The War on Froomkin

The same non-budsman at the Washington Post who didn't have that big a problem with Bob Woodward outright lying about his nondisclosure of his involvement in the Valerie Plame affair now has a problem with Post reporter Dan Froomkin.

You may recall the Post's non-budsman wrote 22 or so paragraphs explaining the background on the Woodward case then a whopping 2 paragraphs of her opinion which amounted to, basically, that Woodward needed an editor. Which is cute, considering Woodward had an editor and didn't disclose what he knew to his editor and his editor is defending him so he really didn't care.

Anyway, the non-budsman has apparently found an issue she can finally sink her teeth into: Dan Froomkin, one of the only honest, credible, smart, unbiased and interesting writers who keeps us reading the Washington Post.

Of course, the non-budsman thinks Froomkin is too liberal, because, you know, at the Washington Post if you actually question the "facts" the Bush administration puts out, before you publish them verbatim in a best-selling book or the editorial page, that makes you a "liberal" rather than something more than a whore.

That newspaper really is intent on pushing itself into irrelevance.

More from Crooks and Liars. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Busy day. Now I need to go catch up on my "24." Read the rest of this post...

I may just agree with the fundies on this one. Maybe...

My strange-bedfellow friend Joe Murray works for a law firm in Tupelo, Mississippi. Those of you who listened to my week long Sirius satellite radio broadcasts sitting in for the vacationing Michelangelo Signorile know Joe as the former lawyer for the American Family Association who I interviewed a few times.

Not to get too sidetracked here, but on first chatting with Joe a few years back, I always had the sense he was a decent fellow inside (not a feeling I usually get from religious right types). Since that time, Joe and I have had LOTS of debates about gay rights and other issues, off-the-record and on-the-record, and he's not at all what you might expect from someone who used to work for the AFA. I'm not just talking about him "seeming to be a nice guy," I'm talking about his actual views on issues being much better than you might expect considering his AFA past. I think Joe's current views on many an issue would surprise many of you. Anyway....

Joe's firm is working on a case where they represent a city employee who claims he was fired from his job because a supervisor disapproved of his dating a white woman (I'm going to assume the man is black, though the article doesn't say). Attorneys for the city want the judge to limit what the man's lawyer can say in his opening and closing statements. To wit, they want the judge to tell the man's lawyer (Joe's boss) that he can't mention God, Jesus or the Bible in his opening or closing statements.

Here's what the local paper had to say:

Charles Flemons' racial discrimination lawsuit isn't set for trial in U.S. District Court in Oxford until August, but attorneys for the city already are seeking to limit Waide's comments.

"In previous trials, while addressing the jury, plaintiff's counsel has inserted prejudicial and inflammatory comments suggesting to the jury that their decision should be guided on the basis of religious belief or bias," attorney Mark Fijman said in a motion.

"For example, plaintiff's attorney previously has told jurors in closing to essentially do what Jesus would do."

Waide said it's important to be able to tell a jury what you believe.

"You talk about more than the evidence," Waide said.

Waide said he frequently reminds the jury about the teachings of Jesus in race discrimination cases.

I have to admit, the city's position bothers me. First off, let me say, yes I'm a lawyer, in that I have a law degree, but I don't know the specific law pertaining to this case, so maybe - maybe - the city is correct legally in what they're arguing. But I don't think so.

I remember from law school that closing arguments, at the very least, are given a hell of a lot of leeway by the judge - you can say almost anything. And it's just not clear to me why invoking God or the Bible or Jesus is any big deal, especially since you can use God, the Bible and Jesus any way you want - it's not like either side in the trial has a monopoly on God references. You can just as easily say "would Jesus convict someone if there were a doubt in his mind?"

I get on the religious right's case with all of their war on Christmas bull, I think they've just gone too far with their persecution complex. But that doesn't mean that sometimes they're not right (even a broken clock is right twice a day). In this case, whether you like religion or not, I just don't see the problem with a lawyer invoking God or the Bible in a closing argument, especially when he's doing it on a civil rights case in favor of fairness.

Though, having said that, my argument could backfire. What if the city's lawyer wanted to argue that the Bible makes clear that blacks shouldn't have the same rights as whites, and that blacks shouldn't date whites? (Once upon a time, that was the thinking.) Would that be okay, legally or otherwise? Or if the lawyer tried to bias the jury in an anti-gay discrimination case by saying "sure the law says you can't fire the gay guy, but let's face it, the Bible says he's an abomination" - would that be okay? In both those cases, I'd obviously have a problem with the lawyer's arguments.

Ok, so now I'm confused. And the best legal cases tend to leave you a bit confused, I've found. There's often a lot of gray.

So what do you guys think? And is anyone up on the actual law governing this? Read the rest of this post...

Results of the Ford meeting with gay groups

FURTHER UPDATE: The Human Rights Campaign's (the largest gay civil rights lobbying group) press release is out now:

“Any effort to appease a handful of vocal extremists backfired and offended millions of fair-minded consumers instead.

We have asked that Ford repudiate its relationship with this extremist group, reinstate its advertising of Jaguar and Land Rover, and continue investing in organizations working for equality.

At a time when corporate America leads on fairness, we hope Ford will shift back into drive.”

UPDATE: The AP story on Ford is up:

Gay and lesbian organizations asked Ford Motor Co. on Monday to reinstate advertising for its luxury Jaguar and Land Rover brands in gay publications and distance itself from a group which had boycotted the automaker's vehicles....

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said Ford was asked to "make a very strong statement" disassociating itself from the AFA while reinstating the Jaguar and Land Rover advertising in the gay press.

I just received off-the-record word of what transpired at the Ford meeting with the gay groups. I understand that HRC supposedly has a press release out already detailing this, and that the press release apparently confirms the reports out there of what transpired at the meeting, but I haven't seen the release yet - if anyone has, please post it in the comments.

Anyway, the bottom line, I hear, is that the groups told Ford what they want, and Ford said they'd get back to the groups in the next 24-48 hours. I don't want to break any confidences here, but suffice it to say I'm satisfied with what I hear the groups supposedly said at the meeting and am awaiting Ford's response.

We'll continue to report on this story over the next day or two, and when we get Ford's response we'll react accordingly.

One final point: Ford really needs to get back to the community by COB Tuesday, or early Wednesday at the latest. Anything longer than that will be perceived as stalling and will necessitate moving ahead with phase 2 of the campaign. I think two days is ample time, especially considering that we're offering to hold back on launching the next phase of this campaign pending Ford's response.

In the meantime, rest assured that we're still making plans for protests and more, and designing those t-shirts. :-) Read the rest of this post...

Democrats in Name Only

If the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) thinks the Iraq war is a good idea and going great, then let them join the Republican party and take full responsibility for this growing disaster. I'm a hawk on defense, but I'm not an idiot. Iraq is a disaster, and supporting a continuation of this deadly quagmire simply because you don't have the nerve to say "no," well, that isn't my definition of leadership.

Unless, of course, the DLC actually believes the Iraq war is going well, then they really are beyond hope.

Winning doesn't mean having to pretend we're Republicans. Read the rest of this post...

I want a picture of your kitty

Here are the best suggestions, I think, for anti-Ford t-shirts, per your suggestions in the thread below.

I'm curious if any of you graphic design gurus want to try your hands at whipping up some cool images to go with these slogans? I.e., I don't just want words on a shirt, but think an image would be cool too. As always, there are a few conditions:

1. You agree to donate the image to AMERICAblog for free.
2. I will give you credit for the image on the shirt, if you like - a small line at the bottom of the image, "Created by xxxxxxx"
3. There is no guarantee I'll use the image you submit.
4. Do NOT send me images or other creative work that you do not have the rights to.

I WANT YOUR KITTY

And in that regard, I need a high quality digital photo from someone out there. I want to do a "Every time you buy a Ford, God kills a kitten" t-shirt, but I need a high quality adorable image of a kitten (the low-quality version I mocked up is here, to give you a sense). Preferably you'd take the picture with a toy gun pointing at the kitten, but, also send me some photos of the kitten alone - I'm thinking straight on shots look at the head or entire body, or any other adorable shot of the kitten. Again, these need to be your photos. And I'm happy to also credit whoever sends me their kitten photo and/or credit kitty at the bottom of the image.

So here at the best of what folks' suggested:

"Every time you buy a Ford, God kills a kitten" (need picture of kitten, or if someone can graphically draw a cute kitten with a gun to its head) Alternate language: "When you buy a Ford, God kills a kitten."

Ford: Inequality is Job One

Ford: Bigotry is Job #1

FRAUD MOTOR COMPANY

Ford Hates Me

Fight Off Right-wing Discrimination.

Ford: Bigotry is Job #1

putting this image on something small :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ford.jpg

Built Fundie Tough

Ford: Have you marginalized a minority lately?

"Have you boycotted Ford lately?"

FORD (with the "O" replaced with a swastika.

They should read "FUCT" in that stylized FORD script and blue oval that is so ford famous, or FUKT

"Real men don't let their boyfriends drive a Ford."

Read the rest of this post...

AMERICAblog ♥ Sam Seder

UPDATE: Crooks and Liars now has the video up.

I know officially AMERICAblog ♥ Anderson Cooper, and we want to marry Dan Savage (after we knock off his husband), but we just might have to make room in our hearts for Sam Seder of Air America. His "war on Christmas" riff on CNN today will go down as a classic.

Seder, an avowed Christ-killer I believe, was debating one of the men at the Concerned Women for America, Robert Knight, who is one of the biggest nastiest homophobes on the planet.

A snippet, then Atrios has the rest:

SEDER: Listen, as far as the war on Christmas goes, I feel like we should be waging a war on Christmas. I mean, I believe that Christmas, it's almost proven that Christmas has nuclear weapons, can be an imminent threat to this country, that they have operative ties with terrorists and I believe that we should sacrifice thousands of American lives in pursuit of this war on Christmas. And hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money.

PHILLIPS: Is it a war on Christmas, a war Christians, a war on over-political correctness or just a lot of people with way too much time on their hands?

SEDER: I would say probably, if I was to be serious about it, too much time on their hands, but I'd like to get back to the operational ties between Santa Claus and al Qaeda.

PHILLIPS: I don't think that exists. Bob? Help me out here.

SEDER: We have intelligence, we have intelligence.

PHILLIPS: You have intel. Where exactly does your intel come from?

SEDER: Well, we have tortured an elf...

Do read the rest of the transcript Atrios has up. Read the rest of this post...

Creepy. A month ago FOX News' Mike Wallace loved his dad

What is it with conservatives? What, today we're at war with Eurasia, we've always been at war with Eurasia, and we'll always be at war with Eurasia? So long as no one has a memory bigger than a gnat we won't catch you constantly lying?

Read what Wallace had to say the other day about dear old dad. Read the rest of this post...

Afternoon Open Thread

Open thread!

P.S. Due to popular demand, we're going to be creating anti-Ford t-shirts and the like just in time for the holiday season. Should make great stocking stuffers! We'd love your thoughts and creativity - any ideas? Can be both graphics and text. Read the rest of this post...

New Orleans: The death of an American city

The Republican Congress is increasingly rumbling about not paying the $32 billion it would cost to rebuild New Orleans' levies to make them hurricane proof. But they have no problem passing four new tax cuts this week totaling $95 billion.

I think the GOP has decided to let New Orleans die because it's a liberal city, a city of "sin," and a black city. And if the Dems had any real ledership or balls they would take this issue and run with hit - the American public does not want to see Bush and the Republican Congress lose an entire American city.Today's NYT editorial:

We are about to lose New Orleans. Whether it is a conscious plan to let the city rot until no one is willing to move back or honest paralysis over difficult questions, the moment is upon us when a major American city will die, leaving nothing but a few shells for tourists to visit like a museum.

We said this wouldn't happen. President Bush said it wouldn't happen. He stood in Jackson Square and said, "There is no way to imagine America without New Orleans." But it has been over three months since Hurricane Katrina struck and the city is in complete shambles.

There are many unanswered questions that will take years to work out, but one is make-or-break and needs to be dealt with immediately. It all boils down to the levee system. People will clear garbage, live in tents, work their fingers to the bone to reclaim homes and lives, but not if they don't believe they will be protected by more than patches to the same old system that failed during the deadly storm. Homeowners, businesses and insurance companies all need a commitment before they will stake their futures on the city.

At this moment the reconstruction is a rudderless ship. There is no effective leadership that we can identify. How many people could even name the president's liaison for the reconstruction effort, Donald Powell? Lawmakers need to understand that for New Orleans the words "pending in Congress" are a death warrant requiring no signature.

The rumbling from Washington that the proposed cost of better levees is too much has grown louder. Pretending we are going to do the necessary work eventually, while stalling until the next hurricane season is upon us, is dishonest and cowardly. Unless some clear, quick commitments are made, the displaced will have no choice but to sink roots in the alien communities where they landed.

The price tag for protection against a Category 5 hurricane, which would involve not just stronger and higher levees but also new drainage canals and environmental restoration, would very likely run to well over $32 billion. That is a lot of money. But that starting point represents just 1.2 percent of this year's estimated $2.6 trillion in federal spending, which actually overstates the case, since the cost would be spread over many years. And it is barely one-third the cost of the $95 billion in tax cuts passed just last week by the House of Representatives.

Total allocations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terror have topped $300 billion.

Read the rest of this post...

Ford must agree to the following demands at today's meeting with select gay leaders

Ford needs to meet the following demands to call off our War on Ford.

1. Ford must immediately admit the details of, and recant, the secret deal it reached with the American Family Association (AFA). For an example of how to do this the right way, Ford should look to Microsoft's statement earlier this year.

2. Ford must issue a statement, akin to the statement issued by Kraft, reaffirming its commitment to glbt civil rights, and civil rights across the board.

3. Ford must immediately run Jaguar and Land Rover ads in the gay press (Ford pulled its advertising for Jaguar and Land Rover in the gay press as a capitulation to the AFA).

4. Ford must immediately run Volvo ads in the gay press that are specifically tailored to the gay community. (Ford's agreement with the extremist gay-hating organization included a promise to no longer run Volvo ads in the gay press that were specifically targeted to the gay community, but rather Volvo would only run the same ads it runs in the "straight" press.)

5. In 2006, Ford must show the same level of, or more, support for "gay events" as it did in 2005. That means spending the same amount of, or more, money on such events in 2006 as it spent in 2005, and lending Ford's name to the same events or more in 2006 as it did in 2005.

6. Ford must immediately fire former Bush White House officials Ziad Ojakli and David Leitch, the two senior Ford officials who negotiated the secret deal with the American Family Association. Read the rest of this post...

Help me plan phase 2 of the War on Ford

Click here, read what I wrote, respond to it :-) Thanks, JOHN Read the rest of this post...

Hillary's ambiguous position on the war

I like Dan Balz's writing at the Wash Post, in general, but I think he's wrong on this one:

Clinton is confronting the Democratic Party's long-standing dilemma on national defense, with those harboring national ambitions caught between the passions of the antiwar left and political concerns that they remain vulnerable to charges of weakness from the Republicans if they embrace the party's base. But some Democrats say, the left not withstanding, her refusal to advocate a speedy exit from Iraq may reflect a more accurate reading of public anxiety about the choices now facing the country.

I am pretty damn hawkish on defense. My views are hardly liberal anti-war, and actually they're probably more in line with the Republicans in many ways. Having said that, I don't believe in lying to the country in order to justify a war, and I don't believe in continuing to fight a war after we've lost. That's not "anti-war" left, that's realist American.

I think the media, and much of the talking head class in Washington, fails to understand that a lot of us who are ticked off at Bush are not necessary the far left. And painting us all as Michael Moore clones (not that there's anything wrong with Michael Moore, I like him too) is naive and shows a lack of understanding as to how deep the anti-Bush anger, and overall angst at the direction our country is heading, really goes. There's a new dynamic out there. Read the rest of this post...

Most want US troops out of Iraq

More than two thirds of Iraqi citizens want the US troops out of Iraq. Now didn't we always hear that the US troops would be there as long as they were wanted? Read the rest of this post...

Be sure to visit our advertisers

Please be sure to click through and visit our advertisers. One good thing about our blog is that we get advertisers who are actually pretty interesting for our audience. To wit, our current advertisers:

- MSNBC TV, a network that doesn't have to lie to keep its lemming viewers happy.

- Human Rights Campaign action alert about Ford

- Gay.com, the world's premiere gay Web portal

- The British paper The Guardian, with news you won't read in US papers who always cover for Bush.

Please click through and take a look at the various advertisers. Like I said, they all are interesting and worth a look. Read the rest of this post...

Frist threatens nuclear option over Alito (after not giving Harriet a vote)

Frist is trying to talk tough:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) threatened yesterday to strip Democrats of the power to filibuster if they block the vote on Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr.

"It would be against the intent of the Founding Fathers and our Constitution to deny Sam Alito an up-or-down vote on the floor of the United States Senate," he said on "Fox News Sunday."

How come it wasn't against the intent of the Founding Fathers to give Harriet Miers an up-or-down vote? The Republicans are such frauds. They lost all credibility on nominations with the way they treated Miers. Plus, it looks like Frist is really just trying to rebuild his credibility with the theocrats:

His willingness to consider a procedural maneuver called the "nuclear option" seemed somewhat premature. Last week, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said that although he anticipates intense questioning of Alito during next month's hearings, he does not detect strong sentiment for using the filibuster to stall a vote.

A spokesman for the leading Senate Democrat agreed.

"As far as I can tell, the only person talking about a filibuster is Senator Frist and some of the far-right fringe groups," said Jim Manley, spokesman for Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.). "This kind of talk is silly and unhelpful."

Read the rest of this post...

Monday Morning Open Thread

So this could be an interesting week... Read the rest of this post...

Even more abuse at yet another Iraqi run detention center

Looks like the apple didn't fall far from the tree. Political power in Iraq has more to do with dishing out paybacks and less about building a decent Iraq. Considering the way the new regime was introduced this should not be any surprise though. The US was present during this latest discovery so we should expect to hear a clear statement about the removed detainees right away.

A statement by the Iraqi Human Rights Ministry added that an investigating judge ordered the immediate release of 56 people from the Baghdad facility after the inspection on Dec. 8.

Last month, U.S. troops found up to 173 malnourished Iraqi detainees at a building belonging to the Shiite-led Interior Ministry in Baghdad's Jadriyah district. Some of the inmates showed signs of torture. On Nov. 15, al-Jaafari promised an investigation and results within two weeks. No report has been released.

Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Off to bed Read the rest of this post...