Conflicted SCOTUS Alert

Wow. Imagine if this had been one of our more liberal justices! The calls for impeachment would be deafening:

Justice Clarence Thomas Failed To Disclose That Citizens United Foundation Supported His 1991 Nomination To The Supreme Court And Spent More Than $100,000 On Advertisements Attacking Opposing Senators, says www.ProtectOurElections.org

WASHINGTON, Feb. 15, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The watchdog group www.ProtectOurElections.org filed a second bar complaint on February 15, 2011 against Justice Clarence Thomas for bias and actual conflict of interest for his failure to disqualify himself from Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010), and hiding the fact that Citizens United Foundation had supported his nomination and spent at least $100,000 on commercials attacking several Senators opposed to his nomination. The second bar complaint, filed with the Washington, D.C. Office of Bar Counsel, is at http://www.velvetrevolution.us/images/Clarence_Thomas_Bar_Supplement.pdf.

The release quotes a 1991 Time Magazine article:

The ad, produced by two independent right-wing groups, was intended to bolster Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas' confirmation chances by pointing the finger at three liberal Democrats who seemed likely to oppose him. Not coincidentally, the ad was produced by the same people who launched the 1988 Willie Horton spot that branded Michael Dukakis soft on crime but left George Bush open to charges of racism. Anxious not to be associated with such negative campaigning this time around, Bush quickly labeled the attacks on the Senators "counterproductive." Thomas pronounced them "vicious." His chief Senate supporter, Missouri Republican John Danforth, called them "sleazy" and "scurrilous."

Although Bush and chief of staff John Sununu demanded that the ads be - pulled, their right-wing sponsors -- L. Brent Bozell III, chairman of the Conservative Victory Committee, and Floyd Brown, chairman of Citizens United -- refused. Calling the campaign a "pre-emptive strike" to counter anticipated anti-Thomas commercials, as well as retaliation for the 1987 spots that helped defeat Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, they vowed to keep running the messages for at least two weeks "until the left agrees to discontinue all its efforts against Judge Thomas." Thus far, that has been a mostly fitful effort at best, but Brown and Bozell appeared to see the flag of revolution rising above it. "Unfortunately," the two men declared in a written statement, "the Administration has no desire to confront the radical left."

The commercials, shown only in Washington at a cost of about $100,000, have reaped millions of dollars' worth of free publicity through network television and print-media reproductions that have accompanied news stories about the flap. That probably was the intent all along.

Damn. It always comes back to decency scold Brent Bozell III, doesn’t it?

Thomas is already on extremely shaky ground, with his wife actively lobbying to overturn healthcare reform. Apparently he should have recused himself from the Citizens United case, seeing as how one of the chief parties had campaigned to put Thomas on the court.

I’m sure the right will circle the wagons and come to Silent Thomas’ defense because IOKIYAR and liberals are the real racists, and Sonia Sotomayor once attended a La Raza luncheon so both sides do it! and on and on.

Your Modern Pro-Life Movement

Okay, lovers of life, liberty, fetuses, etc. You’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do:

A law under consideration in South Dakota would expand the definition of "justifiable homicide" to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus—a move that could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions. The Republican-backed legislation, House Bill 1171, has passed out of committee on a nine-to-three party-line vote, and is expected to face a floor vote in the state's GOP-dominated House of Representatives soon.

The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Phil Jensen, a committed foe of abortion rights, alters the state's legal definition of justifiable homicide by adding language stating that a homicide is permissible if committed by a person "while resisting an attempt to harm" that person's unborn child or the unborn child of that person's spouse, partner, parent, or child. If the bill passes, it could in theory allow a woman's father, mother, son, daughter, or husband to kill anyone who tried to provide that woman an abortion—even if she wanted one.

I almost hate to write about this because I’m sure our local Tennessee legislators will immediately want one of these bills, too.

This just sums up everything we’ve ever said is wrong with the so-called “pro-life” crowd in one amazing ball of astonishing suckitude: How is murdering abortion providers pro-life? Why do you hate women so much that you’d treat them this way? Why don’t you trust us? Why do you care more about the unborn than the people who are already living? How is this “Christian”?

I bring up the religious point because of the people behind the bill:

The original version of the bill did not include the language regarding the "unborn child"; it was pitched as a simple clarification of South Dakota's justifiable homicide law. Last week, however, the bill was "hoghoused"—a term used in South Dakota for heavily amending legislation in committee—in a little-noticed hearing. A parade of right-wing groups—the Family Heritage Alliance, Concerned Women for America, the South Dakota branch of Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, and a political action committee called Family Matters in South Dakota—all testified in favor of the amended version of the law.

These are all right-wing "Christian" organizations. Shame on you. I wish you people would get Raptured already and leave the rest of us the fuck alone.

Yet Another Conservative Hollywood Fail

There’s a lot to poke fun at regarding the new “Atlas Shrugged” movie: the trailer is mind-numbingly dull; the cast lacks any big names (sorry fanboys, Angelina Jolie is not in the picture); it’s in three parts, when clearly one would more than suffice; it maintains the book’s steel-mills-and-railroads setting, two industries basically obliterated from the American manufacturing landscape (indeed, railroads are paragons of socialism these days); or the fact that the movie lacks a distributor and will most likely end up in permanent limbo like the remake of “Red Dawn.”

But to me the best part about “Atlas Shrugged” is that in an act of marketing genius {/sarcasm} the producers slated the film for release on April 15 -- tax day. Perfect except for one thing: tax day is April 18 this year.

They couldn’t even get that right.

Served

Well it’s about damn time:

Andrew Breitbart, the owner of several conservative Web sites, was served at the conference on Saturday with a lawsuit filed by Shirley Sherrod, the former Agriculture Department employee who lost her job last year over a video that Mr. Brietbart posted at his site biggovernment.com.

The video was selectively edited so that it appeared Ms. Sherrod was confessing she had discriminated against a farmer because he was white. In the suit, which was filed in Washington on Friday, Ms. Sherrod says the video has damaged her reputation and prevented her from continuing her work.

Mr. Breitbart said in a statement that he “categorically rejects the transparent effort to chill his constitutionally protected free speech.”

Yeah, ya know funny thing: slander and libel are not constitutionally protected. So, thanks for playing.

Hacks like Breitbart are no better than thugs and criminals. Worse, actually, because their slanderous attacks are politically motivated. It’s a craven attempt to swing power to their ideological side.

Seriously, who the fuck is Shirley Sherrod? Why pick on her? Who had even heard of her before Breitbart’s little stunt? Except that she’s black, and serves a Democratic president.

I never understood why John Kerry didn’t sue John O’Neill and Jerome Corsi over the Swift Boat smears. The lies cost Kerry the election, but it was also the most egregious smear campaign in political history: to take an actual war hero and somehow turn his military record into a negative, while at the same time pretending to be rah-rah support the troops, was just astounding. Our media and political establishment were truly asleep at the wheel on that one. It was probably as egregious a media fail as the non-existent Iraq WMD claims. And the failure of John Kerry to sue just opened the door for the professional right to turn these smears into a regular part of our political discourse.

So I for one and thrilled that someone is finally pushing back against the professional mudslingers.

That’s So Old Media

Anyone needing proof that the Tea Party is stuck in the past need look no further than its new media endeavor. Er, make that old media endeavor, launched at CPAC this week:



Reports Columbia Journalism Review:

Here, an excited pre-launch tweet from what appears to be Tea Party Review's Twitter account:

There is nothing quite like putting together a magazine. It truly is ALIVE and it rings with Freedom! Get Ready for a powerful publication

To which, you know, we at CJR can totally relate.

Hah! With print journalism dying a slow death every day, you have to wonder why the Tea Party would think a monthly magazine was necessary in this modern age of Tweets, blogs, websites, etc. CJR wondered the same. I suspect it’s because so many Tea Partiers are senior citizens who aren’t internet savvy. Maybe I’m wrong.

Indeed, one observer even called it “an elaborate hoax.”

The fact is, everything about this "magazine" is just a tad too close to what a liberal wants to read in a Tea Party magazine. The cover lines on the inaugural issue (top photo) promise -- among other gems -- to tell us "What the Left Will Never Understand About the Tea Party." Sounds like a manifesto to us! Just the sort of thing that will make those folks with the rifle peeking out the blinds at the mailbox go "squeeee." And just the sort of thing that will make a liberal poke fun at the Tea Party. Don't believe me? I just did.

I wouldn’t be so quick to write this endeavor off, however. The Tea Party is nothing if not an exercise in self-parody. Remember this lady?



I say it’s not a hoax, nor does it matter whether it can make money or not. Let’s remember that conservatives have a long and storied history of propping up their failed media experiments with generous financial support from their Daddy Warbucks investors. See The Washington Times as an example. This magazine is supposedly edited by Richard Viguerie, the conservative direct-mail guru who is well known in conservative media circles.

Tea Party Review looks to be a standard-issue conservative media operation to me.

Raging Christian Asshole Of The Week

That would be the American Family Assn.’s Bryan Fischer, who directed his intolerance toward Native Americans:

In a post published Monday on the Rightly Concerned blog – a project of the AFA – Fischer railed on native peoples for not being Christian, claiming it’s their own fault that they lost their land and were forced onto reservations to cope with terrible living conditions.

“Superstition, savagery and sexual immorality” morally disqualified Native Americans from “sovereign control of American soil,” Fischer said. That, plus the superior battle skills of Europeans gave the latter “rightful and legal sovereign control” of American land through what he delicately described as “the right of conquest.” Fischer went on to blame poverty and alcoholism on Indian reservations on Native Americans themselves, because they “continue to cling to the darkness of indigenous superstition” and refuse to come into “the light of Christianity” and assimilate “into Christian culture.”

Sure, ‘cause as we all know, there aren’t any Christians who experience poverty or alcoholism.

And I have to say, this notion that genocide, pillage and plunder are perfectly okay because you believe yourself culturally superior is a unique interpretation of Scripture. Sadly, the history of Western Civilization is filled with examples of genocidal monsters who believed exactly as Fischer does. Fortunately, today we hold up people like this to scorn and public shame, for that is surely what they deserve.

For their part, the Native American Rights Fund responded:

NARF declines to comment because the article is not worth dignifying with a reply.

I can appreciate that stance: when you’re on the receiving end of something so outrageous I can see the necessity of turning the other cheek, which is a piece of Scripture Fischer apparentoy hasn’t read. But the rest of us need to be aware that Bryan Fischer attitudes are still out there and being disseminated across the airwaves.

I do wonder how influential the AFA is these days. One failed boycott after another (Home Depot, Walt Disney Co., 7-Eleven, American Airlines, etc. all seem to be doing just fine, thank you) would seem to indicate, not very much. Then again, last month Newsweek called Bryan Fischer “a media darling.” Fischer, of course, is the same nutwagon who back in December claimed “President Obama wants to give America back to the Indians.”

And of course, you have presidential hopefuls like Tim Pawlenty appearing on Fischer’s radio program last month. I’d like to be fair to T-Paw and point out that this was before Fischer’s inflammatory comments about Native Americans but I can't. Because Fischer has a history of making equally inflammatory, hateful comments about gays, Muslims, the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, etc. (a nice little run-down of Fischer’s hate speech can be heard here.)

I really find it astonishing that conservative candidates like Tim Pawlenty turn a blind eye to this hateful rhetoric in a craven effort to reach out to Fischer’s audience. Really? Really? You want the homophobic, intolerant vote? Seriously? You really feel the need to suck up to a guy who repeatedly makes inflammatory, intolerant statements?

What does this say about you? And what does this say about your party? What, have you folks not alienated enough minority groups? You've got to find more ethnic groups to drive away from the Republican Party? Is that it?

I really don't get it.

Nashville Scene Calls Out Tennessean On Berman Propaganda

Well this should be fun! Our own Nashville Scene has called out The Tennessean for repeatedly running “op-eds” by corporate sockpuppets working for D.C. PR man Rick Berman. The piece includes a nice shout-out to yours truly, too. {blushes}

I’ve written about The Tennessean’s epic fail before, notably here and here. In May 2010 after they ran a column by Berman employee David Martosko, I wrote:

This is now the third time The Tennessean has fallen for Rick Berman’s propaganda game. Back in February they ran an anti-MADD Tennessee Voices column by “Sarah Longwell,” who fronts several of Rick Berman’s phony organizations, including the restaurant industry-funded American Beverage Institute.


[...]

Okay, Tennessean. Will the third time be the charm or is there going to be a fourth incident before your Opinion page editors learn how to hit the Google?

Sadly, there was a fourth time: this column by “J. Justin Wilson” against a plastic bag ban ran back in January. Wilson is identified as “Senior Research Analyst at the Center for Consumer Freedom.” For the record, I haven't heard of any serious campaign to ban plastic bags in Nashville. Maybe I missed the story.

Let’s meet young Mr. Wilson, shall we? According to the CREW wesbite Berman Exposed, he’s a busy fellow. In addition to his Center for Consumer Freedom duties Wilson is also:

• Senior Research Analyst, Berman and Company
• Managing Director, Center for Union Facts
• Senior Research Fellow, Employment Policies Institute
• Managing Director, Employee Freedom Action Committee
• Senior Research Analyst, Employment Policies Institute

My, what a lot of hats Mr. Wilson wears! In fact, the only Wilson hat that fits is one: sockpuppet for Rick Berman’s corporate clients.

At this point I have to think The Tennessean is a willing participant in a dirty propaganda game. It’s a game which allows major corporations to present themselves as shiny-sparkly good corporate citizens, while at the same time financing an under the table PR war attacking environmentalists, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Humane Society of the United States, and other “do-good” organizations which embarrass Corporate America.

Thanks for playing along, Tennessean.

The Tim DeChristopher Case

This is a weird story.

Tim DeChristopher is a young environmental activist facing two felony counts which stem from an action he took in December 2008. In short, DeChristopher bid $1.7 million for 22,000 acres of federal land offered for sale at a public auction; a student at the University of Utah at the time, he didn't have the money to pay for his bid, but he took took the action to protect the land from oil and gas drilling and protest the country’s energy policy. He now faces 10 years in prison and a $75,000 fine.

DeChristopher accuses the oil and gas industry of being behind his prosecution. Said DeChristopher in a recent interview:

We were making the case for selective prosecution before the indictment because we had substantial evidence that the oil industry had played a strong role. One of my attorneys got a call from an AP reporter before I was informed what the charges against me were. The journalist told my attorney, these are going to be the charges. The reporter got that information from an oil industry lobbyist. So before I knew or my attorneys knew, the oil industry knew. Why did they know before my attorneys knew?  

And then, there were 25 people in the last 3 years that have won leases without being able to pay for them, who had a profit motive, and none of them have been prosecuted. It seems that they are coming down particularly hard on me.

I really hadn’t heard anything about this case; apparently Robert Redford, Naomi Klein, Bill McKibben and some other prominent Lefties have come to his defense and are trying to raise awareness.

I’m just a little confused. I’ve never participated in an auction of public land before but don’t you have to show proof of assets or something before signing up? Is there a reason why we don’t require that? DeChristopher said a BLM staffer asked him if he’d like to bid on the auction, which seems strange, and he said it was “easier than signing up on eBay.”

There’s a web page set up to support DeChristopher, called Bidder70. A march and rally to support DeChristopher have been scheduled for the day his trial begins, Feb. 28 in Salt Lake City.

I’m sure our media will ignore this story as they do so much else that’s really important. It always amazes me how we have a 24/7 TV news media and yet I'm continually reading about news which never hits their radar. It seems if it doesn't involve tricorn hats or crazy-eyed Michelle Bachmann, they're just not interested.

Snowmygawd

Good morning, Nashville!

Please do not try to drive up or down my street. It will seriously fuck you up. Thanks!

Love,

SoBe

Rep. Jim Cooper On How To Fix Congress

Coop, my Congresscritter, recently gave a speech at Harvard on this topic. He pulled few punches in his lecture, to the point where during the post-speech Q&A he said he hoped his appearance “would not be a career limiting move” (and for those wanting parity, a Republican lecture on the same topic is coming in March). I found his speech enormously interesting and urge everyone give it a listen/watch.

Before you let the lecture’s apparent length deter you, Cooper’s talk is only about 30 minutes long (the rest is Q&A) and actually doesn’t begin until 4 minutes in. (Also, you can download it as a podcast and listen to it while walking the dog, should you be so inclined.)

Here’s the video:



What’s interesting to me is his contention that Congress has basically become a parliamentary system; for those of us who have decried our current partisan state and wondered what living under a real parliamentary system might be like, it’s a douse of cold water. And in fairness to Coop, he says we have the worst of both worlds: the parliamentary aspects without the accountability a party-nominated prime minister provides.

Cooper calls the state of our modern Congress “grim,” labels the institution “willfully blind to most of the nation’s problems.” I daresay you'd be hard pressed to find disagreement on that point, regardless of your political affiliation. His focus on the negative outcome of the Citizens United decision struck me as especially interesting, since he’s a Blue Dog and I thought being against Citizens United was unique to us DFH's.

Cooper had some intriguing ideas on how Congress can be reformed, including these two “quick thought experiments”:

1- What if Congress were paid on commission to cut spending or repeal obsolete laws?

2- What if Congressmen could only raise money from real people who lived inside their district, not outside interests?

What, indeed? A lot of Cooper’s talk casts the blame for our current overly partisan woes on the shoulders of Newt Gingrich, who politicized longstanding Congressional practices back in the ‘90s -- and the Democrats who failed to go back to Tip O’Neill-style rules and practices when they came into power in 2007. That lends a bit of an “offa my lawn” quality to Cooper’s talk but the information is still useful. For instance, how many people know that the political parties now require members of Congress to pay exorbitant dues -- or, as Cooper infers, that plum committee assignments are related to one's timely payment of said dues?

Cooper’s talk has received little attention but I think it’s something every political observer should watch.