TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Archive | June, 2007

Moving Beyond Kyoto

By on 30 June 2007




By AL GORE
Nashville

WE, the human species, have arrived at a moment of decision.
It is unprecedented and even laughable for us to imagine that we could actually
make a conscious choice as a species, but that is nevertheless the challenge
that is before us.

Our home, Earth, is in danger. What is at risk of being destroyed
is not the planet itself, but the conditions that have made it hospitable
for human beings.

Without realizing the consequences of our actions, we have begun to put so
much carbon dioxide into the thin shell of air surrounding our world that
we have literally changed the heat balance between Earth and the Sun. If we
don¹t stop doing this pretty quickly, the average temperature will increase
to levels humans have never known and put an end to the favorable climate
balance on which our civilization depends.

In the last 150 years, in an accelerating frenzy, we have been removing increasing
quantities of carbon from the ground, mainly in the form of coal and
oil, and burning it in ways that dump 70 million tons of CO2 every
24 hours into the Earth¹s atmosphere.

(snip)

Similarly, at the other end of the planet, near the South Pole, scientists
have found new evidence of snow melting in West Antarctica across an area
as large as California.

This is not a political issue. This is a moral issue, one that affects the
survival of human civilization. It is not a question of left versus right;
it is a question of right versus wrong. Put simply, it is wrong to destroy
the habitability of our planet and ruin the prospects of every generation
that follows ours.

On Sept. 21, 1987, President Ronald Reagan said, ³In our obsession with
antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members
of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to recognize this
common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences would vanish
if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world.² … ..

Al Gore, vice president from 1993 to 2001, is the chairman of the Alliance
for Climate Protection. He is the author, most recently, of The Assault
on Reason.²

Read full story · Comments are closed

Transition Terrorism

By on 30 June 2007

Transition Terrorism updated

VIDEO: Scotland Yard weighs in.


One car explodes at an airport in Glasgow*, with two guys arrested, and everyone
cries the sky is falling.


The Queen is in Scotland today for the inauguration of Scotland’s third Parliament, the first to be under Nationalist minority control.

This is what can happen when there is a transition in government. Blair steps
down. Brown takes over.
Terrorists strike. As for “terrorists,” so far we mean renegade individuals
in a car who didn’t want to die for jihad. (Update: One of the men who bombed drove the car into the Glasgow airport died en route to the hospital.) As for yesterday, some guys who couldn’t
even pull off a car bombing. It’s called an unsuccessful attempt.

What does a successful transition terrorist attack look like? Go back to when Bush senior handed over the presidential reins to Bill Clinton and we had our first World Trade Center bombing, just a little over one month after Clinton took over. It was masterminded by Ramzi Yousef, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, but as far as is known, Bush senior didn’t hand over any terror warnings to Clinton. Also remember that 9/11 happened just months after George W. Bush took over, after the Clinton administration and Richard Clarke warned about the dangers of Al Qaeda and long after we’d come to know Osama bin Laden was a real threat. Bush walked into office unimpressed.

The London attacks do not come close to a real, coordinated blow. But happening right when Blair steps down should be part of the story. So far it’s not.

The cable networks are a twitter. Because if it’s Saturday, it must be sensationalism.


… My main beef remains that much of the cable news media reacts to this
nonsense like a fifty year old guy on Viagra or Cialis–they pop major wood.
And the same warnings are appropriate–an erection lasting more than four
hours may be harmful. Amen.

Larry
Johnson

“Terror thriller type incident,” says an “expert”
on MSNBC. David Shuster’s got a tough gig today. So far no one has mentioned the transition terrorism link. It’s far more fun to say boo.

Cue the speculation. Prepare to run amok.

* TM NOTE: This post has been updated, because early draft was mistakenly posted, instead of final edition.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Conservatives Roll Back the Clock on Civil Rights Enforcement

By on 30 June 2007

Conservatives Roll Back the Clock on Civil Rights Enforcement
Expert guest post by Michael
K. Fauntroy

There goes The Court.

A recent Supreme Court ruling which upheld the unreasonable and unrealistic
application of time limits on those who believe they are the victim of pay discrimination
is another in a growing list of occurrences which demonstrate, clearly and convincingly,
that the clock is being rolled back on civil rights enforcement in America.
It’s the Reagan era all over again. Court rulings and the Bush administration’s
abdication of support for those who have been wronged has literally made it
easier to discriminate against individuals based on race and gender. This is
an unfortunate result of conservative deregulation of civil rights enforcement
that, if left unchecked, will adversely impact minorities and women for decades.
The conservative juggernaut that has demonized discussions of legitimate concern
regarding civil rights as simply seeking “political correctness”
or “playing the race card” has gone on long enough and those who
know better must speak up in defense of what is right.

The Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. seems
absurd on its face. Lilly Ledbetter, who worked at Goodyear for 19 years, alleged
that she received less pay than male counterparts for the same work because
of gender discrimination. At the time of the discrimination complaint, Ledbetter
was making $6,000 less per year than the lowest paid man doing the same job.
She was awarded $360,000 (down from the $3.6 million original jury award) in
damages but the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding
that the district court should have granted Goodyear’s motion for judgment because
the statute required Ledbetter to file her complaint with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within six months of the alleged illegal employment
practice (Ledbetter argued that each paycheck constituted a new discriminatory
act). The Supreme Court upheld the circuit court ruling in a ruling which held
that each paycheck that showed a gender-based disparity must have been contested
within the 180-day EEOC timeframe.

Congress established the time limit in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964. The limit now seems arbitrary and penalizes anyone who finds out after
that period that they are being wronged. The Supreme Court has made the burden
even more difficult by now putting victims of discrimination in the position
of being protected only if they happen to find out about the discrimination
within the first six months of their employment. How likely is it that a discriminatory
practice would be revealed so quickly? While a time limit is a reasonable requirement,
a short one such as this does not give a fair chance to those seeking court
redress. This is even more notable when one considers the enormous and growing
backlog of cases before the EEOC. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg noted in the
dissenting opinion, “The Court’s insistence on immediate contest
overlooks common characteristics of pay discrimination.” Ginsberg noted
that pay discrimination often occurs in small increments that may take a long
period of time to be revealed. As pay information is often secret, it is even
more difficult for someone being victimized by wage discrimination to learn
of such discrepancies.

And as the Supreme Court continues to erode civil rights protections, the Bush
administration is making things worse. It was recently revealed that the Justice
Department has an abysmal record when it comes to hiring Black attorneys and
conducting civil rights cases. Since 2003, the criminal section within the Civil
Rights Division (CRD) has not hired a single African American attorney to replace
those who have left and it’s not like the CRD was a hotbed for Black attorneys.
In 2007, there are fifty attorneys in the Criminal Section, just two of whom
are African American. By comparison, the section had two African American attorneys
in 1978, despite the fact that it was half the size of the current organization.

Justice commissioned KPMG Consulting and Taylor Cox and to examine diversity
among attorneys throughout the department. The report, which was initially kept
from Congress and the public, was heavily redacted when it was released. It
was ultimately revealed that women and minority attorneys in the department
feel that their careers are hindered and they are passed up in favor of White
men when it comes to getting the best assignments. This, combined with six senior
CRD officials being forced from their jobs for what appears to be political
reasons, has undermined the work of the Justice Department.

The personnel decisions in the CRD are but part of the problem. Prosecutions
are down as well. On the one hand, one may argue a decline in prosecutions can
reflect a reduction in discrimination and, therefore, be a sign of progress.
Those who reject that argument, of which I am one, would counter that it could
mean that Justice is more accommodating to those who engage in illegal discrimination.
Be that as it may, the statistics are more than worrisome. According to the
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Justice Department has only tried
35 Title VII employment discrimination cases since 2001, compared to 92 cases
brought during the Clinton administration. The Housing and Civil Enforcement
section’s cases dropped from 53 in 2001 to 31 in 2006, with a 60% decline in
the number of race-related cases.

Sadly, this is in keeping with the history of conservative civil rights enforcement.
As professor Hanes Walton demonstrated in his book When the Marching Stopped:
The Politics of Civil Rights Regulatory Agencies, conservatives have long resisted
fair civil rights enforcement. Conservative arguments often revolve around the
notion that federal civil rights enforcement too often results in reverse discrimination
and harms Whites. These efforts took on new resonance with Ronald Reagan’s
election to the presidency in 1980. He talked openly of remaking the civil rights
status quo.

But as I note in my book Republicans and the Black Vote, Democrats controlled
the House of Representatives and vehemently opposed Reagan’s efforts and
served as a backstop against Reagan and the Republican majority in the Senate,
many of whom were elected along with Reagan on a conservative policy platform
and were sure to support the president’s proposed changes in this regard.
Overtly seeking to overturn these measures would continue to paint Reagan as
a racist, and continued a controversy that had the potential to bog down other
areas of his domestic agenda, such as tax cuts. Reagan needed a more covert
approach to get closer to his policy goals. The Reagan solution was to defund
the parts of the federal apparatus responsible for enforcing and contributing
to the enforcement of civil rights laws, thereby lessening their ability to
examine and enforce federal civil rights issues.

The dismantling of Federal civil rights enforcement under Reagan took two forms
occurring concomitantly. First, was the freezing or reducing of funding for
agencies charged with enforcement of federal civil rights laws and regulations.
Rather than overtly end these programs and agencies, the Reagan administration
sought to starve them to prevent them from doing their work. In this way, they
could largely achieve their goal of civil rights deregulation without seeking
the abolition of the programs and agencies, thereby providing some political
cover. Second, was the hiring of individuals to lead these organizations, or
take high-ranking positions therein, who were ideologically pre-disposed to
not enforce federal civil rights laws and regulations as aggressively as their
predecessors. These actions deregulated federal civil rights enforcement and
created an environment in which civil rights violations could occur with near
impunity and certainly with much less fear of federal reprisals than before.

In some departments, enforcement either shifted in new ways, was reduced, or
discontinued. One congressional investigation concluded that the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission shifted away from class action lawsuits, elevated the
standard of proof to establish reasonable cause, orally directed staff not to
recommend the use of goals and time tables and not to intervene in cases in
which goals and timetables were proposed as a remedy for discrimination, and
accelerated closure of cases at the expense of quality of investigations. The
Justice Department filed no cases under the Fair Housing Act of 1968 during
its first year under Reagan; they filed two in 1982. Under presidents Nixon,
Ford, and Carter, the department averaged thirty-two cases a year.

This background demonstrates that the Bush administration’s civil rights
enforcement efforts are part of a long lineage of conservative policies in this
area. It is clear and incontrovertible that conservative civil rights enforcement
will always work against those most likely to be victimized by discrimination,
be it in the workplace, in housing, or education. For conservatives, the real
victims are not those who are discriminated against but, rather, those who are
have to operate within the confines of civil rights law and are trapped into
frivolous litigation. Conservatives who argue otherwise are either ignorant
of history or willfully twisting the truth to support their point.

The conservative-led deregulation of civil rights enforcement has created a
fairness void in America that flies in the face of attempts by the Republican
Party to reach out to minorities. Republican political activists are quick to
note the appointments of Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice to significant and
unprecedented positions in the Bush administration as evidence that the GOP
is doing the right thing on civil rights. While notable, these appointments
do nothing to overcome the reality that this administration, like so many conservative
governments of previous years, has deregulated civil rights enforcement to such
a degree that basic, common-sense civil rights for all is in jeopardy.

==========================

Michael K. Fauntroy is an assistant professor of public policy at George Mason
University and author of the recently published book Republicans
and the Black Vote.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Apple Pie and Abba for Everyone

By on 30 June 2007

Got the video above via email, so I’d thought I’d share it. Read the reviews about Fred below, which rl reminded me about, while listening. They’re a perfect compliment to one another.


When Fred Thompson made his debut on the presidential stage here this week, he left some Republicans thinking he needs more work before his nascent campaign matches the media hype it’s gotten in advance.

The former Tennessee senator with the baritone drawl showed up Thursday in New Hampshire, the site of the first primary voting, and gave a speech that lasted only nine minutes, skipping over hot-button issues such as Iraq and immigration to invoke platitudes about freedom and strength.

He left more than a few Republicans disappointed.

The star of the TV series “Law and Order” had won cheers the day before in South Carolina, another early-primary state, in his first trip there since he’d signaled that he’ll soon jump into the race for the Republican presidential nomination. But South Carolina and Tennessee are neighbors, while New Hampshire tests whether Thompson’s got more than regional appeal. So far, the answer’s quite unclear.

“I plan on seeing a whole lot more of you,” Thompson told about 200 New Hampshire Republicans who paid $50 each to hear him — and to benefit state Republican legislators.

He’d better, because many present came away decidedly under-whelmed.

“It was short,” said Richard Heitmiller of Nashua. “He’s got a nice voice. But there was nothing there. He’s for apple pie and motherhood. He’s going to have to say what he’s for.” … ..

Thompson gets mixed reviews in New Hampshire premiere

The Republicans are in trouble. Fred isn’t Reagan. It’s never good not to live up to your press. What to do now?

Read full story · Comments are closed

From Brown to Plessy

By on 29 June 2007

From Brown to Plessy
guest post by Mash

Yesterday the United States Supreme Court dealt a severe blow to the legacy of Brown v. Board of Education. In a 5-4 decision Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the following in an opinion joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito (Justice Kennedy cast the deciding vote for the majority but did not sign on to Roberts’ opinion):



The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

With those lines, the Supreme Court rolled back much of Brown v. Board of Education while claiming to have upheld it.

On May 17, 1954 the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education struck a death knell to the long era of racial segregation in America by overturning the 1896 Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson. Plessy had upheld racial segregation and the doctrine of "separate but equal" as constitutional.

In writing for the majority in Plessy Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote on May 18, 1896 the following:



Legislation is powerless to eradicate racial instincts or to abolish distinctions based upon physical differences, and the attempt to do so can only result in accentuating the difficulties of the present situation.

Over a century after Plessy, Chief Justice Roberts’ words echo the words of Justice Henry Billings Brown. In Plessy, Justice Brown went on to write:



We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff’s argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it. … The argument also assumes that social prejudices may be overcome by legislation, and that equal rights cannot be secured to the negro except by an enforced commingling of the two races. We cannot accept this proposition. If the two races are to meet upon terms of social equality, it must be the result of natural affinities, a mutual appreciation of each other’s merits, and a voluntary consent of individuals.

…

If the civil and political rights of both races be equal, one cannot be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane.

It was the Supreme Court’s affirmation of segregation so plainly handed down in Plessy that Brown rejected, overturned and aimed to remedy. Yesterday that changed by Justice Robert’s throwback to Plessy’s position that government’s attempts to counter segregation is in itself discrimination.

In a scathing dissent yesterday, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote:



The lesson of history … is not that efforts to continue racial segregation are constitutionally indistinguishable from efforts to achieve racial integration.

The legacy of Brown vs. Board of Education is now in serious jeopardy after yesterday’s ruling – the ruling aims to effectively strip school boards of tools that they have used to counter racial segregation. In that we have returned to the days of Plessy, by turning Brown on its head.

In 1954, on behalf of the unanimous Supreme Court in Brown, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote:



Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

…

We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.

Yesterday’s was a landmark decision that effectively rendered Brown toothless. Save for Justice Kennedy not signing on to Justice Roberts’ opinion, it would have been a complete overturning of Brown v. Board of Education.

 

Read full story · Comments are closed

Dear House Democrats

By on 29 June 2007

Dear House Democrats bumped






Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would slash profits and pressure radio executives to scale back on conservative programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from government regulators. Opponents of the Fairness Doctrine argue that radio stations would suffer financially if forced to air liberal as well as conservative programs because liberal talk radio has not proven popular or profitable. For example, Air America, liberals’ answer to “The Rush Limbaugh Show” and Michael Medved, filed for bankruptcy in October. …

Fairness Doctrine hammered 309-115

It’s nice to have a microphone. Those that do are going to protect it. I understand that and wouldn’t expect otherwise. Unfortunately, everyone is yapping about the free market place without understanding that there’s close to a radio freeze out going on for any liberal trying to get in. It sure didn’t help that Air America went bust on a bad business model. Then you’ve got conservatives afraid of what liberals being given open access to microphones across this country would mean. To top it all, you’ve got extremely dumb Democrats that don’t understand the value of terrestrial radio, or actually belittle the influence. But this vote on the Fairness Doctrine isn’t surprising, at least not to me. The conversation about the Fairness Doctrine was only a means to get the radio debate started again. The real issue revolves around media consolidation, not that Democrats give a crap. They’re still completely clueless, at least so far and I’ve been watching this for well over ten years.

But thanks so very much.

Really.

Appreciate this a lot, Rep. Obey. You’ve even got The Hill quoting you, even though you have no clue what you’re talking about.

Not only did you opine ignorantly on the House floor, but you gave the wingnuts
the sound bites they could only dream of getting. Ms. Malkin offered the
transcript of the debate, with Sean Hannity playing the audio as accompaniment
to a Newt Gingrich interview on his radio show, then continuing on “Hannity & Colmes.” Coming soon after wingnut radio,
legislators and bloggers joined together to pull Republicans away from the immigration
bill and defeat their own party’s president, I can’t tell you how enlightened
you sounded.


Obey: I want to see Rush Limbaugh and Sean (Hannity) them bloviate in all
their glory. Everyone knows he’s plugged in to Republican National Headquarters.
He’s thoroughly discredited and I’d like to keep it that way.
Let right-wing talk radio go on just as it is now. Rush and Sean are just
about as important in the scheme of things as Paris Hilton.”

Pence: The bipartisan vote that I expect will be recorded today will be an
encouragement…that we believe in freedom on the airwaves.

Obey: This is a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

Here’s the thing. You’re wrong. Dead wrong. So miserably wrong it’s hard to
know where to start, except to say that millions and millions of people know
you are wrong, so hearing your words was no doubt just a hoot for them. However,
after talking for years about the importance of radio what I heard didn’t really
surprise me, though I thought we’d made at least some headway on the
talk radio issue.

As for Speaker Pelosi, she was caught totally off guard today. Found completely flat footed on this issue. She said on the phone to me during a conference call that Pence’s amendment hadn’t reached her level and assured me that it wouldn’t go anywhere. Then shazaam! Tonight a vote and the Dems join the wingnuts slamming the Fairness Doctrine. Conservatives got mobilized before Speaker Pelosi even knew there was an issue at hand.

Again, not surprising, because the Fairness Doctrine was a means to an end. But the fact remains that when a Democratic majority in the House gets taken on an issue like this you really have to wonder if anyone is really paying attention. It’s not like talk radio is unimportant. Regardless of Obey’s ignorance about it and Speaker Pelosi’s nonchalance, I assure you Rush and Sean have more sway than Paris Hilton. Check the immigration bill outcome if you doubt me.

The thing is that blogs can’t do everything.

Legislators, you know, senators and congressmen and women, can’t either.

But when you get everyone working together on an issue that’s important and
packs an emotional punch (say taking this nation to war or getting us out of
war), there is nothing, absolutely nothing more powerful than the emotion terrestrial
talk radio delivers to tens of millions from Rush, Sean, Laura Ingraham,
(even “cabin boy” Levin), as well as the Christian Broadcasting Network.

As a point of reference, liberals just got on Armed Forces Radio a little over
one year ago. Before that it was all Rush and conservative radio all of the
time. How’d that work for us?

To say the talk radio is tantamount to Paris Hilton is not only an insult to
people who know its power, but dangerous to the health of Democrats in 2008
and beyond. Then of course, there are the wonderful hosts like Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller, The Young Turks, Rachel Maddow, Sam Seder, Randy Rhodes and so many others who are still trying to expand their listener base, not to mention others trying to stay on the air or get back on the air. Seriously, how many elections do we have to lose to understand that
satellite and web radio are just groovy, but the real democratic numbers come
from flipping on the old terrestrial radio dial? Remember Clinton impeachment? The swiftboating of John Kerry? Both worked similarly to the immigration smackdown, with all the wingnut grooves working in sync. Catching on to how this works?

An issue arises. Blogs get activated. Legislators are engaged. Enter talk radio with tens of millions of listeners… but only if it’s a conversative issue. Liberal action stops before the talk radio engagement, because no matter how good our talkers are they only have a small fraction of the outreach of the wingnuts on terrestrial radio, complimented by Christian broadcasting. We have two out of three cogs of the machine, while conservatives have all three and have since the early 1990s. Getting this down? Because when all cylinders of this machine are engaged the opposition — that would be us — doesn’t have a prayer.

Republicans love that Democrats still don’t get the power of talk radio. Besides, if it weren’t
critical to the Republican Party do you think right-wing talkers would be joining
with legislators and wingnut bloggers to begin a frontal and very aggressive
assault before anything has even moved forward? Before the majority even realized something is happening.

Oh, and to make this clear, I’m not interested in
the least in radio welfare. God bless the conservatives. Let them babble ’til they choke on their lies. Just don’t keep progressives from proving we can talk too
by not giving us a mike (or the chance for a larger piece of the syndication pie), in addition to the needed time to make ratings, which takes
more than a couple of months.

Again, the Fairness Doctrine was a means to get the conversation started. Maybe targeting media consolidation is the answer.
I don’t have the definitive answers. But I do know this, ignorance on the radio issue is not bliss, especially when spoken on the House floor or when the Speaker gets caught fast asleep.

Sincerely,
Just another talk radio host without a station and operating in the red online
every day.

Read full story · Comments are closed

More than Speeches

By on 29 June 2007

It’s all over but the redeployment.


Petraeus won’t talk about his September testimony, and he won’t talk about the details of the inevitable U.S. withdrawal. But it is clear that he and his aides are preparing for the endgame. In Baqubah, General Odierno had told the Iraqis, “It’s up to you to make sure [al-Qaeda] doesn’t come back.” One could only wonder about the fate of Sunni insurgents who had turned against the jihadis. Soon they would be facing a new foe, an Iraqi army and local police that have been notoriously awful in Diyala province — riddled with Shi’ite death squads, incompetence and corruption. Petraeus’ “all in” bet relies on the police recruits squatting sullenly in Yusufia, indulging his cheerleading — “Are you ready to fight for your country?” Certainly, they were ready to fight for their families, their tribes, their mosques … but for a Shi’ite Iraq? Probably not.

“The vision thing is really important,” Petraeus told his commanders in Yusufia. “You have to visualize what security here should look like when you’re gone.” Petraeus was among the first to have the vision thing in Iraq, in Mosul in 2003, but the experiment was abandoned — there was a lack of sufficient troops — after he left. McCain and others believe, with some justification, that if the Petraeus counterinsurgency tactics had been adopted three years ago, the U.S.-led coalition might have had a shot. But now it seems likely that Petraeus will suffer the same fate in Baghdad as he did in Mosul. The various clocks are very much on his mind, but so are the daily sacrifices, the brilliant improvisations and occasional neighborhood victories of the troops he leads. “He doesn’t want to be the fall guy,” an aide said. And he doesn’t deserve to be. It is hard to imagine, though, how this can turn out any other way.

In Iraq, Operation Last Chance, by Joe Klein

Read full story · Comments are closed

HOPE

By on 29 June 2007

What Christy said.

Get that mammogram.

Get that prostate exam.

Go to the gym. Get that heart pumping.

It’s a matter of the quality of your life. Do it for your boyfriend, your girlfriend, your family or do it for yourself. Just do it.

Read full story · Comments are closed

More on Murdoch

By on 29 June 2007

Background.

Moyers deserves more eyeballs.


If Rupert Murdoch were the Angel Gabriel, you still wouldn’t want him owning
the sun, the moon, and the stars. That’s too much prime real estate for even
the pure in heart.

But Rupert Murdoch is no saint; he is to propriety what the Marquis de Sade
was to chastity. When it comes to money and power he’s carnivorous: all appetite
and no taste. He’ll eat anything in his path. Politicians become little clay
pigeons to be picked off with flattering headlines, generous air time, a book
contract or the old-fashioned black jack that never misses: campaign cash.
He hires lobbyists the way Imelda Marcos bought shoes, and stacks them in
his cavernous closet, along with his conscience; this is the man, remember,
who famously kowtowed to the Communist overlords of China, oppressors of their
own people, to protect his investments there. … ..

On
Murdoch

Read full story · Comments are closed

Gore Watch

By on 29 June 2007

For lack of a better title. File it under things that mean nothing or everything.
You choose.


ENVIRONMENT
Al
Gore visit postponed
Former US vice president Al Gore will not be able to make it to Taiwan this
September to address the issue of global warming, Democratic Progressive Party
Legislator Tien Chiu-chin said yesterday. Tien, who invited Gore to visit
Taiwan to promote awareness on global warming, told reporters yesterday that
she received an e-mail from the Harry Walker Agency, which has the exclusive
right to arrange Gore’s speeches, saying that Gore had canceled all his scheduled
events in the next six months. The visit to Taiwan had been postponed to next
year, she added. Tien said the reason for the cancelation was that Gore was
considering a presidential bid.

Via the scaredy cats at NRO.

Read full story · Comments are closed

The Al Qaeda Card

By on 29 June 2007

Things are slipping away.

He doesn’t have any clout.

So what can he do?

Give a speech at the Naval
War College to try to scare the crap out of everyone. After all, if he doesn’t
have terror he’s got nothing. Cue desperation.


Facing eroding support for his Iraq policy, even among Republicans, President
Bush on Thursday called al Qaida "the main enemy" in Iraq, an assertion
rejected by his administration’s senior intelligence analysts.

The reference, in a major speech at the Naval War College that referred to
al Qaida at least 27 times, seemed calculated to use lingering outrage over
the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to bolster support for the current
buildup of U.S. troops in Iraq, despite evidence that sending more troops
hasn’t reduced the violence or sped Iraqi government action on key issues.

Bush called al Qaida in Iraq the perpetrator of the worst violence racking
that country and said it was the same group that had carried out the Sept.
11 attacks in New York and Washington.

"Al Qaida is the main enemy for Shia, Sunni and Kurds alike," Bush
asserted. "Al Qaida’s responsible for the most sensational killings in
Iraq. They’re responsible for the sensational killings on U.S. soil."

U.S. military and intelligence officials, however, say that Iraqis with ties
to al Qaida are only a small fraction of the threat to American troops. The
group known as al Qaida in Iraq didn’t exist before the U.S.-led invasion
in 2003, didn’t pledge its loyalty to al Qaida leader Osama bin Laden until
October 2004 and isn’t controlled by bin Laden or his top aides. … ..

Bush
plays al Qaida card to bolster support for Iraq policy

Read full story · Comments are closed

Just Another Day

By on 29 June 2007

Just Another Day updated


A world full of pussies.


“For Gordon Brown it is a rude awakening to the realities you take on
as prime minister,” CNN’s European Political Editor Robin Oakley said.

Manhunt
for London bomb suspect

This is what police do. It’s called their job. Do I have to say yet again that one car with
two gasalone canisters in it and a bunch of nails is not worth alerting the worldwide media?

Honestly, get a grip, people. As for the media and cable, well, there’s simply
no hope of taking them seriously anymore.

What about the detonator?

What about the timing?

Would it go off before or after the theater?

It’s reality in the modern era. Calm down, already.

UPDATE: As IntelVet offers in the comments, Larry Johnson puts it just right.

Read full story · Comments are closed

The (Smiley-Luntz) Democratic Forum

By on 28 June 2007

The (Smiley-Luntz) Democratic Forum updated


The Democratic forum begins at 6:00 p.m. pacific on PBS, also streaming on the web.

It’s the Rudy Giuliani fan club hour, complete with analysis from Rudy’s favorite Yankee fan, Fred Luntz. Nice job, Tavis. After all, Rudy was so fair with minorities as mayor of New York, right? So why not pick his pal? I get it.


LEHRER: Just Luntz or do you have a Democratic pollster there too?

SMILEY: We have a — just — just Luntz. …

Smiley confirms that Luntz — and only Luntz — will provide analysis…

How special that Tavis
Smiley is having Republican pollster Frank Luntz give reviews on the
forum tonight. I received two press releases from Smiley’s people, the second
with correction on the first, which said “Tavis Smiley Is Honored As
The First Minority To Moderate A Presidential Debate With An All Minority Panel.”
The correction stated the following: The Headline was wrong. Tavis
is not the first Minority to moderate a debate. This is the first time in American
History that the Entire Panel is all Minorities. I changed the headline. Sorry
for the error. Very cool, except… Frank Luntz has no business near a Democratic forum, period.

It was from Brian Steffen, the on-line publicist for KCET & Tavis Smiley.
I guess they got a few emails.

The forum will focus on “minority issues.”

Maybe that’s why Luntz was invited? He’ll likely be the only Republican in
the room, with a bonus of having power over the postgame analysis. Great gig
if you can get it.

Liberal PBS at work for us yet again, right?

UPDATE: Line of the debate for me, on delivery, substance, everything. But after the line, be sure to insert enthusiastic applause and an ovation from some, including (I believe) Rep. Maxine Waters.


“… You know, it is hard to disagree with anything that has been said. But let me just put this in perspective. If HIV/AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34, there would be an outrage, outcry in this country. …”

- Candidate Hillary Clinton

Read full story · Comments are closed

Coulter on Defense

By on 28 June 2007

Coulter on Defense updated

This is beautiful. After making an utter fool out of herself this morning on
MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” (as Benny posted in Hot Topics), Coulter completes the act by releasing the
most defensive, poor me, whining admission of utter victimhood that we could
have hoped to see from her in print. Never mind that during the Matthews interview, where an unprecedented full hour was allotted Coulter, she also admitted that if she actually did what Elizabeth Edwards asked,
which was to stop making personal attacks on her subjects, she’d also have to
stop writing books. Says it all. But her latest column, published in Human Events in the hopes of keeping that magazine relevant, is an startling admission
of — wait for it — poor me, victimhood. Set your whining meter on high.


The Edwards campaign is apparently still running low on donations, so this
week they went back to their top fundraiser: me.

I doubled the ratings of the lowest-rated cable news show on Tuesday by agreeing
to go on for a full hour to promote my new paperback version of “Godless”
— a mistake I won’t make again. As I was walking to the set, minutes before
airtime, it was casually mentioned to me that Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic
presidential candidate, John Edwards, might call in.

For the first time in recorded history, the show’s host did not interrupt
a guest, but let Elizabeth Edwards ramble on and on, allowing her to browbeat
me for being mean to her husband.

Say, did any TV host ever surprise Al Franken, Bill Maher or Arianna Huffington
with a call by the wife of someone they’ve made nasty remarks about? How about
a call to John Edwards from the wife of a doctor he bankrupted with his junk-science
lawsuits?

I think I may have tuned out at some point, so I can only speak to the first
45 minutes of Elizabeth Edwards’ harangue, but it mostly consisted of utterly
dishonest renditions of things I had said on my “Good Morning America”
interview this week and a column I wrote four years ago. (You can’t rush Edwards’
“rapid response team”!) She claimed I had launched unprovoked attacks
on the Edwards’ dead son and called for a terrorist attack on her husband.
… ..

That Was No Lady
— That Was My Husband

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

Right, poor abused Annie. Elizabeth Edwards “browbeat me.”

“Say, did any TV host ever surprise Al Franken, Bill Maher or Arianna Huffington
with a call by the wife of someone they’ve made nasty remarks about?”

I read part of the article to which Coulter refers on my show. Here
it is.


… ..At least when Gephardt exploits a family tragedy, he doesn’t expect
praise for not exploiting a family tragedy. John Edwards injects his son’s
fatal car accident into his campaign by demanding that everyone notice how
he refuses to inject his son’s fatal car accident into his campaign.

Edwards has talked about his son’s death in a 1996 car accident on “Good
Morning America,” in dozens of profiles and in his new book. (“It
was and is the most important fact of my life.”) His 1998 Senate campaign
ads featured film footage of Edwards at a learning lab he founded in honor
of his son, titled “The Wade Edwards Learning Lab.” He wears his
son’s Outward Bound pin on his suit lapel. He was going to wear it on his
sleeve, until someone suggested that might be a little too “on the nose.”

If you want points for not using your son’s death politically, don’t you
have to take down all those “Ask me about my son’s death in a horrific
car accident” bumper stickers? Edwards is like a politician who keeps
announcing that he will not use his opponent’s criminal record for partisan
political advantage. I absolutely refuse to mention the name of my dearly
beloved and recently departed son killed horribly in a car accident, which
affected me deeply, to score cheap political points. … ..

Of course, vicious wingnuts like Ann only perform their mudslinging slander behind
people’s backs. She’s simply not up to a one-on-one confrontation. She “tuned”
Mrs. Edwards out at some point she says, obviously because she just couldn’t
take the honesty coming at her.

The truth of the matter, regardless of all the tut-tut-tutting of the talking
heads, is that Elizabeth Edwards’ open heart stunned Coulter’s dark, rotted soul
to the point where this venomous creature could only flip her blonde locks and
shift in her seat, while wearing a black cocktail dress better displayed when the bats come out. Classless media vampire who at long last has claimed the mantle of “victim,”
because mean Elizabeth Edwards called her out in the light of day.

Poor, Ann. It’s the media! The suckled teat from which she’s gotten her nourishment her entire career has turned on her! She’s been had! Sean Hannity’s shrill succubus Stick Shiksa feels abused.

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

UPDATE: Brent Bozell responds to the Edwards-Coulter brouhaha with a press release whining about the near wingnut monopoly in media. John Amato offers offense for Edwards.

Read full story · Comments are closed

House Hunting with Dick

By on 28 June 2007


Republicans seem always eager to use true victims as the butt of their jokes.


“I offer a simple amendment that bars the executive branch from being
used to fund an office that does not exist in the executive branch, the Office
of the Vice President,” said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), Chairman of the
Democratic Caucus, who introduced the amendment. “There have been 46
vice presidents in US history, and not one of them…ever claimed [that the
vice president was not part of the executive branch].”

(snip)

Emanuel’s amendment moved to cut all funding to the Vice President’s executive
office, as well as the funds for his residence.

The latter half of the amendment prompted Rep. Ralph Regula (R-OH), the ranking
Republican on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services which
funds the White House, to ask where Cheney would live.

“Of course you’re going to abolish the residence, and I assume you’re
going to get a Katrina trailer to provide for the vice president since we
historically have provided housing, and you don’t offer any substitute for
the existing residence,” Regula said. “So I would think you would
want to give that some thought.” … ..

As
Democrats work to defund Vice President’s office, Republican asks ‘Will Cheney
get a Katrina trailer?’

Perhaps Mr. Regula should give this some thought. When the Office of the Vice
President disassociates himself from his boss, while running amok and defying
the rule of law when it suits him. It’s time he took care of himself, because
he’s made it plain that he doesn’t care for this country or our Constitution.
So as far as a place of residence goes, let me suggest a tent. That’s all the
taxpayers should pay for this lawless incompetent.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Murdoch, Media and Buying Influence

By on 28 June 2007

I defer to Lewis Black (one of my favorite comedians, tied with Chris Rock), who pointed us all to the offensive video above. The slander of Obama, in which the likes of Ann Coulter delights, was kicked off by none other than Roger Ailes, the chief Republican at the top of Fox “News,” Rupert Murdoch’s signature media trophy, when Ailes compared Obama to Osama. Though Fox isn’t the only network complicit in these types of insults. But it’s not just about cable and the big three networks, because media ownership goes all the way down to the roots, particularly the way the deck is stacked throughout terrestrial radio. Murdoch’s example, however, is the most powerful in how media ownership doesn’t work for we the people.

It’s infuriating when people opine about talk radio, especially when they don’t
know what they’re talking about. Exhibit A the other day was Bob Beckel. On Ken Doll
Sean Hannity’s radio show, Mr. Beckel went on and on about how no one wants
to listen to liberal talk radio. He said conservatives were winning the radio
game, but that there wasn’t any “conspiracy” or anything. It’s just
that people like listening to one-sided, propaganda-laced, lacking in facts,
xenophobic wingnuts. Right. If only Beckel knew what he was talking about. He
doesn’t, but that doesn’t keep him from opening his yapper.

Meet
Mr. Murdoch. This is how media ownership works. It’s the same in radio, believe me, with the same buying off of elected officials. It’s been that way for some time.


Over time, Mr. Murdoch has shown an ability to adapt to changing political
winds. In Britain, his newspapers had a long history of being pro-Tory and
anti-Labor, and he was personally close with former Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher. But in 1997, two of Mr. Murdoch’s papers endorsed Tony Blair
for prime minister. Mr. Murdoch became a frequent guest at No. 10 Downing
Street, “effectively a member of Blair’s cabinet,” said
Lance Price, who was a Blair spokesman from 1998 to 2001.

Mr. Murdoch had reason to court Mr. Blair: ensuring that the new government
would allow him to keep intact his British holdings, which by then included
The Times of London, multiple tabloids and a stake in Sky News. Many in the
Labor Party under Mr. Blair favored the enactment of media ownership limits,
which could have forced Mr. Murdoch to divest some of his interests. But Mr.
Blair “quietly dropped the policy,” Mr. Price said.

“Blair’s attitude was quite clear,” Andrew Neil, the editor
of The Sunday Times under Mr. Murdoch in London from 1983 to 1994, said in
an interview. “If the Murdoch press gave the Blair government a fair
hearing, it would be left intact.”

Senator Tedd Kennedy spanked Mr. Murdoch in 1987 and he never forgot it. He
even hired one of Kennedy’s aides to help him in the future.


Then Mr. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, stepped in. Mr. Kennedy’s
liberal politics had made him a target of Murdoch-owned news media outlets,
particularly The Boston Herald, which often referred to Mr. Kennedy as “Fat
Boy.” He engineered a legislative maneuver that forced an infuriated
Mr. Murdoch to sell his beloved New York Post.

Mr. Murdoch was able to buy back the tabloid five years later, but the sale
represented a rare and, some say, transforming defeat.

Murdoch is one example of what’s going on in media, but it’s very real. He’s
getting scrutiny again because of his bid for Dow Jones. Read about what Murdoch
did in the Nielsen fight, when the company was changing it’s policies that would
have the outcome of proving Murdoch’s shows were losing minority viewers during
sweeps week, when advertising rates were set.


But Dale Snape, who lobbied for Nielsen, said: “It was a classic example
of him using all his resources to try to politically influence an outcome
— he bought a Hill debate. It was scorched earth, and it was all about
money. They created a public interest furor where there was none.”

But buying Republicans is his specialty.



Media Ownership Rules

For more than 70 years, the federal government has regulated media ownership
to protect against any entity gaining too much power over the dissemination
of information. And for much of the last two decades, Mr. Murdoch has chafed
against those restrictions, winning exceptions and easing regulations.

Again and again, Mr. Murdoch won crucial skirmishes with the Federal Communications
Commission. In this he was helped most by his Republican allies, including
former Speaker Newt Gingrich and the Bush administration, which has promoted
measures to allow more consolidation.

(snip)

In the end, the F.C.C. found that the deal had violated the rules. But Mr.
Hundt declined to strip Mr. Murdoch of his licenses, reasoning that the fault
lay with the Reagan-era F.C.C. for approving the acquisitions in the first
place. Mr. Padden, who has left the News Corporation, refused requests for
an interview.

It was the first of many victories for Mr. Murdoch in the new political climate
that swept into Washington in 1994 when the Republicans won control of Congress.
It was a fortunate time for Mr. Murdoch, whose business interests and political
ideology were in ascendancy.

(snip)

Mr. Lott, an outspoken critic of media consolidation, agreed to the increase
because it was still lower than what Mr. Powell had proposed, said his spokesman,
Nick Simpson. Mr. Simpson added that Mr. Lott did not want to force companies
to sell stations and that his book deal did not affect his view of Mr. Murdoch’s
legislative agenda.

Many companies publish books by public officials. But because of Mr. Murdoch’s
wide business interests, HarperCollins’s book deals have at times drawn
scrutiny. Its decision to cancel a book critical of Chinese Communist leaders
by Hong Kong’s last British governor was assailed as a move by Mr. Murdoch
to protect his Chinese business interests, a charge he denied.

HarperCollins also provoked a firestorm when it gave Mr. Gingrich a $4.5
million book contract as Congress was preparing to redraw the media ownership
rules.

Mr. Ginsberg pointed out that Mr. Murdoch later fired the Gingrich book’s
editor for making what he regarded as an “uneconomical and unseemly”
deal. He said that in general Mr. Murdoch did not involve himself in decisions
about book contracts, and added, “If these books aren’t viable,
they aren’t published.”

Mr. Lott’s book sold 12,000 copies, according to Nielsen Bookscan,
which tracks about 70 percent of all domestic retail and Internet sales. Senator
Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, received $24,506 from HarperCollins
for his modest-selling book “Passion for Truth,” according to
financial disclosure forms. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas,
got $141,666 for her book “American Heroines,” which has sold
better. All sit on either the Commerce or Judiciary Committees that most closely
oversee the media business. … ..

Murdoch
Reaches Out for Even More

Too bad liberal authors like Glenn Greenwald don’t have a Murdoch in his pocket.

The issue of media ownership is not just about what the market dictates
and what listeners want. It’s what the owners want. Murdoch is a powerful example,
as this story today shows. Now the wingnuts will say, well, this story is in The (liberal)
New York Times. Truth doesn’t belong to a political party. The facts above are
not in question. The reality is that you’ll never read it on a wingnut blog or on any right-wing radio station. That’s the whole point.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Conservative Court Overturns Brown

By on 28 June 2007

Conservative Court Overturns Brown updated


I know, I know, SCOTUS is denying they’re dismantling one of the historic rulings of yesterday, but that’s what they did, pure and
simple.

Sometimes supposedly brilliant people are just book read individuals without
any common sense or understanding of culture and the realities of real life.
Today the Supreme Court proved just how far they’re going to go to dismantle
one of the most important cases ever settled in U.S. history: Brown
v. Board of Education. This is a stunning ruling, with the court seemingly
striking down Brown. Here is a description of the
school plans that were in play. Here’s the full
opinion (large pdf).

Justice Stevens was blunt.


The Court has changed significantly since it decided School Comm.
of Boston in 1968. It was then more faithful to Brown and more respectful
of our precedent than it is today. It is my firm conviction that no Member
of the Court that I joined in 1975 would have agreed with today’s decision.

AdamB has
a terrific diary up, as does Maven.

More from Stevens (see AdamB).


By way of contrast [to Justice Thomas], I do not claim to know how best to
stop harmful discrimination; how best to create a society that includes all
Americans; how best to overcome our serious problems of increasing de facto
segregation, troubled inner city schooling, and poverty correlated with race.
But, as a judge, I do know that the Constitution does not authorize judges
to dictate solutions to these problems. Rather, the Constitution creates a
democratic political system through which the people themselves must together
find answers. And it is for them to debate how best to educate the Nation’s
children and how best to administer America’s schools to achieve that aim.
The Court should leave them to their work. And it is for them to decide, to
quote the plurality’s slogan, whether the best “way to stop discrimination
on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”…
That is why the Equal Protection Clause outlaws invidious discrimination,
but does not similarly forbid all use of race-conscious criteria. Until today,
this Court understood the Constitution as affording the people, acting through
their elected representatives, freedom to select the use of “race-conscious”
criteria from among their available options. … Today, however, the Court
restricts (and some Members would eliminate) that leeway. I fear the consequences
of doing so for the law, for the schools, for the democratic process, and
for America’s efforts to create, out of its diversity, one Nation.

UPDATE: AdamB has another excellent diary up on SCOTUS under Kennedy-Roberts. Much more at SCOTUSBLOG

UPDATE: Christy over at FDL has much more.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Not this Immigration Bill

By on 28 June 2007

Not this Immigration Bill updated

UPDATE: The news just broke. The immigration reform bill has been defeated; 14 votes short, the vote was 46 to 53. To add, here’s Kennedy’s statement.


The bill’s supporters fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to limit debate and clear the way for final passage of the legislation, which critics assailed as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants. The vote was 46 to 53 in favor of limiting the debate.

Senators Claire McCaskill, Jon Tester and James Webb are evidently splitting with the Democrats
in the Senate to vote against the current immigration conglomeration put together
by a bi-partisan group of well meaning but wrong headed senators trying to push
something (anything) through the pipe. There are many reasons not to like this
bill; understanding that no one has seen the whole thing because it’s still
being cobbled together from what I’ve read and heard. Count me with the three senators,
though I disagree with a lot of their reasoning. I also disagree with the way
Democrats against the immigration bill are being characterized, especially in
the article below. It has nothing to do with being in “Republican-leaning”
states for Democrats beyond the beltway. The truth is that the immigration issue cuts across party lines to include people normally not on the same side of any
issue, with other contingents like labor opposing one another. That’s how
bad this bill is. The way it’s being put forward is also a problem, not to mention
that the bill’s being written as we go.


“I hope this never wears off, but I like to keep my word,” said
Ms. McCaskill, part of a triad of moderate Democratic freshmen balking at
the proposed immigration overhaul and complicating efforts by President Bush
and Senate leaders to pass it this week.

Her compatriots in opposition are Senators Jim Webb of Virginia and Jon Tester
of Montana. All three represent Republican-leaning states and are breaking
with their leadership and most of their Democratic colleagues on the legislation,
whose fate in the Senate could be determined on Thursday after a day of votes
on amendments left the outcome up in the air on Wednesday.

(snip)

Like Ms. McCaskill, Mr. Tester said the federal government was doing a poor
job of enforcing immigration laws and could solve much of the problem by enforcing
what is already on the books. Ms. McCaskill also says the government should
make a statement by jailing some business leaders who repeatedly hire illegal
immigrants, a step she said would be a powerful deterrent. She is also troubled
by aspects of the measure that would make it harder for family members to
join legal immigrants. …

New Senators
Resist Overhaul of Immigration

Targeting employers is job one. I know you are likely sick to death of hearing
me say it and write this, but it’s really the nut of the problem. Funding the
investigative units, as well as hiring the manpower really needed to police
the corporations hiring illegal workers and exploiting them has never fully
been done. If employment for illegal workers dries up the flow of illegal immigrants
will change quite a bit. McCaskill has that right, though I’m for stiff fines
on tiers, depending on the business and the infraction. But she was wrong on
the “touchback” amendment of Kay Bailey Hutchinson that went down,
but McCaskill
had company: Senators Max Baucus, Byron Dorgan, Jay Rockefeller, Jon Tester.

According
to Bloomberg, Tester and Baucus wanted to “dilute requirements
employers verify the identity of new workers,” which is beyond me.
Then there’s Barack
Obama joining with Grassley.


Another potential deal-breaker is a proposal from Charles E. Grassley of
Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, that would strike
a core provision in the bill — the employer verification system —
and replace it with a less stringent alternative.

The Grassley amendment, cosponsored by Democrats Max Baucus of Montana, chairman
of the Finance Committee, and Barack Obama of Illinois, would not
require the verification of current employees unless there is evidence to
suspect unlawful employment.

Huh?

Republicans don’t want to talk about the employer issue at all. They don’t want to talk about the corporations, because
they’re afraid of hurting their financiers.

Then there’s the Republicans driving the wingnut
radio immigration furor who have a fence fetish, but they are wrong to believe it is the answer.
It’s also the most anti-American notion imaginable made worse by the fact that
it just won’t work. Putting fence money towards border agents and technology
along the border would be money well spent.

I’ve heard experts talk about another
aspect, which suggests having serious talks with our neighbors to the south
about exporting their unemployed. They are close to having me convinced that
these efforts may be important, but I just don’t see how we manifest something
significant where Mexico is concerned. But I’m all ears on it and will continue
to listen.

The guest worker program is really a problem for me as well. SEIU is for the
immigration bill no matter how flawed, because they see it as important to getting
people legal status, then protected through their union. The A.F.L.-C.I.O. wants
it killed, because they see it as bringing down middle-class wages they’ve fought
to raise, while the guest worker program will exploit workers.

What a mess.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Subpoenas and Stalling for Time

By on 27 June 2007

Subpoenas and Stalling for Time EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE UPDATE

The Bush-Cheney edition.


Republicans voted with Democrats demanding the White House turn over documents.
It doesn’t get any clearer than this.


No indication White House will comply

Echoing its response to previous congressional subpoenas to former administration
officials Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor, the White House gave no indication
that it would comply with the new ones.

“We’re aware of the committee’s action and will respond appropriately,”
White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. “It’s unfortunate that congressional
Democrats continue to choose the route of confrontation.”

In fact, the Judiciary Committee’s three most senior Republicans
— Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, former chairman Orrin Hatch of Utah and
Chuck Grassley of Iowa — sided with Democrats on the 13-3 vote last week
to give Leahy the power to issue the subpoenas.

The showdown between the White House and Congress could land in federal court.

Also named in subpoenas signed by Leahy were the Justice Department and the
National Security Council. The four parties have until July 18 to comply,
Leahy said. He added that, like House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers,
D-Michigan, he would consider pursuing contempt citations against those who
refuse. … ..

Panel
demands White House eavesdropping documents

Ready the contempt citations, Democrats. Because the trick for the White House is to stall until they’re out of office, running to the court if they must. Running out the clock. That’s all Bush-Cheney has
left to do. If they hand over the pertinent documents they’ll be unmasked for the un-American, over zealous imperial executive we’ve always known they are.

UPDATE: You knew this was going to happen, right? Here’s the headling: White House Asserts Executive Privilege. TPMmuckraker has more.



The White House, moving toward a constitutional showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and rejected lawmakers’ demands for documents that could shed light on the firings of federal prosecutors.
President Bush’s attorney told Congress the White House would not turn over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor.

“With respect, it is with much regret that we are forced down this unfortunate path which we sought to avoid by finding grounds for mutual accommodation,” White House counsel Fred Fielding said in a letter to the chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. “We had hoped this matter could conclude with your committees receiving information in lieu of having to invoke executive privilege. Instead, we are at this conclusion.”

Read full story · Comments are closed

Romney’s Torture Fetish Turned on Fido

By on 27 June 2007

Romney’s Gitmo Fetish Turned on Fido
updated


Slick Mitt wasn’t kidding when he said gleefully that he would “double
Guantanamo.”

Now we learn, in a very bizarre story now being teased, that he allegedly strapped his family dog
to the roof of his car. Can this be accurate?


I’ll have a more formal version of this story up in a bit, but: it turns
out that strapping your dog to the roof of your car might actually be against
Massachusetts state law, which says anyone who

carries [an animal] or causes it to be carried in or upon a vehicle, or
otherwise, in an unnecessarily cruel or inhuman manner or in a way and manner
which might endanger the animal carried thereon…shall be punished by imprisonment
in the state prison for not more than 5 years or imprisonment in the house
of correction for not more than 2 1/2 years or by a fine of not moe than
$2,500, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Not that we can lock him him up. It’s not a cut and dried case, according
to animal welfare officer I spoke to, and it looks like the statute of limitations
has passed on the incident (15 years). I’ve called the campaign for comment
on it anyway, and the president of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, was kind enough to
weigh in as well… ..

Romney
in Deep Doo-Doo?

Strapping a beloved pet to the roof of a car? I can’t imagine it. Only from a Republican…

It’s not nearly as bad as Rudy’s
Judi killing puppies, but it’s pretty bad if true. Can’t wait to hear the rest of this one.

UPDATE: If you haven’t read the rest, here’s the bottom line. The dog was scared to death. Inhumane doesn’t even come close. Can you imagine Romney’s response to a Katrina like disaster? He prides himself on being the “competent conservative,” instead of the “compassionate” conservative. If this is competency, and George W. Bush is “compassion,” the Republicans are in even more trouble than they think.


As the oldest son, Tagg Romney commandeered the way-back of te wagon, keeping his eyes fixed out the rear window, where he glimpsed the first sign of trouble. ”Dad!” he yelled. ”Gross!” A brown liquid was dripping down the back window, payback from an Irish setter who’d been riding on the roof in the wind for hours.

As the rest of the boys joined in the howls of disgust, Romney coolly pulled off the highway and into a service station. There, he borrowed a hose, washed down Seamus and the car, then hopped back onto the highway. It was a tiny preview of a trait he would grow famous for in business: emotion-free crisis management.

UPDATE: Aha! It comes from this series on Romney in the Boston Globe. Here’s the line Cox evidently grabbed. Chris Cillizza has more.


“Before beginning the drive, Mitt Romney put Seamus, the family’s hulking Irish setter, in a dog carrier and attached it to the station wagon’s roof rack. He’d built a windshield for the carrier, to make the ride more comfortable for the dog.”

Sorry, but yikes. Again, it’s not Judi, but it’s bad enough.

Read full story · Comments are closed