Legislative Update XIX

The House of Representatives passed bills to boost funding for food stamps, veterans programs, and foreign aid, particularly in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, director Leon Panetta confirmed that the CIA did lie to Congress, vindicating Speaker Pelosi's previous statements.

The Senate approved a homeland security funding bill that boosts efforts against illegal immigration and to improve cybersecurity. The Senate also voted again to block detainee abuse photos.

No Dunbar

It looks like Cythia Dunbar will not become the new chair of the Texas State Board of Education. Happy day! Instead, the replacement for previous chair McLeroy will be the moderate, intellectual Gail Lowe of Lampasas. Oh, wait:

...when looking at the new Chairwoman's words, we see that she is really only significantly better than Mr. McLeroy in one area of policy: evolution. She might not be as bad with her devotion to conservative principles that hold Texas schools back, but her website claims she is "Committed to excellence and conservative Republican principles," including "traditional values in education."

Now, though, I want to take another look at that one policy area where she is "better" than her predecessor; evolution. See, her rhetoric there is encouraging, but a look at her votes make it look like her words might only be a mask. Let's look at her record. In 2003, she voted against biology textbooks that did not explain the "weaknesses" of the theory of evolution. In 2009 she was still at that position, voting to reintroduce the "strengths and weaknesses" clause to the state curriculum. Overall, she has "strongly favored" creationism through her time on the State Board of Education, despite her tricky rhetoric that might suggest otherwise.

So basically, more a stealth nut than Dunbar, who's attracted national media attention with her remarks.

Native Success Stories (And Aside on Sotomayor and Cultural Experience)

MORE Native lawyers please, especially ones like these three women, who overcame adversity to become successful attorneys who fight not only for their clients, but for their tribes. This story is an inspiration to anyone (man or woman of any race) who faces long odds in their quests to do what they want with their lives.

There's something else about the article that I believe is worth noting:

[Leonika] Charging, 35, grew up in White Shield, N.D., on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation. Unlike Smith’s tribe, Charging’s people — the affiliated tribes of the Mandan, Arikara and Hidatsa — follow a matriarchal tradition. Women are given more leadership roles and control. That helped spur her to become a lawyer.

When she was young, she heard stories about how the federal government moved her people off their native lands in North Dakota and flooded the reservation to create a lake and park. The move caused decades of trauma that still lasts today, and Charging believes it wasn’t fair.

So she decided to take action to help prevent something like that from ever happening again. She decided to become a lawyer.

It's not that unusual for minorities who are aware-or particularly proud-of their cultures, to feel motivated to do something on behalf of their ethnic group once they achieve a position of influence in society. Or if not that, then at least to find their decisions in their lives and careers informed or influenced by their own personal cultural experiences, or the experiences of their culture and ethnicity as a whole. Many Native Americans grew up hearing about the history of the government's mistreatment of their tribes; perhaps as an attorney, this makes someone like Charging sympathetic to those who are mistreated by the government, or employers, or people who otherwise have some measure of unaccounted for power over their client's life. There's nothing at all unusual about this, which is why it boggles my mind that someone like Sonia Sotomayor can say that "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life" and then almost immediately be accused of racism (against-presumably-whites) for that statement. All that she meant was that as a woman of her background, she is familiar with ethnic and sex discrimination (and to a lesser degree oppression), certainly moreso than the average white, male judge who has not faced such discrimination in his life, a familiarity that is likely to make her more sympathetic to those who come before her court who are treated unfairly by those more powerful than they. This is not really that remarkable of a proposition; many white people who never face any discrimination are similarly influenced by their cultural experiences to believe that racial discrimination no longer exists in America. But the idea that a minority might have a better sense of fairness and unfairness is apparently a highly offensive notion to (mostly white) conservatives who believe that, all things being equal, racism, discrimination and unfair treatment has all been but oblitereted in our society.

Siegelman Whistleblower Fired

Here's a recipe for getting your agency investigated: when a whistleblower sends a letter detailing various wrong-doings by members of your department in a major case, have that whistleblower fired merely days later.

It is way past time for someone to get to the bottom of the Siegelman case.

Simmering

Via Boing Boing, a good explanation of why resentment in Xinjian province has simmered for some time, and what should be done now that it has erupted in such spectacular fashion.

UPDATE: Scott Horton, on the policies of cultural annihilation that the Chinese government chooses to enact against troublesome ethnic minorities. I don't know how anyone can read this and not feel some twinge of sympathy for the Uighurs, especially if they know anything about the history of our own country and how it dealt with the Native inhabitants.

UPDATE II: At the Big Picture, some remarkable scenes of the violence in Urumqi.

More on Dunbar

Some non-Texans with thoughts on Dunbar's possible ascendancy to the chair of the State Board of Education. Fred Clark, with an analogy:

Every job comes with a set of minimum standards. An entry-level volunteer firefighter, for example, must meet a basic standard of physical fitness as well as be able to demonstrate a basic capacity for learning the craft of firefighting and a basic commitment to keeping the community safe.

Every once in a while, though, someone slips through the screening process and reminds us that every job also comes with a set of sub-minimal requirements. A volunteer firefighter, for example, shouldn't also be an arsonist on the side.

We tend to think of such subminimal requirements as things that go without saying, and thus we rarely state them explicitly. The recruiting materials for volunteer fire companies will mention the minimal requirements of time and physical capability, but they won't usually spell out the subminimal requirements. They won't say, in large block letters at the top of the page: "Firebugs need not apply."

Perhaps they should. Because again every once in a while some person comes along who meets the minimum requirements but turns out not to meet the subminimal ones and we are forced to rethink what we have previously allowed to go without saying. We start to think that maybe we should have stated explicitly that candidates shouldn't expect to spend all day in their cubicles surfing cyberporn, or that they will be expected to refrain from embezzling, or not to fabricate articles or plagiarize.

Or not to set fire to the fire station itself.

That's apt. Dunbar is to Texas public education as an arsonist is to a burning building.

And Susie Madrak at Crooks and Liars, bringing the national heat:

Dunbar is a member of what one blogger called "the Texas Taliban," a coalition of state school board fundamentalists. Since this is the year the board purchases new textbooks, their goal is to make sure the textbooks selected are as wingnutty and deliciously wacky as their own personal beliefs.

Cynthia Dunbar: so crazy that even non-Texas bloggers are forced to pay attention.

Honduran Government Censoring Press Coverage

For what is purported to be a perfectly legal ouster, the new Honduran government is spending an awful lot of time shutting down press coverage that is critical of the coup, and courting anti-Zelaya media outlets.

UPDATE: At the History News Network, Kevin Coleman gives us some insight into who exactly is behind the coup:

The significance of this coup is that it is in fact a break from the pattern of past coups. In past Honduran coups, either one political party overthrew the other, preserving their traditional patron-client relations and taking the spoils of the state for those within their patronage network, or the military overthrew a civilian government so that it could stay in power itself, as happened multiple times during the 1960s and 70s. This, however, is the first coup by a united upper class. The Honduran business community united across party lines, deciding that it was worth severing the traditional patron-client relations that they enjoyed through their affiliation with one of the dominant parties so that they could stop Zelaya in his effort to increase the participation of common citizens in the affairs of their government while he also drew the country closer to Venezuela.

A class-based coup cannot be openly declared as such and must instead be articulated through existing political ideologies that allow the group seizing power to represent what they are actually doing as something other than what it is. So as the business, industrial, and news media of the country summoned the repressive power of the military to create the political conditions to rule by the traditional economic and political ideologies that have left the majority of Hondurans in dire poverty, they justified subverting the legal and democratic system as a defense of democracy.

Zelaya may have been corrupt, or at leats self-aggrandizing, but like many Leftist leaders in Latin America he was opposed to the system of power as it exists in his country and that, not this nonsense about defending democracy, is the real reason why he was deposed. A clue to this fact exists in the way our very own right-wingers have covered (or not covered) the situation in Honduras. Not only are their feathers ruffled by Zelaya's anti-Americanism and increasingly close ties to Hugo Sanchez, but being true conservatives, they are also opposed to the redistribution of power from the powerful to the less powerful. Not being an expert on Honduras my insight is worth less than even two cents, but it seems to me that those behind the coup (rightly or wrongly) feared that Zelaya might actually manage to somehow extend his stay in power, and they were determined to put a stop to that in whatever way necessary.

Sorry Poor People, You're Out Of Luck

Increasing numbers of poor people are being turned away by legal aid services nationwide, just as more and more of them are in need of those services:

The nonprofit Legal Services Corp., which funds more than 900 legal-aid offices nationwide, says that the number of people who qualify for assistance has jumped by about 11 million since 2007, because of the recession. Roughly 51 million people are now eligible for assistance — individuals and families who earn less than 125 percent of the federal poverty level, now set at $27,564 a year for a family of four.

The federal government budgeted an 11 percent increase in funding for legal aid this year. That increase, however, is more than offset by the growing demand for services and a recession-driven decline in state funding, charitable gifts and grants, which together traditionally make up half of legal service funding.

That means that legal-aid programs will turn away roughly 1 million valid cases this year, advocates say, about half the requests for assistance they'll receive.

By valid, they mean cases where the person requesting the service is qualified and has a legal dispute that an attorney could help them out with. Why is this so bad?

Legal aid offices typically handle cases involving divorces, child custody and a host of consumer issues that can include landlord-tenant disputes, foreclosures, evictions, applications for government benefits and battles with predatory lenders. They often represent battered women who need protection, women who are trying to obtain child support or families trying to secure insurance payments.

Each downward turn of the economy increases the need for services. During the first year of the recession in 2008, 93,000 people contacted the Cleveland agency for help. That was up 35 percent from the year before, Shakarian said. This year, the agency is on pace to get 100,000 calls for assistance. Of these, only about 10 percent will be served.

Nationally, experts estimate that 80 percent of low-income Americans who need legal help in civil cases don't receive any. That comprises "not only people who show up at the door and are turned away, which is a large number, but also those who don't even try because it's so hopeless," said Peter Edelman, who teaches poverty law at Georgetown University in Washington.

These are all examples of matters in which legal representation is either of a huge benefit or absolutely necessary, but where it's often hard to come by because there are no contingency fees to be had (and because you can count on attorneys to do free work about as much as you can count on anybody to do so.) Congress is set to increase funding for legal aid, but as the article explains, not to even the levels that existed during the Reagan administration. And of course, conservatives are opposed to increasing funding anyway:

Ted Frank, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative policy research center, expressed the conservative sentiment, saying, "There are better ways to help the poor than by sending in more lawyers."

Such as what? Just giving them money to hire their own lawyers?

I wrote about this very subject way back in 2006, addressing an article that profiled then-new Chief Justice John Roberts and his views on the legal system and the poor. What I had to say at the time is just as apropos today:

It's been clear to me for some time that what America's poor need more then anything is more access to the courts, and my year and a half in law school has only reinforced this notion. I'm not talking about car crash victims suing insurance companies for whiplash. Trial lawyers get paid well for that sort of thing, which is why their commercials are all over the place. I'm talking about the sort of situation the author is discussing above, where average everyday people get screwed over by beauracracies or people who can afford lawyers and access to the courts, where they can't. Certainly I'm biased by my education thus far in law, but to me there are fewer things that would make life easier on the poor then being able to turn to a lawyer when somebody is trying to screw them over. But for people like Justice Roberts, who himself has certainly never gotten an eviction notice on the door during the holidays or a threatening letter from a creditor, simply hoping that lawyers will volunteer more of their time is an adequate solution to the problem. It's not.

Surely we all know somebody who was having a hard time, who could've really used a lawyer. Illegal evictions, worker's compensation disputes, illegal firings, sex or racial discrimination in the workplace, divorces, adoptions, domestic violence...the list goes on, and these are all the kinds of problems that should be addressed by an attorney but frequently are not because the cost of an attorney is simply too much for most poor people. When poor people find themselves in these kinds of situations, that's usually just too bad for them, as they have no one to see to the vindication of their rights by law. Can you imagine a society in which it was commonplace for the poor to turn to courts, with the expectation that the would be delivered fair treatment and justice? Yeah me neither, but we could change that if we wanted to badly enough.

Texas Right-Wingers Up To Their Old Tricks

One of those tricks being cramming unqualified social conservative hacks on education boards that influence the education of Texas children:

Civil rights leaders César Chávez and Thurgood Marshall – whose names appear on schools, libraries, streets and parks across the U.S. – are given too much attention in Texas social studies classes, conservatives advising the state on curriculum standards say.

"To have César Chávez listed next to Ben Franklin" – as in the current standards – "is ludicrous," wrote evangelical minister Peter Marshall, one of six experts advising the state as it develops new curriculum standards for social studies classes and textbooks. David Barton, president of Aledo-based WallBuilders, said in his review that Chávez, a Hispanic labor leader, "lacks the stature, impact and overall contributions of so many others."

Marshall also questioned whether Thurgood Marshall, who argued the landmark case that resulted in school desegregation and was the first black U.S. Supreme Court justice, should be presented to Texas students as an important historical figure. He wrote that the late justice is "not a strong enough example" of such a figure.

Should it come as any surprise that Peter Marshall, a white, fundamentalist Christian, would be opposed to recognizing the historical prominence of an Hispanic and an African-American? Don McLeroy, a creationist and former chair of the Texas State Board of Education, says this in the defense of the picks:

State board member Don McLeroy, R-College Station, took issue with the criticism of Barton and Marshall, saying they are "very qualified" to consider social studies standards.

"There is no doubt they have the experience and expertise to advise the writing teams and the board on the standards," he said, noting he has not yet read the experts' recommendations.

"No doubt"? Well, Vince Leibowitz has something to say about that in three must-read posts at Capital Annex. In this one, we get a sampling of Barton's selective quoting (or plain mis-quoting) of important historical figures to make his right-wing points. In this post, we see Barton quoting from a chain e-mail debunked by Snopes. And here we see Barton blaming Hurricane Katrina on the decadence of residents of New Orleans, bashing Muslims as enemies of the state, denying evolution, and criticizing the U.S. Supreme Court for striking down anti-sodomy laws. These are fairly typical beliefs...for a right-wing extremist. And this is the man that McLeroy and other right-wingers on the State Board of Education believe is qualified to advise a panel of experts on what Texas children should be learning in their social studies class. One more excerpt from the Dallas Morning News article:

Both Barton and Marshall also singled out as overrated Anne Hutchinson, a New England pioneer and early advocate of women's rights and religious freedom, who was tried and banished from her Puritan colony in Massachusetts because of her nontraditional views.

"She was certainly not a significant colonial leader, and didn't accomplish anything except getting herself exiled from the Massachusetts Bay Colony for making trouble," Marshall wrote.

"Anne Hutchinson does not belong in the company of these eminent gentlemen," he said, referring to colonial leaders William Penn, Roger Williams and others. Williams later invited Hutchinson to help establish a colony in what became Rhode Island.

So Barton and Marshall are opposed to recognizing a women's rights advocate...from the 15th century. That's "family values" for you I guess.

Speaking of the State Board of Eduction, Texas Cloverleaf points out that prominent nut Cynthia Dunbar is in the running to replace aforementioned nut McLeroy as chair of the State Board of Education. This is the woman who has called public schools "a tool of perversion", accused Obama of being sympathetic towards Islamic terrorists, and who believes that Obama is not a citizen of the United States. Again, also not mainstream beliefs.

Remember, these are the people who conservatives in the State Legislature (and right-wing Christian voters) believe are most qualified to determine what our children should be learning in Texas schools. And they're doing all of this right under our noses, sneaking their stealth candidates onto these boards so they can game our education standards and what's in our children's textbooks. The best remedy is to out them and their ridiculous beliefs, and let Texans (many of whom, including many Republicans, don't hold these wacky beliefs) have a say about their shenanigans.

Those Crafty Mavericks

No way I can blog enough to keep up with Dallas Mavericks news these last few weeks, because this team has been seriously involved in acquiring some strong talent in the off-season. Last week, Marcin Gortat. Today, Shawn Marion. I heartily approve, but I find myself wondering...what other tricks do they have up their sleeves?

Uighurs

You may be familiar with the Uighur people as a result of our years-long detention (and recent deportation to Bermuda) of Uighur separatists held at Guantanamo Bay on suspicion of terrorism. It appears that, just as in Tibet, China's heavy-handed policy of cultural assimilation of minorities has sparked violent protests and riots in Xinjian province, half of whose population is Uighur:

As northwest China’s Xinjiang Province settled into tense stillness on Wednesday after three days of deadly ethnic violence, a Communist Party leader from the region pledged to seek the death penalty for anyone behind the strife that state news reports say claimed at least 156 lives.

Li Zhi, the party boss in Urumqi, the Xinjiang capital where the violence was centered, said that many suspected instigators of the riots had been arrested, and that most were students. His promise to seek the death sentence for those responsible came as China’s president Hu Jintao cut short his stay in Italy, where he had planned to attend a Group of Eight summit meeting, to return home and deal with aftermath of the riots, the worst ethnic violence in China in decades.

Mr. Hu had planned to meet with President Obama at the Italy summit to discuss climate change and other issues. China’s foreign ministry said in a written statement that he was returning to Beijing “given the current situation in Xinjiang,” where Sunday’s riots by ethnic Uighurs were followed Monday and Tuesday by reprisal attacks on the part of ethnic Hans.

The Uighurs, a Turkic ethnic group, once were the majority in Xinjiang but now comprise only about half of the province’s 20 million people. In Urumqi, the provincial capital of more than two million where the violence has been centered, Uighurs are greatly outnumbered by the Han, who make up some 90 percent of China’s population.

The immediate cause of the riots appears to have been rumors that Uighur men had raped Han Chinese women at a factory far from Urumqi, rumors that led Han Chinese to attack Uighurs, which in turn prompted attacks on Han Chinese by Uighurs, kicking off a cycle of ethnic violence. The proximate cause however, is China's policy of cultural annihilation, affected by the repression of the practice of Islam by Uighurs, as well as a state policy of encouraging Han Chinese to move to Xinjiang and so overwhelm the Uighur population. As in Tibet, China has expressed a policy of economic advancement, but the rising tide fails to lift all boats, as most of the benefits of the rapid economic growth go to the Han Chinese who have moved to the province. As in Tibet, Chinese leaders have responded to the violence by pouring troops into the region, and by rounding up those who they suspect of participating in or organizing the riots. As is always the case, there is no excuse for the killing of innocent men, women and children, no matter how grievous the injury inflicted upon your people. But Chinese leaders are well aware that their policies are the cause of this latest round of violence. So far the White House has only expressed "concern" about the rioting.

As a slight aside, here's the typical right-wing take on the violence in Xinjiang:

As with military coups, not all protests are created equal. Chinese officials have begun to blame foreign agitators for fomenting the violence in Urumqi and throughout the Xinjiang region, as did Iran with their unrest over the rigged presidential election. Unlike Iran, however, China has some factual basis for this claim. Al-Qaeda has recruited and trained Uighur radical Islamists, who want independence for Xinjiang in order to establish a Turkic theocratic state, just as the Taliban created in Afghanistan.

That doesn’t mean that other Uighurs don’t have legitimate claims on democratic reform and independence for better reasons, of course. The AQ-Taliban connection to the Uighurs makes it difficult to determine which forces are in play in Xinjiang at the moment, though. Broad assumptions in either direction would be a mistake, especially since the “freedom fighters” causing most of the trouble in that region don’t support freedom at all — just a change of tyrants.

Like a typical right-winger, Morrissey judges the validity of the Uighur's desire for freedom on what sort of freedom they'd like to have, and who they associate themselves with to get it (not what acts they perpetrate though; terrorism is okay, if it's perpetrated against a regime hostile to the United States.) Because the Uighurs desire a "Turkic theocratic state" (Morrissey demonstrating his command of Wikipedia with a reference to the Uighur's ethnic grouping) where the religious preference would be Islam, and because Uighur's are strongly suspected of having trained at Al Qaeda facilities (though only to return to China to fight the government there) their desire for freedom is not as legitimate as the desire of say, the Tibetans, whose religious preferences don't trigger pants-wetting on the part of right-wingers, and who do not affiliate with religious terrorists. Morrissey's judgement is not unusual in it's obtuseness, but it remains disappointing that right-wingers judge all matters in the world of foreign policy through their own peculiar lens. The Iranian dissidents are approved of, because they are opposed to a leader both feared and hated by the right. The dissidents in Honduras are not approved of, because they support a leader viewed with suspicion and disdain by the right. The rioters in Xinjian are not approved of because their separatists have mingled with Al Qaeda and because they are Muslim. None of this has anything to do with validity or invalidity of claims of religious or political oppression; it's all merely an ad hoc judgement based on who right-wingers do and do not approve of in the world. As an approach to foreign policy this is neither principled nor coherant (nor workable), but it makes perfect sense to a right-wing authoritarian who quivers under their sheets at night at the thought of Latin American electing quasi-socialist leaders, or Muslim terrorists slipping into their room at night to force them to wear burkas and pray to Allah.

UPDATE: Oh dear. Via Local Crank, more right-wing idiocy on the Uighurs. Honestly, who could have predicted that 9/11 would make right-wingers suckers for Chinese propaganda?

UPDATE II: And this post from Glenn Greenwald, who plays the thought exercise "What if the Uighurs were Christian?" You can probably guess his conclusion.

The story on unemployment

Adam and I were talking about this yesterday, about how real unemployement isn't being reported in most news outlets. The most-quoted figure I've seen is the 9.5% seasonally adjusted U-3, and when a number is that qualified you know it's not quite natural. I just looked up the U-6 measure (the most inclusive measurement) in the current statistics. The percentage of all employable people not working full-time jobs is 16.8%. The U-6 includes part-timers who are looking for full-time work as part of the figure, which is reasonable because a lot of them are part-time because of the economy. The number being reported in the news is the 9.7% U-3, which as you can see is a much more limited measurement.

Now, one thing to note is that the difference between June '08 and June '09 using these two indices tell two different stories. From June '08 to June '09, the U-3 went from 5.7% to 9.7%, a 4% change. The U-6 changed from 10.3% to 16.8%, a change of 6.5%. So the net change in employment is also worse than is being reported. Some of this is people being shunted into part-time jobs, but the U-1 is a measure of how many people have been unemployed more than 15 weeks or longer, and that has risen from 1.8% to 4.8%. Jobs have really just vanished.

The question is, even when the economy starts growing again, how many full-time jobs are going to come back for people? Even when the economy was supposedly so great back in the Bush years (coming off the Clinton high, that is), people were struggling. Just read Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich. Actually I think I've blogged on that subject plenty of times. We keep hearing about how the recession is supposed to end this year or that we may already be at the tail and the economy is starting to recover; we hear that jobs lag behind the economy in general. Either of these things may be true; neither of them means that Americans will be getting well-paid full-time jobs with benefits. Is there any way to change that?

I don't know the answer to that, but it lies in what industries are going to make the biggest turnaround. I honestly don't think that even if the automakers come around and turn profitable, they'll end up re-hiring a lot of people. They're cutting back as much as possible and if their salvation lies in competing with the foreign auto makers, they're going to be making more of fewer kinds of vehicles, which means less workers. America needs growth industries that we can take the lead in. We need to invest in an infrastructure to produce new kinds of goods and services that other countries can't compete with. Things like clean energy, health care and medicine, or eco-science, that the world needs but which can also be profitable industries. It's time to do something new.

Update: Xanthippas just let me know about this article, pointing out estimates of the real number of unemployed, which is well above even the U-6. Read the article for an explanation of how these numbers are arrived at:

By adding these folks back in, William's SGS-Alternate Unemployment Measure rose to a jaw-dropping 20.6%. Separately, the Center for Labor Market Studies in Boston puts U.S. unemployment at 18.2%. Any way you cut the numbers, the situation is very bad. According to David Rosenberg, one-in-three among the unemployed have been looking for a job for more than six months and still can't find one.

That's about 1 in 5 employable people either unemployed or underemployed. This recession is far from over.

Texas Progressive Alliance Round-Up 7/6

Now that we've celebrated another birthday for America, it's time for the weekly Texas Progressive Alliance blog roundup. Here are your highlights from the holiday week.

Neil at Texas Liberal says that while people went on about Michael Jackson, the U.S. Supreme Court was making it more difficult for black folks to get promoted at work.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme thinks Manuel Bañales should recuse himself from all things Mauricio Celis.

Off the Kuff takes a look at what happened during the blink-and-you-missed-it special session.

WCNews at Eye On Williamson has more on the impending statewide campaign of former Travis County as the draftronnie.com site goes live, Ronnie Earle is causing a stir.

Mr. The Plumber took some time out recently to talk about much the Founding Father's hated those Godless Communists. McBlogger, obvs, thinks he's kind of a dummy.

Over at Texas Kaos, Libby Shaw catches John Cornyn in yet another big bad whopper. John Cornyn Out to Kill Health Care Reform: Misleads Houston Doctors.

WhosPlayin wondered what could be the real reason for Sarah Palin quitting her post, and decided to post a little poll.

The loss of Ron Artest from the Rockets to the Lakers (essentially a trade for Trevor Arista) is a bad deal, writes PDiddie at Brains and Eggs.

Cognitive Dissonance

People don't want "big government," but they do want big government programs:

Polls show that public majorities think the government's rapidly growing cost is worrisome, yet most want better health care and curbs on global warming — but they're wary of giving government too much power to do either.

The success of those ventures in Washington could depend on how leaders frame the question during debate, said John Geer , a political science professor at Vanderbilt University .

"If you ask people, 'Do you want big government?' you get one answer," he said. "But if you say, 'Should the government have more control over the excesses of the marketplace?' you get a different one."

Even in this dismal economy, "there's no sense that the public has shifted and is more tolerant of a bigger role for government," said Michael Dimock , an associate director of the Pew Research Center , which has polled recently on the subject.

On the other hand, several surveys have shown that large segments of the public want the government to expand health care while curbing its costs, reign in business excesses and provide some safety net for the less fortunate.

When I was getting my degree in political science, I learned how important framing was, particularly in polls. If you ask respondents if they want the government to spend more money on "social welfare programs" you get a big majority opposed, but if you ask them if they want to spend more on education, health care, etc. that result is reversed. This is, of course, because "welfare," like "big government," have been turned into bad words in our political culture because people don't recognize they encompass policies there is actually broad support for.

This is particularly frustrating for progressives (who call themselves "progressive" because the term "liberal" has similarly been maligned) since conservatives have become so good at the word manipulation (so good that they often control the debate despite high unpopularity of their pols and policies). But many Democratic politicians don't help by playing along (President Clinton started this by famously declaring that the "era of big government is over," as the article points out). Instead, they should be explaining to people that "big government" is what you have when you want more government involvement in education, health care, etc. and that conservatives want "big government" too - but they want it in areas involving your personal freedoms and privacy, not in the name of the common good for all. Of course, this would require a certain nuance and maturity often lacking in American politics. Can we handle it? I don't know. But liberal politics will almost certainly continue to suffer until its proponents become as good at framing the debate as the other side.

Palin Stepping Down: Why?

So we're a little behind, but if you haven't heard, Sarah Palin is resigning as governor of Alaska, effective at the end of the July. As I explained to some colleagues in e-mail my first instinct is that a massive scandal is on the way, but there really is no telling with her. However, there is some evidence that a brewing scandal is what caused her sudden resignation:

The suddenness of her announcement raises the question about whether Palin resigned to avert a major scandal. One logical place to start looking is the affair that has Alaska political circles buzzing: an alleged scandal centered around a building contractor, Spenard Building Supplies, with close ties to Palin and her husband, Todd.

Many political observers in Alaska are fixated on rumors that federal investigators have been seizing paperwork from SBS in recent months, searching for evidence that Palin and her husband Todd steered lucrative contracts to the well-connected company in exchange for gifts like the construction of their home on pristine Lake Lucille in 2002. The home was built just two months before Palin began campaigning for governor, a job which would have provided her enhanced power to grant building contracts in the wide-open state.

SBS has close ties to the Palins. The company has not only sponsored Todd Palin's snowmobile team, according to the Village Voice's Wayne Barrett, it hired Sarah Palin to do a statewide television commercial in 2004.

Though Todd Palin told Fox News he built his Lake Lucille home with the help of a few "buddies," according to Barrett’s report, public records revealed that SBS supplied the materials for the house. While serving as mayor of Wasilla, Sarah Palin blocked an initiative that would have required the public filing of building permits—thus momentarily preventing the revelation of such suspicious information.

Just months before Palin left city hall to campaign for governor, she awarded a contract to SBS to help build the $13 million Wasilla Sports Complex. The most expensive building project in Wasilla history, the complex cost the city an additional $1.3 million in legal fees and threw it into severe long-term debt. For SBS, however, the bloated and bungled project was a cash cow.

Palin's tendency towards corruption was a theme during the McCain campaign. Will it be the flaw that sinks her political aspirations once and for all?

More on Honduras

Daniel Larison seems to think that everyone from Obama, to the United Nations to the Organization of American States are disrespecting the collective will of Hondurans in demanding that ousted President Zelaya be returned to power. However, there are clearly Hondurans who disagree on the wisdom of launching a coup and exiling Zelaya to Costa Rica:

There are also several columns out defending the move, including this one by Octavio Sanchez. Again it is an argument over the legalities of oster and exile, but this part puzzled me:

The Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya's arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. He was detained and taken to Costa Rica. Why? Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office. With him inside the country that would have been impossible.

Really? Why? Because he would have resisted his ouster politically, as a deposed head of state is likely to do? The one thing that troubles me more than anything is the fact that Zelaya was almost immediately put on a plane and sent to Costa Rica. You don't export leaders unless you fear that someone in your country might actually be upset that they were deposed. Doing so is a clear subversion of democracy, even if it's done after an otherwise legal arrest.

The rest of it is merely argument about the legality of his arrest and removal, and as I've stated before, the fact that you can argue about his ouster is a sign of the weakness of the coup plotters' arguments.

No one should be overly troubled that the Obama administration has indicated their disapproval of the coup. Every member of the OAG has condemned the coup, and they have done so because of an abiding fear of military coups, which have a long and sordid history in Latin America. Zelaya may have been unpopular, and many Hondurans may welcome his removal, but his removal and exile is a coup plain and simple, and is rightly condemned.

"Falling Flat"

Best post of the week:

And but so anyway, I told them, that is what I think happened to Pop. That is what I think will happen to us all. One day you and I will be out of time and we cannot conceive or comprehend what that means any more than the poor Linelanders can understand North and South or the poor Flatlanders can understand Up and Down.

Read it.

Your "Organic" Food Isn't Organic

Organic food is food that is generally grown or raised without the use of pesticides, herbicides, growth hormones, antibiotics, or genetic engineering. If you've been to the grocery store lately, you've probably noticed that even the most typical chain grocery stores are carrying at least some products that are labeled organic by the United States Department of Agriculture. Which you would think means that those items are produced without any of the artficial chemicals or processes named above. Alas, not so much:

Three years ago, U.S. Department of Agriculture employees determined that synthetic additives in organic baby formula violated federal standards and should be banned from a product carrying the federal organic label. Today the same additives, purported to boost brainpower and vision, can be found in 90 percent of organic baby formula.

The government's turnaround, from prohibition to permission, came after a USDA program manager was lobbied by the formula makers and overruled her staff. That decision and others by a handful of USDA employees, along with an advisory board's approval of a growing list of non-organic ingredients, have helped numerous companies win a coveted green-and-white "USDA Organic" seal on an array of products.

Grated organic cheese, for example, contains wood starch to prevent clumping. Organic beer can be made from non-organic hops. Organic mock duck contains a synthetic ingredient that gives it an authentic, stringy texture.

Relaxation of the federal standards, and an explosion of consumer demand, have helped push the organics market into a $23 billion-a-year business, the fastest growing segment of the food industry. Half of the country's adults say they buy organic food often or sometimes, according to a survey last year by the Harvard School of Public Health.

But the USDA program's shortcomings mean that consumers, who at times must pay twice as much for organic products, are not always getting what they expect: foods without pesticides and other chemicals, produced in a way that is gentle to the environment.

The market's expansion is fueling tension over whether the federal program should be governed by a strict interpretation of "organic" or broadened to include more products by allowing trace elements of non-organic substances. The argument is not over whether the non-organics pose a health threat, but whether they weaken the integrity of the federal organic label.

Congress originally passed legislation regulating organic food, and providing standards for what could and could not be labelled organic, in 2002. As the market for organic food has grown, corporate food producers have bought up smaller organic food producers and farms, and lobbied the USDA to broaden exceptions for what and may not be included in food labeled as organic:

Under the original organics law, 5 percent of a USDA-certified organic product can consist of non-organic substances, provided they are approved by the National Organic Standards Board. That list has grown from 77 to 245 substances since it was created in 2002. Companies must appeal to the board every five years to keep a substance on the list, explaining why an organic alternative has not been found. The goal was to shrink the list over time, but only one item has been removed so far.

The original law's mandate for annual pesticide testing was also never implemented -- the agency left that optional.

From the beginning, farmers and consumer advocates were concerned about safeguarding the organic label. In 2003, Arthur Harvey, who grows organic blueberries in Maine, successfully sued the USDA, arguing that the fledgling National Organic Program had violated federal law by allowing synthetic additives.

"The big boys like Kraft realized they could really cash in by filling the shelves with products with the organics seal," Harvey said. "But they were sort of inhibited by the original law that said no synthetic ingredients."

His victory was short-lived. The Organic Trade Association, which represents corporations such as Kraft, Dole and Dean Foods, lobbied for and received language in a 2006 appropriations bill allowing certain synthetic food substances in the preparation, processing and packaging of organic foods, creating conditions for a flood of processed organic foods.

No pesticide testing, a gross expansion of the list of synthetic substances that organic food can contain...and a certification process that is overseen by private firms with attitudes like this:

Joe Smillie, a board member, said he thinks that advocates for the most restrictive standards are unrealistic and are inhibiting the growth of organics.

"People are really hung up on regulations," said Smillie, who is also vice president of the certifying firm Quality Assurance International, which is involved in certifying 65 percent of organic products found on supermarket shelves. "I say, 'Let's find a way to bend that one, because it's not important.' . . . What are we selling? Are we selling health food? No. Consumers, they expect organic food to be growing in a greenhouse on Pluto. Hello? We live in a polluted world. It isn't pure. We are doing the best we can."

This is the guy whose firm is charged with ensuring that food producers meet the USDA's standards for organic food. Though he addresses concerns with a measure of sarcasm, it's clear that the issue is not the world that the food is being raised in, but what ingredients food producers would like to put in or use to produce the food that will make it brighter, tastier, or last longer on the shelves.

It's clear what'a happened here. An already weak law that is enforced haphazardly and by people with conflicted interests, is being steadily undermined by corporate food producers who want to get the prized organic label on their food (and increase it's marketability to consumers looking for more environmentally-friendly food) while making only minor changes to the way in which they've been producing food for decades, and thus avoid the extra expense of making food organic, but not the extra profit they can get from charging up to twice as much for food that consumers think is definitively organic. Now of course people can skip the local grocery store to shop at Whole Foods, whose food is more reliably organic. Or they can do the independent research necessary to find smaller brands whose product is actually organic (they're out there...though they mostly sell their food at places like Whole Foods.) But the USDA "organic" label was intended to give average consumers the ability to buy legitimately organic food without having to do a ton of research, or shop in specialty grocery or natural food stores. At this point, it is far from meeting that goal.

About That

Anybody know our former President Bush's e-mail address? I have an article I'd like to send him:

Saddam Hussein told an FBI interviewer before he was hanged that he allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction because he was worried about appearing weak to Iran, according to declassified accounts of the interviews released yesterday. The former Iraqi president also denounced Osama bin Laden as "a zealot" and said he had no dealings with al-Qaeda.

Hussein, in fact, said he felt so vulnerable to the perceived threat from "fanatic" leaders in Tehran that he would have been prepared to seek a "security agreement with the United States to protect [Iraq] from threats in the region."

Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but the invasion of Iraq was completely unjustified.

Genius

I'll take one of these for my desk, thank you:

History and Honduras

This by Professor Alan McPherson, recounts some of our dirty history in Latin America. I reiterate, it is simply impossible to ignore the hisorical context of the coup in Honduras, or those who are behind it.

Encouraging

From the AP:

Democrats on a key Senate Committee outlined a revised and far less costly health care plan Wednesday night that includes a government-run insurance option and an annual fee on employers who do not offer coverage to their workers.

The plan carries a 10-year price tag of slightly over $600 billion, and would lead toward an estimated 97 percent of all Americans having coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and Chris Dodd said in a letter to other members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

By contrast, an earlier, incomplete proposal carried a price tag of roughly $1 trillion and would have left millions uninsured, CBO analysts said in mid-June.

The letter indicated the cost and coverage improvements resulted from two changes. The first calls for a government-run health insurance option to compete with private coverage plans, an option that has drawn intense opposition from Republicans.

"We must not settle for legislation that merely gestures at reform," the two Democrats wrote. "We must deliver on the promise of true change."

This is much better than what Sen. Max Baucus and his Finance Committee currently seem to be working up. Let's hope the version that gets put to a vote looks more like this and not something significantly watered-down. The fact is that Democrats have 60 seats now. The Ben Nelsons and the Joe Liebermans don't have to vote for the final bill, but they at least should vote for cloture on any bill and not allow the Republicans to filibuster. To not do so will be simply disgraceful and their colleagues and constituents need to make that known sooner rather than later.

UPDATE: More encouraging - all thirteen Dems on the HELP committee will be voting for the plan.

American Soccer Is Fine, Thank You

Ken Silverstein, who I've been reading for awhile, went ninety degrees with an unusual (for him anyway) soccer-related post, in which he reveled in the U.S. defeat by Brazil on Sunday:

All the hype in American newspapers about the national team’s second place finish obscures the fact that the U.S. team is mediocre and should never have been in the final to begin with. They lost three of their five games and stumbled into the second round by pure luck. Yes, they beat Spain, but upsets can happen on any given day, especially in a tournament where (after the first round) every match is an elimination game.

The U.S. got lucky early against Brazil, but showed its true colors by sitting back the rest of the way and being stomped into submission. It leaves me very hopeful for the team’s early exit from next year’s World Cup.

Now today he provides some context for his seemingly context-less hate; he lived in Brazil for some years and apparently fell in love with the quality of Brazilian soccer. So his oddly bitter comments about American soccer are motivated merely by the fact that he's a fan of the team that won the match, so there's nothing at all unusual there (read any of my comments about the Redkins or Eagles after a Cowboys victory over them; few things are as pleasurable as kicking someone you don't like when they're down.)

Anyway as you can see, success by the US men's soccer team prompts the oddest of reactions. Silverstein, and some of his readers, can't stand American soccer because of the dull and unimaginative play of American soccer players. Which is not really the team's fault, and anyway you really have to hold 98% of the soccer being played in the world in low esteem if Brazil is your favorite squad.

Then there's the over-selling of the team's success, and the over-disappointment in the team's failure. To both of these columnists I would like to say: the success of soccer in America does not necessarily rise and fall with the success of the US men's national team. In fact, the success of the US men's national team doesn't necessarily follow the success of the US men's national team. Now certainly it doesn't hurt. I think the case can be made that but for the success of the squad in the 1994 World Cup, Major League Soccer may not have been so quick to take off. But remember, MLS was already in the works when that tournament began; it was just a little bit of luck that the men's team did so well and put some extra butts in the seats those first few years. But it seems that sports journalists and other pundits are always looking for that "breakthrough" moment in soccer, that one victory (or string of victories) that will finally cement American soccer as a sport of eminence in our nation. But that just isn't how it works. No one victory can launch soccer onto the national stage in our country, to rival football, basketball, baseball (though maybe hockey...someday) and no one victory will "prove" to the world that the US is the equal of long-standing soccer powers like Italy, Germany, Brazil or Argentina. For one, witness the past success of US teams. In 1994 they upset Colombia to make it to the second round. What happened four years later in 1998? They lost all three first round matches and finished 32nd of 32 teams. But then in 2002 they defeated powerhouse Portugal, defeated Mexico in the second-round and went toe-to-toe with Germany in the quarterfinals. But then in 2006 they were clobbered by the Czech Republic, upset by Ghana, and left after the first round. As I stated earlier, success has not guaranteed success...at least from one tournament to the next. However, if you look back over the last twenty years, you can see a team that has gone from being an outsider on the international scene, to a team that can reliably be expected to qualify for the World Cup. That's progress, but of the gradual sort. So too is the progress of the popularity of soccer among Americans. Fifteen years ago there was no national professional soccer league. Now there is one that is expanding. Fifteen years ago only a handful of Americans were good enough to play soccer overseas. Now, dozens of Americans play for European soccer squads. A victory over Brazil would not suddenly see a dozen or more Americans starting with top-flight European clubs, and the loss does not mean that those players will be sent home and MLS will fold. If anything, the media attention is only an indication of how the non-soccer fans feel about the sport. It's nice to see the reaction, especially if it gets US, MLS or even European club games on ESPN or ESPN2, but it's not necessary to get their approval for soccer to advance in this country. Soccer's been growing in popularity for almost two decades now, and it looks to continue to do so...at a slow and steady pace, and that's fine by me.

Coup

By now you've probably heard news of the military coup in Honduras that ousted President Zelaya and replaced him with his Constitutional successor, Roberto Michelletti. Despite Zelaya's history of trouble-making and provocative acts which directly led to his ouster, the coup has been condemned by every member of the Organization of American States, who today have given the new government an ultimatum; return Zelaya to power or face expulsion from the organization. The White House has walked a careful line, noting disapproval of the coup and expressing the desire that Zelaya be returned to power, and even going so far as to welcome Zelaya to D.C. for OAS talks (thought not going so far as to recall the U.S. ambassador to Honduras, as other nations have.) Zelaya, for his part, has vowed to return to Honduras and reclaim the Presidency, though he has been warned that he will be arrested upon his return.

Anyone who is at all familiar with the history of Latin America is troubled by the implications of this coup. Though so far no one has died as a result of the coup, Latin American militaries have a long history of being at best the referees of what they decide is good governance, and at worst forces of horrendous oppression. Weighing on the coup without considering historical context is folly. But Daniel Larison makes exactly that mistake when he says this:

We are appropriately wary of people who invoke a political crisis to justify extraordinary and extra-legal measures. This sort of rhetoric can be so easily abused for the sake of augmenting and consolidating the power of those in government that we should normally be skeptical of such claims. That said, isn’t it the case that the response of Honduran political and military institutions to presidential illegalities is exactly the one that most of the Western world has been openly desiring in Iran?

Isn’t one of the main problems in Iran that the military and interior ministry colluded with Ahmadinejad in his crime? Suppose they had grabbed him on June 12, the day of the election, and thus prevented him from carrying out his fraudulent power-grab. Would we take seriously for a moment anyone gravely intoning about the need for proper procedure and rejecting the result as an illegal action against the democratically-elected president? (Obviously not, because very few, even the most ardent Mousavi cheerleaders, genuinely think of Iran as having anything like a real democratic process.) One way to look at the Honduran situation is that the political and military institutions removed Zelaya early on rather than permitting him to continue to abuse his office. They did what their counterparts in Iran could not or would not do. Indeed, one might go so far as to say that they were able to take such action because Honduras is a constitutional democracy in many important respects that Iran simply isn’t.

And in an earlier post, Larison accused the Obama administration of "incredible incompetence" in handling the crisis, a reaction prompted by the White House merely noting their disapproval of the coup.

It's difficult to unpack Larison's statement above. After all, how on Earth is the coup evidence of the strength of Honduras' democracy? But I think it's important to understand where Larison is coming from. So as he has spent the last couple of weeks defending the Obama administration from critics who have said that the administration is not doing enough to indicate their support for the Iranian dissidents, so too will he attack those calling for more robust action in Honduras. Larison isn't an isolationist, but he is something of a non-interventionist. As am I, but I think Larison turns the facts on their head in an effort to link his position on Iran with his position on Honduras. There really is little by way of comparison between the coup in Honduras, and what supporters in the West wish for the dissidents in Iran to do. While it's true that in both nations you have some portion of the populace attempting to overturn the natural political order to some extent, it's important to remember that they are coming from different directions. In Honduras, the actors behind the coup are almost certainly conservatives opposed to Zelaya's populist policies and rhetoric (though it should be noted that apparently much of the populace opposed Zelaya's blatant-if incompetent-power grabbing schemes.) They are subverting an established political order that exists to represent the will of a majority of people and is at least designed to enforce the rule of law, however fitfully. In Iran, it is the political order, fashioned by the regime presently in power, that exists to subvert the will of the populace, and the rule of law is essentially non-existent. But it is in one crucial respect that the plotters of the coup and the regime in Iran are the same; they represent those with the power in their nation, and they are determined to subvert popular will and democracy to retain it. If supporters of the Iranian dissidents would cheer the regime caving on the election of Moussavi, it would be because democracy has been affected as a result. If critics of the Honduran coup plotters lament the ouster of Zelaya, it is because democracy has been subverted as a result. In other words, it does matter who the actors are, and it is not possible to make a coherent argument that it is the dissidents in Iran and the conspirators in Honduras who are on the same footing.

Now I'm not entirely sure why Larison stakes out this position. Perhaps his non-interventionist instincts have gotten the better of him. But it is also important to remember that Larison is a true conservative, and in that respect uncomfortable with non-gradual political change or political disorder. So then to him-I speculate-a victory by Moussavi in Iran is good, but only so far as it doesn't topple the established political order and result in violence in the streets. And so too is an elected President in Latin America good, so long as that President doesn't himself attempt to subvert the political order by enacting popular Leftist policies or over-reaching for power for himself.

Either way though I agree with him on much of his foreign policy positions, I think it's certainly the case that he's wrong this time. For the sake of establishing a precedent that rejects the long history of military intervention in Latin America, the government in Honduras must return Zelaya to power. Anything short of that should be met by harsh criticism from the White House (a move which, by the way would immensely boost our credibility in the region) and condemnation from supporters of democracy both here and abroad.

Al Franken wins! (but you already knew that)

It's taken them long enough:

The Minnesota Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered that Democrat Al Franken be certified as the winner of the state's long-running Senate race, paving the way for a resolution in the seven-month fight over the seat.

The court ruled unanimously in favor of Franken over cry-baby Norm Coleman's idiotic appeals (though he may try to take it to the U.S. Supreme Court, but fat chance of that). Gov. Tim Pawlenty had previously said he'd sign the certificate of election unless ordered not to.

Hopefully, Franken will be certified the winner immediately and can take his seat when the Senate returns from its Fourth of July recess. The Democrats will have the coveted 60 seats, although we've noted before that this only makes their caucus filibuster-proof if they all vote together.

Still, this is a day of justice in what has been an insanely-long road to victory. I love Al Franken, and I simply can't wait to see him as a freakin' United States Senator!

UPDATE: At long last, the loser concedes.

Texas Progressive Alliance Round-Up 6/29

It's Fourth of July week, and so it's time for an extra-patriotic rendition of the Texas Progressive Alliance blog roundup.

Off the Kuff takes a look at the latest Lyceum poll on the Governor and Senate races in Texas.

Neil at Texas Liberal suggests that instead of blowing of your fingers lighting fireworks--during a drought in Harris County no less---that maybe you would be better off reading a book instead.

With 2010 spinning up, it's funny to watch all the different players already on the field line up to take their first hits. McBlogger, of course, thinks they're all deeply in need of a little advice which he graciously provides (with surprisingly sparse use of profanity)!

WCNews & Dembones at Eye On Williamson post on the latest controversy involving the Williamson County Commissioners Court, Budget officer not just a good idea, it's the law.

John at Bay Area Houston says Turn out the lights, the family values party is over.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme thinks online Texas Republican commentary on Mark Sanford is interesting.

The similarities between Mark Sanford and Ray Bolger (as the Scarecrow in "The Wizard of Oz") are just too weird, notes PDidde at Brains and Eggs.

The wise men are willing to pay a tax on their favorite junk food to pay for health care reform.

WhosPlayin.com Video bring you EXTREME Congressional Town Hall - Special "Losing our freedoms" edition, sponsored by Prozac.

Over at TexasKaos, Libby Shaw calls our attention to Confessions of a Former Health Insurance Exec: "We Dump the Sick". Who knew? All the posturing , hypocritical , offers of self-reform and insurance relief are just so much bogus cover up for an industry too greedy to ever be trusted to regulate themselves!

The Texas Cloverleaf discusses gay pride, bar raids, and millions of gays marching in DFW this past weekend during the 40th anniversary of Stonewall.

Burnt Orange Report covers TX-10 Congressional candidate Jack McDonald's campaign expansion in the Austin area.

Texas Vox reports on Texas'
record setting energy consumption and the need for renewable peak
energy over boring old baseload from coal, gas, and nuclear.

Democrats begin primary reform effort

Let's try this again:

One year after the country got an in-depth lesson on "superdelegates," the Democratic Party may consider doing away with them in the future.
It was just over one year ago when Barack Obama accumulated more delegates than Hillary Clinton, causing the former first lady to end her historic campaign to become the Democratic presidential nominee.

But there is no rest for the weary.

The lengthy, expensive, and often divisive 2008 Democratic nominating process caused the launch of a Democratic National Committee review of how to tweak the primary and caucus process to avoid some of the pitfalls exposed in the Obama vs. Clinton battle royale last year.

The DNC's "Change Commission" met for the first time yesterday. Hopefully they have better luck than the previous reform group that saw things just get worse in 2008.

At the beginning of today's meeting, the co-chair of the Change Commission Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., described the group's mission as focused on "changing the window of time in which primaries and caucuses may be held, reducing the number of superdelegates, and improving the caucus system."

The Change Commission spent its first gathering on a fact-finding mission hearing presentations from various experts and scholars on the nomination process.

Touching on what may prove to be one of the more contentious issues considered by the DNC, one presenter, Democratic Party activist and Harvard University lecturer and former superdelegate Elaine Kamarck, suggested that it may be time to completely eliminate superdelegates since most of those party leaders clearly determined their role in 2008 to be one of ratifying the decision made by voters in primaries and caucuses.

"We can probably let go of the superdelegates," said Kamarck.

"Their deliberative role," she added, "has in fact been supplanted by a very very public process."
In addition to the future of superdelegates, the quadrennial turf war over which states get to go first in the nomination season will be up for discussion with Iowa and New Hampshire once again posed to defend their influential role in selecting presidential nominees. Iowa's role in launching the Obama candidacy will likely go a long way in protecting its status.

Ms. Kamarck warned the commission about engaging "in an endless fight in who goes first" and suggested instead that the members change their thinking and focus on how to "equalize the importance of other voters in other states down the line."

The superdelegates should, of course, be gotten rid of completely or at least have their influence reduced to a neglible level. But the more important issues is ending the influence of Iowa and New Hampshire and their ability to change the primary schedule through their antics, so one hopes the commission will find some way to make this process fairer to the other 48 states and territories that vote as well.

U.S. to shift Aghanistan drug policy

Good news:

The United States announced a new drug policy Saturday for opium-rich Afghanistan, saying it was phasing out funding for eradication efforts and using the money for drug interdiction and alternate crop programs instead.

The U.S. envoy for Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke, told The Associated Press that eradication programs weren't working and were only driving farmers into the hands of the Taliban.

"Eradication is a waste of money," Holbrooke said on the sidelines of a Group of Eight foreign ministers' meeting on Afghanistan, where he said it had been warmly received, particularly by the United Nations.

The previous policy was always short-sighted and more or less put our stupid war on drugs before the war in Afghanistan. It didn't reduce significantly the cash flow to the Taliban and just gave Afghans another reason to hate the U.S. for destroying their livelihoods.

Maybe along with an increased force and a real policy to reduce civilian casualties, we might actually salvage our efforts there.

Saturday Morning Round-Up

1. A story in yesterday's Washington Post reveals that the Obama administration is considering drafting an executive order asserting the President's authority to detain terrorist suspects indefinitely without any judicial process. The White House denies that a draft order exists (via John Cole) thought there is no denial that they are considering such a move. I found this quote from the Post article to be particularly odd:

"...one administration official suggested that the White House is already trying to build support for an order. "Civil liberties groups have encouraged the administration, that if a prolonged detention system were to be sought, to do it through executive order," the official said.

First of all, I would like this official to find me one civil liberties group that has argued for such a thing. Perhaps what he/she meant is that they'd rather have an executive order than a Bush-like assertion of authority that merely cites the Constitution, but there's essentially no difference between the two approaches legally. Also, they are arguing that such an order would permit them to get Congress' acquiescence in the closing of Guantanamo, an effort stymied by the various Democratic and Republican bed-wetters on the Hill. Which basically would amount to Obama saying to Congress "I double-pledge to hold terrorists forever if you will please let me shut down Guantanamo." But it seems to me like sending them Bermuda an the South Pacific was working out alright.

2. Gays and Lesbiasn are-rightly-angered as well at the Obama administration's shuffling approach towards gay rights. Don't Ask, Don't Tell, remains in place, the Obama DOJ is arguing before the courts to retain DOMA, and Obama's decision to extend federal benefits to domestic partners was praised until advocates realized that those benefits didn't include health care (doubly ironic, considering the President's present political battle over a national health care plan.) Arnold King, while not citing specifically to the administration's approach to gay rights, makes the point that the Obama administration has many agendas, but appears satisfied to half-ass meeting their goals on any of them.

3. For some conservative Christians, Sanford's weeping and rending of garments is enough for them to get over his infidelity and bizarre behavior. I'm sure the fact that he's a Republican politician has absolutely no bearing on their attitudes. But stories like this make it clear that for all of Sanford's talk, he was determined to continuing playing his own staff, his own state, and especially his own wife, until he got caught. Politically connected religious leaders and politicians may be quick to forgive, but other conservatives? Not so much.

4. Bob Herbert takes a look at the economy and calls a spade (a jobless recovery) a spade (no recovery at all.)

5. The Iranian government appears to be gaining the upper-hand against the protesters, though it also seems clear that the massive protests have revealed divisions in the leadership that may indicate long-term change.

6. Upon the news of Michael Jackson's death, I found myself wondering what condition his estate was in and upon whom would fall the unfortunate task of trying to sort it out. It appears he had at least one will, though no one knows it's contents yet. I predict there will be a gargantuan battle over his estate given the value still attached to his name and his music and the massive debt attached to much of his property, but I doubt it will interest the public as much as Anna Nicole Smith's highly publicized probate did, what with the absence of a childhood custody dispute. There can be no doubt though of Jackson's status as a mega-star, as the reaction to his death was almost more than the internet could bear.

7. You might've missed this news, but Wednesday the United States pulled off a shocking upset and defeated the number one team in the world 2-0 to advance to the final game of the Confederations Cup. Spain is praised for their ability to possess the ball, and it was expected that the U.S. would entrench upon defense and wait for their opportunities to counter. Instead, Spain committed uncharacteristic errors as the U.S. went with a strategy of heavily pressuring the ball and looking for quick counters, and remaining incredibly well-organized (and frankly, a little lucky) on defense. The strategy paid off with huge dividends; quick movement up the field led to a goal by Jozy Altidore, and a Spanish turnover led to a goal by Clint Dempsey. Altidore (after keeper Brad Guzan) was clearly man of the match. No telling if his outstanding play makes him the future of American soccer or another Eddie Johnson, but American soccer fans will take what they can get. The United States plays Brazil tomorrow, a team they already lost to in the first round, but against whom they might have a better chance if they play as decisively as they did against Spain.

8. I thought this article about Grandparents University at UNT was interesting. Grandparents and their grand-children apparently spend a weekend at the school's dorm and taking classes together, in a program designed to give young teenagers and tweeners a taste of college life, and some bonding time with their grand-parents.

UPDATE: Spencer Ackerman finds at least one civil libertarian to whom the Obama administration official might be referring with the above quote from the Post story; Kate Martin of the Center for National Security Studies:

Martin thinks that established law holds that the administration doesn't require any additional legal authorization to hold anyone captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan without charge until the end of hostilities -- that comes from the September 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force, as does dispensation for the 9/11 plotters -- but would need to charge or release any detainee picked up outside either Afghanistan or Iraq. Martin thinks the reported executive order might be the only thing standing in the way of an even broader congressional effort of the sort seen in the war supplemental that Daphne critiqued yesterday. Martin has expressed her organization's longstanding perspective on detainee matters to the administration's detentions task force.

So Martin supports it, but only to the extent that something from Congress might be worse. Given the way Congress has handled the possible closing of Gitmo this may be true, though I happen to think that Congress should be forced to craft an indefinite detention policy if that's what they want in exchange for closing Gitmo.

Glenn Greenwald has more though, as I've pointed out once before, he has a tendency to criticize the "many defenders" of Obama on various issues where Obama replicates Bush doctrines, without actually linking to or naming any of these defenders. Greenwald is a very thorough blogger, which is why I don't understand why he so eagerly reaches for the "some say" approach to blogging.

Legislative Update XVIII

On a 219-212 vote, the House of Representatives passed a historic climate change and energy bill (an earlier, a EPA funding bill). You can read about its major provisions here. Many have said it doesn't go far enough in cutting greenhouse gas emissions and certainly a lot of lobbyists got their hands on it, but given its very narrow passage here and the fact that it must also get 60 votes in the Senate, it's clear that this is the best bill we could get and at least it's a start. I say we celebrate any triumph over the global warming deniers and for energy reform.

The House also passed a $44 billion spending bill Wednesday that awards the Homeland Security Department a 7 percent budget increase, with money for more border patrol agents and for anti-piracy efforts off the coast of Somalia. The bill requires the department to conduct threat assessments for the terrorist suspects being held in Gitmo. It also requires that the department ensure that detainees are placed on its "no-fly" list and denied an array of immigration benefits, including admission into the United States and refugee status.


After lots of stalling from the GOP, the Senate finally confirmed Harold Koh as the legal adviser of the U.S. Department of State. Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher was confirmed as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security. A special election will be held for her house seat. The Senate also confirmed Julius Genachowski as head of the Federal Communications Commission and Robert McDowell for a second FCC term.


The Senate passed a sweeping aid package for Pakistan that must now be reconciled with the House version. The chamber also passed a resolution calling on President Obama to pardon black heavywight champion Jack Johnson who was sent to jail for having a romantic relationship with a white woman. And the Senate accepted the House's articles of impeachment against federal judge Samuel Kent, who has resigned. Six Democrats and six Republicans, led by Sen. Claire McCaskill, will gather evidence for Kent's Senate prosecution, but a trial is not set to begin for several weeks.

Paying for it

Currently, figuring out how to pay for health care reform is one of the most contentious issues in the debate right now. President Obama favors limiting income-tax deductions for high-income earners, but Congress seems to be more interested in taxing employee health benefits because many economists argue it mainly goes to high-income earners and discourages cost-consciousness (at least according to this article). Both are looking at cutting Medicare costs, particularly by having insurance companies bid for government reimbursements for offering private plans (known as Medicare Advantage). But perhaps the most controversial idea is increasing what are termed "sin" taxes, or taxes on what are considered bad behaviors:

Congressional analyses show that more than $200 billion over 10 years could be collected from new or increased taxes on sugared soft drinks, tobacco products and alcoholic beverages implicated in common health problems like obesity and cancer. Yet while the options are on the lawmakers’ table, Senator Baucus has said they are on “life support.”

The Joint Committee on Taxation calculated that a 3-cent tax on each 12-ounce sugared soda would raise $51.6 billion over a decade. But opposition is not limited to the bottling industry. Major sources of sweeteners include Montana, which has a large sugar beet industry, and Iowa, which produces high-fructose corn syrup — the home states of Senators Baucus and Grassley.

The government could raise $61.5 billion with an additional alcoholic beverage tax that would mean about 40 cents more for a fifth of liquor, 48 cents for a six-pack of beer and 49 cents on a bottle of wine. Advocates point out that federal alcohol taxes were last raised in 1991; adjusted for inflation, they are 37 percent lower now. But local wineries and microbreweries now operate in nearly every state, suggesting that major distillers will not be the only opposition.

Each of these taxes is often criticized as regressive, meaning it would disproportionately affect lower-income people. But proponents counter that the poor have the most to gain from universal health coverage.

I'm usually not a fan, as I imagine most people aren't. These kinds of taxes are most often proposed when legislators are too afraid to ask voters for a progressive income tax but desperately need revenue, so they opt for something silly like a tax on strips clubs (as seen here in Texas, though admittedly that must be a pretty big revenue stream!).

But when it comes to paying for health care, I'm more open to the idea. One of the main reasons our health care costs are so high in this country is because people eat too much, smoke too much, and drink too much. I don't want to tell people how to live, but it makes some sense to tax those things to help cover the costs created by them. It should at least by considered, and perhaps could be used in tandem with some of the other proposals.

As always, Americans want big reforms but they don't want to see taxes go up or deficits increased either. Unfortunately, you do have to spend money or borrow it to pay for these things. Given the current shape of our health care system, it's not like it's a bad investment. And unlike the other proposed taxes, you could actually get out of paying them if you cut down on junk food, cigarettes, and alcohol that are pretty bad for you anyway when not taken in moderation.

And hey, as someone who gets a bag of Cheetos out of the vending machine almost every day for lunch, I'm not saying it wouldn't annoy me sometimes too to pay a little extra than what I do now. But that doesn't mean I won't think it's fair or a good trade if we actually get real health care reform. To me, that's the bigger and more important issue in this debate right now than the cost and how to pay for it.

Immigration reform to be tackled too?

Congress has a busy rest of the year with health care now at the forefront in both chambers, a "cap and trade" bill set to be voted on tomorrow in the House, the call for new financial regulations, and Sotomayor's upcoming confirmation hearings in the Senate, but now another big issue may be around the corner. President Obama is meeting today with Congressional leaders on the issue of immigration reform.

Seeking to build momentum, Obama will meet today with at least 20 House and Senate members from both parties, officials said. But White House aides have worked to lower expectations, noting Congress's inability to deliver legislation to former president George W. Bush in 2006 and 2007, and vowing to proceed with debate this year only with strong bipartisan support.

"The president wants to make it clear he is serious," a senior White House official said yesterday. "He also wants to make it clear he's going to need strong partnership and leadership on both sides of the aisle to get the right policies moving."

Like so many issues, immigration reform is one with pressing need. But I can't say the chances look good with everything else on the Congressional plate right now. And like those other contentious issues, if it doesn't get done this year, it may not get done since Congress doesn't like to take those kinds of things up during an election year. It will take some serious political will to make it happen.

Is it there? We'll see, but it's good the conversation is getting started again.

More interesting Texas poll results

A new Texas Lyceum poll suggests that Texan attitudes towards same-sex unions may have softened a bit from 2005 when 76% voted for the gay marriage ban:

Most Texans don't oppose same-sex unions, but they're split in their support for marriage or civil unions. While more than a third (36%) oppose either arrangement, 32% said they would support civil unions and another 25% think same-sex marriages should be permitted. The poll found a distinct partisan difference, with civil unions as the preference of 29% of Democrats, 31% of Independents and 37% of Republicans; same-sex marriage the preferred alternative of 36% of Democrats, 25% of Independents, and 14% of Republicans. Allowing neither of those alternatives was the preference of 29% of Democrats,35% of Independents, and 43% of Republicans.

The partisan make-up of the state is also following the national trend of many Republicans becoming independents:

More respondents (46%) identified themselves as Independents than as Republicans (25%) or Democrats (28%). More of those who don't identify with a party said they lean Republican (29%) than lean Democrat (22%). Asked about their political outlook, more consider themselves Conservative (46%) than as Moderate (35%) or Liberal (19%).

About the same number of those polled said they are "certain" or "likely" to vote in each party's primary (Republicans, 31%; Democrats, 30%), and another 17 percent said they intend to vote in a primary but haven't yet decided which one.

Also like most Americans, Texans are willing to give President Obama's efforts on the economy a chance to work:

Texans are confident that the economic stimulus is helping to make the downturn less severe than it would otherwise be (58%), and most are willing to wait to decide whether the Obama Administration policies are working. Their patience varies: 24% will wait two or more years; 20% will wait two years; 29% will wait a year; and 23% said they're already out of patience.

Texans are pretty split on trade policies, capping greenhouse gas emissions, and stem cell research, but they are unfortunately very in favor of that terrible "voter ID" legislation (though many, especially the Democrats and minorities in favor, likely don't understand what it does or its intended purpose) and Gov. Perry's decision to turn down stimulus funds for unemployment insurance (buying the argument that too many strings are attached). Predictably, the poll respondents think the federal government is spending too much money but want more money spent on infrastructure, education and health care, and tax cuts (but - surprise - not on bailouts), despite deficits.

All in all, the results are pretty interesting and you can read them in full (it's not long) here.

UPDATE: More polling shows Texans approve of President Obama's performance so far and are very undecided on our upcoming primary races (which makes sense since we don't even know who all if running, and for what, yet).

Poll has bad news for Texas GOP and opening for Dems

From DMN:

Texas voters are increasingly dissatisfied with the state's Republican leaders and are open to the idea of electing a Democrat as governor in the next election, according to a new survey by an established GOP pollster.

The survey, conducted by David Hill, raises questions about whether the Republican Party might be in trouble after a decade of political dominance in Texas.

"The poll results challenge the conventional wisdom that Texas is a solidly red state," said Mr. Hill. "This shows that the Republican Party's image, even among Anglos and conservatives and self-professed Republicans, is often not what we would like it to be."

Texas voters don't think the GOP is delivering government that is low-cost, in-touch or devoted to the common good, the poll shows.

Mr. Hill said he found that perceptions of Republicans as arrogant, corrupt, angry and unwelcoming jeopardize the party's dominance.

Now this hardly means we can guarantee future Democratic victory when you get down into specific races and specific candidates, but there's clearly signs of opportunity:

•When asked if they were likely to vote for Republicans or Democrats for governor or the Legislature in the next election, without a specific name attached, 45 percent said Democrats and 31 percent said Republican.

•Fewer than half (45 percent) of voters say they approve of the job Texans are doing in state government. When asked whether they think Republican elected officials in the state have done well enough to deserve re-election, only 32 percent of voters said yes, while 54 percent were open to giving Democrats a chance in office.

•The conservative GOP base – 21 percent of the overall electorate – is significantly concerned with the issues of illegal immigration and protecting traditional values. But Mr. Hill found that the party's potential for growth lies in focusing more on pocketbook issues, including property-tax cuts and reductions in state spending.

•Voters overwhelmingly cite dismay with President George W. Bush as a factor in the GOP's image problem but also blame state leaders for failing to connect with younger voters and Hispanics.

2010 is going to be interesting for sure. We have a governor's race that is about to have a bruising primary battle between Gov. Rick Perry and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. Gov. Perry would be easier to beat (though by no means would his defeat be guaranteed, especially since Democrats currently lack any top-tier candidates).

Hutchison's expected resignation from the Senate will set off a special election (for the remainder of her term until 2012) for which Houston mayor Bill White and former state comptroller John Sharp (the last Democrat to hold statewide office in Texas) are already running. But having two Democrats run will be bad in what would be a "jungle primary" (one in which any number of Democrats and Republican can run at the same time) election since it'd decrease the chance of either getting 50% and winning outright or even worse they could both fail to make it into a runoff.

State Sen. Royce West is considering a run for Attorney General, and a former aide I talked to the other night told me he thought he'd get in. Houston Attorney and 2006 candidate for U.S. Senate Barbara Radnofsky is also in the race.

Perhaps the most important area where Democrats need to look for victory is in the state house. If Democrats can take back the majority, they'd be in charge of redistricting after the census is completed. We need to undo the damage done by the partisan gerrymandering under Craddick.

The DCCC is also targeting Rep. Mike McCaul in the 10th Congressional district. In fact, McCaul may run for Texas AG (should Greg Abbott run for something else, such as Sen. Hutchison's seat) as a graceful exit.

So yeah, it definitely looks like there's an exciting election season to look forward to next year!

UPDATE: As I was saying, it's gonna be one hell of a fight for the state house next year.

Texas Progressive Alliance Round-Up 6/22

It's Monday, the day after the first day of summer, and it's time for another Texas Progressive Alliance blog roundup.

President Obama, Bill White, and John Sharp are all in the same sinking DOMA boat. The Texas Cloverleaf comes off of hiatus to tell you why.

strong>CouldBeTrue from South Texas Chisme cheers the impeachment of Judge Kent. 4 articles passed without a single nay. Lets hope the Senate is through with him by August.

BossKitty at TruthHugger finally signed up for Twitter to get updates on the Iran protests. What a day of drama and emotion it brought, Icons and Martyrs – All Day On Twitter Watching Iran. I was really meaning to highlight the regressive influences causing upheaval in personal lives, especially in Texas. Immigration Policies and Gay Rights – Contradictions

Unlike Nevada Republican Senator John Ensign, Neil at Texas Liberal makes a promise he'll keep - He'll never cheat on his wife! Also, Neil sings the Damned's Wait For The Blackout at the Houston Ship Channel.

Off the Kuff takes a look, then a second look, at the bills Governor Perry vetoed.

WCNews at Eye On Williamson knows in order to solve big problems it takes leadership, Who is willing to lead, who has enough LBJ in them?.

Castle Hills Democrats heard candidates Tom Schieffer, John Sharp, Bill White, and Neil Durrance speak at the Dual County Fish Fry in north Texas. The blogger reviews their messages--and reports on feedback from the Dems in the audience.

WhosPlayin investigated the claim by a former mayoral candidate that the city is hiring illegal aliens for its road projects because one of its contractors doesn't yet use the E-Verify program.

Teddy at Left of College Station writes about escorting at Planned Parenthood and how what happens in Kansas doesn’t stay in Kansas. Today on Left of College Station: a report from the T. Don Hutto Residential Detention Facility and the protest on Saturday (including exclusive photographs).

Big Gas wants you to believe that regulating hydraulic fracturing is a state's rights issue. The truth: Only one state in the US regulates hydraulic fracturing. TXsharon busts the Big Gas bubble again on Bluedaze: DRILLING REFORM FOR TEXAS.

Citizen groups opposed to new coal plants being built in Robertson County and near Victoria were given a chance to intervene last week when two of the 12 newly proposed coal plants in Texas had preliminary hearings for their waste water permits. Check out the video over at Public Citizen's Texas Vox.

Over at TexasKaos, Libby Shaw tells us that Dumb, Self-serving Politicians Make Dumb, Self-serving Decisions. What a surprise that Governor Goodhair takes the starring role in this little drama. Check out the details.

Do you love the Real Housewives on Bravo? Were you a little less than impressed by the NJ version? So was Barfly over at McBlogger.

GAO shows our gun laws are weak

Ridiculous:

People on the government’s terrorist watch list tried to buy guns nearly 1,000 times in the last five years, and federal authorities cleared the purchases 9 times out of 10 because they had no legal way to stop them, according to a new government report.

In one case, a person on the list was able to buy more than 50 pounds of explosives.

The new statistics, compiled in a report from the Government Accountability Office that is scheduled for public release next week, draw attention to an odd divergence in federal law: people placed on the government’s terrorist watch list can be stopped from getting on a plane or getting a visa, but they cannot be stopped from buying a gun.

Gun purchases must be approved unless federal officials can find some other disqualification of the would-be buyer, like being a felon, an illegal immigrant or a drug addict.

“This is a glaring omission, and it’s a security issue,” Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, the New Jersey Democrat who requested the study, said in an interview.

Sen. Lautenberg introduced legislation in 2007 that would have given the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales to people on terror watch lists, but it was stalled by the NRA, of course. He will re-introduce it on Monday and hopefully Democrats will have the balls to take it up, but I doubt it. There's few lobbies they fear more than the gun lobby:

Can new evidence that high-powered US firearms are fueling Mexican drug violence change the political course of gun control in Washington?

Not likely, a number of gun experts say.

The Government Accountability Office information that 87 percent of seized guns given to US authorities by Mexican officials come from the US shouldn't come as a surprise, says Bill Vizzard, a criminologist at the California State University in Sacramento. "We're the largest legal gun market in the world."

Many of the firearms used to kill thousands of police and government officials in Mexico come from gun shops and gun shows in Southwest border states, the report says...

"Washington has to pacify the Mexican government, and, rightfully, the Mexican government is pointing at the US saying, 'You guys keep talking about our drugs going to the US. What about your guns coming down here?' " says Vizzard, adding, "And they legitimately have a beef."

After the landmark Heller decision last year – in which the Supreme Court affirmed Second Amendment gun rights – Democratic leadership has stepped back from pressing the gun control issue, at least at the national level. While popular in urban centers, gun control laws can have electoral implications in rural hunting states where Democrats made huge gains last election.

If anything, gun rights have expanded on the heels of last year's Heller decision. The Democrat-dominated Congress this year agreed to allow Americans to carry concealed weapons into national parks and wildlife refuges.

But the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence hopes that today's Congressional hearings on the GAO report will have some effect on efforts to close the so-called "gun show loophole" where guns can be sold without background checks.

"The extremist gun lobby should no longer be permitted to dictate our nation's gun policy," said Brady Center president Paul Helmke, in a statement.

Amen. If Republicans and Democrats really want to really be tough when it comes to the war on terrorism and the war on drugs, they need to get behind common sense gun laws instead of placating fringe gun nuts.

UPDATE: It's not just Mexico.

Iran At The Tipping Point

I have spent about week hoping that the power-that-be in Iran would relent in the face of public pressure for an accounting of the recent election. As I noted yesterday in my round-up, it appears instead that Ayatollah Khamenei has opted instead to oppose the dissenters, with force if necessary. It appears that he has made good on that threat, as demonstrators who gathered for a protest today in Tehran have been met by riot police attempting to break up the demonstrations. The NY Times Lede has videos of the situation on the ground.

Eh, Not That Frivolous

Now I can imagine a few people would read this and immediately condemn this as a frivolous lawsuit without merit. Apparently, Oprah teamed up with Kentucky Fried Chicken for some sort of free chicken givewaway, which required printing out an online coupon and taking it to your local KFC. But instead of getting free chicken, you get the runaround:

Thing is, demand was so high that the company had to scale back the offer, asking customers who had printed the online coupons to visit stores for an IOU voucher that included a free Pepsi. Customers were asked to mail it in and wait for a different coupon that would allow them to claim the meal later on. According to this story, from the Daily Press, those new coupons should get to customers in a week or so.

Apparently that made somebody so mad they're launching a class action lawsuit, claiming KFC profited by using the promotion to get people to spend money at their restaurant that they hadn't intended to spend. Now I know what you're thinking but I have to be honest; if I showed up with a coupon that I'd printed out, and they told me I'd have to take an IOU which I then have to mail in in exchange for another coupon that I use to get my free meal I'd be pretty dang irritated about that. Why can't I just get a different coupon at the store that can be redeemed at a later date? It seems to me that KFC was rather obviously trying to make it more difficult to take advantage of the offer, thus reaping the benefit of promotion on Oprah's show without actually having to give away all that food that would entail. I think I'd decline to sue in the end, but the thought would probably cross my mind more than once. Sometimes you just get tired of a big company messing with you.

Legislative Update XVII

After lots of arm-twisting on anti-war Democrats in the House of Representatives, Congress voted to approve funding for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan in an emergency supplemental. This is supposed to be the last time such funds will be provided for outside of the normal budget. IMF funding and the "cash for clunkers" program made it into the final bill, but it does not include the $80 million the White House requested to start effort to close Gitmo. The bill also prohibits detainees from being released in the United States and allows the transfer of detainees for prosecution only after Congress receives a plan detailing the risks.

The Senate passed a separate bill to block the release of detainee abuse photos. President Obama had given his formal word to classify the photos to placate those who wanted to put the prohibition in the war funding bill, which would have further weakened its chances of passing. If and when it will come up for a vote in the House is unknown.

Senate Republicans blocked a resolution condemning violence against women's health-care providers. The Senate did pass a formal apology for slavery, and will be followed by the House next week. It's hard to believe this hasn't happened already. The House did pass a resolution knocking Tehran's crackdown on protesters, with Rep. Ron Paul being the only "nay" vote.

Lastly, on the health care front, House Dems presented a plan that does have a public option, but that was left out of the Senate version. What ultimate comes out of Congress is anyone's guess at this point, assuming that something does that is. The only thing we know for sure is that it appears it's a long road ahead...

UPDATE: For the first time in 20 years, the House unanimously approved four article of impeachment against U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent of Texas accusing him of sexually assaulting two female employees and lying to judicial investigators and Justice Department officials. This now sets up a trial in the Senate.

Friday Round-Up

Some reading for your Friday afternoon:

1. Ayatollah Khamenei escalates the rhetoric and says opposition leaders will be responsible for "bloodshed and chaos" if the protests continue (a possibility that members of hard-line militias may seek to ensure becomes a reality.) He denies that Iran's election was rigged, though he's contradicted by what evidence is available. Roger Cohen lauds the protesters, and says Obama should be more firmly on their side. I disagree. I think Obama has struck the proper tone of concern and and caution. Were it not for our history of meddling in Iran's internal affairs, I might think otherwise.

2. More details on Obama's new financial regulations plan. Changes no doubt, but maybe not the sweeping kind that we need, according to Paul Krugman. The bad news on the economy in general has slowed, but Martin Wolf says we shouldn't be too hasty about thinking we're out of the woods yet. Certainly some (like small businesses) are having a very rough time of it.

3. Check for flying pigs outside your window, because today Ken Starr has come out in support of of Sonia Sotomayor.

4. John Shalikashvilli, chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs under Clinton, says that arguments against gays in the military are poorly reasoned and insupportable.

5. Egypt shocked Italy 1-0 in Confederations Cup play yesterday, a result that perhaps shouldn't be so surprising given their play against Brazil. Fortunately for the U.S. this means that a win against Egypt tomorrow means the US will make it out of the first round. Unfortunately, the fact that Egypt is playing so well against the giants makes such a victory highly unlikely.

6. Today is Juneteenth round these parts, a celebration of the day that slaves were liberated in Texas.

Fellow Republican puts Gingrich in "hall of shame" over Uighur remarks

Tell us something we don't know:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich got into a public spat with fellow Republicans this week after he denounced the 17 Chinese Muslims who're being released from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, military prison as "terrorists" who should be sent back to China, where they're likely to face persecution.

Gingrich, the Republican party's most prominent spokesman, is "in the Hall of Shame" for his remarks, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., said in his opening statement during a Tuesday hearing of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Human Rights. Democrats and other Republicans also piled on Gingrich for "fear-mongering" and allegedly peddling Chinese propaganda.

The Uighurs are a predominantly Muslim ethnic minority concentrated in the northwest part of China. According to the 2008 State Department Human Right's report, they've been the target of human rights abuses in China.

Rep. Bill Delahunt, D-Mass., the committee's chairman, said that Gingrich is either misinformed or intentionally circulating false information about the 17 Uighurs to "appease the Communist Chinese," who've repeatedly asked the U.S. to return the Uighurs to China. He said the Chinese "brutally persecute and oppress the Uighur minority."

And this guy's supposed to be the "intellectual" of the Republican Party? This is worse than saying Sonia Sotomayor is a racist. Either he's completely ignorant about the Uighurs or he's fear-mongering to those who are. In any case, he's a shining example of what's wrong with the Republican Party. But how ridiculous is it to look to someone who was Speaker of the House for 4 years in the 90s and left in disgrace for your future electoral hopes anyway? If that's your savior, you're in pretty sad shape.