March 2007 Archives

The Mother Jones blog highlights how the Bush Administration and Senator James Inhofe (R-Troglodyte) are working overtime to make sure that former Vice President Al Gore cannot use the national Mall or Capitol Hill for one of his Live Earth concerts.

Just when you think Inhofe cannot sink any lower, he finds new pathetic ways to act. As Mother Jones' Cameron Scott notes:

It's not like Inhofe is confronting a radical proposal to stop climate change. We're talking about a rock concert, for Christ's sake. When will somebody put Inhofe in a rubber room and let the rest of us get on with the baby steps toward sanity we're finally taking with regard to climate change?

Josh Marshall reminds us of David Broder's swooning statements about President George W. Bush's take-charge attitude in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Really, how does a man so consistently wrong remain the dean of Washington pundits?

Via ThinkProgress, we see noted comedian Rush Limbaugh has revealed his true feelings for the American people.

“USA Today’s got a poll: ‘Do you think something’s wrong about the firing of eight US attorneys?’ 72% said yes. 72% of the American people, a bunch of blithering idiots who have no idea what they’re talking about, but yet they voted, so these polls matter.”

Seventy-two percent of the American people are blithering idiots.

Remember this the next time El-Rushbo decides to lecture us about liberal elitism and how liberals think the American people are stupid.

President George W. Bush's economic policies continue to pay off for those elite people whom Bush once not-so-jokingly called "his base." The New York Times' David Cay Johnston writes about the growing rise in income inequality:

Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 — receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.

The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression.

While total reported income in the United States increased almost 9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent.

The gains went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent.

The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.

Earlier this week, Sen. John McCain (R-Not So Straight Talk) claimed to several media outlets that things were improving in Iraq and there were neighborhoods where he could take an unprotected stroll.

Today we learn more about the increased attacks facing even the famed Green Zone in Baghdad, as the Washington Post's Karin Brulliard and Robin Wright report:

Wednesday morning, embassy personnel received a bulletin citing the "recent increase of indirect fire attacks on the embassy compound." It included strict instructions: Body armor and helmets would now be required for all "outdoor activities" within the sprawling embassy complex, even short walks to the cafeteria. There would be no group gatherings outside, including at the famed Palace Pool. No "nonessential" visitors would be allowed in the compound.

So, even in the Green Zone, our embassy personnel have to wear body armor for short walks to the cafeteria. Yet people like the man formerly known as Mr. Straight Talk want to argue that the escalation is making things better there?

Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

At the end of the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship Game, CBS provides a highlight montage of the tournament to the music of a song called "One Shining Moment."

This is one of my favorite three-minute segments of the year. Today, via Deadspin, I saw that The Morning After has compiled videos of each of these "One Shining Moment" videos since 1997.

Wow.

I watched each of these this evening with my youngest son on my lap. It was amazing to see the these 10 years of highlights -- even the completely unnecessary streaking star effects that CBS wrongly tried in recent years.

If you like college basketball, you will love this trip down highlight lane. I will be waiting, once again, to see what "One Shining Moment" has to offer following Monday night's championship game.

Via the comments to this Matthew Yglesias post, I learned about a new web site I must share with the friends.

Be warned, the domain name on the second link above is not work safe.

Chris at Americablog looks at an important question: who is going to get stuck with the bill created by the collapse of the subprime mortgage market?

So now that this flimsy system is crashing under its own weight, everyone is looking around and wondering what to do. Should buyers who heard what they wanted to hear and lived well beyond their means get relief? Should the subprime lending companies get bailed out since they represent well over $300 billion in the economy? Should the Wall Street names such as Morgan Stanley, who loaned the money for a quick buck and just reported 70% profit increase, be held accountable? Should tax payers and those who didn't fall for these schemes pay?

Ultimately these lending "get rich quick" problems are the problems of those who participated, both buyers and sellers. It sickens me that those who should have known and could have done something - Republican Congress, SEC, Wall Street, Greenspan and the Fed - did nothing while this was building up. All Americans (and well beyond in our global economy) are going to pay a price for this as the hard landing hits. Housing prices will stagnate, jobs in construction, banking, etc will all suffer which will be another problem on an economy already burdened with an expensive war.

If past financial crises are any guide, then we will see the latest example of how our political leaders privatize profits but socialize the risk.

Why? I suspect Wall Street is going to go looking to the federal treasury for a bailout.

Conservatives love to say that they care about free markets. I suspect their ideology will once again be trumped by the needs of the financial industry.

One of my wife's blogging friends just announced that her autistic son has been expelled from public school. And, wait for it, the teacher did not document hundreds of incidents on daily communications logs.

Nice surprise there school district. Oh, and illegal. There will be more to this story.

Meanwhile, my oldest son's (who has been diagnosed with PDD-NOS on the autistic spectrum) kindergarten teacher thinks we need to seriously consider another school option for first grade. My wife does a comprehensive job telling that story on her blog.

Speaking of the Republican war against science, Chris Mooney has written an article to try to outline what is necessary to restore scientific integrity in Washington, D.C. As he writes on his blog:

My column from the latest issue of Seed just went up. It's a rather ambitious one, laying out a five step plan for restoring scientific integrity in Washington, D.C. You can read the piece to see all of the steps that I propose, but so far, it's clear that Congressional Democrats are excelling at one above all others: Investigations and oversight. By contrast, when it comes to the final step that I suggest--"Learn From Their Mistakes"--I don't see as much evidence as I would like that Democrats really get it.

We need to restore science in our policymaking. As Mooney notes, however, the effort cannot focus solely on exposing the GOP's excesses. Democrats need to lay out a positive agenda as well--and avoid overhyping the evidence from our point of view.

In addition to Mooney's blog, you can read his article here.

The Bush Administration sure is working hard on behalf of its constituents.

No, not you, common American. Please. Don't be silly.

No, the Bush Administration's political appointees instead have been looking out for the leaders of big oil! ABC News' Justin Rood has the story:

Bush administration officials throughout the government have engaged in White House-directed efforts to stifle, delay or dampen the release of climate change research that casts the White House or its policies in a bad light, says a new report that purports to be the most comprehensive assessment to date of the subject.

Researchers for the non-profit watchdog Government Accountability Project reviewed thousands of e-mails, memos and other documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests and from government whistle-blowers and conducted dozens of interviews with public affairs staff, scientists, reporters and others.

The group says it has identified hundreds of instances where White House-appointed officials interfered with government scientists' efforts to convey their research findings to the public, at the behest of top administration officials.

The House Science Committee is going to see this evidence today. The fate of our species might be a stake here, but for the Bush Administration, record profits for big oil and not protecting our future is more important.

In addition to exposing a front in the Bush Administration's ongoing war against science, this report also leads me to join Dr. Eric Alterman's common refrain and say...

Thanks, Ralph.

Is there really no difference between the parties, you Naderites?

(Hat tip: JG's Daily Rant e-mail.)

Can someone explain how exactly this makes us any safer? Mother Jones' Diane E. Dees writes:

Sue Clark, M.D., a surgeon in Harrow, England, had a patient with fistula-in-ano who had been treated through surgery. The 48-year-old man had a long-term seton to control sepsis. This particular seton was a length of suture material knotted to form a loop placed into the fistula track. Last August, this patient traveled from England to New York for a vacation. Upon arrival, he was interrogated by immigration officials, and then examined and searched. During the rectal exam, an official yanked hard on the seton, causing the patient severe pain. The patient was told he could not enter the United States unless the seton was removed.

Does Senator John McCain really expect us to believe his claim that there are neighborhoods outside the Green Zone in Iraq where he could go out for a stroll today?

Larry Johnson makes quick work of what he rightly calls an outrageous claim.

Dear Senator Lieberman (Himself-Conn.):

Thanks to wonderful recording devices, we have records of all the times you have argued recently that the situation in Iraq is getting better.

So, it really takes some gall to go on the Senate floor and argue that your colleagues should reject a timetable for withdrawal because, "It is clear that for the first time in a long time, there is reason for cautious optimism about Iraq."

Greg Sargent at TPM Election Central has all the details.

Senator Lieberman, to quote from the movie Witness for the Prosecution:

...were you lying then, are you lying now, or are you not in fact a chronic and habitual LIAR?

I'm just wondering.

On this Sunday, we saw our elite pundits show the American people just how little they understand about our system of government.

They tell us that instead of investigating the Bush White House, Congress should instead focus on legislation (that, of course, President Bush would certainly veto).

Unsurprisingly, our elite media -- from David Broder to the crew on the Chris Matthews Show -- are so busy trying to be profound that they take leave of common sense.

Glenn Greenwald provides a helpful refresher course on why checks-and-balances are so important -- and why Congress should remember it is a coequal branch and not subservient to an "unitary executive." (Click through the ad to read Greenwald's post, and see a clip from the Matthews show.)

And had it not been for the forced disclosure of internal DOJ emails and other documents -- something which never would have occurred prior to the November, 2006 election -- the same thing here would have happened: namely, Alberto Gonzales and top DOJ officials would have lied about what they did and nobody would have been able to prove that. Congressional Republicans would have blocked all investigations, insisting that we can trust the Attorney General, and Gonzales would have proceeded blithely along, having lied to Congress and the country with total impunity.

The only thing that changed is that there is now some minimal amount of oversight -- and already, within a mere three months of that oversight finally being exercised, our country's Attorney General stands revealed as a serial liar on a matter of obvious significance.

That is why oversight is so critical -- because as a country we simply do not trust, and never have trusted, our government officials to act properly when they can act in secret and with no checks.

Brad DeLong is right, it really should not be too much to ask our political reporters to focus on actual policy discussions once in a while.

Everyone loves the gossip, I know. But, um, politics is also about policy. Move to Page Six permanently if you cannot handle that fact.

Deadspin highlights a Pro Football Talk report that ESPN may replace Joe Theismann in the Monday Night Football booth with Ron Jaworski.

Oh, please. Please!

I am not a Theismann fan. I also think that Theismann has gone out of his way to make Tony Kornheiser less effective than he could be. (I know the Deadspin people, like others, dislike Kornheiser. I have to admit that I like Mr. Tony, and think his new radio show is among the best podcasts out there.)

Based on the chemistry they have shown on Pardon the Interruption, Jaworski and Kornheiser would make a great team to enhance the Monday Night Football television experience. Jaworski knows his football, and should get this shot on the national media stage.

I hope the folks in Bristol make the right decision here.

Unsurprisingly, the Fox News Channel has proven an effective propaganda arm of the Republican Party. As pollster Mark Mellman notes:

Fox News viewers supported George Bush over John Kerry by 88 percent to 7 percent. No demographic segment, other than Republicans, was as united in supporting Bush. Conservatives, white evangelical Christians, gun owners, and supporters of the Iraq war all gave Bush fewer votes than did regular Fox News viewers.

Talk Left discusses a Washington Post report that tells the story of a person who has received one of the Bush Adminstration's infamous national security letters.

The situation is one familiar with what Josef K. faced in The Trial. Not only is this possibly a case of the FBI misusing its power, but the person in question cannot even discuss his predicament.

Living under the gag order has been stressful and surreal. Under the threat of criminal prosecution, I must hide all aspects of my involvement in the case -- including the mere fact that I received an NSL -- from my colleagues, my family and my friends. When I meet with my attorneys I cannot tell my girlfriend where I am going or where I have been. I hide any papers related to the case in a place where she will not look. When clients and friends ask me whether I am the one challenging the constitutionality of the NSL statute, I have no choice but to look them in the eye and lie.

I resent being conscripted as a secret informer for the government and being made to mislead those who are close to me, especially because I have doubts about the legitimacy of the underlying investigation.

And he should resent it. Actually, all of us should resent it.

The former chief of staff to President Bush’s Council on Environmental Quality has now told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that pushing the Administration's position is more important than acknowledging scientific consensus.

One is forced to wonder just how much of this Mike Luckovich editorial cartoon is satire or something approaching a greater truth about all of the White House scandals.

Since Sean Hannity does not understand the difference between an actor making a joke on a late night television program and a leading conservative commentator giving a speech at one of the nation's largest gatherings of conservative activists, Crooks and Liars has decided to compile a list of some of the nastiest things leading conservative figures have said.

I imagine that most of the conservative A-list will end up on the Crooks and Liars list, which begins with Rev. Jerry Falwell.

Memo to progressives and liberals and Democratic Party supporters: Kos is right. The people at Fox "News" Channel do not have your best interests at heart.

Stop trying to say FNC was going to help Democrats reach a new group of viewers if they did not cancel the proposed Nevada Democratic Party presidential debate.

FNC is not fair and balanced. It does not matter how many dozens of times it claims to be each hour. Saying something does not make it true.

Via Crooks and Liars, we see CNN's Jack Cafferty get right at the point when discussing the FBI's abuses of the horribly misnamed PATRIOT Act:

"This is the kind of stuff that happens when the war on terror is used as an excuse to circumvent our civil liberties, which has become the hallmark of the Bush administration."

Wow. Sometimes Fox "News" Channel has to work very hard to provide their special kind of biased coverage. As ThinkProgress highlights good work from Newshounds:

Newshounds reports that “the editors at FOXNews.com ignored 145 articles listed in a Google search that objectively told of the decision by Nevada Democrats to cancel a Democratic presidential candidate debate.” Instead, FoxNews.com highlighted an editorial from the Las Vegas Review Journal that condemned the decision, claiming the “lunatic fringe” in is charge.

Congratulations, Frank Russo of the California Progress Report for this welcome news:

I have just been approved by the Capitol Correspondents Association of California and I am the first "blogger" credentialed to cover the California legislature with their blessing.

The Capitol Correspondents Association guidelines are very strict -- a fact I expect will change in the coming months. But, this initial credential decision is a good sign for Mr. Russo and everyone who cares about seeing more coverage of the policy debates ongoing in Sacramento.

It's been 2,000 days since President George W. Bush promised to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive."

Nice job, Mr. President. Nice job.

When it comes to the plight of the polar bears, the Bush Administration would rather our scientists just not talk about it.

Because, in their ideological fantasy world, that will make it all better. Joe at Americablog has all the sordid details.

It's been 1,998 days since President George W. Bush promised to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive."

In the wake of September 11, I never would have guessed that this administration would have been so incompetent as to allow Osama to remain at large for this long.

"This music is my life," my friend Jonathan would sometimes say while bouncing to the beat of a particularly great song.

Five years ago today, one of my best friends was killed in an avalanche. I miss him, I miss hearing his stories, I miss trying to figure out if I could join him at an eddie from ohio concert when the group visited the Bay Area.

I miss him.

I went back this morning and reread the remarks I made at his memorial service. I remember sitting with my laptop the day before and staring at the terror of the blank screen. A few of our friends came by to talk, and through their remembrances (and some e-mails from those who were unable to make the trip to Cincinnati) words, laughter, and tears began to flow.

During this past year, Jonathan traveled frequently. He drove around the country. It was his Freedom Tour. Down to Los Angeles, across the south to Texas, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, Washington, D.C., New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Boston, Cleveland, Seattle, and points in between.

Jonathan had fun. He revisited places where his family had vacationed earlier in his life. He met with family and friends. He learned more. He thought—both amusing and serious ideas. He was always aware. He was always doing stuff. He did not settle.

Jonathan’s father last night told a few of us about how remarkable it was that so many people, from so many different social circles, consider Jonathan one of their best friends.

I think so many people feel that way about Jonathan because he tried to live a life that mattered to other people. He cared for and took an interest in those around him.

In the end, there is no higher compliment. Jonathan, I still adore you and miss you. That will never change.

Update: My wife Kari also has some thoughts today about our friend Jonathan.