Photo essay of the First 100 Days

It's nice. Read the rest of this post...

The Official George W. Bush Presidential Librarium

Just check it out. Read the rest of this post...

CBS golf analyst David Feherty says US soldiers would assassinate Pelosi and Reid if given the chance

Anyone want to guess what twenty percentile political party he belongs to?

From my own experience visiting the troops in the Middle East, I can tell you this, though: despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death.

Say what you will about Jesse Jackson or Michael Moore or Al Sharpton or whatever liberal boogeyman the Republicans like to trot out, no one on the left says things like this. No one. We have no Limbaughs. We have no Glenn Becks. And we have no filth like this Feherty from CBS. The Republican party is infested with people like this. People who find it funny to talk about the death of our leaders. No one on the left talked about killing George Bush, as much as we loathed him.

The Republicans have a very serious problem. They've fed such hatred amongst their followers that now it's all they have left. Read the rest of this post...

Israel calls on Pope to condemn Holocaust deniers

And by condemn, they don't mean exonerate them and make them bishops in the Catholic church. How many months has it been now since the Hitler-youth pope has done nothing about the Holocaust denier in his midst? If you're not gay, or a Democrat, you can pretty much do anything in the Vatican, from pedophilia to Holocaust denial, with impunity. Read the rest of this post...

Jeff Sessions has already flip-flopped on a gay Supreme Court Justice

That didn't take long.

Earlier this week, the ranking Republican member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Jeff Sessions from Alabama, said having a Supreme Court Justice with "gay tendencies" might be okay.

Yesterday, Sessions walked that back, via Think Progress:

Yesterday on Fox News, Sessions initially sounded accepting of a gay nominee, saying, “Republicans do not believe in identity politics.” But he immediately qualified his statement, adding that a gay nominee would be a “big concern”:

Q: On the question of a gay nominee, one person is noted as saying that he believes it is a bridge too far to have a gay nominee.

SESSIONS: Well, I think that would be a big concern that the American people might feel — might feel uneasy about that. It is a matter for the president to decide.

Jeff Sessions and his fellow right-wingers spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about gay issues. They're very confused. Read the rest of this post...

Orrin Hatch: Two of Obama's potential picks for Supreme Court pose "real dilemma" for GOP

Orrin Hatch knows a thing or two about Supreme Court nominations. He's been through a lot of these battles from his perch on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He's a hard-core conservative, no doubt, but showed a hint of the political realities his party is facing as we learned via Sam Stein:

A top Republican Senator on the Judiciary committee suggested on Thursday that two of the people widely believed to be under consideration for a Supreme Court appointment would present "a real dilemma" for his party to oppose.

During an interview with Scott Hennen, a conservative North Dakota radio host, former Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Orrin Hatch praised Solicitor General Elena Kagan for having a "brilliant" legal mind, and called Sonia Sotomayor, a judge on the second circuit Court of Appeals, a liberal but "tough prospect."

"You have to admit Elena Kagan is a brilliant woman," said the Utah Republican. "She is a brilliant lawyer. If he picks her, it is a real dilemma for people. And she will undoubtedly say that she will abide by the rule of law. Sonia Sotomayor probably the same thing."

On Sotomayor, he added: "She is very liberal... she is a tough prospect. She is not only female but she is a Latino. She grew up in the housing projects. She understands human hardship but she is extremely liberal, no question about it."

[NOTE FROM JOHN: Why was it not okay for Democrats to vote against Alito and Roberts simply because they're "really conservative," but it's now okay for Republicans to oppose Democrats for simply being "really liberal"? I specifically remember that the fact that both of those men were conservative - very conservative - wasn't enough for Democrats to vote against them. Why the double standard? Are Republicans acknowledging that really conservative nominees will no longer be permissible for any job, regardless of how qualified?]

By the time the nomination comes to a vote, Al Franken should be seated. That means the Democrats will have a filibuster-proof majority ( that is, if we can ever count on Specter). Not that the GOP would ever filibuster a judicial nomination after all the squawking they did during the Bush years.

I did find the article in today's Washington Post, which described the GOP's Supreme Court operation under Bush, fascinating:

Stuart Roy, a public relations consultant who headed communications strategy at Progress for America, recalled how preparations began long before Roberts was nominated. The group placed organizers in 17 key states and lined up private planes so operatives could quickly gather biographical information once a candidate was announced.

The group spent about $15 million on the Roberts, Alito and Harriet E. Miers nominations, Roy estimates, though Miers's ended badly amid conservative opposition.

"We had the luxury of a lot of people and a well-funded effort," Roy said. "In those two battles, I think we definitely ran circles around the left. . . . I very much doubt that will be the case this time around."

Correct on two points: 1) Our side was woefully unprepared. Shockingly so. The groups who were supposed to be focused on Supreme Court nominations were just inadequate. Still not sure what the strategy for Roberts and Alito was; 2) The GOP side has no power this time. None. Read the rest of this post...

Now Playing: Goposauric Park -- "A misadventure 8 years in the making":

Jed ventured into the world of the Goposaurs in "Goposauric Park":



In the sequel, I hope we get to see the Goposaurs fight each other to extinction...because that's where they're heading.... Read the rest of this post...

Mormons say dead are free to reject baptism

How many dead people have you known to reject anything? What a crock. Here's how the Mormons explain away their practice of baptizing people like Barack Obama's mother without the consent of the immediate family:

The practice is rooted in the belief that certain sacred sacraments, such as baptism, are required to enter the kingdom of heaven and that a just God will give everyone who ever lived a fair opportunity to receive them, whether in this life or the next. Church members who perform temple baptisms for their deceased relatives are motivated by love and sincere concern for the welfare of all of God's children. According to Church doctrine, a departed soul in the afterlife is completely free to accept or reject such a baptism -- the offering is freely given and must be freely received. The Church has never claimed the power to force deceased persons to become Church members or Mormons, and it does not list them as such on its records. The notion of coerced conversion is utterly contrary to Church doctrine.

If the Mormons weren't trying to pull a fast one by baptizing the dead relatives of Christians and Jews without the consent of their immediate family members, the Mormons would simply ask the immediate family members for permission before doing the deed, or even better, ask the dead people while they're alive. No, instead they ask the dead people while they're dead. And if nobody objects?

Maybe it's time we started baptizing Mormons against their will. Or even better, let's hold a ceremony and convert them gay - we can start with Joseph Smith, send him a toaster and all. After all, he can always object from the dead if he doesn't want to be queer. Read the rest of this post...

Only one more bailout? Really?

Maybe, but this is not very convincing. To some degree it looks like more of a public kicking for Detroit as GMAC takes a public thrashing but the others are not being singled out. GMAC may deserve the criticism, but it escapes me how and why Bank of America, Citi or Wells Fargo avoid the same. Who are the mysterious investors out there who will pump billions more into those banks? Maybe private capital will emerge to rescue the big banks but they certainly are in deep hiding today. The more likely scenario is that most if not all of the banks who are required to raise capital will be coming back to the federal government as opposed to private investment.

All of this shows how far the auto industry has fallen in terms of wielding power in America. The money Detroit has received is nothing compared to the trillion and counting for Wall Street yet Wall Street gets little more than a light tap on the wrist. As much as Detroit may deserve criticism, this public kicking of all things Detroit is wearing thin. It's high time Wall Street is treated the same and Washington quits scapegoating Detroit. Obama's economic team is playing with fire the longer they avoid confronting Wall Street. Read the rest of this post...

NY Fed chair resigns after Goldman stock controversy

Ah ha. It's all starting to make sense now. Goldman Sachs gets an easy go of it courtesy of conflicts of interest such as this. While the former chair may have been *legally* in his rights, this purchase makes it easier for everyone else to see how rotten to the core this Federal Reserve system really is. It's a system of banking elite watching over themselves so of course they would allow such an obvious conflict.

If the livelihood and retirement of so many Americans wasn't impacted it would be easy to ignore this but that's not the case. The stock market of 2009 serves a much bigger purpose than it did a few decades ago so we all ought to have a say in how it operates. The system no longer works so it's time to take out the garbage and clean it up. That's what we voted for in 2008. Reuters:

Stephen Friedman, chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank's board of directors, resigned on Thursday amid questions about his purchases of stock in his former firm, Goldman Sachs.

Friedman, a retired chairman of Goldman Sachs who has led the New York Fed's board since January 2008, said he quit to prevent criticism about his stock buying from becoming a distraction as the Fed battles a severe U.S. recession.

"Although I have been in compliance with the rules, my public service motivated continuation on the Reserve Bank Board is being mischaracterized as improper," he said in a letter of resignation to New York Fed President William Dudley.

Friedman gained around $3 million in only a few months. Public service my arse. Read the rest of this post...

Obama about to fire gay Arabic-speaking DOD linguist

Absolutely shameful. Under George Bush and the Republicans this was expected behavior. After all, they routinely broke the law and undermined the Constitution, so bigotry and discrimination, and destroying the lives of countless patriotic American soldiers, was just another day's work for the Republicans. Under Barack Obama and the Democrats, this is disgraceful.

There is no excuse for one more gay soldier being discharged under this president. Barack Obama had the ability on day one to put a stop to the discharges. No, he does not have the power to single-handedly repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell - the policy is written in law, and Congress needs to repeal it. But President Obama had the power - and still has - to put a stop to the discharges, pending the upcoming review of the policy he has promised - the upcoming repeal of the policy which he has promised. Obama could have issued a stop-loss order, retaining all soldiers implicated under the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy until such time as the policy is revisited. Obama also has the ability to stop the witch hunts and the investigations, as Aaron Belkin argues in the piece I linked to above.

If President Obama permits even one gay soldier to be discharged under his watch he will become as dishonorable as the president who served before him. The president who tortured. The president who discriminated. If Barack Obama does nothing, he will be no better than the southern racists who only a generation ago would have scoffed at a black man in a swimming pool, let alone the Oval Office.

It is one thing to suggest that "now is not the right time," and that we should perhaps wait until, say, next year to lift the ban. It is quite another for our president to become an active participant in discriminating against gay soldiers. The former is debatable. The latter is immoral.

The first black president cannot in his first months in office be a party to bigotry. Enough is enough. It's time for this administration to stop being embarrassed that some of our citizens, many of their supporters, are gay. It's time for this administration to stop giving gays and lesbians second-hand appointments and thinking that they've done us a favor. It was painfully obvious that there was no consideration given whatsoever to an openly gay person serving in the President's cabinet. Every major minority got a seat - or three - but not the gays (and you'd better believe the diversity of the cabinet was well-orchestrated and intentional). Even the Republicans were more welcome in this cabinet than the gays. And the only gay agency head, who isn't even cabinet level, runs the personnel office - a job that in my work experience was far too often reserved for women and gay men.

Am I the only one who thinks it will be a cold day in hell when this administration appoints an openly gay person to the cabinet or the Supreme Court? (And appointing closet cases, whether under the previous administration or this one, does not count. A gay person ashamed of their sexual orientation is about as much of a role model, or a step forward, as a Latino ashamed of their ethnicity, or a black man ashamed of his race.)

I do not think that Barack Obama is homophobic. In fact, I suspect in his heart of hearts he supports all of our rights, including marriage. But we scare him. And our rights scare his advisors. I fear there will never be a "good time" to advance the cause of our freedom. And every day we wait, every soldier we fire, will only make it that much harder to one day do the right thing.

I respect this President, and I thank God that he, rather than McCain-Palin, is in office during these troubling times. But I take no solace in knowing that even with a black man in the White House, the torch of bigotry continues to burn bright. Read the rest of this post...

Unemployment hits 8.9% in April, but job losses less than expected

Following up Chris' post from earlier today about the drop in new unemployment claims, April's numbers on job losses are out. They're not as bad as expected, which provides another glimmer of economic recovery. So, there are signs of hope as the unemployment rate hit 8.9%. It's also a sign that the stimulus bill might have been a good idea after all:

The United States economy lost 539,000 jobs in April, the government reported on Friday, a sign that the relentless pace of job losses was starting to level off slightly. A year ago, the loss of more than half a million jobs in a single month would have seemed like a disaster for the economy. On Friday, experts were calling it an improvement. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the unemployment rate surged to 8.9 percent in April, its highest point in a generation. But some economists saw glimpses of a bottom in the latest grim accounting of job losses. The economy, while still bleeding hundreds of thousands of jobs, is starting to lose them at a slower pace, offering the latest hint that the recession is bottoming out.

The people who know these things expected higher job losses in April:

Economists were expecting job losses of 600,000 in April, and predicted the unemployment rate would rise to 8.9 percent from 8.5 percent in March.

Read the rest of this post...

Friday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

Glad to see that Dick Cheney is still vying to lead the GOP. Always happy to see him rear that ugly head. And, we already know Cheney's "commitment to the Constitution and constitutional principles." His commitment was to destroy the rights we have enshrined in the constitution.

It's Friday. It rained every day this week. But, the sun is finally, finally shining. Petey, the dog, doesn't like going out in the rain at all. This bodes well for the morning walk. So, we're heading out now... Read the rest of this post...

Bank stress test has a few holes in it

Eliot Spitzer is right about Goldman Sachs. How is it possible that Goldman Sachs checks out fine in the stress test? Now that Washington is tightening the loopholes for banks paying back both TARP money and FDIC backed loans, what about the Goldman Sachs money - $14 billion - that came via AIG with no strings attached? That's a pretty big number that somehow doesn't show on this report. In total, 10 of the 19 banks require additional capital for a total of $75 billion required to properly support the banks through the recession forecasts. (All of this assumes the forecasts are accurate.)

It's easy to dismiss Spitzer's criticisms due to his personal issues (and sure, here's CNBC leading the charge, again) but he is asking the right questions. After handing over a trillion dollars to the banks with tens of billions more coming soon, where's the accountability? The initial bank CEO departures were pretty doggone good and the kind of payouts that most people dream about. Strings attached? You must be kidding! The same old crowd is not only still running the banks from the inside, but they are all over the Obama economic team, guaranteeing minimal change. If ever there was one area where we desperately need change it's in the banking system. Where the hell is it? Read the rest of this post...

US jobless claims show some light

The government reported jobless numbers yesterday were a decent complement to the ADP report that is showing improvements in the market. Nobody is kidding themselves and thinking the raw numbers are great, but the fact that the jobless claims are shrinking is absolutely positive news. Beating forecasted numbers is always good news.

New applications for jobless benefits plunged to the lowest level in 14 weeks, a possible sign that the massive wave of layoffs has peaked. Still, the number of unemployed workers getting benefits climbed to a new record.

Retail results also improved as discounter Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and other stores reported April sales figures that beat expectations. Analysts acknowledged the positive economic signals but cautioned that any recovery will be subdued as long as unemployment stays high.

The Labor Department reported Thursday that the number newly laid off workers applying for benefits dropped to 601,000 last week. That was far better than the rise to 635,000 claims that economists expected.

Read the rest of this post...

Blairism is dead

Or at least it ought to be. The fascination with Thatcher-lite surely has to be over with yet another damning report. Blair may have left almost two years ago but the ever-muddling Gordon Brown has continued the same governing strategy, but with less spin. Those of us on the American left were given our own version of Thatcher-lite during the Clinton years. If only we cuddle up to business interests a bit more, everything will somehow work out. Let business be business and the money will trickle down to the rest, in Reaganite fashion.

We saw business take off and sure, unemployment dropped but those profits started to trickle down less and less. The extra money that many thought was there was only a mirage. It was cheap credit to feed top management's disinterest in letting money leave the boardroom. The poor became poorer both in the UK and the US. Especially children. But since when have political leaders really care about the poor? The Guardian:

Britain under Gordon Brown is a more unequal country than at any time since modern records began in the early 1960s, after the incomes of the poor fell and those of the rich rose in the three years after the 2005 general election.

Deprivation and inequality in the UK rose for a third successive year in 2007-08, according to data from the Department for Work and Pensions that prompted strong criticism from campaign groups for the government's backsliding on its anti-poverty goals.

In a further blow, the government failed to make a dent in the number of children or pensioners living in poverty after big increases the previous year. Almost 17,000 more children in England are on free school meals this year compared with last, according to government data also published yesterday.

Read the rest of this post...

Maine right-wingers plan effort to repeal marriage. Will the Mormons pay for their campaign, too?

The right-wingers are gearing up to try to repeal Maine's new same-sex marriage law:

Conservatives, led by the Maine Family Policy Council, have vowed to get the measure on the ballot. “Five citizens can take out a petition, and if they gather 60,000 signatures in 90 days, then there is automatically a statewide vote,” Michael Heath, the group’s director, told the conservative website OneNewsNow May 5. “And if the vote goes in favor of the veto, then the law is repealed."

And, as we learned yesterday, the Maine Family Policy Council is an off-shoot of the Family Research Council. Their allies in the anti-gay effort is Maine's Catholic Church:

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland will be among the groups lobbying Mr. Baldacci, a Catholic, to veto the bill, as will the Maine Family Policy Council, an affiliate of the Family Research Council in Washington. “We’re going to be on his case,” said Marc R. Mutty, director of public affairs for the diocese.

So who will pay for the signature gathering and the potential referendum, one might ask.

Will the Bishop of Maine, Joseph Malone, be calling Salt Lake City, like the Archbishop of San Francisco did last year?:

Months before the first ads would run on Proposition 8, San Francisco Catholic Archbishop George Niederauer reached out to a group he knew well, Mormons.

Niederauer had made critical inroads into improving Catholic-Mormon relations while he was Bishop of Salt Lake City for 11 years. And now he asked them for help on Prop. 8, the ballot measure that sought to ban same-sex marriages in California.

The June letter from Niederauer drew in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and proved to be a critical move in building a multi-religious coalition - the backbone of the fundraising, organizing and voting support for the successful ballot measure. By bringing together Mormons and Catholics, Niederauer would align the two most powerful religious institutions in the Prop. 8 battle.

If the Mormons pay for this campaign, we'll help make sure this campaign is be about the Mormons. All about the Mormons. And, there's plenty of material -- all of it true.

One last thing: If there is a campaign in Maine, we need to make sure the best political operatives run the operation. That's what happened back in 2005 when our side beat the right wing's efforts to repeal non-discrimination legislation. The "No on 1" campaign hired some of the most experienced political people (without regard to sexual orientation) in the state to run the operation. We don't need a repeat of California's Prop. 8 where the leaders of that state's gay organizations blew the campaign and showed they don't know how to run political campaigns. This time, we have to play to win. None of the usual gay drama, please. Read the rest of this post...