Mojo - November, 2009

Marines with Multi National Force-West circle an empty lot aboard Al Asad Air Base, Iraq, looking for scraps of metal, Nov. 20, 2009. Their base-wide cleanup effort is dubbed Operation Blue Spoon, and the goal is for Marines to leave the base in good order as they wind down their role in Operation Iraqi Freedom. (US Marine Corps photograph by Cpl. Meg Murray)

Today's must reads are ready for December: 

• What Happens When Your Country Drowns? (MoJo)
• Phillip Carter's resignation, and why it matters (Glenn Greenwald)
• How a letter from 1964 shows what's wrong with the Senate today (Ezra Klein)
• Counterintuitive: "Obama is having the best first year of any president since Franklin Roosevelt." (Slate—Who Else?)
• The "Breach": Was Obama's Security Compromised? (Marc Ambinder/The Atlantic)
• Shocker: Karl Rove Misleading on Deficit (Steve Benen/The Washington Monthly)
• Muslim Soldiers See 'Teachable Moment' in Ft. Hood (The Washington Independent)
• Rep. David Obey's war tax "is a bill that probably should have been passed eight years ago." (The Economist)
• Chamber Accuses Mother Jones of Reporting Stories "of Dubious Accuracy" (MoJo)
• More evidence of the success of Obama's trip to Asia (James Fallows/The Atlantic)
• Spotify plans to rock the U.S. digital music landscape early next year (LAT)
• OMFG: They've Made Real Lightsabers (Kinda) (io9)

Get more stuff like this: Follow Mother Jones on twitter! You can check out what we are tweeting and follow the staff of @MotherJones with one click.

An editorial in Saturday's Washington Post, called "Solitary Disgrace," calls for an end to the widespread use of long-term lockdown in America's prisons and jails. The Post's editors write:

At one time shunned in the United States, solitary confinement is becoming a tool increasingly used by corrections officials trying desperately to keep order in grossly overcrowded and sometimes chaotic prisons. These decisions are made even though solitary confinement costs roughly twice as much as keeping an inmate in the general prison population. At any given time, experts estimate that 25,000 to 100,000 prisoners are kept in some sort of "special housing unit" where they are isolated and kept apart from the general prison population. The number changes frequently as new prisoners are sent in and others sent out of solitary....

A short stint in solitary for most does not result in serious or permanent harm. But more prolonged stays of months or years -- a practice not uncommon in many states -- can result in devastating psychological damage, including psychosis and debilitating depression. Studies have also shown that inmates kept in solitary confinement for prolonged periods display higher levels of hostility than those in the general prison population; they tend to carry this hostility with them after they are returned to the general prison population or released back into the community.

Mother Jones has lately been covering the case of the Angola 3, the Louisiana prisoners who have been held in solitary for as long as 37 years. Lawyers for Albert Woodfox, Herman Wallace, and Robert King have for years been working on a case that challenges this kind of long-term solitary confinement on the grounds that it is cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. That case is expected to at last come to trial early next year, and should shed additional light on the true toll of life in lockdown.

Ironically, the issue of solitary confinement only becomes more pressing as some states gradually lose their taste for the death penalty, and offenders languish indefinitely in complete isolation, either on death row or in other lockdown units. Yet even among progressives, the practice has never received the same kind of attention or protest as the treatment of terrorism suspects abroad. The fact that this subject even made it onto the editorial pages of one of our so-called newspapers of record suggests some growing recognition that solitary confinement is a form of torture, and that we have our own Guantanamos and Abu Ghraibs to deal with here at home.

The biggest turkeys this Thanksgiving aren't of the bird variety. They're people like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck.

Who else makes the cut? Watch Mark Fiore's cartoon below to find out:

Remember the war between the White House and the US Chamber of Commerce? Well, nevermind. Despite the Chamber's protests that the President was trying to "neuter and marginalize us," White House records released today show that Chamber CEO Thomas Donohue met with administration officials 10 times during Obama's first nine months in office, including twice with the President himself.

Stories in the Washington Post and Politico have painted a much different picture: "Instead of working through the Chamber," the Post reported last month, "President Obama has reached out to business executives, meeting repeatedly with small groups of CEOs in his private White House dining room." A few weeks later, an address by chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to the Chamber's board of directors was described by Politico as "fence mending" and extending an "olive branch."

But was it? The White House visitor logs suggest that a true war between the White House and the Chamber never really happened. They're less enemies than frienemies--reluctant and mutually-suspicious collaborators.

J.D. Hayworth, the ultra-conservative Rep. turned talk radio host from Arizona, has emerged as a possible challenger to John McCain in the 2010 Senate primary. And according to a recent Rasmussen poll, he only trails the former presidential candidate by two points. Hayworth's candidacy would be awful for the GOP because he is likely too conservative for a general election battle and could weaken the already fragile McCain. Five reasons Dems should hope J.D. Hayworth enters the race:

• Hayworth has been investigated by the US Justice Department for accepting cash and gifts from disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his cronies. This shady connection contributed to the loss of his House seat in 2006.
• Hayworth has been accused of antisemitism. In his 2006 anti-immigration manifesto, Hayworth praised Henry Ford's "Americanization" vision. Ford used this term to describe "the Jew" who "inveighs against Americanism" for refusing to assimilate. In February, Hayworth appeared on Hardball claiming that Sen. Chuck Schumer and George Soros—"the guy in the background…manipulating all of the currency," a reference which Steve Benen says is highly problematic—should be blamed for the financial crisis instead of the Bush administration. He also has ties to Neo-Nazis.
• His connection to "Birthers" and love for Orly Taitz. He once hosted Taitz on his radio show, calling her "Doctor" and treating her like a legal expert, instead of the supposed perjurer she is.
• His close relationships with Arizona's most notorious anti-immigrant crusaders. Next month, Maricopa County’s infamous Sheriff Joe Arpaio will host a fundraiser for Hayworth's "Freedom In Truth Trust." In another recent Rasmussen poll, Arpaio polled 15 points ahead of the likely Democratic gubernatorial candidate, state AG Terry Goddard, and said on Twitter this week that "if ever there was a time to consider a run, now may be the time."
• And finally, look what happened to Dede Scozzafava and Doug Hoffman in NY 23.

Is Mother Jones part of a vast liberal conspiracy? The US Chamber of Commerce says it has uncovered "a predictable pattern" in our reporting on the nation's biggest, beleagured business lobby: "An advocacy group such as the Yes Men or Velvet Revolution, SEIU, Center for American Progress, the NRDC. . .will post something of dubious accuracy," said Chamber flak Thomas J. Collamore, speaking yesterday at a forum of conservative bloggers hosted by the Heritage Foundation. "And then Huffington Post or Mother Jones will pick it up and treat it as a fact. And then more mainstream sources such as MSNBC or the Washington Post will treat it as a real story and follow up with us."

"The Chamber isn't blinking," he added. "We're trying to stay on the high road."

So far, the Chamber has taken the high road by making blanket statements about the "dubious accuracy" of our stories. It hasn't said which of our pieces it takes issue with, but a new Chamber web page, boldly titled "The Facts," offers a hint. It disputes the assertion, first made by me, that the Chamber was forced to lower its membership claims by 90%. "Our direct membership comprises 300,000 businesses," the page says. "Our federation contains over three million businesses and organizations. We represent both sets [of numbers]."

The Chamber isn't saying anything new here. It continues to ignore the fact that it almost never cited its true membership number or explained the meaning of the 3 million figure before I pointed out the discrepancy. (I've addressed its flip-flops here, here, and here). The Columbia Journalism Review has compiled an archive of the Chamber's use of the two numbers that clearly illustrates how it has willfully misstated its true size. Even now, most of the Chamber's web pages and press releases, including the one announcing the "The Facts" site, misleadingly cite only the larger number.

Far from following a "predictable pattern" of parroting advocacy groups, the idea to fact-check the Chamber's membership claims was entirely my own. In turn, my reporting was picked up by other journalists, several of whom independently reviewed the issue and confirmed my conclusions. As a result, the New Yorker, the New York Times, and the Washington Post have all embraced the correct membership number. This isn't a case of dubious information passing through a liberal echo chamber: It's a textbook example of reporters doing their jobs. (And the Chamber getting slammed by advocacy groups at the same time).

The Chamber's accusation that its critics have blurred the line between fact and spin is ironic: A spokesman for a conservative advocacy group speaks at an event for conservative bloggers hosted by another conservative advocacy group, where he makes a statement of dubious accuracy. Will those conservative bloggers pick it up and treat it as fact?

Good news: Barack Obama will travel to Copenhagen for the beginning of the United Nations summit on climate change next month. He'll make an appearance at the meeting on December 9, according to an administration official—a brief stopover en route to pick up his Nobel Prize in Oslo the next day.

Really good news: Obama plans to put a solid target for US emissions cuts on the table when he gets there. Obama will promise delegates at the summit that US will cut emissions "in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020," according to a White House official.

Not so good news: He's not planning to return for the end of the summit, which runs through Dec. 18. That's when approximately 65 other heads of state and government are expected to attend.

What to make of this? Well, now that it's clear that there's not going to be a final treaty in Copenhagen, the presence of heads of state is not quite as important. The real work is still to be done by negotiators.

But Obama's early appearance will help set the tone for the event, showing high-level US engagement with the issue (and perhaps even a desire on Obama's part to earn that Nobel he'll receive the next day.) Appearing later—when it probably wouldn't influence the conversation one way or another—might only lead to a repeat of what happened with the Olympics in October. If Obama shows up to much fanfare and nothing happens, that will only create bad press.

The emissions cuts promise is the really major news here. Having a solid commitment from the US—one involving actual numbers—is expected to lubricate the climate talks significantly. Sure, the 17 percent figure is not nearly as high as the reductions called for by the European Union, Japan, many developing nations—OK, basically everyone else in the world. Yet the hope is that if the US shows its cards, other key players (like China and India) will also start talking in real figures. Obama showing up in person to present those numbers is a pretty big deal.

The White House also announced that a number of cabinet secretaries and other top officials will make an appearance in Copenhagen during the conference. Scheduled to attend and give speeches at the summit are Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson, Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley, and Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change Carol Browner. Their presentations, the White House said in a press release, will "underline the historic progress the Obama Administration has made to address climate change and create a new energy future."

It's fine for Republicans to express concern about climate change—as long as they don't run for national office, it seems.

Take the case of Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett Packard executive and adviser to the McCain '08 campaign who is now seeking to unseat Barbara Boxer from her California Senate seat next year. I talked to Fiorina last year when she was the "Victory Chair" of the Republican National Committee specifically about climate change. At the time, she was happy to talk about McCain's climate plan and the need to act on the issue. "I think there is growing consensus that the issues of climate change and energy independence are inextricably linked," said Fiorina.

Climate change, Fiorina said, "matters to a lot of people," particularly young people. She was eager to talk about the notion that climate policy could help stimulate innovation and create jobs, and that a well-executed cap-and-trade scheme could spur economic development. "I think it's important that when we think about taking on some of the great challenges now as opposed to leaving them to future generations, we have to talk not only about Social Security and medical care, but also about leaving our planet cleaner for the next generation than we found it," she said.

Flash forward to an interview with reporters in D.C. last week, in which Fiorina basically shied away from all of those prior statements. While she acknowledged that climate change is a "serious issue," she also suggested the science on warming is less than conclusive—and that the public needs leaders with the "courage" to question it.

From the Mercury News:

Fiorina faced several questions about climate change, an issue in which Boxer is deeply involved. The Republican said that global warming demands a serious response, but when asked whether she would back mandatory caps on carbon emissions, Fiorina said she would not comment on a bill she hasn't read. As for what course of action she believes the government should take, Fiorina suggested engaging in bilateral talks with China to curb greenhouse gases, and easing regulations for alternative energy companies to build manufacturing plants.

When a reporter followed up by asking whether she believes in global warming, Fiorina said, "I think we should have the courage to examine the science on an ongoing basis."

Glad that courage is being used up to question climate science, rather than to buck the GOP party line on climate policies.