aren’t we talking more about the economy and less about this?" Clinton said during a speech to liberal youth activists in Washington. "Partly because the Republicans who control the House and have a lot of pull in the Senate have now decided, having quadrupled the debt in 12 years before I took office and doubled it after I left, that it's all of a sudden the biggest problem in the world."

Speaking at Campus Progress’s seventh annual conference, Clinton blamed GOP leaders for creating the deficit through tax cuts and military spending. He also warned President Barack Obama and congressional leaders to avoid lumping immediate spending cuts into any debt limit deal because the economy still hasn't fully recovered.

"In the current budget debate, there's all this discussion about how much will come from spending cuts, how much will come from tax increases, and almost nobody is talking about one of the central points, that everyone who's analyzed the situation makes, including the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission, which said you shouldn't do any of this until the economy is clearly recovering," Clinton said.

"Because if you do things that dampen economic growth, and the U.K. is finding this out now, they adopted this big austerity budget, and there's a good chance that economic activity will go down so much that tax revenues will be reduced even more than spending is cut, and their deficit will increase," he added.

Clinton last month told Bloomberg Television’s Al Hunt that it was “crazy” for Obama and Congress to consider spending cuts now. He urged them to wait two years before venturing into the types of reductions envisioned by the Simpson-Bowles commission.

Obama is scheduled to meet Thursday at the White House with House and Senate leaders from both parties as they search for an agreement before an Aug. 2 deadline to raise the nation’s borrowing limit from its current cap of $14.3 trillion.

Original here

Did Glenn Beck set up Texas gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina?

2010-02-11T20:48:00.000-08:00

Explosive information hit the radio airwaves today as it was revealed that Texas gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina appeared to confirm in an interview that she is a so-called '9/11 truther.' The interview was conducted by Glenn Beck on the radio.

Debra Medina, right, at a debate with Gov. Rick Perry and Kay Bailey Hutchison (AP Photo/Pool,LM Otero).

Immediately the Internet was burning up with quick responses both from Medina supporters and from those who jumped to the conclusion that the candidate had 'outed' herself as part of a movement which believes that the U.S. government had a hand in bringing about the terrorist attack on 9/11.

The transcripts of the interview seem to indicate that those who believe Medina is a 'truther' have been vindicated. However, the audio of the interview, as provided at the link in the first paragraph, seems to portray a slightly different angle.

Beck no doubt believes that Medina admitted to being a truther, as indicated by his follow-up questions and the comments he made on the air after the Medina interview.

Medina herself, however, maintains she admitted no such thing.

To be fair, listening to the audio of the interview seems to confirm Medina's contention. The interview was fast-paced with Beck often interrupting and appearing to overlook the fact that the candidate clearly stated she is not a 9/11 truther, although she admits that the movement has raised some good questions that need to be answered.

And when Medina seemed to indicate that she would not purge her campaign of truthers, if she found any, Beck immediately jumped to the conclusion that Medina 'is a truther.' At that point, the interview was over as Beck essentially wrote off Medina as a viable candidate.

Nothing in the interview indicates that Beck deliberately set-up Medina. His flaw was the sloppiness with which which he conducted the interview and the knee-jerk reaction of branding Medina as a truther.

Beck's question was a fair one. Citizens need to know if their candidates are truthers and why.

However, stating that some truthers have good questions that need to be answered is not tantamount to admitting being part of the movement. Stating that there is no truther litmus test for campaign workers is no indication that a candidate believes that the U.S. government perpetrated the 9/11 attack.

No doubt Medina could have answered Beck's questions more effectively. And Beck could have been much more professional in the manner in which he went about conducting this interview.

Original here

Obama ‘Agnostic’ on Deficit Cuts, Won’t Prejudge Tax Increases

2010-02-11T20:46:00.000-08:00

By Rich Miller

Feb. 11 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said he is “agnostic” about raising taxes on households making less than $250,000 as part of a broad effort to rein in the budget deficit.

Obama, in a Feb. 9 Oval Office interview, said that a presidential commission on the budget needs to consider all options for reducing the deficit, including tax increases and cuts in spending on entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

“The whole point of it is to make sure that all ideas are on the table,” the president said in the interview with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday. “So what I want to do is to be completely agnostic, in terms of solutions.”

Obama repeatedly vowed during the 2008 presidential election campaign that he would not raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 and households earning less than $250,000 a year. When senior White House economic adviser Lawrence H. Summers and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner suggested in August that the administration might be open to going back on that pledge, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs quickly reiterated the president’s promise.

In the interview, Obama said that putting preconditions on the agenda of a bipartisan advisory commission, which he said he would soon establish, would just undermine its purpose.

“What I can’t do is to set the thing up where a whole bunch of things are off the table,” Obama said. “Some would say we can’t look at entitlements. There are going to be some that say we can’t look at taxes, and pretty soon, you just can’t solve the problem.”

Politically Risky

Many economists, including conservatives such as former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, argue that tax increases will be necessary as part of a broad package to control the deficit, which the White House projects will hit a record $1.6 trillion in the fiscal year ending on Sept. 30.

Obama said the U.S. was faced with a “structural deficit” that was in place before the recession began and that was only made worse by the deepest drop in the economy since the 1930s.

Revenue ‘Mismatch’

“Our real problem is not the spike in spending last year, or the lost, even the lost revenues last year, as significant as those are,” he said. “The real problem has to do with the fact that there is a just a mismatch between the amount of money coming in and the amount of money going out. And that is going to require some big, tough choices that, so far, the political system has been unable to deal with.”

The administration hopes the bipartisan commission will make it easier to produce a comprehensive plan to reduce the budget gap to a sustainable level, often described as 3 percent of the overall economy, by 2015.

The White House decided to set up the group on its own after the Senate blocked a measure to establish a congressional panel whose recommendations would have been guaranteed a vote by lawmakers. Opponents, including a majority of Senate Republicans, complained that the plan would result in tax increases and that Congress wouldn’t have a chance to amend the panel’s recommendations. Under a presidentially appointed commission, Congress could ignore any panel recommendations.

Republican Skepticism

House Republican leader John Boehner has expressed skepticism about the Obama commission and has sought assurances from the White House that its makeup would be bipartisan and not predisposed to tax increases. The Ohio Republican said he is still considering whether to appoint members from his party to the panel after a Feb. 9 meeting with the president.

The Obama administration’s budget already takes that route with its proposed $970 billion tax increase over the next decade on Americans earning more than $200,000 a year, largely by not extending former President George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy beyond 2010.

Even with those revenues -- and a proposed three-year freeze on some discretionary spending by the government -- the administration still projects a deficit of $752 billion in 2015, equivalent to 3.9 percent of gross domestic product.

That’s above the 3 percent mark that White House budget director Peter Orszag has said is necessary to stop the rise in government debt as a proportion of the economy.

Budget Gap

Analysts say that middle-class taxes will need to be increased because the government can’t raise enough money from the wealthy alone to close the budget gap. “It’s just not possible to get the revenue you need only from this group,” said Joel Slemrod, director of the Office of Tax Policy Research at the University of Michigan.

Going back on his campaign pledge would be fraught with risks for Obama. Former President George H.W. Bush paid a steep political price when he abandoned his 1988 campaign promise not to raise taxes, losing out in his bid for a second term to Bill Clinton.

The Daily Show Mocks GOP Hypocrisy over Obama and Hawaii

2010-02-11T20:43:00.000-08:00

On Tuesday’s The Daily Show, John Oliver followed Republicans to the RNC winter meeting in Hawaii, where they continued to talk about fiscal responsibility while enjoying an expensive Hawaiian getaway. The point was that when Obama goes to Hawaii, to the GOP he is an elitist, but the RNC sees no irony in their own behavior.

Here is the video:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

RNC Meeting in Hawaii

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

Oliver talked to several Republicans who utter the same talking point that Democrats are out of touch with average Americans, while they lounged around in Hawaii. One meeting attendee claimed that Democrats can’t connect with people because, “They’re more well to do. They had the money to go to Harvard and that kind of thing.”

Later in the segment, Oliver said, “It was basic common sense. In the middle of the recession don’t waste money on programs that we don’t need, can’t afford, or simply look ridiculous,” all the while the video showed him lounging at the resort.”

As usual, the comedic Daily Show was the only program to point out the sheer absurdity of the Republican Party trying to score political points, by talking about Democrats being out of touch with the common man, and fiscal responsibility, from Hawaii where they decided to hold their winter meeting in the middle of a recession.

The worst part about it is that the members of the RNC seemed completely clueless. They talk about Democrats being elitist, but fail to realize that even in good times, average Americans can’t afford a getaway to Hawaii. If Republicans are serious about fiscal responsibility, they could set an example for the rest of America, but holding their winter meeting in Pittsburgh or Cleveland instead of Hawaii.

Original here

The Worst Political Ad Ever? This Fiorina Offering Has Got To Be Up There

2010-02-10T21:00:00.000-08:00

I have never done LSD -- at least I don't think so -- but I suspect its effect on me would not be much different than how I felt after I watched Carly Fiorina's "demon sheep" attack ad on rival Tom Campbell.

Fiorina, the ex-CEO of Hewlett-Packard, had been the supposed frontrunner for the Republican Senate nomination in California to take on three-term Democrat Barbara Boxer. Campbell, a former congressman who was finance director for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger -- maybe not the thing one should put on a resume, given the state's economic woes -- entered the Senate race just last month after his bid for the GOP gubernatorial nomination was going nowhere. Campbell has run statewide before -- he got trounced in the 2000 Senate race by Dianne Feinstein (D) and lost the Republican primary for the other seat in '92 -- and so people pretty much know who he is. But I never pictured him as the devil. Or, to be more specific, as a demonic wolf in sheep's clothing.

But that's who he is in the ad in question.

Since Campbell switched races, he has found himself leading in the polls for the nomination. A Public Policy Institute of California survey has him with an 11-point lead over Fiorina, 27-16 percent; state Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, a conservative, trailed with eight percent. A Field poll had Campbell over Fiorina by five points.

This is what apparently led to the Fiorina campaign running the demon sheep ad. In it, she lays the blame for California's financial situation on him, calling him a FCINO -- a Fiscal Conservative In Name Only.

But it's more than a simple, ordinary attack ad. It seems to go way over the top, bizarrely so, as if, well, it was the result of some bad acid trip. I really urge you to watch it yourself (and please avoid operating heavy machinery as you do so):

I think when I first saw the ad I stared at the screen without blinking for the next five minutes, completely motionless. Maybe that's the kind of mistake someone makes when running for office for the first time? Who came up with this concept, anyway?

(For the record, it was Republican media consultant Fred Davis, who also produced the McCain ad comparing Barack Obama with Paris Hilton in an attempt to turn Obama's celebrity status against him. How'd that one work out?)

Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks this ad is, well, from another galaxy.

Time magazine blogger Michael Scherer writes that the "best way" to view Fiorina's "awesomely bizarre new primary campaign ad -- which includes shots of an alien robot sheep, or something -- is by pressing play on your cassette tape of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of The Moon just as you click play on YouTube."

Jason Linkins, writing in the Huffington Post, calls it "expensive and deranged, with fake sheep crawling around with lite-brite eyes in a field, and a terrible, malformed metaphor that actually insults the fiscal conservatives whom everyone wants to win over."

Blogger Chris Matyszczyk, writing in CNET's "Technically Incorrect": "It may well be that Carly Fiorina will make for an excellent California senator. It may well be that her advisers are slapping her (and themselves) on the back because they have finally got her name out of the morass of apparently faceless politicos who are vying for the honor of failing to corral the psychedelic state. But it also may well be that they have propelled an image of Fiorina as something of nasty nutbag who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the steering wheel of a Prius, never mind that of a state whose recall may have been total, but whose politics should be totaled."

British blogger Lester Haines: "What the remarkable 'demon sheep' seen in the vid has to do with the price of fish is anyone's guess. Still, it's good to see that the Senate race in California is being conducted in the time-honoured US fashion, with fellow party members beating the crap out of each other before they've even faced up to their true political rivals."

Chuck DeVore, who has suddenly become the forgotten candidate in all this, has set up a Web site, demonsheep.org, which proclaims it represents the "Society for the Eradication of Demon Sheep From Our Political Discourse."

But who says we're right? She got everyone talking about her ad, so Fiorina must be on to something, no? That's the view of the Christian Science Monitor's Peter Grier, who wonders if there is a "method" to the ad's "madness":

In politics, it's not a good sign when your opponent is directing attention to your ads -- particularly if they attack him by name. But is the Fiorina camp being crazy like a, uh, fox?

Maybe the ad is working. Fiorina has received loads of free media coverage that at least mentions her claim that Campbell is a false fiscal conservative. In a GOP primary, that's a tough charge. And polls show that Fiorina may be behind Campbell at this point, meaning that she needs to do something to shake up the race.

For now, the Fiorina campaign is unrepentant.

"Look, what I like about the ad is first, it's funny, but it's also factually correct," said Fiorina Thursday in response to the controversy.

"Factually correct" and "demon sheep" may be two phrases you never thought you'd see connected. But Fiorina aides promised more such outrageous ads in comings weeks.

I can't wait.

Original here

What Changed? White House Now Supports Franken Rape Amendment

2009-12-19T23:51:00.000-08:00

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN)

Sen. Al Franken's (D-MN) "rape amendment," which guarantees that rape victims who work for defense contractors can pursue charges against their employers, has been championed by many but opposed by Obama's Department of Defense. The Pentagon initially called the measure unenforceable. But the provision, part of the defense appropriations bill, made it through conference committee and is now supported by the White House.

So what changed?

A senior administration official explains to TPM: The White House was concerned about the original language, which would have prohibited the DoD from using companies whose employment contracts contained an "arbitration clause," which would keep employees from taking the company to court for Title VII offenses, which include rape, sexual assault, harassment and false imprisonment. That language, the official said, may have forced the government to reneg on multi-billion-dollar contracts. Because of a clause in many of those contracts, the government would still have to pay the contractors, even though the work wouldn't be performed.

Another concern: The Pentagon deals with a massive number of contracts and would never be able to make sure the arbitration clauses were stripped in all those contracts.

So White House staff, after a week or so perusing contract and grant law, came up with a "clever construct," the official said. The contractors, in order to stay in the lucrative government contract business, don't have to remove the arbitration clauses. But they can't enforce them.

If it works the way the administration tells us, this is good news for Jamie Leigh Jones, the woman who inspired Franken's amendment. While working for KBR in Iraq, Jones was allegedly drugged, gang-raped and locked in a storage container by her co-workers. She's been fighting, unsuccessfully, to bring her case to court because of the abritration clause in the contract she signed.

It's good news for her even though the new restriction will not be retroactive per se, and even though it doesn't go into effect until 60 days after the President signs the appropriations bill.

But it will affect any company, such as KBR, once it signs a new contract. (And the major contractors sign a lot of contracts.) Here's the real bite to the restriction: It will affect the entire company, and everyone who works for it.

So the second KBR signs a new contract, Jones -- and anyone else with similar claims -- will be able to take her case to court. If KBR tries to enforce their arbitration clause, they could lose millions in future government contracts.

Of course, there is a national security waiver. The secretary of defense can waive the restriction if, say, a contractor is the only one who can provide a certain service or product. But the secretary would have to explain, in detail, why no one else could fulfill the contract. And, according to the official, that explanation would be posted online, in public view. (The idea here being that another company who makes the same product could step forward.)

And the amendment will only apply to companies with contracts worth $1 million or more -- but that will include most contractors.

If the amendment works the way the White House says, it will do what Franken wanted: Give rape victims their day in court.

The appropriations bill still needs to be approved by the Senate, where Republicans are threatening to filibuster in an attempt to stall health care legislation. But it is expected, eventually, to pass, and to be signed by the President.

Original here

Flashback: McCain Refused To Grant 30 Seconds Of Time During Iraq War Debate

2009-12-19T23:50:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN), acting on the orders of the Senate leadership, refused to grant Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) “an additional moment” to continue speaking on the Senate floor after his 10 minutes expired. Franken’s objection caused Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to groan about how Franken’s move was unprofessional, unprecedented, and disrespectful:

McCAIN: I’ve been around here 20-some years. First time I’ve ever seen a member denied an extra minute or two to finish his remarks. … I just haven’t seen it before myself. And I don’t like it. And I think it harms the comity of the Senate not to allow one of our members at least a minute. I’m sure that time is urgent here, but I doubt that it would be that urgent.

Unfortunately, McCain’s memory is suffering. In fact, McCain has engaged in the very same behavior that he was criticizing Franken for yesterday.

On October 10, 2002 — just ahead of the looming mid-term elections — the Senate rushed a debate on a war authorization giving President Bush the power to use force against Iraq. The resolution ultimately passed the Senate after midnight on an early Friday morning by a vote of 77-23.

During the course of the frenzied floor debate, then-Sen. Mark Dayton (D-MN) spoke in favor of an amendment offered by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) that would have restricted Bush’s constitutional powers to wage war against Iraq. After a minute and a half, Dayton ran out of time, prompting this exchange:

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator’s time has expired.

Mr. DAYTON. I ask for unanimous consent that I have 30 seconds more to finish my remarks.

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Byrd stepped in to grant Dayton time to finish his remarks. But just moments later, Byrd asked for more time to speak for himself. Again, McCain objected, prompting Byrd to chide him for doing so. “This shows the patience of a Senator,” Byrd said. “This clearly demonstrates that the train is coming down on us like a Mack truck, and we are not even going to consider a few extra minutes for this Senator.”

After being publicly shamed, McCain acquiesced to Byrd’s request. But moments later, McCain added this disclaimer: “I wish to say very briefly that I understand people have a desire to speak. We have a number of Senators who have not spoken on this issue. It is already looking as if we may be here well into this evening. From now on, I will be adhering strictly to the rules.” In other words, he acted just like Franken did yesterday.

Original here

Democrats gain 60th vote on health bill

2009-12-19T23:47:00.000-08:00

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Democrats reached a compromise on Saturday with the last holdout senator that secured the 60 votes they need to pass a broad healthcare overhaul sought by President Barack Obama.

Barack Obama | Healthcare Reform

A marathon negotiating session on Friday clinched an agreement with Democrat Ben Nelson ensuring federal funds would not be used to pay for abortions and providing extra Medicaid funds for his home state of Nebraska.

Nelson, a strong abortion rights opponent, had been the elusive 60th vote for the sweeping revamp, Obama's top legislative priority and the subject of intense political brawling for months.

"Today is a major step forward for the American people," Obama said at the White House. "After a nearly century-long struggle we are on the cusp of making healthcare reform a reality in the United States of America."

Nelson's backing should secure victory for Democrats in the first of a series of crucial procedural votes scheduled to begin at 1 a.m. (0600 GMT) on Monday and possibly conclude with final Senate passage on Christmas Eve.

"It seems that way," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said when asked if Democrats had the 60 votes they need to muscle the bill through the Senate against unified Republican opposition.

If the Senate approves the bill, it must be melded with a version passed on November 7 by the House of Representatives and both chambers must approve it again before sending it to Obama for his signature.

Reid introduced a 383-page amendment on Saturday making changes aimed at securing the last votes, including the abortion compromise and the dropping of a government-run public insurance option to appease moderates like independent Joe Lieberman.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office gave the revised bill a rosy review, saying it would cost $871 billion over 10 years and cut the federal deficit by $132 billion in the same period -- meeting Obama's cost target and goal of deficit reduction.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who has vowed to use every tool possible to delay the bill, forced the public reading of Reid's amendment. That took more than seven hours on Saturday.

Afterward, Reid filed a series of procedural motions to bring debate to a close and set up a string of closing votes to begin early Monday. The moves came during a rare Saturday session as a huge snowstorm slammed the U.S. capital, shutting down traffic.

'MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT'

"If they were proud of the bill they wouldn't be doing it this way," McConnell told reporters. "They wouldn't be jamming it through in the middle of the night on the last weekend before Christmas."

Obama has asked the Senate to finish by year's end to prevent the issue from spilling into the campaign for November 2010 congressional elections. Opinion polls show the bill losing public support, with majorities now opposed to it.

The Senate bill would extend coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans, provide subsidies to help them pay for the coverage and halt industry practices like refusing insurance to people with pre-existing medical conditions.

Reid's amendment incorporates a variety of changes, from dropping the government-run public insurance option to adding non-profit health plans offered by private insurers and administered by a federal agency.

Other revisions take aim at insurance industry margins and taxes, including a cap on profits. Still, insurers would see a delay to the bulk of new taxes and now they would be phased-in over time.

Health insurance plans for large groups would have to spend at least 85 cents of every dollar on medical costs under the revisions, potentially crimping their profits. The amendment dropped the bill's tax on elective cosmetic surgery and added a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning, a potential cause of cancer.

Also included is an increase in the bill's Medicare payroll tax from 0.5 percent to 0.9 percent on income over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples.

But much of Reid's focus had been on winning Nelson's support. He and other abortion rights opponents feared the federal subsidies could be spent on plans covering abortion.

Nelson said the agreement would allow states to prohibit abortion coverage in the new insurance exchanges created under the bill and mandate that every state exchange include an insurance plan that does not cover abortion.

It would require payments for abortion coverage be made separately with private funds.

"The plan that we've put together here, that we have agreement on, in fact walls off that money in an effective manner," Nelson told reporters. "I would not have voted for this bill without these provisions."

He said he could drop his support if the abortion deal was altered in negotiations with the House of Representatives.

Reid defended the additional federal funds for Nebraska that will permanently pay for the bill's expansion of the Medicaid health program for the poor -- all other states have to start picking up the tab in 2017.

"That's what legislation is all about," Reid said. "It's compromise."

Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, a strong supporter of abortion rights, told reporters she believed the compromise would adequately separate public and private funds for abortion coverage under the bill.

Advocates on both sides condemned the abortion deal.

Planned Parenthood called it "a sad day when women's health is traded away for one vote."

Douglas Johnson, the legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee said, said the compromise "solves none of the fundamental abortion-related problems with the Senate bill."

The House version of the healthcare bill includes stricter anti-abortion language. The Senate rejected an amendment incorporating the language last week.

(Additional reporting by Susan Heavey, editing by Eric Beech and Jackie Frank)

Original here

Obama Calls for More U.S. Exports to Asia

2009-11-22T01:40:00.000-08:00

By JUDITH BURNS

WASHINGTON--U.S. President Barack Obama, fresh from his first presidential trip to Asia, called for the U.S. to increase exports to that region, saying even small gains would help put many unemployed Americans back on the job.

"As we emerge from the worst recession in generations, there is nothing more important than to do everything we can to get our economy moving again and put Americans back to work, and I will go anywhere to pursue that goal," Mr. Obama said in his weekly radio address to the nation.

The president's remarks follow his four-nation tour of Japan, Singapore, China and South Korea, a trip he said was prompted largely by economic interests. Now back in the U.S., he promised to continue to focus on ways to combat U.S. unemployment.

Mr. Obama warned the U.S. shouldn't return to relying on growth fueled by consumer borrowing, urging the nation to spend less, save more and get the record federal deficit under control. He also called for a greater emphasis on exports, saying a 5% increase in U.S. exports to Asia would result in hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs.

The president touted an upcoming White House forum on jobs and economic growth, where business executives and owners, labor unions, economists and financial experts will discuss ways to spur hiring and get the economy moving again.

"It is important that we do not make any ill-considered decisions--even with the best of intentions--particularly at a time when our resources are so limited. But it is just as important that we are open to any demonstrably good idea to supplement the steps we've already taken to put America back to work. That's what I hope to achieve in this forum," Mr. Obama said.

The Republican address, delivered by Sen. Mike Crapo (R., Idaho), focused on legislation unveiled this week by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), to overhaul U.S. health care. Mr. Crapo encouraged voters to read the 2,074-page bill, suggesting that would be "a real eye-opener."

Mr. Crapo said that if Mr. Reid's bill becomes law, it would drive up health-care costs, increase taxes and impose hundreds of billions of dollars of cuts on Medicare, the federal health program for older Americans. He also complained that it would establish "a massive governmental intrusion into management of our health-care economy" and that despite its cost and sweep, it would still leave millions of Americans without health insurance.

"This is not true health-care reform, and it is not what the American people want," said Mr. Crapo.

Write to Judith Burns at judith.burns@dowjones.com

Original here

Democrats hold line, but cracks show

2009-11-22T01:33:00.000-08:00

By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN

: Reid will face bruising negotiations with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who is intent on keeping intact major provisions of her far more left-leaning bill. Photo: John Shinkle

Senate Democrats pushed ahead with President Barack Obama’s vision of health reform Saturday night – after a day that exposed significant divides in the party that could make it all but impossible to complete work on a plan by year’s end, or even sink the bill altogether.

In a 60-39 vote on strictly partisan lines, the Senate sent the $848 billion health care bill to the floor for debate after the Thanksgiving break, but not before a clutch of moderates served notice that they couldn’t back the bill in its current form.

One key provision – for a government-run insurance plan that would allow states to opt-out of coverage – effectively died in the Senate chamber Saturday, as the last two Democratic holdouts demanded changes to the bill. s

“I am opposed to a new government administered public health care plan as a part of comprehensive health care reform, and I will not vote in favor of the proposal that has been introduced by Leader Reid as it is written,” said Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), the last Democrat to commit to a vote for opening debate. Two hours earlier, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) had said much the same thing.

Their comments signal that weeks of negotiations remain on a bill Obama once hoped to have on his desk by Christmas – and even raised the prospect that splits in the party over the public option, abortion and other aspects of the bill could scuttle passage altogether.

That timetable has always been worrisome to the White House because it would push the delicate final passage of the legislation into an election year, with Democrats skittish about voter backlash for a plan that draws decidedly mixed reviews in the polls.

Senate Democrats, though, are pushing for roughly three weeks of floor debate in December that could complete work on a bill by Christmas. That would be followed by a “mini-conference” over the holidays between Democratic House and Senate leaders – who would hope to have a bill to present to their caucuses in time for a mid-January vote.

“We’re going to have some long days, we’re going to have weekends,” Senate Health Committee Chairman Tom Harkin said. "We’re going to have three weeks. That means we’ll finish on the 23rd of December. And maybe, actually, a little before then – actually the weekend before then.”

The Democratic celebration in the Senate was subdued. There were a few scattered "yays" and applause when the tally was announced. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nv.) accepted handshakes.

Sen. John McCain (R-Az.) made light of the vote as it was going down.

"What is going to happen? What is going to happen?" McCain said, rubbing his hands together in mock anticipation from his seat on the Senate floor. "Oh, this is so tense."

His comments could be heard in the gallery. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), sitting next to him, smiled and buried her head in her hands.

"We can see the finish line, but we're not there yet," Reid told reporters after the vote.

"The road ahead is a long stretch. But we can see the the finish line...we have the momentum...we're going to keep this process moving, I have no doubt," said Reid, who conceded that "We know not all 60 senators in my caucus agree on every aspect of this bill.”

Asked about the moderates’ opposition to a public option, Reid reiterated his support for a strong public option and said Schumer and Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) were working with Landrieu on a compromise that everyone in the caucus could accept.

Schumer spokesman Brian Fallon, though, said that while the New York senator is open to compromise, "no such talks have yet taken place, and there is not any compromise at hand beyond what Leader Reid has already inserted into the bill."

There's still at least a chance that Democrats won't be able to bridge the divides inside their own party on the public option, abortion, how to pay for reform and other issues that could prevent a final deal from coming together.

“Absolutely not," said Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, one of the more liberal members of the Democratic Caucus, when asked if he was open to further discussion of the public option. “We’ve compromised four times now.”

“Four members of the Senate aren’t going to tell the other 55 what to do on these issues,” he said.

Other progressives signaled a willingness to deal.

“We expected it all along that we continue to negotiate on the public option," said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.).

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) echoed Stabenow.

"I, for one, am willing to work with folks," he said. "We need to make sure we can pass this bill, and if takes flexibility on either side, nobody should have their mind closed to that flexibility."

Even if Reid can assuage the moderates in his caucus by pulling his bill to the right without losing liberal support, he’ll face bruising negotiations with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is intent on keeping intact major provisions of her far more left-leaning bill. Pelosi’s version of the public option, for instance, is far more open-ended than Reid’s.

And then there are the Republicans, who vowed Saturday to try to block health reform from ever leaving the Senate.

Democrats are expecting multiple Republican amendments on hot-button issues such as medical malpractice, immigration and abortion. The challenge for Reid is finding a way to shield his members from taking politically difficult votes and to prevent the passage of a GOP amendment that could sink the entire deal.

Reid has promised a “free-wheeling, wide-open amendment process,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who added that Republicans are likely to attempt to filibuster each amendment, meaning Reid would have hold together his 60 votes time and again.

"The battle has just begun," McConnell added. "The American people are asking us to stop this bill, and we are going to do anything and everything we can to prevent this measure from becoming law."

Still, Reid declared victory for the bill and predicted that he could get a version of health reform passed and sent for Obama’s signature. The 8 p.m. vote was a significant milestone in a health care reform debate that has stretched over decades.

Reid’s bill would cover 94 percent of all Americans by creating a public health insurance option, increasing subsidies for those who can’t afford insurance and requiring individuals to own insurance. Reid would pay for this by raising taxes on insurers who offer so-called Cadillac tax plans, bumping up Medicare taxes for the wealthy and creating a “Botox tax” on cosmetic surgery.

Aside from the public option, there are other big differences with the House bill, including how to pay for reform. The House counts on a tax on couples earning more than $1 million a year to pay for it – an idea that has zero support in the Senate.

But as it has for months, the public option remained the greatest obstacle to passing a bill.

Two of those who voted yes on Saturday – Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) -- have already said they’d join a filibuster of the current bill and both have raised objections to the public option.

The vote Saturday was likely to resurrect interest in the idea of using a “trigger” that would kick in a public plan if states lack enough affordable health care options. That plan has the support of a Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe (R), one of the few GOP senators who might cross party lines to back the bill, though she voted against cloture on Saturday.

Some Democrats – including Obama – have signaled a preference for the trigger to bridge deep divides in the party, Landrieu, too, spoke in favor of the trigger.

“Our caucus knows this is a real serious issue for us from the beginning,” said Landrieu, who has been in discussions with other centrists. “A third are for the public option, a third are adamantly against and a third are in the middle. I am adamantly against but would consider a principled compromise because I understand this is one of the issues we have to find a solution for or it could blow up the whole effort.” Landrieu also was unapologetic in describing how she sought more help for her state in the health reform negotiations – even saying reports that she got $100 million more in Medicaid dollars for Louisiana were false. It was really $300 million, she said.

“I’m proud to have asked for it. I’m proud to have fought for it, and I will continue to. That is not the reason I’m moving to the debate,” Landrieu said.

Lincoln instead spoke of de-coupling the public option from a federal government role – apparently a reference to a plan being crafted by Carper for a national health insurance plan that would be run by a not-for-profit firm, not by the government.

Lincoln, who is facing a tough reelection fight in 2010, also put fellow Democrats on notice about the political stakes in her race -- saying she’s already faced some $3.3 million in ads trying to sway her vote on the bill, from the left and the right.

And she laid down a laundry list of concerns, most of which also are shared by her fellow centrists: that the bill must protect seniors on Medicare, make insurance more affordable for small businesses, enhances competition with private insurers, and must not increase the deficit – and do it all without a public option.

For a day at least, Reid could breathe a sigh of relief, having passed a major test of his leadership by holding together 58 Democrats and 2 independents on a vote to open for debate a bill that doesn’t pass muster with many of them.

In sometimes heated floor remarks, Republicans called the $848 billion bill a budget-busting, tax-raising monstrosity that would hurts seniors, small business and families.

McCain said Reid was guilty of budget gimmickry by cutting Medicare and raising taxes in the first year of the bill, 2010, but not starting many of the services until 2014. “I don’t think Americans really understand the scam that’s going on here,” McCain said. “I think Bernie Madoff went to jail for this kind of behavior.”

And both sides sparred over the nature of Saturday’s vote – with Democrats saying it’s merely a chance for debate to begin and Republicans saying it’s a back-door endorsement of the $848 billion plan.

The missing vote was Ohio Republican George Voinovich, an opponent of the bill who announced that he would skip the vote for a thirtieth anniversary celebration of his election as Cleveland mayor.

"The Democrat plan would make life harder for the vast majority of Americans. It raises their taxes, it raises their health care premiums, it cuts their Medicare and drives millions off the private insurance they currently have,” McConnell said.

Democrats accused them of scare-mongering and said the bill is a sensible and long-overdue fix to a badly broken health care system.

“The key elements of this health care reform bill, I repeat: reduces short-and-long term debt, expands coverage, promotes choice and competition, reforms the insurance market, improves quality of care,” Reid said.

Ted Kennedy's widow, Vicki, phoned Reid in the Senate cloakroom immediately after the vote.

She was emotional, as was he, Reid said.

"I will remember the call always, always," the majority leader told reporters. "We both said Ted would be happy."

Original here

Missouri Billboard Calls for Revolution: War Against America

2009-11-22T01:28:00.000-08:00

by Vyan

Via Thinkprogress.

Fired Up! Missouri points out that the Lafayette County Republican Central Committee is highlighting a new billboard in the state with steps for a "citizens guide to revolution of a corrupt government": It calls for citizens to "starve the beast" and "vote out incumbents" -- and if that doesn't work, "PREPARE FOR WAR."

Look, I'm all for reasonable and rational criticism of our government as the representatives of the people - but at a certain point you have to pull over the crazy train before it goes completely off the tracks.

Senate Votes to Move Health Debate Forward

2009-11-22T01:24:00.000-08:00

By GREG HITT

Getty Images

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) speaks at a news conference following the Senate's 60-39 vote to bring health-care-reform bill to a full debate on the floor of the Senate.

WASHINGTON—Democrats and independents closed ranks Saturday and voted to move forward with debate on landmark legislation that would overhaul the nation's health system and extend health insurance to 31 million Americans.

The 60-39 Saturday vote came after a handful of undecided senators—centrist Democrats Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas—signaled their readiness to begin action on the $848 billion package crafted by Democratic leaders.

The vote was a validation of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's strategy of building consensus first among party loyalists rather than reaching across the aisle to Republicans, a move that would have forced the Nevada Democrat to pare ambitions and push a more modest bill.

"They shouldn't be afraid to debate," said Sen. Reid, who was celebratory after the vote. "This is the United States Senate."

Republicans, who were threatening a filibuster to stall action, said the legislation would cost too much. "Move over, Bernie Madoff," said Sen. Christopher Bond (R., Mo.). "Tip your hat to a trillion-dollar scam."

In the final tally, all 58 Democrats, and the two independents allied with the party, joined together to move forward on the bill. The roll call was conducted with senators sitting at their desks, a rarely used show of decorum that underscored the significance of the vote. Thirty-nine Republicans were opposed. One Republican, Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, didn't vote.

Sixty votes are needed in the 100-member Senate to end a filibuster. The vote set the stage for two to three weeks of debate in December and perhaps more in January, in a struggle that is sure to color the 2010 fight for control of Congress.

Mr. Reid said he took a call in the Senate cloakroom immediately after the vote from the widow of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who devoted much of his career to the cause of health care. "Ted would be happy," Mr. Reid said, adding he sees the "finish line" ahead for the bill.

The push in the Senate follows approval in the House Nov. 7 of companion legislation that would overhaul the health system.

Republicans, who are vowing to use every tactic available to slow action and frustrate the White House's top domestic priority, portrayed the vote as an endorsement of the legislation. It includes new taxes and cuts in Medicare payments to health-care providers, in addition to an expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor, and new government subsidies to help lower- and middle-income people buy insurance.

Republicans beseeched wavering moderate Democrats not to fall into line, hoping to derail the bill and force Mr. Reid to deal more directly with the minority party. "Today in the Senate, we don't need 40 Democrats to stand up for what's right. We need just one," said Sen. Mike Johanns (R., Neb.).

But they couldn't get it.

Beginning Friday, the final undecided Democrats starting coming off the fence. First was Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson, who said he didn't want to deny the voters in his state a voice on the issue. "The Senate owes them a full and open debate," he said.

View Full Image

Getty Images

Sen. Mary Landrieu, pictured with Sen. Tom Harkin, has decided to vote to advance health-care debate in the Senate.

Then came Sen. Landrieu. The Louisiana Democrat said Saturday the bill crafted by Sen. Reid isn't perfect, citing a need for more aid to help small businesses purchase insurance, among other things. But she said her concerns didn't merit standing in the way of action. "I've decided that there are enough significant reforms and safeguards in this bill to move forward, but much more work needs to be done," she said.

A few hours later, Sen. Lincoln of Arkansas took to the Senate floor. She also voiced concerns, noting she didn't favor the proposed government-run insurance plan "as it is written" in the bill. But Sen. Lincoln said she didn't intend to hold up debate, and complained Republicans – who are gunning for her defeat next year -- were simply trying to "revive their political party" by opposing the initiative.

"Although I don't agree with everything in his bill, I have concluded that I believe it is more important that we begin this debate to improve our nation's health-care system for all Americans, rather than simply drop the issue and walk away," she said. "That is not what people sent us here to do."

Of all the wavering senators, Sen. Lincoln was under the greatest pressure. She faces a tough re-election battle next year, and polls show the health legislation is not popular in her conservative state. Republican strategists swiftly blasted her Saturday for giving Democratic leaders the "60th vote" to take up the bill.

"Obviously, the pressure from the left wing of her party finally got to Blanche Lincoln," said Amber Wilkerson Marchand, a spokeswoman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the campaign arm of Senate Republicans. She said "the people of Arkansas will have an opportunity to hold" Sen. Lincoln "accountable when they cast their ballots next November."

Though the economy is emerging again as a major issue for voters, Democratic leaders in both chambers of Congress, as well as the White House, are heavily invested in enacting health legislation, intending to make good on a major Democratic promise from the 2008 campaign.

The outcome of debate in the Senate – where the push for health-overhaul legislation died in 1994 -- is the biggest uncertainty facing Democratic leaders and the White House. Not only do Republicans have big leverage to shape debate, but Democrats are not united on details, and difficult negotiations lie ahead on issues like the government-run insurance plan and aid to small businesses, among other things.

The legislation would create a national "exchange" where small businesses and individuals could purchase insurance. It would require most people to carry health insurance or face a penalty of up to $750 per person.

Under the bill, employers with more than 50 workers who don't offer insurance would be required to make a payment to the government to defray the taxpayers' cost of insuring the workers. Additionally, insurers would be barred from engaging in a range of practices – such as denying insurance because of pre-existing conditions -- that critics say have led to gaps in coverage across the country and created turmoil in family budgets. The bill would also create a government-run insurance plan, while giving states the option not to participate.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill would reduce the deficit by $130 billion over the next decade, in part due to cuts in Medicare payments to health-care providers but also because of a range of new taxes. They include new fees on drug makers and medical-device makers, a tax on high-value insurance plans, and higher Medicare payroll taxes for families making more than $250,000 a year.

"Senators who support this bill have a lot of explaining to do," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.). "Americans know that a vote to proceed on this bill is a vote for higher premiums, higher taxes, and massive cuts to Medicare. That's a pretty hard thing to justify supporting."

Original here

Traffic cameras used to harass and limit movement of peaceful protestors

2009-11-22T01:22:00.000-08:00

Britain is full of license-plate cameras, cameras used to send you tickets if you're caught speeding, or driving in the bus-lane, or entering London's "congestion-charge zone" without paying the daily fee for driving in central London. And because of Chekhov's first law of narrative ("a gun on the mantelpiece in act one will go off by act three"), the police have decided to also use these cameras as a surveillance tool, to "catch terrorists" (and other bad guys). So any police officer can add any license number to the database of "people of interest" and every time that license plate passes a camera, the local police force will receive an urgent alert, and can pull over the car, detain the driver, and search the car and its passengers under the Terrorism Act.

And, of course, police officers are less than discriminating about who they add to this list. For example, "Catt, 50, and her 84-year-old father, John" were added to the list because a police officer noticed their van at three protest demonstrations. And now Catt and John get pulled over by the police and searched as terrorists.

Environmental activists tend to be pretty forgiving of license-plate cameras, because they're a critical piece of congestion-charge systems that charge people money for driving instead of using public transit. This kind of regressive tax (the £10 charge in London is a pittance and no disincentive to the wealthy, and is crippling to the marginal and the poor) is also much beloved by the law-and-economics crowd, who assume that rational consumers will all be equally disincentivized by a little friction in the system.

But congestion charges require license plate cameras, and license plate cameras are an enormous piece of artillery to hand to the world's police, who are increasingly pants-wettingly afraid of any sort of public protest -- including environmental protests. I support reducing driving as much as the next green, but environmental change will require lots of protest, and that protest will get exponentially harder with the growth of the traffic cameras that are absolutely integral to congestion charge schemes.

The two anti-war campaigners were not the only law-abiding protesters being monitored on the roads. Officers have been told they can place "markers" against the vehicles of anyone who attends demonstrations using the national ANPR data centre in Hendon, north London, which stores information on car journeys for up to five years.

Senior officers have been instructed to "fully and strategically exploit" the database, which allows police to mark vehicles with potentially useful inform-ation such as drink-driving convictions.

The use of the ANPR database to flag-up vehicles belonging to protesters has resulted in peaceful campaigners being repeatedly stopped and searched.

Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act reveal Kent and Essex police deployed mobile ANPR "interceptor teams" on roads surrounding the protest against the Kingsnorth power station, in Kent, last year.

Original here

Administration eyes ways to help laid-off workers

2009-10-04T01:29:00.000-07:00

By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration is considering steps to ease the burdens of laid-off workers, including possible extensions of unemployment and health benefits, officials said Saturday.

The administration has stopped short of calling for a second economic stimulus package to augment the $787 billion measure approved this year. But with the jobless rate continuing to climb, President Barack Obama said Saturday he is exploring "additional options to promote job creation."

Administration aides said possibilities include:

_extending enhanced unemployment-insurance benefits beyond Dec. 31, when they are set to expire.

_extending a tax credit for laid-off workers who buy health insurance through the COBRA program. That program allows workers to keep their company's health insurance plan for 18 months after they leave their job, if they pay the premiums.

_extending a tax credit for first-time home buyers. This credit also is set to expire soon.

The administration has discussed these possibilities with congressional leaders, officials said, but no decisions have been made.

White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers expressed interest in these ideas in an online interview with the Atlantic magazine. "I don't know what the term 'second stimulus package' exactly means," Summers said. "We certainly need to continue to support people who are in need, whether it's unemployment insurance, or a COBRA program that for the first time provides that people who are laid off get supported in being able to maintain their health insurance."

In his weekly radio and Internet video address Saturday, Obama said his proposed health care overhaul would create jobs by making small business startups more affordable. If aspiring entrepreneurs believe they can stay insured while switching jobs, he said, they will start new businesses and hire workers.

"I hear about it from small business owners who want to grow their companies and hire more people, but they cant, because they can barely afford to insure the employees they have," Obama said. "One small business owner wrote to me that health care costs are and I quote 'stifling my business growth.' He said that the money he wanted to use for research and development, and to expand his operations, has instead been 'thrown into the pocket of healthcare insurance carriers.' "

Dismissive Republicans blamed the continuing job losses on Democratic policies and said the president's health proposals won't help.

The unemployment rate rose to 9.8 percent in September, the highest since June 1983, as employers cut far more jobs than expected. The government reported Friday that the economy lost a net total of 263,000 jobs last month, from a downwardly revised 201,000 in August. All told, 15.1 million people are now out of work, the Labor Department said, and 7.2 million jobs have been eliminated since the recession began in December 2007.

Obama said he has met people "who've got a good idea and the expertise and determination to build it into a thriving business. But many can't take that leap because they can't afford to lose the health insurance they have at their current job."

Small businesses create many of the nation's jobs, Obama said, and some have the potential to become big companies.

Obama praised the Senate Finance Committee for crafting a health care bill that includes many of his priorities. Small businesses could buy health insurance through an exchange, he said, "where they can compare the price, quality and services of a wide variety of plans."

The government would subsidize health insurance for many businesses and individuals, the president said.

In the weekly Republican address, Rep. Candice Miller of Michigan said the original Obama-backed economic stimulus package fell far short of its goals. She criticized a House-passed energy bill that would set limits and costs on greenhouse gas emissions. The plan, which the Senate has not taken up, "would increase electricity bills, raise gasoline prices and ship more American jobs overseas," Miller said.

She called for deeper tax cuts for small businesses so the economy can get back on track.

"Washington Democrats' job-killing agenda makes me think they're living on a different planet from the families living in America's suffering heartland," Miller said.

Original here

"Darned good" Republican Whitman endorsed U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer in 2003

2009-10-04T01:28:00.001-07:00

Former eBay executive Meg Whitman, the 2010 gubernatorial candidate who has recently portrayed herself as a "darned good" conservative Republican, endorsed Democratic U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer in 2003, records show.

"Whitman contributed $4,000 to Boxer in the 2004 reelection campaign -- and endorsed Boxer as a part of Technology Leaders for Boxer,'' confirmed Boxer aide Rose Kapolczynski today.

And, she signed an "open letter" appealing for support from the California technology executives, touting Boxer as a "dynamic and courageous leader" on the tech front.

Whitman's name was included in a "Friends of Boxer" release when the committee of a dozen technology leaders was formed in 2003 to assist the California Democrat in her 2004 re-election effort, which pitted her against GOP former Secretary of State Bill Jones.

The move by Whitman to back the Democratic junior Senator came about because "in the spring of 2003, some technology leaders were interested in announcing their support for Boxer, so our campaign went out and talked to a wide range of leaders. And Meg Whitman was among them,'' Kapolcyznski said.

"She agreed to endorse the Senator...there was a fundraising event in Silicon Valley later in the year and Whitman maxed out to the campaign,'' she said.

Why would Whitman, who has repeatedly said that she backs Republican values, throw her support to Boxer -- reviled by Republicans as one of the U.S. Senate's most liberal members?

"(Boxer) has been a strong supporter of research and development funding, which benefits Silicon Valley,'' Kapolcyznski said. "She's worked to promote exports of technology overseas and she's always had a strong relationship with the technology industry.''

Whitman spokesman Sarah Pompei, asked about the endorsement, said today that "at the same time that Barbara Boxer was fighting against internet taxes, which earned Meg Whitman's support, Steve Poizner was arguing for tax increases to support transportation projects and cover budget shortfalls in Sacramento. It's nothing new, Meg Whitman has supported members of both parties who fought against internet taxes."

Indeed, Cisco System chair and CEO John Chambers, today a member of Whitman's economic task force and one of her major backers, actually headed the Boxer Tech group. He gushed that he was in full support of her re-election because her "leadership on Silicon Valley issues such as stock options, broadband, R&D tax credit, and export controls shows she is responsible to the needs of the California economy.''

Whitman, the eBay CEO, was so convinced of Boxer's strength that she, too, released her own statement. "Barbara Boxer is a courageous leader and friend of California's technology industry,'' Whitman said in the 2003 Democratic campaign release.

It's a quote Boxer may end up using in her 2010 re-election campaign against either California Assemblyman Chuck DeVore or former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, two Republicans who are aiming for her seat.

The news that Whitman backed and endorsed Boxer -- considered Public Enemy Number One for the GOP in California -- comes just days after the eBay CEO faced heat over her failure to vote for decades. She assured grassroots activists at the state GOP convention last week of her solid Republican credentials.

"I'm a Republican, and you'll find I'm a darn good one,'' she told them. "I've committed myself to running for one of the toughest chief executive jobs on the planet because I believe Republican ideals, truly and consistently applied, will save this state."

Posted By: Carla Marinucci

Original here

Is Rep. Alan Grayson The New “Mr. Smith” (Goes To Washington)

2009-10-04T01:26:00.000-07:00

By Amy Beth Arkawy

NEWS JUNKIE POST

The Democrats—wishing and hoping for a hero in the health scare debate—may have finally found their guy. Not that he’s perfect. But hey, who is? Freshman Florida Congressman Alan Grayson boldly and succinctly laid out the Republican plan for health care reform late Tuesday night. It’s his Wednesday follow-up that’s raising eyebrows on both sides of the aisle.

On Tuesday, the brash reformer, who ran on an anti-corruption platform and has apparently been making good on his campaign promises (so much so, his seat is considered one of the more vulnerable Democratic seats in 2010), with grade school poster board visual aids clearly stated the republican plan as, “Don’t get sick. And if you do get sick, die quickly.”

This scathing, sound-bitable description threw the House Republicans into a fast frenzy. These characters—who have spent months stonewalling and spewing fear with the regularity of Old Faithful—quickly demanded an apology. It was the most “mean-spirited statement” Rep. Duncan from Tennessee had ever heard on the House floor. Really? What about Rep. Ginny Brown- Wade’s characterization of the Democrats’ plan as “essentially saying to America’s seniors: ‘Drop Dead’?” Or Rep. Virginia Fox calling for a Republican plan that “will be pro-life because it will not kill senior citizens.” Or Rep. Paul Braun: “Their plan’s gonna kill people?” And on and on all month long from the stop and set the reset repubs.

I know liberal and conservatives hear things differently; I’m pretty sure they’ve done a study at Harvard or somewhere to support this thesis (otherwise some scholar’s got a grant application in the mail). But I don’t think Congressman Grayson’s terse comments violated the rules of decorum of that esteemed (and dainty) body. But GOP ears were bleeding red, white and blue indignation. And so Rep. Tom Price from Georgia took to the floor Wednesday morning and demanded an apology from Grayson. Or else. The or else, of course, was a rebuke similar to the one Rep. Joe Wilson received following his infamous “You lie” outburst at President Obama.

Again, there are substantial differences between Wilson’s rude blurt hurled at the President during a speech before a joint session of Congress, and the daily rhetoric reps toss at each other in spirited political gamesmanship. But, as I said, liberals and conservatives hear things differently.

So on Wednesday Grayson apologized. Sort of. He said, “I apologize to the 45,000 people who die each year because they don’t have health insurance. I apologize to the dead and their families.” So far so good. The guy’s getting fitted for a cape, right? Well, not exactly. Grayson couldn’t resist, I guess, going for the hyperbolic flourish. He ended with, “I apologize that we didn’t vote to end this Holocaust in America sooner.”

Uh oh. Even heroes misspeak. As I heard the word leave his lips it started to run in a cinematic slo-mo; I just knew he regretted it as it slipped out, wrapped tightly in righteous indignation. He must have been sweating as visions of himself being lambasted over the Fox News spit flashed through his mind.

Maybe not. Grayson appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC Wednesday night and hardly bristled at his own faux pas. To her credit, Maddow—undisputedly the most even-tempered of all cable TV hosts—gave him three chances to rescind the Holocaust reference. He bobbed and weaved in classic pol style. But by the third time, she cornered him, practically spoon-fed him the right answer. “Do you think you should have used the word ‘Holocaust?” she gently pressed. Finally, Grayson gave in, conceding, “It probably wasn’t the best choice of words.”

And it wasn’t for obvious reasons. The Holocaust is such a loaded term for so many people. Using it in this context offends many and only serves as a distraction from Grayson’s solid facts, his stats, his sentiment. It allows Republicans to dodge their own culpability by making him, his perceived insensitivity, the issue.

But Grayson seems undaunted. After his meek concession to Maddow, he launched into a diatribe about the kind of politicians Americans want and need. “People want Democrats with guts. People want Congress to solve their problems… or at least work on them.” Somewhere along the line he called the repubs, “foot-dragging, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals.” Okay, so we’re back fitting Grayson for his cape.

The thing is: as one who has called for folks on both sides to ratchet down the rancor, I can’t pull a double-standard (I don’t, after all, work for FOX News). So, if it’s not helpful for the republicans to offer rabid rhetoric, the same applies to the democrats. But I admit to rooting for Grayson, seeing him as a sort of chunkier, brazen 21st Century Mr. Smith taking on Washington. And wishing there were more like him.

Original here

Conservatives Revel In America's Olympic Defeat

2009-10-04T01:24:00.000-07:00

Rachel Slajda

When the International Olympic Committee voted against Chicago's bid for the 2016 Olympics this morning -- after the President and First Lady flew to Copenhagen to push for it in person -- the Weekly Standard newsroom burst into applause.

"Cheers erupt at Weekly Standard world headquarters," wrote editor John McCormack in a post titled "Chicago Loses! Chicago Loses!"

The line was quickly removed, but ThinkProgress caught it in time and posted a screenshot of the post.

But even with the edits, McCormack is still obviously reveling in America's defeat.

"As a citizen of the world who believes that No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation, I'm glad that the Obama White House's jingoist rhetoric and attempt to pay back Chicago cronies at the expense of undermining our relationships with our allies failed," he wrote.

McCormack's fellow conservatives joined in the celebration.

"Chicago and Tokyo eliminated. No Obamalypics," Michelle Malkin tweeted, following up with, "Game over on Obamalympics. Next up, Obamacare."

"Please, please let me break this news to you. It's so sweet," said Glenn Beck on his radio show.

"Hahahahaha," wrote Red State's Erick Erickson. "So Obama's pimped us to every two bit thug and dictator in the world, made promises to half the Olympic committee, and they did not even kiss him. So much for improving America's standing in the world, Barry O."

The Drudge Report announced the news like so: "WORLD REJECTS OBAMA: CHICAGO OUT IN FIRST ROUND. THE EGO HAS LANDED."

"The worst day of Obama's presidency, folks. The ego has landed. The world has rejected Obama," echoed Rush Limbaugh.

"For those of you ... who are upset that I sound gleeful, I am. I don't deny it. I'm happy," Limbaugh said. "Anything that gets in the way of Barack Obama accomplishing his domestic agenda is fine with me."

"President Obama fails to get the Olympics while unemployment goes to 9.8% Iran continues nuclear program. America needs focused leadership," Newt Gingrich tweeted. Then he added, "Somehow charm and oratory dont seem to work in foreign affirs but historians have warned that foreign policy is different than campaigning." (sic)

"ChicagP\/\/n3D!" tweeted Newsmax, of recent fame for running, then pulling, a column about an impending military coup against Obama.

Apparently no one read the tweet from former Bush flack Scott Stanzel.

"Note to GOP officials/consultants - resist the temptation to pile on about Chicago losing the Olympic bid just because Obama made the pitch," he wrote, advice reportedly passed on by Former Mitt Romney spokesman Kevin Madden.

Fox News, however, saw it coming. A Fox anchor told senior adviser David Axelrod she could "imagine the headlines" that would come out of this, that Obama had been "rebuked," and had "failed." Axelrod simply responded that no one could doubt Obama's influence after watching the G-20, and said neither he nor the President have any regrets about trying.

Original here

BREAKING: Texas Judge: Ban On Gay Marriage Unconstitutional

2009-10-04T01:21:00.000-07:00

by David Badash

A Dallas, Texas state district judge will hear the case of a same sex couple who have filed for divorce. The state’s attorney general had argued that since Texas doesn’t allow same sex marriage, it cannot allow same sex divorce.

The judge disagreed.

Original here

The perils of long-term unemployment

2009-10-04T01:18:00.000-07:00

Alarming as the climb in unemployment is, the growing duration of joblessness is more worrying still.

America’s army of long-term unemployed — those without work for six months or more — swelled to 5.4 million, according to today’s figures. This is roughly equal to the combined populations of Los Angeles, San Diego and Sacramento. (For the internationally minded, it is slightly more than the population of Finland.)

More and more workers are exhausting benefits. As of the start of this month around 400,000 stopped receiving assistance. Another 1.3 million will use up their entitlement before the end of the year.

This calls for stronger action from the federal government.

A further extension of jobless benefits is now critical. These have already been stretched out to an unprecedented 79 weeks in some states with high unemployment. Congress should now press ahead with plans for an additional 13 weeks.

In addition to preventing large numbers falling into poverty, this is among the best forms of fiscal stimulus. Money given to the unemployed is almost certain to be spent quickly.

A recent survey for the National Employment Law Project found that 67 percent of unemployed adults had cut back on basics like food and groceries. Almost half had fallen behind with rent payments and a third had been forced to move in with friends or family.

No other form of government spending delivers such an immediate sugar rush to the economy. Unlike the cash for clunkers program, it is not merely stealing consumption from the future.

Still, there is a danger in such a stimulus. Allowing Americans the luxury of being pickier about which job they choose can have costs.

When it comes to unemployment, time matters. Skills atrophy after extended periods without work. Then, when growth picks up, these workers are no longer in a position to fill new jobs.

A slew of academic papers suggest that a quick return to the workforce — even in a humbler capacity — is often a good idea, especially for the young. Research by Tom Mroz at Clemson University showed that a six-month spell of unemployment at the age of 22 reduced wages even a decade later.

So the extra spending on unemployment benefit needs to be combined with much more assistance with job searching and retraining. According to the OECD, U.S. funding for retraining and job searching has risen by less than 20 percent during the crisis.

Failure to do more to retool the long-term unemployed will create lingering problems for the U.S. economy. Extending benefits is an important first step, but it is not enough to ensure that the administration’s stimulus is effective. For the more Americans are permanently dislocated from the workforce, the less robust any recovery will be.

Original here

Thank You, Mr. President

2009-10-04T01:16:00.000-07:00

Count me as one conservative who is disappointed that President Obama's hometown will not be hosting the 2016 Olympic Games.

Chicago is a beautiful city that would have made a perfect backdrop for the Olympics. The President was right to fly to Copenhagen to try to land the games, not for the sake of his city, but for the good of his country. The fact President Obama failed makes me respect him more for taking the chance, and the fact many right-wing figures opposed the President's mission shows just how narrow-minded partisanship makes us all.

For the better part of 20 years, a bitterness has infected our politics that has weakened our country.

We Republicans spent eight years trying to delegitimize Bill Clinton.

Democrats spent the next eight years doing the same to George W. Bush.

Now that a Democrat is in the Oval Office again, it is the GOP who is trying to delegitimize a sitting president.

When I try to talk to Republicans about the need to break this cycle of viciousness, some cite the chapter and verse of every hateful left wing attack against George W. Bush.

Whenever I attempt to have a conversation with some Democrats about the need for us respect our president-- whether he be an Obama or a Bush-- I am told that Bush deserved whatever he got because he was a lying war criminal who hated the Constitution and loved torturing
people.

Fortunately, there are a growing number of Americans who believe we cannot continue going on this way.

You and I may disagree on how the CIA handled terror suspects. But that does not mean that you are soft on terrorism anymore than it means that I hate the Constitution.

You and I may have a different approach to Afghanistan. But just because you want to stay there another five years doesn't mean you are an imperialist. And if I believe a decade in that forsaken land is more than enough, that doesn't mean I'm soft on al Qaeda or the Taliban.

It just means that we view the world differently.

That creative tension--that intense give and take--has been what has kept America strong since Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton fought like hell in George Washington's White House.

Hamilton wanted a strong centralized government while Jefferson believed that the government that governed least governed best.

Both men were frustrated by the checks and balances that stood in the way of their agendas, but that debate shaped America for years to come.

But something has gone terribly wrong.

Today on Morning Joe, NBC News Legend Tom Brokaw remarked to Pat Buchanan about how the level of partisanship is even more intense today than during the depths of the Watergate crisis. Brokaw was commenting on Congressman Grayson's comments, but he could have easily
been talking about Joe Wilson or death panels or the bizarre claim that the President "hates all white people."

Some of the rhetoric is dangerous. But what we saw from some conservative corners regarding the President's failed Olympics bid was just plain stupid.

I'm happy for Rio and think it is past time that South America got a chance to host the Olympic Games. But put me down as one conservative who is glad my president flew across the ocean to try to bring the 2016 Games to America.

Nice try, President Obama. And thanks for taking time away from your young girls for the sake of your hometown and your country, Michelle. I know that's never an easy thing to do.

Original here

Birther Orly Taitz Compares Self To Mandela, Wants Judge Tried For Treason

2009-09-16T21:50:00.000-07:00

Justin Elliott

In an interview with TPM just now, Birther evangelist Orly Taitz fired back at Clay Land, the U.S. district court judge who tore apart Birtherism and threatened Taitz with sanctions in an order today, saying that "somebody should consider trying [the judge] for treason and aiding and abetting this massive fraud known as Barack Hussein Obama."

"This is so outrageous what this judge did -- it goes in the face of law and order," said Taitz, reached at her office in Mission Viego, CA. "Not every judge is as corrupt as Judge Land. Some judges believe in the Constitution. And some judges believe in the rule of law."

The withering 14-page order by Land, a George W. Bush appointee, tossed out a "birther soldier" case brought by Taitz and Army Capt. Connie Rhodes, who wants to defy a deployment order because she believes Barack Obama does not legitimately possess the presidency.

A clearly frustrated Land called Taitz's suit -- the second filed in the Middle District of Georgia -- "frivolous" and threatened her with sanctions if she kept at it.

I asked Taitz what she will do next with the Rhodes case, which was filed and tossed out in another district before it was refiled with Land. "This is the decision of Connie," she said. "I will be talking to her and making a decision."

And if Rhodes is open to continuing the fight, would Taitz go along?

"Oh absolutely, absolutely," she said. "Listen, Nelson Mandela stayed in prison for years in order to get to the truth and justice."

And Taitz brushed off the possibility of sanctions. "I'm not afraid of sanctions. Because I know this is not frivolous. I know this is extremely important -- the most important issue in this country today."

"Judge Land is a typical puppet of the regime -- just like in the Soviet Union," she said.

Original here

Your request is being processed... Jimmy Carter: Wilson's Outburst 'Based On Racism' (VIDEO) Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com

2009-09-16T21:47:00.000-07:00

ATLANTA (AP) -- Former President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday that U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst to President Barack Obama during a speech to Congress last week was an act "based on racism" and rooted in fears of a black president.

"I think it's based on racism," Carter said at a town hall held at his presidential center in Atlanta. "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president."

The Georgia Democrat said the outburst was a part of a disturbing trend directed at the president that has included demonstrators equating Obama to Nazi leaders.

"Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care," he said. "It's deeper than that."

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

Wilson, a South Carolina Republican, was formally rebuked Tuesday in a House vote for shouting "You lie!" during Obama's speech to Congress last Wednesday.

The shout came after the president commented that illegal aliens would be ineligible for federal subsidies to buy health insurance. Republicans expressed their disbelief with sounds of disapproval, punctuated by Wilson's outburst.

Tuesday's rebuke was a rare resolution of disapproval pushed through by Democrats who insisted that Wilson had violated basic rules of decorum and civility. Republicans characterized the measure as a witch hunt and Wilson, who had already apologized to Obama, insisted he owed the House no apology.

Wilson's spokesman was not immediately available for comment, but his eldest son defended his father.

"There is not a racist bone in my dad's body," said Alan Wilson, an Iraq veteran who is running for state attorney general. "He doesn't even laugh at distasteful jokes. I won't comment on former President Carter, because I don't know President Carter. But I know my dad, and it's just not in him."

"It's unfortunate people make that jump. People can disagree -- and appropriately disagree -- on issues of substance, but when they make the jump to race it's absolutely ludicrous. My brothers and I were raised by our parents to respect everyone regardless of background or race."

South Carolina's former Democratic Party chairman said that he doesn't believe Wilson was motivated by racism, but said the outburst encouraged racist views.

"I think Joe's conduct was asinine, but I think it would be asinine no matter what the color of the president," said Dick Harpootlian, who has known Wilson for decades. "I don't think Joe's outburst was caused by President Obama being African-American. I think it was caused by no filter being between his brain and his mouth."

Harpootlian said he received scores of racial e-mails from outside South Carolina after he talked about the vote on Fox News.

"You have a bunch of folks out there looking for some comfort in their racial issues. They have a problem with an African-American president," he said. "But was he motivated by that? I don't think so. I respectfully disagree with President Carter, though it gives validity to racism."

Carter called Wilson's comment "dastardly" and an aftershock of racist views that have permeated American politics for decades.

"The president is not only the head of government, he is the head of state," he said. "And no matter who he is or how much we disagree with his policies, the president should be treated with respect."

The South Carolina Republican lawmaker was formally rebuked Tuesday in a House vote divided by party lines. Wilson shouted "You lie!" during Obama's speech to Congress last Wednesday.

Carter was responding to a question submitted Tuesday night at a town hall held at his presidential center in Atlanta.

Original here

Do You Have the Right to Flip Off a Cop?

2009-09-16T21:29:00.000-07:00

By Sean Scully / Philadelphia

David Hackbart was mad, and he wanted to show it, but he didn't think he would end up in federal court protecting his right to a rude gesture and demanding that the city of Pittsburgh stop violating the First Amendment rights of its residents.

Hackbart, 34, was looking for a parking space on busy Murray Avenue in the Squirrel Hill neighborhood on April 10, 2006. Spotting one, he attempted to back into it, but the driver of the car behind him refused to back up and give him sufficient room. Hackbart responded in the classic way. "I stuck my hand out the window and gave him the finger to say 'Hey, jerk, thanks,' " says Hackbart. "That's all I was trying to say — 'Thanks, thanks a lot.' "

At that moment, a voice rang out telling Hackbart not to make the rude gesture in public. "So I was like, How dare that person tell me? They obviously didn't see what happened. Who are they to tell me what to say?" he says. "So I flipped that person off. And then I looked, and it was a city of Pittsburgh cop in his car right next to me."

That turned out to be police sergeant Brian Elledge, who happened to be passing in the other direction in his cruiser. Elledge whipped around and pulled Hackbart over, citing him under the state's disorderly-conduct law, which bans obscene language and gestures. And here's where the problem lies, says state American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) legal director Witold (Vic) Walczak: the middle finger and equivalent swear words are not legally obscene. In fact, courts have consistently ruled that foul language is a constitutionally protected form of expression. A famous 1971 Supreme Court case upheld the right of a young man to enter the Los Angeles County Court House wearing a jacket emblazoned with the words "F___ the Draft." (Read about how disorderly conduct is often a cop's call.)

"The law is clear that people have the constitutional right to use profanity, especially when it comes to government officials, because that is a form of political speech," Walczak says. "But despite that, we have police officers regularly misapplying the law to punish people who offend them — that's really what it comes down to." (Read a brief history of disorderly conduct.)

U.S. District Judge David Cercone ruled in March that the citation, along with the $119.75 court costs imposed by a city court, was clearly unconstitutional. The question, however, is whether the city has a pattern of tolerating this kind of constitutional violation. The ACLU says it found 188 cases from 2005 to 2007 in which people were cited under similar circumstances, despite an entry in the police department's training manual making clear that vulgar speech is not illegal.

The question was set to go to trial in Federal District Court last week, but the matter was delayed at the last moment while the two sides explored a settlement. The city's law department declined to comment on the case.

The problem is not confined to Pittsburgh. In 2007, a woman in Scranton, Pa., was cited for yelling obscenities at an overflowing toilet in her home — a tirade overheard by her neighbor, an off-duty police officer. She was later acquitted on constitutional grounds, and the city paid her a $19,000 settlement. "We probably handle a dozen of these cases every year," Walczak says. "We're actually negotiating with the state police right now, trying to force them to change their training and written materials to make clear you can't do this."

It is, of course, part of a larger question. The recent controversy over the arrest of historian Henry Louis Gates Jr. — who was charged with disorderly conduct in his home after police arrived to investigate an erroneous report of a burglary in progress — was cast in racial terms: a white officer distrusting a black homeowner. But Walczak says this issue seems to have more to do with a police officer being confronted by an angry and disrespectful person and turning disorderly-conduct laws into a "contempt of cop" law, as he puts it. "Frankly, I think having someone dropping the F-bomb is better than resisting arrest or taking a swipe at a police officer," Walczak says. "But what we're seeing too often is that police who are offended by a lack of respect, often manifested by profanity or cursing, will punish people for that." (Read Ta-Nehisi Coates on the Henry Louis Gates Jr. affair.)

Elledge and the city police department have consistently refused to comment on the case. But Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, says police officers are not out to systematically punish people who mouth off. "There is certainly no substitute for good judgment on the street," says Pasco, whose organization represents officers nationwide, including Pittsburgh, "and if in the officer's judgment, maintenance of order is going to be preserved by giving a citation or making an arrest, then the officer is going to use his judgment to make that arrest or issue that citation." (See pictures of Henry Louis Gates Jr.)

Officers clearly have varying levels of tolerance for rudeness from the people they encounter, he says, but he expressed little sympathy for anyone making rude remarks to or gestures toward officers. "Police officers have better things to do than give people citations," he says. "And if people are doing things to distract police officers from doing those things, then they should be held accountable in some way."

But Hackbart, a paralegal who learned about court rulings on vulgar language in a communications-law class, says police should not be able to punish people by issuing citations they know to be unconstitutional. Elledge "shouldn't be allowed to conduct himself like that with no repercussions," he says. "Does everybody have to go through this to defend themselves against a bogus charge?"

Original here

Texting to Death

2009-09-16T21:27:00.000-07:00

A leading road safety group, the Governors Highway Safety Association, has reversed field and announced its support for state laws banning drivers from sending and receiving text messages. The move is a welcome response to growing evidence that texting creates a greater risk of crashing than even drunken driving.

Studies suggest that drivers who send or receive a text message tend to take their eyes off the road for about five seconds, enough time for a vehicle going at highway speed to travel more than 100 yards. The Virginia Tech Transportation Institute found that truckers sending text messages are 23 times more likely to cause a crash or near-crash than a nontexting trucker.

Texting car drivers, according to a University of Utah study using a driving simulator, are eight times more likely to crash. But fewer than 20 states prohibit texting while driving. And some of those statutes, like New York’s new law, impose minor fines and a negligible enforcement scheme that allows police officers to penalize a driver for the offense only if stopped for another infraction, such as a broken taillight or speeding.

While stronger state laws are essential, texting at the wheel is a national hazard that calls for a firm federal response. One answer would be to condition federal highway money on state compliance with reasonable safety standards. This has helped produce stronger laws against drunken driving.

A promising Senate bill — the Alert Drivers Act of 2009 — would do exactly that. It would require states to adopt federally set minimum penalties for texting while driving or forfeit 25 percent of highway financing. States would have two years to comply and could recover lost funds once they passed acceptable laws. A companion bill has been introduced in the House.

The need to crack down on this dangerous practice is abundantly clear.

Original here

Prankster Introduces Ballot Initiative to Ban Divorce

2009-09-16T21:24:00.000-07:00

John Marcotte, a California man with a history of pulling social pranks, is collecting signatures to get the "California Protection of Marriage Act," which would ban divorce, on the ballot.

Marcotte calls his voter initiative "the logical extension of Proposition 8," the controversial measure which last year added "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," to the state's constitution.

Marcotte has tongue firmly in cheek -- his Web site is subtitled, "Safeguarding marriage from the evils of divorce," and supporters can buy a T-shirt of a chained-together bride and groom reading "You said, 'Til death do us part.' You're not dead yet."

But his point is valid -- since many of Prop 8 supporters cited defending traditional marriage as their reason for pushing for the gay marriage ban, shouldn't they also be supportive of the "California Protection of Marriage Act," which eliminates the greatest threat to marriage that exists?

Original here

There's Just No Way Sarah Palin's Writing Her Facebook Notes

2009-08-14T10:16:00.000-07:00

By The Cajun Boy

Just before midnight, a "note" was posted on Sarah Palin's Facebook page titled, "Concerning the 'Death Panels.'" Predictably, the media latched onto it and reported her thoughts. However, there's a problem: there's no way in hell Sarah Palin wrote it.

How do I know this, you ask? Well, the answer to that question is perhaps best explained by a comment someone named Marvin Settle posted under Palin's note. He wrote:

Wow, and the public thought she wasn't educated enough to be President? That is some of the most well researched and thought out material I have ever read. Thanks Sarah.

Exactly! Thank you Marvin Settle. Thank you very much.

The note in question is supposed to be Palin's response to Obama's response to Palin's infamous "death panel" Facebook note. Here's a sampling of it:

Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these "unproductive" members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care.

The President made light of these concerns. He said:

"Let me just be specific about some things that I've been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor that's been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for death panels that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we've decided that we don't, it's too expensive to let her live anymore....It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, etc. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they're ready on their own terms. It wasn't forcing anybody to do anything." [1]

The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled "Advance Care Planning Consultation." [2] With all due respect, it's misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.

Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often "if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual ... or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility... or a hospice program." [3] During those consultations, practitioners must explain "the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice," and the government benefits available to pay for such services. [4]

Now, let's just stop there because it doesn't even really take a careful examination of the entire note to deduce that it simply could not have been written by Sarah Palin, which leads one to pretty much dismiss all of the points it attempts to make. In fact, a cursory glance is more than sufficient to come to that realization as the note is obviously meticulously researched and footnoted, appears to be entirely grammatically correct (It even contains semicolons!), presents rather cogent arguments in a reasoned attempt to persuade, and on the whole is written articulately. In short, whoever composed this particular note is everything that Sarah Palin is not: thoughtful, patient, dedicated, thorough, and rational, traits that any casual, non-delusional observer of Sarah Palin would never, ever associate with her.

Another key indicator in determining that Sarah Palin did not write this particular note are the host of Palin rhetorical hallmarks missing from it. Just ask yourself this question: Is it possible for Sarah Palin to compose anything clocking in at just under 1000 words that's completely devoid of references to God, the troops, the liberal media, Alaska, Ronald Reagan, her baby with Down Syndrome, or a hilariously painful attempt to channel her inner Jack London with some great poetic flourish? No! There is absolutely no consistency between this Facebook note and anything we've ever seen written or spoken by Sarah Palin.

Interestingly, there are a couple of other coherent notes on Palin's Facebook page posted after the "death panel" note that refer to her in the third person, as if they were written by an aide or a staffer. Here is one such note. Perhaps someone was enlisted to speak for her after the "death panel" debacle?

So who's writing Sarah's Facebook notes? Hell, your guess is as good as mine. Meg Stapleton perhaps? Bill Kristol? An intern? The person ghostwriting her forthcoming book? Who knows! But whoever it is, their being enlisted to perform these services is obviously part of a diabolical plan to rehabilitate Palin's image as a staggering dipshit. However, they really should have eased into it, because it's just way too obvious that Sarah Palin did not write the note that was posted to her Facebook page tonight. Period.

Original here

"Don't Know Much About History"

2009-08-14T10:13:00.000-07:00

By Jon Taplin

One of the things that is so pathetic about the demagoguery of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck is that their understanding of history is so puerile that in any civilized debate they would be laughed off the stage. Of course they don't allow a civilized debate. The callers to their radio shows are pre-screened to maintain the echo chamber. Take their recent attempt to equate the Nazi's "National Socialism" with "Socialism". Here's Limbaugh yesterday.

But socialism is socialism, as I say. If you want me to I'll go back and give you the fascists of the Twenties and Thirties. They don't like Nazi Germany, I'll give you Mussolini's Italy. Or I can give you the Soviet Union any time in the Seventies, Eighties, and Nineties. Whatever you want, I can give you -- I can give you the North Koreans today. Socialism is socialism wherever it is, whatever you call it. But don't forget, folks, the term "Nazi" comes from the German word for National Socialism.

This equation that National Socialism was Socialism would come as a pretty big shock to the hundreds of thousands of German socialists (many of them Jewish) who were rounded up by the Nazi's in the 1930's and sent to prison camps or shot by firing squads.

In 1936, Hitler actually tried to eliminate the National Health Care system that had been set up by Bismarck (who Limbaugh amazingly called "a typical Lefty"). But his political counselors told him it would cause a public revolt, so he left it in place (except of course for "non-Aryans"). Richard Evans' definitive book on the rise of fascists in Germany, The Coming of the Third Reich, clearly lays out the true character of fascism in the year 1933. It fits Limbaugh, Beck and and Sarah Palin perfectly.

For all their aggressively egalitarian rhetoric, the Nazis were relatively indifferent, in the end, to the inequalities of society. What mattered to them above all else was race, culture and ideology. In the coming years, they would create a whole new set of institutions through which they would seek to remould the German Psyche and rebuild the German character.

The main institution used to remold the German character was of course the radio, which is why our modern day fascists like Limbaugh will fight the return of the Fairness Doctrine "til the last dog dies". 18 months ago I took on the Conservative writer Jonah Goldberg, who had just published a book called Liberal Fascism which was the Right's attempt to push back against the fascist label that had been pinned on them since the 1930's. Goldberg came back at me with a pitiful rejoinder and after I replied he took his ball and went home pouting. But now this same stupid trope has been adopted by people with a far bigger megaphone than Goldberg and with even less tolerance for dissent from their crack-brained ideology.

When ever I see a pictures of 70 year old white guys on medicare protesting at town hall meetings about "no government health care" or "socialized medicine", I have to wonder about the strange Vulcan Mind Meld Beck and Limbaugh have over their audience. And then I think about Santayana's epic quote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." It's obvious that both Limbaugh and Beck were partying too hard in their youth to ever show up at history class. And now they are passing on their ignorance to millions of listeners a day.

Maybe Peter Orzag should challenge Glenn Beck to a debate on Health care. I'll bet you $1000 Beck wouldn't take the challenge.

Original here

Obama feels the heat, changes the play

2009-07-20T12:21:00.000-07:00

AP – President Barack Obama greets Apollo 11 astronaut Neil Armstrong in the Oval Office of the White House …

Ben Smith

Finally, we’re starting to see him sweat.

President Barack Obama made his personal icy cool the trademark of his campaign, the tenor of his White House and the hallmark of an early run of successes at home and abroad. But as the glamour wears off and a long, frustrating summer wears on, he is being forced to improvise — stooping to respond to political foes and adjusting his tactics and demeanor for the trench warfare of a legislative agenda.

The root of the change is one that faces every president: Economic and international realities that resist political charm. Iran and North Korea have shown no interest in the president’s outstretched hand. The economy has delivered a double-whammy, with rising unemployment stirring voters’ concerns while sluggish growth deprives the government of tax revenues Obama would like to spend on new programs.
Health care reform, which once appeared flush with momentum from earlier congressional victories, is now on a slog through no less than five committees, which include Democrats who either aren’t sold on Obama’s expansive vision or can’t figure out how to convince voters to pay for it.

“This is when it gets harder,” the president told supporters June 30.

And so it has.

In turn, Obama has adjusted, deviating from the playbook on every front.

The cool president has turned hot on the stump, stripping to shirtsleeves to lambaste doubters in New Jersey Thursday. He departed from his prepared remarks last week to accept a Republican challenge to take personal ownership of the economy: “That’s fine. Give it to me,” he said.

Even Obama's scripted speeches are deliberately more forceful, aggressive and direct in taking on critics, aides say. Friday remarks at the White House had a trash-talk edge – count me out and you’ll be sorry.

Obama’s political operation has dispensed with its post-inauguration cocktails for Republicans – or more often, ignoring them outright — in favor of the old politics of engage, attack and cajole. Obama’s even engaging in a little Democrat-on-Democrat politics, as his ex-campaign arm is beaming TV ads into the home states of moderate fence-sitters on health care.

The tightly programmed White House also is champing at the bit, kicking off what officials say will be a relentless three-week push on health care, starting with the hastily scheduled Friday address. But its first event might have backfired a bit. Its main consequence was proving that the magnetism of Obama’s personal appearances has worn off, as it drew little media attention and a dismissive tweet from the key Senate Republican, Chuck Grassley of Iowa: “Waste of time.”

The sum has been a new sense of uncertainty and strain, and a growing murmur among Democrats in Washington nervous about the White House’s tactics, and a rising tide of concern in the states as local Democratic parties eye midterm elections that are traditionally a challenge for a new president.
“That honeymoon period is over, “ said Chris Redfern, the chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party. “Now they’re having to push back, and push back hard.”

White House officials and allies brush off any notion that this new sense of unease is meaningful. The only true test, they say, will be results. Obama still might win major health care reform legislation this year that could be the most important new government program in decades. He has a fighting chance to pass regulations on greenhouse gases, in the form of a “cap and trade” mechanism, through the Senate. And Obama continues to press hard, if with no clear progress, for a breakthrough in the Middle East.

“It’s the third quarter, he’s down by a point, and he’s got his best player on the bench – what really is going to be important is the fall,” said James Carville, the veteran Democratic observer.

“If he gets what’s perceived to be some kind of a major health care thing, gets the climate bill through, if the economy recovers, then we’ll all say he had a hell of a summer. Conversely, if the thing falls apart, we’ll say that by July the 19th we could tell the thing was going bad.”

White House Deputy Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer dismissed the suggestion that Obama should be expected to succeed effortlessly – or that he’s on a path toward failure on any of these varied fronts.

“Obama and his team have been down this road dozens of times and been declared dead many times and always succeeded,” he said. “No one gets rich betting against Barack Obama.”

The most visible aspect of the White House’s new feistiness is an increasing willingness to engage Republican legislators whose criticisms Obama earlier had been happier to overlook. Relentless criticism of the stimulus package from a House Republican leader, Eric Cantor of Virginia, drew a furious barrage from the Democratic National Committee and a visit from no smaller figure than the Vice President of the United States. Rank and file Republicans who criticize the stimulus have also suddenly found themselves under a concerted DNC assault that asks if they’d prefer the federal funding left their districts out. And criticism from Sen Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) drew letters from no fewer than four Cabinet secretaries to his state’s governor, asking if she would prefer they withheld stimulus money.

That pushback has been urged, and welcomed, by state leaders like Redfern and Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer.

“The DNC has been and we were quickly able to rebut and demonstrate all the money that is being spent in their respective districts,” said Brewer of two GOP congressmen attacking the stimulus. “They’ve backed off.”

Still, many Democrats say the Republican attacks on spending are taking their toll.

"The rhetoric is so empty, but it is fairly consistent and I think it’s had an impact on those in middle," said Ohio's Redfern.

But when the White House pushback focused not on Republicans but Democrats on health-care – in the form of Organizing for America ads running in the home states of moderate senators -- some in the party called foul, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)

The vote last month in the House on the American Clean Energy Security Act showed a willingness to get White House hands dirty in a different way.

Wrangling votes for the “cap and trade” legislation in the House, Obama backed off a campaign promise to auction off all “allowances” – permits to release a set amount of greenhouse gases. Instead of selling them to raise money for other environmental initiatives, the White House allowed congressional Democratic leaders to trade them for votes, assigning allowances to the refinery-heavy district of, for instance, Texas Rep. Gene Green in exchange for his support.

The battle over health care, the centerpiece of the President’s summer, has also hardened into a fairly conventional Washington fight, a new president’s sweeping agenda colliding with congressional caution. Obscure Washington figures like Congressional Budget Office chief Doug Elmendorf and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) have shown the ability to pose a real threat to the White House juggernaut. And some of the White House’s close allies have grown jittery about what they say is a strategy to spend the three weeks leading up to the Senate’s August recess – the insecure deadline for health care votes in both houses – with a series of events aimed at building public pressure on Congress.

“They’re great at campaigns, but legislative battles are different,” said a senior Democrat close to the White House. “It’s not about persuading 51 percent of the American people – it’s about seven senators.”

In another mark of Obama's constant adjustments, his latest remarks didn't mention the August deadline.

White House allies acknowledge the new strains, but say the hard work will pay off.

“A lot of the hard stuff he’s doing now will pay dividends,” said John Del Cecato, a former Obama campaign aide.

Meanwhile, admiration of Obama’s personal qualities has been tempered, even among sympathetic observers, with anxiety for where his agenda will stand at summer’s end.

Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart noted recently that Obama told a Pakistani interviewer that he is an accomplished chef of Pakistani cuisines and reads the great Urdu poets.

“Mr. President,” Stewart said, “while I am impressed with your Renaissance Man-level of knowledge in a plethora of subjects, may I humbly say: That’s great. Just fix the economy!”

Original here

Hope Fading For Political Reform In Illinois

2009-07-20T12:19:00.000-07:00

by David Schaper

Enlarge

Seth Perlman

Ousted Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. AP

All Things Considered, July 18, 2009 · This was supposed to be the year for political reform in Illinois. But six months after Pat Quinn took over for ousted Gov. Rod Blagojevich, some political reform advocates aren't satisfied with the results.

"We're gonna start to fumigate state government from top to bottom to make sure it has no corruption," Quinn said in January. He made the statement on his first full day after replacing fellow Democrat Blagojevich, who was impeached following his arrest on corruption charges. State lawmakers in both parties joined Quinn in vowing to clean up Illinois' notoriously dirty politics.

Patrick Collins knows a thing or two about corruption in Illinois. He was the lead federal prosecutor of George Ryan, the former Republican governor now serving a six-year prison term. He has prosecuted corrupt Chicago aldermen, city, state and county workers, as well as government contractors.

Collins says every case has one thing in common. "Each major public corruption investigation I was involved in had, at its core, a campaign finance problem."

So when Collins, now in private practice, was appointed by Quinn to lead a commission to suggest reforms for Illinois' wayward politics, he and other commissioners zeroed in on the state's almost regulation-free system of campaign finance. They proposed contribution limits to mirror federal regulations and several other restrictions.

"Suffice it to say, what came out of the legislative process did not reflect our core proposals," Collins says.

And that's putting it mildly.

Strong Words, Weak Actions

The Illinois General Assembly did approve contribution limits in its campaign finance bill, but set them thousands of dollars higher than Collins' commission recommended. Plus, Collins and other reform advocates say, the limits are riddled with gaping loopholes.

For example, candidates can set up several campaign committees for themselves, which some fear could become slush funds. Also, in-kind contributions are unlimited. The list goes on and on — and none of the new regulations would take effect until 2011, after next year's elections.

Even though Quinn initially called the bill a landmark for imposing the first-ever contribution limits in Illinois, he has not yet signed it.

His spokesman says the longtime political outsider, considered a reformer himself, is aware of the criticism surrounding the bill.

"The way that it's set up is going to invite challenge," says David Morrison with the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. "It's going to be tied up in court. Since it doesn't take effect for so long, it's going to take that much longer to get through the courts. In that sense, it's a huge step backward."

Many other Illinois reform proposals were put off, including stronger corruption investigative and enforcement provisions, term limits for powerful legislative leaders and the creation of a less political redistricting system.

An Opportunity Lost?

In a state that continues to be the butt of the nation's jokes, Collins says, this was a rare chance for real reform in Illinois. "You know, the world was watching, and to have answered the bell in a relatively meek way is a huge missed opportunity."

Collins says the Illinois legislature did pass a few good reforms, such as a stronger Freedom of Information Act and improved procurement laws to reduce the chances of contracting abuses.

Lawmakers cleaned up the state pension and hospital construction boards that Blagojevich appointees were convicted of using in extortion and kickback schemes.

Some observers say that's a good start for Illinois.

"A loophole is better than nothing," says Paul Green, a political scientist at Roosevelt University in Chicago. "It's a step. And the next time, you take another step and another step."

Green says bringing law and order to the wild west of Illinois politics has to be done gradually.

"Illinois government now, with Blagojevich gone, is cleaner than it's been in decades," he says.

Some reform advocates hope Quinn makes changes to the campaign finance bill and sends it back to the legislature. Some hope he vetoes it outright. Otherwise, they fear there won't be another chance for significant reform — until the next big scandal.

Original here

Republicans embrace Ron Paul on domestic policy

2009-07-20T12:16:00.000-07:00

By DANIEL LIBIT

: 'He hasn't bombed Iran yet,' says Ron Paul, when asked to assess the best and worst characteristics of President Barack Obama. Photo: AP

“He hasn’t bombed Iran yet,” says Ron Paul, when asked to assess the best and worst characteristics of President Barack Obama’s six months in office.

“The worst thing is he is probably still thinking about it.”

No sooner does the representative from Texas’ 14th Congressional District, nicknamed “Dr. No” by his detractors, find himself embraced by mainstream Republicans (and even some Democrats) on domestic policy issues, then he pivots his focus to foreign affairs.

Obama, Paul told POLITICO during a sit-down in his office this week, “has talked a little better than his action, but he has already expanded [the number of troops] in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He became the peace candidate: ‘Yeah, we’re going to end that war in Iraq.’ But it’s not sincere. I don't think they had any intention, never did.”

It’s a unique time for Paul. With the economy in the tank, the same cable news shows that spurned him during the election now keep asking him on to talk monetary policy. Republican House members are finally voting with him on spending measures.

But following his exhilarant, if quixotic, quest for the presidency, Paul finds himself simultaneously gratified and frustrated by his return to the friendlier-than-before confines of the House of Representatives. He thinks he’s well situated in Congress to push for his libertarian causes, but then claims he doesn't "pay a whole lot of attention" to the activity on the House floor these days, adding, "I don't think it's relevant to the big picture.”

“A lot of this is just tinkering, bailing out, more money, more spending, no shift of direction and it's a little bit frustrating," he says.

Asked if he feels more embraced by the Republican Party establishment, Paul shrugs and says, "half and half.”

"I think there's respect. But they don't call me in and say, ‘What we need to find out from you is how you reach the young people.’"

As for another presidential run in 2012, “I don’t think that’s likely,” Paul says.

But in the next breath, he admits that he would have made the same prediction three years before his last run for the party’s banner. And he questions whether the names being bandied about as possible Republican nominees will connect to his supporters.

“The one thing that is characteristic about anybody who joins us is that they are energized and everybody recognizes that," Paul says. "We also know that it is the energy in a small group of people that really leads nations.”

"Let's say I have 15 percent of Republicans and [Mitt] Romney has 30 percent. If his people aren't energized, our guys might stand for three of his."

As for soon-to-be departing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Paul dismisses her supporters as "more establishment, conventional Country-Club type of Republicans.”

"I wonder whether she's energizing the 15-20 year olds," Paul muses. "That would be a question I would have. Because she doesn't talk about the Federal Reserve and some of these issues. She doesn't talk too much about personal liberties, civil liberties, getting rid of drug laws, attacking the war on drugs, punishing people who torture."

Worse still, he adds, Palinites are partisans: “If Obama was the only one who was guilty, they would be on his case all the time, but there is a lot of partisanship and I am probably less partisan and therefore she is going to appeal to partisan Republicans better.”

As Paul sees it, such partisanship is the rough equivalent of an old Onion headline, “"Our local area sports team is superior to your local area sports team," Or as he puts it, “I think when it comes to foreign policy and monetary policy on big spending and watching out for the big corporations, Republicans are Democrats.”

And then he reverses again crediting Obama for restoring, however unintentionally, Republican principles.

“Republicans now are conservatives again” since the election, he says. “They are more consistent in voting against all these spending [measures]. And I kid them, I say, ‘are you guys voting with me now or am I voting with you?’

“Of course, they would always complain when I voted against Republican spending.“

Looking back at his presidential run, Paul seems sincerely surprised: He’s stayed the same, but suddenly the young folk who were whistling past him for years stopped to listen, even as the party’s other candidates did their best to ignore him.

“Some people say, ‘Oh, that was a good strategy,’” Paul says. “It was no more strategy than a man on the moon. It was just that I knew what I believed in, I kept talking about it, knew the problems were coming. I really assumed I would probably be back in medicine or something when the crisis hit.”

The Campaign for Liberty, the grass-roots organization that grew out of Paul's presidential campaign, has raised over $3 million since last June, attracting some 200,000 members.

“It just sort of baffles me," says Paul, shrinking, as he tends to do, when the notion of his star quality is raised.

And as of last week, 271 members of the House – about one-third of them Democrats – have signed onto HR-1207; a measure Paul introduced last February to audit the Federal Reserve.

When the Campaign for Liberty had a petition drop in support of the measure some six weeks ago, members were informed the night before that there would be a photo-op with Paul. Even with such late notice, 11 showed up to have their picture taken with "Dr. No," including Tom Cole, the former chair of the NRCC.

At the same time, Paul shrugs off his role in the House. “So I don’t work here so much. I didn’t get many signatures, because I have sort of twisted arms or put on pressure. Plus, I have nothing to trade, I am not a committee chairman and don’t have any clout, but because we have grassroots support, they got energized, and that’s how we have [271 members]…on the bill.”

Original here

Jimmy Carter leaves Southern Baptist church in protest to treatment of women

2009-07-20T12:13:00.000-07:00

by Mata H

Editor's note: Jimmy Carter officially departed the Southern Baptist church in 2000, but still stayed on at Maranatha Baptist in Plains, Georgia, teaching Sunday School. He held on to a Baptist affiliation through many conflicts, including the denomination's anti-gay positions. This week, he issued a position paper severing all ties to the church.

"Women and girls have been discriminated against for too long in a twisted interpretation of the word of God." -- Jimmy Carter, Former US president, Nobel Prize Winner

This week, Jimmy Carter left the Southern Baptist Church, where he has been a member for over 60 years. He and Roselyn distanced themselves from full participation a few years ago, but he remained a deacon and still taught Sunday School. He held on to his denominational affiliation through many conflicts - including the denomination's anti-gay positions. This document says nothing about LGBT issues, and that is a tragic shortcoming. But it does say something about women, and in that it only came part way, that part is very strong indeed. It isn't enough, but it is something.

Carter has been active for some time with the New Baptist Covenant which seeks to join various branches of the Baptist church with a social agenda. The primary action there has been to bring races together.

Here are excerpts from Carter's position paper.

At their most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.
.
The impact of these religious beliefs touches every aspect of our lives. They help explain why in many countries boys are educated before girls; why girls are told when and whom they must marry; and why many face enormous and unacceptable risks in pregnancy and childbirth because their basic health needs are not met...
.
The truth is that male religious leaders have had - and still have - an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter. Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world. This is in clear violation not just of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions - all of whom have called for proper and equitable treatment of all the children of God. It is time we had the courage to challenge these views.

Not a lot of room for interpretation there. This straightforward document had me in tears. How many women have yearned for how many years to hear these words spoken by men of influence with the religions of the world. Carter isn't the first, to be sure. But he is among the most visible and respected men to do so. And he even left a group that was dear to him. It was a move he described as "painful".

Women speaking about change can only take us so far. Men's voices joined to ours -- i.e. voices from the hierarchy -- strengthen the position by making it harder for other men to dismiss, and by waking up women who think all men hold the same position in their church.

Hannah, in her blog about faith and abuse, says:

If we can open this door, and speak of the injustice that is done in the realm of women? What is to stop the conversation from continuing on to Sexual abuse among other things. You won't have to worry about people accusing you of 'slandering a man of God' when you dare speak a word. WOW maybe common sense can be used, and uglies can be faced instead of hidden...
Carter Speaks out about Treatment of women of faith, and how it encourages domestic violence! What a man of GOD!

Wisewebwoman who is over 60, and has followed Carter for along time says:

I've always admired the man. Sure, he had his faults. But his work for Habitat for Humanity, his humility and his downright civility have endeared him to many.
And today, in his 85th year, he completely blows me over with this:

This shouldn't blow us away. It should be routinely heard. In hearing Carter's words, and experiencing my emotional reaction, I am aware how much I needed to hear a churchman say this. To say it straight out with no excuses. His comment highlights the lack of other comments.

Carter is part of a group called "The Elders" -- retired statesmen who can be activists without worrying about re-election. (Now there is a commentary in itself, eh?) Here he is speaking about The Elder's position. It is stunning in its directness.

Sarah is also moved by the statement.

I know, right?! My heart swelled as I read Carter’s recent statement condemning “discrimination against women and girls on grounds of religion or tradition.”...Women’s rights are human rights. It’s amazing to read this in a mainstream publication, along with a denouncement of “tradition” as justification for oppression.

Diana wonders if he could not have made more changes by staying within the SB framework, but says:

The R.E.M. hit song which made the expression of “Losing My Religion” an internationally recognized phrase, was written about unrequited love – and the expression itself comes from the American South meaning that a person has run out of patience. I think President Carter is suffering a broken heart after so many decades of having faith that the teachings he worshiped as a Southern Baptist could help make the world a better place, especially for women. As Carter notes in his essay, every religion suffers corruption at the hands of selfish people, and he has decided that the change needed in the religious tradition he called home cannot be realized form the inside. I appreciate that in the process Carter is demonstrating a way to examine sexism in our faith communities.

Charlotte talks about her long-standing admiration for Carter and adds:

Thank you, Jimmy Carter, for standing by your principles and your faith (as opposed to the religion you left) that sees us all equally as children of God. And thank you for being someone still worthy of the admiration that began when I was a little girl.

Blog after blog by women just reprints the whole essay by Carter. as if to say, "It speaks for itself."

I am so glad he wrote it, but sad that it feels so surprising. And sad that there are not more echoes. And sad that it took so long. And sad that we feel we have to say thank you, because so few religious male leaders have taken this position. And sad that all of our GLBT brothers and sisters can't enjoy the same mention.

But even as I wait for the other voices that should come, I can also feel pleased that Jimmy, at age 85, came this far through. At least and at last.

Mata H, CE for Religion & Spirituality, blogs about darned near everything at Time's Fool

Original here

WhatТs That Got to Do With Mr. Murtha?

2009-07-20T12:12:00.000-07:00

One of the most favored insiders in Representative John Murtha’s rich churn of defense earmarks has pleaded guilty to criminal charges, shedding light on a twisting, pay-to-play money trail. The contractor, Richard Ianieri, admitted taking $200,000 in bribes from another big defense contractor in the Murtha orbit, and is cooperating with investigators.

“What’s that got to do with me?” commented Mr. Murtha, who previously lavished praise and tens of millions of dollars in contracts on the two companies caught up in the criminal investigation.

He asks an ever more urgent question. Investigators have not identified him as a target. But the inquiry is backtracking a trail of hundreds of millions awarded to Pentagon contractors who gratefully requited with tens of millions in political donations to Democrats on the appropriations subcommittee headed by Mr. Murtha.

In just one tangent of the complex inquiry, Mr. Ianieri’s company hired the lobbying firm of Mr. Murtha’s brother Kit. The company soon was blessed with money from an $8.2 million defense earmark. The Capitol newspaper Roll Call reported last month that Representative Murtha, using a 2005 tsunami relief bill, took the $8.2 million from another contractor that had severed ties with his brother’s lobbying firm. The Department of Justice alleges that Mr. Ianieri’s company then illicitly distributed $1.8 million of the money to other companies, some of them represented by Kit Murtha’s firm.

The Murtha money trail is far from fully explored but already features a second tangent of Congressional appropriations staff members’ exiting through the golden door to defense lobbying and scoring big contracts from their old bosses. Taxpayers should press the question of what all this has to do with Mr. Murtha (who has also used his gavel to create a luxury supermart of defense contractors in his Pennsylvania district).

Beyond the criminal investigation, a full-scale ethics inquiry should be pressed by House Democrats and Speaker Nancy Pelosi. If not, the Murtha money trail could lead them back to the minority.

Original here

Obama - The Fact Checker In Chief

2009-07-20T12:10:00.000-07:00

FACT-CHECKER IN CHIEF.... President Obama had a few interesting things to say about health care reform in his weekly multi-media address today, his fifth in the last seven weeks to emphasize the importance of reforming the system.

The president noted, for example, the importance of "seizing this opportunity," and ignoring "the same special interests and their agents in Congress" who make "the same old arguments, and use the same scare tactics that have stopped reform before because they profit from this relentless escalation in health care costs." Obama did not, however, reference the pre-recess August deadline, which now appears practically impossible.

But it was more important to see the president play the role of fact-checker. He noted that Americans are bound to hear a lot of talk and see a lot of ads attacking reform, and realized that some "might begin to wonder whether there's a grain of truth to what they're saying." So, Obama highlighted some of the more common talking points, only to knock them down.

"First, the same folks who controlled the White House and Congress for the past eight years as we ran up record deficits will argue -- believe it or not -- that health reform will lead to record deficits," he said. "That's simply not true. Our proposals cut hundreds of billions of dollars in unnecessary spending and unwarranted giveaways to insurance companies in Medicare and Medicaid. They change incentives so providers will give patients the best care, not just the most expensive care, which will mean big savings over time. And we have urged Congress to include a proposal for a standing commission of doctors and medical experts to oversee cost-saving measures. [...]

"Those who oppose reform will also tell you that under our plan, you won't get to choose your doctor -- that some bureaucrat will choose for you. That's also not true. Michelle and I don't want anyone telling us who our family's doctor should be -- and no one should decide that for you either. Under our proposals, if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance. Period, end of story.

"Finally, opponents of health reform warn that this is all some big plot for socialized medicine or government-run health care with long lines and rationed care. That's not true either. I don't believe that government can or should run health care. But I also don't think insurance companies should have free reign to do as they please. That's why any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans - including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest - and choose what's best for your family."

Now, that last point is of particular interest, because it might be new. The president said reform has to include an insurance exchange, which shouldn't face too much resistance on the Hill. But he also said the exchange should feature a public option.

Is this a new line in the sand, saying that reform must feature a public option in order to get his signature? I'm honestly not sure. An insurance exchange could, in theory, include nothing but private plans. Maybe the two points -- an exchange and a public plan -- were meant to be connected in a new way, maybe not.

I'm working on getting clarification on the issue. Either way, the weekly address sounded just about all of the right notes.

Original here

Could Dick Cheney Go to Prison?

2009-07-20T12:08:00.000-07:00

By Ray McGovern, Consortium News.

So far, the summer has been mild in the Washington area. But for former Vice President Dick Cheney, the temperature is well over 100 degrees. He is sweating profusely, and it is becoming increasingly clear why.

Cheney has broken openly with former President George W. Bush on one issue of transcendent importance -- to Cheney. For whatever reason, Bush decided not to hand out blanket pardons before they both rode off into the sunset.

Cheney has complained bitterly that his former chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby should have been pardoned, rather than simply having his jail sentence commuted.

Cheney told the media that Bush left Libby "sort of hanging in the wind" by refusing to issue a pardon before leaving office. Libby had been convicted of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to federal agents investigating the leak of a former CIA operations officer's identity.

"I believe firmly that Scooter was unjustly accused and prosecuted and deserved a pardon, and the president disagreed with that," Cheney said. He would disclose no details of his efforts to lobby Bush on Libby's behalf, saying they would be "best left to history."

It is getting close to history time. You do not need to be a crackerjack analyst to understand that Cheney is feeling betrayed -- that he is thinking not of Libby, but of himself, and fearing that, if our system of justice works, he could be in for some serious, uncommuted jail time.

His situation has grown pathetic. Aside from the man himself, it has fallen almost solely to faithful daughter, Liz, to defend her dad and to start a political backfire to keep him out of prison. She is to be admired for her faithfulness. In the process, though, she has unwittingly given much away.

Liz Cheney on the Offensive

On Washington Times' "America's Morning News" radio program Monday, Liz Cheney acted again as designated hitter, responding to the recent New York Times report that her father had given "direct orders" to the CIA to withhold "information about a secret counterterrorism program for eight years."

Not for the first time, Liz Cheney disclosed what has her father so worried and agitated. She said he is "very angry" over recent press reports that Attorney General Eric Holder may be about to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate "the Bush administration's brutal interrogation practices."

She branded this "shameful" -- worse still, "un-American." Not the interrogation practices, mind you, but the notion that her father should be held to account for them.

Typically, she did well in sticking closely to her talking points, arguing that the issue is "somebody taking office and then starting to prosecute people who carried out policies that they disagreed with, you know, in the previous administration."

As if unprecedented decisions to torture, in violation of international law and the War Crimes Act of 1996, can be accurately described as "policies" over which there can be honest disagreement. This is about crimes, not "policies."

Pulling out all the stops, Liz Cheney worried aloud about what this does to "morale at the CIA," where the practitioners of what Bush called "an alternative set of procedures" for interrogation believed they were acting with the blessing of the Justice Department. (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity addressed that bromide frontally on April 29, 2009, in a memorandum to our new president.)

Liz Cheney went on to argue that this could, in the future, inhibit CIA functionaries from various actions out of fear of criminal liability. (To me, that sounds like a distinct plus.)

The Decider

What has pretty much escaped notice in the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) is that the former vice president has also reminded us all that President Bush was the "decider."

That unusual word sounded quite macho as Bush strutted about reminding us often that he was also commander in chief. But now, it could be the kiss of death -- for Bush, as well as for Dick Cheney.

Here's what Cheney allowed himself to tell Face the Nation's Bob Schieffer on May 10 about "enhanced interrogation techniques":

Schieffer: How much did President Bush know specifically about the methods that were being used? We know that you -- and you have said -- that you approved this …
Cheney: Right.
Schieffer: … somewhere down the line. Did President Bush know everything you knew?
Cheney: I certainly, yes, have every reason to believe he knew -- he knew a great deal about the program. He basically authorized it. I mean, this was a presidential-level decision. And the decision went to the president. He signed off on it.

Small wonder that Republicans are wincing, although the winces have been largely suppressed. The Washington Post reported recently that many Republicans now consider Cheney a major problem, but cannot say so. The Post quoted one Republican strategist on the Cheney dilemma:

"He continues to be a force among many members of our base, and while he is entirely unhelpful, no one has the standing to show him the door."

During a four-day visit to Dallas last week, I learned that Bush continues to be a lofty hero among many folks there -- with the notable exception of the hardy activists of the Dallas Peace Center and Code Pink.

Hefty donations keep pouring in for his library and institute, and any "mistakes" that may have been made during the Bush/Cheney administration are laid at the door of the former vice president.

Leading Republicans are passionate about this. And the phenomenon is not limited to Dallas. Cheney is smart enough to know that he too may soon be "sort of hanging in the wind," along with his former subordinate, Libby.

It's Also About "Fixing" Intelligence

Approval of torture, assassination, warrantless eavesdropping -- hey, there is quite enough to go on, and increasing signs that Cheney will be called on the carpet.

What we have been focusing on, however, glosses over Cheney's key role in purveying lies to get our representatives in Congress to approve a war that qualifies for what the post-WWII Nuremberg Tribunal called the "supreme international crime" -- a war of aggression.

We Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity were on to Cheney very early. Six years ago today, we took the unusual step of sending a formal recommendation to President Bush that he "ask for Cheney's immediate resignation."

Our unprecedented appeal even caught the eye of the FCM, since our "Memorandum for the President" reviewed some of the deceit engineered by the vice president in conjuring up a rationale for war on Iraq and directing the cheerleading for it.

We noted that Cheney, skilled at pre-emption, had stolen a march on his vacationing colleagues by launching, in a major speech on Aug. 26, 2002, a meretricious campaign to persuade Congress and the American people that Iraq was about to acquire nuclear weapons.

That campaign mushroomed, literally, in early October, with Bush and senior advisers raising the specter of a "mushroom cloud" threatening our cities. On the inside of the synthetic clouds one could almost read the label -- "manufactured out of thin air in the Office of the Vice President."

In his memoir, the pitiable former CIA Director George Tenet complains that Cheney's assertion that Iraq would acquire nuclear weapons "fairly soon" did not square with the intelligence community's assessment.

Tenet adds, "I was surprised when I read about Cheney's assertion that, ‘Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.' "

Tenet whines that the vice president did not send him a copy of the speech for clearance. But the malleable CIA director quickly got over it, and told CIA analysts to compose the kind of National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that would provide ex post facto support for Cheney's bogus assertions. Just what Cheney (and Bush) ordered.

Tenet explains lamely, "I should have told the vice president privately that, in my view, his speech had gone too far ... and not let [my] silence imply agreement."

Yes, George; and you should have resisted White House pressure for a dishonest NIE to grease the skids to unnecessary war.

In fact Cheney, as well as Tenet, knew very well that Cheney's assertions were lies.

How? Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, whom Saddam had put in charge of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, as well as missile development, told the United States when he defected in mid-1995 that all (that's right, all) such weapons had been destroyed at his order by the summer of 1991.

In mid-2002, the Iraqi foreign minister, whom CIA operatives had recruited and persuaded to remain in place, was telling us the same thing.

Unwelcome Intelligence

When they briefed the president and his senior advisers on this, CIA operations officers were astonished to learn firsthand that this intelligence was unwelcome.

These officers, who had used every trick in the book to "turn" the foreign minister and get him working for us, were told that further reporting from this source was not needed: "This isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change," they were told.

Tenet was hardly astonished at reports of the nonexistence of WMD. From documentary evidence in the "Downing Street Minutes" we know that Tenet, on July 20, 2002, told the chief of British intelligence that the intelligence was being "fixed" around the policy.

And former U.N. inspectors, like Scott Ritter, could verify that 90 percent of the WMD Iraq earlier possessed had been destroyed -- some during the Gulf War in 1991, but most as a result of the inspections conducted by the United Nations.

The reporting from Kamel and the Iraqi foreign minister, sources with excellent access, was suppressed in favor of "evidence" -- from forgeries, for example, like the infamous Iraq-Niger yellowcake report.

When finally U.S. officials were forced to concede that the Iraq-Niger information was based on a forgery, lawmakers such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., protested loudly -- but too late.

Three days before Bush let slip the dogs of war, NBC's Tim Russert braced Cheney with the assertion by the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency that Saddam did not have a nuclear program.

Cheney strongly disagreed and cited support for his view from the CIA and other parts of the intelligence community. He even ratcheted up his bogus assessment of Iraq's nuclear capability: "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

We? Maybe his wife, Lynne, and Liz were on board for that judgment; few others believed it.

Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, retired CENTCOM commander but still enjoying access to the most sensitive information on Iraq, was sitting in the audience on Aug. 26, 2002, and later described himself as astonished at the Iraqi threat as described by Cheney.

The most knowledgeable analysts -- those who knew Iraq and nuclear weapons -- scoffed at Cheney's faith-based intelligence.

In our July 14, 2003, appeal to Bush to ask for Cheney's resignation, we warned of the likelihood that intelligence analysts would conclude that the best way to climb the ladder of success is to acquiesce in the cooking or "fixing" of their judgments, since neither senior nor junior officials would ever be held accountable.

This remains as acute a concern as the tolerance for torture and the like.

We shall have to demand that Attorney General Eric Holder do his duty and move quickly to start the process to hold accountable those responsible for dragging our country down into a moral abyss.

Original here

Sarah Palin should just go home

2009-07-20T12:04:00.000-07:00

The Alaska governor embodies America's obsession with made-up facts, self-pity and celebrity

By Gene Lyons

AP Photo/Lynne Sladkyt

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in Miami in November.

"The rise of Idiot America ... is essentially a war on expertise ... In the new media age, everybody is a historian, or a scientist, or a preacher, or a sage. And if everyone is an expert, then nobody is, and the worst thing you can be in a society where everybody is an expert is, well, an actual expert."

-- Charles P. Pierce, from "Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free"

Pity the poor "real Americans," because they sure feel sorry for themselves. Self-pity appears to be the latest national craze. Not that we haven't got real troubles, but everywhere you look and listen these days, some big crybaby's blubbering about how people like him or her get no respect from (take your pick) "Ivy League elitists," the "scientific establishment," "so-called sophisticates," the "mainstream media" and so on.

But hey, Americans don't come any realer than me. I learned that recently from MSNBC news-chat personality Mika Brzezinski. Discussing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's supporters on "Morning Joe," Brzezinski allowed as how us country folks (I live in a rural county with a lot more cows than people) constitute the nation's moral backbone. "God, I hate to say it," Brzezinski allowed, "but in the cities where there are a little bit more liberal elite populations, you are not going to find what is representative of America."

Sigh. We already tried that. It brought us George W. Bush, a synthetic cowboy who dropped the "rancher" pose the minute he left the White House. Back in 2001, metropolitan pundits -- seemingly unfamiliar with the oeuvre of Hank Williams and Garth Brooks -- kept telling us about the superior moral instincts of us "red state" voters.

Brzezinski's the daughter of former Carter administration national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, and attended several fancy private schools. So I'm guessing she doesn't know a lot of drinkin' and cheatin' songs either.

The occasion of the MSNBC pundit's comments was Palin's poor-pitiful-me resignation speech, the one that sounded like an audition for the Lucille Ball part in an "I Love Lucy" revival.

"Life is too short to compromise time and resources," Palin said. "It may be tempting and more comfortable to just keep your head down, plod along and appease those who demand: 'Sit down and shut up,' but that's the worthless, easy path; that's a quitter's way out. And a problem in our country today is apathy. It would be apathetic to just hunker down and 'go with the flow.' Nah, only dead fish 'go with the flow.'"

No dead-fish quitter she, Palin quit.

Having spent much of her tenure as Alaska's governor scheming to fire her ex-brother-in-law from the state police and having her press secretary issue statements contradicting her daughter's 18-year-old former boyfriend, Palin evidently mistook national politics for one long Miss Congeniality contest.

That is, until she started picking fights with TV comics and whining that nobody before her had been so victimized by "the politics of personal destruction" -- a phrase Bill Clinton coined after Republican operatives accused him and his wife of murder.

Chances are Palin doesn't know that, as she appears to know precious little else. Even many conservatives who supported Bush almost to the end fear that the Republicans have finally touched bottom.

"In television interviews," Peggy Noonan wrote in the Wall Street Journal, "she was out of her depth in a shallow pool. She was limited in her ability to explain and defend her positions, and sometimes in knowing them. She couldn't say what she read because she didn't read anything. She was utterly unconcerned by all this and seemed in fact rather proud of it: It was evidence of her authenticity."

Palin's authentic, all right: An authentic product of what author Charles P. Pierce calls the "Three Great Premises" of America's decayed TV celebrity culture. First, "Any theory is valid if it moves units," i..e. sells advertising. Second, "Anything can be true if someone says it loudly enough." Third, "Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is measured by how fervently they believe it."

The cultural left is sometimes as prone to dimwit populism as the right. Witness the Rev. Al Sharpton moving an audience to tears by assuring Michael Jackson's children that he wasn't "strange," but his critics were. Sleepovers with other people's children? Compulsive plastic surgery? Gobbling pills? Mainlining IV drugs? Sorry, Reverend, "strange" doesn't begin to describe that poor soul.

But then nobody ever proposed running Michael Jackson for national office.

President? Get real. Sarah Palin couldn't manage a Wal-Mart. She has neither the management skills nor the capacity for detail.

Anybody who imagines otherwise probably believes she resigned to spend more time with her (very entertaining) family. If she had any sense, she'd drop politics and market them as a reality-TV program.

Alas, there's no sign of that.

Original here

Cap and trade or Smoot-Hawley?

2009-07-07T11:56:00.000-07:00

Emblematic of the problems buried in the flawed "cap and trade" bill is a provision that only came to light in the final moments of the House debate.

A last-minute amendment, inserted in the early morning hours on the day of the vote, would tax goods that we import from countries that are unwilling to adopt carbon-reducing measures. So, the question becomes: Should our nation really levy trade penalties on countries that don't agree to limit their carbon emissions?

The provision is fraught with potential negative consequences. Some fear it's the return of the Smoot-Hawley Act, which raised tariffs on imported goods to record levels in the 1930s. Others, however, argue the provision is absolutely necessary should the bill, sponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Edward Markey, D-Mass., become law.

President Barack Obama, who pushed hard for the Waxman-Markey legislation, has rejected the trade penalty measure. "At a time when the economy worldwide is still deep in recession and we've seen a significant drop in global trade, I think we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals out there," Obama said.

We are inclined to agree with the president on this issue.

But if Obama thinks the provision could harm global trade, he also ought to realize the competitive disadvantage that Waxman-Markey creates at home. Because if it does become law, the U.S. may have no choice but to levy a carbon tariff.

Nobel-Prize winning economist Paul Krugman argues that Obama is making a mistake by rejecting what he calls "the border adjustment."

The economist, a fierce advocate for "cap and trade," says that without the tax, the environmental benefits of the bill will be undermined.

Companies, he argues, would stop buying U.S.-made goods, which would cost more due to the demands to limit greenhouse gas emissions in the production process. Instead, they would buy goods produced by countries that are not saddled with the extra expense and regulation.

"The truth is that there's perfectly sound economics behind border adjustments," Krugman argues, claiming that imposing tariffs for non-economic reasons, such as cutting carbon dioxide emissions, isn't protectionism, but is simply leveling the playing field.

The argument, added to fears from industry that overseas competition would benefit at America's expense as a result of cap and trade, should be a key part of the upcoming Senate debate on this bill.

Waxman-Markey's tariff provision, as written, would begin imposing the tax in 2020. The president can waive the tariffs, but only if Congress approves the waivers.

Observers say the House bill wouldn't have passed without the tariff, because industrial state lawmakers feared job losses.

Now that it's out in the open, we hope the Senate can evaluate it carefully.

We oppose the bill because it relies far too much on theoretical clean-energy technology break-throughs to achieve the desired drops in greenhouse gas emissions. It also creates a new, complicated market for trading emissions that is susceptible to abuse.

It's a hugely transformative measure — which would lower global CO2 emissions by only a few percentage points — that risks crippling our economy.

Palin’s Threats To The Press Puts To Question Her Judgement

2009-07-07T11:52:00.000-07:00

Opinion by Dolores M. Bernal, NEWS JUNKIE POST

There is something to be said of Sarah Palin’s threat to sue reporters and bloggers who write about the reasons she may have unexpectedly stepped down as Governor of Alaska. And that something is: poor judgement. No public official in their right mind should ever even think of picking a fight with the press, unless, they’re asking for their careers to be over.

Just in case you may not know about what’s transpired since Palin’s press conference Friday, let me bring you up to date. Several bloggers and some mainstream media reporters wrote that Palin is resigning as Governor of Alaska because she may be facing a criminal investigation over materials used to build her home in Wasilla, Alaska and those used to build the Wasilla Sports Complex. Palin’s lawyer Thoman Van Flein issued a letter over the weekend to media and bloggers that were talking about this, and stated that the soon to be ex-Governor of Alaska “will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law.”

You see, these allegations about Palin and the building materials were brought to light to folks in the mainland by Alaskan radio host and blogger, Shannyn Moore, and there was also an article about this by Max Blumenthal of the Daily Beast about the potential criminal investigation. Many other blogs picked up these reports and MSNBC and other mainstream folks did their job by reporting about it, even if they were just “rumors.”

Word of these reports got to Palin faster than a lighting and just as she is quick to leave her job, she is also quick at making threats to people without considering the facts and the consequences of what she is about to do.

If state legislators in Alaska have been the ones talking about this potential investigation, then what Moore, bloggers, and news reporters did was NOT at all a crime and they shouldn’t be subjected to threats and intimidation by Mr. Van Flein. Freedom of the Press is alive and well in America and our rights as journalists cannot be tramped upon by some defensive third class politician like Palin.

I challenge Moore, bloggers, and all other reporters to not be sheepish about standing up and reminding Palin that the press’ job is to report information because the public has a right to know what may be going on, especially after her sudden resignation. I mean, what did Palin expect? She walks out of her job with a terrible press conference where she used a ridiculous basketball analogy and where every other sentence just didn’t seem to make any sense. And now she wants to sue reporters over defamation? Come on, give me a break!

There is something terribly wrong about Palin’s view of the media if she thinks she can make us just shut up. No self-respecting reporter should feel like they need to retract anything they said this weekend. I’m not going to. Moore shouldn’t either. There was no defamation of character in any of this. If Palin feels like the press is ruining her “reputation,” she’s got it wrong. The only one ruining anything is her own self by her actions and the puzzling things that come out of her mouth.

China says dollar to remain leading world currency

2009-07-07T07:55:00.000-07:00

* Vice minister sees dollar pre-eminence for years to come

* Idea of new reserve currency is 'academic discussion'

* China appreciates U.S. govt efforts for stable dollar

(Adds details, quotes, background)

ROME, July 5 (Reuters) - Chinese Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei said on Sunday the U.S. dollar would continue to be the world's leading reserve currency for years to come.

"The U.S. dollar is still the most important and major reserve currency of the day, and we believe that that situation will continue for many years to come," He told a news briefing in Rome before this week's Group of Eight summit.

Beijing has floated the idea of an alternative to the dollar as global reserve currency and wants the topic broached at the summit starting in Italy on Wednesday.

The vice minister said Chinese officials had voiced concern about the safety of the country's dollar-denominated assets. "That is natural," he said.

He said many other countries over the years had been calling for the stability of the U.S. dollar. "We appreciate the efforts made by the U.S. government in that direction," he said, adding that it was the responsibility of the government issuing the reserve currency to maintain its stability.

He said discussion about reserve currencies had intensified since the outbreak of the global financial crisis, which he said had revealed "many shortcomings in the international monetary system".

However, he described this as an intellectual debate.

"You may have heard comments, opinions from academic circles about the idea of establishing a super sovereign currency. This is all, I believe, now a discussion among academics. It is not the position of the Chinese government."

Zhou Xiaochuan, head of the Chinese central bank, launched the reserve currency debate last March when he said the SDR, the International Monetary Fund's unit of account, might one day displace the dollar.

Some diplomats and bankers suggest Zhou's primary aim was to highlight attention on concern expressed by Premier Wen Jiabao about the safety of China's huge dollar holdings -- at risk if U.S. policy turns to greater tolerance of inflation.

Bankers reckon China holds perhaps 70 percent of its $1.95 trillion in official currency reserves in the dollar. (Reporting by Silvia Aloisi, editing by Mark Trevelyan)

Robert S. McNamara Dies

2009-07-07T07:53:00.000-07:00

McNamara died at 5:30 a.m. at his home, his wife Diana told The Associated Press. She said he had been in failing health for some time.

McNamara was fundamentally associated with the Vietnam War, ``McNamara's war,'' the country's most disastrous foreign venture, the only American war to end in abject withdrawal.

Known as a policymaker with a fixation for statistical analysis, McNamara was recruited to run the Pentagon by President John F. Kennedy in 1961 from the presidency of the Ford Motor Co. - where he and a group of colleagues had been known as the ``whiz kids.'' He stayed in the defense post for seven years, longer than anyone since the job's creation in 1947.

His association with Vietnam became intensely personal. Even his son, as a Stanford University student, protested against the war while his father was running it. At Harvard, McNamara once had to flee a student mob through underground utility tunnels. Critics mocked McNamara mercilessly; they made much of the fact that his middle name was ``Strange.''

After leaving the Pentagon on the verge of a nervous breakdown, McNamara became president of the World Bank and devoted evangelical energies to the belief that improving life in rural communities in developing countries was a more promising path to peace than the buildup of arms and armies.

A private person, McNamara for many years declined to write his memoirs, to lay out his view of the war and his side in his quarrels with his generals. In the early 1990s he began to open up. He told Time magazine in 1991 that he did not think the bombing of North Vietnam - the biggest bombing campaign in history up to that time - would work but he went along with it ``because we had to try to prove it would not work, number one, and (because) other people thought it would work.''

Finally, in 1993, after the Cold War ended, he undertook to write his memoirs because some of the lessons of Vietnam were applicable to the post-Cold War period ``odd as though it may seem."

``In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam'' appeared in 1995. McNamara disclosed that by 1967 he had deep misgivings about Vietnam - by then he had lost faith in America's capacity to prevail over a guerrilla insurgency that had driven the French from the same jungled countryside.

Despite those doubts, he had continued to express public confidence that the application of enough American firepower would cause the Communists to make peace. In that period, the number of U.S. casualties - dead, missing and wounded - went from 7,466 to over 100,000.

``We of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of our country. But we were wrong. We were terribly wrong,'' McNamara, then 78, told The Associated Press in an interview ahead of the book's release.

The best-selling mea culpa renewed the national debate about the war and prompted bitter criticism against its author. ``Where was he when we needed him?'' a Boston Globe editorial asked. A New York Times editorial referred to McNamara as offering the war's dead only a ``prime-time apology and stale tears, three decades late.''

McNamara wrote that he and others had not asked the five most basic questions: ``Was it true that the fall of South Vietnam would trigger the fall of all Southeast Asia? Would that constitute a grave threat to the West's security? What kind of war - conventional or guerrilla - might develop? Could we win it with U.S. troops fighting alongside the South Vietnamese? Should we not know the answers to all these questions before deciding whether to commit troops?

He discussed similar themes in the 2003 documentary ``The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara.'' With the U.S. in the first year of the war in Iraq, it became a popular and timely art-house attraction and won the Oscar for best documentary feature.

The Iraq war, with its similarities to Vietnam, at times brought up McNamara's name, in many cases in comparison with another unpopular defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld. McNamara was among former secretaries of defense and state who met twice with President Bush in 2006 to discuss Iraq war policies.

In the Kennedy administration, McNamara was a key figure in both the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion of April 1961 and the Cuban missile crisis 18 months later. The crisis was the closest the world came to a nuclear confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States.

McNamara served as the World Bank president for 12 years. He tripled its loans to developing countries and changed its emphasis from grandiose industrial projects to rural development.

After retiring in 1981, he championed the causes of nuclear disarmament and aid by the richest nation for the world's poorest. He became a global elder statesman.

McNamara's trademarks were his rimless glasses and slicked down hair and his reliance on quantitative analysis to reach conclusions, calmly promulgated in a husky voice.

He was born June 9, 1916, in San Francisco, son of the sales manager for a wholesale shoe company. At the University of California at Berkeley, he majored in mathematics, economics and philosophy.

As a professor at the Harvard Business School when World War II started, he helped train Army Air Corps officers in cost-effective statistical control. In 1943, he was commissioned an Army officer and joined a team of young officers who developed a new field of statistical control of supplies.

McNamara and his colleagues sold themselves to the Ford organization as a package and revitalized the company. The group became known as the ``whiz kids'' and McNamara was named the first Ford president who was not a descendant of Henry Ford.

A month later, the newly elected Kennedy invited McNamara, a registered Republican, to join his Cabinet. Taking the $25,000-a-year job cost McNamara $3 million in profit from Ford stocks and options.

As defense chief, McNamara reshaped America's armed forces for ``flexible response'' and away from the nuclear ``massive retaliation'' doctrine espoused by former Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. He asserted civilian control of the Pentagon and applied cost-accounting techniques and computerized systems analysis to defense spending.

Early on, Kennedy regarded South Vietnam as an area threatened by Communist aggression and a providing ground for his new emphasis on counterinsurgency forces. A believer in the domino theory - that countries could fall to communism like a row of dominoes - Kennedy dispatched U.S. ``advisers'' to bolster the Saigon government. Their numbers surpassed 16,000 by the time of his assassination.

Following Kennedy's assassination, President Lyndon Johnson retained McNamara as ``the best in the lot'' of Kennedy Cabinet members and the man to keep Vietnam from falling to the Communists.

When U.S. naval vessels were allegedly attacked off the North Vietnamese coast in 1964, McNamara lobbied Congress to pass the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which Johnson used as the equivalent of a congressional declaration of war.

McNamara visited Vietnam - the first of many trips - and returned predicting that American intervention would enable the South Vietnamese, despite internal feuds, to stand by themselves ``by the end of 1965.''

That was an early forerunner of a seemingly endless string of official ``light at the end of the tunnel'' predictions of American success. Each was followed by more warfare, more American troops, more American casualties, more American bombing, more North Vietnamese infiltration - and more predictions of an early end to America's commitment.

McNamara's first wife, Margaret, whom he met in college, died of cancer in 1981; they had two daughters and a son. In 2004, at age 88, he married Italian-born widow Diana Masieri Byfield.

The Real Story Behind Palin's Bombshell

2009-07-07T07:47:00.000-07:00

Anyone who is in any way surprised by Sarah Palin's announcement today that she will not be seeking re-election, and, even more significantly, is stepping down as Governor of Alaska, has not been paying close attention. The signs have been everywhere.

Palin has absolutely zero interest in running the State of Alaska. She steadfastly refused to live in Juneau after her first year there, had the gall to charge the state for residing at her home in Wasilla 600 miles away, and she basically mailed in her performance as the state's top administrator during Alaska's most recent legislative session. She has alienated virtually all the key legislators in her own party -- that's right, Republicans -- and had failed to move any key legislation forward since her return to Alaska from the national campaign trail last November.

In fact, her bizarre appointment for Attorney General, Wayne Anthony Ross, was rejected nearly unanimously by the state legislature -- a first in Alaskan history. Even in respect to energy policy, her supposed bailiwick, she has been categorically ineffective. When I asked those in-the-know what role Palin had played in putting together the recent pipeline deal between TransCanada and Exxon, their response was simple: "None."

None. That about sums up Palin's accomplishments as Governor of the Last Frontier.

The evangelical right can wallow in denial all they want about Palin being victimized by liberals or Democrats or even George Soros (some illiterate wingnut recently tried to link me to him), but the fact is that most of the people with really bad things to say about Palin -- from John McCain's staff to conservatives in Alaska -- come from the Republican Party. The charges of a left-wing conspiracy are so ridiculous as to be absolutely absurd.

But then what coming from the Palin camp isn't?

Moreover, Palin was facing what would have been a hugely embarrassing veto override by the Alaska legislature at the beginning of the next session in January over her politically postured refusal to accept Federal stimulus funds. If this past legislative session was a setback for Palin, the upcoming session would have been an absolute public relations disaster -- hardly the proper entree for her presidential campaign.

My sources in Wasilla tell me that Palin's father, Chuck Heath, has spoken repeatedly about the "liberal press" and dreaded "bloggers" taking their toll on his daughter. I recently discovered an early, telling email by Palin complaining to her pal Meg Stapleton about something a blogger had written in the Anchorage Daily News and how significantly it bothered her -- "kind of makes my stomach turn over," she wrote. Palin can dish, but she can't take it. She's got a terribly thin skin. When I reported here less than a month ago that Palin had clearly lifted passages from an article by Newt Gingrich and Craig Shirley (whose name she didn't even bother to mention) she and her entourage went apoplectic. What she had done was blatantly obvious and she would have been tossed from any reputable college or university for such slipshod citation. Palin, and the sycophants with whom she surrounds herself, simply have no moral compass.

Some pundits have said that Palin's resignation is out of character. Hardly. Don't forget that she resigned from her last statewide office -- that as chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Sarah Palin is a quitter. She fancies herself something else. But, in the end, she quit her position at AOGCC and she has now quit her governorship. That's two-for-two at the statewide level. In Wasilla, there was nearly a recall launched against her as mayor. Trouble and turbulence have followed her everywhere.

More importantly, there are rumors in Alaska that more Ethics Act charges are in the works and that there is also a more serious Federal investigation focusing on Palin during her tenure as mayor in Wasilla and the building of her home and a sports complex in Wasilla, long speculated to have been linked. It's the one very touchy subject whenever you bring it up in the MatSu Valley. As someone who is writing a book on Palin, I can attest to the fact that there are always rumors flying about her, not all of them true, but this seems like a real possibility, especially given the timing of her announcement today.

Palin also has a multi-million dollar book project for Rupert Murdoch that she needs to complete in time for a spring release. That's some serious cabbage, and there were grumblings in Alaska about the book deal as well. There will be other lucrative, high-visibility media options for her shortly down the road. Don't be surprised to hear of one of those popping up soon. This frees her up to reach for the gold ring without her minions being able to register any complaints. In that respect, it's a logical move.

A longtime Republican in Alaska who has known Palin since she ran for lieutenant governor in 2002 told me that Palin "enthusiastically embraced" her trip to Georgia last year in which she campaigned for Senator Saxby Chambliss. She sees herself doing that around the country in 2010, raising money for conservative Republicans and, by so doing, building support for a presidential candidacy in 2012. "She was absolutely adored in Georgia," said the GOP operative, "and she loved her role there --preaching her particular brand of conservatism to the already converted." And make no mistake about it: Sarah Palin is by far the biggest ticket item that GOP has in its dwindling catalog of candidates.

All of the recent public donnybrooks have taken their toll: First the article by Todd Purdum in Vanity Fair and then the even nastier revelations of emails leaked by the McCain campaign which showed her to be an utter liar regarding her husband Todd's membership in the Alaska Independent Party. Even the seemingly innocuous interview in Runner's World, with its bizarre, braggadocio boast of her having more endurance than Obama, revealed her penchant for duplicity at every turn: the assertion that an injury she had sustained while jogging in Arizona had been kept top-secret, a contention thoroughly disputed by the inimitable Mudflats.

One of my favorite lies spewed by Palin today in yet another poorly scripted speech was that she campaigned for governor "four years ago...," when she, in fact, ran for governor three years ago and held her position for little more than two-and-half years. It's the little lies she always tells, the twists of truth, the distortions. Four years sounds like nearly a full term; three feels incomplete. So why not just call it four?

For all her projected toughness, Palin loves to play the victim. "Political operatives descended on Alaska last August, digging for dirt," she whined, implying that her problems are from out-of-state (yet another big lie). "Over the past nine months I've been accused of all sorts of frivolous ethics violations..." It wasn't quite Richard Nixon's "Checker's Speech," but it was close. In her own awkward vernacular, the Governor was essentially saying to Alaska, "You won't have Sarah Palin to kick around any more."

Here's a little bit of Alaska inside talk for you. Those close to the governor have consistently indicated to me that they privately blame Mitt Romney & Co. as the source of a lot of the media hits on Palin. It may even be true. But with today's announcement, Palin will soon be on equal footing with Romney -- no longer saddled by statewide office and free to travel and maneuver however and wherever she damn well pleases. Today's statement was a great equalizer for 2012.

By being a lame duck, Palin would have exposed herself to more negative coverage, more public failure. By stepping down she allows herself to regroup, get out from under the microscope and re-emerge as a national figure without the constant strain of serving as governor.

Some news sources are claiming that Palin is stepping away from politics permanently; perhaps. But I didn't hear that today. What I heard were typical Palin code words that she has her ambitions set for higher office, for a national stage. Her shots at Obama's stimulus package were just one of many signals aimed directly at Washington.

So do not think for a moment that this is the last we will be hearing from Sarah Palin. The Federal Election Commission will soon be reporting how much money Palin's SarahPAC has raised over the past four months. You can bet that Palin has a lot of gas left in her tank. She is the gift that John McCain gave us that will not go away.

Award-winning investigative journalist and documentary filmmaker Geoffrey Dunn is at work on a book about Sarah Palin and her role in American politics, to be published by Macmillan/St. Martin's in 2010.

Insane Sarah Palin, Late At Night On July 4, Threatens To Sue Entire Internet, Via Twitter

2009-07-07T07:46:00.002-07:00

How did you spend the Fourth of July? Maybe having a BBQ with friends and family, watching a fireworks show, and generally enjoying a happy patriotic holiday? Batshit-insane American Quitter Sarah Palin ended her own special “Independence Day” by posting a series of desperate grammar-challenged nonsense and vicious threats on her Facebook and Twitter pages. Really.

(Also: Sarah, you idiot, when do you plan to give up your Twitter name AKGovSarahPalin? Because, you know, you just quit being governor ….)

It is unwise to dwell on the past or be obsessed with an unknown future, but we should all appreciate the wonderful present — a present in which Sarah Palin is nothing more than a punchline. Because, had things gone very differently in November, this dangerous delusional numbskull would’ve been just an Ambien overdose away from the presidency.

Thank you, America, for steering clear of the Sarah Palin disaster.

So, after crazily quitting her elected position as governor of Alaska, via an alarming backyard last-minute press conference void of any explanation , at the classic 4 p.m. hour of the Friday-Holiday news dump, Sarah Palin is now twatting on the twitter about how her Anchorage attorneys are going to SUE THE AMERICAN MEDIA, for saying “WTF?”

Honestly, this is what Sarah Palin twatted on Saturday Night, July 4th, Independence Day, in America.

Her link goes to (of course) Scientologist nut and sub-literate weirdo Greta Van Susteren’s blog on FoxNews.com, where Greta has helpfully (?) posted seven pages of legal threats from Palin’s lawyers, although you can’t actually read beyond the first vague page of whining bullshit, because Greta/Fox can’t figure out how to operate the Internet.

But, from other websites, we gather Palin’s lawyers plan lawsuits against MSNBC, the New York Times, the Huffington Post, the Washington Post, individual bloggers in Alaska, and other such anti-Palin forces such as “rain on your wedding day” and static cling.

Just go read this entire Anchorage Daily News article, which is hilarious.

Sarah Palin, a snowbilly grifter who spent her entire adult life desperately trying to become a Public Figure, apparently wants her attorneys to stupidly and pointlessly threaten American practitioners of free speech regarding our public figures and elected officials.

Happy fourth of July, you daft racist moron!

French Broadcaster Sued for Firing Employee Based on HADOPI Stance

2009-07-07T07:46:00.001-07:00

It was the story of an e-mail heard around the world. You may remember Jérôme Bourreau-Guggenheim who expressed opposition in an e-mail to his member of parliament. That e-mail went back to his employer, TF1, who then promptly fired him because of his political views back in May. Now, Bourreau-Guggenheim is suing TF1 for discrimination.

His journey throughout all of this probably started off as a humble employee, working at Frances broadcaster, TF1. He probably had no idea that one day, he’d be the centre of a major political debate that the whole world is watching at the time.

Then, the HADOPI law debate came up. Three strikes and you’re out for copyright infringement online. At the time, the proposal would have no judicial oversight whatsoever – not to mention being forced to pay your subscription fee even though you have been, well, banned from the internet. Your name would be added to a blacklist so you can’t subscribe with another provider and the amount of time you were disconnected, at the time, was still being determined.

Not surprisingly, the law was just about as controversial then as it is now. For Jérôme Bourreau-Guggenheim at the time, he wasn’t exactly too keen on the law either. So, while at work, he sent an e-mail to his member of parliament to express his personal opposition to the “three strikes” law. His member of parliament’s office, who also happened to be part of the governing party, UMP, then forwarded the e-mail to the minister of culture who then forwarded the e-mail to his employer, TF1. Bourreau-Guggenheim boss then hauled him into his office where he was showed a copy of his e-mail before he was fired for “strategic differences”

His story hit several major French newspapers. He went from just a side-line employee to a front-line borderline celebrity who is against the French three strikes law. The story has since caused political waves.

Now, it seems, a new development has happened in this case. French newspaper, Le Monde, is reporting (Google Translation) that Bourreau-Guggenheim is suing his former employer, TF1, for discrimination. His lawsuit is based on article 225-2 of the penal code which addresses “violations of human dignity”.

The punishment for such a violation is up to three years in prison and a 45,000 euro fine. That article specifically deals with an employment dismissal based on a political viewpoint.

Le Monde makes an additional interesting point:

By revealing the affair in its issue of May 7, Libération had quoted from the letter explicitly refers to mail sent to Ms. de Panafieu. Including this clarification: “This correspondence was received through the office of the Minister of Culture, which has posed address the same day the company TF1. A path to strong symbolic resonance, given the suspicions about the relationship between power and sarkozyste audiovisual group, whose main shareholder, Martin Bouygues, is the near the head of state.

Another part of the article says:

It is true that the case has already made much noise but it has needed to add: wrangling in the Assembly, where the former Minister of Culture, Christine Albanel, has been strongly implicated by the opposition; sanction against the member of his Cabinet who had transferred to the TF1 mail received from Ms. de Panafieu (Le Monde, 12 May).

Now committed criminal in a long process, Mr. Bourreau Guggenheim-must adapt to circumstances. To live this matter without further destroying his career. Say they have had “some contact with elected representatives of the opposition, which (l ‘) were invited to participate in debates on Hadopi”, the former part of TF1 should also “reassure (the) future employers” when is invited to an interview. TF1 who denounced “positions (…) radical expressed publicly,” he defends himself on these two points: “I am loyal, I have nothing being published at TF1. And I am not an extremist free download.”

At this point in time, it’s not hard to see this as a no win situation for the UMP of France, not to mention TF1 who is neck deep in this political fiasco as well. It would appear that Bourreau-Guggenheim has a number of additional options should things go sour for him including referring to the European Court of Human Rights. Though one can only imagine how much additional political damage that would cause for the government who is not only intending on pushing through the three strikes law at all cost, but also changing around the French court system and giving judges only approximately 5 minutes to rule on each disconnection.

This case about a French employee fired for opposing the three strikes law, unfortunately for TF1 and the UMP, isn’t going to go away any time soon.

How seriously do we take domestic terrorism?

2009-06-09T13:04:00.000-07:00

As used in this chapter... (5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that - (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended - (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

FindLaw: Title 18 - Part I - Chapter 113B

Scott Roeder murdered Dr. George Tiller at church in Wichita, KS, last Sunday. To restate the obvious, this was an act dangerous to human life, a violation of the criminal laws of the United States, and appeared to be intended to intimidate a civilian population (providers or possibly recipients of abortion services) and to influence the policy of a government by intimidation (that policy being related to current laws concerning abortion). The murder happened in the United States. Thus, domestic terrorism. I'm glad we've cleared that up.

Now, when it comes to terrorism, there are all sorts of legal subtleties that are beyond me. (a) This is a definition used in laws at the federal level, but there are a couple of dozen states that also have terrorism laws that may differ. (b) I don't know what role legal definitions play in the decision to charge someone with a crime. (c) The legal definition doesn't match everyone's everyday understanding: Edgar Morales, a New York City gang member, was convicted on terrorist charges when he fired a gun into a crowd in 2002, murdering a young girl. (d) The notion that some acts are terrorism because they appear to be intended to intimidate strikes me as having too many untestable qualifications. (e) And so forth. But let all that go--I think Roeder's actions fall pretty clearly within the scope of the definition.

Here's the strange thing: Roeder has not been charged with terrorism. In contrast, Abdulhakim Muhammad, who murdered Private William Long just a day later outside an Army-Navy Career Center in Little Rock, AK, has been charged as a terrorist. The difference in treatment may be due to the legal complexities I've alluded to above; I don't know. But I found it strange to read this in the Washington Post today:

The man charged with murdering a high-profile abortion doctor claimed from his jail cell Sunday that similar violence was planned around the nation for as long as the procedure remained legal, a threat that comes days after a federal investigation launched into his possible accomplices.

and

Scott Roeder called The Associated Press from the Sedgwick County jail, where he's being held on charges of first-degree murder and aggravated assault in the shooting of Dr. George Tiller one week ago. "I know there are many other similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal," Roeder said. When asked by the AP what he meant and if he was referring to another shooting, he refused to elaborate further.

Consider: We capture a man who has just committed a high-profile murder, on the face of it an act of domestic terrorism, and a week later he's calling the news media from jail to publicize "similar events" planned for the future. Is this an indication of how seriously we take domestic terrorism?

Glenn Greenwald

2009-06-09T12:59:00.000-07:00

The NYT's nice, new euphemism for torture

(updated below)

In today's New York Times, William Glaberson describes a proposal being circulated by the Obama administration to enable Guantanamo detainees to be put to death upon a mere guilty plea, i.e., without the need for a full-blown trial. The article describes the purpose of the proposal this way:

The proposal would ease what has come to be recognized as the government’s difficult task of prosecuting men who have confessed to terrorism but whose cases present challenges. Much of the evidence against the men accused in the Sept. 11 case, as well as against other detainees, is believed to have come from confessions they gave during intense interrogations at secret C.I.A. prisons. In any proceeding, the reliability of those statements would be challenged, making trials difficult and drawing new political pressure over detainee treatment.

The primary reason to avoid trials upon a guilty plea is to prevent public disclosure of the details of the torture we inflicted on these detainees. Despite that, the word "torture" never once appears in this NYT article. Instead, according to the NYT, detainees in CIA black sites were merely subjected to "intense interrogations." That's all? Who opposes "intense interrogations"?

This active media complicity in concealing that our Government created a systematic torture regime -- by refusing ever to say so -- is one of the principal reasons it was allowed to happen for so long (though see Jake Tapper's imperfect though still far superior formulation today on his ABC News blog about an Obama DHS appointee who just withdrew his nomination because of his possible "knowledge of and role in approving brutal interrogation techniques -- some of which qualify under international law as torture -- used by CIA officials against detainees").

The steadfast, ongoing refusal of our leading media institutions to refer to what the Bush administration did as "torture" -- even in the face of more than 100 detainee deaths; the use of that term by a leading Bush official to describe what was done at Guantanamo; and the fact that media outlets frequently use the word "torture" to describe the exact same methods when used by other countries -- reveals much about how the modern journalist thinks. These are their governing principles:

There are two sides and only two sides to every "debate" -- the Beltway Democratic establishment and the Beltway Republican establishment. If those two sides agree on X, then X is deemed true, no matter how false it actually is. If one side disputes X, then X cannot be asserted as fact, no matter how indisputably true it is. The mere fact that another country's behavior is described as X doesn't mean that this is how identical behavior by the U.S. should be described. They do everything except investigate and state what is true. In their view, that -- stating what is and is not true -- is not their role.

The whole world knows that the U.S. tortured detainees in the "War on Terror." Yet American newspapers refuse to say so.

UPDATE: As the excellent blog NPR Check routinely documents, NPR is one of the worst offenders of using obfuscating language to white-wash what the Bush administration did, as illustrated by one routine NPR report last week regarding Obama's efforts to suppress photographic evidence of torture (h/t archtype):

The contortionists at NPR are mighty busy these days being super, extra careful not to use the word torture to describe - well - torture. Keeping the English language in such painful stress positions leads to some rather interesting remarks. On ATC Wednesday I caught Bob Siegel stating,

"The infamous Abu Ghraib photos served as early evidence of harsh treatment of detainees. Today the White House announced its decision to fight against the release of other similar photos. The photos show the alleged abuse of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan."

It's all merely "alleged," and it's everything but "torture." And then there's this:

Liane Hansen has a little chat with "Retired Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who was in charge of the ground forces in Iraq when some of those techniques were used at the Abu Ghraib prison." During the interview Sanchez relates the following:

"We got a little bit of an insight into what they [CIA] were doing when they did drop off what came to be known as Iceman at Abu Ghraib in the fall of 2003....we clearly understood that they were using some very, very aggressive techniques, and in fact had wound up with this man dead in the course of an interrogation....he was brought to Abu Ghraib and handed off to my conventional forces there at the prison, and we eventually wound up repatriating him to his family to be taken care of and interred."

HOLY CRAP! Sanchez is describing the fact that the CIA and US forces tortured a man to death. Hansen doesn't express shock, disgust, surprise...anything. She manages a brief interruption to ask who "Iceman" was, but that's it.

Another chapter in the banality of evil.

As governments have long recognized, language is very potent, and euphemisms can thus mask and even justify the most heinous and barbaric acts. But in our country, our leading media institutions use these methods at least as vigorously as political officials do in order to obscure, rather than illuminate, what our government does.

Liz Cheney Thinks It's Unfair if Andrea Mitchell Fact Checks Her Statements

2009-06-09T12:55:00.000-07:00

By Heather Friday Jun 05, 2009 10:00am

DOWNLOADS: (1239)

PLAYS: (20033)

After Liz Cheney claims that her father never tried to tie Saddam Hussein to 9-11, while trying to tie Saddam Hussein to 9-11 herself, Mitchell stops her in her tracks for playing fast and loose with the facts. Mitchell then follows with this.

Mitchell: Well, I'm going to go back, I'll do my homework, invite you back so we can talk about this more because I think that there were if not explicit, implicit connections suggesting at various points along the way..one..

Cheney: Well that's not...that's actually not fair Andrea because I think that, you know after 9-11 the issue of Saddam, you know, became a critically important issue for our national security because of his connections to terrorists and because we believed he had stockpiles of WMD. We knew and he did continue to have the technology that he could share with the terrorists. That's a very different thing than saying he was connected to 9-11.

Break out the waaaambulance. Heaven forbid Cheney would want to allow something like a few facts to get in the way of her spin. I don't think we're going to see that follow up interview any time soon.

Republicans Seize Control of State Senate

2009-06-09T12:22:00.000-07:00

By Jeremy W. Peters AND Danny Hakim

Rob Bennett for The New York Times; Suzanne DeChillo/The New York Times Two state senators — Pedro Espada Jr. of the Bronx and Hiram Monserrate of Queens — moved to defect to the Republican side, which would end Democratic control of the chamber.

Updated, 6:20 p.m. | ALBANY – Republicans apparently seized control of the New York State Senate on Monday, in a stunning and sudden reversal of fortunes for the Democratic Party, which controlled the chamber for barely five months.

A raucous leadership fight erupted on the floor of the Senate around 3 p.m., with two Democrats, Pedro Espada Jr. of the Bronx and Hiram Monserrate of Queens, joining the 30 Senate Republicans in a motion that would displace Democrats as the party in control.

In a news conference in the early evening, Senator Malcolm A. Smith of Queens, leader of the Senate Democrats, insisted that the Republican-engineered vote was illegal and violated parliamentary procedure. He said the vote was illegal because it had already taken place after the meeting was already brought to an end.

Giovanni Rufino for The New York Times Senator Dean G. Skelos, a Long Island Republican, is expected to become the new majority leader.

It was a noisy and acrimonious scene on the floor of the Senate as Senator Thomas W. Libous, a Republican from Binghamton and the party’s deputy leader, shouted for a roll-call vote, while Democrats attempted to stall the vote by asking to adjourn the session.

All 30 Republicans stood with their hands raised, signaling a vote for a change in leadership. Mr. Espada and Mr. Monserrate joined them, each raising his hand. Republicans won the vote by a 32-to-30 margin. The Senate will now be governed under a new joint leadership structure, with Mr. Espada serving as the president pro tempore, and Senator Dean G. Skelos, of Long Island, as the new majority leader.

After the results of the vote were read aloud, the in-house television station that carries Senate proceedings live in the Capitol went dark. All that appeared on the screen was a still photo of the Senate chamber and the words “Please stand by.”

Senate Republicans quickly claimed that they were on the verge of controlling the chamber. “A new bipartisan, coalition is being established that is bringing real reform to the Senate right now,” Republicans said in a statement emailed to reporters at 3:20 p.m.

As the events were unfolding on the floor, Mr. Smith huddled in the hall just off the Senate chamber and consulted with his staff. When asked what was occurring, he responded, “I’m trying to find out right now.”

Mr. Smith held a news conference in the early evening, denouncing the Republican maneuver as “scurrilous” and insisting that the Democrats were still in charge. He insisted the vote was illegal because it had taken place after the session had already been adjourned.

“It’s sad that the Republicans would chose to disrupt the business of this house,” he said. “We have many crucial issue that are important to us that has to get done, some of which are expiring, and obviously for them it was all about politics and not about the 19.5 million people in the state of New York. And I would hope that the public is outraged. I hope that the public will call their senators, the Republican senators, and say, ‘How dare you?’”

Mr. Smith added: “Let’s just be very clear, very clear, that the Senate majority is still in Democratic hands and will be in Democratic hands. And we will finish our business and we will adjourn and go home at the appropriate time.”

Earlier, at 4:44 p.m., Mr. Smith’s office released a statement insisting that control of the Senate had not changed hands.

“This was an illegal and unlawful attempt to gain control of the Senate and reverse the will of the people who voted for a Democratic majority,” Austin Shafran, a spokesman for Mr. Smith, said. “Nothing has changed. Senator Malcolm A. Smith remains the duly elected temporary president and majority leader. The real Senate majority is anxious to get back to governing, and will take immediate steps to get us back to work.”

Also, Hank Sheinkopf, an adviser to Mr. Smith, denounced the senators behind the revolt. “This is obviously an attempt by a couple of people to get personal power at the expense of the taxpayers,” Mr. Sheinkopf said. “It disrupts the Senate at a critical period, when issues like mayoral control are yet undecided. And the taxpayers are going to remember these guys by first and last name next year.”

Until January, Republicans had controlled the State Senate for more than four decades. Democrats won a majority of Senate seats in the November elections, but only after three dissident senators who were being courted by Republicans, including Mr. Espada and Mr. Monserrate, agreed to elect Mr. Smith.

Why Mr. Espada and Mr. Monserrate suddenly defected on Monday afternoon was not immediately clear. Both men are under investigation by the authorities. The state attorney general’s office is investigating a health care agency, Soundview HealthCare Network, that Mr. Espada ran until recently. And Mr. Monserrate, who was indicted on felony assault charges in March stemming from an attack on his companion, would automatically be thrown out of office if convicted.

If Mr. Monserrate is convicted, the Senate would be evenly split between the parties, 31 to 31. But with the lieutenant governor’s office vacant until the 2010 elections, there would be no tie-breaking vote in the chamber unless one or more other senators changed sides.

The coup could also complicate prospects for Gov. David A. Paterson, who is fighting to build a record on which to run for re-election and who requires a functioning Senate in order do so.

One source of contention among Democrats recently has been Mr. Smith’s support for same-sex marriage. Senator Rubén Díaz Sr., a Democrat from the Bronx, has been outspoken in his insistence that legislation allowing gay couples to marry not be allowed to come to a vote. Some had speculated he might leave the Democratic Party if Mr. Smith were to allow a vote.

But Mr. Díaz did not join Mr. Espada and Mr. Monserrate in the leadership vote on Monday. It was not immediately clear whether the same-sex marriage legislation played any role in the leadership dispute.

One person backing the revolt to put Republicans back in charge was Tom Golisano, the Rochester businessman and founder of Responsible New York, a political action committee that gave thousands of dollars to Senate Democrats last year to help them take control of the Senate, but who has become increasingly critical of the party. Mr. Golisano recently announced that he was moving his legal residence to Florida out of anger about the budget deal crafted in April by Democratic leaders in Albany, which included an increase in taxes on high earners.

Mr. Golisano played a role in negotiating original deal under which Mr. Espada and Mr. Monserrate — along with Mr. Díaz and Senator Carl Kruger of Brooklyn — gave their support to Mr. Smith. Steve Pigeon, his aide de camp, has been a frequent presence in Albany in recent weeks, and said Monday that Mr. Golisano felt betrayed by Mr. Smith because the Democratic leader had not delivered the overhaul of Senate rules he had promised upon taking power.

“He feels very strongly that he backed Malcolm Smith, and Smith didn’t keep his word, and didn’t make the changes he said he would,” Mr. Pigeon. “What you will see now is power-sharing, real reform.”

The apparent change of power sent shock waves in political circles across the state. At City Hall, in Lower Manhattan, stunned members of the New York City Council walked into the press room to watch the news unfold on local television. “I’m floored,” said Vincent M. Ignizio, a Republican city councilman and former state assemblyman from Staten Island.

To balance its budget for the next year, the City Council needs Albany to approve two proposed sales tax increases. “This will turn the budget process on its head,” Mr. Ignizio said.

Ex-Gitmo prisoner: US tortured me with needles, IV tubes

2009-06-09T11:52:00.000-07:00

A former prisoner held at Guantanamo Bay says he was never interrogated about the reason the US said they’d arrested him for — even after seven years in captivity.

He also provided a graphic account of new elements of what may be considered “ad-lib” torture — guards inappropriately using hypodermic needles and IV tubes intended for forced feeding during hunger strikes.

He further said he was kept awake for 16 days straight — which was often done by splashing detainees eyes with cold water when they nodded off in their cell under bright lights. The account was published by ABC News.

The former detainee, Lakhdar Boumediene, is now in France with his family. He was never charged. Was it torture? an ABC News reporter asked.

“I don’t think. I’m sure,” he replied.

“Boumediene described being pulled up from under his arms while sitting in a chair with his legs shackled, stretching him,” an ABC News interview account Monday reported. “He said that he was forced to run with the camp’s guards and if he could not keep up, he was dragged, bloody and bruised.

“He described what he called the ‘games’ the guards would play after he began a hunger strike, putting his food IV up his nose and poking the hypodermic needle in the wrong part of his arm.

“You think that’s not torture?” he quipped. “What’s this? What can you call this? Torture or what?” he said, indicating the scars he bears from tight shackles. ‘I’m an animal? I’m not a human?’”

Boumediene was first captured and accused of being part of a plot to bomb the US embassy in Sarajevo. But charges against him were dropped by the Bosnian government. Subsequently, however, they turned him over to the US military.

The charges were dropped, and the Bosnian courts ordered him and five others freed. But under pressure from the Bush administration, the Bosnian government handed him over to the U.S. military. He was shackled and transported by military plane to Cuba.

Two weeks later, in his State of the Union address, President Bush touted the arrests in Bosnia to show early progress in the war on terror.

“Our soldiers, working with the Bosnian government, seized terrorists who were plotting to bomb our embassy,” Bush said in his address. To this day, officials of the Bush administration have provided no credible evidence to back up that accusation.

Boumediene said the interrogations began within one week of his arrival at the facility in Cuba. But he thought that his cooperation, and trust in the United States, would serve him well and quicken his release.

“I thought America, the big country, they have CIA, FBI. Maybe one week, two weeks, they know I am innocent. I can go back to my home, to my home,” he said.

But instead, Boumediene said he endured harsh treatment for more than seven years.

The full interview can be read here.

This video is from ABC’s Good Morning America, broadcast June 8, 2009.

Download video via RawReplay.com

Democrats Weigh Health Mandate as Obama Urges Taxing Wealthy

2009-06-09T11:42:00.000-07:00

June 7 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama wants Congress to consider taxing the wealthy instead of workers to pay for a health-care overhaul, as House Democrats discuss a plan to require health insurance for most Americans.

The Obama administration stepped up efforts to influence health-care legislation today as advisers David Axelrod and Austan Goolsbee appeared on television talk shows to discuss the issue.

The president is trying to avoid broad-based levies such as a Senate proposal to tax some employer-provided health benefits Axelrod said. Instead he is urging lawmakers to reconsider limiting all tax deductions for Americans in the highest tax brackets.

“He made a very strong case for the proposal that he put on the table, which was to cap deductions for high-income Americans, and he urged them to go back and look at that,” Axelrod said on the CNN’s “State of the Union.” Goolsbee, appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” said Obama is “mindful” about how “ordinary Americans are able to foot the bills” and never proposed taxing employee benefits.

House Democrats are weighing a new proposal in response to Obama’s call for legislation to be enacted by August. An outline of the plan obtained by Bloomberg News would require Americans to have insurance with some exceptions.

It would probably exempt those who can prove they can’t find an affordable policy. There could be a tax penalty for those with adequate financial resources who don’t elect to get insurance, according to the outline.

Group Rates

The outline suggests consumers who have individual health insurance policies that they like could keep them. Still, it says that “by and large” the nation’s market for individually purchased health insurance policies would move to a new federally operated exchange. It would permit both individuals and employees of small firms to buy policies at less expensive group rates.

“States will have the option to run a state exchange but the default will be a national exchange,” according to the outline.

Karen Lightfoot, a spokeswoman for House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, a California Democrat whose panel is working on a proposal, said the document that is circulating is not the official work of the committee.

All House Democrats will be briefed June 9 on the details of a single piece of legislation that three House committees will work on, with the House slated to act by the end of July. The proposal is part of a broader push by Democrats in Congress to complete a revamp of the U.S. health-care system by an early fall timetable set by Obama.

Kennedy’s Approach

In the Senate, health committee chairman Edward Kennedy has an early draft of legislation that also includes a so-called “individual mandate,” and would require all employers to supply health insurance for workers or contribute to the cost of a plan.

Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, would also create a public health plan to compete with private insurers, a priority of Obama’s that is opposed by Republicans, and would bar insurers from limiting coverage.

The effort to overhaul health-care would affect a sector that makes up 17 percent of the U.S. economy. The goal of Democratic supporters is to provide insurance to most of the nation’s 46 million uninsured, and lower the soaring cost of care. A key challenge is the potential impact of legislation on an already rising U.S. budget deficit that may reach $1.8 trillion this year.

Axelrod, speaking on CNN today, said the ultimate goal of legislation is to reduce costs.

“We have to bring down the cost of health care,” he said. “If we do that and make it affordable, people are going to buy it, mandate or no mandate.”

Burdens on Business

Google Inc. Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, speaking on Fox, said reducing costs would also ease burdens on business.

“The only way to really address this is to address the combination of coverage and cost,” Schmidt said. “So anything that the Congress and the president does has to do that. And from my perspective, the sooner the better.”

“You won’t fundamentally solve the problems in business until you solve the problem of spiraling health-care costs, which is driving everybody crazy,” he added.

Lawmakers have a plethora of proposals to raise the hundreds of billions estimated to be needed for an overhaul, including new taxes on soda, beer, and wine, and a partial tax on employer-provided health insurance for the first time. The tax-free nature of employer-provided insurance is the biggest tax expenditure in the federal budget.

Taxing Cap Deductions

Obama’s own proposal would set a 28 percent cap on tax deductions for items such as mortgage interest, investment expenses and charitable gifts for Americans in the two highest tax brackets, which would be 36 percent and 39.6 percent under his proposals. Without the cap, they would be able to deduct 36 cents and 39.6 cents on the dollar for those expenses, respectively.

Obama also proposes new taxes on securities dealers and life insurers, and to raise revenue by prohibiting certain estate-planning techniques.

House Democrats intend, like Kennedy, to include a new government program to provide health-care to a portion of the uninsured who don’t already qualify for Medicare or Medicaid, according to the outline.

While the lawmakers continue working out the details, they intend the new program to operate through the exchange and for both the public program and private insurance policies to have the same basic benefits.

Helping the Poor

House Democrats want to improve the Medicaid health-care system for the poor, including a uniform benefits package and “improved” provider payments. They are weighing whether to add people who are near the poverty level to Medicaid or to provide subsidies to allow them to purchase their own policies.

The plan would place new restrictions on private insurers, including a bar on excluding coverage for those with “pre- existing conditions.”

The legislation would seek to get some cost savings from Medicare and Medicaid, including incentives for doctors to coordinate their care and get bonuses for improving quality, according to the outline.

Oh, No! It's Making Well-Reasoned Arguments Backed With Facts! Run!

2009-05-30T09:51:00.000-07:00

I…I think it's finally over. Our reactionary emotional response seems to have stopped it dead in its tracks. If I'm right, all we have to do now is smugly reiterate our half-formed thesis and—oh, no! For the love of God, no! It's thoughtfully mulling things over!

Run! Run! It's making reasonable, fact-based arguments!

Quickly! Hide behind self-righteousness! The ad hominem rejoinders—ready the ad hominem rejoinders! Watch out! Dodge the issue at hand! Question its character and keep moving haphazardly from one flawed point to the next!

All together now! Put every bit of secondhand conjecture into it you've got!

Goddamn it, nothing's working! It's trapped us in our own unsubstantiated claims! We need to switch fundamentally unsound tactics. Hurry, throw up the straw man! Look, I think it's going for it. C'mon…c'mon…yes, it's going for it! Now hit it with the thing that one guy told us once while it's distracted by our ludicrous rationalizations!

Gah! It's calmly and evenhandedly deflecting everything we're throwing at it. Our deductive fallacies are only making it stronger! Wait…what on earth is it doing now? Oh, no, it has sources! My God, it's defending itself with ironclad sources! Someone stop the citing! Please, please stop the citing!

The language is impenetrable! For all that is good and holy, backpedal with all your might!

Where are the children? Someone overprotect the children! They cannot be exposed to this kind of illuminative reasoning. Their young, open minds are much too vulnerable to independent thought. We have to shield them behind our unshakeable intolerance for critical thinking.

What?!? Noooooooooo! Richard! For the love of God, it's convinced Richard!

No time for tears now. Richard's mind has been changed forever. But we mustn't let it weaken our resolve. Mark my words, our ignorance will hold, no matter the cost. Now, more than ever, we have to keep floundering ahead with blind faith in our increasingly fallacious worldview.

For Richard's sake.

What's that? Now it's making an appeal to reason? Never! Do you hear me, you eloquent, well-read behemoth? Never! We'll die before we recognize what we secretly know to be true! The cognitive dissonance only makes our denial stronger!

We have but one hope left: passive-aggressive slights disguised as impersonal discourse.† Okay, everyone, careful now…careful…if this is going to work, we have to arrogantly assume that it won't be smart enough to catch on to our attempt to salvage some feeling of superiority and—oh, God, it's calling us out! Quick, avoid eye contact and stammer an apology! Tell it we were just joking! Tell it we were joking!

Arrgh! Our pride! Oh, Lord, our pride! It burns!

All is lost. We don't stand a chance against its relentless onslaught of exhaustive research and immaculate rhetoric. We may as well lie down and—Christ, how it pains me to say it—admit that it's right. My friends, I would like to take these last few moments of stubborn close-mindedness to say that it's been an honor to dig myself into this hole with you.

Unless…wait, of course! Why didn't we think of it before? Volume! Sheer volume! It's so simple. Quickly now, we don't have much time! Don't let it get a word in edgewise! Derisively cut it off mid-sentence! Now, launch the sophomoric personal attacks! Louder, yes, that's it, louder! Be repetitive, juvenile, and obstinate! It's working! It's working!

We've done it! It's walking away and shaking its head in disgust! Huzzah! Finally—defeated with a single three-minute volley of irrelevant, off-topic shouting!

Will the Antichrist be a homosexual?

2009-05-30T09:36:00.000-07:00

In answering this question, it is important to assert the question does not originate with me, lest someone out there think that I am bringing some new doctrine out to bolster the political climate. But as the study of Bible prophecy includes verbiage as to the behavior of the one called “that Wicked” by Paul in II Thessalonians, it is not only a legitimate question to ask, but also one to answer.

While the word “homosexual” is not in the Bible, the behavior of those who practice homosexuality, and God’s estimation of them, very definitely is. When the word came into existence I cannot tell you, but what we can say for sure is that when Noah Webster published his first dictionary in 1828, it was not included. This means that homosexuality is a modern word invented to replace the word Noah Webster did include, sodomy, defined as a crime against nature. This is historical revisionism in action.

Sodomy is defined in scripture by two things, the first being that of where it began: Sodom. In Genesis 13:13 we have the first mention of the men of Sodom, pronouncing that they “were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly.” Their saga is continued in chapters 18 and 19 with their sin being so great that not only does God say that it “is very grievous,” but he himself comes down to destroy them with fire, the rubble of which still stands as a warning to us today.

While the Genesis account does not graphically describe their sin, leading some to deny it as being the same as homosexuality, their sin is obviously just that by how it is described: lying with mankind as with womankind. What other conclusion can be reached when they want to “know” the men who were in Lot’s house, the same word the Bible uses in Genesis 4 in relation to the conception of Cain? And that Lot himself understood their intentions is clear; not only did he call such behavior wicked, but he also offered his virgin daughters as substitutes, which the men of Sodom refused.

And one more thing: Sodomy is the only sin for which God came down from heaven to destroy. Though God dealt with many other sins in various ways, there is no other for which he came down from heaven to verify and destroy. In the New Testament, sodomy is declared to be “against nature.” And of the men, Paul in Romans 1 says they leave “the natural use of the woman....” In effect, there is no greater sin against God than to reject how he made you, and no greater sin against women than to reject how God made them.

But will the Antichrist be a homosexual? Having seen what the Bible says of sodomy, we have no further to look than the book of Daniel, chapter 11 to find our answer. It says, “Neither shall he [Antichrist] regard... the desire of women....” As I said at the onset, I am not the first to draw attention to this, but the verbiage is clear.

From a lost perspective, the reason sex sells, pornography is profitable, and prostitution is “the world’s oldest profession” is mankind’s desire of women. From Christianity’s position, it is part of the glue for the bond of marriage and the propagation of a godly heritage. But homosexuality does not regard this — in their unbridled lusts they burn for their own gender.

But consider this: The time is ripe for such a leader. Indeed, it should not be surprising that the one who is against everything Biblical and Christian should be a partaker of so great a sin; there is no greater way to reject the Creator than to reject your gender and his design for it. And at what other time have we seen such perversion come out of the closets onto our streets, threatening violence if we do not accept their ways?

Is it any wonder that Revelation 13 says that this same Antichrist will make war with the saints of the tribulation, and overcome them? Are they not now readying themselves to make it illegal to “offend” them in any way, calling it hatred to preach against their sin? Is it because they love us? The time is ripe for such a man.

But remember that sodomy is the one sin that God left heaven and came to earth to destroy. Could it be that this will be the predominate sin on earth when Christ descends from the clouds to fight against the armies of wickedness? And will it be just a coincidence that the Antichrist will be the very first occupant of the lake of fire, tasting eternal death 1,000 years before even the devil himself?

Drug Czar's Pot-Potency Claims Go Up In Smoke

2009-05-30T09:04:00.000-07:00

A newly released report about marijuana potency undermines previous claims by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) that the drug's potency has hit record highs.

In May, the media ran wild with stories of highly potent pot sweeping the nation, as the ONDCP announced that their testing showed average marijuana potency had topped 10 percent THC-level for the first time ever. THC is the active ingredient in marijuana.

"According to the latest data on marijuana samples analyzed to date, the average amount of THC in seized samples has reached a new high of 10.1 percent," reads the announcement by Gil Kerlikowske, the Drug Czar.

But the full report is now available and it shows that the 10-percent bar is only crossed by throwing hash into the equation. Without hash, the average potency was 8.52 percent. The average potency of hash was 20.76 percent.

The Marijuana Policy Project obtained the full report, which is produced by the Marijuana Potency Monitoring Project at the University of Mississippi.

Connoisseurs would enjoy reading the whole thing, which is available here, as it breaks seizures and potency-measurement into "Buds," "Kilobricks," "Loose leaf," "Loose other," "Thai Sticks" and other categories.

There is also debate over whether there is actually a problem with higher-potency marijuana, with advocates arguing that stronger pot means that users end up smoking less for the same effect, thus sparing their lungs.

UPDATED: PA newspaper runs ad calling for assassination of Obama

2009-05-30T06:12:00.000-07:00

The Warren Pennsylvania Times-Observer (www.timesobserver.com) published an ad on Thursday calling for the assassination of President Barack Obama.

In our conversation with the publisher, John Elchert, he indicated that his paper was sorry that the ad was published. Today, however, there is no retraction and no apology.

If you believe an apology is in order, you can contact Mr. Elchert at 814... or jelchert@timesobserver.com

Michael Morrill's diary :: ::

The Warren Pennsylvania Times-Observer (http://www.timesobserver.com) published an ad today calling for the assassination of President Barack Obama.

The text of the small classified ad reads, "May Obama follow in the footsteps of Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy!" There is no other text and it has no attribution. The ad may be viewed here http://morrillmajority.org/....

Keystone Progress called the Times-Observer for comment and got a return call from John T. Elchert, the paper’s publisher. Mr. Elchert was extremely apologetic and wanted to make it clear that the ad did not reflect the paper’s policy.

"It is unfortunate that it made it to press," said Elchert. "The person who took the ad didn’t recognize the significance of the names. We cancelled the ad and turned the information over to the authorities."
Mr . Elchert said that he contacted the local police who were forwarding the information to federal authorities.

"Unfortunately, the attitude of the person who placed the ad is too prevalent in Pennsylvania," said Michael Morrill, the executive director of Keystone Progress. "In the last few days we’ve gotten emails calling the president ‘chimp’ and the n-word after he nominated Judge Sotomayor. It makes it very difficult to organize around issues when the opposition to the president’s policies is so racially charged. "

Keystone Progress http://www.keystoneprogress.org is the organization that exposed the racism and hatred at McCain and Palin rallies in Pennsylvania http://www.youtube.com/... They are also helping to organize the campaign to get Governor Rendell to speak out against the beating death of Latino immigrant Luis Ramirez last year in Schuylkill County. http://presente.org/...

The Five Most Shocking Justice Appointments

2009-05-19T04:21:00.000-07:00

Rumor has it that BHO may break with tradition in making his first Supreme Court pick. He could nominate an African-American or Hispanic woman, or he could find someone who no pundit has on the short list. The justice he’s replacing, David Souter, came out of nowhere back in 1990—but he wasn’t unlikely enough to crack our list of the most surprising Supreme Court justices in history.

5. William Brennan (Served 1956-1990)
Surprise Factor: Catholic Democrats from New Jersey and Republican Presidents don’t typically see eye-to-eye.
Presidential Rationale: It was politics pure and simple—President Eisenhower was looking to curry favor with Northeastern voters in his bid for re-election that same year.
Legacy: Brennan proved to be one of the most influential liberal justices in the Court’s history; he voted with the majority in Roe v. Wade and wrote several opinions defending free speech. Eisenhower later admitted his selection had been a mistake, though Brennan’s liberal views arguably helped fuel conservative electoral turnout in the decades ahead.

4. Edward White (1894-1921)
Surprise Factor: A Louisiana native, White had served in the Confederate Army for two years before being captured by Union troops and held as a prisoner of war.
Presidential Rationale: President Grover Cleveland appointed White to the Court in as a compromise pick after his top two choices—both Northerners from New York—couldn’t get through Senate confirmations.
Legacy: White served on the Court for three decades and sided with the majority opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson that upheld segregation.

3. Tom C. Clark (1949-1967)
Surprise Factor: Can you imagine Jay Bybee—the author of the torture memo used by the Bush administration—on the Supreme Court? There’s precedent: during World War II, Clark served as the Justice Department’s civilian coordinator of the Japanese internment in California.
Presidential Rationale: Clark was a close friend of President Harry Truman.
Legacy: Truman called Clark’s appointment his “biggest mistake,” but not for the his role in the internment. As Truman put it, “It isn’t so much that he’s a bad man. It’s just that he’s such a dumb son of a bitch.” That’s probably the best that can be said of Bybee, too.

2. James McReynolds (1914-1941)
Surprise Factor: McReynolds, a testy Southerner, had a knack for irritating or offending all who came in contact with him. Presidential Rationale: McReynolds is the quintessential example of the annoying, disruptive co-worker getting “kicked upstairs” by management. President Woodrow Wilson appointed him as Attorney General in 1913, and, when McReynolds proved that he did not play well with others in the administration, Wilson appointed him to the Court the following year. Legacy: For almost three decades, McReynolds was a reliably intolerant voice on the Court. An open anti-Semite and misogynist, he often refused to speak or listen to Louis Brandeis, the first Jew appointed to the Court, and he would frequently abandon the bench when a woman lawyer came before the Court to present a case. But, we do haveMcReynolds’ intolerance to thank for the no smoking policy in the Supreme Court building.

1. Hugo Black (1937-1971)
Surprise Factor: Because the inaptly named Justice Black joined the Ku Klux Klan while an aspiring young politician in Alabama (a move he later justified by saying “I would have joined any group if it helped get me votes”).
Presidential Rationale: While in the Senate, Black had been a loyal supporter of FDR’s New Deal. When FDR nominated Black for the Court in 1937, Black’s Klan membership was merely a rumor, and the Senate, despite reservations, voted to confirm him. Black was hastily sworn in two days later before the KKK connection was confirmed by an ambitious reporter the following month.
Legacy: Black enjoyed one of the longest tenures on the court and later penned the Court’s majority opinion in Korematsu v. United States, validating FDR’s interment of Japanese Americans.

Spending	2008	2009	Difference	% of Deficit
Discretionary Spending
Defense	612	726	114	9.84%
Non-Defense	508	586	78	6.73%

Mandatory Spending
Social Security	612	675	63	5.44%
Medicare	386	425	39	3.36%
Medicaid	201	262	61	5.26%
Other	411	429	18	1.55%
TARP		260	260	22.43%
Recovery Act		267	267	23.04%
Interest	253	167	-86	-8.85%
Disasters		4	4	0.41%
Total Outlays	2983	3801	818	70.58%
Taxes
Individual	1146	953	-193	-16.65%
Corporate	304	175	-129	-11.13%
Social Security	658	655	-3	-0.26%
Medicare	194	192	-2	-0.17%
Unemployment	40	44	4	0.35%
Retirement	9	9	0	0.00%
Excise	67	66	-1	-0.09%
Estate Tax	29	26	-3	-0.26%
Customs	28	24	-4	-0.35%
Fed Reserve	34	25	-9	-0.78%
Other	17	16	-1	-0.09%
Total Taxes	2526	2185	-341	-29.42%
Deficit	-457	-1616	1159

Political News

Will Republicans block Obama's jobs plan?

President Obama is preparing to unveil a new plan to fight unemployment and boost the economy, and he's daring Republicans to simply slam the door

The Marijuana Tipping Point Is Already Here

Attorneys For Schaeffer Cox Want Murder Conspiracy Charges Thrown Out

Wisconsin Flyer Calls For Conservatives To Vote For Fake Candidate In Dem Primary

U.S. Is Deferring Millions in Pakistani Military Aid

By ERIC SCHMITT and JANE PERLEZ

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is suspending and, in some cases, canceling hundreds of millions of dollars of aid to the Pakistani military, in a move to chasten Pakistan for expelling American military trainers and to press its army to fight militants more effectively.

CITY HUNTER

SHOW INFORMATION

SERIES DESCRIPTION

Bill Clinton: Debt is Republicans' legacy

Did Glenn Beck set up Texas gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina?

Obama ‘Agnostic’ on Deficit Cuts, Won’t Prejudge Tax Increases

The Daily Show Mocks GOP Hypocrisy over Obama and Hawaii

The Worst Political Ad Ever? This Fiorina Offering Has Got To Be Up There

What Changed? White House Now Supports Franken Rape Amendment

Flashback: McCain Refused To Grant 30 Seconds Of Time During Iraq War Debate

Democrats gain 60th vote on health bill

Obama Calls for More U.S. Exports to Asia

By JUDITH BURNS

Democrats hold line, but cracks show

Missouri Billboard Calls for Revolution: War Against America

by Vyan

Senate Votes to Move Health Debate Forward

By GREG HITT

Senate Nears Key Vote on Health Bill

Traffic cameras used to harass and limit movement of peaceful protestors

Administration eyes ways to help laid-off workers

"Darned good" Republican Whitman endorsed U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer in 2003

Is Rep. Alan Grayson The New “Mr. Smith” (Goes To Washington)

Conservatives Revel In America's Olympic Defeat

Rachel Slajda

BREAKING: Texas Judge: Ban On Gay Marriage Unconstitutional

The perils of long-term unemployment

Thank You, Mr. President

Birther Orly Taitz Compares Self To Mandela, Wants Judge Tried For Treason

Justin Elliott

Your request is being processed... Jimmy Carter: Wilson's Outburst 'Based On Racism' (VIDEO) Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com

Do You Have the Right to Flip Off a Cop?

Texting to Death

Prankster Introduces Ballot Initiative to Ban Divorce

There's Just No Way Sarah Palin's Writing Her Facebook Notes

"Don't Know Much About History"

Obama feels the heat, changes the play

Hope Fading For Political Reform In Illinois

Republicans embrace Ron Paul on domestic policy

Jimmy Carter leaves Southern Baptist church in protest to treatment of women

WhatТs That Got to Do With Mr. Murtha?

Obama - The Fact Checker In Chief

Could Dick Cheney Go to Prison?

Sarah Palin should just go home

Cap and trade or Smoot-Hawley?

Palin’s Threats To The Press Puts To Question Her Judgement

China says dollar to remain leading world currency

Robert S. McNamara Dies

The Real Story Behind Palin's Bombshell

Insane Sarah Palin, Late At Night On July 4, Threatens To Sue Entire Internet, Via Twitter

French Broadcaster Sued for Firing Employee Based on HADOPI Stance

How seriously do we take domestic terrorism?

Glenn Greenwald

The NYT's nice, new euphemism for torture

Liz Cheney Thinks It's Unfair if Andrea Mitchell Fact Checks Her Statements

Republicans Seize Control of State Senate

Ex-Gitmo prisoner: US tortured me with needles, IV tubes

Democrats Weigh Health Mandate as Obama Urges Taxing Wealthy

Oh, No! It's Making Well-Reasoned Arguments Backed With Facts! Run!

Will the Antichrist be a homosexual?

Drug Czar's Pot-Potency Claims Go Up In Smoke

UPDATED: PA newspaper runs ad calling for assassination of Obama

The Five Most Shocking Justice Appointments