Probable Carcinogens Found in Baby Toiletries

That's nice. Too bad big business doesn't have the Bush White House defending their dirty work anymore. Washington Post:

More than half the baby shampoo, lotion and other infant care products analyzed by a health advocacy group were found to contain trace amounts of two chemicals that are believed to cause cancer, the organization said yesterday.

Some of the biggest names on the market, including Johnson and Johnson Baby Shampoo and Baby Magic lotion, tested positive for 1, 4-dioxane or formaldehyde, or both, the nonprofit Campaign for Safe Cosmetics reported.

Read the rest of this post...

FOX, with the help of Tony Perkins, is really going after the Chair of its party, Michael Steele

More GOP in-fighting and Jed has compiled the clips. When you've lost the leader of the party, Rush Limbaugh, and the main Republican media outlet, FOX NEWS, you're in trouble:

Read the rest of this post...

GOP House candidate spurns national GOP

This is for the special election to replace Kirsten Gillibrand, the "Democratic" House member who was appointed to Hillary's seat. Seems the GOP nominee is running from the national Republicans like the plague. I guess that Rush Limbaugh strategy isn't working real well for the Republicans. Read the rest of this post...

Minority of GOP voters have favorable view of Republican congressional leaders

Maybe they'd be happier with Senator Limbaugh:

Some striking numbers buried in a new Rasmussen Poll show that GOP Congressional leaders are viewed favorably only by a minority.

A minority of Republican voters, that is.

Just 35% of GOP voters have a favorable rating of GOP House leader John Boehner. Only 40% of Republicans view Senate leader Mitch McConnell favorably.

What’s more, these findings are the work of Rasmussen, who critics have accused of tilting their polling to the right.

Most interesting, a majority of Dems view Pelosi and Reid positively. Read the rest of this post...

Obama and health benefits for gay employees

There's a controversy brewing over whether the federal government should provide health benefits for gay employees.

Some have invoked the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which says that the federal government can't treat same-sex relationships as marriage, to argue that the feds can't provide these benefits. But that misses the point. The federal government provides lots of benefits to families, even though members of those families aren't "married." Your kids are your family, and receive benefits based on that status, even though you're not married to your kids. DOMA doesn't say that gay couples can't be treated as family, it says they can't be treated as married.

That's not an artificial distinction. In society today, even among many politicians, including George W. Bush, benefits aren't the problem. The term "marriage" is the problem. Even conservative politicians, even GOP chair Michael Steele, have said that some kind of benefits for gay couples, be they hospital visitation or whatever, are fine - the sticking point whether we let those couples marry. But clearly even those conservatives like Steele and Bush make a distinction between marriage (which they're against) and benefits (which they're for). So per se benefits are not akin to marriage. Thus, offering benefits does not violate DOMA's proscription against marriage.

As for the NYT offering the straw man that if Obama helps gays achieve their civil rights, it will tick off Republicans who won't help him with the rest of his agenda. Here's a news flash. Republicans aren't helping Obama with his agenda one iota. In fact, they're voting en masse against it. The fact that Obama were to refuse to help gay and lesbian Americans achieve the same civil rights granted to his generation just decades ago would not somehow inspire Republicans to somehow vote for his agenda. It's not going to happen. Ever. And the sooner Democrats get over this romantic notion of "If we just play nice with the Republicans, they'll stop being mean to us," the sooner we can move on and fix this country. Read the rest of this post...

'Enemy combatant' is no more

From the Dept of Justice, a name that no longer carries so much irony:

In a filing today with the federal District Court for the District of Columbia, the Department of Justice submitted a new standard for the government’s authority to hold detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility. The definition does not rely on the President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief independent of Congress’s specific authorization. It draws on the international laws of war to inform the statutory authority conferred by Congress. It provides that individuals who supported al Qaeda or the Taliban are detainable only if the support was substantial. And it does not employ the phrase “enemy combatant.”

The Department also submitted a declaration by Attorney General Eric Holder stating that, under executive orders issued by President Obama, the government is undertaking an interagency review of detention policy for individuals captured in armed conflicts or counterterrorism operations as well as a review of the status of each detainee held at Guantanamo. The outcome of those reviews may lead to further refinements of the government’s position as it develops a comprehensive policy.

“As we work towards developing a new policy to govern detainees, it is essential that we operate in a manner that strengthens our national security, is consistent with our values, and is governed by law,” said Attorney General Holder. “The change we’ve made today meets each of those standards and will make our nation stronger.”

In its filing today, the government bases its authority to hold detainees at Guantanamo on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which Congress passed in September 2001, and which authorized the use of force against nations, organizations, or persons the president determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the September 11 attacks, or harbored such organizations or persons. The government’s new standard relies on the international laws of war to inform the scope of the president’s authority under this statute, and makes clear that the government does not claim authority to hold persons based on insignificant or insubstantial support of al Qaeda or the Taliban.

The brief was filed in habeas litigation brought by numerous detainees at Guantanamo who are challenging their detention under the Supreme Court’s decision last summer in Boumediene v. Bush.

Read the rest of this post...

France lectures US about stimulus when France offered one of the weakest stimulus packages out of the entire G20

Far be it for me to criticize France. But....

The leaders of the G20, an organization representing some of the largest economies in the developed and developing world, are meeting on April 2. Not surprisingly, those leaders are trying to hash out an agreement about how to move forward in dealing with the economic crisis. France has taken the lead, among some European nations, in opposing US efforts to push for larger worldwide stimulus packages.

The US wants the G20 countries to commit to spending 2% of their GDP on stimulus packages meant to boost demand and kick-start the economy worldwide. France's Finance Minister is arguing that no more stimulus is necessary, and in any case, he says that the US was the last country to pass a stimulus package, so it's facing a bigger crisis than the rest of the world, so.... well, it's not totally clear what the French Finance Minister is arguing. But it sounds like he's saying that:

1. The US deserves whatever economic pain it's suffering;
2. The French, European and world economies are somehow insulated from a worsening American economy, so to hell with the Americans; and
3. That the economic crisis is graver in America than in Europe.

Let me quote the AP story first, then I'll walk you through a Brookings analysis that sheds some very interesting light on just what some Europeans, notably France, have really done to address the economic crisis (hint: not much). From AP:

Japan joined the U.S. push for more government spending to fight the economic crisis on Friday but G20 unity looked seriously compromised after Paris accused Washington of disregarding the urgent need for tough market regulation.

"The United States is insisting on the need for a strong, rapid and coordinated stimulus. Why? Because they were the last ones to put in place their plan and they are facing a bigger crisis," France's finance minister, Christine Lagarde, said.

"For most of the countries in continental Europe, the urgency is to develop the rules, highlight discipline and sanctions through a new architecture of the financial system," she said in an interview published by Les Echos newspaper.

So I decided to take a look at what France, and the rest of the European countries, have already done with their stimulus plans, since supposedly they have the moral high ground when it comes to stimulus plans.

And while some European countries, like Germany, have passed significant stimulus packages, others, like France, have passed some of the smallest stimulus packages, as a percentage of national GDP, of any G20 nation.From Brookings:

Almost all countries in the G-20 have announced fiscal stimulus measures.[2]

The total amount of stimulus in the G-20 amounts to about $692 billion for 2009, which is about 1.4 percent of their combined GDP and a little over 1.1 percent of global GDP. This is a significant amount of stimulus, but appears to fall short of what is needed to tackle a crisis of the proportion we are currently in. The IMF, for instance, has called for stimulus equal to 2 percent of global GDP.[3]

Three countries—the U.S., China and Japan—account for about $424 billion of the overall stimulus in 2009, with their shares in the overall global stimulus amounting to 39 percent (U.S.), 13 percent (China) and 10 percent (Japan). Measures for 2009 in the U.S. stimulus package amount to 1.9 percent of its 2008 GDP and the corresponding numbers for China and Japan are 2.1 percent and 1.4 percent, respectively. For the remaining G-20 economies, the total fiscal stimulus amounts to 1.0 percent of their overall GDP.

In 2010, the U.S. accounts for over 60 percent of planned stimulus. China and Germany are the next largest contributors with China contributing 15 percent of G-20 stimulus and Germany contributing 11 percent. Measures for 2010 in the U.S. stimulus package amount to 2.9 percent of 2008 GDP, China’s 2.3 percent, and Germany’s 2.0 percent.

In summary, while almost all countries have signed on to the fiscal stimulus program, the size of the stimulus varies substantially across countries, with some of the stimulus packages looking downright meek (e.g., France, which has proposed measures amounting to only 0.7 percent of GDP in 2009).

What disturbs me is that the French are trying to take the moral high ground on the stimulus when they have one of the most paltry stimulus packages around. Second, it's incredibly dangerous to adopt an attitude that somehow the economic crisis isn't global. Chris has told me a lot in the past about how Europeans were under this deluded notion that the banking and housing crises were "an American problem." Yeah, not so much. (At least our laid off workers aren't taking hostages.)

to imply that what happens in America won't affect what happens in France, seems economically naive. We are all in this together, quite literally - we have a global economy, no one is insulated from what happens in another major trading partner. And finally, the idea that somehow we're beyond the worst of the crisis, and now can start focusing on how to stop it from happening again is, well, a bit premature. I'm all for focusing on how to stop this from happening again, but if I'm drowning I'm more worried about whether you throw me a life preserver now than whether you run off to requisition more life preservers for the future. The French Finance Minister's attitude seems unnecessarily confrontational, autarkic, and even a bit dangerous. Read the rest of this post...

"Having [Rick] Scott lead the charge against healthcare reform is like tapping Bernie Madoff to campaign against tighter securities regulation."

The insurance industry has started its campaign to derail the Obama health care reform agenda. In DC at least, we're seeing ads from the "Conservatives for Patients Rights" with its chairperson Rick Scott.

In a piece at The Nation, Chris Hayes gives the background on the guy the right wing has chosen as a spokesperson. He's a real sleazebag. If you care about health care reform (and you should), read the whole article. For starters:

Having Scott lead the charge against healthcare reform is like tapping Bernie Madoff to campaign against tighter securities regulation. You see, the for-profit hospital chain Scott helped found--the one he ran and built his entire reputation on--was discovered to be in the habit of defrauding the government out of hundreds of millions of dollars.

So, big surprise that this guy wants to make sure there is no real reform. Typical right-winger. But, this is apparently the best the anti-reform side can do. Yet, the traditional media falls for it, of course:

But in Washington there's no such thing as permanent disgrace, and as the healthcare debate heats up, Scott has established himself as a go-to source for reporters looking to hear from the opposition. He's been quoted in the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. He's been on Fox, of course, railing against President Obama's efforts to control healthcare costs. He appeared on CNN, where (as Media Matters noted) host Jessica Yellin never saw fit to notify viewers that the man she introduced as running "a media campaign to limit government's role in the healthcare system" once ran a company that profited mightily from ripping off that government.

Indeed, if there's one thing that's most galling about Scott's antigovernment jihad--and most emblematic--it's that for all his John Galt bluster, he made his fortune (which, yes, he still has) in no small part thanks to steady contract fees from the Great Society's entitlement programs.

There is somebody calling out Rick Scott:

Congressman Pete Stark, a veteran of the last bruising round of fighting over healthcare reform, remembers Scott all too well. Stark recently sent his colleagues a letter hoping to refresh their memories. Calling Scott a "swindler," the letter said, "If he is the conservative spokesperson against healthcare reform, there is no debate."

A swindler. Sounds about right.

Read the rest of this post...

SC GOP governor to gut state education in order to appease national GOP

So what if kids in South Carolina will have to learn in even worse school conditions. They can take comfort in the fact that they're helping their Republican governor, and the national Republican party, push the US economy into a depression by refusing to take stimulus funds.

Yesterday, ThinkProgress reported that Gov. Mark Sanford’s (R-SC) decision to reject $700 million of stimulus funds could result in the firing of up to 7,500 teachers across the state, more than $500 million of which was slated to fill in the massive education budget deficit. Last night, CNN’s Jessica Yellin visited Ty’Sheoma Bethea, the South Carolina student who pleaded with Congress to save her crumbling school. Sanford’s decision, Yellin pointed out, means Bethea’s school will remain in disrepair

. Read the rest of this post...

Limbaugh saves $1.5m a year with Bush tax cuts

No wonder he's so opposed to Obama.

When conservative radio star Rush Limbaugh roots for President Barack Obama’s failure, he may be motivated by something other than ideology.

A new analysis by the Center for American Progress Action Fund finds that the current Bush tax system saves Rush Limbaugh over $1.5 million every year....

Limbaugh is paid approximately $38 million every year — more than 99.9 percent of American taxpayers. By cutting the rates for the top two income brackets Bush effectively saved Rush $1.5 million a year.

Read the rest of this post...

Pope Benedict admits he isn't infallible

The pope admitted mistakes:

Pope Benedict XVI, acknowledging "mistakes" that he "deeply regretted," issued an unusual letter Thursday attempting to quiet a storm of protest over his embrace of an excommunicated bishop who denied that Nazis killed Jews in gas chambers. The letter also appeared to be a broader attempt to answer recent criticism of his papacy.

For once, the pope is right. There were mistakes. Bad mistakes. (Of course, the pope has yet to fix this mistake - apologies are nice, but why is this anti-Semite still a bishop?)

Catholics are taught the pope is infallible. Basically, we were supposed to believe the pope is never wrong. "Papal infallibility" is another of those made-up concepts designed to preserve authority and power. It's absurd, of course. But, Benedict has admitted the pope isn't infallible.

So, let's not stop here with the mistake about the Nazi-loving Bishops. The pope should start admitting to other mistakes. I'll start a list. Most of these are as made-up and faulty as the doctrine of papal infallibility:

the way the Catholic Church treats women;

the virulent homophobia (which isn't only wrong, it's hypocritical considering all the gay priests around. D.C. is crawling with gay priests who hold prominent positions in the church);

the sex-abuse scandal, over which many church leaders are still in denial;

denying contraception, which is bad enough. But, that is compounded by the Catholic church's vehement objection to condoms even when they can save lives;

letting the homophobic, racist Bill Donohue act like the leader of the U.S. Catholic Church; and the double standard for Republicans, who start wars, implement the death penalty, abuse the poor and worship money above all else (pretty sure those all run counter to church teaching)

That's a just a starter list. Since the pope is admitting mistakes, he should keep going. He's admitted to the world's Catholics that he is not infallible. So, the Catholic church can start rectifying other mistakes.

Read the rest of this post...

The Jon Stewart interview with Jim Cramer. It's not pretty for Cramer.

This is the interview everyone is talking about and it's even getting big coverage in the traditional media: Reuters, The New York Times and the Associated Press titles its piece, "Stewart hammers Cramer on `The Daily Show.'"

Jon Stewart asks questions that no one else asked. The business media was to the economic crisis as the DC media was to the Iraq War and other Bush lies. He has a line to Cramer "you all know what's going on." That line captures the essence of much of the corporate media.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Pt. 2

Read the rest of this post...

Friday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

Wow. Those Republicans really are drama queens. It's not limited to Lindsey Graham. The intra-party battles are fierce. How much longer can Michael Steele hold on? What happens when Steele is deposed and replaced by Katon Dawson, the guy from South Carolina who belonged to the whites-only country club? I don't think that will upset the hard-core GOP crowd. Dawson came in second during the balloting for RNC Chair. Steele sealed his fate when he took on Limbaugh. What's been truly amazing, almost stunning, is actually seeing just how much of a puppet-master Rush Limbaugh is. That lard-ass really does run the Republican party.

Let them keep fighting among themselves. What some enterprising t.v. producer should do is arrange a GOP reality show to cover these battles. I'm thinking an American Gladiator-type, fight-to-the-finish show for all the major players. I don't think Rush will last too long if physical fitness is required.

Let's get this Friday started... Read the rest of this post...

Afghanistan sends student journalist to prison for 20 years

Now that Bush is gone and the US is getting deeper into Afghanistan, Obama needs to intervene with this disgraceful decision. By ignoring this case, the US is condoning this decision. The Independent:

Sayed Pervez Kambaksh, the student journalist sentenced to death for blasphemy in Afghanistan, has been told he will spend the next 20 years in jail after the country's highest court ruled against him – without even hearing his defence.

The 23-year-old, brought to worldwide attention after an Independent campaign, was praying that Afghanistan's top judges would quash his conviction for lack of evidence, or because he was tried in secret and convicted without a defence lawyer. Instead, almost 18 months after he was arrested for allegedly circulating an article about women's rights, any hope of justice and due process evaporated amid gross irregularities, allegations of corruption and coercion at the Supreme Court. Justices issued their decision in secret, without letting Mr Kambaksh's lawyer submit so much as a word in his defence.

Read the rest of this post...

Trigger global recession - receive a bonus worth millions...

But throw a shoe and you get three years in prison. It's hard to see how anyone could ever become cynical.

The Iraqi journalist who hurled his shoes at George Bush, gaining instant hero status in much of the Arab world, has today been sentenced to three years in prison.

Muntazer al-Zaidi, 30, who worked for the al-Baghdadiya television channel, shouted "Long live Iraq" when the sentence was read out.

Zaidi had earlier pleaded not guilty and said his actions were a "natural response to the occupation".

He was given the three-year sentence for assaulting a foreign head of state during an official visit.

After the verdict was announced, his relatives erupted in anger, shouting that the decision was unjust and unfair. Some collapsed and had to be helped from the court. Others were forcibly removed by security forces as they shouted "Down with Bush" and "Long live Iraq".

Read the rest of this post...

Madoff goes to jail

Good. I hope that he lives a long life and dies in a flea infested jail. He's ruined individuals and foundations helping many people and did not deserve the luxury of living in his Manhattan high rise. Unfortunately I suspect he's going to get a country club prison and his family will be treated better than the victims who were left with nothing.

Madoff pleaded guilty Thursday to 11 counts in an epic fraud that robbed investors worldwide of billions of dollars, avoiding eye contact with swindled investors before he was led out of court with his hands cuffed behind his back.

Madoff was taken to the Metropolitan Correctional Center, near the Federal courthouse. It is run by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. He is scheduled to be formally sentenced on June 16.

U.S. District Judge Denny Chin denied bail for Madoff, 70, and ordered him to jail, noting that he had the means to flee and an incentive to do so because of his age.

Applause broke out in the courtroom after the judge's announcement. Madoff's lawyer says he plans to appeal the decision by the judge to revoke the bail.

Madoff spoke steadily in court as he addressed the judge before his guilty plea was accepted.

"I am actually grateful for this opportunity to publicly comment about my crimes, for which I am deeply sorry and ashamed," he said.

"As the years went by, I realized my risk, and this day would inevitably come.

I cannot adequately express how sorry I am for my crimes." Madoff did not look at any of the three investors who spoke at the hearing, even when one of them turned in his direction and tried to address him.

Read the rest of this post...