Wash Post: Dems won't fight Roberts

So, looks like the Democrats are basically conceding that Roberts will be a Supreme Court Justice:

Democrats have decided that unless there is an unexpected development in the weeks ahead, they will not launch a major fight to block the Supreme Court nomination of John G. Roberts Jr., according to legislators, Senate aides and party strategists.

In a series of interviews in recent days, more than a dozen Democratic senators and aides who are intimately involved in deliberations about strategy said that they see no evidence that most Democratic senators are prepared to expend political capital in what is widely seen as a futile effort to derail the nomination.

The Post maintains that Roberts will still face tough questioning, but there is no real plan to block his nomination.

The Democrats have to really find out if Roberts opposes the right to privacy. But, absent some kind of major revelation, they are not going to expend political capital fighting Roberts.

This should remind everyone who cares about privacy rights, a woman's right to choose, gay rights and civil rights that elections matter. Once Bush was re-elected, it was pre-ordained we were going to get a conservative on the Court. Roberts isn't an obvious horror show (like so many of Bush's lower court appointments.) The next one will probably will be. Read the rest of this post...

The neighbors are getting cranky

George Bush's neighbors in Crawford are getting cranky. Yesterday, one of them fired a shotgun to get the attention of the protestors. Today, others are going to court:

Some residents of the corn and cattle town of Crawford, Texas, are expressing resentment as hundreds of anti-war protesters descend upon President George W. Bush's adopted hometown.

After nine days of watching as one woman's protest has grown into a national event, dozens of the farmers and ranchers neighboring Bush's 1,600-acre Prairie Chapel Ranch plan to petition a county court in nearby Waco, according to one, Pete Martinka. They want to prevent anyone from parking or stopping within two miles of the makeshift campsite erected by Cindy Sheehan, the Vacaville, Calif., woman whose son, Casey, was killed in the war in Iraq.

Now where did they come up with that idea?

They are throwing everything they can at Cindy Sheehan. Now, she's going to get a little Texas Justice. Yikes. Read the rest of this post...

Open Thread

Have it your way. Read the rest of this post...

More on Why the FBI didn't believe Rove from the start

Murray Waas has even more information on the Rove case on his blog, www.whateveralready.blogspot.com:

Some final thoughts, based on some information not published in the Voice piece or elsewhere: Why were investigators so skeptical of Rove's claims at even such an early stage of the investigation? As I have previously reported, and others such as the Los Angeles Times and Newsweek have since confirmed, Rove never told investigators of his conversations with Time's Matthew Cooper during his initial FBI interview.

But perhaps even more importantly, Rove also claimed that he first learned about Plame's employment with the CIA-- not from a classified source-- but rather from a journalist.

What has not been previously reported until now (a blog breaks news!?), is that not only could Rove not remember the name of the journalist who purportedly might have told him of Plame's CIA employment, but he also claimed to remember virtually nothing about the circumstances of the purported conversation. He could not even recall whether the conversation took place on the phone or in person.

Karl Rove, the political mastermind, the guy who would destroy anyone who interfered with the Bush campaign, that Karl Rove couldn't remember where he got this juicy piece of information about Joseph Wilson's wife. That's good. And, seems pretty clear the FBI thought it was a lie. Read the rest of this post...

What To Do With Europe's Muslims?

A NYT column in the magazine about Europe's growing and increasingly unhappy Muslim population. Hey, if you don't want to live in a free society that respects the rights of women and infidels and other religions, why did you move to the UK/France/Holland/etc in the first place?

But of course, the most restive members of these communities DIDN'T move there. They were born there. Hence my complaint about this sentence:

But Europeans can hardly accept an immigrant veto over their own mores, whether those mores involve women's rights or, for that matter, the right to blaspheme, which the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh so bravely asserted -- and died for.

What "immigrant veto?" That paints European Muslims as outsiders when, for better or worse, they're part of these communities -- if poorly assimilated. I was born in Bermuda of an American father and Canadian mother, raised in Florida and didn't get US citizenship till I was older and wanted to vote. That makes me more of an "immigrant" than the London bombers, most of whom were born and raised in the UK.

Still, what do you do if a people want to live in your society but don't embrace the values that society stands for? Read the rest of this post...

No Constitution in Iraq, for now anyway

They've postponed for a week:

Still deadlocked after days of negotiations, Iraq's leaders decided today to give themselves another week to agree on a new constitution and resolve a series of fundamental disagreements over the future and identity of this fractious land.

After meeting for several hours inside the protected Green Zone here, a group of senior Iraqi leaders told the National Assembly that they were unable to resolve a number of critical issues, including the role of Islam, the rights of women, the sharing of the country's vast oil wealth and whether to grant the majority Shiites their own semi-independent region in the south.

Now, I am no Iraqi expert, but the remaining issues seem to be more than a little complicated. The role of Islam? The rights of women? Oil? Are these the noble causes for which Bush sent our troops to die?

UPDATE: Atrios reports, via Juan Cole, that a delay like this is illegal under the Transitional Administrative Law -- they had to ask for the delay by August 1st. According to Cole:

Thus, according to the existing interim constitution, the plan of extending the deadline at this late date is clearly unconstitutional, and parliament should instead be dissolved and new elections held. (They have to be held no later than December, but could be held, e.g., in September or October in principle).

UPDATE: The delay is constitutional if 3/4 of the National Assembly approved it, which they did. Thanks to Atrios for the clarification. Read the rest of this post...

Washington Post's Guild Leaders: Say NO to the Pentagon's March

E&P; reports that the Post's eight newspaper guild leaders voted unaninomously to get out of sponsoring the Pentagon's march:

Newspaper Guild leaders at The Washington Post on Monday afternoon called on the newspaper to withdraw its sponsorship of a controversial Sept. 11 memorial walk organized by the Department of Defense, which has drawn opposition from several groups for its alleged pro-war tilt.

"Basically, the guild is calling for the Post to reconsider and drop sponsorship," said Rick Weiss, a Post reporter and co-chair of the Washington Post unit of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild Local 32035. "As a matter of maintaining its appearance of neutrality on polarizing issues of policy."

Weiss said eight members of the local's leadership committee met Monday and unanimously passed a resolution asking the paper to drop its support of the event. He said the resolution would be delivered to Post Publisher Bo Jones as soon as possible.

The unit represents more than 1,400 Post employees.

E&P; also reports that Howie Kurtz weighed in against supporting the march:

In a related move, Post media writer Howard Kurtz noted his opposition to the Post sponsorship in an online chat with readers today. "I wish The Washington Post were not co-sponsoring this event. It is an operation by the Pentagon -- a place that we devote substantial resources to covering -- and therefore subject to all kinds of interpretations," he said in response to a reader question.

That's so obvious, it's almost unbelievable he had to say it.

Pressure's building. One more time, here's John's message from yesterday:

Enough already. It's time for the Washington Post to start acting like a real newspaper again rather than the spokesman for the Bush administration and the Iraq war.

Mr. Bo Jones, Publisher
The Washington Post
1150 15th St NW
Washington DC 20071
jonesb@washpost.com Read the rest of this post...

Afternoon thread

Tea time! Read the rest of this post...

Global Warming: MSM Clouds Picture Again

Survey scientists and you'll discover that there is no debate about global warming or how humans are affecting this process -- the only questions are how quickly it's occurring, what the effects will be and the most effective ways to counteract it. On Friday, many media outlets ran a story about three new scientific papers that undercut one of the remaining Alamos for those who want to dispute the obvious -- that's the argument that the atmosphere had cooled in the tropics and not warmed in the troposphere. In short, the papers in the online journal of "Science" show that the scientists making this claim had made a simple mathematical error and that other measurements were faulty for various reasons. But what a difference a newspaper makes.

The New York Times presents the issue a tad confusingly on page 12. It also quotes the scientists who developed the original troposphere temperature records -- John R. Christy and Roy W. Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville -- who concede mistakes but insist even revised calculations produced a warming rate that was no big deal.

But read USA Today's story on page 3 and you get a much clearer description of the mistakes.

[Researchers] found that the satellites had drifted in orbit, throwing off the timing of temperature measures. Essentially, the satellites were increasingly reporting nighttime temperatures as daytime ones, leading to a false cooling trend. The team also found a math error in the calculations.

That's pretty darn clear. How did the NYT describe it? "The satellites' orbits shift and sink over time, their instruments are affected by sunlight and darkness, and data from a succession of satellites has to be calibrated to account for eccentricities of sensitive instruments."

Also, USA Today also went to the front group funded by the big oil companies for a quote:

Mark Herlong of the George C. Marshall Institute declined to comment. The group, financed by the petroleum industry, has used the data disparities to dispute the views of global-warming activists. In recent years, however, the institute has softened its public statements, acknowledging that the planet is indeed getting warmer but still maintaining that the change is happening so slowly that the impact is minimal.

But what neither story tells you is that the original authors of the study (quoted by the NYT as sticking to their guns) are apparently funded at least in part by that very same front group. The day before those stories ran, the George C. Marshall Institute posted a release pooh-poohing the new studies and referring to the work by the Alabama researchers as "our (University of Alabama in Huntsville "UAH") satellite estimate for global lower tropospheric ("LT") temperature trends since 1979."

In other words, one of the few minor islands of dissent is finally analyzed by others and found to have simple math errors, not to mention the rather obvious problem of taking temperatures at night rather than day and not acknowledging that disparity (gee, think you'd get lower temperatures at night?) and it's all apparently funded by the oil industry.

Why didn't the New York Times ask the researchers it quoted who funded their work? (Which, of course, I may be wrong about, though referring to it as "our" research seems a tad odd otherwise.) Why isn't that always question number one, especially when a study goes against the tide of what the vast majority of scientists are discovering? Read the rest of this post...

Bush Lies Again (This Time About Base-Closings)

Closing military bases in the US is always a difficult process fraught with political overtones (no Congressman or Senator wants a base closed in their state). But lying about it to the American people is unacceptable. Bush's administration is claiming we'll save $50 billion over the next 20 years if we close down the bases they want.

The only problem? They're lying.

The real figure is $25 billion if not less because most savings would come from eliminating jobs and most of the jobs done at these bases wouldn't disappear, they'd just move somewhere else. The New York Times reports that eight out of nine members of the panel studying this problem have serious disagreements with Bush's claim and have asked for an independent study to come up with a "realistic" figure. You know, one that isn't a lie. Read the rest of this post...

NY Times Editorial: Free Judy

The Times bemoans Judith Miller's 41 days in jail, today....but here's a better idea about which to editorialize. Miller could be sprung from the pokey immediately if her source gives her the okay to talk. Do an editorial demanding that Scooter Libby sign a waiver allowing her to talk. Do an editorial demanding that President Bush keep his commitment to fully cooperate with the investigation.

For all it's sanctimoniousness about Miller's noble purposes, The Times knows this isn't a case about a public servant whistleblowing to expose corruption in government. It's quite the opposite. This case involves officials at the very highest levels of power in the White House hiding behind reporters to smear a political opponent and undermine national security in a time of war. Read the rest of this post...

Open Thread

A breather after that lengthy post. Read the rest of this post...

What Makes People Gay?

A lengthy, interesting Boston Globe article about why people are gay. It looks at all the recent studies and concludes that people are "born" that way, though well-funded studies are needed and there's a lot more to learn. Basically a sympathetic, friendly article for gays. But, hey, this is a blog and blogs were born to nitpick, so here goes. (Thanks to threader Gypsy Queen for pointing us to this.)

What makes the case of Patrick and Thomas so fascinating is that it calls into question both of the dominant theories in the long-running debate over what makes people gay: nature or nurture, genes or learned behavior.

Actually, only the MSM would describe the debate that way. It's been pretty clear to researchers (and obvious to queers) that sexual orientation is typically due to some combination of genetics and "environment," with environment typically referring to in utero exposure to certain amounts of hormones, etc. People are genetically disposed to being gay and that orientation is "locked in" by the time we're three at most, and most of the factors that lead to it are in utero. (A gross generalization, of course.) But no one serious in the field has argued for many years that dad refusing to play catch with his eight year old son is a contributing factor. Of course, this doesn't account for rare and unusual cases where children are raised in extreme or oppressive environments that lead to sexual confusion or messed-up psychology, nor does it deal with frat boys who are really drunk and really horny.

Proving people are born gay would give them wider social acceptance and better protection against discrimination, many gay rights advocates argue. In the last decade, as this "biological" argument has gained momentum, polls find Americans - especially young adults - increasingly tolerant of gays and lesbians.

No, young people are "tolerant" -- a better word might be "indifferent" or even "gay positive" -- not because of any biological argument but because quite simply they've grown up with gay classmates who've come out at earlier and earlier ages, they've grown up with TV and movies and cable shows where gay characters are common and unnoteworthy (everything from "The Real World" to "Will & Grace" and "Survivor") and thanks to gay civil rights movements many have gay relatives out there in the world. That's why young people think being gay is normal and a part of life -- it is normal and it's always been a part of their life.

Most women, whether they identified as straight, lesbian, or bisexual, were significantly aroused by straight, gay, and lesbian sex. "I'm not suggesting that most women are bisexual," says Michael Bailey, the psychology professor whose lab conducted the studies. "I'm suggesting that whatever a woman's sexual arousal pattern is, it has little to do with her sexual orientation."

Yes, it's the return of J. Michael Bailey, a researcher who is quoted several times in this article, even though the simplest of Google searches would show Bailey is at the very least a controversial figure who shouldn't be quoted without some serious caveats. As Americablog readers know, Bailey lost his prominent post as head of department at Northwestern because of a lengthy year-long investigation that examined credible charges of unethical behavior including lying to subjects he used for studies, sleeping with subjects and more. Bailey has also been linked by the Southern Poverty Law Center to extremist fringe hate groups and pro-eugenics groups, with Bailey seeing no ethical dilemma if people want to abort babies they believe will be gay.

(In fairness, there aren't many leaders of groups representing social and religious conservatives who still argue that homosexual orientation - as opposed to behavior - is a matter of choice. Even as he insists that no one is born gay, Peter Sprigg, the point person on homosexuality for the Family Research Council, says, "I don't think that people choose their sexual attraction.")

Here's an example of bending over backwards to be "fair" when in fact you're misleading readers. Far right hate groups don't deserve any "credit" for avoiding flat-out statements that being gay is a choice -- they've been forced to retreat on this stance simply because society won't accept that lie any more, the same way that racists have to be more subtle about their hatred of blacks and other minorities (you can publish "The Bell Curve" but you can't just spew the hate that other races are inferior). The writer doesn't even mock the spokesperson for the hate group Family Research Council who makes the contradictory argument that he doesn't think people choose their sexual attraction but they aren't born gay, either. Well, which is it? Both can't be true. Besides, what's with teh caveat "as opposed to behavior?" I suppose straight people are born that way but "choose" to have sex with people of the opposite sex, but that's a meaningless distinction, isn't it?

Still, no matter how imperfect these studies are, when you put them all together and examine them closely, the message is clear: While post-birth development may well play a supporting role, the roots of homosexuality, at least in men, appear to be in place by the time a child is born. After spending years sifting through all the available data, British researchers Glenn Wilson and Qazi Rahman come to an even bolder conclusion in their forthcoming book Born Gay: The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation, in which they write: "Sexual orientation is something we are born with and not `acquired' from our social environment."

Fair enough. Do you agree? (And if you want to send an email, the address is letter@globe.com). Read the rest of this post...

2006 Races: Repub. Senators in Blue States

Associated Press covers two Senate races, today: Rhode Island and Pennsylvania. Both states have Republican Senators running for re-election. Both states voted for Gore and Kerry.

Rhode Island:

The 2006 Senate race in the nation's smallest state is on track to be the most expensive in Rhode Island history. Two Democrats with statewide profiles are lining up to run against Chafee and a Republican is mulling a primary challenge.

"He's popular, but he's a Republican representing a Blue State," said Brown University political scientist Darrell West. "People are going to have to decide if they want a Republican who often votes with the Democrats, or a real Democrat."

Chafee attracts a lot of support from progressive groups because of his positions on issues like choice and the environment. Bottom line is that his seat is one the Democrats should have. And, Chafee continues to cast votes for nominees like John Bolton and Janice Rogers Brown. That should be enough.

Pennsylvania:

"This is going to be a race that's going to be viewed as a national referendum. This is a nationalized Senate race," said David Thornburgh, executive director of the Pennsylvania Economy League, Southeastern Pennsylvania.

Rick Santorum has to lose. We could go on and on about how extreme -- and, amazingly obsessed with gay sex -- Santorum is.

This is going to be a battle:

Santorum has said he expects to raise $25 million for the campaign. Between April and June, he raised $3.6 million and reported $5.7 million cash on hand. Casey reported raising $1.9 million in the period, and had $1.6 million cash on hand.

People who have written Santorum off underestimate what a tough campaigner he is, said Robert Maranto, a political science professor at Villanova University

"It's funny how many people have told me the race is over. It's a year out. It's way out," Maranto said. "Santorum is one of those guys like Bill Clinton, like Richard Nixon, who will do anything to win."

Defeating Santorum has to be a top priority next year. Read the rest of this post...

Shotgun Hospitality for Camp Casey

Gotta love this. Bush's neighbor is getting cranky about the protestors....the protestors who have come to support a woman whose son was shot and killed in Iraq. So what does the cranky neighbor do?:

President Bush might have made his peace with the antiwar encampment outside his Texas ranch, but his next-door neighbor has taken up arms.

The incident occurred Sunday morning as activists gathered for a prayer service in the tent village set up by Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed in Iraq and who is demanding a meeting with Bush to discuss the war.

On the other side of Prairie Chapel Road, Larry Mattlage hopped into his pickup, barreled across his pasture and pulled up to a fence within a few hundred feet of the protesters. He climbed out of the cab, retrieved a shotgun from the back and fired at least one blast into the air.

Mattlage insisted he was shooting at birds. But he said the activists had worn out their welcome, and he wanted them to go away.

"I done made my case. It's over," he said as he shooed away a reporter from the gated entrance to his ranch.

Shooting during the prayer service. That's good, Larry. Read the rest of this post...

UN: Corruption Continues To Spread

The UN has great promise -- as Bush Sr. proved when he brought the world community together, and launched a legal war to keep Hussein from invading a sovereign country. The UN also does some very important humanitarian work and can keep the peace once the battles are over in war-torn regions.

But it sure is screwed up and Kofi Annan hasn't improved things any. Now it looks like that food-for-oil program was corrupt enough to make the dockyards and Fulton Fish Market -- legendary stomping grounds for organized crime -- look like Sunday picnics.

The current investigation of that scandal has reportedly unearthed information showing that half of the 4,500 companies involved paid kickbacks or gave illegal surcharges. HALF! Literally THOUSANDS of companies played dirty when dealing with scum like Hussein because they wanted a piece of the action. And never mind this meant less money for the people of Iraq who were hurting because their cruel dictator wanted to defy the world and watch his people starve rather than live up to the agreements he made.

That level of corruption is astounding. Now if only we had someone at the UN who believed in the potential greatness of that institution or at least understood the desirability of cooperation among nations whenever possible, someone who could lead us out of this morass into a brighter future. Sadly, all we have is loose cannon John Bolton. And how many of those companies involved in this shameful affair are American companies? How many are American companies that have donated to Bush? How earnestly will Bush work to see those companies fined or prosecuted to the fullest extent or at least publicly exposed? Don't hold your breath. Read the rest of this post...

Crack of dawn open thread

Gday Read the rest of this post...

Gas Prices Hit Record High!

Nationwide average of $2.53 per gallon! Thanks, President Bush! And thanks for that joke of an energy bill that gives gas companies fat with record profits even more TAX BREAKS but does nothing to end our dependence on foreign oil or -- God forbid -- do anything as simple as push car companies to increase gas mileage by even the smallest amount. Oh, and how's the vacation going? Read the rest of this post...