Video: Dachshund seriously wants attention

Read the rest of this post...

The Texas miracle... not so much (part II)

From Grey Matter:

This Boston Globe story speaks volumes. The average percentage of uninsured working adults in this country is 22%, the average for Massachusetts is 7% and the average for Texas is 32%. For children ages 18 and under, 10% on average are uninsured in the U.S., compared to 17% for Texas and just 3.5% for Massachusetts.

So Texas has 10% more uninsured adults and 7% more uninsured kids than the national average. Meanwhile, Massachusetts has 15% fewer uninsured adults and 6.5% fewer uninsured kids than the national average. Yet Perry pats himself on the back for the healthcare in Texas while Romney can't run fast enough away from the good he did in this regard as MA's governor -- huh?

Read the rest of this post...

Iran to execute Christian

At times this week it has seemed as if every tradition, however ancient, eventually fades away. Some, unfortunately, show no signs of doing so. This week a man faced a choice forced on countless others over many centuries. He was told to renounce his religious faith. If he failed to do so, he could expect "to be executed by being hung until his soul is taken from him".

The sentence, passed on him by an Iranian court, and confirmed by its Supreme Court, is for the offence of "Apostasy".

The man is Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani. He was born into a Muslim family but converted to Christianity. The Iranian Supreme Court gave a judgment in July of this year that left matters agonisingly uncertain. There was to be an investigation to establish whether he had practised as a Muslim before his conversion. The implication was that if he had, he would be killed. The question was remitted to the court in Rasht, Pastor Nadarkhani's home. The court concluded that he had not been a practising Muslim adult before his conversion. There was, however, a twist, the court decided that he was nevertheless guilty of apostasy on the basis of his "Muslim ancestry".

He was given four chances to recant. He refused to do so. His fate is now in the hands of the appeals court, his lawyer is optimistic of an acquittal and we can only hope he is right. Sometimes you need to check your watch to see what century it is.

(See David Allen Green's piece in the New Statesman for more. He has updated here.) Read the rest of this post...

Gallup: Dems more dispirited than in previous elections

A fascinating new poll from gallup, with two telling graphs. The graphs speak for themselves, then go read the results over at Gallup.

Click image for larger version

Click image for larger version

Read the rest of this post...

Obama nominates Republican recommendations for open U.S. attorney positions in Utah and Texas

In yet another bow to the party that didn't vote for him, President Obama has been nominating a number of U.S. attorneys recommended by Republican legislators and opposed by Democrats (h/t AMERICAblog commenter keysdan for this story).

Let's start with MainJustice.com (my emphasis everywhere; I also closed up several one-sentence paragraphs, cause you know, this isn't the sports pages):

The Barack Obama administration will consider another Republican nomination for a U.S. Attorney position – the latest case of the Democratic administration deferring to Republican-recommended appointees.

The Obama administration is vetting David Barlow, currently the legal counsel to Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), for potential appointment as U.S. Attorney for Utah, the Salt Lake Tribute reported.

On Friday, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) announced that he recommended Barlow to the White House. ... Todd Taylor, executive director of the Utah Democratic Party, told the Tribune that Barlow’s nomination ignored the state's many talented Democratic attorneys, some of whom he recommended to the White House himself.

And this isn't the first time the White House has ignored its party's suggestions for U.S. attorney nominees. President Barack Obama snubbed Texas Democrats last month by nominating Republican picks for all four U.S. Attorney's Offices in Texas. ... Home-state senators typically recommend candidates to the White House, unless both of the state's senators are of different parties than the president – as in the case of Utah and Texas. In those cases, the administration usually looks to its party's House members for recommendations, but Obama has bucked that trend with recent nominations.

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Hope & Change at work. We can only hope he changes. Don't you wish he were working for you?

One of those Texas appointments is "particularly disappointing" to Democrats. Here's Chron.com, writing from the Lone Star State:

U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert Lee Pitman of Austin is expected to be picked by the president to serve as U.S. attorney in the Western District, which includes San Antonio, Del Rio and El Paso, Texas lawmakers confirmed. ... All four nominees were recommended to Obama by Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, both Texas Republicans.

A rift between the senators and Democrats in the U.S. House emerged for judicial selection early in the president’s term. Democrats had sought other candidates for appointment in some of the state’s judicial districts.

Although the White House assured the state’s Democrats that they would be consulted on judicial selections, the executive branch also has worked with the GOP senators[.] ... “The administration has disregarded its previous agreement and our hope for more change in the Texas justice system after decades of total Republican domination,” said Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin. ... “It is particularly disappointing to see the unwarranted rejection of our recommendation of Houston attorney Larry Veselka,” Doggett said.

Both of the links above are thanks to dKos diarist ffour.

Hmm — "more change in the Texas justice system after decades of total Republican domination." Think there's a moral component to that? I do.

As ffour points out:

May be Orrin Hatch and John Cornyn will have some good recommendations for the SCOTUS in 2012-2016.

Why not? He's getting all the practice he needs.

GP Read the rest of this post...

New study: Politics makes people sad

Amen. From the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton:

Contact: Elisabeth Donahue, 609 258 5988
edonahue@princeton.edu

Thinking about politics and politicians makes people feel bad about themselves, even more so than losing their jobs, according to a new study by Wilson School professor Angus Deaton. Deaton set out to examine the effect of the financial crisis on Americans’ own reports of their well-being using daily data collected by the Gallup Organization (the Gallup Healthways Well-being Index). Many of his findings were expected—well-being took a big hit on the day that Lehman Brothers failed—but many others were very puzzling; there were days when nothing much happened but reported well-being changed dramatically.

He concluded that the way the survey question was asked had a lot to do with the answers. In a nutshell: when Americans are asked about politics at the start of the survey, they report much lower levels of well-being than when those questions are left off. Since January 2008, the Gallup Organization has been collecting data on 1,000 Americans each day with a range of self-reported well-being (SWB) questions. In the fall of 2008, around the time of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, and lasting into the spring of 2009, at the bottom of the stock market, Americans reported sharp declines in their life evaluation, sharp increases in worry and stress, and declines in positive affect – not surprising given the dire economic times. However, by the end of 2010, in spite of continuing high unemployment, these measures had largely recovered – although still lower than when the survey started in January 2008. That is, people reported feeling much happier even though the economy was still in a slump. This contradiction puzzled Deaton who predicted that the low levels of life evaluation would continue to mirror the state of the economy.

It turned out that two things were happening. First, from 2008 to 2009, political questions were asked before the life evaluation ones; during that time period, reports of life evaluation were quite low. When Gallup dropped the questions, reports of well-being increased even though there was no corresponding improvement in the economy. “People appear to dislike politics and politicians so much that prompting them to think about them has a very large downward effect on their assessment of their own lives,” Deaton notes. “The effect of asking the political questions on well-being is only a little less than the effect of someone becoming unemployed, so that to get the same effect on average well-being, three-quarters of the population would have to lose their jobs.”

Second, life evaluation tracked the stock market in an unusual way: while most Americans do not invest in the market, their happiness or unhappiness was tied to how the stock market behaved over the crisis. The most plausible explanation for this is that the media is almost compulsive in its coverage of the stock market, and Americans are quite sensitive to media reports. The result is that the stock market has become the most watched indicator of the present and future economy. So even though those surveyed may have not been directly influenced by nor had assets in the market, their sense of well-being was still tied to it. Unemployment, by contrast, hardly shows up, even though being unemployed is very bad for people’s well-being. This happens because unemployment rose by “only” five percentage points, so that the effect on the national average well-being is small. Even the effect of St Valentine’s Day on national well-being is larger!

Concludes Deaton, “Surveys about “happiness” and self-reported well-being certainly have their place and are very are useful in some arenas. However, in the area of assessing economic policy, we need to tread lightly when relying on these findings.”

Read the rest of this post...

Pelosi blasts GOP prez candidates for refusing to denounce booing of gay soldier serving in Iraq

Nancy Pelosi on Ellen, moments ago:

PELOSI: Here we had a service member speaking from Iraq to that audience, questioning those candidates, and when the jeers, jeering a person who's serving our country, it's unthinkable, but on top of that, that none of the people who would be president, would be commander in chief, would call a halt, make a statement right then and there that that was totally unacceptable in our country.

ELLEN: Like you said, you know, serving in Iraq, and they're booing this guy...

PELOSI: Risking his life to protection American people. We take pride in their service to our country, we take pride in their contributions to our society, we take pride in their families.

(H/t ThinkProgress)

You'll recall that President Obama and Vice President Biden (here and again here) have both denounced the audience and the candidates.

Be sure to sign our open letter to the GOP candidates demanding that they apologize to the uniformed members of our armed services, over 10,000 have signed so far. Read the rest of this post...

Dem members of Congress say Clarence Thomas violated ethics rules

September 29, 2011

James C. Duff
Secretary to the Judicial Conference of the United States
Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Suite 2-301
One Columbus Circle, N.E.
Washington, DC 20544

Dear Mr. Duff:

Widespread reporting, including a recent report in The New York Times titled “Friendship of Justice and Magnate Puts Focus on Ethics,” raise grave concerns about the failure of Justice Clarence Thomas to meet various disclosure requirements under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Based upon the multiple public reports, Justice Thomas’s actions may constitute a willful failure to disclose, which would warrant a referral by the Judicial Conference to the Department of Justice, so that appropriate civil or criminal actions can be taken.

Due to the simplicity of the disclosure requirements, along with Justice Thomas’s high level of legal training and experience, it is reasonable to infer that his failure to disclose his wife’s income for two decades was willful, and the Judicial Conference has a non-discretionary duty to refer this case to the Department of Justice.

Throughout his entire tenure on the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas checked a box titled "none” on his annual financial disclosure forms, indicating that his wife had received no income, despite the fact that his wife had in fact earned nearly $700,000 from the Heritage Foundation from 2003-2007 alone.

Furthermore, an investigation conducted by The New York Times has revealed that Justice Thomas may have, on several occasions, benefited from use of a private yacht and airplane owned by Harlan Crowe, and again failed to disclose this travel as a gift or travel reimbursement on his federal disclosure forms as required by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.

Justice Thomas's failure to disclose his wife's income for his entire tenure on the federal bench and indications that he may have failed to file additional disclosure regarding his travels require the Judicial Conference to refer this matter to the Department of Justice.

Section 104(b) of the Ethics Act requires the Judicial Conference to refer to the Attorney General of the United States any judge who the Conference "has reasonable cause to believe has willfully failed to file a report or has willfully falsified or willfully failed to file information required to be reported." If the Judicial Conference finds reasonable cause to believe that Justice Thomas has "willfully falsified or willfully failed to file information to be reported," it must, pursuant to §104, refer the case to the Attorney General for further determination of possible criminal or civil legal sanctions.

Particularly as questions surrounding the integrity and fairness of the Supreme Court continue to grow, it is vital that the Judicial Conference actively pursue any suspicious actions by Supreme Court Justices. While we continue to advocate for the creation of binding ethical standards for the Supreme Court, it is important the Judicial Conference exercise its current powers to ensure that Supreme Court Justices are held accountable to the current law.

As a result, we respectfully request that the Judicial Conference follow the law and refer the matter of Justice Thomas's non-compliance with the Ethics in Government Act to the Department of Justice. We eagerly await your reply.

Sincerely,

Rep. Louise Slaughter
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr
Rep. Gwen Moore
Rep. Mike Honda
Rep. Earl Blumenauer
Rep. Christopher Murphy
Rep. John Garamendi
Rep. Pete Stark
Rep. Raul Grijalva
Rep. John Olver
Rep. Jan Schakowsky
Rep. Donna Edwards
Rep. Jackie Speier
Rep. Paul Tonko
Rep. Bob Filner
Rep. Peter Welch
Rep. John Conyers
Rep. Keith Ellison
Rep. Anna Eshoo
Rep. Ed Perlmutter

Read the rest of this post...

Romney says "individual mandate" in Obama’s health care law is a conservative idea

What else could he say since he endorsed the same thing in Massachusetts.  But Romney has a point - as ThinkProgress points out, the lead conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation, agreed with him just a few years ago.  Which goes to show you that Republican opposition to Obama's health care law isn't substantive, it's just politics (he says it, so we oppose it).  We're never going to get anything fixed in this country with the Republican party in the hands of conservatives and Teabaggers, which are really the same thing. From ThinkProgress:

Mitt Romney described the individual health mandate as a “conservative idea” yesterday afternoon on Sean Hannity’s radio show, just as the federal government asked the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of the provision in President Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

“The idea for a health care plan [in Massachusetts] was not mine alone,” Romney explained. “The Heritage Foundation — a great conservative think tank — helped on that. I’m told Newt Gingrich, one of the very first people who came up with the idea of an individual mandate, did that years and years ago”:

ROMNEY: It was seen as a conservative idea to say, you know what? People have a responsibility for caring for themselves if they can. We’ll help people who can’t care for themselves, but if you can care for yourself, you gotta take care of yourself and pay your own bills.

Read the rest of this post...

Fox poll: Class warfare? Not so much.

When Fox News isn't able to game a poll, you know things must be bad for the GOP message machine. From Greg Sargent:

Fox News is out with a new poll that seems designed to gauge the public’s attitude towards Obama’s new posture. For those making the “class warfare” argument, these results won’t be encouraging:

Do you think Barack Obama’s political strategy for reelection is designed to bring people together with a hopeful message, or drive people apart with a partisan message?

Bring people together: 56
Drive people apart: 32

Even a majority of independents, 53 percent, and a big majority of moderates, 68 percent, say Obama is trying to “bring people together,” despite the question’s aggressive wording. Fifty eight percent of those over $50,000 say the same.

The only groups that say Obama is trying to “drive people apart” are Republicans (57 percent) conservatives (49 percent) and Tea Partyers (68 percent).

That’s not all. A new Washington Post poll also finds that a meager 29 percent say Obama is doing more to help the “have nots” than to help the “haves.” A plurality, 45 percent, say he’s treating both equally, and a plurality of independents, 46 percent, says the same. Meanwhile, a plurality of 47 percent overall also say Republicans are doing more to help the “haves.

Read the rest of this post...

"Two top Perry aides gave false testimony under oath in campaign case"

So it begins. Rick Perry may be a fundamentalist Christian (of the New Apostolic Reformation variety), and eager executioner, and possible ground-breaking Republican candidate — but by all accounts he also deeply corrupt, a crony of the first water.

So this one could have legs. As the article notes, the aides involved are Deidre Delisi and David Carney. The former is a former chief of staff and current senior policy advisor; the later is a long-time strategist. (That's Deidre Delisi pictured in the linked story.)

Murray Waas and Peter Henderson, writing in Reuters (my emphasis):

In a civil suit later filed by Chris Bell, Perry's Democratic challenger in that race, the testimony of aides David Carney and Deirdre Delisi was directly contradicted by a sworn statement from Perry's own gubernatorial campaign committee.

At issue were the circumstances surrounding a $1 million contribution to the campaign, and whether the Republican Governors' Association, which paid out the funds, was used as a conduit to camouflage their true origin. The lawsuit alleged that the actual donor was Texas multi-millionaire Bob Perry, a long-time supporter of Rick Perry (no relation) better known for bankrolling the Swift Boat campaign that torpedoed Senator John Kerry's presidential bid.

Carney has long been the Texas governor's closest political strategist. Delisi was formerly Governor Perry's chief of staff and now serves as a senior policy advisor to his presidential campaign.

The current Perry campaign won't comment, and for an interesting reason. That earlier case was settled out of court, note the authors, in "a 2010 settlement, which required Perry to pay $427,000 to Bell's campaign, [and] barred either side from saying anything further."

So the original case was possibly corrupt to begin with (unless Perry settled and was innocent), and now we find his top aides could well have lied in giving testimony. There's certainly enough prima facie evidence to warrant an investigation.

The story is beautifully researched, and has all the mustered details we associate with the excellent Murray Waas. Please do read.

This is one to watch, not just for campaign adventure (who's leading in the back stretch, "Mittens" or "Crotch") — but also for meta reasons:

■ Will the mainstream media give him a pass, or really cover this? If so, does it mean they are on board with sinking the Perry campaign, like they did the Gore campaign?

■ Will Karl Rove & Co weigh in (they hate Perry)? If so, will that get big or small coverage?

■ Finally, if Rove does weigh in, does that drive a larger MSM coverage (because, well "1 Live Crew" and all)?

Will John and Marsha (sorry, Rick and Karl) ever find true happiness? Stay tuned.

GP Read the rest of this post...

More shocking video of NYPD brutality against peaceful young women protesters

MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell talks about the police brutality in evidence during the NYC crackdown on peaceful protesters at Wall Street. I'd posted some of this video earlier, but hadn't seen the rest of it. It's awful. You see a senior officer slamming a guy's head into a car, seemingly because he was trying to videotape them.  O'Donnell rightfully calls the NYPD out for it. Watch this video. Please.  It's just awful.  And embarrassing as hell.  We look no better than China or Russia when we permit law enforcement to act like this, and we lose a large part of our moral authority in the eyes of world.

And yeah, some will say we don't know the entire story from watching these videos.  I got news for you, if the NYPD was seriously in fear for their lives from the young girls, just standing there peacefully, who got pepper sprayed, then we have bigger problems.

Read the rest of this post...

Lieberman pushing for big Medicare cuts

Here's a thought.

Losers like Lieberman were against the public option, which was our single best chance at bringing health care costs down in this country.  And now he's got the nerve to join a Republican, no less, in complaining that health care costs are too high?  Seriously, Joe?  And his solution isn't to actually fix the outrageously spiraling health care costs in this country, no, it's to cut Medicare spending.

Now, I'm not necessarily opposed to rich people paying their fair share for Medicare coverage.  But can we please stop beating around the bush and pretending that our problem is that we spend too much on health care.  We spend too much because we're being charged too much.  And we're charged too much for a lot of reasons, including our litigious nature, and the outright greed of pharmaceutical companies and the overall health care industry in this country.

I'm self-employed.  I pay 100% of my own health care premiums, and they're not cheap.  If ever move to another state, I lose my health care and have to start over again with a much pricier plan, (unless health care reform fixed that little glitch, and of course I have no idea if it has because God forbid anyone make an ongoing effort to educate the American people about what HCR really does).  I have no idea if I'm going to be able to afford my premiums up until the time Medicare kicks in, and if it takes a few more years to kick in, because they up the age of eligibility, things could be even worse.

So let's stop talking about how much we can cut from Medicare, and how high we should raise the age of eligibility.  Please move the focus back to our absurdly expensive system and how it can be fixed. Read the rest of this post...

A polite request to America from the rest of the world

I'm pleased to welcome Gilbert Moon to AMERICAblog.  Gilbert is an old friend.  He's a barrister in London (which is a type of lawyer, and might mean he gets to wear one of those funny 1776 wigs, which I've actually seen French lawyers or judges (not sure which) wear in Paris).  Which goes to the point that Gilbert is highly educated, but British - so expect a lot of misspellings in the post below, including a ton of extra "u"s and some peculiar punctuation.  Seriously, though, I'm really happy to welcome him to the blog, and think you'll enjoy his posts.  His first is below.  JOHN
_________________________

I hold something of a minority view in the world outside the borders of the United States: I am a huge fan of America.

I admire your country's project and its people. I believe that, with some lapses, it has striven to be a force for freedom in its dealings with the rest of the World, and incurred great sacrifices in doing so. That is something that very few nations can claim. Even those who reflexively condemn America and its dealings with the rest of the World share one perspective with me: What the US does, what the US believes, and more specifically, whom the US elects to the office of President, matters to everyone. We subjects and citizens of non-America do not, of course, get a say in the presidential election, and it is impertinent of us to offer advice, but could I ask for a moment of your attention to make one point for your consideration: We are counting on you to make sure that the next President is a grown up.

Back in the mid-eighties, I attended the World Debating Championships in Dublin. I watched a competitive debate between a team from Oxford University (one member of which is now a cabinet minister) and a team from West Point. The motion was “I would not die for my country.” and the mischievous organisers asked the West Point cadets to argue in favour. The proposer of the motion was horrified. He did his best, but ultimately simply could not formulate the arguments. The Oxford team had honed their skills in the debating chamber of the Oxford Union and had perfected a style that will be familiar to anyone who has watched Prime Minister’s Questions in Westminster: a subtly aggressive combination of barely-disguised condescension and withering personal attack. The cadets were transfixed in the driving rain of disrespect. I felt uncomfortable. There was no doubt who had “won”, but the Oxford team had said next to nothing about the merits of the issue being debated. It was politics as a bloodsport. It did not do my British compatriots much credit.

Shortly afterwards, I made my first visit to the US and quickly found that my impression that Americans had little stomach for political blood-letting was utterly misplaced. I watched television campaigns which appeared to accuse an electoral candidate of deliberately releasing violent criminals so that they could kill again. Other candidates were implicitly accused of a range of moral and legal failings so startling that to be accused merely of hypocrisy and general untrustworthiness began to sound like praise. Once I’d got over my shock, I confess, I really enjoyed it. I was impressed by how engaged so many ordinary Americans were in political debate. It all seemed lively, spirited and a million miles away from the weary cynicism of my own country’s approach.

On subsequent visits, it began to lose its shine. The political scene seemed to be characterised by two entirely contradictory features: Everyone was adamant that there was a need for bi-partisan co-operation whilst the parties were becoming daily more polarised.

I had heard of Rush Limbaugh before I heard him. When I did, he amazed me. Here was someone loudly plugging a political philosophy based on fear and hate. These two emotions are powerful because they simplify everything: all your woes are the other guy’s fault and if you don’t take action he has worse in store. This toxic philosophy of fear and hate seemed to be embraced as warmly by the Left as by the Right (albeit with different hate figures substituted).

There is a tipping point at which simple becomes simplistic. It arrives when every argument is advanced for the purpose of political gain. It is the point at which the intrinsic merit of the position is secondary to the damage that adopting it can inflict. From there it is a small step to ceasing to care about the merit of the argument so completely that anything, however ridiculous and ill-founded, will do. It is difficult to communicate the bewilderment and dismay felt by observers of the American political scene, for instance, watching participants in one of the World’s truly great democracies speculating paranoically over the President’s birth certificate. But that was as nothing compared to watching the naked partisan wrangling over the debt limits that threatened to tip World markets into the abyss.

Here’s the thing: the Real World is a big, difficult place. The mind-boggling complexity of the Global Economy is such that apparently common sense measures are capable of producing unintended consequences that devastate the lives of real people around the planet. You may also have noticed that this is a time of almost unprecedented international political instability. Simplistic world views and point-scoring games are a luxury no-one can afford.

Please, we beg you, elect a grown up.

Don’t listen to people who suggest that “being clever”, or worse, “Harvard-educated” makes you necessarily untrustworthy; that the fearsome churn of unpredicted global events is somehow better dealt with by folksy pseudo-wisdom than by actual mental acuity and expertise; that God is personally telling them what to do (he isn’t); that shouting loudly and surrendering to prejudice is a better idea than thinking hard about what needs to be done.

You are scaring us.

When, as I experienced recently, an apparently otherwise sane man takes days out of his life to try to convince me that publicly-funded healthcare involves reinstituting slavery and may be usefully compared to the Holocaust, I am no longer intrigued at the pathology – I am terrified. To be unable to look past the partisan in such dangerous days is shameful. Please do the right thing. Read the rest of this post...

Video: Jack the sheep thinks he’s a dog

Cute video, though it might have been nice had whoever filmed it actually caught the sheep acting like a dog. There's a lot of verbal description of what the sheep allegedly does, but not any actual video of it. But in the end, it's a cute sheep, so enjoy.

Read the rest of this post...