Have YOU put together your brain wave machine this weekend? [Sooo geeky I love it.]
It's Daylight Saving time again. Don't forget to set your clocks forward an hour tonight.
PS Our sincere condolences to Keith Olbermann on the loss of his father.
Open thread below.
"All the things you are." Welcome Spring.
What are you listening to this Saturday night?
As our own Jon Perr noted, Amy Holmes joined the ranks of the Bush torture apologists on Real Time with Bill Maher when she compared the attacks by Liz Cheney's group Keep America Safe on DOJ lawyers who represented terrorism suspects to criticism by the left of the Bush torture lawyers such as John Yoo, Jay Bybee, David Addington, Jim Haynes and Steve Bradbury.
The Bizarro World of the Bush Torture Apologists:
Now, conservatives on both sides of the Liz Cheney "Al Qaeda 7" smear of the Obama Justice Department have entered Seinfeld's Bizarro World where the polar opposite of truth reigns. For the likes of David Brooks, Marc Thiessen and Amy Holmes, the Obama DOJ lawyers who defended the U.S. Constitution are no different than the Bush torture team that undermined it.
I really wish Bill would quit bringing this annoying woman on his show all the time. All she does is regurgitate one right wing talking point after another every time she’s on.
Holmes: I agree with you. I don't think it's remotely fair to tar lawyers with the crimes of their clients. You could never have anyone defending a murderer or a rapist or anything like that and we do have a system where you get a fair defense, but other folks say—I don't agree with it—but turnabout is fair play. Look at what the left did to the lawyers in the Justice Department who were trying to give advice under the Bush administration. They were singled out. You know they were... fingers were pointed at them...
Maher: Oh lord...
Holmes: ...to try to tear them down and I think a lawyer should be able to do his job...Maher: Wow...
Holmes: ...without being tarred as you say...
Maher: That is quite an analysis there.
For your listening enjoyment here's this week's edition of the Driftglass and Bluegal podcast. A note from Bluegal: "Usually, this podcast is not exactly work safe, but this time we've mixed things up. This time, this podcast is exactly not work safe. Enjoy!"
You can find previous editions of their podcasts here and at http://dgbgpodcast.blogspot.com/. Info on the Susie Bright podcast mentioned is here, and info on the Twilight Zone episode DG mentions ('Wordplay') is here.
Any donations are greatly appreciated if you'd like to help keep the podcasts going.
It's so tiresome. The lazy, false equivalencies of "balance" between Democrats and Republicans in the lamestream media. For example, listen to Kelly O'Donnell liken the Eric Massa scandal to the way the Republicans handled the Mark Foley scandal.
The similarities really are very comparable. And it makes people say is this just political sort of shoe on the other foot scenario. Well, some people would argue it both ways, but when I’ve talked to both Democrats and Republicans about this, especially in a current environment, where ethics is a big issue, they felt compelled to at least ask the question: Should the ethics committee take a look at how it was handled? Now Speaker Pelosi insists that all the proper steps were taken, once a report of something that crossed the line into sexual harrassment was made known. It went immediately to the Ethics Committee. But we did learn there were some warning signals that happened months ago when some members of the congressman’s staff at that time raised concerns. That was back in October and the Speaker says she did not know anything about it then…
Sounds damning, doesn't it? But just like everything in the "librul" media, it's straight out of right wing talking points.
First and foremost, understand that this renewed call for the Ethics Committee by the Republicans isn't about Massa and what he did or didn't do. He has resigned. What is the Ethics Committee supposed to do? This is about the Republicans trying to trip up Nancy Pelosi and put her on the defensive as she whips forward a health care reform vote. This is all about what Nancy Pelosi knew and when. And there's no comparison between how Nancy Pelosi acted and how Dennis Hastert acted during the Mark Foley scandal. As our friends at ThinkProgress document, Foley's inappropriate behavior towards pages was known as early as 2000, but nothing was done nor did Hastert call for an Ethics Committee investigation until ABC went public with their news report, some six (or more) months after Hastert was made aware of the situation.
Hey, Kelly, you know what the main similarity between Foley and Massa are? Both times, the Ethics committee investigation was called for by the Democrats in office.
Interestingly, nobody in the media seems interested in the fact that although sex-scandal ridden Democrats Eliot Spitzer and Eric Massa left their positions in the light of their own bad behavior, John Ensign and David Vitter did not. I guess it's okay to have a sex scandal if you're a Republican, right, Kelly?
As Rachel Maddow notes it looks like the Democrats have finally stopped trying to negotiate with Bart Stupak. Why it took them this long is beyond me. Stupak is now claiming that anyone who is against the language he wanted inserted into the health care bill is against babies and the cost they would add to the health care system. He's also not too happy with Rachel Maddow's reporting. Thankfully she doesn't care and continues to ask who was paying his rent at the C Street House. C.R.E.W.'s Melanie Sloan joined Rachel to discuss whether Stupak has violated the House rules by allowing his rent to be subsidized.
Transcript via Lexis Nexis.
MADDOW: As of yesterday, Congressman Bart Stupak`s attempt to hijack health reform in order to expand restrictions on abortion is over. Mr. Stupak`s bluff has been called. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told me in an interview yesterday that his claim about the Senate`s health reform bill includes federal funding for abortion is simply wrong. Several House members who voted with Mr. Stupak before on his anti-abortion language now are also admitting that Mr. Stupak`s claims about the Senate bill funding abortion don`t seem to be borne out by the facts.
The Senate bill, in fact, does not allow public funding for abortions.
If there was any doubt about the collapse of Mr. Stupak`s threat to use his discredited claims about abortion to kill health reform, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer put those doubts to rest this afternoon.
As the year-long health care debate approaches its end game in Washington, opponents of reform are being buffeted by a double-whammy of bad news. Last week, a Goldman Sachs analysis documented insurance rates for individuals jumping by up to 50% in some markets. Now, a new survey of large employers found that 56% will hold workers responsible for a greater share of health care costs next year. Coming on the heels of studies showing companies dropping workplace coverage altogether, the data reveal a system of employer-provided health insurance teetering on the brink of collapse.
As the Washington Post reported, the study National Business Group on Health of 507 large companies with over 1,000 employees each found that:
Many say they may charge more to cover spouses, tighten eligibility standards for their health plans and dispense financial rewards or penalties based on the results of certain lab tests. At some companies, overweight employees could be excluded from the most desirable plans.
Meanwhile, employees at many companies can expect significantly higher premiums, deductibles and co-payments.
That cost-shifting will take a number of forms. Twenty-eight percent of employers plan to use spousal surcharges next year, up from 21 percent this year. Meanwhile, 12 percent of employers plan to offer only high-deductible coverage next year. And the percentage of firms considering employee biometric screening and health care appraisals to incentives for hitting weight, blood pressure and cholesterol targets is growing rapidly.
The NBGH survey is just the latest symptom of the rapidly deteriorating system of employer-provided health insurance coverage. A 2007 report from the Economic Policy Institute showed a dramatic decline in employer-provided health care. That drop-off from 64.2% of Americans covered through workplace insurance in 2000 to just 59.7% in 2006 alone added 2.3 million more people to those without coverage. Census data since showed workplace coverage dipped further in 2007, down to an alarming 59.3%. A recent Thomson Reuters survey put the figure for 2009 at a stunning 54.6%. (Data from the U.S. Census revealed that it was only the expansion of government programs including SCHIP and Medicaid which offset the erosion of employer coverage in 2008.)
As the Washington Post also detailed in September, another survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that the grim outlook for employer-provided health insurance is growing more dismal still:
Forty percent of employers surveyed said they are likely to increase the amount their workers pay out of pocket for doctor visits. Almost as many said they are likely to raise annual deductibles and the amount workers pay for prescription drugs.
Nine percent said they plan to tighten eligibility for health benefits; 8 percent said they plan to drop coverage entirely. Forty-one percent of employers said they were "somewhat" or "very" likely to increase the amount employees pay in premiums -- though that would not necessarily mean employees are paying a higher percentage of the premiums. Employers could simply be passing along the same proportional share of the overall increase that they did in 2009.
David Brooks excuses Liz Cheney and his "friend" Bill Kristol's fear mongering ad by saying we've been too mean to Dick Cheney. Instead of actually addressing how corrosive their attacks have been, Brooks tries to write it off as politics as usual. Sorry David, but it's not politics as usual unless you think the sort of rhetoric used by McCarthy should be considered part of our civil discourse now.
Transcript via PBS.
JIM LEHRER: Let's go to another disagreement...
JIM LEHRER: ... the so-called al-Qaida seven. Liz Cheney and her group have criticized some Justice Department lawyers because they once represented some Guantanamo detainees.
Where do you come down on that?
DAVID BROOKS: Well, I think the ad, which sort of accused whose values do they have, do they have al-Qaida or Taliban values, I thought that was tremendously unfortunate.
I mean, it's just part of a long range of corrosive language. And, to be fair to Liz Cheney, if you Google Taliban and Liz Cheney, millions of people have called her a member of the Taliban and made similar charges. But it's a series of steps away from the, you know, normal way any of us should be talking to each other.
MARK SHIELDS: The idea of the al-Qaida seven, I mean, there are those of us who are old enough to remember the Chicago Seven, when incitement to riot and the seven protesters, militants, whatever you want to call them, disrupted as a matter of course, and it became a famous court case at the time and trial.
I just thought it was more than unfortunate. I thought it was offensive. And I thought it was, frankly, un-American, in the true sense of the word.
I hate to break this to Hannity but if America is being given the middle finger on this health care bill, it's because it got watered down by business interests, not because of the way the Democrats may get it passed. Hannity was in full conniption fit mode on his show with it looking more likely that the bill might finally become law.
And Kirsten Powers is right. When Bush did something the public didn't like such as invading Iraq, he was just standing by his convictions, but now that it's Obama, he's giving the public the middle finger. Rather ironic given that George Bush is the only president I can think of that has actually flipped anyone off on camera.
Transcript via Nexis Lexis.
HANNITY: You know what, Kirsten, I look at this absolutely insane idea that we're -- the House is going to vote on a rule and the rule will say that the House in fact voted on the Senate bill when they didn't vote on the Senate bill. So they can backdoor sneak this, ram it down our throat, ignore all history, ignore all tradition, undermine the traditions.
They're doing it because they can't pass the bill. So they're bribing senators on the one hand, then they're using tactics that they condemned on the other hand. And then beyond anything we've ever seen.
You're a Democrat. Do you condemn this?
KIRSTEN POWERS: No.
HANNITY: No! Of course. Dumb question.
POWERS: I don't think that there's -- it's not a radical thing to be using reconciliation, first of all. Reconciliation has been used for lots of things that are not straight budget things. No matter what Republicans tried to say.
HANNITY: Kirsten, stop. We're not -- wait, wait.
POWERS: And what -- Sean!
The Dylan Ratigan does a pretty good job of explaining the 2200 page report that exposes the Lehman scandal. It shines a bright light on why we need financial regulations and serious reforms.
The NY Times:
The bankruptcy examiner’s report filed by Anton R. Valukas on the 2008 demise of Lehman Brothers discusses some accounting gimmicks that are eerily reminiscent of how Enron tried to prop up its balance sheet back in 2001 before it collapsed. Both companies appear to have played right along the edge of properly accounting for transactions designed to make them appear much stronger than they turned out to be, becoming steadily more aggressive as they teetered on the brink of ruin.
The examiner’s report discusses potential claims that the bankruptcy trustee can bring against Lehman’s former officers and outside advisers and does not mention potential government law enforcement action.Reading his report, however, gives strong indications that at a minimum the Securities and Exchange Commission is likely to pursue civil charges for securities fraud, and that criminal charges are certainly possible against Lehman’s former top executives. The examiner’s report gives us a new term for hiding problems on a corporate balance sheet that may become common parlance: “Repo 105.” Starting in 2001, Lehman Brothers engaged in repurchase agreements, called “repos,” which were described by DealBook as “what amounts to a short-term loan, exchanging collateral for cash up front, and then unwinding the trade as soon as overnight.”
Read here for more of the story.
Market Watch:
The report, which runs to 2,200 pages, said former top officers including ex-CEO Dick Fuld and Chief Financial Officers Chris O'Meara, Erin Callan and Ian Lowitt could face legal claims for negligence of breach of duty.
Auditor Ernst & Young could also potentially face a professional malpractice claim for not challenging Lehman's non-disclosure of the off-balance sheet transactions, the report said. See full story on the Lehman report.
Lehman's collapse in 2008 really got things going.
Lehman Brothers, the fourth-largest US investment bank, has filed for bankruptcy protection, dealing a blow to the fragile global financial system.
The news led to sharp falls in share prices around the world, and officials took measures to reassure markets. Lehman had incurred losses of billions of dollars in the US mortgage market.
--US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the US was "working through a difficult period in our financial markets right now as we work off some of the past excesses".
But he added: "The American people can remain confident in the soundness and resilience of our financial system."
However he warned that uncertainty remained and it was likely that there would be further "rough spots" ahead before the market was corrected.
Turmoil would continue in financial markets until the housing correction was completed, he added.
Mr Paulson said he was committed to working with regulators in the US and abroad, as well as policymakers in Congress to take the necessary steps "to maintain the stability and orderliness of our financial markets".
But he gave no details of what such steps might mean.
And remember these magical words by President George Bush?
Earlier in the day President George W Bush said: "In the long term I am confident that our financial markets are flexible and resilient and can deal with these adjustments."
This BBC article brings back really bad memories, but I hope they remind the Congress to get financial reform done, now.
Bill Maher repeats the point he made in his column at the HuffPo in this edition of New Rules. I agree with him that the firing of all of the teachers at a struggling Rhode Island high school is not a solution to the problems with our education system and I can't believe the President defended it either.
New Rule: Let's Not Fire the Teachers When Students Don't Learn -- Let's Fire the Parents:
New Rule: Let's not fire the teachers when students don't learn - let's fire the parents. Last week President Obama defended the firing of every single teacher in a struggling high school in a poor Rhode Island neighborhood. And the kids were outraged. They said, "Why blame our teachers?" and "Who's President Obama?" I think it was Whitney Houston who said, "I believe that children are our future - teach them well and let them lead the way." And that's the last sound piece of educational advice this country has gotten - from a crack head in the '80's.
Yes, America has found its new boogeyman to blame for our crumbling educational system. It's just too easy to blame the teachers, what with their cushy teachers' lounges, their fat-cat salaries, and their absolute authority in deciding who gets a hall pass. We all remember high school - canning the entire faculty is a nationwide revenge fantasy. Take that, Mrs. Crabtree! And guess what? We're chewing gum and no, we didn't bring enough for everybody.
Well, at least he's not attacking the teachers' unions in this segment. I agree with Maher that it's not good for parents to allow the television to become a babysitter for their children. Sadly he fails to get to some the larger social and economic issues that are involved in this extremely complex problem as well.
One of Bill's guests on the show was former N.M. Gov. Gary Johnson who's also Chairman of Our America Initiative. I assume Bill likes this guy since he's advocated for the legalization of marijuana. From looking at his group's web site and the little bit I read about him he's also a Ron Paul and tea bagger movement loving Libertarian. He argued for school vouchers on the show which amounts to nothing more than funneling money away from our public schools, pulling the best students with the least problems into private schools and making this problem even worse yet, and Bill didn't blink an eye.
Maybe the next time Bill wants to rail on about "firing the parents" he should take a deeper look at the underlying problems with our public education system and our economy and the stresses those parents are under right now. His argument is about as ridiculous as firing all of the teachers.
Larry Wilkinson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, and Larry O'Donnell really let Karl Rove have it on Countdown last night for cheerleading torture from the safe distance of his office:
Wilkerson, former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell, interviewed by Lawrence O'Donnell tonight (12 March 2010) on the matter of Karl Rove's book and its attempts to justify the use of torture techniques during the Bush administration.
WILKERSON: "Let me say this, I saw - I had the highest clearance, Top Secret SCI - I saw almost everything Secretary Powell saw. I saw no proof of any of the things that Karl Rove indicated, and, as a matter of fact, no proof that any of the interrogation techniques, other than those used by the FBI, early on, had a real impact on actionable intelligence.
And I've got something else to say about Mr. Rove: No political counselor should have - he doesn't have the need-to-know. He shouldn't have access to that kind of classified information. He has NO BUSINESS having access, so if the White House allowed him to, THAT is a no-no. And I will guess that he's getting his information from Dick Cheney, because he did not have access to that kind of information."
"He's trying to sell his book."
On Rove's contention that waterboarding was not torture because doctors were present, Wilkerson said: "Slick it up with some doctors, and slick it up with some other medical personnel present. That sounds like the Nazis... Nuremburg cites the responsibilities of physicians in that regard and it isn't positive what they say about them..."
O'Donnell started the segment pointing out that Cheney and Rove and Mark Thiessen, the big fans/cheerleaders of torture, never served in the military.
O'DONNELL: "As a military man, what does that feel like to watch the cheerleaders safely positioned on the sidelines, their whole lives, try to tell you what is the most effective process and technique in war?"
WILKERSON: "Well, it says to me, and I'll make no bones about it, that they're all cowards. I mean, it's plain and simple, they're all cowards."
Steve Doocy and his cohorts at Fox & Friends make Ed Schultz's Psycho Talk segment for this -- Doocy: ‘Makes sense’ to give people same care as dogs:
Fox & Friends on Friday may have finally offered up the alternative to "ObamaCare" that Republicans and other health reform opponents haven't stepped up with.
The solution? Treat patients as if they were pets.
To be fair, it wasn't the Fox show hosts' idea. It came from a Newsweek article by veterinary oncologist Karen Oberthaler, who offers an idea for reducing health care costs. She says modeling treatment for humans after veterinary clinics could reduce the use of wasteful and often unnecessary tests.
"A very brilliant veterinary oncologist has a suggestion. She says we should treat people like they treat their dogs," guest host Dari Alexander said.
"Which makes a lot of sense," host Steve Doocy responded, to a few guffaws from his co-hosts.
And as Ed noted, they moved on to death panels from there. Heaven forbid anyone on Fox would ever pass up another opportunity to scare the hell out of their viewers.
The congressman's office responded by saying he is "not a rubber stamp for special interest politics":
In what seems intended as a shot across the bow of House Dems wavering on health reform, top officials with the labor powerhouse SEIU have bluntly told a Democratic member that they will pull their support for him — and will likely field a challenger against him — if he votes No on the Senate bill.
Dem Rep Mike McMahon of New York met yesterday with a top SEIU official and told him he’s likely to vote No, the official tells me. The official: Mike Fishman, president of SEIU 32bj, the largest property workers union in the country, with 120,000 members in eight states.
Fishman told McMahon that the union would not support him if he voted No — and suggested the hunt for a primary or third-party challenger would follow.
“He let us know he’s not supportive of the health care plan,” Fishman says. “We’ve let him know that we can’t support somebody who doesn’t support it.”
“We are going to begin talking to other unions about finding someone else for that seat,” Fishman continued.
McMahon enjoyed heavy labor backing when he was elected to his conservative Staten Island district in 2008. He voted No on the bill last time but was said to be undecided on the Senate bill, and labor had hoped to win his support for the crucial final vote.
Fishman said SEIU officials were intent on sending a message to other House Dems that they risk losing the union’s support if they don’t vote for the bill — and said the union’s rank and file membership strongly wanted reform to pass.
“We put an enormous amount of effort into electing Democrats,” Fishman said. “This is the most important issue on everyone’s plate. We’re sending a message to Democrats: If you can’t support this, we can’t support you.”
McMahon, who comes from a conservative district, has opposed health care reform in the past, saying it would “discourage entrepreneurial activity and job growth” because its burden would fall too heavily on small businesses.
Jon Stewart shows no fear when he exposes FOX News for their bias against health care reform, but the rest of the media just excuses their GOP propaganda behavior.
Well, Howell Raines called out the media for turning a blind eye to the TV cable channel known as FOX News.
One question has tugged at my professional conscience throughout the year-long congressional debate over health-care reform, and it has nothing to do with the public option, portability or medical malpractice. It is this: Why haven't America's old-school news organizations blown the whistle on Roger Ailes, chief of Fox News, for using the network to conduct a propaganda campaign against the Obama administration -- a campaign without precedent in our modern political history?
Through clever use of the Fox News Channel and its cadre of raucous commentators, Ailes has overturned standards of fairness and objectivity that have guided American print and broadcast journalists since World War II. Yet, many members of my profession seem to stand by in silence as Ailes tears up the rulebook that served this country well as we covered the major stories of the past three generations, from the civil rights revolution to Watergate to the Wall Street scandals. This is not a liberal-versus-conservative issue. It is a matter of Fox turning reality on its head with, among other tactics, its endless repetition of its uber-lie: "The American people do not want health-care reform."
--
For the first time since the yellow journalism of a century ago, the United States has a major news organization devoted to the promotion of one political party. And let no one be misled by occasional spurts of criticism of the GOP on Fox. In a bygone era of fact-based commentary typified, left to right, by my late colleagues Scotty Reston and Bill Safire, these deceptions would have been given their proper label: disinformation.I try not to believe that this kid-gloves handling amounts to self-censorship, but it's hard to ignore the evidence...read on
I think for a long time the MSM was worried about being labeled as having a "liberal bias' and got so used to the criticism that they internalized it. But when the liberal blogosphere came onto the picture and was horrified at what we were witinessing they weren't used to handling criticism from the left and instead of looking at their own behavior, they lashed out at us like they never would to the right.
Now I believe they are just down right scared of the right. They are afraid to have their email boxes filled with psycho rants, they are afraid that the comment sections in their on-line articles will have to be shut down and they are afraid of the backlash AM talk radio will whip up against them individually. Fearmongering doesn't only work on our national security front.
Watching the elite Beltway press actually rally around Fox News last year after the White House called it out as an illegitimate outlet for real news was one of the saddest journalism spectacles in recent memory. Recall that during the Bush years, the GOP White House often cooked up allegations and lashed out at prominent (i.e. genuine) news organizations, such as NBC and the New York Times, and I don't recall anybody rallying around them.
But when a Democratic administration called out Fox News for what it really is, a GOP propaganda tool (i.e. the Opposition Party), the same D.C. press corps played defense for Murdoch's dishonest empire and actually demanded Dems back off.
Good grief.
--
But I think the huge majority of it is explained quite simply: fear or the 'liberal media bias' charge. Conservatives have been pounding the press for more than four decades about their alleged bias and the Beltway press corps has developed rabbit ears when it comes to the allegation. And frankly, there's plenty of evidence that jouranlists are terrified of the charge and nervous about what can happen to their careers if that tag sticks.So what's an easy way to prove you're not liberal? (Aside from becoming lapdogs during the Bush years.) You pretend Fox News is legit. You pretend that sure, Ailes has some opinion guys on at night, but there's a clear dividing line between the news and opinion. You pretend that Fox News is just the mirror opposite of MSNBC.
Basically, you sign off on a charade that, as Raines points out, any newsroom pro can see is a complete joke.
David and I have the goods and we'll be exposing more about FOX soon enough in our new book, but I think the journalism community should know that we'll have their backs if they do stand up and do the right thing. Howard Kurtz likes to argue that MSNBC does the same for the left because they have a three hour block of center left opinion shows, but FOX News promotes the GOP agenda throughout their entire 24 hour cycle. And did you see MSNBC actively support the left at the height of the anti-Iraq war protests and send their hosts down to flame the fires at those protests? Eric's points are well taken, but fear is now guiding them and I don't mean because they would be labeled liberals.
