A firestorm erupted this week when Andrew Breitbart posted a highly-edited video portraying black USDA official Shirley Sherrod as a racist, resulting in her forced resignation.

As is often the case, however, the truth differed from Breitbart's portrayal.

After a full, unedited video of Sherrod's supposedly racist speech was released, it was immediately clear that she is not a racist.

In fact, quite the opposite, according to the supposed victims of her supposed racism.

But could they be lying?

Fuck no.

Tonight's Rescue is brought to you by HoosierDeb, watercarrier4diogenes, mem from somerville, rexymeteorite, jlms qkw, ybruti, and pico.

Diary Rescue is all about promoting good writers, so remember to subscribe to diarists whose work you enjoy reading.

• Steven D is dismayed that in spite of all the data there is traction for Most Successful Conspiracy Theory Evah. (mem from somerville)
• jamess tells us what we already suspected is true. Science Says: Those 3-D Underwater Oil Plumes Belong to BP. (watercarrier4diogenes)
• sheddhead illustrates training, and it might not be just for woozles, in Rally On. (jlms qkw)
• Marie crafts and stages a speech she'd like to hear Obama deliver in The Snowe/Collins/Brown Challenge. (mem from somerville)
• goffchris obtains an unexpected awareness on a day out with the kidlet in Airshow Musings. (mem from somerville)
• Christopher Bair, after graduating from college and enduring a long period of unemployment, happily narrates From Ohio to Texas, a Job Love Story. (ybruti)
• freelixir brings us a depressing glimpse into the real world of 'child protective' services in How Your Gov't Steals Kids and How You Suffer The Consequences - Part 1 (watercarrier4diogenes)

jotter has High Impact Diaries: July 23, 2010.

carolita has Top Comments 7-24-10 - Meet the Family Edition.

Please suggest your own, and use as an open thread.

Netroots Nation 2010 is just about in the rearview mirror as this Wrap hits your screen. I am not looking forward to the drive back home through the desert early tomorrow morning. I am, on the other hand, very much looking forward to doing it all again next year.

You should, too...and with that, it's time for the weekend edition of the Wrap...

THE U.S. SENATE

CT-Sen: Simmons says he's not campaigning...(honest!)
Somehow, it is a touch hard to believe him: former GOP congressman and one-time Senate candidate Rob Simmons is adamant that his campaign's return to the airwaves is not the re-launch of his campaign. He actually equated the ads paid for as "public service announcements." Except that the "public service" he is performing, of course, is reminding voters that he is still on the ballot. And that is different from campaigning...how, exactly?

FL-Sen: Jeff Greene denies the obvious, looks silly in the bargain
Move over Alvin Greene--we have a new leader in the clubhouse for Democratic Senate candidate most likely to provoke a face-palm moment, and you don't even need to change the last name. Greene's campaign is inexplicably denying reports that his 140-foot yacht Summerwind destroyed part of an ecologically sensitive reef off the coast of Belize in 2005 when it dropped anchor offshore. Greene, who was not on the yacht at the time, denies the incident ever occurred. Which would be swell, were it not for the fact that Greene's employees at the time confirmed the incident. When given that piece of information, Greene's spokesperson offered perhaps the weakest denial in the campaign cycle to date: "That's our position. That's our quote." Greene is competing against Democratic Rep. Kendrick Meek in the August Senate primary.

IN-Sen: Ellsworth unloading any and all Rangel cash
This is not unexpected, nor is it probably the last example of this symbolic gesture. Brad Ellsworth, the two-term Democratic congressman from Southern Indiana and current Senate nominee, announced that he will donate the total amount of contributions that he has received from embattled Rep. Charlie Rangel to a charity. The total amount in question is $12,000. This might have been in response to an NRSC blast at the end of the week devoted to any and all Senate candidates who received money from the scandal-laden New York congressman.

KY-Sen: Conway and Paul in a toss-up, according to new public poll
The first non-Rasmussen public poll in Kentucky in a few weeks confirms what other non-Ras polls have shown--the battle for the Bunning seat between Republican Rand Paul and Democrat Jack Conway is still a coin flip. The poll, which was conducted by Braun Research for cn|2, showed Rand Paul with a three-point edge (41-38) over Democrat Jack Conway. The poll also looked ahead to the 2011 gubernatorial election, and found incumbent Democrat Steve Beshear leading Republican David Williams by a 48-30 margin.

LA-Sen: GOP plays dueling internal polls, claims double-digit edge
Incumbent Republican Senator David Vitter clearly took notice when his leading Democratic rival, Rep. Charlie Melancon, released an internal poll showing the race to be a tossup. Vitter has returned serve with another internal poll, courtesy of the NRSC, showing him leading the Democratic challenger 48-31. Worth noting, of course, is the fact that even public polling a few months back had Vitter leading by a wider margin.

MO-Sen: Mason-Dixon poll gives Blunt modest lead over Carnahan
The first public poll out of Missouri in a good long while gives Republican contender Roy Blunt a six-point edge over Democrat Robin Carnahan (48-42). The poll, conducted by Mason Dixon for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, found that Blunt also holds a very wide primary lead over state senator Chuck Purgason. Carnahan does well in the two metro areas (Kansas City and St. Louis), but gets thumped everywhere else, according to M-D chief Brad Coker.

NV-Sen: Reid nabs huge endorsement, hours before NN appearance
Unbeknownst to most NN10 conventioneers, Senator Harry Reid's busy Saturday extended well beyond his well-received appearance at the convention. A few hours before he took the stage at the Rio, Reid accepted the endorsement of Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman. Goodman, a Democrat who actually flirted openly with an Independent bid for Governor, hailed Reid as the "man we go to to get things done in the city."

WV-Sen: NRSC staying out of special election primary
The ten Republicans that are fighting it out for the right to face Democratic Governor Joe Manchin will do so without the imprimatur of the GOP's Senate campaign wing. At least, that is what the NRSC is promising, in advance of the late August primary. The expectation is that self-funding businessman John Raese, who was thumped in 2006 by the late Senator Robert Byrd, will be the frontrunner for the GOP.

THE U.S. HOUSE

OH-13: Sutton becomes first to call for Rangel resignation
As news of the legal troubles for longtime Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel broke at the close of the week, second-term Ohio Congresswoman Betty Sutton became the first Democrat to call for the resignation of the New York Congressman. Part of Sutton's statement last night read as follows: "It is regrettable, but Charlie Rangel needs to resign from his seat in Congress. This isn’t about being a Democrat or Republican, this is about preserving the public trust."

PA-15: Dent tries to game debates--Callahan gets big visitor
Two separate news items emerging from the Lehigh Valley this weekend. First, we learn that Republican incumbent Charlie Dent is trying to game the candidate debates a little bit, fighting hard to exclude third-party candidate Jake Towne from the debates. Towne is further to the right than he is to the left, and Dent is clearly concerned about a conservative alternative gaining any press coverage or voter attention. Democrat John Callahan, meanwhile, is going to get a big assist from the man coming to town on August 10th to assist his campaign--former President Bill Clinton.

THE GUBERNATORIAL RACES

CO-Gov: Tancredo issues weekend ultimatum--get out, or I get in
Apparently, when Tom Tancredo made the public pronouncement that he was mulling a gubernatorial bid. Tancredo has taken it, indeed, a step further, demanding that both embattled GOP candidates (Scott McInnis and Dan Maes) step aside. Tancredo issued the threat late Thursday that if they did not do so, he would file as the candidate of the right-wing Constitution Party. In order to make it work legally, either Maes or McInnis would have to wait until the August 10th primary, resigning after the nomination has been claimed. That would allow the GOP to replace the nominee with a candidate of their choosing. Not surprisingly, the GOP is not thrilled with the Tancredo ultimatum. Several county chairs have asked Tancredo to reconsider his threat, while the state GOP has made it clear that they wouldn't even bother with trying to replace their nominee if they did step aside (something that both Maes and McInnis already made clear that they would not do).

MI-Gov: New primary poll contradicts other polling
Who is leading the two-man Democratic primary for Governor in the state of Michigan? In this case, it really does come down to which pollster you believe. Earlier in the week, a new poll for the Detroit News gave state House Speaker Andy Dillon a lead in the high single digits over Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero. But a new poll out Friday from Inside Michigan Politics gave Bernero an impressive lead over Dillon. The total margin was 14 points (36-22), and the number of undecided voters is still shockingly high for a primary that is now just ten days away.

SC-Gov: Haley quick to flip-flop in wake of primary win
Now that the Republican nominations is hers, state legislator Nikki Haley is busying herself by walking back some of the rhetoric that defined her insurgent campaign. The best example: after tapping anti-big business anger in her primary by flatly declaring that all bailout supporters should lose their jobs (including Republicans), she has embraced South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson, who was one of those supporters. She has also been working overtime to make nice with the state's business lobby, which she condemned during the primary as "a big fan of bailouts and corporate welfare."

THE RAS-A-POLL-OOZA

It's all repeats for the House of Rasmussen, and some of it is predictable (little-known John Raese posts similar numbers to Shelley Moore Capito) and some of it less so (the Ras-sies have Earl Pomeroy closer to Republican challenger Rick Berg than he has been in a while).

Oh, and let Rasmussen be only the latest pollster to declare Blanche Lincoln's political career over.

AZ-Gov: Gov. Jan Brewer (R) 56%, Terry Goddard (D) 37%
AR-Sen: John Boozman (R) 60%, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) 35%
ND-AL: Rick Berg (R) 49%, Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D) 46%
RI-Gov: Lincoln Chafee (I) 37%, Frank Caprio (D) 30%, John Robataille (R) 23%
RI-Gov: Lincoln Chafee (I) 36%, Frank Caprio (D) 33%, Victor Moffitt (R) 18%
WV-Sen: Joe Manchin (D) 51%, John Raese (R) 35%

Are you watching closely?

Did you ever see a play from before Shakespeare?  Anything from Sophocles through Marlow will do. No matter how you love Faustus, or what lessons we take from Oedipus Rex, there's something decidedly odd in the narrative structure of these works. In ways both subtle and obvious, they are alien to us.   

...

He wrote the note himself.

The hillside is covered in hats.

He pulls the top from his pocket and spins it.

...
 

In his book Everything Bad is Good for You, Stephen Johnson points up the moment when television changed. Take a look at any of the shows running on Nick at Night. Watch an episode of Mannix or Hawaii 5-0. You'll find there's just one plotline, a handful of characters, and very little that isn't wrapped up in the space of an hour. That's not to say these shows are not entertaining, but none of that entertainment comes in the form of any kind of challenge. Honestly, there's more mental exertion and hidden meaning in an hour of Spongebob. Then something happened...    

Hill Street Blues
A fire guts the house; Furillo conducts a separate investigation into Buntz's alleged cocaine theft; Henry works with an odd detective (Steven Keats) to nab a serial killer; LaRue knows a back way into a gangster's vault that a reporter (Charles Brill) hopes to open on TV. Daniel J. Travanti, Dennis Franz, Joe Spano. LaRue: Kiel Martin. (TV Guide, January 15, 1981)

In many of his novels, Phillip K. Dick flirted with the meaning of "reality." That theme pervades books like Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and A Scanner Darkly.  Nowhere is this idea more central than in the novel The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch. The novel features a drug that can be taken to escape into a dream world -- a more colorful alternative to a humdrum existence. Early in the book, the main character samples this drug, and discovers that the nature of the dream is not in his control. Both time and his own identity begin to slip away...

Eldritch seated himself nearby, rested his artificial arm on his bent knees, and idly swung his stick from side to side, scrutinizing the gluck, which had still not departed.  "When we get back to our former bodies... You'll find that no time has passed. We could stay here fifty years and it would be the same."

There are a thousand artists who can do great work within the confines of a medium. And then someone comes along to show that the boundaries are not where you thought they were.  They discover how to apply the mathematics of perspective within the flat space of the canvas, or a new twist to the narrative form that turns a series of scenes into a plot. And that changes things, not just for them but for other people working in their medium.

For the last decade, filmmaker Christopher Nolan has been creating visions that tamper with the notions of time and reality in film. In Memento, Nolan took the normal course of narrative, cut it into overlapping slices, and fed it back to the audience in reverse order. Keeping that structure cogent was a terrific accomplishment, but Nolan did more. He used the unique structure of the film to inform us about the characters and situations that would have not been possible had the film been presented in a more conventional way. His altered time stream wasn't a gimmick, it was leveraged to make a film that couldn't otherwise exist.

In The Prestige, Nolan did a variation on the same trick. The film opens near the end of the narrative, but the viewer then lacks the information to interpret what they are seeing. The story then backtracks along two main narratives, telling the story of competing magicians at the end of the 19th century. As the story begins to fill in the gaps, that initial glimpse of the ending becomes a noose tightening around the narrative. Both characters have flaws. Neither is completely the villain or the hero. And both are willing to make sacrifices the scope and nature of which are unclear almost until the closing frame.         

Reading this some are sure to say, "surely you're not going to compare Christopher Nolan to Shakespeare." To which I say, I think I already did that. Is Nolan's impact on film equal to that of the Bard? No, of course not. Is he even the first to juggle order and scale on screen? Nope. But he has does something very special: he's shown that those boundaries can be broken in a film that still appeals to a broad audience. He's walked into the middle of the summer blockbuster wasteland and demonstrated that box office dollars can be measured in the pleasure of wrestling with a narrative challenge, not just in the size of explosions (not that Nolan's own the Batman films are lacking for pyrotechnics).       

with Inception, Nolan has once again challenged summer moviegoers to do more than crunch popcorn. There's less twisting of narrative order in the latest film. Instead the film deals with the passage of time and the meaning of reality. In some ways, it's an experiment in relativity. At one point in the film, there are events happening in four different versions of "reality," all of them ticking along at different rates of time and all of them racing toward one critical moment. And just as critical, at several points in the film, it's unclear what "level" we are on. Clues are planted that may mean that we neither enter nor exit the film on the ground floor of reality. 

Personally, I don't think Inception is quite so rewarding of repeated viewing as some of Nolan's other films, but it is still refreshing to see that summer entertainment need not equal brainless entertainment. Christopher Nolan is changing the form of general entreatment in a way that is going to affect not just his films, but what people expect from films in general. And right now, you can see the boundaries being broken.

Are you watching closely?

Unless it is revived and passed, the astonishing collapse of energy and climate legislation in the Senate will be remembered as this era's signature political failure. At a time when Democrats control the White House and both Houses of Congress. Paradoxically, this should serve as an even stronger motivation to elect more Democrats to Congress. There still is a chance to get this right, and we can't afford not to.

The tired excuse that we need 60 votes doesn't fly given the success of so many previous administrations and majorities in passing controversial legislation despite their majorities being smaller than those now held by the Democrats. But even if one accepts that excuse, it only underscores the necessity of changing the rules. To do that, Democrats must retain their majorities, then do whatever it takes to pass the climate and energy bills that the science demands. This is not a time for political excuses. On this issue, we can't afford political excuses. On this issue, we can't afford to be patient or incremental.

The New York Times Friday placed responsibility at the very top, where the buck usually stops. And those who so laud the President for every good piece of legislation that hits his desk need to accept that he also bears the burden when bills don't reach his desk. As the Times puts it:

The Republicans obviously bear a good part of the responsibility for this failure. With a handful of exceptions, they have denied or played down the problem of global warming for years and did pretty much anything they could to protect industry from necessary regulation. There are, however, as many as a dozen Senate Democrats, mainly from the South, Appalachia and the Midwest, who share the blame.

But:

Mr. Obama never fully committed to the fight. He raised hopes here and around the world last year when he pledged in Copenhagen to reduce United States greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent. Until a couple of months ago, he talked a good game, praising the House bill that aimed at the 17 percent target and promising to make every effort to get the Senate to follow.

Then, despite the opportunity offered by the oil spill to press for a bold energy policy, the president essentially disappeared.

And even before he disappeared, his efforts were curiously tepid. His energy speech was a deeply disappointing missed opportunity. He didn't galvanize public opinion, and he didn't play hardball with Congress the way he did at the very end with the health insurance bill. And without his leadership, the Senate did what it usually does and what it undoubtedly will continue to do, without his leadership. As the Times concludes:

There is no chance unless Mr. Obama comes out fighting: calling out the Republicans, shaming and rallying Democratic laggards and explaining to the American people that global warming and oil dependency are clear and present threats to American security.

The science is overwhelming and terrifying as we endure the hottest year on record. This is a historic moment and we can't afford to fail. We need our leaders to lead. Otherwise, we have no chance.

The science is in:

Through a chemical fingerprinting process, University of South Florida researchers have definitively linked clouds of underwater oil in the northern Gulf of Mexico to BP's runaway Deepwater Horizon well — the first direct scientific link between the subsurface oil clouds commonly known as "plumes" and the BP oil spill, USF officials said Friday.

Most people had figured that out, but it's important to have the proof.

The announcement came on the same day that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced that its researchers have confirmed the existence of the subsea plumes at depths of 3,300 to 4,300 feet below the surface of the Gulf. NOAA said its detection equipment also implicated the BP well in the plumes' creation.

Now we have independent verification that what most people had figured out is true.

Together, the two studies confirm what in the early days of the spill was denied by BP and viewed skeptically by NOAA's chief — that much of the crude that gushed from the Deepwater Horizon well stayed beneath the surface of the water.

That's BP for you, denying even the most obvious. Proudly and consistently lowering the bar on honesty and integrity.

McClatchy's David Lightman has an interesting post about Netroots Nation and the current state of the liberal blogosphere. He begins by pointing to the contribution of the Netroots to the electoral success of 2008, but then turns to the frustration many are feeling, as the Democrats fail to enact a more liberal agenda. There is supposed to be a question as to the Netroots' approach going forward.

"We get better results when we advocate for what we believe in. I don't think everyone in Washington gets that," said Arshad Hasan, the executive director of Vermont-based Democracy for America, founded by former Gov. Howard Dean, the Democrat whose unsuccessful 2004 White House bid often is seen as the first major Internet-driven presidential campaign.

And then Lightman falls into the false framing that it's a question of idealism or pragmatism, that super-majorities are necessary, for enacting a party's agenda. This thinking always begs the question of how Bush and Reagan succeeded in enacting the bulk of their agendas with nothing close to super-majorities. It also glosses over the question of how a party sells its agenda to the public, and how an administration sells its agenda to Congress. Any student of history knows that some leaders have been more successful than others-- and not because they had more partisan or idealistic legislatures. Pragmatism is in the eye of the beholder.

Lightman finds the usual compromised quotes from supposed centrists, and DCCC chairman Chris Van Hollen rightfully pays homage to the party's diversity. But Darcy Burner gets more to the point, when she points to Democrats' excessive ties to corporate America at the expense of the public good. And Rep. Raul Grijalva accurately identifies the strategic mistake that was made in trying to woo supposed moderate Republicans, when it always was clear that Republicans only were interested in scuttling the Democrats' agendaand destroying the Obama presidency. He also pointedly criticizes those who worry about the deficit during an economic crisis that always demanded larger stimulus.

"That's fool's gold," said Grijalva, referring to money saved by not passing those bills. "By not investing in job creation and state support, the economy's going to get worse."

While the Democratic moderates and liberals clashed — and Republicans stood solid in opposition — some 2.5 million jobless workers have lost extended unemployment benefits.

Lightman closes by quoting Netroots Nation Executive Director Raven Brooks:

What people in the netroots want is bold action to solve the problems

The Netroots should be about pushing the Democratic Party to the left. It should be about agitating for real change. When incrementalism occasionally is necessary, there should be no backing off, as if an incremental step is acceptable. The next step is at least as important as the previous one. And we never should accept incrementalism when there is no time for it. But more than anything, it is the job of the Netroots to push for bold action. The internet provides us with an unprecedented opportunity to speak truth to power, to challenge both the traditional media and entrenched political and economic structures, and to make of the American experiment a truly democratic ideal. If we in the Netroots accept less than the ideal, there will be no one left on the left to define the ideal.

What’s coming up on Sunday Kos ....

• In an interesting release based on six months of tracking polls, Gallup has broken down the President’s approval rating in all 50 states. With less than four months until Election Day, Steve Singiser will look at where the President has held his ground, where his support has eroded the most, and what that could mean for November.
• Kaili Joy Gray aka Angry Mouse gets angry.
• Dante Atkins will ask the environmental movement to stop attacking BP--for its own good, of course.
• DemFromCT reviews vaccinations, pertussis in California and the recent pandemic, and the ongoing issue of anti-vaccination sentiment.
• Laurence Lewis will wonder what happens to the soul of a nation that allows torturers to get away with it.
• Recent surveys have shown that the public believes Barack Obama has an agenda that favors African-Americans over other groups. This comes as surprising news to brooklynbadboy who notes that the opposite is true.
• Exmearden will talk about "what healthy is".

Here in Las Vegas, attendees of the Netroots Nation conference are taking their seats for a question and answer session with Majority Leader Harry Reid. A live video feed is below, and I'll be blogging the session live.

Update 1: Things are about to get underway, but before they do, allow me to point out the latest Angle-ism, in which she claims that she already apologized for saying unemployment benefits coddle workers, but restating her opposition to them. She also says, and I quote:

"Creating jobs is never the job of government, and we've seen that through the stimulus."

I guess at least she's acknowledging the stimulus created jobs, even though she thinks that's a bad thing.

Update 2: Joan McCarter, the moderator of this afternoon's session, has just walked and stage and kicked off the program. Reid will be appearing shortly.

Update 3: A mostly standing ovation along with cheers and applause for Sen. Reid. Reid's first comment: asking the audience to recognize Lt. Dan Choi for his heroic leadership in the same week that he was "wrongfully" discharged from the military, in Reid's words. Reid said Choi illustrates the need to end DADT.

Update 4: Next, Reid compares the Netroots to the revolutionary pamphleteers who helped deliver independence to America, and casts it as an essential tool for democratizing the media, which he says has all to often become a tool of the "rich and the powerful" to expand their political influence and control. Now, he says, the Netroots gives citizens the power to "overpower the powerful." (Small update: the Netroots are a "megaphone for the masses."

Update 5: "I'm told, there are times I get on your nerves. (Laughter.) And there's also times when you get on my nerves. (More laughter.)"

Update 6: Reid says he's glad the blogosphere is expanding, noting that there are more than one-quarter million users registered at Daily Kos.

Update 7: Reid lists the accomplishments of this Congress, including health care reform, Wall Street reform, national service program, public land reforms, emergency unemployment benefits, and the Lily Ledbetter act. Reid thanks bloggers in general for helping to pass these laws, singling out Joan McCarter. Reid says he knows many progressives wanted more -- and he says he does too. Specifically, he says he wants a public option. And he says that we will eventually get one -- it's just a question of when.

Update 8: Reid blasts Republican obstruction, and says the biggest problem with the GOP is that there are only two moderate Republican Senators -- that every other Republican Senator is an extremist, far to the right a significant portion of the GOP base.

Update 9: Reid addresses the filibuster, saying that the GOP's abuse of the filibuster is novel in American history. He says we have no national energy policy because of the Republican filibuster. But, he says, "we're not going to do nothing because we don't have a partner on the other side." Reid says that the energy legislation he'll introduce on Monday is not the comprehensive reform we need, and that once it passes, the fight will continue. He calls it the first step and says it will focus on safety in the wake of the BP disaster and efficiency and job creation through the Home Start program.

Update 10: Reid ends his speech focusing on the importance of winning in November, underscoring that what's at stake in this election isn't just partisan control of Congress, but also the well-being of the American people and the strength of the economy. Next up: Q&A.

Update 11: At the start the Q&A period, Joan McCarter presents to Majority Leader Reid a token from Lt. Dan Choi: his ring from West Point, a reminder of the importance of ending DADT. Reid says when the bill repealing DADT is signed into law, he'll return the ring to Choi, because, he says, Choi is the one who earned the ring. Choi then walked on stage and thanked Reid for his pledge.

Update 12: On energy reform: Reid walks through the procedural road blocks that the GOP has put in place. He says that perhaps some work can be done in the lame duck session, and recognizes that comprehensive reform still must be passed.

Update 13: On immigration reform, Reid -- as with energy reform -- says that we need it, but expresses frustration that the very same Republicans who say it is a federal problem refuse to allow the Senate to move forward on reform, singling out Jon Kyl and John McCain in particular for criticism. Reid says immigration reform "is not amnesty, it's fairness." On the DREAM Act, Reid says passing it is of critical importance. He says that to bring it to floor, he wants 60 votes, because he doesn't want to bring it to a vote unless it can pass.

Update 14: On Social Security, Reid blast the GOP myth that Social Security is in peril of going broke. "Social Security is the most successful social program in the history of the world." He says that that to strengthen Social Security for the long-term, the trust fund needs to be repaid and fraud within the program needs to be reduced.

Update 15: On the filibuster: "We're going to change it." Reid says he is working with Charles Schumer to develop rule changes that would end the abuse by Republicans of the filibuster.

Update 16: The program concludes with Reid offering his thoughts on the career and passing of Senators Ted Kennedy and Robert C. Byrd, two of his great friends and heroes. At the conclusion of his remarks, Reid gets another round of applause from the attendees.

Apparently, the latest revelation (courtesy of the Chicago Tribune) that Mark Kirk prefers an embellished version of his personal and professional career to the actual version has made him more than a tad grumpy about it:

[Kirk] was quick Friday to blast the Tribune, which also questioned claims about his ability to swim in 42-degree water and whether his body temperature was gravely low when he was rescued.

"It's unfortunate that some reporters had a pre-conceived premise that led to a ridiculous story about an event that is indisputable. Voters will see this story for what it is and I will continue to focus on the issues that matter and how I will serve the people of Illinois," Kirk said in a statement posted on his campaign website.

It is beyond amusing that Kirk is place this whole episode at the feet of reporters. It might do Kirk well to be reminded eaxctly why reporters might have landed on such a "preconceived notion". He had a history of embellishing his military service that contained so many repeat offenses, and grew so vast, that it actually became the catalyst for the Tribune's story, which hit the news on Friday:

The Tribune examined the boating story in light of Kirk's acknowledgment that he overstated his military career.

The inconsistencies in the rescue story may not have the same galvanizing impact of inflating a military resume, but they raise a new set of questions about whether Kirk has added details to his true-life stories that make a better storyline.

So, if Mark Kirk wants to point a finger on the incessant fact-checking that accompanies his public utterances, he ought to point it right at his own mouth.

Furthermore, he better get used to it. Given how little of what he says winds up reconciling completely with reality, Kirk has pretty much ensured that the Chicago media (and, to some extent, the national press) will be his fact-checkers for the duration of the campaign.

Panic! Lose your minds! And above all .... Privatize! Privatize! Privatize! Because the entire Social Security system is about to crash and go belly up!

Except that it’s not.

Here’s our expert, Nancy Altman, in her sensational debunking book from 2005, The Battle for Social Security: From FDR's Vision To Bush's Gamble, discussing the 1980 panic over the future of the program and the use of the “bankruptcy” scare, the same zombie scare that's rearing its head again today:

Bankruptcy is a meaningless concept when applied to the federal government as a whole or any of its programs. As long as the federal government has, under the Constitution, “Power To Lay and collect Taxes” and the authority to issue and sell Treasury bonds, it and its programs will not go bankrupt. It is instructive to note that the reference to potential bankruptcy would be impossible to claim if Congress simply reinstated the authorization, present in the law from 1943 to 1950, to pay any shortfall in Social Security out of general revenue.

Out of all federal programs, Social Security was being singled out for alarmist claims about bankruptcy because it operated under the conservative principles of a balanced budget and long-range projections. No one ever pointed out that if deficit spending were the definition of bankruptcy in a federal program, then the entire federal government―other than Social Security―had been bankrupt for 20 years. During the prior two decades [to 1980], the government had run deficits every year with the exception of 1969.

Ask yourself this: Why this one program? Why, decade after decade, have conservatives fanned the flame of paranoia about this specific program when every other federal program, and the government itself, operates at a deficit? Why is the healthiest program on the privatization block? Who wins and who loses if wealth is transferred from this public insurance program into private hands?

It would be irresponsible not to speculate, wouldn’t it?

As you mull over that mutil-billion dollar question, just keep in mind the simple phrase: Social Security cannot go “bankrupt.”

This has been the third in a series of attempts to slay Zombie Social Security lies with the help of Altman’s book. Altman was Alan Greenspan’s assistant in 1983 when he chaired the panel on fine tuning the program, and her book has helped debunk two other zombie lies in the past couple of weeks: increased life span is dooming the program, and decreased worker-to-beneficiary ratio is killing the program.

Another great resource for any and all information about the health of Social Security can be found at Angry Bear, where Bruce Webb’s series has become a go-to resource on the attempts--and the zombie lies--to scare the bejesus out of Americans and get them to turn their wonderful safety net program over to private profiteers. (We’ve also been lucky enough to have Webb posting here and sharing his expertise.)

• Reminder: Daily Kos and Rock the Vote party is tonight from 9pm to midnight at the House of Blues Las Vegas at Mandalay Bay. Wrap up Netroots Nation with a bang - free drinks, hot music, and great friends! House of Blues will have a menu available for those looking to grab a bite before the bands begin. (Netroots Nation credential is required for entry)

• Charlie Rangel needs to put his district and his party before himself. He wont, and here's why:

  If Rangel wins reelection he can continue dialing for dollars to pay D.C.'s primo law firms.

  If he loses or resigns, the House probe would end but he might have to dig into his own pockets to pay his legal debts.

  ...

  Most of the money he has raised the past two years has gone to lawyers in the ethics scandal - which is not believed to have blown up into a criminal probe.

  Rangel should consider himself lucky he isn't facing a criminal indictment. Which is all the more reason he should resign and enjoy his sunset years on some island.
  

• The great New York sportswriter Vic Ziegel died yesterday. I've spent the last 20 years reading Vic every time he wrote. He will be dearly missed by me and many people who love and appreciate his take on the horses and baseball.
  

• It seems to me the Pentagon should probably be the last agency in the government that should have a problem with child porn at the intelligence services.

• I don't have a Facebook, but I learned that it just reached 500 million users. I am apparently one of the few persons left in Western civilization who still does not see its value.
  

• Pray for the actress Zsa Zsa Gabor. She is 93 and seriously ill.
  

• Some of you know I love beer. You may also know I love Germany and the German people. You may not know I also love watches. This fall, I'll be going to Germany for an extended vacation during the Oktoberfest. I've also been accepted to tour the esteemed facilities of A. Lange & Sohne in Saxony. Ausgezeichnet! Click to see some of the beautiful work of that storied house of horology.
  

• I hope this isn't proselytizing, but I am a follower of the yeoman's philosopher Alain de Botton and his School of Life. I really enjoyed this sermon by Barbara Ehrenreich on optimism and I hope you will too.

From Netroots Nation in Las Vegas, time to share some hate!

Via video, President Obama addressed the Netroots Nation conference this morning:

(Another in a series of posts from Netroots Nation, 2010, in Las Vegas. Part 2 of 2)

We are gathered here in Las Vegas today to discuss the one place in America where prostitution is 100% legal, unregulated, and can be broadcast on national television. I am of course speaking of the United States Senate, where every senator can act as his own pimp, can perform outrageous acts of gratification towards his patrons, and where the money flows freely.

We have only one senator "known" to frequent actual prostitutes. His name is David Vitter, and he benefits greatly from the bigotry of low expectations. The behavior of some of our senators is so bad that merely visiting with hookers hardly rates. After all, it's what Jesus would have done, except for the paying money for sex part, and Vitter feels comfortable enough in the role of martyr. Despite twenty years of preaching, and being horribly outraged, and asking what we were going to tell the children, and generally getting the vapors over all things sexual, the GOP decided that this particular outrage did not quite rise that historic level. I would make here a comment about how things might be different if a Democrat was caught frequenting prostitutes -- but now I have lost interest in this whole train of thought, because nobody wants to think about U.S. senators having sex.

The more usual form of gratification-for-cash goes in the other direction. A particular business interest will pay for a particular senator: the prices are remarkably cheap these days, no doubt because of the economy, but more perhaps because the Senate is always a buyer's market. In exchange, that senator will coincidentally, and I say coincidentally out of utmost respect for the fine, fine process the Senate has laid out, become a reliable and unwavering vote for that industry.

We call this process of prostitution conservativism. Don't believe me? Take a look at the charts. I have no idea what the GOP considers to be conservatism these days (if any of them can come up with a consistent definition that remains true from one day to the next, we should erect a monument in their honor), but among Democrats, conservative means a very big industry (insurance, banking, oil) has cut you a very big check. Conservative is what they call a senator who will reliably stay bought.

Personally, I would rather have every senator visiting actual prostitutes. No contest: if that's what it takes to keep them satisfied, we should simply put a high-class brothel somewhere within the bowels of Congress and be done with it. A man who pays cash for sex can still be an otherwise honest man; a man who is a prostitute, and wraps himself in the flag while giving every oil company or other corporate cash giant that come-hither look, and who does it all under the pretext of serving his country, is among the worst of scum America has to offer.

I have genuine sympathy and respect for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. No joke: he has the unenviable job of attempting to prod the Senate into functioning when half the Senate has absolutely no interest in functioning in any capacity, on any issue. The Republican Party has declared Sitting On Your Ass to be an act of actual political sainthood: those members of the GOP that do actually work to pass legislation, no matter how obviously it is needed or how much in exchange they can wrangle for their vote, are chastised, ostracized, and primaried. Couple that with the ample number of true whores holding office, in both parties, and you have a situation in which you are trying to squeeze sixty honest votes from a group that has not, at any point in the last half century, held sixty honest senators.

The end result is, currently, a dysfunctional government. That is a rather profound thought: here we are, still mired in war, in a time of social and class-based upheaval (caused largely by having the audacity to elect a black man as our leader, as well as general shock among the right that their policies, once implemented, turned out to be a bungle on top of a fiasco and wrapped within a boondoggle) and -- most critically to the Senate -- the worst economic conditions to hit the country since the Depression, that Depression, that big one that everyone always talks about as being the worst of all possible worsts -- and we have a Senate that is not capable of governing. Trying to claw our way out of the previous Great Depression involved acts of remarkable boldness: we have no such options. America at present simply has no such government capabilities. We will not have it at any point before the next elections; we will not get it afterwards.

No matter how long or how deep our economic disaster, there will be no jobs programs. There will be no push to invest in a new American future, whether it be new infrastructure, or new energy, or new manufacturing. There will be little or no help to state governments so strapped for cash that even some of the most basic services are being shuttered. We could have saved a literal fortune by crafting genuinely competent healthcare legislation: thanks to the most loyal set of whores an industry could possibly ask to hire, such an action was off the table from the very beginning. We still could institute a truly miniscule transaction tax in order to put the brakes on the worst of market-crashing speculation (and gain a few bucks back in return for saving the banker's hides at our nation's expense), but it seems you might as well propose putting a colony of talking dogs on the moon, for all the good it will do.

If our recession worsens, there is no recourse, for the Senate will not do it. For all the Americans who already cannot tell the difference between this "recession" and a "depression" -- losing your home and living in your car, or losing your car and living in a box, makes the subtleties of economic theory seem rather more pedantic than usual -- it has been known that the unemployment "extensions" finally squeezed out of the petulant Senate like blood from a stone, in a time of record numbers of jobless, is the last our government wants to hear of the matter, and future unemployed Americans can suck borrowed eggs.

Think of it: nearly half our Senate is dedicated to not governing. As an open policy. In a time of national crisis.

In comparison, that makes let them eat cake look like a case study in good government.

Bread and Circuses is a pertinent phrase here. It was coined two millennia ago, but it still serves as shorthand for the most crass and familiar form of cheap populism. Give the people of a country enough food to eat and enough ostentation and sport, and they will be satiated, and their other demands will be minimal, and their politicians will have an easy time of it. The other implication is that even the stupidest or most corrupt politician knows not to mess with the nation's daily bread, for that is the single best way to get an otherwise complacent population to rise up and hang your sorry ass.

Well, America is very good at circuses. Brilliant at them, in fact. Entertainment is our national core competence: we may no longer be a nation of manufacturing or of technological prowess, but circuses we can do. Now that our movies are in 3-D, every exploding robot counts for at least a dollar more than it once did. Now that HDTV has finally arrived in force we can finally see all the latest reality shows in their full, high-definition glory. Ironically, even our "reality" shows are faked, overproduced hokum. We can't even do reality. No, America, in "reality" people stranded on islands, or shuffled off to rented mansions, or marrying Olympians or ice skating with tigers or whatever the hell the latest variations are -- in "reality" people do not spend their days this way, much less while participating in game-show shenanigans designed to humiliate everyone involved in ever-more-inventive ways. That does not count as reality. That counts as circus.

But the kicker, of course, is that our politics is a perfect mirror of all of this. Even among the most serious of institutions, political coverage exists primarily under the reality, i.e. game show format. There are winners and losers, there are gaffes and blunders and insults and the like, but policy discussion is scattered at best. And hell, even the policy discussion is conducted as a circus unto itself. Why consult experts, when ideological bickering will do?

And the other kicker here, the real one, is that the political circuses within our government have become so ornate that there is little room left for providing the bread.

For a country that has already been dealt such a heavy blow from the greed of its most enfranchised, no good can come from that. It is a dangerous place to be.

If you didn't know I was the sort of person who likes to take every opportunity to talk about filibuster reform, you might think asking a question like the one posed in my title meant I was talking about immigration reform. Or same sex marriage rights. Or the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Or climate change legislation. Or any one of a dozen things that someone always thinks it's "just not the right time" for.

And if you did know what sort of person I was, you'd know that I don't think it's any accident that a discussion of filibuster reform would inevitably invoke the ongoing search for "the right time" for all of these issues.

But I have a much more specific reason for bringing that point up. Two, in fact. And they're the recent posts on the subject of filibuster reform by Matthew Yglesias (with whom I'll be appearing on a panel at Netroots Nation on this very subject, this Saturday at 4 Pacific) and Ezra Klein.

Here's Yglesias:

The concern I have is that the political timing is wrong. Back in late 2008, I wrote a piece for The Atlantic about the evils of the filibuster, and had more progressive institutions been on the bandwagon back then I think it’s quite easy to imagine the Senate exercising Udall’s “constitutional option” amidst the hope and enthusiasm associated with the beginning of the Obama administration. If that had happened, more progressive bills could have passed (liberals like it!), vulnerable members could have ducked more tough votes (moderates like it!), and the economy would be in better shape (incumbents like it!), but of course it didn’t happen. Now 18 months later, Washington is older and wiser on these matters. But will it really be politically feasible to adopt a more sensible ruleset with a less-popular President Obama and a diminished majority in the Senate?

Now Klein:

You can't return from an election in which the public decisively voted for the Republicans and then say that in the interests of democratic governance, you're taking away the tools Senate Republicans use to exert control over legislation. The difficulty with procedural reform is that it's both hard to do and it's never quite the right time. When you've got enough power to do it, you're probably trying to pass actual legislation that you can show to voters. When that power ebbs, procedural issues seem more urgent, but you don't have the power to pursue them.

Well, valid points. But political ones, rather than strictly practical ones. Ironic, since it's my recollection that in 2008, one of the practical arguments was that you couldn't do reform right away because it would have been too frightening or unsettling somehow, to come charging into power and then upset the apple cart of tradition. And besides, having elected a "post-partisan" President, it was now incumbent upon Democrats to make the case that they'd try to do things the old-fashioned way, and if Republicans abused the filibuster in the face of offers of bipartisanship, then the argument for reform would only become stronger.

In that sense, perhaps it's right to say it's "never quite the right time" for reform. Or at least that there will always be an argument for why it's not. Of course, that might just as well mean it's never quite the wrong time, either.

But if you're going to evaluate the propriety of filibuster reform in political terms, then there's little reason to exclude another political point. When will the next "opportunity" arise to change the rules under this calculation? Well, it would have to be at a point when the electorate had sent a clear signal about entrusting the stewardship of the Senate to some one party or another, I suppose. And if the retention of the majority by the Democrats isn't strong enough a signal for the time being right for reform, then it must either be when Democrats next put together a majority as large as the one they came in with in 2008 (and it's been decades since that's been the case), or when Republicans are able again to control the Senate (which was the case just a few short years ago). Only then, I suppose, will the "correct" signals have been sent by the electorate. Of course, my thinking is that the next most likely time for the filibuster rules to be reformed -- that is, Democrats don't do it next year -- is when the Republicans can get rid of it themselves, when they don't need or want them anymore.

If you're going to admit the argument that Democrats ought to take the political ramifications into account (and why shouldn't they?), then let's take them all into account. Perhaps Democrats ought to think about how they might be able to benefit from reform, by being able to passing stronger and more robust legislation which they can hold up as a record of accomplishment which differentiates them more clearly from Republicans. Because the alternative, I believe, is to wait to become the political victims of the change at the hands of Republicans, who are not likely to reward Dems for their "fairness" in agreeing to delay reform.

But there's more that puzzles me about the question of the political legitimacy of reform in 2010. What troubles, specifically, do we think Democrats might face if the rules changed when Dems had a smaller majority, but still a majority?

Would Democrats' political opponents claim their power was somehow illegitimate? That they ought to be thrown out of office on some imagined technicality? That they were conducting some sort of illegitimate power grab in order to force through a radical or even socialist agenda?

Oh no! I hope we never have that happen!

On a slightly more serious note, I have to ask whether it would be OK for Republicans to one day make this change based simply on retaking the majority, or whether they and Democrats both would have to wait until there was once again a majority of the size Democrats had in this Congress? How big must a majority be before it feels comfortable changing the rules?

I think you probably see where I'm going with this. We're headed toward imposing a supermajority requirement for getting rid of the supermajority requirement -- which is to say that reform would be impossible.

This is not to say that it's flatly invalid to raise concerns about the political optics of pursuing reform with a narrower majority. But I think it's fair to ask how big a majority should have to be, and whether the numbers would be the same for Republicans as it appears to be for Democrats. And if it's not strictly a numbers thing, then how should we judge whether the correct signals have been sent? And finally, if we're not all that confident that Republicans would pause to weigh the political optics of reform should they regain the majority, how much time should Democrats invest in worrying about it themselves?

Offhand, I'd say there's more to be confident about in the political optics of doing something than there is in hoping to be rewarded for your forbearance.

Anyway, you can watch me puzzle this out with Matt Yglesias in a Netroots Nation panel today at 4pm Pacific. We'll be in room Brasilia 6, which means you can watch the panel live via streaming video here.

Disclosure: I'm doing paid work as a Fellow for ProgressiveCongress.org in addressing the necessity of filibuster reform in the Senate. The Fellowship is being supported in part by CREDO Action and Blue America. You can help support this work by signing CREDO Action's petition and/or donating at Blue America's ActBlue page.

If you couldn't make it to Netroots Nation 2010, don't despair! Here's a guide to today's live broadcasts. (And if you're at the conference but want to see two panels at once time...don't forget to use headphones!)

All Times Pacific. Click on room name to view feed.

###########

Saturday, July 24, 2010

9:00AM-10:15AM
Pavilion: Speaker Nancy Pelosi keynote

10:15AM-11:30AM
Brasilia 6: Undoing Citizens United: A Comprehensive Plan to Prevent Corporations from Buying Elections
Brasilia 2: Common Values: Building Bridges with People of Faith to Win at the Ballot Box
Miranda 3-4: Crimmigration Under Obama: Pushing Back Against the "Enforcement-only" Immigration Regime
Miranda 1-2: It's Science: How to boost your 2010 impact with data-driven best practices
Brasilia 1: The Obama Doctrine: Successes, Challenges and the Future
Brasilia 4: Turning the Inside Out: The Polis-Pingree Letter and Other Effective Partnerships Between the Hill and the Netroots

11:45AM-1:30PM
Pavilion: Building a progressive economic vision

1:45PM-3:00PM
Brasilia 6: The Forgotten Foreclosure Crisis - Merkley/Sarah Perle
Brasilia 2: Pay More, Get Less: The Perils of Privatization
Miranda 3-4: Marijuana Policy and Politics - Jill Harris
Miranda 1-2: Close Gitmo and Use the Legal System
Brasilia 1: Air America - The Good, The Bad, The Ridiculous
Brasilia 4: The Tip of the Spear: Engaging with Progressives in Congress

3:15PM-3:50PM
Pavilion: Majority Leader Harry Reid keynote

4:00PM-5:15PM
Brasilia 6: The Filibuster and Senate Reform
Brasilia 2: Political Persuasion: Strategies and Tactics for Victory
Miranda 3-4: Leveling the Playing Field: Improving How We Communicate about Inequality
Miranda 1-2: Mobilizing the ‘Forgotten Half’: Outreach Strategies with Non-College Youth
Brasilia 1: From Online to Offline: How OFA Leverages the Web and Social Media for Real-World Organizing
Brasilia 4: How immigration reform sustains a progressive majority

5:15PM-8:00PM
Pavilion: Sen. Al Franken closing keynote