Some Protests Are More Newsworthy Than Others

It appears New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd has plagiarized liberal blogger Josh Marshall. Count me not shocked. It’s about what we’ve come to expect from the mainstream media these days. They are on life support, and they are doing their damnedest to make it hard for us to care.

Meanwhile, the rest of the MSM has covered anti-choice protests of President Obama’s Notre Dame commencement address ad nauseum. To be precise:

Since the announcement on March 20 that Obama would speak, The Washington Post alone has addressed the controversy in 11 articles and columns. The New York Times has dealt with it in eight columns and articles. And as for television news segments, there have been too many to count.

Even all three of our local TV news networks had to jump into the game last night. Which is, like, so funny because in all the times I showed up to protest President Bush the media only bothered to show up once. That was when Bush attended a fundraiser at Loew’s Vanderbilt Plaza; there were 200 protesters and five College Republicans. The College Republicans got as much air time as the protesters.

It wasn’t just Nashville. From the memory hole:

Hundreds of thousands of Americans around the country protested the Iraq War on the weekend of September 24-25, with the largest demonstration bringing between 100,000 and 300,000 to Washington, D.C. on Saturday.

But if you relied on television for your news, you'd hardly know the protests happened at all. According to the Nexis news database, the only mention on the network newscasts that Saturday came on the NBC Nightly News, where the massive march received all of 87 words. (ABC World News Tonight transcripts were not available for September 24, possibly due to pre-emption by college football.)

Cable coverage wasn't much better. CNN, for example, made only passing references to the weekend protests.

Again, count me not shocked. When liberals protest a president, it isn’t news, because we all know that’s what DFH’s do: they protest. Always have, at least from the ’60s, right? We protest presidents, we protest wars. It’s such old news. *Yawn.* Dog bites man. But for some reason when conservatives protest a liberal president, it’s man bites dog. Suddenly, it’s “Backlash.” Thank you, CNN.

Even at the White House Correspondents Dinner last week, with all of the journalists in attendance, the only thing we heard was that Wanda Sykes offended Rush Limbaugh. Oh, boo fucking hoo. What, you can’t take it, tough guy?

Was that the only story from that night? No it was not. Seems a couple of DFH’s protested former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Not that you’d have known about it from watching CNN or reading the New York Times or Washington Post. Maybe they should have announced a "Protest With Arrests” on their website beforehand.

So in case you missed it, here it is:

Shiny, Happy, Taxed People

Can paying taxes make you happy? This columnist seems to think so. He looked at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's global happiness survey and noticed that the world’s top 10 happiest people also pay some of the world’s highest taxes. He observes:

Northern Europeans pay some of the highest taxes in the world. Danes pay about two-thirds of their income in taxes. Why be so happy about that? It all comes down to what you get in return.

The Encyclopedia of the Nations notes that Denmark was one of the first countries in the world to establish efficient social services with the introduction of relief for the sick, unemployed and aged.

It says social welfare programs include health insurance, health and hospital services, insurance for occupational injuries, unemployment insurance and employment exchange services. There's also old age and disability pensions, rehabilitation and nursing homes, family welfare subsidies, general public welfare and payments for military accidents. Moreover, maternity benefits are payable up to 52 weeks.

Simply, you pay for what you get. Taxes in the U.S. have taken on a pejorative association because, well, we are never really quite sure of what we get in return for paying them, other than the world's biggest military.

Healthcare and other such social services aren't built into our system. That means we have to worry more about paying for things ourselves. Worrying doesn't equate to happiness.

Well, that’s certainly interesting. I can already hear the howls of protest from the folks over at Tennessee Free: “I’m quite certain taxes won’t make me happier, you Socialist! You go ahead and pay them if you want!” I love that argument. Taxes only work if everyone pays them, you dufuses.

As the article observes, America is the world’s richest nation, yet we don’t even rank in the top 10 of happiness. So apparently money can’t buy happiness, after all.

I still jokingly refer to Norway as “the promised land,” after seeing their healthcare system first-hand last year and learning about how they handle resources like oil. It certainly would be nice to not have to worry about things like paying for healthcare, childcare, and education.

I do think the author is correct in that because so much is not built into our system, people ramp up the whine factor where taxes are concerned. The anti-tax crowd acts like a bunch of spoiled children, selectively decrying where “their” money goes. Social services like welfare, food stamps and public housing--things that take “their” money and give it to “those people” (read: poor, usually brown) are always a waste, in their view. They don't benefit from it directly, or if they do (see Joe The Plumber, Welfare Queen), they pretend they haven't because this flies in the face of the iconic "rugged individualist" we so admire.

Military spending is never a waste, and the more the better, which I never understood. But what about the gazillion other things our taxes pay for: public schools, roads, dams, inspecting and protecting the food supply, national parks, forests and wildlife refuges, disaster relief after hurricanes and earthquakes, mail delivery, keeping shipping channels and harbors open, the interstate highway system that keeps us connected ... all of these things work so seamlessly most of the time that they are easily ignored. You forget who built and maintained that road you drove to work on, unless you drove over a pothole, in which case you probably cursed it..

Heh. Try driving down some of the roads in Costa Rica then, buddy.

Anyway, if people in countries like Norway and Denmark see how they benefit personally from taxation when they go to the doctor, take their kids to school, get a free college education, care for their aging parents, etc., I wonder if Americans would, too. And I wonder if this isn’t what scares the crap out of Republicans fighting “socialized medicine” tooth and nail: they aren’t afraid it would fail, but rather that it would work, too well.

Something to think about.

Happy “Whitey Tape” Day!

Remember the infamous “Whitey Tape?” Good times, good times:

I now have it from two sources that there is video dynamite–Michelle Obama railing against “whitey” at Jeremiah Wright’s church. Republicans may have a lousy record when it comes to the economy and the management of the war in Iraq, but they are hell on wheels when it comes to opposition research. Someone took the chance and started reviewing the recordings from services at Jeremiah Wright’s United Church of Christ. Holy smoke!! I am told there is a clip that is being held for the fall to drop at the appropriate time. The last thing Barack and Michelle need is a new clip that raises further questions about her judgment and temperament.

Wonder whatever happened to that tape. Oh, yeah:

One year later, no such tape has ever surfaced.

Did Larry Johnson get played, or did he pull it straight out of his ass? Enquiring minds would love to know.

I’m not feeling nostalgic for last year’s crass presidential campaign, but I do think that people who just made shit up for the purpose of character assassination should be held to account.

Nobody Could Have Anticipated, Vol. XXIV

Dang, score another one for my bullshit-smelling nose. Remember those healthcare industry groups who vowed to do their very best to cut healthcare costs, as long as it doesn’t hurt them too much? And by "not much” we mean not at all? Seems they are having second thoughts:

Hospitals and insurance companies said Thursday that President Obama had substantially overstated their promise earlier this week to reduce the growth of health spending.

Mr. Obama invited health industry leaders to the White House on Monday to trumpet their cost-control commitments. But three days later, confusion swirled in Washington as the companies’ trade associations raced to tamp down angst among members around the country.

Oh, dear. Follow the links and you will see these healthcare groups boldly resolved in a press release:

By reducing the rate of growth in health care spending by 1.5% each year, the nation can achieve a savings of $2 trillion over the next decade.

To deciding

He and other health care executives said they had agreed to squeeze health spending so the annual rate of growth would eventually be 1.5 percentage points lower.

One of the lobbyists, Karen M. Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, said the savings would “ramp up” gradually as the growth of health spending slowed.

David H. Nexon, senior executive vice president of the Advanced Medical Technology Association, a trade group for makers of medical devices, said “there was no specific understanding” of when the lower growth rate would be achieved.

So we went from a specific "1.5% a year" to a "gradual" and very non-specific decrease. Amazing.

So in other words, not so fast! We’ll get there, eventually. Just not any time soon, which means, probably never.

My nose for bullshit is rarely wrong.

Once again, asking the people who profit off of healthcare to voluntarily take less profit is pure folly. It’s like Dick Cheney asking the oil companies to write our energy policy.

Come on, people. This shit is important. Too important to be left in the hands of a bunch of greedy assholes whose financial interests are diametrically opposed to seeing a functioning, affordable healthcare system in this country.

President Obama and the U.S. Congress, I say this to you: get tough with these assholes and tell them to bring their best offer to the table or be put out of business. Enough is enough.

Lost In Homophobic Translation

[UPDATE]:

Welcome AmericaBlog readers!

The ironically-named columnist Charlie Butts of OneNewsNow (the American Family Assn.'s "news" division) is leading a parade of wingnuts crowing over a statement on sexual orientation from the American Psychological Assn. This is supposedly “scientific proof” that there is no gay gene:

The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there's no homosexual "gene" -- meaning it's not likely that homosexuals are born that way.

For decades, the APA has not considered homosexuality a psychological disorder, while other professionals in the field consider it to be a "gender-identity" problem. But the new statement, which appears in a brochure called "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality," states the following:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles...."

This story has been picked up at WingNut Daily and conservative blogs as proof that gays don’t deserve to get married or even exist because if sexual orientation is a “choice” not, you know, something you have no control over, then we don’t have to protect GLBT folks with hate crime laws and stuff, and obviously they are just that way because everyone loves a great queer party.

Or something.

So smelling the aroma of bullshit wafting my way, I headed over the APA to read this supposed new statement for myself. Tell me if you notice anything missing:

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

Again, did anyone notice anything missing from Butts’ quote?

That's some "knockout punch," all right.

Feel Good Friday!

Heard this song on the radio on my way back from the gym (no, I did NOT bike to the gym today. I value my life too much.)

Enjoy:

Rebutting Cheney

Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, rebuts Dick and Liz Cheney’s lies with a column that appeared in yesterday’s Washington Note. It is an absolute must-read.

Some highlights:

[W]hen Cheney claims that if President Obama stops "the Cheney method of interrogation and torture", the nation will be in danger, he is perverting the facts once again. But in a very ironic way.

My investigations have revealed to me--vividly and clearly--that once the Abu Ghraib photographs were made public in the Spring of 2004, the CIA, its contractors, and everyone else involved in administering "the Cheney methods of interrogation", simply shut down. Nada. Nothing. No torture or harsh techniques were employed by any U.S. interrogator. Period. People were too frightened by what might happen to them if they continued.

What I am saying is that no torture or harsh interrogation techniques were employed by any U.S. interrogator for the entire second term of Cheney-Bush, 2005-2009. So, if we are to believe the protestations of Dick Cheney, that Obama's having shut down the "Cheney interrogation methods" will endanger the nation, what are we to say to Dick Cheney for having endangered the nation for the last four years of his vice presidency?

Excellent point and one which all of the Cheney lies cannot ignore. Plus, if torture is so good at preventing attacks on the homeland, what kept attacks at bay from 2005-2009? (And let me point out, there have been plenty of terrorist attacks over the past few years. Just not here at home.)

There’s more:

Likewise, what I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002--well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion--its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa'ida.

This is really the nut of the matter. Cheney and his daughter Liz are doing their damnedest to keep daddy and his friends out of jail.

Meanwhile, in today’s Wall Street Journal Karl Rove does some finger-pointing of his own:

Someone important appears not to be telling the truth about her knowledge of the CIA's use of enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs). That someone is Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. The political persecution of Bush administration officials she has been pushing may now ensnare her.

Here's what we know. On Sept. 4, 2002, less than a year after 9/11, the CIA briefed Rep. Porter Goss, then House Intelligence Committee chairman, and Mrs. Pelosi, then the committee's ranking Democrat, on EITs including waterboarding. They were the first members of Congress to be informed.

”EIT’s,” for those of you who haven’t kept up, is the polite way former Bush Administration officials refer to torture.

Of course, the name “Nancy Pelosi” is a Republican dog-whistle for “scary-lesbo-San Francisco-liberal-socialist-vagina.” Somehow this whole mess is supposed to be Nancy Pelosi’s fault but someone needs to remind Karl Rove which party was in power in 2002, and it wasn’t the Democrats. Someone is trying to insinuate that a member of the House Intelligence Committee from the minority party, who was not even House Minority Leader at the time (that was Dick Gephardt) would somehow be able to exert some kind of influence over the Republican Party and its rush to war at a time when we were being told to run out and buy duct tape and plastic sheeting because ZOMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!11!!1!!1!

Right. So torture was perfectly OK and if it wasn't, well, it's all Nancy Pelosi's fault. Nice try, buddy.

This is, of course, not even taking into account Pelosi’s own assertions that the CIA misled Congress, which was corroborated by former Sen. Bob Graham.

We still have a lot to pick apart here, but the basic argument--torture works, it's legal, it’s OK if it’s used to protect Americans, Jack Bauer is real and oh yeah, we didn’t torture anyway--that argument seems to have been lost. And let's not get distracted by Karl Rove's "ooh look, shiny sparkly Pelosi thing over there!" ploy.

It's time to start some serious investigations into criminal activity here.

Why Are Gas Prices Going Up AGAIN, V.2

Once again, oil prices are falling, yet gas prices are going up.

What gives?

One more time with feeling, people: drilling here, drilling now has not in the past and will not now affect what you pay at the pump.

I have written about this a lot, most recently back in February, when refiners cut back on production in response to decreased demand, which lowered gas prices so much the refiners felt it in their own pockets.

Back then USA Today reported:

Beset by weak consumer demand and losses on gasoline sales, oil refiners have scaled back production since late December. The average utilization rate at U.S. refineries was 81.5% as of Feb. 6, the lowest in 17 years, not including hurricane-related slowdowns, according to the Energy Information Administration. As recently as early December, refineries were running at 87.4% of capacity.

Here, via the AAA Fuel Gauge Report, is what gas and crude oil prices were doing in December:

Note when gas prices hit rock bottom: yep, that would be December.

I don’t know what the profit margin is on a refinery, but clearly the refiners have become accustomed to a certain level of dough rolling in. Thus they responded by cutting back on refining the crude, at a time when crude oil was relatively cheap (compared to recent history, at least).

None of this has anything to do with drilling for oil off the coast of the United States or in an Alaskan wildlife refuge. The oil companies already have more domestic leases than they know what to do with, because with oil priced below $60 per barrel, it’s not profitable to pull that stuff out of the ground. There’s a reason this stuff hasn’t been tapped before, and it has nothing to do with tree-hugging environmentalists.

Rising gas prices do, however, provide the perfect opportunity for people in Washington to score political points and try to sway low-information voters who think gasoline is a commodity like corn or pork bellies. And yes, I do mean the usual suspects:

Republicans believe that rising gas prices are their trump card against a Democratic-sponsored climate change bill.

The GOP is struggling to regain footing after two successive electoral blowouts, but party leaders are relishing an opportunity to debate what they call a “national energy tax.”

The Democrats’ plan of moving a cap-and-trade bill this summer plays into GOP hands because as the cost of gasoline spikes, so does the public’s awareness of energy prices, Republican leadership aides say.

Rep. Adam Putnam (R-Fla.), the former House GOP conference chairman, said that the cost of gas is not likely to hit last summer’s national high of $4 a gallon, but he noted that oil prices have been creeping up recently.

Putnam said most Americans want to increase oil production, not restrict consumption, adding, “At some point, gas prices become a very potent political weapon again.”

I don’t know about that. I think all of this yanking consumers around by the gas nozzle fosters anger and ill will toward oil companies. It makes me want to send a big “fuck you” to Exxon and Chevron and find another way of getting around town.

And yes, I did buy a used bicycle a couple weeks ago.

Here's a handy reference tool to keep bookmarked for the coming debate. Next time you hear a politician tell us we need to "drill here, drill now," follow the oil money.

Stop Me If You’ve Already Seen This Movie

Holy cow. Er, I mean pig :

The World Health Organisation (WHO) is to investigate claims that the swine flu currently infecting the world was the result of genetic experiments by scientists which then leaked from a laboratory.

The extraordinary claims were made by 75-year-old Australian researcher Adrian Gibbs, who was part of the team behind development of the Tamiflu drug. Gibbs contends the deadly H1N1 strain may have been accidentally born in eggs scientists use to grow viruses and in vaccine research.

Okay, EVERYBODY PANIC!!!! The latest pandemic was released from the lab where scientists were researching viruses and vaccines? Somebody call Michael Crichton! And, um, Steven Spielberg!

Of course, it’s all just a theory. Like the one about how swine flu was really a bioweapon:

The UN scientist is convinced that the swine flu virus, A-H1N1, and Ebola and HIV viruses were in fact manufactured biological weapons.

As proof, they state that the usual process of transmission is that the virus is transmitted from a pig to a human, which is not the case in this outbreak because no case of a pig being infected with the A-H1N1 virus has been registered. Furthermore, the A-H1N1 virus partly contains American pig genes, partly human and bird flu strains and the virus of the Euro-Asian swine flu.

What???! EVERYBODY PANIC!

Meanwhile, south of the border Mexicans have their own made-for-prime-time swine flu conspiracy:

The main example cited is that while Mexicans were panicked into staying at home, the government quietly introduced two new laws.

The rumour is that one was a law that allows the authorities to check people’s internet traffic and emails and the other was a law banning drugs. Another piece of ‘evidence’ is the fact that US President Obama visited Mexican President Felipe Calderon just before the outbreak occurred. What the two leaders are supposed to have concocted together in secret is a mystery.

What???! The American and Mexican presidents conspired to use fear of a deadly pandemic to manipulate the citizenry and rob them of their civil liberties?

Hey, I thought that’s what wars were for! Well, EVERYBODY PANIC anyway.

Dang. Who can we torture to get to the bottom of this?

Tortured Logic

Sen. Lindsay Graham says that because torture techniques are still around after 500 years, “apparently they work.”

Lindsay Graham: The Vice President is suggesting that there was good information obtained, and I’d like the committee to get that information. Let’s have both sides of the story here. I mean, one of the reasons these techniques have survived for about 500 years is apparently they work.

Former FBI interrogator Ali Soufan responded, “Because, sir, there’s a lot of people who don’t know how to interrogate, and it’s easier to hit somebody than outsmart them.”

Hey Senator Graham: Here are some other things that have survived for hundreds of years, of dubious efficacy:

• Tossing a pinch of salt over your shoulder after accidentally spilling it.

• Astrology, palm reading, rune stones, reading tea leaves, tarot cards, etc.

• Knocking wood to ward off bad luck.

• Wishing on a shooting star.