Stupid Like a FOX

Can the rest of the media stop pretending this is a real news network? A White House spokesperson points out what is patently obvious—that FOX is heavily biased—and the rest of the media rush to defend FOX's imagined integrity, like toadies ass-kissing the playground bully.

All so FOX can continue to deride them as liberal elitists.

If NBC ran a "report" like that on a pro-choice rally you can be sure producers—if not hosts—would be out on the streets in an attempt to placate the right-wing loudmouths and a fear of appearing "too liberal."

[h/t Cesca]

No Option On the Public Option

A petition in support of a strong public option from ActBlue and BoldProgressives.org—two major Democratic base operations that got Obama and the Democratic majorities elected:

PETITION TO PRESIDENT OBAMA: "We worked so hard for real change. President Obama, please demand a strong public health insurance option in your speech to Congress. Letting the insurance companies win would not be change we can believe in."

In the space to add comments, I added this:

All the polling and support for your agenda was made clear last Novmeber. Do not be swayed by a vocal minority, a craven media or the timid among our party. Now is the best chance for the bold action on health care that ALL of this country needs. Reform of the insurance industry will mean nothing without a public option. Bargaining away the public option in search of Republican support that will not materialize is foolish, and selling out to industry is inexcusable.

Now is the time for leadership. Now is the time to deliver the change you promised.

What He Said...

I've had a best-case scenario collection of health care reform links waiting to morph into a post that tried to be optimistic, but at the end of the day, I pretty much agree with Matt Taibbi [emphasis mine]...

It’s the same with this health care bill. Who among us did not know this would happen? It’s been clear from the start that the Democrats would make a great show of doing something real, then they would fold prematurely, ram through some piece-of-shit bill with some incremental/worthless change in it, and then in the end blame everything on Max Baucus and Bill Nelson, saying, “By golly, we tried our best!”

Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, or anyone else. If the Obama administration wanted to pass a real health care bill, they would do what George Bush and Tom DeLay did in the first six-odd years of this decade whenever they wanted to pass some nightmare piece of legislation (ie the Prescription Drug Bill or CAFTA): they would take the recalcitrant legislators blocking their path into a back room at the Capitol, and beat them with rubber hoses until they changed their minds.

The reason a real health-care bill is not going to get passed is simple: because nobody in Washington really wants it. There is insufficient political will to get it done. It doesn’t matter that it’s an urgent national calamity, that it is plainly obvious to anyone with an IQ over 8 that our system could not possibly be worse and needs to be fixed very soon, and that, moreover, the only people opposing a real reform bill are a pitifully small number of executives in the insurance industry who stand to lose the chance for a fifth summer house if this thing passes.

It won’t get done, because that’s not the way our government works. Our government doesn’t exist to protect voters from interests, it exists to protect interests from voters. The situation we have here is an angry and desperate population that at long last has voted in a majority that it believes should be able to pass a health care bill. It expects something to be done. The task of the lawmakers on the Hill, at least as they see things, is to create the appearance of having done something. [...] But these Democrats aren’t even pretending to give a shit, not really. I mean, they’re not even willing to give up their vacations

Yeah. Pretty much. These fuckers are worthless.

Dick(s) of the Week: Lubbock Airport TSA

Fucking outrageous.

Traveler says she was forced to remove nipple ring

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A Texas woman who said she was forced to remove a nipple ring with pliers in order to board an airplane called Thursday for an apology by federal security agents and a civil rights investigation.

[...] Hamlin, 37, said she was trying to board a flight from Lubbock to Dallas on February 24 when she was scanned by a Transportation Security Administration agent after passing through a larger metal detector without problems.

The female TSA agent used a handheld detector that beeped when it passed in front of Hamlin's chest, the Dallas-area resident said.

Hamlin said she told the woman she was wearing nipple piercings. The agent called over her male colleagues, one of whom said she would have to remove the jewelry, Hamlin said.

Hamlin said she could not remove them and asked whether she could instead display her pierced breasts in private to the female agent. But several other male officers told her she could not board her flight until the jewelry was out, she said.

She was taken behind a curtain and managed to remove one bar-shaped piercing but had trouble with the second, a ring.

"Still crying, she informed the TSA officer that she could not remove it without the help of pliers, and the officer gave a pair to her," said Hamlin's attorney...

She said she heard male TSA agents snickering as she took out the ring. She was scanned again and was allowed to board even though she still was wearing a belly button ring.

[...] TSA officials said they are investigating whether the agency's policies were followed.

Unless her nipple was pierced with a functioning handgun, this action by the TSA is complete bullshit.

Setting off a detector is cause for a more thorough inspection, a hand/wand detector, a (same-sex) pat-down, and finally a same-sex visual inspection if needed. Once the metal "threat" was identified as a piercing, she should have been thanked for cooperating, apologized to for the inconvenience and sent on her way.

Seems clear to me that "policies were violated." Offering an opportunity to remove piercings in private to forgo a pat-down is the policy. Forcibly removing piercings already identified and established is not. Those sadists need to be fired, and this woman should sue the fucking pants off the TSA.

Worst. Cops. Ever.

This is ridiculous almost to the point of unbelievability. I kept waiting for the Onion News Network anchor to come on. If Michael "Heckuva Job" Brown ran the Minsk Road Police...



[h/t The Agitator]

Moron of the Week: Tim Couch (the Congress one)

Obviously frustrated that everytime he comments on a blog people assume he's a failed back-up NFL quarterback, rather than a failed back-bench Congressman, Rep. Tim Couch of Kentucky wants to ensure that everyone knows exactly who everyone else online is...

Kentucky Lawmaker Wants to Make Anonymous Internet Posting Illegal

Kentucky Representative Tim Couch filed a bill this week to make anonymous posting online illegal.

The bill would require anyone who contributes to a website to register their real name, address and e-mail address with that site.

Their full name would be used anytime a comment is posted.

If the bill becomes law, the website operator would have to pay if someone was allowed to post anonymously on their site. The fine would be five-hundred dollars for a first offense and one-thousand dollars for each offense after that.

Representative Couch says he filed the bill in hopes of cutting down on online bullying. He says that has especially been a problem in his Eastern Kentucky district.

Action News 36 asked people what they thought about the bill.

Some said they felt it was a violation of First Amendment rights. Others say it is a good tool toward eliminating online harassment.

Representative Couch says enforcing this bill if it became law would be a challenge.

I don't think you'll have to worry about enforcing it, Representative Moron.

Interesting that this whole article never mentions this idiot's party. You know he's gotta be a Republican because this is so fucking stupid. So I checked, and he is. Oh, congratulations, Congressman, this IS stupid enough to get you on "The O'Reilly Factor" or wherever...

Next up for Representative Couch? He's sick of walking down the street and not knowing who everyone is—what the hell is up with these anonymous citizens? His solution? A law requiring everyone must at all times wear one of these...

WTF?

This seems absolutely outrageous to me...

Secret Service Ordered End to Gun Checks at Obama Rally

NEW YORK The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported late Thursday that security details at Barack Obama's rally in Dallas (of all places) on Wednesday "stopped screening people for weapons at the front gates more than an hour before the Democratic presidential candidate took the stage at Reunion Arena.

"The order to put down the metal detectors and stop checking purses and laptop bags came as a surprise to several Dallas police officers who said they believed it was a lapse in security," reported the paper's Jack Douglas, Jr. More than 10 days remain until the Texas primary and a key vote for president.

"Dallas Deputy Police Chief T.W. Lawrence, head of the Police Department's homeland security and special operations divisions, said the order -- apparently made by the U.S. Secret Service -- was meant to speed up the long lines outside and fill the arena's vacant seats before Obama came on. '"Sure,' said Lawrence, when asked if he was concerned by the great number of people who had gotten into the building without being checked. But, he added, the turnout of more than 17,000 people seemed to be a 'friendly crowd.'"

The Secret Service did not return a call from the Star-Telegram seeking comment.

Are you fucking kidding me? And in Dallas for crissakes?!?

[via TPM's CAmpaign Wire]

Not Quite All Things Considered

Josh Marshall's TPM Campaign Wire had a link to this NPR story...

Clintons' InfoUSA Ties Scrutinized
All Things Considered, February 13, 2008 · Political campaigns spend thousands, even millions of dollars to acquire good mailing lists.

Last year, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton took the unusual step of renting out some of her lists. The transaction once again highlights the Clintons' connections to a businessman who now faces questions from the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Reports from Clinton's campaign show that on Dec. 3, it collected payment for renting out three mailing lists, the sale of which netted them $8,225.

It was an unusual transaction, according to Roger Craver, a liberal guru of the political direct-mail industry.

[...] Several sources who work in political consulting and in direct mail, who would not speak for attribution, said they were surprised by the deal, as well as its low price. [...] According to one direct-mail professional, $800,000 would have seemed like a more plausible price for a quality list.

The story then goes on to detail the relationship the CEO of this company, Vinod Gupta, has with the Clintons, and the millions, yes, millions of dollars he's paid Bill, and the $$$ he's raised for Hillary. The angle I'm reading is that this guy is sketchy—one of his companies sold lists to spam scam operation, and that there is something unseemly about the payments to Bill, flights for the Clintons, Lincoln Bedroom, blah, blah, blah...

But there's a passing mention of one of Gupta's company that NPR breezes right past, and no one else is mentioning...

Gupta's empire also includes the Opinion Research Corporation, which conducts the political polling for the television network CNN.

Um, hello? The Clinton campaign supplied a list of its donors and supporters to the company that does the polling for CNN—for no discernable reason, and for next to nothing? What reason could the Clinton campaign and a polling company possibly have for a transaction like this? Think that they could possibly skew a poll here and there if they wanted to?

Google yields a ton of stories about Gupta and the Clintons from early last summer about financial disclosures (here's one from the NY Times), but not much on this new mailing list development, and nobody's looking at the polling aspect. Maybe I'm nuts, but it sounds like it's worth "considering"...

--

NOTE: I really wanted to stay away from the Hillary-bashing, but I just don't understand why (or if) I am the only person asking about this.

UPDATE: Adding "CNN" to the Google search nets some results: a brief reference by NY Times, and a dedicated MyDD post on the CNN tie here.

Links

OVERSIGHT IS AN OVERSIGHT
John Cole perfectly encapsulates the fucking joke that is Congress with this. Christ. When I read stuff like that, it makes me dream of "Debt of Honor" scenarios.

SUPERDELEGATE DOUBTS
Rahm Emanuel's brother doesn't trust him to pick the Democratic nominee.

JUDGEMENT = STRATEGY
Matt Yglesias makes a point about good policy and judgement in foresight leading to good politics and strategy in hindsight.

PRIVACY vs. SECURITY
The government would have you believe it's a zero-sum game. It's not.

PRESERVE THE CLIMATE OF FEAR
You might remember a classic Onion piece from when Bush took office, “Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over” [link]. Last month, they put out the perfect Op-Ed to bookend the Bush Era.

...Not so very long ago, we winced every time we saw someone with facial hair or a backpack. Average people were terrified of opening their mail for fear of getting a face full of anthrax. Those were perhaps our country's greatest days. Yet that once-phobic spirit that defined our times is drastically changing.

Today, people are making eye contact with strangers on the street. They are whistling on subway platforms, strolling down sidewalks, and generally behaving as if they do not feel they could be killed at any moment. [...] It breaks my heart to see the land I love fall into such a state of non-panic.

My God, what have we become?

Depressingly hilarious.


--

There. 99% Obama-free.

The "C" Stands for "Crappy"

Would it be too much fucking trouble for CNN to have the debate available online? What, is it 1994 or something?

All they have are the moronically-selected "gotcha" moments. Fucking CSPAN can handle this shit—if you can't put the thing online, you shouldn't be used as a venue to host it.

Oh, and Wolf Blitzer's a fucking douche.

Flushing

Condolences go out to Rickey and Mike who had to endure a slow-motion car wreck of a collapse by the Mets over the last few weeks. I wouldn't wish that kind of agony on anyone. Well, except Yankee fans. And most other Met fans...

While I lived in NYC, I overcame my '86-based hatred of the Mets and adopted them as my NL team and used them as a proxy Sox to counter the Yanks. I even bought (limited) season ticket packages a couple years. Plenty of guys I liked on the team then, and even now. I was there for the raucous Todd Pratt walk-off game against the D-Backs sitting right behind the plate, but in the very top row, and I actually feared for my life the way that upper deck bounced.

As a Sox fan who for intermittant periods this September seemed to be on the verge of a similar collapse from the "best record in the League" all the way to blowing the Division, I can relate. But they got the job done. The Mets were brutal—top to bottom—with very few exceptions. Minaya never equipped this team with the pitching they needed—coasting on a big lead, and counting on a dominant return from Pedro was a foolish strategy. Almost as foolish as giving Pedro a 4-year deal. Now, I loves me some Petey, and he is one of the few guys getting a pass from me—he battled back from surgery and gave this team gutty performances and a chance to win every time he pitched down the stretch, and they wasted them.

Forget Scott Kazmir, think the Mets would like to have Brian Bannister still? They gave up an ALROY candidate for 23 innings of Ambiorix Burgos. Actually, don't forget Scott Kazmir: Tom Glavine gave up as many runs in the first inning yesterday as Kazmir did the whole month of September—seven. The Kazmir deal is bad on a Bagwellian level. Actually worse, because Bagwell was a fringe prospect, while Kazmir was a highy-regarded flamethrowing lefty. If he was pitching in Queens this season instead of on the worst team in the AL East, he'd be an Cy Young/MVP caliber ace. His performance in TB (13-9, 3.48, league-leading 230 Ks) this season would probably have been good for twenty wins and an ERA under 3 in the NL.

What am I getting at? I'm saying Omar Minaya did a shit job as G.M. Throwing too much money and too many years at guys like Pedro, Delgado, Alou, Green and a host of downside veterans. He has followed the old Yankees strategy and it blew up big time this year. This roster was riddled with injury-risks and potential cliff-diving collapses, and none of it should have been a surprise. After last year, they were complacent when they should have turned things over.

Randolph beat his bullpen every bit as badly as Torre, but he didn't have a Joba Chamberlain to save his ass. He relied too heavily and too long on under-performing veterans in many cases, though he was hamstrung by the tools Minaya left him with.

But the blame* really lies with the players who just flat out stopped playing when it mattered most. They didn't lose nailbiters, they got their asses kicked in all areas. This might look like a photo-finish with two teams tied going into the final game of the season, but the reality is the Mets were dead men walking for weeks.

Blow it up.

UPDATE: *Actual blame goes to Rickey's beard.

Toasted Joe (not to be confused with Toast) offered a Baldwinian challenge to the Mets the other day worth reading.

UPDATE 2: Fantastic rant from Metstrodamus.

Losers

Grabbed a copy of The New York Times on my way into the building today (working at a college has a few perks—free NYT is one). I was curious how they were going to treat yesterday's failures in the Senate. Would they give it proper placement? And, would they treat it as a blanket Senate action (like most media seem to be doing) or as Republican obstructionism?

The story and headline was front-page, above-the-fold, upper right corner (in descending order of size/boldness):

EFFORT TO SHIFT COURSE IN IRAQ FAILS IN SENATE
----------------------------------
G.O.P. MINORITY PREVAILS
----------------------------------
Vote Ends Democratic Bid to Alter Leave Plan for Troops

Not perfect, but at least they addressed two major points without having to read the details of the story. In fact, given the strategy actually employed by the Democrats, they cannot complain about this story much. The NYT notes right up front that a GOP minority blocked the bill, and that it was a Democratic plan. I'd have preferred a headline like "GOP Minority Blocks Democrat's Plan to Stop Screwing the Troops" but saying an effort was made and failed was better than some lines I've seen. Let's read on (emphasis mine):

A proposal that Democrats put forward as their best chance of changing the course of the Iraq war died on the Senate floor on Wednesday, as Republicans stood firmly with President Bush.

With other war initiatives seemingly headed for the same fate, Senate Democrats, who only two weeks ago proclaimed September to be the month for shifting course in Iraq, conceded that they had little chance of success.

They said their strategy would now focus on portraying Republicans as opposing any change and on trying to chip away support for the White House as the war continued.

The proposal that failed Wednesday fell 4 votes short of the 60 needed to prevent a filibuster and would have required that troops be given as much time at home as they had spent overseas before being redeployed.

There were 56 votes in favor, including 6 Republicans — one fewer than the 7 Republicans who joined the Democrats in July, when the measure, by Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, also fell 4 votes short

First of all, stop "conceding." Period. Ahead of time…After the fact…Fuck that noise. That's a giant "we don't really mean it" signal to Bush and the GOP—and your own constituents.

The key here is above in bold—this is where the Democrat's own strategy fails them—twice. Not only do they lose the vote, they lose the news cycle as well. While it's made clear in this story Republicans are at fault for the bill "dying on the floor" this was never really brought to a vote. This was NOT and up-or-down vote on the proposal, it was a vote to end debate. The Republicans won despite being outvoted by 13, because the Democrats let them. I've already covered this ground:

Because Reid isn't making the Republicans "filibuster" anything. He counts heads and has a cloture vote, which brings debate to an end artificially, and they move on to the next item. Bullshit. MAKE. THEM. ACTUALLY. FILIBUSTER. Make these assholes actually go to the podium and speak. I don't care if they argue their positions or read the phone book, make them earn it. Reid is letting them off easy with an "implied" filibuster. Fuck that.

That's exactly what happened here. All that happened was the Democrats fell short of the 60 votes to prevent a filibuster and end debate. What does Harry Reid do? Throws up his hands and calls it a day. THAT IS FUCKING BULLSHIT! Caving because the Republicans say they are going to prevent the vote and continue debate is exactly what Reid and the Dems should want. As I said in June, MAKE. THEM. ACTUALLY. FILIBUSTER.

Want to cut past the non-stop O.J. coverage and make sure everyone knows what's happening? Make Republicans take to the podium for 24 hours and explain why they don't want the troops to have time at home. Nobody even knows what the fuck happened yesterday.

Oh, and what else happened yesterday? That's right…the Republicans did the exact same thing regarding upholding Habeus Corpus. The NY Times didn't even fit that on the front page. Toast has that one covered.

Why the hell is Reid scheduling these votes on the same day? And what two votes could possibly be more important than restoring a bedrock principle of democracy dating back to the Magna Carta and, short of ending the war, at least making sure troops get to come home for a decent amount of time between tours?

Another consequence of this fake filibuster shit? Creating the impression that it takes 60 votes to pass legislation. It doesn't. It takes 50+1. The Republicans have hijacked the process, and Reid has let them. All the public knows now is "56 votes falls short." It doesn't—56 votes is fucking bipartisan support with room to spare. Reid IS working with a majority! He even had 7 Republicans cross over! If Bush and 40 Republican partisans and one chinless dickweed want to work hard to screw the country, they can do it. But Reid is letting them have it without breaking a sweat.

What unfolded yesterday convinces me the Democrats are NOT serious about any of this shit. None of it. Yesterday was not a "defeat," it was a revelation. It was Congress, the democratic leadership in particular, exposed.

Only one thing will change my mind, Harry—Bring it back. Attach it to the Defense Bill. Force the vote. Make the Republicans filibuster, and then make them vote. Pass the bill and make Bush veto it. Only then will I "concede" defeat, because we don't have the 2/3's to overturn a veto. but by the time that happens the Republicans own it. The Republicans filibustered it. The Republican President vetoed it. It's on them. But barring that, Reid is letting them get away with it.

Next fall do you think anybody is going to remember what happened yesterday? That the Democrats did anything at all? No. Even the next day, most people never heard about it, and those that did, just heard, "Senate Blocks Troop Leave Bill" They lost the vote, lost the news cycle, lost the public's opinion, failed the troops, failed to uphold their oath to defend the Constitution, and they fucked their own electoral strategy.

All in a day's work.

MORE, BECAUSE I'M NOT ANGRY ENOUGH YET:

“It means that Congress will not intervene in the foreseeable future,” said Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, the Independent who has voted with the Republicans on war issues. “The fact that it didn’t get enough votes says that Congress doesn’t have the votes to stop this strategy of success from going forward.”

Strategy of success? Fuck you, Joe. And I hereby give Chris Dodd one-day immunity to come down the hall and beat the shit out of you for your Habeus vote, you GOP sell-out. Your ass should be booted from every fucking committee for your two votes yesterday.

For now, the failed Webb proposal is the closest Democrats have come to bipartisan legislation that would force Mr. Bush to change his strategy. And with Republicans solidly behind the plan outlined by Mr. Bush and Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, Democrats have retreated to a firm antiwar stance.

They are no longer entertaining the kind of compromise measures that some Democrats had proposed this month as an attempt to woo Republican defectors, and they said they would instead seek opportunities to hold votes that would more starkly contrast Republican support for the president with Democrats’ demands for withdrawal.

“The Republican leadership and the White House is getting them all to march in line,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, who ranks third in the party leadership. “But it is marching further and further away from where America is. We just keep at it. It’s all we can do.”

"Retreat to a firm stance?" Whatever the hell that is. This is "all you can do," Chuck? Not by a fucking long shot. It's what you have determined is prudent for the election, which is as disgraceful as any action the Republicans have taken. You've decided that proposing DOA legislation and losing cloture votes to "starkly contrast" distinctions is a way to govern. It's not. It's a cop-out and it's a way to cover your asses and that's it.

Oh, and what's the first thing on today's agenda? A resolution to condemn MoveOn.org's stupid Petraeus ad. If that passes I think I'll just shoot myself in the head.

Fuck you guys. I'm done.

UPDATE: Welcome Benenites, and I added a link to my previous post about Mark Kleiman's Defense Bill plan.

Sounds Like a Plan

Mark Kleiman lays it all out for the Democrats:

Iraq strategy for the Democrats

There's been lots of hand-wringing about what Senate Democrats should do about Iraq, all of it premised on the idea that they need either a filibuster-proof (60-vote) majority or a veto-proof (67-vote) majority. To which I can only say, "Huh? Howzzat again?"

Anything that can be ridden on the Defense Appropriations bill (or on a continuing resolution) doesn't need 60 votes in the Senate. It needs 51 votes in the Senate, or 218 in the House, that will stand firm.

Take, for example, the Webb Amendment, forbidding troops from being required to serve tours in Iraq longer than the spells between tours. If passed, it would force a troop drawdown by spring.

The Democrats should offer the Webb Amendment when the Defense Appropriation comes up. If the Republicans want to filibuster, fine. Don't pull the amendment. Just let them keep filibustering. As long as the amendment is on the floor, there can be no vote on the bill itself. Keep calling cloture votes, one per day. After a few days, start asking how long the Republicans intend to withhold money to fund troops in the field in order to pursue their petty partisan agenda.

If the Republicans in the Senate hold firm, it's their stubbornness that's holding up the bill. If they fold, and the bill gets to the President's desk and he vetoes it, then pass the same damned bill again. And start asking how long the President intends to block funding for troops in the field in order to pursue his petty partisan agenda.

As of October 1, there's no money to fund the war. So the usual move is to pass a continuing resolution, which keeps the money flowing until the appropriation passes. Fine. Pass a continuing resolution with the Webb Amendment attached. If the CR runs into a filibuster or a veto, ask how long ...

Really, this isn't very hard. With the voters overwhelmingly interested in getting us the hell out of Iraq, the Democrats can make full use of the power of the purse without worrying about a backlash, especially with Webb as the public face of the campaign.

He makes it sound so simple. Is there something he (or I) am missing here? Make it fucking happen, Dems. Or, I'll be forced to believe Mike when he comes over and comments that you don't really want to do anything...

O/T: Know what my favorite thing about blogging is? Starting with a serious topic, searching for a photo or quote, and coming across stuff like this and this. Good times.