...will he ever win?

Crooks and Liars: Open Thread with The Professional Left Podcast: Beck, Palin, and Obama's Real "Secret Plot"

Heather — 2010-09-05T03:30:34+00:00

Time for your weekly podcast from The Professional Left, Driftglass and Bluegal. You can listen to past editions at their new site The Professional Left, and Driftglass has a bonus podcast over at his place if you'd care to check it out. Have a happy Labor Day weekend everybody!

If you haven't been following these already here's more from The Professional Left:

We are very grateful for your listenership, readership, and moral and financial support.
Driftglass and Blue Gal (The Professional Left) are award-winning bloggers who have been writing at their own individual blogs since 2004. Both are also contributors to Crooks and Liars.

After being told at several blogger meet-ups that "they should be on the radio together," the two of them, through the internet magic of Skype, Callburner, Audacity, and loquacity, started their podcast adventure in January of 2010.

Driftglass lives at "The Castle" in Chicago and blogs at http://driftglass.blogspot.com.

Blue Gal lives in "A Cornfield" in central Illinois and blogs at http://bgalrstate.blogspot.com.

Their podcast email address is proleftpodcast@gmail.com. The podcasters reserve the right to read your email messages on the air.

Thanks again for listening!

We need your financial support to keep podcasting. Thank you!

We know times are tight. Five bucks is fine! Thanks for whatever you can contribute.

Crooks and Liars: C&L's Late Night Music Club with The Weakerthans

MaxMarginal — 2010-09-05T03:30:00+00:00

Genre: The Weakerthans

Title: Sun in an Empty Room

I am an undying champion of Winnipeg, Manitoba's Weakerthans. There are enough current songwriters capable of spinning complete yarns about colorful, defined characters in 4-minute pop structures to count on one hand, and John K. Samson gets the pointer finger.

The band's most recent effort, Reunion Tour, is a dense pack of understated gems, mostly about characters dealing with slow and undramatic disappointment, but with genuine humor and warmth in place of the judgment and pity that usually plagues the form. Civil Twilight is a bouncy rock tune sung from the perspective of a Winnipeg bus driver reflecting on a long past divorce. Bigfoot, based on the true story of a man in Northern Canada who became the subject of ridicule tourism for a run-in with the Sasquatch which, ridiculous or not, truly terrified him. "Sun In An Empty Room" is the standout among standouts in the collection.

PS Our sister site Newstalgia has something loud for Labor Day: Humble Pie from 1973.

Reunion Tour
	Artist: The Weakerthans Price: $4.98 (As of 09/04/10 12:47 pm details)

Crooks and Liars: Newstalgia Reference Room - Documents For Ear - The 1950 Mid-terms

Gordonskene — 2010-09-05T02:00:42+00:00

enlarge

Credit: Life Magazine

1950 Mid-terms. Slinging mud has never gone out of fashion.

Click here to view this media

Since we're gearing up for the final sprint towards the 2010 Mid-Terms, I thought I would start running some documentaries on past mid-term elections, starting with 1950. It seems then, as now, mud-slinging was an acknowledged art form and one eagerly employed by most candidates. The names have changed, the universal enemy (back then it was Communism) has changed, but the innuendos, sleights and counter-charges are all still there.

This documentary, part of CBS Radio's Report To The Nation series airing on November 9, 1950, is narrated by Edward R. Murrow who gives his usual astute assessment:

Edward R. Murrow: “Those who failed to vote, and deplore the outcome may recall George G. Nathan’s statement that bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote.”

Sixty years later that sentiment still applies.

World O' Crap: Aristotle’s The Rhetoric of Head Cheese

scott — 2010-09-05T01:40:07+00:00

We have a fresh new Toni Home Pundit for you today — meet RenewAmerica’s Robert Meyer. Granted, Mr. Meyer has the look of a high mileage wingnut, and he’s been seeding the Internet with his opinionated emissions since at least 2003, but he’s new to WO’C. Oh, I’ve been tempted by him before, I won’t deny it, but something about his byline makes my back ache; perhaps it’s his headshot, which puts one in mind of a bus bench ad for a louche local chiropractor.

Ground Zero mosque not about religious freedom The Ground Zero mosque controversy has been erroneously portrayed by certain news pundits as being an issue about religious freedom.

It’s about the right of a free people to exercise their sacred liberties in the shadow of Ground Zero, and more specifically in the New York Dolls Gentlemen’s Club, the OTB parlor, or Thunder Lingerie (“come for the slutty nurse costumes and penis-shaped candles, stay for the Taste of Freedom, one of five flavored lubes available at the cash register”), without a bunch of bearded killjoys looking down their bluenoses. For was it not Jefferson in his Letter to the Danbury Baptists who said that, “religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & Strip Club.”

Of course this is another red herring designed to demonize those protesting against locating the mosque at ground zero — as if those opposing it want to deny a segment of Americans equal access to the First Amendment.

Anyway, it’s not a question of flat-out denial so much as it is a matter of competitive pricing. Conservatives think of the Bill of Rights in much the same way that Google and Verizon regard the internet; preferred customers deserve superior access. Muslims have the exact same rights as other Americans, they just have to wait a bit longer for them, and occasionally the First Amendment returns a 404 error.

Is it not ironic that only a few years ago we were told that dissent was the highest form of patriotism.

Now — at least judging by that Glenn Beck rally — it’s the highest form of paleness. If only Bull Connor had lived long enough, he’d be a Constitutional expert on Fox News, or at least have his own show on the National Geographic Channel, The Dog Shouter, (Fridays at 8 P.M.) where he would offer tips on training your Dobermans, Rottweilers, and German Shepherds to detect black racism.

Now that those people are in power we have an Orwellian reversal and dissent is again unpatriotic, with the added feature of being bigoted and phobic.

Bigotry: it’s not a bug, it’s a feature. Anyway, I don’t want to accuse Mr. Meyer of lacking a sense of proportion, but maybe a war of aggression launched on the basis of a counterfeit casus belli is slightly more Orwellian than a pissing match with the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (although I’ve heard that Community Board 1 is pretty Kafkaesque).

We have a couple of commenters from New York who experienced the horror of 9/11 first hand, and yet don’t seem eager to void the First Amendment, so I’m wondering where Mr. Meyer lives, that he feels entitled to stand athwart Lower Manhattan and shout, “No Paseran!” Let’s check his bio, shall we?

Robert Meyer is a hardy soul who hails from the Cheesehead country of the upper midwest. Robert is known by his opponents as a “clever rhetorician”

Apparently I’m one of his supporters, then.

who often exposes the fallacies of knee-jerk arguments presented in local papers.

So he’s a crank who spends the long winters writing outraged letters to the editor of the Lake Koshkonong Advertiser-Pantagraph.

Seeking to develop precepts for every aspect of life — based on a conservative Christian worldview — Robert often gleans inspiration from looking off his back deck, over the scenic Fox river and recalling the wise counsel of those who mentored him.

Robert was abandoned in the woods as a child, and raised by shrews.

Muslim’s are certainly within their constitutional rights to build a mosque there if they desire. The question is whether they ought to. The issue is one of propriety, not religious freedom. Until pro-mosque apologists get past that fact they have yet to make a legitimate counter argument.

“According to Earl Warren, Negroes are within their constitutional rights to attend the same school as my children if they desire. The question is whether they ought to. The issue is one of propriety, not equal protection. Until integrationists get past that fact they have yet to make a legitimate counter argument. Also, we have William F. Buckley on our side.”

Of course, it’s a community center, not a Crystal Cathedral-like mega-mosque, but Robert makes a good point. For instance, I’m opposed to our apartment building putting a Babylonian Water-goat in the jacuzzi at some point, but so far the management company has never apologized to me.

That we are endowed with certain rights is granted by our national charter. How judiciously we are stewards of those rights will determine whether we can keep them and maintain our freedoms.

Apparently the Declaration of Independence is the law of the land now; no wonder these teabaggers are so desperate to “restore” the Constitution. Maybe we should split the difference and just go back to the Articles of Confederation.

What is the motivation behind placing the mosque there if doing so causes so much public grief, considering that the Imam behind the project, Feisal Abdul Rauf, has indicated he wants to build bridges? Interesting, that in the discussion, the most obvious thing that could be done to facilitate a peaceful resolution is scarcely mentioned. The Imam could just decide to build the mosque elsewhere.

Yes, you rarely hear folks say, “you people can live in the city, it would just be more tasteful and less offensive to us if you lived in your own little special section.” At least, not since the heyday of Venetian Ghetto.

In fact, were I a Muslim, this is what I would be calling on my leadership to do.

Appease your enemies? Too bad the project isn’t being run by Imam Chamberlain.

Some might argue that we must show the world that we are tolerant. Of course, according to the enlightened commentators, allowing the mosque to be built on the designated site is just the medicine we need to establish that impression.

It’s not oppression if people voluntarily give up their rights, and besides, the golf courses at most black country clubs are nicer than Augusta anyway.

But are not Muslim nations the ones suffering from the image problem? When we consider the austerity and human rights abuses within Muslim nations, shouldn’t they be trying to demonstrate that they are tolerant?

Robert will stop beating his wife the second it’s no longer legal in Saudi Arabia. That’ll show ‘em.

There are parallels between this issue and the soldiers’ funeral picketing performed by Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church congregants, a story which has popped up in the news again.

God Hates Fags. And cooking schools, photography classes, and daycare centers.

If those in charge moved the mosque to another location, think of the public relations bonanza it would be for Islam.

If Vivian Malone and James Hood had just paused outside Foster Auditorium, listened for a moment to all the jeering bigots, and thought, “You know what? They make a good point,” and then turned around and walked away, imagine what a PR coup that would have been for the civil rights movement. George Wallace would have been left just standing there in the schoolhouse door with no one to block, and I bet after awhile he would have started feeling kind of self-conscious, and like he didn’t know what to do with his hands.

It would put egg on the face of those who claim Islam is intolerant, it would silence the people who think the mosque construction is an effort to pour salt in the wounds of 9-11 survivors. and it would shut up the people who are claiming that building the mosque at ground zero coincides with the Islamic tradition of triumphalism(building mosques at the locations of great conquests).

I’m sure once American Muslims surrendered to the demands of Pam Geller’s Stop Islamization of America, she would accept it gracefully and move on. She looks like a reasonable person.

But we can offer them good advise and bank on the presumption they will ignore it.

Or at least misspell it.

If you believe that the bombing of the World Trade Center in February of 1993 was a test of Bill Clinton’s resolve, and the 9-11 plane crashes were a test of how George W. Bush would react, then you have to wonder if terrorists don’t view Obama as an absolute pushover. In that case a more violent approach is unnecessary. Of course this is all speculation — but prudent speculation nevertheless if one is to be vigilant.

So in your analysis, Bob, we can either let them build Park51 and live in peace, or prevent them from building it and get bombed? Decisions, decisions…

No doubt we will be told that protesting the mosque only results in a motivating factor for terrorist recruitment. But if the Imam is merely a moderate, how does he have so much influence on militants? That sort of assertion is easily reversible. A lack of resolve might well embolden the terrorists to be more daring. Are we supposed to capitulate to every demand under the threat of reprisals?

Ironically, the Cordoba House people have been asking themselves that same question.

Recall that during the Cold War, we often heard the phrase “by conquest or consent,” indicated there was a stealth method of socializing America without a bloody revolution or all out military conflict, but America’s fall was surely inevitable.

This sinister phrase comes to us by way of James Paul Warburg, who was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He also wrote the lyrics for the hit 1930 musical, Fine and Dandy.

One should hardly suppose that militant Islam does not likewise countenance both revolutionary and evolutionary strategies in their plans of conquest.

Granted, the Soviet Empire, allied with the subversive influence of the International Communist Conspiracy could achieve neither our conquest nor our consent, but there is an even greater danger than America will be seduced by porklessness. As goes the Carl’s Jr. Western Bacon Cheeseburger, so goes Western Civilization.

Noticeably absent in all the furor are the champions of religious suppression, crying for expanded “separation of church and state.” It seems that some of these secularist organizations are little concerned if the religious persuasion at issue is in conflict with the advancement of Christianity.

That’s the great thing about being a First Amendment absolutist; we don’t have to take sides in your doctrinal mud-wrestling.

If the mosque issue has the result of being politically polarizing, I hope that isn’t the only positive outcome when the dust finally settles at Ground Zero.

A pogrom would be nice too. Just for old time’s sake.

Crooks and Liars: Tom DeLay: GOP Will be in 'Big Trouble' if Health-Care Law is not Repealed

Heather — 2010-09-05T01:00:44+00:00

Click here to view this media

Fox's Stuart Varney followed up with one of the GOP's "most prominent members" Tom DeLay on his statement that the Repubicans have to repeal the health-care law if they regain control of the Congress. Just another preview of what we're in for should they regain control; repeal, obstruct and defund everything while holding endless hearings.

DeLay: GOP in 'big trouble' if health law not repealed:

The Republican Party will be in "big trouble" if it does not repeal the healthcare reform law, former House GOP Leader Tom DeLay said Friday.

DeLay (Texas), who was recently dropped as the subject of a federal investigation, threw some sharp elbows at the Obama administration in an interview on MSNBC when asked what new ideas the GOP would put into place if it takes control of Congress this fall.

"They are going to have to reverse everything the Obama administration has done," he said. "If they don't repeal healthcare reform, they are going to be in big trouble."

Debate has swirled over what Republicans will do to block the healthcare law from taking effect.

Many lawmakers in the party now say a full repeal would not work with President Obama in office since he could veto the proposal. Some have argued that stripping the law of its funding would be a wiser strategy.

Still, other candidates and lawmakers want to push ahead with a full repeal measure, at least to show that they are committed to the idea.

DeLay rejected the argument that campaigning on healthcare repeal would hurt the party by drawing attention away from the economy, which is rated by voters as the top issue for the midterms.

"No, all you have to say is healthcare reform is destroying the economy and it will destroy it even more if it is allowed to go into effect," he said.

DeLay, whose pugnacious style earned him the nickname "The Hammer," accused the Obama administration of "trying to bamboozle the American people ever since it took office" and defended the GOP's governing credentials.

"Oh, they're definitely ready to govern," he said. "The leadership is in place" and the candidates are the type people want, he added.

Yeah, great leadership like that brain trust they've got in Boehner, Pence and Cantor. It would be nice if this guy finally gets convicted for money laundering so he's sitting in jail where he belongs instead of appearing on television.

Crooks and Liars: Um Rabbi, do you really think it's a good idea to label people you disagree with 'parasites'?

David Neiwert — 2010-09-05T00:00:00+00:00

Click here to view this media

Um, do you think maybe someone should point out to Glenn Beck's guest on his show Friday -- Rabbi Daniel Lapin -- that, even though it may feel good to condemn all atheists as "parasites" in a "moral society," it's a profoundly irresponsible thing to do, particularly for someone claiming the title of Rabbi? After all, there is an important historical precedent for what happens when you single out an entire sector of the populace as a "parasitical element."

It's not even worth the time to point out that atheists can propose precisely the reverse claim -- that organized religions are a parasitical element on society -- with probably an even better rationale. Because this kind of rhetoric is a classic example of eliminationism.

Not that Lapin is any stranger to wielding eliminationist rhetoric:

"I am absolutely convinced that God is far from finished with the story of the United States of America," he said by way of summation. "First of all, [there's] the matter of the little battle that must be fought, just as it was in the 19th century." There were, and are, "two incompatible moral visions for this country. We had to settle it then. We're going to have to settle it now. I hope not with blood, not with guns, but we're going to have to settle it nonetheless. The good news is that I think our side is finally ready to settle it. Roll up its sleeves, take off its jacket, and get a little bloody. Spill a little blood. We'll settle it. And we'll win. And then there's no holding us back."

Indeed, this Rabbi Lapin is also known for his long associations with Jack Abramoff, as well as for being the Rabbi who David Duke loves to quote.

Lapin continued:

The sad fact is that through Jewish actors, playwrights, and producers, the Berlin stage of Weimar Germany linked Jews and deviant sexuality in all its sordid manifestations just as surely as Broadway does today. Much of the filth in American entertainment today parallels that of Germany between the wars.

"Indeed, it does," Duke writes glowingly, "It is interesting to note that there a few Jews in America who are concerned about the destructive influence of many powerful Jews. He [Lapin] is concerned not only because he believes that such evil is against his own morality but that it also inevitably brings down Gentile wrath upon Jews. The amazing thing is that there are so few honest voices like that of Rabbi Lapin."

No wonder he now shows up as a "religious authority" on Glenn Beck's show. He fits right in.

Crooks and Liars: Fools on the Hill: Nicole and Nicole on the Radio 8-23-10

Heather — 2010-09-04T23:00:14+00:00

Credit: Radio or Not

Click here to view this media

In case you missed it like I did, here's our own Nicole Belle with Nicole Sandler with their Fools on the Hill Sunday talking heads show roundup from past Monday. Nicole Sandler has more here: Grayson & Tudor – Florida Progressives!

And in hour two, Nicole Belle of Crooks & Liars returns for our weekly Fools on the Hill segment, discussing the Sunday talking head shows. Here’s her take on the Sunday shows:

So I think today’s theme is cluelessness:

Chris Matthews asks his panel if the Tea Party will have veto power over the 2012 GOP nominee. First and foremost, they are using Sarah Palin as some benchmark of influence, which is ludicrous. Her endorsement is by no means a shoo-in for any candidate right now, and there’s nothing that says her influence will strengthen in the intervening years. If anything, if she opts to pursue a national candidacy herself, I suspect that the media scrutiny will result in her having even less credibility.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/node/39178

It also gives the tea party itself far more credit than they deserve. I think we’ve seen middling electoral success from them in primary races, but they have yet to show themselves successful in full elections and given the polls for Angle, Paul and others, I don’t think they should crow just yet.

Which segues nicely into Howard Dean. He points out to Candy Crowley that although the conventional wisdom is that the party in power suffers electorally in mid-terms, when your alternative is the Party of No, conventional wisdom may be wrong.

http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/howard-dean-name-one-thing-republican

And then we have Dick Armey, the corporate head of the Tea Party, spouting off some truly unbelievable stuff:

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/dick-armey-medicare-trashes-constitution

He says that Medicare trashes the Constitution. Huh? What does he think those lazy, entitled senior citizens should do? Work to pay for their Alzheimer’s treatment? For proof, he brings up the example of “the” Christian Scientist, whom we apparently should feel bad is being forced to sign up for a doctor to get Social Security. Of course, no one says he has to GO to the doctors, just sign up for Medicare. But again, David Gregory falls down on the job of calling out this crap, and lets Armey filibuster through the segment and not allow Granholm to respond.

And then, in light of the protests on the Cordoba House in NYC over the weekend, Fareed Zakaria wants to remind Americans that we are not in a war with Islam and that al Qaeda hates factions of Islam as bad as they hate us.

http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/fareed-zakaria-gps-al-qaeda-vs-islam

By the way, a commenter made this video of the NYC protests when the haters went after a passerby, who happened to be a construction worker at Ground Zero and not a Muslim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwaNRWMN-F4&feature=player_embedded

George Will thinks that the Mideast peace process is the biggest obstacle to Mideast peace.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/node/39185

Amazingly, I actually agree with him if only for this story:

http://crooksandliars.com/ian-welsh/israeli-pm-natanyahu-america-easily-move

I think if we really want to see Mideast peace, then the US needs to come to grips with the dichotomy between what Israel officially tells us and what they say behind closed doors.

And then Fox chooses to use Judith Miller of all people to discuss the study that American people have lost faith in broadcast news

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/node/39175

Really, what can you say about them using the person the Bush White House used to feed propaganda about invading Iraq to?

Our own Howie Klein and Rep. Alan Grayson joined the show this week as well. Go over to Nicole's site to listen to the whole show.

Open Left: Observation Without Participation

StrandedWind — 2010-09-04T22:00:00+00:00

I've recently been writing on applying Open Source Intelligence methods to the problem of Monitoring Right Wing Extremists On Twitter.

People have expressed interest in how to better see what is happening ... and this can be done without engaging the extremists at all.
First, what we're looking for are screen shots with some additional context, and we want them added to the Wingnut Watch pool on Twitter. You can get a Yahoo account, find some interesting stuff, screen shot it, and place it in the pool.

Knowing how to make a report isn't all that much use without being able to find the content. There are a variety of free tools to do this.

Look at the Wingnut Watch pool - see the URL for the Wingnut Watch NetVibes console? This is the root of it all - there are various panels that show certain Twitter users and topics that make a good starting point.

It's interesting to take two of the worst of the worst and one lesser player, then place them into Follower Wonk's Twitter user comparison. Check the overlap between the accounts and you should find an interesting group to examine.

Twitalyzer is another potent package for exploring the discussion space. Get yourself a login and try every little thing, but pay careful attention to the Network Explorer feature under People and Groups. There is no quicker way I know to start with a specific account, figure out when they are active, who their associates are, and what they're talking about.

Followerwonk provides another handy tool in the form of a Twitter bio search that ranks those it finds by their follower counts. Using #wreckingcrew as a search will lead to the command and control communications for a cyberbullying operation run by @GregWHoward.

This is enough information to give you a good starting point. Just be sure the userid you pick for Flickr is in no way associated with anything in the real or virtual world that ties to you and you'll be able to keep an eye on things ... without looking over your shoulder for crazy people incited by this 'WreckingCrew'.

FYI follow on intimidation after this was published.

Crooks and Liars: Arizona Dem Wants Congress To Feel The Pain Of Pay Cuts, Too

Susie Madrak — 2010-09-04T22:00:00+00:00

You know, I don't normally go in for what usually turn out to be empty, symbolic gestures, but I can really get behind the idea of cutting Congressional salaries. In fact, I think 10% is more like it! I also think we should charge them to use the medical clinic in the Capitol building, and they should have to pay for COBRA benefits when they lose their jobs, just like everybody else. It really galls me to think of them getting lifelong medical coverage:

Ann Kirkpatrick wants a pay cut and she’s getting testy about having to wait so long to get it.

Last March, U.S. Rep. Kirkpatrick sponsored legislation to cut congressional salaries a modest 5%, saying it was high time that Congress shared the pain with the rest of America. As U.S. workers have suffered layoffs, pay cuts and furloughs over the past two years, Congress has actually been spending more money than ever. In fact, if it hadn’t been for another bill that Kirkpatrick supported, Kirkpatrick and her colleagues in the U.S. legislature would have gotten automatic pay raises this year, as they did in 2008 and 2009.

The notion of cutting Congressional pay is wildly popular. A recent survey by the Rasmussen Reports found that 75% of Americans think members of Congress should cut their pay until the budget is balanced. And nearly one in eight think members of Congress should not be able to get a raise unless taxpayers vote for it.

As things stand, members of Congress set their own pay and they’ve been quite generous. Rank and file members of congress now earn $174,000 annually — more than about 97% of the rest of the country. That’s up 23% over the past decade.

Crooks and Liars: Cenk: The Political Line Has Moved so Far Right Reagan Couldn't Run as a Republican

Heather — 2010-09-04T21:00:00+00:00

Click here to view this media

Cenk Uygur filling in for Dylan Ratigan again this week more or less rehashed his op-ed from The Huffington Post, Who is More Conservative: Ronald Reagan or Barack Obama? As he noted in his column, Ronald Reagan:

-Gave Amnesty to Illegal Immigrants
-Negotiated with Terrorists (Traded Arms for Hostages with Iran)
-Raised Taxes
-Negotiated with the "Evil Empire" without Pre-conditions
-Made a Decision to "Cut and Run" From Lebanon After Our Troops Were Attacked

Cenk wrapped up his post this way.

The bottom line is that, no matter what the reason, Obama seems to be in some important ways significantly to the right of Reagan on the political spectrum. If Reagan ordered the execution of US citizens abroad, he might have been impeached. If Obama tried to give undocumented immigrants blanket amnesty the way Reagan did, he might be impeached.

I don't think Obama is a hard right-winger. It's just that the political establishment in this country has moved so far to the right (though not the public, according to polls on specific issues) that as a natural politician when he goes to appease them, he is solidly center-right on the spectrum.

And the political line has moved so far that if Reagan tried to run as a Republican now he would be the laughing stock of the party. Rush Limbaugh would tear him to shreds and Bill Kristol would say he is Neville Chamberlain. He would be run out of town as a tax-raising, amnesty giving, terrorist negotiating, cut and run no-good lib who hates the troops.

And anyone who claims otherwise is being absurd. As Reagan once said, "Facts are stubborn things."

He's right, things have shifted so far to the right that Ronald Reagan would be run out of town with today's Republican Party, not that it will stop them from practically raising his dead corpse as their great conservative icon while campaigning. Steve Benen has more here on the right's changing perceptions of Reagan as well.

Crooks and Liars: Maybe Arizonans should worry about their white-supremacist problem

David Neiwert — 2010-09-04T20:00:00+00:00

It's more than a little ironic, isn't it, that Arizonans will work themselves into a frenzy -- to the point of passing a police-state ordinance like SB1070 -- because of a single case like the murder of border rancher named Robert Krentz, even though the crime is being widely blamed on Mexican drug cartel activity, which is actually a distinct issue largely separate from "illegal immigration". (Indeed, it's not even clear that in fact Krentz's murder came at the hands of Mexicans.)

And yet when a white supremacist drives up next to a mixed-race couple and opens fire with a shotgun because of their races, as happened last October, the case is greeted with a yawn. As was the man's arrest this week:

A man suspected of killing a 39-year-old woman in Phoenix in October was arrested in Livingston, Tenn., on Wednesday, a Livingston Police Department spokesman said Thursday morning.

Aaron Schmidt
Schmidt is suspected of opening fire on the woman and her friend last October in what Phoenix police believe could have been a racially motivated crime.

Aaron Schmidt, 28 waived his extradition rights Thursday and can be picked up by the Phoenix Police Department, said Greg Etheredge, chief of the Livingston Police Department. Authorities believe Schmidt has been in Livingston since June.

The woman and a friend, Jeffrey Wellmaker, 48, were walking in Palma Park, on 12th Street and Dunlap Avenue about 1:30 a.m. Oct. 3 when a heavily tattooed, bald White man confronted them.

Wellmaker, who is Black, said the tattooed man yelled, "What are you doing with that White woman," according to Phoenix police at the time of the shooting.

The friends didn't respond and kept walking.

The tattooed man followed the pair for a couple blocks, police had said. By the time the couple reached Fourth Street and Puget Avenue, Wellmaker saw a white four-door newer model sedan with tinted windows drive past them.

In the passenger seat was the tattooed man. That's when Wellmaker said the passenger pulled out a shotgun and shot two blasts at the couple, according to police. One struck the woman and the second blast missed them.

The story was largely buried in the Phoenix newspapers -- perhaps because Wellmaker and the unidentified woman who was killed were homeless, instead of middle-class ranchers.

It's the same way that the case of Shawna Forde and her gang of killer Minutemen has been downplayed by the Arizona media, not to mention the national media, particularly Fox News.

It's the same way that report of camo-bedecked vigilantes firing on Latino border crossers received zero attention in any media beyond a handful of blogs:

Sheriff Antonio Estrada said that according to his department’s incident report, five undocumented migrants had crossed into the United States and were walking through a canyon around 5 a.m. on Friday when two unidentified males wearing camouflage clothing shot at them with a high-powered rifle.

“The victims claimed no demands were made. They were just walking and fired upon,” said Estrada, who added that the group had not been robbed. Estrada said that when the group ran, one of the men, Manuel Esquer Gomez, 45, from Nogales, Sonora sustained a gunshot wound to the left forearm.

As the group continued, the men stumbled upon skeletal remains of what they thought were two people.

While little is known about the attackers, Sheriff Antonio Estrada has stated that “[i]t’s perturbing to hear of people with high-powered rifles and camouflage. It raises some real red flags.” He also told KVOA that the shooters might have been U.S. citizens. “I hate to think that is what we’re looking at but we’re not going to dismiss any possibilities,” Estrada stated. “They may be individuals who may be hunting illegal border crossers. That’s really a big concern for us.”

Arizona has a white supremacist problem -- one that has been exacerbated by the nativist immigrant-bashing that has been part and parcel of the right-wing approach to the issue in Arizona. Instead of inverting the reality, at some point they're going to have to face up to it -- especially because, eventually, Latinos and homeless white people are not going to be the only victims.

Crooks and Liars: California: True Battleground for States' Rights

karoli — 2010-09-04T19:00:41+00:00

Koch Industries just gave the Yes on 23 campaign another million dollars via their front corporation, Flint Hills Resources. When added to Valero Energy Corp. and Tesoro Corp. contributions, a total of $8.2 million has been raised for a "Yes" proposition that really is a "No" proposition in disguise.

Consider this: 100% of the money to fund Proposition 23 comes from outside California. Oil companies inside California -- Chevron and Shell, notably -- have not funded this campaign. What is it about the underlying law -- California AB32 -- that makes corporations with stakes in Kansas and Texas want to spend as much as they can to defeat it? And how is it that libertarians with self-proclaimed strong belief in states' rights like David and Charles Koch are so committed to undoing a law that has no bearing on their state or their rights?

Business, of course. But it goes deeper than that. This really is a proxy war between the moneyed oil interests and an emerging powerhouse of green technology industry. This is why, by the way, the opposition to Proposition 23 is being funded by hedge fund guru Thomas Steyer with his personal funds. As a businessman and investor, he sees what green tech is bringing to California and is putting his personal (not corporate) funds on a future built on it.

GigaOm, back in June:

If California’s climate change bill AB32 — which was passed back in 2006 and creates a plan to reduce the state’s carbon emissions — is repealed, California’s greentech markets will be seriously jeopardized, said venture capitalist Vinod Khosla and Google’s Green Energy Czar Bill Weihl at an event at Google HQ on Tuesday morning. The main theme for the Google event was a discussion of Proposition 23, a ballot measure that, if passed on the upcoming November ballot, would essentially kill AB32, and is backed by Texas-based oil companies Valero and Tesoro.

Khosla stated his position clearly on the oil-backed ballot measure: “Prop 23 will kill the market and the single largest source of job creation in California in the last two years.” Innovation started happening in California, and the next ten Googles of greentech will be created there, because the market is there, he said. If California’s market is destroyed, countries like China and other states will have a competitive edge and those next ten Googles will be built in those markets, said Khosla.

But this is more than a simple battle between Big Oil interests and the Green Tech team. Koch Industries isn't just fighting for their income stream; they're fighting to weaken California's successes in order to lure voters into their point of view not only on AB32, but on everything else. Keeping California's economy weak guarantees a continuing toehold for their Americans for Prosperity/FreedomWorks front group -- the Tea Party Express.

Teabaggers rely upon a disgruntled electorate. AB32 has created 500,000 California jobs in a recession. If the economy and jobs come back, it marginalizes the Tea Party and their impact on the overall political landscape. There is no better way to increase their influence in California than to kill California's economy, and with it, our competitive edge in green technology and innovation. None. They know this, so they're rallying the troops.

We have the Tea Party Patriots of Monterey County making plans for voter guides and campaigns for Prop. 23. (That is a cached version because their "working group" is supposed to be private) Not to be left out, Palm Springs Tea Party Group (also cached) is also organizing.

The truth is, the toxic triplets (Koch/Tesoro/Valero) aren't only fighting for their business model, one long dead anyway. They're using their fight to undermine the political will of Californians, and they're using the Tea Party, those champions of individual and states' rights to do it.

When it comes to winning, principle is irrelevant. Individual rights only matter when they match up with what the toxic triplets want. States' rights matter only to the extent that weakening California lends strength to midwestern states and interests.

The Proposition 23 battle isn't simply a battle over environmental regulations. It is a battle for our voice. Californians approved AB32. It is the will of the people in this state and is creating new jobs in a less than friendly economy. AB32 is the difference between China being the innovator in green technology or the United States. Koch/Valero/Tesoro understand this, and they're willing to fight the second civil war on a battleground where casualties are measured in economic pain.

Here's a bonus: 7 things you need to know about Koch Industries

Open Left: Newt: What part of "States' rights are for white people" don't you understand?

Paul Rosenberg — 2010-09-04T19:00:00+00:00

Or, actually, in light of his state-level back-up plan, "What part of 'Property rights are for white people' don't you understand"?

TPM:

Gingrich: Make Ground Zero A National Battlefield To Stop The Supposed Mosque
Rachel Slajda | September 2, 2010, 6:26PM
The majority of New Yorkers want the developers of Park51, known to its opponents as the "Ground Zero mosque," to voluntarily move the community center further from Ground Zero -- but the majority also acknowledges the developers' right to build there if they want.
Newt Gingrich doesn't feel that way. In a radio interview today, he said he wants the national government to step in and stop the developers from building the Islamic community center by whatever means necessary.
"I think the Congress has the ability to declare the area a national battlefield memorial because I think we should think of the World Trade Center as a battlefield site; this is a war," he said, apparently thinking that if Ground Zero was a national park, Park51 would be restricted from building near it.
And if that fails, he said, the state government should step in and use its considerable power to stymie the development.
"The Attorney General of New York, Andrew Cuomo, could intervene because frankly he has the ability to slow it down for decades if he wants to."

Ah, yes! Newtie was just like Haley Barbour, part of the GOP's "New South" that had nothing to do with segregation, no siree!

There is, of course, a precedent for this not-so-colorblind interpretation of "states' rights." It's called the "Fugitive Slave Act." It basically said that non-slave states had no rights at all to stop the invasion of slave state terrorists.

Ain't Newt grand? Jefferson Davis would be so proud!

Crooks and Liars: Armed Services Hearing: Blackwater Used Shell Companies To Bid On Contracts

Susie Madrak — 2010-09-04T18:00:00+00:00

This kind of thing's been going on for a very long time, often with the cooperation of crooked politicians and government employees taking kickbacks. The good part is, Blackwater was actually caught doing it:

WASHINGTON — Blackwater Worldwide created a web of more than 30 shell companies or subsidiaries in part to obtain millions of dollars in American government contracts after the security company came under intense criticism for reckless conduct in Iraq, according to Congressional investigators and former Blackwater officials.

While it is not clear how many of those businesses won contracts, at least three had deals with the United States military or the Central Intelligence Agency, according to former government and company officials. Since 2001, the intelligence agency has awarded up to $600 million in classified contracts to Blackwater and its affiliates, according to a United States government official.

The Senate Armed Services Committee this week released a chart that identified 31 affiliates of Blackwater, now known as Xe Services. The network was disclosed as part of a committee’s investigation into government contracting. The investigation revealed the lengths to which Blackwater went to continue winning contracts after Blackwater guards killed 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad in September 2007. That episode and other reports of abuses led to criminal and Congressional investigations, and cost the company its lucrative security contract with the State Department in Iraq.

The network of companies — which includes several businesses located in offshore tax havens — allowed Blackwater to obscure its involvement in government work from contracting officials or the public, and to assure a low profile for any of its classified activities, said former Blackwater officials, who, like the government officials, spoke only on condition of anonymity.

Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said in a statement that it was worth “looking into why Blackwater would need to create the dozens of other names” and said he had requested that the Justice Department investigate whether Blackwater officers misled the government when using subsidiaries to solicit contracts.

Open Left: Great comment on neoliberalism

Daniel De Groot — 2010-09-04T17:00:00+00:00

In response to my quick hit on UK public opinion strongly favouring having the Labour party abandon the "New Labour" neoliberal agenda, sTiVo has the following to say:

The thing about Britain is that their debate is closer to the real meat and potatoes of what this argument is all about. Ours is frustratingly diverted into "Like or Dislike Obama" or "Is the Tea Party Racist" and other tangential questions.
Britain makes it clear: it's really about social democracy vs. neoliberalism.
It is important that [Open Left] understand this. This is the debate that is barely allowed to be mentioned on our side of the pond but it's the crucial distinction.
When Paul Krugman argues for Keynesianism he's taking the social democratic side of this argument. But he's not allowed to say so, or at least not willing.
The mistake of our side in the past period was in not understanding how strongly our opponents believed in the other side of this argument. It was indeed their central rationale. It wasn't "just politics".
cont

When Barack Obama made his famous remarks about Ronald Reagan being transformational, it was misinterpreted as being political, an attempt to reach out to the other side. It actually was, as some feared, philosophical. It really did mean, sincerely, that except around the edges, he thought that Reaganism-Thatcherism was irreversible. Just as Bill Clinton does, just as Tony Blair does.
The Third-Wayers are serious about this. Seriously deluded, perhaps, but dead serious. There was never an attempt to triangulate the "independent center", those who still believed in Reaganism but were distressed by the partisan cultural meanness. That was sincere. Those who were played were the Democratic base. They would have to be satisfied with corporate-style knockoffs of social-democratic ideas (health care being the most obvious example). Labor reformers would have to be mollified with "we don't have 60 votes". And symbolic gestures devoid of content like inviting Pete Seeger to the White House.
Why didn't this work? Why are the Dems SO wounded by a bad economy? A better economy was absolutely crucial to the Third Way plan. They didn't think it would get this bad. If it hadn't gotten this bad, they might have been able to pull it off. People would be working, the craziness wouldn't have gained so much traction, people would have been able to laugh at Sarah Palin, Dems would have been fat and happy. But that way depended on bubble economics, which the neolibs mistaken thought was permanent. They may not even believe they depend on bubble economics, they may even delude themselves that they truly stand in the middle. But when push comes to shove, they never move to the left.
Instead we have this worst of all possible worlds - Obama falsely accused of "socialism" and "socialism" - his toothless attempts to counter bubble economics - all that neoliberalism will allow - blamed for the economic failure.
When the pundits say "America is a conservative country" I have to say, in opposition to most left thinking, they're right in a way. Our counterargument has been poll numbers. This is not an effective counter because they have enough power elsewhere to spit on poll numbers, to manipulate them and to make the inconvenient ones disappear. Thus we hear endlessly about polling on the the "Ground Zero Mosque". Not so much about Social Security.
When we say "the Dems hate the Left" or they're beating up on "dirty fucking hippies", what we're REALLY saying is that, for the Third-Wayers, neoliberalism vs. social democracy is actually the whole ballgame. The last vestiges of American social democracy - the New Deal and all its accoutrements - must be wiped out, at all costs.
They haven't been able to say so - because they need the votes of the "little people". But there's almost no play left in that gambit. With each [dispiriting] election betrayal (Clinton and NAFTA, Obama and Health Care, Obama and Social Security) the Democratic brand gets weaker and weaker.
We on the Left, the "netroots", etc., need to understand the centrality of this point more than we do. The coming fight over Social Security is not one issue among many, it's the defining issue of this period. Third Way politics is dependent on the bubble economy. This has failed. We can't go back there. We have to make this known.
The Third Wayers were born of the idea that Communism had failed. It had, but the Third Wayers went much too far in sweeping the entire social democratic program off the table with it. The social democratic reforms of the twentieth century are what enabled the West to defeat the problematic communist opponent. The mistake is in cynically jettisoning them after the threat passed. Bait and switch, really. But going back to the nineteenth century for economic inspiration ignores why social democracy and communism gained the traction they did in the first place.
Free-market fundamentalism is not the answer, but the Third Wayers have no answer to it, because they cravenly accept its orthodoxies. In the current situation we have to drag them, kicking and screaming, back from this abyss.
But until we understand why we're in the position we're in we won't be able to get out of it.
STRENGTHEN SOCIAL SECURITY. DON'T CUT IT.

(I bolded a few key passages and corrected a couple typos)

Well said, particularly raising the too-rarely raised point that the New Deal (and Great Society) built America into the most powerful and prosperous society in human history. This should be one of the most powerful arguments for the type of liberal/progressive policies most reading here support, and should be used more often. All of the sophistry that gets into the weeds of various New Deal programs and arguments about arcane figures feels rather unnecessary when you look at the grand aggregate result. If it was all such a failure, why did America succeed so well?

Crooks and Liars: Report from New Zealand: Christchurch quake devastates an urban center and the countryside

nonny mouse — 2010-09-04T16:30:00+00:00

enlarge

Credit: New Zealand Herald

Just before five o’clock yesterday morning, in Dunedin, I was woken by a very familiar feeling – the bed began to shudder ever so slightly, then shudder harder as the walls and ceiling in the house creaked ominously around me. Having grown up in Southern California, I recognised the signs of a major earthquake; this was not a sharp shake but a rolling series of waves, meaning we weren’t sitting on top of the quake, but strong enough that I knew wherever the epicentre was, it was going to be bad. ‘Earthquake,’ I said simply to my partner. ‘Yup’, he said, and put a hand on my side as we waited for it to end. It went on for quite some time before it finally subsided.

Dunedin is 225 miles from Christchurch, which itself was only 30 kilometres from Darfield, the epicentre of the 7.1 Richter scale earthquake, the largest earthquake in New Zealand since the Richter 7.8 that devastated Hawkes Bay in 1931 and nearly completely destroyed the city of Napier. The quake’s centre was only 33 kilometres deep, a shallow quake that is felt more strongly and does more damage than quakes at lower depths. A state of emergency was declared this morning as the city of Christchurch as well as large parts of the Canterbury region is without power, water or telephone. Civil Defence Minister John Carter has announced a decision to evacuate people from the centre of Christchurch –and as I’m typing this I’m watching the Prime Minister on the tellie as he is watching a building on fire, fire crews having been helpless to put it out, water pressure having been out for hours, and just on in the last few minutes. Speculation is that the fire started as electricity is returning and igniting burst gas lines, a worry for other buildings as power is slowly restored to the area. The Christchurch suburb of New Brighton and other seaside area are preparing for possible evacuation. Pipes have been shattered in many parts, with sewage making flooded streets even worse. The quake’s damage has reached even as far as the lower end of the North Island, with burst water pipes in the Wellington area as well. The force of the quake was felt nearly as far as Auckland itself, in the upper North Island.

Christchurch has been severely damaged, the mayor Bob Parker saying ‘There would not be a house or a family in our city that has not in some way had damage done to their person or their property.’ Two men were seriously injured, one when a chimney collapsed on him and the other cut by broken glass, both in intensive care. Christchurch hospital has been treating broken bones, bruises and cuts since early morning. All flights to and from Christchurch have been cancelled until later today. Water is in short supply, and shops themselves hard hit by the quake are struggling to meet demand. Rural areas are as hard hit – without power, milking machines and refrigeration is impossible, livestock being milked by hand as quickly as possible while farmers are desperately calling for generators.

Tama Wharepapa woke her friend Marsha Witehira and literally pulled her by her feet to safety as the wall in her bedroom collapsed. Knee Doherty was woken when the building next to her home collapsed, the back of her own home now gone. Jarrod Booker, a reporter for the New Zealand Herald who lives in the Linwood suburb of Christchurch, was woken when his neighbour’s chimney fell and smashed into a car windscreen. The Christchurch office of Newstalk ZB has sustained severe damage. ‘Basically, the place is destroyed. Desks that were standing up are flattened against the ground. The filing cabinets are tipped over. The building just along the road from us here has been flattened – it’s on the ground.’

Phone lines are down all over the South Island, while mobiles are putting a strain on the communication system. I emailed a good friend who lives in Christchurch, worried about her and her daughter. Dianne managed to email back this morning. She and her neighbours fled into the streets at 4:40 in the morning, terrified. In her house, picture frames were smashed, doors opened and banged shut, crockery and mirrors broke, drawers were tipped out and contents dumped, make up thrown all over the room and books scattered. Her daughter was badly frightened, and the two of them huddled together under a door frame for about a minute while the walls seemed to flex ‘like feathers in the wind,’ she said. The aftershocks continued for the next few hours, her house still wobbling and shaking quite often, but the quakes have become increasingly smaller. They still have no power, water and have been told not to flush toilets. Sirens wailed continuously, so they’ve had little sleep. She’s a nurse at a local Christchurch hospital, and is dreading what she’ll find when she finally makes it into work, as her department had piled up ECG machines, drugs, and equipment onto treatment room beds ready for the place to be re-carpeted this morning. Needless to say, I don’t think the department is going to see new carpets for a while.

On the one hand, it’s a bad quake, one of the worst New Zealand has seen in a long time. On the other, it’s New Zealand, and while there has been sporadic episodes of looting, the vast majority of people are helping out their neighbours in true Kiwi spirit. In the meantime, gale force winds are predicted as a storm moves into the south end of New Zealand, with temperatures dropping rapidly. It’s going to be a very cold night for a lot of people here. But we are all alive, and for a quake of this magnitude, that’s good news indeed.

Donklephant: Who’s on the Sunday Talk Shows?

Justin Gardner — 2010-09-04T16:07:36+00:00

Courtesy of Mike Allen’s Daily Digest:

–“Meet the Press”: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC); former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe; roundtable with CNBC’s Erin Burnett, Cook Political Report’s Charlie Cook, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne and National Review’s Rich Lowry

–“This Week”: Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair; roundtable with ABC’s George Will, New York Times columnists Tom Friedman and Paul Krugman and the Washington Post’s Mary Jordan

–“Face the Nation”: Former Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors Laura Tyson, Moody’s Analytics Chief Economist Mark Zandi and New York Times’ Gretchen Mogenson; roundtable with CBS’ Nancy Cordes and Politico’s Jim VandeHei

–“Fox News Sunday”: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ); DNC Chairman and former Gov. Tim Kaine (D-VA); roundtable with the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes, NPR’s Mara Liasson, Fox News’ Chris Stirewalt and NPR’s Juan Williams

–CNN’s “State of the Union”: AFL-CIO President Richard Traumka and National Small Business Association President Todd McCracken; roundtable with National Journal’s Ron Fournier, Time Michael Duffy and the New York Times’ Elisabeth Bumiller

Which one will you watch?

Open Left: If Social Security is going broke, then why are you trying to cut it more?

Paul Rosenberg — 2010-09-04T15:00:00+00:00

That's the question digby is asking:

Now Alan Simpson and Pete Peterson both make a fetish out of saying that the reason they want to "reform" social security is so it will be there for their grandkids. It's the emotional thrust of their whole argument. They also offer constant reassurance that the "greedy geezers" will not suffer any loss. So why then, knowing that their grandkids are already going to see a benefit shortfall of 20%, are they trying to make the situation even worse and cause a shortfall of another 15 to 20%? It doesn't make sense. Doesn't logic call for them to find more revenue so their precious grandkids could have the same amount seniors get today? Or at the very least, if they can't bear to raise taxes even for their own noble cause, why won't they leave it at only a 20% shortfall rather than cut benefits even more?
....
Maybe it's too complicated, but in debates this fall I'd really love to see Democrats pose the question to their GOP rivals: if social security is going broke why are you trying to cut it more? I'd at least be interested in hearing how they explain why they are trying to destroy the safety net in order to save it.

Keep it simple, stupid!

p.s. As a clarifying subtext for why Simpson, Peterson & Co. are in such a self-contradictory place, digby points out:

Back when they were pushing privatization, they could say that they wanted to offer their grandkids the opportunity for a better "return" by allowing them to invest what's left after the cuts in a roaring stock market. But privatization isn't on the table this time, for obvious reasons. Now they are just nonsensically saying that their grandkids are being cheated and because they love them so much they need to cheat them even more. I've heard of tough love, but this is just cruel.

p.p.s. As for contradiction #2, for which there really is no explanation I can think of other than the sheer brilliance and hubris of our President: This is supposed to be a deficit/debt reduction commission. By law, Social Security cannot add to the debt. It's separately funded. So why is it even up for discussion?

Crooks and Liars: FBI Busts Major U.S. Human Trafficking Ring In Hawaii

Susie Madrak — 2010-09-04T15:00:00+00:00

enlarge

Credit: Seattle Post Intelligencer/Grant M. Haller

Back in 2006, Global Horizons chief Mordechai Orian (right) was photographed shaking hands with United Farm Workers President Arturo Rodriguez, left, after signing a labor pact to improve worker conditions.

Now, would you be surprised if I told you one of the major players in this ring, Israeli national Mordechai Orian, is a big Republican donor? Of course you wouldn't.

More disturbing (at least to me) in light of the charges is his affiliation with a Texas adoption agency.

It turns out that Orian is listed as the president and "business manager" for Adoption Services Worldwide Inc., a San Antonio, Texas adoption agency active in international adoptions. The website features many pictures of Orian with happy adoptive families. I have to wonder: Exactly what kind of business services did this Beverly Hills resident provide to this Texas company?

Here's hoping he wasn't using his control over these trapped and vulnerable workers to coerce them and their families into giving up children for adoption. Perhaps he's simply trying to do something good to make up for all the bad he was doing; I certainly hope so.

HONOLULU -- Six recruiters were accused Thursday of luring 400 laborers from Thailand to the United States and forcing them to work, according to a federal indictment that the FBI called the largest human-trafficking case ever charged in U.S. history.

The indictment alleges that the scheme was orchestrated by four employees of labor recruiting company Global Horizons Manpower Inc. and two Thailand-based recruiters. It said the recruiters lured the workers with false promises of lucrative jobs, then confiscated their passports, failed to honor their employment contracts and threatened to deport them.

Once the Thai laborers arrived in the United States starting in May 2004, they were put to work and have since been sent to sites in states including Hawaii, Washington, California, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Utah, according to attorneys and advocates.

Many laborers were initially taken to farms in Hawaii and Washington, where work conditions were the worst, said Chancee Martorell, executive director for the Los Angeles-based Thai Community Development Center, which represents 263 Thai workers who were brought to the U.S. by Global Horizons.

[...] The six defendants include Global Horizons President and CEO Mordechai Orian, 45; Director of International Relations Pranee Tubchumpol, 44; Hawaii regional supervisor Shane Germann, 41; and onsite field supervisor Sam Wongsesanit, 39. The Thailand recruiters were identified as Ratawan Chunharutai and Podjanee Sinchai.

But wait, it gets better:

In 2006, Global Horizons was implicated for violating labor laws and underpaying 88 Thai workers. Orian initially denied the charges but ultimately settled the case for $300,000.

In 2007, Orian legally -- and unsuccessfully -- went after a rival labor contractor, J&A Contracting, to whom he had lost one of his biggest clients. According to Fortune magazine, he claimed it was because J&A "provides cheaper, illegal workers, scooping workers up on street corners by the vanload and delivering them to farms." He also claimed he had "evidence of falsified Social Security cards" as proof.

In what now appears to be a twisted irony, Orian at the time presented himself as a moral crusader against illegal immigration. His lawyer then, David Klehm, told Fortune the lawsuit would reflect a new era of accountability for employers when it comes to workers.

Crooks and Liars: Glenn Beck Admits to Making Crap Up

Matt Osborne — 2010-09-04T13:30:38+00:00

Mr. Beck owned up to embellishing the truth just a wee little bit. You know, for flavor.

I sense an opening. Like the witch-burning scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, what comes next is Glenn Beck admitting that he smeared a junior-high school step dance troupe because they looked militant.

Perhaps we should all encourage this new attitude from Beck. Maybe the media should conspire to ask him if he maybe, possibly embellished the truth a little bit there. And maybe they should follow up on that whole "white culture" remark while they're at it.

Open Left: Chattie Cathies--Labor Day edition

Paul Rosenberg — 2010-09-04T12:00:00+00:00

Babble on, Babylon! We're watching you!

It's that time of week, once again, and the question of the hour is: "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who can spot the most blathering idiot of them all?"

Once again, it COULD be you! But only if you participate by entering your nomination in the comments below.

Last week's contest was won by sTiVo's nomination of Matt Bai:

Matt Bai

Disregard the sideshow controversy over whether or not Matt Bai in the New York Times misrepresented Oregon Congressman Earl Blumenauer as describing Social Security as "existing on make-believe money." Blumenauer now says that he was misrepresented (Bai did not place this phrase in quotes so I can't exactly say 'misquoted').

Regardless of what Blumenauer said or meant, let's focus on the deeply repellent Mr. Bai, conventional wisdom's most faithful weathervane. Even if Blumenauer uttered the repugnant stuff that Bai says he said, let's talk instead of Bai's rush to embrace that toxic sludge. If Bai also committed the further sin of lying about Blumenauer, well, so much the worse for him, but even without it, Bai's article was bad enough.

The liberal groups that are already speaking out against the debt panel's unfinished work have chosen to start with Social Security because it is likely to be at the center of any budget compromise. "If there's a place where it looks like Republicans and Democrats can reach agreement, we're afraid it's Social Security," says Frank Clemente, the director of Strengthen Social Security. (In other words, the two parties might actually work together on something. They must be stopped!)

Classic Versailles, unadulterated. Bipartisanship regardless of content, is always a good thing. But never ask it of Republicans. It's always a matter of Democrats giving up their "unrealistic dreams" like Social Security in spite of its seventy-five year history of success.

Let's also note the projection by which liberal Democrats can be accused of blowing up bipartisanship - when it's as obvious as the nose at the end of Bai's face that it's Republicans who have been gleefully about the business ever since Obama was elected of spurning all of the President's increasingly pathetic efforts to secure "bipartisanship". It never occurs to the Bais of the world that seeking agreement with an adversary who "negotiates" by moving further and further away from your position is basically negotiating with yourself.

However, it's not quite unadulterated Versailles. In its pure form of course, Versailles logic simply accepts Republican talking points as undebatable, thereby protecting itself from inconvenient facts.

But this is the New York Times, America's liberal paper of record. So the devil must appear to have been given his due. Thus, Bai actually deigns to make an "argument" about the facts of the matter.

The coalition bases its case on the idea that Social Security is actually in fine fiscal shape, since it has amassed a pile of Treasury Bills - often referred to as i.o.u.'s

often referred to as i.o.u.'s by Republicans and Wall Streeters, that is - who in their own businesses and investment schemes are more than happy to leverage all kinds of debt to the hilt

- in a dedicated trust fund. This is true enough, except that the only way for the government to actually make good on these i.o.u.'s is to issue mountains of new debt or to take the money from elsewhere in the federal budget, or perhaps impose significant tax increases - none of which seem like especially practical options for the long term. So this is sort of like saying that you're rich because your friend has promised to give you 10 million bucks just as soon as he wins the lottery.

Sigh. As Paul Krugman repeatedly notes on the pages of the same newspaper, Wall Street money owned by the deficit hawks is currently flowing massively into these same T-Bills, these supposedly worthless Ponzi Scheme papers. Lottery tickets indeed.

Ah, the "Liberal Media".

Can you do as well or better this week? Only if you try!

Rules on the flip!
The Rules:

(A) We're looking for inane blather that is blissfully indifferent to the actual facts of the matter being commented on. These are the "Chatty Cathy" Awards, not the "Archie Bunkers." Of course, this doesn't exclude wingnut punditry, it's just that cluelessness is what we're looking for, more than hatefulness. If you can find examples that combine both, though... I think you've got a real winner.

(B) You may nominate any pundit from the M$M-print, broadcast tv/radio or cable-or from any online extension or associated outfit. (If this really catches on for some reason, I may decided to break the awards into separate categories at some point.) Nominations should include the name of the person nominated (preferably in the subject line), the outlet and date, an exact quote of what they said or wrote, and a link to where it can be found-original, transcript, or first-hand report (such as Media Matters).

(D) People vote for each nomination by giving recommendations. There is no limit on how many recommendations you can give.

Crooks and Liars: Mike's Blog Roundup

Mike Finnigan — 2010-09-04T12:00:00+00:00

Balkinization: Torture and Littering

Facing South: Honoring Labor in the South

South Florida Lawyers: Rick Scott, 5th Amendment Warrior!

The WAWG Blog: When people are voting agianst their interests, more interest-based arguments don't help

Informed Comment: Collapse of Kabul bank points to fatal corruption of Karzai government

Prometheus 6: A good effort, but Chris Rock doesn't have to worry yet

Crooks and Liars: Open Thread

bluegal — 2010-09-04T03:30:54+00:00

CBS News Correspondents, the night before the Chicago Democratic National Convention in 1956, on What's My Line. Behind Walter Cronkite -- left to right Charles Collingwood, Eric Severeid, Douglas Edwards and Robert Trout.

Open Thread below...

Crooks and Liars: C&L's Late Night Music Club with The Brought Low

MaxMarginal — 2010-09-04T03:00:37+00:00

Genre: The Brought Low

Title: God Damn, God Bless

Chris Rock famously quipped,"You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is a Chinese guy, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are name 'Bush,' 'Dick' and 'Colon.' Need I say more?" He should've added that the best Southern rock band is from Queens, NY, not exactly Alabama. The Brought Low's three excellent albums seamlessly bridge the gap between Skynyrd and Queens of the Stone Age. If you see that they're playing at a dive bar near you, bring five dollars for cheap beer and some earplugs. They're loud and they're great.

Brought Low
	Price: $99.99 (As of 09/04/10 01:10 pm details)

Crooks and Liars: Tea Partiers lose another candidate: Colorado's Dan Maes being forced to step aside for lying, cheating

David Neiwert — 2010-09-04T02:00:00+00:00

Gee, no irony in this video from "the friends of Dan Maes", is there? "Last man standing," indeed:

Top Colorado Republicans are attempting to convince gubernatorial nominee Dan Maes to drop his bid for governor by the end of Friday, a well-placed Republican in the state tells POLITICO.

In a meeting Friday morning, party chairman Dick Wadhams and other members of the state GOP executive committee met with Maes to present what one called “damaging evidence” that hasn’t yet been made public but would further erode his standing as a candidate, according to the source.

A second Republican consultant confirmed the account and said while there was no explicit ultimatum presented by the chairman to Maes, the message was clear.

“It was: Do you really want to put your family through this? If you stay in the race, you’ll have to endure this and this,” said the Republican, citing potential reports by the Denver Post.

Wadhams did not respond to a call for comment and another Republican aide said he did not expect the chairman to address the media until Maes came to a decision.

A Maes spokesman indicated that the candidate was meeting with those who want him out of the race.

“Dan is listening to the concerns of those who believe he should stay in the race, as well as those who believe he should step aside. He has no plans to exit the race at this time,” said Maes spokesman Nate Strauch.

Since upending Rep. Scott McInnis in the GOP primary last month, Maes has run into a string of problems and questions about his own credibility. Earlier this week, the Post reported that Maes falsely claimed he did undercover police work in Kansas before being terminated. He lost the endorsements of former Sen. Hank Brown and former state Senate president John Andrews.

Early Friday afternoon, GOP Senate nominee Ken Buck also withdrew his support for Maes, the latest signal that his time as a candidate may be limited to days, if not hours.

Of course, no matter who they replace him with, it's over. Democrat John Hickenlooper is far ahead in the polls anyway.

How come we keep hearing about the Tea Partiers' occasional successes -- like Joe Miller in Alaska (now there's a good national barometer) -- and ignoring their multiple failures?

It will certainly be interesting to learn what these papers were about to report. Sounds like there were some juicy skeletons in Maes' closet. But then, right-wing authoritarianism does bring out the best in people, doesn't it?

Crooks and Liars: Pushing For The Youth Vote in 1950 - Gov. G. Mennen Williams

Gordonskene — 2010-09-04T01:00:14+00:00

enlarge

Credit: Life Magazine

Gov. G. Mennen "Soapy" Williams of Michigan in 1950. The Youth Vote was not only elusive, it was non-existent.

Click here to view this media

Sometimes we take for granted the voting age has always been 18. But no. We talk about the elusive Youth Vote, but in 1950 it was non-existent. There was talk about lowering the voting age to 18, but nothing ever really came of it until 1970 - twenty years after this address to the people of Michigan by Governor G. Mennen "Soapy" Williams. Logic dictated that, if you were could be drafted into the Military and fight a war, you should be able to vote. But that concept was a stretch for some. Many people thought if you lowered the age of voting to 18, you had to lower the age of drinking to 18 as well. Many states did lower the age of drinking to 18, but voting was still a ways off.

G. Mennen Williams: “My proposal to lower the voting age from 21 to 18. This idea has been discussed widely during the last ten years. Many prominent leaders and citizens of both political parties have endorsed it. But no action has ever been taken. I think it is time to submit this very important question to the people. And because it will require a vote of the people at the election next November, I decided to recommend it at this special session of the Legislature.”

It's interesting to consider that now, since the 18 year old vote has been in place for 40 years, most politicians rely so heavily on it. The lower voting age has meant a more progressive leaning anyways. Something about being young and seeing possibilities and having the power of change at your fingertips is intoxicating to those seeking power. But that enthusiasm is sometimes fickle. As was quickly evidenced in 1968 with assassinations, the Vietnam War and the general disillusion with our country's leaders. I remember very vividly the overwhelming Youth movement embracing Robert Kennedy (at that time it was still 21) and how it evaporated within days of his assassination. Rather than maintaining eyes on the prize, there was a massive disconnect, a general apathy that made the Presidency of Richard Nixon possible. Granted, the Democratic Party was in a state of chaos after RFK's death, and it was that chaos coupled with the disconnect that served a shift to the right in 1968 possible.

I'm afraid we're faced with a similar situation now; the very real notion of a disconnect with the Youth Vote. Principles and ideals have changed considerably since 1968, as they were in 1950 . Ironically, during both periods there were wars being waged (three months after this broadcast the Korean War got started) and 18 year olds were fighting them and dying from them. But today I think the disconnect is the loss of optimism that change, any sort of change, is not an instantaneous thing. Perhaps that's the syndrome of youth. Then as now, we saw change as something achieved instantaneously - the snap of a finger, as it were. The constant with Youth, no matter during what period of time in history, is that all things are possible and can happen if you want them to. Cynicism comes along with grey hair and lowered expectations, it seems.

Yes, we have politicians who, in lieu of being in one party, could just as easily be in the opposite party - they are professional and malleable and are devoid of moral fiber. This back-bending urge to be Socratic and "Let us reason together" becomes so much placating to the rants of spoiled children that it almost mocks the concept of leadership and steering the Ship of State anywhere but on the rocks.

The anger of the Youth Vote to "throw everyone out and start over" sounds good, sounds dramatic and has righteous indignation written all over it - but as history has also proven, it throws out numerous babies with the purge of putrid bathwater. We have to realize the problems of our government are deep-seated and go back as far as January 1969. We just assume it's been eight years because, well . . we just don't think back that far.

And where will that Youth Vote be, come this November?

But at least in 1950 they were trying to think ahead.

Crooks and Liars: Beckapalooza-goers' racism barely out of view -- kinda like the paranoiac bulletproof vest just under Beck's shirt

David Neiwert — 2010-09-04T00:00:47+00:00

Sam Seder has another superb episode of "That's Bullshit" featuring the fine folks attending GlennBeckapalooza last week. One of the more interesting interviewees opines that black people should love coming to Beck events and Tea Parties -- because, after all, when they do, they're fawned all over by white people eager to prove they're not racist.

Me? I'm with Sam and the flag vendor.

Meanwhile, Jason Easley at PoliticsUSA has evidence that Beck was wearing a bulletproof vest under his shirt that day. (I wondered about this myself at the time.)

That raises the question: Did Martin Luther King wear body armor on Aug. 28, 1964? Answer: No. Because he was about love, not fear.

Crooks and Liars: Pawlenty Brags About His Moves to Thwart Health Reform in His State

Heather — 2010-09-03T23:00:49+00:00

Click here to view this media

Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota joined Greta Van Susteren's show to brag about how he decided to play politics and refuse federal money for health care. As an editorial at the Minneapolis Star Tribune asked "How much federal money will Minnesota lose to other states because Gov. Tim Pawlenty dislikes the new federal health care reform law?"

Pawlenty's refusal of federal money smacks of politics.:

How much federal money will Minnesota lose to other states because Gov. Tim Pawlenty dislikes the new federal health care reform law?

The ticker clicked another $1 million on Wednesday, the deadline for Minnesota's application for a grant to help fund the establishment of an exchange at which people can shop for affordable health insurance.

That's chump change compared with the money he has already turned down, to the detriment of sick and needy Minnesotans and the professionals who treat them. The Republican governor has already spurned early enrollment of the state's poorest adults in the state-federal Medicaid program. DFL legislators say it would bring an additional $1.4 billion to the state's health care industry through 2013 and fund an estimated 22,000 private-sector health care jobs.

Also on Pawlenty's rejection list: $68 million to bring a federal high-risk insurance pool to Minnesota (a justifiable choice, since Minnesota's own pool is less expensive for most people than the federal one); $1 million for premium rate reviews, and $850,000 for teen-pregnancy prevention -- though Pawlenty did apply for a $500,000 abstinence-only sex ed grant. The latter program will cost the state an additional $350,000 and offers weaker evidence of effectiveness. Pawlenty must have been persuaded by something other than cost and results. Read on...

It's really pathetic this guy looks like he's putting presidential politics and his hope for a run in 2012 ahead of the citizens of his state. Shameless. I've said this before and I'll say it again. As bad as anyone on the left thought the weak tea we managed to get passed with this health care bill and with our corporate bought Senate was, all the Republicans will do is make it worse when given the chance as Pawlenty has shown us here. They don't care how many suffer as they help make the bill and its application worse instead of better to score political points. I feel for the residents of his state that deserve better leadership.

Crooks and Liars: Buck-buck bakaw! Jan Brewer won't be doing any more debates, thankyouverymuch

David Neiwert — 2010-09-03T22:00:03+00:00

[H/t America's Voice]

After her horrendous performance the other night in her debate with Democrat Terry Goddard, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is doing what she does best: Running from tough questions ... you know, what most folks call accountability:

Arizona voters won't be seeing any more debates between the top gubernatorial contenders.

Incumbent Republican Jan Brewer said Thursday she has no intention of participating in any more events with Democrat Terry Goddard. She said the only reason she debated him on Wednesday is she had to to qualify for more than $1.7 million in public funds for her campaign.

"I certainly will take my message in a different venue out to the people of Arizona," she said.

Yes, we can imagine what that venue will be. After 20-plus appearances on Fox News and none with any local TV journalists, we're getting the idea. (When she adds later in the piece that she will "be available for interviews," we're sure she will ... with Greta Van Susteren and Sean Hannity.)

Anyway, Brewer said, she believes the debates help Goddard more than they benefit her.

"Why would I want to give Terry a chance to redefine himself?" she said.

Translation: why create another situation where I would just be destroyed at my own hand?

Brewer conceded that her performance in Wednesday's debate, and her refusal to answer a question from reporters afterward, was not well-handled. That includes an opening statement when she lost her train of thought and went silent, and walking away after the event rather than answering questions about her prior statements about headless bodies in the desert.

Brewer blamed part of her post-debate activities on her gaffe in her opening statement. The governor also said she presumed reporters would want to talk to her about some of the issues raised during the hour-long, televised debate.

"All you guys were doing and talking were beheadings, beheadings, beheadings," the governor said. "That is something that has stuck with you all for so long, and I just felt we needed to move on."

Actually, Jan, the issue is that you have refused to retract those remarks, even though (a) they have been proven utterly false, and (b) they have helped kill the state's tourism economy.

And the fact is, you just don't want to answer that question. Because you can't without admitting you're a crappy governor.

The Fix: Afternoon Fix: President Obama to campaign for Joe Sestak in Philadelphia; Meg Whitman leads Jerry Brown by 7

2010-09-03T21:54:00+00:00

Make sure to sign up to get "Afternoon Fix" in your e-mail inbox every day by 5 (ish) p.m.! EARLIER ON THE FIX Daily Fix Poll: Will Jan Brewer's debate performance be a game-changer? Haley Barbour sits atop GOP RGA drops $2 million on ads in Florida WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED * President Obama will visit Philadelphia on Sep. 20 to campaign for Rep. Joe Sestak's (D-Pa.) Senate bid against former Rep. Pat Toomey (R). * Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) raised $524,000 in August, while former Harvard Pilgrim Health Care CEO Charlie Baker (R) raised $253,000 and state Treasurer Tim Cahill (I) raised $22,000. Meanwhile, Baker is up with a new TV ad charging that Patrick and Cahill "raised taxes eight times." * A new Survey USA poll shows former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina (R) statistically tied with Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), 48 percent to 46 percent.

Meg Whitman - Barbara Boxer - United States - Carly Fiorina - Jerry Brown

Crooks and Liars: Dem Guvs Call Out Fox Politico Plug As Illegal Contribution

Susie Madrak — 2010-09-03T21:00:08+00:00

See? The DGA knows how to fight back. Maybe they could give boxing lessons to their scrawny buddies at the White House!

COLUMBUS, Ohio — The Democratic Governors Association filed an elections complaint in Ohio on Thursday alleging Fox News Network illegally helped the Republican governor nominee solicit funds during a television appearance.

In an escalating battle with Fox’s politically conservative news arm, the DGA alleges that Fox allowed John Kasich to request contributions from viewers during an Aug. 18 broadcast and simultaneously displayed the address of his campaign website in on-screen graphics.

The complaint alleges the free publicity during Fox’s O’Reilly Factor amounted to an improper in-kind contribution to Kasich’s campaign, which exceeded Ohio’s $11,395.56 contribution limit and lacked the proper disclaimer for political advertising. The web address appeared for 90 seconds, the complaint said.

Kasich, a former Fox commentator, later told supporters the event helped him raise $21,000, according to complaint filed with the Ohio Elections Commission. He is seeking to unseat Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland in November.

Open Left: What happened???

Paul Rosenberg — 2010-09-03T20:30:00+00:00

The most dramatic reversal in the pattern of electoral maps in US history between two presidential elections separated by just 8 years.

What possible reason could account for that???

Yesterday, Rachel Maddow did a segment "We Can Fact-Check, Gov. Barbor", which I think astutely recognized at least one part of an unfolding dynamic: It's not just Glenn Beck, there's a expanding effort to pull a Karl Rove against Obama, and re-position the Republicans as the post-racial party, as illustrated by an interview that Haley Barbour did with Human Events in which he tried to portary himself as part of the first generation of South--Republican's, natch!--who grew up with integration and experienced it as no big deal.

Of course, Barbour was lying through his teeth. Integration was barely getting started when he was in college, and he placed his own children in private academies that were all-white until the last year his eldest son was in attendence. Her guest, Eugene Robinson, outdid himself, and even pointed out the unusual nature of the 1964 election in which Goldwater, who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, only carried five Deep South states plus his native Arizona. But he didn't bring the full weight of this fact to bear, which I think can only be gained by comparing the 1964 map with the 1956 map. The 1956 map was the most stripped-down version of the Democratic "Solid South" which can be found from 1876 onward (except for the Dixiecrat Revolt eleciton of 1948). And the 1964 map, just 8 years later, was an almost exact mirror image. Taken together, the two maps are perhaps the most dramatic representation of the overwhelming power of race in American politics you will ever find.

As the Republicans struggle mightily in the next two years to eradicate that history, we progressives would do very well to start amassing such images, particularly campaign ads, that can--at a single glance--bring the past that Republicans desperately want to eradicate, replace and re-write--vividly to life.

Donklephant: Private Sector Job Growth In 2008, 2009, 2010

Justin Gardner — 2010-09-03T20:13:35+00:00

Here ya go…

Pretty straightforward. Dems aren’t going to win any economic ingenuity awards, but we’re out of the recession, private sector job growth is still holding on and we’ve got the shopping season coming up, which should drive even more.

But what if the Republicans had their way?

Well, let’s refer back to the Congressional Budget Office’s recent projections, as brought to you by Newsweek. Basically, the Republicans wanted to extend the tax cuts and that’s about it. What effect would that have on the economy?

Extending all of them, according to the CBO, would lower unemployment by 0.3 to 0.8 percent over the next year or so; extending them solely for people making less than $250,000 would produce a somewhat smaller effect, for a difference of roughly 200,000 to 500,000 people.

The problem, as economist William G. Gale of the Brookings Institution has noted, is that “of 11 potential stimulus policies the CBO recently examined, an extension of all of the Bush tax cuts ties for lowest bang for the buck.” In fact, he continues, “letting the high-income tax cuts expire and using the money for aid to the states, extensions of unemployment insurance benefits, [or] tax credits favoring job creation … would have about three times the impact … as continuing the Bush tax cuts.”

In addition, it’s unlikely that extending the cuts for the richest Americans would have much of an effect on small-business hiring, which is a claim that Republicans make with some regularity. Why? Because of the taxpayers that report running small businesses on their taxes, only 2 percent fall into the top two income brackets.* The other 98 percent of small-business owners make less than $250,000 a year and wouldn’t pay higher taxes under Obama’s plan.

Now, let’s look at their supposed deficit reduction measures, which they’ve been talking about constantly. Again, we’ll refer to the CBO and Newsweek’s analysis of it, which I’m repurposing here to make a couple additional points.

Obama spent $814 billion on the stimulus plan and Republicans didn’t offer an alternative, so it’s…

D: $814B
R: $0

On health care reform, Republicans want to repeal the law and substitute it with, well…nothing. Some think they’d take the Wyden/Bennett approach, but there’s no evidence that would actually happen. So what’s the problem with repealing it? The CBO says that the current health care law will cut $30B from the budget deficit in the next 10 years. What’s the cost of doing things in the same way (repealing it) ? $455B. That’s right…the health care bill is actually saving us $475B over 10 years. Still, you can’t subtract $455B from the Dem’s total, so Dems are still leading the deficit game in 10 years time…

R: $455B
D: $784B

Now, on to the Bush tax cuts. As mentioned above, only 2% of small businesses owners make more than $250,000 in income every year and their hit would be VERY minimal. For a refresher, let’s go back to the chart we posted a few weeks ago…

That’s right, people making up to $500,000 will have to pay roughly $400 more a year if the tax cuts aren’t extending. Folks who make $250,000 would pay even less than that. Most likely around $200 extra.

Yes…that’s it.

So, don’t believe the Republicans when they say not extending those benefits would kill jobs killer because $400 of salary can’t create a job.

The Dems’ extension of the tax cuts for everybody else will add roughly $3 trillion to the deficit in the next 10 years. What would the Republicans add? Another $700B.

What’s the total budget deficit over the next ten years for either party?

D: $3.784T
R: $4.155T

If you vote for the GOP this fall because you think they’re going to create more jobs and reduce the deficit, you’re a sucker. Plain and simple. They have no new ideas to turn things around and they’re simply referring back to the same play book that got us into this mess in the first place: deregulation and tax cuts.

Also, remember that if the GOP had their way they would reduce the federal government down so much it would cripple an already crumbling infrastructure. We need to innovate and continue to make sure the basic building blocks of our society are the best in the world or else we will not be competitive in the years to come. And, as the evidence shows, the Dems still offer the best plan for that. I’m not saying it’s the best, most innovative plan, but it’s demonstrably better both in terms of jobs and deficit reduction than the GOP’s.

(h/t: Washington Monthly)

Crooks and Liars: Democracy Now: Alexander Zaitchik on 'Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the Triumph of Ignorance'

Heather — 2010-09-03T20:00:54+00:00

Click here to view this media

Democracy Now's Juan Gonzalez talked to investigative journalist and author Alexander Zaitchik about Glenn Beck's rise as a "nationwide cultural phenomenon" and how we ended up with someone who described himself as a recovering alcoholic with drug abuse and former shock jock ended up preaching to America from the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C.

This huckster has been doing the same shtick since his days as a radio Morning Zoo shock jock and he's laughing all the way to the bank with his new found fame that he doesn't deserve now and more than he did when most of the places he worked for were firing him left and right.

Zaitchik's book on Beck is titled Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the Triumph of Ignorance.

JUAN GONZALEZ: We turn now to a deeply polarizing figure who’s been dominating the airwaves. He’s the darling of conservatives and right-wing activists. But to liberals and progressives, he’s a much-reviled object of derision, a demagogue prone to maudlin dramatics. Yes, I’m talking about the right-wing TV and radio host Glenn Beck. He’s also a bestselling author, and his latest venture is a slickly designed blog called "The Blaze."

Last weekend, Glenn Beck organized a much-publicized "Restoring Honor" rally in front of the Lincoln Memorial in the nation’s capital. It was held on the forty-seventh anniversary of the historic March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his "I Have a Dream" speech.

Here’s an excerpt of Glenn Beck’s speech at the rally.

GLENN BECK: Somewhere in this crowd—I know it—I have been looking for the next George Washington. I can’t find him. I know he is in this crowd. He may be eight years old. But this is the moment! This is the moment that he dedicates his life, that he sees giants around him. And twenty-five years from now, he will come not to this stair, but to those stairs, and he can proclaim, "I have a new dream."

Tell the truth. Tell the truth. And it only matters when you tell the truth and you know it’s going hurt you. You know that it’s not going to help your side. Tell the truth. America is crying out for the truth! Tell the truth in your own life and then expect it from others.

JUAN GONZALEZ: That was Fox News broadcaster Glenn Beck. His fans reportedly number in the millions, and Saturday’s rally drew nearly 100,000 supporters.

How did a former Top 40 Radio DJ who describes himself as a recovering alcoholic who struggled with drug abuse become a nationwide cultural phenomenon? Well, investigative journalist Alexander Zaitchik tells this story in his book Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the Triumph of Ignorance. He joins me here in our studio.

Welcome to Democracy Now!

ALEXANDER ZAITCHIK: Good to be here.

JUAN GONZALEZ: You were at the rally.

ALEXANDER ZAITCHIK: I was there.

JUAN GONZALEZ: What was it like?

ALEXANDER ZAITCHIK: Well, it certainly didn’t resemble the rally that I read about in the press. It sort of got a pass. People thought this is a softer, kinder, squishier Glenn Beck, a non-political Glenn Beck. But it was a deeply political event, I think. He’s calling for, you know, basically a return to Biblical principles, turning back to God, which is as political as you can get. This is a secular republic the last time I checked. And Beck’s conception of turning back to God and bringing the Constitution back to its, you know, original Biblical kind of base is—you have to see it in light of Beck’s Mormon reading of American history, in which God literally wrote the Constitution and intended its development to stop at around the Tenth Amendment. So when Beck talks about turning back to God, what he’s really talking about is a drastic diminuation of the government as modern Americans know it.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Tell us a little bit about his history. How did he get to where he is now, to become this sort of icon of right-wing conservatives?

ALEXANDER ZAITCHIK: It’s an incredibly unlikely story that this guy would end up addressing this many people at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial. Just ten years ago, he was still a struggling Top 40 DJ. Basically a failure. Had bottomed out after about twenty years as a Morning Zoo Top 40 guy traveling the country, getting fired from markets pretty quickly for making a lot of enemies and being famous for his mean streak, which is still in abundant evidence. He was really kind of a divisive figure even then, when he was in this clownish, infantile world of Top 40 radio.

And he got a talk show largely through being at the right place at the right time. He was working for Clear Channel when it was still a small company. And then, when it began to take advantage of deregulation, he used his connections to land a job in Tampa, where he was about to get fired, until the recount drama of 2000 put a lot of focus on Florida, where he was working. So he was able to parlay that into ratings, and then he was syndicated. And then 9/11 happened, and he sort of turned overnight into this hard-charging, fire-breathing superpatriot that we know today.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And some of the—you mentioned his propensity to get in trouble for what he says. Some of the statements that you’ve been chronicling over the years now of his?

ALEXANDER ZAITCHIK: Right. Well, his more recent controversies are pretty well known. But even going back to the '80s and ’90s, he was known for a racist, sexist shtick. He famously, or infamously, called up the wife of a competing DJ in Phoenix in the mid-'80s and mocked her for having a miscarriage live on the air. He made fun of a guy named Malik Jones in New Haven, who was an unarmed black man shot by a white police officer, and it was quite a big police brutality case at the time. He went on air that week making fun of Jones, talking about how he used to smoke crack with his grandmother. Stuff like this. So, you know, this Glenn Beck that is so divisive today has been there the whole time. And the idea that he had this, you know, transformative experience when he became a Mormon and became a good guy and is this sort of moral beacon is just ludicrous.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Glenn Beck was on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace discussing his "Restoring Honor" rally and how he plans to, quote, "reclaim the civil rights movement." When Wallace asked him about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s vision of economic justice, Beck said that's a part of the civil rights leader’s message that he didn’t agree with.

GLENN BECK: Reclaim the civil rights, meaning people of faith that look at equal justice and look at every man the same, that’s who needs to reclaim it, not the politicians, not the parties, not white people or black people.

CHRIS WALLACE: But Glenn—

GLENN BECK: People of faith.

CHRIS WALLACE: But Glenn, the civil rights movement always had an agenda beyond just equality, beyond just, quote, "justice." The full name of the march forty-seven years ago was the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.

GLENN BECK: Right.

CHRIS WALLACE: One of the speakers at the event was a labor leader, A. Philip Randolph, who talked about the injustice of people who live in poverty. John Lewis, then a student, now a congressman, said this at the event: "We need a bill that will ensure the equality of a maid who earns $5 a week in the home of the family whose total income is $100,000 a year." The civil rights movement was always about an economic agenda.

GLENN BECK: Well, you know what, Chris? I think that is part of it, but that’s a part of it that I don’t agree with. I think the bigger part—the thing that we fail to recognize is that is the racial politics.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And last year, Glenn Beck accused President Obama of being a racist and having a, quote, "deep-seated hatred for white peope." Well, on Sunday, Fox News’s Chris Wallace played that clip for Glenn Beck.

GLENN BECK: This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture. I don’t know what it is. This guy is, I believe, a racist.

CHRIS WALLACE: Question: after that, do you have any credibility talking about reclaiming the civil rights movement?

GLENN BECK: OK, let me go over this again on the reclaiming the civil rights movement. People of faith that believe that you have an equal right to justice, that is the essence. And if it’s not the essence, then we’ve been sold a pack of lies. The essence is, everyone deserves a shot. The content of character, not the color of skin. Now, when—I’ve addressed this comment a million times, and, in fact, I think I amended it this week, that what I didn’t understand at the time was the influences on President Obama. And, you know, the white culture, look—read his own books. He writes about the white culture and how he struggled with it, etc., etc. But I didn’t understand really his theology. He’s—his viewpoints come from liberation theology.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Alexander Zaitchik, your response to those comments of Glenn Beck’s, and especially what the comments on President Obama did to the campaign that developed against him?

ALEXANDER ZAITCHIK: Right. Well, it led to the most successful campaign against Beck, the Color of Change, stopbeck.com, campaign to get sponsors to drop his show, and it’s been quite successful. It’s created this narrative out there, which Beck is rightly seen as somewhat freakish. No one recognizes brands from their breakfast table on his show anymore, and that’s as it should be.

As for the comments about Barack Obama’s liberation theology, you know, it’s hard to know where to begin. This is just kind of classic Beck, and it’s part of his larger campaign against social justice, which is, you know, a combination of the sort of classic Beck trifecta of ignorance, provocation and pretty sly racial innuendo, which comes pretty effortlessly to him.

As for Martin Luther King appropriation, he clearly would have put King on is chalkboard, had they been contemporaries. Beck not only would have honed in on King’s connections to real radicals, but he also would have, you know, called him a cockroach for spreading the virus of social justice. This is the kind of language that he engages in on a regular basis, which is what makes him so dangerous. He’s injected this language that is pretty foreign to American political discourse, this sort of pre-Hitlerian, almost, talk about cockroaches, rats, viruses, cancers, dehumanizing your political opponents.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And in the little time we have left, his involvement with the Mormon Church, while at the same time trying to curry support among evangelical Christians, who regard—many of whom regard the Mormon Church with disdain, could you talk about that?

ALEXANDER ZAITCHIK: Sure, sure. This is, I think, the most interesting fault line that’s developed lately. It’s not so much between Beck and his liberal critics—we all know about that—but it’s between his evangelical fan base, those who are a little bit put off by his posturing as a Christian leader, as a divine medium, when in fact he belongs to what most evangelicals belong to—consider a cult. So it’s a little strange also that he would be throwing stones at other people’s Christianity, when he himself is in a pretty big glass house when it comes to, at least as his fans understand, his faith.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Is there any sense, in your research on him, that he has political aspirations? Of course, the talk a couple of years ago was more about Lou Dobbs running for president. But what about Glenn Beck?

ALEXANDER ZAITCHIK: Yeah, no, I think Beck is smart enough to know there’s too many skeletons that’ll be dragged out if he ever tried to run for office. And also, frankly, there’s too much longevity and money in what he’s doing building himself up as a sort of movement leader that’s above the fray, or at least pretends to be above the fray, but in fact is not.

JUAN GONZALEZ: But he’s had a lot of influence, obviously, in terms of the campaign against Van Jones and then against ACORN. He was very influential in helping to destroy those figures.

ALEXANDER ZAITCHIK: Sure, sure. He’s a potent political force, absolutely. I don’t think you can understand what happened on Saturday without reference to what’s going to happen two Saturdays from now with the FreedomWorks-organized march. Taxpayers March, they’re calling it.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, thanks very much for being with us, Alexander Zaitchik, an investigative reporter and the author of the Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the Triumph of Ignorance.

Sadly, No!: Welcome To The Big Time, Pamela Geller!

D. Aristophanes — 2010-09-03T19:56:44+00:00

Our widdle wingnut is all growed up! It is with some pride that we have observed the recent rise of Pamela Geller to respectable, mainstream status — after all, Sadly, No! has been covering the erstwhile Pam Atlas since at least early 2006 (and our commenters were clued in to her even earlier).

Why, it seems like just yesterday that Pam was palling around with Neo-Nazis at seedy gatherings on the ass-end of the European political fringe¹, fighting an eliminationist civil war over the dwindling crumbs of post-Katrina stupid, and revealing to a skeptical world that Barack Obama just may be — just might be — Malcolm X’s love child.

Now, thanks to newly resurgent anti-Muslim rage amongst the teatards — and its usefulness to GOP electoral chances in November — Geller finds herself the talk of the town, a sought-after commentator on the national stage as desperate media outlets seek to uncover the mystery as to why bigoted bigots are acting really bigoted out of bigotry.

Until recently, only a handful of bloggers and their readers were privy to Pam’s daily deluge of cap-locked misinformation and shrieking xenophobia. But today, like a shooting star flashing across the night sky (if said comet took several years² of flirtini-addled, spit-flecked stumbling to careen tits-first through our field of vision), she speaks to a much wider audience. Indeed, an entire nation can now read stuff like this:

ISRAEL IN OBAMA’S CROSSHAIRS: IMPOSING A DEATH SENTENCE ‘THAT ENDS AN OCCUPATION WHICH BEGAN IN 1967′

‘The purpose of these talks is clear. These will be direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. These negotiations are intended to resolve all final status issues. The goal is a settlement, negotiated between the parties, that ends the occupation which began in 1967 and results in the emergence of an independent, democratic and viable Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security with a Jewish state of Israel and its other neighbors. That’s the vision we are pursuing.’ Presdeint Obama, September 1, 2010

Spoken like a true antisemite. ‘Illegal’ occupation?

Well, no, ‘illegal’ was not a term used by Presdeint Obama in the supplied quote, though in fairness we don’t know what his doppelganger, President Obama may have said. It’s also worth noting that the ‘true anti-semites’ on the Israeli Supreme Court have ruled that the West Bank is ‘occupied’, but perhaps that’s a detail best puzzled over another day.

Or maybe you’d be interested to learn that Anti-Defamation League director Abe Foxman is actually a jihad-loving toady of Islamic supremacists? ‘Mighty classy, dhimmi,’ as Pam so politely punctuates the point.

In a victory for our national dialogue, more and more people can learn these things, thanks to Pam’s ascent to superstar status. And these days, she’s even got her own pet nebbish³!

Here’s to you, Pammy. You’ve come a Long Island way, baby!

¹ Pam back in 2007 on hanging out with Vlaams Belang, originally the pro-Nazi Dutch Vlaams Blok party: ‘Who the hell wasn’t a nazi collaborator in Europe? Puhleeeeeze.’

Pam on George Soros a couple of months earlier: ‘Soros has sinister ties to anti-semites and Nazis.’

²Decades even — holy shit!

³Fixed, thanks N_B!

The Fix: Daily Fix Poll: Will Jan Brewer's debate performance be a game-changer?

2010-09-03T19:12:00+00:00

Your Browser DoesNot Support IFrames. By Felicia Sonmez Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) turned in one of the most bizarre performances we've seen in recent years during Wednesday night's debate with state Attorney General Terry Goddard (D). The question for Brewer going forward is, will her debate stumble cost her in the fall? Ever since she signed Arizona's immigration law in April, Brewer has seen her popularity skyrocket. Her opponents in the Republican primary dropped out one-by-one, leaving Brewer to cruise to the nomination and, it seemed, to election in November. With all signs pointing to a Brewer blowout, the Fix moved the race from Toss Up to Lean Republican in July. But sometimes, gaffes can damage -- and even sink -- the strongest of candidacies. Brewer has taken on a higher profile thanks to her role in the Arizona immigration debate, and her rise in the national eye has

Jan Brewer - Terry Goddard - Arizona - Law - Immigration

Open Left: Democracy Now! takes "back-to-school" look at Obama's war on public education

Paul Rosenberg — 2010-09-03T19:00:00+00:00

Amy Goodman's off this week, but co-host Juan Gonzales has written (and researched) a great deal about education policies, practices and deform, and he did excellent job today with guests Karen Lewis, president of the Chicago Teachers Union, and Lois Weiner, professor of education at New Jersey City University, in a segment "Educators Push Back Against Obama's "Business Model" for School Reforms".

Lewis had hopeful news about growing local movements like the one she's part of in Chicago, where roll-over-and-play-dead union leaders have been ousted, and teachers have increasingly begun to organize with parents. But I want to focus on a couple of things that Weiner had to say. Not that they're new, really, to those of us here at Open Left, but it's good to hear them so powerfully validated.

First is that what we're seeing here with "Race to the Top" is part of an already-proven-to-fail global pattern of neo-liberalism ("Shock Doctrine" at school):

JUAN GONZALEZ: Lois Weiner, you've been, in your research, conducting what I would, I guess, call a macro analysis of the education reform-
LOIS WEINER: Right.
JUAN GONZALEZ:-comparing not only what's happening here in the United States, but around the world, in terms of these so-called reform initiatives. Could you talk about that?
LOIS WEINER: Absolutely. And I think it's important to understand that Race to the Top is not unique to the United States, and what Arne Duncan did in Chicago is not unique to Chicago. And in fact, the contours of this program were carried out first under Pinochet in Chile. And this program was implemented by force of military dictatorships and the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in Latin America. And the results have been verified by researchers there. They produced increased stratification. So I think what we're seeing right now are the results of that increased stratification, a stratification, inequality of results, because if you think about it, No Child Left Behind is almost a decade old. And what are the results? The results are a growing gap between poor minority-achievement of poor minority kids and those kids who come from prosperous families who are-who live in affluent suburbs and in those suburban schools.
And I think it's also very important to understand that this focus on educational reform is replacing, is a substitute for, a jobs policy. We need to understand that. Education can democratize the competition for the existing jobs, but it cannot create new jobs. And when most jobs that are being created are by companies like Wal-Mart, education cannot do anything about that. So, we need to-we really need to look critically at Race to the Top and understand the way that it fits into this new economic order of a so-called jobless recovery and that what's really going on is a vocationalization of education, a watering down of curriculum for most kids, so that they're going to take jobs that require only a seventh or an eighth grade education, because those are the jobs that are being created in this economy.
And so, I think that while we--while it's important to look at the particulars of each state and each city, each school district, it's also important to see this large picture, because almost anything that you can point to me that's being done in Chicago or New York or San Francisco, we can find another place in the world that it was already done, and we can look at those results. And the results are not good.

This is not surprising. Neoliberalism has already failed, just as conservatism has. Education is just one policy realm among many where this is so. It's only a battle of ideology to the extent that we're fighting for facts to matter--as well as people.

And, of course, the main barrier to the neo-liberal wet dream is those damn teachers, who expect to make a living at their jobs:

JUAN GONZALEZ: You've also taken a look at the impact of No Child Left Behind on teachers. Could you talk about that?
LOIS WEINER: Well, I think it's important to understand that there are--No Child Left Behind is part of this global project to deprofessionalize teaching as an occupation. And the reason that it's important in this project to deprofessionalize teaching is that the thinking is that the biggest expenditure in education is teacher salaries. And they want to cut costs. They want to diminish the amount of money that's put into public education. And that means they have to lower teacher costs. And in order to do that, they have to deprofessionalize teaching. They have to make it a revolving door, in which we're not going to pay teachers very much. They're not going to stay very long. We're going to credential them really fast. They're going to go in. We're going to burn them up. They're going to leave in three, four, five years. And that's the model that they want.
So who is the biggest impediment to that occurring? Teachers' unions. And that is what explains this massive propaganda effort to say that teachers' unions are an impediment to reform. And in fact, they are an impediment to the deprofessionalization of teaching, which I think is a disaster. It's a disaster for public education.

Oh, and just one more little bit of clarification, in case there was any doubt: Teachers' salaries may be slated for cutting to the bone, but management, no way!

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, you know, one of the-I've been, for several years now, looking deeply into these charter schools, and especially their tax forms. And one of the things that has struck me as I look at their various audited financial statements is that, generally speaking, the pay levels of the teachers in the charter schools are far lower than they are for normal public school teachers, but the pay of the executives-
KAREN LEWIS: Yeah.
LOIS WEINER: Yes.
JUAN GONZALEZ: --of the charter schools is far higher--
KAREN LEWIS: Higher, yeah.
LOIS WEINER: Yes.
JUAN GONZALEZ: --than it is for superintendents. So you're, in essence, creating a much bigger wage gap in the schools through the charters--
LOIS WEINER: Yes.
JUAN GONZALEZ: --between management and the employees who actually cover the work.
LOIS WEINER: Yes.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I'm wondering what you found.
LOIS WEINER: Well, that's part of the-you know, that's part of the thinking here, that teaching really is not--does not have to be a skilled profession, because we're not going to teach--we're not going to educate kids to do anything more than work in Wal-Mart or the equivalent. They only need a seventh or an eighth grade education, at most a ninth grade education, and so we don't need teachers who are more than, as Grover Whitehurst, a former Undersecretary of Education, said, "good enough." That's all we need is teachers who are "good enough" to follow scripted curriculum and to teach to these standardized tests. And if you only need teachers who are good enough, you don't have to pay them very much. And that's the project. And regardless of the rhetoric, regardless of the intentions of some of the people who are supporting these reforms, people like the Education Trust, whose work I respect, I think it's important that we look at something beyond the intentions and the rhetoric, and we really look at this project as being a project that's global in its nature.

So, yes, education is not yet getting the sort of sustained progressive attention that it needs. But things are starting to change, and we here at Open Left are not quite as alone as we might sometimes think or feel.

More and more, the word is getting out. Help us continue to spread it as the new school year starts.

Crooks and Liars: Administration Looks At More Half-Way Stimulus Methods

Susie Madrak — 2010-09-03T19:00:00+00:00

Oy. This White House is just so timid, so careful, so freakin' measured about everything that what should be serious policy making turns into an extended game of "Mother May I?":

With just two months until the November elections, the White House is seriously weighing a package of business tax breaks - potentially worth hundreds of billions of dollars - to spur hiring and combat Republican charges that Democratic tax policies hurt small businesses, according to people with knowledge of the deliberations.

Among the options under consideration are a temporary payroll-tax holiday and a permanent extension of the now-expired research-and-development tax credit, which rewards companies that conduct research into new technologies within the United States.

[...] White House officials cautioned that no tax cuts have been settled on and that a more limited measure could emerge. Policy staffers are debating a range of options. For example, a payroll-tax holiday - a top priority of many business groups - could be applied only to new hires or extended to current employees. It could be limited to small businesses or extended to larger firms.

[...] Permanently extending the research credit would cost roughly $100 billion over the next decade, tax analysts said. And depending on its form and duration, a payroll-tax holiday could cost more than $300 billion. While costing significantly less than last year's stimulus package, both ideas would be far more dramatic than anything the White House has so far acknowledged considering.

More spending on infrastructure, particularly transportation projects, is also under discussion. But it would be easier for a package composed purely of tax cuts to "avoid the stain of a 'bailout' or 'stimulus' label," said one official familiar with the talks, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the deliberations were private.

Yeah, God forbid the administration actually back something that will directly stimulate the economy, (you know, like creating jobs or paying unemployment benefits to the people who have run out) rather than playing cautious politics. That strategy's worked so well, don't you think? Gee, do you think it might even be why we're looking at a Republican tsunami?

And what will the Republicans do if they win? Why, they'll go back to ignoring the deficit and immediately pass a heaping mess o' tax cuts to put Obama on the spot. What are the odds he has the spine to veto them?

Crooks and Liars: Fact Checking Haley Barbour's Sanitized Fake Racial History

Heather — 2010-09-03T18:00:07+00:00

Click here to view this media

There sure seems to be a lot of this going around, isn't there? Rachel Maddow and Eugene Robinson do some fact checking on Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour's recent bit of revisionist history, attempting to sanitize the racism and rewrite the Civil Rights movement in the South and how the Republicans have been taking advantage of the racial divide in America for decades. Eugene Robinson did an especially good job of following up Rachel Maddow's critique of Barbour's interview with the right wing Human Events and explaining why Barbour is frankly just full of it when he tries to pretend he didn't experience segregation himself growing up and at the schools he attended. As they noted it looks like he's trying to shine up his image with white voters who might not want to vote for someone they consider a bigot in the 2012 presidential elections.

Salon's War Room has a great article on Barbour's interview here:

The GOP's new fake racial history: A Southern Republican with designs on challenging Barack Obama in 2012 offers a phony version of history. Go read the whole thing but here's a portion of it.

Almost 50 years ago, the Republican Party made a decision to embrace the backlash generated by civil rights among white Southerners.

Traditionally, they had been staunch Democrats, but they were also culturally conservative, and as Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic Party embraced civil rights once and for all, they were up for grabs. The Republican Party offered them a home, a steady, decades-long realignment ensued, and today conservative Southern whites comprise the heart of the GOP -- just as culturally liberal Northerners, who called the GOP home before civil rights, have migrated to the Democratic Party.

There's nothing new about this story. In fact, it's the story LBJ himself predicted when he signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and supposedly mused, "There goes the South for a generation."

But it's an inconvenient story for today's Republican Party, which still relies on cultural, racial and ethnic wedge issues to keep its base in line -- but which also needs to win over less conservative suburbanites across the country to compete in national elections. And it's a particularly inconvenient story for Haley Barbour, the 62-year-old Mississippi governor who aspires to run as the Republican nominee against the nation's first black president.

So Barbour has invented his own sanitized, suburb-friendly version of history -- an account that paints the South's shift to the GOP as the product of young, racially inclusive conservatives who had reasons completely separate and apart from racial politics for abandoning their forebears' partisan allegiances. In an interview with Human Events that was posted on Wednesday, Barbour insists that "the people who led the change of parties in the South ... was my generation. My generation who went to integrated schools. I went to integrated college -- never thought twice about it." Segregationists in the South, in his telling, were "old Democrats," but "by my time, people realized that was the past, it was indefensible, it wasn't gonna be that way anymore. So the people who really changed the South from Democrat to Republican was a different generation from those who fought integration."

This is utter nonsense.

For a century after the Civil War, the South was deeply and overwhelmingly Democratic, a consequence of the "humiliation" visited upon white Southerners by the Republican-initiated Reconstruction that followed the Civil War. The level of support enjoyed by Democratic candidates in the region is almost too astronomical to fathom now. In 1912, Woodrow Wilson took 42 percent of the vote nationally in a four-way presidential contest. But in South Carolina, he snared 95 percent. In Mississippi, 88 percent. While he was grabbing 60 percent nationally in 1936, Franklin Roosevelt scored 97 percent in Mississippi and nearly 99 percent in South Carolina. The region's congressional delegation was uniformly Democratic -- and, thanks to the South's one-party status, disproportionately influential, with lifelong incumbents taking advantage of the congressional seniority system to secure the most powerful committee gavels.

Video of Rachel's follow up with Eugene Robinson below the fold. h/t Steve Benen

Click here to view this media

Open Left: MLK & the "Beloved Community" vs. Glenn Beck's perversion

Paul Rosenberg — 2010-09-03T17:30:00+00:00

The day after Beck's rally for incohence, last weekend, he appeard with Chris Wallace, and attempted to impose a whole new set of interpretations on what he'd been up to. Early on in the clip below, he spoke of:

Reclaiming the civil rights. Meaning people of faith that look at equal justice and look at every man the same. Not the politicians. Not the parties. Not white people or black people. People of faith.

Of course, this was no more historically accurate than anything else he's ever said in his life, particularly about civil rights. First off, there were all sorts of "people of faith" opposed to civil rights--indeed, the modern religious right (post Billy James Hargis, that is) was born out of opposition to the civil rights movement. Their big "civil rights" battle was trying to preserve the tax-exempt status of the segregationist Bob Jones University. That's what side they were on. And secondly, on the other side were a lot of secular Jews like me and my family, along with everyone else. And without the politicians and the parties, it wouldn't have meant a thing, because it was about changing the laws of the land.

So, pretty much the same incoherent farrago of lies routine, just with a new set of lies.

But that's not what I wanted to focus my primary attention on. What I really wanted to focus on comees later in the clip, where he says:

The real agenda should be equal justice, an equal shot. The dream was judge a man by the content of his character, not the color of his skin. That's something that everybody can take part in.

So everybody can take part in it--including the parties and politicians who it shouldn't have anything to do with. You see what a babbling idiot he is?

But that's not my central point here. That would be how he characterizes "the real agenda", as "equal justice, an equal shot."

Well, I'm here to say that King wasn't talking about just giving people "a shot", even an equal one. He wasn't coming from a market perspective. He was coming from a visionary perspective, and that vision was what he called "The Beloved Community." If you're not familiar with the term, then there's an entire dimension of Martin Luther King's thought that you've yet to become familiar with.

A good introduction can be found in a short essay by Rev. Shirley Strong, "Toward a Vision of Beloved Community", which begins thus:

I understand the term Beloved Community to mean an inclusive, interrelated society based on love, justice, compassion, responsibility, shared power and a respect for all people, places, and things-a society that radically transforms individuals and restructures institutions.

This is a classic Nurturant Parent, liberal vision that stands in stark contrast to the impoverished, Strict Father, Randian individualism that informs Beck's POV, for all his talk about Christianity (which Ayn Rand thoroughly despised.)

Strong continues:

The term "Beloved Community" can be traced back to Josiah Royce (1855-1916), the 19th century American religious philosopher. It was a part of the popular theological vocabulary of Boston University's School of Theology during the early 1950s, when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a doctoral student there. Royce characterized the Beloved Community as "a spiritual or divine community capable of achieving the highest good as well as the common good."
Royce believed that "Every proposed reform, every moral deed, is to be tested by whether and to what extent it contributes to the realization of the Beloved Community...When one cannot find the 'beloved community,' she needs to take steps to create it and if there is not evidence of the existence of such a community then the rule to live by is To Act So As To Hasten Its Coming."

What could be more collectivist? More progressive? More "fascist" in the topsy-turvey world of Beck and Goldberg and Faux News?

And yet, individuals have a vital role to play:

Royce held that each individual should strive toward this goal of the Beloved Community, and that the more individuals who joined the effort, the greater the possibility of achieving it. He believed that this would lead in time to the radical transformation of individuals.

Which ties in very nicely with one of King's greatest, most important sermons, "The Drum Major Instinct", that enunciates a vision of individualism totally opposite to the selfish orientation that pervades conservative conceptions. I wrote about this back in 1995, the oldest thing I wrote on the Internet that I still know how to find a copy of, "Martin Luther King - A Different Drum Major", which begins like this:

It's fashionable today to pose the theme of personal responsibility in opposition to the continued quest for social justice. We even hear Reverend Martin Luther King quoted out of context, as if judging people by the "content of their character" was meant to endorse the idea that some of us should starve, some should go homelss, and some should shiver naked in the midst of winter.
But Dr. King didn't think that the content of our characters was something coldly quantifiable, capable of being determined by the marketplace, like the price of pork rind or pig iron. When he spoke of personal responsibility he had a much more lofty view in mind: that we are each responsible not just for ourselves, but for each other, and for our collective redemption from the sins of our past that stain us still. He did not falsely oppose the ideas of personal responsibility and commitment to social justice. Rather, he saw the commitment to social justice--rooted in the Gospels--as a means for transforming mere egotism and blind ambition into engines of individual redemption--the crowning reward of personal responsibility.

That is a vision totally at odds with Glenn Beck.

Here's Strong again:

King built on Royce's ideal, especially during the later stages of his life. He came to believe that in addition to the radical transformation of individuals, there was a need for a "deep restructuring of institutions if the Beloved Community was to be realized." An organizing principle for King's thinking and work, this ideal was deeply rooted in two primarily principles:

The American dream of equality and justice for all
The biblical vision of the kingdom of God

Dr. King viewed all life as interrelated. He frequently remarked, "All men [women] are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny." He came to believe that what affects one person directly affects everyone indirectly, and to treat even a single person unjustly is an affront to all people everywhere.

There's more to Strong's essay, and I encourage you to read the whole thing. But this much should thoroughly suffice to show you haw radically different King's vision was as opposed to Becks. No matter how much Beck twists and turns and squiggles and squirms there is simply nothing in common between the two.

The Fix: Haley Barbour sits atop GOP

2010-09-03T17:05:00+00:00

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour is the most influential Republican in the party. AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis With less than two months before the 2010 midterm elections, attention within the GOP is turning to the architects of the Republican campaign efforts. Republican Governors Association Chairman Haley Barbour (Miss.) is the de facto leader of the party. His committee's massive fundraising and the increasing likelihood that he will run for president in 2012 have put him at the start -- and the finish -- of any conversation about the future of the party. As conventional wisdom continues to cement around the idea that Republicans will win the House this fall, both Pete Sessions (Texas), the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, and John Boehner (Ohio), the likely Speaker if Republicans take over, are growing more influential. (Boehner's speech last week -- in which he called for the firing of the

Haley Barbour - Republican - Republican Governors Association - Mississippi - National Republican Congressional Committee

Crooks and Liars: Smart and dumb ways to trash your enemies

Brad Reed — 2010-09-03T17:00:29+00:00

So I've been following recently the debate that's been going on between Digby and Jamelle Bouie over whether it's really wise to use hyperbole and over-the-top mockery to thrash your political opponents. As you can imagine, I largely side with Digby on this matter and find constructions like this from Bouie to be particularly annoying:

Unlike myself, Moulitsas isn't a journalist, and his job isn't to be an honest broker for ideas; no, it's to rally progressives and score points against conservatives.

Bouie seems to me like the sort of person, to use the phrase of an old acquaintance, who would have been extremely upset that the wicked John Swift would suggest eating all those Irish babies.

Using hyperbole and outlandish mockery to skewer one's political opponents is a wonderful human tradition that extends back centuries. Not only is it a terrific way to blow off steam, but if done smartly it also garners attention by making your opponents convulse into fits of rage. Newt Gingrich understands this better than any other political figure -- he'll say stuff that he knows is outrageous and untrue simply to capture media attention and to push the conversation further to the right. Instead of coming out and saying, "I disapprove of Obama's plan to open up exchanges where people can get government-subsidized health insurance," he says something along the lines of "Barack Hussein Obama's secular socialist machine and its government takeover of health care post a greater threat to the United States than Hitler ever did." While liberals will all shriek and hem and haw about Gingrich's ridiculous rhetoric, the media will report it as, "Liberals deny that Obamacare is worse than the Nazis."

The idea is that you should always be whacking your opponent in the face with something that will force them to respond in a defensive manner. Markos understands this very well which is why his blog has been such a huge success in mobilizing people and money to elect progressive candidates over the past decade. The liberal establishment, best exemplified by Bouie's quote above, thinks that we only need to be "honest brokers for ideas" in order to win over the American public. Sorry but that ain't so.

That said!

I also think that in order to use hyperbole and caricature successfully, you have to also do it intelligently. If you're looking for a no-so-smart way of thrashing your opposition, look no further than this example cited by Bob Somerby today. This is Ed Schultz doing absolutely everything you don't want to do when you go on offense:

Beck’s rally, I’m telling you, folks, was no big shakes. It is not going to have any impact on the midterms. It’s what’s in our hearts and what we want to do to save this country is what it’s all about. Thousands of his followers—let me say it again so they don’t have to edit the tape: They were old, white, angry Americans who can’t stand the fact that there’s a black guy in the White House.

Let us count the ways that this is a really dumb and obnoxious thing to say:

First, Schultz uses the words "old" and "white" as derogatory adjectives. Fellow liberals, this is a very silly way of trying to go after your opposition. In the first place, we liberals generally defend things like Social Security and Medicare, which are both designed to help old people, most of which are old white people. What's the point of expressing contempt for the people you're trying to help? Also, old white people vote in very large numbers. Do you really want to hand the vote of old white people to the GOP by calling them racists? And yes I know Schultz doesn't think every old white person is a racist. But why, then, use the terms "old" and "white" like they're slurs?

Second, Schultz attacks people who are less powerful than he is. This is a major no-no for any major pundit or political figure. It allows demagogic jackasses like Beck and Palin to go on air and say, 'See? Ed Schultz thinks that if you're old and white you must hate black people!' Make no mistake, Republicans positively love it when a progressive lashes out at old, white people. They also love it when we call other people "rednecks," "trailer trash," and other terms intended to disparage blue-collar white people. Again, these are the people we're supposed to be helping out. They are unlikely to ever support us if we think they're all inbred hicks.

Now, I've made my share of yokel jokes about Confederate Yankee in the past so I'm just as guilty of this as anyone. But I've come to the conclusion that it's just not cool to use derogatory terms that are intended as insults to working-class people, no matter their race.

Now before you accuse me of being a Jamelle Bouie-style softy, let me say that I believe wholeheartedly in going after your opposition and whacking them as hard as you can. But it's something that has to be done by going after the elites within the Tea Party movement rather than individual protesters.

World O' Crap: Happy Birthday AnnPW!

scott — 2010-09-03T16:43:17+00:00

It’s the High Birthday Season here at Wo’C, so we’ve got to grab all the gusto, and cram in all the Coulter we can! (Fig.1: Skeletor prepares for a night of festive line dancing at one of Snake Mountain’s many fine, Country & Western-themed bars and discotheques.)

Today our September-born luminary is longtime fellow Crapper AnnPW, proprietrix of the delightful blog, Beginning to Wonder. Visit it, and Prepare to Ponder!

This Date in History:

1260 – The Mamluks defeat the Mongols at Palestine, thanks to their mukluks.

1777 – American Revolutionary War: during the Battle of Cooch’s Bridge, the Flag of the United States is flown in battle for the first time. Washington Irving later immortalized the battle in a short story published in the Massachusetts Federalist, entitled, A Bridge Called Vagina.

1783 – American Revolutionary War: the war ends with the signing of the Treaty of Paris by the United States and the Kingdom of Great Britain. Benjamin Franklin quietly commemorates the occasion by catching syphilis.

1803 – English scientist John Dalton begins using symbols to represent the atoms of different elements, and to confuse his enemies when making out his grocery lists.

1967 – Dagen H in Sweden: traffic changes from driving on the left to driving on the right overnight. The Archbishop of Uppsala, Primate of the Church of Sweden declares, “We’re Lutherans — this is about as big as our miracles get.”

Now let’s check out non-evil Ann’s horoscope and see what the cosmos has in store for her this year!

Luckily for you, the closest aspect in your Solar Return chart is a harmonious trine between Venus and Pluto.

It’s good they get along, because it’s hard for an armless woman to discipline a dog; she usually has to get down on her knees, a rolled up newspaper gripped in her teeth, and swipe at the dog with her whole head.

This could be a year when you fall in love, and this could be with a person

Mannequins are less likely to cheat or borrow money, but hey, to each his own.

Both the Sun and Mercury oppose Uranus.

They’re just jealous.

Your creativity is stimulated this year, but so is your excitability and your need for freedom!

But please don’t join a Glenn Beck rally. Uranus will thank you.

As well, the Sun and Mercury form a pleasing sextile to Jupiter.

I believe this means you’ll be immortalized in a naughty mosaic.

Mars in square to Pluto around the time of your birthday this year suggests that you possess powerful, transformative energy, and much will depend on how you handle it. Channeled positively, you could move mountains when it comes to moving your projects ahead. If mishandled, however, you could be argumentative, stressed, and hell-bent on having your way!

Although if you combine the two, and transform into a woman hell-bent on having her own way who just happens to be so powerful she can move a mountain, then you could become a world-conquering supervillain! We suggest you practice saying, “You will kneel before me, Son of Jor-El” into the mirror 30 minutes each day, just in case Mars and Pluto aren’t completely bullshitting you.

Saturn asks you to be responsible, hard working, dutiful, and serious. Neptune, on the other hand, places a veil over your eyes, and seduces you into believing what you want to believe rather than what really is.

Personally, I’d go with Neptune, but agree on a safe word first.

And that’s it from the stars this year. And from all of us, have a great day, Ann!

Crooks and Liars: Hardball: Maybe David Broder Can Break It To Palin That She's Not Qualified?

bluegal — 2010-09-03T16:00:08+00:00

Click here to view this media

h/t Heather for the video

I thought I'd heard it all from Chris Matthews. Hardball scores a coup, in my opinion, landing Michael Joseph Gross, the author of the article of the week, the slamming expose of Sarah Palin in Vanity Fair.

But Gross turns the conversation to a topic Matthews clearly doesn't want to discuss: Why are so many television shows giving attention to a person who has proven to be intellectually lazy, dishonest, and hypocritical? Because that question is first and foremost about Chris Matthews. No other pundit has set aside so completely Sarah Palin's complete lack of qualifications to hold public office. Chris Matthews wants Sarah Palin to win the GOP nomination, I assume because in addition to the tingle up his leg, it also improves ratings for his show.

So Matthews cuts Gross off and gives the floor to...Norah O'Donnell? Who wants to talk about how Palin "can be this celestial guide post in a time when most Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction"?

Matthews concludes the segment by letting loose this odor of madness. No, I am not making this up:

MATTHEWS: Maybe we need David Broder to come back and really be strong, we need some gatekeepers again in this business.

And that, my friends, is when I fell off my chair. Maybe we need some gatekeepers? And you, Chris Matthews, are giving the job which FALLS TO YOU to David Broder?

I can't imagine Matthews hasn't read Broder's senility-confirming Paean to Palin from last February, given he harps on the same "common sense solutions" celebrated in that OpEd.

Mr. Matthews, I know you have nothing but disdain for bloggers. So let me address you as a fellow citizen of this country we both love: the closer Sarah Palin gets to the GOP nomination for President, the more damage she does not only to the nation, but specifically to the Republican Party. We on the Left cheer that on, but our partisanship comes at a cost to the nation of a balanced government with actual real debate on issues, a debate that leaves our country stronger. The GOP has been completely tossed to the fear-mongering White Trash and its charismatic hillbilly queen, a brain-lazy grifter who has NO answers to the problems that face this country. She doesn't even think about them. And when you, Chris Matthews, sacrifice your responsibility as a journalist to the cheering on of a Palin candidacy for the sake of ratings, you are a traitor to our country and the political process you claim to appreciate.

Transcript via Roll Call below the fold:

MATTHEWS: At what point does that become not use -- not even -- well, even ludicrous when you`re asked a question about how are you going to deal with the Middle East peace problems, how are you going to deal with nuclear technology around the world, what`s a common sense solution when there are no common sense solution? It takes a lot of ingenuity to figure out what to do with these problems. When will the voters say, enough of this common sense line of yours, what`s the answer?

GROSS: Well, I feel like we should have reached that point a long time ago. The question has as much to do with when those of us who are sitting in these chairs and looking in these cameras are going to stop giving her the attention that feeds this fire. She`s proven that she is a person for whom there is no matter to small to lie about.

MATTHEWS: OK.

GROSS: There is no distinction between fact and fiction in what she talks.

MATTHEWS: We`ll see how your piece runs.
Norah, your thoughts. You`ve been through the piece, you`ve covered her. How do you react to the piece you read by Michael in the "Vanity Fair" edition coming out?

O`DONNELL: Well, I think it`s fascinating and it captures really what is the sort of complex person that Sarah Palin is. And that Palin brand is exactly what makes her so marketable -- why she can sell 2 million books and why people come out in droves to see her.
I also think what`s fascinating is her use of the North Star.

MATTHEWS: Yes. I know that.

O`DONNELL: I mean, that is a great narrative -- good presidential campaigns need a narrative. She can be this celestial guide post in a time when most Americans --

MATTHEWS: OK.

O`DONNELL: -- think the country is headed in the wrong direction. And that can be a powerful narrative. But she`s got to work on the substance.

MATTHEWS: Maybe we need David Broder to come back and really be strong, we need some gatekeepers again in this business.

Open Left: Sharron Angle's theocratic past sheds more light on Matt's delusion

Paul Rosenberg — 2010-09-03T16:00:00+00:00

A further counter-attack on the fact-free neoliberal trashing of American Taliban

Yesterday, in "Matt Yglesias is delusional", I argued that this:

I don't see any evidence that the particular apocalyptic "my enemies are totalitarian madmen" strain of Birch/Beck/Goldberg conservatism has helped anyone win any elections.

was nuts. That, in fact:

movement conservatives would be nowhere without this sort of rhetoric. It's not always their dominant form of rhetoric--particularly in its crudest, most blatant form, but it's always somewhere in the mix.

In particular, I argued that the demonization of liberalism is a key aspect of actually existing conservatism, historically rooted in the projection of the reactionary French aristocracy's deeply anti-democratic mania for total control onto a non-existent "shadow elite" that it blamed for the French Revolution. Toward the end of the diary, I brought up another thread:

The influence of R. J. Rushdoony and Christian Reconstructionism on the conservative movement seems to be something that Matt is utterly ignorant of....

I now want to expand on that, particularly as far as Sharron Angle is concerned. But first a word about the larger context in which this discussion occurs--the historical roots of movement conservatism on the one hand, and on the hand, the neoliberal false equivalence that's being drawn between American Taliban and Liberal Fascism.

The irrational reactionary desire to turn back the clock to a non-existent golden age has always played a role in movement conservatism. And this impulse has always been deeply anti-democratic, as well as anti-empirical. It is based on a fantasy of divinely-ordained superiority that really does have a good deal in common with the Taliban. Of course there are significant differences as well. The Taliban are Muslim, after all. But as Karen Armstrong argued in The Battle For God, there are important similarities as well as differences in fundamentalism across all three Abrahamic religions, and their hostility to modernity and secularism certainly counts as one of their chief similarities, how paradoxical it may be that their expression is far more indebted to modernism than they can possibly realize.
One may criticize the manner in which Markos develops his argument in American Taliban--which I have not seen--but the fundamental argument that such similarities exist is rock solid, quite the opposite of the book to which it has been compared, Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism, whose utterly fraudulent mish-mash of egregious multi-level errors and deceptions have been admirably analyzed by a number of scholars whose work has been pulled together by author/blogger David Neiwert, whose decades of work tracking the radical right and it influence on mainstream conservatism appears to be totally unknown to the neoliberals attacking Ameican Taliban.

With all that in mind, let's now turn to the issue of Sharron Angle, and her relationship to Christian Reconstructionism, which serves to bring the broad-based themes above down to earth. On June 17, Bruce Wilson published a diary at Talk2Action, "How Long Will Media Ignore Sharron Angle's Theocratic Past?", which began thus:

"Americans established a Constitutional Republic, a government of law, under God, rooted in Biblical law" - That's from the plank of the Independent American Party of Nevada (IAPN) which, according to Talking Points Memo's Justin Elliot, Sharron Angle was an active member of for much of the 1990's and even played a key role in helping re-launch in 1992. According to the Wall Street Journal Angle belonged to the IAPN from 1992 to 1997.
Currently running on the Republican ticket against Democratic Nevada Senate Majority Leader in the 2010 election, Sharron Angle has stated that she would like to see both alcohol and marijuana be made illegal and has endorsed banning pornography. It's not very "libertarian," and ample evidence ties Angle to a totalitarian theocratic American political movement whose ideological mentor wanted to impose stoning as a form of execution for a wide range of sex crimes, believed all non-believers should be killed, and referred to Jesus an "executioner."
....
Though the TPM story doesn't bring it up, The IAPN then was, and still is, an official affiliate of the overtly theocratic U.S. Taxpayers Party, now renamed the Constitution Party. In that light the anti-gay animus of Sharron Angle and the IAPN is especially notable, because the U.S. Taxpayers Party/Constitution Party are closely tied to the late theologian R.J. Rushdoony - who wanted to impose stoning as an execution method for active homosexuals, adulterers, women who have sex before marriage, blasphemers, and people who strike or curse at their parents.
What's Christian Reconstructionism? Well it's a theocratic intellectual and political movement founded by the late Armenian theologian R.J. Rushdoony, and it burst onto the American political scene in 1992 with the founding of the U.S. Taxpayers Party, later renamed the Constitution Party. Founder of the two parties Howard Phillips was a member of Rushdoony's inner circle and called the theologian "my wise counseler" according to journalist Frederick Clarkson, a noted authority on Christian Reconstructionism.

Hmmmm. What's that about "stoning as an execution method for active homosexuals, adulterers, women who have sex before marriage, blasphemers, and people who strike or curse at their parents"? Sounds pretty damn Taliban-like to me!

At the link to Christian Reconstructionism above, Clarkson, a long-time scholar of the religious right and co-founder of Talk2Action (whose diaries have been front-paged here at OL on occasion), writes:

The Christian Right has shown impressive resilience and has rebounded dramatically after a series of embarrassing televangelist scandals of the late 1980s, the collapse of Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority, and the failed presidential bid of Pat Robertson. In the 1990s, Christian Right organizing went to the grassroots and exerted wide influence in American politics across the country.
There is no doubt that Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition gets much of the credit for this successful strategic shift to the local level. But another largely overlooked reason for the persistent success of the Christian Right is a theological shift since the 1960s. The catalyst for the shift is Christian Reconstructionism--arguably the driving ideology of the Christian Right in the 1990s.
The significance of the Reconstructionist movement is not its numbers, but the power of its ideas and their surprisingly rapid acceptance. Many on the Christian Right are unaware that they hold Reconstructionist ideas. Because as a theology it is controversial, even among evangelicals, many who are consciously influenced by it avoid the label. This furtiveness is not, however, as significant as the potency of the ideology itself. Generally, Reconstructionism seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that would govern by imposing their interpretation of "Biblical Law."
Reconstructionism would eliminate not only democracy but many of its manifestations, such as labor unions, civil rights laws, and public schools. Women would be generally relegated to hearth and home. Insufficiently Christian men would be denied citizenship, perhaps executed. So severe is this theocracy that it would extend capital punishment beyond such crimes as kidnapping, rape, and murder to include, among other things, blasphemy, heresy, adultery, and homosexuality.

Compare this knowledgeable account with Bouie's smug, but ignorant review of American Taliban:

Like Liberal Fascism, American Taliban is another entry in the tired genre of "my political opponents are monsters." Indeed, Moulitsas begins the book with the Goldbergian declaration that "in their tactics and on the issues, our homegrown American Taliban are almost indistinguishable from the Afghan Taliban." And he fills the remaining 200-plus pages with similar accusations. In the chapter on power, Moulitsas writes that "the American Taliban seek a tyranny of the believers in which the popular will, the laws of the land, and all of secular society are surrendered to their clerics and ideologues." Which is, of course, why these American Taliban participate in the democratic system and hew to the outcomes of elections. Later in the chapter, Moulitsas argues that the right-wing hates democracy -- they "openly dream of their own regressive brand of religious dictatorship" -- loves war, fears sex, and openly despises women and gays....
But, this gets to the huge, glaring problem with American Taliban; ultimately, any similarities are vastly outweighed by incredibly important distinctions and vast differences of degree. I'm no fan of the right wing, but the only possible way it can be "indistinguishable" from the Taliban is if conservatives are stoning women for adultery, stalking elementary schools to throw acid in girls' faces, and generally enforcing fundamentalist religious law with torture and wanton violence.

So, by Bouie's logic, until conservatives take power and are thereby able to start "stoning women for adultery, stalking elementary schools to throw acid in girls' faces, and generally enforcing fundamentalist religious law with torture and wanton violence", we have nothing to worry about and Kos is a dangerous alarmist on a par with Jonah Golderg.

Just one question: Who let this piss-ignorant Chris Matthews wannabe take up valuable space at the American Prospect?

Meanwhile, back in reality, here's more from Bruce Wilson's June 17 piece on Angle:

As the Nevada-based Deseret News reported in a April 19, 1992 story on the IAPN re-launch, " The party's central committee will meet at a future date to formally outline a platform. The Independent Americans seek to make "God's laws" the laws of the state." The story quoted IAPN founder Joy Beech, "We are going to be an organization that is not ashamed of Christ, of his commandments or to stand up for them." ?
In 1994, according to the TPM story, Angle's IAPN spread a crackpot anti-gay conspiracy theory by running a newspaper ad titled "Consequences of Sodomy: Ruin of a Nation" which claimed HIV could be spread through water supplies. As I coveredyesterday, during the last decade Sharron Angle chaired the Nevada We The People PAC that alleged the existence of a vast gay conspiracy trying destroy American society. As Angle's official biography states,"She is proud of her past chairwomanship of We the People Nevada PAC."
As Janine Hansen, executive director of the Independent American Party of Nevada told Talking Points Memo, Angle left the party in the late 1990's "because she wanted to run for office. And it was difficult for members of our party to get elected at that time."

Thus, Angle adopted the same strategy that almost brought KKK Grand Wizard David Duke into the US Senate, but her past has remained much more obscure than Duke's.

In the previous post Wilson refers to, he also referenced a post by Julie Ingersoll, "DeMint Uses Christian Reconstructionist Mailing List To Raise Money For Angle ", a further indication that organized Christian Reconstructionism plays a significant role in Angle's political ascent, and that it already has influence in the Senate.

Ingersoll's own brief description of the Consitution Party is worth citing:

The Constitution Party opposes abortion in all instances (including some forms of contraception). It calls for the repeal of all federal gun laws. It supports state's rights and localism including the elimination of any activities on the part of the federal government not explicitly delineated in the Constitution. It advocates reform of Congress including the elimination of pensions, return to the election of senators by state legislators, and repeal of the electoral college.
It supports repeal of the Voting Rights Act, Social Security, and the Patriot Act. It calls for the elimination of any control or support by government over education (as that is the God-given responsibility of families), for the right of "state and local governments to proscribe offensive sexual behavior," and to limit marriage to heterosexual couples. It advocates a hard money currency, repeal of the Federal Reserve and elimination of fractional reserve banking.

Ingersoll has also written about another Tea Party favorite's roots in Christian Reconstructionism, "Rand Paul and the Influence of Christian Reconstructionism":

In April 2009, Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul spoke to the Campaign for Liberty rally to end the Federal Reserve, in front of the Federal Reserve building in Minnesota.
Paul cited libertarian icon Ayn Rand. But he drew on Christian Reconstructionist Gary North. He argued against centralized banking, explicitly not on the grounds that conservatives traditionally have (conspiratorially) but, instead, on the very grounds that North lays out in his book, Honest Money: Biblical Principles for Money and Banking.
In that book, North explains his view that the cause of the international debt crisis of the 1980s was the Federal Reserve System. The solution, he maintained, rested in eliminating that institution and moving to a hard money standard. It sounds familiar to Paul-ites, but for North it is all based in the biblical command to have "just weights and measures." Paul, in very similar language, attributed our current debt and economic crises to the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banking.
In the video of his Federal Reserve speech, a supporter behind Paul is holding a sign advocating a gold/silver money standard, with the title of North's book.
North, the son-in-law of the late Christian Reconstructionist founder R.J. Rushdoony, worked on Rand's father Ron Paul's congressional staff decades ago, and remains a supporter of the former presidential candidate, whom he is encouraging to promote a home school curriculum.
The Pauls and North have connections to the Constitution Party, founded by Christian Reconstructionist Howard Phillips, also founder of the 1980s Christian right group the Conservative Caucus. Ron Paul has spoken at Constitution Party events and Phillips has spoken for Ron Paul in favor of his candidacy for president. Rand Paul went on to serve as the keynote speaker at a Minnesota Constitution Party event.

In short, these are not casual, isolated or innocuous connections. They are low profile--for obvious reasons. They are extreme minority views that fly in the face of reality. Exposing them to sunlight is one of the best ways of fighting them. As I said before, I haven't seen American Taliban, and don't know how good a job it does. But the idea that there's nothing worth seeing here is clearly ludicrous, and the neo-liberal voices out to perform a hatchet job are only demonstrating once again how much they function--wittingly or unwittingly--as clueless stooges of the radical religious right.

Crooks and Liars: Rich Trumka Warns Sarah Palin: Tone Down The Rhetoric

Susie Madrak — 2010-09-03T15:00:00+00:00

I love Rich Trumka, because he never minces words. And it's great to see him go after the incendiary rhetoric of Sarah Palin because, unlike most of our Democratic leaders, he has a spine and won't back down:

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka charged Thursday that if Republican political star Sarah Palin is not more careful in her choice of words, the political movement she has helped to create will be linked with McCarthyism, the 1950s-era crusade by Sen. Joseph McCarthy to brand political enemies as communists.

Mr. Trumka’s comments about his strained relations with Ms. Palin came at a Monitor-sponsored breakfast for reporters, where he was asked how his previous critical words about the 2008 GOP vice-presidential nominee squared with his call for union members to save their anger for “corporate lapdogs” and Senate Republicans.

The comments were “totally consistent,” Trumka said. “She has taken on a position of leadership, and whether it is rightfully given to her or not, she is there. And so she can’t use loose language that foments … changing that anger to hatred or that action to violence.” He continued, “If she doesn’t change her ways, then Palinism will be equated with other forms of McCarthyism that fomented division among the populace and acts of hatred among the populace.”

The union leader’s comments Thursday are a sequel to a battle of words between the two figures last week. In a speech in Anchorage, Alaska. on Aug. 26, Trumka said Palin will “go down in history like McCarthy.” He criticized her for what he sees as incendiary rhetoric, including her use of the phrase “don’t retreat ... reload” and a reference she made to “union thugs.”

Palin, Alaska's former governor, responded to Trumka’s comments last week on her Facebook page. She noted that her husband is a proud former union member. Addressing his criticism of her language, Palin said, “It’s kind of ironic that a union boss has the gall to accuse anyone of threatening violence. After all, we remember the violent attempts by [the Service Employees International Union] to intimidate those who wanted to make their voices heard in last year’s town halls. And unlike Trumka, I never threatened that any effort to break a picket line would lead to violence.”

Palin added, “I never called union members 'thugs.' You lie. I called some union leaders 'thugs.' And I refuse to apologize for that because they have acted like thugs – at least in this day and age.”

Mr. Trumka began his Palin-related comments Thursday morning with a response to Palin calling him “a career union boss who’s spent most of his life in DC.” He quipped, “I spent more time in the mine than she did as governor…. I served a whole term there, as a matter of fact.” He later said he spent seven years working in coal mines before climbing the ladder to become president of the United Mine Workers of America. Palin resigned as governor of Alaska with 18 months remaining in her four-year term.

Trumka said his concern was “that there is a danger that the anger and the frustration that people are feeling will get turned into rage, hatred, and ultimately violence.”

The Progressive: This Just In: talent network news presents The Weekender

Frank Murgia — 2010-09-03T14:54:15+00:00

September 2, 2010 Posted By - Lauren Anne --- talent network Events Thursday, September 2, 2010 Trudy Holler DuoRivers Casino - Levels Lounge6:00pm - 10:00pm Friday, September 3, 2010SalsambaRivers Casino - Levels Lounge8:00pm - 12:00am MercedezRivers Casino - Wheelhouse9:30pm - 1:30am Saturday, September 4, 2010 SalsambaRivers Casino - Levels Lounge9:00pm - 1:00am Monday, September 6,

Open Left: Eric Schneiderman & the Progressive Movement's Carpe Diem Opportunity on September 14th

David Sirota — 2010-09-03T14:30:00+00:00

Ferdinand Pecora, Banking Committee Counsel. Robert Moses, New York City Parks Commissioner. Sargent Shriver, Office of Economic Opportunity. Elizabeth Warren, Congressional Oversight Panel.

These are but a few names that should remind us of the potential transformative power that some of the more obscure government positions can hold. While our media trains us to obsesses over White House intrigue, public power - ie. power to shape society, culture, public opinion and policy - is quite often wielded far away from Pennsylvania Avenue's palace dramas. So when the progressive movement is given the rare opportunity to put one of our own into one of these obscure-but-powerful positions, it is critical to carpe diem.

I write this because on September 14th, one of those opportunities has emerged in the form of Eric Schneiderman. A New York state senator with a stellar track record of movement organizing and progressive legislative achievement, he is suddenly on the verge of winning the Democratic nomination to become his state's Attorney General - ie. one of the most economic and social justice policy positions in the entire country.

Among Schneiderman's claims to fame as a legislator are his seemingly impossible but wildly successful efforts to A) finally reform New York's abominably draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws and B) pass Ian's Law - model state legislation that outlaws the most rapacious health insurance industry practices.

But while these achievements unto themselves are eminently laudable, to boil Schneiderman's career down to that of a mere legislator is to miss the larger story of the opportunity his candidacy presents.
This is a guy who has made his way in movement politics, serving as a top legal advisor to the Clean Money, Clean Elections campaign for public financing elections, and as the lead attorney for New York's Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) to preserve and expand public transportation. He is also a guy who has used his platform to push the Left to embrace the ideals and tactics of a true social movement. To really understand what that means - and why it exhibits real courage coming from a Democratic legislator - read Schneiderman's 2008 article in The Nation about how too much of the Left rejects what he calls "transformational politics" in favor of transactional incrementalism. Needless to say, it takes a lot of guts to be a sitting officeholder and write what he wrote.

I met Schneiderman in 2007, during my year-long reporting for my book, The Uprising. I was instantly impressed - and I say that as someone who is, ahem, not often enthralled by politicians. I was impressed not because of the usual cliched skills political reporters fawn over (ie. charisma, well-spokenness, charm, etc.) - I was taken by the rare existence of a person who has managed to be both a successful elected official and a hard-nosed, fearless movement leader willing to speak truth to establishment power.

Indeed, this comes out right away in the chapter about grassroots progressive organizing in the rough-and-tumble world of New York politics. Here's the key excerpt:

When I interviewed New York state senator Eric Schneiderman about the Working Families Party, he lamented that Democrats "basically killed off the ideological wing of our party" in order to win elections.
"Yet the Republican Party was the party where the ideological wing of the party grew, blossomed, and took control, and they've been kicking our ass ever since," he said. "Democrats still say, 'You don't want to vote against tax cuts, you don't want to be accused of being ideological.' Bullshit! Look who's been beating us! People with insane ideas. But they believe in them."

Where a typical tack-to-the-right Democrat might have sought to obscure this kind of honesty and courage in his/her first run for statewide office, Schneiderman has "proudly" doubled down, as the New York Times recently reported:

In a Democratic Primary, Trying to Stand Out as a Liberal
Bracing for what is expected to be a strong anti-Albany surge this fall, many Democratic candidates in New York have adopted the mantra of the middle, talking up pocketbook issues like jobs and taxes and focusing intently on moderate voters.
Then there is Eric T. Schneiderman, a state senator from the Upper West Side of Manhattan who is running for attorney general. Seeking to distinguish himself in a crowded field with slightly more than two weeks to go before the Democratic primary, Mr. Schneiderman is running a proudly liberal campaign that appears aimed at charging the race with a more ideological flavor.
He has emphasized his backing from public employees' unions, even as some other leading Democrats shun them. His advertisements sell his support for gun control and for reduced sentences for nonviolent drug offenders.

For all of this, Schneiderman recently won the Times' much-coveted endorsement, with the paper's editorial board saying that "Schneiderman has courage, a strong voice and a deep commitment to ethical government" and has "demonstrated beyond a doubt his commitment to cleaner and more transparent government."

Now, let me guess - you are thinking that, well, sure, the New York Attorney General position may be one of the most powerful policy positions in all of American government, but it's a Democratic primary, so anyone who wins would be a fine choice for the position.

Think again.

Schneiderman's chief rival for the nomination is Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice - an anti-progressive avatar of conservadem-ism if there ever was one. Until 2005, she was a registered Republican, and before becoming DA, she was an assistant U.S. Attorney under GOP Attorney General John Ashcroft. As DA, the New York Times reports that Rice used her position to "express concerns about one of (the) most significant provisions" of Schneiderman's reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws: the provisions "giving judges the authority to send many of those charged with drug crimes to treatment programs instead of prison." At the time, Republican state senators specifically cited her opposition as a public reason to oppose the reform effort.

Again, though, this is not a mere run-of-the-mill choice between a solid liberal and an abominable conservadem (though it is that too). Schneiderman is much more than a solid liberal. He's a movement progressive - someone who actually understands what that term means and why it's so important for progressives to champion our movement in office.

To have the chance to put one of those movement progressives in a position as powerful as the New York Attorney General office (ie. the office that regulates Wall Street) is too rare to pass up. Let's not miss the chance while it's in front of us.

Crooks and Liars: DOJ to Arpaio: Show Me Your Papers

Jackie Mahendra — 2010-09-03T14:00:55+00:00

The U.S. Department of Justice is now being forced to sue Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio to compel him to turn over documents needed for the federal government’s civil rights investigation.

Turns out Arizona's "show me your papers" poster boy doesn't like having to produce his. Arpaio has denied investigators access to key documents for over a year and a half.

In light of the news, here's a little background reading on Sheriff Joe.

Arpaio's Record: Higher Crime, Wasted Money, Squandered Trust

America’s Voice Education Fund’s latest report on Sheriff Joe’s record reveals that his high-profile tactics have actually led to higher crime rates, nearly 3,000 lawsuits, millions of wasted taxpayer dollars, and a degradation of the community policing strategies that law enforcement agencies have developed to keep us safe.

What's more, violent crime is down across the state of Arizona --except in Sheriff Arpaio's Maricopa County. From 2002 to 2009, while the violent crime rate across the state as a whole plummeted by 12 percent, Arpaio's jurisdiction suffered a 58 percent surge in violent crime. The numbers speak for themselves:

enlarge

As a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigation by the East Valley Tribune found:

Response times, arrest rates, investigations and other routine police work throughout Maricopa County have suffered over the past two years as Sheriff Joe Arpaio turned his already short-handed and cash-strapped department into an immigration enforcement agency.

The full America’s Voice Education Fund report detais Arpaio's long, disturbing and ineffective record, including some 21 examples of Arpaio’s disturbing record, such as:

Violent crime rates are up in Arpaio’s jurisdiction while they have fallen throughout the rest of Arizona.
Arpaio has failed to serve over 40,000 felony warrants. Arpaio is suspected of misspending $50 million in taxpayer funds and has refused to turn over records for an investigation.
Over 2,700 lawsuits have been filed against Arpaio and he’s been investigated by the FBI and the U.S. Departments of Justice and Labor.
Evidence suggests Arpaio forced an undocumented mother to give birth while handcuffed to a bed.

Failure to Comply

Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been operating above the law for far too long. He's been investigated for using his badge to bully political opponents.

Arpaio sparked national protests last month and even used taxpayer money to pay for a reality TV show. Heck, he even posed for glamor shots with Neo-Nazis. Given his love of the media spotlight, there's no doubt he’ll use this latest development to try to play the victim.

It's unfortunate that the Justice Department has to take this step and force Arpaio to comply with a federal civil rights investigation, but we commend the Department for doing so. If Sheriff Arpaio truly has nothing to hide, he should have no problem turning over the documents in question.

Crooks and Liars: Olbermann: America Doesn't Miss George Bush

Heather — 2010-09-03T13:00:26+00:00

Click here to view this media

Keith Olbermann takes apart Mark McKinnon's bit of revisionist history in his recent column at The Daily Beast praising George W. Bush. And no Mark... we don't miss him.

Here's part of McKinnon's claptrap Keith dismantled tonight.

The perspective of time is already softening the once harsh edges of judgment on the legacy of President George W. Bush. Torn by worry, folks long for his steadying hand. They miss his warmth and empathy. Slings and arrows, still fired his way, now ricochet back.

A recent survey shows Bush is now six points more popular than Obama in the 40 districts deemed most vulnerable to Republican takeover. A poll of Louisianans shows a majority, 54 percent, now think Bush’s leadership on the Hurricane Katrina disaster was better than Obama’s handling of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill; only 33 percent disagree. And while Obama’s approval rating has fallen 20 points since March 2009, Bush’s has climbed 10 points, according to Gallup.

Even some of the loudest voices on the left in recent weeks have written warmly about Bush’s moral authority. The toughest of Bush’s critics, including Maureen Dowd, Eugene Robinson, Joe Klein, and my fellow Daily Beast columnist Peter Beinart, acknowledge an occasional pining for 43.

But the people spoke first. From Minnesota to Florida and Texas, billboards have sprung up on roadsides rhetorically asking, “Miss me yet?” With the question emblazoned on T-shirts and bumper stickers, sales are brisk, even in Martha’s Vineyard, where the Obama family recently vacationed.

Heartwarming photos of George and Laura Bush greeting returning troops at the Dallas-Ft. Worth airport have spread like wildfire online. These quiet moments of humanity continue the tradition of his eight years as president, honoring families of the fallen and wounded warriors without fanfare, but with an embrace and recognition of the sacrifices made.

Open Left: Is the Obama Administration Guilty of a War Crime?

Daphne Eviatar Human Rights 1st — 2010-09-03T13:00:00+00:00

On Saturday, the New York Times reported that administration officials are "alarmed" by the military commission case of Omar Khadr, the Canadian citizen seized as a 15-year-old by U.S. forces in Afghanistan who's now spent a third of his life in the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay. Trying an alleged child soldier based largely on confessions he made after being threatened with gang-rape and murder is not the case the Obama administration had hoped to showcase in its first military commission trial.

But the argument in a new paper published today by Loyola Law School professor David Glazier should give the administration even more cause for alarm. Glazier, an expert on international law and the laws of armed conflict, argues that the military commission trial of Omar Khadr is itself a war crime.

That's because Khadr is charged with crimes that were only defined as war crimes by the Military Commissions Act, first enacted in 2006. Khadr is charged with conspiracy and material support for terrorism for helping his father's friends make and plant improvised explosive devices, and for "murder in violation of the laws of war" for throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier during a firefight started by U.S. forces. All of these acts allegedly occurred in the summer of 2002. Back then, making bombs, planting anti-tank mines and killing the other side's soldiers who were trying to kill you first didn't violate any rules of war. Because Khadr was not a "privileged" belligerent entitled to the protections of international law, he could be prosecuted in a criminal court in the United States or Afghanistan. He is not, however, a war criminal.

Congress and the defense department have tried to get around this fact. In 2006 and again in 2009, Congress unilaterally re-wrote international law by defining conspiracy and material support for terrorism -- which encompasses pretty much anything an enemy force or its supporters might do -- as war crimes. In commentary to the rules, the Department of Defense further defined "murder in violation of the laws of war" to include murder of a U.S. soldier by an "unprivileged belligerent" such as Khadr. But simply stating it doesn't make it true.

Putting a suspect on trial for crimes that did not exist when the acts were committed is a violation of the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on ex post facto laws. It also violates several international treaties, including article 75 of the Additional Geneva Protocol I of 1977, which says that "no one shall be accused or convicted of a criminal offense on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offense under the national or international law to which he was subject at the time when it was committed..." The U.S. has acknowledged that this accurately states customary international law. Putting Omar Khadr on trial in a military commission for the acts of which he's accused, then, according to Professor Glazier, is itself a violation of the laws of war and a "grave breach" of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions. Such crimes can be prosecuted by other countries under the principle of universal jurisdiction. In the United States they're also federal felonies under the War Crimes Act of 1996.

Setting aside the likelihood of any other countries prosecuting the U.S. for war crimes in this situation, it's odd indeed that the Obama administration would choose to pursue this case -- indeed, would make this its first war crimes trial -- in the Guantanamo Bay military commissions.

There's another reason the U.S. might not want to call attention to the circumstances of this case. In August, the government presented as a witness a member of U.S. Special Forces who described entering the compound where Khadr was found and ultimately seized in July 2002. The witness, identified as Sergeant Major D, was armed with an N-4 Rifle and a Glock-9mm pistol. The compound had just been shot up by U.S. Apache helicopters and bombarded by two 500-pound bombs. After sensing a grenade and small arms fire coming from an alleyway, he testified, Major D ran to the alley and shot dead a man he saw with an AK-47 and a grenade. Omar Khadr, meanwhile, was seated on the ground in a dusty light-blue tunic, his back to Major D. Khadr was not armed, he wasn't holding or aiming any sort of weapon, nor was he threatening any U.S. servicemember in any way. Yet Sergeant Major D testified that he immediately shot him twice in the back. He then walked over and "thumped him in the eye" to see if he was still alive. He was.

Targeting a civilian not actively participating in hostilities is normally a war crime. Sergeant Major D testified that he shot Khadr because he viewed him as a "hostile" based on his being in the compound, which was permitted by the military's rules of engagement.

The laws of war should doom the military commission prosecution of Omar Khadr. And ultimately, for the U.S. government, that's not a bad thing. After all, if its interpretation of the laws of war were accurate, then the armed civilian CIA agent that accompanied Special Forces on their July 2002 raid could be equally guilty of murder in violation of the laws of war if he killed any of the al Qaeda members who died that day. So could CIA operatives operating remote-controlled drones targeting al Qaeda and Taliban leaders around the world.

Charlie Savage reported in the Times that the Obama administration doesn't want to put a stop to the case, such as by pushing a plea bargain, because it would be seen as "improper interference." But if the case is itself "improper" or even illegal, then the choice is to stop it now or see a conviction reversed later by a court on appeal. The latter choice might save the administration some immediate embarrassment before the midterm elections; but it will leave Omar Khadr cooped up even longer in a military prison on fictitious crimes. And it will leave a far more embarrassing legacy for the United States to contend with in the long run.

This blog originally appeared at Human Rights First.

Crooks and Liars: Mike's Blog Roundup

Mike Finnigan — 2010-09-03T12:00:00+00:00

The Agonist: Slow Boil

Norwegianity: The few, the crazed, the unvetted

Seeing the Forest: How companies Turn People Against Unions

Hillbilly Report: Member names of Obama's Deficit Commission

Center for Media and Democracy: Will perpetrators of financial crimes ever face justice?

ANNALS OF JOURNALISM: Just like old Times?...Right turn @The Hill...Serious Newspaper?...USA Today still rewriting Iraq...NYT and anonymous sourcing...Media turn to discredited Bush officials on Iraq...Meet the Facts...Fox News OK's Ad from Media Matters...Murdoch's paywall going bust...BP has bought newspaper ads in 126 markets since spill...

The Fix: RGA drops $2 million on ads in Florida

2010-09-03T11:00:00+00:00

1. The Republican Governors Association will transfer $2 million to the Florida Republican party, cash that will immediately be used to fund an ad attacking Democratic nominee Alex Sink, according to a source briefed on the plan. The RGA's latest expenditure in the Sunshine State comes just weeks after the organization spent $2 million on television ads hitting Sink, the state's chief financial officer, even as its own candidates -- former health care CEO Rick Scott and state Attorney General Bill McCollum -- were bashing one another in the runup to the Aug. 24 primary. The RGA's doubling down -- literally -- on its investment in Florida is designed to send a message that the party will spend what it takes to win the state despite the fact that Scott, who dropped $50 million of his own money on the primary, has considerable personal wealth. A source close to the

Bill McCollum - Alex Sink - Florida - Rick Scott - Republican

Donklephant: Boxer vs. Fiorina

mw — 2010-09-03T07:01:25+00:00

Jan Brewer’s cringe inducing debate performance received more media attention, but there was another debate on Wednesday night that may have been more important. Carly Fiorina and Barbara Boxer met for their first (and potentially only) debate of the election season. It is one of the “dirty dozen” contests that will determine whether the GOP retakes the majority in the Senate.

Democrats enjoy a huge advantage in statewide California elections. In 2008, 44% registered Democratic, 31% registered Republican and 20% Independent (Decline to State). Despite the uneven playing field, Fiorina and Boxer were polling in a dead heat going into the debate. I generally have very low expectations for political debates, and perhaps that is why I was pleasantly surprised.

My impressions: Both candidates acquitted themselves well and were very well prepared. It was a good debate. A sample clip:

They clearly had different objectives, and I think they both accomplished what they set out to do. With her big registration advantage, Boxer just needed to play to her base. California voters already know Boxer and her shtick. She just needed to be the senator her base expects and not make mistakes. If she can get the Democrats off their collective asses and voting in force, she should win this going away. But this year, with 60 days to go, with Democrats feeling lethargic and uninspired, that appears to be a mighty big “if”.

Fiorina had more at stake in this debate, as I suspect this was the first time that many California voters started to pay attention to this election. This was Fiorina’s chance to make a first impression on voters who do not know her well. She needed to look senatorial, competent, and in command of the issues facing the state. Debates are as much about TV, presence and image as they are about issues. From that perspective, she knocked it out of the park. She came across as smart, articulate and tough with a detailed understanding of the issues – basically a strong business woman. Fiorina could have easily blown her chances with a stumble in this debate, but instead she inspired confidence.

Most post-mortems called it close or a draw. I’m guessing she was good enough for a bump in the polls that will put her in the lead.

That said, there was one major issue that has emerged in this contest that I did not feel qualified to judge. So I asked my wife who had the better hair. She did not hesitate – Carly. Done deal. Carly wins this round.

In other election news, the blogosphere was abuzz with Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball Prognostication:

“In the Senate, we now believe the GOP will do a bit better than our long-time prediction of +7 seats. Republicans have an outside shot at winning full control (+10), but are more likely to end up with +8 (or maybe +9, at which point it will be interesting to see how senators such as Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and others react). GOP leaders themselves did not believe such a result was truly possible just a few months ago. If the Republican wave on November 2 is as large as some polls are suggesting it may be, then the surprise on election night could be a full GOP takeover. Since World War II, the House of Representatives has flipped parties on six occasions (1946, 1948, 1952, 1954, 1994, and 2006). Every time, the Senate flipped too, even when it had not been predicted to do so. These few examples do not create an iron law of politics, but they do suggest an electoral tendency.”

Hmmm. Seems like I recently read something similar.

Crooks and Liars: Open Thread

bluegal — 2010-09-03T03:30:31+00:00

Not ironically, this "completely honest job interview" from The Second City Network is...not safe for work.

Open thread below...

Crooks and Liars: C&L's Late Night Music Club With The Kinks

Jared Shade Reynolds — 2010-09-03T03:00:00+00:00

Genre: The Kinks

Title: A Long Way From Home

I've been listening to this song a whole lot lately and I find the critique of the music business on 1970's Lola Versus Powerman And The Moneyground, Part One to be pretty spot on, even 40 years later.

I'm headed to the mountains this weekend, so the honorable Max Bernstein will be back at the helm here for a few days. Have a great holiday!

Lola versus Powerman and the Money-Go-Round, Part One
	Artist: Kinks Price: $8.13 (As of 09/03/10 08:13 am details)

World O' Crap: Happy Birthday, Ivan!

scott — 2010-09-03T02:56:01+00:00

I apologize for not posting earlier, but this week has been treating me roughly the way Ernest Borgnine treated Frank Sinatra in the last third of From Here to Eternity. However, if I hustle, I can just hit Publish before midnight (Pacific), so join me in wishing a very happy birthday to our good friend Ivan Shreve, Jr., the Bard of Broadcast Ephemera, and author of the Must Read Daily blog Thrilling Days of Yesteryear.

To paraphrase Ivan, he’s seen more ancient TV shows, forgotten films, and Old Time Radio programs than you’ve had hot dinners (he’s also uttered more folksy Appalachian sayings than I’ve had kosher dills) and he writes about them with wit, insight, and pizazz. I mean, where else are you gonna get a thoughtful, yet impish, disquisition on the films of Zasu Pitts, or the jazzy John Cassavetes detective drama, Johnny Staccato? Plus two side dishes, and your choice of beer, wine, or sangria!

Naturally, a Date in History like this has been fraught with stuff:

1752 – Great Britain adopts the Gregorian calendar, nearly two centuries later than most of Western Europe, which they would’ve realized if they’d just had a calendar.

1859 – A solar super storm affects electrical telegraph service. A prairie lawyer named Abraham Lincoln is endowed with super powers, and goes on to win the 1860 Presidential Election.

1990 – Transnistria is unilaterally proclaimed a Soviet republic; the Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev declares the decision null and void because Transnistria “sounds like one of those fake countries in spy movies,” and he “finds it irritating.”

Happy Birthday, Ivan!

Donklephant: Exploded Oil Rig Paid Over $700K In Fines In 2010 Alone

Justin Gardner — 2010-09-03T02:39:15+00:00

The Vermilion 380 blew up today, but it looks like we may have dodged an oily bullet.

Still, could it have been prevented?

Well, as the title suggest, it’s very likely. Because fines are usually in the thousands to tens of thousands. So, to be fined the better part of a million dollars is patently absurd.

The facts from Big Think:

Reviewing the Minerals Management Service database, I see that Apache paid a $435,000 fine on April 23 for the following lapse which apparently unfolded over a period of weeks in January 2009:

The level controller had been removed from the caisson sump, therefore the sump system could not automatically maintain oil at a level sufficient to prevent discharge into the Gulf of Mexico.

Apache also paid a $255,000 fine in April for the following infraction:

On May 2, 2009, the Surface-Controlled Subsurface Safety Valve (SCSSV) at Well JA-001, failed due to a leakage rate greater than the allowable rate of 5 cubic feet/minute. Records indicate that no corrective action to remove, repair, reinstall, or replace was taken prior to the May 19, 2009, notification of inspection.

But wait…what about 2007?

Apache paid another spectacular fine of $446,000 in 2007 for repeatedly neglecting blow out prevention (BOP) equipment. A failed BOP was the ultimate cause of the Deepwater Horizon spill:

Records verified that there was not a low or high pressure test conducted on the following BOP related equipment: HCR choke valve, manual choke valve, HCR kill valve, manual kill valve, kill line check valve, IBOP, TIW valve and choke manifold. These violations were for 2 BOP test periods, 7/19/2006 and 7/26/2006. A mud-pit-level indicator with both visual and audible warning devices had not been installed. There was not a BOP station installed in the work basket of the snubbing unit. The secondary power source (air supply) was isolated with a closed manual block valve located on the inlet piping to the accumulator.

Now, I want to show you how many oil rigs are currently in the gulf from 1942 until recently. Short answer: nearly 4,000. Longer answer: this short video…

(h/t: Deep Sea News)

And Obama calling for a short moratorium to make sure we have the proper safety measures in place is a bad thing?

More as it develops…

Donklephant: Jan Brewer’s Very Bad Debate Day

Justin Gardner — 2010-09-03T02:20:09+00:00

The Arizona Governor is taking some heat for her strange performance in last night’s debate against the state’s Attorney General Terry Goddard.

First, there’s this painful opening…

Errrr….

Listen, being on air is tough and nerves can get to you, but did she really not prepare? Did she not have notes?

Then, yeah, she’s called out on air for a lie about immigrants beheading people and…yikes…

She just won’t answer the question? This woman runs an entire state?

Brewer just gave a huge gift to Goddard. And you can be sure this performance will become a campaign commercial very, very soon.

Open Left: Jan Brewer didn't have to be Governor of Arizona

Daniel De Groot — 2010-09-03T02:16:46+00:00

Watching the Palin-esque farce that is Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, I suddenly remembered that a Democrat was actually last elected to be Governor of Arizona, and could have still held that office if she hadn't been appointed Secretary of Homeland Security.

Chris questioned the wisdom of this back in late 2008, precisely because a Republican was next in line to finish Napolitano's term. While I can understand why a term-limited governor of a medium state would leap at a fairly juicy Cabinet post (DHS has a budget 4x that of Arizona), the people of Arizona have paid a price for this, plus those in any of the other states that adopts copycat laws to Arizona's "papers please" law. I hope Brewer's public face-plant costs her the election, or contributes to some kind of national voter reaction against the various absurd reactionaries but it might not, and Arizonans might have 4 more years of this. The landscape would have favoured the Republican candidate in any case, but Brewer has the added boost of being the incumbent and probably got some unearned credit spending stimulus funds. Obama intentionally walked a batter and now she might just score a run.

I don't follow developments at Homeland Security closely, so I hope Napolitano's tenure there has done enough good to make all this worth it, but right now it's hard to see how any level of streamlining DHS could make up for this. It's an object lesson: Lunatics can do far more damage than competent people can repair, because it's always easier to destroy than create.

One thing I know, this, for once, actually is good news for John McCain.

Crooks and Liars: Carly Fiorina: Woman of the People

Heather — 2010-09-03T02:00:00+00:00

Click here to view this media

Carly Fiorina... just looking out for the little people out there who pay too much in taxes. If this wasn't a made for the teabaggers ending argument on why the voters of California should vote for her, I've never heard one. Every one of the dog whistles was there. I was glad to see Barbara Boxer call her right back out for sending jobs overseas and her record as an HP CEO after this "man of the people" speech by Fiorina during their first debate for the California Senate.

The video above includes both Fiorina and Boxer's closing remarks from their debate tonight.

I took the time to transcribe Fiorina's remarks. They're begging for some Bobblespeak Translations which I sadly did not have time for, but maybe some of the commenters will have the time for instead.

FIORINA: Thank you so much for the privilege of truly to be here and to have a great debate with you Sen. Boxer. I have traveled up and down this wonderful state and I have been struck by the beauty and by the spirit of Californians. But I must say I am also struck by the anger, the frustration and yes, even fear. I remember meeting the immigrant who had built his small business from the ground up only to see it ruined with too much taxation and too much regulation and I remember him looking me and saying “This is not the country I came to. My own government is destroying my livelihood.”

I remember speaking to the city councilman who talked about his struggles to keep his community together while they struggled with almost 40% unemployment. And I remember as well the woman who looked me in the eye and grasped my hand and said I have never voted before, but I am voting for you because I am afraid for my children’s future.

Promise me this, when you get to Washington, you will not forget us. We can turn our nation around. We can get it back on the right track. We can get our state on the right track. We can grow or economy. We can control government spending.

But to do all these things, we must start by changing the people we send to Washington. I ask for your support. I ask for your vote. And I pledge to you this. I will go to the U.S. Senate and I will fight for the millions of Californians who love their country, who go about their business, who pay their dues, who serve their communities. You don’t ask for frills or favors. You give a lot and you expect little. You are asking for one simple thing now, that we take our government back, make it listen and make it work.

Crooks and Liars: Beck: Universities 'are as dangerous' as N. Korea and Iran

David — 2010-09-03T01:00:00+00:00

Click here to view this media

Glenn Beck is a busy man.

Just in the past week, Beck has held his "Restoring Honor" rally and launched a new website. So maybe it shouldn't be a surprise that Fox News host has just gotten around to being outraged at a story first reported almost a year ago.

Last December, AOL News first reported that a professor at the University of California, San Diego developed a GPS cell phone application to help immigrants illegally cross the border into the United States.

Ricardo Dominguez describes himself an "artivist" -- a cross between an artist and activist -- and he calls his newest act of civil disobedience a "Transborder Immigrant Tool."

It's a cheap Motorola cell phone retrofitted with GPS technology. Dominguez, an associate professor of new media arts at the University of California, San Diego, hopes to get the tool into the hands of people making the treacherous crossing of the U.S.-Mexico border on the so-called Devil's Highway.

[..]

The Transborder Immigrant Tool was inspired by a university colleague of Dominguez's who developed a Virtual Hiker Tool to help him keep his bearings during desert hikes. The Transborder Immigrant Tool will give the user basic orientation, distance from destination, and the location of water. (It will also be loaded with short, haiku-like poems written by poet Amy Carroll. "We wanted to have a hospitality tool," Dominguez says of the poems. "At the core of the poems is a rethinking of the idea that good fences make good neighbors. Borders do not make good neighbors. We should be welcoming.")

The tool, which will cost less than $30 per unit, is undergoing field testing and tweaking. Dominguez has so far collected $15,000 in grants to fund its development and rollout, and by next summer, his plan is to have churches and groups like Border Angels and No Mas Muertes distribute the phones and train users on their features.

For the August 31 rollout of his new website, The Blaze, Beck's team produced a video highlighting Professor Dominguez's 2009 comments about the GPS phones.

Beck took to the air on his Fox News show Wednesday to express his outrage over the year-old story.

The segment began with a quote from Dominguez. "It is a tool that not only allows the safety, but also creates kind of this deeply poetic centering of hospitality," said the professor. "In a certain sense, we think of it as the Statue of Liberty that one carries along as one walks."

"So they have the GPS cell phone paid for with your tax dollars coming in across the border at night illegally," noted Beck.

"You can teach whatever you want, but not with tax dollars. I would also tell you I think these people should be fired," said Beck.

"Let me ask you, there was a time not long ago in this country we walked you through walls of fire to make sure we weren't funding Hamas or Hezbollah. I have news for you. There are a lot of universities that are as dangerous with the indoctrination of the children as terrorists are in Iran or North Korea," said Beck.

It's clear that Beck probably wasn't talking about his own university.

EFF News: Righthaven's Brand of Copyright Trolling

richard — 2010-09-03T00:38:46+00:00

Copyright trolls are nothing new, and Righthaven is just the latest group of lawyers to try to turn copyright litigation into a business model. What these lawyers have in common is that they seek to take advantage of copyright's draconian damages in order to bully Internet users into forking over money. To anyone who has watched the file-sharing lawsuits of the last few years or the current BitTorrent cases brought by a DC law firm, the Righthaven saga is developing into a familiar, unfortunate story. It also has some especially troubling twists.

The basic pattern: Righthaven has brought over a hundred lawsuits in Nevada federal court claiming copyright infringement. They find cases by (a) scouring the Internet for parts of newspaper stories posted online by individuals, nonprofits, and others, (b) buying the copyright to that particular newspaper story, and then (c) proceeding to sue the poster for copyright infringement. Like the RIAA and USCG before them, Righthaven is relying on the fact that their victims may face huge legal bills through crippling statutory damages and the prospect of paying Righthaven's legal fees if they lose the case. Consequently, many victims will settle with Righthaven for a few thousand dollars regardless of their innocence, their right to fair use, or other potential legal defenses.

However, Righthaven is unlike other copyright trolls in some key ways:

Righthaven is going after bloggers using text news stories for comment or discussion. Many lawsuit targets are using the newspaper articles to augment discussions about current events. Reposting all or part of news stories is part and parcel of digital commentary and discussion and usually the goal of the reposting is to share the uncopyrightable facts included in the article, not the copyrighted expression, like the specific turns of phrase used by the author. By targeting news, Righthaven's lawsuits could have a chilling effect on individuals' attempts to engage their communities in free and open discussion.
Righthaven is fighting the basic mode of Internet debate. Other copyright trolls have involved controversy over file-sharing programs and encoded digital media, like music and movies. But Righthaven is taking aim at folks who are using elementary "copy & paste" functionalities. Online discussion survives and thrives on showing others the original text before adding a commentary or response. Accurate quoting is a virtue of Internet discussion that can minimize mischarcterization and support progress in a debate.
Righthaven lawsuits are demanding that courts freeze and transfer the defendants' domain names. Imagine if a single copyright infringement on Huffingtonpost.com or Redstate.com could result in forfeiture of the entire domain. Effectively asking for control of all of a website's existing and future content -- instead of only targeting the allegedly infringing material -- is an overreaching remedy for a single copyright infringement not validated by copyright law or any legal precedent. This also indicates that the attorneys are willing to make overreaching claims in order to scare defendants into a fast settlement.
Righthaven goes straight for litigation. Righthaven isn't sending cease and desist letters or DMCA takedown notices that would allow the targeted bloggers or website operators to remove or amend only the news articles owned by Righthaven. Instead, Righthaven starts with a full-fledged lawsuit in federal court with no warning. It's sue first and ask questions later, which smacks of a strategy designed to churn up legal costs and intimidate defendants into paying up immediately, rather than a strategy aimed at remedying specific copyright infringements.

Righthaven is claiming that its activities are intended to have a "deterrent effect" on the reposting of news stories online, but it's hard to resist viewing Righthaven's actions as purely business-related. In addition to the sharp legal tactics discussed above, Righthaven appears to only buy copyrights that it believes can be used for lawsuits and otherwise has no involvement in the practice of journalism.

Righthaven also appears to be soliciting other newspapers to sign on with it. But newspaper publishers who think that suing bloggers a story at a time will save journalism are sorely mistaken. Newspaper publishers have actually been having meaningful discussions about innovative business models to support real journalism. Sadly, Righthaven -- if it continues to attract clients -- threatens to derail those conversations with a sideshow proven to distract from progress.

But no matter where a newspaper may stand on the debate about journalism's future, we think it is abundantly clear that a "sue the audience" tactic is nowhere near worth considering. Newspapers should resist the temptation to put themselves into the same position as the music industry circa 2004, where futile lawsuits distracted them from the incorporating new technology and creating new ways to market product to fans.

EFF is watching Righthaven and other copyright trolls closely for overbroad tactics that hurt free speech and fair use, and abuse the legal system. We're looking for good cases to defend and will deliver more news and analysis as the issue develops.

Sadly, No!: This Post Deserves To Be Illustrated By Boris Vallejo

D. Aristophanes — 2010-09-03T00:34:19+00:00

(Extremely) Shorter Dafydd ab Hugh, BigLizards.net
Through a Lens Darkly

Excuse me while I indulge in a 3,000-word ontological jack-off session to explain how the most logical explanation for conflicting early versions of a hastily filed news story is a nefarious plot by jihad-loving Obamabots.

‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™

Crooks and Liars: In Afghanistan, We're Looking The Other Way As Police, Tribal Leaders Commit Child Rape

Susie Madrak — 2010-09-03T00:00:00+00:00

So our troops are fighting and dying for child rapists in a warped fundamentalist theocracy. And we're protecting them? This is too much for my mind to comprehend (h/t Matt Osbourne):

For centuries, Afghan men have taken boys, roughly 9 to 15 years old, as lovers. Some research suggests that half the Pashtun tribal members in Kandahar and other southern towns are bacha baz, the term for an older man with a boy lover. Literally it means "boy player." The men like to boast about it.

"Having a boy has become a custom for us," Enayatullah, a 42-year-old in Baghlan province, told a Reuters reporter. "Whoever wants to show off should have a boy."

Baghlan province is in the northeast, but Afghans say pedophilia is most prevalent among Pashtun men in the south. The Pashtun are Afghanistan's most important tribe. For centuries, the nation's leaders have been Pashtun.

President Hamid Karzai is Pashtun, from a village near Kandahar, and he has six brothers. So the natural question arises: Has anyone in the Karzai family been bacha baz? Two Afghans with close connections to the Karzai family told me they know that at least one family member and perhaps two were bacha baz. Afraid of retribution, both declined to be identified and would not be more specific for publication.

As for Karzai, an American who worked in and around his palace in an official capacity for many months told me that homosexual behavior "was rampant" among "soldiers and guys on the security detail. They talked about boys all the time."

He added, "I didn't see Karzai with anyone. He was in his palace most of the time." He, too, declined to be identified.

In Kandahar, population about 500,000, and other towns, dance parties are a popular, often weekly, pastime. Young boys dress up as girls, wearing makeup and bells on their feet, and dance for a dozen or more leering middle-aged men who throw money at them and then take them home. A recent State Department report called "dancing boys" a "widespread, culturally sanctioned form of male rape."

So, why are American and NATO forces fighting and dying to defend tens of thousands of proud pedophiles, certainly more per capita than any other place on Earth? And how did Afghanistan become the pedophilia capital of Asia?

Sociologists and anthropologists say the problem results from perverse interpretation of Islamic law. Women are simply unapproachable. Afghan men cannot talk to an unrelated woman until after proposing marriage. Before then, they can't even look at a woman, except perhaps her feet. Otherwise she is covered, head to ankle.

"How can you fall in love if you can't see her face," 29-year-old Mohammed Daud told reporters. "We can see the boys, so we can tell which are beautiful."

Even after marriage, many men keep their boys, suggesting a loveless life at home. A favored Afghan expression goes: "Women are for children, boys are for pleasure." Fundamentalist imams, exaggerating a biblical passage on menstruation, teach that women are "unclean" and therefore distasteful. One married man even asked Cardinalli's team "how his wife could become pregnant," her report said. When that was explained, he "reacted with disgust" and asked, "How could one feel desire to be with a woman, who God has made unclean?"

That helps explain why women are hidden away - and stoned to death if they are perceived to have misbehaved. Islamic law also forbids homosexuality. But the pedophiles explain that away. It's not homosexuality, they aver, because they aren't in love with their boys.

Addressing the loathsome mistreatment of Afghan women remains a primary goal for coalition governments, as it should be.

But what about the boys, thousands upon thousands of little boys who are victims of serial rape over many years, destroying their lives - and Afghan society.

"There's no issue more horrifying and more deserving of our attention than this," Cardinalli said. "I'm continually haunted by what I saw."

Let's not kid ourselves that this is some foreign disease, though. The fact is, whenever you add extreme religious fundamentalism and sexual repression, you get a toxic stew -- as members of extreme cults of all kinds, including many right here in the United States, can testify.

The Fix: Afternoon Fix: Mark Begich state director to Scott McAdams camp; NRCC names new Young Guns

2010-09-02T23:00:00+00:00

Make sure to sign up to get "Afternoon Fix" in your e-mail inbox every day by 5 (ish) p.m.! EARLIER ON THE FIX Daily Fix Poll: Will Democrats lose the House? The enthusiasm gap (and seven races where it matters) "Worst Week in Washington": The Nominations Al Franken comes out of his shell Larry Sabato predicts a Republican House majority FIRST ON THE FIX * Sen. Mark Begich's (D-Alaska) state director, Susanne Fleek-Green, has signed on to help Sitka Mayor Scott McAdams' (D) Senate bid this fall. "Like many Alaskans I am really energized [by] the campaign," Fleek-Green emailed the Fix. Begich deputy chief of staff Leslie Ridle is also involved in the McAdams effort, but on a volunteer basis for now. WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED * The National Republican Congressional Committee has named dentist Paul Gosar (Arizona's 1st) and former Maricopa County Treasurer David Schweikert (Arizona's 5th) its

Mark Begich - Alaska - Scott McAdams - Democratic - Al Franken

Crooks and Liars: Paul Begala Calls Out Ari Fleischer for the Lies He Told That Got Us Into Iraq

Heather — 2010-09-02T23:00:00+00:00

Click here to view this media

If these Bushies want to come on the air to attempt some turd polishing about why the Bush administration chose to invade Iraq, a country that was not a threat to us, then they should be treated the way Paul Begala treated lying propagandist Ari Fleischer on Anderson Cooper's AC360.

COOPER: Out of Iraq by the end of next year, that was the promise from President Obama. He said the combat mission's over, but America and will provide support for the Iraqi people as both a friend and a partner.

Ari, you were obviously working for George W. Bush. I'm curious to what you thought as you listened to this. And obviously, not a great speech but a historic moment.

FLEISCHER: Well, my first thought was 7 1/2 years ago I was in the Oval Office when the president gave a speech committing us to Iraq. And it's appropriate. Americans don't like to commit troop abroad. And when we do, we want to win, and we want come to come. And the president -- I think President Bush has won because of the surge.

And then, in December of 2008, remember when the shoe was thrown at him? That was actually the announcement of a security agreement with the Iraqi government to bring our troops hope at the end of 2011.

The day had to come. So I'm glad the day was able to come and that President Obama gave a speech where he could thank the troops who also made this possible who really deserve all the credit for making it possible.

COOPER: Do you think he should have said more about President Bush?

FLEISCHER: You know, I think it would have been gracious of him if he'd mentioned the surge, but the problem he has, for President Obama to put the words "President Bush," "Iraq" and anything good in the same sentence, the Democrat base, which already doesn't want to show up in November -- what will Nancy Pelosi see if he starts talking like that?

So I understand -- I wish he was more gracious about it, but he has his own Democratic political imperatives, and he has -- he followed those tonight.

COOPER: Paul, what did you think of the speech? We haven't heard from you tonight.

BEGALA: Well, I think it was -- first, he was trying to do three different things, right? Say we're going to withdraw from Iraq, but we're going to surge into Afghanistan, but we're going to withdraw from there, too. But then, we're going to take care of folks here at home. I want to pick up, though, on this point that Ari makes about the surge, because it is staggering to me. First off, the surge was only necessary because President Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld went to war with too few troops, because they wanted to prove General Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, wrong. That's why we needed it in the first place.

Second, it could have never succeeded without the preceding Sunni awakening. Iraqis themselves had to decide. It wasn't the American surge and then -- that cured it. It was the Sunni awakening.

But I'll make a deal with President Bush. We'll give you all the credit for the surge if you take half of the blame for the lies that got us into the war, by which I mean Iraq -- excuse me, Ari, by which I mean...

FLEISCHER: No, Paul, it's not right.

BEGALA: ... by which I mean Ari himself saying Iraq was an imminent threat to America, by which the president of the United States saying it was a mushroom cloud that could become a smoking gun, by which I mean the threat of unmanned aerial drones that Saddam supposedly had that would gas America, the connections that they allege which were false between al Qaeda and -- and Saddam's regime.

So, you know, there was so much they got wrong about this. Some of it just was botched, and some of it was deeply dishonest. And the notion that somehow George Bush is owed any moment of grace here is appalling to the history.

FLEISCHER: Neither you nor anybody else, including your old boss, Bill Clinton, challenged George Bush when he said that, because the intelligence that they all saw, too, led them to the same conclusion. So I think seven years...

BEGALA: You know they didn't see...

(CROSSTALK)

FLEISCHER: First off...

BEGALA: They didn't see all the intelligence, because you guys weren't sharing it.

FLEISCHER: This is the night that President Obama said thanks to the military; our troops are coming home. I was gracious enough to praise President Obama for saying that. It's an appropriate moment for our country to bring them home and to welcome them home.

But for you to say that President Bush lied about this, Paul, that is exactly the type of divisiveness we're trying move beyond in this country. When you know as well as I do he followed the intelligence that he was given by the CIA.

BEGALA: He manipulated -- he manipulated and cherry picked the intelligence...

FLEISCHER: No.

BEGALA: ... as did Mr. Cheney, as did Mr. Rumsfeld, and that's why 4,427 Americans are dead.

(CROSSTALK)

FLEISCHER: It was nothing to cherry pick. That's everything we needed to know.

BEGALA: When Dick Cheney said, as he did, that Saddam has long- established ties with al Qaeda, the evidence is overwhelming, you know, the Iraq study group said no that wasn't true.

FLEISCHER: The 9/11 Commission report said Saddam had ties to al Qaeda.

BEGALA: It's just incredible.

FLEISCHER: The 9/11 Commission Report, it said they weren't operational. Our point of view is never let them become operational.

BEGALA: This is -- this is the thing: he was no threat to America. Ari, himself...

FLEISCHER: Now you're changing your tune because you're recognizing the 9/11 Commission report agreed with the president...

BEGALA: They said there were no operational links. There were none.

FLEISCHER: That's correct. We didn't want them to become one.

BEGALA: Well, we don't want Canada to have operational links either. How about we go -- how about we go have Operation Canadian Freedom?

No, look, this was from the beginning, it was a war of choice. It was Mr. Bush's choice, and it was a tragic choice; 4,427 Americans are dead. Thirty-five thousand Americans are wounded, plus those suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, plus those suffering from traumatic brain injury. This has been a catastrophe for America, a catastrophe for our armed services who served with such heroism. And for Mr. Fleischer to sit here and expect a pat on the back, it is appalling. It is, as we would say in Texas, I guess it's chutzpah.

FLEISCHER: In Paul Begala's view of the world, we'd all be better off and safer off if Saddam Hussein was still running Iraq.

BEGALA: And those 4,427 Americans were alive.

FLEISCHER: Any time anybody loses their lives in the military, our nation suffers for it. Any one individual, anywhere.

But the point is we now have a new Iraq, an Iraq that has a chance to become a bastion of freedom and, hopefully, an Iraq that can change the Arab Middle East, so it's a more peaceful area where wars don't start. That's what Iraq now gives us a chance to do. And that's why I hope, now with the 50,000 remaining troops, we will be successful, and they don't lose the peace in Iraq, which is...

BEGALA: And we have -- we have a diminished America, a depleted America. We have a divided America. And we have, tragically, military cemeteries that are filling up. That is a hell of a price to pay to get rid of a guy who was no threat to America.

FLEISCHER: No threat to America?

BEGALA: Zero.

COOPER: I want to bring in other panelists in just a second. We've got to take a quick break, though.

Crooks and Liars: The Progressive Future: It's time to fight for candidates we believe in

digby — 2010-09-02T22:00:18+00:00

There's a lot of despair in these parts lately and it's perfectly understandable. The country is going to hell in a handbasket and the forces of corporatism and know-nothingism are dominating the political culture while the Democrats seem to be in a state of suspended animation. It's very tempting to just tune it all out and watch TV. But we can't. Not as long as there are progressive politicians like David Segal out there on the campaign trail fighting to change things every day. If don't support real progressive leaders with a track record of success, we are basically giving up.

David is running in a primary for the Democratic nomination for Patrick Kennedy's seat against two doctrinaire establishment hacks and an anti-choice zealot and he needs our help in the home stretch. (The election is September 14th.) His most formidable rival, the mayor of Providence is using his money advantage to run a deceptive ad and David needs our help to run this rebuttal to remind people who the real progressive in the race is:

I know it's hard to get excited about politics right now. But it would be foolish for us to fail to support a young, smart progressive with a proven track record in his run for congress. Unless we are prepared to simply surrender to the forces gathering around us we need to nurture future progressive leaders who understand this political environment and have ideas about how to prevail in it. David is one of those future leaders.

Here's what Howie wrote about him when Blue America endorsed him:

David Segal is one of us. He was elected to the Providence City Council in 2002 as a Green, and is now a lefty Democratic state Rep for Providence and East Providence. He has a very clear path to victory and he can win-- and if he does, he'll be among the strongest voices for progressives in the halls of the Capitol.

David's worked on the meat-and-potato issues: Jobs, the environment, housing, progressive taxes, all with success. He's successfully pushed for expanded renewable energy, more affordable housing, against predatory lending, and for foreclosure prevention measures.

But he's never shied away from the really controversial issues: He's been a vocal leader on criminal justice reform, standing up for the rights of immigrants and for gay rights, and has pushed as hard as one can from the state level against war spending. He's an ardent supporter of gay marriage, and was the sponsor of the last year's bill, which was passed over the Governor's veto, to allow gay partners to plan each other's funerals.

He's a co-sponsor of marijuana decriminalization, and just convinced the Governor-- after two years of vetoes-- to allow a bill to become law that ensures due process for people on probation.

He's sponsored the "Bring the Guard Home" legislation, and his first act on the City Council was to pass a resolution against the war in Iraq.

But, most importantly, he's an organizer at heart, who is committed to joining the Progressive Caucus-- and making it function better. Here's an excerpt from an interview with David:

"[I]n Rhode Island I've tried to develop alternative structures for legislators to lean on when the leadership makes such threats. I am the lead organizer for our progressive caucus. I founded a political action committee to support members of our progressive caucus so that if funding from sources dries up at leadership's request because something was done to offend them, that we would have at least some, some degree of money to fall back on to help fund our campaigns nonetheless. We funded ten, twelve races relatively modestly in the last cycle and hopefully we'll be able to do something in the forthcoming cycle."

That's the kind of inside political organizing we desperately need in the US Congress. If you can help with a few dollars today the campaign can keep its ads on the air and compete. If he wins the primary, there's almost no doubt that he will win the seat. It could be one of the few progressive victories in this midterm election.

Open Left: MISREADING THE CLIMATE OF THE ALASKA SENATE RACE

NRDC Action Fund — 2010-09-02T22:00:00+00:00

Here's a real shocker for you: the same people who deliberately misread climate science are now offering a phony explanation for the Alaska primary loss of incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who conceded the race yesterday.

If you listen to the wing nut brigade, they will tell you clean energy/climate legislation did in Murkowski. Phil Karpen -- who, as the policy director of Americans for Prosperity, is as good as on the payroll of Dirty Energy -- said this even before Murkowski bowed out, in an op-ed on FoxNews.com:

"Joe Miller has a narrow lead over Sen. Lisa Murkowski in a surprising Alaska Senate primary. If the absentee ballots break hard for Murkowski she may narrowly escape, but at the moment it looks at least as likely that Miller will pull the upset. If he does, Murkowski's support for energy taxes may be one of the major reasons."

In a sad commentary on modern journalism, this unfounded, inaccurate notion was echoed by Reuters who said, "Murkowski, the most senior Republican on the Senate Energy Committee, has been considered a moderate on several issues and a potential compromise vote on national climate legislation. Miller is on record as denying that human-caused emissions are responsible for climate change."

Even the usually very sharp team at ClimateWire took the bait: "Republican Joe Miller, a former judge with a Yale law degree, showcased Sen. Lisa Murkowski's past support for climate legislation, among other things, before slipping by her at the voting stations Tuesday to capture a 1,900 vote lead with several thousand absentee ballots still being counted."

Well, if there was even a shred of evidence that it was true, this would qualify as an interesting bit of political analysis. Given the lack of evidence, it is just another lie that has filtered in from the crackpot world of climate science deniers to mainstream political reporting.

What are the facts?
1. There was little or no media coverage of the climate issue in Alaska in the Murkowski-Miller climate face-off. We looked at 400+ stories from LexisNexis about the race and spent hours going over a detailed Google News search. You find a few stories - such as this one in the Anchorage Daily News - where Miller says climate change/energy legislation is going to be a big issue in the race, only to have that discounted when one considers that Miller's statement was one of the only ones about this issue in the primary season.

2. Climate change/energy legislation was not a big issue in either Miller's or Tea Party Express advertising. In fact, one of the few Miller ads to go after Murkowski on climate issues is more focused on portraying her as flip-flopper than as a closeted supporter of a climate bill.

3. There are far more plausible explanations for the narrow Miller victory. Based on my research, I would say that Politico has it right: "Not a single public poll showed Miller within striking distance of Murkowski in the weeks before the primary, and she spent more than 10 times as much as he spent. However, the Proposition 2 ballot measure requiring parental notifications for teens seeking an abortion boosted Miller by driving tens of thousands of voters to the polls in what would likely have otherwise been a low-turnout primary." And as The Washington Post/The Fix column notes: "The predominant one, of course, is that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's (R) endorsement still carries plenty of weight among the GOP base in her home state, and that it delivered for attorney Joe Miller on Election Day. Both Murkowski and Miller cited Palin's backing when asked about Tuesday's results." The bottom line: The climate change/clean energy legislation "issue" just was not a big driver in this election.

4. And from the Does-This-Really-Need-to-be-Pointed-Out Department: no one considered Murkowski a friend of the climate bill. As Heather Taylor-Miesle of the NRDC Action Fund points out: "Fact is that Lisa Murkowski is far from an environmental champ. The League of Conservation Voters(LCV) gives her an 18% career rating, meaning that she votes the right way on less than one out of five environmental issues. And, more recently, she gave us environmentalists heartburn by leading an assault on the Clean Air Act - only one of the most successful environmental laws of all time."

The truth is that Alaska has a history of sending bona fide climate champions to DC. To quote Taylor-Miesle again: "To say this primary suggests that climate change is a political non-starter in Alaska shows a selective memory. Just two short years ago, Alaska elected a real climate champ, Mark Begich, to the Senate. Climate change was a top issue during Begich's campaign, when he called for an 80% reduction in carbon pollution by 2050 and adaption strategies to help Alaska deal with the effect of climate change. Since coming to the Senate, he has continued to work to advance clean energy and climate solutions, earning an 82% rating from LCV in his first year. Last August, he introduced a package of seven bills aimed to help Alaska prepare for the changes and challenges created by a warming planet. And, in June, he voted against Murkowski's Clean Air Act attack."

The "Lisa-Murkowski-touched-the-third-rail-of-climate-change/clean-energy-legislation-and-died opeds" and "news articles" are unadulterated hogwash. They are a fanciful confection whipped up out of thin air by non-Alaska media who have been snookered by the climate science denial crowd.

This blog was originally posted at The Markup.

The Fix: Tim Pawlenty, homestate politics and the 2012 presidential race

2010-09-02T21:50:00+00:00

Democrats have seized on a recent independent poll that showed a majority of Minnesotans unlikely to vote for outgoing Gov. Tim Pawlenty should he run for president in 2012. The Democratic National Committee blasted a series of clips on the Minnesota Public Radio poll to reporters over the past 24 hours and also sent along some of the local television coverage -- pictured above -- to drive home a simple point: Those who know Tpaw best don't think he should be president. On its face, the argument makes perfect sense -- and the polling supports it. But, a deeper look suggests that there is less than meets the eye here when assessing Pawlenty's political future. First, the numbers. Fifty three percent of respondents in the MPR poll said they were unlikely to back Pawlenty if he was the Republican nominee for president in 2012. Among electorally critical independents, 57

Tim Pawlenty - Politics - Minnesota Public Radio - Democratic - United States

The Progressive: This Just In: talent network news presents The Weekender

Frank Murgia — 2010-09-02T21:16:24+00:00

August 26, 2010 Posted By - Lauren --- talent network Events Thursday, August 26, 2010 Kenny Blake TrioRivers Casino - Levels Lounge6:00pm - 10:00pm Friday, August 27, 2010 Kenny Blake TrioRivers Casino - Levels Lounge8:00pm - 12:00am InTransit BandRivers Casino - Wheelhouse9:30pm - 1:30am Saturday, August 28, 2010 Dave Crisci DuoRivers Casino - Levels Lounge9:00pm - 1:00am Bon

Sadly, No!: It’s Algore’s Fault, Amirite?

Tintin — 2010-09-02T21:06:43+00:00

ABOVE: Caleb Howe (right), Caleb’s Best Friend (left)

Caleb “The Drunk Tweeter”¹ Howe, Irky Irksome’s Halfway House for Lonely White Guys with Drinking Problems
The Rhetoric of Violence

The liberals at Think Progress tried to politicize the Discovery gunman by alleging that he was driven by his anti-immigration beliefs. Gentlemen, have you no shame? How could you politicize this tragedy? How do you sleep at night? HUH??? Besides, it wasn’t the anti-immigration groups that spurred the gunman to his madness, it was the crazy-assed eco-radicals that are predicting an environmental apocalypse every time you turn around that prompted the gunman to use such extreme measures.²

‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™

¹ For those of you who miss the “Drunk Tweeter” reference, Caleb Howe made fun of Roger Ebert’s terminal thyroid cancer and then blamed his having done so on drinking too much vodka when he was tweeting.

² For the record, I think both ThinkProgress and Caleb Howe are wrong. The gunman singled out the Discovery Network program Jon & Kate Plus 8 as the main source of his anger. Although, of course, I vigorously and unequivocally condemn the gunman’s method of expressing his disapproval, it is still, nevertheless, hard to disagree with his critical assessment of that show. The immediate fallout from the incident has been that security has been stepped up at the Culver City set where Cougar Town is taped. Bravo is also reportedly on lockdown in anticipation of similar critical outbursts against Project Runway and Real Housewives of [insert city].

Crooks and Liars: Joe Arpaio's stonewalling clock runs out: DOJ files lawsuit to force him to turn over his records

David Neiwert — 2010-09-02T21:00:00+00:00

Click here to view this media

After Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio steadfastly stonewalled the Department of Justice in its investigation of his racial-profiling practices -- all while appearing on Fox numerous times to bash and taunt the investigators, and having his minions do likewise -- his clock ran out today:

The U.S. Justice Department sued Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Thursday, saying the Arizona lawman refused for more than a year to turn over records in an investigation into allegations his department discriminates against Hispanics.

The lawsuit calls Arpaio and his office's defiance "unprecedented," and said the federal government has been trying since March 2009 to get officials to comply with its probe of alleged discrimination, unconstitutional searches and seizures, and jail policies that discriminate against people with limited English skills

Arpaio had been given until Aug. 17 to hand over documents the federal government first asked for 15 months ago.

Arpaio called the Justice Department actions harrassment at a news conference Thursday morning in downtown Phoenix. His office has said it won't hand over additional documents because federal authorities haven't said exactly what they were investigating.

Last week, Arpaio announced he was challenging the request for the records -- nearly a year after it was filed.

Bet he won't be able to stonewall the FBI quite so easily.

America's Voice has the complete record on Arpaio.

Open Left: Matt Yglesias is delusional

Paul Rosenberg — 2010-09-02T20:30:00+00:00

Truly:

I don't see any evidence that the particular apocalyptic "my enemies are totalitarian madmen" strain of Birch/Beck/Goldberg conservatism has helped anyone win any elections.

Over at digby's place, Tristero has a long take-down of Matt's entire piece, which is apparently part of the neo-liberal attack on Markos's new book, American Taliban.

Tristero's piece is very good, very thoroush, and very worth reading. But it proceeds by basically saying, "Okay, even if that were true:"

Let's ignore all the obvious contradictory examples, like Bachmann and Coburn and Tancredo and DeLay and so on and so on and - solely for the sake of argument - go so far as to entirely concede Matt's point: no one gets elected by being a rightwing loon.

I want to take the opposite approach. I want to basically argue that movement conservatives would be nowhere without this sort of rhetoric. It's not always their dominant form of rhetoric--particularly in its crudest, most blatant form, but it's always somewhere in the mix. As I explained back in May, 2008, in "Fox's Faux Populism vs A Shadow Elite--Pt. 1", conservative elites have been playing this game for centuries now:

While the notion of Fox News as "populist" is a ludicrous rightwing perversion in one sense, it is quite accurate in another sense we dare not ignore--and that is, quite simply, that it reflects the truest test of elite power--the ability to define the essential contours of populist thought, and to cast someone else as the dreaded "elite".

This is a very old game, and it's way past time we got a better handle on it. Before getting into any sort of messy details, it's important to note--ala my diary two weeks ago, "The Ontology of Snark: A Prelude"--that there's a common ego defense mechanism in play here:

Displacement: Defence mechanism that shifts sexual or aggressive impulses to a more acceptable or less threatening target; redirecting emotion to a safer outlet; separation of emotion from its real object and redirection of the intense emotion toward someone or something that is less offensive or threatening in order to avoid dealing directly with what is frightening or threatening. For example, a mother may yell at her child because she is angry with her husband.

Real, actual conservative elites have been using displacement as a stock in trade for millenia, creating ghost elites for unwitting populists to misdirect their anger at. It was virtually inevitable that Obama's "new politics" of "change" would be targetted with this ancient charge....

Elites Create Their Demon Others
It's relatively easy for an elite to create a "shadow" elite, meaning something akin "shadow" in the Jungian sense of the unacknowledged dark side of the self. The mass of people resent the elite for things the elite cannot admit or accept about itself--above all, the arbitrariness and injustice of its position in the world--and so it projects its shadow onto another group. Because this involves disowning something fundamental of itself, the mechanism involved for the elite is more projective identification than projection, per se:

Projective identification is used to project the bad object into (not onto) another person so it becomes a part of that person.
The person then identifies with that other person, and hence has means to control them.
The person projected into may consequently be pressured to behave congruently with the projective phantasy.

This description captures quite well the enormous investment of time, energy and money we see on behalf of conservatives pushing the meme of "liberal elites", and devising various ways of getting "liberals" to act out their appointed roles.

The more extreme forms of demonizing liberals work very well for conservatives, in large part because they resonate with this broader narrative framework that they have repeated and reinforced countless times over the centuries. Of course, that's not all there is to it. There are cognitive motivations and biases that predispose conservatives to see the world this way. And what Matt is doing is invoking a counter set of cognitive motivations and biases--ones that are generally much sounder and saner, but that totally mislead when one is trying to understand and respond effectively to conservative attacks.

Those biases are the foundations of the dominant 18th Century Enlightenment model of disembodied reason. And late 20th and early 21st century cognitive science has definitively shown those biases to be false. Facts do not persuade people apart from narrative frameworks. When the facts contradict the framework, the facts are rejected, not the frame. Indeed, that's why folks like Matt stubbornly hold onto their false models of reason.

Of course this is all very high-level stuff I'm arguing here. But it dovetails very well with the specific history of movement conservatism, particularly since the New Deal and WWII, as it consistently failed to develop any sort of positive, pragmatic framework for dealing with America's realworld problems, and only managed to win elections by promoting paranoid us-vs-them narratives of seemingly limitless scope--McCarthyism in the early 50s (based on Nixon's smear campaigns that first won him a seat in Congress), racial backlash and the culture wars beginning with Goldwater 1964 and Nixon in 1968, honed to perfection by Reagan in 1980, and systematized by Gingrich in 1994--but never, ever actually solving any of the problems that it promised to.

And yet, when it comes down to it, Yglesias is basically trying to argue that nothing conservatives have done along these lines has been politically successful.

Which is utterly, downright delusional.

Am I twising his argument beyond his meaning? First off, I'd say that if I am, then his argument doesn't hold much punch. But here's what he said in complete context:

I previously expressed hope that Markos Moulitsas' American Taliban: How War, Sex, Sin, and Power Bind Jihadists and the Radical Right would be better than the publicity material suggested. Jamelle Bouie read it for The American Prospect and reports back that it isn't. Kevin Drum, meanwhile, notes the contrast between this kind of scathing review on a very mainstream liberal magazine and the reception of Liberal Fascism on the right.
I tend to think that this is one of the areas where progressives aren't just doing the right thing, but have a smarter tactical approach to politics. There are scenarios in which tagging your political opponents with smears can be effective, but I don't see any evidence that the particular apocalyptic "my enemies are totalitarian madmen" strain of Birch/Beck/Goldberg conservatism has helped anyone win any elections. This should be differentiated from the occasional lapse into rhetorical excess that everyone does now and again. I'm talking specifically about the kind of sustained effort to seriously persuade people that Elana Kagan favors sharia or Dwight Eisenhower is a Communist that you see among loons of all stripes but that seems to be granted more respectability on the right.

So, progressives "have a smarter tactical approach to politics"??? Really? Looking back at the past 42 years, since 1968, you can actually say that with a straight face? Particularly after the trainwreck of the last 20 months? That's a whole separate count of delusional thinking in my book.

But back to getting a fix on what Matt's saying here. I haven't seen Kos's book, but I don't have to to respond to this. If his execution's flawed, then it's flawed, and he can be criticized for that. But the claim that his argument is inherently flawed could only hold water if, for example the inverse of the wild-eyed conservative claims were equally absurd. And this simply is not the case. For example, the inverse of claiming that Elana Kagan favors sharia law is claiming that top Republicans favor turning American into a theoocracy.

Which, of course, they do!. The influence of R. J. Rushdoony and Christian Reconstructionism on the conservative movement seems to be something that Matt is utterly ignorant of, so he's just a brief quote from one of many relevant posts at Talk2Action.org to give some idea:

David Barton, who recently has been tapped as an alleged "expert" on American history featured on the Glenn Beck show, has built a career upon his claim that United States government was founded on Biblical precepts. This creates a major problem - if America was founded as a Christian nation, how can we account for slavery? Barton's articles on slavery on his Wallbuilders web site stress that many of the Founding Fathers were strongly opposed to the institution of slavery (which is true) but then he refers readers to a Wallbuilders article by Barton's close colleague Stephen McDowell, which explains that although Southern Slavery was wrong, it was wrong because it wasn't Biblical slavery as defined by Christian Reconstructionist theologian R.J. Rushdoony, whose basic approach was simple - what was permissible according to Biblical scripture is permissible now: including slavery.
McDowell's article cites R.J. Rushdoony's Institutes of Biblical Law six times in its footnotes and that's notable given that the book was Rushdoony's master work on how to implement Biblical law in the American legal system. R.J. Rushdoony's scheme included establishing stoning and burning at the stake for adultery, homosexuality, and idolatry, and the legalization of Biblical slavery. Leaders in the Christian Reconstructionism movement Rushdoony founded have for several decades now been trying to make it so.

This is what's been building beneath the surface on the right for several generations now, and it's beginning to come right out into the open with the likes of Beck and Tea Party candeidates like Sharon Angle.

It's not a delusion to talk about it. It's a delusion to deny that it exists.

EFF News: EFF Asks Court to Protect Craigslist from Defamation Suit

rebecca — 2010-09-02T20:29:30+00:00

San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and a coalition of public interest groups and law professors have asked a California appeals court to protect craigslist from a lawsuit that could spur websites to be less helpful in responding to complaints about user behavior.

In Scott P. v. craigslist, Inc., the plaintiff complained about a series of craigslist ads he said were written by impersonators. While craigslist removed the ads within minutes of his phone calls, the plaintiff sued, contending that craigslist broke a promise to "take care of it" when the impersonators posted additional ads. In cases like these, federal law -- specifically Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act -- shields Internet forums like craigslist from liability. Section 230 was designed to encourage parties to pursue action against those who created the questionable content instead of the platform that hosted it. But the California Superior Court has ruled that this case can continue because of the plaintiff's allegations that craigslist said it would help.

Craigslist filed a writ petition with the Court of Appeal for the State of California Wednesday, arguing that the trial court should have dismissed the case because of Section 230's protections for forum hosts. In an amicus letter filed today in support of craigslist, EFF argues that the lower court reasoning could create a hole in Section 230, discouraging forum owners from helping users.

"Section 230 was a deliberate effort by Congress to encourage service providers to find innovative ways to self-regulate," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "Yet craigslist is facing the prospect of extended litigation because it tried to do just that. Allowing this litigation to continue could result in websites being less helpful to users with complaints."

Additionally troublesome is the specter of further lawsuits, which could convince other Internet innovators not to host user content at all.

"Congress created Section 230 to allow for online interactivity without a flood of lawsuits. But this case could undermine the immunity that the law created," said Opsahl. "If litigation can survive merely because a plaintiff asserts that the site made a vague promise, sites may decide that allowing comments or user generated content is not worth the legal exposure. Then we'll lose the vibrant online environment that Section 230 helped create in the first place."

Joining EFF in the letter to court were the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Citizen Media Law Project, and law professors Eric Goldman, David S. Levine, David G. Post, and Jason Schultz. Separately, a group of Internet companies, including Yahoo!, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Google and Linkedin filed another amicus brief in support of craigslist.

For the full amicus letter:
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/craigslist_v_sup/EFFletter9210.pdf

For more on this case:
http://www.eff.org/cases/craigslist-v-superior-court-california

Contact:

Kurt Opsahl
Senior Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
kurt@eff.org

World O' Crap: Aristotle’s The Rhetoric of Head Cheese

scott — 2010-09-02T20:26:37+00:00

We have a fresh new Toni Home Pundit for you today — meet RenewAmerica’s Robert Meyer.

Granted, Mr. Meyer has the look of a high mileage wingnut, and he’s been seeding the Internet with his opinionated emissions since at least 2003, but he’s new to WO’C. Oh, I’ve been tempted by him before, I won’t deny it, but something about his byline makes my back ache; perhaps it’s his headshot, which puts one in mind of a bus bench ad for a louche local chiropractor.

Ground Zero mosque not about religious freedom

The Ground Zero mosque controversy has been erroneously portrayed by certain news pundits as being an issue about religious freedom.

Of course this is another red herring designed to demonize those protesting against locating the mosque at ground zero — as if those opposing it want to deny a segment of Americans equal access to the First Amendment.

Is it not ironic that only a few years ago we were told that dissent was the highest form of patriotism.

Now that those people are in power we have an Orwellian reversal and dissent is again unpatriotic, with the added feature of being bigoted and phobic.

Robert Meyer is a hardy soul who hails from the Cheesehead country of the upper midwest. Robert is known by his opponents as a “clever rhetorician”

Apparently I’m one of his supporters, then.

who often exposes the fallacies of knee-jerk arguments presented in local papers.

So he’s a crank who spends the long winters writing outraged letters to the editor of the Lake Koshkonong Advertiser-Pantagraph.

Seeking to develop precepts for every aspect of life — based on a conservative Christian worldview — Robert often gleans inspiration from looking off his back deck, over the scenic Fox river and recalling the wise counsel of those who mentored him.

Robert was abandoned in the woods as a child, and raised by shrews.

Muslim’s are certainly within their constitutional rights to build a mosque there if they desire. The question is whether they ought to. The issue is one of propriety, not religious freedom. Until pro-mosque apologists get past that fact they have yet to make a legitimate counter argument.

That we are endowed with certain rights is granted by our national charter. How judiciously we are stewards of those rights will determine whether we can keep them and maintain our freedoms.

What is the motivation behind placing the mosque there if doing so causes so much public grief, considering that the Imam behind the project, Feisal Abdul Rauf, has indicated he wants to build bridges? Interesting, that in the discussion, the most obvious thing that could be done to facilitate a peaceful resolution is scarcely mentioned. The Imam could just decide to build the mosque elsewhere.

In fact, were I a Muslim, this is what I would be calling on my leadership to do.

Appease your enemies? Too bad the project isn’t being run by Imam Chamberlain.

Some might argue that we must show the world that we are tolerant. Of course, according to the enlightened commentators, allowing the mosque to be built on the designated site is just the medicine we need to establish that impression.

It’s not oppression if people voluntarily give up their rights, and besides, the golf courses at most black country clubs are nicer than Augusta anyway.

But are not Muslim nations the ones suffering from the image problem? When we consider the austerity and human rights abuses within Muslim nations, shouldn’t they be trying to demonstrate that they are tolerant?

Robert will stop beating his wife the second it’s no longer legal in Saudi Arabia. That’ll show ‘em.

There are parallels between this issue and the soldiers’ funeral picketing performed by Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church congregants, a story which has popped up in the news again.

God Hates Fags. And cooking schools, photography classes, and daycare centers.

If those in charge moved the mosque to another location, think of the public relations bonanza it would be for Islam.

It would put egg on the face of those who claim Islam is intolerant, it would silence the people who think the mosque construction is an effort to pour salt in the wounds of 9-11 survivors. and it would shut up the people who are claiming that building the mosque at ground zero coincides with the Islamic tradition of triumphalism(building mosques at the locations of great conquests).

I’m sure once American Muslims surrendered to the demands of Pam Geller’s Stop Islamization of America, she would accept it gracefully and move on. She looks like a reasonable person.

But we can offer them good advise and bank on the presumption they will ignore it.

Or at least misspell it.

If you believe that the bombing of the World Trade Center in February of 1993 was a test of Bill Clinton’s resolve, and the 9-11 plane crashes were a test of how George W. Bush would react, then you have to wonder if terrorists don’t view Obama as an absolute pushover. In that case a more violent approach is unnecessary. Of course this is all speculation — but prudent speculation nevertheless if one is to be vigilant.

So in your analysis, Bob, we can either let them build Park51 and live in peace, or prevent them from building it and get bombed? Decisions, decisions…

No doubt we will be told that protesting the mosque only results in a motivating factor for terrorist recruitment. But if the Imam is merely a moderate, how does he have so much influence on militants? That sort of assertion is easily reversible. A lack of resolve might well embolden the terrorists to be more daring. Are we supposed to capitulate to every demand under the threat of reprisals?

Ironically, the Cordoba House people have been asking themselves that same question.

Recall that during the Cold War, we often heard the phrase “by conquest or consent,” indicated there was a stealth method of socializing America without a bloody revolution or all out military conflict, but America’s fall was surely inevitable.

This sinister phrase comes to us by way of James Paul Warburg, who was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He also wrote the lyrics for the hit 1930 musical, Fine and Dandy.

One should hardly suppose that militant Islam does not likewise countenance both revolutionary and evolutionary strategies in their plans of conquest.

Noticeably absent in all the furor are the champions of religious suppression, crying for expanded “separation of church and state.” It seems that some of these secularist organizations are little concerned if the religious persuasion at issue is in conflict with the advancement of Christianity.

That’s the great thing about being a First Amendment absolutist; we don’t have to take sides in your doctrinal mud-wrestling.

If the mosque issue has the result of being politically polarizing, I hope that isn’t the only positive outcome when the dust finally settles at Ground Zero.

A pogrom would be nice too. Just for old time’s sake.

The Progressive: This Just In: "Thursday's Bacon" - Episode 14 (Deleting Facebook Friends, Labor Day Dating Rules)

Frank Murgia — 2010-09-02T20:25:40+00:00

September 2, 2010 Source Credits - talent network, inc. Hosts - Frank Murgia, David Sedelmeier --- We had a special guest in-studio today. Our good friend Sal Richetti from Big Day Entertainment stopped by the office and he wanted to be on Thursday's Bacon and we were more than happy to fry up extra bacon. We recorded a great 7 minute podcast and then Sal left the office. We then pulled the

Crooks and Liars: ConservaDems To Hold Their Breath And Turn Blue To Save Tax Cuts For The Wealthiest. Way To Read The Public Mood, Boys!

Susie Madrak — 2010-09-02T20:00:00+00:00

Must. Hit. Head. On. Wall. Boy, they're nothing if not predictable, huh? This is the sort of thing that happens when the Democrats don't have a coherent value system.

Now, I can actually understand the instinct to punt, because allowing the tax cuts for the wealthiest to lapse would bring down the focused wrath of the Republicans before the mid-term elections. And yes, it makes it more difficult for Democrats from wealthier districts. But honestly, are they so incapable of explaining to the public how this adds $700 billion to the deficit that's badly needed elsewhere?

Must Democrats fall into the fetal position every time the GOP makes a feint?

WASHINGTON — Democrats in Congress are poised to play a leading role this month in thwarting their party's effort to raise income tax rates on the wealthy.

Tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 expire at the end of this year. President Barack Obama and Democratic congressional leaders have been eager to extend the breaks for individuals who earn less than $200,000 annually and joint filers who make less than $250,000. Those who earn more would pay higher, pre-2001 rates starting next year.

However, a small but growing number of moderate Democrats are balking at boosting taxes on the rich. Many face electorates that recoil at the mention of any tax increase. Some represent areas that are loaded with wealthier taxpayers. Further, some incumbent senators who don't face voters this fall are reluctant to increase taxes on anyone while the economy remains sluggish.

Without their support, the push to raise rates on the rich probably will fail.

"The economy is very weak right now. Raising taxes will lower consumer demand at a time when we want people putting more money into the economy," said Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., who isn't seeking re-election.

Democratic leaders still vow a big effort this month to boost the top tax brackets, now 33 and 35 percent, back to 36 and 39.6 percent, the rates that were in effect in the 1990s. Both House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who faces a tough re-election fight, want a vote before the election Nov. 2.

"We still expect to have a bill on the (Senate) floor at some point in September," Reid spokesman Jim Manley said. "Whether Republicans will allow us to pass anything is a whole other story."

As Big Tent Democrat points out, it does present a great opportunity for progressive Democrats in Congress:

So what Evan Bayh, Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson and Gerald Connolly are saying is that they will OPPOSE TAX CUTS FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS unless there are also tax cuts for the rich. Well, if that's what they want to do - OPPOSE TAX CUTS FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS, more power to them. But progressives and the President do not have to play along with them. Put it to a vote and let Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson, Kent Conrad and Gerald Connolly explain that they OPPOSED TAX CUTS FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS because their rich friends did not get a tax cut too.

The Fix: Daily Fix Poll: Will Democrats lose the House?

2010-09-02T19:19:00+00:00

By Felicia Sonmez Handicapper after handicapper is predicting not just losses for House Democrats this fall but a potential return to a Republican House majority. University of Virginia political handicapper Larry Sabato projected this morning that the GOP will net 47 seats in the House this November, eight more than necessary to regain power. TIME's Mark Halperin said last week that Republicans could take as many as 60 seats in the House if circumstances remained basically as is in the political world. As the Cook Political Report's Charlie Cook notes, 32 Democratic incumbents currently trail Republican challengers in public and private polling. At the same point in the 2006 cycle, one-third as many Republican incumbents were in the same position. Add to that this week's Gallup poll showing Republicans with an unprecedented lead in the generic ballot test and the next 60 days look grim indeed for Democrats. On the

Republican - Larry Sabato - Politics - Democratic - Cook Political Report

The Progressive: This Just In: "Thursday's Bacon" - Episode 13 (Heinz Field, The Moth, Franco Harris, Boxing)

Frank Murgia — 2010-09-02T19:18:24+00:00

August 27, 2010 Source Credits - talent network, inc, The Moth Podcast Hosts - Frank Murgia, David Sedelmeier --- Thursday's Bacon served a day late on Friday, which means it is extra crunchy and tasty. Today Frank and David serve up a plate of Sports, Storytelling and Country Music Hotness. * "Thursday Bacon" is a weekly podcast that features 7-8 sizzling minutes of commentary on things

The Progressive: This Just In: College | Corporate Entertainment: Headline Entertainers

Frank Murgia — 2010-09-02T19:05:36+00:00

September 1, 2010 Posted By - Lauren Anne --- Corporate, College, Convention and Private Parties call on talent network for securing the best entertainers in the world. talent network can save you money and guide you to the right entertainment for your audience or event. We take you from concept to concert, beginning with offering you a variety of choices according to your needs and price

Crooks and Liars: Jan Brewer refuses to answer questions about 'headless bodies' -- even after the debate to reporters

David Neiwert — 2010-09-02T19:00:36+00:00

Click here to view this media

We pointed out awhile back that Gov. Jan Brewer's fearmongering about immigration in Arizona -- painting the state as the nation's kidnapping capital, a violent place where "headless bodies" were being left in the desert -- was effectively destroying the state's economy.

Last night, it came back to bite Brewer in her televised debate with Democrat Terry Goddard -- and afterward with reporters, too:

Goddard accused Brewer of damaging Arizona's image and business prospects by portraying the state as a violent place because of border-related crime.

Goddard said that's untrue and outrageous and she should admit she's wrong. "There are no beheadings that was a false statement and it needs to be cleared up right now," he said.

She responded, "Terry I will call you out, I think you ought to renounce your support of the unions that are boycotting our state." He dismissed her demand, saying he opposes the boycott.

Afterward, reporters asked her why she didn't answer Goddard about the beheadings. They said, "About the headless bodies? Why won't you recant that… do you still believe that?" She turned on her heel and left the post-debate news conference -- and the reporters were left grumbling.

Of course, as scarce observes, it wasn't exactly Brewer's best night anyway.

So even the local Fox station was trashing her astonishing performance:

Yeah, you have to wonder how well it's going to sit with Arizona voters that Brewer will make herself into a national celebrity by appearing on the propaganda channel, Fox News, 20-plus times, but won't even talk to local reporters at all. Wonder how well that 20-point lead is going to hold up.

Open Left: Muddying the waters on equality

Adam Bink — 2010-09-02T19:00:00+00:00

Here's the Washington Post editorial board in making an endorsement in this year's Ward 5 Council race in DC:

In Ward 5, first-term council member Harry Thomas Jr. is facing challenges from Kenyan McDuffie, Delano Hunter and Tracey D. Turner. With the notable exception of the courage he showed in voting for marriage equality, Mr. Thomas has been a major disappointment. He pretty much defined his role as trying to stop anything -- no matter how sensible -- sought by the mayor. He led the effort to prevent school facilities chief Allen Y. Lew from overseeing park projects and has been the union's main champion in trying to thwart needed reforms in the schools and government workforce. Particularly distasteful was how he allowed racial demagoguery to derail the nomination of Ximena Hartsock as parks director.
Both Mr. Hunter, a community organizer with Brookland Manor, and Mr. McDuffie, a lawyer who worked in the Justice Department civil rights division, are better alternatives. We give the edge to Mr. Hunter, an engaging newcomer who is running a grass-roots campaign. He has an intimate knowledge of the needs of the ward and has smart ideas on how to tackle issues such as truancy and joblessness. Mr. Hunter is not a supporter of marriage equality, but he is not the homophobe his critics make him out to be, but rather someone who thinks there is a way to provide equality for gays while respecting the beliefs of religious groups. He said he would not seek to change the law.

Two things. First, the Post ed board has steadily supported marriage equality in the past. That's why it makes no sense to laud Councilmember Harry Thomas, Jr. for courage in voting for the marriage bill, then go on to laud Hunter for being "someone who thinks there is a way to provide equality for gays while respecting the beliefs of religious groups." Well gee, doesn't that sound all common-sense, can't we all get along-like.

In truth, if the ed board recalls, the marriage bill itself was titled the Religious Freedom And Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act 2009 for a good reason: it did not require religious institutions to perform marriages in violation of their doctrine. So using their definition of "courage" and their past support of the bill, Hunter should have voted for the damn measure. But we know he wouldn't have, because also in truth, as Chris Geidner documents, Hunter is a fan of, and supported by, the extremely homophobic National Organization for Marriage. If memory serves, he was also the only DC candidate to show up at their rally a few weeks ago at the Capitol, too. Chris:

Hunter attended the National Organization for Marriage's "Summer for Marriage" D.C. final tour stop at the U.S. Capitol grounds on August 15. As noted by Bob Summersgill at the GLAA Forum, NOM then sent a mailer out in support of Hunter. He earlier received NOM support from fliers produced by NOM in opposition to D.C. marriage equality supporters, including Thomas.

Here's one of their mailers talking about "homosexual activists" (h/t Right Wing Watch):

This is the company Hunter keeps- and embraces by going to their rally. Of course, the ed board realizes this and how controversial it is, or they wouldn't have taken pains to try and muddy Hunter's position.

Which brings me to the other point, which is how rapidly the old "I support equality for gays and lesbians because I support civil unions, just don't call it marriage" position, or whatever nonsense is spouted about marriage being a religious institution, is running out of steam. It's running out of steam with traditional organizations like Equality California, whose PAC no longer endorses candidates unless they support marriage equality. It's running out of steam with activists, donors and voters. You can't say "I support equality" and then say you oppose the freedom to marry for same-sex couples, and I could go on all day about why. So it's dishonest to pretend like Hunter is just a fair-minded fellow who wants equality for the LGBT community, just as long as no one calls it "marriage"- not only because he doesn't, but because even if he did, he's still not worth going out of anyone's way to support. And that's something, by the way, that I think Obama will find that out in 2012 if he stays where he is.

Update: Jeffrey Richardson of the local Stein club is right. The LGBT community can decide for itself what defines homophobia.

Crooks and Liars: Boxer on Fiorina: She fights for billionaires and corporations that outsource jobs

karoli — 2010-09-02T18:00:16+00:00

Click here to view this media

(h/t Heather)

The first (and likely only) debate between Barbara Boxer and Carly Fiorina took place tonight. From the first question to the last closing statements, Boxer was fully in control. Despite a format that was difficult -- timed responses and rebuttals -- Fiorina could not escape her past record at the helm of Hewlett-Packard, or her tired Republican ideas. One of the finest moments came with the first question to Fiorina about opposition to the small business jobs bill and teachers bill. Here it is:

How do you justify immediate help for the wealthiest Americans but not for average Californians who might be out of a job and listening to this debate tonight?

Fiorina's response is predictable and rambly. The one thing she did well all night was deflect the actual question asked of her.

FIORINA: Well, you know I think first we need to start by describing what the 2001/2003 tax cuts really were -- tax cuts that are going to expire in January. The vast majority of that tax relief went to middle class Americans and in fact, if those tax cuts are not extended, the average California family will pay up to $1600 more in taxes. It's also true that small business owners in particular are struggling under the weight of businesses.

Senator Boxer has voted against small business tax relief each and every time. The death tax will skyrocket to 55% on January 1st. We have 88,000 farms in this great state, most of them family-owned.

And here comes the Fiorina zingy special....

To create jobs, we need to make sure that in particular, our small businesses, our family-owned businesses, our innovators and our entrepreneurs are freed from strangling regulation and freed from taxation.

Then the gloomy-doomy description of our lives. So miserable...she did this all night.

I think in the middle of a terrible recession...this is the worst economic crisis since 1979 and since 1929 in this state. Just think about it. We have 12 metropolitan areas with unemployment above 15%. We have 23 counties with unemployment above 15%. And meanwhile in the last 20 months, the federal government spending has increased 10% each year, and federal government employees have increased 14.5% over the last 2 years.

At this point, I'm thinking to myself, thank GOD Federal spending has increased 10%. It wasn't nearly enough, for sure, but if it hadn't, California unemployment rates would likely have been closer to 20%. Then Boxer responds. While I'm not certain where she comes out of the gate with the teachers' bill, it did drive home her point.

BOXER: I'd like to go back to the question, because it's very important. We had 16,500 teachers plus get pink slips in the mail. They were not going to be in the classroom when our children are there. What's more important than our children? You know, I'm a product of public schools, 95% of our people go to public schools -- the kids go to public schools.

This was a bill that was paid for. Do you know that my opponent actually called that bill -- this bill where we saved these teacher jobs -- she called the bill a disgrace. She called it disgraceful. Now I'll tell you why I don't think she likes it, because we paid for that bill...

[zinger coming up]

...it was deficit neutral because we paid for it by stopping some tax breaks for companies who ship jobs overseas. So every time you really get past the surface, you see my opponent fighting for the billionaires, the millionaires, for the companies who ship jobs overseas. She even opposes the small business legislation that most everybody supports that would give tax breaks to small business.

And so it went, for the entire debate. Fiorina could not escape the fact that she laid off 30,000 employees while at HP's helm and sent those jobs to China. Not only couldn't she escape it, she actually tried to make a point from it about how the US should be more like China, by giving giant tax incentives and preferences to corporations. At one point, I observed that Carly Fiorina wants the US to be China.

And they say it's Democrats who are commie pinkos.

Other highlights from the debate: Carly Fiorina believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned because it's a states' rights issue, but Prop8 was the act of an activist judge and should become a federal issue. She would not take a position on Prop 23, the oil company collective effort to turn back California's greenhouse gas bill, except to adopt the Republican talking points about it being a job-killing bill. Boxer hit back hard on that last one, saying that if Fiorina couldn't find a way to take a position on Prop 23, she really didn't have any business representing California, since Prop 23 would undo the green industries beginning to take hold in California.

Overall, Boxer had control from start to finish, even when the questions were stupid. Both received a couple of those, hand-picked from video uploads by the debate moderators.

It really just comes to this: Carly Fiorina mismanaged HP, and while she was at the helm, their product quality and corporate reputation went from sterling to mediocre at best. She had no problem sending 30,000 jobs overseas in one of the largest layoffs in the history of California, and as Boxer pointed out, she still walked away with a $22 million golden parachute after driving the value of HP stock down to less than 50% of what it was when she stepped in.

Barbara Boxer should run away with this election. She's been a faithful and responsive representative for Californians. No matter how much Fiorina outspends her, there's no reason to elect someone who wants to take us back to the middle of the last century and beyond.

Open Left: America's unending war against Iraq

Paul Rosenberg — 2010-09-02T17:30:00+00:00

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: And Joy Gordon, what effect did the sanctions have on things like mortality, on public health, on education?
JOY GORDON: The sanctions--again, this is in combination with this initial devastation of all of Iraq's infrastructure--the impact was enormous. Child mortality spiked, increased by 250 percent. A country that had had negligible levels of things like cholera and typhoid, those were off the charts. There were epidemics of waterborne diseases that never really came down....
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: And the estimates that at least half-a-million children were killed as a result of these sanctions?
JOY GORDON: It's called the excess child mortality figure, which is-which means, really, how many children under five died during sanctions who would not have died without the sanctions. And that number is highly contested. The Iraqi government claimed one thing for a while; other groups claimed things for a while. But in the end, if you look at the best data and the most reliable data, it seems that it must in fact be over half-a-million children under five were dead as a result of sanctions.

Obama kept a major campaign promise, but didn't get much for his efforts. That seems to have been a fairly common theme from the Chris Matthews precincts of Versailles. To see just how myopic this narrative was, you only needed to tune in to Democracy Now! yesterday, which had two excellent pieces on the sham "end" of the Iraq War.

First was an interview with Nir Rosen, "Iraq Is a Shattered Country", dealing with the ignored reality on the ground that President Obama made no mention of whatsoever. Second was an interview with Joy Gordon, "Invisible War: How Thirteen Years of US-Imposed Economic Sanctions Devastated Iraq Before the 2003 Invasion", which has a great deal to say about how the Clinton Administration killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi childrens and infants. This is the true face of the Democratic Party foreign policy--almost indistinguishable from its Republican counterpart when it comes to the impact on dark-skinned people around the globe.

First, the beginning of the interview with Nir Rosen:

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: For more, I'm joined on the line from Baghdad by independent journalist Nir Rosen. He's been covering the Iraq war since 2003. He's now a fellow at the NYU Center on Law and Security. His forthcoming book is called Aftermath: Following the Bloodshed of America's Wars in the Muslim World.
Nir Rosen, welcome to Democracy Now! Can you respond to what President Obama said last night in his Oval Office address and what you're seeing on the ground in Iraq right now?
NIR ROSEN: Well, I was offended by it. He spoke mostly about American soldiers and their suffering and their sacrifice, and the only time he came even close to mentioning that Iraqis had a hard time these last seven years is when he mentioned their resilience. He said that the US has paid a high price, a huge price. Not as huge as the Iraqis have paid. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed. Tens of thousands of Iraqis who were rendered in American detention, their lives ruined for years, children who didn't know where their fathers were. A couple of million displaced internally and abroad. Iraq is a shattered country. He said we persevered because we share a vision with the Iraqi people. Most of the Iraqi people, their vision has been, for the last seven years, that the Americans would withdraw.
Now, really, nothing has changed, obviously, from one day to the next. You have 50,000 troops who remain here. When Iraq occupied Kuwait, the Americans said that as long as there's one Iraqi soldier left in Kuwait, Kuwait remains occupied. So the presence of 50,000 troops in Iraq forecloses many options, precludes many options for the Iraqis, with the implied threat. At the same time, the Iraqi security forces, I think, would like to have a continued relationship. And while Iraq is sort of occupied, it's also sort of sovereign. You don't see--you haven't seen really for the last year in most parts of the country American soldiers on the ground. So, nothing changed today. The big change, you could say, was a year ago, when the Americans withdrew from cities and mainly stayed on bases. And we've had a test since then of the Iraqi security forces in their ability to handle the situation. And I'd say they, more or less, can handle it. It's not very pretty....

But the broader view has to encompass a much longer time-frame:

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: The US invasion and occupation of Iraq over the past seven years has inflicted multiple disasters on the country. But many argue that the US war against Iraq really began more than twenty years ago. In August 1990, the UN Security Council imposed economic sanctions on Iraq in response to its invasion of Kuwait. The United States was instrumental in imposing and keeping the sanctions in place until May 2003. While they had a devastating impact on Iraq and its people, the sanctions are often overshadowed by the 2003 US invasion when pundits examine US policy on Iraq.
Our next guest writes of the sanctions, quote, "U.S. policymakers effectively turned a program of international governance into a legitimized act of mass slaughter." Joy Gordon is a professor of philosophy at Fairfield University and author of the new book Invisible War: The United States and the Iraq Sanctions. She joins me now from Fairfield University in Connecticut.
Welcome to Democracy Now!, Joy Gordon. Can you take us back to 1990, how these sanctions were put in place, and what effect they had on Iraq over the thirteen years that they were held there?
JOY GORDON: Sure. The sanctions were imposed in August of 1990, so almost exactly twenty years ago, after Iraq had invaded Kuwait. The sanctions were almost completely comprehensive. They precluded Iraq from any imports and any exports, with very limited exceptions. They allowed medicine, and they allowed food, quote, "in humanitarian circumstances." But that phrase wasn't defined.
In fact, what happened for the first eight months is that within the Security Council committee that maintained the sanctions-it was called the 661 Committee, after the resolution. Each country had veto power. It operated by consensus. And for the first eight months, the US, accompanied by a couple of others, but absolutely the US, would not even allow Iraq to import food. This is a country that had been importing two-thirds of its food. There was a fight, for example, that went on for weeks and weeks over whether or not Iraq could import a shipment of powdered milk, and the US opposed that just intransigently.
After March of 1991, after the bombing of the Persian Gulf War, Iraq was allowed to import food without restriction, but the real problem was infrastructure, because in the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the US-led allied forces bombed all of Iraq's infrastructure-water treatment plants, sewage treatment plants, telecommunications towers, roads, bridges. The country was reduced to a dysfunctional country in every regard almost overnight. UN envoys going into Iraq reported that Iraq has been reduced to a preindustrial country. One described the situation as "near apocalyptic." And it was that combination of things, the massive bombing of all infrastructure combined then with the sanctions, that made it impossible for Iraq to ever recover. It was reduced a level of development from a sophisticated country with a very high standard of living to a country that was, in the words of the envoy again, a "preindustrialized country."
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: And Joy Gordon, what effect did the sanctions have on things like mortality, on public health, on education?
JOY GORDON: The sanctions--again, this is in combination with this initial devastation of all of Iraq's infrastructure--the impact was enormous. Child mortality spiked, increased by 250 percent. A country that had had negligible levels of things like cholera and typhoid, those were off the charts. There were epidemics of waterborne diseases that never really came down....
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: And the estimates that at least half-a-million children were killed as a result of these sanctions?
JOY GORDON: It's called the excess child mortality figure, which is-which means, really, how many children under five died during sanctions who would not have died without the sanctions. And that number is highly contested. The Iraqi government claimed one thing for a while; other groups claimed things for a while. But in the end, if you look at the best data and the most reliable data, it seems that it must in fact be over half-a-million children under five were dead as a result of sanctions.

And our new "counterinsurgency" strategy is supposed to win the "war on terror" by winning people's "hearts and minds"???

Who are they kidding?

Certainly not the Iraqis. Certainly not the Arab world:

Obama promised "change we can believe in." But he actually delivered more of the same old same old than we could have possibly imagined. This is not a matter for Versailles debate. It's a matter of cold, hard lived reality in the desolate streets of Iraq, Afghanistan, and--increasingly--the United States of America.

The Fix: The enthusiasm gap (and seven races where it matters)

2010-09-02T17:25:00+00:00

By Felicia Sonmez An imbalance in voter enthusiasm between the parties is aiding Republican chances in at least seven key statewide races this fall, a Fix analysis of Reuters/Ipsos polling data reveals. Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Kentucky are among the states where polls show the so-called "enthusiasm gap" playing a pivotal role, according to the Reuters/Ipsos data. (A full rundown of the poll data is available after the jump.) Among the trends in the Reuters polling: In six races -- the Pennsylvania, Colorado, Kentucky and Ohio Senate races and the Nevada and Ohio gubernatorial races -- recent polling shows the Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate in a statistical tie among registered voters. But when only likely voters are surveyed, the Republican candidate's lead moves beyond the margin of error -- in some cases, increasing by as much as ten percentage points. In one race, the Nevada Senate race,

Ohio Senate - Nevada - Kentucky - Democratic Party - Pennsylvania

Crooks and Liars: Help Support Scott McAdams for Alaska-Sen

scarce — 2010-09-02T17:00:17+00:00

Click here to view this media

The surprising ascendance of Alaska-Sen to a real race this year seems to have caught everyone off-guard. With Teabagger Joe Miller's upset win in the republican primary the republican party itself must now grapple with a candidate who who is not shy about espousing radical views (gutting or eliminating entitlement programs chief among them). Naturally in a state like Alaska which relies on the Federal government such opinions are not shared by the majority. This has left an opening for a relatively unknown and underfunded Democratic candidate Scott McAdams of Sitka, Alaska.

Present U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski was expected to win in a walk in November, and polls suggest she would have with a thirty point lead over McAdams and deep financial resources. Now, however, with an extremist like Joe Miller winning the race is in single digits by two pollsters (Rasmussen and PPP).

Some of the pundits are already writing these results off, saying there's no way a Democrat can win in Alaska this year, somehow forgetting that elections are strange things with a mind of their own. If McAdams runs a smart campaign and has sufficient resources he could very well win this race. In the past few days McAdams has become #3 at ActBlue, raising nearly $100,000.

SwingState (via Roll Call) has more on the growing enthusiasm.

"It's night and day," a Democratic source close to the campaign said about the feeling on the ground in the state since the primary. "People are excited. People are stunned." ...
"It is happening, and there's a new surge of energy and excitement into Democratic headquarters out here," Alaska Democratic Party spokeswoman Kay Brown said. "Scott's a good guy, a real Alaskan, and I think he's going to look good and compare favorably against Joe Miller." ...

The Democratic source said that McAdams could pick up Republican votes in places like the Aleutian Islands, which is home to the largest fishing port in the country and relies on significant federal funding - something some in the state believe could diminish with Miller in office.

"People are freaked out out here about this Joe Miller guy," the source said.

Here's his official donations link.

Video is from the Rachel Maddow show last night.

Crooks and Liars: BREAKING: Another rig catches fire in the Gulf

David Neiwert — 2010-09-02T16:37:06+00:00

Oh lovely:

An offshore oil platform exploded and was burning Thursday in the Gulf of Mexico about 80 miles south of Vermilion Bay, with some workers reported in the water.

The explosion aboard the platform, owned by Mariner Energy, occurred west of the site of the April offshore rig blast that caused the massive BP oil spill.

The Coast Guard said no one was killed in the explosion, which was reported by a commercial helicopter flying over the site around 9 a.m. CDT.

Coast Guard Cmdr. Cheri Ben-Iesau said seven Coast Guard helicopters, two airplanes and three cutters were dispatched to the scene from New Orleans, Houston and Mobile, Ala.

Ben-Iesau said some of the 13 people believed working on the oil platform were spotted in the water in life vests. One is reportedly injured.

Ben-Iesau said authorities do not know whether oil is leaking from the site.

The Department of Homeland Security said the platform, known as Vermilion Oil Platform 380, was owned by Mariner Energy of Houston. DHS said it was not producing oil and gas.

A call to the company seeking comment was not immediately returned.

Mariner Energy focuses on oil and gas exploration on the Gulf of Mexico. In April, Apache Corp., another independent petroleum company, announced plans to buy Mariner in a cash-and-stock deal valued at $3.9 billion, including the assumption of about $1.2 billion of Mariner's debt. That deal is pending.

Apache spokesman Bob Dye said the rig is in shallow water.

If it's in shallow water, the likelihood of another major spill like the Deepwater Horizon tragedy is quite small -- so that's a relief.

Still, I guess this wasn't the best week for Big Oil to organize protests of the drilling moratorium:

Thousands of oil industry workers rallied on Wednesday to lift the moratorium on new deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and head off new taxes and punitive measures in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon spill.

Companies ranging from Chevron to Apache bussed in up to 5,000 employees to the Houston convention centre to underline to Washington the industry’s contribution to the country.

“We make America run, we make America work, and they need to remember that,’’ said Carroll Robinson of the Citizens Chamber of Commerce to cheers and applause. “If you stop drilling, if you stop producing, America stops working.’’

Attendants donned red T-shirts handed out at the door that proclaimed: “We are energy nation.’’ Others wore the “I am an energy citizen’’ and “Rally for jobs, our jobs, our future,’’ included in the gift bags. They roared when several speakers noted President Obama’s Air Force One flew on fuel the industry produced and the nation watched his speeches on televisions powered by industry fuel.

“So why are we cutting off the Gulf of Mexico?’’ said John Hofmeister, former president of Shell USA and chief executive of Citizens for Affordable Energy. “You cut off your nose to spite your face, Mr president.’’

The Fix: "Worst Week in Washington": The Nominations

2010-09-02T16:30:00+00:00

It's Thursday and that means the Fix mind is already turning to the week's end and, more specifically, to picking who had the "Worst Week in Washington". Have a nomination? Offer it in the comments section below. Need a refresher course on past "winners". Check out our "WWW" archive here.

Washington - United States - Business and Economy - Recreation and Sports - Washington DC

The Fix: Featured Advertiser

2010-09-02T16:30:00+00:00

Open Left: Paradox can be good: "Alan Simpson must go!" edition

Paul Rosenberg — 2010-09-02T16:00:00+00:00

The last thing I want is for Alan Simpson to depart from the Catfood Commission. He is such a perfect embodiment of it's ignorant, mean-spirited mendacity that if he didn't exist, atheists would be praying 24/7 for his creation.

Yet, I also think that it's great that people are calling for his ouster. It's the best possible way to bring heat to bear on the commission itself. Could it go too far, and get rid of him, leaving the commission free to do its dirty work? Possibly, given his latest outrage, attacking veterans:

The system that automatically awards disability benefits to some veterans because of concerns about Agent Orange seems contrary to efforts to control federal spending, the Republican co-chairman of President Barack Obama's deficit commission said Tuesday....
"The irony (is) that the veterans who saved this country are now, in a way, not helping us to save the country in this fiscal mess," said Simpson, an Army veteran who was once chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee.

But, that's the kind of warm and cuddly guy that Simpson's always been. And my bet remains that the more we push to get him ousted, the more he'll dig his heels in--and more importantly, the more Obama will do the same. While this dynamic usually works against us, this time could be different. This time it could work to heighten the public awareness of the grand theft being planned, which could in turn make it much harder to pull off.

Laurence Lewis at DKos makes a most pertinent point:

It was just about a year ago that we were hearing stories about President Obama's intention to escalate the war in Afghanistan. Again. The president's most ardent defenders insisted that we shouldn't listen to unnamed and anonymous sources, and should instead wait and see what happened. And then when he escalated, pretty much as had been reported, we were told that it was the right move, and we should support it. The same dynamic played out with the public option. For months, while it became increasingly apparent that the president wouldn't fight for a public option, we were told that he kept saying he supported one, and we didn't know what was going on behind the scenes. When the public option was punted, we were told that it never had been all that important, anyway, and the health insurance bill that was passed was all kinds of wonderful, so we should just be appreciative and grateful.
The same dynamic is playing out with the Catfood Commission. We are being told not to worry, and that Social Security won't be gutted, and it's just an advisory committee, and on and on. And it seems likely that there is an element of truth in the defense, but only an element. It doesn't seem likely that Social Security will be gutted, but don't be surprised if it is incrementally stripped down. An older retirement age. Less benefits. Things that can be defended by those reflexively inclined to defend. We'll hear that it wasn't as bad as we'd feared, so we should accept it and support it. But as with the incremental rollback of reproductive rights that was folded into the health insurance bill, it's the momentum that will matter most. Democrats buying into Republican framings. Democrats leading a movement backwards. Democrats refusing to stand on principle, on issues that should be core Democratic principles.

Simpson's presence in the mix needs to be seen in the light of this now-clear pattern of betrayal by Barack Obama and his allies. (Still think that sort of language is too tough? Check out glacierpeaks in quick hits pointing to a UK Guardian commentary on Tony Blair's just-released memoirs, titled "Blair the zealot: a mindset closer to a pathology than politics".)

Simpson's presence is a strategic gift to us, and the gift is only as good as our attacks on him make it.

So, by all means, let's call for Simpson to go. The worst that could happen is that he's actually forced to leave. And then we'll just have to go after all the rest of them, calling them "Simpson clones."

Which they are.

p.s. Simpson's latest embarassing dust-up with a real Social Secruty expert is chronicled by Ryan Grim at Huffpo: "Alan Simpson Calls Recipient Of Angry Letter". The expert is Merton Bernstein:

Merton Bernstein told HuffPost that he picked up the phone Tuesday night and the caller told him: "You don't know who I am."
"Oh, yes I do," Bernstein said he told Simpson. Bernstein, who was a senior consultant to the 1983 commission that reformed Social Security, said he used the opportunity to try to educate Simpson.
The commission, chaired by Alan Greenspan, reformed Social Security so that it could handle the onslaught of the pending baby boom retirements. Simpson was unaware of what the commission had done, said Bernstein.
"That's not true," Bernstein said of Simpson's claim -- which he has made in the past and repeated to Bernstein -- that the commission did not account for baby boomers. "They very clearly and explicitly addressed that issue. That's why they built in a surplus." Bernstein told him that he was in the room with Bob Ball and other commission leaders when they made the decision to account for the pending wave of retirements.
"Then why are they in such trouble now?" Simpson responded. Bernstein responded that they are not in fact in trouble today. The surplus is now over $2 trillion and is projected to reach $4.6 trillion.

Crooks and Liars: Critiquing President Obama's Iraq Speech

Jason Sigger — 2010-09-02T16:00:00+00:00

There's some confusion about how the president is "ending" combat operations in Iraq if there are still U.S. combat troops in Iraq. His speech on Tuesday outlined his argument that the withdrawal of combat brigades is a significant milestone in the past twenty years of US military involvement in Iraq. His speech actually reflects a very sophisticated statement that is aimed not just his Democratic base that has pushed for the end of combat operations in Iraq, but also his Republican opponents who are looking for opportunities to score points before the November elections.

This was my pledge to the American people as a candidate for this office. Last February, I announced a plan that would bring our combat brigades out of Iraq, while redoubling our efforts to strengthen Iraq’s Security Forces and support its government and people.

That’s what we’ve done. We’ve removed nearly 100,000 U.S. troops from Iraq. We’ve closed or transferred to the Iraqis hundreds of bases. And we have moved millions of pieces of equipment out of Iraq.

This completes a transition to Iraqi responsibility for their own security. U.S. troops pulled out of Iraq’s cities last summer, and Iraqi forces have moved into the lead with considerable skill and commitment to their fellow citizens. Even as Iraq continues to suffer terrorist attacks, security incidents have been near the lowest on record since the war began. And Iraqi forces have taken the fight to al Qaeda, removing much of its leadership in Iraqi-led operations.

Now yes, there are still 50,000 American troops in Iraq formed in something they call "Advisory and Assistance Brigades." These brigades are supposed to be primarily involved in training Iraqi security troops, not leading combat operations. That doesn't mean that they won't be shot at or can't shoot back. There are "combat troops" in South Korea and Germany, and yet we aren't in combat there, so I'm willing to give the president some room here. And then there's the billions of dollars that Iraq's government is going to spend on American military gear. That's a really bad idea, as it will only increase Iraq's dependency on American military involvement. So are we disengaging from Iraq's internal affairs? Hardly.

But back to the speech. Again, some will argue that it is disingenuous because US troops are still there, but Obama has actually set the precedent for pulling US troops out of Afghanistan next summer by making the case that the US military role is to create some security (in both countries), build up the indigenous security forces, and then get the hell out. He has to demonstrate that he's keeping his campaign promises prior to the mid-term elections and that he is going to (eventually) get us out of Afghanistan before the 2012 election. At the same time, he isn't willing to give the Repubs any room in this dialogue to declare that the Dems are weak willies and traitors to the American Dream by running from a fight (yes, it's a false argument, but perceptions matter to the American public, especially the fence-sitters).

At the same time, Obama is directing attention to the need to move funds from military operations back to domestic priorities. This will cause others to claim Obama is using the war for political posturing, but they miss the point. War is an extension of politics, and it's certainly a responsible and mature view to place limits on military actions (and funding) when there are so many other domestic demands that require attention. At the least, he demonstrates the need to examine all federal funding in an attempt to rein in the deficit and restart the US economy. It's a tricky position, and Obama's careful navigation down the middle doesn't please many people, but it's just crazy enough to work.

Sadly, No!: The More Things Change …

D. Aristophanes — 2010-09-02T15:47:52+00:00

Poor Debbie Schlussel. In classic ‘Two Stars, One Slot’ fashion, Pamela Geller has won the ‘Battle of the Shrieking Anti-Muslim Grating-Voiced Paranoid Jewisher-Than-Thou Prowling Cougar Drama Queens’ — leaving Debs in the dust and hurting for audience share amongst the in-with-a-chance mouth-breathing career hatist demographic.

So what’s an aging peroxide blonde Dhimmi basher to do? Why, take out her rage on proxy Pams, of course! Pointing to a video of tween Jonas Brothers fans, Debbie sneers:

When I was a teen, none of the girls I knew (including myself) were this crazy and unhinged, especially over something sooooo stupid.

Clearly, such weepy adolescent reactions to pop stars has never occurred before. Oh, wait:

Not to mention:

The Fix: Al Franken comes out of his shell

2010-09-02T15:13:00+00:00

By Aaron Blake Slowly but surely, the "Air America" version of Minnesota Sen. Al Franken is making a comeback. After largely keeping his head down during his first year in the Senate, Franken is showing hints of the rhetorical fire that made him such a lightning rod during his 2008 campaign against then Sen. Norm Coleman (R). The first interviews the former "Saturday Night Live" star conducted during his campaign were notably funny-free and wonky. There was no sign of the liberal firebrand who made a name for Air America radio network and wrote a book called "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot." And since winning -- eventually, in the summer of 2009 -- Franken has turned down requests for national media interviews and, on the whole, just tried to blend in. Now that he's a little more comfortable and established, those close to Franken say he's more

Al Franken - Norm Coleman - Saturday Night Live - United States - Minnesota

Crooks and Liars: 'I Had A Dream' : Picture Stephen Colbert, Speaking To The Nation At 'Restoring Truthiness' Rally

Susie Madrak — 2010-09-02T15:00:03+00:00

enlarge

What if Stephen Colbert led a movement to Restore Truthiness? (credit)

I found this post by Mrs. Ammerica on Reddit the other day and I thought it was sheer genius -- and if nothing else, it made me smile. Wouldn't it be wonderful if Stephen Colbert led the nation to the Lincoln Memorial, in a rally called Restoring Truthiness?

I was woken in the middle of the night by this (along with the sound of my cat getting ready to pee on the rug).

Think about it. It'll be just like Colbert's mockery of GW Bush at the 2006 White House Correspondent's Dinner, but 500,000 people will be able to participate with him. We'll all stay totally in character as teabaggers. The kid with the microphone that interviews all the idiots at these things can come by and we'll ramble into his microphone.

This would be the high water mark of American satire. Half a million people pretending to suspend all rational thought in unison. Perfect harmony. It'll feel like San Francisco in the late 60s, only we won't be able to get any acid.

I know you're out there somewhere, Stephen, watching LOLcat gifs along side us. We need you. There's no way to have a logical public discussion with the teabaggers. The best we can do is to mimic them. Show them a mirror and hopefully some will realize how ridiculous they actually are... Or maybe they won't even realize that they're being mocked, which could be even more awesome.

Note: The response to this post has blown my mind. I really did jump out of bed at like 5AM and type this thing up. Then I checked from work and it's front page and there's a Facebook page and people are emailing one of the Executive Producers. I was just hoping some people would get a laugh out of it, and now it has over 6,800 upvotes? It's like I cracked the best joke of my life in a public place.

But to be fair, both pugsworth and hobbit6 posted the general idea before me in that Jon Stewart thread. I just fleshed it out a little bit. Anyway, I don't really know what to do or say about actually trying to make a Colbert Rally happen. I'd sure as hell be there, and I think I'd opt for the "Go back to the rug store with the rest of the Afghans" sign.
I just wanted to say that I'm really happy that so many people got a kick out of it. And the thought of Colbert himself actually maybe seeing this is probably the coolest thing that's ever happened to me so far in life.
EDIT 2: vinhboy has created a wikia page... http://www.colbertrally.com/ Nothing up on it yet, though. Please feel free to change that!

Here's the Facebook page. You know you want to! And from colbertrally.com:

Restoring Truthiness is a true grassroots movement propelled by YOU, the citizens of the internetz. Our goal is simple: Petition Stephen Colbert to hold a Restoring Truthiness Rally for the American people.

We are looking for volunteers to help us write content and build communities. If you are interested, email support@colbertrally.com

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30cGlenn-Livid www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes 2010 Election Fox News

Open Left: Immigrants good, CEOs bad: two new reports confound conventional wisdom

Paul Rosenberg — 2010-09-02T14:30:00+00:00

Two new reports combine to present a picture of how our economy works sharply at odds with the rightwing narrative of blaming immigrants and praising the rich as "creators of wealth" who need hefty tax cuts in order to continue "creating wealth" for the rest of us. It should come as little surprise to progressives that this last claim is pure bunk, that CEOs are rewarded for cutting jobs, not creating them. But the news about immigrants may surprise even those who read Open Left regularly. (More below.)

Immigrants expand the productive capacity of the economy, according to a new report from the San Francisco Federal Reserve, based on analysis of state-level data.

Meanwhile, the 17th annual executive compensation survey from the Institute for Policy Studies "CEO Pay and the Great Recession," shows that CEOs of the 50 firms that have laid off the most workers since the onset of the economic crisis took home 42 percent more pay in 2009 than their peers at S&P 500 firms.

From the IPS press release:

"Our findings illustrate the great unfairness of the Great Recession," says Sarah Anderson, lead author on the Institute study. "CEOs are squeezing workers to boost short-term profits and fatten their own paychecks."
The 50 top CEO layoff leaders received $12 million on average in 2009, compared to the S&P 500 average of $8.5 million. Each of the corporations surveyed laid off at least 3,000 workers between November 2008 and April 2010. Seventy-two percent of the firms announced mass layoffs at a time of positive earnings reports.
Highest-Paid "Layoff Leaders":

Fred Hassan, Schering-Plough: Hassan received a $33 million golden parachute when his firm merged with Merck in late 2009, while 16,000 workers faced pink slips. Hassan's total 2009 pay of nearly $50 million could cover the average cost of these workers' jobless benefits for more than 10 weeks.
William Weldon, Johnson & Johnson: Weldon took home $25.6 million, more than three times as much as the S&P 500 CEO average, at a time when his firm was slashing 9,000 jobs and facing a massive drug recall scandal.
Mark Hurd, Hewlett-Packard: While his failure to cover up a relationship with a contractor/erotic film star has been banner news, Hurd's slashing of 6,400 jobs last year has largely escaped the headlines. After getting the axe himself in August, Hurd added more than $28 million severance to his 2009 pay package of $24.2 million.

In contrast, it turns out that immigrants serve as a medium- and long-term stimulus to the economy:

The Effect of Immigrants on U.S. Employment and Productivity
By Giovanni Peri
The effects of immigration on the total output and income of the U.S. economy can be studied by comparing output per worker and employment in states that have had large immigrant inflows with data from states that have few new foreign-born workers. Statistical analysis of state-level data shows that immigrants expand the economy's productive capacity by stimulating investment and promoting specialization. This produces efficiency gains and boosts income per worker. At the same time, evidence is scant that immigrants diminish the employment opportunities of U.S.-born workers....

Immigration in recent decades has significantly increased the presence of foreign-born workers in the United States. The impact of these immigrants on the U.S. economy is hotly debated. Some stories in the popular press suggest that immigrants diminish the job opportunities of workers born in the United States. Others portray immigrants as filling essential jobs that are shunned by other workers. Economists who have analyzed local labor markets have mostly failed to find large effects of immigrants on employment and wages of U.S.-born workers (see Borjas 2006; Card 2001, 2007, 2009; and Card and Lewis 2007).
This Economic Letter summarizes recent research by Peri (2009) and Peri and Sparber (2009) examining the impact of immigrants on the broader U.S. economy. These studies systematically analyze how immigrants affect total output, income per worker, and employment in the short and long run. Consistent with previous research, the analysis finds no significant effect of immigration on net job growth for U.S.-born workers in these time horizons. This suggests that the economy absorbs immigrants by expanding job opportunities rather than by displacing workers born in the United States. Second, at the state level, the presence of immigrants is associated with increased output per worker. This effect emerges in the medium to long run as businesses adjust their physical capital, that is, equipment and structures, to take advantage of the labor supplied by new immigrants. However, in the short run, when businesses have not fully adjusted their productive capacity, immigrants reduce the capital intensity of the economy. Finally, immigration is associated with an increase in average hours per worker and a reduction in skills per worker as measured by the share of college-educated workers in a state. These two effects have opposite and roughly equal effect on labor productivity.

The impact of immigrants involves complex feedback mechanisms, which are typical of all modestly complicated systems, including virtually all of the social and biological world. While Kegan's Level 4 thinking--comparable to Shawn Rosenbergs "systematic thinking" has little trouble understanding this, rightwing political discourse is incapable of such subtleties, and focuses on laying blame on others, and the MSM tilts heavily in this direction as well, having abandoned all sense of critical responsibility, which is why this sort of report comes as such a surprise, and has relatively little chance of making a lasting impression.

Switching gears back to the IPS report, the figures show that although over-all CEO pay is down slightly from pre-crash highs, the compensation level remains far higher than in previous decades:

What's more, the difference between the average and the layoff leaders is striking:

And here's a table of some of the most noteworthy:

Crooks and Liars: Alan Simpson, Deficit Commission Court Jester

karoli — 2010-09-02T14:00:59+00:00

I really don't have an explanation for why Alan Simpson is one of the co-chairs of President Obama's deficit commission, beyond this: Every time the man opens his mouth, he makes the right wing look stupider than they did the day before. And more evil.

If I were running the world, Alan Simpson would not be anywhere near a commission of any kind, particularly one that is looking at Social Security in relation to the federal budget deficit. But he does provide an entertaining look at how utterly bankrupt right-wing policies are. If the idea was to have a court jester near the White House, Alan Simpson just might fill the role nicely.

Consider his two most recent gaffes. After referring to the Social Security system as a "milk cow with 310 million tits", he moved on to disabled veterans. Disabled veterans? Yes, really. He did.

Former Wyoming Sen. Alan Simpson's comments came a day after The Associated Press reported that diabetes has become the most frequently compensated ailment among Vietnam veterans, even though decades of research has failed to find more than a possible link between the defoliant Agent Orange and diabetes.

"The irony (is) that the veterans who saved this country are now, in a way, not helping us to save the country in this fiscal mess," said Simpson, an Army veteran who was once chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee.

So if I follow his line of thinking, what he is saying is that the veterans who fought in our wars and were poisoned by Agent Orange through no fault of their own are to blame for the deficit.

It's a joke. It has to be.

But wait -- there's more. Back in June, OWL board members Merton and Joan Bernstein wrote a rebuttal to Simpson's lies about Social Security and posted them on the Huffington Post. Simpson sent them a letter (PDF) in response, in which he managed to be incredibly offensive, condescending and rude in two paragraphs.

I was quite amused by your latest (May 28, 2010) remarkable spew of drivel about Social Security.

[...]

Tack it on your wall and throw darts at it if you wish, but at least know that "out there" are some live human beings who are trying to stabilize this remarkable system and who are using facts instead of emotion, fear and guilt. Surely you people can do better than that? If you can't, then America is in a heap of trouble anyway.

Just the tone was amazing enough, without mentioning the content. But Simpson didn't stop there. No, no, he seems to have a need to be right. Also, OWL is an extremely vocal group pushing back on his unwarranted and unnecessary attack on Social Security. I guess Simpson is just frustrated that the call for his resignation has gotten louder, not softer, because he felt the need to follow up his letter with a personal telephone call to the Bernsteins on Tuesday night, where Merton Bernstein set the record straight on Simpson's errors with regard to Social Security.

Merton Bernstein told HuffPost that he picked up the phone Tuesday night and the caller told him: "You don't know who I am."

"Oh, yes I do," Bernstein said he told Simpson. Bernstein, who was a senior consultant to the 1983 commission that reformed Social Security, said he used the opportunity to try to educate Simpson.

The commission, chaired by Alan Greenspan, reformed Social Security so that it could handle the onslaught of the pending baby boom retirements. Simpson was unaware of what the commission had done, said Bernstein.

"That's not true," Bernstein said of Simpson's claim -- which he has made in the past and repeated to Bernstein -- that the commission did not account for baby boomers. "They very clearly and explicitly addressed that issue. That's why they built in a surplus." Bernstein told him that he was in the room with Bob Ball and other commission leaders when they made the decision to account for the pending wave of retirements.

"Then why are they in such trouble now?" Simpson responded. Bernstein responded that they are not in fact in trouble today. The surplus is now over $2 trillion and is projected to reach $4.6 trillion.

"Well, don't you pay attention to the trustee's report?" Simpson responded, as Bernstein recalled. Bernstein told him that he does pay attention to such reports, and that the most recent report found that Social Security was in no worse shape this year than it was last year, despite the recession. The program is on track to pay full benefits at least until 2037, at which point most surviving boomers will be in their late 80s and 90s.

If the strategy is to play Simpson as the fool publicly, it seems to be working. It also seems foolish, especially when his presence on this commission leaves an impression that there is a possibility Democrats could be the ones to attack Social Security in the name of deficit reduction.

Whatever the grand scheme is, there's no question that Simpson is no asset to this administration and should be shown the door as soon as possible.

Sadly, No!: They Hate Us For Our Censorship

D. Aristophanes — 2010-09-02T13:27:21+00:00

Pam Geller issues a stern warning to attendees of her next big she-man-Muslim-hating club gathering:

We will be confiscating signs. It is a solemn day. No signs. FLAGS. Tens of thousands of flags.

The Fix: Larry Sabato predicts a Republican House majority

2010-09-02T13:08:00+00:00

1. In a report issued this morning, University of Virginia political handicapper Larry Sabato estimated that Republicans will pick up 47 seats in the House on Nov. 2, more than enough to restore the party to majority status at the start of the 112th Congress. "Conditions have deteriorated badly for Democrats over the summer," writes Sabato. "The economy appears rotten, with little chance of a substantial comeback by November 2nd. Unemployment is very high, income growth sluggish, and public confidence quite low." He adds: "To most voters--fair or not--it seems that President Obama has over-promised and under-delivered." Sabato's prediction comes amid increasingly pessimistic assessments of Democratic chances in the fall from the political prognosticator class. Last week, Time magazine's Mark Halperin said that if circumstances didn't change Democratic House losses could total as many as 60 seats. And, on Wednesday, Charlie Cook, a former Fix boss and editor of

Larry Sabato - Cook Political Report - University of Virginia - Democratic - Republican

Crooks and Liars: Olbermann and Scahill Share Their 'Thanks' to President Bush

Heather — 2010-09-02T13:00:08+00:00

Click here to view this media

Keith Olbermann and The Nation's Jeremy Scahill respond to the "revisionist historian", "credit where credit's due" right wingers who are demanding that everyone "thank Bush" after Obama's speech on Iraq this week. They've got some thanks for him alright, as in yeah, thanks a lot of your illegal invasion and wrecking our economy while enriching your defense contractor buddies. Thanks.... thanks for nothing.

John McCain, Stephen Hadley, Karl Rove, Dan Senor and the rest of these war mongers who think we should be praising Bush for invading a country that wasn't a threat to us and squandering our tax dollars should be ashamed of themselves, but that would imply that they have the capacity to feel shame.

Open Left: Meet Communist Ron Johnson, the Republican Nominee for U.S. Senate in Wisconsin

David Sirota — 2010-09-02T12:30:00+00:00

I never thought we'd see a Republican Communist - and certainly not one who is the nominee for U.S. Senate in a major swing-state. But as the Wisconsin State Journal shows, in these strange time, even that seeming oxymoron now exists:

U.S. Senate candidate Ron Johnson was on the Wisconsin Radio Network Monday, chatting about jobs and the economy. But after the host asked him about his free market philosophy, Johnson ended up kind-of praising the current business climate China instead...
Johnson veered onto the topic of China, and how casino entrepreneur Steve Wynn has already started building businesses in Macau.
"He's also creating resorts in Macau in China, communist China. And his point is, the level of uncertainty, the climate for business investment is far more certain in communist China then it is in the U.S. here," Johnson said. "We've created such a high level of uncertainty in this economy because, quite honestly because of the agenda that Senator Feingold represents."

This is pretty explicit: Johnson is praising a communist Chinese government and its state central planning for (allegedly) creating laudable certainty in that nation's economy - all while criticizing America's economy for not being equally communist, state-planned and stable.

If you think I'm the only one who caught this, think again. As the Wisconsin State Journal notes, the host of the radio program "sounded a bit baffled" by Johnson:

"Ron...but Macau is in China. China is a socialist-planned economy," he said. "The level of uncertainty...isn't the level of uncertainty part of a side-effect, if you will, of our, of our democracy?"

The host, of course, is exactly right. In a republican democracy, where the people (via their governmental representatives) have some shred of control over economic policies, things can change from time to time. That's the whole friggin' point of democracy, after all - to give citizens some power over their own lives, society and economy.

By contrast, in an authortarian communism like China, citizens have little or no control over economic policies. While that may foster "certainty" for corporations in the form of no significant labor, environmental or human rights laws, it deprives citizens a lot of other things that makes a nation vibrant and admirable (like, say, a minimally acceptable standard of living).

But that's really the Republican vision when you strip it down to its core. The GOP, like the Chinese government, is about the fusing a corporate form of communism with total authoritarianism. They genuinely believe it would be better if corporations could use government power to get whatever they want in the name of "certainty" - and have no annoying elections or democratic institutions get in the way on behalf of the public.

We can thank Wisconsin Republican Senate nominee Ron Johnson for at least being honest about his party's extremist vision. While most Americans probably don't see Chinese communism as the way forward, Republicans clearly do - and we can thank them, at minimum, for letting us know how they see the world.

Crooks and Liars: Mike's Blog Roundup

Mike Finnigan — 2010-09-02T12:00:00+00:00

Et tu, Mr. Destructo?: White America's Inconvenience Tantrum, Part V: We Start the Pogrom at Ground Zero

The Next Web: Clash of the blogosphere titans (h/t Vagabond Scholar)

Lawyers, Guns & Money: This why I "support" majoritarian rule

Consortiumblog: How the Right Still Frames Iraq

his vorpal sword: Ben Smith, ace journalist, covers Sarah Palin

Miller-McCune Online: Liberals Gone Wild

Crooks and Liars: Open Thread

bluegal — 2010-09-02T03:30:49+00:00

enlarge

Credit: Fried Green Al Qaedas

Fried Green Al Qaedas reviews the happenings at Beckapolooza; the rest is here. And not to contradict Quitty McQuitter, but the National Park Service no longer provides audience estimates.

Open thread below....

Donklephant: Why Did Beck Lie About George Washington Inaugural Address?

Justin Gardner — 2010-09-02T03:17:22+00:00

Listen, it’s not like I’m necessarily surprised, but to make such a dumb lie?

Here’s what he said…

“I have been going to Mt. Vernon,” he explained. Holding out his hands for emphasis, he declared with emotion, “I went to the National Archives, and I held the first inaugural address written in his own hand by George Washington.”

So what really happened?

Well, he was near George Washington’s inaugural address…but that’s about it…

Beck did receive a special VIP tour of the archives, arranged by an as-yet unidentified member of Congress. During that tour, he did get a peek inside the “legislative vault,” which isn’t open to ordinary visitors. But Archives spokeswoman Susan Cooper insists that Beck didn’t lay a finger on any precious documents, much less George Washington’s inaugural address. That would be a major violation of policy. “Those kinds of treasures are only handled by specially trained archival staff,” she explains. Cooper acknowledges that someone at the archives did show the document to Beck, but that was the extent of it.

Examples like this just makes me more and more convinced that while these folks are getting plenty of attention now, this is not a sustainable path. They’re obviously liars and will say and do anything to get people to pay attention…which will ultimately result in the the wrong type of attention and their credibility imploding.

And that’s why I put that picture of one of the rally attendees up on this post. Not because I want to pick on her, but because folks like her actually need to be educated about what people like Beck are doing to them. These media personalities don’t really care about the country. And yes, I will say that I think Beck is pretty much craven and self-serving here. Because when you so easily lie to tens of thousands of people about something like the above…on the anniversary of MLK jr’s historic speech…and on the exact same spot…it’s not hard to draw a straight line between the lie and the motives for that lie. Glenn Beck cares about Glenn Beck being famous…and that’s about it.

But hey, feel free to disagree and convince me otherwise. I double dare you.

Crooks and Liars: C&L's Late Night Music Club With XTC

Jared Shade Reynolds — 2010-09-02T03:00:37+00:00

Genre: XTC

Title: Dear God

My brother sent me an email yesterday telling me that LNMC needed some XTC. He was right. This track is off 1986's Skylarking, which was produced by Todd Rundgren and ranked as the 48th best album of the eighties according to Rolling Stone magazine.

Skylarking
	Artist: Xtc Price: $17.58 (As of 09/02/10 03:56 am details)

The Fix: Afternoon Fix: RGA up with new ads in Hawaii; Bill Clinton to Arkansas for Lincoln

2010-09-02T01:45:00+00:00

Make sure to sign up to get "Afternoon Fix" in your e-mail inbox every day by 5 (ish) p.m.! EARLIER ON THE FIX Daily Fix Poll: Could Sarah Palin win Iowa? Mitch Daniels Inner Circle Can Social Security save Democrats this fall? Lisa Murkowski loses, do Democrats sense opportunity? WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED * Connecticut Attorney General Dick Blumenthal (D) is up with a new TV ad in his Senate race promising to hold big oil companies accountable in Washington. * The AFL-CIO is launching a voter mobilization effort over Labor Day weekend including a $500,000 TV and radio ad buy. * Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.) is up with a new TV ad charging that former state Sen. Joe Heck (R) is "not on our side" when it comes to creating jobs. * A new MPR News-Humphrey Institute poll shows that 54 percent of likely Minnesota voters oppose Gov.

Lisa Murkowski - Sarah Palin - Democratic Party - United States Senate - AFL-CIO