Toxic FEMA trailers thanks to lack of regulations

Not so surprisingly, if the federal government fails to provide basic guidelines, contractors will provide the cheapest solution regardless of the health impact or quality. Were their no regulations because of the half-baked GOP idea of industry self regulation or because they really don't give a damn what happens to people left homeless due to situations beyond their control? Let's just call it compassionate conservatism, without the compassion, as usual.

An analysis by researchers for Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that four Katrina trailers emitted the toxic chemical at levels four to 11 times as high as those found in typical U.S. homes. The study looked at both commercially available units and ones custom-built for the Federal Emergency Management Agency in 2005 and 2006.

The new findings appear to confirm the role that manufacturers' practices and weak federal regulation played in the public health disaster after the August 2005 storm. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has called trailermakers to testify Wednesday.

Read the rest of this post...

Coupon clipping halts 16 year decline

Coupons are not as widely available or used over here in France, but we read the closely follow the 2-for-1 and other deals each week very closely. We also buy "special offer" products that are nearing expiration dates, then stuff the freezer. It's a competition to see who can find the best deals when we go to the grocery stores. How about you? Are you using coupons or is it too much of a hassle?

Amid soaring fuel costs and a housing and credit crisis, Americans last year halted a 16-year trend of declining redemptions by turning in 2.6 billion manufacturers' coupons, according to CMS Inc., a coupon processing agent and promotions logistics service based in Winston-Salem, N.C. That marked the first year since 1992, when nearly 8 billion coupons were used, that redemptions had not fallen.

CMS says historical trends show that coupon redemption rates rise when prices and unemployment are going up, so more coupon use is expected this year.

Read the rest of this post...

Florida Governor Charlie Crist is engaged. To a woman.

The newspaper has a poll asking if the marriage is "politically motivated." Newspapers never ask that. Someone must want to be veep very badly. Read the rest of this post...

This just in: Shocking new "fist bump" revelations from the corporate media

Yes, you'll be glad to know that when America is facing $4/gallon gas, and skyrocketing prices for health care, food, and just about everything else, the corporate media is focusing on the really important stuff. Namely, whether Obama did or didn't refuse to fist bump a kid the other day (the story is bogus, the kid actually wanted Obama to autograph his hand).

How is this news? Seriously. How is it news whether or not Obama fist bumped a kid this week? If they're not genuflecting before John McCain's greatness, they're reporting on every bizarre story they can to hurt Obama. Yes, don't say anything that the press deems unpatriotic about John McCain, but feel free to question whether Obama has a problem with the American flag. That's fair game because, you know, while the media knows McCain loves America, Obama is black, I mean Muslim, I mean he has a funny name, I mean, well I don't know what I mean - but you know what I mean. We need to write story after story about whether Barack Obama is "patriotic," about how he may not love the flag, we need to ask Obama if his preacher loves America, but any time anyone asks a legitimate question of McCain, Mrs. Alan Greenspan and Bob Schieffer will flip out at you. Maybe Obama should be inviting Mrs. Greenspan and Schieffer to more barbeques and donuts. I understand that once you do that, you're in like flint. Read the rest of this post...

Former GOP congressman, Curt Weldon, at center of arms deals Between Russia, Libya, Iraqi Army

Creepy. Read the rest of this post...

Comedy Central/Viacom plan massive privacy violation

It really is amazing the degree to which the Comedy Central lawyers don't get how the Internet put their network on the map, especially Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Honestly, I stopped mentioning and posting Stewart's skits, even the ones on Comedy Central's own site, after their wonderful lawyers got my YouTube account deleted. And now their lawyers want all of your IP addresses, and apparently the court is giving it to them. I get that Viacom has an interest in its video. But putting aside the fact that they have no clue the degree to which the Internet made them, Viacom has no right to invade my privacy just because it has a gripe with YouTube. Read the rest of this post...

Obama's staff taking questions on FISA right NOW

Go to his blog right now if you care about FISA. Obama just issued a statement to those who are upset that he is supporting the FISA bill - a bill that includes retroactive immunity for phone companies that helped our government illegally spy on us, their customers. More importantly, his staff is taking questions for the next 20 minutes or so in the comments. Here's your chance. Read the rest of this post...

Sixth straight month of job losses

Painful. May losses were changed from 49,000 up to 62,000 jobs. Read the rest of this post...

Why the left matters. Case in point: the gay community

Come next month, we may not be talking about gas prices or health care or the economy, or Barack Obama being anointed the Democratic nominee. We may be talking about whether the Democratic party discriminates against gays. Not only would that be off-message for the Democratic convention, it would be about as badly off-message as a Democrat could get two months before the election.

Let me step back a second. You may remember that last year I posted about the Democratic National Committee firing their gay liaison, Donald Hitchcock. (Here's DNC Treasurer Andy Tobias' response to the allegations.) This happened at the same time that Hitchcock's boyfriend/partner, longtime Democratic politico Paul Yandura, was publicly raising a lot of concerns about how the DNC does or does not address gay issues. Well, after Donald got fired, things went from bad to worse, and Donald and Paul sued the DNC for defamation and discrimination. Today we find out that the DNC's attempt to throw the lawsuit out (called "summary judgment" in legal circles) failed. That means the judge believes Paul and Donald have a legitimate case, and the suit is not just frivolous. I know Paul and Donald, and Andy Tobias, and I'm not going to weigh in on the merits of this case because it's not really relevant to my larger point, which I get to below (well, I also have no idea what really happened). Read on.

Here is what the Washington Blade had to say today, then I'll explain why I think this is a problem for Obama and the Democrats more generally.

A judge in the case of a gay man suing the Democratic National Committee rejected on Wednesday the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, pushing the case closer to a possible trial.

Donald Hitchcock, the DNC’s former head of gay outreach, accuses the party of anti-gay discrimination and retaliation. His partner, longtime party activist Paul Yandura, had criticized the DNC in an open letter to the gay community prior to Hitchcock’s dismissal.

The DNC has denied the claims and sought summary judgment in the case after months of often contentious deposition testimony. The parties in the suit are scheduled for mediation on July 31.

In her ruling this week, Judge Jeanette Clark rejected summary judgment, citing possible defamatory remarks made by DNC Chair Howard Dean and party treasurer Andy Tobias and the possibility that they “aided and abetted the DNC by participating in a scheme to discriminate and retaliate that resulted in plaintiff’s termination of his position at the DNC."

Why does this matter for Barack Obama? Because once you become the Democratic nominee, you become the putative head of the DNC. This is no longer just the DNC's problem, it's Obama's problem.

That leads me to a more general point I've been thinking about over the past week. As Obama moves to the middle there's been a lot of talk in the press about how this is a necessary and expected move for any presidential candidate. And they're right. The primaries are about winning your own party, the general election is about winning the middle. But, that doesn't entirely tell the story. Even after you've sewn up the nomination, there are good reasons to maintain good relations with your own party base.

For example, in the Democratic party, MoveOn is a huge fundraising machine with the ability to get media at the drop of a hat. It's probably better to have MoveOn on your side than to tick them off, and have them raise less money for you and do things that get you unwanted attention in the press.

Or take the blogs. Sure, the liberal blogs and their readers will vote for Obama no matter what he does (within reason). But blogs are about more than votes (and raising money). Blogs excel at monitoring the media and keeping it fair and honest. Blogs are our party's first real echo chamber. In addition to fighting back against media bias, blogs can also create themes that the media then turns into stories, and they can defuse right-wing attacks before those attacks become news at all. That's a pretty helpful thing for any politician, as the Republicans have known for over a decade with their own right-wing echo chamber of talk radio and conservative churches. However, when the blogosphere feels taken for granted, when it feels that it's been left behind and its readers disowned (or some would even say "betrayed"), it tends to say so publicly. That's the nature of the blogs - subjective but fair, honest and quite open, and not very big on pulling a punch. A number of blogs have been criticizing Obama of late over the specifics of his move to the middle, and their criticism has actually been feeding into right-wing talking points about Obama's perceived weaknesses. Why is this a problem? Because the left-wing echo chamber may be cementing right-wing smears about Obama in the public mind and the mind of the media. It's the noise machine in reverse, and it's a dangerous thing for any candidate.

There's a reason key constituencies in the party are key constituencies. Typically it's because they have power. Whether that power is based in money or activist followers or influence with public opinion, it's the kind of thing that can go awfully wrong if it's not continually cultivated. Now, how does this all relate to Donald and Paul and the DNC? Well, the gay community is a part of the Democratic Party, and one could even argue that we're part of the "base" of the party. It would be easy to argue that 75% of gay people will vote for Obama like they always do for Democratic presidential candidates, and they probably will. But come next month, when Barack Obama wants the entire country talking about why he's the best man for the job of commander in chief, he doesn't want to be talking about why his DNC fired a gay guy, and have that open up a larger discussion of DNC relations with blacks, Latinos, Asians, women and every other core civil rights constituency. And if Obama is forced to talk about it, he really really really wants the gay community, and all those other communities, on his side, so the story doesn't spin out of control and ruin the most important messaging moment of his campaign. Obama has the gay community, like he has any core Democratic constituency, until he doesn't have them. The gay community, like most core constituencies, won't walk come the election. But that's not what a politician should be concerned about. The gay community, like any "base" constituency, are a rather uncontrollable beast that can get you really off message if you've failed to maintain good relations and suddenly something goes wrong.

That's was a bit long winded, but my overall point is that you don't need key constituencies when things are going well. You need them when things are going like crap. And as Michael Dukakis learned in 1988, you can go from well to crap in a matter of weeks. Move to the middle, to be sure. Just don't forget who brung you to the dance. Read the rest of this post...

McCain says Obama doesn't support our troops in Iraq

Yeah, no personal aspersions there. Nope. John McCain, who actually put a member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth on a campaign phone call this week (you may not have read about that because the corporate media didn't really think it was a story), who then went ahead and accused, all over again, injured war hero John Kerry of having faked his medals from Vietnam (didn't hear about that either? silly you, the media only gets outraged when John McCain gets questions about his military service, not when McCain attacks other American war heroes) - yes, that John McCain said today that Barack Obama doesn't support American troops fighting for their lives in Iraq. Just a few days ago, the media was all upset that anyone would even ask John McCain about his qualifications for president. That was unpatriotic, you see. But apparently it's okay for McCain to suggest that Obama hates the troops (hell, David Broder himself said that Democrats don't like the military, so do we really expect him to hold McCain accountable for parroting the same lies?) Then again, John McCain invites all the reporters to lots of barbeques and stuff and he eats donuts with them, and Obama doesn't, so you know, as David Broder says, the media know John McCain's soul and it's white as the driven snow, so they don't need to report the bad stuff about him because there is none. No, their job is make sure that nobody asks John McCain any hard questions, especially questions that they deem unpatriotic, like why he didn't love America until the age of 31. I wonder what Andrea Mitchell and Bob Schieffer have to say about McCain's disgusting attack on Obama's patriotism the day before the 4th of July? Or is it okay to question Barack Obama's patriotism because he's, well, you know. Read the rest of this post...

McCain Flips At Legit Question

From Iraq war vet Jon Soltz at VetVets (the post is hard to excerpt, better to read the entire thing in the original):

I've been running VoteVets.org for a couple of years now. In 2006 and in 2008, we've endorsed a number of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans for Congress. It's still a story that the press is largely interested in, and when they call me to talk about it, I always -- always -- get the same first question:

What is it about their honorable service in Iraq and/or Afghanistan that qualifies them to go to Congress?

It's a legit question, and neither I, nor any of the candidates, take any umbrage at it....

Yesterday, John McCain was asked basically the same question by a brave reporter at ABC News. The reporter, not falling for the hysterics and mock-outrage of the McCain camp over General Wesley Clark's comments simply asked what John McCain's experiences in Vietnam did to prepare him to lead the largest military on the face of the earth.

McCain's response?

"Please," he said, recoiling back in his seat in distaste at the very question.

Uh uh. That's not good enough. You would assume that given all the whining over General Clark's legitimate point, that John McCain had some obvious answer to the question. Instead, he refused to answer the question, and let Joe Lieberman and Lindsay Graham come to his defense, babbling to the reporter about character, but not a word about qualifications....

That's why the McCain campaign went into all-out outrage mode over General Clark's comments. It wasn't about being offended. It wasn't even about General Clark. It was about lashing out so strongly that the media would cower in fear, and not even think about putting a question like this to McCain -- a question to which he has no answer, and is afraid of being exposed on that point. And, for most of the week, that strategy was successful, as the press wimped out, and repeated the McCain talking points....

It's a legit question, and it's a question for which the American people deserve an answer.

Read the rest of this post...

Paulson: don't blame dollar for high oil

Uh huh, right. This from the guy who tells us the US has a strong dollar policy. Are there other factors involved as well? Of course, but let's try living in the real world Hank, where the disastrous economic policies of Bush and the GOP have severely damaged the economy and the living quality for many Americans.

As Mark Twain said "there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Read the rest of this post...

NYT: We vigorously debunked the Swift Boaters in 2004. (Sure you did)

The NYT is now claiming, rather incredibly, that they and the rest of the corporate media thoroughly debunked the Swift Boaters during the 2004 campaign. As Eric Boehlert asks, what campaign were they following?

First Eric notes how John McCain, who can do no wrong per Andrea Mitchell and David Broder and donut-toting Liz Sidoti, is actually using the Swift Boaters in his current campaign:

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth remain hovering like unwanted guests over the current campaign cycle.

Sen. John McCain, who four years ago criticized the Swift Boat smears, is now accepting their donations. And this week, he even dragged one of the Swift Boat Vets, Bud Day, out into public view to, of all things, condemn what the vet claimed were political attacks on McCain's Vietnam War record.

Next, Eric explains how the NYT thinks the media actually debunked the Swift Boaters in 2004:

[W]hat elevated the outlandish Swift Boat allegations that Sen. John Kerry had lied about his war injuries in Vietnam, and what gave the allegations legitimacy and legs, was the fact that the mainstream press not only showered the Swift Boat attacks with voluminous coverage (CNN aired nearly 300 segments on the topic), but that the press completely failed, in a timely fashion, to ferret out the lies the Swift Boat Vets were peddling as part of their elaborate campaign season hoax....

[T]he Times piece suggested that, regardless of Pickens' refusal to pay up, it was common knowledge back in 2004 that many of the Swift Boat accusations were hollow and that the accusers were often at odds with the facts and themselves.

"Of course, none of this is really new," the Times reported. "Extensive media accounts undermined the Swift Boat charges in 2004, pointing out that some of the Swift Boat critics had written statements during Vietnam lauding Mr. Kerry for extraordinary bravery in the incidents they later said he made up."

Uh, no they didn't - and that comes from independent media monitors at the Columbia Journalism Review:

The sad truth is that the Swift Boat hoax (and that's what it was -- a hoax) did not represent some sort of unvarnished truth-telling by the press. It represented a low point in timid campaign journalism.

"Instead of acting as filters for the truth, reporters nodded and attentively transcribed both sides of the story, invariably failing to provide context, background, or any sense of which claims held up and which were misleading," wrote Brian Montopoli, Zachary Roth, and Thomas Lang at CJR Daily, back in August 2004.

The press, in other words, got used. Badly....

But why rely on some wonks to explain how thoroughly the media botched their coverage of the Swift Boaters? Let's look at how the NYT themselves covered the story in 2004:

[I]n the final week of August 2004, when the controversy was raging in the press, three Vietnam vets independently stepped forward to support Kerry's version of events surrounding his Bronze Star award; a Bronze Star the Swift Boat accusers claimed was a fraud because Kerry had lied about being under fire. The three vets were Wayne Langhofer, Jim Russell, and Robert Lambert. Together, their stories obliterated any claim the Swift Boat Veterans had made about Kerry's Bronze Star being undeserved.

But how did the Times treat those revelations? It mostly ignored them. Neither Langhofer nor Lambert was ever mentioned by the Times, while Russell garnered just brief, passing mentions in the paper of record; a newspaper that published more than 100 articles and columns in 2004 mentioning the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

And note that, on August 23, 2004, the Times published a Page 1 piece regarding the political toll the Swift Boat attacks were taking on Kerry's campaign. Nowhere in the 1,500-word article was it suggested that the Swift Boat claims were unsubstantiated. Tactics were of paramount concern to Times campaign reporters, not so much the facts.

Bummer. Then Eric tells you how the Washington Post, Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Houston Chronicle, Wall Street Journal, and PBS handled the story back then:

* The August 20, 2004, PBS' Washington Week hosted a detailed round-table discussion about the Swift Boat controversy, featuring editors and reporters from The Wall Street Journal, the Houston Chronicle, the Los Angeles Times, and USA Today. There was no mention of the glaring gaps in the Swift Boat allegations.

* An August 24, 2004, Boston Globe front-page article about the Swift Boat controversy and made no mention about the glaring gaps in the allegations against Kerry.

* August 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28, 2004, Washington Post front-page articles on the Swift Boat controversy made no mention of the glaring gaps in the allegations.

This comes as no surprise to anyone who wasn't high or comatose during the 2004 elections. We were begging the media to stop giving the Swift Boaters credibility, to stop treating the story as a he-said-she-said where they have to treat both sides equally, treat their arguments as legitimate, in order to be "fair." The media didn't do its due diligence, they didn't debunk the Swift Boaters, they didn't go out of their way like Andrea Mitchell and Bob Schieffer to gush over what a war hero John Kerry was, the way they're gushing incessantly over John McCain during their broadcasts. No, when a Democratic war hero was running for president, the corporate media let the Republicans roast him at the spit. And now the NYT would like you to absolve it of all sin. I don't think so. Read the rest of this post...

Dem House candidate saved from fire by five year old son

Bumped, because this one is really important.


Democratic House candidate Darcy Burner (WA-08) just watched her house burn down yesterday. She and her husband were asleep when they were awakened at 7am by her screaming five-year-old son:

"Henry came into our room screaming there was a fire," she said. "I scooped him up and got him out of the house. The fire started in his room. He did everything right."

Darcy is an amazing candidate. She came within 3 percentage points of beating her Republican challenger in 2006, so she has a real chance at this seat, especially with the tide of new Democratic voters we’re seeing with the Obama surge. Darcy is a former Microsoft executive, current mom and community activist, and she’ll make a great addition to the US House in the fall. She even has her own 30-page responsible plan to end the Iraq war and bring our troops home. Darcy is the real deal.

Darcy needs our support now more than ever. Darcy is in a very competitive race and needs to constantly be raising money. By donating, we're taking the pressure off so she can deal with the aftermath of the fire. Our $5,000 goal gives her a one-day respite. Please click the blue box at left (or click here) and make a donation to Darcy's campaign. It'd be great if we can show our support for her, especially now. Thanks guys. Oh, and the fireman saved their pooch too :-) (You can check out a local news report on the fire here.) Read the rest of this post...

Rove is gaining control of the campaign for Bush's third term

The headline in today's Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune, where the Republicans will be gathering in just two months, really sums it up: McCain camp puts Rove man in charge. I'd go a step further and say: McCain puts Rove in Charge. They're not even trying to hide it:

The elevation of Steve Schmidt -- who worked closely with Karl Rove -- at McCain's headquarters represented a sharp diminishment of the responsibilities of Rick Davis, who has been McCain's campaign manager since the last shake-up nearly a year ago.

The move is the latest sign of increasing influence of veterans of Rove's shop in the McCain operation. Nicolle Wallace, who was communications director for Bush in the 2004 campaign (and in his White House) has joined the campaign as a senior adviser, and will travel with McCain every other week. Greg Jenkins, another veteran of Rove's operation who is a former Fox News producer and director of presidential advance in the Bush White House, was hired by Schmidt last week after a series of what McCain's advisers acknowledged were poorly executed campaign events.

This crew knows how to elect George Bush -- and that's what they're going to try to do: Secure a third Bush term. Read the rest of this post...

Thursday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

Jed has renamed McCain's plane the "Lap Dog Express" with good reason. Watch the talking heads gush over the new plane...they're just giddy about it:



This is what we're up against -- a press corps that salivates when John McCain gets a plane. It really is the "Lap Dog Express."

Oh boy.... Read the rest of this post...

US oil jumps to new high, London Brent almost $146

Republicans know economics. Read the rest of this post...

British retailers see "seismic shift"

Gas (sorry, petrol) prices in the UK are always high but now they're even higher. Even when buying with the British Pound which is almost double the strength of the US dollar, it's still expensive. This week has been especially bad for the British retailer Marks & Spencer who has lost around $2.5 billion in value. Even worse, M&S; stock is 1/3 of its value one year ago. One of the problems they are facing today is the high cost of gas which is keeping shoppers closer to home instead of driving to the big shopping centers. I have not read anything (yet) about this in the US though it would not come as much of a surprise if the situation was the same.

People driving less is not necessarily a bad thing, but it's still a radical change and is adding to the current problems. There are countless after-shocks courtesy of the weak dollar so despite the new round of "the weak dollar ain't so bad" stories, it is. There's a difference between a weak dollar and a 98 pound weakling at the beach dollar and right now, we're not even at 98 pounds, we're weaker. In the coming weeks and months expect many more changes in business coming from the weak dollar/high oil prices. Read the rest of this post...