The octopus picked Spain over Germany

See, Germany never had a chance. The octopus had been 100% correct for the World Cup picks involving Germany. And, the record is intact. Read More......

Harry Reid's Republican opponent isn't in the business of creating jobs

It's not that she's new to politics. It's that she's apparently kind of dumb.

Read More......

UK Conservatives go back to self-regulation well

Because it's been working out so well, right boys? (And I do mean "boys" since the new government didn't think it was important to include women in the new team.) Not so surprisingly, the Tories missed the self-regulation failures related to Big Oil or Big Finance. It's amusing to listen to the right in the US or UK to go on about self-regulation and how government interference doesn't work, especially when faced with plenty of examples of how and why self-regulation does not work. The right can hope all they want that "business will do the right thing" but they won't.

In this case, how in the world does a government health minister think that potato chip manufacturers will curtail their sales efforts in the best interest of consumers? The UK is not far behind the US in terms of overweight and obesity rates so the last thing they need is for senior government ministers to believe that businesses see "healthy" as part of their business plan. They don't and they won't. Junk food producers make and sell junk food. It's their core business so why would they want to deliver anything healthy that might not sell as well? Wishful thinking is not a plan. The old "free from the burden of regulation" is about the most naive comment anyone could make these days.

In a move condemned by campaigners as the government "rolling over on their backs in front of the food lobby", Lansley told a conference of public health experts that he wanted a new partnership with food and drink firms. In exchange for a "non-regulatory approach", the private sector would put up cash to fund the Change4Life campaign to improve diets and boost levels of physical activity among young people.

The time had come, said Lansley, to accept that "lecturing or nannying" people to change their behaviour did not work. He said business people "understand the social responsibility of people having a better lifestyle and they don't regard that as remotely inconsistent with their long-term commercial interest".

Lansley added: "No government campaign or programme can force people to make healthy choices. We want to free business from the burden of regulation, but we don't want, in doing that, to sacrifice public health outcomes."

Read More......

Majority of judges hearing drilling moratorium appeal attended oil-funded junkets

From ThinkProgress:

Last month, Judge Martin Feldman, a federal trial judge in Louisiana, handed down a poorly-reasoned opinion lifting the Obama Administration’s temportary moratorium on new oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Judge Feldman’s most recent financial disclosure form indicates that he is heavily invested in oil companies.

Today in New Orleans, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit will consider whether to stay Feldman’s decision. According to a new report by the Alliance for Justice, however, it is unlikely that these Fifth Circuit judges will approach the case without the perception of bias.

Judges Jerry Smith and Eugene Davis, both of whom are assigned to today’s panel, attended expense-paid “junkets for judges” sponsored by an oil-industry front group.

Read More......

The travel noose tightens around Kissinger

In his Harpers column, Scott Horton notes how the case against Henry Kissinger as complicit in a set of U.S.–ordered assassinations in Salvador Allende's Chile is moving relentlessly forward:

As I noted earlier, Christopher Hitchens’s two-part 2001 article, “The Case Against Kissinger,” built a strong though circumstantial case connecting Henry Kissinger to a series of assassinations in Chile around the time of the overthrow and killing of President Salvador Allende. The evidence has continued to grow since Hitchens’s arguments appeared. On Friday, the release of a taped conversation between Kissinger and President Richard M. Nixon added more.

He then quotes Jeff Stein's report in the Washington Post’s Spytalk blog:

[I]n 1971, Nixon and Kissinger were working to undermine the socialist administration of Chilean President Salvador Allende, who would die during a U.S.-backed military coup two years later. One of the key figures to stand in the way of Chilean generals plotting to overthrow Allende was the Chilean army commander-in-chief, Rene Schneider, who was killed during a botched kidnapping attempt by military right-wingers in 1970.

The new tapes won’t end the argument, but they add persuasive evidence that the CIA was at least trying to eliminate Schneider, and perhaps with the connivance of Nixon and Kissinger. The key exchange between the president and his national security adviser occurred on June 11, 1971.

Part of that exchange:

Kissinger: CIA’s too incompetent to do it. You remember—
Nixon: Sure, but that’s the best thing. [Unclear].
Kissinger: —when they did try to assassinate somebody, it took three attempts—
Nixon: Yeah.
Kissinger: —and he lived for three weeks afterwards.

It sounds like comic dialogue, until you realize they're discussing murder. Gen. Schneider, as Chilean commander in chief, was one of the real roadblocks to the CIA-Chilean military coup against President Allende — he insisted, quaintly, on respecting the democratic process. You had to go through Schneider to get to Allende. Apparently that was the route.

Horton concludes:

This tape adds to the evidence that the assassination of Chile’s senior military commander resulted from a decision involving Kissinger and Nixon. Kissinger is reported to continue to have great difficulties traveling because he faces arrest warrants issued abroad. This tape shows why those warrants are hardly frivolous.

Scott Horton is one of the leading go-to guys on terror and international prosecutions. He's been watching the cases of the Bush terror lawyers carefully as well. A good man to put on your radar if you care about international reaction to out-of-control torture and assassination.

For me though, this case is a reminder of something beyond the news:

1. These justice wheels may be slow, but they can also be relentless. George Bush, Dick Cheney, John Yoo and each of your very good friends — there are many around the world who wish you a very long life.

2. Kissinger and Nixon in the White House are alleged to have used what — in effect — is the president's personal army (the Praetorian Guard–like CIA) to murder foreign generals and presidents. This is how client states are treated by their owners.

Masters of the Universe, take note, as you sell off America's wealth, and wealth-making capability, for your personal aggrandizement. When that wealth is owned abroad, our own military may be as effective against Kissinger–Nixon-type threats as was General Schneider.

GP Read More......

BREAKING: Section 3 of DOMA found unconstitutional, violates equal protection

Historic day for LGBT equality. Finally. We needed a win for a change.

A Federal District Court Judge in Massachusetts ruled in two DOMA cases today. In Gill v. OPM, brought by GLAD, the judge ruled:

In the wake of DOMA, it is only sexual orientation that differentiates a married couple entitled to federal marriage-based benefits from one not so entitled. And this court can conceive of no way in which such a difference might be relevant to the provision of the benefits at issue. By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, “there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects” from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In a case brought by the Attorney General of Massachusetts, the Judge found that Section 3 of DOMA violated the Tenth Amendment.

I've posted the decisions at AMERICAblog Gay. In the Gill decision, the Judge concluded, "DOMA fails to pass constitutional muster even under the highly deferential rational basis test." That is a highly deferential test. So, there was no rational basis for the law.

The Judge included this explanation of Section 3 of DOMA:

At issue in this case is Section 3 of DOMA, which defines the terms “marriage” and “spouse,” for purposes of federal law, to include only the union of one man and one woman. In particular, it provides that:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife.

Today, we celebrate. But, this is only the beginning of the process. We'll have to find out if the Obama administration plans to appeal these rulings. (Note to Obama administration: Please don't.) Read More......

'Why not legalize marijuana and tax it, like liquor?'

A new Rand study, via Cynthia Tucker:

Researchers associated with the Rand Corp.’s Drug Policy Research Center said Wednesday that not much is certain about the potential impact of Proposition 19 except that the price of California’s choicest weed could plunge more than 80%, down from $300 to $450 per ounce to about $38.

“That’s a significant drop,” said Beau Kilmer, co-director of the center. “We’re very clear about the fact that the price will go down.”

The implications of such a drop would be profound. Kilmer and four other researchers who analyzed marijuana legalization said consumption would rise, but they could not determine with any certainty by how much. “We cannot rule out increases of 50% to 100% or perhaps higher, but we just don’t know,” he said.

Such a low price could also affect pot prices across the nation, encourage marijuana tourism in the state, increase the amount of pot shipped out of state, disrupt the smuggling of marijuana from Mexico and stimulate an underground market designed to avoid high taxes that might be imposed.

Read More......

iPhone4 vs HTC Evo

Read More......

Lakoff on how Democrats frame messages

Democratic messaging guru George Lakoff in Huff Post:

In the US, conservatives have set up an elaborate messaging system. It starts with an understanding of long-term framing and message experts who know how to use existing their long-term frame systems. Then there are think tanks, with experts who understand the high-level frame system and how it applies to the full range of issues. There are training institutes that teach tens of thousands of conservatives a year to think and talk using these framing systems and their language and argument forms. There are regular gatherings to consolidate messaging and policy around a contemporary issue that fits the conservative moral system. There are booking agencies that book conservative spokespeople on tv, talk radio, etc. There are lecture venues and booking agencies for conservative spokespeople. There are conservative media going on 24/7/365.

As a result, conservative language is heard constantly in many parts of the US. Conservative language automatically and unconsciously activates conservative frames and the high-level framing systems they are part of. As the language is heard over and over, the circuitry linking the language to conservative frames becomes stronger. Because the synapses in the neural circuits are stronger, they are easier to activate. As a result, conservative language tends to become the normal, preferred "mainstream" language for discussing current issues.

This messaging system has existed and has been extended and strengthened over many years. Democrats have a few of these elements, but they are relatively ineffective, since they tend to view messaging as short-term and issue-based, rather than long-term and morally based. Democrats tend not to understand how framing works, and often confuse framing (which is deep, long-term, systematic, morality-based, and conceptual) with messaging (which is shallow, short-term, ad hoc, policy-based, and linguistic).

This situation puts Democrats at a messaging disadvantage relative to conservatives, which leads to conservative victories. Hence the regular need for disaster messaging.

When the Democrats are out-messaged, they call upon polling and focus groups to given an "empirical, evidential" account of public opinion and which language is preferred by the public. The "evidence" comes from polls and focus groups that test the normal "mainstream" language and logic, versus language and logic that is not "mainstream." This is, naturally, conservative language and logic, because the conservative messaging system has systematically made it that way patiently over years. The pollsters therefore report that the "mainstream" of Americans prefer the conservative language and logic, and the policies that go with them. The pollsters then suggest moving to right to go to where the public is. They then construct and test messages that move enough to right to satisfy the "mainstream." They also construct "good arguments." If the "good arguments" activate the conservative worldview, the conservative position will just get stronger in the brains of the voters.

What's Wrong?

When the Democrats use conservative language, they activate more than the conservative framing on the given issue. They also activate and strengthen the high level, deep conservative moral frames. This tends to make voters more conservative overall -- and leads them to choose the real conservative position on the given issue, rather than the sort of conservative version provided by the democrats.

Disaster framing is a disaster.

Read More......

The Fed is looking at ways to stop a double-dip recession

The threat of a double-dip recession would be significantly less if the Obama administration had pushed for the full stimulus that was needed (it didn't), and then not given away 35% of the remaining stimulus to near-useless tax cuts (it did), and then not embraced defcit cutting fever (it did) instead of continuing to explain to the American people that continued deficit spending was crucial to recover (it didn't).

We've been quite critical of the President's handling of the stimulus from the beginning. Not because we like being mean to the man we supported in the primaries, and raised $43,000 for, but because we were concerned that his poor decision making would come back to haunt us. And it has.

Federal Reserve officials, increasingly concerned over signs the economic recovery is faltering, are considering new steps to bolster growth.

With Congress tied in political knots over whether to take further action to boost the economy, Fed leaders are weighing modest steps that could offer more support for economic activity at a time when their target for short-term interest rates is already near zero. They are still resistant to calls to pull out their big guns -- massive infusions of cash, such as those undertaken during the depths of the financial crisis -- but would reconsider if conditions worsen.

Read More......

Limbaugh thinks Obama created the recession as payback for racism

Yes, he's nuts. But he's also one of the most influential voices on the right. The fact that he's comfortable making these kind of racists remarks is troubling.

Read More......

DADT troop survey a mess; asks about sharing showers. Lead gay group warns gay troops about participating in survey at all.

The repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy was thrown into further doubt today when details of the Obama administration's survey of US service members was leaked to the media.

It's bad enough that the Commander in Chief is asking his subordinates what they think of his order to integrate the troops (imagine a Republican president asking the troops for permission to issue an order). But now we learn that the survey has been so botched by the Obama administration that the lead gay group on lifting the ban, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, is warning gay service members about taking the survey at all.

What's more, in contrast to repeated assurances from the White House, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the survey is not simply about "how" to implement the repeal of DADT, it is also about "whether" to repeal at all. A full one-third of the survey is devoted to the titillating, and irrelevant, issues of showers, bathrooms, sleeping arrangements, and whether repeal will hurt morale and cohesion.

And to top it off, the lead gay civil rights group working on the issue has been cut out of the process (again) by the Obama administration.

Late last week, SLDN asked the Department of Defense and the Pentagon Working Group for the text of the surveys, more information on possible certificates of confidentiality, and whether DOD or PWG could guarantee immunity from DADT and other armed services rules and regulations for service members who are inadvertently "outed" by the surveys. The Department of Defense was unable to satisfy our request.

One could understand why George Bush's Pentagon would want to cut a civil rights group out of the process, but Barack Obama's? A man who promised to be the gay community's fierce advocate, and a man who recently bragged at the G-20 summit about how he kept his promise to repeal DADT (when it hasn't been repealed, and the law currently being debated does not repeal it at all)? Why is President Obama cutting the lead gay civil rights group on this issue out of the process? And make no mistake, this is all about President Obama. He is after all the commander in chief of the US military. He issues the orders, the Pentagon works for him.

As a result of the Obama administration cutting SLDN out, the administration screwed up the survey. There is no guarantee for gay servicemembers taking the survey that the survey results won't be used to out them, thus destroying their careers. Kind of an obvious point.

While the surveys are apparently designed to protect the individual's privacy, there is no guarantee of privacy and DOD has not agreed to provide immunity to service members whose privacy may be inadvertently violated or who inadvertently outs himself or herself.

So if by taking the survey you out yourself, tough luck.

This is no small point. If the survey that is the entire basis of the decision how (and now apparently if) to repeal DADT is screwed up, then the entire implementation of the repeal (if it even ever happens) is going to be screwed up. The Obama administration has just put the entire repeal of DADT in jeopardy.

What genius came up with this screwed up process? White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina, or the self-appointed leader of the gay community, who has personally claimed credit for the entire DADT compromise, the Center for American Progress' Winnie Stachelberg? If this thing gets screwed up - and it already is - and we do not see a full 100% repeal of DADT next year, if we are still discussing separate-but-equal options about segregated showers and barracks in 2011 (while the Pentagon continues to discharge gay troops and the Dept of Justice continues to defend DADT in court), Messina and Stachelberg are going to have to explain to the President why his pissed off that he never seems to be able to keep his word.

We were promised a fierce advocate. This is bullshit. Read More......

Lotta white women coming together

Where are the black women in this new Sarah Palin ad?

Oh, and it's "annoy liberals," not "annoy liberal." Apparently they didn't teach that lesson the day Sarah Palin went to school.

And finally, "adverse"? What, did she learn a new word today?

Read More......

BP not responding to letter from US about change in investors

You didn't think BP was going to suddenly behave transparently, did you? At this point it seems highly likely that BP is going to take in outside funding to get through this patch regardless of what their PR team says. A significant change of investors could have an impact on how BP handles the clean up effort in the Gulf of Mexico which is why the US had asked to be notified of any changes. The US government is holding a pretty strong deck of cards in this game as they are the largest vendor supplying the DoD. Canceling government contracts would have a very severe impact on BPs business.

One would hope that the Obama administration is keeping close tabs on any new developments with BP and acts decisively to any changes that may potentially disrupt BP from fulfilling the mission that was promised in the Gulf. BBC:

The US government has asked BP to tell it of any major asset sales or merger deals in advance, as it continues to keep a close eye on the oil giant.

The highly unusual request came in a letter from the US Department of Justice dated 23 June.

BP told the BBC it had yet to respond to the letter.

Read More......

Thursday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

The President is on the road today. He's heading first to Kansas City, Missouri for an event at Smith Electric Vehicles. According to the Daily Guidance, the company "is an all-electric, zero emissions commercial truck manufacturer that received a $32 million Recovery Act grant to build all-electric trucks." Obama is also doing a couple of events with Robin Carnahan, the Democratic candidate for Senator in Missouri. Then, Obama is heading to Las Vegas where he's attending a fundraiser for Harry Reid.

The Pentagon has begun surveying military personnel about the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It's a study with rather bizarre questions about showers and bathrooms. Not kidding. This morning, SLDN issued a warning to gay, lesbian or bisexual servicemembers:

At this time SLDN cannot recommend that lesbian, gay, or bisexual service members participate in any survey being administered by the Department of Defense, the Pentagon Working Group, or any third-party contractors.

DADT is still the law of the land. And, it's being enforced. The process for ending DADT is complicated and still has a long way to go.

It's not going to hit 100 in DC today, but, somehow, the humidity has increased.

What's going on? Read More......

Survey: corruption has doubled in Afghanistan since 2007

It's well past time to throw this stinking mess overboard and move on. It's not going to get better no matter how much money the US throws at it. If anything, the US billions going there only make the problems worse because it feeds the problem. BBC:

Corruption in Afghanistan has doubled in the two years since 2007, according to a survey by anti-corruption charity Integrity Watch.

Afghans paid nearly $1bn (£658m) in bribes in 2009, with almost a third of those surveyed saying they had had to pay a bribe to obtain a public service.

More than half said state corruption was fuelling the Taliban's growth.

The average cost of a bribe was $180, which can be many months salary in one of the poorest countries in the world.

Read More......