Commie-Pinko-Faggot Book Bashing

The right-wing wacko paper Human Events has published a fun-filled list of "Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries."

Most of the titles are predictable, amusing, although it's pretty twisted that Hitler's "Mein Kampf" comes after Marx & Engel's "The Communist Manifesto." I'm actually very surprised that "Origin of the Species" is only on the notable list and Karl Marx is on it twice, #1 and #6.

It seems pretty safe to assume that very few self-titled conservatives have actually read "The Communist Manifesto" so they don't know how little Marx's philosophy of communism has to do with the perverted consequences of real-world communism. More to the point, the liberals who are turned onto communism and/or socialism have nothing in common with the people who have tried to implement it, who are generally fascists/nationalists who label their total governmental control "communism." Not that this stops the righties from trying to paint liberals who dream of idealized, egalitarian societies with the same broad brush as, say, the governments of China or North Korea.

There's the theory then there's the practice, often they have very little to do with one another.

But that's like arguing that we don't live in a true democracy, that we really live in a federal republic-- it's lost on most people. Or that the American concept of patriotism is a few shades too close to nationalism, a concept lost on most Americans. Or that the "National Socialist Party"-- the "Nazis"-- were not socialists even if that was in their name. Most Americans in general have no clue what either communism or socialism are about, they just know they're "bad." In my experience, much of the time conservatives have very limited knowledge about the very things they loathe so much, consider that many of their fights, especially in public education, are about limiting or restricting knowledge. They often complain that learning has a "corrupting" influence influence on young minds, most notably in the anti-higher ed movement where young adults being exposed to liberal or progressive ideas is "indoctrination." Similar to their claims about "activist judges" it is the context that matters most-- a professor praising Bush in the classroom is no more an "activist" than a judge with a clear conservative background.

Anyways, enough of my rambling, it's a nice outline of influential books that convervatives truly hate/fear coming from a paper that has been publishing people such as Ann Coulter for years.

Abortion Rate Has Risen? Not So Fast.

According to the non-partisan website FactCheck.org:

Politicians from Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to Howard Dean have recently contended that abortions have increased since George W. Bush took office in 2001.

This claim is false. It's based on an opinion piece that used data from only 16 states. A study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute of 43 states found that abortions have actually decreased ... The author of the original claim now concedes that the Guttmacher study is "significantly better" than his own.

More details are available here from FactCheck.org.

Deafening Silence

First Cheney, now Bush himself responds to the Amnesty International report in a (rare) press conference.

President Bush called a human rights report "absurd" for criticizing the United States' detention of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and said Tuesday the allegations were made by "people who hate America."

"It's absurd. It's an absurd allegation. The United States is a country that promotes freedom around the world," Bush said of the Amnesty International report that compared Guantanamo to a Soviet-era gulag.

I guess that means they're really, really certain that there is no way for anyone to prove any of this. Then again, if irrefutable evidence is uncovered then I suppose they'll just say it's a few bad apples-- just like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To me very interesting that in another brand new Amnesty International report it is alleged that Afghan women are no better now than they were under the Taliban-- few women are safe from being abused, raped and murdered-- but apparently neither of them are "offended" enough to publicly call it "absurd."

Then again, I suppose it's not our fault what happens in Afghanistan since we didn't "liberate" them. Oh, wait, yes we did, our dear leader said so.

"In Afghanistan, the Taliban used violence and fear to deny Afghan women access to education, health care, mobility, and the right to vote. Our coalition has liberated Afghanistan and restored fundamental human rights and freedoms to Afghan women, and all the people of Afghanistan. Young girls in Afghanistan are able to attend schools for the first time." Proclamation 7584,Women's Equality Day, 2002, August 23, 2002

I love how this administration takes credit for things we didn't do and refuses to take credit for things that were are responsible for.

There should be a sign on Bush's desk "The Buck Never Stops."

Deep Throat

In case anyone wants to read the whole Vanity Fair article, here's the pdf.

Nader: Determined to Make Himself Irrelevant

Once again, Ralph Nader has gone off the deep end. Nader and Kevin Zeese of Democracy/Rising, have co-written this op-ed in today's Boston Globe:

The impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, should be part of mainstream political discourse.

... It is time for Congress to investigate the illegal Iraq war as we move toward the third year of the endless quagmire that many security experts believe jeopardizes US safety by recruiting and training more terrorists. A Resolution of Impeachment would be a first step.

Based on the mountains of fabrications, deceptions, and lies, it is time to debate the ''I" word.

Nader should examine recent history before he goes off half-cocked and drags progressives' time, resources and money into a dead-end impeachment campaign.

In the late 1990s, Republicans overrreached badly. Instead of simply organizing and mobilizing around the issues on which Clinton Democrats were vulnerable, Republicans poured their energy into an unsuccessful campaign to impeach Bill Clinton. The impeachment push struck most Americans as partisan and mean-spirited (as would Nader's).

The GOP's impeachment campaign cost the party dearly in the off-year elections of 1998. It was the first election in 64 years in which the party of an incumbent president gained seats in the House.

Two years later, the GOP barely recovered and needed late intervention from the Supremes to win the presidency.

Don't Nader and other self-identified progressives have enough to do without taking on an unrealistic task such as impeaching a president?

* There exists no effective counter-weight to the Religious Right -- no well-organized progressive group or groups that can speak to the issues in the language of faith and values.

* Labor unions, which have long anchored the base of the Democrat Party, are shrinking and a major chasm in labor may fracture the AFL-CIO.

* Republicans are using gay marriage to peel off small, yet significant, numbers of Hispanic and black voters.

* Environmental issues are less and less significant to voters each day.

Even if impeachment were realistic (and it isn't), forcing Bush out of office wouldn't successfully address any of the four challenges I cited above. Nor would an impeachment push build a Democratic Party that is more connected to real people than the one we have today.

Will Reporters in NJ Play the Usual Game?

Four years ago, Republican gubernatorial candidate Bret Schundler was soundly defeated in New Jersey, failing to expand his support much beyond his social conservative base. This year, Schundler's campaign thinks it can win if it makes the election a referendum on rising property taxes.

According to the New York Times:

This year, Mr. Schundler is determined to maintain his message of tax relief. "If, God forbid, those towers came down again today," said Sal Risalvato, his campaign manager, "Bret would blame the attack on high property taxes."

I realize that Risalvato's comments were made half in jest, but it annoys me, nonetheless -- and not because of the reference to 9/11 (although I suspect some NJ residents might bristle at the reference).

I'm annoyed because Risalvato's remarks remind us that money is only one of the problems with politics. The content of the debate in a typical election campaign is so sophomoric, simplistic and slogan-ridden that it's hardly surprising why so many people don't vote. A major reason why the debate has been dumbed-down is because all candidates have a tight list of talking points from which they rarely stray.

They've done their polling. They've done their rehearsing, and if what the public wants to know (or needs to know) isn't encompassed by one of those talking points, forget it.

I've worked campaigns before, and I work for a political organization. So this isn't my naivete speaking. I'm not shocked that Schundler's campaign plans to use every opportunity to shift the discussion to their favorite issue: property taxes.

But the fact that Risalvato is willing to use this 9/11 analogy suggests (understandably, in my view) that he believes Schundler can do so without being called on it by the media. Risalvato knows that the vast majority of reporters don't ask many tough questions, rarely ask good follow-ups and aren't willing to go toe-to-toe with the candidates a la Tim Russert (who is far from perfect, but much better than his colleagues).

So, in a certain respect, Risalvato is posing a challenge to reporters, columnists and others in the NJ news media. Will they allow his candidate (or any candidate) to control, spin or skew the debate to an extent that a 9/11-type event can be linked to their favorite issue?

Time will tell. For now, at least, my money's on Risalvato.

When the Offensive Feel Offended

In football, this would be called "piling on." But I do have a few thoughts to add to Zoe's and Eugene's posts about Dick Cheney's remarks last night in which he said he was "offended" by a recent Amnesty International (AI) report criticizing the administration's human rights-challenged record.

Zoe noted that AI's recent report was not the America-bashing report that Cheney suggested it was -- other countries, even Canada, were criticized by AI's report. Eugene reminded us that the Bush-Cheney gang used to take AI's reports quite seriously, citing them when it served the administration's political objectives.

Perhaps the best response to Cheney’s swipe at AI was delivered not last night or this morning, but almost exactly one year ago. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed written on June 1, 2004 (courtesy of The Carpetbagger), Senator John McCain wrote:

Since the abuses at Abu Ghraib have come to light, American leaders at all levels have rightly expressed outrage and contrition. Yet there also exists an undercurrent of sentiment that seeks to fault America's strict adherence to international humanitarian law, and to blame the organizations that monitor its implementation.

Frankly, it’s amazing that our unscrupulous vice president could even make these remarks with a straight face given that his administration’s position — courtesy of White House counsel Alberto Gonzales’ infamous 2002 memorandum — is that abuse doesn’t constitute torture unless the “intensity” of pain is of the level that would accompany “organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.”

Moreover, noting that the federal law codifying the international Torture Convention stipulates that a defendant must have “specific intent to commit the crime,” Gonzales tried to identify another loophole for the Bush-Cheney gang: “…knowledge alone that a particular result is certain to occur does not constitute specific intent.”

So go ahead, Mr. Vice President. Be offended. But I doubt you’re even half as offended by AI’s report as I am by your administration’s disregard for internationally recognized standards of human rights.

Consider showing AI what you think of Cheney’s words. Make a contribution to a group that is willing to call a spade a spade, even if it pisses off our vice president.

Who Cares What Amnesty International Thinks?

Not Dick Cheney apparently

Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday he was offended by Amnesty International's condemnation of the United States for what it called "serious human rights violations" at Guantanamo Bay.

"For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don't take them seriously," he said in an interview that aired Monday night on CNN's "Larry King Live."

Of course, when they were making the case for war in Iraq, the White House couldn't stop citing Amnesty International's work

Saddam Hussein's Repression of the Iraqi People

Amnesty International reported that, in October 2000, the Iraqi Government executed dozens of women accused of prostitution.

[edit]

Iraqi security agents reportedly decapitated numerous women and men in front of their family members. According to Amnesty International, the victims' heads were displayed in front of their homes for several days.

A Decade of Deception and Defiance

In August 2001 Amnesty International released a report entitled Iraq -- Systematic Torture of Political Prisoners, which detailed the systematic and routine use of torture against suspected political opponents and, occasionally, other prisoners. Amnesty International also reports "Detainees have also been threatened with bringing in a female relative, especially the wife or the mother, and raping her in front of the detainee. Some of these threats have been carried out."

[edit]

Amnesty International reported that Iraq has the world's worst record for numbers of persons who have disappeared or remain unaccounted for.

Life Under Saddam Hussein

According to a 2001 Amnesty International report, "victims of torture in Iraq are subjected to a wide range of forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings and electric shocks... some victims have died as a result and many have been left with permanent physical and psychological damage."

Tales of Saddam's Brutality

"Beth Ann Toupin, an Iraq specialist with Amnesty International, said it is still early to know the magnitude of rights abuses under Saddam. 'There's probably much more to be found,' she said, noting that hidden prisons may be discovered. 'And what's new to us is that now people care.'"

AI was credible enough to help bolster the case for war in Iraq but now that they are criticizing the US, Cheney just doesn't take them seriously.

Why am I not surprised?

Implausible Denial

If I were Amnesty International I'd put up a mighty shield to protect myself from a lot of GOP mud coming my way.

Vice President Dick Cheney says he's offended by a human rights group's report criticizing conditions at the prison camp for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay.

The report Amnesty International released last week said prisoners at the U.S. Navy base in Cuba had been mistreated and called for the prison to be shut down. Cheney derided the London-based group in an interview set to be broadcast Monday night on CNN's "Larry King Live."

"Frankly, I was offended by it," Cheney said in the videotaped interview. "For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don't take them seriously."

Cheney is the latest Bush administration official to object to the report. On Sunday, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard Myers called the Amnesty International report "absolutely irresponsible."

Washington's defense of its detention and interrogation practices comes after weeks of international criticism and violent protests by Muslims outraged at reports - which the Pentagon says are false - that an interrogator at Guantanamo had flushed pages of the Quran down a toilet.

Cheney said detainees at Guantanamo "have been well treated, treated humanely and decently."

I guess Dick Cheney doesn't read any newspapers either. (If he bothered to actually look at AI's report he'd know that it even criticizes Canada. Yes, Canada.) Also, it's not like they're the only international humanitarian organization complaining that something is awry at Gitmo. It does appear that Cheney and friends are quite confident that this time there aren't any graphic pictures out there to contradict their denials of any abuse. After all, without the photographic evidence of Abu Ghraib I sincerely doubt they ever would have admitted that anything went wrong.

One can only hope that this turns into something like DeLay's recent "Land and Order" kerfluffle and only serves to better highlight what Amnesty International is talking about-- taking a non-partisan look at human rights abuses around the globe. It's not as though AI is the only international humanitarian organization that has taken notice that things aren't quite right at Gitmo-- they're just more forthcoming than the International Committee of the Red Cross.

However, investigating and exposing the truth about these allegations would depend upon a fair and independent American press that doesn't just swallow most of the government's swill.

I sure hope that Amnesty International watches out, because that mud might have some very rocks in it.

Just Another Day in Holland

There's the man and woman who were standing outside someone else's house, "suddenly wanted to have sex," and broke into the house to do so.

And then there are the neighbors who called the police when they heard "strange noises" coming from the house. Called the police? Either this was some pretty funky sex or the neighborhood is populated by monks.

Finally, we've got the "lust hairdresser."

Women in the district of Emmerhout in Emmen have been warned about the reappearance of a 'lust hairdresser'. The man tries to convince women with long hair to have him cut their hair, pretending he works with a hairdressing salon. He leaves notes under the windscreen wipers of parked cars or telephones prospective women [I assume "prospective women" is an artifact of the translation, not an indication that he targets transsexuals]. Police said the man has been regularly active since 1995, but it is difficult to stop him because he does not commit any criminal offences, despite his obsession.

Not so weird, you say? After all, people all over the world have all kinds of fetishes. But I thought the final sentence of the story had a particularly Dutch feel to it.

Police are warning women about his services, partly due to his poor hairdressing skills.

Walking While Black

Hmm. I suppose this will go into the Foreign Ministry's files under the heading "Oops." A Dutch friend and her African-American husband used to live on the Laan van Meerdervoort. Fortunately, not any more.

This Will Surprise You

Say "Holland" and most Americans will think "liberal" if not "looney." But, as I've tried to point out a few times before, the reality is a lot more complicated. Take this controversy, for example, and consider red-state America, where creationism is out of the classroom in the vast majority of schools.

Dutch MPs are moving to scrap the teaching of Creationism in high school biology lessons.

Presently, it is compulsory to teach the theory God created the universe alongside the Theory of Evolution to biology students....

Education specialists with the Liberal VVD [center-right], Labour PvdA [center-left], green-left GroenLinks and Socialist SP believe that creationist theory should only be taught in religious classes or social studies, newspaper 'De Volkskrant' reported on Friday.

The Dutch Institute for Biology (NIBI) — which most biology teachers are members of — also wants to scrap the creationist theory from biology lessons. Director Leen van den Oever said it costs precious lesson time.

The issue entered public discourse after Education Minister Maria van der Hoeven was quoted on 21 May saying she wanted to organise a debate about evolution and creation because the theory of evolution was "incomplete".

Van der Hoeven is from the Christian Democratic Party, the Roman Catholic center-right party that has been part of every postwar Dutch governing coalition except for a period during the 1990s.

Note the reference to "religious classes." Virtually all schools here are publicly funded, including sectarian ones, and the system is in many ways quite similar to the voucher systems promoted by American conservatives. That whole church-state thing we Yanks get so exercised about (and I'm among those who tend to get very exercised about it) really doesn't have the same resonance here.

To make it even more difficult to shoehorn Dutch politics into American concepts, consider another of van der Hoeven's recent forays, and try to harmonize it with her stance on creationism and the fact that she represents a political party that is explicitly Christian. I'll do my best to translate.

Education Minister Van der Hoeven accepted delivery of the Prescription for Homosexuality in Education on Thursday, May 26. The Prescription Book contains concrete information and starting points for getting to work on the thorough prevention of discrimination against homosexuals. The Prescription Book is the result of Enabling Safety for LesBiGay Teachers [yes, that's its actual name, and it's not translated: the Dutch groups involved gave their project an English name, which I think we can agree was a mistake], a cooperative project among COC Netherlands [a leading gay rights group], the General Teachers' Union, and the General Educational Study Center.

In her speech following the presentation of the Prescription Book, Minister Van der Hoeven emphasized that safety requires openness. "Incidents of discrimination against gays and lesbians demand leadership from the schools. Tolerance is not enough. It's a matter of promoting respect for people with different lifestyles. We must break through ignorance on that subject," said the minister....

The Prescription Book demands the willingness of schools to choose diversity and safety policies in which homosexuality is explicitly discussed. Part of that must be stringent action against behavior that violates the rules. Such policies will create a culture and atmosphere in which lesbian, gay, and bisexual teachers and students can express themselves openly.

The Prescription Book itself isn't available without charge, but an English translation of the report of the Enabling Safety project can be downloaded in pdf format from the COC's website. The fact that "homo" is not a flattering term in English--unlike in Dutch, where it is the common and acceptable word for "gay"--seems to have escaped the translator's attention. I especially like the phrase "homo-hostile behaviour."

If the term "Prescription Book" sounds strange to you, consider the normal translation of receptenboek: "cookbook." Much as I would like to pay homage to Rod Serling, "Cookbook for Homosexuality in Education" didn't strike me as the best choice. Maybe I should have gone with "How to Serve Homos."

Constitutional Question of the Day

Which is more damaging to the principles of the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause:

1. An aside by a fictional character in a television program.
2. A threatening letter from the House Majority Leader to a television network concerning the content of the network's programs.

Props to Dick Wolf for not only making excellent crime dramas for more than a decade without getting stale but also responding to DeLay's hissy fit in the proper fashion.

"Every week, approximately 100 million people see an episode of the branded Law & Order series. Up until today, it was my impression that all of our viewers understood that these shows are works of fiction as is stated in each episode," he said. "But I do congratulate Congressman DeLay for switching the spotlight from his own problems to an episode of a TV show."

And although I can't give the idiots behind Fear Factor any congratulations for perpetrating their art, I must admit that their format would lend itself to some interesting programs if they were to take up this suggestion.

Spin is Universal

The Netherlands is currently governed by a conservative coalition. The Prime Minister, Jan Peter Balkenende, is widely disparaged as uninspiring and charisma-free, though I was impressed by his speech on (Dutch) Memorial Day (May 4) and in his joint appearance with Bush at Margraten Cemetary a few days later. But his reaction to the French vote against the EU Constitution was worthy of Scott McClellan, if not Ron Ziegler (ask your parents).

The Netherlands should vote yes, according to Balkenende, to show that although it is a small country, it can act independently of the big European powers like France. Until yesterday, his message was that the Netherlands should vote yes so as not to isolate itself from the big European powers like France. And, as one of my colleagues--who plans to vote yes--pointed out this morning, saying that the Netherlands should vote yes because France voted no does not exactly show that the Dutch vote is "independent" of the French vote.

Trenchant analysis from an eclectic blog that I can't quite figure out, but that seems to be written by a Dutch anti-capitalist lefty, at Dear Kitty.

What Do the Wingnuts Have in Common with the French?

They both hate Jacques Chirac.

The Schiavo Step-up

Ah, so this is what the high-profile publicity around the Schiavo case was *really* all about-- to help launch a few political careers.

Guess who's considering running for the senate in Florida?

Randall "Crazy as a Schitzophrenic Bedbug" Terry. Apparently he may run on the Terri Schiavo platform-- that sitting state Senator John King let her die and that he tried to save her life by helping to turn a private family battle into a political circus. I suppose the rest of his platform will be focused on his two pet issues-- outlawing abortion and condemning gay people, people like his own estranged son Jamiel.

Yes, the theocratic nutball leader of the militant anti-abortion group Operation Rescue wants to be a lawmaker in Florida. (Although in 2000 Terry ran away from the organization and split from his church, got divorced and remarried, and then tried to a launch a singing career and a political career. Both failed.) His pre-nomination website is actually pretty funny in a grossly pathetic sort of way, he promotes himself as a savior of mankind with all the skill of a used car salesman.

Just when we all though Florida couldn't be a crazier place. Although I think even Florida has enough sense not elect pondscum like Randall Terry.

Nativism, Alive and Well in America

CNN reports:

Everyone agrees that Ligaya Lagman is a Gold Star mother, part of the long line of mournful women whose sons or daughters gave their lives for their country. Her 27-year-old son, Army Staff Sgt. Anthony Lagman, was killed last year in Afghanistan when his unit came under fire during a mission to drive out remnants of Taliban and al-Qaida forces.

But the largest organization of these women, the American Gold Star Mothers Inc., has rejected Lagman, a Filipino, for membership because -- though a permanent resident and a taxpayer -- she is not a U.S. citizen.

"There's nothing we can do because that's what our organization says: You have to be an American citizen," national President Ann Herd said Thursday. "We can't go changing the rules every time the wind blows."

First of all, yes, Ms. Herd, you can change the rules every time the wind blows -- if that's what your organization feels is appropriate.

Secondly, the phrase used by Ms. Herd ("every time the wind blows") seriously cheapens what we're talking about here. A more accurate statement would be: "We can't go changing the rules every time a soldier is killed."

Not a Good Sign

I know we've all heard stories about recruitment and retention problems with the U.S. military. But when they're sending over reservists who are nearly sixty to Iraq how can that be interpreted as anything but a not-so-good sign? This comes from an old friend over at the Liquid List whose father was deployed for Iraq yesterday.

Curse those Activist Judges

A Superior court judge has intervened in a divorce case, taking away the right of both parents to provide religious instruction to thier child. This outrageous invasion of parental rights is yet another slam by an out-of-control activist judiciary that hates Christianity. Such a thing could only happen in California... Oh wait.

An Indianapolis father is appealing a Marion County judge's unusual order that prohibits him and his ex-wife from exposing their child to "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals."

The parents practice Wicca, a contemporary pagan religion that emphasizes a balance in nature and reverence for the earth.

Cale J. Bradford, chief judge of the Marion Superior Court, kept the unusual provision in the couple's divorce decree last year over their fierce objections, court records show. The order does not define a mainstream religion.

Bradford refused to remove the provision after the 9-year-old boy's outraged parents, Thomas E. Jones Jr. and his ex-wife, Tammie U. Bristol, protested last fall.

Ridiculous. Thanks to Wonkette for the dose of morning outrage.

Marijuana Madness

An Australian woman just got sentenced to 20 years in an Indonisian prison for smuggling 9 pounds of marijuana into the country. As draconian as that sounds, apparently the death by firing squad was on the table as well. The Australian government has come to her aid, giving money to her defense, are helping her with her appeal, as well as trying to get her transferred to an Australian prison. The whole thing reminds me a little of the so-so movie Brokedown Palace. By comparison, Southeast Asia's war on drugs makes America's look like a nasty skirmish.

Twenty years in prison for smuggling a plant that, when smoked, makes people giggle, sleepy or hungry, at worst. It's stupifying.

Seize the Day

Democrats force delay of Bolton final vote

I'm just beginning to hope that the democrats are finally getting it.

Democrats are the party of the underdog and it's about time they start acting like it. That does not mean letting the Republicans kick them around out of a wrongly held fear of appearing overly combative or obstructionist. It means fighting like they have nothing to lose, since after all, what do they have to lose at this point? Bolton is a nut and a creep and passively allowing him to become our representative in the UN is an insult to the international community. Don't be so afraid to take a stand.

It is well known that the biggest hurdle the Democrats face is an image problem, not an issue problem. Americans, right or wrong, prefer toughness over thoughtfulness, steadfastness over nuanced positions. If the Dems could only learn to play to those preferences, stand strong for what they believe, they might not be the underdog for much longer.

Newsweek, the Pentagon and Fact-Checking

Did Newsweek editor Mark Whitaker issue this recent "mea culpa" prematurely?

Last Friday, a top Pentagon spokesman told us that a review of the probe cited in our story showed that it was never meant to look into charges of Qur'an desecration. The spokesman also said the Pentagon had investigated other desecration charges by detainees and found them "not credible." ... we regret that we got any part of our story wrong ...

If Newsweek's report was false, then we now know that the statements of this Pentagon spokesman were equally false, possibly more so. Whitaker was told by the Pentagon that "other (koran) desecration charges" were judged by the Pentagon to be "not credible." But according to this morning's Washington Post:

Pentagon officials said yesterday that investigators have identified five incidents of military guards and an interrogator "mishandling" the Koran at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but characterized the episodes as minor ...

Of the five cases of mishandling, three were "very likely" deliberate and two were "very likely accidental," he said. But (Brigadier Gen. Jay) Hood declined to provide details, citing an ongoing investigation.

So after telling us that none of the allegations about koran desecration were credible -- not Newsweek's or any of the others -- the Pentagon now admits that there were at least five incidents. We're told that the incidents of desecration were "minor," but one questions whether the same people who dismissed any reports of desecration can be trusted to accurately characterize the nature of that desecration.

But don't expect the conservative commentators who attacked Newsweek for failing to do its fact-checking to level a similar attack on the Pentagon. (However inadequate Newsweek's fact-checking may have been, the confirmation of these five incidents of desecration suggests that it's quite possible that an incident much like that reported by the magazine did happen at Guantanamo.)

Journalists shouldn't make assertions without first checking their facts. But should we expect anything less from the Pentagon?

The Scent of Chicago

Sometimes footnotes are worth reading. Take this example -- an article from Harper's archives on the 19th century Indian massacre near Fort Dearborn in Chicago. The 2nd footnote informs readers of the origin of the city's name:

Chicago is derived from She-gog-ong, the locative of the Indian word she-gog, meaning skunk.

How will I break the news to my relatives in the Windy City?

Biblethumpersville, U.S.A.

An interesting article from Harper's on why Colorado Springs is becoming a magnet for evangelical conservatives:

Colorado Springs is a city of moral fabulousness. It is a city of fables.

... Pastor Ted presides over the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), whose 45,000 churches and 30 million believers make up the nation’s most powerful religious lobbying group .... and as long as Pastor Ted is its president the NAE will make its headquarters in Colorado Springs.

Some believers call the city the Wheaton of the West, in honor of Wheaton, Illinois, once the headquarters of a more genteel Christian conservatism; others call Colorado Springs the “evangelical Vatican,” a phrase that says much both about the city and about the easeful orthodoxy with which the movement now views itself.

... Evangelical activist groups (“parachurch” ministries, in the parlance) in Colorado Springs number in the hundreds, though a precise count is hard to specify. Groups migrate there and multiply. They produce missionary guides, “family resources,” school curricula, financial advice, athletic training programs, Bibles for every occasion.

The city is home to Young Life, to the Navigators, to Compassion International; to Every Home for Christ and Global Ethnic Missions (Youth Ablaze). Most prominent among the ministries is Dr. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, whose radio programs (the most extensive in the world, religious or secular), magazines, videos, and books reach more than 200 million people worldwide.

The press tends to regard Dobson as the most powerful evangelical Christian in America, but Pastor Ted (who heads the National Association of Evangelicals) is at least his equal. Whereas Dobson plays the part of national scold, promising to destroy politicians who defy the Bible, Pastor Ted quietly guides those politicians through the ritual of acquiescence required to save face. He doesn’t strut, like Dobson; he gushes.

When Bush invited him to the Oval Office to discuss policy with seven other chieftains of the Christian right in late 2003, Pastor Ted regaled his whole congregation with the story via email. “Well, on Monday I was in the World Prayer Center”—New Life’s high-tech, twenty-four-hour-a-day prayer chapel —“and my cell phone rang.” It was a presidential aide; “the President,” says Pastor Ted, wanted him on hand for the signing of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Pastor Ted was on a plane the next morning and in the President’s office the following afternoon. “It was incredible,” wrote Pastor Ted.

So sorry I missed it.

Whatever Happened to the "New South"?

CNN reports from Durham, N.C.:

Three large crosses were burned in separate spots around the city during a span of just over an hour, and yellow fliers with Ku Klux Klan sayings were found at one location, police said.

The cross burnings Wednesday night marked the first time in recent memory that one of the South's most notorious symbols of racial hatred has been seen in the city.

(Mayor Bill) Bell said he couldn't recall a cross burning in Durham since he arrived in 1968. He said his office had not received any correspondence suggesting someone might target the city with cross burnings.

The handful of people who burned these crosses shouldn't completely overshadow the broader progress on race relations that has been made in the South. Still, this is deeply disturbing news, and Durham's mayor seems to agree:

"At this day and time, I thought we'd be beyond that," said Mayor Bill Bell. "People do things for different reasons, and I don't have the slightest idea why anyone would do this."

The only reason that comes to mind: someone is both bored and angry.

When Does Life Begin?

At conception, right?

Well, at the center of the debate over stem cell research is this-- fertilized eggs/blastocysts/zygotes/embryos or whatever you want to call them are not conception.

First, 'conception', 'life' and 'living distinct beings' are not the same thing as 'fertilization', no matter how much it serves one's purposes to make it so. Fertilization and the creation of blastocysts is an unremarkable event that takes place daily. If that embryo doesn't implant, there is no conception, no life, no pregnancy. Every day millions of women have 'embryos' floating around in their uteri, flush them during menses and nobody bats an eye. These embryos that have not implanted and sunk a vein and begun the process of advancement are not, even by the most conservative of standards, life. Nobody posits funerals or mourns for the millions of these that are, with no awareness, flushed every day. Give a woman as many pregnancy tests with an embryo inside her that has not implanted as many times as you like—there will be no positive result, pee on as many EPT sticks as you like, no plus sign. This is why after an IVF transfer (the two week wait) people so anxiously wait—they are hoping—desperately—that they have CONCEIVED. It hasn't happened yet.

It's a really good essay about the feigned ignorance of Bush and pals, written from the point of view of a woman who has a son via IVF using an adopted embryo.

Also, for all the talk about embryo adoption-- something I may be interested in someday-- I could only find two such agencies listed in the U.S.-- both are Christian agencies. Which pretty much means that it's for Christian couples donating embryos designated for Christian wombs and Christian parents. Non-Christian, unmarried people need not apply. Interesting, eh? Does it cost a lot less than regular IVF? Nope, it costs about $$10,000.

Situational Ethics, Conservative-Style

First right-wingers claim filibusters are bad! That we need the nuclear option to get rid of them forever! That the "Gang of 14" compromise is a betrayal!

No, wait a second, now the filibuster is a good thing and it may be used soon! by a right-wing republican! on the Senate floor! with no sense of irony whatsoever!

Now that the House has approved a measure that would use taxpayer funds to pay for unproven embryonic stem cell research, attention turns to the Senate, where the vote will be much closer. Sponsors of the Senate version of the bill say they have 58 votes to approve the measure. That's more than the 50 needed to pass the bill, but possibly short of the 60 necessary to stop a filibuster by pro-life lawmakers.

Pro-life Sen. Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican and possible presidential contender, has confirmed he will filibuster the Castle/DeGette bill the House approved Monday.

Good thing Frist didn't get rid of the filibuster for good, eh Brownback?

Typical right-winger situational ethics, moral relativism. The only absolute they stand by is that whatever they think they are right and that whatever they believe is directly supported by God/Bible/Jesus. The only moral or ethical standards they abide by are whatever works for them that partiular day-- whatever helps them seize and maintain the most power.

You Know What I Wish?

I wish that Amnesty International investigations into the genocide in Darfur received half the attention that their allegations that Guantanamo is a "gulag" are receiving.

On that note, here is the latest Coalition for Darfur post (and I think I forgot to post last week's post called "Delays and Complications")

A few weeks ago, PBS aired a made-for-HBO film about the 1994 genocide in Rwanda called "Sometimes in April." Following the presentation, journalist Jeff Greenfield held a panel discussion about world's lack of response to Rwanda and the similarities to the current genocide in Darfur.

Former Deputy Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz was among the panelists and during the discussion, made the following points

Wolfowitz: One of the things that bears thinking about from the Rwanda experience, and everyone of these cases is different, and I think one ought to recognize that. But it seems to me that the thing that stuck me as unique about the Rwanda experience, on the one hand the sheer horror of it, with the exception of the Holocaust and even then at a sort of per day rate, this was probably the worst genocide ever. But secondly, and we'll never know this for sure because you never know the course that wasn't taken, but it was seem as though a relatively modest military action aimed at eliminating that regime could have ended the genocide and ended it rather quickly.

What strikes me and seems to me is true in Rwanda, is true in Bosnia, is true in World War II, is true in Cambodia, this kind of systematic, one-sided elimination of a population is not done spontaneously by another ethnic group, it's organized by a criminal gang and if that criminal gang had been eliminated in Rwanda the genocide would have ended.

But that comes to my last point which is, then it depends on how do you conceive of the peacekeeping operation and nobody proposed, that I know of, going in and taking out the government.

Greenfield: Should they have?

Wolfowitz: I think so, yes.

[edit]

Wolfowitz: This is not a simple problem. The Rwanda case, I think, is striking because it at least it looks in hindsight to have been so simple to prevent something that was so horrible. But most of these cases are complicated ... In a way the Rwanda case is helpful for thinking about things but in some ways it's misleading because most cases are a little more difficult.

Wolfowitz openly argued that the world should have intervened in Rwanda, but them makes the strikingly disingenuous argument that Rwanda was somehow "simpler" than the current situation in Darfur.

Rwanda is only "simpler" because it is now over and hindsight allows us to see just how, where and why the world failed. But in 1994, with bodies filling the streets, Rwanda did not appear to be simple at all

U.S. Opposes Plan for U.N. Force in Rwanda
By PAUL LEWIS
12 May 1994
The New York Times

UNITED NATIONS, May 11 -- As rebel forces of the Rwanda Patriotic Front pressed their attack today against the capital, Kigali, the United States criticized a new United Nations plan to send some 5,500 soldiers into the heart of the Rwandan civil war to protect refugees and assist relief workers, saying it is more than the organization can handle.

[edit]

While not excluding any course of action, Ms. Albright said it remains unclear whether African countries are ready or able to send forces for such a dangerous and complicated mission at the epicenter of a raging civil war.

Ten years later, it now appears as if a few relatively simple measures backed by the necessary political will could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. But in 1994, the genocide appeared massively complex and that complexity was routinely cited as a justification for not intervening.

And Wolfowitz is making exactly the same justification for not intervening in Darfur today.

Were there feasible solutions to Rwanda? In hindsight, the answer is obviously "yes." Are there feasible solutions to Darfur? It is hard to say because right now it seems so complex, but there certainly are if the world powers can muster the will to address them.

But unfortunately, it is far more likely that ten years from now, when perhaps another one million Africans have needlessly died, we'll wonder why we did not act when "it looks in hindsight to have been so simple to prevent something that was so horrible."

Foot-in-Mouth Disease Strikes Again

Guess who said this yesterday?

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

Two Can Play That Game

It's a baby, right?


You have to check out this post from Feddie for my post to make any sense.

Irony in North Carolina

Earlier this month, conservatives rallied in Raleigh in favor of an amendment to the North Carolina Constitution defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Such an amendment is needed, of course, because otherwise activist judges will substitute their political preferences for the law. An aide to James Dobson of Focus on the Family warned: "All it would take is one ruling by the state Supreme Court, and homosexual marriage would be legal here."

I don't think he needs to worry, considering that two of the state's seven Supreme Court justices attended the rally.

Just coincidentally, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court rewrote the rules of judicial ethics after one justice was criticized for getting involved in partisan politics; while the rules used to say (as do the rules in most states) that judges should avoid political activity, they now affirmatively say judges may engage in such activity. Supreme Court justices are elected in partisan races (i.e., they run as Democrats or Republicans), and the conservatives who run the court have been so immersed in partisan politics that they decided to get rid of any rules that might hinder them.

So I'm wondering: did any of the speakers at the rally warn the two justices in attendance that he'd be held accountable if he let his political beliefs affect his decisions? Or does that rule apply only to liberals?

Now vs. Then

Today's cloture vote on Owen

YEAs ---81
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---18
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feingold (D-WI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)

Not Voting - 1
Inouye (D-HI)

The last cloture vote on Owen

YEAs ---53
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---42
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Breaux (D-LA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (D-FL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 5
Carper (D-DE)
Edwards (D-NC)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kerry (D-MA)
Nelson (D-FL

Obviously, some current members of the Senate were not part of the Senate for the last Owen vote, but it is clear that a handful of Democrats who were not part of the compromise (e.g., Hillary Clinton, Herb Kohl) now decided to vote in favor of cloture for Owen.

I realize a deal has been struck, but why Democrats who are not a part of that deal felt compelled to help overwhileming invoke cloture on Owen when they just spent the last four years preventing it is beyond me.

Wankers.

Man Date

Where would Dubya be without 9/11? Use your imagination.

Progressives Still Don't Care About Darfur

Last month, after looking over the agenda for the "Take Back America" conference, I asked "Do Progressives Care About Darfur?" The answer was "apparently not."

Now the organizers seem to have finalized their line-up and judging by the various topics to be discussed, Darfur does not appear to be anywhere on the agenda. Of course, there are two sessions on judges and two on Wal-Mart. There is even a presentation by unjustifiably regarded George Lakoff.

Eventually I'll learn to just stop asking if progressives care about Darfur because they obviously don't.

But if you do care about Darfur, Eric Reeves will be speaking tonight in Washington, DC.

The Metropolitan Community Church Has Two Mommies

Time is on our side.

Last November, without much fanfare, the UK was added to the list of countries granting legal recognition to gay and lesbian couples; according to the government's website, there are nine EU member states (out of 25) with civil partnership legislation, though same-sex marriage is legal only in Belgium and the Netherlands.

Even yobbo tabloid The Sun is refraining from snarkiness in reporting that Rev. Debbie Gaston and her partner of 16 years, Elaine Cook, will be among the first same-sex couples to be joined under the Civil Partnership Act 2004 when it comes into effect in December.

I found The Sun's choice of language instructive. Although I think the symbolic importance of denying gays and lesbians the word "marriage" is a serious issue, I also think that civil unions will almost inevitably lead to increased social acceptance of gay and lesbian couples, which will in turn lead to legalization of same-sex marriage. Watching The Sun dance with the language only emphasized that point to me. In the lede and in the next paragraph, the newspaper chooses the legally vague phrase "tie the knot." But by the third paragraph, Gaston "will marry" Cook, and we're told later that "[l]ike other civil marriages, the ceremony will take place at the register office at the city’s town hall." (If it's good enough for the Prince of Wales....)

He Might Be Innocent, But I'll Still Make Jokes About His Guilt

Taking a short break from reading about politics, I came across this AP article on Jay Leno's testifying for the defense in the Michael Jackson case

Jay Leno, who regularly skewers Michael Jackson in his "Tonight Show" monologues, took the witness stand Tuesday in the singer's child molestation trial to testify for the defense.

Leno was expected to describe how he once received a phone call from someone he believed to be the boy who is now accusing Jackson of child molestation. He smiled to spectators and shook hands with sheriff's deputies when he arrived at the courthouse.

Jackson attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. said in his opening statement to the jury that Leno was suspicious of the call and reported to Santa Barbara police that "something was wrong. They were looking for a mark."

Defense attorneys say Leno was one of several celebrities — including Jackson — who the accuser's family tried to bilk out of money. Comedian Chris Tucker also is among remaining defense witnesses.

Leno dedicated much of his "Tonight Show" monologue Monday night to

Noting he has often poked fun at Jackson's expense, Leno quipped: "I was called by the defense. Apparently they've never seen this program." Referring to the heat wave gripping Southern California, Leno said he's been "sweating like a Cub Scout" at Jackson's Neverland Ranch.

So Leno is willing to testify in Jackson's defense that the family of the kid who is accusing Jackson of molestation are a bunch of welfare cheats who exploited this kid's cancer as a way to get money from celebrities. Yet, at the same time, Leno is using Jackson's presumed guilt in this case as the premise for dozens of jokes during his nightly monologue.

I long ago realized that Leno is a hack, but I never realized that he was also a hypocritical asshole.

On Compromise

I am not particularly pleased about the compromise mainly because William Pryor is now guaranteed an up-or-down vote and will presumably be confirmed.

Fully aware that I will incur the wrath of Feddie for this view, I stand by my assertion if there is one nominee that simply does not deserve confirmation, it is Pryor. As such, I really, really hope that the Democrats can hold together in opposition to his nomination and maybe pick up enough Republican support to defeat him.

I never really liked the filibuster and tend to think that if Democrats can't win the White House or control the Senate, then they don't really have anyone but themselves to blame for their predicament. Of course, I would also appreciate it if President Bush wouldn't nominate lunatics like Pryor or Janice Rogers Brown, but he rarely does anything that I approve of.

Now that Democrats are committed to giving Pryor a vote, I don't expect that many, if any, Republicans will actually vote against him, but I sure hope the Dems will try their damnedest to defeat him.

And if they can't do that, maybe they can at least defeat John Bolton.

Throw me a bone here, will ya?

Just Keep On Talking

That's my reaction to this LA Times article, which features the following whiny gems:

James Dobson said that, come Election Day: "voters will remember both Democrats and Republicans who betrayed their trust."

CWA's top lobbyist said: "Unfortunately, 14 senators are allowed to speak for all of America, and they're able to pick and choose the nominees they find acceptable."

and good old Lou Sheldon gave the color commentary:

The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman and founder of the Traditional Values Coalition, said he was sitting with several conservative senators and a dozen Republican House members at the Capitol Hill Club when they learned of the agreement.

"I tell you, you would have thought that the World Series had been forfeited for some dumb reason," Sheldon said. "They slapped their hands against their heads and cried out. They couldn't believe that this was the agreement."

....Of the seven Republicans who signed the compromise agreement, Sheldon said: "They didn't have the backbone and the fortitude to stand up for the fact that we are the majority."

Not only will the American public find you unappealing, but we're likely to see more stories like this one: Business Groups Tire of GOP Focus On Social Issues. Unfortunately this is the one filibuster-related article in today's Washington Post that you're unlikely to come across since it's on the Business page.

Early in the second Bush term, business groups appeared ready to join social conservatives in the battle over Bush's judges. "We have every right to participate in the nomination process," NAM President Engler told Washington Post writers and editors in January. "Our interest is even keener than that of the White House on this issue."

But since then, it has become clear the judicial showdown could doom initiatives on taxes, legal liability protections, Social Security and other priorities. Last week, NAM spokesman Darren McKinney said not only would the group stay out of the fight, but "we hope that leveler heads prevail" before the confrontation virtually shuts down the Senate.

Mark A. Bloomfield, whose business-backed American Council for Capital Formation pushes for lower taxes on savings, investment and inheritances, said the business community is no longer the GOP's base. (emphasis mine)

Pretty strong words. And the best quote is at the end:

Since the election, Washington Republicans resemble the German military during World War I, opening new fronts before old battles are resolved, said John E. Silvia, chief economist at Wachovia Corp. and a former top GOP economist for the Senate Banking Committee and the Joint Economic Committee. One week it's Social Security, the next week it's Schiavo, then steroids, then judges, he said.

"It's an unbalanced domestic agenda," Silvia said. "If you're going to go to the wall on one particular issue, you're telling me you're going to sacrifice other issues, and history is full of stories of battles won at the cost of missing issues that have lost the war."

Nuclear Compromise

I'd like to step back from evaluating this particular deal and talk about the bigger picture. My own feeling has always been one of discomfort--to say the least--with filibusters against judicial nominations. Indeed, I'm not very keen on aggressive efforts to defeat nominees on the floor. Supreme Court nominations go into a somewhat (but only somewhat) different category, but I think that the Senate should generally be quite deferential to the President's choice of lower-court nominees.

The problem here is that even if one agreed with my principles for how the system should work, the recent history of judicial nominations has made my approach impossible as a practical matter for political reasons. On the other hand, practical politics also made it necessary for cooler heads to prevail as we approached detonation of the nuclear option. As I explained in comments to a recent post of Eugene's (with one added sentence in italics):

Unfortunately, the moment for sensible compromise passed during the first half of Bush's first term. At that time, with the Dems in control of the Senate and tons of vacancies on the bench (per the GOP's plan to keep those vacancies there for years in the hope that a Republican president would be able to fill them), Dems might have had the leverage to say, e.g., for every two of yours that we confirm to the appeals courts, you reappoint one of Clinton's that the GOP blocked from getting a vote.

Obviously, since the Republicans hoped to retake the Senate in 2002 (which they did), there would have been a limit on how hard a bargain the Dems could have driven. But without undoing the damage caused by Republicans' blocking Clinton's nominees, we were bound to get into a continuing cycle: GOP screws Dem president's nominees; bitter Dems respond by screwing a smaller number of GOP president's nominees but in much more spectacular fashion (via filibuster); bitter GOP screws the nominees of the next Dem president, via filibuster if there's a Dem Senate majority; bitter Dems . . . .

It'll be like the Balkans: whoever lost the last war will feel wronged and justified in starting the next one, and we'll just go on, and on, and on like this.

Saying "we'll undo some of the damage we did to your guys, and then we'll all agree to behave better in the future" seems to me to be the only obvious way to break the cycle. Breaking it by force--i.e., the nuclear option--will just embitter the other side more and leave them with a score to settle, which they will do in a very ugly fashion if need be. But the sensible solution is no longer an option, both because there are now very few vacancies on the Courts of Appeals, and fewer still for which Bush hasn't already named someone, and because the GOP has made such a big show of demanding carte blanche for the President that a compromise along the lines I've suggested would be politically disastrous for them.

If Feddie is "furious about this nonsense," he ought to lobby his GOP senators (I believe he's a constituent of two of them) to propose reappointment of some of the scores of Clinton nominees who were blocked by nonsense like one-senator holds, blue slips, refusal to bring nominees to the floor, etc. Personally, I'm very uncomfortable with the notion of filibustering judicial nominees, and I was surprised the Dems did it. And filibustering may do more institutional damage than the more subtle methods used by Hatch, Helms, etc. to kill Clinton's nominees, because filibusters pit the parties directly against each other and may engender more bitterness (though the argument that it's unconstitutional seems very weak to me).

But however one ranks the various tactics on the scale of "nonsense," what the GOP did to Clinton's nominees was disgraceful. Expecting the Dems to ignore that history in resolving the current impasse is unrealistic, to say the least, and Republicans aren't being "weak-kneed" in understanding why their Democratic colleagues are so pissed off and trying to figure out how to deal with the political situation realistically.

More Metacoverage

Here.

The media have pretty much allowed their investigative skills to atrophy. The Bush administration has stonewalled inquires on the WMD fakery, the seemingly endless parade of Iraq- and 9/11-linked commissions have all avoided the topic, and the Senate Republicans have blocked any inquiry. So the media doesn’t know where to go: it’s as if they’ve forgotten how to investigate something—as if they’ve forgotten how to find second- and third-level folks to help assemble the story, how to background key players in the OSP and the U.S. intelligence community....

The clearest proof that this is all true is the stunning lack of editorial comment on the Downing Street memo. Where are the thundering editorials demanding that the White House explain itself? That Congress investigate? That a team of senators flies to London to look into this?

It isn’t like this scandal involves something small, as if it were one more peccadillo to be added to the list of Tom DeLay’s complicated transgressions. This is a basic issue of life and death, of war and peace. Upwards of 100,000 people have died because George W. Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, and $200 billion has been funneled down that black hole.

Santorum's Spin on the Judicial Compromise

GOP senators have tried hard to appear as though they support efforts to reach a genuine compromise over judicial nominations. But their public statements invariably contain certain qualifiers and disclaimers -- i.e., we support a "compromise" so long as there's "an up-or-down vote" for all judicial nominees in question.

Here's the latest case in point. On Monday night, moderate senators brokered a compromise on the judicial noms issue. Under the deal, Democrats agreed to allow floor votes on the confirmation of judicial nominees Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor. Democrats did not grant such a vote for two other conservative appeals court nominees -- Henry Saad and William Myers.

In response to Monday night's Senate compromise, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) released this statement:

“Tonight, we saw a positive beginning in the process of voting on judicial nominees. I am pleased that highly-qualified nominees Brown, Pryor and Owen will finally be confirmed in the Senate. Although I am concerned that two nominees are not assured an up or down vote, this compromise is a step forward and all options are still on the table. As I have under Republican and Democratic presidents, I will continue to support an up or down vote for every judicial nominee.”

On the one hand, Santorum calls the compromise "a step forward." On the other hand, he declares that "all options" remain on the table. So what are we to make of this? Is Santorum, a member of the GOP Senate leadership, saying that Frist and company still reserve the right to destroy the filibuster? Santorum's intent is not clear, and perhaps deliberately so.

Although Santorum's statement positions him as supportive of the compromise, it doesn't take a genius to see through that tone. When Santorum says he will "continue to support an up or down vote for every judicial nominee," it sounds like he's trying to have it both ways.

Sure, Santorum says the compromise is a "step forward," but his other words strongly suggest that what he's really thinking may be this: "Three nominees confirmed, two more to go."

It will be interesting to see how each side interprets this compromise.

You Don't Have To Be An Idiot To Write for the National Review ...

Oh wait, yes you do.

As evidence, check out this piece of tripe written by one Dorinda Bordlee, senior counsel and executive director of the Bioethics Defense Fund and spokesperson for the Cures not Clones campaign. With a clever name like "Cures Not Clones" you just know her article is going to be brilliant.

Bordlee opposes Congressional efforts to provide funding for stem-cell research and offers up the following comparison

Her name is Zara. She is a beautiful baby girl being raised by two loving parents who suffered the heavy burden of infertility. Like many American children, Zara will no doubt be captivated by the tales of Dr. Seuss that have enriched our culture for so many decades. She will likely learn to identify especially with a popular Seuss tale, Horton Hears a Who.

Think back. That's the one about the elephant named Horton who was mocked for being the only creature in the jungle who could hear the tiny Whos living in Whoville, which happened to be located on the inside of a precariously floating dandelion. You'll remember that Horton persevered and ultimately succeeded in his mission to bring the Who's to safety, despite the fact that the monkeys maligned him and the kangaroos nearly defeated him before they too heard the loud cries coming from inside the dandelion, “We are here, we are here, we are here!”

Zara will be able to relate to that story. Like Horton, Zara's story is fantastic and unbelievable. But unlike Horton, Zara's story is no fairytale; it's the true story of a child born into our brave new world. You see, Zara began her life in a petri dish as the result of a fertility procedure called in vitro fertilization (IVF). Strange as it may sound, Zara was a microscopic human being at the embryonic stage of life and living in the cryogenic storage tank of a fertility clinic when her new parents heard the call to adopt her.

That is indeed strange; I had no idea that embryos were really microscopic human beings calling out for adoption. But if someone who cites Dr. Seuss says so, then I guess it must be true. The man was a doctor, after all.

Fun with context

"Eating your mate during or after copulating, that's no big deal. Eating your mate beforehand, that's weird," says Chadwick Johnson at the University of Toronto, Canada.

The full story is less creepy, but only moderately so.

Take a Cruise

This blog is generally a Hollywood celebrity-free space. But when someone is being a total asshat in the name of their religion, I make an exception. Plus I loathe Tom Cruise to begin with, he's one of the most overrated actors in this history of cinema, so he irks me anyways.

The backstory-- Brooke Shields recently wrote a memior about dealing with dehabilitating postpartum depression where she admits she took Paxil to treat it. In an interview Tom Cruise, the devoted Scientologist, said the following about Shields:

"When you talk about emotional, chemical imbalances in people, there is no science behind that. You can use vitamins to help a woman through those things," Cruise says, adding, "Here is a woman, and I care about Brooke Shields because I think she is an incredibly talented woman. You look at, where has her career gone?"

So a religion called "Scientology" eschews scientific facts such as chemical imbalances or denies the reality that bad postpartum depression, if left untreated, can be potentially dangerous for both the mother and baby. But Scientologists don't believe in science or medicine sort of the same way that the Christian Science Church rejects science and modern medicine in favor of prayer. I think both of these groups should strongly consider changing their names, they are quite misleading.

Also, any man who says that bad postpartum depression should be treated with vitamins deserves to pass a cantelope through his urethra and then take high, irregular doses of hormones for a year or so. What a jerk.

Coming Soon to a Conservative Blog Near You

But don't hold your breath. Would a triumphalist rant from Ted Rall be satisfactory?

Godwin's Law, Dutch Style

Looks like the pro-EU Constitution forces are getting nervous about next week's vote here in the Netherlands. Of course, the frogs might make it a moot point anyway with their binding referendum two days earlier.

Totally Pointless

I love human beings.

Has China come up with an unanswerable sally in its quest to outstrip Romania as the Home of the Weird?

Dubya's O.J. Impersonation

Information was illegally leaked to a reporter. The reporter suffered a contempt conviction rather than reveal his source. But, finally, the special prosecutor managed to convict the leaker on Friday.

That's the story in a noteworthy case. Unfortunately, it's not the Plame case. Bush said he wanted to get to the bottom of Intimigate. He could have done it by getting his senior officials to waive confidentiality promises from reporters. Then again, has O. J. found the real killer yet?

A Really Bad Idea

Sort of like popes, Japanese emperors adopt "reign names" upon ascending the throne, and the emperors are henceforth referred to by the chosen name. Americans, and for all I know other foreigners, continue for some reason to use the emperor's given name. Thus, the person the Japanese call the Showa emperor is known to us as Hirohito (just as his son, the Heisei emperor, is still called Akihito in the American press).

This is by way of introduction to the Japanese parliament's decision to rename a holiday Showa Day. It's the old emperor's birthday, which was a holiday during his lifetime. The day was retained as a holiday after his death because of its proximity to two other holidays, which together created "Golden Week," a week-long vacation for many Japanese. They needed a new name for it, so it was called Greenery Day. Now, Greenery Day is moving, to create a fourth holiday during Golden week, and Showa Day is taking its place. Just the thing Japan needs in its ongoing bickering with Korea and China over its failure to come to grips with wartime and prewar Japanese atrocities.

The Meta-Story

As I continue to fume over the press's failure to ask the administration about the smoking memo, I must admit I've finally started to see the memo occasionally mentioned. But what's been appearing has not been coverage the memo, but items about why there is no coverage of the memo.

Eugene pointed out the NY Review of Books article on that theme, and now comes the Christian Science Monitor on the same topic. Even an editorial cartoonist is getting in on the action.

I blame postmodernism.

First Lady's Close Call Offers a Lesson

CNN reported on Sunday:

First lady Laura Bush, on a political fence-mending tour of the Middle East, found herself the target of a tense protest Sunday in Jerusalem at one of Islam's holiest sites.

After a brief tour of the Dome of the Rock mosque, about 40 or 50 protesters surrounded Bush and her U.S. Secret Service detail as they departed, pushing to get closer and shouting: "How dare you come here" and "You don't belong in this mosque."

Security closed in tightly around the first lady as the angry Muslim protesters -- many expressing fury at the United States -- came very close to Bush. As Secret Service agents shadowed her, Israeli security guards linked arms and forced a pathway for the first lady's entourage through the crowd to Bush's motorcade.

At one point, a boy made his way up to the first lady, and one guard momentarily pointed his gun at the boy, who ran away.

I don't wish ill upon Laura Bush and I'm glad that she was not hurt or directly threatened, but there is part of me that also believes the White House invited this tense situation. It's the kind of incident that occurs when the U.S. (and Bush's presidency certainly isn't the first to do this) tries to turn sites that are deeply sacred to certain populations into convenient photo-ops.

Cold-Hearted Bastard

Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. vetoed a bill yesterday that would have granted [medical decision making] rights to gay partners who register with the state, concluding after weeks of intense deliberations that the legislation threatened "the sanctity of traditional marriage."
...
Modeled after laws in California, Hawaii and other states, the legislation [the Medical Decision Making Act] would have granted nearly a dozen rights to unmarried partners [heterosexual or homosexual] who register with the state. Among those: the right to be treated as an immediate family member during hospital visits, to make health care decisions for incapacitated partners and to have private visits in nursing homes.

In his veto message, Ehrlich said he is "sympathetic to the needs of mutually dependent couples and [wants] to support compassionate efforts to expedite health-related decisions for Marylanders in need."

He said, however, that the bill's requirement that couples register as life partners "will open the door to undermine the sanctity of traditional marriage."
...
Kargman-Kaye, 37, said that after she emerged from heart surgery five years ago, a nurse literally pushed away her longtime partner, who was there to support her, "because we're not considered a family in the eyes of Maryland."

This is completely senseless. It happens to be one of the few issues that most people-- even among anti-gay marriage folks-- are sympathetic to in regards to the legal problems facing gay couples. It's basically the right to self-determination, the right to decide who is treated as your next of kin and who gets to be at your side during medical emergencies. Even in the Maryland legislature, the Medical Decision Making Act had strong support.

The Medical Decision Making Act contained 11 basic protections, seven of which could not be accomplished through advance directive, power of attorney, or will. The bill passed the Senate with a veto-proof majority of 31-16, but fell two votes short of such a majority in the House of Delegates, where the bill passed 83-50.

So, coming from a gay Marylander, I can testify that this really burns, I know what it is like to be told that you can't be in the room because you're not "family" or get a raised eyebrow from a nurse when I lied and said I was my partner's "sister." I get a lump in my through just thinking about it.

I really can't figure out why Ehrich did this-- or a host of other nasty anti-worker vetoes-- with his re-election bid up in 2006. He ran as a "moderate" but then lurched hard to the right in a way that won't even benefit him in a state that is 2-1 democrat. Maybe he doesn't want to be governor anymore. If so, he should just step down instead of inflicting unnecessary harm on so many Maryland families.

Ignoring Nancy Reagan

Bush might actually veto something-- for the first time in 4+ years. Apparently George believes it is better to throw away unused fertilized eggs than it is to use them for stem cell research. He wants to protect the "culture of life" by vetoing medical research that might, um, save it.

Headline of the Day

Bush Promises Probe into Saddam Underwear Pictures

OK, yeah, so I watch too much South Park. What of it?

Terri Schiavo: 49 Days Later, She's Still Laughing

Well, 49 days have passed since Terri Schiavo was pronounced dead, but our favorite carpetbagger on the Right, Alan Keyes, remains determined to use this dead lady as a political prop. The home page of Keyes' Renew America website continues to display a photo of Schiavo with this lovely caption:

Click to hear Terri laughing

... yes, Mr. Keyes, and she's probably laughing at you for being so damned obsessed with her.

Vertebrates Invade the White House Press Room?

As Frederick reported that Kevin Drum had reported that....well, let's just say that I was indeed impressed that at least a few of the usual suspects in the press corpse started acting like--what are those things called--oh, yeah, reporters.

They still haven't asked the big, simple, critical question that's been unasked for the past three weeks, though. Rather than rant about it again (though I'm not promising not to start frothing again later), I'll point you to a much more thorough and less hyperventilating article on journalistic somnambulance that Eugene put me onto in the comments.

The Definitive Word on the Nuclear Option

Josh Marshall nails it. In short:

1. Bush, the GOP, and the religious right say they want judges who will stick to the original understanding of the Constitution. Such judges are needed to rid the country of the plague of results-driven decisions that give the Constitution ever-changing meanings depending on political convenience.
2. The only way to get rid of the filibuster and get more of those would-be judges on the bench is to have a majority of the Senate vote in favor of a ruling by the Vice President that the cloture rule is unconstitutional.
3. No sane person, and not even most GOP Senators, thinks the cloture rule is unconstitutional.
4. Therefore, if they go to the nuclear option, the GOP will be passing a formal Senate resolution giving the Constitution a new meaning for purposes of current political convenience.

Creative Double Standards

A few top stories today all revolve around U.S. treatment of detainees and POWs.

First there's this, the story about a London tabloid publishing somewhat embarassing pictures of Saddam Hussein in his underwear and doing his laundry, pictures they claim they got from "U.S. military sources." The Sun defends itself by claiming that they thought they were helping the war in Iraq by showing that Hussein is "not superman or God. He is now just an aging and humble old man. It's important that the people of Iraq see him like that to destroy the myth." But here's the kicker-- the U.S. is "angry" and forcefully "condmens" this act and promises to "aggressively investigate" because the photos might "possibly Geneva convention guidelines for the humane treatment of detained individuals." [emphasis mine]

Right, because showing the video of Hussein being examined or inspected for lice after being found in his dirty spiderhole isn't nearly as humiliating as publishing pictures of him in his underwear or doing his laundry.

Also, since when do we giving a flying fig about the Geneva Convention's standards for treatment of evildoers? Oh, that's right, after a little scandal called Abu Ghraib. Now it seems we actually understand the real world implications of getting a bad reputation for torturing POWs. After all, it's a little hard to be considered liberators by the world when you're caught torturing-- or killing-- your prisoners.

There is no irony whatsoever that the other top stories today are the release of more reports and documentation of prisoner abuse in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

More than 2,500 pages of documents just released by the Army reveal instances of detainee abuse, including mock executions, by U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

The Army released the documents this week as part of a Freedom of Information Act request by the ACLU. The same request resulted in the release of several thousand pages of similar documents earlier this year.

"The Army does not tolerate detainee abuse and will continue to aggressively investigate all allegations of abuse and hold individuals accountable when appropriate," an Army spokesman said.

There is also what is soon to be known as the Bagram files, a study of abuse and murder in an Afghan prison.

The story of Mr. Dilawar's brutal death at the Bagram Collection Point - and that of another detainee, Habibullah, who died there six days earlier in December 2002 - emerge from a nearly 2,000-page confidential file of the Army's criminal investigation into the case, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times.

Like a narrative counterpart to the digital images from Abu Ghraib, the Bagram file depicts young, poorly trained soldiers in repeated incidents of abuse. The harsh treatment, which has resulted in criminal charges against seven soldiers, went well beyond the two deaths.

In some instances, testimony shows, it was directed or carried out by interrogators to extract information. In others, it was punishment meted out by military police guards. Sometimes, the torment seems to have been driven by little more than boredom or cruelty, or both.

Our initial response to correcting the perception that POW abuse is commonplace is to prosecute a handful of lowly grunts in Iraq-- especially female grunts-- and characterize the whole issue as unique and isolated. No higher ranking military have been held responsible despite the fact that they are supposed to be accountable for what happens on their watch, for that is the military order. (But since this principle doesn't apply to the Bush Administration, so why should it apply to our military?) But Newsweek mistakenly reports that they are flushing the Koran down the toilet and the Bush Administration gets all high-and-mighty and demands an apology? What do they have to say about these stories?

Nothing wrong here, just "a few bad apples" abusing prisoners in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It's more important that we express out outrage as we aggressively investigate the possible violation of the Geneva Convention for taking pictures of Saddam Hussein in his underwear.

Liars!

Why does the Red Cross want to hurt America by talking about the Koran being abused?

The International Committee of the Red Cross said yesterday that it repeatedly expressed concern to the U.S. government in 2002 and early 2003 about a series of credible detainee allegations that military guards at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba had mishandled and shown disrespect to the Koran.

Red Cross investigators documented what they considered reliable allegations of mistreatment of the Koran in interviews with detainees during visits to the prison, said ICRC spokesman Simon Schorno. The committee then forwarded its concerns in confidential reports to U.S. authorities and urged action.

"We raised the issues in our reports and verbally over a lengthy period of time. We talked to many detainees, not just one person," Schorno said. "For us, what's important is that the detainees' religion and dignity is respected."

The committee said the U.S. government responded with "corrective measures" in 2003 and the allegations ceased. In late January 2003, the Defense Department spelled out procedures covering the respectful handling of copies of the Koran. The written guidelines say that only Muslim chaplains or Muslim interpreters could touch the Koran, and they offer instructions on how to do it.

They're clearly lying! They should apologize! Damn liberal media trying to hurt the Bush Administration, as usual.

Er, wait, the Red Cross is an aid group, not a media group. What is this about the U.S. government taking corrective measures? Does that mean that the Koran was in fact abused? So who is to blame for the rioting in Afghanistan?

Also, today Human Rights First publishes reports of approved intentional religious degradation at Gitmo.