Atrios is really Mel Gibson

It all makes sense now... Read the rest of this post...

When did we elect Laura Bush president?

First lady Laura Bush, en route home from a visit to West Africa, criticized Clinton.

"It think it's ridiculous — it's a ridiculous comment," Mrs. Bush told reporters when asked about the senator's remark.
- Associated Press

I'm just a bit confused as to why Mrs. Bush is running around the country, every day now it would appear, giving her opinions on the issue of the day.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Mrs. Bush has opinions. I'm just not sure what the propriety is of her being the administration spokesman when no one voted for her.

Her latest weigh-in, today, was on Senator Clinton saying the GOP House was run like a "plantation." (The word "plantation" has been used by a large number of conservatives in the past, including Newt Gingrich, Bob Novak, the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal, though you wouldn't know that from the AP story.) Mrs. Bush thinks Senator's Clinton's assessment is a "ridiculous comment."

Ok, fair enough. Then I'd like to know, in detail, why Mrs. Bush thinks it's a ridiculous comment. What are Mrs. Bush's theories on government, on the separation of powers, what are her views on Marbury vs. Madison, does Mrs. Bush consider herself more a Jeffersonian/Madisonian or a Hamiltonian?

If the First Lady is going to be dragged out every time the President isn't man enough to express a view for himself, then I'd like to know what Mrs. Bush really thinks and why.

I'm sure Mrs. Bush is a nice lady and all, but I have a hard time believing she's got any clue whatsoever about how the Republican House is run, or the history of Congress, so it would be nice to hear her detailed analysis so we can be sure she isn't just playing the shill for her spineless husband. In any case, it's clear who sits home baking cookies in that house. Read the rest of this post...

Mel Gibson's lawyer threatens to sue Mel Gibson parody blog

I'm assuming this letter isn't a parody of a legal threat to a parody blog. Read the rest of this post...

Washington Post ombudsman says she will no longer reply to critics

The Washington Post's ombudsman has announced she's no longer going to reply to critics. So what exactly is the Washington Post paying this woman for?

The Washington Post's new ombudsman has come under some criticism of late for writing a series of rather poor columns. Her first claim to fame was commenting on Bob Woodward's ethical lapse of failing to tell his editor, or the public, for two years that he was intimately involved in the Valerie Plame affair, while he went on TV and criticized the special prosecutor. The ombudsman's recommendation for fixing the problem of Woodward refusing to come clean to his editor? Bob needs an editor.

Then, just last week, the ombudsman wrote last week that Jack Abramoff gave lots of money to Democrats. In fact, Jack Abramoff never gave a dime to Democrats, his personal donations were only to Republicans. The ombudsman went on to suggest that conservative critics were correct in being angry at the Post for not mentioning all the Democrats who Jack Abramoff personally gave money to (again, there were none).

And the latest controversy is over another Post reporter writing that Bush "repeatedly consulted" with members of Congress about his illegal domestic spying program. In fact, the administration informed a few select members of Congress about parts of the program but gave them no option to agree or disagree with what was taking place, and in fact, several members of Congress expressed concern about what the administration was proposing to do. Therefore, to suggest that the administration repeatedly consulted with members of Congress - i.e., those members of Congress had input on the spy program and thus endorsed it - is not true.

Well, Media Matters, a lead media watchdog group, complained to the ombudsman about this last issue, the ombudsman responded, and when Media Matters responded to the ombudsman's response, the Washington Post ombudsman apparently told the Washington Post's staff internally that she was no longer going to reply to critics.

Now, that might strike some as a bit odd, coming from someone whose only job is responding to critics. It also comes off as rather petulant and immature, not to mention arrogant and self-serving. Whatever the merits of Media Matters' criticism, they are one of the largest and most powerful media watchdog organizations around, and they represent a lot of concerned Washington Post readers. But regardless, whether the criticism comes from Media Matters or Joe Six-Pack, the ombudsman's job is to be thick-skinned, calm, rationale, and responsive - period. Hissy fits are not in the job description.

I read somewhere today that liberals were developing the same loathing and lack of respect for the Washington Post that conservatives have for the New York Times. It's sad, but it's true. The Washington Post is showing its age, and it's not pretty. Read the rest of this post...

Senate Commerce Committee to hold hearings on phone records privacy issue

This is great. Back in the late 80s, early 90s, I worked for Stevens. Definitely going to check in with them regarding this.

Chairman Stevens Reacts to Third Party Access to Phone Records

WASHINGTON, DC – Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) today made the following statement in reaction to reports about third party access to private cell phone records:

"Recent reports detailing the ease with which third parties can access private phone records are alarming. Congress must ensure that Americans’ phone records are protected and that there will be severe penalties for invading privacy," said Chairman Stevens.

"The Senate Commerce Committee will examine potential legislative solutions to this growing problem and assess the proper roles of the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission. Our Committee will hold a public hearing in the near future to investigate how to better protect phone records."

Read the rest of this post...

Totally cool

New Web site. Let's you check out neighborhoods with actual photos of the buildings on the streets (this is NOT like Google Earth). I've seen this before in France, but this is new for the US. You can use it to check out neighborhoods, to look for a specific store that you know is on a street but can't remember what it's called. To find what someone's house looks like before you visit for the first time.

Ok, so it's got a bit of a creepy side to it. But it's also very cool.

Check out the link to see Washington, DC. They've done a number of other cities too. Read the rest of this post...

Anti-Microsoft religious right leader: The Jews killed Christ

Gee, what a surprise. The far-right preacher who attacked Microsoft last year, and is attacking them again this year, because Microsoft supports equal rights for every American, has his own little Jewish problem. Here he is doing an interview about Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of Christ":

LEIGH SALES: Pastor Ken Hutcherson, who runs the Antioch Bible Church in Washington State, has seen an advance screening of the film. In order to generate favourable publicity, Gibson's company has invited select, mostly Christian audiences, to showings to ensure good word-of-mouth.

KEN HUTCHERSON: I think it's going to be controversial to those believers who don't want to admit the suffering that Christ had to go through to pay for our sins. I think it's going to be controversial to the whole view of the Jewish nation. The truth is that they did push to have Christ crucified. That's just plain truth... that's Biblical truth.

Maybe Cliff (of Cliff's Corner) will explain to us this coming Friday why he killed Christ.

Seriously though, putting aside the personal glee I feel whenever one of these radical right leaders shows their true colors, I think Hutcherson's comments are important for a number of reasons. They show just how nutty the opposition really is. These are not reasonable Christians who happen to disagree with us (and many of us are reasonable Christians as well, thank you very much). These are far-right religious zealots who have a rather extreme view of their own religion - which is certainly their right - but it's not their right to jam THEIR unique view of God down OUR throats.

That's why Hutcherson's admission about the Jews killing Christ is so important. Hutcherson is entitled to think that "the Jewish nation" killed Christ and that the world needs to keep being reminded of that fact. But that doesn't mean that Hutcherson gets to impose his personal (and rather extreme) view on every company in America, and every law in America.

Just like the American Family Association's troubling record of intolerance to Jews and Muslims (and gays), Hutcherson's personal views on Jews are indicative of who the religious right really is. The people leading these battles against corporate America, against the TV networks - these friends of the Bush White House - are not nice people. And any company, or politician, who cozies up to these people is aligning themself with prejudice and bigotry of the worst kind.

That's why Hutcherson's words are such a gift.

(Hat tip to Horses Ass blog (man, these names)) Read the rest of this post...

Bipartisan group of Senators introduce legislation to fix cell phone records privacy problem

Good. Schumer and Specter are doing this together, Ds and Rs working together, I like that. This shouldn't be a partisan issue, and actually I'd love to see some of the conservative blogs jump in and help out on this. Let's share the credit all around and get this issue fixed.

An aside, the proposed bill only applies to phone records, and that's a problem not addressed in this bill.

Anyway, this is a good start.

The Consumer Telephone Records Protection Act of 2006 will make it a federal offense, punishable as a felony, to obtain customer information from a telephone service provider by false pretenses or access a customer account on the Internet to obtain billing information without authorization. The bill also makes it a crime for phone company employees to sell customer information without proper authorization. The bill applies to cell, landline, and (VOIP) phone records.

The following actions will be violations of federal law under Schumer’s new bill to obtain someone’s phone records by:

1. Making false or fraudulent statements or representations to an employee of a telephone service provider;

2. Making such statements to a customer of a telephone service provider;

3. Accessing a customer account on the Internet without the customer’s authorization;

4. Providing false documentation to a telephone service provider knowing that the document is false;

Cell phone call logs are sought out for a variety of reasons. For years phone records gave been used by law enforcement and private detectives, but with the internet, gaining access to that information has gotten much easier. Websites like www.locatecell.com offer the service online, and with little regulation it is nearly impossible to stop.

All phone records, but especially cell phone records can be of great use to criminals and the information provided through a call log provides whoever is looking with a wealth of personal data. Many call rosters can reveal the names of a cell user’s doctors, their public and private relationships, their business associates and more. While other personal information such as social security numbers which can be on public documents that are found by data brokers, the only warehouse of phone records is at the phone companies themselves.

Experts say that these records can be made available through three techniques. The first is having someone that works for one of the phone companies who sells the data. Though strict rules inside most of the phone companies make this practice risky, officials say that finding someone with access to the information desired is not that difficult. The second technique is “pretexting” where a data broker or the like pretends to be the owner of the phone. In doing so, they convince the cell phone company’s employees to release the data to them.

Third, as more people manage their cell phone accounts online, thieves can access the accounts on the Internet. Many cell phone companies push account holders to manage their accounts online, many of them set up the online capability in advance, many customers never access their Internet accounts. If someone seeking the information can figure out how to activate the account before the real customer does, they get unfettered access to all of the call records.

Though the problem is all too common, federal law is too narrow to include this type of crime. Pretexting for financial data is illegal, but its does not include phone records.

Read the rest of this post...

How long will the media let Bush hide the Abramoff meetings?

Atrios makes a great point, as usual:

Look, back during the Clinton administration this kind of thing would've dominated cable news every night. Howell Raines would've been writing thunderous editorials demanding that we knew every detail of Abramoff's White House connections. Tweety would be cranking out spittle at a record rate, screeching about the "culture of corruption" in the White House. Nightline would've put up a little "X days since White House refused to disclose information about Abramoff contacts with the president" graphic on its show.

Everyone who attended a coffee at the White House during the Clinton Administration had their name printed in the Washington Post and New York Times. The press DEMANDED that information. But, we know the Bush White House repeatedly welcomed Jack Abramoff -- who is both a major GOP fundraiser (a Bush Pioneer, no less) and a convicted felon in part because of his GOP-related shenanigans -- yet, the Bush White House doesn't have to provide details. Is the traditional media really that weak? If they ask too many questions or push too hard, maybe they won't get a Presidential nickname...that would really suck for them.

There's a history to Scotty and the crew stonewalling about their more notorious allies. Remember, they never fully explained how that man-whore Jeff Gannon managed all that repeat business at the White House either. Read the rest of this post...

Even hard-core Right Wingers oppose Bush's illegal domestic spying

Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances (PRCB) is being led by some of the biggest right-wingers in the right wing: Grover Norquist, Paul Weyrich, David Keene, Alan Gottleib (who is a leading gun rights guy) and Bob Barr. They are NOT happy with their fearless leader on this one:

Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances (PRCB) today called upon Congress to hold open, substantive oversight hearings examining the President's authorization of the National Security Agency (NSA) to violate domestic surveillance requirements outlined in the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

See if that gives a spine to any of the GOPers on the Hill who rarely, if ever, question Bush's overreach of power and illegal actions. Read the rest of this post...

Open Thread

Stir it up a little more...okay, a lot more. Read the rest of this post...

White House hiding Abramoff meetings

Yeah, this isn't suspicious:

The White House is refusing to reveal details of tainted lobbyist Jack Abramoff's visits with President Bush's staff.

Abramoff had "a few staff-level meetings" at the Bush White House, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday. But he would not say with whom Abramoff met, which interests he was representing or how he got access to the White House.

Read the rest of this post...

Today Show covered the cell phone privacy story

The Today Show just did a segment on the cell phone privacy scam. Katie and Matt had been promoting it through the show.

There wasn't much new in the actual piece, although it is clear that people are freaked out when they learn about that cell phone records can easily be purchased. And, we learned that Chuck Schumer is apparently going to finally propose legislation today. Why that took so long is a good question.

After the report, Matt said it was "pretty spooky." That's one of the most perceptive comments he's ever made.

One of MSNBC's blog, Red Tape Chronicles, has a report on the issue which links to AMERICAblog's posting about obtaining General Clark's cell phone calls. Read the rest of this post...

GOP scamming on lobbying reforms

Okay, this shouldn't come as a surprise, but the lobby "reform" bill proposed by the House GOP has a huge loophole according to the Washington Post:

According to lobbyists and ethics experts, even if Hastert's proposal is enacted, members of Congress and their staffs could still travel the world on an interest group's expense and eat steak on a lobbyist's account at the priciest restaurants in Washington.

The only requirement would be that whenever a lobbyist pays the bill, he or she must also hand the lawmaker a campaign contribution. Then the transaction would be perfectly okay.

"That's a big hole if they don't address campaign finance," said Joel Jankowsky, the lobbying chief of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, one of the capital's largest lobbying outfits.

The pigs feeding at the trough aren't going to give up all the freebies. They'll just have the lobbyists feed them and take them on trips through their campaigns.

It's classic GOP bait and switch. They're just going to say that they're doing reform -- but not do it. That fits their pattern. Lobby reform doesn't reform anything, like "Clear Skies" doesn't clean the skies and like "No Child Left Behind" leaves kids behind. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Just watched Commander in Chief. Another really good show. A bit hokey, but Geena Davis is surprisingly good. Not because I don't like her as an actress - I do - but I just couldn't imagine her in the part. She's really good.

Anyway, off to bed.

Oh yeah, one more thing. It's 62 degrees outside right now. If the global climate isn't totally screwed, well, then someone has some explaining to do. This is just bizarre. Read the rest of this post...