A Republican Scandal, Hmmm?

Democratic Minority Leader Harry Reid, caught red-handed. And he's not alone.

What viewers should understand is that a little-noticed AP story last November showed that Reid accepted thousands of dollars from an Abramoff client — the Coushatta Indian tribe.

The Coushattas sent a $5,000 check to Reid's tax-exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund, the day after Reid interceded via letter with Interior Secretary Gale Norton over a casino dispute with a rival tribe. A second tribe represented by Abramoff sent an additional $5,000 to Reid's group. Reid in total received more than $66,000 in Abramoff-related contributions between 2001 and 2004.

Before the Democrats get on their high horse regarding GOP finance scandals, let us remember that 90% of Senate Democrats took money linked to "Republican" lobbyist Jack Abramoff. That includes nearly $100,000 by Sen. John Kerry and $12,950 by fellow presidential wannabe Hillary Clinton.

That goes against some pretty tough talk by Dean and even Reid himself! The more Democrats try to inquisition against the Republicans, the more they may be asking for return-fire. My whole idea of trying to vote every incumbent out of office in 2006 looks more and more the only way to get rid of the corruption.

Who Needs Scientists?

Many don't know about Dr. James Hansen. He's a NASA Scientist who studies, among many things, climate change. Recently, he made some comments about global warming that contradicted the administration line, and was reportedly put through the ringer in all sorts of ways by some furious appointees. Anyone who follows Bush administration science policy knows this is nothing new, but people in his own party are being perturbed. Enter House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY):

It ought to go without saying that government scientists must be free to describe their scientific conclusions and the implications of those conclusions to their fellow scientists, policymakers and the general public. Any effort to censor federal scientists biases public discussions of scientific issues, increases distrust of the government and makes it difficult for the government to attract the best scientists. And when it comes to an issue like climate change, a subject of ongoing public debate with immense ramifications, the government ought to be bending over backward to make sure that its scientists are able to discuss their work and what it means.

Good science cannot long persist in an atmosphere of intimidation. Political figures ought to be reviewing their public statements to make sure they are consistent with the best available science; scientists should not be reviewing their statements to make sure they are consistent with the current political orthodoxy.

NASA is clearly doing something wrong, given the sense of intimidation felt by Dr. Hansen and others who work with him. Even if this sense is a result of a misinterpretation of NASA policies - and more seems to be at play here - the problem still must be corrected. I will be following this matter closely to ensure that the right staff and policies are in place at NASA to encourage open discussion of critical scientific issues. I assume you share that goal.

This is part of a letter to the NASA Administrator and contains all sorts of not-so-subtle threats for some of that dreaded Congressional Oversight! Tim F. at Balloon Juice has some ideas of other people (some of whom are Boehlert own colleagues) might be good witnesses to call in.

Rise and Fall

Virginia (and even blue-state Maryland, for that matter) continue their anti-gay crusade, while DC takes the opposite tack.

Mayor Tony Williams signed a bill elevating the director of the office of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender affairs to the mayor's cabinet.

Williams formed the office in 2004, but the D.C. Council didn't pass legislation making it a part of the government last year.

Williams says the cabinet-level position recognizes that the gay community is an important part of the city.

I think this is a mixed bag. It is truly excellent to recognize the city's large gay population and their needs, but I think they could do better by actually doing more and pushing for equality (in terms of marriage, unions, and other economic rights such as inheritance) instead of more of an identity-politics type gesture like this. Here at HHS, we have an Office of Women's Health, an Office of Minority Health, and more, but I wonder how much segregating these offices from the rest of the organization detracts from their effectiveness as opposed to incorporating their missions into EVERY agency and program. But that just shows my bias towards more broad-based government programs.

In all, this is a good move to make for its symbolic value. And it really sticks it to DC and Maryland, which are doing more both legally and symbolically to attack and deny GLBT rights.

Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing

The filibuster was snapped, and the vote was a blowout. 72-25, Alito has been put forward for the cherished up-or-down vote. There's a lot of things that I think this highlights. So, as is the customs of our times, I'm going to make a bulleted list.

1) John Kerry is an impotent jerk. The theatrics Kerry pulled over his e-mail listserv and in literally phoning in a filibuster rallying cry from Switzerland were par for the course when it comes to this perennial loser. How much lower can Kerry sink? And has he gotten it out of his head yet that running in 2008 is going to be an embarassment for everyone involved, especially him and the voters? This proved that Kerry is as ineffective as he's always been, and hopefully he'll take that to heart.

2) The Gang of 14 worked, and then some. The so-called Gang of 14 compromise to save the filibuster actually worked. There was no need for Bill Frist's old chestnut, the "nuclear option", and certainly the hysterics of wingnuts about the compromise as some sort of ideological sell-out and an opportunity for the Democrats to betray everyone were misplaced and a little ridiculous in retrospect. This filibuster didn't even come close to living, and so the "extroardinary circumstances" part of the Gang of 14 compromise actually gets some definition.

3) Democrats picked their battles smartly, for once. Hopefully this will continue. The complete destruction of this filibuster showed that some Democrats have some sense, and know that they had already lost the Alito fight. I for one am sad Alito is going to make it to the bench, mostly because I think we might as well call the Pope over and crown a new Emperor if he does considering the blank check Alito will give the Executive Branch to do whatever it wants. But that's beside the point. The confirmation hearings were the place Alito needed to be wounded if he was going to be stopped, and the Senate Dems failed spectacularly. In this situation, public opinion had to be turned against Alito early, and it didn't. No filibuster was going to change that situation. It was likely only going to embarass the participants and give Bush a chance to talk about "obstructionists" tonight during the SOTU. The 19 Democrats that said no to the filibuster realized this, even though I'm sure a great many of them plan to vote against Alito.

That's all, in summary. The filibuster was a bad idea, and it was overwhelmingly rejected for that reason. Alito is a bad idea too, but there was just no getting that message out there. It's way too late.

UPDATE: He's in. That's that, I suppose.

An Utter Dose of Pessimism

As a counterpoint to Chainz' piece, I have to link to this. I want to share Chainz' optimism and hopes about Hamas, but the more information I get about the real people who are going to have power (especially this maniac, virtually guaranteed a seat in Parliament UNDER FATAH, supposedly the moderate faction) the more damning this all looks.

UPDATE: This Hitch piece is also pretty dead-on scary.

There Is Something Worse

For so long I've wondered what could possibly be worse than a George Allen Presidency. I think I've found it! It's enough to give you nightmares.

Refreshing!

I guess quagmire means "off the charts improvement in quality of life," hmmm?

Locals say that the combination of stability, reconstruction and investment has led to better education, health care and general quality of life.

"Najaf shows a degree of revitalisation never seen before," said Bassam Darwish, a local shopkeeper whose shop, destroyed during the fighting in 2004, was rebuilt by the US military. "We have power, clean water and good health services, which were suppressed during the Saddam years."

Until recently, certain districts of Najaf received less than three hours of electricity daily. Today, however, most homes enjoy more than 20 hours of power every day.

Roads linking outlying districts to local schools, largely destroyed in earlier fighting, have also been repaired in the past two months.

According to officials at the Ministry of Education, infrastructure improvements have led to an increase in school attendance, with thirty percent more children attending primary school than in 2004.

"Our children are more interested in studying and more concerned about the future of the country," said Zaineb Hashuan, a senior ministry official. "It's a good sign."

Local health, too, has improved considerably thanks to recent development.

"We have reached a good state of health in our city," said Dr Hassan Azize, a clinician at Najaf's main hospital. "Pharmacies are full of medicines, and new examination equipment is working day and night to decrease disease in our city to almost zero."

Najaf is being labeled one of the safest places in Iraq, this after the catastrophic battles between U.S. and forces and Muqtada Al-Sadr. Quagmires don't sound so bad, suddenly. No mattter how much naysayers want to parrot it, Iraq is making progress. (H/t: Sullivan!) I guess that's why Iraqis are more optimistic about their futures than Americans.

Does Anyone Else Find It Odd?

I know Ana Marie Cox has been MIA from Wonkette for ages, but now that the new editors are definitely in place and they are definitely guys, should it still be called Wonkette?

Safeguarding Our Nation's Privates (Screw You, Taxpayer!)

Often, because I am a red-tape slinging bureaucrat at the Department of Health and Human Services, I get no respect. I describe what I do for a living and people show some mock interest, immediately asking "Where?" And when I answer you can see either two things 1) disappointment or 2) downright scorn. Reaction 1 usually comes from liberals who think this Department has basically been ruined over the years because it's not a bastion of socialist nationalized healthcare, and Reaction 2 usually comes from conservatives who wish it didn't exist. Often I get questions from my family members like "why not work for Homeland Security?" Wow, that's a much more cogent mission everyone can get behind. I often ask myself the same question. And with this story, it appears there are even more benefits to working there!

The DHS computer network is such an ineptly run mess that it's unknown how many of those 65 million porn alarms are really caused by Homeland Security employees looking at naked pictures.

An expensive network of programs are used to constantly spy on all employee computers, but it all works so poorly that nobody can tell the difference between one cubicle drone looking for "oral sex" pictures or another typing the word "behavioral," Washington Technology reported today.

What is known for sure is that porn alarms are going off at an explosive rate.

In July 2004, for example, the DHS network was logging 5.4 million "security events" per month. Less than a year later, when Inspector Skinner collected information for his investigation, that number had skyrocketed to 21.6 million per month.

The report concludes that Homeland Security has a laughably vulnerable computer network that is pounded by a steady stream of virus and hacker attacks while DHS employees engage in highly unprofessional and dangerous computer activities.

Here's the report. Apparently not only do you get to have a job some people think might be useful, you can actually not do said job and search for porn all day! Boy. Why am I WORKING for God's sake? Let this be a reminder to Security nuts. Just because a Department has a nice testosterone-drenched name like Homeland Security or Defense doesn't mean it's any more useful/functional than pinko Departments like mine.

Friendly Fire

There is a Newsweek article that describes the internal battle in the Justice Department over the Vice President’s attempt to strengthen the executive branch after 9/11. There are a few things to take away from this article. First, I wonder when people are going to be concerned that the Vice President is setting policy in this administration. I am not going to complain that there is a Republican in the White House – but why couldn’t the GOP have nominated someone that could run his own administration?

More importantly than having a puppet president is the fact that there was a battle over this, and without those few high-up appointees in the DOJ, we might not have been able to have a debate on the so-called torture memo or NSA spying. And those political appointees were not what my father would call “liberal weenies” either. They were solid conservatives who believed that we need strong defenses to protect against terrorism, but were not willing to let the President / Vice President do it illegally. It should also be noted that former Attorney General John Ashcroft backed the lawyers in the DOJ instead of ignoring their advice and caving in to Dick Cheney.

And finally, from a public administration perspective, the political appointees in the Justice Department carried out their battle with the Office of the Vice President internally. Even now that two of the dissenters are no longer in the Bush administration, they refused to comment for the article (a loyalty similar to what Colin Powell has shown). When working in government, there is always the incentive to run to the press every time you disagree with your superior’s policy decisions. It was nice to see that they stood their ground without using the press.

More Than a Feeling

Although I have been more optimistic about Hamas entering the political process than I probably should be, I haven’t been good at articulating why. At a basic level, it is just a gut feeling. There is something nagging at me that Hamas entering politics is a positive step. But it has only been recently that I have really understood why I feel this way.

First and foremost, I think change in a situation like this is necessary. For too long both sides have been able to accept the status quo. Of course they claim they don’t like the current situation, but it is rare when major steps are really taken to move towards peace. That is why I was supportive of Ariel Sharron’s wall, and his unilateral pullout of Gaza. Both of those policies have been criticized by members of this blog, but I can no longer hold out hope for perfect solutions nor tolerate the way things exist now. I like big changes that shake people from going about their lives with their heads down and force them to take a long look at what is going on around them.

But there is more to Hamas’ victory that leaves me optimistic. Lately, I have suggested that involvement in politics might moderate Hamas, although I have also hinted to the fact that this hope might be naïve (and others have said the same thing). But what is exciting is that Hamas can no longer hide in the shadows. The popularity of their policies will be very apparent every time they face election. Reckless actions couldn’t be punished by disapproving Palestinian people in the past, where now they can vote Hamas out of office.

Also, talks by Hamas of forming a Palestinian army may seem frightening, but I would much rather see them as a formal military whose actions would warrant legitimate responses instead of keeping them as an underground militant organization that is difficult to identify and fight. Let’s remember that both Yasir Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas were able to blame their inability to control Hamas (and Islamic Jihad) for breaks in cease fire agreements. But with Hamas in power, these claims will not be in any way credible (although most would argue that weren’t believed before either).

Since the election results have been announced, Hamas has been making statements to the press, and those statements have been far less extreme than I had expected. For example, although they don’t recognize Israel’s right to exist, they have recognized the reality of Israel’s presence and are willing to deal with them. These comments are much less troubling than what is coming out of Iran for example.

In the end, I feel like this development will leave the peace process no worse than it has been recently and quite possibly better. Hamas is no longer underground and will now be forced to defend its decisions in dealing with Israel. If it doesn’t form a Palestinian military, attacks by Hamas can be effectively considered attacks by the Palestinian government, and dealt with accordingly. And let’s not forget, their domestic agenda is much more likely to help the Palestinian people than anything Fatah might have attempted, and maybe in time would provide fewer angry young men willing to become suicide bombers.

SOTU STFU?

Bruce Reed defends the choice of Kaine for Democratic response to the SOTU, with gusto! Here's the funniest bit:

If I could award an Emmy for the Ten Most Excruciating Minutes in Television, the opposition party's response to the State of the Union would be the runaway winner. No matter which party is responding, which leader reads the teleprompter, or which hokey backdrop is chosen, the effect is the same: the ten-minute equivalent of your local TV station's Ted Baxter giving one of his just-my-opinion commentaries.

Amen. Who watches it anyway?

Google. . .iRepress!

This is too good. Get ready to laugh to death. (H/t: Dean's World!)

We (Don't) Have a Diplomatic Solution!

This seemed halfway heartening in the Iran standoff:

Deputy Secretary of State Robert B. Zoellick had urged the Chinese leadership on Tuesday to join the United States and other nations in taking urgent steps to make sure Iran does not expand its nuclear research program into weapons production. China agrees that Iran should not have nuclear weapons, he said afterward, but differs with Washington over how to prevent it and how fast a solution has to be found.

Without mentioning the United States or its European allies directly, Quan urged other countries to pursue a solution to the crisis through more negotiations, and said China's leaders view the Russian suggestions as a good place to start. Larijani, at a news conference later, said that, in this regard, the views of China and Iran were "very close."

"The Russian idea is fruitful, but it needs to be discussed more, and we are in the process of this negotiation," he said, adding that another round of talks had been scheduled with Russia for mid-February.

All were on board for the Russian proposal of Russia providing Iran with enriched Uranium and holding onto the by-product (plutonium used to make bombs). Iran, if they want their nuclear reactors for "peaceful purposes" should be fine accepting the Uranium. But we all know there's nothing "peaceful" about Iran's nuclear program. This confirms it:

A Russian proposal to carry out sensitive nuclear fuel work outside Iran to allay fears Tehran is seeking the bomb is "not sufficient" for the Iranians.

"The Russian proposal is not sufficient for Iran's nuclear energy needs," Ali Larijani was quoted as saying by the official news agency IRNA on Friday.

"The Russian proposal has certain capabilities, but this capability is not sufficient for Iran's nuclear technology," he said on his arrival back from China, where he has been discussing the mounting crisis.

Russia's proposal was quite generous. It would've provided Iran with enriched Uranium, that they could use for nuclear power. It even would probably reduce the costs for them of having to purchase uranium from elsewhere and enrich it on their own using non-optimal technology. The fact that they are balking from the proposal, which the Quartet (US, EU, China, and Russia) all were getting behind, shows they have no interest at stopping at energy. Everyone knows this, but if the Iranians reject the Russian proposal (or for that matter drag out negotiations) it's a clear sign their intentions are solely focused on nuclear weaponry.

Yet another in a long line of diplomatic solutions has been axed, and this one was nothing but beneficial to Tehran. I don't hold out hopes this crisis, and the disaster of Iran obtaining a bomb, will be solved diplomatically. Iran is showing now as before they're deadset on a bomb, accept no substitutes, damn the consequences.

Santorum: The Ultimate Flip-Flopper

Turns out Ricky has amnesia when it comes to the K Street Project. Casey is going to beat him so bad he'll vomit biblical passages. John Cole has done all the legwork, and it's pretty damning.

Here's one:

Rick Santorum, January 17, 2006:

SANTORUM: Well, I don’t know what you mean by Senate liaison to the, quote, “K Street Project.” I’m not aware of any Senate liaison job that I do for the K Street Project.

What I’ve done is I do host meetings, you know, once or twice a month with members who represent a variety of different groups in Washington, D.C.

Reported in the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal, 6/18/2002:

Santorum’s objective in completing the Project was clarified by Senate Republican Conference spokesman Robert Traynham, “Sen. Santorum’s objective is very clear and that is to find experienced, talented individuals who are going to assist Senate Republicans in advancing the president’s agenda.”

Santorum had enough problems already. Being part of the whole Abramoff apparatus isn't going to help him any.

Prince "Dirty" Harry

Usually, when one things of Princes, especially of the British variety, you might think of a bunch of tea-drinking, toff, playboys who where fancy clothes, drive expensive cars, do nothing for a living, and perhaps get lots of action from supermodels. Basically James Bond but without the whole spying and saving the world part. At least that's what I think of. Apparently England's Prince Harry is doing more than making up for any royal layabouts, though.

Prince Harry, completing his army officer training, has chosen to join a regiment which could be deployed in Iraq.

[snip]

Harry hopes to become an armoured reconnaissance troop leader at the forefront of army operations.

In an interview to mark his 21st birthday in September, Harry insisted he would be willing to serve on the front line once his training days as Officer Cadet Wales are over.

"There's no way I'm going to put myself through Sandhurst and then sit on my arse back home while my boys are out fighting for their country.

"That may sound very patriotic, but it's true. It's not the way anyone should really work."

The last British royal to see military action was Harry's uncle Prince Andrew, who flew as a helicopter pilot in the Falklands War in 1982.

A frontline battle Prince? Since when did Iraq turn into Lord of the Rings? (h/t: Wonkette(ish), with a choice picture!)

Border Wars

Seriously. John Cole blogged about this story yesterday:

Men in Mexican military-style uniforms crossed the Rio Grande into the United States on a marijuana-smuggling foray, leading to an armed confrontation with Texas law officers, authorities said Tuesday. No shots were fired.

The men retreated and escaped back across the border with much of the pot, though they abandoned more than a half-ton of marijuana as they fled and set fire to one of their vehicles, authorities said.

The Mexican government denied its military was involved.

The confrontation took place Monday and involved three Texas sheriff's deputies, at least two Texas state troopers and at least 10 heavily armed men from the Mexican side of the Rio Grande, said Rick Glancey of the Texas Border Sheriffs' Coalition.

This is some pretty scary stuff. First because of the use of military uniforms in the operation and second because this escalated into a big gunfight. Today we're at least getting some confirmation that the Mexican military was not, in fact, involved.

Mexico insisted Wednesday that men in Mexican military-style uniforms who crossed the Rio Grande River and sparked an armed confrontation with Texas law officers earlier this week were drug smugglers, not Mexican soldiers.

Mexico’s presidential spokesman Ruben Aguilar said the FBI supported that view, but he gave no evidence of the claim.

“These were not Mexican soldiers,” Aguilar said at a news conference. “It is known that these are drug traffickers using military uniforms and they were not even regulation military uniforms.”

But there is this little nugget:

The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin of Ontario, Calif., reported Tuesday that the incident included an armed standoff involving the Mexican military and suspected drug smugglers. The incident follows a story in the Bulletin on Jan. 15 that said the Mexican military had crossed into the United States more than 200 times since 1996.

In a news conference, Rick Glancey of the Texas Border Sheriff's Coalition, said three Hudspeth County deputies and at least two Texas Department of Public Safety troopers squared off against at least 10 heavily armed men from the Mexican side of the Rio Grande.

U.S. officials who pursued three fleeing SUVs to the Mexican border saw what appeared to be a Mexican military Humvee help one of the SUVs when it got stuck in the river, he said.

I think both of these people are right. I don't think the Mexican military is officially doing it, but there's some evidence that they're receiving aid from someone in the military. The Humvee and uniforms didn't come from thin air. There's a chance they could be stolen, or any number of other things, but it clearly doesn't look good. If these incidents continue, as they do apparently have precedent, the politics of immigration is only going to heat up and be evermore important in 2008.

Goring

This just speaks for itself.

Imagine this sales pitch: Babe, it's a movie about global warming. Starring Al Gore. Doing a slide show.

With charts.

About "soil evaporation."

Apparently it got a standing ovation. I wonder if most Sundance attendees are liberals?

Brilliant. . .Only the Opposite

Roy Blunt, current Acting Majority Leader, has taken a great next step in winning the election for Majority Leader. He's pissed off right-wing bloggers. Good work, Roy. Enjoy your has-beenitude. My feeling was that bloggers weren't leaning in his direction anyway. He's basically Diet DeLay, and Shaddegg has been both better in his PR since he announced and has been courting bloggers (AND he's not obviously corrupt and is more conservative, to boot). This is Roy's death-kiss, I think. If he somehow still wins Majority Leader, I won't expect bloggers to treat him very kindly.

Hats Off, Chainz

It looks like Chainz was right. The intervention of American money into the Palestinian elections did little to help Fatah, and might've helped Hamas.

The radical Islamic group Hamas claimed victory Thursday in voting for the first Palestinian parliament in a decade, saying it won a clear majority of seats and had the right to form the next government.

The claims, although unconfirmed officially, were followed by the resignation of Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia and the rest of his cabinet. Resignation was a formality following parliamentary elections, but Qureia acknowledged that Hamas had likely won a majority in the 132-seat legislature and should be given the opportunity to form the next cabinet.

"This is the choice of the people," Qureia told reporters in the West Bank city of Ramallah. "It should be respected."

If confirmed by election officials in a Thursday evening news conference, the Hamas victory would end the governing Fatah party's decade-long control of the Palestinian Authority. It would also severely complicate Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas' policy of pursuing negotiations with Israel under a U.S.-backed peace plan known as the roadmap, which conflicts with Hamas' platform in several key respects.

Hamas officials in Gaza City, where their victory was greatest, said the group has no plans to negotiate with Israel or recognize Israel's right to exist. Europe, Israel and the United States classify Hamas, formally known as the Islamic Resistance Movement, as a terrorist organization.

So the major political party and probably the government of nascent Palestine is a terrorist organization. The magnitude of this doesn't need to be emphasized too much, as it's blatantly obvious. What is most interesting about this though is whether Hamas will mature into a political entity or stick to its current suicide-bomber and violence-laced agenda. If so, expect nothing to happen in the whole Israel vs. Palestine mess. With Queria and Sharon both out of the picture now, and Hamas emboldened, no real advocates for peaceful co-existence are in the picture. Maybe Hamas will mature into a political party independent of violence. Perhaps they will continue to be dedicated to the destruction of Israel, but maybe in some peaceful way? Yeah, sounds dubious to me too.

I Guess We'll Need to Use a Lot More Pam

Why oh why does everything that makes life easier end up killing you?

PFOA -- a key processing agent in making nonstick and stain-resistant materials -- has been linked to cancer and birth defects in animals and is in the blood of 95 percent of Americans, including pregnant women. It has also been found in the blood of marine organisms and Arctic polar bears.

The voluntary pact, which was crafted by the Environmental Protection Agency, will force companies to reduce manufacturing emissions of PFOA by 95 percent by no later than 2010. They will also have to reduce trace amounts of the compound in consumer products by 95 percent during the same period and virtually eliminate them by 2015.

The agreement will dramatically reduce the extent to which PFOA shows up in a wide variety of everyday products, including pizza boxes, nonstick pans and microwave-popcorn bags.

Dupont has even agreed to the EPA's challenge. While most of this is about the emissions and by-products of Teflon production, there are still problems with the trace amounts. Chances are, since Teflon pans aren't that old, we're really going to start seeing the after-effects, if they are significant, on people in the next few decades as people who have been served food in Teflon containers and cooked in Teflon cookware their whole lives may develop related cancers. But who knows? It's difficult to tell. I know one thing, when the teflon starts to flake off whatever I'm using I'm going to replace it INSTANTLY.

Another Free Speech Issue

Since we're getting embroiled below, I figure I should bring up another case of laws abridging free speech. I know a few commenters are outraged about censoring funeral protestors, but I doubt they'll come to the aid of corporations trying to advertise, though I don't see how one is different from the other.

"Look!" exclaims my 3-year-old daughter, pointing excitedly at a box of cookies in the supermarket. "It's Dora! And Boots!" I nod and smile. "Yes, it is," I say, and we move on.

I do not feel injured by this exchange. But according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a D.C.-based health nanny group, if I lived in Massachusetts the incident would be worth at least $25 in statutory damages.

Using that sort of reasoning, CSPI, the Boston-based Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, and two Massachusetts parents who would rather sue multinational corporations than stand up to their own children are seeking billions of dollars in damages from Viacom (which owns Nickelodeon, home of Dora the Explorer) and Kellogg, maker of sugary breakfast cereals and other food products CSPI thinks your kids shouldn't eat. The plaintiffs say it's not about the money.

I believe them. This lawsuit, which CSPI and its allies plan to file under a Massachusetts consumer protection statute prohibiting "unfair or deceptive acts or practices," is really about censorship. By threatening onerous damages, CSPI aims to achieve through the courts what it has unsuccessfully demanded from legislators and regulators for decades: a ban on food advertising aimed at children.

The lawsuit argues that Viacom is on the hook for $25 "at a minimum" every time a kid in Massachusetts sees one of its characters attached to a "nutritionally poor" food product, or sees an ad for such a product on Nickelodeon or in another Viacom outlet. By CSPI's reckoning, Kellogg owes $25 whenever a child sees one of its ads, so an Apple Jacks commercial on Nickelodeon is worth $50 per viewer every time it airs.

Perhaps the absolute free speech advocates below can either agree with the absurdity of this, or explain to me why funeral-goers should have to remain subject to protestors hurling obscenity at their deceased love-ones but children have to be protected from the speech of advertisers? This is why I get so cynical during free speech debates. Those who often claim unlimited free speech rights for protestors are quick to swing the swords of political correctness and censorship against displays of religion and commercial interests.

How is this Massachussetts law any different from the Missouri one? Both attempt to regulate speech. I don't see any difference.

Democrat Armageddon, Part Deux

Matt Yglesias:

A well-executed campaign of fear-mongering on national security beats even the best domestic social policy message imaginable. Democrats can't put their heads in the sand about the NSA and Iran and expect better health care policy to save the day.

E.J. Dionne

By not engaging the national security debate, Democrats cede to Rove the power to frame it. Consider that clever line about Democrats having a pre-Sept. 11 view of the world. The typical Democratic response would be defensive: "No, no, of course 9/11 changed the world." More specifically, there's a lot of private talk among Democrats that the party should let go of the issue of warrantless spying on Americans because the polls show that a majority values security and safety.

What Democrats should have learned is that they cannot evade the security debate. They must challenge the terms under which Rove and Bush would conduct it. Imagine, for example, directly taking on that line about Sept. 11. Does having a "post-9/11 worldview" mean allowing Bush to do absolutely anything he wants, any time he wants, without having to answer to the courts, Congress or the public? Most Americans -- including a lot of libertarian-leaning Republicans -- reject such an anti-constitutional view of presidential power. If Democrats aren't willing to take on this issue, what's the point of being an opposition party?

Both of them are dead right. A lot of Democrats continue to rejoice over the possible corruption schemes against the GOP, but expecting the other team to screw the pooch isn't going to result in wins in 2006. Democrats STILL have failed to deal with National Security issues in any constructive way. Every time something happens in Iraq we get defeatists who want immediate withdrawal (who are correctly painted as people who want to "cut and run") or some sort of dissembling Kerryesque straddle about failed management of the war effort. That won't win. Focusing on domestic policy alone, won't win. Believe it or not, there are major Security Threats taking place right now when it comes to Iran, not to mention a lot of other simmering pots on the backburner like Sudan, Israel/Palestine, and North Korea. Democrats have no answers to these problems, nor even a coherent way to talk about them without resorting to Vietnam analogies and snarkiness in regard to Iraq.

Google.cn

Access to a 100+ million (and growing!) user market in exchange for one paltry little thing called freedom of information.

Fair trade?

The Gag Me State?

Missouri should really change its nickname from the Show Me State to Gag Me State. The Missouri State Senate passed legislation on Tuesday that would restrict protests at funerals. The legislation was a direct response to a Kansas group that targets and protests at military funerals. Fueled in part, no doubt, by good intentions toward the families who have lost loved ones in the Iraq quagmire (there, Mr. P, I’ve used that dirty liberal term for the conflict), this legislative action reeks of First Amendment violations.

It falls into the “freedom of speech is only good as long as we like what you’re saying” category of policy- and law-making. The Spc. Edward Lee Myers' Law treads the thin line between what is lawful and what our delicate cultural sensibilities find to be acceptable. The American Civil Liberties Union gets a lot of flak for defending the former while standing up to those who favor the latter.

Should people be allowed to protest at funerals? Should they be allowed to interrupt this sad, private event?

Don’t look at me! I don’t know. I’m just asking!

I wonder what really initiated this legislative move. Was it respect for the deceased and their grieving families? Was it the sanctity of this final rite of passage into the great beyond? Or was it something broader, something more political in nature that sparked this sanction?

After all, the legislation seems to be primarily motivated by protests at the funerals of military personnel who died fighting a very controversial war. Emotions are running high, and patriotism – even the blind kind – seems to be the most praised value by many politicians and certainly by the current administration. From putting peace activists on the TSA no-fly lists to indiscriminately arresting protesters at anti-war rallies, the powers-that-be have made it clear that speaking out against the war in Iraq can have dire consequences for the conscientious objectors.

So, could this law be just another gag order? And if it is, what does this say about our civil liberties? Are we allowing them to be suspended, sanctioned, outright dismissed when they create embarrassments and difficulties for those holding political power?

Oh, yeah, there is another fact I forgot to mention. You remember that Kansas group I mentioned earlier, the one that gave impetus to this legislation? Well, the group is actually the Topeka-based Westboro Baptist Church, and it believes that the military deaths in Iraq are a punishment from god for homosexuality in our country. Quoted in a Fort Wayne newspaper, the leader of the group said, “"We picket all the funerals of the soldiers God sent home in his vengeance and wrath.” In addition to protesting at soldiers’ funerals around the country, the church group also protests at other events, such as the Fort Wayne performance of “The Laramie Project,” a play about Matthew Shepherd, a gay college student beaten to death in a hate crime in 1998.

Huh. It looks like this new Missouri legislation may be taking a stab at curbing hate speech. But what is hate speech? Who defines it? After all, what is hate speech to me may not be hate speech to you.

But I digress.

What interests me more here is the following: does it matter who is protesting at funerals and why? Did you feel differently about the issue considering the case of anti-war protests versus the case of anti-homosexuality protests? Should the law discern between the two, and if so, why?

But wait! The First Amendment did not say that Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech except when certain people were offended.

So where does this conundrum leave us? If a state can pass an anti-protest law in response to one (albeit very ignorant and hateful) group today, would another state pass an anti-protest law in response to another group tomorrow? And then another? And another?

And when does it stop?

As I said, I don’t know. I’m just asking.

Another Medal for Carter

The New York Review of Books has a good review of Jimmy Carter’s latest book, Our Endangered Values: American’s Moral Crisis. And the review takes on even more meaning after reading about the anti-abortion protestors that marched through Washington yesterday.

In his book, Jimmy Carter talks about how anti-abortion advocates care about making abortion illegal without also being willing to make abortions more rare. A perfect example of this is a t-shirt on one of the protestors, "Sex is good, the pill is not."

While I can understand someone’s aversion to abortion, I don’t understand how they also try to limit access to contraceptives and sex education. Here is a great quote from Jimmy Carter’s book as published in the NYRB:

Canadian and European young people are about equally active sexually, but, deprived of proper sex education, American girls are five times as likely to have a baby as French girls, seven times as likely to have an abortion, and seventy times as likely to have gonorrhea as girls in the Netherlands. Also, the incidence of HIV/ AIDS among American teenagers is five times that of the same age group in Germany.... It has long been known that there are fewer abortions in nations where prospective mothers have access to contraceptives, the assurance that they and their babies will have good health care, and at least enough income to meet their basic needs.

I don’t get the impression from pro-life activists that they actually feel much compassion towards the unborn, and even less compassion once the child is born. And I am not just talking about crude jokes referring to coat-hangers. There are rarely calls to increase funding for child services but many calls to end, or reduce funding for, welfare programs like WIC. If this movement encompassed a whole spectrum of improving the lives of the innocent, then maybe I could see their cause as just.

Wait Until Next Year

At first I didn’t think this was a good idea. After all, why would it be any better to allow Sudan to head the African Union next year? I can’t imagine that anyone believes that the Sudanese government will end the conflict in Darfur by then. After thinking about it a little more though, I realized that the conflict might actually be over by then because the Janjaweed might have finished their job of killing, raping, and purging non-Muslim Africans from lands in western Sudan. So if the conflict is over, there should be no obstacles to Sudan taking over leadership.

Sarcasm might be hard to pick up when it is in writing, so I will tell you flat out that yes, I was being sarcastic. Africa will never make any progress as long as it continues to side-step major issues like this one. Sudan has no business heading the African Union this year, next year, or any year in the foreseeable future (even if the conflict ends naturally as I described above). Allowing them to do so will take away any small amounts of credibility the organization has. If the African Union wants sole responsibility for dealing with conflicts on the African continent, it has to show that it has the will to actually confront these major issues. Delaying the confrontation for another year, does not send this message.

Shhh... It's a Secret

Apparently the Bush administration, through USAID, is supporting the Palestinian Authority, and coincidentally Fatah, in upcoming parliamentary elections. Their goal is to oppose the radical terrorist / political group Hamas. Although I am not opposed to legal American involvement in foreign democratic elections, there are some things about this that bother me.

First of all, if word spreads in Palestine that the US is supporting Fatah, it could give a huge boost to Hamas. No Palestinian political group wants to be painted as a stooge of the American government.

Furthermore, with Hamas running on an anti-corruption platform, their election could help to reform the government. Right now, it seems that Hamas is more responsive to what the Palestinian people want in their goverment, as can be seen in their rising poll numbers.

Granted, I do understand the threat that Hamas could present to the peace process if they received a large share of the parliamentary seats. What we could have is a highly efficient Palestinian government that is violently anti-Israeli. But I still think it would be better for all sides if we kept our influence out of the elections.

Democrat Armageddon

Guess what? All Hillary's posturing is NOT paying off! Polls pitting her against McCain in 08 don't look good.

Hillary vs McCain 52%-36%, McCain's favor
Hillary vs. Generic GOP 41%-39%, Hillary's Favor
McCain vs. Generic Dem 36%-29%, McCain's Favor

2 Lessons:

1) Hillary barely beats Generic GOP, within MARGIN OF ERROR! Not good at all. The Republicans could go with McCain or someone obscure and probably win.

2) Democrats actually would fare better against McCain if they ran an obscure (MARK WARNER!) than if they ran Hillary.

Bottom Line: Hillary is bad for the Dems. And if Republicans ended up choosing McCain they'd likely take the White House in a landslide.

H/t: Kaus!

For Pete's Sake

Since I joined this blog, I have been trying to reconcile my feelings on steroids in baseball specifically, and cheating in sports generally. As events have unfolded, I recognize that my feelings have changed. I was quick to come to the players’ defense during the Congressional hearings on steroids in baseball, but as time has passed, I have felt more angry at the lack of honesty coming from the players.

I still don’t think I have a clear position on this issue. I definitely resent that Mark McGwire doesn’t want to be candid about his use of performance enhancing drugs. But I don’t know if that should keep him out of the Hall of Fame completely or even prevent him from getting inducted on the first ballot.

I recognized my inconsistencies recently when I read an interview with Pete Rose on ESPN’s website. For so long I have been completely against Rose ever getting into the Hall of Fame or being allowed back into baseball. He broke one of the cardinal rules of the game by betting on baseball while he was still involved. For a decade after he was banned from baseball by then commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti (father of actor Paul Giamatti), Rose tried to maintain his innocence. Only recently, through the release of a book, has he taken responsibility and admitted he had bet on baseball. After reading the article, I came to feel a little differently about him. He comes off repentant, but while also expressing the right reverence for the game and an understanding of why different people feel differently about his situation.

When I think back on all the great memories Mark McGwire has given me, I become more willing to forgive him. And I know I would definitely forgive him if he actually owned up to what he did. So maybe my unwillingness to forgive Rose (as well as Shoeless Joe Jackson) is based on the fact that they were before my time. Those who saw how hard Rose played every day might understandably want to see him take his honored place in Cooperstown, New York.

The argument for Rose's reinstatement in baseball and eligibility for the Hall of Fame is even more convincing if you think of gambling as an addiction and think of all the other players that are in the Hall despite their own character flaws and battles with different addictions. Integrity of the game is so important to fans, but so are the experiences we take away from it. Mickey Mantle could have been an even better baseball player had he taken care of himself. Instead, his expectation of dying young gave him a reckless attitude that showed some disrespect for the game (often playing hung-over). But he was still a larger-than-life athlete, and had given so many great memories to baseball fans. I could actually go on and on about the flaws of many Hall of Fame players; Ty Cobb was a racist; Gaylord Perry was a known spitball pitcher.

In the end, I think my feelings are changing. The National Baseball Hall of Fame is a memorial to the game of baseball and the athletes that have done the most to make this game great. There is inherent problem when you have someone who has given to the game, but also taken away from the game. Since we don’t expect players to be perfect, maybe we should punish players who take away from the game without making the punishments permanent. Maybe there should be no such thing as a cardinal sin in baseball. Maybe Rose and Jackson's time is finally approaching.

Whoa...

I never expected the Catholic Church to take the side of Darwin in the battle between evolution and Intelligent Design. Maybe I should have known that even the Catholic Church can recognize ridiculous American arguments when it sees them. Here are some gems from the article:

The author, Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, laid out the scientific rationale for Darwin's theory of evolution, saying that in the scientific world, biological evolution "represents the interpretative key of the history of life on Earth."

He lamented that certain American "creationists" had brought the debate back to the "dogmatic" 1800s, and said their arguments weren't science but ideology.

[edit]

Intelligent design "doesn't belong to science and the pretext that it be taught as a scientific theory alongside Darwin's explanation is unjustified," he wrote.

"It only creates confusion between the scientific and philosophical and religious planes."

I know this will not change anything in America because American conservatives only listen to the Pope when it is convenient (abortion) and ignore him when it isn't (death penalty).

Maybe Not the Best Idea

Tim Kaine will be providing the Democratic response to the SOTU. I have mixed feelings about this. And it isn't the kind of weird lefty mixed feelings Pandagon has when it says this:

Kaine ran an unnecessary gay-baiting campaign against an even-worse homo-bigot Jerry Kilgore in the Virginia governor’s race, and Kaine has pledged to sign off on an onerous marriage amendment that enshrines bigotry into the state’s constitution.

However, I’m willing to take the did-he-really-gay-bait-the-heinous-Kilgore issue off of the table, since it’s noise that will distract some people from the larger issue, which is what Kaine represents as the new face of the party. The gay residents of Virginia were stuck with two pro-marriage amendment choices for governor because it reflects the political lay of the land there. I feel for folks there.

Any gay Dem should be sick to their stomach at this pick. Kaine is just another Republican-lite clone from a Red state, and that’s where the Dem leadership has indicated it wants to move the party. We are on notice — homos are going to be tossed overboard — again — in search of the elusive win. They haven’t figured out that voters need and want to see a party that has values it actually believes in and is willing to defend — and they won’t get a dime from me with this bullsh*t.

HA! First this makes me chuckle profusely because it's wrong on so many levels. Kaine is a bit red on social issues, it's true, but he's never expressed hostility toward a lot of gay issues like gay adoption and only the thinnest against civil unions. That's pretty much mainstream in most of the Democratic party. Sure, he's gone against marriage, but how many Dems in Governor's mansions, Congress, or the Senate have actually come out politically in favor of Gay Marriage to the point of proposing legislation? I think I hear crickets chirping. Let's also not forget that on the issue of the Death Penalty, Kaine is decidedly liberal. And this of course ended up being the issue Jerry Kilgore tried to kill him on and ended up crucifying himself with when he did over-the-top attack ads. But that's neither here nor there.

Kaine is a great choice in a lot of respects. He's a decent speaker, he can think on his feet, and he comes with the whole package of being a former Catholic missionary and such. He'd be superb to blaze against Bush on any domestic issue, having massive experience in state and local government issues like health care, education, and other things that tend to be Democratic strengths. And he's pulled such things off in practice. That said, I highly doubt this SOTU is going to be about domestic issues. If the Dems can continue to think they can be a domestic issue only party, which the selection of Kaine suggests, they are going to get clobbered in 06 and 08. There's a fair chance Bush will talk a lot about Iraq, and he even might bring up the pressing security issue right now: Iran. All of which Kaine will have precisely zero to talk about. Maybe Kaine will be able to pull it off, but I've never seen him talk about Foreign Policy. He's definitely a domestic guy, with all state and local government experience, and a career as a criminal defense attorney. As a missionary he was international in some respects, but not in any security sense. So he has zero credit.

The Dems needed a real jack of all trades to respond to what may be a strong SOTU, especially someone strong on security who will be able to rebut and offer alternatives to those issues on Iraq and Iran. And that's not what Tim Kaine is.