Helena Hill Weed, jailed for three days in 1917 in the District of Columbia for carrying banner supporting women's suffrage. The 19th Amendment passed 90 years ago this month. h/t JR
Open thread below...
This has always been on of my favorite REM songs. It is considered by Michael Stipe to be the 'big moment' on 1988's Green, and the lyrics were the first to be printed on a REM album sleeve. Stipe; "It's a tribute to Leonard Cohen, using military terms to describe a battle within. I was so proud of my lyrics and my vocal take that I refused to sing it a second time. I did it once. That was it."
These mama grizzlies are the real deal, and they don't appreciate Sarah Palin stealing their identity to push women back to the 18th century.
Evidently, Sarah failed to see the humor in their response.
(Picture the entire state of New York, homeless and in a shambles)
I'm offering two reports to give some idea of the severity of this worsening situation. One is from the BBC World Service, broadcast at 2100 hours GMT earlier today (the 19th) and the other is a live news report from Radio Pakistan from 8:00 pm this evening Los Angeles time (8:00 am tomorrow in Islamabad).
The Radio Pakistan clip (down here) starts off in Pashto with excerpts from the UN addresses and then the hourly news starts in English.
Politico's idea of news: John McCain, Twitter genius. Because it's pure genius to tweet stuff like this:
But they don't stop there.
But it’s not just McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, who’s the GOP standard-bearer for social media. In a social media game mastered by the campaign of Barack Obama, the study found Republicans have “struck back,” with GOP senators averaging more than 5.5 IQ points higher than their Democratic counterparts.
Of the seven senators who scored “genius” social media rankings, four were Republicans: McCain — the top tweeter, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Scott Brown of Massachusetts and John Cornyn of Texas.
DeMint is a tea party force, and Brown rode significant grass-roots tea party support to upset Martha Coakley for the late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s seat last winter. Cornyn is the head of the Senate GOP campaign organization.
Wow. A Tea Party force. And a Twitter genius. Evidently the authors of the official academic study of Senators' Twitter use didn't take the gaming aspect into account when they came up with this study. Nor did they particularly care what the content was.
But hey -- props to the staffer behind the McCain account, who at least knows enough about trolling to get Politico's attention, eh? They don't really think John McCain tweets from his iPhone do they? He barely understands his Blackberry.
Yes, who ever could have guessed that conditions in this firm could lead to salmonella poisoning? What does it take to get the federal government to drop the hammer on these dirty, unsafe food food processors? Daniel DeGroot from Open Left has the details on the egg recall:
What does it take to get shut down in America? 380 million eggs have been recalled due to salmonella contamination. The contamination has been traced to a factory farm in Galt, Iowa called "Wright County Egg." Poking around, it turns out the farm is owned by the DeCoster family, a father-son industrial farm duo with a lengthy track record of environmental, labour, cruelty, safety andimmigration violations with plenty of lawsuits from Maine to Iowa. No way I can quote it all, but some highlights:
In 1980, the DeCoster operation was charged with employing five 11-year-olds and a 9-year-old by the Labor department.
Prior to 1993: Even before he built his first large-scale Iowa pig farming operation, Austin J. "Jack" DeCoster had already drawn the serious attention of environmental and labor law enforcement authorities. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection had brought a 14-count action against him for activities that were polluting both air and water. The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) had investigated DeCoster in connection with farm workers' reports that they had been exposed to lethal asbestos in DeCoster chicken houses. There had also been a federal suit brought against DeCoster under the Migrant Agricultural Workers Protection Act, based on workers' reports of unfit housing, and of illegal threats and harassment ongoing at DeCoster plants.
E-Coli conservativism continues:
In 1996, then-Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich proposed more than $3.6 million in penalties against DeCoster for numerous alleged egregious and willful violations of health and safety and wage and hour laws. In May 1997, the company settled the case by paying $2 million, agreeing to pay full restitution of back wages owed to workers and agreeing to third-party monitoring.
[...] "The conditions at this migrant farm site are as dangerous and oppressive as any sweatshop we have seen," Reich said at the time. "Fear and intimidation kept these workers in this unsafe, unhealthy atmosphere and living in totally unsanitary conditions."
Officials had been tipped off by an undercover video shot by a humane investigator for Mercy For Animals depicting live hens suffocating in garbage cans, twirled by their necks in incomplete euthanasia, kicked into manure pits to drown and hanging by their feet over conveyer belts. Footage even shows the investigator, hired as an employee, pointing out the suffering animals to DeCoster's son Jay who says to disregard it.
In 1996, federal investigators found DeCoster workers living in rat and cockroach infested housing and OSHA found their drinking water contaminated with faeces. Yum.
No one could have predicted a quality business like this would suffer salmonella contamination. Maybe someone in HHS, FDA, Ag or the DoJ could do something. Maybe all of them. The FDA did institute recent new egg safety rules, which is good, but my issue relates more to how an operation like this can continue to be in business at all?
Because it's capitalism, son, and owners have a God-given right to shave as many edges as they can with food safety, figuring that the occasional fine or lawsuit is well worth the savings!
Ah, there's nothing like watching Bill O'Reilly bloviate on Fox News to get daily lessons in journalistic ethics -- lessons, that is, in how to rather nakedly discard ethics altogether.
On Wednesday, O'Reilly featured a segment on the Justice Department's threat to sue Sheriff Joe Arpaio over his refusal to cooperate with its investigation of his racial-profiling practices. (Naturally, the feds have so far punked out.)
To do this, he brought on a guest named Rachel Alexander, identified as a "former deputy attorney for Maricopa County, AZ" -- and that was it. Alexander then proceeded to assure O'Reilly that the DOJ's threats, as well as its investigation, were purely "political" -- though all she could point to was some coincidental timing around the SB1070 matter, which in fact only arose well after the DOJ began investigating Arpaio.
But what is unmentioned is that Alexander, when she worked for Maricopa County, was a well-known operative and shill for the DA, Andrew Thomas -- one of Arpaio's most prominent allies. (When Thomas stepped down to run for Arizona Attorney General, he left Arpaio exposed to potential investigation, but Alexander departed with him shortly. Nowadays she identifies herself as the "Director of Social Media" for the J.D. Hayworth campaign.)1
What is also unmentioned is that Alexander is under investigation, along with Thomas, for ethical violations while working for Maricopa County:
In March, Berch ordered an inquiry into Thomas' behavior after a Superior Court judge ruled that Thomas acted unethically in his prosecution of Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox. The inquiry was prompted in part by the State Bar of Arizona, the semi-governmental agency that licenses and polices lawyers in the state.
The Bar asked that an outside investigator be appointed, and the court appointed Colorado attorney John Gleason.
The Arizona Supreme Court also appointed former Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Jones as the "probable cause panelist," a judge of sorts.
Since then, several other complaints have been lodged against Thomas with the state Bar, including one by an association of defense attorneys.
Two of Thomas' former top prosecutors, Rachel Alexander and Lisa Aubuchon, also are under investigation. Alexander has since left the office, and Aubuchon is suspended with pay pending an internal investigation at the County Attorney's Office.
Thomas, Alexander and Aubuchon asked Jones to dismiss the complaints. Jones refused. On July 1, they filed their petitions for special action.
Some of this may have to do with Alexander's penchant for political cheerleading on the taxpayers' dime:
Rachel Alexander, the deputy county attorney now handling the Maricopa County Attorney's racketeering lawsuit against a host of county officials, was working out of Thomas' executive office as recently as mid-December, county records show.
Indeed, Alexander -- a conservative blogger and longtime Thomas supporter -- wasn't transferred to the MCAO's Major Crimes Unit until December 14. That's just one week before she became the attorney of record on the extremely complicated racketeering suit, in which Thomas accuses the county supervisors, some judges, and other elected officials, of being part of an elaborate criminal conspiracy.
The timing on that transfer is interesting because it confirms our theory -- posited on this blog yesterday -- that Alexander is an odd choice to be handling the RICO litigation. Thomas has basically staked his reputation on the idea that the county officials who oppose him are engaged in a massive (and bizarre) coverup so they can build their pet project. (According to the suit, the elected officials allegedly conspired to build a new county courthouse and thwart the county attorney from investigating it.)
But the lawsuit itself is a bizarre melange of unsubstantiated allegations and details that don't quite add up to anything. A veteran prosecutor would have a hell of a time advancing this case; a prosecutor with one week's experience in major crime is likely doomed.
American Crossroads has Harry Reid and Robin Carnahan in the crosshairs, and they're not afraid to shoot the big guns.
The announced goal of American Crossroads is to raise at least $52 million to help two to three dozen Senate and House candidates in key races in November. This afternoon, the group will begin airing two new television issue ads in Missouri and Nevada. Each ad is slated to run for three weeks and the combined buys total just over $2 million.
The ads, both focusing in part on this year’s big health care overhaul, are designed to defeat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada and Democratic Senate candidate Robin Carnahan in Missouri. American Crossroads has already spent some $600,000 on ads in Nevada attacking Reid on different issues, one of which was criticized by independent analysts for using information that was outdated and inaccurate.
Attack ads on "issues" always get traction with some voters, and they're aiming at the soft underbelly of health care reform and unemployment to soften support for Reid.
The more concerning aspect of their campaign is a concentrated "get out the vote" effort aimed at conservative independent voters in their state. They will spare no expense, and are able to do it, mostly because of this:
The new fundraising total for American Crossroads includes monies hauled in by two separate units: the group’s original “527” arm, and its more recently launched 501(c)(4) affiliate, known as Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies or Crossroads GPS, Law said. The new totals reflect a dramatic rise from late June, when those units reported having raised a combined total of $9.8 million. Each arm of the group can legally accept unlimited donations from individuals and companies, but a 527 has to file monthly reports on its contributions with the IRS. The 501 (c)(4) provides donors anonymity and does not have to file any federal reports until early 2011.
The 501(c)(4) entity is a non-profit "civic organization", and the delay in reporting contributions means they can disguise the underlying donors and remain anonymous through next year. Even then, if they follow the same route that the Adam Smith Foundation and others have taken, they won't disclose the names of donors anyway, but will only disclose donation amounts.
The July filing for the 527 organization reports two $1 million dollar donations. Harold Simmons, funder and architect of the Swiftboat scheme that undermined John Kerry's bid for President, and Jerry Perenchio, Gray Davis supporter until he spent millions for Arnold Schwarzenegger to unseat him in the notorious California coup.
There are some common threads running through all of the major funding by Republicans for these "attack issue" ads. The largest donors are on the "Forbes 400" list, they're tied heavily and directly into the US Chamber of Commerce, and they're not afraid to spend heavily and play dirty.
Whatever one may think about Harry Reid, Sharron Angle's election to the Senate would be an unmitigated disaster, and in Missouri, Roy Blunt's election would perpetuate Abramoff corruption schemes for at least six more years.
Fox News' Peter J. Johnson Jr. believes that Muslims in New York should "give up their rights" and move the Park51 Islamic center in order to please opponents.
When Johnson isn't guest hosting at Fox News, he regularly gets time to offer commentary on Fox & Friends. In his Friday segment, Johnson visited the site of the proposed Islamic center to give his opinion on the project.
The Fox News legal analyst explained that the First Amendment shouldn't really be a factor a factor in whether or not the proposed mosque gets moved.
"We are proud that we are one of the few countries in the world which allows the free exercise of religion, but when we resort to legalisms instead of common sense, or compassion, when we invoke our First Amendment as a sword, not a shield, it means we have lost sight of and broken faith with our national identity and strength," he said.
Johnson then seemed to compare the controversial Westboro Baptist Church to supporters of the Islamic center.
Pastor Fred Phelps' church is known for picketing soldiers' funerals with signs like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," and "AIDS Cures Fags." A federal judge recently upheld Phelps' First Amendment right to protest outside military funerals in Missouri.
Missouri's tight restrictions on protests and picketing outside military funerals were tossed out by a federal judge Monday, over free speech concerns.
A small Kansas church had brought suit over its claimed right to loudly march outside the burials and memorial services of those killed in overseas conflicts. The state legislature had passed a law to keep members of the Topeka-based Westboro Baptist Church from demonstrating within 300 feet of such private services.
"Do our courts encourage disrespect and instability among us when they allow a so-called religious sect to protest at servicemen's funerals and hold signs that say, 'Thank God for Dead Soldiers?' And then say the First Amendment makes it all okay. How have we fallen so far so quickly?" asked Johnson.
"I look for the day when this is no longer about politicians or pain or protest, but about neighbors becoming good neighbors," he said.
"Thank god and our founders for the First Amendment, but God help us if it all comes down to the need to rely upon it," he continued.
"Any American can assert a right. Great Americans give up their rights to help those they share nothing else with but a love of this country," he concluded.
But not every conservative even thinks the First Amendment protects supporters' rights to build the mosque in the current location.
Jason Sager is a strict constitutionalist and a candidate for the 5th Congressional District in Florida. Sager told The Saint Petersburg Times' Dan DeWitt that "there is nothing to preclude states and local authorities from determining what will or will not be built on their streets."
Yep, he said, which didn't sound right, so I called a well-known authority on the First Amendment, Florida State University law professor and former president Talbot "Sandy" D'Alemberte.
Federal authority is indeed severely limited in the original Constitution, D'Alemberte said. But this concept took a major hit in 1868, with the passage of the 14th Amendment, which says states can't deny U.S. citizens basic rights.
Then, in 1940, the U.S. Supreme Court (dooming many a relaxing Saturday morning) ruled that the door-to-door evangelizing of Jehovah's Witnesses was protected by the constitutional right of "free exercise" of religion — that this trumped state and local laws.
"To make the argument that the First Amendment doesn't apply to local governments," D'Alemberte said, "is quite beyond the bounds of all the scholarly thinking that I know of."
Sager says he just can't get past the wording of the First Amendment that says "Congress" shall make no law about the free exercise of religion. Regardless of the 14th Amendment, that shouldn't include state and local governments, according to Sager.
New York's governor weighed in on the Cordoba House yesterday, claiming his efforts at arranging an "alternate" site were close to fruition. Paterson might as well find an "alternate" bridge to cross the Alabama River -- why march through Selma when you can go miles out of your way and cross at Prattville? -- or an "alternate" lunch counter to Woolworth's, or an "alternate" drinking fountain, or even an "alternate" seat on the bus. As in the Civil Rights Era, there cannot be a neutral ground.
If I seem harsh, it's because I earned the right to be harsh about this. A few weeks ago I noticed a loss of feeling in three toes of my left foot; this is the latest sign of degeneration from the damage my lumbar spine sustained while serving my country. You'll excuse me if I take freedom very seriously, and not merely my own but that of others. To progressives, there is no difference; to regressives, the rights of one subtract from the rights of another. The relative distance of a mosque or community center or titty bar from 'ground zero' makes no difference to the zero-sum mindset, which is why regressives seem impervious to facts.
The president gets this. Last weekend he reframed the debate around Cordoba House by separating the question of whether Manhattan's Muslim community has the right to build Cordoba House from the question of whether it is right to build it at 51 Park Place. Polls show that most Americans get the first part, agreeing Muslims have a "right" to build at that location -- even though the same polls show a majority doesn't think it is the right thing to do. The difference is more than semantic.
