Brandeis Librarian to FBI: No Warrant, No Way

Courtesy of TalkLeft, I just learned of a Brandeis University librarian who told the FBI where they could stick their warrant-less request for the school to turn over 30 computers. Let's hear it for Kathy Glick-Weil. She's yet another American who prefers not to live in a police state.

Will Canada Reverse Course on Gay Marriage?

Social conservatives in Canada are hoping to capitalize on the recent election of Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper by putting the brakes on same-sex marriage. Last year, Canada became only the 4th nation in the world to permit same-sex marriages, but Harper's government could try to revoke gay marriage rights:

Conservative leader Stephen Harper, who campaigned on the promise that he would allow Parliament to vote on whether to reopen the issue, said last week he "would prefer to do it sooner rather than later, but not immediately."

If Parliament approved the motion, the government would then introduce legislation changing the definition of marriage back to that of a union between a man and a woman. Both supporters and opponents say the vote will be very tight, especially since Harper does not control a majority of the 308 seats in the House of Commons.

"There's a real risk that this motion (to reconsider) could succeed ... and we need to deal with it," said Laurie Arron of the gay rights group Egale, who calculates that around 150 legislators would for certain oppose the motion.

Meanwhile, religious right groups (yes, a few of those exist in Canada) are anxiously anticipating Harper's announcement on the issue:

"We're just happy, to be be honest, to have a chance to deal with this," said Derek Rogusky of Focus on the Family.

Given the rhetoric of anti-gay marriage groups, I'm assuming that Rogusky and his allies will present hundreds of examples of heterosexual couples whose marriages collapsed in the aftermath of gay marriage.

The Dems Are Missing an Opportunity on Earmarks

Bob Novak is a strange bird. He is wrong on so many issues, but he's right on this one -- congressional earmarks. Of course, these are the pet spending projects that have little or nothing to do with the larger bills in which they are quietly incorporated. Earmarks should be the target of anyone who deplores the bridges-to-nowhere nonsense, the incumbent protection and the "honor among thieves" mentality that passes in Washington for a Congress.

In his most recent column, Novak writes that the leadership of both parties are quite smitten with earmarks:

"Who knows best where to put a bridge or a highway or a red light in their district?" said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, defending earmarks on the Michael Reagan radio program. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said on PBS: "There's nothing basically wrong with the earmarks. They've been going on since we were a country."

Not exactly. As Novak points out:

The 1982 highway bill contained 10 earmarked pork projects; 150 earmarks in the 1987 bill helped provoke a veto by President Reagan; the number rose to 1,400 in 1998, and to 6,300 in 2005.

When Dems controlled the Congress, earmarks were far fewer in number. The party can take some solace in that. But some Dems have enthusiastically embraced the earmark process to steer money to their pet projects with few, if any, hearings or discussion.

Democrats could go a long way toward shedding their big-spender image by publicly opposing earmarks or at least proposing rules that bring some sanity to the process.

Public Seems to Want Gridlock

The latest NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll that shows Bush's approval rating stuck at 39% is getting a lot of attention, but the Carpetbagger digs deeper and finds this -- a very interesting question from the subscription-only version of the poll.

Did Alberto Gonzales Lie to a Senate Committee?

I don't know if he was sworn in or not when he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee one year ago, but it seems probable that Gonzales was not truthful during that testimony. According to today's Washington Post:

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) charged yesterday that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales misled the Senate during his confirmation hearing a year ago when he appeared to try to avoid answering a question about whether the president could authorize warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens.

In a letter to the attorney general yesterday, Feingold demanded to know why Gonzales dismissed the senator's question about warrantless eavesdropping as a "hypothetical situation" during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in January 2005.

At the hearing .... [Gonzales] added that he would hope to alert Congress if the president ever chose to authorize warrantless surveillance, according to a transcript of the hearing.

In fact, the president did secretly authorize the National Security Agency to begin warrantless monitoring of calls and e-mails ... soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

... Gonzales was White House counsel at the time the program began and has since acknowledged his role in affirming the president's authority to launch the surveillance effort.

So if Gonzales had any knowledge when he testified that the NSA eavesdropping program was underway -- and it's difficult to believe he couldn't have known -- his January 2005 testimony amounted to a lie.

This story deserves a little higher priority than page A-7 of The Post.

GOP Must Stand for Graft-Ridden Old Party

Democrats should slam the president if he chooses to ignore the lobbying and influence-peddling scandals in his SOTU address. And the buzz suggests that this is precisely what Bush will do. According to ABC News' preview of the SOTU:

... [Bush] is not expected to endorse any specific lobbying reforms, according to Republican sources. Nor is he expected to discuss recent allegations involving David Safavian, the Bush administration's former procurement offical who was arrested in September as part of a corruption probe; Scooter Libby, the vice president's former chief of staff who was indicted in October ... or Jack Abramoff, the former GOP lobbyist who pleaded guilty in early January to defrauding some of his former clients.

But my favorite part was this self-serving (and self-deluding) statement by a GOP insider:

"Lobbying reform is not on the American people's tongues as far as what they want in action," National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds of New York said on Friday. "They're looking for the Congress to keep doing the kinds of things that matter to them."

In other words, Reynolds thinks it doesn't matter to the American people whether congressmen are bribed by defense contractors, or bought and sold in tribal-lobbying schemes.

This reveals just how arrogant and profoundly corrupt the Republican hierarchy has become.

Things Are Looking Bad for Bush When ....

... Americans are virtually twice as likely to say they'd like the scandal-ridden Congress to take the lead in setting the country's agenda as opposed to letting President Bush take the lead.

No kidding, 25 percent said Bush should have "the lead role" in setting policy for the country, as opposed to the 49 percent who say they prefer giving this role to Congress. More on the latest NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll is here.

Talk About an Early Endorsement

The progressive blog MoreApples makes it clear on its home page who its favored candidate is for 2008: Al Gore.

Newsweek Weighs in on Potential Filibuster

Newsweek's CW echoes one of the points I made in my last post explaining why an Alito filibuster would be a mistake:

Ted Kennedy and John Kerry's quixotic Alito filibuster campaign is typical Democrat slapdash failure. Next time, try planning.

A Filibuster: Should They or Shouldn't They?

This weekend, an article in the Washington Post noted that several liberal blogs are urging Senate Democrats to filibuster the Alito SCOTUS nomination:

Democrats are getting an early glimpse of an intraparty rift that could complicate efforts to win back the White House: fiery liberals raising their voices on Web sites and in interest groups vs. elected officials trying to appeal to a much broader audience.

These activists -- spearheaded by battle-ready bloggers and making their influence felt through relentless e-mail campaigns -- have denounced what they regard as a flaccid Democratic response to the Supreme Court fight, President Bush's upcoming State of the Union address and the Iraq war.

... Liberal activists seemed to have slightly more influence with their campaign to persuade Senate Democrats to filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel A. Alito Jr. Despite several polls showing that the public opposes the effort, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) on Thursday strongly advocated the filibuster plan -- and wrote about his choice on the Daily Kos ...

I'm as opposed to the Alito nomination as most of these bloggers, but I think Democrats and liberals need to remember that the odds of a filibuster succeeding are probably very small.

Even if an Alito filibuster were to "succeed," the success would be short-lived. President Bush would have the power to frame the debate by making yet another nomination. And don't expect him to nominate someone as weak as Harriet Miers the 3rd time around.

I understand the frustration of liberals as they watch the balance of power on the court shift to the right. But the public seems to largely defer to the president's preference on court appointments, and a filibuster isn't going to change that view. The only way to start changing this public perception is with a long-term strategy that educates the American people about the federal courts and starts to build coalitions that win elections.

The seeds for the conservative majority that now exists were planted in the 1960s and 1970s. Conservatives' persistence has paid off. If liberals want to prevent a full-scale conservative takeover of the courts, they must build a grassroots movement of voters and activists who engage and educate their friends and neighbors. We cannot expect a few dozen Democratic senators to accomplish this in a handful of days by filibustering.

Even worse, filibustering plays right into the hands of Karl Rove who would love to shift the debate away from Abramoff-style corruption (and a handful of photos the White House is holding), Iraq, and other issues that clearly put Bush and the GOP on the defensive.

Did John Kerry and other Senate Dems miss the Saturday morning newspaper headlines announcing that the 4th quarter GDP grew at the weakest rate in 3 years?

With several issues working against Bush, the White House would welcome a filibuster that refocuses the debate on a different subject.

Falling on your sword may seem noble, but noble acts aren't going to stop Alito's confirmation nor please anyone but the party's liberal base. Honestly, we lost the Alito battle 14 months ago when Bush was narrowly re-elected. Filibustering Alito may provide a cathartic release for the most liberal Dems, but, to most Americans, Senate Democrats would look like frustrated partisans.

Let's focus on issues we can really win on, issues that appeal to independent voters, and then build toward a successful November election.

"Chicks Dig" a Mercenary Man in Iraq

I was researching some info on the U.S. military presence when I ran across this 2004 news article from one of Virginia's largest daily newspapers. The article examined the roughly 15,000 private security personnel who were hired by the U.S. government to "protect bodies, convoys and supplies, filling the gaps left by troops stretched too thin."

But this is the part of the article that caught my attention:

Operators in Iraq can earn more than $1,000 a day, depending on their experience and the riskiness of the job.

“When a guy can make more money in one month than he can make all year in the military or in a civilian job, it’s hard to turn it down,” McClellan said. “Most of us have been getting shot at most of our lives anyway.”

War zones appeal to other traits common among the operators. In places like Iraq, they can continue to serve their country’s needs. They can find the adrenaline rush many thrive on. They can put themselves and their training to the test.

And then, there’s the “cool guy factor,” as McClellan put it. “Let’s face it,” he said. “Chicks dig it.”

"Dig" may be the operative word. No matter how impressed the "chicks" back home may be, it doesn't really pay dividends if you get killed in Iraq and what they're digging is your grave.

As in '04, Gay Issues Will Be Front and Center

In 2004, voters in a host of states decided ballot initiatives on the issue of gay marriage. If you thought gay rights issues would drop below the radar screen in 2006, think again.

Anti-gay marriage groups in Virginia and Maryland are working to place initiatives banning same-sex marriage on their states' November ballots. (Anti-gay marriage activists in Virginia are almost sure to achieve ballot status for a proposed constitutional amendment.) And today, within minutes after the vote by the Washington State Senate to pass a gay rights bill, opponents there were openly talking about trying to force the issue on the November ballot.

Who Are These People?

The survey found that three in four--76 percent--of all Americans said Bush should disclose contacts between aides and Abramoff while 18 percent disagreed. Two in three Republicans joined with eight in 10 Democrats and political independents in favoring disclosure, according to the poll.

While it is reassuring that such an overwhelming majority support disclosure, who are these people that support governmental secrecy? Especially the 2 in 10 Democrats! They should just get it over with and change parties already.

"Shit, the Animal Shelter Turned Me Down"

The home page of the conservative website Townhall.com features this unusual photo of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist accompanied by the caption: "With Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist not seeking re-election in 2006 .... Democrats hope to snag Tennessee’s open seat."

In the photo, Frist conveys a strange sense of melancholy -- you'd almost think an animal shelter had just refused to provide cats for Frist's medical research.

Grandma Never Looked Happier

Today, it's a news story on the website of The Onion, but who knows? Ten or fifteen years from now, we could be reading this on the website of MSNBC:

With pension funds dwindling as retirees enjoy longer, more capable lives, many businesses have opted to freeze their workers' employment status and keep them on the job through their sunset years.

"Under the new approach, our employees gain the advantage of lifelong job security," Hewlett-Packard CEO and president Mark Hurd said. "Even though our workers will no longer be able to collect a pension, they will receive checks as long as they are able to be wheeled into work and punch the clock."

Hewlett-Packard, Verizon, and IBM are just a few of the Fortune 500 companies that are phasing out the retirement option in favor of "indefinite-employment" plans, under which thousands of qualified workers will continue to earn yearly stipends in exchange for work.

Office chit-chat will never be the same .... "Hey, Ed, how come your colostomy bag doesn't stink as much as mine?"

Hats off to the ownership society.

Bush's Listening Skills

Right after the November 2000 election, US News & World Report's Michael Barone assured his readers that George W. Bush "is a good listener." In May 2001, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, a former Democratic congressman, agreed with that assessment.

But yesterday's presidential press conference revealed that Bush's listening skills aren't so stellar. The Washington Post's Jim VandeHei writes:

Bush endorsed a plan to allow Russia to help produce nuclear energy for Iran as a way to keep the anti-American regime from building nuclear weapons. But he mischaracterized Iran's public position by saying, "The Iranians have said, 'We want a weapon.' " Publicly, the Iranian government has insisted the opposite is true, though Tehran is widely believed to be actively seeking nuclear weapons.

Totally, Utterly Pedestrian

What do the following locales have in common?

United States (specifically: OR, CA, CO, NE, WI, MD, KY, OH, NC, FL, IN, PA, NJ, VA, MA, MI, AL, TX, IL, TN, OK, NY, DC, AZ, NV), Canada, The UK, Germany, Netherlands, Hong Kong, Australia, Sweden, Italy, Japan, Czech Republic, New Zealand, Spain, Norway, Brazil and the Philippines.

In the past 24 hours many people from these places have all visited Demagogue.

A hearty "hello!" to all you lovely, lovely lurking people, wherever you are.

That is all. Back to our regularly scheduled program.

Bush in Familiar Role -- the Artful Dodger

Slate.com's John Dickerson identifies three topics from Thursday's presidential press conference as examples of how President Bush plays the role of artful dodger. Dickerson writes:

The president was asked six questions about the NSA's warrantless eavesdropping, which he carefully calls a "terrorist surveillance program." The questions and answers hopped around over well-worn territory.

Finally, Bush played the trump card that shuts off further discussion: To talk any more about the program, or even consider legislation to codify it, would help the terrorists. This doesn't avoid the question so much as it makes asking too many pointed ones an act of treachery.

"This program is so sensitive and so important that if information gets out to how we do it, how we run it, or how we operate, it will help the enemy," he said. "I think the American people understand that. Why tell the enemy what we're doing, if the program is necessary to protect us from the enemy?"

It's very hard to get past such a statement, which is why the issue has the potential to work for the president politically. Any Democrat or Republican who wants to poke at the premises behind Bush's assertion is helping the terrorists.

Ultimately, Bush demands that we trust that he has asked the questions for us. He says it's legal and our civil liberties are protected. How does he know? He's asked his own staff. He asked Al Gonzales, now his attorney general, and other administration lawyers ...

True, Bush has sought the counsel of the infamous Alberto Gonzales, author of the memorandum stating that the use of torture by U.S. authorities on suspected terrorists "may be justified."

Bush: Eavesdropping Is "Designed to Protect Civil Liberties"

Why is this president smiling? Probably because even he finds his arguments about the NSA eavesdropping to be utterly amusing.

Consider the following question and answer from Thursday's White House press conference:

REPORTER: "On the NSA eavesdropping program, there seems to be growing momentum in Congress to either modify the existing law or write some new law that would give you the latitude to do this, and at the same time, ensure that people's civil liberties are protected. Would you be resistant to the notion of new laws if Congress were to give you what you need to conduct these operations?"

PRESIDENT BUSH: "The terrorist surveillance program is necessary to protect America from attack .... There's no doubt in my mind there are safeguards in place to make sure the program focuses on calls coming from outside the United States in, with an al Qaeda — from a — with a belief that there's an al Qaeda person making the call to somebody here in the States, or vice versa — but not domestic calls. So, as I stand here right now, I can tell the American people the program is legal, it's designed to protect civil liberties, and it's necessary."

It's one thing to contend that the NSA eavesdropping progam is "legal" or "necessary" — although many legal and constitutional experts would argue otherwise. But it's laughable for Bush to state that the administration's eavesdropping program is "designed to protect civil liberties."

Can anyone say that without giggling?

Not a Pretty Change Agent*

I'm no fan of Maryland Governor Ehrlich, however, this picture of him on the Washington Post's website is pretty bad.

----------
*In Ehrlich's State of the State speech today he referred to himself as a "change agent."

Breathtakingly Stupid

Like Passion of the Christ before it, there is a new movie made by/for conservative Christians that is being heavily promoted in conservative churches, media and whatnot. But no longer.

A bunch of conservative Christians are now protesting the new Christian movie because one of the lead actors playing a Christian missionary is a "practicing homosexual." Not in the movie, mind you, but in his private life.

Gay actors, you say? in Hollywood? What is this world coming to?!?!? Next thing you know they're going to allow a white Catholic gentile to play Jesus!

The new Christian movie is aptly titled End of the Spear. (Hmmm, that reminds me of something I've heard on a playground before-- smear the...something.)

Earth to OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb?

We just got one step closer to locating another life-sustaining planet.

I hope I'm still alive the day we discover another planet that has living creatures on it.

Why Pat Robertson Still Matters

Pat Robertson is much more than America's favorite fundamentalist madman. By way of Carpetbagger we find out exactly why Pat Robertson doesn't believe in a wall of separation between church and state-- he'd have to give $14.3 million dollars back to the government. In just 2 years Robertson's charity organization Operation Blessing saw their federal grants skyrocket from $108,000 to $14.4 million thanks to Bush's "faith-based" initiative.

Yes, that Operation Blessing, the same group whose planes were used to support Pat's most noble Christian endeavor-- supporting blood diamond mines while (allegedly) helping Rwandan refugees.

Far from the media’s gaze, Robertson has used the tax-exempt, nonprofit Operation Blessing as a front for his shadowy financial schemes, while exerting his influence within the GOP to cover his tracks. In 1994 he made an emotional plea on The 700 Club for cash donations to Operation Blessing to support airlifts of refugees from the Rwandan civil war to Zaire (now Congo). Reporter Bill Sizemore of The Virginian Pilot later discovered that Operation Blessing’s planes were transporting diamond-mining equipment for the African Development Corporation, a Robertson-owned venture initiated with the cooperation of Zaire’s then-dictator Mobutu Sese Seko.

After a lengthy investigation, Virginia’s Office of Consumer Affairs determined that Robertson "willfully induced contributions from the public through the use of misleading statements and other implications." Yet when the office called for legal action against Robertson in 1999, Virginia Attorney General Mark Earley, a Republican, intervened with his own report, agreeing that Robertson had made deceptive appeals but overruling the recommendation for his prosecution. Two years earlier, while Virginia’s investigation was gathering steam, Robertson donated $35,000 to Earley’s campaign--Earley’s largest contribution. With Earley’s report came a sense of vindication. "From the very beginning," Robertson claimed, "we were trying to provide help and assistance to those who were facing disease and death in the war-torn, chaotic nation of Zaire."

Does anyone know someone working at the IRS? Methinks somebody is in dire need of an audit.

Better yet, next time one of Robertson's crazy rants gets picked up by the MSM let's see if we can force them to mention his $14 mil in federal grants and his close ties to madmen like Charles Taylor.

Operation Screw With the DOJ

Read this now.

(Thanks to my good buddy David for sending it my way.)

Shock and Awe

I'm a few days late on this one, but I just found out that Lt. Laurel Hester, the lesbian cop in New Jersey who is dying from inoperable cancer, is going to be allowed to leave her pension to her partner after all. I honestly can't believe it.

Hester had originally appealed to the Orange County Freeholders council-- made up entirely of Republican men-- and they declined her request to be able to transfer her pension to her partner, stating that it would "violate the sanctity of marriage." (New Jersey has a state domestic partnership law which allows but not requires them extend benefits to same-sex couples.) But after Hester's case made waves and they were bombarded with calls, emails and local news coverage they reversed their decision. (If the mood strikes, send the Freeholders a message of congrats for doing the right thing-- CountyConnection (at) co.ocean.nj.uss.)

It's just too bad that that somebody has to be dying for people to understand what lack of equal treatment means in real terms for gay and lesbian families. Although as sad as the case is at least it has a semi-happy ending. Perhaps in the way that Matthew Shepherd became the face symbolizing anti-gay violence, Lt. Laurel Hester will become the human face for why people need basic domestic partner benefits. (At least as a starting point.) The legacy of this case has already started in New Jersey, at least 6 other counties have recently moved to amend their rules to extend same-sex benefits to city employees. Like Orange County a few of them are Republican strongholds.

Three cheers for the fabulous Pam Spaulding for keeping such close tabs on this story.

Masters of the Painfully Obvious and Abundantly Clear

The Washington Post has an editorial today that instructs the Bush Administration to fully disclose its relationship with Jack Abramoff-- meetings, pictures, etc. (stifling a giggle)

A few questions immediately come to mind.

For the Post-- have you been following anything the Bush Administration has done in the past 5 years? They don't disclose what they had for lunch without a subpoena. It is common knowledge that this is the most secretive presidential administration ever.

For the Bush Administration-- what the WaPo should have said is that without full, public disclosure it really looks like you're hiding something. As the Post points out, what we do know already is pretty damning.

HERE ARE SOME things we know about Jack Abramoff and the White House: The disgraced lobbyist raised at least $100,000 for President Bush's reelection campaign. He had long-standing ties to Karl Rove, a key presidential adviser. He had extensive dealings with executive branch officials and departments -- one of whom, former procurement chief David H. Safavian, has been charged by federal prosecutors with lying to investigators about his involvement with Mr. Abramoff.

We also know that Mr. Abramoff is an admitted crook who was willing to bribe members of Congress and their staffs to get what he (or his clients) wanted. In addition to attending a few White House Hanukkah parties and other events at which he had his picture snapped with the president, Mr. Abramoff had, according to the White House, "a few staff-level meetings" with White House aides.

As this scandal continues to heat up, Mr. President, you should try to find your way out of the kitchen or get risk getting burned.

On second thought, do what you always do and act indignant when anyone asks you questions you don't want to answer. It has worked well for you this far, why change. Especially taking into consideration that your so-called "opposition party" seems to be driving without a steering wheel on a gas tank that is almost empty.

O'Reilly's an Idiot

I know that is not news to anyone, but I just came across this via The Rude Pundit and am posting it without comment

Protecting evil: that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo".

A few weeks ago, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof criticized me for fabricating the war on Christmas, his words, and for allegedly ignoring real stories like human rights abuses in Darfur.

I replied that did advocate aggressive U.N. action in the Sudan and that all violations of human rights should be condemned.

Now we have a gross violation of a little girl's human rights in Vermont. Over a four-year period, as you may know, beginning when she was just six, a little girl was methodically raped by a man named Mark Hulett. When Hulett finally confessed to the crimes, Vermont Judge Edward Cashman gave him just 60 days in prison. The judge suspending the rest of the sentence so Hulett could get treatment.

So a little girl was brutalized, excuse me, and the vicious predator gets two months and probation. This, of course, is a gross violation of the girl's human rights. But The New York Times has not even mentioned the story, nor has any network news organization.

[edit]

Yes, things are bad in Darfur. Nicholas Kristof's right. But there's a gross human rights violation going on in Vermont. And the media and politicians could not care less. Somebody tell Mr. Kristof and his editors.

Okay, one comment: O'Reilly is the dumbest f***ing man alive.

If You Want Health Insurance You Better Be Getting It On

The University of Florida is preparing to offer health care benefits to all unmarried partners of their employees. Yeah!

But there's a small catch that underlines just how absurd our health insurance system can be-- they must sign an affadavit swearing that they are in a "non-platonic" relationship. (Can you hear the panties of a thousand of right-wingers twisting? A state school is requiring that people have pre-marital sex to get health insurance! Oh the horror!)

I know questions such as these are intended as a stand-in for "marriage" and to weed out roommates who want to give their buddy health insurance, however, basing whether or not you can get health insurance on sex and love is pretty absurd. If you are responsible for another person, if you are sisters, roommates, etc., you should be able to get health insurance. If you live with someone and they pay half the bills it's important that they are well, that they can continue working, is it not? I'm not saying that a relationship between roommates and unmarried partners is the same, obviously, but why is it a health insurance company's business?

I'm personally familiar with such a provision, years ago when I worked for an company that offered partner benefits the health insurance company required that we answer in the affirmative a similar series of questions to qualify-- that we were living together, had joint bank accounts, and we had to swear that we were in a "monogamous romantic relationship." We found it both invasive and ridiculous. Even more amusing we had to go to a bank to get the damn form witnessed and notarized. The poor guy at the bank didn't know what to think. We found the whole ordeal pretty hilarious in a roll-our-eyes sort of way.

But it was made crystal clear to me that day that qualifying for health insurance benefits should not teeter on whether or not you're in love. Or having sex. Or married. Granted I'm one of those crazy liberals who believes that everyone should have health insurance, that health insurance should not be tied to whether or not you're employed or married, and that health care in general should not be a for-profit industry. But that's just silly ol' me.

What Passes as Mainstream TV Programming

An excellent Sunday editorial from the New York Times:

The news that "American Idol" has started a new season with ratings even more enormous than last year's reminds us of an old query. In a nation with a disquieting surplus of moral arbiters, why isn't there a call to clean up television programs that specialize in humiliating the weak?

People devote untold hours to worrying about the sexual orientation of cartoon characters, but nobody seems disturbed that more than 30 million American households watch a "family" show that picks out hapless, and frequently helpless, contestants solely for famous and powerful judges to make fun of them on national television.

... Most [contestants] are extremely young, naïve and deluded. Many appear terribly vulnerable and some seem to border on mentally impaired. The fun is supposed to come from seeing the celebrity judges roll their eyes, laugh, and tell them that they are tone-deaf, fat, funny-looking or, in the case of one young man, "atrocious" and "confused."

.... one judge, Simon Cowell ... said an overweight woman would require a bigger stage in Hollywood, ... (and Fox) used it to promote the segment.

... No one wants to censor Fox's money machine, but it does seem peculiar that a nation so torn apart over what message gay marriage or prayer in school will send to impressionable youth is so unified in giving a pass to a program that teaches young people that it's extremely cool to be mean.

Halliburton "Can Take" Criticism, But Prefers Not to

Two years ago, Halliburton responded to criticism about the handling of its military contracts in Iraq with a 30-second television ad in which CEO David J. Lesar declared:

You’ve heard a lot about Halliburton lately.

Criticism is OK. We can take it. Criticism is not failure.

Our employees are doing a great job ....

But as much as Halliburton claims it can take criticism, it appears that the company may have been trying to avoid criticism by withholding news that U.S. troops were exposed to contaminated water. According to the Associated Press:

Troops and civilians at a U.S. military base in Iraq were exposed to contaminated water last year and employees for the responsible contractor, Halliburton, couldn't get their company to inform camp residents, according to interviews and internal company documents.

Halliburton, the company formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, disputes the allegations about water problems at Camp Junction City, in Ramadi, even though they were made by its own employees and documented in company e-mails.

"We exposed a base camp population (military and civilian) to a water source that was not treated," said a July 15, 2005, memo written by William Granger, the official for Halliburton's KBR subsidiary who was in charge of water quality in Iraq and Kuwait.

"The level of contamination was roughly 2x the normal contamination of untreated water from the Euphrates River," Granger wrote in one of several documents.

So unless Halliburton can come forward with a very good explanation of what happened here, it appears that the words in this letter by CEO David Lesar don't mean very much:

Compliance with the law and honesty and integrity in our dealings with others are not to be sacrificed in the name of profits.

Gotta Chase That Growth

No, this isn't a photo of CNBC's obnoxious, financial shock-jock Jim Cramer. But this image of the infamous Mr. Potter -- portrayed by Lionel Barrymore in this famous 1946 film -- was what came to mind after I watched Cramer Thursday night dishing out stock-buying advice on his show "Mad Money."

Cramer told viewers that they "can't have any qualms" about buying any company's stock, regardless of how "repugnant" they find the company's products or business practices. After offering this axiom, Cramer proceeded to recommend Portfolio Recovery Associates, a tech-savvy collection agency. For good measure, Cramer reiterated his earlier point:

"We've got to chase growth even if we don't like where it comes from."

We do? I must have missed that memo.

If this is true...

then this is going to be a very hard scandal for even the most ardent GOP apologist to explain away.

The question of the day is: were there daytraders operating inside Frist's and DeLay's offices? Rep. Louise Slaughter says there are.

The shady relationship between K Street and Wall Street is hardly anything new. But daytraders operating out of congressional offices?!? If anyone on the Hill is discovered to be sitting on or moving legislation and then using insider trading to make a profit it would be very bad indeed.

Is this finally a scandal that people can understand without having to pay too much attention? After all, that is the problem with so many of the GOP's scandals so far. They're too inside-baseball. But this one is *almost* as good as a stained blue dress, a dead girl or a live boy. It could grab the public's full attention.

Not that I'm getting my hopes up.

Is Brent Wilkes the Abramoff of California?

Quite possibly.

Courtesy of Joshua Micah Marshall, I was tipped off to the latest twist in the DeLay investigation. As a Texas newspaper reports, prosecutors are digging deeper into the DeLay money matrix:

It was the fall of 2002, and Texans for a Republican Majority was scouring for corporate money when it found an unlikely donor — a California defense technology firm willing to send part of its $40,000 startup money to help U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay's political committee.

PerfectWave Technologies, a San Diego-area firm, gave DeLay's committee $15,000 to help elect Republicans to the Texas Legislature.

... On Thursday, Travis County prosecutors dug deeper into the Southern California connections to DeLay and Texans for a Republican Majority political action committee, subpoenaing a second round of records of any "negotiations or agreements" that prompted the donation.

By the way, the other $25,000 of PerfectWave money was given to a tribute honoring former U.S. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who has pleaded guilty to accepting a bribe from military contractors.

And who happens to own PerfectWave? San Diego military contractor Brent Wilkes, a big GOP donor whose lawyer has identified him as unnamed co-conspirator who is cited in Cunningham's court documents.

The newspaper reports that DeLay "flew on Wilkes' jet, played golf with him and came to depend on his political support."

The Untouchable, Teflon-Coated Colin Powell

I have always been annoyed at the free pass that Colin Powell gets from both major parties and the news media. His image is enveloped in more teflon than Reagan's ever was. Remember hearing reporters, Washington insiders and even Dems breathe a collective sigh of relief when Dubya appointed Powell as his secretary of state? Powell was supposedly going to bring a sense of balance and moderation to the Bush II administration. Yeah, right.

We now know that Powell was completely rolled.

He put his reputation on the line by going to the UN and making the administration's flawed and feeble case that WMDs were in Iraq. Later, Powell watched as Rummy and the Pentagon dismissed and ignored the post-war reconstruction recommendations offered by Powell's Department of State.

Where is Powell's sense of self-respect? Does it bother him that he was essentially used by the administration to put a more reassuring face on its often misguided policies? I asked myself these questions as I read a profile of Powell's former chief of staff, Larry Wilkerson.

Unlike Powell, Wilkerson is unwilling to gloss over or dodge the tough questions. In his profile, the Post's Richard Leiby writes:

... these days [Wilkerson] and Powell are estranged ... Wilkerson, a once-loyal Republican with 31 years of Army service, has emerged in recent months as a merciless critic of President Bush and his top people, accusing them of carrying out a reckless foreign policy and imperiling the future of the U.S. military.

... In a landmark speech in October, Wilkerson said: "What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made."

... "This is really a very inept administration," says Wilkerson, who has credentials not only as an insider in the Bush I, Clinton and Bush II presidencies but also as a former professor at two of the nation's war colleges. "As a teacher who's studied every administration since 1945, I think this is probably the worst ineptitude in governance, decision-making and leadership I've seen in 50-plus years ..."

... Some observers used to regard Powell and Wilkerson as so close that they enjoyed a "mind meld," but now Powell distances himself from the pronouncements of his former aide.

It's wrong to be combative for the sake of being combative. But it's also wrong for Powell to be compliant for the sake of being compliant.

It's one thing not to publicly criticize an administration in which you are serving. But, in baseball terms, Powell is a free agent. He must have something meaningful to say about the conduct of the war, and he doesn't even have to name names.

In the mid-1920's, it was Silent Cal. Now it's Silent Powell.

Victory in Mary's Land

I live in Maryland and I'm quite sure this ruling will either be overturned or bypassed by amending the Maryland Constitution. Regardless, it is still pretty cool, just for today.

A Baltimore Circuit Court judge today struck down Maryland's 33-year-old law against same-sex marriage, ruling in favor of 19 gay men and women who contended the prohibition violated the state's equal rights amendments.

Anticipating that her decision eventually would be appealed to Maryland's highest court, the Court of Appeals, Judge M. Brooke Murdock stayed action on her ruling pending that appeal.

"After much study and serious reflection, this court holds that Maryland's statutory prohibition against same-sex marriage cannot withstand this constitutional challenge," Murdock wrote in her decision.

Unlike W, Laura Prefers Literacy to Elected Office

The Associated Press reported on Thursday:

The Senate may be the place for some former first ladies, but President Bush on Thursday categorically ruled out a run for office by his wife, Laura Bush.

"She's not interested in running for office. She's interested in literacy," Bush said during an appearance ...

In other words, her interests are precisely the opposite of his -- literacy, yes ... politics, no.

One Way or the Other

This is really just laughable

With tensions persisting in Sudan’s Darfur province, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan today urged more resources for the African Union (AU) mission in the region, while the Security Council considered future plans, including a possible United Nations force there.

“The Security Council is fully seized of this matter, and is looking at ways and means of strengthening the peacekeeping operations on the ground,” Mr. Annan told reporters in New York. “For the immediate we will need to ensure that the African Union forces have all the support – financial, logistical and material that they need.

“So we need to take immediate measures to strengthen the African Union, give them the support necessary whilst we work on the future plans for the Security Council,” he said.

As I mentioned last week, the AU says it will run out of fund for its mission in Darfur in March. Given the Security Council's reluctance to deal with Darfur, any eventual hand-over to UN troops probably wouldn't even happen this year.

So Annan is basically asking member nations to start fully-funding the AU mission so that they can hang on long enough to transfer the mission over to the UN.

The current AU mission's strength and mandate is well below what every expert says is necessary, and yet it is still being underfunded. If member nations were actually taking the situation in Darfur seriously, they would have been funding the AU mission fully all along.

But since the international community has half-assed the AU mission in Darfur, it is now going to be dumped into the UN's lap.

So either they start funding the AU mission fully, in which case, the need for a UN mission lessens or the UN gets to pay for the entire thing and staff it with UN troops.

Take your pick.

Feingold's Petition

Sen. Russ Feingold, the only senator who had the guts to oppose the USA Patriot Act, has objected forcefully to the Bush administration's recently exposed program of circumventing FISA to conduct domestic wiretaps and surveillance. Feingold's group, the Progressive Patriots Fund, has just launched a petition drive calling for "a full Congressional investigation" into the non-court-approved eavesdropping activities.

Given that some Republican senators have already called for hearings on the subject, Feingold's petition may seem superfluous. But something tells me the GOP-controlled House and Senate may lack the tenacity to hold meaningful hearings.

Success!

Listen, I love to smoke as much as the next person, but this is pretty remarkable

The world's first face transplant recipient is using her new lips to take up smoking again, which doctors fear could interfere with her healing and raise the risk of tissue rejection.

Man, if I ever lose an arm and get a new one transplanted, the first thing I am going to do is go out and start using the wood chipper.

"Welfare State"? Will Has It Backwards

Commenting on a bill recently passed by Maryland legislators, columnist George Will thinks that pushing Wal-Mart to provide basic, employer-paid health insurance for its workforce is an attempt to turn the retailer into "a welfare state."

Will is very selective with his facts. In today's column, for example, he writes that Wal-Mart:

... offers 18 plans, one with $11 monthly premiums and another with $3 co-payments.

But it's interesting that Will doesn't mention the deductibles for these plans. According to the coalition called Wake-Up Wal-Mart, deductibles are hefty: "Wal-Mart’s most affordable plan includes a $1,000 deductible for single coverage and a $3,000 deductible for family coverage ($1,000 deductible per person covered up to $3,000). An average full-time worker earns $17,114 a year. "

In other words, under the retailer's family coverage, the typical full-time employee must shell out $3,000 -- more than 17% of their annual pay -- before Wal-Mart starts picking up the tab.

Although Will used the "welfare state" as a pejorative, he seems unaware that Wal-Mart is quite fond of the welfare state. Indeed, the retailer is content to let government programs pick up the tab for its employees' health care.

Last year, reporters in Alabama found that 3,864 children of Wal-Mart employees were being covered by the state's Medicaid program. The company topped the list of retailers whose workers were using Medicaid services. The fact that so many of its employees are seeking public-assistance health care might embarrass some employers, but not Wal-Mart. The company's health benefits are so meager that last April even Wal-Mart executive Lee Scott acknowledged:

"In some of our states, the public program may actually be a better value -- with relatively high income limits to qualify, and low premiums."

It's no wonder that in the internal memo leaked last fall, a Wal-Mart official wrote that the retailer is "vulnerable" to criticism that its employees overrely on public assistance and called health coverage "the most pressing reputation issue facing Wal-Mart."

You can say that again.

Foes of Roe v. Wade: Primed and Ready

Samuel Alito hasn't taken a seat on SCOTUS yet, much less even received Senate confirmation. But anti-abortion groups and their state-level allies have already begun getting their ducks in a row by passing a state ban that can eventually test the post-O'Connor resilience of Roe v. Wade.

According to the Associated Press:

... Lawmakers in two states are proposing broad abortion bans they hope will eventually win approval from a reconfigured, more conservative high court.

... (in) Indiana and Ohio ... conservative lawmakers are introducing bills to ban abortion outright. They hope their measures become law and then face legal challenges that lead to a Supreme Court reconsideration of the 1973 Roe ruling that established abortion rights nationwide.

... It remains unclear how far the proposed Indiana or Ohio bans will progress .... Mary Spaulding Balch, director of state legislation for the National Right to Life Committee, said she is cautiously optimistic that the new Supreme Court — with two justices appointed by President Bush — will be more favorable to abortion restrictions even if reversal of Roe is not imminent.

Russ Tice: A Name That May Soon Be Well Known

If the much-anticipated Congressional hearings on domestic spying will have a star witness, he is likely to be a former NSA officer by the name of Russ Tice. According to Slate.com's Patrick Radden Keefe, Tice was one of the sources for the New York Times story that exposed the Bush administration's blow off-FISA domestic eavesdropping.

The problem for critics of the Bush eavesdropping practices? As Keefe explains, "your average whistle-blower often comes off as more crazy than confidence-inspiring." Keefe elaborates in this column.

Paint the Newsroom in "Suicidal Sage"

The militants at Hamas have taken to the airwaves. According to the New York Times' Craig Smith:

Hey kids, it's Uncle Hazim time!

Hazim Sharawi, whose stage name is Uncle Hazim, is a quiet, doe-eyed young man who has an easy way with children and will soon preside over a children's television show here ... on the Gaza Strip's newest television station, Al Aksa TV.

But Captain Kangaroo this is not. The station, named for Islam's third holiest site, is owned by Hamas, the people who helped make suicide bombing a household term.

"Our television show will have a message, but without getting into the tanks, the guns, the killing and the blood," said Mr. Sharawi, sitting in the broadcast studio where he will produce his show.

... The new station is part of the militant Palestinian group's strategy to broaden its role in Palestinian politics and society, much as Hezbollah did in Lebanon.

... The current 12 hours of daily television programming, which has the unfinished look of public-access cable television in the United States ... will eventually feature a sort of Islamic MTV, with Hamas-produced music videos using footage from the group's fights with Israeli troops.

Facing Abortion Case, SCOTUS Decides to Punt

The New York Times reports today:

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that the lower courts were wrong to declare a New Hampshire abortion law unconstitutional in its entirety. Instead, the justices said, the lower courts should look for a less drastic way to repair the statute's flaws.

Abortion-rights advocates have attacked the New Hampshire law, which demands that parents be notified before a teenager ends her pregnancy, because in their view it fails to provide adequately for exceptions to protect the health of the mother in medical emergencies that are not life-threatening.

... "We do not revisit our abortion precedents today, but rather address a question of remedy," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote at the outset, in what could be her last opinion.

... The decision has been eagerly awaited by people on all sides of the abortion debate and by officials in the many other states that impose some restrictions on teenagers seeking abortions.

This is NOT Kosher

A $10,000,000 Bat Mitzvah.

Yes, you read that correctly-- $10 million dollars for a coming-of-age religious ceremony and party for a 12 year-old Jewish girl.

Even worse, who paid for the inexplicably extravagant affair?

American taxpayers and, ultimately, wounded soldiers.

The father of the girl made his millions selling faulty bullet proof vests to the U.S. Government.

Oy vey!

All Those Scottish Conservatives

Among the letters to the editor of today's Washington Post is one from a person who once studied and worked in St. Andrews, Scotland -- site of one of the more notorious Abramoff-GOP lawmaker junkets. According to the letter writer:

Of all the bizarre bits of the Jack Abramoff brouhaha, the silliest may be one purported reason for the congressional junkets to Scotland -- meetings with elected Scottish conservatives to compare political notes.

Were it not for St. Andrew's fabled links and a lot of other great golf courses, its seems unlikely that Republican members of Congress would travel to Scotland for powows with Tory politicians. A few facts:

Scotland has about 70 members in the British House of Commons. Exactly one is a conservative .... Of the 32 local councils in Scotland, the Conservatives control only one.

And while we're at it, it's worth noting that the conservatives on the other side of the Atlantic would strike most U.S. conservatives as big-government liberals. After all, the Tories in Britain may occasionally propose reforms of the National Health Service, but they do not oppose a national system to cover all people.

The Admin.'s Eavesdropping Takes a New Twist

Courtesy of cartoonist Sage Stossel ....

Culture of Corruption, Cronyism, Incompetence

At least Hillary seems to get it.

Speaking during a Martin Luther King Jr. Day event, Clinton also offered an apology to a group of Hurricane Katrina survivors "on behalf of a government that left you behind, that turned its back on you." Her remarks were met with thunderous applause by a mostly black audience at the Canaan Baptist Church of Christ in Harlem.

The House "has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about," said Clinton, D-N.Y. "It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."

"We have a culture of corruption, we have cronyism, we have incompetence," she said. "I predict to you that this administration will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country."

Although I can't help but wonder if these words will come back and bite her in the ass, specifically the "plantation" part. Then again, it's further evidence that she's not running in 2008-- unless she's running as a left-wing maverick. (As much as the GOP and right-wingers like to paint her up as a tarty uber liberal, one just has to look at her actual record to see that she's not.)

Poor Widdle Congresscritters

Awww, no more free dinners or golfing in Scotland on a lobbyists' dime.

House Republicans moved to seize the initiative for ethics reform Tuesday with a comprehensive package of changes, including the banning of privately sponsored travel like that arranged by convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The package also includes a virtual ban on gifts, except for inconsequential items like baseball caps, and a provision that will affect few people: elimination of congressional pensions for anyone convicted of a felony related to official duties.
...
One important part of the GOP plan would increase - from one year to two years - the waiting period before former lawmakers and senior staff members could lobby Congress.

The plan also includes enhanced disclosure of lobbying contacts and spending.
...
The ban on lobbyist gifts would include meals and tickets to sporting or entertainment events as well as travel, according to officials familiar with the proposals.

Some Good News

Take this, Ashcroft!

Supreme Court Upholds Oregon Assisted-Suicide Law

The Supreme Court delivered a rebuff to the Bush administration over physician-assisted suicide today, rejecting a Justice Department effort to bar doctors in Oregon from helping terminally ill patients end their lives under a 1994 state law.

In a 6-3 vote, the court ruled that then-U.S. attorney general John D. Ashcroft overstepped his authority in 2001 by trying to use a federal drug law to prosecute doctors who prescribed lethal overdoses under the Oregon Death With Dignity Act, the only law in the nation that allows physician-assisted suicide. The measure has been approved twice by Oregon voters and upheld by lower court rulings.

Faced with lower court rulings against his position, Ashcroft brought the case to the Supreme Court on the day he announced his resignation in November 2004. The case was continued by his successor as attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales.

This is so shocking:

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., dissenting for the first time since he joined the court in September, sided with the two most conservative justices -- Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- in voting for the minority view.

Did They See the Same Movie I Did?

It's hardly surprising that the conservative religious site MovieGuide.org rates the movie Brokeback Mountain "abhorrent" and warns visitors that the acclaimed film has a "very strong pro-homosexual content." But other remarks in the group's review are truly bizarre. According to MovieGuide.org, Brokeback has:

... explicit sex scenes that sometimes come across as sadomasochistic, a pro-Marxist or pro-Communist subtext seems evident, with some strong anti-capitalist sentiments against one protagonist's employer, although that protagonist eventually proves to be a good salesman for his father-in-law's company ..."

Wow. I guess I totally missed the scene when Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal gathered with communists in a May Day rally in New York City's Union Square.

Feinstein on a Filibuster

I'm trying to decipher a recent quote by Sen. Diane Feinstein of California. From a story written this past weekend by AP reporter Hope Yen:

A Democrat who plans to vote against Samuel Alito sided on Sunday with a Republican colleague on the Senate Judiciary Committee in cautioning against a filibuster of the Supreme Court nominee.

"I do not see a likelihood of a filibuster," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. "This might be a man I disagree with, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the court."

If she doesn't think think her concerns "mean he shouldn't be on the court," then why is she planning to vote against him? Will her "no" vote be nothing more than a symbolic message?

Perhaps it's a crazy assumption, but I always thought senators who voted "no" on a presidential nominee did so precisely because they didn't believe that individual deserved or was qualified to serve in that capacity.

I'm not recommending a filibuster, but I am a little perplexed by Feinstein's words. Perhaps she meant that Alito didn't deserve to be on the court but that the concerns that Dems have don't justify the extraordinary step of a filibuster. But that's not what she said.

And We Think Our Inaugurals Are Dressy ...

Men -- both the former colonial landlords and (more recently) the egomaniacal, homegrown dictators -- have made a mess of Africa. So even in socially conservative Liberia, voters were more than willing to trust their future to a woman. The AP reports:

Ellen Johnson Sirleaf was sworn in Monday as war-battered Liberia's new president, making history as Africa's first elected female head of state and pledging a "fundamental break" with the West African nation's violent past.

... Two U.S. Navy warships were visible offshore for the first time since the war ended in 2003, a rare show of support also meant to protect two high-profile American guests, first lady Laura Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Security was tight, with armed U.N. peacekeepers surveying the scene with binoculars from atop surrounding buildings. The U.N. redeployed 500 peacekeepers

... Sirleaf will serve a six-year term as head of Africa's oldest republic, founded by freed American slaves in 1847.

The country has known little but war, however, since a rebel group led by Charles Taylor plunged the country into chaos, invading from neighboring Ivory Coast in 1989.

Yes, that's the same Taylor who was defended and befriended by televangelist Pat Robertson.

"You Wanna Be a Terrorist? References, Please"

Slate.com's Daniel Engber recently wrote this interesting column:

Jose Padilla pleaded not guilty to conspiracy charges in a Miami federal court on Thursday, where prosecutors revealed a document said to be his application for entry into the al-Qaida terrorist network. The government retrieved the paper from a cache of almost 100 so-called Mujahadeen Data Forms discovered in Afghanistan.

Do you really need to fill out paperwork to join al-Qaida?

Not anymore. Would-be jihadists only filled out the data forms when al-Qaida was firmly entrenched in Afghanistan and coordinating its activities with those of the Taliban.

... Before the U.S. invasion in 2001, some recruits were asked to fill out personal data forms before enrolling in Afghan training camps. The data form ascribed to Padilla, for example, includes sections for language skills, religious training, and professional or military experience. It also asks for a reference — "state the party that recommended you" — and the address of an emergency contact ("optional").

... Bin Laden and his deputies may have used the data forms when they needed recruits for specific missions. The Sept. 11 hijackers, for example, were among the few recruits with the skills necessary to operate in the United States.

... New inductees had to provide a trusted reference and pledge an open-ended commitment, and they had to be obedient and well-mannered people.

For the sake of clarification, they mean terrorists who are "well-mannered" with each other. But not so well-mannered that they question instructions to fly a jetliner into a skyscraper or detonate a bomb on a subway train.

Experts say al-Qaida didn't have much of a bureaucracy even before the invasion of Afghanistan. Some trainees filled out the data forms but others didn't, and the early stages of recruitment relied on personal relationships. As far as we can tell, that's still how it works today

Sugarland Ain't So Sweet On Tom

The World's Biggest Asshole's popularity is souring at home.

Only half of those who cast ballots for DeLay in 2004 said they will do so again. And while a fourth of the 2004 DeLay voters still aren't sure whom they will vote for this year, almost 20 percent have defected to other candidates.
...
Even if heavy coverage of DeLay's problems last week caused some of the drop in support, DeLay has reason for concern when only half the people who voted for him in 2004 say they will again.

"Those are the kinds of signs that no candidate wants to have, especially one who still has legal battles coming up," said Bob Stein of Rice University, who conducted the poll with Richard Murray of the University of Houston.

DeLay may be able to win back the undecided voters, but he starts with the disadvantage of a 60 percent unfavorable rating in the district he has represented for 20 years. Only 28 percent view him favorably, according to the poll.
...
According to the new poll, 38 percent have changed their opinion of DeLay in the past year. And of those, 91 percent view him less favorably.

Only about half of likely GOP primary voters now rate DeLay favorably, and only 39 percent are committed to voting for him in March.

When he last faced Republican primary opposition in 2002, he won 80 percent of the vote.

Maybe the Bugman will have to go back to killing bugs come November? It's doubtful he'll be able to get a job as a high-paid lobbyist.

Lying Makes Baby Jesus Cry

Doesn't Ralph Reed know that? Apparently not.

Ralph Reed, candidate for [Georgia] lieutenant governor, had just finished his opening statement to the Dawson County Republican Party when retired pulp paper executive Gary Pichon sprang from his seat with a question that cut to the chase:

"Did you accept any gifts, commissions or other payments of any kind from Mr. Abramoff, and are you likely to be a party in the unfolding investigation?"

Silence enveloped the 60 or so Republicans in the auditorium, and Reed's cheerful manner turned tense. "No," he replied. "No to all these."
...
At age 44, [Reed] still has the choirboy looks that have been noted in dozens of profiles over the past 20 years. But the first major dent in Reed's carefully cultivated image came with the disclosure in the summer of 2004 that his public relations and lobbying companies had received at least $4.2 million from Abramoff to mobilize Christian voters to fight Indian casinos competing with Abramoff's casino clients.

Similarly damaging has been a torrent of e-mails revealed during the investigation that shows a side of Reed that some former supporters say cannot be reconciled with his professed Christian values.

"After reading the e-mail, it became pretty obvious he was putting money before God," said Phil Dacosta, a Georgia Christian Coalition member who had initially backed Reed. "We are righteously casting him out."

Among those e-mails was one from Reed to Abramoff in late 1998: "I need to start humping in corporate accounts! . . . I'm counting on you to help me with some contacts." Within months, Abramoff hired him to lobby on behalf of the Mississippi Band of Choctaws, who were seeking to prevent competitors from setting up facilities in nearby Alabama.

In 1999, Reed e-mailed Abramoff after submitting a bill for $120,000 and warning that he would need as much as $300,000 more: "We are opening the bomb bays and holding nothing back."

In 2004, when the casino payments to Reed were disclosed, Reed issued a statement declaring "no direct knowledge of their [Abramoff's law firm's] clients or interests." In 2005, however, Senate investigators released a 1999 e-mail from Abramoff to Reed explicitly citing the client: "It would be really helpful if you could get me invoices [for services performed] as soon as possible so I can get Choctaw to get us checks ASAP."

One of the most damaging e-mails was sent by Abramoff to partner Michael Scanlon, complaining about Reed's billing practices and expenditure claims: "He is a bad version of us! No more money for him." Scanlon and Abramoff have pleaded guilty to defrauding clients.

Yes, no more money for you, Mr. Reed. Hopefully this will be the end of your career as a professional conservative Christian.

I almost met Reed once. Well, change "almost met" to "almost knocked him down." I was standing in the lobby of a hotel at a creepy CPAC conference. I stopped and turned around to go the other way and came face to face with him, almost knocking him down-- accidently, I swear. I had no idea he was behind me.

Another "God Cares About NFL Football" Quote

After the Indianapolis Colts football team was upset 21-18 by the Pittsburgh Steelers, the Indianapolis Star published this quote from Colts head coach Tony Dungy:

"I'm proud of this team. They handled every trial that came upon them. I really thought the Lord's hand was on this team."

Well, coach, I guess God just liked Pittsburgh better.

The Legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

"I want young men and young women who are not alive today...to know and see that these new privileges and opportunities did not come without somebody suffering and sacrificing for them."

Grabbed from "Boondocks" on January 15, 2006, on Comedy Central. The new show has been somewhat uneven, however, this episode about King has a fresh take on MLK's life. He was critically injured on April 4, 1968 instead of killed. King woke up from his coma on October 27, 2000 and was denied to vote in the 2000 election. Then after 9/11 he was a guest on Politically Correct and was asked how to respond; King was vilified as anti-American and unpatriotic for saying that as a Christian that he was taught to turn the other cheek. From a segue to a commerical break another one of King's best quotes:

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

Does make you wonder what King would think of our modern times, or if there are any modern prophets such as King are among us today if we are too cynical, too divided, to see them for what they are. Words like freedom, justice and truth have been twisted to such a great extent that they ring hollow.

The Daily Double: Bad Politician, Bad Artist

Few people can hit rock-bottom in two different fields, but former Ohio Congressman James Traficant has managed to do so. According to news reports, Traficant (serving an eight-year prison term for racketeering and bribery) is spending some of his free time creating, um ... "art." Or at least something that carries that label.

A dozen Traficant paintings are for sale on the website www.BeamMeUpArt.com -- appropriately named for one of Traficant's parting messages on the House floor. And the Washington Post reports that some of the paintings are "selling for more than $500." Truly ghastly stuff.

What's amazing is that Traficant's website informs visitors that they are "sold out of paintings."

Would you pay $500 for this? I don't think it would even make the cut to appear on the wall of your neighborhood Ramada Inn.

"My Armband Is Shinier Than Yours!" .... "Is Not!"

At NR's "The Corner," conservative smartypants Rich Lowry has mingled among the tainted Republican sheep of the House of Representatives enough to conclude that Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) is currently leading in the campaign to succeed the world's biggest asshole as House Majority Leader.

Meanwhile, the campaign for Majority Leader is getting quite intense. One source claims to have overhead the following exchange among supporters of Blunt, Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.):

Republican #1: "Shadegg's our candidate -- he's more of a shill for the oil companies than your candidates could ever hope to be."

Republican #2: "Oh yeah? Well, John Boehner is the guy we need to replace DeLay. He is the credit card companies' bitch. He did whatever they wanted to help pass that bankruptcy reform bill."

Republican #3: "That's nothing. When it comes to kissing the Religious Right's ass, no one puckers up like my man Blunt. Boehner couldn't find their ass if he tried."

Republican #2: "Hey, you take that back right now or else! ...."

The suspense is killing me.

Copy Editor, I Feel Your Pain

In the mid-1980s, as a copy editor at the Arkansas Gazette -- having the pride-filled moniker of "oldest newspaper west of the Mississippi River" -- I was tasked with editing news stories and writing headlines for the daily newspaper. So it's easy for me to understand the challenge (and frustration) of being assigned the task of writing a headline for the Virginia DNA story.

If you haven't heard, Virginia just completed DNA tests that confirm the guilt of the man whom the state executed in 1992 for the rape and murder of a woman. The Washington Post publishes a smaller tabloid edition called Express, and this morning's edition of Express carried this front-page headline:

DNA Test Backs Va. Execution

Well, not exactly. The DNA test confirms or "backs" the conclusion that the executed man, Roger Keith Coleman, was the person who committed the rape and murder in question. But no DNA test can back or confirm the use of the death penalty.

For death penalty opponents, the concern about wrongful executions is only part of what motivates them.

I doubt the copy editor was completely satisfied with that headline and its subtle implication. She or he may even have felt that death penalty foes might be annoyed with it. But there are only so many letters and so many words that will fit inside a 2-inch wide column.

The copy editor who wrote this headline for the San Diego Union-Tribune had it easy -- a lot of space to work with.

Zhirinovsky to Condi: Give Match.Com a Try

Does this woman look coarse and frustrated?

You can bet that someone has made a fairly ridiculous statement when I rush to defend the honor (what little that remains) of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Such is the case today after I just stumbled upon an attempt by Russian politican Vladimir Zhirinovsky to psychoanalyze Rice.

Still annoyed at Rice's comments urging Russian restraint during the recent Ukrainian natural-gas standoff, Zhirinovsky was quoted thusly in Pravda:

“The U.S. Secretary of State released a coarse anti-Russian statement. This is because she is a single woman who has no children.”

... "She loses her reason because of her late single status. Nature takes it all. Such women are very rough. They are all workaholics, public workaholics.”

Ah, yes. There you have it -- the 'ole "women without children turn hard and bitter" routine. If only Condi had a significant-other, she wouldn't be saying things that pissed off the Russians.

But I'm not so sure. This woman has a husband, and she's constantly making "coarse" statements that piss me and other people off.

Isn't Atrios an Economist?

It was my understanding that Duncan Black, aka "Atrios," had a PhD in economics. At least that is what it says on his blog

Atrios is the pseudonym of Duncan Black, a 32 year old recovering economist living in Center City Philadelphia. This blog has been online since April, 2002, and currently gets an average of over 100,000 visits per day.

Anyway, today I was looking at his Blogads and was wondering what it costs to advertise there and found out that it is not cheap

1 week ($1500)
2 weeks ($2500)
1 month ($4000)
3 months ($15000)

Now, I do not have a PhD so I might be completely wrong here, but if you can advertise on Eschaton for one month for $4000, why would you pay $15,000 to advertise there for three months?

If it were me, I'd just advertise there at the monthly rate for three consecutive months and ... you know ... save myself $3,000.

But, like I said, I'm no economist.

Durbin's Disclosure About CAP

In this earlier post, I noted the questions that SCOTUS nominee Samuel Alito received during Senate hearings about his membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP) -- an anti-coeducational group that even Bill Frist criticized for having a "narrow ideological perspective." Alito told the Senate Wednesday that he didn't recall joining CAP and that he did so only because he supported the reinstatement of ROTC at Princeton Univ.

But I just read through a transcript of Wednesday's Senate hearings for portions I wasn't able to listen to. And I came across this interesting comment by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.):

"Let me just go to the Concerned Alumni of Princeton. I didn't understand your answer. Your answer said something about ROTC being discontinued at Princeton University. I know you were involved in ROTC. I'm told that by the time you filled out this application (for a Reagan administration post in 1985) ROTC had been restored."

It would be interesting to confirm if, in fact, this is true. If ROTC was reinstated at Princeton before 1985, then Alito's explanation for why he joined CAP would not explain why he chose to tout his CAP membership on the '85 application.

Yesterday, Alito told Sen. Durbin:

"... I have wracked my memory on this, that if I had participated in the group in any active way, if I had attended meetings or done anything else substantial in connection with this group, I would remember it .... if I had renewed my (CAP) membership, for example, over a period of years, I'm sure I would remember that."

Yet Alito remembered the group well enough to put it on his application form. Try explaining that. There are two logical scenarios, and neither speaks well of Alito's integrity:

Scenario A: ALITO IS A LIAR
Under this scenario, Alito is lying about his knowledge of CAP's extreme views and/or his involvement in the group. Lying about such an issue would certainly be reasonable grounds to reject a nominee.

Scenario B: ALITO ENGAGED IN MISREPRESENTATION
Under this scenario, Alito is speaking truthfully when he told Senators he had no real contact with CAP, never attended its meetings, etc. But, if he is speaking truthfully in this regard, putting CAP on his 1985 application amounted to misrepresentation by suggesting he had had a closer connection to CAP.

Genocide: Technicalities and Absurdity

Whether or not the situation in Darfur meets the technical definition of genocide is, in my opinion, more or less irrelevant.

But for those who care about such things, Physicians for Human Rights has released an important new report on Darfur, which the Boston Globe describes thusly

The nearly 3-year-old conflict in Sudan's western region of Darfur, which has killed an estimated 200,000 people or more, also has killed the way of life for roughly 2 million people, according to a Physicians for Human Rights report released today.

In one of the most detailed studies of the Darfur conflict, investigators from the Boston-based group examined the fate of three villages, interviewing dozens of survivors and collecting hundreds of photographs and hand-drawn maps.

They concluded that Sudan's government and pro-government Arab militia systematically destroyed the livelihood of residents.

The report contends that by doing so, the attackers committed a little-discussed form of genocide. One clause in the UN's Genocide Convention defines the crime of genocide as a group inflicting upon another group ''conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or part."

''Not only did the attackers destroy these people's livelihood, but they were driven out to this desert deathtrap, where you virtually cannot survive unless you are getting some outside assistance," John Heffernan, an investigator for Physicians for Human Rights and the report's author, said in a telephone interview from Washington, D.C., yesterday. "And on top of that, the government of Sudan has been blocking assistance to people."

Of course, there is a 6,000 strong African Union force in Darfur right now supposedly protecting the people and providing security, though in reality it is really just monitoring a non-existent ceasefire.

But all that might be about to end - not because the AU is going to get a broader mandate, but because it is about to run out of money

The African Union (AU) said on Thursday it may hand over its mission in Darfur to the United Nations, saying it was running out of money for the peacekeeping operation in Sudan's troubled western region.

The international community, which has been so unwilling to take seriously the situation in Darfur, passed it off to the AU - and then so underfunded the AU that the situation is about drop right back into the international community's lap via the UN.

But, quite frankly, having the UN take over Darfur from the AU might not be a bad thing. Why? Because guess who is about to assume the chairmanship of the AU at the end of the month.

That's right.

White Europeans Have Soccer, Muslims Have the Ritual Stoning

Today in Mecca:

Up to 50 Muslim pilgrims were trampled to death today during a symbolic stoning ritual to mark the final day of the haj ceremony.

Dozens of people were crushed as a stampede broke among crowds filing past the three pillars of al-Jamarat, on a bridge on the outskirts of the holy city of Mecca.

Two years ago, 244 Muslims died in a stampede at the ritual stoning of the devil. Back in 1994, about 270 pilgrims killed in a stampede during the stoning ritual.

Living far from Mecca and the Mideast, I have no sense of whether these repeated stampedes (and the hundreds of deaths they cause) bother authorities over there.

I'm not a Muslim so my views wouldn't carry any weight, but it seems to me that next year's organizers of the haj might consider discarding this part of the program. Organizers could circulate leaflets announcing:

Due to repeated stampedes and hundreds of deaths, the ritual stoning of the devil has been discontinued. We regret any inconvenience this cancellation will cause.

But (sigh) that's unlikely to happen. The world -- East and West -- likes drama and ritual, even if these events kill hundreds of people each year.

Alito's "Super-Duper" Confirmation Hearing

After the first full day of Alito's hearings, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank observed:

(Judiciary Committee) Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) ... who earlier characterized the Roe v. Wade decision as a "super-duper" precedent, asked Alito if he agreed that another case upholding Roe was "a super-precedent."

... (Alito said:) "Any sort of categorization like that sort of reminds me of the size of the laundry detergent in the supermarket."

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), in his first 12 minutes of questioning the nominee, managed to get off only one question. Instead, during his 30-minute round of questioning, Biden spoke about his own Irish American roots, his "Grandfather Finnegan," his son's application to Princeton ... a speech the senator gave on the Princeton campus, the fact that Biden is "not a Princeton fan," and his views on the eyeglasses of Sen. Dianne Feinstein ...

... Republicans vied to lob softballs to the nominee .... "Can you assure us that you will have the courage and the determination to rule according to your best and highest judgment?" challenged Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.).

... (Sen. Orrin Hatch) called ROTC programs "an excellent opportunity" and then asked (Alito): "You were a member of the ROTC -- is that true?"

Alito was caught. "I was, Senator."

"You were a proud member of the ROTC," Hatch charged.

"I was," the nominee admitted.

Hatch persisted: "Did you enjoy your time in the ROTC and in the Army afterward?"

For chrissakes, this is supposed to be the greatest deliberative, democratic body in the world?

Alito Tries to Have It Both Ways on CAP

Former Democratic Sen. Bill Bradley and current Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist are both Princeton alumni. In the 1970s, both Bradley and Frist renounced their membership in a group called Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP). Bradley called CAP "right wing," and Frist said CAP had a "narrow ideological perspective."

But Samuel Alito? As a Princeton alumnus, he was asked about CAP yesterday. According to the Washington Post:

Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s membership in [CAP] ... (was) touted among his conservative credentials in a 1985 application for a political appointment in the Reagan Justice Department ...

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) and other Democrats demanded to know why the son of an Italian immigrant would take credit for membership in a "radical" group that opposed increased enrollment of women and minorities ...

Alito, a 1972 Princeton graduate, testified yesterday that he has no recollection of joining the group ...

But even though he doesn't remember joining CAP, Alito seems sure that

... he joined only because he supported the return of ROTC to the Princeton campus.

If he can't even recall joining the group, how credible is his explanation for why he joined?

Master of the Painfully Obvious and Abundantly Clear

Lotsa people have linked to Rich Lowry's column which states that the GOP cannot pretend that the Abramoff Scandal is bi-partisan. However, the parts that jumped out at me don't seem to be covered by others.

Lowry outlines two talking points that Dems should be hammering away at until they're hoarse and ready to pass out. This:

The GOP members can make a case that the scandal reflects more the way Washington works than the unique perfidy of their party, but even this is self-defeating, since Republicans run Washington.

and this...

There are two deeply rooted sources of corruption in Washington. One is that many members of Congress believe that they would be making much more than their $160,000-a-year salaries if they were in some other line of work. This sense is compounded when they watch their former 30-year-old aides go to work on K Street for $300,000 a year. This is how someone like Tom DeLay — otherwise a conviction politician — justifies playing the best golf courses in the world on someone else's dime and getting special interests to funnel easy money to his wife.

DeLay Doomed?

This does not look good for the World's Biggest Asshole.

First, there's the letter:

U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay and three other Texas congressmen prodded the Justice Department in 2001 to close an Indian tribe's East Texas casino as lobbyist Jack Abramoff was reaping huge payments from a competing tribe.
...
DeLay and the other congressmen sent a letter about the casino to the Justice Department on Dec. 11, 2001, eight days after Abramoff said in an e-mail to a lobbying associate, "We have to shutter Alabama Coushatta and fast."
...
The lawmakers wrote Attorney General John Ashcroft asking for his help in investigating what they called the illegal and inappropriate Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas gambling operation in Livingston.

GOP Reps. John Culberson of Houston, Kevin Brady of The Woodlands and Pete Sessions of the Dallas area signed the letter along with DeLay.

The letter was consistent with efforts by Texas authorities and legislators to close the month-old casino.

But it also coincided with the efforts by Abramoff, on behalf of Indian clients in Louisiana, to shut down such Texas casinos.

A former DeLay top aide, Tony Rudy, had joined Abramoff as a lobbyist on behalf of the Louisiana Coushatta Indians, who didn't want Texas tribes cutting into their gambling business.

The U.S. Justice Department never took up the congressmen's cause, according to a spokeswoman. But the state, led by Texas Attorney General John Cornyn, succeeded in shuttering the casinos in 2002, a few months before Cornyn was elected to the U.S. Senate.

Then there's DeLay's defense:

A DeLay spokeswoman said Tuesday that the lawmaker's letter, on which DeLay was the first signer, stemmed solely from his consistent opposition to gambling.

"The congressman has always been against expanding gambling throughout his career," said DeLay spokeswoman Shannon Flaherty.

DeLay has denied wrongdoing in the Abramoff scandal.

Then there is what undermines his defense:

Federal Elections Commission records show no [Indian tribe] contributions by Abramoff to Culberson and Brady.

DeLay did receive some benefits from another Abramoff Indian client.

A month before the letter to Ashcroft, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw wrote a check for $1,000 to Texans for a Republican Majority.

DeLay was indicted in September on charges of violating state campaign laws in connection with TRMPAC finances.

The Choctaws wrote two checks totaling $50,000 to a nonprofit organization that had DeLay on its board, appearing to offset the costs of a DeLay trip to Britain.

If you are against gambling wouldn't you instruct your organizations not to accept donations from an out-of-state Indian tribe whose biggest source of revenue is casino money? Are we really supposed to believe that DeLay knew nothing of their contributions to either of his organizations? That this is all a huge series of coincidences?

E-mail messages released by congressional committees show Abramoff and Scanlon worked with Ralph Reed, a prominent conservative activist and avowed opponent of gambling, to make sure Texas Indians did not gain gambling operations.

"We need to get the (attorney general) arresting them RIGHT now. We need to get the pastors rallying right now. This is going to be the death of us," Abramoff wrote in a November 2001 e-mail to Reed as the Alabama-Coushatta casino opened.

To summarize: DeLay writes a letter instructing the Justice Department to do exactly what Abramoff wanted. DeLay's own organizations benefited from contributions from a competing tribe within the same period. Add the fact that DeLay has ties to everyone who is already in hot water for bilking tribes-- Jack "[one of my] closest and dearest friends" Abramoff, Delay's former deputy chief-of-staff Tony Rudy and DeLay's former press aid and business partner Michael Scanlon. (By the way, that "little" week-long $70,000 vacation to Britian that the Choctaw's helped pay for? It was Abramoff's idea and he arranged to get the money from the Choctaws. Add to the pile that DeLay went on this Choctaw sponsored-trip two months before getting legislation opposed by the tribe killed. But I suppose that's just another coincidence.)

At this point there is a very compelling case against DeLay built on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the case comes down to evidence and trust. If no one has any damning evidence then DeLay must trust that all of his buddies who are facing prison will not give him up to help themselves.

What's the old saying about honor among thieves?