Joan Walsh deserves a round of applause for her appearance on Tweety this afternoon. Both Matthews and Buchanan were having a conniption fit about the fact than an white firefighter was allegedly discriminated against. (Affirmative action, blah,blah,blah.) Walsh was very even handed and ably made many good points during the argument, admitting that this particular case was a tough balancing act, and trying to keep these two meatheads on track. But she finally got fed up when Chris let fly with this simple minded nonsense:
Matthews: Frank Ricci’s Italian, the other complainant in this case is Hispanic. I don’t think it’s all about the Irish, but I do think the Irish have a proud tradition of firefighting and damn it Joan, the guys that got killed on 9/11, a lot of them were Irish and they chose to be firefighters, because it’s a family tradition going back to the 19th century…
Joan Walsh: Don’t race bait me, Chris. There are firefighters in my family. God bless them …
Matthews: Then why are accusing them of bigotry?
Joan Walsh: because the fact of the matter is that they have protected those jobs for their brothers, for their sons and they’re public sector jobs. This isn’t the family business, Chris. Bravery comes in all colors.
Damn straight. And by the way, the reason the Irish dominated the firehouses from the 19th century on was straight up political patronage. Those days have been over for a long time. The “family” business of the public sector has to be open to everyone this century.
I don’t see why it’s ok to dismiss all complaints about discrimination as special interest whining except when it’s coming from conservative white males. Aren’t they a minority now? Why shouldn’t they be dismissed as a just another special interest as all these people dismiss the half of the population that’s female? Or the large number of Hispanics and blacks of both sexes? If they want to play this game they should at least be forced to play by their own rules.
Here’s a little nugget buried in an article about developments in the torture investigations:
At the same time, Bush administration lawyers are facing a deadline to respond to a Justice Department ethics investigation into their support for the rough interrogation tactics.
Investigators are evaluating whether former Office of Legal Counsel lawyers John C. Yoo, Jay S. Bybee and Steven G. Bradbury followed professional standards when they drafted memos in 2002 and 2005 that gave a green light to simulated drowning and wall slamming of prisoners.
Sources told The Washington Post earlier this year that an earlier draft of the investigators’ report recommended disciplinary referrals to local bar associations for two of the men: Yoo, now a law professor in California, and Bybee, now a federal appeals court judge based in Nevada. The report requires the approval of new Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., and findings could be released as early as this summer, according to two sources familiar with the process.
The Associated Press reports that this DoJ probe is nearing conclusion. If the recommendations fall short of the disciplinary referrals reportedly cited in the earlier draft, can we conclude that Eric Holder softened the report? Well, we can certainly conclude that BushCo landmines at Justice met their desired effect.
Former Bush administration officials are lobbying behind the scenes to push Justice Department leaders to water down an ethics report criticizing lawyers who blessed harsh detainee interrogation tactics, according to two sources familiar with the efforts.
In recent days, attorneys for the subjects of the ethics probe have encouraged senior Bush administration appointees to write and phone Justice Department officials, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the process is not complete.
These “torture lobbyists” include past senior Bush DoJ officials, but I’ll bet they also include the burrowed Bush officials at Justice, designated to protect the interests of the previous Administration. Let’s see what kind of power they wield.
One hopes comes from the fact that Eric Holder last month dispatched the Bush-era head of the Office of Professional Repsonsibility, where this investigation originated, and replaced him with Mary Patrice Brown, who looks to be a pretty tough character. Ultimately, though, Holder must sign off on the report.
…Here’s the latest: Devlin Barrett of the AP gets a sneak peek at the report – or maybe just helps the Justice Department float a trial balloon – showing that the professional sanctions remain intact, but that’s as far as it goes:
Bush administration lawyers who approved harsh interrogation techniques of terror suspects should not face criminal charges, Justice Department investigators say in a draft report that recommends two of the three attorneys face possible professional sanctions […]
Officials conducting the internal Justice Department inquiry into the lawyers who wrote those memos have recommended referring two of the three lawyers — John Yoo and Jay Bybee — to state bar associations for possible disciplinary action, according to a person familiar with the inquiry. The person, who spoke on condition of anonymity, was not authorized to discuss the inquiry.
The person noted that the investigative report was still in draft form and subject to revisions. Attorney General Eric Holder also may make his own determination about what steps to take once the report has been finalized […]
Vincent Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, called the decision not to seek criminal charges “inconceivable, given all that we know about the twisted logic of these memos.”
Warren argued the only reason for such a decision “is to provide political cover for people inside the Obama White House so they don’t have to pursue what needs to be done.”
They’ve gone back and forth on this several times. But this really would be definitive. There needs to be a very loud reaction to this.
What exactly was the deal Biden and Reid made with Specter anyway? That his new job was to trash the Democrats every chance he gets? It’s bad enough that he goes on TV and declare that he’s definitely not going to be a loyal Democrat. But this really takes the cake:
Arlen Specter wants Norm Coleman to win the disputed Senate race in Minnesota, a stance that will likely enrage liberal activists and Democrats. According to leaked excerpts of an interview with the NY Times Magazine, Specter said:”There’s still time for the Minnesota courts to do justice and declare Norm Coleman the winner.” A Coleman win, of course, would deprive Democrats of a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate. The prospect of reaching that threshold is what made Democrats so ecstatic about Specter’s party switch. The excerpt, teased on The Page, indicates Specter agrees with Coleman’s argument that ballots weren’t counted according to a consistent standard.
Fergawdsake:
WOODRUFF: Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter has been in Tallahassee for much of this day, and he joins us now. Senator Specter, thank you very much for being with us so late this evening. Let me ask you about something that Senator Joe Lieberman, your colleague, said tonight in his remarks. He said, “How can we teach our children that every vote counts if we are not willing to make a good faith effort to count every vote?” SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R), PENNSYLVANIA: I would respond by saying there has been a good faith effort. When Senator Lieberman says there has not been a reasonable effort, I would remind him that the Supreme Court of Florida extended the time, I would remind him that when Vice President Gore came in with a special request to order Dade-Miami to have a recount that the Supreme Court said no that they had gone far enough. There was a count, there was a recount, there was a re- recount, and I think the time has come to move on.
The man is a hypocritical Republican ass to the bottom of his soul and always will be.
Update: Apparently, this was a weird response to a question about whether or not Arlen was concerned that there were no more Republican Jews left in the Senate. Whatever.
Dean Baker makes an excellent observation in light of the Chrysler bailout that really should be emphasized. He notes that one of the obvious advantages conferred on the company by being owned by Fiat is that the top executives and designers will be European and will, therefore, save the company a boatload of money. See, they don’t pay the ridiculous compensation that American masters of the universe seem to believe is their God-ordained right. And as he explains, this should be an object lesson for the American worker:
Trade agreements like NAFTA were explicitly designed to remove any barrier that made it difficult to export manufacturing goods to the United States, thereby placing US manufacturing workers directly in competition with their much lower paid counterparts in the developing world. Most of these restrictions had nothing to do with tariffs. Instead the key issues were rules protecting investment in the developing world along with limits on the ability of the US to exclude imports through safety or environmental regulations.
There has never been any similar effort to eliminate the barriers that prevent professionals from the developing world from coming to the United States and competing directly with their US counterparts as doctors or lawyers or in other highly paid professions.
The economists and the media somehow failed to notice that professionals were intentionally sheltered from international competition and instead just trumpeted them as the winners in the global economy. We were just treated to a beautiful example of this double standard when the media and the economists got all huffy about the “buy America” provision in the stimulus bill that might have protected a few manufacturing jobs in steel and other industries.
While this provision was roundly condemned and eventually watered down, the buy America provision in the Treasury’s latest bank bailout bill went completely unnoticed. This provision requires that any investment manager taking part in the program be headquartered in the United States. Even though the argument against protectionism in financial services is identical to the argument against protectionism in steel, no one bothered to make the argument when Wall Street was the beneficiary of protectionism.
The end result of this protectionism for those at the top is a bloated overpaid sector of top managers, which is what we saw at Chrysler. If we compare wages for assembly-line workers in Europe and the United States, there would not be much difference between the pay of UAW members and their counterparts in Europe. However, there would be a very large difference between the multi-million dollar pay packages of the top executives at the US companies and their European counterparts. The pay gaps persist among the more highly paid engineers and management personnel.
Therefore, it was only logical that a bailout of Chrysler would seek to take advantage of the lower cost management and design skills available at a European car company like Fiat. In Chrysler, as in other companies, the high pay packages for these people are like an anchor dragging them down in international competition. If the US is to be competitive in the 21st century, we must either bring the pay of those at the top back down to earth or we should look to follow the lead of Chrysler and contract out for these services.
And the most ironic thing about this is the fact that these American executives keep threatening to leave the country to take jobs elsewhere, as if they can actually make more money overseas. Running a company into the ground and nearly destroying an industry wouldn’t normally be considered a resume builder, but in America, the corporate narcissists and their friends in politics seem to want us to believe that this wrecking crew is so in demand that we must continue to pay them obscene compensation and beg them to keep destroying things on our behalf. They claim to live and die by the free market so maybe we should tell them to let the market decide this one too. Somehow, I doubt they will be too enthusiastic.
*In a similar vein, I’ve been meaning to recommend this article from Sunday’s NY Times about what it’s like for an American to live in that socialist hellhole, Holland. The Dutch, of course, are the people who pretty much invented international commerce and banking and have deal making in their DNA, so it’s not like they don’t believe in capitalism. But they have learned something that Americans continue to resist at our peril (and which David Brooks, of all people, seems to want the conservatives to adopt. Weird.) The nature of their land forced them to create a mutually beneficial system of collaboration. It turns out they aren’t “socialists” at all, even in the sort of soft sense — or, at least, their system predates socialism. It’s very interesting.
Sen. Feinstein’s ongoing, secret torture probe is ostensibly only a 1-year “review” or “study.” In reality, these proceedings are a functional equivalent of proposed public Congressional inquiries. The Feinstein probe covers the same substantive issues that would be investigated by Congressional probes that are still languishing in the debate stage. The Feinstein probe will review classified CIA documents and “interview” witnesses so that it can formulate US torture policy. CIA witnesses will be key to both the Feinstein probe and any Congressional hearings. Given the number of pressing issues and crises facing the US, will Congress be motivated to conduct a public investigation after Feinstein’s probe is completed? If not, then the Feinstein probe will be the only torture investigation but it will formulate US torture policy in secret and its report may never be released to the public. Moreover, if any Congressional probe provides immunity to witnesses, this can nix or alter the investigative scope and putative targets of subsequent special prosecutions. In short, some in DC have may have decided to implement the move-forward policy whether you like it or not.
More at the link.
The minute Feinstein became the great congressional leader on torture, I wondered if it wasn’t kabuki. It’s DiFi we’re talking about. She rushed in “begging” the president not to launch any investigation until she’d finished hers. The village babblers were using her investigations as the primary reason not to pursue prosecutions. It makes perfect sense that they would bottle the thing up in secret hearings and a very slow investigation as long as possible.
We already saw them do this with phase two of the pre-war intelligence investigation. It took years and the media treated it as old news, not worth talking about, when it was finished. But it helped keep a lid on the political hot potato that was the dawning realization that the Bush administration had manipulated the intelligence to get us into war.
Secret investigations are a junk yard for rear view mirrors.
This Arlen Specter/Joe Sestak story has evolved rapidly in the past 48 hours. Labor in particular has basically given Specter a choice – support our issues or we’ll support somebody else. Snarlin’ Arlen will have to decide whether he only responds to right-wing pressure.
Sestak echoed this after a meeting with the SEIU’s Andy Stern, saying bluntly, “I cannot see the unions across the board supporting Specter if he cannot support EFCA … [Stern] let it be known that it’s very much on the top of their agenda.” And leading Democrats are hinting to Specter that his ability to stave off a primary challenge will be dictated by his record as a Democrat. But this part of a Sestak interview with TPMDC jumped out at me.
I asked him whether he’d been on the receiving end of establishment pressure — from people like Vice President Joe Biden and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell — to stay out of the race, and he insisted, “I haven’t heard from anyone.”
While Democrats from the While House on down might be trying to keep the Democratic primary field clear for Specter, they might not necessarily mind the fact that, for the time being, Sestak is applying pressure on Specter to move left. By keeping the door open to challenging Specter in the Democratic primary, Sestak may serve to nudge Specter further than he might otherwise have gone. Yesterday, Sestak told Greg Sargent that if Specter “doesn’t demonstrate that he has shifted his position on a number of issues, I would not hesitate at all to get in” to a primary fight against him.
I’m wondering whether at least a little of this is kabuki. Sestak loses nothing from calling out Specter – even if he decides against running, he gains credibility as a Democrat enunciating Democratic principles, actually more credibility than he probably deserves – later in the TPMDC interview he equivocates on the question of a public option for health care reform. But at this point, if Specter does end up voting the right way on health care or EFCA, Sestak gets at least some of the credit. And given that Sestak has only grown louder in his criticisms, he certainly hasn’t heard the White House, as he notes, that he might want to tone it down. It serves their interests to have a credible voice pushing Specter, or a chorus of voices. I could absolutely envision a scenario where Sestak has no real intention of running but is being used as a cattle prod to corral Specter.
Regardless of the theater at play here, Specter cannot exactly take the chance of not listening.
A federal judge has ruled that a history teacher at a Southern California public high school violated the First Amendment when he called creationism “superstitious nonsense” in a classroom lecture. The judge, James Selna, issued the ruling after a 16-month legal battle between a student, Chad Farnan, and his former teacher, James Corbett. Mr. Farnan’s lawsuit said Mr. Corbett had made more than 20 statements that were disparaging to Christians and their beliefs. The judge found that Mr. Corbett’s reference to creationism as “religious, superstitious nonsense” violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause. Courts have interpreted the clause as prohibiting government employees from displaying religious hostility. Mr. Corbett teaches at Capistrano Valley High School.
So a public school teacher is in violation of the first amendment by speaking disparagingly against a religious belief? Really?
Here’s the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I guess someone can interpret that to mean that a teacher speaking in a classroom is establishing a religion or prohibiting its exercise by disparaging one, (or maybe because that comes first in the clause such an interpretation supercedes the very clear provision against abridging the freedom of speech) but it sure looks like a stretch to me. In fact, it seems like a ruling that could only be made in bizarroworld.
If this holds up, it would mean that no science teacher of any public institution could challenge creationism. Indeed, virtually all teaching regarding religion that someone could perceive as “hostile” would be in violation of the First Amendment.
It’s one thing to say that it can be abridged in the “shouting fire in a crowded theatre” sense. That speaks to public safety in a very direct,obvious way. And you can certainly argue that the first amendment cannot be used as a protection for child pornography, where real children are exploited and damaged. But to say that a teacher cannot insult a religious teaching because it violates the establishment clause is truly nuts. It turns the First Amendment completely upside down.
So Joe the Plumber gave an interview to Christianity Today (via the Colorado Independent), helpfully explaining politics and history to the folks. Here’s an excerpt:
You realize the things you’re saying, are going to be attacked by a lot of different people.
Bring on all the motherfuckers! Bring their college degrees in here! I got nuthin’ to hide. They can’t buy me. You can’t buy me. I don’t even need the parole. This is about the truth coming out…
It’s important to know why you’re telling us this.
You wanna know why? ‘Cause that mother fucker Kennedy stole that fuckin’ election, that’s why! Nixon was gonna be one of the great Presidents ’til Kennedy wrecked this fuckin’ country. Got ni**ers all over the fuckin’ place asking for their rights, where do you think we got all this fuckin’ crime now, ’cause Kennedy promised ’em too damned much. Revolution comin’. Fascism’s coming back. I tell ya this – the day that Communist sumbitch died was a great day for this country. I jes’ hate to think they’re blaming it on some silly fuckin’ Oswald who didn’t know shit anyway. People should know why that sumbitch was killed. ‘Cause he was a Communist. Put me on the stand, go ahead, I’ll tell the same goddamn story, I’m proud of it, don’t matter fuck all to me, things don’t change.
Oh sorry, that was Kevin Bacon in JFK. I got confused. They sound equally confused. Here’s Joe:
Why does conservatism appeal to you as a Christian?
Conservatism is about the basic rights of individuals. God created us. As far as the government goes, the Founding Fathers based the Constitution off of Christian values. It goes hand-in-hand. As far as the Republican Party? I felt connected to it because individual freedom should not be legislated by the federal government.
In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?
At a state level, it’s up to them. I don’t want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it’s wrong. People don’t understand the dictionary—it’s called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It’s not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we’re supposed to do—what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we’re supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I’ve had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they’re people, and they’re going to do their thing.
Does the Republican Party reach out to evangelicals enough?
No. None of them stand up for anything. They use God as a punch line. They use God to invoke sympathy or invoke righteousness, but they don’t stay the course. That’s why I think that all needs to be taken out of the federal level and give it back to the states. We’ve lost our American history. Every state has “In God we trust” or “With God’s help” in their constitution. God is recognized as, if you will, America’s religion.
Some people have criticized the Republican Party as being the party of the rich. How can they change their image?
I don’t know if they can change their image. I really don’t. But, you also have to take into consideration that the Democrats say they are for people in poverty. They’re not. They take advantage of all the tax breaks that the IRS has put in place for them. Tax lobbying is a billion-dollar industry up in Washington. Get rid of the tax code we have. Implement a fair tax—make it a level playing ground. People in poverty keep them in power—that’s what people have to understand.
Joe says he’s waiting to see if God tells him to run for office.
That’s a problem? Of course not! Gun owners are responsible, mature people. Especially those who are buying up every single round they can find because of totally unfounded fears that Obama will ban their guns.
