MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: April 1, 2007

« March 25, 2007 - March 31, 2007 | Main | April 8, 2007 - April 14, 2007 »

April 6, 2007

Massive Climate Change in the American Southwest

Read about this and other weird weather phenomena on our environmental blog, The Blue Marble.

It's a Gay World After All

Disney has at last opened their Disney "Fairy Tale Weddings" to same-sex couples. Which means a gay or lesbian couple can now too arrive at their ceremony in a glass coach pulled by four dappled-gray mares, and they can even have Mickey and Minnie Mouse in attendance.

Folks at Disney apparently had a change of heart after last month asserting that a Florida marriage license was mandatory for the Disney World ceremonies that can also take place at the "It's a Small World Mall" and that come complete with a "fairy godplanner."

"We believe this change is consistent with Disney's longstanding policy of welcoming every guest in an inclusive environment," Disney Parks and Resorts spokesman Donn Walker said earlier today. "We want everyone who comes to celebrate a special occasion at Disney to feel welcome and respected."

Yeah, that, and Disney is looking at the bottom line. The Fortune 500 company seems to have finally realized that there is cash money to be made from opening their $8,000 and up wedding operation up to a relatively affluent population. Cameron brings home this economic argument in our current issue:

If half the same-sex couples now living together were to get married (the rate seen in Vermont and Massachusetts) and were to spend a quarter of what straight couples do, it results in a wedding-industry boon of $2 billion.

Cha-ching.

Unclear what the fallout will be from the right. The Southern Baptist Convention enforced a boycott of Disney for years for its "gay agenda," which includes providing health benefits to same-sex partners of employees, and the airing of a primetime show on its ABC network featuring, gasp, Ellen!

The convention dropped its boycott in 2005; but now that Mickey and Minnie will be cheering on gay marriage? We'll see what happens.

It's the Strategy, Stupid

I blogged in February that insurgents' discovery of chlorine bombs was an especially ominous turn in Iraq—optimistic assessments of the "surge" notwithstanding—because the bombs have far higher death tolls than standard I.E.D.'s.

Today the sixth chlorine bomb in 2 months exploded in Anbar province. A chlorine-laden truck bomb in Ramadi killed 20 and wounded at least 30.

The only believable good news regarding the surge was a drop in the death toll between mid-February and mid-March. In reality, the drop was likely due to Moktada al-Sadr's order that his Mahdi Army militia cease resisting the Americans by violent means.

Even though the military hasn't come right out and told the press that al-Sadr is responsible for the surge's apparent success, they know he is. Last week, the military released a key aide to al-Sadr, which the Sacramento Bee called "a sure sign U.S. officials are working hard to keep al-Sadr's support for the Baghdad security plan." Al-Sadr has called for a demonstration against the American occupation on April 9 and ejected two associates who met with Americans, but he has continued to say that his followers should not resist the security surge by violent means.

So why is the U.S. killing civilians and militiamen in al-Sadr's home turf of Sadr City? Earlier today, U.S. and Iraqi forces raided residential neighborhoods there. They killed 4 and wounded 3 militiamen. But they didn't stop there. After distributing pamphlets encouraging people to cooperate with security forces, American helicopters fired missiles that wounded 15 civilians. The New York Times reports, "American forces later fired on a Toyota sedan, killing all three passengers inside. And two students were killed by mortar when Americans fired on a college residence by mistake, Iraqi police said."

What? What kind of perverse incentive is that to retain the (albeit lukewarm) cooperation of the Sadrists? Predictably, a representative of al-Sadr's group—which is big and powerful—expressed anger and confusion. Haydar Al Natiq, of the Sadr office in Diwaniya, told the Times, "This operation is unjustified and will stir up the situation in the time where a peace conference was supposed to be held between the Sadrists and the security forces."

Why Christians Hate Gays, Blackwater USA is Even Creepier than You Thought, and You Shouldn't Buy Bolthouse Farms (All in One Handy Blog Post!)

We throw around the term "religious right" so often that sometimes I wonder if it's not as much a bugaboo as the "homosexual agenda." But then I read articles like Sarah Posner's today on AlterNet. Posner profiles an organization called the Alliance Defense Fund. The ADF is a legal organization created in 1994 with support from all the other players in what is actually a small, well funded, clique. Contributing to ADF were James Dobson of Focus on the Family, D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries, and Bill Bright, the founder of Campus Crusade for Christ.

Last year, ADF received more than $21 million in charitable donations. Major donors included:

-- the Covenant Foundation (which, in turn, is financed by James Leininger, the "sugar daddy" of the Texas religious right);

-- the Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation, whose vice president, Erik Prince, founded the Blackwater USA military-security firm; and

-- the Bolthouse Foundation, a nonprofit arm of Bolthouse Farms, the California natural-foods company whose products are often seen at leftie natural foods stores.

The ADF is to the Christian right what the ACLU is to the left. It has trained more than 900 lawyers, who must then perform extensive pro bono legal work for Christian causes. It happily provides free legal services to the (well funded) groups that created it. Its causes? Pro-life, anti-gay, and "religious freedom." ADF has been particularly ingenious in its definition of religious freedom. The group invented the motif of Christian victimhood that fuels everything from claims of a "war on Christmas" to religious groups' "rights" to public funding.

ADF successfully argued in Rosenberger vs. The Regents of the University of Virginia that public bodies which fund non-religious groups "discriminate" against religious groups if they do not fund them. The case did serious damage to the wall of separation between church and state and, as Posner says, "elevated ADF's mythology of the victimized Christian to a legal precedent." The precedent is especially damaging because ADF is now using it to claim that preventing Christians from discriminating against gays and lesbians is actually discrimination against Christians and a violation of their religious freedom.

And there you have it: That's why Christians are on a crusade against gay people. Not because they are actually a serious threat, but because they provide a test case to see how much the religious right can get away with in the name of religious freedom.

States Aim to Reform NCLB

The non-partisan National Governors Association this week asked the federal government for more control over the notorious 2002 education referendum, No Child Left Behind.

Governors hooked up with state superintendents and state school board members just as NCLB comes up for renewal this year.

The law says that all public schools nationwide must meet proficiency standards by the 2013-14 school year. Since it became law in 2002, no school has completely met that requirement. In short, the association is asking for more flexibility to intervene at underperforming schools (currently the federal government can implement school takeovers), alternative assessments for special education students, and more leeway in defining who is a "highly qualified teacher."

A month ago, President Bush told Indiana school children and educators that he wants public schools to personalize and individualize education for each student. He also said he refuses to water down the law.

But its the devilish little details of this law that will determine the face of public education for the next six years. And like they have done with climate change, where there are similarly high stakes, states no longer trust the feds to handle things and are ready to deal with the details themselves.

—Gary Moskowitz

United States is Working to Undermine Mugabe

Three universities are considering revoking honorary degrees awarded to Robert Mugabe before he turned into a brutal dictator. Back when he was seen as a model for African democracy, having liberating Zimbabwe from white tyranny, he received honorary degrees from UMass-Amherst in 1986, University of Edinburgh in Scotland in 1984, and Michigan State University in 1990. Also, the US admitted for the first time yesterday that it was actively working to undermine him. Before toppling him and picking a successor, it's worth a refresher on lessons of other interventions in history—and a look at priorities, since we're ignoring a genocide underway not so far north.

Call Girls With A Mission

glumbert.com - Republican Call Girls

Teens Take Prayers to New Heights

16px; border-width: 1px; border-style: solid; border-color:#000000;">

Ten private planes will be circling over Ohio this afternoon filled with people praying for the state's 11 million residents. "You see rows and rows of houses, and you know they are full of people you are praying for," says Samantha Ciminillo, 18, a member of Teens for Christ. It's one way to get closer to God, who occasionally comes down to earth, but spends most of His time sitting on clouds, ordering angels around, His beard blowing in the wind.

National Guard: One Weekend a Month...And Two Years in Iraq

Guard units who have already served their year in Iraq are headed back yet again. No one is surprised by redeployments at this point. But 14,000 National Guard troops? That's a heck of a lot of one-weekend-a-monthers who have to, again, leave their real jobs and homes and lives for another tour of duty.

To date no National Guard brigades have been redeployed. Why? The Pentagon's policy, in place since the Iraq invasion began, has been for Guard and Reserve units to be deployed for a maximum of 12 months every five years. The rest of those years the Guardsmen and women are supposed to be available to secure the homefront.

But when Bush announced his surge plan in January, that policy was obviously scratched. They've already sent active-duty troops back again and again, have increased incentives and slashed standards for recruits, without a draft where else would they turn?

Guard troops are not the only one's suffering of course. Active duty troop deployments are now on the fast track. On Monday, the Pentagon said it would send about 4,500 active duty troops to Iraq within a year of their last deployment. The Pentagon's goal for active-duty troops is two years at home for every one year deployed.

April 5, 2007

How the Sudan Thwarts Humanitarian Work

The world is failing not only to curb a genocide but also to lift a finger for Darfur refugees across the border in the Central African Republic. Only 18 percent of the United Nations' $54 million appeal for refugee aid there has been financed. That's less than the cost of a new high school gym. If your eyes are glazing over those numbers, here's what else John Holmes told the U.N. Security Council yesterday. (Holmes is—this is a mouthful—Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and United Nations Emergency Relief Coordinator.)

On his way to a refugee camp, Holmes was stopped and turned around at a military checkpoint. "The Government had later apologized, but, if such an incident could happen on such a visit—with journalists documenting every step—one could easily imagine the daily struggle faced by aid workers on the ground." Yeah, their daily struggle is aggravated by a propaganda suggesting they are spies and have a hidden agenda. Also, Sudanese officials in January orchestrated a raid on offices of the United Nations, the African Union Mission in the Sudan, and humanitarian agencies. Twenty staff were assaulted, arrested, and, just to add insult to injury, criminally charged.

To put this in context, the Sudanese capitol of Khartoum is flush with oil revenue in one of the biggest economic booms anywhere. Why isn't the U.N. using more muscle? Word is that as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, China has thwarted attempts. No accident that more than half of Sudan's oil exports go to China, and Beijing is the Sudan's leading arms supplier. Still, China seems like a lame excuse for other countries to feebly stand by and wait till it's over. There's a lot more we could do, far short of military intervention. Just imagine what that 20,000 troop surge in Iraq could do for Darfur. For more from Mother Jones, check out this photo essay.

Cameras that Watch and Comment

Mother Jones has made the point that there are quite a few surveillance cameras watching Americans. But Americans have it good compared to Britons: The UK has one surveillance camera for every 14 citizens. Now, the cameras are going to get voice hookups, so they will be able to scold you if you litter or pick your nose. (Like, why are you watching me if you don't want to see me pick my nose?) Human observers will be making the commentary, so perhaps it will also include catcalls. Ay, mamita, I can't wait.

If Bush Could Give the Man who Murdered a Senator's Mom a Recess Appointment, He'd Do It

Democrats don't much care for Sam Fox, who was Bush's nominee to be ambassador to Belgium. Fox was a major contributor to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group that hit Kerry way below the belt in the 2004 campaign. Senate Democrats were so outraged by Fox's nomination that Bush ultimately withdrew it. Pundits cooed that Bush was really getting the hang of working with Democrats.

No, he's just a nasty, nasty man. With the Democrats gone for spring vacation, Bush gave Fox—and two others—recess appointments. But, he protested innocently, Fox won't draw a government salary. (A) That may be unconstitutional, and (B) Fox is a multi-millionaire.

Who were the other two recess appointments? Well, it just gets better. Bush named Andrew Biggs, a champion of privatization—another issue on which many believed Bush had conceded defeat—as the deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Bush also named Susan Dudley, to whom all regulation looks like a sharpened silver cross does to a vampire, to lead the Office of Management and Budget—you know, the office that has to sign off on most government regulation. Her appointment promises to be particularly damaging following as it does on the heels of an executive order giving the OMB increased control over such important agencies as the EPA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The New York Times reached Sarah Feinberg, a spokeswoman for the Democratic caucus in the House, who managed to say, "Clearly, these are politically provocative acts." I hereby nominate Sarah Feinberg for the grace under fire award.

Bush's Shell Game Continues

Tuesday, President Bush almost seemed to be his old swaggering self in a Rose Garden press conference. But it's easy to go on the offensive when the defense has called time-out: Congress is on spring recess. Bush attacked the Democratic leadership for leaving without finishing the Iraq war funding bill before they left. The president said if Congress doesn't step to, he may be "forced to consider cutting back on equipment, equipment repair and quality-of-life initiatives for our Guard and Reserve forces," to ensure funding for "troops on the front lines."

This assessment was absolute balderdash. A stop-gap funding measure has already provided $70 billion for the Iraq war. Congressional Democrats have reminded that Bush's refusal to be more honest about the costs of the war in his own budget has forced them to approve a series of piecemeal spending packages. And last spring, the Republican-led Congress also left for spring recess without finalizing an Iraq spending package—in fact, they didn't do so until the middle of June.

In the same press conference, Bush charged that the $70-billion supplemental spending bill is loaded with Democratic "pork." The president's War on Pork (WOP) began just as the Democrats took power. Nifty, huh? Yesterday, the White House unveiled an online database of all the earmarks in the 2005 fiscal year budget. Well, all the congressional earmarks, which total $19 billion. The White House neglected to include its own pet pigs, which bring the total to $48 billion.

Mary Cheney: It's a Boy!

Dick Cheney's already a grandfather. There are five young impressionable minds he's molding; let that one settle in. (And all those family hunting trips? Hopefully the grandkids get the good body armor.) Now a sixth is on the way, this one born of his lesbian daughter Mary and her partner, Heather Poe. Cheney has hardly been the bragging granddad to date, but yesterday he went public with his pride as he announced that the baby is a boy.

Cheney told ABC Radio, "I'm looking forward to the arrival of a new grandson." He said that the baby was due next month (but didn't say whether his nursery is filled with purple Teletubbies or is swathed with a rainbow).

He also didn't say that he supports the right of said grandson's parents to be happily married. The bastard.

"I think each state ought to have the capacity to decide how they want to handle those issues . . . And I obviously think it's important for us as a society to be tolerant and respectful of whatever arrangements people enter into."

Cheney's punt to the states is telling. His daughter and her partner live in Virginia, where in November voters approved a sweeping amendment banning gay marriage (and stripping all unmarried couples of many rights). So Poe will have no legal relationship to the child she and Mary are bringing into the world together — how would Dick feel about this one if Poe were the one carrying the baby?

But in some ways, this was a pretty big step for the guy. Remember back in January when Wolf Blitzer asked him about the impending arrival of his grandchild? Cheney warmly replied that the topic was "out of line."

John Walker Lindh Asks for Shorter Sentence in Light of Hicks Plea Deal

In light of David Hicks' sentencing to nine months in an Australian prison, John Walker Lindh is requesting that his 20-year sentence be reduced. An entry on Lindh from the Mother Jones Iraq War Timeline:

[Lindh is captured on November 25, 2001 and] will be charged with ten counts, including conspiring to support terrorist organizations and conspiring to murder Americans. Maximum sentence: three life terms and 90 additional years in prison. He will eventually plead guilty to two counts: violating an executive order prohibiting US citizens from giving their services to the Taliban and committing a felony while carrying firearms. He'll be sentenced to 20 years in prison, a long sentence for a nonviolent felony conviction for a first-time offender.

David Hicks is an Australian who was caught fighting for the Taliban by the Northern Alliance. John Walker Lindh is an American who was caught fighting for the Taliban by the Northern Alliance. One could probably argue that Hicks' sentence is too light (and pretty clearly a political move designed to help the unpopular conservative Australian PM John Howard in an election year), and one could probably argue that Lindh's sentence is too heavy. Dude was an incredibly screwed up 19-year-old when he made his way to a Pakistani madrassa and began his journey to "terrorist" status.

Keep in mind that Lindh was tried and sentenced roughly half a year after he was captured, whereas Hicks was held in Guantanamo for almost five years without charge.

And FYI, Mother Jones has done some really good work on John Walker Lindh in the past. See "Trial by Fury" and "Anatomy of a Whistleblower."

Giuliani Flip-Flop-Flips on Flat Tax

Rudy Giuliani is was one of the GOP's strongest opponents to a flat tax. When Steve Forbes was running for president on the idea in 1996, Rudy "disparaged a flat tax in general and Mr. Forbes's plan in particular," according to the New York Times. Rudy said a flat tax "would really be a disaster."

But what's a disaster between presidential candidates? In exchange for Steve Forbes' endorsement, Giuliani recently announced he was a big proponent of the flat tax. He said of a federal income tax, "maybe I'd suggest not doing it at all, but if we were going to do it, a flat tax would make a lot of sense."

Okay, so that's a flip-flop. Care to reverse your position again, and make it a flip-flop-flip?

[When asked how he could support a flat tax after long opposition, Giuliani said,] "I didn't favor it, I said something academic... What I said was, and it was not a joke, but it was half-jocular, was if we didn't have an income tax...what would I favor? First I would favor no tax. That would be my first position. My second position would probably be a flat tax."

But, he said, the tax "would probably not be feasible."

I love this attitude. Can you imagine him as president? "Oh, did I say we should bomb Iran? I was kidding. But kidding on the square. I was, like, half kidding. Oh, Ahmadinejad launch an attack on Israel as a response? Crap. You're kidding, right?"

The problem with Giuliani, and maybe this is a good problem, is that he isn't comfortable flip-flopping. McCain panders to people he once despised and Romney has reversed his entire playbook on social issues -- and both are sticking to their reversals, no matter how shameless or false they appear, and no matter how hard they get hammered for it. Giuliani, on the other hand, seems uncomfortable abandoning positions he has long held, and after he abandons them, he claims them back, or gets hopelessly muddled.

Maybe that's to his credit.

More on this at Bruce Reed's space on Slate. Also, Cameron blogged about the flat tax and Giuliani's relationship to the crooked Bernard Kerik in an earlier post titled "Giuliani Meltdown."

Giuliani Flip-Flop-Flips on Public Funding for Abortions

Earlier, I wrote about Giuliani's flip-flops on public funding for abortion:

A top Rudy advisor has told the conservative National Review that Rudy opposes public funding for abortions. That's very different from Rudy's position in the 90s, when he ran for office touting his support for public funding.

CNN dug further into this recently when it interviewed Giuliani, and some poor writer had to figure out how to transcribe Giuliani's endless maneuvering and non-answers. Check it out.

In a 1989 speech now being widely circulated on the Internet, Giuliani called for public funding of abortions for poor women, saying, "We cannot deny any woman the right to make her own decision about abortion because she lacks resources."

Asked by Bash [the interviewer] if he would maintain that position as president, Giuliani said "probably."

"I would have to re-examine all of those issues and exactly what was at stake then -- that was a long time ago," he said. "When I was mayor, adoptions went up, abortions went down. But ultimately, it's a constitutional right, and therefore if it's a constitutional right ... you have to make sure that people are protected."

Pressed if he would support public funding for abortions, Giuliani said, "If it would deprive someone of a constitutional right, yes, if that's the status of the law, then I would, yes."

After the interview, Giuliani's campaign clarified that if elected, he would not seek to change current federal law, which limits public funding for abortions to cases of rape, incest or where the life of the pregnant woman is in danger.

So within the space of one interview, Giuliani says he would "probably" support public funding for abortions, then says he would have to support public funding because choice is a constitutional right, then says he would not support public funding except in a few instances.

All of this from a guy who has spent his career being a strong pro-choice advocate, and is known for his strength and resolve.

April 4, 2007

McCain's Bazaar Photo Op Saga Ends in Bloodshed

God, this is so sad.

21 Shia market workers were ambushed, bound and shot dead north of the capital. The victims came from the Baghdad market visited the previous day by John McCain, the US presidential candidate, who said that an American security plan in the capital was starting to show signs of progress...

Mr. McCain said that the situation was showing signs of improvement and blamed waning support in the United States for the war on the media, which were portraying an overly negative image of the crisis.

I suppose if 21 people weren't killed coming out of the market, 21 different people would have been killed somewhere else, just because violence is that bad in Baghdad these days. But seriously, Jesus Christ.

What a horrible price to pay so an American politican could make a fake point to undergird his fake credibility.

Spotted on Wonkette.

Gingrich: Pie, Meet Boca

At a speech to the National Federation of Republican Women, Newt Gingrich argued that the United States should abolish bilingual education so that "people…learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto." The likely presidential candidate also said that the government should not require that ballots "be printed in any one of 700 languages depending on who randomly shows up" to vote. (Because non-English speakers do everything without foresight or logic, apparently.) The lady Republicans cheered thunderously.

Hispanics, however, were predictably peeved by these comments, and Gingrich was asked about them in an appearance on Hannity & Colmes. I'm not sure if his response there was anti-Semitic or just stupid, but he said, "Frankly, ghetto, historically had referred as a Jewish reference originally. I did not mention Hispanics, and I certainly do not want anybody who speaks Spanish to think I’m in any way less than respectful of Spanish or any other language spoken by people who come to the United States."

Finally, he faced the music and apologized to the Hispanic community—I mean, obviously, he meant no harm and doesn't hold any negative stereotypes or anything. What a bunch of oversensitive, hot-blooded, bean-eating, lazy, sombrero-wearing landscapers to think otherwise!

Life After Cars

Unlike the rest of the chorus chanting that Americans should drive less, James Howard Kunstler—the author of The Geography of Nowhere and The Long Emergency, an exploration of what life will be like after oil ceases to be plentiful and cheap—actually provides specifics.

Learn what they are on our environmental blog, The Blue Marble.

Debunking Sandra Tsing Loh's review of I'd Rather Eat Chocolate: Learning to Love My Low Libido

A new book claims women have weaker sex drives than men because of testosterone.
Yeah right. First of all, women have testosterone too. Secondly, testosterone is made out of cholesterol, which is just about the least sexy molecule I can think of.

Keep reading on The Riff.

Prosecutor Purge: House GOPers Call Out DOJ, Mock Bush's Immigration Record

TPMmuckraker brings this Washington Times piece to our attention. House Republicans still think there was no foul play in the recent canning of eight U.S. Attorneys (no surprise there), but they do take issue with the reasons given by the DOJ (the Dems took issue a long time ago). And one reason, in particular, has them chuckling. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican, sneered:

"It stretches anybody's credibility to suggest that this administration would have retaliated against U.S. Attorneys for not enforcing immigration laws. This administration itself is so lax in its attitude towards immigration laws and controlling the border."

Rohrabacher is referring to the firing of San Diego's former U.S. Attorney Carol Lam, who was forced to resign last winter under the premise that she was not filing enough immigration cases. (Au contraire.) Anyone who has been following the prosecutor case knows that the DOJ's allegations against Carol Lam are bogus and more likely the reason she was let go was because she was hot on the trail of defense contractor Brent Wilkes and former CIA official Kyle “Dusty” Foggo. TPMmuckraker notes that AG Alberto Gonzales' lying evoked unity among Dems and Republicans. I'd say we owe this bipartisan harmony to Bush's immigration record.

Obama Matches Hillary Clinton's Fundraising Record

People were impressed that Hillary Clinton raised $26 million in the first quarter of 2007 -- but not that impressed. Clinton, after all, came into the fight with a pre-constructed fundraising machine and the best organization of any candidate in either party. After two senate campaigns and eight years in the White House, she was pretty much expected to set a fundraising record.

This news, though, is really wowing people: Obama raised $25 million in the first quarter. It's an outstanding number from a guy who entered the national stage three years ago and is building his fundraising apparatus while raising money. I guess people don't share my concerns.

McCain Continues His Hiring Practices

In December, I reported that Sen. John McCain had hired Terry Nelson to be his campaign manager in his run for the presidency. Nelson, Bush's national political director in 2004, was the creator of the infamous anti-Ford "Call me" spot that ran in Tennessee. Later that month, I reported that McCain had also hired Jill Hazelbaker as his New Hampshire communications director. Hazelbaker is best known for posing as a liberal and disrupting dialogue on liberal blogs, then lying about it.

Now McCain has hired Fred Malek as his national finance co-chair. If that name sounds familiar, it is because Malek was the man who "counted Jews" for Richard Nixon, who was seriously anti-Semitic and wanted Jewish staff members in the Bureau of Labor Statistics demoted to less visible positions. Malek was also deputy director of CREEP in the 70s. During the 80s, he was deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee, but resigned when it was revealed that he had been the man who compiled the list of Jews for Nixon.

Iran to Release Hostages; Victory for Diplomacy

Hey, so it turns out if you don't drop bombs first and ask questions later, you can actually get something productive done. And, as a bonus, no one gets killed!

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has given "amnesty and pardon" to the fifteen British soldiers detained by an Iranian border patrol. They are set to be returned to Britain shortly.

Looks like "Britain's quiet diplomacy" did work. Who knows what backroom deal was made to secure the release of these fifteen young people -- the point is they are all safe and an international incident was averted. Are you taking notes, George?

Edwards Goes on the Attack. Target: Obama

Consider this quote from John Edwards: "I don't know about you, but I'm tired of the rhetoric. It's not enough to talk about 'hope' and 'we're all going to feel good.' We're past that. This is a very serious time in American history. It's time for anybody running for president to treat this seriously. I have talked about hope and inspiration in the past, and they're wonderful things, but you have to translate them into action."

Okay, he's obviously targeting Obama. I'm sure the Obama campaign's response, if there is one at all, will be something about how this attack is another sign of the "smallness of our politics" and how we need to "elevate the tone" in Washington.

(In a recent panel discussion between reps from all three major Dem campaigns, Obama advisor/oracle David Axelrod repeatedly used the phrase "lift this country up" while simultaneously getting in a pissing match with the Clinton rep on hand. See the period from 1:13 to 1:22 in the video "Campaign 2008: Looking Ahead." The Edwards guy tries to stop the bickering by saying something to the effect of "Guys, guys, this is what people don't like.")

I think it's great that Obama inspires and excites people, and that he brings people who don't normally follow politics into the Democratic fold. I think it's great that he gave progressives a speech they can point to and say, "That's our message. That's who we are. That's what we believe." I think it's great that he's so smart, so charismatic, and such a truly phenomenal orator that he can likely overcome the handicaps any minority candidate faces when running nationwide in America.

But can we please get some specifics? You want to lift this country up? What does that mean exactly? You want to reclaim America's promise? Great, how? I assume that underneath the platitudes is a progressive agenda that mirrors the one John Edwards articulates in detail in nearly all of his speeches and appearances. But maybe I'm projecting my desires onto Obama: maybe "the audacity of hope" means something else entirely. I really have no idea.

Perhaps Obama's high-flying rhetoric and ambiguity on the issues is acceptable to folks that make voting decisions based on how they feel and who they're inspired by, as opposed to the nuts and bolts of policy. That's fine. But I'd like more.

This contrast between Obama and Edwards plays out in their campaign appearances. Obama fills his speeches with "anecdotes and set-piece jokes" while Edwards, who has folksy charm by the bushel, instead produces a "stream of policy talk on global warming, Iraq, education, poverty, and health care." Can we meet in the middle, gentlemen? Isn't that in the spirit of lifting this country up?

Clinton Slips in New Hampshire Poll, Edwards Rises

Hillary Clinton started the presidential race with such a hefty lead over her opponents, she can fall a long way before relinquishing the frontrunner's crown. And while that may be comforting to her and her staff, they have to realize she's headed in the wrong direction.

A new CNN poll of New Hampshire voters shows Clinton's support has dropped from 35 points in February to 27 points currently. John Edwards is the main beneficiary -- his support rose from 16 points to 21 over the same period. That puts him one point ahead of Barack Obama, who sits at 20 points and has shown little change in support over the last few months.

The only other politician with double digit support was Al Gore, with 11 percent. The poll has a margin of error of 5.5 percent, which kind of makes this whole thing laughable.

April 3, 2007

Move On To A Safe Place

I have never been a big fan of MoveOn.org because I was quite opposed to the concept of moving on after the tainted 2000 election took place. It seemed to me that glossing over that incident and moving on was not what was needed. Now MoveOn has confirmed my worst suspicions by its recent decision to omit Rep. Barbara Lee's Iraq war amendment from its members' push poll.

In opposition to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's plan, Rep. Lee wanted to offer an amendment that would have funded withdrawal of troops, but she was not permitted to. But Lee has a lot of support, including: United for Peace and Justice, Progressive Democrats of America, U.S. Labor Against the War, After Downing Street, Democrats.com, Peace Action, Code Pink, Democracy Rising, True Majority, Gold Star Families for Peace, Military Families Speak Out, Backbone Campaign, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Voters for Peace, Veterans for Peace, the Green Party, True Majority, and many individuals.

MoveOn polled its members by giving them a choice of the Pelosi plan or nothing at all--no mention of Lee's plan. Eli Pariser of MoveOn says that the would-be Lee amendment was omitted from the poll because he knew a majority of MoveOn members would vote for it, and the amendment did not stand a chance in Congress.

Says David Swanson (AfterDowningStreet.org) of the poll: "It served to give cover to progressive Democrats in Congress who gave their support to Pelosi after having intended to vote no on Pelosi's bill unless it included Lee's amendment." Perhaps "progressive" is the wrong word.

Thanks to Avedon Carol at The Sideshow.

Boo-Hoo Republicans

One Republican after another is denouncing the direction of the party. Today Vic Gold, former press secretary to Barry Goldwater and a friend of Bush 41 and Dick Cheney, joins the club. The trend conveniently began just after the 2006 election. Many dyed-in-the-wool conservatives—including Mr. Gold—claim that pandering to the religious right precipitated the Grand Old Party's downfall. Some claim that over-identifying with the Republican Party has tarnished Christian evangelicals.

But both groups entered into the marriage willingly—and have been happily married since 1980. Yes, it was Reagan, that poster boy of pre-lapsarian conservatism, who presided at the ceremony. Twenty-seven years later, it strikes me as disingenuous to claim that the party's essence lies somewhere else. It's almost like saying Republicans are really like Abraham Lincoln. Meanwhile, evangelicals have been hurt how? Their numbers continue to rise, and they have inserted the issue of "[biblical] morality" into a vast spectrum of legislative issues when, in a secular state, there is no shared morality—or at least not one that goes beyond the basics of "No killing" and "No stealing." "Do unto others" is most definitely not part of the Republican platform (nor was it under Goldwater). The only thing that's really changed in the last six months is that the Evangepublicans blew their cover by pushing to legislate way beyond what can plausibly pass for political problems (think attempts to make divorces harder to obtain, redundant laws and constitutional amendments banning gay marriage in 22 states, etc., etc.)

One interesting convergence between Gold's account and Matthew Dowd's complaint in Sunday's New York Times is that both were at one point Democrats (Gold for about half a minute, Dowd for substantially longer) who describe falling in love with the virile optimism of a particular Republican candidate. Funny how it's easy to be filled with confidence and optimism when you believe God exists to support your wealth and power. Maybe the cracks forming between evangelicals and Republicans will check that omnipotence a bit, but beyond that I don't foresee any major shift in how Republicans do things or how many keys to the stateroom rest on how many church altars.

Kerry: McCain Approached Me About Being on Dem Ticket in 2004

Building on the "McCain approached Tom Daschle to inquire about leaving the GOP" story, John Kerry now says that McCain's people approached his campaign about being the vice president on Kerry's 2004 ticket. If that's true, wow. We still don't have an explanation from McCain on all this, just a simple denial that none of it is true.

Update: Strong and detailed denial from the McCain people. It feels like both parties are playing loose with the truth here...

When Brigham Young Doesn't Want You, You're Washed Up

There is currently a petition drive at Brigham Young University to withdraw Dick Cheney's invitation to speak at the school's commencement exercises later this month. 2,300 signatures were collected the first week. Here is an excerpt from the petition:

...Cheney has made misleading statements about the tragic war which continues in Iraq, levied outrageous partisan accusations against his Democratic opponents, and used vulgarity on the Senate floor. He has been linked to serious scandals involving botched intelligence reports, no-bid contracts awarded to friends and political donors, and perjury convictions handed down to his own staff. Mr. Cheney is simply not the type of role model to whom we wish to bestow the responsibility of addressing our best and brightest as they "go forth to serve".

It doesn't get much more conservative than Brigham Young, and it appears that a lot of BYU students have taken their Christian studies to heart and applied them to the behaviors of the current administration.

Thanks to Tennessee Guerilla Women.

Playing Chicken With Iran

This is precisely how wars get started, an act of aggression by one side followed by an act of retaliation by the other, tit for tat until someone gets nuked. Patrick Cockburn reports that Iran's capture of 15 British marines and sailors was a direct response to a botched U.S. operation in January, when the military snatched 5 Iranians in Arbil -- identified as members of a Revolutionary Guard, or Pasdaran, unit -- who were suspected of arming insurgents. (These men are still being held.) Cockburn reports that U.S. forces were actually after two senior Iranian security officials, Mohammed Jafari, the deputy head of the Iranian National Security Council, and General Minojahar Frouzanda, the Pasdaran's intel chief. At the time, both officials were in Iraq on official business, meeting with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Massoud Barzani, the President of the Kurdistan Regional Government.

Cockburn writes:

The attempt by the US to seize the two high-ranking Iranian security officers openly meeting with Iraqi leaders is somewhat as if Iran had tried to kidnap the heads of the CIA and MI6 while they were on an official visit to a country neighbouring Iran, such as Pakistan or Afghanistan. There is no doubt that Iran believes that Mr Jafari and Mr Frouzanda were targeted by the Americans.

...The abortive Arbil raid provoked a dangerous escalation in the confrontation between the U.S. and Iran which ultimately led to the capture of the 15 British sailors and Marines - apparently considered a more vulnerable coalition target than their American comrades.

Cockburn also reports that the official rationale for grabbing the Iranians in January, hours after President Bush went public with the accusation that Iran is equipping insurgents, doesn't quite add up.

US officials in Washington subsequently claimed that the five Iranian officials they did seize, who have not been seen since, were "suspected of being closely tied to activities targeting Iraq and coalition forces". This explanation never made much sense. No member of the US-led coalition has been killed in Arbil and there were no Sunni-Arab insurgents or Shia militiamen there.

Iraqi Bazaar Merchants Hate on McCain, Version Two

I just don't understand how they didn't see this coming. Shortly after the New York Times sent reporters to the market John McCain, some other American lawmakers, and 100+ heavily armed friends strolled through, and got livid responses from the merchants who work there, the AP has done the same thing. With the same results.

"They were just making fun of us and paid this visit just for their own interests," said [Jaafar Moussa Thamir, a 42-year-old who sells electrical appliances]. "Do they think that when they come and speak few Arabic words in a very bad manner it will make us love them? This country and its society have been destroyed because of them and I hope that they realized that during this visit."

Surely someone on McCain's staff thought to themselves, "Wait a second. One, the Iraqis hate us, and two, this business John is spewing about Iraq being safe is complete nonsense. If any news outlet sends a reporter to talk to these people after we leave, we're going to look like a bunch of horses asses." But, uh, nope. Nobody thought that one through. Or maybe they did, but McCain's zeal for the mission kept them from voicing their concerns.

Regardless, we get depressingly hilarious quotes like this:

"I didn't care about him, I even turned my eyes away," Thamir said. "We are being killed by the dozens everyday because of them. What were they trying to tell us? They are just pretenders."

"They were laughing and talking to people as if there was nothing going on in this country or at least they were pretending that they were tourists and were visiting the city's old market and buying souvenirs," said [Karim Abdullah, a 37-year-old textile merchant]. "To achieve this, they sealed off the area, put themselves in flak jackets and walked in the middle of tens of armed American soldiers."

Yup, sounds like we winning some more hearts and minds. Thanks for all the hard work, Mr. McCain. Ideas for your next photo op: Darfur, a black site prison, hell. Surely things are just peachy there, too? Until we get post-visit interviews from a mutilated child, a tortured Pakistani held without charges, and Satan, of course.

April 2, 2007

Iraqi Bazaar Merchants Pile on Credibility-Free McCain

I wrote earlier about how folks were piling on Sen. John McCain for his ridiculous photo op/stunt that was intended to deliver the message: "Look! I'm walking through a market in Baghdad with 100 armed guards and multiple helicopters! This place is safe and my credibility is intact!" No, senator, it isn't, and this might be the moment when everyone realizes that your support for the war isn't grounded in reality and your deep personal convictions, but instead in denial, desperation, and a near-complete disconnect from the truth on the ground. (That's not the sort of statement you want bloggers making just as it's revealed that your presidential campaign is struggling to raise cash. Bad week for Senator Straight Talk.) (Second parenthetical: For an example of how rough McCain's treatment in the media has been recently, see this post.)

Well, things are getting worse for McCain. The New York Times went to the merchants who keep shop in the market McCain visited and told them about what the senator was telling the world about his visit. They were, to put it mildly, a bit taken aback.

"What are they talking about?" Ali Jassim Faiyad, the owner of an electrical appliances shop in the market... "This was only for the media... This will not change anything."

During their visit on Sunday, the Americans were buttonholed by merchants and customers who wanted to talk about how unsafe they felt and the urgent need for more security in the markets and throughout the city, witnesses said.

"They asked about our conditions, and we told them the situation was bad," said Aboud Sharif Kadhoury, 63, who peddles prayer rugs at a sidewalk stand.... Mr. Kadhoury said he lost more than $2,000 worth of merchandise in the triple bombing in February. "I was hit in the head and back with shrapnel," he recalled.

The Times also added some details about the security entourage McCain had with him during his visit (damned liberal media!):

[McCain's] delegation arrived at the market, which is called Shorja, on Sunday with more than 100 soldiers in armored Humvees — the equivalent of an entire company — and attack helicopters circled overhead, a senior American military official in Baghdad said. The soldiers redirected traffic from the area and restricted access to the Americans, witnesses said, and sharpshooters were posted on the roofs. The congressmen wore bulletproof vests throughout their hourlong visit.

In recent weeks, the market has seen suicide bombings, car bombings, and sniper attacks. Most of the victims have been women and children. A merchant who goes by Abu Samer said of McCain, "He is just using this visit for publicity. He is just using it for himself. They’ll just take a photo of him at our market and they will just show it in the United States. He will win in America and we will have nothing." Don't worry, Abu. That's looking less and less likely these days.

Read the whole article, and more quotes from flabbergasted Iraqis, here.

UN Calls Israeli Apartheid a "Controlled Strangulation"

Perhaps because it is striking news or a powerful message, the media has heavily focused on only one of the findings of the recent UN Human Rights Council report on the Occupied Territories- that Israel's actions are similar to apartheid. But the coverage doesn't reach into the other two assertions that the report makes: Israel's occupation exhibits elements of apartheid and colonialism. In other words, Israel is violating human rights in three forms: occupation, apartheid, and colonialism.

The report calls Israel's 2005 "unilateral withdrawal" which supposedly ended occupation as "grossly inaccurate" and "not possible to seriously argue." Israel has maintained total control over Gaza's airspace, sea space, external borders, and the movement of people and goods ever since it has withdrawn, including exercising military authority with over 364 military incursions.

"In effect," the report states, "following Israel's withdrawal, Gaza became a sealed off, imprisoned, occupied territory." In addition, serious violations of human rights and war crimes have made life as difficult as possible for Gazans and the economic sanctions that the West and Israel have imposed on Gaza has produced a humanitarian crisis, one the UN calls, "a controlled strangulation that apparently falls within the generous limits of international toleration."

Factor in that 70% of Gazans are unemployed or unpaid, and more than "80% of the population live below the official poverty line." Fully 1.1 million of 1.4 million Gazans, reports the UN, are dependent on food assistance through various agencies.

The situation in the West Bank isn't any better. At checkpoints, where violations occur daily, a rule of law does not exist but rather, a "an arbitrary and capricious regime prevails." 56% of West Bankers live below the poverty line and are dependent on food assistance. The Wall is clearly illegal. It doesn't serve a "security purpose" as the Israelis claim, but a "political purpose": "that the purpose of the Wall is to acquire land surrounding West Bank settlements and to include settlements within Israel can no longer be seriously challenged."

Settlements in the West Bank are illegal - 40% of the land in the hands of the Israeli settlements is privately owned by Palestinians- but they continue to grow, with the full approval of the Israeli government. And the foot soldiers of the Israeli "colonial empire" are violent fanatic settlers who are protected and aided by the IDF in unleashing violence upon Palestinians.

The overall picture for Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories is grim: there are 9,000 Palestinian prisoners of which 400 are children and over 100 women. There are over 700 "administrative detainees, i.e. persons held without charge or trial." Targeted assassinations have killed over 500 Palestinians, reports the UN.

The IDF "inflicts serious bodily and mental harm on the Palestinians" in both Gaza and the West Bank. The culmination of all of this leads the special rapporteur, John Dugard, to ask, "Can it seriously be denied that the purpose of such action is to establish and maintain domination by one racial group (Jews) over another racial group (Palestinians) and systematically oppress them?"

The report ends by underlining that "the Palestinian people have been subjected to economic sanctions- the first time an occupied people have been so treated," noting that the sanctions against the Palestinian people are 'possibly the most rigorous form of international sanctions imposed in modern times." Israel escapes untouched even as it has violated Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, human rights and international law. The EU, United States, United Nations, and the Russian Federation are complicit in the failure to halt Israeli violations of human rights and Palestinian self determination. The report rightfully points out that the Occupied Palestinian Territory is the only place in the developing world "that is denied the right to self-determination and oppressed by a Western-affiliated State."

Last week, Ehud Olmert, in line with his predecessors, rejected the right of return for Palestinian refugees. The IDF has closed the West Bank and Gaza starting Sunday until next week. IDF military incursions into Gaza have been authorized yet again. In the meantime, major Western news outlets such as the New York Times continue to turn a blind eye to the realities that the Palestinians live through.

—Neha Inamdar

Mexico City Will Legalize Abortion

Mexico City has a particularly left-leaning legislature this session—thanks, in large part, to increasingly open elections in the country, which have curtailed the power of the PRI party that ruled the country in a "soft dictatorship" for 70 years.

Mexico City's legislature made headlines earlier this month when it legalized same-sex marriages. Today, the New York Times reports that the legislature is set to approve a law legalizing abortion for any reason in the first trimester, and the capital's mayor has said he'll sign it. In Latin America, which is predominantly Catholic, only Cuba, Puerto Rico and Guyana have similar laws. The procedure would be free at public health clinics.

Mexico City's 8 million residents are sharply divided along class lines, with between 20 and 40 percent of the population living below the poverty line. Sex education is nonexistent, and at least 110,000 women a year seek illegal abortions.

However, Catholicism still runs deep, and the clergy and some citizens passionately object to the pending law:

Víctor Hugo Círigo Vásquez, the majority leader of the Assembly, said many of the 34 legislators from his Party of the Democratic Revolution who support the measure had received threatening calls and messages on their cellphones, as well as nasty e-mail. They were told they would be excommunicated or go to hell if they approved the law.

"There is a media lynching campaign that has been orchestrated by clerical groups from the very, very far right," he said. He added, "It’s a black campaign that’s coming hard."

Nonetheless, legislators are standing firm.

The law may have the unintended side-effect of increasing internal immigration to Mexico City which, like the United States, is a magnet for the rural poor, who come to work as maids or drivers or in factories. The law would legalize abortion only within city limits, thereby providing yet another incentive for the rural poor to make their way to the capital.

Tancredo Declares: Who Is Tancredo?

Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Colorado Republican, declared today that he, too, is running for president. Tancredo, founder of the Immigration Reform Caucus, has built a name for himself by outspokenly opposing illegal immigration. His comments often veer awfully close to racism, such as when he compared Miami to a third world nation. In the 2004 election, as Bush spoke Spanish to appeal to Hispanic voters, Tancredo was told to quiet his accusations that recent immigrants have "divided loyalties."

Tancredo will have to compete with the fund-raising power of Mitt Romney, who leads the Republican pack with $23 million, and with the anti-immigration verbiage of Duncan Hunter, a California Republican profiled in the current issue of Mother Jones.

For an in-depth look at the why's and wherefore's of illegal immigration, read Charles Bowden's "Exodus."

What to Make of Zell's Purchase of Tribune Co.?

The Tribune Company has announced that its holdings will be sold off to Chicago real estate tycoon Sam Zell. This is the latest—though hardly the last—chapter in the saga of the Tribune Co., whose attempts to use a "convergence media" model to create editorial "synergy" between its newspapers and TV stations perfectly illustrates the pitfalls of placing profits before reporting. As Eric Klinenberg writes in his article on the sad state of the American newspaper in our current issue, Tribune's "cut and gut" approach has been a disaster, particularly for the once-proud Los Angeles Times, which has been bled dry since being picked up by Trib in 2000.

The company's impending sale made some Angelenos hopeful that a white knight such as David Geffen would buy the paper and save the day. But for now, Zell's the man to watch. He has no experience running a media company, which is a good or a bad thing, depending on whom you talk to. One Tribune Co. critic tells the LAT that "Sam Zell is a hands-off guy, so he will pick good people to run this paper and let them run it. The fact that he is a hands-off, strong player bodes well for journalistic integrity." But as others have observed, Zell has a prickly relationship with the media, including his hometown Chicago Tribune. As Dean Starkman observes over at CJR Daily, Zell's company, Equity Office Properties (EOP), was "famously thin-skinned" when it came to the press. And, he reminds readers, "as the going got tough, EOP resorted to a strategy that will sound familiar to newspaper employees: cost cutting." As Klinenberg writes, once you start to see journalism as just another profit center rather than a public service, you start undermining the very product at the heart of your business. You can't cut finanical corners without hurting editorial quality. We'll soon see if Zell has learned that lesson by watching his new company's past performance.

Arnold: Do My Errands, Lead a State Panel

As Josh blogged on March 8, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's promises to rid state government of its insider ways have been given the lie by, of all things, his handling of the state chiropractic panel. The panel's role has historically been to protect Californians from unqualified or maverick manipulators, but the governator seems to think its role is to "represent the chiropractors"—many of whom cracked and popped his famous bod in his bodybuilding days. The board has taken that mandate and run with it, as Josh's post and this Los Angeles Times article reveal in spades.

Arnold's bone-cracking nepotism is also evident in his appointments to other state panels—many of which he promised to eliminate in his war on bureaucracy:

In February, Schwarzenegger named his appointments secretary, Timothy A. Simon, to the Public Utilities Commission, which regulates the multibillion-dollar telecommunications and energy industries.

Simon isn't just unqualified to sit on one of the most important state bodies: He was actually four years in to personal bankruptcy at the time Arnold nominated him, and his ex-wife claimed he was still taking expensive international vacations.

Also in February, Arnold appointed his personal dentist to the state dental board. So much for conservatives being more ethical than liberals: This one needs a good flossing.

Who's Gunning for Michael Ware?

Someone's gunning for Michael Ware. Yesterday, a Drudge Report "exclusive" accused the wild-eyed CNN newsman, who’s covered the Iraq war since the beginning, of heckling Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham during a press conference in Baghdad. Drudge quotes an unnamed "official" — An administration official? Military? A representative of the Baghdad Taxi and Limousine Commission? — calling Ware's alleged remarks "outrageous" and saying, “here you have two United States Senators in Bagdad [sic] giving first-hand reports while Ware is laughing and mocking their comments. I’ve never witnessed such disrespect. This guy is an activist not a reporter.”

Apparently, this is all news to Ware, who, on CNN this morning, said, “I did not heckle the senator. Indeed, I didn’t say a word. I didn’t even ask a question. In fact, when I raised my hand to ask a question, the press conference abruptly ended.” A video of the press conference backs Ware up, so this seems a fairly shameless effort to smear him and discredit his reporting. But who would want to do that? Well, since Ware has been so persistent about reporting the grim realities on the ground in Iraq and debunking the rhetoric coming out of Washington, it could be any number of people who are paid (i.e. military or administration flacks) or otherwise compelled to put a rosy spin on the horrific situation in Iraq. Painting Ware as an activist certainly makes it easier to claim, as the senator from Arizona did yesterday, that the American public isn't getting "the full picture about what’s happening" in Iraq. (This after a brief foray to a Baghdad market, where, as the New York Times notes, "scores of people have died this year in multiple car bombings and other attacks." See Jonathan's post below.)

It’s also possible that this could be personal. Last week, after McCain commented that "there are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods today," Ware said on CNN’s Situation Room that “to suggest that there's any neighborhood in this city where an American can walk freely is beyond ludicrous. I'd love Senator McCain to tell me where that neighborhood is and he and I can go for a stroll." (Ware, who once came fairly close to being executed by insurgents, would probably know.) In this context it wouldn’t be hard to see someone close to McCain, an aide traveling with the congressional delegation perhaps, using Drudge as a conduit to even the score with Ware. Whatever the case, I'd wager there's a lot more to this story.

John McCain, NBC, and Iraqi Insurgents All Make a Fool of John McCain

John McCain got so much flack and ridicule for his "white Americans could stroll through some parts of Baghdad" comment/gaff that he took to the streets to Baghdad to prove his statment true and save his credibility. He ended up doing more damage.

McCain took a walk through a bazaar and followed the event with a press conference, but NBC used its coverage to point out what McCain was trying to hide: his "stroll" came with the aid of 100 American soldiers, three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships. The blogosphere had a field day with this.

And now people are just piling on. The NBC reporter who put out the report of McCain's massive protection entourage went on Imus this morning and noted that with the security force McCain had "even Paris Hilton could ride a bicycle in a bikini through Anbar province." And to make things worse, the terrorists are laughing at McCain too. They just unleashed the largest single attack since the Iraq War began in 2003, killing 152 in a single suicide truck bombing in Tal Afar.

Oh, and that bazaar McCain walked through, with his heavily armed white American friends? It got lit up by snipers right after they all left.

Supreme Court Chastises Bush Administration For "Arbitrary, Capricious" Handling of Climate Change

Even the Supreme Court justices appointed by Bush I and Bush II (Thomas, Roberts, and Alito) couldn't stop the Court from repudiating the current Administration's head-in-the–sand approach for dealing with climate change. Today's 5-4 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, called the administration's approach "arbitrary, capricious ... or otherwise not in accordance with law" and found that the EPA does in fact have the authority to regulate greenhouse-causing gases under the Clean Air Act.

The majority opinion contends that the "EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change." While the decision does not necessarily compel the EPA to regulate carbon emissions (and don't hold your breath), the ruling is significant since it frees the hand of the next President to regulate carbon and methane emissions without Congress passing additional legislation.

What the decision also does is clear the way for states to reduce greenhouse emissions with initiatives of their own. In the past, states like California that have asked the EPA for special permission to apply more stringent carbon emission limits on automobiles have been stymied by the Administration's claim that the Clean Air Act does not provide the authority to do so.

—Koshlan Mayer-Blackwell

Iraqi Civilian Deaths Up in March

Data compiled by Iraqi ministries indicate civilian deaths in Iraq totaled 1,861 for the month of March, up from 1,645 in February. That 13% increase comes in the face of repeated claims from the government that that the surge is working, and claims from U.S. diplomats that violence is down 25% in Iraq.

More in-depth figures on the number of Iraqis dead and on the number of soldiers lost from each country in the coalition can be found here. Mother Jones coverage of the difficulty of counting Iraqi civilian deaths (and the government's unwillingness to do so) can be found here and here.

April 1, 2007

On the Internet, Nobody Knows You're a Werewolf

Women writers are subjected to so many more ad hominems than male writers that the Editor in Chief at Salon.com call them "ad feminems." Joan Walsh weighs in on what difference having a female byline makes.

"When Salon automated its letters, ideas that had only seen our in boxes at Salon were suddenly turning up on the site. And I couldn't deny the pattern: Women came in for the cruelest and most graphic criticism and taunting," Walsh writes. "Is there really any doubt that women writing on the Web are subject to more abuse than men, simply because they're women? ...I say this as a mouthy woman who has tried for a long time to pretend otherwise: that Web misogyny isn't especially rampant -- but even if it is, it has no effect on me, or any other strong, sane woman doing her job."

As much as pretending otherwise may help brush it off, like the old "sticks and stones" rhyme, Walsh points out how verbal attacks corrode a writer's confidence, security, and credibility.

Too often hate speech is framed and dismissed as free speech. For starters, the First Amendment doesn't protect death threats and libel. Also, the First Amendment doesn't call for us to honor haters any more than the Second Amendment calls for us to admire our neighbor's collection of assault rifles.

What's disturbing is that it's not just peripheral geeks like RageBoy who turn into werewolves behind their PCs. It's grade schoolers in Novato, Calif., who drove an epileptic girl into home-schooling. It's even Yale Law students.

April 6, 2007

April 5, 2007

April 4, 2007

April 3, 2007

April 2, 2007

April 1, 2007

RECENT ENTRIES

ARCHIVE

RECENT COMMENTS

SEARCH MOTHER JONES

TODAY ON...

BLOG LINKS

IN PRINT

DONATE TODAY