I'd like to thank John for letting me spread the word about this cause, and I'd like to thank everyone here at Crooks and Liars for helping pitch in. It's important that we work to end the war in Afghanistan, and it's important that we support progressive voices who work to do so.

Six months ago, President Obama had ordered in tens of thousands of new troops to Afghanistan while admitting that there was no strategy. Support for the war in Afghanistan was at 50%. Today, 58% oppose the war in Afghanistan. And President Obama right now is engaged in the process of "rethinking Afghanistan."

For the last few months, too, progressive blogger Derrick Crowe has been writing on the Afghanistan war. And his posts have made a difference.

Derrick has brought to bear facts, video testimony, statistics, political insight, and thoughtful arguments to drive home the point that escalating the war in Afghanistan is the wrong policy. Derrick has been writing and researching so prolifically because he's been on a three month fellowship, using funds provided out-of-pocket by the good folks over at Brave New Foundation and the editors at The Seminal.

Yesterday, Derrick's three month fellowship came to an end. Now I'm asking for your help to keep it going, and to support a strong voice against the war in Afghanistan.

Can you pitch in $10 or $20 to help extend Derrick Crowe's blogging fellowship against the war in Afghanistan? Your contribution will go directly to Derrick, and if we can raise $5,000, we can keep the fellowship going for an entire year.

Click here to donate.

Continue reading »

It's good news that unpaid bloggers are included in this compromise, but since I don't know the details, I don't know if this would have kept Judy Miller out of jail:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, leading Senate Democrats and a coalition of news organizations have reached tentative agreement on legislation providing greater protections against the fining or imprisonment of reporters who refuse to identify confidential sources.

Under the deal, made public Friday, federal judges could quash subpoenas demanding testimony or information from reporters if the judges determined that the public interest in news gathering outweighed the need to uncover the source of a leak, including, in some circumstances, unauthorized disclosure of classified government information.

Protection under the so-called shield law would also be extended to unpaid bloggers engaged in gathering and disseminating news.

A version of shield legislation was approved by the House in March. But a similar bill has stalled in the Senate, and its prospects appeared to dim significantly in September when the administration, responding to apprehension expressed by intelligence agencies and prosecutors, took a harder line with regard to cases in which the government could claim national security concerns.

With the new agreement, however, the White House has now moderated that position.

[...]The leading proponents of the legislation, Senators Charles E. Schumer of New York and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, both Democrats, expressed confidence that the compromise would move quickly through the Senate.

“We still get most of our information from investigative journalists,” Mr. Specter said. “If you can’t protect sources, there is a lot of public corruption and private malfeasance that will go undetected and unpunished.”

Here's the audio form today's conference call with Speaker Pelosi about the release of the House bill.. Sorry, I'm a bit under the weather so I don't have the blow by blow, but I was able to get on the call and record it for you. She didn't know if she would allow amendments to the bill, but was against the idea. There were a few questions from bloggers that followed.

(I edited out just a few minutes because there was a technical problem when the conference service tried to connect bloggers to ask their questions.)

UPDATE I: To members of the media, please credit Crooksandliars.com if you use any portion of this audio. Thank you in advance.

UPDATE II:

mcjoan has a great write up of the conference call: Pelosi: House Bill is a "Manifestation of Rejecting Business as Usual"

Because there has been conflicting information this morning on whether amendments would be allowed for the bill, I asked Speaker Pelosi if that decision had been made. As of yet, she says she's been too busy getting the bill melded to focus on that, but that she "would have to be talked into it," but isn't closed. The fly in the ointment on amendments is Rep. Bart Stupak and threat to team up with Republicans "unless Democratic leaders allow a floor vote on an amendment that would add new restrictions on the use of federal funding for health plans that cover abortion with private dollars."

This complicates the issue of the single payer amendment that Rep. Anthony Weiner was promised he would be able to offer. When Chris Bowers asked about it, Pelosi said that she would be meeting with Weiner and Rep. Kucinich today or tomorrow. Additionally, Rep. Grijalva is continuing to push for the robust public option.

"I am not rolling over. I will insist on a Medicare-plus-five amendment on the Floor so that the full Caucus can vote on it. We are hopeful that the Rules Committee will allow this amendment, which has tremendous public support, to be voted on for the record."

Leadership, including Rules Committee chair Louise Slaughter, are going to have some interesting needle-threading to do on the rule for floor action and the amendment process on this one. The schedule has not yet been determined completely. It will be available for the next 72 hours for all members to access, then will be submitted as the manager's amendment Monday morning. Floor action could begin as soon as next Thursday. She said that it's possible to have a vote before Veterans Day, Nov. 11, but as of yet that's not decided.

One of the bloggers on a conference call with Sen. Arlen Specter this week was pressing him on increasing health insurance premiums for overweight Americans. Specter gently corrected her. He said his son, a resident psychiatrist, has explained to him weight is a matter of many complex factors and it wouldn't be fair to financially penalize an entire group based on things they couldn't control.

I was appalled at the question. I've put on 50 pounds in two years of inactivity as a result of my (until recently undiagnosed) ankle injury and the last thing I need is someone charging me more money for it.

As policy, this is an especially uninformed and insensitive position because every study shows that rural and inner-city residents (who have the highest obesity rates) actually have little access to affordable, healthy food. (And that's not even touching the research showing that the chemicals in foods have all kinds of harmful effects on your body that encourage weight retention.)

So if people could educate themselves about these issues, we won't have to waste time on discussing what amount to punitive measures:

Get in shape or pay a price.

That's a message more Americans could hear if health-care reform provisions passed by the Senate finance and health committees become law. By more than doubling the maximum penalties that companies can apply to employees who flunk medical evaluations, the legislation could put workers under intense financial pressure to lose weight, stop smoking or even lower their cholesterol.

The bipartisan initiative, largely eclipsed in the health-care debate, builds on a trend that is in play among some corporations and that more workers will see in the benefits packages they bring home during this fall's open enrollment. Some employers offer lower premiums to workers who complete personal health assessments; others limit coverage for smokers.

The current legislative effort would take the trend a step further. It is backed by major employer groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. It is opposed by labor unions and organizations devoted to combating serious illnesses, such as the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society and the American Diabetes Association.

Critics say employers could use the rewards and penalties to drive some workers out of their health plans.

President Obama and members of Congress have said they are trying to create a system in which no one can be denied coverage or charged higher premiums based on their health status. The insurance lobby has said it shares that goal. However, so-called wellness incentives could introduce a colossal loophole. In effect, they would permit insurers and employers to make coverage less affordable for people exhibiting risk factors for problems such as diabetes, heart disease and stroke.

"Everybody said that we're going to be ending discrimination based on preexisting conditions. But this is, in effect, discrimination again based on preexisting conditions," said Ann Kempski of the Service Employees International Union.

The legislation would make exceptions for people who have medical reasons for not meeting targets.

Supporters say economic incentives can prompt workers to make healthier choices, thereby reducing medical expenses. The aim is to "focus on wellness and prevention rather than just disease and treatment," said John J. Castellani, president of the Business Roundtable.

F*&king FTC Major league A-Hole Richard Cleland. I'm sure most of our readers heard about the "new" rules the FTC just came out with which to me are there just to punish bloggers.

The new guidelines declare that bloggers who fail to disclose "material connections" to companies they write about can be fined … wait for it … up to $11,000 per violation! Wow. I asked Julie O'Neill, a former staff attorney for the FTC in the New York regional office and now an attorney in the Washington, D.C., office of law firm Morrison & Foerster, about these new rules.

My first question was whether these rules are fair, rational and enforceable. Julie responded: "I do think that they are rational in the sense that they apply the rules traditionally applied to advertising to new media, but I don't know whether the FTC has completely considered the practical ramifications. For example, the revised guides say that a company that provides a blogger with a free product to review should both require the blogger to disclose that he received it for free and have procedures in place to monitor his postings for compliance."

As you can see from this short excerpt, the FTC has NO F*&king clue what they are doing.

As you know C&L does write a lot of book reviews. Hell, we even host book chats with the author. I happen to get many books sent to my PO BOX and many of them I just don't have time to review or read in a timely fashion so they go up on one of my shelves and I eventually try to get to them. It gets even more ridiculous than I first thought.

Daily Kos reads an interview with Richard Cleland and the stupid burns :

The more I read this interview of an FTC staffer by book blogger Edward Champion, the more the stupidity burns.
{}
You can return it. Most book reviewers (political bloggers included) get dozens, if not hundreds of books, per year. The logistics and expense of such a thing makes it impractical. Strict adherence to this edict would essentially kill non tradmed book reviewing. And why?

If, however, you held onto the unit, then Cleland insisted that it could serve as "compensation." You could after all sell the product on the streets.

So stupid. You "could" sell it. If you buy a gun, you "could" shoot someone with it. If you purchase a knife, you "could" stab someone. If you open up a stock trading account, you "could" engage in illegal insider trading. If you buy shoes, you "could" use them to run away from a crime scene. If you get an accounting degree, you "could" use that knowledge to launder drug money. If you take a job at the FTC, you "could" become a blithering idiot.

Read the whole post because my eyes are burning in my head. As Duncan often says:

To be clear, I have no problem with transparency and disclosure, I have a problem with Blogger Ethics rules and laws which don't apply anywhere else in the universe for no rational reason.

WTF, am I supposed to burn a book after C&L reviews it. If I write a TV review on a great, great show called Dexter, will they search my house to see if I got a copy from Showtime? Here it is.

I think Dexter is an excellent show. Go and buy or rent all the seasons because the 4th one just started. Are they f*&king kidding me? The FTC can kiss my Italian ass. And that is that.

UPDATE: I see the FTC is rethinking their position now.

FTC Reassures Bloggers - Big Brother Isn't Watching

In a conference call for reporters today, Engle aimed to set the record straight after a flurry of news stories (not to mention blogs and tweets) about the FTC's new advertising guidelines that were, as she put it, "all wrong."

"We are not going to be patrolling the blogosphere," she said. "We are not planning on investigating individual bloggers."

Continue reading »

The Villagers always love to attack us liberal bloggers and leave conservative bloggers alone. I know in their hearts they can't stand the dirty hippies that we are, but then I read this post by my pal John Cole and I realized something:

The moment I heard Snowe was going to vote for the bill, I began furiously refreshing Red State for the reaction. Finally, they deliver:
---
That is right, folks. To show unhappy they are, they are going to ask you to buy rock salt through their amazon store and mail it to Olympia Snowe. They don’t call them the Red State Strike Farce for nothing.

Seriously, how do I make a joke about this?

(You have to check out the screen grab Cole has. It is "the joke," Mr. Cole.)

They are too stupid to be taken seriously even by the John Harwoods of the pundit class so I know why they do it. Because we do have political influence and it bothers the Beltway media elites profoundly. I'd say we're doing our job. Now pack up your rock salt and get to UPS.

Don't you just love those religious conservatives when they talk about their religious convictions one day and dupe people the next?

Media Matters:

On two Fox News shows, Fox host Mike Huckabee directed viewers to "go to balancecutsave.com," urging them to sign a petition telling Congress to "balance the budget," "cut their spending," and "save American families"; however, balancecutsave.com redirects visitors to a web page soliciting donations for Huckabee's political action committee, which financially supports Republican candidates and also pays Huckabee's daughter's salary. Huckabee is the latest Fox News personality to ask viewers to visit PAC websites without disclosing the website's nature or whether they stand to gain financially from viewers' donations

Myabe the FTC can apply the same standards to these creeps as they do to bloggers. Huckabee should be required to disclose his own PAC to his viewers.

I always knew that the media would find a way to turn back to right-wing ideology after America voted out the conservatives who almost destroyed the country and the financial global economy. But I didn't know they would use a minor story like ACORN as their catalyst.

You know how the WaPost feels about liberals who complain, don't you? This is very troubling indeed. Apparently the Washington Post thinks it should be paying more attention to the crazed rantings of Glenn Beck and incorporate it into their news coverage.

Now you understand what we'll be up against the rest of Obama's term:

Conservative bloggers and commentators know how to turn up the heat on mainstream media. Glenn Beck did it one day last week on his Fox News program. Theatrically unhinged, he directed viewers to call their local newspaper and demand coverage of ACORN, the national community action group targeted in an embarrassing hidden video sting.

"Right now, get off the couch. While I'm talking, you pick up the phone. You call the newspaper," he commanded. If ACORN hasn't been on the front page, or if the paper isn't investigating the group's local activities, "then what the hell are they good for?"

Shortly, The Post and other papers were flooded with angry calls and e-mails.

It's tempting to dismiss such gimmicks. Fox News, joined by right-leaning talk radio and bloggers, often hypes stories to apocalyptic proportions while casting competitors as too liberal or too lazy to report the truth.

But they're also occasionally pumping legitimate stories. I thought that was the case with ACORN and, before it, the Fox-fueled controversy that led to the resignation of White House environmental adviser Van Jones.
{}

Post Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli said he worries "that we are not well-enough informed about conservative issues. It's particularly a problem in a town so dominated by Democrats and the Democratic point of view."

To guard against it, he said, "I challenge our reporters and editors with great frequency to look at what is going on across the political spectrum . . . at the extremes, among the rabble-rousers, as well as among policymakers." He said he pressed the National desk this week to provide more ACORN coverage.

The Post does not survey its staff to determine its ideological makeup.

The most authoritative recent research into the political leanings of newsrooms (including television, radio, magazines and wire services) shows they are considerably more liberal than the general public. At daily newspapers, those who "lean to the left still far outnumber those who lean to the right," said Indiana University journalism professor David H. Weaver, whose researchers surveyed 1,149 journalists in 2002 and recently conducted a follow-up study of 400.

A recent Pew Research nationwide survey said only 26 percent of those questioned believe news organizations try to protect against political bias, while 60 percent said news organizations are biased.

Beck is more provocateur than newsman. And Fox caters to conservatives. Working in concert, they and other right-leaning media have a large audience. Beck averages 2.25 million viewers.

The Post should follow its own news standards, not theirs. But it should pay attention to what they report.

The pseudo-elites who sit atop the media dogpile do think that conservatives represent the one true America, so they've found another reason to justify their actions and will submit to the new Matt Drudge of the right, Glenn Beck.

Please read the article thoroughly and then contact Andrew Alexander at 202-334-7582 or at ombudsman@washpost.com.

Please be civil and articulate.

Digby writes a lot more on this issue:

The methods of dissemination are the same as they ever were. They push the "scandal" through the right wing noise machine, work the refs hard (which isn't hard to do because the villagers are convinced that the right wing represents "Real America") and they create the illusion that something "doesn't pass the smell test." Here, we see that the wingnuts have convinced the Washington Post that "something is wrong," that the "Van Jones story" was a huge deal which they failed to cover and that they need to be more vigilant about ferreting out these important issues.

Continue reading »

August 27, 2009 News Corp

Chris Matthews seems to think that bloggers don’t do any fact checking, and that we’re going to lose that if the newspaper industry goes out of business. While it’s true that beat reporters and those doing the footwork out there are sorely needed, to say that bloggers don’t fact check is just a cheap shot at the on line community that he and his ilk have such disdain for, probably because we’re the main ones fact checking the likes of him.

What Matthews fails to note here is why the industry is in such bad shape. The Economist lays out some of the problems in their article Who Killed the Newspaper.

Nobody should relish the demise of once-great titles. But the decline of newspapers will not be as harmful to society as some fear. Democracy, remember, has already survived the huge television-led decline in circulation since the 1950s. It has survived as readers have shunned papers and papers have shunned what was in stuffier times thought of as serious news. And it will surely survive the decline to come.

That is partly because a few titles that invest in the kind of investigative stories which often benefit society the most are in a good position to survive, as long as their owners do a competent job of adjusting to changing circumstances. Publications like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal should be able to put up the price of their journalism to compensate for advertising revenues lost to the internet—especially as they cater to a more global readership. As with many industries, it is those in the middle—neither highbrow, nor entertainingly populist—that are likeliest to fall by the wayside.

The usefulness of the press goes much wider than investigating abuses or even spreading general news; it lies in holding governments to account—trying them in the court of public opinion. The internet has expanded this court. Anyone looking for information has never been better equipped. People no longer have to trust a handful of national papers or, worse, their local city paper. News-aggregation sites such as Google News draw together sources from around the world. The website of Britain's Guardian now has nearly half as many readers in America as it does at home.

In addition, a new force of “citizen” journalists and bloggers is itching to hold politicians to account. The web has opened the closed world of professional editors and reporters to anyone with a keyboard and an internet connection. Several companies have been chastened by amateur postings—of flames erupting from Dell's laptops or of cable-TV repairmen asleep on the sofa. Each blogger is capable of bias and slander, but, taken as a group, bloggers offer the searcher after truth boundless material to chew over. Of course, the internet panders to closed minds; but so has much of the press.

Ironically we see Bob Woodward saying journalism lives on after playing stenographer for the Bush crowd to get some books sold rather than reporting on what he found out. And he holds up Tina Brown’s operation at The Daily Beast as a business model for making money on line and some hope for journalism's future.

Just how different would this conversation have been with a completely different panel? The viewers might have learned something had it been our own Dave Neiwert and Susie Madrak who’ve worked in the newspaper industry and turned to blogging instead, and Josh Marshall from Talking Points Memo and Eric Boehlert from Media Matters, who’s sites look more like the future of journalism to me.

When the fourth estate doesn't do its job, people are going to turn to other sources that will. Something that seems to completely elude Chris Matthews and his panel here.

Another thing Matthews fails to note is that most bloggers who use other people’s reporting link back to that material and allow their readers to evaluate their assertions for themselves. We are not just taking stenography from press releases or other people’s reporting. And when we get something wrong, there’s generally a swift retraction. Something you cannot say for too many in our “mainstream media” who tend to circle the wagons rather than admit mistakes. And while Joe Klein is claiming that his commenters “fact check” him, just how many of those comments does he actually read?

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

Maybe it's just me, but I think we're hurtling towards a Howard Beale moment between the blogosphere (the *new* media) and the mainstream media. You have cozy little holidays between politicos and the "journalists" scheduled to interview them like George's tweet above, oblivious to the appearance of conflict. And you have DFH bloggers trying to explain to corporate journos like Marc Ambinder, Chuck Todd and Joe Klein that we actually do know what we're talking about and moreover, we're correct more often than they are, much to their consternation. With the ridiculousness that passes for top stories, how much longer will it be before we all collectively yell out that we're not going to take it any more?

Aside from the aforementioned lovefest between Georgie and McCain, the same ol' complainers are on: Grassley on Face The Nation; Orrin Hatch on Meet the Press and Lieberman on State of the Union. Ironically, the death of newspapers is the subject of The Chris Matthews Show. Betcha not one of the journalists will accept responsibility for the demise because of their abdication of their journalistic integrity.

ABC's "This Week" - Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Kent Conrad, D-N.D.; former national Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Karl Eikenberry, U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan.

NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: Bob Woodward, Tina Brown, Gloria Borger and Joe Klein. Topics: Can America survive without newspapers? Will online news fill the void? When city papers fold, who's going to watch City Hall? Meter Questions: Will outspoken fringe players dominate GOP for the rest of Obama's term? YES: 9 NO: 3; If unemployment is still high next year, will Obama revise his tax proposals? YES: 11 No: 1.

CNN's "State of the Union" - Mullen; Eikenberry; Sens. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Ben Cardin, D-Md.; Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo.

CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - Encore presentation of Fareed's Emmy nominated interview with China's Premier Wen Jiabao. Plus, the always interesting Malcolm Gladwell tells us how to get to Carnegie Hall and more.

"Fox News Sunday" - Jim Towey, president of Saint Vincent College and former director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives; Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa.; Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis.; Tammy Duckworth, an assistant Veterans Affairs secretary.

So, what's catching your eye this morning?

Mike Pence with some unfortunate lighting at the Right Online right wing bloggers conference, decrying liberalism for all that's wrong with the United States in the land of Mike Pence's brain. So nice to see Pence is still complaining about that stimulus bill he says didn't work, but wanted more of for his state.

Minnesota Republican Michele Bachmann has given us plenty of comedic fodder over the past few years. She's established herself as one of the most extreme, far right-wing members of Congress and is a constant source of embarrassment for both her party and the nation. Now, a group of Minnesota bloggers has filed an ethics complaint against her for partisan use of taxpayer money:

ST. PAUL, MINN – Jul. 29, 2009 – Minnesota bloggers Dusty Trice, Brian Falldin, and Aaron Landry filed an ethics complaint with the House Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) requesting an investigation into whether Rep. Michele Bachmann’s office has violated House franking rules pertaining to proper e-mail usage.

The complaint points out that an e-mail sent by Representative Bachmann’s office on May 26, 2009, advocates for the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), a political organization, which is in violation of the House Franking Rules.

Aaron Landry, who first began investigating the story said, “Michele Bachmann is no stranger to NADA, they’ve been a strong donor to her congressional campaign committee.” According to campaignmoney.com, Rep. Bachmann has received approximately $13,000 from NADA since 2006. Thus, Rep. Bachmann’s ties to the organization establish a potential quid-pro-quo scenario. Read on...

In a yet another completely tone-deaf move hailed by GOP sycophants as cagey, Sarah Palin complained about the mean ol' bloggers chasing after her and sic'ed her lawyer after them, threatening lawsuits. Palin's lawyer, in point of fact, put out a four page letter (.pdf) outlining the "defamatory" charges against his client that would embarrass a first semester law student.

One of those in Palin's crosshairs is blogger Shannyn Moore. Shannyn has one message for Palin: Bring it on.

On the Fourth of July, when Americans everywhere were celebrating our most sacred national holiday with parades and barbeques, Governor Sarah Palin was busy having me, Shannyn Moore, declared an Enemy of the State.

In a rambling quasi-legal letter, the most powerful person in this state accused me of defaming her for pointing out the fact that there have been rumors, -rumors- of corruption, rumors that have been around for years.

When Sarah Palin gave her three-weeks notice to the people of Alaska, aborting her term as Governor, a lot of people wondered why she quit. Mid-level managers turn-in their notice, not elected public officials. It didn’t make sense. It still doesn’t. People have been trying to guess why she really quit, and everyone in Alaska has been playing the guessing game. They’re rumors. There are a lot of rumors. And with all the corruption we’ve had here in Alaska, of course we wonder what’s really behind her resignation.

Governors don’t just quit. But Governor Palin did.[..]

Sarah Palin is a coward and a bully. What kind of politician attacks an ordinary American on the Fourth of July for speaking her mind? What’s wrong with her? The First Amendment was designed to protect people like me from the likes of people like her. Our American Revolution got rid of kings. And queens, too. Am I jacked-up? You betcha. Sarah Palin, if you have a problem with me, then sue me.

You gotta love this woman.

Hat tip for this video to Shannyn's fellow Alaska blogger Gryphen at The Immoral Minority, who points out,

"Do you know the difference between a Shannyn Moore press conference and a Sarah Palin press conference? Shannyn's made sense."

I got that letter from your attorney, Governor. See? I saved the stamp.

Open Thread below...