Trump now questioning how Obama got into the Ivy League

I'm hearing more than a bit of race-baiting behind Trump's latest attempt to appeal to the crazies in the GOP base. What he really means is, how did a black guy get into a good school? It's a classic Republican tactic in a number of ways. First, it's racist. Second, attacking a Democrat on their strength - in this case accusing Obama of being dumb. Obama has many flaws, but lacking intelligence is hardly one of them. Trump on the other hand? I seem to recall a few bankruptcies and an awful personal life. Read the rest of this post...

Does Obama not believe in the rule of law?

For someone who knows the law as well as he does, this was completely out of line. How could he possibly make a statement like this and expect his subordinates to ignore this? Glenn Greenwald at Salon:

Protesters yesterday interrupted President Obama's speech at a $5,000/ticket San Francisco fundraiser to demand improved treatment for Bradley Manning. After the speech, one of the protesters, Logan Price, approached Obama and questioned him. Obama's responses are revealing on multiple levels. First, Obama said this when justifying Manning's treatment (video and transcript are here):

We're a nation of laws. We don't let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate. He broke the law.

The impropriety of Obama's public pre-trial declaration of Manning's guilt ("He broke the law") is both gross and manifest. How can Manning possibly expect to receive a fair hearing from military officers when their Commander-in-Chief has already decreed his guilt? Numerous commentators have noted how egregiously wrong was Obama's condemnation. Michael Whitney wrote: "the President of the United States of America and a self-described Constitutional scholar does not care that Manning has yet to be tried or convicted for any crime." BoingBoing's Rob Beschizza interpreted Obama's declaration of guilt this way: "Just so you know, jurors subordinate judging officers!" And Politico quoted legal experts explaining why Obama's remarks are so obviously inappropriate.

It may be that Obama spoke extemporaneously and without sufficient forethought, but it is -- at best -- reckless in the extreme for him to go around decreeing people guilty who have not been tried: especially members of the military who are under his command and who will be adjudged by other members of the military under his command. Moreover, as a self-proclaimed Constitutional Law professor, he ought to have an instinctive aversion when speaking as a public official to assuming someone's guilt who has been convicted of nothing. It's little wonder that he's so comfortable with Manning's punitive detention since he already perceives Manning as a convicted criminal. "Sentence first - verdict afterward," said the Queen of Hearts to Alice in Wonderland.

Read the rest of this post...

The United States — One nation under contract

Thanks to Scott Horton, we have a good short interview with Professor Allison Stanger, author of the new book, One Nation Under Contract, a book which, in Horton's words, "takes a close look at the outsourcing of national security and foreign policy functions in the last decade."

Here are a few excerpts from that interview — I urge you to read the rest (my emphasis below):

1. You track the growing dependence of the federal government on contractors–from a little more than $200 billion in 2000 to about $440 billion in 2007. What shifts in policy account for this explosive growth in the use of contractors?

The main factor was the privatization of war. Iraq and Afghanistan are America’s first contractors’ wars, with contractors often outnumbering uniformed personnel on the ground in both conflicts. This development is new and unprecedented. At the height of the Vietnam War, contractors represented just 14 percent of the American presence on the ground. Without contractors, we would need a draft to wage these two wars, and with a draft, we would obviously have a very different political situation.

While wartime contracting and successive supplemental appropriations have fueled these dramatic trends, this is not a partisan issue. Democrats and Republicans alike embraced outsourcing the work of government to the private sector whenever possible, both as a perceived cost-savings measure and as a mechanism for getting things done more efficiently. But the unprecedented explosion of contracting—to use Defense Secretary Gates’s language, “willy-nilly” contracting—to wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan was a tale of unprecedented waste, fraud, and abuse (PDF). Taxpayer money obviously cannot be well spent when government is not following the money.

And what about the current president's role in this?

The trends mapped in the book have continued unabated under the Obama Administration, and in many ways our dependence on contractors has grown. When the State Department replaces the U.S. military in Iraq, they will be wholly reliant on contractors to pursue the mission. To make matters worse, Congress is currently poised to slash funding for open government initiatives from $35 million to $8 million on President Obama’s watch.

She goes on to talk about the still-incomplete, invaluable government site USASpending.gov, which was vital to her in her research. The current proposed spending cuts are implemented, she thinks that site would be closed.

Stanger calls that "ironic." To me, that sounds like the goal.

This is one of those topics on which many of us think we know the broad strokes (we do; this is looting on a massive scale), and don't realize or expose ourselves to the wealth of detail that makes those broad strokes broad.

Professor Stanger has the numbers and the analysis. The information is accessible and shocking. For example: "Department of Defense spent $133.2 billion on contracts and by 2008, that figure had grown to $391.9 billion, an almost three-fold increase." And phrases like taxpayer money "flowing through subcontracts into the pockets of the Taliban" come up.

There's more where that came from, and Horton recommends the book highly. Please do click through if government contracting and privatization is on your reading radar.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Why is NBC helping Donald Trump campaign?

Is it really appropriate for NBC to be, in essence, contributing to Donald Trump's campaign? Read the rest of this post...

Pawlenty, Romney embrace Ryan budget, Gingrich backs away

I'd like to see the GOP 2012 field asked if they would vote for the budget if they were in the Congress - ask them directly that question.  Also, interesting, and good, news that Harry Reid wants to bring the Ryan budget up for a vote in the Senate.

In a word: Brilliant.

It's what the Republicans would do to us in similar circumstances.  Good to see Reid play tough.  Hopefully other "nicer" Democrats won't try to stop him. Read the rest of this post...

Supreme Court refuses early hearing on case challenging Obama health care reform

WSJ says it's not uncommon for the court to turn such cases down. Still, the media goes into a frenzy every time a judge sides with the Republicans, no matter how minor, so this deserves some attention. Read the rest of this post...

Is a Hipstamatic view of the war in Afghanistan simply a gimmick? What is photojournalism?

An interesting find on the NYT Web site, that raises the issue of what counts as photojournalism. At question is a recent award a NYT photographer won for chronicling our troops in Afghanistan, using his iPhone as his camera AND using an iPhone app called Hipstamatic to alter the photos. The photos are fabulous, but some critics claim that by using a program that makes the photos look more "cool," the result is no longer photojournalism.

First, one of the photos:

The photographer responded:

We are being naïve if we think aesthetics do not play an important role in the way photojournalists tell a story. We are not walking photocopiers. We are storytellers. We observe, we chose moments, we frame little slices of our world with our viewfinders, we even decide how much or how little light will illuminate our subjects, and — yes — we choose what equipment to use. Through all of these decisions, we shape the way a story is told.

He goes on to point out that the winning photo used a zoom lens and a small depth of field to single out the faces of the subjects. That's hardly how the scene looked to a real person live on the scene. Nor was the scene in black and white in real life, it was in b/w in the photo. Wasn't that playing with our emotions, and the photo to evoke something that wasn't really there?

I love my Hipstamatic app, and have been using it more than my real camera for a while now. Some of the photos are amazing, to my eye. Here are a few of mine.

In each photo, I "saw" something special that I wanted to capture, and the final photo does in fact capture the mood that I felt when snapping the shot. But, I certainly didn't know exactly what the Hipstamatic was going to do to the photo, not exactly, nor whether it would help or hurt the final product. In these three cases, I think it clearly helped. Does that mean these photos, while perhaps aesthetically pleasing, are not a true reflection of the scene itself? Are they simply "chance" and a gimmick, and not reflective of any skill on the part of the photographer?  Does it matter if the photos are in fact a true reflection of the scene the photographer saw in his own photographer's mind's eye, and wanted to capture?

In other words, is this really photography, is it even art, or is it just a gimmick?

PS I'm also intrigued by the photographer's choice of using the iPhone instead of his professional camera.  He notes in the piece that by using his cell phone cam he was able to put his subjects at ease - after all, who isn't used to their friends taking pictures with their cell phones.  Somehow, a cell phone cam isn't as unnerving to its subjects as a real camera.  Specifically, the photographer suggested that he'd have never been able to get the shot I posted at the beginning of this post had he used a real camera, the troops would have scattered. Read the rest of this post...

Dick Durbin, #2 Dem in Senate, gets his economic advice from Tom Coburn

From Steve Benen:

Also over the weekend, we learned that Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the gang's only professed liberal, noted that he's heard Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) deliver "the doomsday speech" -- the one in which the right-wing Oklahoman explains how the debt will destroy civilization as we know it -- and was apparently worn down by it. "He has convinced me," Durbin said. "This is serious, and if we don't do something, and do it quickly, bad things can happen, in a hurry."

Perhaps now would be a good time to note that Coburn, a physician with no background in economic, fiscal, or monetary policy, doesn't really understand these issues.

Actually, Dick, if you "do things" quickly enough, you're going to jeopardize the economic recovery and help elect a Republican president in 2012. It's amazing, and sickening, the degree to which the Democrats have adopted most of the GOP talking points on the economy. No longer did the stimulus save the country from another Great Depression, and no longer did George Bush plunge the country into deficit (and economic despair). None of that is worth mentioning any more. How does the public reach any other conclusion than that Barack Obama and the Democratic congress recklessly spent the country into fiscal ruin, while the Republicans are the only ones who know how to rescue us (note that the Republicans have no problem constantly blaming all of this on the Democrats).

More from Steve:

Nevertheless, Coburn continues to note that he's prepared to accept some higher taxes as part of the larger compromise. He told NBC yesterday that he's aware of his 2004 pledge not to raise any tax on anyone by any amount, but may feel inclined to do the right thing anyway.

What's happening here is that Durbin is channeling his inner Obama, I suspect at the request of the President. It's all, "I love Big Republican Brother" time for Democrats, because maybe, just maybe, if they're nice to the Republicans, and embrace some of their ideas, they won't be mean to Democrats as we approach the 2012 elections.  More specifically, this is a clear effort to woo Coburn into helping the Dems convince the Republicans to raise taxes as part of the budget deal.  As if.

It's difficult to read this from Durbin and not come to the conclusion that the man is either far too subservient to Obama for his (and our) own good - and he is - or he's a total idiot. Read the rest of this post...

Boehner's DOMA lawyers have withdrawn from the case; GOP lawyer quits firm over withdrawal

UPDATE: Paul Clement, Bush's former solicitor general, who was going to take on the DOMA case personally, just quit his firm over this.  More from John below.

A significant development this morning in John Boehner's crusade to defend DOMA. He lost his lawyers, King and Spalding.

Amanda Terkel broke the story on twitter that King and Spalding have withdrawn from the case. More at AMERICAblog Gay.

NOTE FROM JOHN: This is a huge deal.  Lawyers don't just drop cases.  King & Spalding knew DOMA was controversial, but they took the case anyway.  Then, once the controversy erupted last week, they fled.  Granted, things were looking bad for King & Spalding.  Petitions had been launched.  Their embarrassing contract with Boehner was leaked, a contract that appeared to forbid any an all employees of King & Spalding, even those not working on the case, from doing any gay rights advocacy opposing DOMA (including, it seemed, even donating to a gay rights cause that didn't toe the official Boehner line on DOMA).

There's something more important going on here, I think.  In the same way that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal became a larger litmus test of Obama's commitment to his base (and thus, became important to more than just the gay community), DOMA repeal is important to more than just gays.  We have straight allies who care about our civil rights, and are willing to fight for them.

I think King & Spalding expected anger from the gay community. I'm not sure they expected the straights to join in to the degree they likely did.  I don't know what happened behind the scenes at King & Spalding, but I suspect it wasn't pretty.

It will be interesting to see what firm now picks up the bigoted, discriminatory case that puts them on a par with segregationist law firms during the 50s and 60s. Whoever it is, they're going to be facing a civil rights community, gay and straight, that now has tasted blood on this issue.  I cannot imagine how the firm that eventually takes this case isn't going to face serious protests during their fall recruitment campaigns on law school campuses.  Law students wanting to interview with the firm are going to have to pass picket lines of students yelling "hate" and "bigot."  Not to mention, students signing up for interviews who are actually plants who will erupt in protest once the interview begins.

To reiterate: This case was too hot for even George Bush's lawyer.

It's going to be a fun fall for some lucky firm.

UPDATE: About Paul Clement quitting the firm.  Good riddance.  He trotted out the tired old lawyer defense for everything bad that some lawyers do in life: Our evil acts are really a virtue, because even bad people (or laws) deserve to be defended.  And perhaps they do.  But not by you.  One might think that even the Nazis are permitted to march in Skokie, regardless of how abhorrent the notion, but it doesn't mean you jump up and offer to be the Nazis' lawyer.

King & Spalding chose equality over their own top lawyer - I strongly suspect that Clement gave them an ultimatum, drop the case and I quit the firm.  Kudos to the firm for hanging tough.  (Not to mention, there's still that weird "don't advocate on behalf of DOMA repeal" clause that was in the contract. Clement is responsible for that as well, so his hands are hardly clean.) Read the rest of this post...

BP funds for environmental research dragging

To be fair to BP, it's only been one year since they destroyed the Gulf of Mexico and it's not fair to ask them to fulfill their financial commitments as quickly as their profits have increased due to the high price of oil. Maybe someone in Congress or the White House would be interested in fast tracking this so that scientists can collect this critical information? Anyone?

Why not hand out the federal dollars today and simply charge BP interest so that scientists can start now and the federal government doesn't lose any money? There are plenty of easy solutions, but the apologists in DC need to step aside and a few leaders need to emerge.

Rita Colwell, a University of Maryland scientist who chairs the board overseeing the money, said the protocol for distributing the remaining $450 million would be announced Monday at the National Press Club Washington. After that, scientists will be allowed to submit proposals, but it could take months for research to be chosen.

Michael Carron, a Mississippi marine scientist selected to head the BP-funded post-spill research project, the Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative, doubted money would be available before June. He acknowledged not being able to study the spring spawning of shrimp, crabs and other animals would be a problem.

"This will be the first good glimpse of what happened to larvae, the first class" of species born during and after the spill, he said.

With the BP funds so slow to get out the door, scientists are trying to get funding from federal grants and other sources. And it's possible the BP money will be handed out on an expedited basis, Carron said.

Read the rest of this post...

Coast Guard report notes Transocean's safety "deficiencies"

Why does it appear as though the loser of the fight between Transocean and BP will be the one with less money and fewer government connections? Either way, neither appears to have had much of a focus on safety. Reuters:

A Coast Guard investigation "revealed numerous systems deficiencies, and acts and omissions by Transocean [RIG 75.41 -0.20 (-0.26%) ] and its Deepwater Horizon crew, that had an adverse impact on the ability to prevent or limit the magnitude of the disaster," the agency said in a statement on last April's blowout at the BP well.

The 288-page report found Transocean had piled up "numerous deficiencies in the area of safety" in the years leading up to the April 20 explosion and spill that killed 11 people and fouled a wide section of the Gulf.

A team of investigators from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement and the Coast Guard found poor maintenance of electrical equipment, bypassing of automatic shutdown systems, and lack of training of personnel for emergencies, the report said.

Read the rest of this post...

Assad sending in heavy armor and troops to shut down protesters

Assad's idea of opening up society may be a bit slightly different from what others see as opening up. Until some troops start to reject this violence, it's going to be an ugly time for those demanding change. There are no firm updates yet on the death toll but it has to be high. Al Jazeera:

"Hundreds of security service men entered the town, accompanied by tanks and armoured vehicles," Abdullah Al-Harriri, an activist, told the AFP news agency in Nicosia by telephone.

"The men are firing in all directions and advancing behind the armour which is protecting them," he added.
"Electricity is cut off and telephone communications are virtually impossible," he said.

Footage aired on the opposition news organisation on Monday, transmitted via satellite, appeared to show Syrian military firing at unseen targets with sniper rifles.

Security forces loyal to Bashar al-Assad, the country’s presidents, stormed the large Damascus suburb of Douma early on Monday, shooting at unarmed civilians and arresting residents, rights campaigners said.

Read the rest of this post...

Hijack attempt fails on Alitalia flight

The fact that he tried to hijack the flight is more surprising than the fact that he managed to slip a knife through security. The Guardian:

Italy's Ansa news agency said the would-be hijacker was armed with a small knife. He was thought to be from Kazakhstan.

The incident took place on a flight from Paris to Rome with 131 passengers on board. Alitalia identified it as flight AZ 329 which had taken off from Paris at 8.24pm local time.

The airline said in a statement: "A passenger in an evident state of agitation assaulted a flight attendant, demanding that the flight be diverted to Tripoli. Thanks to the swift intervention of the other flight attendants the attacker was restrained in his seat and the flight continued towards Rome Fiumicino where it landed normally at 21.55."

Read the rest of this post...