Bedtime open thread

And it's still only 76 out, woo woo Read the rest of this post...

CNN Covers Gay Conversion...Poorly

The CNN program "Paula Zahn Now" ran an unsatisfying segment tonight on the scam known as gay conversion therapy -- the lie that people can be "changed" from gay to straight. (It's rebroadcast at 2 a.m. if you're interested.) Of course, these scams have proven worthless. Virtually every "success story" trumpeted by the far right (and it's amounted to only a handful) has collapsed within a short time. Indeed, the entire dangerous and damaging idea of conversion therapy was created by two "success stories," two men who later admitted it was all a ridiculous farce, that they were gay and loved each other and have since worked to expose the movement's lies.

You found out virtually none of this in a segment that focused on a young man whose evangelical parents sent him to "straight camp," Love in Action. His story was counterbalanced by the story of another young deeply religious man who went to Love in Action but soon realized he could be faithful and not reject what God had created him as and is now in a happy relationship and worshipping weekly. (Presumably at UU or UCC or MCC or with Episcopalians or any one of the growing houses of worship who are welcoming to gays.)

The problem? Other than these two "paths," the only outside criticism of these radical fringe groups offering pseudo-science and self-loathing to young people came from a quick comment from a psychiatrist who has written a book about homosexuality.

Not a word from the mainstream organizations like the AMA or the APA or countless others that have not only condemned these practices as little more than witch doctoring but made clear they can be extremely damaging to the people involved. Barely a mention that this "camp" is staffed mostly by untrained quacks. Not a word about how anyone connected to them can be censured or kicked out of the APA, etc for potentially doing harm to patients. Not a word from respected medical and psychiatric leaders that there is nothing to "fix" or "cure." Not a word about the man in Florida just on trial for killing his three year old son because he was worried the little child was gay and wanted to beat it out of him.

Heck, the story didn't even seem to realize how pathetically lowered the goals of these groups are. In the past, they pretended people could be cured. Now they're careful not to make that claim -- for the simple fact that they could never produce anyone who had been "cured" that managed to stay "cured" after enjoying their 15 minutes of fame and hefty paychecks from the far right for speaking engagements. Now, all these wackos claim is that people can learn to live with their homosexuality -- that's a far cry from what they pretended was possible even ten years ago.

The nice, polite, well-spoken young man profiled said he thought maybe someday he could have a relationship with a woman, but if he had to be celibate, that was fine too. He even took issue with the question as to whether he was gay -- because he thought EVERYONE was a little queer and that no one was purely straight or gay. And he's mostly banished those temptations from his mind. Mostly. Talk about issues. If he's at peace with himself, good for him. But I'd bet dollars to donuts that in ten years he'll be out and proud or deeply, deeply unhappy. For his sake, I hope it's the former.

"Paula Zahn Now" should have created an accurate story depicting a discredited scam that can do serous harm to young people and which is strongly condemned by major medical and scientific organizations in the country. They should have done a story about a "snake oil cure" that can't even pretend to offer a cure anymore because it's pathetically obvious they've failed at their mission. Instead, they ran a story that -- with minimal editing -- could have appeared on Fox News or The 700 Club. And that isn't a compliment. "Evenhandedness" about a dangerous, discredited scam that can drive children into years of self-loathing and suicide is not good journalism.

ADD: Let me put this in more stark terms. CNN ran a story on a dangerous, abusive and misleading practice condemned strongly by every single reputable health and medical organization in this country. Instead of exposing that practice for the sham it is and the long-term mental health problems in can induce in vulnerable young children who are being told to hate themselves, CNN ran an entire feature that barely paid even lip service to overwhelming medical and scientific opinion towards this claptrap. Imagine running a feature on teens taking steroids and barely bothering to speak to anyone about the health consequences. Apparently, Good Morning America is doing a "conversion" story tomorrow. Let's see if they do any better. Read the rest of this post...

Why does Bill Frist hate the troops?

Putting aside their much needed money so we can, instead, pass legislation helping the gun lobby.

I guess the guns in the hands of big-money donors are more important to Bill Frist than the guns in the hands of our troops dying in Iraq. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

This open thread is devoted to Brian Vickers. I just watched the Daily Show segment from last night. Wow. Wanna go to Massachusetts, Brian? :-) Read the rest of this post...

John Roberts had a much larger role in the 2000 Florida recount than previously reported

So, he got the job because he helped Bush get elected. Nice. What is this? The ambassadorship to France? Read the rest of this post...

More DeLay dirty tricks - this time, he's usurped the democratic process to give billions in pork to his friends

Republicans stand for criminals. That's it. Read the rest of this post...

New GOP talking point: Classified information is okay to leak provided your leak is intended to harm a Democrat

Wow, that's a hell of a new standard for leaking highly classified national security information.

It's okay to break the law and jeopardize national security in a time of war by leaking highly classified information, so long as your intent was to harm someone you think might have been a Democrat, or might become a Democrat at some time in the future.

More attacks on Valerie Plame from TEAM TREASON. Read the rest of this post...

Temp dropped from 99 to 78, woo woo!!!!!

It's over!!!!!!!!!! Read the rest of this post...

Bush's Medicare Fiasco: Confusing, Expensive and Failed

That prescription drug program of Bush's is turning into a real fiasco -- and making Hillary Clinton's plan seem simple in comparison. Here's USA Today's rundown of Bush's pitch to seniors:

Before the morning was out, [senior citizen Myrtle] Anderson heard that some drug discount cards will stay in effect, while others will expire. That seniors who want the drug benefit will have to choose from an array of insurance plans that do not yet exist. That each plan is likely to cover different drugs. That co-payments will start at 25%, rise to 100% and then drop to 5% as seniors' prescription bills mount. That those with low incomes and few assets can get extra help if they fill out a four-page, 16-question application.

Well, now that's cleared up, isn't it? If Myrtle can't understand it, most seniors won't be able to either. The problem is that Bush must get the seniors who don't really need this program to sign up so they can underwrite the seniors who DO need it. But even the seniors who do need it can't figure the darn thing out.

But Vicki DeRuggiero of the US Social Security Administration has a plan.

After her presentation here, DeRuggiero and a half-dozen state and federal officials worked one-on-one with seniors to help determine their eligibility and potential benefits. "I've just found that the personal touch works," she said.

Great. As long as Bush can send a personal adviser to work directly with each and every one of the tens of millions of seniors who are eligible, I'm sure we'll be able to clear this mess up.

And here's an annoying postscript. USA Today wrote this:

If the costs keep rising — the original $400 billion estimate for 2004-13 already has been adjusted to about $720 billion for 2006-15 — the program will greatly increase the federal budget deficit.

Uh, no. Does the MSM have the memory of an ADD child? Bush LIED to Congress about the cost of the program in order to get it passed. He stopped the real numbers from being released because it barely made the cut and if Congress had known the real cost (which is certain to rise dramatically), it never would have passed in the first place. It was a lie and created a scandal when it was uncovered. This should have been reported factually as "Bush misled Congress when originally getting the program passed. He told Congress and the American people it was estimated to cost $400 billion over the first decade when the real cost was dramatically higher -- $720 billion. Even that figure is now clearly much lower than the real cost." Read the rest of this post...

Maybe it's time we got all sponsors to drop FOX News

Then see how America's Taliban feels about boycotting every TV show that isn't about angels. Yes, they're now after Desperate Housewives. Read the rest of this post...

Once More Into The Breach

Okay, how about THIS article in The New Yorker. Jeffrey Toobin has a fine piece about one of the first big cases the Supreme Court will face in October. It's about gay rights, in a way, and Judge Roberts would probably be voting with Scalia, Thomas, et al.

In short, it's about the Solomon Amendment -- it demands that any college or university that accepts federal money must allow military recruiters on campus, even if those recruiters violate campus policy and insist on discriminating against the university's students.

The practice of refusing to allow recruiters for businesses on campus when they made clear they would discriminate against blacks or Jews or women began in law schools and was remarkably effective. It didn't end prejudice or discrimination but major companies and law firms that wanted access to the best and the brightest had to end their explicit bans on minorities. This practice really flourished on gay rights. Since the military bans gays from serving openly, they've been banned from many campuses around the country.

So whose rights prevail? The right of the federal government to attach strings to money it gives to universities? Or the right of universities to free speech and the ability to reject hate and discrimination against its students?

Here's my beef. Toobin writes:

Even though the FAIR case is rooted in the law schools’ attempt to address discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, the case is not, strictly speaking, about gay rights. It is, rather, a First Amendment case, about whether the Solomon Amendment impinges on the right to freedom of speech at universities, and whether the government has the right to use the leverage of federal aid to insist that the military be treated like other employers.

That's certainly the point of view of the Bush administration:

The theme of the government’s brief in the case, which was filed last week, is equality: the amendment simply puts the government on a level playing field with other potential employers.

But isn't this case about the exact opposite? Bush wants the military treated DIFFERENTLY from every other employer. Every other employer must abide by certain basic university policies and agree not to discriminate against its students. No other employer can walk on campus and say to them, "Don't bring us any black students. We won't hire them." Or behave similarly with women or gays or Jews or Muslims or any other group you can name.

So Bush wants special rights for the military. If the military was treated the same as everyone else, it would be shown the door and told "Thanks but no thanks." Just like everyone else. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

My inner weather geek tells me that that cold front should be here in, oh, about 2 hours, bringing the temps down. Yeah!!!! Read the rest of this post...

Army Recruitment Already Way Behind In 2006

The Army has already conceded it's going to fall short of its (lowered) goals for 2005. Now USA Today reports the Army is already dramatically behind its goals for 2006.

The pool of recruits who sign up as much as a year before they report for training is dwindling. So far, 3,100 have signed up for 2006, according to Army Recruiting Command at Fort Knox, Ky. The Army says it hopes to have 7,200 recruits in the pool by Oct. 1, when the 2006 recruiting year begins. By comparison, the Army started the 2005 recruiting year with about 14,700 recruits in the delayed entry pool.

Yeah, right. They're gonna DOUBLE the numer of recruits in the pool in the next nine weeks. Gee, think this shortfall might have something to do with the Army's belief that it can (make that "must") start a major pull-out in spring of 2006. Read the rest of this post...

Great Minds Think Alike?

Our posting Monday on John Roberts and his connection to the Federalist Society.

How does it feel to know that on the very first issue surrounding this nominee, the White House has either been duped by their guy or knowingly spread disinformation. Perhaps, PERHAPS it is technically true that Roberts never paid dues. But no one could think they were forthcoming or honest. Unless it depends on what your definition of "member" is.

The New York Times editorial on the same issue Tuesday. Their headline? "It Depends On What 'Member' Means."

Thank you Bill Clinton for inspiring an endless stream of jokes. Read the rest of this post...

East Coast Meltdown Open Thread

It 95 with a heat index of 102 here in Baltimore. Even still, it's a shadow compared to Baghdad where it's 112 today, people are without electricity 12-16 hours a day and have to "resort to sleeping on their roofs to take a break from the sauna-like heat inside their homes, waking up covered in dust."

Open thread, chat away... Read the rest of this post...

My new RADAR article is up: This time about the London bombings, and whether Bush's incompetence played a role

From RADAR:

"...The British public’s ire over the bombings only increased after it was discovered that police had one of the suspects in custody months ago, but released him after determining he posed no threat. No doubt the Brits will be even more pissed once they realize the Bush administration twice botched efforts that could have helped prevent the attack..." Read the rest of this post...

Karl Rove Gets A Raise!

Weaken national security, out a covert CIA agent, break your pledge not to divulge classified info, lie to the President and/or the American people...and get a raise! Rawstory has the details. What a country! (Thanks to threader Boston Fag in Dallas for pointing us to this.) Read the rest of this post...

Republicans offer $10K to indict Daley

Never mind that FBI, the Cook County Republican Party is on the case! From AP:

The Cook County Republican Party is offering a $10,000 reward for information leading to an indictment and conviction of Mayor Richard M. Daley, whose administration has been buffeted by scandal.

Can you imagine if we here at AMERICAblog decided to hold a fundraiser to drum up reward money for putting Rove in jail? Oh how I wonder what they would say to that... Read the rest of this post...

Chalabi is back

The guy who pumped false information to the US (including the currently jailed Judith Miller) to help jump-start the thirst for war within the wingnut community and who also seemed to be finished last year when the stories broke about feeding Iran secret information, well, he's back. Not only is he back but his friends and family are spread out in the Iraqi government, all holding key positions.

The previous rumors of his skimming don't seem to have had any impact on putting him and his family in positions of controlling money, though perhaps that actually is why they are there. Considering the loose accounting practices going on in Iraq, I suppose this is comes as no real surprise. As Deputy Prime Minister, Chalabi is the chairman of the Iraq energy council which regulates contracts. His nephew is the finance minister.

If the disasters on the ground don't worry you about the chances of success in Iraq, Chalabi and his cronies ought to make everyone very concerned. Read the rest of this post...

Rumsfeld Pops Up In Iraq

Rumsfeld went to Iraq to stiffen the spine of its leaders. Don't delay on that Constitution, said Rumsfeld. Oh and by the way, do something about Iran and Syria, get some more troops ready to take over the over-crowded prisons and make sure you thank everyone.

Right, even Baghdad is unsafe, people don't have regular power or water, and going to the airport means taking your life into your hands. This is the government that's supposed to clamp down on Iran and Syria? I think they have more pressing concerns than reinforcing US foreign policy.

But what about this paragraph in the New York Times:

Mr. Rumsfeld also called on the Iraqi government to assume greater responsibility over time for the 15,000 detainees now in American custody in Iraq; to allocate enough money in future Iraqi budgets to field security forces that are capable of replacing many of the 22,000 foreign allied forces that plan to leave Iraq by year's end; and to improve cooperation between the Iraqi defense and interior ministries to enhance the combat readiness of Iraq's 170,000 military and paramilitary police forces.

Iraq does NOT have 170,000 forces. How can the NYT blithely repeat the figures of the Bush administration when we KNOW they are a lie? Iraq does not have 170,000 military and paramilitary police forces by any reasonable standard of measurement. As of a few weeks ago, this figure included about 2000 Iraqi troops capable of fighting on their own and some 9000 troops who can fight with US assistance.

That leaves about 160,000 troops THAT CAN'T FIGHT AT ALL. Scattered reports by the MSM also indicate that properly equipping them is proving nigh on impossible -- can you really pretend to have 170,000 troops when even if they could fight they don't have the weapons to do it with? How can the NYT justify repeating this lie without breaking it down? Even Bush felt compelled to make clear in his national address that not all were combat ready. "Not all" combat ready as in "virtually none." Uh, not even close. Iraq is barely halfway to replacing the measly 22,000 troops fro other countries that will be leaving in five months. And at this rate it is years away from being able to replace our troops -- unless we pull out and don't worry about Iraq sinking into chaos.

What's the impact of this story if it's made clear that Rumsfeld is pushing Iraq to accomplish all these goals when in fact it only has about 12,000 troops who can fight EVEN WITH OUR ASSISTANCE and only 2000 who can stand on their own? Two thousand troops after more than two years of our occupation and hundreds of billions of dollars spent.

And how did Rumsfeld travel around Iraq? What sort of armored vehicle did he use? Shouldn't that bring up the chance to do an update on armored vehicles for our soldiers, who remain poorly equipped after more than two years at war? How did Rumsfeld get around in a country he wants to pretend is almost ready to stand on its own? Wanna bet it was surrounded by men and women armed to the teeth?

And what about the scandal that endangered national security? Rummy apparently took questions from reporters. Didn't anyone ask him about Rove? Read the rest of this post...

Mugabe orders more demolitions

Obviously talks are going well with China, who is propping up Mugabe and who will dismiss any UN Security Council talks about the cruel treatment of the urban poor of Zimbabwe. The Mugabe government has continued its demolition of shanty towns, most recently at Porta Farm, a settlement that was originally created back in 1991 when Mugabe wanted to move the urban poor out of site of the visiting queen of England.

As revolting as the Chinese policy is, unfortunately all of the world powers have been down this path or are actively propping up rogue governments. Just nearby in southern Africa is the case of Angola, the "communist" government who has left its people to fend for themselves in the war torn country which is littered with mines from the years of war. The farmers struggle and the locals have lost fishing rights because the newly rich government leaders have sold off the fishing rights to the EU. So how does the US respond to such a government that loses millions of oil revenue that was supposed to be distributed to its starving nation? It gives Angola preferred trading status, of course. Read the rest of this post...

Rove and Traitorgate: Now "The New Yorker" Gets It Wrong

I wrote yesterday about the MSM and how I'd seen creeping examples of talking about Karl Rove and Traitorgate in terms that downplay the importance of the issue or portray it just as "gotcha" politics with the Dems taking advantage of an opening to pound Bush. My last example was The Wall Street Journal. Today it's The New Yorker.

In the lead Talk of the Town item -- "Roe v Rove" -- writer Hendrik Hertzberg mostly discusses Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, what he's like and how Bush moved up the announcement to try and get Rove's possibly traitorous actions off the front page.

But in listing the cast of characters that have made Rove and Traitorgate such a compelling story, this is what The New Yorker wrote:

It had a colorful supporting cast, including the spy herself (an attractive blonde whose neighbors thought she was just another working mom), her husband [Joe Wilson] (a flamboyant ex-diplomat whose secret mission and subsequent apostasy set the stage for skullduggery), and a Times reporter jailed for her refusal to talk.

My Random House dictionary defines apostasy as "a total desertion of or departure from one's religion, principles, party, cause, etc." It's a very negative term -- early Christians were apostates when they denied their faith to save their necks during Roman persecution. Understandable, but not admirable. Apostates are weak, unprincipled, feckless and -- at best -- to be pitied and more likely hated and condemned for tossing their principles overboard when the going gets rough. (I won't even get into the more subtly derogatory description of Wilson as "flamboyant," ie., someone not to be taken seriously.)

Does The New Yorker really believe Joe Wilson committed apostasy? By what possible standard could he be accused of this? Joe Wilson is a brave American, described as "a hero" by Bush Sr. He came forward because he knew President Bush had lied to the American people in the State of the Union address during the buildup to war. Bush made a claim that had been investigated and proven to be false -- not only didn't Bush know it to be true he had every reason to believe it was false to pretend Hussein was trying to buy uranium in Niger.

Wilson came forward even though he knew he would be attacked and smeared just like everyone else from the Administration who came forward and spoke the truth. And Wilson was smeared and attacked and belittled. His wife was smeared and attacked and belittled. His children were put in harm's way. National security was weakened and people around the world who risked their lives by working with the US to spread democracy and freedom might very well be dead.

How did this all happen? It happened because Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and perhaps at least one other White House figure outed a covert CIA agent -- the first time in history that an agent has been outed by political operatives -- just to provide payback against Wilson. If anyone should be accused of being an apostate, it's Rove and Scooter and Bush.

Keep in mind: Wilson was immediately vindicated. He came forward because he knew Bush had misled the American people in the State of the Union and made fear-inducing claims that he couldn't back up. Wilson published an op-ed and went on TV with his statement. The very next day, Bush admitted Wilson was right -- the White House called major media outlets and made clear it wasn't standing by those 16 words in the SOTU that Wilson knew were wrong. Bush caved immediately.

I don't know what party Joe Wilson "belongs" to; I don't know whether he's a Democrat or a Republican. But let's assume he's a Republican. A good Republican knows you don't lie to the American people. A good Republican expects honesty and forthrightness from their President -- whatever party they may be affiliated with. A good Republican knows -- the way Ronald Reagan knew -- that ideological wars against communism or terror are won by staking the moral high ground, not by spreading misinformation or lies. More importantly, a good American places the interests of their country above partisan politics. If the head of your party is hurting the nation, you speak up.

By no possible logic could Joe Wilson be tarred as an apostate. He did not betray the Republican Party or his beliefs or his country. He upheld them.

The real apostate is Karl Rove. Rove is the apostate who betrayed his principles to score cheap political points. Rove is the apostate who weakened national security by becoming the first political hack in history to out a covert CIA agent just to play hardball with someone speaking the truth. Rove is the apostate who either lied to the President and the White House spokesperson or got them both to lie for him to the American people. Rove is the apostate who betrayed the pledge he made when joining the White House to not reveal classified information.

This is not about "framing" the debate or trying to put one group's spin on an issue. This is about ACCURACY. There is no way Wilson should be slurred with the tag of "apostate." Every time the media portrays the Dems as taking political advantage instead of them merely being concerned about national security, the MSM is downplaying this scandal. Don't let them get away with it. Write to the New Yorker at themail@newyorker.com and ask them to justify this slur or run a clarification or correction. Urge them to describe this scandal more accurately in the future.

Don't let any MSM get away with belittling a concern for national security in a time of war as playing politics. Playing politics instead of working to strengthen our country? That's the method of the apostate Karl Rove.

NOTE: Most threaders think I'm off-base, arguing that it's supposed to represent the point of view of Bush. Certainly the New Yorker is a progressive outlet. Certainly we know where their hearts and minds truly lie. Certainly Hertzberg has done good work and this is only one word. Still, the item isn't really about Rovegate, just uses it as a lead-in to the Supreme Court nominee. That to me makes the choice of words used as shorthand still unfortunate, though I'm happy to concede that most people don't see it that way. I'll look for better examples of what I'm talking about. Read the rest of this post...

Americablog Hearts Jon Stewart

Yesterday, Americablog gave Stewart grief for his weak interview with Sen. Rick Santorum. When you have a racist hate-mongering radical on your show, it's important to show them for who they are. That doesn't mean attacking or screaming at them. But Stewart is funny and quick-witted; he should have been able to illustrate how dumb and hateful Santorum is with a few well-placed quips. If you're gonna showcase a bigot, at least TRY to challenge their narrow thinking. Apparently, we weren't the only ones criticizing him.

Stewart opened Tuesday's show by saying everyone was talking about the Santorum interview, lots of controversy, blah blah blah with people discussing the "general suckiness" of it. Others, he said, thought it "suuUUUUUCKED!" Wednesday's guest was actress Diane Lane; Stewart promised to make amends by bringing her down. So Stewart deftly and charmingly acknowledged the criticism. Though he didn't necessarily say he agreed with it -- Stewart might well argue it's not his job to "get" guests. But when you're giving national exposure to a fringe bigot, it's kind of important.

Still, he admitted disappointing people and did it in a funny and amusing way. Stewart's definitely one of the good guys. (And that interview with Lane? Not so good. Interviewing is definitely Stewart's weakest skill, which is why the interviews are usually quite brief.) Read the rest of this post...

A Democratic opportunity in Cincinnati?

Ohio is a GOP state and the Cincinnati area is extremely Republican. Not so long ago, the chances of a Democrat winning a Congressional seat in the area would seem far fetched but after years of GOP rule and scandal after scandal in the state and now the Rove-gate scandal, the Democrats actually have a chance. Next week there will be a special election to fill the seat of Congressman Rob Portman who resigned to work as a trade representative for the Bush administration.

So how does a Democrat stand a chance in an otherwise right wing patch? Paul Hackett, the Democratic candidate, is an Iraq war vet who has not shied away from criticizing the Bush team (even calling Bush a chicken hawk) for permanent tax cuts and for not providing troops in Iraq with necessary supplies and benefits. If he wins, he will be the only Iraq war vet in Congress.

The election is just next week (2 August) but perhaps for those of you in the area, there's some way of helping out. His campaign can be contacted here or by calling (513) 735-4310. Read the rest of this post...

Hey Tony: We didn't fall asleep after 9/11. You did.

Blair the poodle/enabler had the audacity to blame others for falling asleep after 9/11 but the last time I checked, it was Blair that botched the real war on terror by being Bush's lap dog and diverting attention, resources and money into Iraq. Now tell me again what Iraq has to do with the real war on terror?

I could see Bush playing this 9/11 card (though I wonder how successful it would be today) but Blair must be kidding himself with this strategy to rally 'round the leader. Most Brits have not bought into this rubbish in the past and I don't see it happening now. Read the rest of this post...