LoneStarBear

From the Left: If you guessed Maggie Gallagher, Tony Perkins, Rick Warren, Pat Robertson, Joyce Meyer, Billy Graham, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Schlessinger, Michael Savage, Sarah Palin, and John McCain, well, you would be partially correct.

Less than 24 hours after a Federal judge overturned Proposition 8, California’s gay marriage ban, President Obama dispatched White House spokesman David Axelrod to reassure the president’s Christian-base that while Mr. Obama opposed Proposition 8 as “divisive and mean spirited,” and he will “continue to promote equality,” just not equality that includes marriage equality.

Axelrod told MSNBC today:

“The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in Federal agencies under his control.”

Got that?

Sadly, overturning Proposition 8 did not change the president’s narrow mindedness on same-sex marriage, and frankly, I didn’t think it would and, I don’t fault him.

So I hope President Obama won’t fault me in 2012 when he asks for my time, money and vote in his bid for reelection and I am forced to decline his request. I’m through with the president’s fence straddling on LGBT rights. Especially, on the fundamental right of marriage equality.

LSB: Sadly, Mr. President, you can't count on me anymore either. The hypocrisy is staggering and intolerable. I'll be searching for a new candidate for the White House job in 2012.

Wiesenthal center opposes building mosque near Ground Zero because 'it's a cemetery,' but ok with Jewish museum on top of Muslim cemetery

2010-08-07T05:19:00.004-05:00

John Aravosis, AmericaBlog.com: I'm neither Jewish nor Arab. And if anything, I've often tilted towards Israel in the Arab-Israeli conflict. But this debate over the mosque near Ground Zero sickens me. And what sickens me even more is civil rights groups siding with the likes of Newt Gingrich. Not only has the ADL come out against the mosque, because allegedly it might make people uncomfortable, but now the Wiesenthal Center is opposing the mosque too.

In a move one might call supremely ironic, the Wiesenthal Center opposes building the mosque near Ground Zero because, it now claims, the former site of the World Trade Center "is a cemetery." The irony comes from the fact that the Wiesenthal Center is currently building a new "Museum of Tolerance" in Jerusalem on top of an old Muslim cemetery, in spite of the complaints of Muslims who have family members buried there.

[F]ifteen of the oldest families in Jerusalem filed a case before the United Nations in Geneva and held news conferences there, also in Los Angeles and Jerusalem. Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University has members of his family buried there and calls it further desecration of a cemetry that they have been nibbling away at for over three decades, despite many protests. "the fact that it was desecrated in the ’60s doesn’t mean that it’s right to desecrate it further. What happened in the 1960s was that part of the cemetery was paved over for this parking lot. What they have now done is to dig down and disinter four layers, according to the chief archaeologist for the Israeli Archaeological Authority, four layers of graves."

Yes, a Jewish tolerance museum built on top of dead Muslims. Think that makes anyone uncomfortable?

Oh, and it's not like the museum is about promoting tolerance between Jews and Muslims. It's about promoting tolerance between Jews.

So, to summarize. Mosque near cemetery, bad. Jewish museum on top of cemetery, good.

Entire story, sick.

Ground Zero Mosque Opponents Must Not Have Heard About Muslims At The Pentagon. From Jason Linkins at HuffingtonPost.com: One of the best ways of demonstrating that the frantic slavering over "Ground Zero mosques" is nothing but a ridiculous display of pearl-clutchery is to point out that the proposed Cordoba House would actually be the second mosque in the vicinity of "Ground Zero." But over at Salon, Justin Elliott does me one better by unearthing this 2007 Washington Times article:

Navy imam Chaplain Abuhena M. Saifulislam lifted his voice to God as he called to prayer more than 100 Department of Defense employees Monday at a celebration of Ramadan at the Pentagon.

God is most great, sang the lieutenant commander and Islamic leader, in Arabic, as iftar -- the end of the daily fast began.

Uniformed military personnel, civilians and family members faced Mecca and knelt on adorned prayer rugs chanting their prayers in quiet invocation to Allah.

When it comes to Muslims praying at Ground Zero, it doesn't get much Ground Zeroier than that! As Elliott observes:

Yes, Muslims have infiltrated the Pentagon for their nefarious, prayerful purposes -- daring to practice their religion inside the building where 184 people died on Sept. 11, 2001. They haven't even had the sensitivity to move two blocks, let alone a mile, away from that sacred site.

Oh, my stars and garters! These Muslims at the Pentagon probably even have security clearances! (Because they are Department of Defense employees who protect America from al Qaeda death cultists, I'm guessing.)

Fox News Legal Analyst Calls For Indictments Of Dubya And Cheney

2010-07-13T10:44:00.004-05:00

Joe.My.God.: Retired New Jersey Superior Court judge and current Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano says that Dubya and Dick Cheney should be indicted for violations of habeas corpus.

LSB: Looks like somebody over at FAUX-News forgot to read the script... or maybe he's looking for the unemployment line! (Another lazy liberal look to suck off the teet of the working man? Because that $700/week can keep him in a lifestyle that... oh, who am I kidding?) Been saying these same things myself for years, but it is only a fantasy - a fantasy, that is, that doesn't keep your feet warm at night. Oh, well, it is still a nice fantasy.

Seven Things Republicans Were FOR Before They Were AGAINST Them

2010-07-12T11:53:00.012-05:00

Jill Lawrence, PoliticsDaily.com: I happened to be in the room the day John Kerry said he had voted for a war funding bill before he voted against it. Republicans appropriated the sentence (uttered at a 2004 town hall for veterans in Huntington, W.Va.) and used it to paint Kerry as a flip-flopper. Six years later, it's a better fit for the GOP than it ever was for him.

So many Republicans have changed their ideas on so many major issues that it's hard to keep up. With the return of Congress this week, two of those issues – campaign finance disclosure and climate change – could play out in the Senate over the next month.

What accounts for the shifts? Evolving principles? Pressure from the right? Political Strategy 101, block Democrats and President Obama so they'll fail and look bad? Maybe a slightly more subtle approach -- find fatal flaws in a compromise that under other circumstances (say if a Republican president wanted it passed) you would support, on the theory that the perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the halfway decent or the baby step forward? All of the above? Here are seven reversals that hold clues:

1. Financial disclosure. Prominent Republicans have often made the case that transparency – not limits on campaign spending or contributions -- is the best antidote to corruption. "Republicans are in favor of disclosure," said Sen. Mitch McConnell on NBC's Meet The Press in 2000. Seven years later, on the same program, House GOP leader John Boehner declared: "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."
But Boehner voted no last month on the DISCLOSE Act, which requires corporations, unions and some other groups to disclose more information about their campaign activities. It also imposes new restrictions on campaign spending by foreign firms, large government contractors and companies that get taxpayer bailouts. Boehner has said the bill favors some groups over others and would "shred the Constitution." McConnell agrees.
"There clearly has been a change of heart," Ellen Miller, co-founder and executive director of The Sunlight Foundation, told me. She said Republicans are following the lead of the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, which has held that limits on spending are tantamount to limits on free speech. The result, she said, is a "knee-jerk political reaction to any attempts to disclose or regulate in any fashion the raising and spending of political money."
2. Cap-and-trade. Smithsonian magazine last year traced the history of cap-and-trade to a 1980s meeting of the minds between free-market conservatives and "renegade environmentalists." Their idea was to let companies buy and sell the right to pollute. The first Bush administration used such a system to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants, in order to reduce acid rain. Emissions trading, as it was called then, was seen from the start as a model for dealing with the larger problem of carbon emissions that contribute to global warming.
But Republicans now tar cap-and-trade as a job-killing "cap-and-tax" system. Rep. Mark Kirk of Illinois, running for the Senate, renounced his vote in favor of cap-and-trade in the House last year. Sen. John McCain of Arizona co-authored a pioneering cap-and-trade bill and introduced it in 2003, 2005 and 2007, then did an about-face last year. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina stepped in to help write an ambitious economy-wide cap-and-trade bill, but he too has walked away. Some Democrats are now aiming to cap carbon emissions from utilities only, and even that could be a heavy lift.
3. Immigration. McCain, Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy and President George W. Bush were the prime movers of comprehensive immigration reform in 2006. But Kennedy died, Bush left office and McCain has become a hard-liner as he fights a primary challenge from the right. The 2006 bill strengthened border security but also laid out a path to earned citizenship for some 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country. Obama said in a speech this month that "under the pressures of partisanship and election-year politics, many of the 11 Republican senators who voted for reform in the past have now backed away from their previous support."
The 11 Republicans who supported the 2006 bill and are still in the Senate are McCain, McConnell, Graham, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Richard Lugar of Indiana, Bob Bennett of Utah, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Sam Brownback of Kansas and George Voinovich of Ohio. Obama had a message for them: "Without bipartisan support, as we had just a few years ago, we cannot solve this problem. Reform that brings accountability to our immigration system cannot pass without Republican votes. That is the political and mathematical reality."
4. Deficit spending. Republicans in the Senate have been holding up passage of emergency unemployment benefits for weeks because they want to offset the spending with budget cuts elsewhere. They are also loath to help states cope with rising Medicaid costs or avert mass layoffs of teachers, police and other employees, unless the money to offset the costs is found somewhere else. This call for discipline is a stark contrast to GOP actions during the Bush administration, when two wars, $1.3 billion in tax cuts and a major expansion of Medicare were financed with deficit spending (aka borrowing money).
Many Republicans now say they were wrong. But their timing suggests a double standard (okay to pay for Bush's priorities with borrowed money, but not Obama's). And the battle they have chosen to fight is puzzling. Even deficit hawks say that with more than 15 million unemployed, they're not worried about spending $34 billion for a benefits extension that's temporary and badly needed. As Robert Bixby, president of the anti-deficit Concord Coalition, memorably told The Boston Globe, "I just feel like unemployment benefits wandered onto the wrong street corner at the wrong time, and now they are getting mugged."
5. Bipartisan deficit-reduction commission established by Congress. This reversal early this year involved six Republican co-sponsors of such a commission who voted against their own Senate bill. The six were McCain, Brownback, Mike Crapo of Idaho, John Ensign of Nevada, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and James Inhofe of Oklahoma. McConnell had once supported the idea, but he too voted against it. The bill required an up-or-down vote on the commission recommendations. McConnell and others said they feared the panel might suggest raising taxes.

Obama quickly formed a bipartisan commission by using an executive order, and the hope is that Congress will adopt its consensus proposals. Co-chairman Alan Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming, said it was "the saddest thing" to see "no" votes from senators who had fought for the congressional commission for years. "What was the purpose of that?" he asked at a bipartisan forum Sunday with several dozen governors. "As far as I can discern, it was to stick it to the president."
6. Individual insurance mandate. Conservatives and Republicans once favored a requirement that all or most people buy basic health insurance. Like cap-and-trade, it was conceived by free-market conservatives as a way to avoid harming the private sector. It also fit with conservative views of personal responsibility and the immorality of freeloading. In 1993, Republicans pushed it as an alternative to an employer mandate. Stuart Butler, a domestic policy expert at the Heritage Foundation, described the individual mandate in 2003 as a necessary part of a "social contract." Republican Mitt Romney signed a health law with a mandate in 2006, when he was governor of Massachusetts.
Now, however, Republican governors and attorneys general are suing the federal government over the individual mandate in the new health law, saying it is unconstitutional. Romney says the federal government has no right to impose such a plan on all states. Butler told me that experience in the last seven years with the federal employee health benefits system and with auto-enrollment (you're enrolled at work or school unless you opt out) suggests the requirement is not necessary to achieve a stable health insurance system with broadly shared risks. Obama's campaign position was similar, but health experts later changed his mind.
7. Medicare spending curbs. Democrats have financed their new health law in part by planning on nearly $500 billion in Medicare savings over the next 10 years. The proposal provoked months of attacks from Republicans. That was a dizzying role reversal from the days when Republicans used to recommend the same types of reductions in future Medicare spending (and had to play defense against attacks from Obama and other Democrats, now having their own role reversal).
In 1995, for instance, Republicans proposed cutting $270 billion over seven years. In 1997, McConnell and McCain were among the Republicans voting for a Balanced Budget Act that cut Medicare by $115 billion over five years. And in his 2008 presidential campaign, McCain proposed combined Medicare and Medicaid cuts of $1.3 trillion over 10 years. Yet last year, as he neared a re-election campaign in a state full of retirees, McCain led the fight against the Democrats' plans to trim Medicare.

Seven issues, scores of lawmakers, an epidemic of head-slapping and re-thinking that corresponds to Obama's tenure and the rise of the Tea Party movement. Coincidence? Doubtful. Principles are in the mix, for sure, but nobody should mistake where they are sitting in the car. That would be the back seat, with politics at the wheel.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ): Extend Bush Tax Cuts For Wealthy Even If They Add To Deficit

2010-07-12T11:34:00.005-05:00

Sam Stein, HuffingtonPost.com: Top Senate Republican Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) insisted on Sunday that Congress should extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans regardless of their impact on the deficit, even as he and other Republicans are blocking unemployment insurance extensions over deficit concerns. [LSB: Emphasis added]

"[Y]ou should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes," said the Arizona Senator during an appearance on Fox News Sunday. "Surely Congress has the authority, and it would be right to -- if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs. You do need to offset the cost of increased spending, and that's what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans."

White House aides immediately seized on the comments. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs wrote on Twitter, "Kyl says wealthy need big Bush tax cuts while middle class families are on their own to fend for themselves as a result of Bush economy."

In private, administration officials say that the framing of the argument couldn't be more advantageous: "It's cutting taxes for the wealthy and letting the unemployed to fend for themselves," said one White House ally.

"If all of this has a familiar ring to it, it's because unpaid for tax cuts for the rich at the expense of working people is the same backward policy Republicans used to put the nation in this hole, and it's the same policy they promise to return to if put in a position of power again," added Hari Sevugan, press secretary for the Democratic National Committee.

Asked to expand on his tweets, Gibbs declined comment, save to clarify that "the question [host Chris] Wallace specifically asked Kyl was [about] the upper end of the Bush tax cuts (above $250,000)."

But the politics already are fairly obvious. For the past few months, congressional Republicans have demanded that any additional spending be offset by budget cuts or revenue increases elsewhere. Also on Sunday, White House senior adviser David Axelrod blamed deficit concerns for the difficulty in finding a 60th vote in the Senate for unemployment benefits even though, as of Friday, 2.1 million people have not received checks that they were expecting in June.

And yet, Kyl is now suggesting that the same budget rules shouldn't apply with respect to tax cuts for the wealthy, which are set to expire unless Congress acts to renew them. As Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly notes:

It's quite a message to Americans: Republicans believe $30 billion for unemployment benefits don't even deserve a vote because the money would be added to the deficit, but Republicans also believe that adding the cost of $678 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy to the deficit is just fine.

The chart below shows the deficit impact of the Bush tax cuts over the next decade.

GOP Agenda To Be Shaped By Lobbyists: Least Surprising News Ever

2010-07-09T14:06:00.004-05:00

Jason Linkins, HuffingtonPost.com: Just over a week ago, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough touched off a mini-media firestorm when he discussed how often Republicans on Capitol Hill tell him that House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio; bobble-head at left) "is not a hard worker," and is "disengaged," and "does not have a work ethic."

Boehner's spokesman Michael "Not To Be Confused With The Other Michael Steele" Steel, shot back by pointing out how hard Boehner worked at partying hard, with mega-donors (and successfully so: raising $117,000 per event).

All of which raised the question as to how hard Boehner was willing to work to actually craft a policy agenda for the GOP to maybe run on, in 2010. Well, as it turns out, that's precisely the area where all the disengagement and lack of a work ethic comes into play. But never fear! Boehner has outsourced this responsibility to heroic lobbyists, who will create the agenda for him, just as they do for everybody!

Per Roll Call:

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) have invited senior Republican lobbyists and top officials from several large trade groups to the Capitol next week to provide their suggestions for a new GOP agenda.

The meeting is part of the House leaders' initiative called America Speaking Out, which is intended to draw broad input to create a new policy agenda for the party to launch in the fall.

An e-mail invitation sent to more than 20 trade representatives and obtained by Roll Call summoned guests to Boehner's second-floor office on July 16 "to discuss House Republican efforts to produce a new policy agenda with a small group of trade association leaders."

As ThinkProgress points out, this is all pretty much par for the course:

As the Wonk Room's Pat Garofalo has documented, congressional Republicans have "organized a pow-wow with lobbyists in order to devise a strategy" for nearly every piece of major legislation over the past year, from health care reform, to Wall Street reform, to climate change, to a jobs bill.

LSB: SSDD. Isn't it this kind of bobble-headed thinking that got us into some of the financial troubles we're in already? Haven't we learned that a separate watchdog on some of these institutions is a good thing?

BREAKING: Section 3 of DOMA found unconstitutional, violates equal protection

2010-07-08T16:36:00.007-05:00

Denise Lavoie, HuffingtonPost.com: A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled that a federal gay marriage ban is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro on Thursday ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA.

The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.

Tauro agreed, and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens.

"The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment. For that reason, the statute is invalid," Tauro wrote in a ruling in a lawsuit filed by Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Ruling in a separate case filed by Gays & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Tauro found that DOMA violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

"We've maintained from the very beginning that there was absolutely no basis for this law treating one class of married Massachusetts couples different from everybody else and the court has recognized that," said Gary Buseck, GLAD's legal director.

The Justice Department argued the federal government has the right to set eligibility requirements for federal benefits – including requiring that those benefits only go to couples in marriages between a man and a woman.

The law was enacted by Congress in 1996 when it appeared Hawaii would soon legalize same-sex marriage and opponents worried that other states would be forced to recognize such marriages. The lawsuit challenges only the portion of the law that prevents the federal government from affording pension and other benefits to same-sex couples.

Since then, five states and the District of Columbia have legalized gay marriage.

Joe Sudbay, AmericaBlog.com: Historic day for LGBT equality. Finally. We needed a win for a change.

A Federal District Court Judge in Massachusetts ruled in two DOMA cases today. In Gill v. OPM, brought by GLAD, the judge ruled:

In the wake of DOMA, it is only sexual orientation that differentiates a married couple entitled to federal marriage-based benefits from one not so entitled. And this court can conceive of no way in which such a difference might be relevant to the provision of the benefits at issue. By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, “there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects” from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In a case brought by the Attorney General of Massachusetts, the Judge found that Section 3 of DOMA violated the Tenth Amendment.

I've posted the decisions at AMERICAblogGay.com. In the Gill decision, the Judge concluded, "DOMA fails to pass constitutional muster even under the highly deferential rational basis test." That is a highly deferential test. So, there was no rational basis for the law.

The Judge included this explanation of Section 3 of DOMA:

At issue in this case is Section 3 of DOMA, which defines the terms “marriage” and “spouse,” for purposes of federal law, to include only the union of one man and one woman. In particular, it provides that:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or
interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife.

Today, we celebrate. But, this is only the beginning of the process. We'll have to find out if the Obama administration plans to appeal these rulings. (Note to Obama administration: Please don't.)

Mixner: Time Is Running Out and Five Suggestions For Change

2010-07-08T11:44:00.003-05:00

David Mixner, DavidMixner.com: Even for the watered-down and questionably useful compromise on DADT, time is running out. Congress will come back in session and be on a fast track to recess as soon as possible in this volatile election year. With analysts like Charlie Cook predicting that the House of Representatives might go Republican, Democrats will be even more leery of taking on anything that smacks of risks. Once they adjourn for recess, my guess is that they will meet only briefly after Labor Day.

This much we know: ENDA is dead for this year and if you believe Congressman Jackie Spiers, it is dead for at least five years. The repeal of DOMA has seen almost no action. We were taken out of the healthcare legislation. Most likely we will be taken out of the Immigration Reform legislation in the name of 'a greater good.' DADT is increasingly looking grim with passage of even the compromise in question. The list of bad news can go on and on.

The only question that needs to be answered "Is this acceptable to us two years into the Obama term?" And if not, how do we change tactics or escalate our actions in order to not leave our freedom in the hands of those who have chosen not to battle for them? Here are some ideas to consider:

1. STOP ENABLING: Anyone who has been even near a recovery program knows that the worst action a friend can take to someone who can't seem to 'get it together' is to enable them by explaining away their actions. Tough love is required from the LGBT community toward the Democratic party. No more 'understanding' why they have put us on the back burner yet one more time. No more explaining by our national organizations why with 58 Democratic Senators, a Democratic House and a liberal Democratic President we have failed after all this time to move on the 'Big Three.' No more taking a tough line rhetorically and then telling them all is forgiven by giving them money, resources and praise. We have to stop giving them permission to hurt and disappoint us time and time again.

2. DEMAND STOP LOSS: The President has the power today to issue a 'stop-loss' order until a military report is issued and the process to officially end DADT is begun. After all, they all say it is a given that it is over so lets not destroy anyone else's lives or dreams because the political timing is not right.

3. JUSTICE AT JUSTICE DEPARTMENT: The Department of Justice has been a hostile place for the LGBT agenda. They have spent more time fighting our rights in court than defending them. While looking for ways to intervene in Arizona, they have not even attempted to be part of the Proposition 8 case. Surely, Attorney General Eric Holder can find ways to help with the vast organization he has at his disposal. His refusing to take a stand in Maine the week before the vote was unforgivable.

4. MAKE WAY FOR NEW WAYS: Clearly the 'pretty please lobbying' we have be doing is simply not working. Never will we have better margins in Congress than we have had the last two years and we are ending up with almost nothing. We need to embrace new groups, new ways, and new ideas. Failing institutions should be held accountable and those who are pushing for full equality should be celebrated and supported. Organizations like Get Equal and the new exciting Friend Factor offer alternative tactics to support our traditional ways of organizing and demanding full equality.

5. PRACTICE POLITICAL TOUGH LOVE: Every two years they throw the 'we are better than the other guys' and imply that if we don't support people in the Democratic party who haven't supported us then we will be the ones responsible for any conservative victory. Bull! It is their lack of courage, inability to lead and tepid inspiration that have created their own political fate. We must no longer support anyone who is not for full equality and that includes marriage equality. No longer support political committees that give money to those who vote against us. We must seek out those candidates who do support full equality (and there are a huge number these days) and give them our support. We also must be willing to support primaries in the future against those within the Democratic party who don't support us.

Jon Stewart Smacks Down Fox News For Fear-Mongering About 'Muslims In Space'

2010-07-08T11:14:00.000-05:00

Wish You Weren't Here

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor

Tea Party

DADT troop survey a mess; asks about sharing showers. Lead gay group warns gay troops about participating in survey at all.

2010-07-08T10:31:00.003-05:00

John Aravosis, AmericaBlog.com: The repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy was thrown into further doubt today when details of the Obama administration's survey of US service members was leaked to the media.

It's bad enough that the Commander in Chief is asking his subordinates what they think of his order to integrate the troops (imagine a Republican president asking the troops for permission to issue an order). But now we learn that the survey has been so botched by the Obama administration that the lead gay group on lifting the ban, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, is warning gay service members about taking the survey at all.

What's more, in contrast to repeated assurances from the White House, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the survey is not simply about "how" to implement the repeal of DADT, it is also about "whether" to repeal at all. A full one-third of the survey is devoted to the titillating, and irrelevant, issues of showers, bathrooms, sleeping arrangements, and whether repeal will hurt morale and cohesion.

And to top it off, the lead gay civil rights group working on the issue has been cut out of the process (again) by the Obama administration.

Late last week, SLDN asked the Department of Defense and the Pentagon Working Group for the text of the surveys, more information on possible certificates of confidentiality, and whether DOD or PWG could guarantee immunity from DADT and other armed services rules and regulations for service members who are inadvertently "outed" by the surveys. The Department of Defense was unable to satisfy our request.

One could understand why George Bush's Pentagon would want to cut a civil rights group out of the process, but Barack Obama's? A man who promised to be the gay community's fierce advocate, and a man who recently bragged at the G-20 summit about how he kept his promise to repeal DADT (when it hasn't been repealed, and the law currently being debated does not repeal it at all)? Why is President Obama cutting the lead gay civil rights group on this issue out of the process? And make no mistake, this is all about President Obama. He is after all the commander in chief of the US military. He issues the orders, the Pentagon works for him.

As a result of the Obama administration cutting SLDN out, the administration screwed up the survey. There is no guarantee for gay servicemembers taking the survey that the survey results won't be used to out them, thus destroying their careers. Kind of an obvious point.

While the surveys are apparently designed to protect the individual's privacy, there is no guarantee of privacy and DOD has not agreed to provide immunity to service members whose privacy may be inadvertently violated or who inadvertently outs himself or herself. So if by taking the survey you out yourself, tough luck.

This is no small point. If the survey that is the entire basis of the decision how (and now apparently if) to repeal DADT is screwed up, then the entire implementation of the repeal (if it even ever happens) is going to be screwed up. The Obama administration has just put the entire repeal of DADT in jeopardy.

What genius came up with this screwed up process? White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina, or the self-appointed leader of the gay community, who has personally claimed credit for the entire DADT compromise, the Center for American Progress' Winnie Stachelberg? If this thing gets screwed up - and it already is - and we do not see a full 100% repeal of DADT next year, if we are still discussing separate-but-equal options about segregated showers and barracks in 2011 (while the Pentagon continues to discharge gay troops and the Dept of Justice continues to defend DADT in court), Messina and Stachelberg are going to have to explain to the President why his pissed off that he never seems to be able to keep his word.

We were promised a fierce advocate. This is bullshit.

Rove Admits His ‘Shadow RNC’ Attack Group Functions Largely Because Of The Citizens United Decision

2010-07-07T18:01:00.008-05:00

ThinkProgress.org: Given the weak leadership of Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, former Bush White House adviser Karl Rove launched a “shadow RNC” in April called American Crossroads, vowing to spend $50 million to influence this Fall’s election. After an embarrassing first month of fundraising, Crossroads raised $8.5 million in June, “from an even split of individuals and corporations.”

On Fox News today, Rove directly credited his group’s success to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which overturned the decades-old ban on corporate money in politics:

HOST: Some suggest that the money that goes to American Crossroads might otherwise go to an organization like the RNC.

ROVE: Well that’s not correct, because American Crossroads is collecting money in excess of the individual contribution limits the RNC has allowed to give. What we’ve essentially said, is if you’ve maxed out the to senatorial committee, the congressional committee or the RNC and would like to do more, under the Citizens United decisions, you can give money to the American Crossroads 527, or Crossroads GPS, so we’re not tapping the people who — if you’ve giving to American Crossroads, you’re fully capable, in all likelihood, of giving the maximum to one of the national committee organizations.

Watch it here.

While some reports have downplayed the impact of Citizens United on this year’s election, Rove seems to be acknowledging that his high-profile group relies on the decision for its fundraising. If Crossroads and the other new conservative attack groups raise the tens of millions of dollars they plan to spend this year from corporate donors — as Crossroads has — then the impact of the decision could be huge.

Rove explained that his donors are those who have “maxed out” contributions to the RNC and other national committees, but the individual contribution limit to these groups is $30,400 per election cycle, so Rove is clearly focused on the wealthiest of donors. As Rolling Stone’s Tim Dickinson noted, “By building a war chest of unregulated campaign cash…Rove would be able to wage the midterm elections on his own terms: electing candidates loyal to the GOP’s wealthiest donors and corporate patrons. With the media’s attention diverted by the noisy revolt being waged by the Tea Party, the man known as ‘Bush’s brain’ was staging a stealthier but no less significant coup of the Republican Party.”

27,000 Abandoned Oil Wells Litter the Gulf of Mexico

2010-07-07T17:51:00.002-05:00

FromtheLeft.com: A staggering 27,000 abandoned oil wells litter the sea bed of the Gulf of Mexico and no one, not the oil industry or the Federal government, is checking to see if they are leaking, this according to an Associated Press investigation.

Ignored for decades, the oldest of these wells were abandoned in the late 1940s, raising the prospect that many deteriorating sealing jobs are already failing.

The AP investigation uncovered particular concern with 3,500 of the neglected wells — those characterized in Federal government records as “temporarily abandoned.”

Regulations for temporarily abandoned wells require oil companies to present plans to reuse or permanently plug such wells within a year, but the AP found that the rule is routinely circumvented, and that more than 1,000 wells have lingered in that unfinished condition for more than a decade. About three-quarters of temporarily abandoned wells have been left in that status for more than a year, and many since the 1950s and 1960s even though sealing procedures for temporary abandonment are not as stringent as those for permanent closures.

As a forceful reminder of the potential harm, the well beneath BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig was being sealed with cement for temporary abandonment when it exploded April 20th, killing eleven workers and leading to the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history.

BP alone has abandoned about 600 such wells in the Gulf, according to government data.

BP won't use peat moss for clean-up because it can't resell the oil it soaks up

2010-07-07T17:42:00.004-05:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Gaius Publius, AmericaBlog.com: From Robert Kennedy Jr, we learned that BP has huge economic dis-incentives to clean up the oil. Let's say that better — it has huge economic incentives to keep the seas dirty. That story is here.

Now, thanks to Keith Olbermann on Countdown, we learn that dehydrated peat moss is an excellent way to soak up oil:

[D]ehydrated peat moss [is] not only capable of soaking up crude, which does not leak out afterwards, but microbes inside the moss break down the oil as well.

But BP won't use this solution, which has been around for years:

The owner of the peat moss company [told the Toronto Globe and Mail that] BP has
informed him it cannot use peat moss because the oil giant would not then be able to retrieve the oil afterwards. And you may translate that as: the oil giant would not be able to sell the oil afterwards.

Money, folks. The beast wants only money.

MSNBC blackballs Markos

2010-07-07T17:28:00.005-05:00

John Aravosis, AmericaBlog.com: Seriously. Markos Moulitsas, the editor of DailyKos, the largest American free-standing blog, is no longer welcome on the network because he Tweeted - yes, Tweeted - Joe Scarborough about Scarborough's own hypocrisy in complaining that the media won't cover Democratic "scandals" when Scarborough's own nothing-burger "scandal" didn't get much coverage either. Scarborough complained to the head of MSNBC, Phil Griffin, and Griffin banned Markos from the network.

Which leads to a larger question, and problem. So now, not only can you not say anything mean about conservatives and work for the major media, but you can no longer say anything mean and even be an unpaid guest on their shows. As if Scarborough, a far-right conservative, has never said anything mean? And none of MSNBC's other guests - conservative ones, to be exact - have ever said anything mean? Really?

I can't imagine MSNBC wants to go down this path, of having people scour the online, and offline, comments of every one of their conservative guests. But that's exactly what they've invited with this weird blacklisting policy that only seems to apply to liberals. And rather sane liberals, at that.

It looks as though MSNBC is a bit hyper-sensitive about its anti-conservative image, and may be trying to move more to the right. Which is a problem, since the network has done a pretty good job of being fair to both sides - 3 hours of conservatives in the morning, 3 hours of liberals at night. This move against Markos is troubling.

Sharron Angle Erupts, Sends Cease-And-Desist To Harry Reid For Republishing Deleted Website

2010-07-07T17:10:00.003-05:00

Elyse Siegel, HuffingtonPost.com: In the wake of Nevada Republican Sharron Angle's campaign website undergoing a serious makeover, the Senate candidate hoping to unseat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in November is taking big steps to ensure that content deleted in her webpage redesign remains hidden from the public eye.

Following the launch of http://www.sharronsundergroundbunker.com/ by Reid's camp last week in effort to highlight now-erased controversial policy positions that were outlined on Angle's former site, a cease-and-desist letter was issued on behalf of the Tea Party-backed contender demanding the Nevada Democrat no longer republish the wiped campaign material.

Jerry Stacy, a spokesman for Angle, accused Reid of "breaking several laws and trying to deceive voters" by calling attention to content no longer touted on the Republican hopeful's site. "You're going to see a lot of dirty tricks like that from Reid in this campaign," she charged.

But "The Real Sharron Angle" website -- which attributes its creation to the Nevada State Democratic Party and notes that it has not been authorized by any candidate -- was only one in a string of attempts to question the curious disappearance of information outlining some of Angle's most eyebrow-raising views. HuffPost's Sam Stein reported last week on some of the positions advocated by Angle on her former site that have since disappeared from her web presence.

Upon the revamp of Angle's campaign website, Reid communications director Kelly Steele said in a statement, "Obviously, Sharron Angle's new handlers are as alarmed by the prospect of promoting Angle's extreme and dangerous agenda for Nevada as most mainstream voters will be when they learn her true views."

And now, even with Angle threatening Reid with legal action, the Senate Majority Leader's camp doesn't seem to be backing away from its initial reaction to the Republican challenger's website makeover.

"These are Sharron Angle's positions in Sharron's own words from Sharron's own website. What was good enough for Nevada voters to read during the primary should be good enough for them now," said Reid campaign spokesman Jon Summers. "Sharron has long believed in killing Social Security, eliminating the Departments of Education and Energy and shipping nuclear waste to Nevada. We've always heard that Sharron Angle is an unapologetic conservative. It has to be embarrassing for her to have her handlers trying to hide who she really is."

Obama Bypassing Senate To Fill Medicare Post

2010-07-07T16:39:00.002-05:00

Erica Werner, HuffingtonPost.com: President Barack Obama intends to use the congressional recess to bypass the Senate and appoint Dr. Donald Berwick, an expert on patient care who's drawn fire from the GOP, to oversee Medicare and Medicaid, the White House announced late Tuesday.

The appointment was to be made Wednesday, with lawmakers out of town for their annual July Fourth break, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said in a post on the White House blog.

The decision means Berwick can assume the post of administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services without undergoing confirmation hearings in the Senate. Republicans have indicated they're prepared to oppose him over comments he's made on rationing of medical care and other matters. Democrats want to avoid a nasty confirmation fight that could reopen the health care debate. Berwick was nominated in April but no confirmation hearing had been scheduled.

"Many Republicans in Congress have made it clear in recent weeks that they were going to stall the nomination as long as they could, solely to score political points," Pfeiffer wrote. "But with the agency facing new responsibilities to protect seniors' care under the Affordable Care Act, there's no time to waste with Washington game-playing."

The decision to use a recess appointment to skirt the Senate is sure to draw fire from Republicans although the tool has been used frequently by presidents of both political parties. Obama last made a batch of recess appointments in March, and along with Berwick he was to make two other less prominent appointments Wednesday, one to a pension board and the other to a science post in the White House, the White House said. The recess appointment will allow Berwick to serve through next year without Senate confirmation.

"This recess appointment is an insult to the American people," Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said in a statement. "Dr. Berwick is a self-professed supporter of rationing health care and he won't even have to explain his views to the American people in a congressional hearing. Once again, President Obama has made a mockery of his pledge to be accountable and transparent."

The Senate Republican leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said "the fact that this administration won't allow the man charged with implementing the president's plan to cut $500 billion out of Medicare to testify about his plans for the care of our nation's seniors is truly outrageous."

Berwick, 63, is a pediatrician, Harvard University professor and leader of a health care nonprofit organization who's drawn support from many quarters, including the American Medical Association, since his nomination to oversee the enormous Medicare and Medicaid health insurance plans for the elderly, poor and disabled.

He's been criticized by Republicans for a number of comments, including telling an interviewer last year: "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care – the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly." (MORE)

LSB: It's about time that the WH acted aggressively. With the Party of NO BACKBONE failing at every turn to stand up to the Party of OBSTRUCTIONISTS, this vacancy could not remain open. And if the Repugnants say anything, remind them of the recess appointment of John Bolton.

Legalizing Marijuana Would Cause Prices To Plummet

2010-07-07T16:36:00.004-05:00

Lisa Leff, HuffingtonPost.com: A new study says legalizing the recreational use of marijuana in California could sharply drive down prices for the drug and possibly undercut the tax windfall that supporters have touted.

The study published Wednesday by the RAND Drug Policy Research Center says "considerable uncertainty" surrounds the state ballot initiative. It would allow adults, 21 and over, to possess an ounce of marijuana and cities and counties to license and tax commercial pot sales.

The authors predict that retail marijuana prices could drop from $375 an ounce under the state's current medical marijuana law to as low as $38 per ounce.

According to the RAND analysis, consumers would pay more than that – about $91 an ounce – once taxes imposed by local governments are figured in.

LSB: Sure, some income to the state would be helpful, but the reduction in costs to adjudicate drug crimes and incarcerate petty criminals for offenses related to marijuana would be an even greater cost savings. Legalizing weed would free law enforcement to concentrate on more serious crimes, and let's not forget that consumers could be assured of purchasing weed without enhancements, making it a bit safer. Aren't we just going through the same societal angst that we went through with legalizing alcohol a century ago?

Rush Limbaugh: Obama Created Recession As 'Payback' For Racism

2010-07-07T16:25:00.008-05:00

Laura Bassett, HuffingtonPost.com: Rush Limbaugh said on his July 2 radio show that he believes Obama tanked the economy on purpose, both as "payback" for 230 years of racial oppression and because Obama simply doesn't like America.

He railed: "Who is Obama? Why is he doing this? Why? Why is he doing it? Is he stupid? Is it an accident? Is he doing it on purpose or what have you? ... I think we face something we've never faced before in the country -- and that is, we're now governed by people who do not like the country, who do not have the same reverence for it that we do. Our greatest threat (and this is saying something) is internal."

Limbaugh went on to compare Obama to the Black Panthers:

"So in this interview with J. Christian Adams yesterday talking about [how] he and his line attorneys were told to just drop the case against the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation in Philadelphia, he said that there were people in the office, DOJ, who said, 'Well, you know, those people suffered the indignity of slavery, discrimination, segregation and so forth.'

He said somebody else said, 'This is payback,' meaning, 'All right, look. We don't care
if it's the New Black Panthers or whoever it is. Black people in this country have never, ever had a fair shake. This is payback. O.J. Simpson was payback. How does it feel?' That word 'payback' is not mine, [but] it is exactly how I think Obama looks at the country: It's payback time... There's no question that payback is what this administration is all about, presiding over the decline of the United States of America, and doing so happily."

LISTEN to some of Limbaugh's comments.

To drive home his point, Limbaugh used a HuffPost story about a woman whose unemployment benefits expired as evidence for Obama's racial revenge plot: "[HuffPost is] using this as an indictment of the Republicans and the Democrats for not extending unemployment benefits. This needs to be looked at in a different light.... Payback time. This woman's going to find out what it was like, in Obama's view, for other Americans to live as they did in this unfair and immoral country for the 230 years we've been around."

LSB: Not all Republicans are stupid (only some), so why are the intelligent ones allowing this gas bag to make their party such a laughing stock? I realize some of the tea baggers would believe the moon is made of green cheese is Boss Limbaugh told them it was so, but has the entirety of the party leadership taken leave of their senses? Are they so afraid of him?

Linkins: Bobby Jindal Signs 'Guns-In-Church' Bill Into Law

2010-07-07T16:11:00.006-05:00

Jason Linkins, HffingtonPost.com: If you're like most Americans, there's probably been a time in your life when you've been sitting in church, listening to a particularly ennui-inducing homily or enduring another warbly version of "Holy Holy Holy" and thought, "Man! I could really reach for some steel right now, squeeze off a few rounds, and let these fools know what the score is!" Well, in Louisiana, Governor Bobby Jindal has recently signed into law a measure that would allow you to at least feel comforted by the presence of your gun in the house of the Lord. From the New Orleans Times-Picayune:

Gov. Bobby Jindal has signed into law one of the more controversial bills from the recent legislative session, one allowing guns to be carried into houses of worship.

[...]

[State Representative Henry] Burns' [R-Haughton] bill would authorize persons who qualified to carry concealed weapons having passed the training and background checks to bring them to churches, mosques, synagogues or other houses of worship as part of a security force.

I am only too sure that a law allowing mosque-goers to carry guns to service will not rile up Louisiana's paranoiacs at all!

Some restrictions apply. The "head of the religious institution" would have to "announce verbally or in weekly newsletters or bulletins that there will be individuals armed on the property as members of the security force," and those lucky individuals would have to receive "eight hours of tactical training each year."

So, why is all of this necessary? Basically, Representative Burns is concerned about a possible "First Sunday scenario":

Burns contended that religious institutions in crime-ridden or "declining neighborhoods" need the added protection to ward off thieves and muggers.

The Times-Picayune notes that the same law permitting houses of worship to gun up also allows them "hire off-duty police or security guards to protect congregants" which, on balance, would seem to be the saner option.

LSB: WWJD? Not bring a weapon to church, I'm pretty sure!

Stewart Takes On America's Oil Dependence

2010-06-17T10:43:00.000-05:00

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

An Energy-Independent Future

http://www.thedailyshow.com/

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor

Tea Party

Rachel Maddow's Oval Office Oil Spill Speech: What She Wishes Obama Had Said (VIDEO)

2010-06-17T10:14:00.005-05:00

HuffingtonPost.com: Rachel Maddow was among the cable news hosts and pundits who were unsatisfied with President Obama's Oval Office address about the oil spill Tuesday night.

But instead of just complaining, Maddow offered a version of what she wished the President had said — and she did it from a fake Oval Office set on her show Wednesday night.

"You know how sometimes you get into an argument or confrontation with somebody, you can't help afterwards thinking of all the things you wished you'd said?" Maddow said. "Well, last night after the President's big Oval Office speech on the BP oil disaster, I had a version of that experience. I hadn't, of course, been in an argument with the President or anything. I just couldn't stop running tape in my head of what I wish that speech had been like, what I wish he'd said. An Oval Office address is a priceless chance to get the nation to stop what it's doing, to stop every other TV show in the country, to get us all to pay attention all at once to this crisis and to what the President has to say about it."

Maddow said she wished Obama had announced three major developments in the response to the disaster:

"Never again, will any company, anyone, be allowed to drill in a location where they are incapable of dealing with the potential consequences of that drilling."
"I'm announcing a new federal command specifically for containment and cleanup of oil that has already entered the Gulf of Mexico, with a priority on protecting shoreline that can still be saved; shoreline that is vulnerable to oil that has not yet been hit."
"I no longer say that we must get off oil like every president before me has said too. I no longer say that we must get off oil. We will get off oil and here's how: The United States Senate will pass an energy bill. This year."

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Rep. Barton apologizes to BP for Obama 'shakedown'

2010-06-17T10:10:00.009-05:00

LSB: This is my fucking representative! Could he be sniffing any further up the ass of the oil industry? He's a weak and ineffective legislator kept around by the GOP because he's a reliable vote on their continuous skull-fucking of the American public. Joe, if you don't want to live in a country that holds responsible the people that created the biggest environmental disaster in U.S. history because you'd rather see the American tax-payer pay for the clean-up rather than one of your contributors, there's the door. Don't let is hit you on your fat ass on your way out!

Brett Michael Dykes, Yahoo! News: Well, that was fast.

Barely 10 minutes into Thursday's landmark congressional testimony — where BP CEO Tony Hayward and other leading company executives are revisiting the Gulf Coast oil spill before a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee — the first controversial statement has entered the record.

And no, it didn't come from the gaffe-prone BP brass. Instead, GOP Rep. Joe Barton of Texas — the ranking member on the House Energy Committee — made a decisive splash in his opening remarks. A staunch conservative who has a long record of backing oil industry interests, Barton apologized to BP CEO Tony Hayward for the "shakedown" the Obama White House pulled on the company. (Barton has received more than $1.5 million in campaign donations from the oil industry, according to Open Secrets, a nonpartisan watchdog group.) You can watch the video here:

"I'm not speaking for anybody in the House of Representatives but myself," Barton explained, "but I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday. I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown. In this case a $20 billion shakedown."

Wrapping up, Barton said: "I apologize. I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong, is subject to some sort of political pressure that is, again, in my words — amounts to a shakedown, so I apologize."

The Niger Delta: a Cautionary Tale for the United States

2010-06-17T09:55:00.003-05:00

From the Left: The people who live in the Niger Delta have endured the equivalent of the Exxon Valdez spill every year for 50 years by some estimates. The oil pours out nearly every week and swamps once teeming with shrimp and crab, are long since lifeless.

Poorly regulated and maintained aging pipelines belonging to Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon Mobil, regularly burst, spewing black crude onto the mangroves and into the creeks for months at a time. Last month, soldiers guarding an Exxon Mobil site beat women who demonstrated against the spills.

“There is Shell oil on my body,” said Hannah Baage, emerging from Gio Creek with a machete to cut the cassava stalks balanced on her head.

The Gulf of Mexico oil disaster has transfixed a country and president they so admire is a matter of wonder for people who here, among the palm-fringed estuaries in conditions as abject as any in Nigeria. Though their region contributes nearly 80 percent of the government’s revenue, they have hardly benefit from it, and life expectancy is the lowest in Nigeria.

“President Obama is worried about that one,” Claytus Kanyie, a local official, said of the gulf spill, standing among dead mangroves in the soft oily muck outside Bodo. “Nobody is worried about this one. The aquatic life of our people is dying off. There used be shrimp. There are no longer any shrimp.”

With revised estimates that as many as 2.5 million gallons of oil could be spilling into the Gulf of Mexico each day, the Niger Delta has suddenly become a cautionary tale for the United States.

According to a team of experts for the Nigerian government and international and local environmental groups, as many as 546 million gallons of oil spilled into the Niger Delta in the past five decades, or nearly 11 million gallons a year. By comparison, the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989 dumped an estimated 10.8 million gallons of oil into the waters off Alaska.

SAVAGE: The Nuclear Option

2010-06-16T00:18:00.003-05:00

Dan Savage, SLOG:

(NYT) A government panel raised its estimate of the flow rate from BP’s damaged well yet again on Tuesday, declaring that as much as 60,000 barrels a day could be gushing into the Gulf of Mexico. The flow was already categorized as the largest offshore oil spill in the nation’s history, but the new figures sharply increase previous estimates. Scientists on Tuesday estimated that the flow rate ranged from 35,000 to 60,000 barrels a day—up from the rate they issued only last week, of 25,000 to 30,000 barrels a day. It continues a pattern in which every new estimate of the flow rate has been dramatically higher than the one before.

How long before the nuclear option is back on the table? Seems to me that if we're going to have to nuke the thing in the end... well, we might as well nuke it sooner rather than later.

LSB: The nuclear option ("inserting a bomb deep underground and letting its fiery heat melt the surrounding rock to shut off the flow") sounds dangerous and incorporates all kinds of political problems, but nothing else is stemming the flow of oil. Can it be any more detrimental to the environment than the long-term problems of even more oil in the ocean?

When BP Spills Coffee...

2010-06-15T18:13:00.001-05:00

Hispanics Leaving Arizona In Advance Of Controversial Immigration Law's Enforcement

2010-06-15T15:04:00.007-05:00

Nick Wing, HuffingtonPost.com: Arizona's controversial new immigration law may be prompting a mass dispersion of Hispanics -- both legal and illegal -- from the state. Though enforcement of the harsh law isn't set to begin until the end of July, reports from state and local officials show that the new measure may already be taking its toll on Arizona's Hispanic population.

According to a recent USA Today report:

Schools in Hispanic areas report unusual drops in enrollment. The Balsz Elementary School District is 75% Hispanic, and within a month of the law's passage, the parents of 70 students pulled them out of school, said District Superintendent Jeffrey Smith. The district lost seven students over the same one-month period last year, and parents tell Smith the Arizona law is the reason for leaving. [...]

Businesses serving the Hispanic community say business is down, signaling that illegal immigrants are holding on to cash in anticipation of a move from the state, said David Castillo, co-founder of the Latin Association of Arizona, a chamber of commerce for nearly 400 first-generation Hispanic business owners.

But the reports out of the state don't yet serve as a comprehensive analysis of population numbers, and some say that the recent outflow of Hispanics from Arizona may just be the latest in a trend that has shown diminished immigration numbers and increasing departures from the state due to the poor economy over the past few years. (More)

The heart of the immigration dilemma: Only 5,000 green cards to cover 500,000 unskilled-labor jobs (David Neiwert, Crooks and Liars). When reality catches up to Arizonans for their passage of their misbegotten police-state immigration law, it's going to be ugly and unpleasant. If other states really are considering passing similar laws, they will want to watch what happens to Arizona -- and they will inevitably wind up thinking twice.

We've pointed out previously -- as have the nation's police chiefs -- that the law is almost certain to in fact increase violent crime and dilute law enforcement's capacity to deal with it in Arizona.

And that will only be the first consequence (and a decidedly ironic one, since this law was sold as being a means to crack down on violent crime). The longest-lasting and most significant, however, will be the economic one: When the Latino workforce flees Arizona, their economy will suffer a dramatic downturn unlike any they've seen in decades.

It's already starting to happen:

Arizona’s hard-hitting immigration law is driving Hispanics out of the state weeks before the controversial law goes into effect.

Although concrete figures are not available, anecdotal evidence suggests Hispanics, both legal residents and illegal immigrants, are starting to flee.

Schools in Hispanic neighborhoods are reporting abnormal enrollment drops, and businesses that serve Hispanics also report that business is down, according to a USA Today report published Wednesday.

The report suggests that the immigration law is compounding demographic trends that have already significantly curtailed illegal immigration during the past two years. The bad economy has been the primary deterrent to many Hispanic immigrants seeking to enter Arizona, says Jeffrey Passel, a demographer at the Pew Hispanic Center in Washington.

“If you have a bad economy and a hostile environment, then that’s likely to cause people to think twice about coming, and possibly even to leave,” Mr. Passel says.

... Any loss, however, will be a loss for the Arizona economy, [David Gutierrez, a professor of immigration history, at the University of California San Diego] suggests.

“Latinos...are a highly flexible, highly exploitable work force, a buffer to economic downturns,” he says. “Many of the industries here – agriculture, service industries, low-end manufacturing, construction – are massively dependent on undocumented workers.

“If I were able to conduct an experiment and pay all of Arizona’s undocumented workers to not work for two weeks, the economy would come to a screeching, crashing halt instantaneously.” ...

... because we pursue the American Dream, we will always have a need for immigrants, particularly those who perform unskilled labor. As the economy grows, so will the demand for that kind of labor. And we need immigration laws that will help fill that demand rationally and in a controlled way, not through the induced illegality of our current system.

Blaming the immigrants themselves, as the Arizona law does, is not a solution: it only worsens the problem. When Arizona businesses start failing because they cannot obtain a legal workforce under their new regime, the rest of the nation will get to see why just "enforcing the laws we have on the books" is no longer a viable option -- socially, legally, or economically.

Sharron Angle, Rand Paul To Washington: Tea Party-Backed Outsiders Seek Establishment Help

2010-06-15T14:45:00.003-05:00

Elyse Siegel, HuffingtonPost.com: Tea Party-backed Senate candidates Sharron Angle and Rand Paul campaigned as outsiders during their primary election fights, but now they're acting a lot like Washngton insiders.

The Nevada and Kentucky Senate candidates are each turning to the Washington establishment for fundraising and strategy help.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

On Tuesday, Ms. Angle, who surged to victory on an anti-establishment message, is scheduled to meet with Mr. Cornyn in Washington to discuss how they can work together. On Wednesday, she will appear at a weekly meeting hosted by Americans for Tax Reform, a long-standing gathering point for conservatives from Congress, the GOP and lobbying and activist groups.

Angle consultant Larry Hart told the Washington Post earlier this week that the conservative hopeful's team fully understands the risks of appearing to have "gone Washington," but dismissed the matter as being any cause for concern. "She's down-home," he said of the Tea Party favorite who will take on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in November.

Reid's camp hasn't held back however, in blasting Angle's apparent shift in attitude toward Washington since her primary win.

The candidates' critics are seeking to make political hay out of these newfound alliances. "Sharron Angle has long been railing against the establishment" but is now "courting their support," said Jon Summers, a spokesman for Sen. Harry Reid (D., Nev.). Ms. Angle's campaign did not return calls for comment.

Paul will descend on the nation's capital next week and join forces with some big GOP establishment names. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will host a pricey June 24 fundraiser for the conservative contender -- with tickets costing $1,000 for individuals and $5,000 for sponsorships per group.

Paul has come under fire for his plan to attend the ritzy event from Democratic opponent Jack Conway, who said it was an example of the Tea Party hopeful's hypocrisy towards Washington. Paul's camp however, rejected the criticism, suggesting there's no such "credibility issue."

The AP reports:

Conway's campaign said the fundraiser was an example of Paul's hypocrisy by cozying up to Washington insiders he criticized during the primary.
Paul, the son of Texas Congressman Ron Paul, a former presidential candidate, has portrayed himself as an outsider in berating Congress as free-spending and overreaching.

Benton said there's no "credibility issue" for Paul in bad-mouthing the Washington establishment while heading to the capital to benefit from a high-dollar fundraiser.

"Money will not influence Rand," Benton said in a phone interview. "Just because you donate to Rand doesn't mean that you get special favors. He's not that kind of candidate."

The Lexington Herald Leader notes that when Paul hits DC to collect campaign cash, he'll be "voiding a promise made last year to shun money from lawmakers who supported government bank bailouts."

Paul also has plans in the works to attend two additional fundraisers to be hosted by McConnell and Sen. Jim Bunning in his home state later this month.

LSB: Hypocrisy = Republican.

Rand Paul Not Board Certified: Kentucky Senate Hopeful Faces Challenge From Medical Panel

2010-06-15T14:35:00.003-05:00

Bruce Schreine and Brett Barrouquere, AP: Rand Paul, who touts his career as a Kentucky eye doctor as part of his outsider credentials in his campaign for U.S. Senate, isn't certified by his profession's leading group.

He tried Monday to bat away questions about it by calling it an attack on his livelihood, saying the scrutiny stems from his challenge of a powerful medical group over a certification policy he thought was unfair.

The libertarian-leaning Republican helped create a rival certification group more than a decade ago. He said the group has since recertified several hundred ophthalmologists, despite not being recognized the American Board of Medical Specialties – the governing group for two dozen medical specialty boards.

Questions about Paul's certification as an eye surgeon first arose in a story published Sunday in The Courier-Journal of Louisville.

Paul, who is continuing to practice in Bowling Green during the campaign, chafed Monday at questions about his certification.

"It's a personal assault on my ability to make a living," Paul told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

Paul, whose father, Ron Paul, is a Texas congressman and former presidential candidate, said he is a good physician with thousands of patients. Paul casts himself as a political outsider spent years building his medical practice in Bowling Green before making his first run for elective office.

By focusing on an internal struggle within his profession, he said, "you vilify me and make it out to sound, 'Oh, ... there's something wrong with him as a physician because he chose not to register" with the American Board of Ophthalmology.

Paul said he helped formed the rival group because the established organization exempted older ophthalmologists from recertification. He likened it to members of Congress passing laws that don't apply to themselves.

The campaign for his Democratic rival, Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, said the episode raises serious questions about Paul's character. Conway's campaign said it shows Paul doesn't want to be held to the same standards as other doctors.

"It is clear that Rand Paul does not think the rules apply to him," Conway campaign manager Jonathan Drobis said in a statement Monday.

Paul, a graduate of Duke University's medical school, said he was board certified under the American Board of Ophthalmology for a decade. Paul has been licensed to practice in Kentucky since 1993.

In the late 1990s, Paul was a driving force behind forming the National Board of Ophthalmology to protest the ABO's exemption policy.

"I don't think that some people should recertify and others shouldn't," he said. "And I don't choose to give my money to a private group that discriminates."

Paul has been certified through the National Board of Ophthalmology since 2005. He is listed as the group's president; his wife, Kelley, is listed as vice president; and his father-in-law is listed as secretary. Paul and his relatives receive no salaries from the organization, his campaign said.

Beth Ann Slembarski, administrator for the American Board of Ophthalmology, said less than 5 percent of the nation's practicing ophthalmologists aren't certified through her organization.

Slembarski said that certification through the ABO reflects "an extra commitment by physicians to demonstrate their knowledge and skills in this specialty."

Before 1992, ABO certification had no expiration, she said. After that, it started issuing certifications that lasted 10 years, but ophthalmologists certified before 1992 were grandfathered in, meaning they didn't have to be recertified.

Neither group has anything to do with medical licensure, which is handled by state boards.

Paul shrugged off his group's lack of recognition by the American Board of Medical Specialties.

"Do you think that they're going to recognize a competitor?" he said.

HUFFPOST: DNC Hammers Angle For Misleading Viewers In Softball Fox News Interview

2010-06-15T14:25:00.000-05:00

Sam Stein, HuffingtoonPost.com: The hosts of "Fox and Friends" were widely ridiculed on Monday morning for their interview with Senate candidate Sharron Angle in which probing -- or, more importantly, factually-based -- questions seemed to be sorely lacking.

Notably, the hosts stated as fact that Angle was a newcomer to the political scene (she's not) and had earned the endorsement of Sarah Palin (she hasn't). It was enough to cause some quizzical and critical takes from the Nevada press, including the local Fox affiliate, which wondered why the network had done such little preparation for the interview (Palin actually gave a "shout-out" to the defeated candidate in the race, Sue Lowden).

Now the Democratic National Committee is also weighing in -- though not by calling out the show's hosts for their softball questions but by slamming Angle herself for misleading viewers by not correcting the record.

"She may think it serves her to be less than straight, but Angle left the wrong impression with Nevada's Fox News viewers. Sarah Palin didn't endorse her. And why would she? Not even someone as far out of the mainstream as Sarah Palin shares Sharron Angle's belief that we should kill Medicare and Social Security and reinstate the prohibition of alcohol," said DNC National Press Secretary Hari Sevugan.

Angle, of course, has some responsibility to make sure her interviewers are providing the correct information -- though the job of ensuring factual accuracy really does belong to the interviewer.

Ironically, the Tea Party candidate went on "Fox and Friends" because it represented a soft landing after what has been a shaky general election campaign rollout so far. But the meekness of the questions may have drawn more negative attention than had she not appeared on the program at all.

LSB: FAUX-TV News is so desperate to see Harry Reid leave the Senate that they will use any trick. A soft-ball interview that conveniently ignores the truth of this candidate is an overly used tactic that has worked for them in the past.

Rachel Maddow Blasts BP COO Doug Suttles: 'Not Even Remotely Believable' Answers In Interview

2010-06-15T14:06:00.009-05:00

HuffingtonPost.com: Rachel Maddow blasted BP COO Doug Suttles Monday night for what she found were highly misleading and inaccurate responses during an interview Suttles gave to NBC's Tom Costello.

Maddow had two main issues with the interview: 1. Suttles' explanation for why BP included animals such as walruses --which are typically not found in the region-- in a list of potentially endangered animals in BP's oil spill plan for the Gulf of Mexico; and 2. Suttles' attempt to defend the lack of technological innovation when it came to responding to spills by arguing that there had been "so few big spills" over the past few decades.

"The events haven't driven the technology change that's out there," Suttles told Costello.

Maddow called Suttles' explanation of the walrus mistake "not even a remotely believable answer." In response to his defense of the technology, she went to a board with a map of the United States on it and ran through a long list of oil spills that had occurred in the 2000s alone. She highlighted over a dozen of them, ranging from Massachusetts to Delaware to Louisiana to Alaska to California to Utah, and contradicting Suttles' claim that there have been too few spills to force the technology to catch up.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

FROM THE LEFT: U.S. “Discovers” $1 Trillion in Untapped Mineral Deposits in Afghanistan

2010-06-15T13:25:00.006-05:00

Nevermind routing out Taliban strongholds, this the real reason for the Afghanistan war.

The United States has “discovered” nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and arguably, the nine-year old Afghan war itself, according to senior American military and government officials, who could barely contain their glee.

Vast deposits of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world.

Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a critical raw material used in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys and nuclear weapons and the treatment of mental illness.

Gen. David Patraeus, commander of the United States Central Command, said in an interview on Saturday:

“There is stunning potential here. There are a lot of ifs, of course, but I think potentially it is hugely significant.”

Patraeus’ remarks are more than a little curious. For nine years, the American people have stood idly by and watched two presidential administrations fight a war seemingly without end in Afghanistan and now we learn the Pentagon isn’t just in the business of fighting wars but, in mineral exploration. [LSB: Emphasis added]

Just as India was once Britain’s “jewel in the crown,” it would appear that Afghanistan is now poised to become the U.S.’s jewel in the crown.

LSB: Well, doesn't this put a different spin on things! Now our troops can be fighting and dying for lithium as well as oil. It's good to know that there is a profit motive behind the fighting. Does anyone know if Halliburton gets a cut of the lithium trade?

AmericaBlog: GOP IL Senate candidate up to 9 lies about his military record

2010-06-15T13:09:00.002-05:00

From Steve Benen:

As of about a week ago, I think the list was up to eight separate incidents: Kirk (1) falsely claimed he served "in" Operation Iraqi Freedom; (2) falsely claimed to "command the war room in the Pentagon"; (3) falsely claimed to have won the U.S. Navy's Intelligence Officer of the Year award; (4) falsely claimed to have been shot at by the Iraqi Air Defense network; (5) falsely claimed to be a veteran of Desert Storm; (6) falsely claimed to be the only lawmaker to serve during Operation Iraqi Freedom; and (7) falsely claimed to have been shot at in Kosovo; and (8) falsely claimed to have been shot at in Kandahar.

This week, we have a new one for the list.

When Republican Senate candidate Mark Kirk says he repeatedly deployed to Afghanistan with the Navy, he's referring to two-week training missions as part of his annual reservist requirements.
After acknowledging a series of misstatements that embellished his Navy service, Kirk is being challenged over his use of the military term "deployment," and this could be yet another opportunity for critics to parse his words in what has recently become a resume-bashing battle with Democratic Senate opponent Alexi Giannoulias.
Deployment can mean more than one thing in the military, but it is often used to describe service members going off to war for an extended time.
Navy Cmdr. Danny Hernandez said there is a difference between annual training and being deployed, which can sometimes last more than a year.
"I would think that would be (considered) two weeks of annual training," Hernandez, a Navy spokesman, said of Kirk's stints. "A deployment is a deployment and annual training is annual training."

RICH: "Two Weddings, a Divorce and ‘Glee’"

2010-06-15T12:45:00.003-05:00

Frank Rich, NY Times Columnist: THOSE of us left off the guest list could only fantasize about Rush Limbaugh’s nuptials last weekend. Now cruising into marriage No. 4 — an impressive total for a guy not quite 60 — Rush staged a lavish luau at the Breakers in Palm Beach. The revelers included what some might regard as the Rat Pack from hell — Sean Hannity, Rudy Giuliani, James Carville and Clarence Thomas. The scriptural readings remain a mystery. But we did learn the identity of the pop deity anointed as the wedding singer. That would be Elton John, whose last, albeit second-class, wedding was a civil union with David Furnish in 2005.

Why would America’s right-wing radio king hire an openly gay entertainer to star at his wedding? And why would one of the world’s foremost AIDS activists sing “Can You Feel the Love Tonight” for a gay-baiting provocateur who has trivialized AIDS and speculated that same-sex marriage could lead people to marry dogs? Sir Elton’s fee was reported to be a cool $1 million. Which goes to show that pop music and cash have the power to make even stranger bedfellows than politics.

June is America’s month for weddings, and were we so inclined, we could bemoan Limbaugh, an idol to the family-values crowd, for marrying a woman barely half his age. Alternatively, we could lament Al and Tipper Gore’s divorce, which has produced so many cries of shock you’d think they were the toy bride and groom atop a wedding cake rather than actual flesh-and-blood people capable of free will. But let’s refrain from such moralistic hand-wringing. The old truth remains: We never know what goes on in anyone else’s marriage, and it’s none of our business. Here’s a toast to happiness for the Gores and Limbaughs alike, wherever life takes them.

But there is a shadow over marriage in America just the same. The Gores and Limbaughs are free to marry, for better or for worse, and free to enjoy all the rights (and make all the mistakes) that marriage entails. Gay and lesbian couples are still fighting for those rights. That’s why the most significant marital event of June 2010 is the one taking place in San Francisco this Wednesday, when a Federal District Court judge is scheduled to hear the closing arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the landmark case challenging Proposition 8, California’s same-sex marriage ban. A verdict will soon follow, setting off an appeals process that is likely to land in the Supreme Court, possibly by the 2011-12 term.

When the former Bush v. Gore legal adversaries, Ted Olson and David Boies, teamed up to mount the assault on Prop 8, it was front-page news. But you may not know much about the trial that followed unless you made a point of finding out as it unfolded in January. Their efforts in this case, unlike the 2000 election battle, were denied the essential publicity oxygen of television. The judge had planned to post video of the proceedings daily on YouTube, but the Prop 8 forces won a 5-to-4 Supreme Court ruling to keep cameras out.

Their stated reason for opposing a television record was fear that their witnesses might be harassed. But in the end the Prop 8 defenders mustered only two witnesses, just one of them a controversial culture warrior. That “expert” was David Blankenhorn, president of the so-called Institute for American Values. Blankenhorn holds no degree in such seemingly relevant fields as psychology, psychiatry or sociology. But his pretrial research did include reading a specious treatise by George Rekers, the antigay evangelist now notorious for his recent 10-day European trip with a young male companion procured from Rentboy.com. And Blankenhorn’s testimony relies on the same sweeping generalization as Rekers — that children raised by two biological parents are so advantaged that all alternatives should be shunned.

What was the unqualified Blankenhorn doing at the Prop 8 trial? Like Rekers, who had a lucrative history of testifying for pay in legal cases attacking gay civil rights, he also profits from his propaganda. Public documents, including tax returns, reveal that Blankenhorn’s institute, financed by such right-wing stalwarts as the Bradley and Scaife foundations, paid him $247,500 in base salary in 2008, the most recent year for which data is available, and another $70,000 to his wife. Not a bad payday for a self-professed arbiter of American marital values who under oath described his sole peer-reviewed academic paper (from the University of Warwick) as “a study of two cabinetmakers’ unions in 19th-century Britain.” That the Prop 8 proponents employed him as their star witness suggests that no actual experts could be found (or rented) to match his disparagement of gay parents.

You can’t blame the Prop 8 advocates for wanting to keep Blankenhorn off camera. Boies demolished him during cross-examination. (Read the transcripts at equalrightsfoundation.org.) Another likely motive for opposing cameras at the trial was to shield viewers from the sympathetic gay plaintiffs — ordinary tax-paying Americans whose families, including four children, were often in the courtroom.

Gays are far from the only Americans still facing discrimination, but as Boies said when I interviewed him about the Prop 8 case last week, the ban on same-sex marriage “is the last area in which the state is taking an active role in enforcing discrimination.” And though some — including Elton John, of all people — have claimed that civil unions are tantamount to marriage and remedy marital inequality, that is a canard.

Domestic partnerships and equal economic benefits aren’t antidotes, Boies explains, because as long as gay Americans are denied the same right to marry as everyone else, they are branded as sub-citizens, less equal and less deserving than everyone else. That government-sanctioned stigma inevitably leaves them vulnerable to other slights and discrimination, both subtle and explicit. The damage is particularly acute for children, who must not only wonder why their parents are regarded as defective by the law but must also bear this scarlet letter of inferiority when among their peers.

Boies doesn’t dispute the consensus that the endgame in this case will most likely fall to Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court’s reigning swing justice. Kennedy wrote the eloquent majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, the ruling that finally ended the criminalization of gay sex in 2003. But where he may come down in Perry v. Schwarzenegger is anybody’s guess.

What fuels Boies’s hope for a just resolution is his faith in America itself. “This country is a culture of equality,” he says. “We’ve got that baked into our collective American soul.” He observes that attitudes continue to change fast on gay rights and that the approval rate for legalizing same-sex marriage — up to 47 percent in a Washington Post poll in February — is far higher than the approval was for interracial marriage (20 percent) even a year after the Supreme Court ruled it legal in 1967.

It’s not news that same-sex marriage is a settled issue for most young people. But the growing adult acceptance of unconventional family models can be found in the phenomenon of “Glee,” the prime-time hit on Rupert Murdoch’s Fox, no less, that unexpectedly became this year’s most watched new scripted series on television for the 18-to-49 demographic. “Glee” recounts the lives of students in a hypercompetitive show choir at an Ohio high school, and it’s addictive for many reasons that have nothing to do with sexual politics. But what’s exceptional is the way it mashes up different kinds of American families from week to week much as it mashes up musical genres ranging from vintage rock to hip-hop to Lady Gaga to show tunes in its performance sequences.

The leading teenage characters in “Glee” have single parents (both widowed), absentee parents and, in one case, two gay dads. The teenagers suffer, struggle and occasionally triumph like any others, but along the way we see how families reconfigured by death, divorce and sexual orientation can be as loving, nurturing and, yes, as dysfunctional as any other. The landscape is recognizable as the country we actually live in. Even if family-values zealots do retain the ability to prevent America from watching the Prop 8 trial, we’re lucky that the era when they could banish a show like “Glee” from network television seems to have passed.

Dramatically enough, “Glee” generated an unexpected real-life story last weekend to match its fictional plots. The Times’s Sunday wedding pages chronicled the Massachusetts same-sex marriage of Jane Lynch, the actress who steals the show as Sue Sylvester, the cheerleading coach who is the students’ comic nemesis. It’s a sunny article until you read that Lynch’s spouse, a clinical psychologist named Lara Embry, had to fight a legal battle to gain visitation rights with her 10-year-old adoptive daughter from a previous relationship. That battle, which Dr. Embry ultimately won, was required by Florida’s draconian laws against gay adoption — laws that were enacted during Anita Bryant’s homophobic crusades of the 1970s and more recently defended in court, for an expert witness fee of $120,000, by the Rev. Rekers of Rentboy.com renown.

We’ve come a long way in a short time, but as the Embry case exemplifies, glee for gay people in America still does not match “Glee” on Fox. Until the law catches up to the culture, the collective American soul should find even June’s wedding Champagne a bit flat.

Been Away for a While

2010-06-15T12:33:00.002-05:00

Not literally "away," but I stepped back from keeping the blog active for a while. "Busy with work" is only part of it... guess I needed to stop reading so many blogs and breathe for a while. It gets so frustrating reading all of these stories about politicians and community/business leaders acting only in their own interests. (I stopped blogging just before the BP oil spill, so you can only imagine the angina caused when reading of the actions of some BP executives!) The Palins, Limbaughs, Becks, O'Reillys, and their minions were wearing me down. And to be honest, our President has been lackluster as well. (I wasn't expecting a super hero, just a leader; seems what we got was someone following along where ever Congress wanted to go and jumping on the bandwagon at the last minute.)

Anyway, I'll try to pick this up again and see what happens.

Which states & cities have the largest penises?

2010-03-25T02:56:00.006-05:00

Q: Which states & cities have the biggest and smallest penises? And why in the world does Condomania know this???

A: That's a good question. New Orleans now has another reason to call itself "The Big Easy." The home of this year's Super Bowl champs has taken the top spot in Condomania's ranking of U.S. cities by penis size!

And the men of Washington D.C. apparently are more than just big talk, big egos, and big promises. The Beltway boys claimed a close second place for the biggest average penis size in the nation.

As for the "biggest" state in the Union? While New Hampshire may be one of the smallest states, it's not so small when it comes to penis size, topping Condomania’s state by state comparison.

America's first condom store, Condomania (Condomania.com), has just unlocked its huge database of penis sizes and released these unique rankings of the 50 states and the 20 most populated U.S. cities by average penis size. After 20 years in business, Condomania knows perhaps more than anyone else about the nation's penises.

So just how does Condomania know these intimate details? In 2004, the company launched TheyFit Condoms, the world's first line of tailored-fit prophylactics, in 76 sizes. Since then they have sold custom-fit condoms to over 27,000 men in 70 countries, and now have just begun to analyze this incredible cache of data.

"These fitted condoms range in length from 3 to 10 inches and from super slim to extra roomy." says Chris Filkins, Condomania’s Directory of Technology. "After gathering detailed information on over 27,000 penises, we now have the most comprehensive database of penis sizes on the planet! Needless to say, these men's privacy is our utmost concern, and we're interested only in the statistics, and not who's who! But the data itself is pretty interesting."

Previously, the largest formal survey of penis sizes was conducted in 1948 by the famous Kinsey researchers, when 2,500 men recorded their erect penis sizes on pre-stamped cards.

Condomania's ten-times larger database is compiled from the unique "FitKit" measuring system for TheyFit condoms, where the user measures the length and girth of his erect penis to the millimeter and then matches those results to one of 76 possible sizes that comprise different length and girth combinations. In this system, the 76 sizes are comprised of non-sequential letters and numbers, so that the smallest is no more obvious than the largest.

"Unlike other studies in which participants were measuring their penis size solely for the sake of recording a measurement, and were perhaps more likely to exaggerate," says Filkins, "our database is comprised of men looking for the best fit condom for safety and comfort, and thus, we believe, apt to be more accurate." Filkins continues, "The customer satisfaction surveys we received overwhelmingly indicated that men of all sizes, but particularly those on either end of the size spectrum, benefited immensely from a properly fitting condom."

Here are some highlights from Condomania's penis database:

•Top Ranking State by Average Penis Size: New Hampshire
•Lowest Ranking State by Average Penis Size: Wyoming
•Top Ranking U.S. City by Average Penis Size: New Orleans
•Second Highest Ranking City (just behind N.O.): Washington, D.C.
•Lowest Ranking City by Average Penis Size: Dallas/Ft. Worth
•Blue States vs Red States: Blue States' Average Penis Size is Bigger!
•Penises Come in a Wide Range of Sizes: The Smallest Penises are Less Than 3" in Length and the Largest Penises are Longer Than 10" in Length
•Penis Sizes Chart Almost a Perfect Bell Curve: 25% of the Male Population is Under 5" in Length, 50% are Between 5" and 6" in Length and 25% are Longer than 6" in Length

20 Cities Ordered by Penis Size
1.New Orleans
2.Washington DC
3.San Diego
4.New York City
5.Phoenix
6.Portland
7.Atlanta
8.San Francisco
9.Chicago
10.St. Louis
11.Seattle
12.Miami
13.Indianapolis
14.Columbus
15.Boston
16.Denver
17.Los Angeles
18.Detroit
19.Philadelphia
20.Dallas/Ft. Worth

50 States Ordered by Penis Size
1.New Hampshire
2.Oregon
3.New York
4.Indiana
5.Arizona
6.Hawaii
7.Louisiana
8.Massachusetts
9.Alabama
10.Washington
11.New Mexico
12.California
13.Arkansas
14.Nevada
15.Virginia
16.Tennessee
17.Illinois
18.Oklahoma
19.South Dakota
20.Georgia
21.Pennsylvania
22.Mississippi
23.Michigan
24.Florida
25.Rhode Island
26.Kansas
27.Maryland
28.Minnesota
29.Vermont
30.Connecticut
31.Wisconsin
32.New Jersey
33.North Dakota
34.Idaho
35.Texas
36.Missouri
37.Montana
38.Ohio
39.Nebraska
40.Colorado
41.Maine
42.North Carolina
43.Delaware
44.South Carolina
45.Kentucky
46.West Virginia
47.Alaska
48.Iowa
49.Utah
50.Wyoming

LSB: Taking a break from the insanity of the GOP reaction to the passage of HRC, and this gave me a chuckle. Not good news for those of us in the DFW area, though! :-(

Rush Limbaugh Vowed to Leave the U.S. if Healthcare Passed, Now Get Going

2010-03-22T22:17:00.002-05:00

From the Left: Back on March 8, Rush Limbaugh graciously promised to leave the U.S. and relocate to Costa Rica if healthcare reform passed.

Well, yesterday healthcare reform passed. It is time for him to keep his promise!

Remind him:

EM: ElRushbo@eibnet.com
Fax: 212-445-3963
Write: The Rush Limbaugh Show, 1270 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020

The Party of Anger

2010-03-22T22:10:00.002-05:00

Stephen Schlesinger, Author and Fellow at the Century Foundation, on HuffingtonPost.com: How far can a political party grow and prosper and lead on anger alone? This is the dilemma that faces the Republican Party today. But it is not apparently an issue anymore. That is the way its leadership has determined its fate for the coming years. For it will now be the party of anger.

Dana Milbank's piece in today's Washington Post reveals just how out of control its fury toward President Obama has really become.

First there are the insensate attacks on those who dare to disagree with the party's views led by the Republican Minority leader John Boehner in his final remarks last night assailing the health reform legislation. Then there are the Republicans who cheered on the hatred and ire of the Tea Bagger protesters encircling the capital from the balcony of the House of Representatives over the weekend. Then there are the Tea Baggers themselves who hurled racial and homophobic slurs at various Democratic Party legislators.

And what about the vitriol mouthed through the months without any Republican regrets by the right-wing radio hosts like Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and their cadres. All of this -- hatred, churlishness, pique, resentment, snarling, incivility -- has become the face of a political party which once reflected the sunny optimism of Ronald Reagan. Let me ask -- when was the last time a political party gained power in America on anger alone?

A Near-Death Experience, and On From Here

2010-03-22T22:05:00.002-05:00

Rep. Alan Grayson,(D-FL8) n HuffingtonPost.com: In 1968, a ten-year-old boy had to go to the hospital four times a week for treatment. Without that treatment, he had trouble breathing, and he felt like he was suffocating. Because he was suffocating.

His health care was covered by his parents' health insurance. But then they lost their jobs. They were worried about how they would pay the rent. He was worried about whether he would live or die.

How can we let a 10-year-old think about such things? Whether you are Democratic or Republican, left-wing or right-wing, liberal or libertarian, you know in your heart that that's wrong. And it's what you know in your heart, your empathy, that makes you human.

I was that 10-year-old boy. And I haven't forgotten.

That's why I support universal, comprehensive and affordable health care for all American. For you. For me. And for sure, for my five young children, and yours, too. The supposed "sins" of joblessness, homelessness and poverty, those "sins" of the parents, should never descend on the children.

I'm fighting for a decent life for all, especially our children. That's why I voted yes on Sunday's health care reform bill. It's an historic first step. Historic.

But we're not done. The framework for a comprehensive health care system is in place. Now we must finish the job.

Our Medicare You Can Buy Into Act now has over 80 cosponsors in the House and over 40,000 citizen co-sponsors at WeWantMedicare.com. It's a simple bill, to let you and me buy into Medicare. You want it, you buy it, you got it.

http://www.wewantmedicare.com/

Let's do it.

Putting Pressure on the Senate

2010-03-22T22:01:00.002-05:00

Rep. Anthony Weiner, Congressman from New York on HuffingtonPost.com: This is the beginning of the end.

After a year of debate, we finally passed the Senate health care bill - along with a package of important improvements - in the House of Representatives.

We made historic progress, but this fight isn't over. Now we must put pressure on the Senate to take up every single one of our improvements to their bill.

I know that, even with the fixes, this bill was not close to what many of us wanted. We didn't get a chance to include a public option, even though I still believe it could have carried a majority in the Senate.

But I also believe that we could not afford to pass up this opportunity. The current bill will ensure that 32 million people without health insurance gain coverage. It will save $1.2 trillion. It will end the worst insurance company abuses. And it will create jobs at a time when we desperately need them.

This was not the best bill that we could have passed, but I am proud of what we achieved in the face of a Republican opposition that relied on the worst kind of lies and millions of dollars of insurance industry money poured through the halls of Congress.

We made historic progress, but this fight isn't over. Now we must put pressure on the Senate to take up every single one of our improvements to their bill.

We know that Republicans and insurance companies will descend to the lowest levels of deliberate misinformation to block progress. Last night was a big defeat for the GOP obstruction machine, but we still have work to do, and I'm counting on you to help keep pressure on the Senate.

Click here to sign my petition to tell the Senate to line up the final bill with the House's version.

Former Bush speechwriter on GOP's health care debacle - at least Limbaugh will make a buck

2010-03-22T21:54:00.005-05:00

John Aravosis, AmericaBlog.com: David Frum is an influential conservative. This piece by him about the passage of health care reform in the House is a must-read that's flying around town:

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are
less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.

Health Reform Bill Summary: The Top 18 Immediate Effects

2010-03-22T21:33:00.006-05:00

Jeremy Binckes and Nick Wing, HuffingtonPost.com: After months of fierce debate in Washington and around the country and after an intense day of voting on Capitol Hill, the House of Representatives passed a health care reform bill and it's on its way to President Obama's desk.

Once Obama signs the bill into law, as he is expected to do on Tuesday, it will mean an end to the current health care system as we know it.

Pundits on the right and left have been reacting to passage of the legislation, but what does the bill actually mean for the average American?

The Huffington Post has compiled a list of the top 18 immediate effects of the health care bill as well as some that will take effect in the first year of implementation:

Health Insurers cannot deny children health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. A ban on the discrimination in adults will take effect in 2014.
Businesses with fewer than 50 employees will get tax credits covering up to 50% of employee premiums.
Seniors will get a rebate to fill the so-called "donut hole" in Medicare drug coverage, which severely limits prescription medication coverage expenditures over $2,700. As of next year, 50 percent of the donut hole will be filled.
The cut-off age for young adults to continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance rises to the age 27.
Lifetime caps on the amount of insurance an individual can have will be banned. Annual caps will be limited, and banned in 2014.
A temporary high-risk pool will be set up to cover adults with pre-existing conditions. Health care exchanges will eliminate the program in 2014.
New plans must cover checkups and other preventative care without co-pays. All plans will be affected by 2018.
Insurance companies can no longer cut someone when he or she gets sick.
Insurers must now reveal how much money is spent on overhead.
Any new plan must now implement an appeals process for coverage determinations and claims.
This tax will impose a ten percent tax on indoor tanning services. This tax, which replaced the proposed tax on cosmetic surgery, would be effective for services on or after July 1, 2010.
New screening procedures will be implemented to help eliminate health insurance fraud and waste.
Medicare payment protections will be extended to small rural hospitals and other health care facilities that have a small number of Medicare patients.
Non-profit Blue Cross organizations will be required to maintain a medical loss ratio -- money spent on procedures over money incoming -- of 85 percent or higher to take advantage of IRS tax benefits.
Chain restaurants will be required to provide a "nutrient content disclosure statement" alongside their items. Expect to see calories listed both on in-store and drive-through menus of fast-food restaurants sometime soon.
The bill establishes a temporary program for companies that provide early retiree health benefits for those ages 55‐64 in order to help reduce the often-expensive cost of that coverage.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services will set up a new Web site to make it easy for Americans in any state to seek out affordable health insurance options The site will also include helpful information for small businesses.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services will set up a new Web site to make it easy for Americans in any state to seek out affordable health insurance options The site will also include helpful information for small businesses.

Dan Choi on Kathy Griffin and HRC: 'I feel so betrayed by them.' // Cops refused him his phone call, lawyer, in jail

2010-03-22T21:24:00.004-05:00

John Aravosis, AmericaBlog.com: This guy is good!

When you walked into the courtroom after your night in jail, you were in uniform, handcuffed with a chain around your waist. You are a West Point graduate and Army lieutenant, how did you reach this point?

Being in chains, for me, matched what was in my heart the whole time I was serving and was closeted. Harriet Tubman once said she had freed 1,000 slaves but could have freed so many more if they only knew that they were slaves. People don't always know that they are in fetters. Even my feet were shackled so I could only take small steps forward. To me that symbolizes what it is to live under Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the only law that enforces shame. Those chains symbolized how my country is trying to restrict my movement, how we are only allowed incremental, tiny steps.
Why now? Because you get tired of talking. [Over the past two years] I've done 50 live interviews, a hundred other interviews, how much more talk am I expected to produce? When I heard Kathy Griffin was going to be a spokeswoman for Don't Ask, Don't Tell, I wondered about that. I have great respect for her as an advocate. But if [the Human Rights Campaign] thinks that having a rally at Freedom Plaza with a comedienne is the right approach, I have to wonder. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not a joking matter to me. To be at Freedom Plaza and not at the White House or Congress? Who are they trying to influence?
I felt like they were just trying to speak to themselves. If that's the best the lobbying groups and HRC can do, then I don't know how these powerful groups are supposed to represent our community. Kathy Griffin and [HRC president] Jay Solmonese said they would march with me to the White House but didn’t. I feel so betrayed by them.
We all know the political reality now. The only way for the repeal to go through is for the president to take leadership and put it in the Defense Authorization Bill. There's a sunset on this, and it's happening quickly. Obama told us at the HRC dinner last year, you need to put pressure on me. I was there at that dinner, in uniform. So this is my mission; the president said to pressure him and I heard that as a warning order.

Get this - they wouldn't give him his phone call, or let him call a lawyer:

I asked seven or eight times to speak with a lawyer. I was not given a phone call. I was called a liar by one officer; I was scoffed at by another one. But there were others who wanted to talk with me about their service. The first time I saw a lawyer was in the courtroom, and I didn't know who he was and I couldn't understand what he was telling the judge at first. I asked him, "Did you just plea for me?"

GOP Placed 'Wanted' Fliers On House Dem Seats, Warning About '94 Repeat

2010-03-22T21:15:00.005-05:00

Sam Stein, HuffingtonPost.com: House Democrats on Sunday were greeted with a particularly partisan, somewhat juvenile sight when they took their seats inside the chamber.

On several of their chairs were fliers warning them that if they happened to pass health care reform that night -- which they did -- it would result in a repeat of the 1994 midterm election, which became known as the Republican Revolution.

"IN 1993 THEY VOTED YES. A YOUNG PRESIDENT TOLD THEM 'DON'T WORRY, IT'LL BE OKAY,'" the flier read, substituting in bold red font for individual words. "34 INCUMBENTS DEFEATED, 54 SEATS LOST."

Pictured on the flier are the head shots of 25 of those members in a "wanted" style framing -- the margin of electoral defeat they suffered in '94 under their name.

A Democratic aide passed on the literature to the Huffington Post, relaying that Republicans had put them on some seats but "not all."

floorfile -

The Washington Post first reported on the fliers but did not obtain a copy.

The analogy that the GOP is trying to draw, of course, is imprecise. Democrats in 1993 didn't vote "yes" on a health care bill nor did a health care bill eventually pass under the Clinton administration.

In 1993, the tough vote facing Democrats was a budget bill to which Clinton had, indeed, staked much of his reputation. The legislation did, in the end, cost some lawmakers their seats. But at least one, upon reflection, expressed no regret. Writing in the Washington Post this past week, Rep. Marjorie Margolies urged her fellow party members to support health care legislation regardless the consequences. Margolies was lost re-election to her Pennsylvania House seat after one term.

"You will be assailed no matter how you vote this week," she wrote. "And this job isn't supposed to be easy. So cast the vote that you won't regret in 18 years."

Republican unveils bill to reinstate pre-existing conditions, remove kids from parents' plans, kill puppies, etc.

2010-03-22T21:06:00.003-05:00

Via AmericaBlog.com: Click here for the text of a bill Congressman King is introducing this week to repeal the health care bill that passed last night.

Congressman King’s statement on his bill is below:

“Today the work begins to repeal Obamacare and restore the principles of liberty that made America a great nation. The American people must take their country back by methodically eliminating every vestige of creeping socialism, including
socialized medicine. The Pelosi Democrats will pay a price for their overreach. This fight is far from over.”

Many are questioning Stupak right about now

2010-03-22T20:53:00.003-05:00

Via John Amato at Crooks & Liars:

TIME.com: Stupak caved
“It's really hard to interpret this as anything other than Stupak caving in order to end up on the side of supporting health reform. There's nothing wrong with that--Stupak has long been a supporter of reforming the health care system--but it's difficult to see why he dragged this out for months if he was going to settle for the Senate language in the end.”
Newsweek: Stupak did not get his original abortion restrictions
“Make no mistake, Stupak did not get the original abortion restrictions for which he had pushed."
Slate: Why did Stupak hold out for meaningless executive order?
“(E)ither because of blowback from pro-choicers* in Congress or because Stupak lost some leverage as the health reform bill acquired more votes, it was not. So a basically meaningless executive order was issued to help Stupak save face."
The New Republic: Executive order doesn’t change anything
“In fact, it's not clear that the executive order actually changes anything: The Senate bill wouldn't have allowed taxpayer funding of abortion anyway.”

My Congressman, Bart Stupak, Has Neither a Uterus Nor a Brain

2010-03-20T12:44:00.003-05:00

Michael Moore, HuffingtonPost.com: Friends,

I live in Michigan, in one of the 31 counties represented in the U.S. House of Representatives by none other than Mr. Bart Stupak, a Democrat. You've probably never heard of him. He's a pretty quiet guy, a former Michigan State Police trooper who boldly decided to run some 18 years ago as a Democrat in a rural part of Michigan that votes almost exclusively for Republicans (yes, I know -- what am I doing here? I'll save that story for a future letter).

His voting record is pretty conservative for a Democrat, but he's had a few shining moments. In the wake of the Columbine shootings, he voted for some gun control, a not-too-popular position to take here in northern Michigan. The NRA came after him with all they had in 2000.

But the good people of this area knew Bart's story and understood: He's been touched personally by gun violence. In a terrible tragedy, his teenage son, depressed and confused from the medication he'd been prescribed, killed himself with the family's .38 revolver. Despite the NRA's best efforts, Bart was returned to Congress by an overwhelming margin.

Yet, here we are, just days before a weak, simple-minded, but now ultimately necessary health care bill has a chance of making it through Congress -- and Bart Stupak is threatening to derail it because he wants to make sure that no woman who buys her own insurance with her own money is able to have a medically-insured abortion. We're not talkin' about federally-funded abortions -- those were stupidly outlawed long ago. Bart Stupak doesn't like that the Democrats' bill doesn't prohibit private insurance programs, set up for those whose employers don't provide it, from providing abortion coverage if they get any federal funding -- even to an individual woman paying without any government help. That's it.

A group representing most of America's 59,000 Catholic nuns has written to Congress and said that Obama's health care plan should be passed. Stupak, instead, has chosen to diss the nuns. Last night he went on TV and dug his heels in -- he said he intended to stop this health care bill and he didn't care what anyone had to say.

Now, it would be easy for some to just pass this attitude off on his Catholicism -- he believes what he believes and you have to respect him for that, even if you don't agree with him. But it's not that simple. It turns out that Stupak has been living in a subsidized room in the "C Street House," run by the infamous right-wing Christian cult "The Family." It was in this former convent that GOP Rep. Chip Pickering (according to his former wife) carried on the affair that ended his marriage. It's where South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford sought refuge as his marriage fell apart thanks to his affair. And then there's C Street roommate Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, who cheated on his wife with the wife of one of his top staffers. (The Justice Department is currently investigating whether Ensign committed a felony while paying off his aide to keep him quiet.)

C Street is where power, money, sex and religion meet. So am I led to believe that Bart Stupak lives in a brothel and belongs to a cult? He says he was just renting a room there. But that just doesn't ring true. Something stinks to the high heavens here, and Stupak sees no irony in taking his holier-than-thou position while living in a house that should be dubbed "Hypocrites' Hideaway."

If Stupak were truly pro-life then he'd vote for this bill. Right now, a mother in the U.S. has a ten times greater chance of dying in childbirth than a mother does in Ireland. If you really wanted to reduce abortions, you'd have to ask yourself this question: Why does godless France, where abortion is nearly free (it's covered by their universal health insurance), have 20% fewer abortions per capita than we do? What's even more amazing about that statistic is that you can't even get an abortion in America in 87% of our counties because there isn't one single doctor in those counties who will perform one! 87%!! The Right has scared them to death -- sometimes literally -- out of performing an otherwise legal, safe procedure. So, you can say women have "choice" in this country, but the reality is the "choice" doesn't exist in the majority of the nation. "Right to Life" has essentially won this battle. (My personal position: I don't get to have a position -- I don't have a uterus. If a Senate that was 90% female told me I couldn't have a vasectomy or made it a crime to leave the toilet seat up, I guess I might object.)

What is "life"? An egg is life, a sperm is life. Those sperm aren't running on a battery pack. They are living creatures, as is a fertilized egg. But they're not "human beings." A human being is something that can exist outside the womb of a mother. If you think a fertilized egg is a human being, then I respectfully ask you to go down to the DMV today and have them change your birthday on your driver's license to 9 months older than what you've been telling everybody.

So back to my question. Why do we have an abortion rate 20% higher than France's (and more than twice as high as Germany's), especially considering most doctors here won't perform them? The answer is any country that has universal health care, where contraception is free, where child care is free or inexpensive, where there is less poverty because people don't become bankrupt over medical bills -- those societies are simply going to have fewer unplanned and unwanted pregnancies.

And there the mask gets pulled off the Bart Stupaks and the "Christians." If the statistics show that countries with government-provided universal health care and nearly-free abortions are, in fact, the countries with the fewest abortions, then why on earth wouldn't the Right be the first in line to support universal health care?

Because it isn't about "universal health care." It's about controlling women, period. It's about sticking your nose in other people's business. It's about pushing your religious beliefs on everyone else because voices in your head tell you your Jesus is The One -- even though your Jesus never said one single solitary word in any of the four gospels of the Bible about abortion or fertilized eggs being human. You've just gone and made it up about "life beginning at conception." Jesus never said that. The little voice in your head said that, the same little voice that wants your grubby paws on women's uteruses. You need help. Please get some help and leave the rest of us alone, Mr. Stupak and friends.

After all, isn't it enough that women can't get an abortion in any of the 31 Michigan counties you represent in Congress? There is not one single abortion provider here in the north of the state, according to Planned Parenthood Mid and South Michigan. Hey, Bart -- you've already won! Women's rights have been stamped out in your entire Congressional district! Woo hoo!

So why don't you leave the rest of the country alone, step out of the way, and let them have the minimal health coverage this bill will give them? You wouldn't really crush the sick and infirm because of your own personal agenda, would you? What would Jesus do?

In the meantime, Bart, my neighbors and I are going to make sure a real Democrat runs against you in August's primary here. One of our religious beliefs in these parts is to never impose our religious beliefs on others.

Yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com

Cellphone Popcorn

2010-03-20T05:58:00.004-05:00

LSB: This CAN'T be good for our brains!

Gays often excluded from medical studies

2010-03-18T17:44:00.002-05:00

Marilynn Marchione, AP Medical Writer: A small but significant portion of medical studies exclude gays from participating, sometimes without an apparent scientific reason, several cancer researchers say.

In a letter in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine, three scientists from the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia cite several dozen studies requiring a participant to be "in a reciprocal relationship with a person of the opposite sex."

There are legitimate scientific reasons for excluding gays from certain studies. Scientists would want only heterosexuals if they were studying how HIV spreads during male-female sex, for example.

But the Fox Chase folks found cases where the reason for excluding gays is not clear: tests of a drug for attention-deficit disorder, a treatment for erection problems after prostate cancer surgery and studies on sexual function related to diabetes, depression and benign enlargement of the prostate as men age.

Brian Egleston, a biostatistician at Fox Chase, made the observation while overseeing enrollment of patients into clinical trials at the cancer center.

"When I first saw this, I thought it was a fluke. The second time, I thought I'd dig deeper," he said.

Egleston and Roland Dunbrack Jr., a biologist, and Dr. Michael J. Hall, a medical oncologist, did a spot check of a government database of thousands of studies and turned up more examples, most of them private-industry trials.

Researchers seeking federal money for their work must explain why a study excludes a group based on gender, race or ethnicity, but no explanation is needed for exclusion based on sexual orientation, Egleston said.

Exclusion can become self-perpetuating: Researchers designing a study often "cut and paste" participation criteria from earlier trials on a similar subject.

"It becomes the way it's done," and any bias gets repeated, Egleston said.

Estimates of how much of the U.S. population is gay or bisexual vary widely; some polls have put it around 4 percent.

LSB: What does my sexuality have to do with my diabetes? This kind of exclusion can't be good for any of us!

Initial report is that health care bill will cut deficit by $100 billion

2010-03-18T17:09:00.002-05:00

Joe Sudbay, AmericaBlog.com: We'll be hearing more about this as the day goes on, but the early report on the CBO numbers shows a decline in the deficit:

U.S. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said on Thursday that proposed final healthcare legislation would cut the U.S. deficit by more than $100 billion over the first 10 years.

Hoyer told reporters that the Congressional Budget Office said the sweeping healthcare overhaul would cut the deficit by more than $1 trillion over the subsequent decade. The CBO is expected to release its official estimate of the cost of the Democratic-written legislation on Thursday.

Pelosi Feels the Heat from Progressives for Failing to Insist on the Public Option

2010-03-17T17:49:00.003-05:00

From the Left: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who failed to demand a public option be included as part of any comprehensive healthcare reform bill, is under attack from progressive groups and organizations. They are mounting an aggressive campaign to resurrect it as Democratic lawmakers prepare to pass what’s left of President Obama’s final healthcare bill this week via a budgetary process known as reconciliation.

Democracy for America, Credo Action, and the Progressive Campaign Change Committee (PCCC) raised $75,000 for a 60-second spot that will air on MSNBC, CNN and a local station in Pelosi’s home district of San Francisco. The ad challenges false assertions she made last week that the public option does not have enough support from Democratic lawmakers in the Senate to be included as one of the amendments in the reconciliation bill.

On the website whipcongress.com, the groups calculated that the public option has enough votes to pass the Senate and list the names of Democratic senators who have either signed a letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid supporting the public option or, have made statements saying they would back it or would “likely” cast an “aye” vote if it were introduced as part of the final package of legislative fixes.

According to the letter sent to Reid, 41 Democratic senators have signed thus far, an “overwhelming majority of Americans support a public option.” Yet, aides to Pelosi have said it’s “highly” unlikely the measure will be considered during reconciliation.

Pelosi, it seems, is so desperate to get any healthcare reform bill passed and declare a victory before the November midterm election that she would prefer to pass a watered down healthcare bill that accomplishes little for the more than 48 million Americans who lack health insurance. This isn’t leadership: it’s capitulation.

Watch the Act Blue ad here:

Embattled Cardinal Asks Ireland to ‘Pray for Me’

2010-03-17T17:29:00.005-05:00

From the Left: During a homily on St. Patrick’s Day, Cardinal Sean Brady, the leader of the Catholic Church in Ireland apologized for his role in the cover-up of the country’s worst pedophile priest, saying he felt “ashamed.” He also asked the congregation to “pray for me.”

Cardinal Sean Brady didn’t ask for prayers for the victims of the pedophile priest. He asked people to pray for him. Isn’t this all-too typical of the selfish, Catholic hierarchy?

Brady admitted that when he was a priest and a teacher in 1975, he was present at two meetings where two children said they had been sexually abused by the Rev. Brendan Smyth. Shockingly, the children were required to sign oaths of secrecy. Brady did not report the abuse, he said, because he did not feel it was his responsibility.

LSB: Full disclosure - I'm not Catholic. Catholic or not, however, this type of double standard exists throughout organized religion. Joe.My.God. frequently includes This Week in Holy Crimes in his blog.

Catholic nuns endorse HCR in defiance of bishops' mandate

2010-03-17T17:23:00.002-05:00

karoli, Crooks and Liars: Wow. On Monday, Catholic Bishops released a letter opposing the Senate health care reform bill because it didn't contain the Stupak language. While they acknowledged differences with the Catholic Health Association, their message was clear: they were speaking as the official and authoritative voice of the Catholic Church.

This analysis of the flaws in the legislation is not completely shared by the leaders of the Catholic Health Association. They believe, moreover, that the defects that they do recognize can be corrected after the passage of the final bill. The bishops, however, judge that the flaws are so fundamental that they vitiate the good that the bill intends to promote. Assurances that the moral objections to the legislation can be met only after the bill is passed seem a little like asking us, in Midwestern parlance, to buy a pig in a poke.

In a clear break with the bishops, 60 leaders of religious orders representing 59,000 nuns have joined with the Catholic Health Association to support the Senate bill as written.

The letter says that "despite false claims to the contrary, the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions." The letter says the legislation also will help support pregnant women and "this is the real pro-life stance."

(Continue reading)

The NY Times discovers that GOP leader McConnell is an obstructionist

2010-03-17T10:31:00.005-05:00

Joe Sudbay, AmericaBlog.com: Today, the NY Times profiles Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and makes a startling discovery: McConnell is all about politics and obstructionism. Apparently, McConnell's strategy wasn't clear to the Times before today. But, now, there seems to be a better understanding of what McConnell is really all about:

Before the health care fight, before the economic stimulus package, before President Obama even took office, Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader, had a strategy for his party: use his extensive knowledge of Senate procedure to slow things down, take advantage of the difficulties Democrats would have in governing and deny Democrats any Republican support on big legislation.
Republicans embraced it. Democrats denounced it as rank obstructionism. Either way, it has led the two parties, as much as any other factor, to where they are right now. Republicans are monolithically against the health care legislation, leaving the president and his party executing parliamentary back flips to get it passed, conservatives revived, liberals wondering what happened.
In the process, Mr. McConnell, 68, a Kentuckian more at home plotting tactics in the cloakroom than writing legislation in a committee room or exhorting crowds on the campaign trail, has come to embody a kind of oppositional politics that critics say has left voters cynical about Washington, the Senate all but dysfunctional and the Republican Party without a positive agenda or message.
But in the short run at least, his approach has worked.

Worked for whom? Certainly not the American people or the political process. It's worked for McConnell's political agenda, nothing else.

So, for all the demands of bipartisanship from the GOP, it was never going to happen. That's not a surprise to most of us. The NY Times finally figured it out. It is amazing to watch tv reporters and read print accounts of what's going on up on Capitol Hill. Many of them do act as if the Republicans have a reasoned, rational basis for what they're doing. The traditional media types and pundits are always talking about bipartisanship as if it's some kind of holy grail, but ignore the fact that the GOPers have no interest in compromise.

These are dangerous and trying times. You'd like to think that our elected officials would rise to the occasion, especially those on the GOP side who led us to the brink. Instead, we get Mitch McConnell's strategy of obstructionism at any cost. For Republicans, this is "team ball."

This article should be must reading for people in Maine who think their Senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, are moderates. They're not. They on Mitch's team.

On the GOP's hypocrisy over process

2010-03-17T10:24:00.005-05:00

Joe Sudbay, AmericaBlog.com: Norm Ornstein, from the conservative American Enterprise Institute, destroys the GOP's latest round of lies over Congressional procedure:

In the last Congress that Republicans controlled, from 2005 to 2006, Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier used the self-executing rule more than 35 times, and was no stranger to the concept of “deem and pass.” That strategy, then decried by the House Democrats who are now using it, and now being called unconstitutional by WSJ editorialists, was defended by House Republicans in court (and upheld). Dreier used it for a $40 billion deficit reduction package so that his fellow GOPers could avoid an embarrassing vote on immigration. I don’t like self-executing rules by either party—I prefer the “regular order”—so I am not going to say this is a great idea by the Democrats. But even so—is there no shame anymore?

Of course, many in the traditional media (not just the GOP-owned media like FOX), buy the GOP's lies. Might be good if this Ornstein post got sent around MSNBC and CNN. They Republicans are hypocritically attacking over things they've done. Even Dana Bash should be able to grasp that.

Alan Grayson on Palin: 'The most intelligent leader that the Republican Party has produced since George W. Bush'

2010-03-17T10:12:00.002-05:00

Joe Sudbay, AmericaBlog.com: Last week, Sarah Palin went to Florida and made the mistake of attacking Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL). While Palin can get away with slinging abuse at many Democrats, Grayson isn't one of them. He shows how to respond to the GOP/Teabagging Superstar. There's only one way to do it. Unrelenting mocking:

In response to Palin's attack on Rep Grayson, Grayson actually complimented Palin. Grayson praised Palin for having a hand large enough to fit Grayson's entire name on it. He thanked Palin for alleviating the growing shortage of platitudes in Central Florida. Grayson added that Palin deserved credit for getting through the entire hour-long program without quitting. Grayson also said that Palin really had mastered Palin's imitation of Tina Fey imitating Palin. Grayson observed that Palin is the most-intelligent leader that the Republican Party has produced since George W. Bush.

When asked to comment about what effect Palin's criticism might have, Grayson pointed out, "As the Knave's horse says in Alice in Wonderland, 'dogs will believe anything.'" Earlier, as the Orlando Sentinel reported, Grayson said, "I'm sure Palin knows all about politics in Central Florida, since from her porch she can see Winter Park," which is part of Grayson's district.

Grayson said that the Alaskan chillbilly was welcome to return to Central Florida anytime, as long as she brings lots of money with her, and spends it. "I look forward to an honest debate with Governor Palin on the issues, in the unlikely event that she ever learns anything about them," Grayson added, alluding to Politifact's "liar, liar, pants on fire" evaluation of much of what Palin has said.

There's just so much material. And, Grayson isn't afraid to use it.

Senator: Don't fire me

2010-03-03T20:14:00.003-06:00

I need your help right now. I need you to pick up the phone and make a quick call to your Senators.

This morning, Sen. Joe Lieberman made history, introducing legislation to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -- the first bill ever introduced in the U.S. Senate to end this discriminatory policy. Sen. Carl Levin, the powerful Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand joined Sen. Lieberman in introducing this landmark legislation.

Sen. Lieberman's "Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010" closely mirrors a similar bill in the House of Representatives, championed by Rep. Patrick Murphy, that would repeal the law that prevents gay Americans from serving openly in the military.

Now we need to help Sen. Lieberman and Sen. Levin get the votes in the Senate that will repeal DADT once and for all.

My job -- my life -- is on the line. And so are the lives of more than 65,000 gay men and women currently serving in our nation's military. That's why I need your help. And it's why the Courage Campaign is teaming up with the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network and Knights Out to get this message to you.

It's very important that we act today -- thousands of us across America. Can you make a quick call right now urging your Senators to co-sponsor the Lieberman/Levin bill? It will take just a minute of your time, but your call will mean the world to me and so many of my fellow soldiers:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/OneQuickCall

Make no mistake: Congress needs to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" this year -- before the November elections. Right now, we're fighting on two fronts to repeal DADT in 2010:

1) Include repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the defense budget authorization bill, or

2) Pass the "Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010" in the Senate and House of Representatives

With the Lieberman/Levin landmark legislation being introduced today, the most important thing you can do right now is help us build momentum behind it. The more senators who sign on as co-sponsors, the more likely we can repeal DADT in 2010 -- on one front or the other.

Can you make a quick call urging your Senators to sign on as a co-sponsor to Sen. Lieberman's new bill? Click here to get the phone number and check out our really short script, if you need it:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/OneQuickCall

Again, thank you for your support today. One small action at a time, we will finally get rid of this discriminatory and immoral law.

Daniel W. Choi
1LT, IN
New York Army National Guard

P.S. A few weeks ago, I joined Sen. Gillibrand and more than 900 people who signed up for a "Courage Campaign Conversation" conference call to discuss the repeal of DADT. If you would like to listen to this special hour-long discussion, just click here:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/ChoiGillibrandCall

The Courage Campaign is a multi-issue online organizing network that empowers more than 700,000 grassroots and netroots supporters to push for progressive change and full equality in California and across the country.

In high risk gamble, HRC promises DADT will be repealed this year, and disagrees with WH spokesman - says repeal must happen before Nov. elections

2010-02-28T15:53:00.002-06:00

John Aravosis, AmerciaBlog Gay: Pam Spaulding reports that America's largest gay civil rights group last night laid down a clear benchmark for the Obama administration, Congress, the Democratic party and itself. Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese promised an audience of his organization's donors and members that Don't Ask Don't Tell will be repealed this year.

Speaking at HRC's North Carolina fundraising dinner, Solmonese committed, categorically, to repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell this year:

And finally, finally this year we are going to bring down the discriminatory policy known as 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'...once and for all.

Just as interesting, Solmonese now agrees with the analysis of the gay Netroots, that the November elections could kill our chances for repealing DADT, or enacting any other pro-gay legislation. Thus, DADT repeal, and any other pro-gay legislation, must happen before the elections this fall.

I also get that there is a drumbeat coming from our community to put more pressure on, to make more demands of the President and members of Congress to get it done this year because who knows what's going to happen at the mid-term elections and frankly they are right and our time is now.

This is rather significant what happened last night, for a number of reasons.

1. Solmonese laid down the gauntlet before the Obama administration and Congress. He has now said that this year we WILL get DADT repeal (and also federal employee domestic partner benefits, the domestic partner tax, and an expansion of HIV/AIDS treatment to those on public assistance). That puts the White House, Congress and HRC in a bind.

Currently, no one other than HRC thinks the DADT repeal effort is going well. In fact, both Barney Frank and Armed Services chair Levin, Nathaniel Frank of the Palm Center, and SLDN expressed their concerns about the administration and DADT repeal only a week or so ago. Additionally, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs refused to simply say that the administration wants DADT repealed this year when directly asked, twice, by reporter Kerry Eleveld in the past two weeks. And finally, Chairman Levin has repeated said over the past few days that he may push for a moratorium on discharges, rather than full repeal, this year, because he's not sure if he has the votes (votes that he can only get if the White House commits to full repeal this year, and actually does something to lobby members of Congress to GET their votes). None of that bodes well for repeal this year.

So in sum, HRC, at a fundraising dinner, told current and future donors of their organization that if you support HRC, you will have DADT repealed this year. If DADT is not repealed this year, that will mean that Solmonese either lied, or that HRC is no longer an effective force in Washington politics. Either way, Solmonese just gave us all a clear benchmark for judging whether HRC is worthy of your continued donations. By October we'll have our answer.

2. Just as significant was when Solmonese contradicted White House spokesman Robert Gibb. Gibb was asked by Kerry Eleveld, during the same conversation in which he refused to say that the President would like to see repeal this year, whether the uncertainty of the 2010 congressional elections didn't make it all the more important that we pass DADT repeal this year. Gibbs said no.

There is increasing concern that Democrats may lose the House to the Republicans in the fall. In fact, veteran election analyst Charlie Cook said he can't envisage a way in which Democrats hold the House. I've also heard Democratic strategists worrying that we may lose the Senate as well. If we lose the House or Senate, there won't be a single pro-gay piece of legislation passed for years to come. Remember, the last time we lost the Congress it took 14 years to get it back. And even then, we'd need a pro-gay president to sign whatever pro-gay laws Congress were to pass. (And, as we learned over the past year, even having large Democratic majorities in the Congress and a "pro-gay" president doesn't guarantee that any of their top promises will be kept.)

But even if the Dems retain their majority in Congress, everyone still expects Democrats to lose seats in the House and Senate. Consider how difficult it is to get anything pro-gay out of Congress now, with large Democratic majorities in each body, and how difficult it is to get the White House to do anything other than speak kind words about repealing DADT and DOMA, and passing ENDA. Now ask yourself, will the President and Congress be better or worse advocates for our civil rights if they get thumped in the next election?

What Solmonese did last night was confirm that if we don't get DADT repealed this year, we may not see any pro-gay legislation for years to come. If HRC can't get the President to actually commit to repealing DADT this year (the White House has outright refused) - and that means the President including DADT repeal in the DOD budget transmittal's sent to the Armed Services committees over the next few months, and actually lobbying individual members of Congress to get us the votes we need - and if HRC can't get Chairman Levin to push for full repeal in the DOD authorization bill, and can't get Jim Webb and other Dems on the committee to vote for the repeal this year, then we likely won't get another chance for years to come. That wasn't what we were promised.

If HRC, the White House, the Congress, and the Democratic party are going to prove to gay and lesbian Americans, and our friends and allies, that their promises in exchange for our votes and donations mean anything, they are going to have to get DADT repealed this year.

I'm surprised that HRC would make such a clear-cut promise - with such a firm deadline, and such a clear-cut statement that if it doesn't happen this year, it may not happen for a long time. I give HRC credit for putting its reputation, and its organization's future, on the line by promising that DADT will be repealed this year. Come October, we'll know if HRC, and the Democrats, still matter to our community.

3. What happened to ENDA and DOMA? Nowhere to be found on HRC's list.

If Judge Walker Lets Prop 8 Stand, Is He a Gay Traitor?

2010-02-14T11:14:00.004-06:00

Queerty: As we await the ruling of Judge Vaughn Walker in the Prop 8 trial, we're being treated to sample attacks by conservative extremists, who will be ready to pounce on the judge if he knocks down the voter-approved law as unconstitutional. But lost in this debate is the other side of the coin toss: What happens if Walker, an openly gay judge, lets Prop 8 stand?

The immediate aftermath: utter disappointment from the gay community, Gay Inc. struggling to find its footing (and someone to blame), Ted Olson and David Boies wondering what went wrong, and blogs like this one pointing fingers, because that's what we do.

But Walker's sexuality will, without question, be part of that debate in the second phase of the news cycle. And if he rules against the plaintiffs in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, it won't be the zealots supporting Prop 8 whom attack him, but the gay community going after one of their own.

As Walker's gayness was confirmed (anonymously! through the media! reluctantly!), both supporters and opponents of Prop 8 took turns analyzing what it would mean come decision time.

On the far right, it meant pointing to Walker's alleged courtroom activism; striking down Prop 8 would only represent yet another "legislating from the bench" move in favor of a demographic he's a part of. But gay marriage supporters also worried aloud whether there could be a measure of "overcompensating," where in the interest of appearing fair, Walker would ultimately uphold Prop 8 because it's something voters decided. Throw in Walker's history of arguing against gay causes (see: Gay Olympics), and there's really no way to nail down how his sexuality will play a role in his decision.

Except that it almost certainly will not. At least not the way the peanut gallery thinks.

The same way Sonia "Wise Latina" Sotomayor, as a woman of color who grew up in a less-than-middle-class environment, is arguably better equipped to understand the everyday concerns of the populous her decisions will affect, so too can Walker, as a sixty-something gay man who grew up with anti-gay discrimination first-hand, know that a laws like Prop 8 actually do affect Americans in ways no voting bloc, court, or elected official should ever support. Such personal experience and awareness does not make him biased; it makes him competent.

We've already shot down arguments using Walker's sexuality as a chip should he rule against Prop 8. That same reasoning stands if he supports it: Walker is no more qualified to rule on Prop 8 as a homosexual or a heterosexual.

But should he decide to uphold Prop 8, it won't be that Walker is a traitor to gay Americans. It's that he is a traitor to the promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Silly Arguments For Keeping DADT, from the Remaining 25% of Americans

2010-02-14T11:07:00.001-06:00

Ex-Marine Accused of Murder Running for Congress in N.C.

2010-02-14T10:41:00.004-06:00

From the Left: A former Marine once charged with murder in the deaths of two Iraqis is running for Congress as a Republican in North Carolina.

Ilario Pantano announced his candidacy [January 28th] in Wilmington. He is seeking the Republican nomination. The 35-year-old Pantano will challenge Democratic Rep. Mike McIntyre for North Carolina’s Seventh Congressional District.

Pantano shot two men in Mahmudiyah, Iraq, in 2004 and hung a warning sign on their corpses. A Marine general decided in 2005 not to bring Pantano to trial, following the advice of an officer who presided over the military equivalent of a grand jury hearing.

Please North Carolina, don’t elect his man to the Congress.

LSB: To be fair, he was never charged with murder. War is hell, and until we've walked in his shoes I won't be passing judgment. However, this bears closer scrutiny and I will be watching to see what further information comes out about this incident.

Dick Cheney Supports 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Repeal

2010-02-14T10:13:00.009-06:00

Sam Stein, HuffingtonPost.com: Former Vice President Dick Cheney expressed support on Sunday for the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, saying that the climate has changed "significantly" since his tenure as Secretary of Defense.

Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Cheney said that on matters of military personnel he took his cues from the brass. Now that they felt the time was right to revise the policy that prevented gays from serving openly, he too was comfortable with a change.

"Twenty years ago, the military were strong advocates of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' when I was Secretary of Defense," Cheney said. "I think things have changed significantly since then. I see that Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has indicated his belief that we ought to support a change in the policy. So I think -- my guess is the policy will be changed.

"I think the society has moved on," he added. "I think it's partly a generational question. I say, I'm reluctant to second-guess the military in this regard, because they're the ones that have got to make the judgment about how these policies affect the military capability of our -- of our units. And that first requirement that you have to look at all the time is whether or not they're still capable of achieving their mission, and does the policy change, i.e., putting gays in the force, affect their ability to perform their mission? When the chiefs come forward and say, 'We think we can do it,' then it strikes me that it's -- it's time to reconsider the policy. And I think Admiral Mullen said that."

In coming out in support of a repeal of DADT, Cheney puts himself at odds with many in his own party, including Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) who once said he would follow the military's lead on the matter only to reverse course several weeks ago.

But it is not all that rare for the former vice president to strike a relatively progressive posture on gay rights issues. Cheney has spoken out in favor of gay marriage, provided that it is sanctioned by the state and not federal government.

Cheney spent much of his sit-down with ABC on Sunday taking broad swipes at President Obama, attacking the current White House occupant for, above all, abandoning a homeland security doctrine that he helped put in place. But there was one other issue, in addition to a DADT repeal, on which Cheney found agreement with the current president: a troop surge in Afghanistan.

"I'm a complete supporter of what they're doing in Afghanistan," Cheney said. "I think the president made the right decision to send troops into Afghanistan. I thought it took him a while to get there.

"Having Stan McChrystal now in charge in Afghanistan I think is an excellent choice," he added. "General McChrystal's one of the most able officers I know. I'm glad they're doing what they're doing in Afghanistan. I'm not a critic of what they're doing, in terms of how they're dealing with that situation."

LSB: Fuck - hell must have frozen over this week! I guess I'll have to give the Prince of Assholery a pass today, because you know the Religious Right is gonna tear him a new one. However, I am gonna give VP Biden a chance to say his piece about the former VP.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

"Gay" Poem Shakes Up The Utah State Legislature

2010-02-14T09:34:00.005-06:00

John Lundberg, HuffingtonPost.com: Utah's House of Representatives usually begins the day with a morning prayer, but this past Wednesday, state representative Christine Johnson decided instead to read an inspirational poem.

That's all well and proper, except that the poem, entitled "Say Yes," was written by a gay and self-described activist poet named Andrea Gibson [shown at left]. Add on the fact that Johnson herself is gay (and, well, that you're in Utah) and you've got a full-on kerfuffle.

Local news jumped the story, expressing surprise that the "gayness" of the poem wasn't immediately clear to the state's conservative legislators, reporting that "the Utah House of Representatives was gay and didn't even know it," and "few if any of the other legislators realized their chamber had gone gay."

Well, the poem's supposed gayness probably went unnoticed because the poem's message isn't gay at all, nor does it contain any gay symbolism. "Say Yes" strikes notes of hope, peace and altruism--themes that aren't antithetical to the Mormon faith. The most radical aspect of Johnson's reading was probably that she subjected the legislature to the rhythms of spoken word poetry.

Johnson said that while she respects the opinions of her conservative colleagues, she wanted to offer them "something different." She only censored the poem a bit, cutting the line "for the radical anarchist asking the Republican to dance." Johnson, hardly a radical anarchist, was only asking that they listen. And--if only because they did not know what they were listening to--they did. Click here to watch Gibson passionately perform a version of the poem.

Say Yes

when two violins are placed in a room 
if a chord on one violin is struck 
the other violin will sound the note 
if this is your definition of hope 
this is for you 
the ones who know how powerful we are 
who know we can sound the music in the people around us 
simply by playing our own strings 
for the ones who sing life into broken wings 
open their chests and offer their breath 
as wind on a still day when nothing seems to be moving 
spare those intent on proving god is dead 
for you when your fingers are red 
from clutching your heart 
so it will beat faster 
for the time you mastered the art of giving yourself for the sake of someone else 
for the ones who have felt what it is to crush the lies 
and lift truth so high the steeples bow to the sky 
this is for you 
this is also for the people who wake early to watch flowers bloom 
who notice the moon at noon on a day when the world 
has slapped them in the face with its lack of light 
for the mothers who feed their children first 
and thirst for nothing when they're full

this is for women and for the men who taught me only women bleed with the moon 
but there are men who cry when women bleed 
men who bleed from women's wounds 
and this is for that moon 
on the nights she seems hung by a noose 
for the people who cut her loose 
and for the people still waiting for the rope to burn
about to learn they have scissors in their hands

this is for the man who showed me 
the hardest thing about having nothing 
is having nothing to give 
who said the only reason to live is to give ourselves away 
so this is for the day we'll quit or jobs and work for something real 
we'll feel for sunshine in the shadows
look for sunrays in the shade 
this is for the people who rattle the cage that slave wage built 
and for the ones who didn't know the filth until tonight 
but right now are beginning songs that sound something like
people turning their porch lights on and calling the homeless back home

this is for all the shit we own 
and for the day we'll learn how much we have 
when we learn to give that shit away 
this is for doubt becoming faith 
for falling from grace and climbing back up 
for trading our silver platters for something that matters
like the gold that shines from our hands when we hold each other

this is for the grandmother who walked a thousand miles on broken glass
to find that single patch of grass to plant a family tree 
where the fruit would grow to laugh 
for the ones who know the math of war 
has always been subtraction 
so they live like an action of addition 
for you when you give like every star is wishing on you 
and for the people still wishing on stars 
this is for you too

this is for the times you went through hell so someone else wouldn't have to 
for the time you taught a 14 year old girl she was powerful 
this is for the time you taught a 14 year old boy he was beautiful 
for the radical anarchist asking a republican to dance 
cause what's the chance of everyone moving from right to left 
if the only moves they see are NBC and CBS
this is for the no becoming yes 
for scars becoming breath 
for saying i love you to people who will never say it to us 
for scraping away the rust and remembering how to shine 
for the dime you gave away when you didn't have a penny 
for the many beautiful things we do 
for every song we've ever sung 
for refusing to believe in miracles 
because miracles are the impossible coming true
and everything is possible

this is for the possibility that guides us 
and for the possibilities still waiting to sing 
and spread their wings inside us 
cause tonight saturn is on his knees 
proposing with all of his ten thousand rings 
that whatever song we've been singing we sing even more
the world needs us right now more than it ever has before 
pull all your strings play every chord 
if you're writing letters to the prisoners 
start tearing down the bars 
if you're handing our flashlights in the dark 
start handing our stars 
never go a second hushing the percussion of your heart 
play loud 
play like you know the clouds have left too many people cold and broken 
and you're their last chance for sun 
play like there's no time for hoping brighter days will come 
play like the apocalypse is only 4...3...2 
but you have a drum in your chest that could save us 
you have a song like a breath that could raise usl
ike the sunrise into a dark sky that cries to be blue
play like you know we won't survive if you don't
but we will if you do
play like saturn is on his knees
proposing with all of his ten thousand rings
that we give every single breaththis is for saying-yes

this is for saying-yes

Openly Gay Providence Mayor to Run for Kennedy House Seat

2010-02-14T09:19:00.001-06:00

TowleRoad.com: Providence Mayor David Cicilline announced today he's running for the House seat being vacated by Patrick Kennedy:

"Cicilline became the second Democrat on Saturday to declare his candidacy for the seat, just two days after Kennedy's unexpected announcement that he would not seek relection. Cicilline's announcement, at a hastily called news conference held at the site of swine-flu vaccination clinic, came just hours after William Lynch, chairman of the state Democratic party, said he will seek the seat. Cicilline, 49, the state's first openly gay mayor, said he would not step down as Providence's mayor during his run for Congress. He has held the job for eight years."

Scott Brown and Do-Nothing Senate Will Cause 900,000 More to Lose Jobs

2010-02-14T09:06:00.003-06:00

emptywheel: Count me among those who are grateful that Harry Reid scaled back the Senate jobs bill instead of letting MaxTax Baucus and Chuck Grassley [shown at right] use it to push through another estate tax break for Paris Hilton. That said, what he is pushing is another poorly-designed tax break that will do little to support jobs. More importantly, it offers no relief for states, trying to keep teachers and cops and firemen on the job. And that means as many as 900,000 people will lose their jobs because the Senate is unwilling or unable to do what the House has already done. (h/t Calculated Risk)

Federal aid to the states was among the top priorities in an early Senate job creation bill, as well as in a $154 billion measure passed by the House in December. But it has fallen off the list as Senate Democrats look to craft legislation that will attract bipartisan support.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., on Thursday unveiled a jobs bill that does not contain state aid. A Senate Democratic aide said Reid hopes to back a state aid measure in the future. Republican support, however, remains questionable.
[snip]
States are looking at a total budget gap of $180 billion for fiscal 2011, which for most of them begins July 1. These cuts could lead to a loss of 900,000 jobs, according to Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Economy.com.

The article goes on to describe CA’s well-publicized woes. But it also notes that Senator Scott Brown’s state of Massachusetts may have to dramatically cut back because it is not getting $600 million in federal Medicaid funds they were counting on.
Just so long as we make it clear that Scott Brown bears a great deal of responsibility for holding that money up.

New poll finds more Americans in favor of eliminating the filibuster.

2010-02-13T20:23:00.005-06:00

ThinkProgress.org: One of the greatest obstacles to passing progressive legislation in Congress has been the use of the filibuster in the Senate. With upwards of “40 cloture votes since the start of the 111th Congress in January, this Senate is on pace to record the second-largest number of filibuster roll calls,” transforming what was intended to be a seldom-used procedural tactic into an all-out tool for obstructionism. Now, a new CBS/New York Times poll finds that more Americans support ending the filibuster and requiring legislation to pass by a simple majority:

As you may know, the Senate operates under procedures that effectively require 60 votes, out of 100, for most legislation to pass, allowing a minority of as few as 41 senators to block a majority. Do you think this procedure should remain in place, or do you think it should be changed so that legislation is passed with a simple majority?

Should remain 44
Should be changed 50
[Don't Know] 6

Changing the filibuster would not be without precedent. In 1975, the filibuster threshold was lowered from 67 to 60. Sens. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) have introduced legislation that would “change Senate procedure to create a four-step process that would eventually allow a majority of 51 votes, rather than 60, for cloture — ending debate and moving to a final vote on passage of a bill.” Yet Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has “dismissed the effort” as unlikely to succeed. OpenLeft’s Chris Bowers has an ongoing whip count for the effort to pass Harkin’s reforms here.

Taking Names on GOP Hypocrisy

2010-02-13T20:06:00.000-06:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Shameless Cheney Ignores Own Record to Cast Stones

2010-02-13T19:55:00.001-06:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Bush Supporters Continue to Rewrite History

2010-02-13T19:50:00.000-06:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Insurance rates soar in 4+ states

2010-02-13T12:03:00.006-06:00

John Aravosis (DC), AmericaBlog.com: It's not just four states. These bastards are doing it nationwide. In DC, my CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield rates went up "only" 15% this year. Previous years were, I believe, in the 20% to 25% range per year.

Anthem Blue Cross, a subsidiary of WellPoint Inc., has been under fire for a week from regulators and politicians for notifying some of its 800,000 individual policyholders in California that it plans to raise rates by up to 39 percent March 1.
The Anthem Blue Cross plan in Maine is asking for increases of about 23 percent this year for some individual policyholders. Last year, they raised rates up to 32 percent.
Kansas had one recent case where one insurer wanting to raise most individual rates 20 percent to 30 percent was persuaded by state insurance officials to reduce the increases to 10 percent to 20 percent. The insurance department would not identify the company but said it was not Anthem.
And in Oregon, multiple insurers were granted rate hikes of 15 percent or more this year after increases of around 25 percent last year for customers who purchase individual health insurance, rather than getting it through their employer.

So, here's a problem I have with the excuse the insurance companies gave for raising rates on the individual market:

Premiums are far more volatile for individual policies than for those bought by employers and other large groups, which have bargaining clout and a sizable pool of people among which to spread risk. As more people have lost jobs, many who are healthy have decided to go without health insurance or get a bare-bones, high-deductible policy, reducing the amount of premiums insurers receive.

Yeah right. Insurance company X insures, say, 10,000 people working for Microsoft in Washington state. But, they argue, that if I work for myself in Washington state, they have to charge me a lot more money than they charge Microsoft employees because my "pool" of individual policyholders is more costly and risky than the Microsoft employees.

That's an utter bunch of crap. If they insure me in Washington state as a self-employed individual, they're not taking a massive risk that I might end up being Typhoid Mary when there's no large group to spread the risk around. There is a large group. It's called every single other person that insurance company is already covering in that state and or nationwide (if there's a parent company). All those Microsoft employees are already helping you spread the risk of having me on board. And the past ten years of BCBS insurance, when I wasn't having problems with my eyes, I helped BCBS cover other people both in the individual market and in the large group market. Money is fungible, and for Blue Cross and all the rest to pretend that their profits in one venture don't permit them to suffer potential losses, or lower profits, in another venture, is utter bs. There's no excuse for them charging different rates for essentially the same coverage.

Yet another reason I can't believe the White House and Congress blew it this past year on this issue. How hard can it be to demonize demons?

Bill Gates' TED Speech 2010: 'We Need Energy Miracles'

2010-02-13T11:49:00.003-06:00

HuffingtonPost.com: Microsoft founder Bill Gates took on climate change during his TED speech Friday. He told those gathered at the conference that "What we're going to have to do at a global scale is create a new system... So we need energy miracles."

To cut CO2 emissions to zero and stop climate change -- a problem that he said is bigger than creating new vaccines -- Gates urged researchers to find clean sources of energy. CNN reports:

Gates said the deadline for the world to cut all of its carbon emissions is 2050. He suggested that researchers spend the next 20 years inventing and perfecting clean-energy technologies, and then the next 20 years implementing them.

The world's energy portfolio should not include coal or natural gas, he said, and must include carbon capture and storage technology as well as nuclear, wind and both solar photovoltaics and solar thermal power.

According to CNN, Gates spent a large portion of his speech endorsing technology that could turn spent uranium fuel rods into clean energy. Gates told the audience that the technology could power the world indefinitely, and that the U.S. could be powered for 100 years using the spent fuel rods already in its possession.

Gates told the audience that climate change will cause poverty and famine that will disproportionately affect the world's poorest people.

Australia's Gizmodo reports that Gates used a jar of fireflies as an onstage prop to talk about clean energy. At his TED speech in 2009, Gates unleashed mosquitoes on his audience.

McCain Faces Toughest Re-Election Challenge

2010-02-13T11:42:00.006-06:00

JONATHAN J. COOPER, Associated Press: Defeated just two years ago as the Republican presidential candidate and with his bonafides as a true conservative again being challenged, John McCain finds himself in a struggle to get even his party's nomination for another term in the Senate.

Many conservatives and Tea Party activists are lining up behind Republican challenger and former talk radio host J.D. Hayworth, reflecting a rising tide of voter frustration with incumbent politicians. Only 40 percent of Arizonans have a favorable view of McCain's job performance.

Faced with his toughest re-election battle ever, McCain has moved to the right on several hot-button issues, like gays in the military and climate change, and has built a campaign war chest of more than $5 million. Former running mate Sarah Palin and newly elected Republican Sen. Scott Brown, both popular with conservatives, are pitching in.

Hayworth, who will officially launch his campaign Monday, began using his talk show on conservative radio station KFYI to drum up opposition to McCain.

"You have a consistent conservative challenger and an incumbent who calls himself a maverick but in fact is a moderate," Hayworth said, outlining what he views as the central choice for conservative GOP primary voters in August.

McCain is launching his own statewide tour, complete with visits next month from Palin and Brown, who already has recorded calls asking Republicans to support McCain.

The four-term senator and his allies also are taking aim at Hayworth. In December, they filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission arguing that the talk show host was a de facto candidate and his radio station was providing a corporate gift by allowing him to campaign on the air. And they're attacking Hayworth's 12-year record as a congressman representing the eastern suburbs of Phoenix.

"When Arizona voters are reminded of Mr. Hayworth's long record in Washington of liberal spending and questionable ethics, he will be defeated again just as he was in 2006," said McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers.

Democrat Harry Mitchell defeated Hayworth four years ago, winning the GOP-dominated district amid a rough national climate for Republicans and questions about Hayworth's dealings with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. (More)

Republicans and Medicare

2010-02-13T11:36:00.003-06:00

PAUL KRUGMAN, NYTimes Editorial Columnist: “Don’t cut Medicare. The reform bills passed by the House and Senate cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. This is wrong.” So declared Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, in a recent op-ed article written with John Goodman, the president of the National Center for Policy Analysis.

And irony died.

Now, Mr. Gingrich was just repeating the current party line. Furious denunciations of any effort to seek cost savings in Medicare — death panels! — have been central to Republican efforts to demonize health reform. What’s amazing, however, is that they’re getting away with it.

Why is this amazing? It’s not just the fact that Republicans are now posing as staunch defenders of a program they have hated ever since the days when Ronald Reagan warned that Medicare would destroy America’s freedom. Nor is it even the fact that, as House speaker, Mr. Gingrich personally tried to ram through deep cuts in Medicare — and, in 1995, went so far as to shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those cuts.

After all, you could explain this about-face by supposing that Republicans have had a change of heart, that they have finally realized just how much good Medicare does. And if you believe that, I’ve got some mortgage-backed securities you might want to buy.

No, what’s truly mind-boggling is this: Even as Republicans denounce modest proposals to rein in Medicare’s rising costs, they are, themselves, seeking to dismantle the whole program. And the process of dismantling would begin with spending cuts of about $650 billion over the next decade. Math is hard, but I do believe that’s more than the roughly $400 billion (not $500 billion) in Medicare savings projected for the Democratic health bills.

What I’m talking about here is the “Roadmap for America’s Future,” the budget plan recently released by Representative Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican member of the House Budget Committee. Other leading Republicans have been bobbing and weaving on the official status of this proposal, but it’s pretty clear that Mr. Ryan’s vision does, in fact, represent what the G.O.P. would try to do if it returns to power.

The broad picture that emerges from the “roadmap” is of an economic agenda that hasn’t changed one iota in response to the economic failures of the Bush years. In particular, Mr. Ryan offers a plan for Social Security privatization that is basically identical to the Bush proposals of five years ago.

But what’s really worth noting, given the way the G.O.P. has campaigned against health care reform, is what Mr. Ryan proposes doing with and to Medicare.

In the Ryan proposal, nobody currently under the age of 55 would be covered by Medicare as it now exists. Instead, people would receive vouchers and be told to buy their own insurance. And even this new, privatized version of Medicare would erode over time because the value of these vouchers would almost surely lag ever further behind the actual cost of health insurance. By the time Americans now in their 20s or 30s reached the age of eligibility, there wouldn’t be much of a Medicare program left.

But what about those who already are covered by Medicare, or will enter the program over the next decade? You’re safe, says the roadmap; you’ll still be eligible for traditional Medicare. Except, that is, for the fact that the plan “strengthens the current program with changes such as income-relating drug benefit premiums to ensure long-term sustainability.”

If this sounds like deliberately confusing gobbledygook, that’s because it is. Fortunately, the Congressional Budget Office, which has done an evaluation of the roadmap, offers a translation: “Some higher-income enrollees would pay higher premiums, and some program payments would be reduced.” In short, there would be Medicare cuts.

And it’s possible to back out the size of those cuts from the budget office analysis, which compares the Ryan proposal with a “baseline” representing current policy. As I’ve already said, the total over the next decade comes to about $650 billion — substantially bigger than the Medicare savings in the Democratic bills.

The bottom line, then, is that the crusade against health reform has relied, crucially, on utter hypocrisy: Republicans who hate Medicare, tried to slash Medicare in the past, and still aim to dismantle the program over time, have been scoring political points by denouncing proposals for modest cost savings — savings that are substantially smaller than the spending cuts buried in their own proposals.

And if Democrats don’t get their act together and push the almost-completed reform across the goal line, this breathtaking act of staggering hypocrisy will succeed.

We Are The World: New Version For Haiti Earthquake Victims

2010-02-13T11:30:00.001-06:00

NRDC Action Fund Clean Energy Bill Celebrity PSA (VIDEO) With DiCaprio, Norton, Bateman

2010-01-29T04:24:00.001-06:00

Jon Stewart Destroys Fox News For Reveling In Scott Brown Win

2010-01-23T03:06:00.004-06:00

Dan Abramson, HuffingtonPost.com: Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts has made for a variety of moods and responses coming from cable news. Jon Stewart mocked the atmosphere of Fox News last night, comparing the network to someone trying really hard to hide an erection and intercutting their reaction with clips of the phallic Shake Weight.

Stewart went on to note that Fox News anchors seemed to be reveling in the fact that Scott Brown and his family are becoming celebrities. Pointing out the hypocrisy of this, he recapped what Fox News has thought of political celebs in the past, as the network has repeatedly bashed Obama for being a celebrity, rather than an experienced politician.

Adding that Fox News apparently differentiates between what celebrities are acceptable for politics, Stewart "agreed," jokingly describing the two types:

"The elitist scum who prey on the dreams of real of Americans. And the ones you agree with."

Fox News Covers Scott Brown's Victory

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

http://www.thedailyshow.com/

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

Jon Stewart Takes On Keith Olbermann, Olbermann Responds

2010-01-23T02:43:00.004-06:00

HuffingtonPost.com: Jon Stewart took on Keith Olbermann Thursday night, slamming him for his remarks on Scott Brown, performing an impression of the "Countdown" host and mocking his trademark Special Comments.

"I think that's the harshest description of anyone I've ever heard uttered on MSNBC," Stewart said of Olbermann's comment that Brown is "an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, tea-bagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees."

Stewart would go on to impersonate Olbermann in the same vein that Ben Affleck did on "SNL": a multi-angle, shouty Special Comment featuring many pairs of glasses and utterances of the word "Sir."

Olbermann responded, telling TVNewser, "It was a little bit of a ripoff of the Affleck thing, but overall, I'd give it a B-."

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Special Comment - Keith Olbermann's Name-Calling

http://www.thedailyshow.com/

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

New Mexico State Legislator Introduces Bill To Move State's Money

2010-01-23T02:38:00.004-06:00

Arthur Delaney, HuffingtonPost.com: New Mexico state representative Brian Egolf has introduced a bill to move the state's money out of Bank of America and into banks and credit unions chartered in New Mexico.

"I saw the Move Your Money video the day it came out and thought it made a lot of sense," Egolf told HuffPost.

So the Santa Fe Democrat wants to move as much money as he possibly can -- that would be $1.4 billion.

Egolf's bill would direct the New Mexico Department of Finance and Administration to "give a preference to a community bank to act as the fiscal agent of the general fund operating cash depository account."

Egolf said the account, which is essentially the state's checking account, holds $1.4 billion and is managed by Bank of America. Egolf's bill directs state officials to study the feasibility of dividing up the account and distributing it between community banks and credit unions throughout the state. He said he discussed the measure with Gov. Bill Richardson (D) for an hour on Thursday, and that the governor supported the measure.

Egolf said moving state funds into local banks or credit unions would benefit the New Mexico economy by freeing up local credit. "The potential size and impact of moving this money is monumental. The biggest bank in the state right now has $2 billion in assets."

He added that he hasn't heard any opposition to his proposal from any of his colleagues in either party in the New Mexico legislature and expects the measure to be taken up in the next three weeks. His goal is to move the money by the end of the year.

"The only concern I've heard really is, 'How soon can we do it?'" he said. "I'm not getting any defense of the big banks. There's a huge appeal to keeping our money local. The income Bank of America earns from managing this money goes straight to New York."

Bank of America doesn't seem very intimidated by the bill.

"We are pleased to have the State of New Mexico as a client and look forward to continuing that relationship," said a bank spokesman in an email.

Egolf said he was in the process of moving his own money to the Los Alamos National Bank.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) Explains Scott Brown’s Victory

2010-01-23T02:31:00.004-06:00

From the Left: Let it never be said that Republicans aren’t prone to bouts of revisionist history.

According to a memo from Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), head of the Senate Republican campaign effort, yesterday’s stunning upset election of Scott Brown to fill the seat of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, was the result that “voters realize that there is only one party who bailed out the automakers and insurance companies.”

Really John? Do you really think Americans are as stupid as you?

The fact is, it was actually fellow Texan, former President Bush who orchestrated the bailouts of both AIG and the automakers at the 11th hour of his second term. Nice try, though.

LSB: From the state that gave you George W. Bush, we're so proud of this dickwad. Ugh!

Howard Dean: “Bush would have had healthcare a long time ago”

2010-01-23T02:28:00.003-06:00

From the Left: On the one year anniversary of President Obama’s inaugural, former DNC Chairman, Howard Dean, had some terse words for the president about the failure to pass his signature issue: healthcare reform.

In sharply worded comments Tuesday night following the loss of former Sen. Ted Kennedy’s (D-MA) Senate seat, the former chairman of the Democratic Party asserted that party leaders needed to bypass their quest for sixty Senate votes.

“We’ve got to be tougher. I’ve said the Democrats are not tough enough. Bush would have had the health care bill done a long time ago. He would have gone through reconciliation.”

Under reconciliation, Democrats can move to pass parts of the healthcare reform bill with a simple fifty vote majority, sidestepping the need for a 60-vote filibuster-proof supermajority. Liberals lost their sixtieth vote with the defeat of state attorney general Martha Coakley in Massachusetts to Republican Scott Brown.

Brown has promised to vote against a healthcare reform bill. The bill has passed both chambers of Congress but would need to pass both again after the House and Senate versions are combined.

Quote of the Day

2010-01-23T02:24:00.000-06:00

From the Left: “But I have to say, I’m pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in.” – Paul Krugman

A memo on what happened in Mass., and how Dems should proceed

2010-01-23T02:04:00.002-06:00

John Aravosis (DC), AmericaBlog.com: An interesting read. This memo was just distributed to all Senate chiefs of staff:

STRATEGY MEMO TO SENATE CHIEFS OF STAFF
From: Adam Green, co-founder, Progressive
Change Campaign Committee -- on behalf of the PCCC, Democracy for America, and Credo Action
RE: The right lesson from Massachusetts & the path forward on health care
We wanted to make sure you saw the Massachusetts Research 2000 poll, reported on by the Wall Street Journal, NBC, Politico, Huffington Post, TPM, and others.It polled critical 2010 swing voters: the 18% of Obama voters who returned to the polls and voted for Republican Scott Brown.
• On health care, they oppose the Senate bill because it "doesn't go far enough" and a whopping 82% support the public option.
• On the economy, by 2 to 1 they think Democrats have put special interests ahead of folks like them -- and by large margins think stronger regulation of Wall Street is more important than cutting spending.
• And 57% say Democrats are not "delivering enough on the change Obama promised."
Why did they vote for Scott Brown? They are angry and want Congress to fight on their side against entrenched power. Scott Brown pretended to be a populist, so he won.
Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh, and Mark Penn are telling Democrats to learn exactly the wrong lesson: Slow down. Give Americans less change.
It's not an accident that each of these men have crashed presidential campaigns into the ground. Don't listen to them -- their thinking got Democrats into this political mess. Voters want bold populism, and if Democrats don't give it to them Republicans are ready to pretend they will.
The best thing Democrats could do in 2010 is fight big corporations like insurance companies and Wall Street. On health care, the path forward is obvious:
Step 1 -- The Senate passes a "reconciliation" bill with the popular public option and other budget-related fixes to the original Senate bill on issues like the national exchange and excise tax. This takes only a simple majority.
Step 2 -- The House passes both the original Senate bill and final reconciliation bill back-to-back and sends them to the President.
Step 3 -- A signing ceremony takes place that Democrats and voters can be proud of.
What would this "public option through reconciliation" strategy achieve? A popular public option, 30 million new Americans insured, pre-existing conditions provisions, a national exchange that "gives people access to the same kind of plan Congress gets," and all the other insurance industry reforms Democrats have been pushing. All without worrying about Joe Lieberman's vote.
Plus, Democrats would be popular -- for finally taking on insurance companies by passing the public option. Again, among the swing Obama voters, only 32% support the current Senate bill but 82% want a public option.
All the old arguments against using reconciliation are gone. It's now the only way to pass a comprehensive health care bill, building off the Senate's prior work. And once reconciliation is being used, the Senate has the votes to pass a public option.
After Massachusetts, passing the public option is a no-brainer -- it's populist, it's good policy, and it's what 2010 swing voters want.
That's why in the 48 hours after the Massachusetts election, over 150,000 people signed a petition advocating the "public option in reconciliation" strategy. More are signing literally every minute, and our three organizations will deliver these signatures to you in the near future.
You can see the Massachusetts poll here and our recent national poll here.
Please feel free to reply with any feedback. And if you would like to be part of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee's ongoing dialogue with Hill staff, please click here and let us know.
Thanks for your time.

Health Care Reform Parady

2010-01-23T02:03:00.000-06:00

GOP attorneys general threaten suit over Neb. health deal

2009-12-31T15:17:00.005-06:00

USA Today: Republican attorneys general in 13 states say congressional leaders must remove Nebraska's political deal from the federal health care overhaul bill or face legal action, according to a letter provided to The Associated Press Wednesday.

"We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed," South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster (pictured) and the 12 other attorneys general wrote in the letter to be sent Wednesday night to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

"As chief legal officers of our states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision," they wrote. ... (more)

LSB: So, 13 GOP States Attorneys General are going to do what 59 DEM U.S. Senators had no backbone to do - tell Sen. Ben Nelson to "shove it" with his Nebraska-only Medicare amendment. Nelson's poll numbers are way down even with this "pork," so he needs to get on board with the health care/insurance reform and quit being a part of the problem. Well played, GOP (Grand Obstructionist Party) - intentional or not!

Jonathan Turley Takes on Tom Ridge's Hackery

2009-12-31T15:01:00.006-06:00

Heather, Crooks and Liars: From The Situation Room, Jonathan Turley calls out Tom Ridge's hackery from his appearance on Larry King. It was nice to see Turley point out that the term Malveaux used, enhanced interrogations -- that she tossed out there so lightly, -- is torture. Unfortunately we don't have enough like Turley to counter all the talking head torture-lovers like Ridge, King, Hoekstra and Cheney.

Click here for the full video. From the CNN Transcript:

... it's not really about the information that you get from special interrogations, which is a nice way of saying torture. It is also not about what rights he deserves. What is really the question is what rights we have to give people to maintain our credibility around the world.
That is, the way the world viewed the Bush administration was that, well, George Bush often looked almost Caesar-like, sending some people to federal courts, some people to military tribunal. Some people got no trial at all.
In this case, we had Richard Reid, who was virtually identical in his act. He went to federal court. Zacarias Moussaoui went to federal court. And I think that it's a problem if we treat a legal system as sort of improvisational, that we simply go by case by case of what we feel someone should have in terms of rights.
The credibility of a legal system is its consistency. Without consistency, it lacks coherence. And I think what Mr. Ridge is saying that, when we really don't like you or we think that we might get some information out of you, then we won't give you the rights under our system.
And that creates the type of anger and, frankly, the view of hypocrisy that the United States has faced. But I think it's very unlikely. A military tribunal doesn't -- doesn't generate intelligence. It's not a way to generate any more intelligence than a federal trial is. ...
I think part of the problem is that we're also dealing with people who have never been given a trial. And we no that many of the people in Guantanamo Bay were not terrorists. At one time, we were offering thousands of dollars for anyone that could give us someone they said was a terrorist, and many of them ended up at Guantanamo Bay.
And so we need to be cognizant of the fact that a nation like ours can't hold people without a trial and retain our credibility. So, if we don't want to give them to Yemen -- there might be good reasons not to -- then we have got to try them. If we have evidence against them, then we need to try them, but we can't leave them in this place that no rights can penetrate.

Rove, wife divorce

2009-12-31T14:35:00.002-06:00

Alex Koppelman, The War Room: Karl Rove's marriage to his wife, Darby, lasted almost 24 years. The pair wed in January 1986 and were granted a divorce last week.

In a statement announcing the divorce, spokeswoman Dana Perino said, "The couple came to the decision mutually and amicably, and they maintain a close relationship and a strong friendship. There will be no further comment, and the family requests that its privacy be respected."

Additionally, Politico quotes an unnamed "family friend" as saying, "They did spend Christmas together with their son, and they plan to spend time together in the future. They maintain a strong friendship and they both feel that that friendship is a source of comfort and inspiration for their friends and family."

David Mixner: Here is another blow for those who preach for the sanctity of marriage: Karl Rove just ended his second marriage. And these people can lecture to us about marriage?

Limbaugh Rushed To Honolulu Hospital That Gave Rise To ‘Birther’ Conspiracy

2009-12-31T14:09:00.006-06:00

ThinkProgress.org: Conservative radio shock jock Rush Limbaugh was rushed to a Honolulu hospital yesterday with chest pains. After paramedics arrived and treated him at the Kahala Hotel and Resort, Limbaugh was transferred to Queen’s Medical Center where he reportedly arrived in “serious condition.”

KHON2 reports:

Sources say the 58 year old [Limbaugh was suffering chest pains before an ambulance arrived at the hotel.
Honolulu’s Emergency Services Department confirmed a male fitting Limbaugh’s description was taken from the hotel in serious condition.
As an avid golfer Limbaugh travels to Hawaii just about every year and earlier this week was seen in Kona on the Big Island and at the Waialae Country Club on Oahu.

While unfortunate, Limbaugh’s hospital visit is rife with irony. The ailing radio show host was sent to the same medical center that a United Press International reporter misidentified in an article published in 2008 as the facility in which President Obama was born. Though the error was corrected to accurately indicate that Obama was born in the Kapi’olani Medical Center, the mistake fueled “birther” conspiracy theories that Limbaugh then dedicated significant airtime to promoting. Since then, Limbaugh has gone as far to state that Hawaii “morphed into Kenya one day in 1961 [the year Obama was born] and reverted back to Hawaii the next day.”

Meanwhile, some of Limbaugh’s right-wing colleagues have spent the past week slamming Obama for vacationing in Hawaii over the holidays, which “to many Americans seems like a foreign place.” Last month, Limbaugh was voted the nation’s “most influential conservative voice.”

From the Left adds to Limbaugh’s bio: “The 400lbs. junkie and pedophile recently dropped at least 100lbs., fueling speculation that he’s back on dope in a desperate effort to shed unsightly pounds and look more attractive to the teenage rent boys he frequently visits at Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic [LSB added link] — a popular destination for American and Canadian pedophiles. In 2003, Limbaugh managed to avoid prison time for illegally obtaining a wide variety of prescription painkillers, including Lorcet, Norco and hydrocodone, from the boyfriend of his former housekeeper. Limbaugh underwent drug addiction treatment as part of a settlement agreement he reached with the state of Florida.”

LSB: Would it be wrong to emulate Republican Sen. Tom Coburn and pray that Limbaugh won't be making his assinine comments anytime in the future?

Maddow: Shameless Cheney Ignores His Own Record to Cast Stones

2009-12-31T13:57:00.001-06:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Dumbest Quotes Of The 2000s

2009-12-29T10:54:00.002-06:00

Dan Abramson, Huffington Post: The 2000s (or the 'naughties' as the kids are calling them) are coming to a close. And to celebrate, we've been counting down the funniest movies, sketches, and people of the past ten years. Next up, quotes. But not just funny quotes - DUMB quotes, which as we know are the best kind.

“I think gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman.” – Arnold Schwarzenegger
"This is an earthquake issue. This will change our state forever. Because the immediate consequence, if gay marriage goes through, is that K-12 little children will be forced to learn that homosexuality is normal, natural and perhaps they should try it." – Michele Bachmann
"I get to go to lots of overseas places, like Canada." – Britney Spears
"Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." – George W. Bush
"Al Gore's not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization... And you must silence all dissenting voices. That's what Hitler did. That's what Al Gore, the U.N., and everybody on the global warming bandwagon [are doing]." – Glenn Beck
"Is this chicken what I have or is this fish? I know it's tuna, but it says chicken." – Jessica Simpson
"Uh, uh, Chuck Graham, state senator, is here. Stand up, Chuck, let ‘em see you. Oh, God love you. What am I talking about." – Joe Biden to wheelchair-bound Missouri state senator, Charles Graham
"It may be tempting and more comfortable to just keep your head down, plod along, and appease those who demand: 'Sit down and shut up,' but that's the worthless, easy path; that's a quitter's way out." – Sarah Palin announcing her resignation as governor
"I'm so smart now. Everyone is always like, 'Take your top off.' Sorry, no! They always want to get that money shot. I'm not stupid." – Paris Hilton
"All of a sudden, you're like the Bin Laden of America. Osama Bin Laden is the only one who knows exactly what I'm going through." – R. Kelly
"Exercise freaks ... are the ones putting stress on the health care system." – Rush Limbaugh
"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." – George W. Bush (again)
“People all over the world recognize me as a spiritual leader.” – Steven Seagal
"Where's the Cannes Film Festival being held this year?" – Christina Aguilera
“I realize that my place and position in history is that I will go down as the voice of this generation, of this decade. I will be the loudest voice.” – Kanye West
"The Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes.” – Ted Stevens
"I've never really wanted to go to Japan. Simply because I don't like eating fish. And I know that's very popular out there in Africa." – Britney Spears (again)
"I've got taste. It's inbred in me." – David Hasselhoff
“They misunderestimated me.” – George W. Bush (yet again)
"All of 'em, any of 'em that have been in front of me over all these years." – Sarah Palin (again) unable to name a single newspaper or magazine she reads, interview with Katie Couric
"I've been on food stamps and welfare, did anybody help me out? No. No." – Craig T. Nelson on the lack of fiscal responsibility
When asked, "Recent polls have shown a fifth of Americans can't locate the US on a world map. Why do you think this is?" She answered: "I personally believe, that US Americans are unable to do so, because some people out there, in our nation, don't have that, and eh I believe that our education, like such as in South Africa, and the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and I believe that they should, our education over here, in the US, should help the US, or should help South Africa, and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future... for our children." – Ms. Teen South Carolina 2007

LSB: I assume this is just a partial list, given the space limitations of the WWW.

Who's running the TSA? No one, thanks to Sen. Jim DeMint

2009-12-29T10:26:00.006-06:00

Margaret Talev, McClatchy Newspapers: An attempt to blow up a trans-Atlantic flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day would be all-consuming for the administrator of the Transportation Security Administration — if there were one.

The post remains vacant because Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., has held up President Barack Obama's nominee in opposition to the prospect of TSA workers joining a labor union.

As al Qaida claimed responsibility Monday for the thwarted attack and President Barack Obama made a public statement about it, Democrats urged DeMint to drop his objection and allow quick confirmation of nominee Erroll Southers, a counterterrorism expert, when the Senate reconvenes in three weeks. ...

Southers, a former FBI special agent, is the Los Angeles World Airports Police Department assistant chief for homeland security and intelligence. He also is the associate director of the University of Southern California's Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events, and he served as a deputy director of homeland security for California Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Two Senate committees have given Southers their bipartisan blessing. An acting administrator is in place pending his confirmation.

Marshall McClain, the president of the Los Angeles Airport Peace Officers Association, said that the Senate should have acted sooner to confirm Southers. "Friday's terrorist attack on U.S. aviation makes it all the more imperative that there be no further delays in filling this crucial position," he said.

DeMint said in a statement that the attempted attack "is a perfect example of why the Obama administration should not unionize the TSA." He wants Southers to clarify his stand on unionizing the TSA, a shift that Democrats support.

Without collective bargaining, DeMint said, the TSA has "flexibility to make real-time decisions that allowed it to quickly improve security measures in response to this attempted attack." If organized labor got involved, DeMint said, union bosses would have the power "to veto or delay future security improvements at our airports."

He urged Obama to "re-think" supporting unionizing the TSA "and put the interests of American travelers ahead of organized labor." (more)

LSB: Emphasis added. This boils down to politics: Dems have a cozy relationship with unions, so Rep obstructionist delays safety of American airports until he gets his way. FUCK JIM DEMINT. No Mercy - bring down this failure on his head! Let him try to crawl away from this failure. Make it his fault. That's how the Reps would do it if the situation were reversed.

UPDATE: Major 9/11 Commission Recommendations Still Not In Place

Mary Matalin: Bush 'Inherited' 9/11 Attacks

2009-12-28T22:46:00.003-06:00

HuffingtonPost.com: On CNN Sunday, GOP strategist Mary Matalin repeated a strange new Republican talking point -- the idea that the September 11th attacks didn't happen on President Bush's watch.

Arguing that President Obama was complaining too much about the problems he inherited from his predecessor, Matalin (who worked for former Vice President Dick Cheney) said her White House was saddled with problems too. "We inherited a recession from President Clinton and we inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation's history," she told host John King on "State of the Union."

Last month, former White House Press Secretary Dana Perino proclaimed that there were no terror attacks under President Bush.

As for Matalin's economic claim, Bush did say that he inherited a recession -- but he got his dates wrong about when that recession began. The National Bureau of Economic Research's Business Cycle Dating Committee says it started in March of 2001, during Bush's first term.

LSB: This woman gets crazier by the day. Revisionist history - here we come!

Drag Queens, Communists Take Over White House Christmas Tree

2009-12-27T10:24:00.004-06:00

TowleRoad.com: This is what you get when one of those unpredictable, radical gay men is brought in to decorate the White House for Christmas! Hedda Lettuce and Chairman Mao adorning the Tree. The horror!

UPDATE: FOX News is already salivating over the "inclusive" tree:

LSB: LOL! Healthcare/Insurance reform... global warming... wars in Iraq and Afghanistan... high unemployment... and this is what has Rupert Murdock's panties in a bunch? Some kid in an after-school program deco paging a Christmas (or is it "holiday") ornament with a Chinese face s/he probably didn't even recognize... I'll admit I never gave Bush much slack, but even I know that fucker didn't decorate every tree in the White House, so let's give Obama the benefit of the doubt as well. Jeesh!

Congress Pressures Pentagon on Eve of DADT Debate

2009-12-27T10:11:00.006-06:00

Palm Center, UCSB: [On December 22], ninety-six members of Congress sent a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates requesting all 2009 “don't ask, don't tell” discharge data in an effort to ready their arguments for the impending 2010 debate on the gay ban. The letter was authored by Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA), a member of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee and was signed by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), lead sponsor of the bill to repeal “don't ask, don't tell.” Members are requesting up-to-date information on the number of service members discharged in 2009 under the Obama Administration as well as information about their job specialties, years of service and branch in which they served.

This request comes as supporters of repeal in Congress are collecting information to prepare for the upcoming House and Senate debate on repeal in 2010. On December 2nd Congressman Alcee Hastings (D-FL) introduced legislation, which currently has 32 co-sponsors, to allow openly gay service members to testify in upcoming hearings without being discharged under “don't ask, don't tell.” Hearings are expected in the Senate in January or February and in the House in March.

Palm Center Director Aaron Belkin stated, "It's clear that some in Washington are looking for ways to avoid discussing DADT in 2010. This letter from 96 Congressional offices keeps the pressure on the White House, Pentagon and Congress by illustrating the costs of discrimination with concrete data."

In 2001, there were 1,273 discharges under “don't ask, don't tell” and in 2008 there were 633, the third lowest number of discharges since the law took effect. The letter from Congressman Moran also requests that the Pentagon provide monthly updates on “don't ask, don't tell” discharges in 2010 to inform debates over repeal in the House and Senate.

LSB: Newsweek has predicted that Obama will do "nada" for gay rights in 2010; maybe Congress didn't get the memo.

Miss Lindsey Graham Says S.C.’s Growing Black Population is a “Problem”

2009-12-27T10:00:00.002-06:00

From the Left: The fabulous Miss Lindsey Graham has outdone himself this time.

Graham, the Republican U.S senator from South Carolina revealed his racist spine today on the Senate floor when he criticized the extra Medicaid funding for Nebraska in the healthcare bill by noting that his state is also facing multiple problems. Graham inexplicably sites that South Carolina is faced with grinding unemployment and a “31 percent African American population.”

Crazy of the Year!

2009-12-27T09:40:00.005-06:00

Joan Walsh, Salon.Com: News came so fast in 2009 it made us dizzy: A brand-new Democratic White House team (led by our first African-American president); economic catastrophe and, maybe, tiny green shoots of recovery; legislative milestones -- a historic stimulus -- and legislative gridlock (most everything else); one war winding down but another one expanded; grass-roots anger on the right and left about a Wall Street crash that turned out fine for much of Wall Street but kept crashing for the rest of us. We had big celebrity deaths (Ed McMahon, Walter Cronkite, Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson, all in four weeks); big celebrity scandals (Tiger Woods, Mark Sanford) plus big celebrity death scandals (thanks to Jackson, his wacky family and his phalanx of physician-toadies). All of it was enlivened by an explosion of high-decibel right-wing paranoia and hatred that made our problems seem increasingly surreal and intractable.

But if 2009 was a year of big news, it also was most notably the year of Big Crazy. From Birthers to death panels, 9/11 Truthers to evolution deniers, it was hard to get through a week without stepping in a steaming pile of just-plain-nuts. So let Time magazine come up with its dutiful "Person of the Year," working harder each December to delight, confound, disgust or simply bore us. Salon decided to live up to the news environment of 2009 and to round up the Year in Crazy -- -- documenting the people responsible for the craziest behavior of the year.

It was very hard (in fact, we're still mulling our top pick). There's so much crazy to choose from. Then there's a whole lot of shiny, vexing and perplexing faux-crazy. Bill O'Reilly certainly went loony during his tête-à-tête with me in June, but a certain kind of authoritarian, bad-daddy nuttiness is O'Reilly's reliable shtick; none of us knows what the Fox host really believes, except that he loves his big paycheck and getting to humiliate people. We think O'Reilly is vile, but overheated as he sometimes gets, we don't think he's crazy. Same with Rush Limbaugh. His "anal poisoning" obsession aside, Limbaugh is sane enough to keep making millions and to stay in the right-wing "telling it like it is" media mainstream.

Similarly, someone like Liz Cheney -- awful but not crazy -- could casually suggest that insane Birther theories made sense because "people are uncomfortable with having, for the first time ever ... a president who seems so reluctant to defend the nation overseas." Sarah Palin, who's wacky and destructive but not crazy, except like a fox, went a little bit crazy on Facebook, warning that Obama's healthcare reform would create "death panels" to kill her elderly parents and her child with Down syndrome. O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Cheney and Palin all display behavior that's better described as brazenly opportunistic than crazy.

It went over so well that folks like Chuck Grassley and Newt Gingrich rode the crazy train for a while, defending Palin's lies. Crazy became so influential this year that the New York Times finally assigned someone to the Right-Wing Crazy beat, asking reporters and editors to watch Fox News and track the mutterings of O'Reilly and Glenn Beck and Limbaugh and the echo chamber of crazy, after the paper of record was taken by surprise by the epidemic of lethal lunacy in the Birther controversies and "town hells" this summer, and failed to cover Fox's crusade to topple White House "green jobs" czar Van Jones. (The New York Times is crazy to listen to right-wing bullies, but we're only talking about individual crazy behavior here.)

We're not sure what explains the sudden explosion of crazy. Is it deep, destabilizing economic insecurity? The looming 2012 apocalypse? Having a black president? No one knows for sure. All we know is that within the GOP's base, and on certain frontiers of the left, as well as the wacky-science crowd, crazy is hot this year. Crazy sells. It's the year of crazy liberation! Say it loud, I'm nuts and proud. ...

Let Time magazine come up with its dutiful "Person of the Year," working harder each December to delight, confound, disgust or simply bore us. Salon is living up to the news environment of 2009, and choosing the people responsible for the craziest behavior of the year.

Glenn Beck Crazy of the Year! [LSB: Beck's second nom for Craziest Person of the Year!]
Orly Taitz - Birther in chief
Michele Bachman - Crazy's rising star
Mark Sanford - Nutty as trail mix
Charlie Sheen - Stone cold Truther
Suzanne Somers - Snake oil saleswoman
Kanye West - Grammy for going bananas?
Jim Cramer - Loony! And wrong!
Kirk Cameron - Creationism's growing pains
Jon and Kate Gosselin - Nuts plus eight

Glenn Beck: Media Matters' 2009 Misinformer of the Year

2009-12-27T09:29:00.002-06:00

Media Matters: Glenn Beck's well of ridiculous was deep and poisonous before he launched his Fox News show, but the inauguration of the 44th president of the United States -- and the permissive cheerleading of his Fox News honchos -- uncorked the former Morning Zoo shock jock's unique brand of vitriol, stage theatrics, and hyperbolic fright, making him an easy choice for Media Matters' 2009 Misinformer of the Year.

When he wasn't calling the president a racist, portraying progressive leaders as vampires who can only be stopped by "driv[ing] a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers," or pushing the legitimacy of seceding from the country, Beck obsessively compared Democrats in Washington to Nazis and fascists and "the early days of Adolf Hitler." He wondered, "Is this where we're headed," while showing images of Hitler, Stalin, and Lenin; decoded the secret language of Marxists; and compared the government to "heroin pushers" who were "using smiley-faced fascism to grow the nanny state."

Like his predecessor, Beck spat on scruples, frequently announcing his goal to get administration officials fired. He increasingly acted not as a media figure, but as the head of a political movement, while helping to bring fringe conspiracies of a one-world government into the national discourse.

And he all too frequently helped to set the mainstream media's agenda. (more)