Month: February 2010

Confidence Men

by digby

I wonder if at some point the political geniuses who run the world will see these two headlines in the same context:.

.

How Proud She Must Be

by digby

It turns out that there were more DOJ lawyers actively figuring out how best to torture prisoners than we knew. TPM reports:

The Torture Memos will forever be known as the work of John Yoo, the former Office of Legal Counsel lawyer who took the lead in preparing them. But the internal Justice Department report on the memos, released Friday, reveals that a less experienced OLC attorney, working under Yoo, played a key role in the process — in some cases writing initial drafts of the opinions before getting feedback from Yoo and others.

The name of that lawyer is redacted throughout the report. But in what appears to be an oversight in the redaction process, a footnote identifies her as Jennifer Koester. (The Justice Department didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment about the reason for the redaction, and about the oversight.)

Koester, who was two years out of law school and around 28 years old at the time, was clearly a junior level attorney in the process. She appears to have had no authority to approve the final versions of the memos that went out from the department, and was tasked with working with Yoo on them in part because having just joined OLC, she “had some time available,” according to the report. But she did take the lead in developing the first drafts of the memos, and briefed the White House on their contents. And it’s perhaps surprising — given the intense level of scrutiny that Yoo has rightly received for his role in producing the memos — that Koester has until now remained almost entirely under the radar.

Call her the Torture Memo author you’ve never heard of.

Read the whole thing and then go pick up your copy of The Banality of Evil.

The Federalist society member went on to work for the Defense department, Homeland Security and clerked for Justice Thomas. And what appropriate assignments they were considering her experience as an architect of the torture regime. She knew the “rules” inside and out. Lovely person.

I’m sure she would say that she was just doing her job. That’s what they all say. So perhaps there needs to be a class in ethics and morals taught in the law school curriculum because apparently being asked to write legal justifications for torture doesn’t instinctively strike certain people as wrong.

And anyone who works at the Kirkland and Ellis law firm should probably keep their distance. This is a person with a deep chasm where a soul should be and any time someone wants to
question her credibility they will likely bring up the fact that she actively participated in the justification of a torture policy for the US Government. I wouldn’t want her anywhere near a case of mine.

If anyone is looking for an excellent short essay on just how evil these banal actors were, read this piece by Adam Serwer. He’s more optimistic about justice ultimately prevailing on this one than I am. But I’m happy to help paper the electronic record just in case.

.

What Fodor and Piatelli-Palmarini Got Wrong

by tristero

There is a new book out called What Darwin Got Wrong by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, based upon an article of Fodor’s in the London Review of Books. What makes it worth posting about is that it is not penned by a couple of christianist nuts.

Fodor and Piatelli-Palmarini are known as philosophers and cognitive scientists. They are neither biologists nor creationists. The book may get a lot of attention in the mainstream as it purports to be a scientific/conceptual critique of evolution by natural selection, the distinguishing idea of Darwinian evolution (evolution was not a new idea in the 19th century; Darwin’s genius was in discovering a plausible mechanism – natural selection – for evolution). And, in fact, Salon published an interview with Fodor which, in a simple form, lays out their criticism (Fodor’s article, linked to above, goes into more detail but also rambles quite a bit).

Moral Compass

by digby

I don’t even know what to say about this:

The National Right to Life Committee, which opposes abortion rights, on Monday criticized President Obama’s proposal to give the federal government new authority to review and potentially block premium increases by private health insurers.

Mr. Obama included the proposal in his version of a comprehensive health care overhaul unveiled by the White House on Monday. Officials said it would protect consumers from unjustified rate hikes, particularly in cases where state regulators fail or refuse to act.

In its statement, the National Right to Life committee said that the president’s proposal “limits rights of Americans of all ages to use their own money to save their own lives.”

Burke Balch, the director of the National Right to Life Committee’s Powell Center of Ethics, likened the president’s plan to imposing a limit on the cost of restaurant meals.

“It is as though a government, concerned about the high cost of restaurant food, imposed a price limit of $5 per meal, and then asserted that for those who like their restaurant food, nothing will force them to change their eating habits,” the statement said. “The reality, of course, is that restaurants would be unable to afford to offer meals at prices below the cost of their ingredients. Consequently, about all restaurant-goers would be able to get would be fast food.”

The statement continued, “Similarly, when every premium increase is subject to veto by government officials, it means that instead of Americans making their own choices balancing the cost against the benefit in evaluating competing insurance plans, that decision will be taken out of their hands by bureaucrats whose principal duty is to hold health care spending down. Denial of lifesaving diagnostic tests and treatment would surely follow. This is rationing, pure and simple.”

Yes, indeed. We must do everything possible to protect individual liberty and freedom of choice. No systems should ever be put in place by the government which could possibly result in people’s options being restricted. Welll … unless you happen to be a woman, in which case government bureaucrats are morally required to pass laws which force you to undergo pregnancy and childbirth regardless of your wishes in the matter.

But, that one teensy, unimportant impediment to our libertarian paradise excepted, we should thank the Good Lord that these defenders of freedom are here ensure that the government never interferes with the price structure of a Big Mac or forces an insurance company to settle for something less than a 50% profit margin. Don’t tread on me, bitchuz.

.

Conservative Mash Up

by digby

Chris Matthews called Ron Paul a “live and let live” Barry Goldwater conservative today. I think that’s fairly indicative of the confusion among thick Villagers. Barry Goldwater may have been “live and let live” when it came to social issues, but he was a hawk’s hawk. And Ron Paul the supposed libertarian may be an isolationist, but he is anti-choice and oddly sympathetic to the notion that there is no separation of church and state.

People are getting very confused what with the various permutations of the wingnut fringe bubbling up to the surface, fighting for supremacy as the Republicans cast about for a leader. But it’s clear that villagers really don’t understand the basic fundamentals of right wing tribal factions and they are doing a poor job of explaining it. And so it’s going to be a very daunting task to try and keep in all straight, especially with new radical fringe groups forming all the time. Of course, when you have “mainstream” politicians saying stuff like this, it may not be that fringey after all.

.

A Stretch

by digby

Someone asked Howie Kurtz today about Ron Fournier’s silly piece comparing Mitt Romney’s lies at CPAC to a comment on Daily Kos:

Since you are discussing whether there is an equivalent liberal event for CPAC, I just want to note the following information: In Saturday’s Washington Post, AP’s Washington Bureau Chief Ron Fornier wrote an “analysis” where he noted that Mitt Romney lied at CPAC about the stimulus, Democratic health care proposals, tax policy, and treatment of terrorists. Fornier went on to say that Romney’s lies are balanced out because an anonymous blogger at Daily Kos lied by called Dick Cheney a “war criminal” because Cheney admitted to signing off on waterboarding yet has not been convicted. If a journalist like Ron Fornier is saying that the words of CPAC speaker and Republican presidential hopeful are equal to the comments of an anonymous DKos blogger, then I believe that the liberal equivalent of the CPAC convention is me sitting here alone in my underwear and typing this message.

* –
February 22, 2010 12:39 PM
* Permalink

Howard Kurtz writes:

I thought Fournier’s piece was good and that more journalists should aggressively fact-check what politicians of both parties say. But it’s a stretch to partially “balance” the piece by comparing a speech by the former governor and presidential candidate to what one unnamed blogger said on the Kos site.

That’s nice that he thinks so. Why do you suppose Fournier and the editors at the Washington Post don’t?

And, again, why is it a lie that Dick Cheney confessed to ordering a war crime, when he did?

.

Who, Him?

by digby

Limbaugh criticizes health care reform as “a civil rights bill” and “reparations

What do you suppose he’s getting at?

And speaking of thinly veiled racism, following up my post yesterday on the ACORN atrocity, Brad Friedman has been closely tracking this story, particularly the media malpractice that brought us here. The NY Times has been particularly outrageous. Shocking, I know.

And then there’s Breitbart…

.

Tribute To Vice

by digby

The administration and the Democrats have decided that decrying GOP hypocrisy is a winning message. I agree that it should be. But I have my doubts. Conservatives, after all, believe “Hypocrisie est un hommage que la vice rend à la vertu” at least when it comes to themselves.

As conservative Jeremy Lott wrote in his book In Defense of Hypocrisy: Picking Sides in the War on Virtue:

Hypocrisy is so widespread that it might as well be part of our DNA. It is widespread because it is useful… While hypocrisy usually helps to prop up norms and preserve the existing order, that isn’t always the case. It also provides a way for good men to pay lip service to heinous governments and warped social customs while working to thwart and ultimately undermine them.

You see, hypocrisy is not just a necessary evil. It’s also an engine of moral progress.

To see this explained in more prosaic terms, here’s Amy Holmes on Reliable Sources this week-end:

KURTZ: OK. But if you were a lawmaker — you worked on the Hill — as you did, John — aren’t you fair game for the press if you vote against a bill and denounce it and then take credit for or try to get money for your district?

HOLMES: Certainly. And I think opponents to Republicans, particularly in primaries up against conservatives, that they will hear this criticism.

But, Howie, I really think this is sort of dog bites man story. I mean, there aren’t a lot of headlines out of this.

Republicans voted against it, but I think they fairly say to their constituents, look, the pie was baked, you’re federal taxpayers, you deserve a slice of it. However, they wouldn’t have voted for it in the first place…

Perhaps calling out Republicans on hypocrisy will work this. These Democratic strategists get the big bucks, after all. But I think that George Lakoff probably gets it right in this piece when he writes:

It was entirely predictable a year ago that the conservatives would hold firm against Obama’s attempts at “bipartisanship” — finding occasional conservatives who were biconceptual, that is, shared some views acceptable to Obama on some issues, while keeping an overall liberal agenda.

The conservatives are not fools. Because their highest value is protecting and extending the conservative moral system itself, giving Obama any victory at all would strengthen Obama and weaken the hold of their moral system. Of course they were going to vote against every proposal and delay and filibuster as often as possible. Protecting and extending their worldview demands it.

Obama has not understood this.

We saw this when Obama attended the Republican caucus. He kept pointing out that they voted against proposals that Republicans had made and that he had incorporated, acting as if this were a contradiction. But that was to be expected, since a particular proposal that strengthens Obama and hence weakens their moral view violates their highest moral principle.

Such conservative logic explains why conservatives in Congress first proposed a bipartisan committee to study the deficit, and then voted against it.

That is why I don’t expect much from the President’s summit with Republicans on February 25. Why should they do anything to strengthen Obama’s hand, when it would violate their highest moral principle, as well as weakening themselves electorally. If Obama thinks he can shame them in front of their voters, he is mistaken again. Conservative voters think the same way they do.

I would guess that the technocratic Democrats believe that the elusive swing voters of this cycle (“independents”) are different. I doubt it. Swing voters care about “winners” — people who appear to be on top at any given moment (or at least those who aren’t perceived as losers) so I am unconvinced that hypocrisy means anything to anyone but liberals who pride themselves on rationality.

Maybe calling out the Republicans on hypocrisy will work to gin up some enthusiasm in the base, but passing good policies is probably a better way to do that. And it’s a twofer; the country benefits as well. Why, some of those vaunted swing voters might even be impressed.

.

What If?

by digby

Newsweek has published a fascinating article about how the world would look in an alternate universe:

How the GOP Sees It

What Republicans would do if given carte blanche to run the country.

You may be a bit confused by this, thinking that the period between 2000 and 2006 was a real life demonstration of just that. But that never happened. The world was born in November of 2008 and the Democrats have been in charge of everything for as long as anyone can remember and all the problems have today happened under their watch. Isn’t it time to give the other guys a chance for once?

*In case you were wondering, they would cut taxes, social security and medicare, do tort reform, allow health insurers to sell across state lines, keep Gitmo open, torture and indefinitely detail terrorist suspects, stay the course in Afghanistan and Iraq and continue to degrade the public school system.

Imagine that.

.

Sins Of The Mothers

by digby

Oh Sarah …

Western Prince William Del. Bob Marshall, R-13th, says disabled children are God’s punishment to women who have aborted their first pregnancy.

He made that statement last Thursday at a press conference to oppose state funding for Planned Parenthood.

“The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children,” said Marshall, a Republican.

“In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There’s a special punishment Christians would suggest.”

Marshall was among more than 20 people, mostly Christian pastors and clergy, who gathered for the press conference in the General Assembly Building …The press conference was held by a group called Virginia Christian Action. Its members presented a petition calling on Gov. Bob McDonnell, Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to stop funding for Planned Parenthood. All three top officials are Republican.

The petition was signed by a number of prominent Christian leaders, including the Rev. Jonathan Falwell of Lynchburg and the Rev. Pat Robertson of Virginia Beach.

It sounds like it should be satire, but I’m not sure Palin’s going to be able to make that excuse this time.

.