Daily Kos

Sessions Says Outcome Of Sotomayor Hearing Not "A Foregone Conclusion"

Sun, 12 Jul 2009 03:33:11 GMT

Jeff Sessions (R-AL), on the upcoming Sotomayor hearings:

"I don’t think the outcome of this hearing is a foregone conclusion," Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the ranking Republican on the committee, told reporters Friday. "Judge Sotomayor has made some troubling statements. ... She has ruled in some cases that are troubling and need to be examined."

Sessions then gives the standard GOP laundry list:

She's a racist (a.k.a. "wise Latina woman" remark"),

she'll take away our guns (a.k.a a ruling that top conservative judges agreed with),

she hates white people (a.k.a. following precedent in the Ricci case), and,

she's associated with a terrorist organization (a.k.a. the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund).

In other words, same crap, different day. Now, I can appreciate that Sessions has a job to do and wants to do it right. And if Sotomayor had said things like, oh, I don't know, maybe calling the National Association for the Advancement of Colored people and the American Civil Liberties Union "un-American" and "Communist-inspired," or, during a murder investigation of the Ku Klux Klan, said that she "used to think they [the Klan] were OK’ until (s)he found out some of them were ‘pot smokers," or if she made a habit of calling African American men "boys," and cautioned them about how they talked to "white folks," she would be unfit to hold any position of power and respect. Right, Mr. Sessions?

The interesting legal life of Frank Ricci

Sun, 12 Jul 2009 02:02:04 GMT

Dahlia Lithwick looks into the rather litigious background of Frank Ricci, the firefighter at the heart of the case the GOP is hoping will sink Sonia Sotomayor's nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court. Ricci is scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee next week, and Lithwick is licking her chops at the prospect:

Ultimately, there are two ways to frame Frank Ricci's penchant for filing employment discrimination complaints: Perhaps he was repeatedly victimized by a cruel cadre of employers, first for his dyslexia, then again for his role as a whistle-blower, and then a third time for just being white. If that is so, we should all be deeply grateful for the robust civil rights laws that protect Americans from unfair discrimination in the workplace. I look forward to hearing Republican Sen. John Cornyn's version of that speech next week.

The other way to look at Frank Ricci is as a serial plaintiff—one who reacts to professional slights and setbacks by filing suit, threatening to file suit, and more or less complaining his way up the chain of command. That's not the typical GOP heartthrob, but I look forward to hearing Sen. Cornyn's version of that speech next week as well.

Funny, isn't it, how easily Republican Senators can become fan boys of serial litigants (and, we must assume, their grievance-filled trial lawyers) if they are members of that famous oppressed minority, the American white male.

Sanford may lose top-secret clearance over affair

Sun, 12 Jul 2009 01:00:05 GMT

Behold, yet another thing Mark Sanford's "Hike in the Appalachian" should (but probably won't) cost him: his top secret-clearance. U.S. News:

As a chief of state and head of the South Carolina National Guard, Sanford has a top-secret security status that lets him in on classified information such as possible terrorist threats and emergency tips. But with that need to know come intelligence community rules of conduct, a key one being that relationships with foreigners must be revealed. The reason: Those in the know can leave themselves open to blackmail from rival intelligence services about a compromising dalliance.

And it's happened before (to a Democrat):

Homeland Security canceled former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's after he was arrested on corruption charges.

Sanford's security status, however, remains unclear. A spokesman didn't return calls, and Homeland Security, while confirming that it issues the clearances, would not comment on Sanford, also a captain in the Air Force Reserves.

Who knows. Maybe Sanford can get his friends at C Street to pull some strings on his behalf. Somehow, it's hard to imagine he won't figure out a way to pull off the old IOKIYAR trick.

Late afternoon/early evening open thread

Sun, 12 Jul 2009 00:20:04 GMT

Coming up on Sunday Kos ....

Devilstower will look at the cost of ~~not~~ having a public option on health care.

Laura Clawson thinks Sarah Palin is unqualified, unethical, and at the very least intellectually incurious -- and it's not anti-feminist to say so.

DarkSyde will have two essays, one of which will explore how investment in new technology is nothing new to American history in East meets West. He also will review Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future.

SusanG will review Jon Jeter's Flat Broke in the Free Market: How Globalization Fleeced Working People.

Do the flagging poll numbers for a number of Democratic governors have you worried? Steve Singiser thinks you should be concerned, but will caution that the abysmal stats are reversible, and they are not solely limited to Democrats.

DemFromCT will interview Dr. Judith Palfrey, FAAP, President-Elect, American Academy of Pediatrics, on health reform, tobacco, and pandemic preparation, and the special needs of children in all regards.

Cheney ordered CIA to lie to Congress

Sat, 11 Jul 2009 23:54:54 GMT

(From the diaries. Susan)

Breaking news from the New York Times:

The Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the agency’s director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and House intelligence committees, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday.

The report that Mr. Cheney was behind the decision to conceal the still-unidentified program from Congress deepened the mystery surrounding it, suggesting that the Bush administration had put a high priority on the program and its secrecy.

This is incredibly damning news about the power that Bush/Cheney and the executive branch usurped from the supposed "separation of powers" enshrined in our Constitution.

CIA Director Leon Panetta is now saying that the CIA did not even, as required to by law, report to the so-called Gang of Eight (leaders in Congress and from the intelligence committees) about this covert anti-terrorism unit:

If the President determines that it is essential to limit access to the finding to meet extraordinary circumstances affecting vital interests of the United States, the finding may be reported to the chairmen and ranking minority members of the congressional intelligence committees, the Speaker and minority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, and such other member or members of the congressional leadership as may be included by the President.

Sources told the New York Times that this specific intelligence program was not interrogation-oriented, nor was it a domestic surveillance program, so this is not directly related to the Bush administration's role in torturing suspected terrorists, but it is quite possible and somewhat likely, in my opinion, that the sheer amount of evidence of illegal actions piling up is what's prompting AG Eric Holder's newfound willingness to look into torture prosecutions of ex-Bush administration officials:

Holder, 58, may be on the verge of asserting his independence in a profound way. Four knowledgeable sources tell NEWSWEEK that he is now leaning toward appointing a prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration's brutal interrogation practices, something the president has been reluctant to do. While no final decision has been made, an announcement could come in a matter of weeks, say these sources, who decline to be identified discussing a sensitive law-enforcement matter.

We shall see as more is revealed.

Second Stimulus Needed. But Could It Pass?

Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:46:04 GMT

Ever since the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed less than a month after President Obama took the oath of office, some critics have said the stimulus it provides isn’t big enough. Actually, many progressive critics said it wasn’t big enough well before it passed the Senate by the skin of the teeth of three moderate Republicans, one of whom has since become a Democrat.

Those critics were lined up against other critics – Republicans, ConservaDems, Blue Dogs – who said the stimulus was too big or that there should be none at all. Just let the economy come back on its own, devil take the hindmost.

We’ve seen quite a lot of the travails of the hindmost lately, with rising consumer loan delinquencies, horrific numbers in shipping activity, more bad news from the unraveled safety net, more foreclosures, fall-out from foreclosures and fallout from Michael Jackson’s funeral, as well as bad news in just about every other story from California.

Most of the Leading Economic Indicators indicate the economic bottom may have been reached. But as the pain and anxiety of tens of millions of unemployed and underemployed and underwater Americans worsens, talk of another round of stimulus has been growing.

Hurrah for the sentiment, but does anybody really, seriously, truly believe that another round of stimulus stands a chance of passing even with a gargantuan flow of political capital from the White House?

Republicans, true to form, are saying, in effect, See, we told you the stimulus was a bad idea, and we were right, it’s not working. Paul Krugman, about whom progressives are sharply divided, has all along argued for a larger stimulus package, but he put the screws to those GOP talking points this week. The problem, he wrote:

...is not that the stimulus is working more slowly than expected; it was never expected to do very much this soon. The problem, instead, is that the hole the stimulus needs to fill is much bigger than predicted. That — coupled with the fact that yes, stimulus takes time to work — is the reason for a second round, ASAP.

Krugman also pointed out that those who argued last January and February for a larger stimulus were frozen out in the megamedia, just as bigger-stimulus advocates here at Daily Kos were repeatedly told five months ago to shut up because the administration had everything all figured out. Wrote Krugman Wednesday:

And the voices calling for stronger stimulus are, may I say, sorta kinda respectable — several Nobelists in the bunch, plus a large fraction of the prominent economists who predicted the housing crash before it happened.

But somehow, the pro-stimulus people are unpersons. Who makes these decisions?

Vice President Biden recently gave the stock market some downward pressure when he admitted that the administration "misread how bad the economy was." He has been urging audiences all week, while the President is in Europe, to have patience. Both Biden and Obama adviser Austin Goolsbe have said it is too soon to be talking about another stimulus when the first has yet to get up to full steam. However, Laura Tyson, one of Obama’s outside economic advisers, seems to have joined the second stimulus crowd:

The U.S. should consider drafting a second stimulus package focusing on infrastructure projects because the $787 billion approved in February was "a bit too small," said Laura Tyson ...

The current plan "will have a positive effect, but the real economy is a sicker patient," Tyson said in a speech in Singapore [Tuesday]. The package will have a more pronounced impact in the third and fourth quarters, she added, stressing that she was speaking for herself and not the administration. ...

"The economy is worse than we forecast on which the stimulus program was based," Tyson, who is a member of Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory board, told the Nomura Equity Forum. "We probably have already 2.5 million more job losses than anticipated." ...

Tyson said the U.S. should shift away from its dependence on consumption to grow, and promote expansion through investment and exports. The dollar will need to weaken in the longer term to promote export-led growth, she said.

As Biden told David Gregory on Meet the Press in mid-June, the reason for the misreading was "We took the mainstream model."

Exactly the problem, responded economist Stephanie Kelton:

For as near as I can tell, the mainstream models have been successful at just one thing: failure. They predicted that: subprime loans would not default at substantially different rates than prime loans; the riskiness of credit default swaps and other mortgage backed securities could be efficiently judged; deregulated financial markets were capable of self-policing; and so on. And they were wrong. ...

The prediction that comes out of any macroeconomic model is, to a very large extent, driven by the assumptions that underlie it. The mainstream models tend to assume things like: efficient markets, rational expectations, infinite planning horizons, and so on. The rosier the assumptions, the rosier the predictions. ...

It's time to abandon the mainstream model and the rose-colored glasses that go with it.

What would a second round of stimulus look like? Assuming, that is, that the administration is willing to try to pass another in the face of potential bond trader freak-out over inflation fears, and in face of political challenges. Not the least of the latter would be a lot of whining about "why didn’t Obama get it right the first time" rather than "he’s doing what FDR did effectively, experimenting until it clicks."

Differences over whether to do another stimulus pale beside differences over what to do. If the key is to get money into people’s hands quickly, which is what most of the complaints are about, then just adding to the $787 billion pot won’t do the trick. L. Randall Wray, a professor of economics and director with the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability has a set of ideas worth discussing:

Payroll tax holiday: About $2500 of tax relief annually per worker, with the same going to the employer. Stimulus: $650 billion per year. Easy to implement and to phase out. Effect: immediate.

Additional state and local government assistance:: Too little money from the Recovery Act made its way to the states and local governments where the suffering is immense. Yes, some of it they brought on themselves; but Wray recommends $400 billion "allocated by population (a bit over $1200 per capita)." This would halt further layoffs and furloughs which have just begun to devastate various state and local governments. Easy to implement. Effect: more or less immediate.

Jobs to reduce poverty: 6.5 million jobs are already down the tubes (nine years’ worth of job creation wiped out), and if the actual numbers of discouraged and underemployed workers are added, we really need 15-20 million more jobs. "A substantial amount of America's poverty problem is really a jobless problem ... direct job creation [can not only] reverse the trend toward ever-higher unemployment rates, but it will also go a long way toward filling the growing holes in the social safety net." At least part of this goal could be achieved in the short run by adopting a 21st Century WPA, as proposed by bonddad and NewDealDemocrat in May. More complex to implement. Effect: Not for at least six months.

Homeowner relief: "When banks begin to foreclose, the government would step in to purchase the property at the lower of market price or outstanding mortgage balance." These homes would then be rented to the foreclosed owners. "Reducing evictions by offering a rental alternative will help reduce the pain of foreclosure. It might also allow the process to speed up (with smaller losses for banks) since many families would choose to stay-on as renters, with the possibility that they could later buy their homes at more reasonable prices." Complex to implement (how do you determine a fair market price in this environment?). Effect: As soon as a mechanism can be established, which could take a while, but just knowing the mechanism is coming would slow down foreclosures..

How much all this might cost is unknown. A trillion dollars already with just those first two items. But as economists James Galbraith and Dean Baker, among others, have been arguing for some time, it’s better to spend a bit too much and deal with the problems that may cause when people are working again than to spend too little and not put enough of them back to work.

Even without another stimulus, the Great Recession will no doubt end anyway, someday. If the technical recession - as decided by the National Bureau of Economic Research - ends this month and the trend of the past four downturns holds true, we’ll return to the number of jobs we had in December 2007 by around mid-2013. That time frame could be greatly shortened by bolstering the Recovery Act with a second stimulus targeted at both instant and longer-term economic relief.

It’s easy, however, to see why the administration is not eager to take action. A second stimulus could well be almost as tough a sales job in Congress as getting those legislators to do something about the upward transfer of wealth, stagnant wages, unfettered off-shoring and oligarchical manipulations that plague our economy. But the difficulty doesn’t make it any less necessary.

Competence vs Comity

Sat, 11 Jul 2009 21:32:04 GMT

Even as the right prepares to oppose Sonia Sotomayor's nomination, they're finding it increasingly difficult to work up a proper fury. Partly that's because there's nearly universal agreement from people who have worked with Sotomayor.

The American Bar Association gave Sotomayor its highest rating on Tuesday. The vote was unanimous, based on hundreds of confidential interviews with Sotomoayor's colleagues on and off the bench, and a review of her opinions by scholars and practitioners.

Partly it's the support she has from national organizations.

Then the Democrats rolled out endorsements by leading law enforcement organizations, including the National District Attorneys Association, the National Sheriffs Association and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.

Partly it's her support from members of Republican administrations.

Later this week former FBI Director Louis Freeh is expected to formally endorse her nomination in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Freeh got to know Sotomoayor when the two served as federal trial judges in Manhattan.

You even have Lindsey Graham, who was on the "let's delay Sotomayor just to screw with Obama" train a few days ago saying that he might vote for her.

It's not that she won't catch flack over her positions. Of course she will. It's not that the Republicans won't distort those positions to try and make points. Of course they will. And it's not as if they won't curry favor with their Glennbeckistan base by pulling such stunts as dragging a firefighter into a Supreme Court hearing to dazzle us with his legal acumen. That's a given.

But two months from now, the castings generated by worms like Jeff Sessions will be forgotten. Instead, the narrative from the right will be all about how reasonable Republicans were toward Sotomayor. They'll be going on about the horrors faced by Clarence Thomas. They'll Whine Along With Sarah about the unfairness of how the press maligns their most accomplished quitter.

And you know what? To some extent, they'll be right. Sonia Sotomayor won't take the pounding in the press that Palin has. She won't be the subject of all those late night jokes. She won't get an entry in the urban dictionary. Which will generate another round of limbaugh-boo-hoos about the unfairness of it all.

What the right will completely ignore is that Sotomayor is deserving of a Supreme Court nomination. She earned it. The reason she'll take a smoother path through D.C., despite the best efforts of the GOP to generate roadbumps, has absolutely nothing to do with any sort of rediscovered comity on the part of Republicans. It has to do with President Obama putting forth a nominee who is highly-respected and capable. It has to do with her not being an automaton capable of nothing more than repeating rote talking points and hewing to unwavering ideology. No one who has paid the slightest attention (and who at least occasionally steps outside the Bill O'sphere) would pretend that Sotomayor isn't smart or experienced enough for the appointed task.

The problem the Republicans are having is caused by their own set of extremely lax requirements: can you repeat the talking points? Rigid ideology + half-decent camera presence = Republican star. That's a hurdle snails can cross. And they do. The Republican base doesn't see knowledge as a part of leadership. They don't value innovation. They place a negative value on competence.

Stupid still has it's appeal, otherwise Glenn Beck wouldn't have a show, but it's a vanishing appeal in a world that's less and less manageable through sloganeering. Maybe, sometime in the near future, some Republican leader will be able to steer the party out of its self-destructive teabaggery. Maybe not. With every day that passes, the rigidity of the party hardens like concrete.

Two months from now, Republicans will be whining again about the unfairness of the media. In the meantime, Sonia Sotomayor will be on the Supreme Court.

Band of House Blue Dogs/New Dems Support "Robust" Public Option

Sat, 11 Jul 2009 20:16:05 GMT

The Blue Dog caucus, and their not so Republican-lite colleagues in the New Dems, seem to be splintering again over healthcare reform. You'll remember last month when they created their manifesto for a trigger on the public option, only to have a some prominent members in the group dissent, killing (for the time being, anyway, the trigger in the House).

It's happened again, in reaction to the New Dem leadership telling Pelosi last month that "many of our members remain concerned about any public option."

A band of 22 New Democrat and Blue Dog lawmakers say they support a "robust" government-run health plan, boosting chances of moving healthcare reform with a public insurance plan through the House.

Democratic centrists remain the biggest obstacle to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) ability to pass a healthcare bill with a public plan, and many conservative Democrats oppose a public option as unfair to private insurers.

But the letter from the 22 New Dems and Blue Dogs indicates opposition from this group is far from universal.

"We have a broader coalition to pass this than what was assumed before," said Rep. Lois Capps (Calif.), a New Democrat who circulated the letter supporting a public option with Rep. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). "While we may belong to a more moderate branch, we want it known that we support the public option."

Now will these 22 stand with the 120 some member progressive coalition who've drawn a line in the sand against any proposal that does not include a public option? That's the key question. Right now, it's enough to have their support for a public option to counter the kneejerk opposition to anything remotely progressive from their leadership. It bolsters the chances for a public option significantly.

Midday open thread

Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:30:51 GMT

With the House proposing taxing the wealthy to pay for health care, Atrios warns we should brace ourselves for the following waves of crappy press coverage:

Confusion between total and marginal tax rates.

Confusion between small business revenue and small business profits.

Stories about how in some places $350,000 isn't all that wealth.

Via Balloon Juice, a couple of interesting posts. First, John Cole notes that while President Obama was pure enough to bask in the Pope's presence yesterday, he wasn't good enough for Notre Dame; and Cole finds a great piece on how dog therapy is being used for PTSD patients.

President Obama has appointed Brendan Johnson, the 34-year-old son of Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) as U.S. attorney for South Dakota.

More British troops have now been killed in Afghanistan than in Iraq.

General Motors is going to take to eBay to try to sell new cars.

President Obama visits Ghana, only the third sitting president to do so.

Karl Rove gets in a Twitter of a discussion about executive overreach when someone asks him about Obama and his appointments of "czars":

Too bad Think Progress can name all the czars Rove's boss appointed while in office.

A five-year prison term has been handed down in the case of a man convicted in September of having a gun outside the Obamas' home in Chicago.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asks North Korea to grant amnesty to the two American journalists being held there.

A new report takes a look at neo-Nazis in the U.S. military and it's not pretty. But don't worry, by Monday someone will be apologizing for stating the truth, a la the DHS report walkback.

Rep. George Miller is going to introduce legislation next week that will reflect President Obama's plan to restructure the student loan industry--a plan that's being fought tooth and nail by private banks, which will be cut out of a lot of interest-bearing action if it passes.

Best of Saturday hate mail-apalooza

Sat, 11 Jul 2009 18:00:03 GMT

Time to take stock of the best hate mail gems from the last 13 weeks (has it been that long already?).

Well, 12 of those 13 weeks. The "Dear Socialist Fuckstick" email is the undisputed champ and was an instant classic. But putting that one aside, what's your next favorite hate mail?

Palin's retirement story doesn't add up

Sat, 11 Jul 2009 17:00:03 GMT

To the extent that Sarah Palin has offered a rationale for her retirement, it is that her remaining in office would be a waste of Alaska tax dollars because she had been targeted by a series of frivolous ethics complaints since being tapped as John McCain's running mate.

As Alaska blogger Mel Green and The Plum Line's Greg Sargent took the lead in arguing, Palin's story doesn't hold up.

For starters, as Green notes, under Alaska law truly frivolous complaints can be dismissed, but thus far, only one complaint has been found to be frivolous.

Moreover, as Greg Sargent discovered, all of the money Palin claims was spent defending her from ethics investigations would have been spent anyway. The government lawyers who defended her weren't doing anything that hadn't already been budgeted. Put another way, they were just doing their job, and their job would have existed with or without the ethics complaints.

The icing on the cake comes from work conducted out by Green and the Anchorage Daily News showing that the figures provided by Palin to defend her claim don't add up.

In a nutshell, Sarah Palin claims that through June 23, 2009, the state had spent $1,963,840 defending her from ethics complaints. However, as Green and the ADN showed, there are several problems with that claim:

The document is remarkably devoid of details. For example, three line items total just over $1 million without offering any explanation. One of those line items is for the "Personnel Reivew (sic) Board" at a comfortably round $560,800.
In cases where it does offer detail, as Palin's own office admits, some of the numbers on the 2-page document are internally inconsistent.
According to the document, less than 20 minutes of work was billed at an hourly rate of $30,000. In addition, one line item shows 119 hours of work costing $14,564, while a set of lines elsewhere total 13 hours of work at nearly identical cost of $14,565.

Perhaps the nail in the coffin of these numbers is that before Palin invented her retirement explanation, the state was reporting the cost of her ethics inquiries was $296.042. Green broke down those costs in this handy pie chart:

In addition to Greg Sargent's reporting that none of these costs were incremental (they would have been incurred with or without Palin's ethics inquiries), it's clear from this chart that Palin's claim that her ethics complaint problems stem from her spot on the GOP's national ticket -- almost all of the costs were allocated to investigations launched in 2008, before she became a national figure.

This is worth repeating: in all, 94% of these funds were allocated to investigations from 2008. Two-thirds of that was from troopergate, in which the state found she had abused her power as governor.

Meanwhile, just 6% were from 2009 investigations. Sarah Palin claimed her retirement was due to a flood of new ethics complaints that were costing the state hundreds of thousands.

According to the state's own numbers, however, Palin's claim was false. Only a nominal sum was spent defending her from new ethics complaints.

Still, Palin was undaunted by the truth, offering up her own fictional narrative, repeated ad nauseum by a credulous press corps when the story was "hot."

Now that the dust has settled and her lies have been revealed, the few media outlets that have documented them are finding themselves in lonely company.

This Week in Science

Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:30:04 GMT

As the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11 draws near, it's startling to imagine there are still creationists, faith healers, climate change deniers, and yes, even moon landing hoaxers aplenty in the US. In a few days the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter might be able to snap a timely pic of the first lunar landing site showing the lonely first stage of the Eagle and other debris. Will that shut them up?

No. Sitting there, in their bedroom or basement, surrounded by old pizza boxes, posters of Gillian Anderson and Xena and piles of musty smelling X-Files t-shirts, HBs’ minds are totally and completely closed, so closed, in fact, that if you picked them up, flew them to the Moon and actually dropped them onto Eagle’s dusty descent stage they’d STILL insist it was just a prop ...

One of the unfortunate spinoffs of antiscience crusades fueled by fundamentalism or ideology, or money, is that when contempt for science becomes a partisan badge of honor and rite of passage, members of the clan strike out into new, increasingly bizarre directions the creationists or global warming deniers did not intend. It's somewhere between funny and sad, until some of them hijack a major political party and inject their delusions into every facet of US policy, at which point it can turn deadly serious.

Speaking of threats, positive reviews are coming out on Unscientific America (Along with some disagreement on at least one point). I've already posted a Q & A with the authors here and both will be available in comments on my review tomorrow morning.

The public perception of science and its findings in the US may be poor, and it's no surprise that only 6% of scientists now identify themselves as Republicans, but the poll numbers on evolution for both the public and scientists in that article look suspiciously low to me.

Geez Ed, when taking a fun shot at a state Senator who says the earth is 6,000 years old, on national television no less, it’s pretty damn important you get the age right, too.

Gov. Rick Perry strikes again: The Texas Board of Education will be led by yet another die hard socially conservative lunatic with long history of foisting personal religious and political delusions on the K-12 students now at her mercy.

Is it really possible that Galileo saw Neptune in his crude telescope, a whopping 234 years before it was officially discovered? Hard to believe, but given the material listed above, it's nice to have an actual science topic to ponder.

Obama: The economy's "back from the brink." Really.

Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:00:03 GMT

After a week of international traveling and summits, President Obama took to the airwaves in his weekly address this morning to tout the economic recovery.

In a little over one hundred days, this Recovery Act has worked as intended. It has already extended unemployment insurance and health insurance to those who have lost their jobs in this recession. It has delivered $43 billion in tax relief to American working families and businesses. Without the help the Recovery Act has provided to struggling states, its estimated that state deficits would be nearly twice as large as they are now, resulting in tens of thousands of additional layoffs – layoffs that would affect police officers, teachers, and firefighters.

Claiming that the Recovery Act was designed not work in four months, but over a period of two years, the President took direct aim at critics from both the right and the left:

Now, I realize that when we passed this Recovery Act, there were those who felt that doing nothing was somehow an answer. Today, some of those same critics are already judging the effort a failure although they have yet to offer a plausible alternative. Others believed that the recovery plan should have been even larger, and are already calling for a second recovery plan.

Returning to his recurrent theme of building a "new foundation," Obama pointed to the need to have a serious revamping of the economy as we move ahead, and he lauded moves toward creating new jobs in the energy sector and emphasizing funding in education. Most importantly (and relevantly, for this past week) is the need for reforming health care--and most significantly for tea leaf readers, he insisted on pushing the public option:

One such choice would be a public option that would make health care more affordable through competition that keeps the insurance companies honest.

He finished off with his usual stirring rhetoric, taking a look at our past, tying it to the realities of the present and pointing to the challenges of the future:

I said when I took office that it would take many months to move our economy from recession to recovery and ultimately to prosperity. We are not there yet, and I continue to believe that even one American out of work is one too many. But we are moving in the right direction. We are cleaning up the wreckage of this storm. And we are laying a firmer, stronger foundation so that we may better weather whatever future storms may come. This year has been and will continue to be a year of rescuing our economy from disaster.

But just as important will be the work of rebuilding a long term engine for economic growth. It won’t be easy, and there will continue to be those who argue that we have to put off hard decisions that we have already deferred for far too long. But earlier generations of Americans didn’t build this great country by fearing the future and shrinking our dreams.

The full address can be found beneath the fold, or on the White House website.

Your Abbreviated Pundit Round-up

Sat, 11 Jul 2009 11:59:55 GMT

Saturday slumming... with the pundits.

Carl Cannon:

In the 2008 election, we took sides, straight and simple, particularly with regard to the vice presidential race. I don't know that we played a decisive role in that campaign, and I'm not saying the better side lost. What I am saying is that we simply didn't hold Joe Biden to the same standard as Sarah Palin, and for me, the real loser in this sordid tale is my chosen profession.

Carl, the standard is: are you qualified? The rest is detail. Where the media fell down is in not keeping that front and center at all times, and building her up where she never should have been. CNN exit poll:

Gail Collins:

The reason the Republicans lost so many Senate seats last November is now becoming clear. No one had any time to think about the campaign. They were too busy worrying about Senator John Ensign’s sex life.

Daniel Gross:

I am not an economist. Still, I am confident in saying that, just as it was absurd to talk about an Obama bear market in March, it's much too soon to be condemning the stimulus package.

Bob Herbert:

The crisis staring America in its face and threatening to bring it to its knees is unemployment. Joblessness. Why it is taking so long — seemingly forever — for our government officials to recognize the scope of this crisis and confront it directly is beyond me.

Robert Reich:

Unfortunately, V-shapers are looking back at the wrong recessions. Focus on those that started with the bursting of a giant speculative bubble and you see slow recoveries. The reason is asset values at bottom are so low that investor confidence returns only gradually.

That's where the more sober U-shapers come in. They predict a more gradual recovery, as investors slowly tiptoe back into the market.

Personally, I don't buy into either camp. In a recession this deep, recovery doesn't depend on investors. It depends on consumers who, after all, are 70 percent of the U.S. economy. And this time consumers got really whacked. Until consumers start spending again, you can forget any recovery, V or U shaped.

Politico:

Coming after the recent Beltway debate over coordination between Huffington Post’s senior news editor, Nico Pitney, and the White House over a question about Iran at a recent presidential news conference as well as President Obama’s decision to call on another Huffington Post reporter at his first White House press conference, the choice of Froomkin to oversee reporters as Washington bureau chief seemed to solidify the site’s identity as a progressive voice heavily invested in Obama’s success.

But is it really?

The Opinionator (NY Times) on GM's comeback, from Detroit Freep’s Mark Phelan to Barry Ritholtz.

SF Chron: Swine flu money begins to flow to CA. Coming soon to a state near you.

California will receive more than $30 million in federal grants to help prepare for an expected resurgence of the swine flu in the coming influenza season, federal public health authorities announced Friday.

The money will go primarily toward distribution of a vaccine to protect against the swine flu, a form of influenza Type A, subtype H1N1. Federal officials said the vaccine, which could be available in October, probably will go first to schoolchildren, adults with health problems, pregnant women and health care workers.

Vaccine is unlikely to be availalble all at once, and will be in addition to seasonal flu vaccines. One shot, or two, is unclear. It will be voluntary. And it will only be suggested of the virus seems to warrant it (but probably yes.)

The full list of states is here.

Added: One.org is blogging Obama's Ghana trip.

Added: Jennifer Skalka at Hotline On Call challenges Rush to get off his tuchus and help jump start the GOP.

Blunt Instrument

Sat, 11 Jul 2009 05:14:04 GMT

[from the diaries - BarbinMD]

MIKE FERGUSON: What is the proper role of government, and what are the potential impacts of the direction that we're going right now?

BLUNT: Well, you could certainly argue that government should have never have gotten in the health care business, and that might have been the best argument of all, to figure out how people could have had more access to a competitive marketplace.

Government did get into the health care business in a big way in 1965 with Medicare, and later with Medicaid, and government already distorts the marketplace.

The Eagle 93.9
Interview with Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)
July 9, 2009

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) today praised President Bush’s signing of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. With his signature, the promise of a modern Medicare is a reality for millions of seniors:

“In 1965, President Johnson signed Medicare into law, and in 2003, President Bush and Congress modernized this program that millions of seniors depend on . . . The 108th Congress put aside partisan politics and provided the president with a bill to strengthen Medicare for America’s seniors and future generations.

“And today, after years of debate and deadlock, Congress and the president delivered for today’s seniors and future generations who will rely on Medicare and prescription drugs.”

BLUNT: MODERN MEDICARE A REALITY FOR SENIORS
Press Release from Rep. Roy Blunt's office
December 8, 2003

The lying, hypocritical scumbag is right about one thing: government does distort the health care market -- by writing big fat checks to the medical-industrial complex, without imposing any real cost discipline.

Of course, having the federal government directly negotiate Medicare drug prices with Big Pharma, or including a competitive public option in the health care reform bill -- or, even better, dispensing with the "free market" charade and moving to an effective single-payer system -- would at least put a throttle on the money pipeline running from the U.S. Treasury to the health care industry's bottom line.

But we can't have that -- not when the profits of Mr. Blunt's friends, campaign contributors, ex-staffers and future employers are at stake.

A "parliament of whores" doesn't even begin to fucking cover it.

Update 12:05 AM ET: It strikes me that the dueling quotes above present, in microcosm, the brutal tragedy that passes for health care policy in this country.

Liberals want health care coverage for all -- or at least, as many as they can get -- but traditionally have cared much less about cost control. Conservatives, on the other hand, traditionally haven't given a rat's ass about universal coverage, but have been big on pinching the taxpayer's pennies (as long as those taxpayers have plenty of pennies to pinch, that is).

But today's pseudo-conservatives (i.e. the modern GOP) also don't give a rat's ass about cost control -- at least, not if it's at the expense of the powerful business interests sucking on poor Uncle Sam's withered old tits.

What's more, since Medicare feeds many of those selfsame business interests, and might even win the GOP a few votes every once in a while (think: Shrub's prescription drug boondoggle and its intended role in the 2004 congressional elections) Blunt and his fellow prostitutes will even vote for expanded benefits every once in a while (although apparently not at the moment.)

As a result, the path of least resistance for any legislative compromise (on those rare occasions when the knuckledraggers see a need to compromise) is to expand benefits without meaningful cost control, which is how Medicare -- not Social Security -- became the federal entitlement program that really is going to eat us out of fiscal house and home.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like our latest health care reform "debate" is going to end any differently, no matter how tough progressives talk about demanding a real public option. Are they really going to hold fast when Obama caves -- as he inevitably will to avoid a Clinton-style failure -- and cut their own president, the great, um, liberal hope, off at the knees? I'm sorry, but I'll believe that when I see it, and not before.