A true Open Thread

Enjoy Read More......

Scientists Cast Doubt on JFK Bullet Analysis

Let the fun begin. From the Washington Post:

In a collision of 21st-century science and decades-old conspiracy theories, a research team that includes a former top FBI scientist is challenging the bullet analysis used by the government to conclude that Lee Harvey Oswald alone shot the two bullets that struck and killed President John F. Kennedy in 1963.

The "evidence used to rule out a second assassin is fundamentally flawed," concludes a new article in the Annals of Applied Statistics written by former FBI lab metallurgist William A. Tobin and Texas A&M University researchers Cliff Spiegelman and William D. James.

Read More......

Wolfowitz Resigns

Buh bye. From ABC:

World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz has resigned his post, effective June 30.

An internal panel tasked with investigating the lucrative pay and promotion package Wolfowitz arranged in 2005 for girlfriend Shaha Riza found him guilty of breaking bank rules.

The committee also found that he tried to hide the salary and promotion package from top ethics and legal officials within the bank. The report added that there is a "crisis in the leadership" at the World Bank.

Wolfowitz is the first World Bank president to ever leave the bank under a cloud of scandal.

Read More......

Jerry Falwell had little to do with Reagan's victory

The media has done a pretty fair job presenting Jerry Falwell's life and legacy. CNN did a particularly good series of reports that didn't attempt to whitewash Falwell's extremism or bigotry. But one point many in the media keep repeating, and keep getting wrong, is this notion that Falwell was in any way responsible for Reagan's election win in 1980. According to one of Reagan's closest friends, it's simply not true.

A friend of mine happened to be with with one of Reagan's closest friends and strategists on the day Falwell died. Reagan's friend said that Falwell's impact was marginal at best. W.A. Criswell of the First Baptist Church in Dallas was far more instrumental in persuading evangelical Christians to vote for Ronald Reagan. And Reagan had been working that community for decades. His mother was a millenialist - devoutly religious and convinced she was living in the end times. Reagan was uniquely prepared to connect with evangelicals. Falwell was like the rooster who took credit for the dawn. Read More......

Gallup: Majority of public, including Republicans, Conservatives, and Christians, favor expansion of Hate Crime Law to include sexual orientation

It seems we're finding that the religious right doesn't speak for the majority of Americans, the majority of Republicans, the majority of conservatives, or even the majority of Christians. Every group in America, Democrats and Republicans, Christians and non-Christians, Protestants, Catholics, and even self-described conservatives all give their majority support for the adding sexual orientation to the already-existing federal hate crimes law.

That's rather amazing data, especially since George Bush's staff is threatening a possible veto. (Is it any coincidence that that Bush's approval rating is at 28% and the percentage of Americans who oppose the bill is 27%? Bush is governing for only 27% of the American people, for the fringe of his own party.)

These results may be news to a lot of the media, and especially politicians in Washington, who give the religious right far more credit than they deserve. They are fringe extremists who don't even represent most Christians, let alone most Americans.

More from Gallup:

PRINCETON, NJ -- A substantial majority of the American public favors the expansion of federal hate crime legislation to include crimes against people based on their gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity....

A May 10-13, 2007, national Gallup Poll included two questions about federal hate crime laws. The first asked about the current federal law that covers hate crimes committed on the basis of the victim's race, color, religion, or national origin. Almost 8 out of 10 Americans say they support the current legislation....

The second question asks about the expansion of the hate crime legislation to include the victim's gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Support for the expansion is somewhat lower [68%] than support for the existing law, but still very substantial....

Much of the organized opposition to the expansion of the hate crime law has come from conservative religious groups, while the nation's top Republican leader, President George W. Bush, has suggested he will veto the legislation if it reaches his desk. But there is little evidence from these data to suggest that a majority of Republicans, conservatives, or more religious Americans are opposed to the new law.

Read More......

Hitchens on Falwell

When Hitchens is good, he's really good. This is one of those times.

As an aside, the very fact that Falwell is being compared on some conservative blogs to Princess Diana, Mother Teresa, and JFK (I'm not kidding), is all the more reason the public should be made aware of just who this man was, just what he represented. If we fail to remember the lessons of history, we are doomed to repeat them. He was a bad man representing bad people. Not because he was a conservative, and not because his people were Christians. But because he was a hateful bigot representing a small but powerful extremist fringe of Christians who even after his death want to jam their own version of Christianity down the throats of the majority of Christians (and others) like me who don't agree with them, which is our right. They don't want freedom of religion, they want freedom for their religion, exclusively. While Falwell may be gone, his people and the dangers they pose to our democracy and our freedoms and our religions remain. It is our duty not to let Falwell's followers rewrite his legacy in an effort to propagate his damage after death.

Read More......

The Democrats' strategy on Iraq. What it is, and why it's working.

From the Las Vegas Sun:

Democrats on both sides of the Capitol are chipping away at Republican support for Bush's war strategy and solidifying their own. Last week nearly 40 percent of House members voted to get out of the war, surprising even their leadership. Public opinion is on Democrats' side as polls show most Americans want the war over.

Vote by vote, Democrats are forcing their fellow party members as well as Republicans to choose whether to stand by the Bush administration, and potentially face a voter backlash next year at the polls, or join them in beginning to draw down troops.

Republicans know that every vote their senators take on the war provides campaign fodder for the 2008 election, while drowning out action on other issues. "I would prefer not to talk about Iraq every day," one Republican leadership aide said.

I've never been a big fan of having votes in Congress just for the sake of having them (i.e., having a vote on an issue you know you're going to lose). Case in point: the Alito filibuster. Falling on your sword for principle is nice, and perhaps looks good in the history books (or on film), but if you're trying to truly accomplish something, guaranteed failure should be your last option, no matter how "just" it feels. But there's an exception to that rule, if by failing you start inching towards victory. That's been the Democratic strategy on Iraq since the election (and even before). Every Iraq vote, even though we keep losing, chips away at Republican congressional support for the war. And what's more, it also has been chipping away at Democratic support for the war. Every time we vote, the numbers for our side increase.

It's still a risky game. The public doesn't like gridlock, and that's what the Iraq war votes signify. But in this case, there's only one party in town that's talking about ending this war, and that's the Democrats. The public knows this. And after another year and a half of votes, their increasing frustration could boil over, again, at the ballot box. At least that's the plan, and I like it. Read More......

Giuliani says Democrats believe America deserved 9/11

Oh yes he did. Right after the debate, he said it on FOX News, talking about his angry response to Ron Paul blaming America for 9/11. From Hotline:

It reminded me of the Saudi prince that gave me the $10 million. He did the same thing: "This is America at fault, the way America has outreach to the world."... I usually hear this on the Democratic side. Don't usually hear it on the Republican side.

Really, Rudy? You usually hear Democrats saying 9/11 was our fault? Well, sure, I mean it was Bush's fault - you know, that old memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike In US" - but that's not what you meant. You meant on a more visceral basic level that Ron Paul was saying that America deserved what it got on September 11. And you think you "usually" hear this from Democrats. What Democrats have you heard saying that we deserved September 11? That we're to blame for September 11? The only person I know who said that is your Republican buddy Jerry Falwell, and oh yeah, religious right extremist Fred Phelps (the guy who pickets American soldiers' funerals).

So tell us, Rudy, which Democrats "usually" blame America for September 11? Or is this yet another lie that you'll flip-flop on by the next debate?

TPM Election Central has more. Read More......

FDA says melamine pigs OK to eat

Fine, serve them up at the FDA cafeteria or at the White House and get back to everyone else later. The FDA has almost no credibility left, possibly none at all.

Some activists complain that authorities are too quickly releasing farm animals that ate tainted food, given the early stage of the investigation. Millions of chickens that had eaten feed with small amounts of melamine-spiked pet food were released for marketing last week.

"They're still revising their estimates of risk, and yet they're releasing this food into the food supply," said Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives at Consumers Union in Yonkers, N.Y. "This is very disturbing."

Indeed, very disturbing. Read More......

More revelations that Gonzales lied about the U.S. Attorneys scandal

The Washington Post reports yet another blatant falsehood put forward by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales:

The Justice Department considered dismissing many more U.S. attorneys than officials have previously acknowledged, with at least 26 prosecutors suggested for termination between February 2005 and December 2006, according to sources familiar with documents withheld from the public.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales testified last week that the effort was limited to eight U.S. attorneys fired since last June, and other administration officials have said that only a few others were suggested for removal.

In fact, D. Kyle Sampson, then Gonzales's chief of staff, considered more than two dozen U.S. attorneys for termination, according to lists compiled by him and his colleagues, the sources said.

They amounted to more than a quarter of the nation's 93 U.S. attorneys. Thirteen of those known to have been targeted are still in their posts.

Okay, when someone says something that's not true, it's a lie. When someone says something that not true while under oath, that's a crime.

The media were buying the Bush administration spin that the U.S. Attorneys scandal was over. It's not. George Bush's Attorney General has been lying to Congress and to the American people. That's been standard operating procedure for years with the Bush crowd. But, now, there has to be accountability. Read More......

Thursday Morning Open Thread

So, the Washington punditry had declared Alberto Gonzales was safe....most of them never liked the U.S. Attorneys scandal anyway. But, Comey's testimony has forced them to re-think. Even the lapdogs are starting to grasp that we have an A.G. who has no respect for the rule of law.

Get it started... Read More......

Big Oil cost cutting tied to Alaska oil spill

You know it's bad when a Republican is even criticizing Big Oil. Even as consumers were being fleeced at the gas pump, it just wasn't enough profit for Big Oil who had to have even more. Remember the record profits quarter after quarter? Gordon Gecko lives.

BP's ceaseless efforts to promote itself as an environmentally responsible energy producer took a serious blow yesterday after a US congressional committee said "a mountain of evidence" showed the company's cost-cutting on maintenance had led to a large oil spill in Alaska. The US government said it was "highly likely" to fine BP over the leaks.

The committee was also told that the causes of the spillage - which happened at a time when BP was making huge profits - shared "striking similarities" with the problems that led to the 2005 explosion at a Houston refinery in which 15 people died.

"My review of the mountain of circumstantial evidence can only lead me to the conclusion that severe pressure for cost-cutting did have an impact on maintenance of pipelines," said the Republican Bart Stupak, chairman of the House Energy subcommittee on oversight and investigations.

And these guys want to drill in ANWR? In a wildlife refuge? And to think the GOP kept pushing to drill in ANWR, surely knowing about this. Read More......

Greenspan called out by Bank of England governor

Finally, someone tells Greenspan to shut his trap and let his replacement work without constant interruption. His behavior in public has been irresponsible, destructive and self-serving.

Mr King, asked about Mr Greenspan's habit of frequently offering his views in public, said he was relieved that his predecessor did not do the same.

"I'm very grateful to Eddie George that he hasn't been in the newspapers and on the radio all the time commenting on what the Monetary Policy Committee is doing," said Mr King at a press conference for the BoE's quarterly inflation report. "In due course I will do the same."

Mr Greenspan, who stood down as Fed Reserve chairman in 2006 after 18 years in charge, was renowned for avoiding forecasting recessions while in office.

Read More......