Magpie

Saturday, April 22

Dubya's administration takes care of that nasty 'secret prisons' problem.

Did the CIA shut down that international network of secret prisons that it uses to keep alleged terrorists out of the US courts, or to hold them while on the way to interrogation in countries that don't worry about anything as petty as human rights?

Nope. It just found out who told the press about the secret prisons and fired her for leaking classified information. According to NBC News, Mary McCarthy of the CIA inspector general's office may also face federal prosecution.

McCarthy allegedly met Washington Post reporter Dana Priest as many as a dozen times to pass on information about the CIA's secret prisons in eastern Europe. Earlier this month, Priest received a Pulitzer Prize for her reporting on those prisons.

The action against McCarthy shows the real bankruptcy of the whole classification system in the US. Rather than being aimed at keeping important information out of the hands of hostile countries, it's increasingly obvious that the main purpose of classification is to keep 'inconvenient' information out of the hands of the US public. While leaks are routinely used by the government to bolster its political fortunes, anyone who leaks information that hurts the government politically can expect to lose their job and/or have the Justice Department come down on them like a ton of bricks.

We need to remember that Daniel Ellsburg's leak of secret documents about the Vietnam war in the early 1970s was illegal, too, and that — had the government been able to silence him and the newspapers that printed those documents — Richard Nixon would very likely have served his full second term. This magpie suggests that the the information about Iraq and the 'war on terror' leaked by McCarthy and others is potentially just as important, and that the punishment of the leakers serves only the partisan political purposes of Dubya's administration.

Via MSNBC.

| | Posted by Magpie at 3:05 PM | Get permalink

Friday, April 21

Taking that long downhill slide.

What's sliding? It's the right-wing political and social agenda in the US.

That's according to economist and NY Times columnist Paul Krugman, who says that the right's agenda has been heading downhill since the 2004 election. That election, and Dubya's temporarily high standings in the polls then and at the beginning of the Iraq wars are 'aberrations' that masked the essential unpopularity of the prez's right-wing policies, he says. Once Dubya started implementing them in earnest after his re-election, the public has made its displeasure with those policies abundantly clear.

So what's left of the conservative agenda? Not much.

That's not a prediction for the midterm elections. The Democrats will almost surely make gains, but the electoral system is rigged against them. The fewer than eight million residents of what's left of Red America are represented by eight U.S. senators; the more than eight million residents of New York City have to share two senators with the rest of New York State.

Meanwhile, a combination of accident and design has left likely Democratic voters bunched together — I'm tempted to say ghettoized — in a minority of Congressional districts, while likely Republican voters are more widely spread out. As a result, Democrats would need a landslide in the popular vote — something like an advantage of 8 to 10 percentage points over Republicans - to take control of the House of Representatives. That's a real possibility, given the current polls, but by no means a certainty.

And there is also, of course, the real prospect that Mr. Bush will change the subject by bombing Iran.

Still, in the long run it may not matter that much. If the Democrats do gain control of either house of Congress, and with it the ability to issue subpoenas, a succession of scandals will be revealed in the final years of the Bush administration. But even if the Republicans hang on to their ability to stonewall, it's hard to see how they can resurrect their agenda.

If you're a NY Times subscriber, you can read the rest of the column here. If not, you might find this link worth checking out.

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:52 AM | Get permalink

Dubya still in free-fall.

A new Fox News poll [!] shows Dubya's approval rating has dropped to 33%.

Full info about the poll is here [PDF file].

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:13 AM | Get permalink

Thursday, April 20

A tale of two maps.

I want you to look at two maps: The first one shows current gas prices around the country [Green = cheap; Dark orange = expensive]. The second map shows Dubya's popularity in US states, as of last month [Red = more popular; Blue = less popular].

Can you spot the interesting 'coincidences' that I did?

Where are gas prices the lowest?

View the full-sized version here. [Map: GasBuddy.com]

View the full-sized version here. [Map: RadicalRuss.net]

Yep, you got it! The states where the gas prices are the lowest in the whole country [Utah, Idaho, Wyoming] are also three of the states where Dubya's popularity is highest. And, unless I remember wrongly, neither Utah or Idaho are big oil producers or big refining centers, which makes the low prices even more suspicious.

But that's not all folks!

Take a look at the gas map and notice that the states of New York, California, Maine, Connecticut, and [if you make sure to catch the bright red counties around Miami] Florida all have gas prices higher than most of the country. When you look at those states on the Dubya popularity map, those states 'coincidentally' happen to be ones where the prez's poll numbers are in the toilet. The links between gas prices and Dubya's popularity aren't one-to-one: Massachusetts has lower gas prices than most adjoining states, but Dubya's popularity is in the toilet. And Nebraska gives Dubya good popularity marks, but has much higher gas prices than adjoining states. But, to this magpie, these exceptions only seem to emphasize the rule.

Some people will make the case that these apparent links between gas prices and Dubya's poll numbers really are coincidental; that they mean nothing. Others will argue that the links exist, but that it's the high gas prices that are affecting Dubya's poll numbers, not the other way around. But there are also people who'll argue that at least part of the reason why oil companies are keeping prices low in the states where Dubya is popular is political payback for favors rendered. [We won't even mention the fact that VP Cheney hails from Wyoming.] And, I suppose, the really paranoid could spin even more convoluted scenarios.

You'll have to make up your own mind about what you think is going on.

There's one last interesting thing about the gas map I want to point out. If you look at Maine, you'll see that a bunch of the counties that border Canada have higher prices than the rest of the state. And, on the West Coast, you'll see a county in the northwest corner of Washington state where the same is true. What all of these counties have in common is easy access to Canada, which [at least in recent years] has had much higher gas prices than the US. What do you bet that the oil companies have noticed that, if they jack up gas prices in these border counties, people won't complain because the prices on the other side of the border are worse? And that the companies have also noticed that if they keep the prices from getting too close to what's paid north of the border, they'll also pull in customers from Canada?

| | Posted by Magpie at 10:39 AM | Get permalink

Wednesday, April 19

Best Rolling Stone cover ever.

I gave up reading the magazine ages ago. Other than the occasional political article, Rolling Stone is a total wash-out.

Ah, but the cover on the latest issue is another story.

The absolute worst

Cover for Rolling Stone issue 350.

The cover article by historian Sean Wilentz isn't bad, either.

How does any president's reputation sink so low? The reasons are best understood as the reverse of those that produce presidential greatness. In almost every survey of historians dating back to the 1940s, three presidents have emerged as supreme successes: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt. These were the men who guided the nation through what historians consider its greatest crises: the founding era after the ratification of the Constitution, the Civil War, and the Great Depression and Second World War. Presented with arduous, at times seemingly impossible circumstances, they rallied the nation, governed brilliantly and left the republic more secure than when they entered office.

Calamitous presidents, faced with enormous difficulties -- Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Hoover and now Bush -- have divided the nation, governed erratically and left the nation worse off. In each case, different factors contributed to the failure: disastrous domestic policies, foreign-policy blunders and military setbacks, executive misconduct, crises of credibility and public trust. Bush, however, is one of the rarities in presidential history: He has not only stumbled badly in every one of these key areas, he has also displayed a weakness common among the greatest presidential failures -- an unswerving adherence to a simplistic ideology that abjures deviation from dogma as heresy, thus preventing any pragmatic adjustment to changing realities. Repeatedly, Bush has undone himself, a failing revealed in each major area of presidential performance.

Thanks to Stories in America for the tip.

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:21 PM | Get permalink

Bye-bye, Scotty.

The political shake-up inside the ~~Kremlin~~ White House continue, but the obvious candidate for sacking — defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld — has survived. On the other hand, Dubya's press secretary Scott McClellan is going to be looking for another job, and long-time political advisor Karl Rove is losing his policymaking role and going back to political strategizing — a lateral move at worst, rather than a demotion.

McClellan's departure has been expected. He's thrown himself on the prez's sword so many times that his credibility isn't just in tatters — it's nonexistent. Given how many lies need to be covered up in the current White House, that situation isn't acceptable. Not surprisingly, the main person being mentioned as McClellan's replacement is Fox News' Tony Snow, whose own credibility problems make him an excellent fit for the job.

While today's shift moves Rove out of the policymaking role he's had since Dubya's re-election, that change probably shouldn't be seen as a demotion. Instead, it just removes Rove from a job that seemed beyond his level of compentence — making policy — and puts him back into a job that he's done very well in the past — charting the administration's overall political course.

Today's White House changes are obviously a response to Dubya's growing political problems and plummeting popularity with the public. The administration has been in trouble since the early days of the Iraq war. However, its incompetent handling of the Gulf Coast hurricanes, the uproar over the approval of a deal to sell port facilities to a Dubai-based company, and the continuing scandals affecting the GOP's congressional leadership have seriously damaged both the prez's credibility and the ability of his administration to get anything done. With McClellan's resignaton and Rove's move, Dubya and new White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten are gambling that they've gotten rid of two of the administration's biggest trouble spots. The biggest current problem — Donald Rumsfeld — is still in place. It's going to be interesting to see whether Dubya's strong support of Rumsfeld, shown most recently in his response to press questions yesterday, means that Rumsfeld will continue to survive, or whether the prez's petulant and testy answers reflected his recognition that Rumsfeld will have to go, despite Dubya's own wishes in the matter.

Via AP, Fox News, Media Matters, NY Times, Times of London.

| | Posted by Magpie at 9:45 AM | Get permalink

The real target isn't Rumsfeld.

Greg Palast has some pointed comments about the calls for US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign — directed especially at the retired generals who've joined the call.

President Bush is one lucky fella. I can imagine him today on the intercom with Cheney: "Well, pardner, looks like the game's up." And Cheney replies, "Hey, just hang the Rumsfeld dummy out the window until he's taken all their ammo."

When Bush and Cheney read about the call for Rumsfeld's resignation, I can just hear George saying to Dick, "mission accomplished".

Generals, let me give you a bit of advice about choosing a target: It's the president, stupid.

You should definitely read the rest.

Via the UK Guardian's Comment is free.

| | Posted by Magpie at 2:32 AM | Get permalink

It's victim-blaming time at the Wall Street Journal.

In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Naomi Schaeffer Riley offers her take on the alleged rapes involving members of Duke University's lacrosse team: The woman should have known better. After all, only a careless woman gets herself raped, right?

Let's let Riley hang herself:

Perhaps the law of averages says that, with 14 million men in U.S. colleges today, a few of them will be rapists. What to do? For starters: Be wary of drunken house parties.

Now, readers may well assume that this advice is obvious and that no Duke coed would ever do what the stripper, by her own account, did: Upon finding 40 men at the party instead of the four for whom she agreed to "dance," she stayed and performed anyway. When the partygoers began shouting what she described as racial epithets and violent threats, she left but returned after an apology from a team member. A stripper with street smarts is apparently a Hollywood myth.

Even though Riley doesn't have the intellectual honesty to own up to her real message and put it in plain language, what she's clearly saying is: 'The whore deserved what she got.'

I wish I could have been surprised that a woman would write such wrong-headed drivel in a major US newspaper — not to mention that the paper would print it. [Like being the 'Taste' editor qualifies one to write an op-ed about violence against women?] Sadly, this is just the latest example we've seen of one woman blaming another when the problem is men's failure to control their own bad behavior. The need to make sure that the 'nice men' don't think that you're some kind of 'strident feminist' can be really strong, obviously.

I could go on, but Sarah Elizabeth Richards at Broadsheet and Jessica at Feministing have already done an excellent job of shredding the underlying assumptions of Riley's article.

You know what to do.

| | Posted by Magpie at 1:43 AM | Get permalink

Carnival of Feminists 13 is hot off the presses!

Well, it would be if we used presses to make blogs.

Even though it's press-free, you can still read the 13th Carnival in all of its feminist bloggy glory if you head over here to I See Invisible People. As usual, it's an ecelectic collection of the best feminist posts from around the web. The theme for many of the posts is 'Feminism and Challenges.'

For this Carnival, I'm excerpting the links to posts about violence against women, a subject that never goes away, sadly:

Violence against women cuts across all cultural and socioeconomic lines. Morgaine at The Goddess details the many forms—some obvious, others less so—that it takes. Wicked Angel writes of the need for domestic violence support for women in India as well as for Indian women abroad. Alien in the Caribbean writes of how Christian religious leaders have failed women on the issue of domestic violence. Black Looks examines Gendercide in Africa. Molly Saves The Day shows that child abuse is a feminist issue and points out how young adults fleeing violence at home are treated differently than adult women. Red State Feminists writes on the stereotypes that keep women from receiving justice in court.

On the Duke rape case Blac(k) ademic asks "How much am I worth?": "i know the answer. it is because black women's bodies do not matter. we are the trash, the waste, the wretched, the walking dead of this planet—especially those of us who dance to put food in our childrens mouths."

Laura at I'm Not A Feminist But … writes about the frightening trend in the UK to let rapists off with a caution.

Gukira writes on Raping Black Women: "Faced with accusation, male privilege responds with aggression. Faced with evidence, male privilege responds with mitigating circumstances. Faced with conviction, male privilege revels in braggadocio. After all, strong men know how to control their women."

There's a ton more, on a variety of subjects, if you go look at the rest of the 13th Carnival over here.

The 14th Carnival is coming up on Wednesday, May 3rd, and it will be hosted by Women?s Autonomy and Sexual Sovereignty Movements. No theme has been announced yet. To nominate a post, — and it's definitely okay to nominate one of your own — use this submission form at the Blog Carnival home page.

The deadline for submitting a post to the 14th Carnival is, I beleive, May 3rd, but I'll double-check that and update here if necessary.

And if you want to keep posted on what's up with the Carnival of Feminists in general, bookmark the home page.

| | Posted by Magpie at 1:08 AM | Get permalink

US incompetence in Iraq continues to amaze.

If you ask US officials to identify the main security problem in Iraq, they'll tell you that it's the infiltration of Shi'ite militias into the country's security forces, and that these militias are now killing more Iraqi civilians than the Iraqi insurgency.

Like many of the problems faced by the US in Iraq, this one could have been avoided — but it wasn't. According to Knight Ridder's Tom Lasseter, US officials had been warned about the Shi'ite infiltration for the last two years, but ignored those warnings entirely.

Among U.S. officials' missteps:
White House and Pentagon officials ignored a stream of warnings from American intelligence agencies about the mounting danger posed by two Shiite militias, the Badr Organization and the Mahdi Army. The Badr Organization is the armed wing of the Iranian-backed Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the most powerful Shiite political faction in the country; the Mahdi Army is loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

A group of high-ranking Iraqis appointed in 2004 to persuade militia leaders to disband their groups received no funding and was allowed to wither away.

U.S. diplomats in Baghdad were slow to recognize that the majority Shiite population's ascent to political power would expand rather than diminish militia activity. Many believed that the groups' members would retire or would be integrated into the security forces without significant problems.

Acting against the Shiite militias would have undercut the administration's arguments that foreign terrorists and holdovers from Saddam Hussein's regime were the problem in Iraq. It also would have raised doubts about the administration's reliance on training largely Shiite security forces to replace U.S. troops in Iraq. [Emphasis mine]

Do you notice the pattern there? Most of the problems had to do with the unwillingness of the White House and Pentagon to 1) listen to anyone who told them something they didn't want to hear and 2) do anything that would have required acknowledging that mistakes had been made.

Given that Dubya's administration hasn't changed their behavior regarding Iraq — or anything else, for that matter — I imagine I'll be blogging about some similar story just a few months down the line. And again a few months after that.

Via Knight Ridder Washington Bureau.

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:16 AM | Get permalink

Iran and the 'Nuclear Club.'

Political cartoonist Signe Wilkinson poses a simple question that, while it's definitely getting asked a lot, certainly doesn't seem to be getting answered — especially in the US press.

Why would anyone want one of those things?

Why would anyone want one of those things?

[Cartoon © 2006 Signe Wilkinson]

The full-sized cartoon is here. You can see more of Wilkinson's cartoons over here.

Via Association of American Editorial Cartoonists.

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:01 AM | Get permalink

'Better Late Than Never' Dept.

I really did mean to blog about Worth1000's latest 'Childhood Renaissance' contest while it was still going on. In that contest, people were asked to submit their photoshopped notions of what artworks famous artists might have created when they were very young. Unfortunately, I got distracted by other stuff before I could post. [Shiny things do that to mapgies, y'know?]

But there is an upside to my tardiness: Now I can cherry-pick the my favorites to post here, and I can point you to the list of the best entries — not just the big list of everything that was submitted. So here are the 'childhood masterpieces' that topped this magpie's hit list:

Precocious tykes, weren't they?

Left: MC Escher as channeled by hcazorp [and corrected by Escher's teacher].
Right: James Whistler as channeled by Jyester.

The much larger versions at Worth1000 are here and here.

For the best entries in the contest, look here. And to see everything that was submitted, go over here.

Via Worth1000.

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:00 AM | Get permalink

Tuesday, April 18

One Canadian's opinion.

Ian Welsh writing at Firedoglake:

I'm in the odd position of being a Canadian who does most of his blogging on American politics for US blogs. It's a kafkaesque exercise at times, and the recent Iran mess has reminded me yet again, that to a foreigner, the US really is ?through the looking glass?.

That's just the intro. Welsh minces absolutely no words in the rest. Go read.

Via Doug Krile.

| | Posted by Magpie at 1:44 PM | Get permalink

You have ~~mail~~ search warrants.

I see over at TalkLeft that the proposed rules of criminal procedure for federal search warrants in the US allow for search warrants to be issued via email. If Congress doesn't do anything, this new rule goes into effect in December.

Given how sloppy we all are in our emails, I can just imagine the kinds of mistakes and omissions that an emailed request for a warrant might contain. And how judges with too many email requests in their mail queues might get equally sloppy in what they approve.<

| | Posted by Magpie at 1:22 PM | Get permalink

The high cost of health care.

While Dubya's administration is claiming that health care costs are rising so fast because people 'over-use' their insurance benefits, a new study from the American Medical Association points to the real problem: In more than half the metro areas in the US, a single insurer has monopoly control over that area's health care system.

Data from the American Medical Association show that in each of 43 states, a handful of top insurers have gained such a stronghold that their markets are considered "highly concentrated" under U.S. Department of Justice guidelines, often far exceeding the thresholds that trigger antitrust concerns.

The study also shows that in 166 of 294 metropolitan areas, or 56 percent, a single insurer controls more than half the business in health maintenance organization and preferred provider networks underwriting....

The AMA says there have been more than 400 mergers among health-care insurers in the past decade. As they've consolidated and presumably eliminated duplicative functions, they're not passing the savings in personnel and administrative costs on to consumers. Rate increases, though slowing, are higher than ever and growing at a near double-digit pace.

Studies by the Kaiser Family Foundation show double-digit premium hikes from 2001 to 2004 — peaking with a 13.9 percent jump in 2003 — soared well above inflation and wages.

Via AP.

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:57 PM | Get permalink

Another billboard corrected.

And no, it wasn't the Billboard Liberation Front who did this one. It was another group called — and I love the name — the California Department of Corrections.

Billboard fixed by Department of Corrections

Billboard fixed by Department of Corrections

Corrected billboard at Seventh & Folsom, San Francisco. [Photographer unknown]

From the Department of Corrections' website:

[The] billboard was apprehended, rehabilitated, and discharged without incident. The advertisement, which had been attempting to sell and distribute petrochemicals, was corrected to promote the U.S. Department of Defense and their private subcontractors operating in Iraq.

Via Billboard Liberation Front.

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:34 PM | Get permalink

I think Dubya set some sort of record today.

The prez announced a couple of executive branch nominations today, and took a few questions from the press afterwards. What amazed me was how much sidestepping, evasion, and misinformation Dubya was able to stick into such a small number of answers. And, in a surprise move, he also managed to deliver a summation of his entire presidency. [We point that summation out below.]

To show you what I mean — and to show you how to read the presidential tea leaves — here's most of Dubya's Q&A with the press, along with my translations:

Q Sir, when you talk about Iran, and you talk about how you have diplomatic efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that include the possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something that your administration will plan for?

THE PRESIDENT: All options are on the table. We want to solve this issue diplomatically and we're working hard to do so.

[Translation: You bet we're considering the use of nuclear weapons. I keep telling you I'm a 'war president,' don't I?

The best way to do so is, therefore, to be a united effort with countries who recognize the danger of Iran having a nuclear weapon. And that's why we're working very closely with countries like France and Germany and Great Britain. I intend, of course, to bring the subject of Iranian ambitions to have a nuclear weapon with Hu Jintao this Thursday. And we'll continue to work diplomatically to get this problem solved.

[Translation: I've been twisting the arms of our 'allies' to support using a nuclear threat against Iran, but they all think the plan is f'n nuts. I'm going to bring this up with the Chinese later this week, but they think the plan is f'n nuts, too. But who needs allies anyway. I'll just go it alone in Iran. After all, that worked in Iraq, didn't it?]

[...]

Q Morning, Mr. President. Do you expect that there will be some changes that were not voluntary? Today, you've highlighted openings in your administration, but will Mr. Bolten ask some people to leave? And would you accept his counsel for Cabinet changes, as well as White House staffers?

THE PRESIDENT: I understand this is -- you know, this is a matter of high speculation here in Washington. It's the game of musical chairs, I guess you'd say, that people love to follow.

[Translation: You press folks have done a great job of picking up all the deliberate leaks that have been coming from the White House. Keep up the good work.]

My instructions to Josh Bolten was that I expect him to design a White House structure so that it will function so that he can do his job, function in a way so he's more likely to be able to do his job. And of course, he will bring different recommendations to me as to who should be here and who should not be here.

[Translation: I've asked Bolten to do all the dirty work so that I can keep my hands clean and be able to deny responsibility for any bad appointments. Anyway, you can't expect me to keep track of all those details. It wouldn't be, uh, presidential.]

And I'm the person who believes in aligning authority and responsibility. I've given him enormous responsibility and authority, and expect the White House to work well. And it did under Andy Card, by the way. I'm most proud of his tenure as the Chief of Staff. But with a new man will come some changes. And Josh has got all the rights to make those recommendations to me. And of course I listen to advice as to my Cabinet, as well. I must tell you that I'm -- I've got strong confidence in my Cabinet officials, all of them, and I appreciate the service they've rendered.

[Translation: You can expect more cabinet resignations any time now.]

But I also understand what happens in Washington. You know, a little flicker of gossip starts moving hard, and people jump all over it. The thing the American people have got to know is we'll structure this White House so it continues to function to deal with major problems. And we're dealing with major problems. We're dealing with a war on terror, we're dealing with high gasoline prices.

[Translation: Don't expect the new appointees to be any better than the old appointees. But do expect me to keep pointing to the war on terror every time I get criticized over bad decisions I've made. After all, criticizing me is given aid and comfort to al-Qaeda.

Oh, and I hear that the little people are having to pay a lot for gas these days.]

And let me remind people that these high gasoline prices are caused by primarily three reasons:

[Translation: High gas prices are not my fault. You really don't expect me to ask my pals in the oil companies to make less money, would you?]

One, the increase in the price of crude oil. It's one of the reasons I stood up in front of the Congress and said, we've got to have strong and active research and development to get us to diversify away from crude oil. It's tight supply worldwide, and we've got increasing demand from countries like India and China, which means that any disruption of supply or perceived disruption of supply is going to cause the price of crude to go up. And that affects the price of gasoline.

[Translation: I told you, it's not my fault.]

Secondly, there's increasing demand. At this time of year people are beginning to drive more, getting out on the highways, taking a little time off, and they're moving around. And that increasing demand is also part of the reason the price of gasoline is going up.

{Translation: Not only is it not my fault, it's your fault.]

And, thirdly, we're switching fuel mixes. The summer fuel mix is different from state to state, and is different from what is being used in the winter. And, therefore, the combination of these creates higher gasoline prices. And I'm concerned about higher gasoline prices. I'm concerned what it means to the working families and small businesses, and I'm also mindful that the government has the responsibility to make sure that we watch very carefully, and to investigate possible price gouging. And we'll do just that.

[Translation: Didn't you hear me, it's not my fault! Besides, I feel your pain. Isn't that good enough?]

Q Is there going to be rationing, do you think?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I don't -- that's your word.

[Translation: Yes. Definitely. We're already printing the ration books.]

Q Mr. President, you've made it a practice of not commenting on potential personnel moves --

THE PRESIDENT: Of course I did.

[Translation: What do you expect? I don't tell the truth about anything else, do I?]

Q -- of calling it speculation --

THE PRESIDENT: You can understand why, because we've got people's reputations at stake. And on Friday I stood up and said, I don't appreciate the speculation about Don Rumsfeld; he's doing a fine job, I strongly support him.

[Translation: I've already picked Rummy's replacement.]

Q But what do you say to critics who believe that you're ignoring the advice of retired generals, military commanders, who say that there needs to be a change?

THE PRESIDENT: I say, I listen to all voices, but mine is the final decision.

[Translation: Who the hell are those generals and commanders to tell the war president what to do?]

And Don Rumsfeld is doing a fine job. He's not only transforming the military, he's fighting a war on terror. He's helping us fight a war on terror. I have strong confidence in Don Rumsfeld.

[Translation: Didn't you hear me? Rumsfeld is history!]

I hear the voices,

[Translation: I get my instructions directly from the Almighty.]

and I read the front page,

[Translation: I have the front page read to me. Some of those words are really big.]

and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best.

[Translation: Oops! I really didn't mean to tell you why things are so screwed up in the country. Forget I said that, okay?]

And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the Secretary of Defense.

[Translation: Rumsfeld? I don't think there's anyone named Rumsfeld in my administration. Why do you keep bringing up that name?]

To save space, I left out the question and answer about the recent bombing in Israel [which also contains some good evasions]. If you want to read Dubya's full remarks to the press, go over here.

| | Posted by Magpie at 11:01 AM | Get permalink

Monday, April 17

Dubya's administration hands the Christian right another goodie.

This time, the goodie is a new set of federal funding guidelines for abstinence-only education programs. As Juliana Bunim points out, the guidelines read more like a right-wing anti-sex education tract than a government document:

The guidelines specify that programs receiving funds must define abstinence as "voluntarily choosing not to engage in sexual activity until marriage." Marriage, is also strictly defined as "a legal union between one man and one woman as a husband and wife." Both statments send a very clear message that homosexuals should never engage in sex. Period. Because everyone should be abstinent until marriage and conveniently, the definition of marriage does not include gays.

This magpie went over to the Department of Health and Human Services to have look at the guidelines, and they were even worse than we expected. For example, this is from the section on 'Additional Guidance Regarding Curriculum Development':

Abstinence curricula must have a clear definition of sexual abstinence which must be consistent with the following: "Abstinence means voluntarily choosing not to engage in sexual activity until marriage. Sexual activity refers to any type of genital contact or sexual stimulation between two persons including, but not limited to, sexual intercourse."

The curriculum must have a clear message regarding the importance of student abstinence from sexual activity until marriage and must emphasize that the best life outcomes are more likely obtained if an individual abstains until marriage.

The term "resources" must refer to all materials to be used in the submitted curriculum.

Throughout the entire curriculum, the term "marriage" must be defined as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as a husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." (Consistent with Federal law)

The curriculum must teach the psychological and physical benefits of sexual abstinence-until-marriage for youth.

The curriculum must teach the importance of marriage, commitment, responsible parenthood, especially fatherhood, and the potential harm of out-of-wedlock childbearing to all racial, socioeconomic, geographic, age, gender and ethnic groups.

Information on contraceptives, if included, must be age-appropriate and presented only as it supports the abstinence message being presented. Curriculum must not promote or endorse, distribute or demonstrate the use of contraception or instruct students in contraceptive usage. [Empahsis mine]

The fact that this religious claptrap couched in pseudoscientific language is part of the guidelines used for dispensing federal education funding is made even more obnoxious by the numerous studies showing that abstinence-only education doesn't work. In fact, it is such an inadequate way of preparing students to deal with sexual activity that young people who drop out of abstinence-only programs generally have a higher pregnancy rate than those who had other forms of sex education.

That, of course, doesn't bother Dubya's administration or the fundamentalist Christian groups behind abstinence-only education. After all, any kid who has sex should have to face the punishment of pregnancy, STDs, or HIV. It's what they deserve, isn't it?

Planned Parenthood has more on the new guidelines here.

Via MoJo Blog.

| | Posted by Magpie at 2:03 PM | Get permalink

Sending a message to the US press.

The 2006 Pulitzers were given out just a few minutes ago, and many of the journalism awards seem to be sending a message from the Pulitzer board to US newspapers: Get off your asses and start doing some serious reporting on Dubya's administration.

The highest award, however, went to two newspapers that certainly deserved it:

For a distinguished example of meritorious public service by a newspaper through the use of its journalistic resources which, as well as reporting, may include editorials, cartoons, photographs, graphics and online material, a gold medal.

Two Prizes of a gold medal each:

Awarded to the Sun Herald, Biloxi, Miss., for its valorous and comprehensive coverage of Hurricane Katrina, providing a lifeline for devastated readers, in print and online, during their time of greatest need.

and:

Awarded to The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, for its heroic, multi-faceted coverage of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath, making exceptional use of the newspaper's resources to serve an inundated city even after evacuation of the newspaper plant.

The Times-Picayune also won the Pulitzer for breaking news coverage. Big Magpie congratulations to the staffs of both papers, who surely deserved these awards.

There were other pleasant surprises in the Pulitzers. Susan Schmidt, James V. Grimaldi and R. Jeffrey Smith at the Washington Post won the investigative reporting Pulitzer for their series of stories on lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the web of corruption surrounding him. And Post repoter Dana Priest won the beat reporting Pulitzer for her stories on the network of 'black prisons' and other 'anti-terror' measures taken by Dubya's administration. Perhaps these awards will have an influence on the boot-licking attitude too common at the Post when it reports on the White House.

There were two national reporting Pulitzers. One went to the NY Times' James Risen and Eric Lichtblau for their stories on Dubya's secret wiretapping program, and the other to the San Diego Union-Tribune and Copley News Service for reporting on the bribes that eventually sent GOP congressmember Randy Cunningham to prison.

The editorial cartooning Pulitzer went to one a Magpie favorite, Mike Luckovich of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

You can download a PDF file with the detailed citations for the 2006 prizes here. There's general information on the Pulitzer's and the people who selected this year's winners here.

More: I'm not the only one who noticed the pattern in this year's journalism Pulitzers. At CJR Daily, Felix Gillette says that the prizes 'draw a line in the sand.'

| | Posted by Magpie at 1:32 PM | Get permalink

Most US baby boomers are too broke to retire.

That's the word from a new report from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation [FDIC], the agency that's responsible insures deposits in financial institutions and picks up the pieces when one of those institutions fails. According to the report, most boomers haven't saved enough to let them retire from work when they reach age 65 — a situation that the FDIC attributes mainly boomers' failure to save.

Forget about retiring

But here's the big scary fact buried in all of the other figures:

At least fifty percent of families headed by boomers have no significant assets. Period.

Even worse, this lack of assets is true for US families as a whole, not just for boomers.

What this means in terms of retirement is that, unless they keep working after retirement age, at least half of boomers will have only their social security to fall back on. And, as anyone who currently tries to live on social security checks will tell you, those checks don't provide a living.

What the report doesn't address much [or, with some items, at all] is the fact that the current bad situation is only going to get worse because of:

The disappearance of most remaining US manufacturing jobs
The continuing export of US jobs overseas
The systematic attack on unions that has crippled the ability of workers to negotiate for better wages and benefits
The disappearance of employer pensions
Skyrocketing health care costs

While it's easy to attribute these problems to several decades of Republican misrule, we need to remember that the Clinton administration's penchant for deregulation and 'free trade' contributed mightily to the plight of boomers, too. And the current failure of both major political parties to deal with these problems only ensures that the bleak picture painted by the FDIC report will turn out to be overly optimistic.

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:28 PM | Get permalink

Why are US generals speaking out against Rumsfeld now?

It's a one-word answer: Iran.

Check out what BTC News and Digby have to say on the subject.

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:09 PM | Get permalink

Sunday, April 16

Bumpersticker.

Seen in the parking lot at the Concordia New Seasons store in Portland:

Don't blame me — I voted against Bush. Twice.

| | Posted by Magpie at 1:31 PM | Get permalink

Big GOP shocker!

In a move certain to take everyone by surprise, the Republicans have identified the country's most critical issues for their November US congressional campaign: Abortion, same-sex marriages, and flag-burning.

From this list of issues, it's obvious how hard Dubya's unpopularity has hit the rest of the party. GOP strategists have apparently given up on appealing to anyone except the party's hard right and Christian fundamentalist constituencies, and are hoping to scare them to the polls in sufficient numbers to keep Democrats from regaining control of Congress.

Via CNN.

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:29 PM | Get permalink

A bargain at half the price.

Danny Westneat writes about how the high cost of housing in Seattle is pricing out working people. With the city's median home price at US$ 400,000, it's no wonder.

The really interesting part of the article is Westneat's search for a house that could be bought at the present-day equivalent of the US$ 98,000 price he and two friends paid for a fixer-upper a decade ago. He found exactly one property.

A tear-down, not a fixer-upper

Here's what US$ 125,000 will buy you in Seattle. It's condemned, by the way.
[Photo: Thomas James Hurst/Seattle Times]

Realizing the futility of his search, Westneat changed his criteria to include only houses that could actually be lived in. The cheapest one cost US #179,000. You can see this gem here.

Ain't capitalism grand?

Via Seattle Times.

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:08 PM | Get permalink

Forget that merit badge, kid.

Already infamous for kicking gay scouts and leaders out of the organization, the Boy Scouts of America now appear to be monitoring the politics of its members.

According to the AP, a Boy Scout official has warned a Utah scout troop that its participation in an immigration rally breaks the group's rules against involvement in political events.

Members of Troop 987 — made up of 15 Hispanic boys ages 12 to 15 — were attempting to earn merit badges for "Citizenship in the Community," scoutmaster Michael Clara said.

Clara said he received a phone call this week from Vic Rowberry, a Great Salt Lake Council of Boy Scouts of America field director, who said the troop should not have been involved.

"It's disappointing that the council would second-guess our judgment," said Clara, a Utah Republican Hispanic Assembly member who started the troop three years ago.

Kay Godfrey, spokesman for the Great Salt Lake Council, said uniformed members cannot participate in political events or activities that might be "construed as rendering an endorsement for a particular candidate or position."

Clara said he doesn't understand the difference between performing the flag ceremony and staying at the Republican State Convention in August 2005, and carrying and passing out flags at immigration demonstrations. [Empahsis mine]

This magpie can't see the difference, either. Mark down another reason why I don't give money to support the US Boy Scouts.

| | Posted by Magpie at 10:01 AM | Get permalink

Is more internet snooping in our future?

Federal and state officials are stepping up the drumbeat in support of laws that would force internet providers to retain databases of their subscribers' activities so law enforcement agencies can trawl that data:

Mandatory data retention requirements worry privacy advocates because they permit police to obtain records of e-mail chatter, Web browsing or chat-room activity that normally would have been discarded after a few months. And some proposals would require providers to retain data that ordinarily never would have been kept at all.

Why should ISPs have to hold on to this subscriber data? The reason given by officials is one of the usual ones employed when civil liberties are about to be infringed upon: We have to protect the children. However, ISPs and civil liberties advocates point out that law enforcement authorities can already access ISP data if they get a court subpoena:

"What we haven't seen is any evidence where the data would have been helpful, where the problem was not caused by law enforcement taking too long when they knew a problem existed," said Dave McClure, president of the U.S. Internet Industry Association, which represents small to midsize companies.

McClure said that while data retention aficionados cite child pornography, the stored data would be open to any type of investigation--including, for instance, those focused on drug crimes, tax fraud, or terrorism prosecutions. "The agenda behind this doesn't appear to be legitimate," he said.

Via CNET News.

| | Posted by Magpie at 9:28 AM | Get permalink

What, us worry?

According to Jamison Foser, the editorial pages of US newspapers have largely ignored the reports that Dubya is considering the use of nuclear weapons in Iran.

Amazingly, the editorial boards of The New York Times and The Washington Post have stayed silent on the topic. The Post, in an April 13 editorial, suggested that a military strike against Iran might not be effective. And the Times, in an April 11 editorial, went further, arguing that "war with Iran would be reckless folly." But neither even addressed the administration's reported consideration of nuclear strikes against Iran -- much less denounced such planning.

Via Media Matters.

| | Posted by Magpie at 8:59 AM | Get permalink

Ooooooh, ~~shiny~~ scary!

The Cowsills doing 'Folsom Prison Blues' on US television in 1970. The Cowsills, if you're not familiar with them, were the family band that inspired TV's Partridge Family.

Can you see these kids in Folsom prison?

Can you see these kids in Folsom prison?

Cowsills on the Barbara McNair Show, 1970.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the Cowsills' rendition of Johnny Cash's signature song. [The singer's imitation of Cash's vocal style is excruciatingly awful.] Since the Man in Black had the Cowsills on his own TV around the same time, I have to assume that he was aware that they did his song. I wonder what he thought.

Susan Cowsill, incidentally, has earned a lot of indie cred since the days of the family band, with a stint in the Continental Drifters and a well-recieved solo album. She's playing bass in the clip.

Via Bedazzled.

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:37 AM | Get permalink