MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: February 4, 2007

« January 28, 2007 - February 3, 2007 | Main | February 11, 2007 - February 17, 2007 »

February 9, 2007

Anna Nicole Smith's Death -- Biggest News Event in Recent History

Anna Nicole Smith's death is apparently the biggest story of the 20th and 21st centuries. If you were watching cable news yesterday, you already know that the largest stories of that time period are of course, (5) the Great Depression, (4) Vietnam and the peace movement, (3) the fall of the Soviet Union, (2) WWII and the dropping of the atom bomb, and (1) the death of a former Playboy Playmate who married for money and in some way embodies the perversion of the American Dream.

The good people at ThinkProgress must have a team of 800 research monkeys, because they've tallied the number of times the three major cable news networks referenced Anna Nicole Smith and the number of times they referenced Iraq, just to illustrate the insanity.

The results:

Network	Anna Nicole Smith	Iraq
CNN	141	27
FOX NEWS	112	33
MSNBC	170	24

You thought ThinkProgress would stop there? These are very hard-working research monkeys, people, and they are inspired by knowing they do God's work. (As an aside, can you imagine being assigned this project by the boss? "Hiiiii, Peter. I'm going to need you to watch hours of cable news that is saturated with worthless drivel, just to catalogue exactly how much drivel it is saturated with. Mmmmm'kay? Don't forget the TPS reports!")

No, sir. They go further -- courageously, valiantly, with no fear for their own health -- detailing the amount of time NBC, ABC, and CBS spent on Anna Nicole Smith vs. Iraq. (It's particularly bad for NBC, which spent 14 seconds on Iraq and three minutes and 13 seconds on ANS.) And to top it all off, they created a video with the lowlights, in which you can actually see Joe Scarborough scowling in disgust with himself and his producers. I can't post all that here, because you really ought to visit ThinkProgress to see everything in it's full majesty. The devolution of television news is upon us, and I know it makes you want to choke on your own vomit. (Sorry, too soon, I know.)

As Dan Rather would say: Courage!

Border by Boeing, Overseen by Corporate Pals

Since the Bush administration is outsourcing security along the Mexican border to Boeing Co., you'd think they'd want to keep a close eye on how the company is handling the job, not to mention spending the billions of taxpayer dollars that go with it. Turns out, they can't be bothered - they've outsourced that, too. As Rep. Henry Waxman (D-LA) pointed out in hearings yesterday, oversight on the Secure Border Initiative has been handed over to consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. - which just happens to do regular business with their buddies at Boeing. You can get Waxman's full report here.

United? Not With Other Nations We're Not

What is it about global cooperative bodies that Americans are so averse to? The World Cup? Not so into it. The United Nations, Kyoto, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the list goes on. America is not exactly a team player.

A new Gallup poll shows that the American public continues to look down on the supreme international body, with Americans giving the U.N. its lowest approval ratings ever.

Back in 2003 the U.N.'s public image took a southward turn after Bush's go-it-alone strategy took its course. But that was when we thought there were WMDs, etc. and there was actually support for this war. Now, at a time when opposition to the war is at its peak, and Bush's approval rating is at its nadir (32%), the U.N. still can't catch a break.

Gallup's latest measure of the United Nations' job performance is the lowest Gallup has seen since it began asking Americans as much in 1953: Only 29% of Americans believe the U.N. is doing a good job of trying to solve the problems it has face while 66% say it's doing a poor job. That puts the U.N. in the same boat as Bush as far as American's confidence and job approval rating.

The ill feelings could be due to corruption charges against U.N. officials; particularly those involving former Secretary General Kofi Annan's son. But that was nearly two years ago, there's clearly more to it. And if we don't have faith in our president or in the United Nations, who then do we trust? Maybe no one, or maybe we just don't care enough about the issues to value the body tasked with dealing with global challenges.

Worth noting: today's record negative perception of the United Nations follows a period from May 2000 to January 2003 when the organization received some of its most positive ratings from the American people -- routinely exceeding 50%.

Waxman Hearings: Big Pharma's Institutionalized Kickback Racket

Witnesses before Congressman Waxman's House oversight committee this morning said regulating drugs is literally impossible because nobody knows what they cost to make.

Steven Schondelmeyer of the University of Minnesota said the pharmaceutical industry insists its products make up a relatively small part of the health care budget. Yet, he pointed out, "half of all working adults and three quarters of elderly use one prescription every week… the drug industry accounts for 4 percent of the nation's overall economy and18-19 percent of the health care dollar."

"Let’s quit minimizing drugs," said Shondelmeyer. "This is an institutionalized case of kickback."

Different government agencies pay different prices for the same drugs. "There is no way of knowing whether and how the market works," said Gerard Anderson, a Johns Hopkins professor who has tracked the pharmaceutical industry. "Some states pay five times more than other states."

At the same time, it is pretty well established that Medicare Part D plans (covering Medicare recipients) are paying 20 percent more than the government pays for Medicaid recipients. At the same time, the federal and state governments are pushing people off Medicaid into Medicare where they end up paying higher prices.

"News You Already Knew," Iraq Edition

Highlighting this story on MoJoBlog is a formality at this point, because every reader we have must be familiar with the lies and misrepresentations the Bush Administration fed us in the lead-up to the Iraq War.

But there's a new report out from the Pentagon's inspector general that details exactly what role Douglas Feith and his office had in this dirty business.

Intelligence provided by former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith to buttress the White House case for invading Iraq included "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" that supported the political views of senior administration officials rather than the conclusions of the intelligence community, according to a report by the Pentagon's inspector general.

I know, I know, it's old hat. I'm just doing my job...

The New American Dream

A man who served as an interrogator in Iraq has penned a short but powerful article for the Washington Post describing how his actions in that role haunt his thoughts and dreams. A snippet:

Despite my best efforts, I cannot ignore the mistakes I made at the interrogation facility in Fallujah. I failed to disobey a meritless order, I failed to protect a prisoner in my custody, and I failed to uphold the standards of human decency. Instead, I intimidated, degraded and humiliated a man who could not defend himself. I compromised my values. I will never forgive myself.

American authorities continue to insist that the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib was an isolated incident in an otherwise well-run detention system. That insistence, however, stands in sharp contrast to my own experiences as an interrogator in Iraq. I watched as detainees were forced to stand naked all night, shivering in their cold cells and pleading with their captors for help. Others were subjected to long periods of isolation in pitch-black rooms. Food and sleep deprivation were common, along with a variety of physical abuse, including punching and kicking. Aggressive, and in many ways abusive, techniques were used daily in Iraq...

Heavy stuff. Worth a read.

February 8, 2007

Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't

Looks like John Edwards just can't win. The netroots drama that has transpired over the past few days doesn't show signs of letting up. Not only may Edwards have isolated the progressive online audience he sought to reach through liberal bloggers Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan (who he fired yesterday and rehired today), he looks to also have upset religious Democrats, a group he has worked long and hard to win over. His wife, Elizabeth Edwards sits on the board of Call to Renewal, a popular religious left organization. Maybe the lesson learned here is: do your homework. If you want to use liberal bloggers to reach out to a progressive audience, but you don't want to isolate a group whose favor you have worked hard to cultivate, you should read their blogs before you hire them.

Guantanamo Bay Investigator Fails To Interview Alleged Victims, Files His Report

Col. Richard Bassett, the Army officers assigned to investigate possible abuse at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, has concluded that there is no evidence that guards mistreated the prisoners. In the course of his investigation, Bassett failed to interview any of the alleged victims.

The investigation was created when prison guards allegedly bragged about having beaten some detainees. Marine Sgt. Heather Cerveny reported, in fact, that the guards bragged to her at a bar that beating detainees was a common practice at Guantanamo.

Bassett's investigation team conducted twenty interviews with suspects and witnesses, and then Bassett came to his conclustion. According to a command spokesman, "He talked to all the parties he felt he needed to get information about the allegations that were made."

The investigation, which began in October, was expanded to include a similar allegation made by a civilian employee, who reported a conversation involving a guard. A "letter of counseling" will be sent to that guard, who is supposed to have concocted a fictitious account of detainee abuse.

Edwards Keeps Liberal Bloggers, Grows Thicker Skin, Sort of

Presidential candidate John Edwards has decided to keep his two female liberal bloggers after all, even though numerous sources reported the two were fired yesterday. The former senator's HQ released statements today, from Edwards, Amanda and Melissa (the two bloggers). The folks over at Tapped and Pandagon have the whole rundown. But essentially, Edwards reprimanded Amanda and Melissa for their "intolerant language." (I really think Bill Donohue is the one who needs a reprimand but it's not like anyone takes him seriously anyway.) And, surprise, surprise, Amanda and Melissa had to apologize to appease the right wing fanatics. Honestly, this is just another example of Democrats succumbing to pressure from the right. Are the Dems ever going to learn that walking the moderate line just doesn't win votes? The ironic part is that Edwards hired Amanda and Melissa to reach a progressive audience, one he might have just isolated.

Iran vs. U.S.: What About the Oil?

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, has now warned that should the U.S. attack, Iran will strike U.S. interests around the world. In that case, what would happen to Middle Eastern oil, which flows through the Iranian-controlled Straits of Hormuz on its way out of the Persian Gulf, into the Arabian Sea, and on to world markets?

Iran might shut down the Straits of Hormuz, through which 20 percnt of Middle Eastern oil flows. Or, on the other hand, because it is so dependent on oil revenue, it might not. Nobody knows.

Beginning a year ago, Japanese oil refineries, which obtain 14 percent of their supply from Iran, began to diversify to Saudi and Kuwait crude. Japan must import literally all its oil and gas from abroad and Iran is the third largest supplier. Iran is the fourth largest supplier of oil to South Korea. China buys substantial and growing amounts of oil from Ira. Most Iranian oil exports go to Asia, followed by Europe, where major purchasers include Italy, Turkey, and France.

"When Bush announced that he would fill our Strategic Petroleum Reserve last spring and also expand it, crude prices went up by $1.50 in just 20 minutes because of speculation that the U.S. might attack Iran. If the US attacks and oil prices rise, Bush would likely release oil from the SPR to soften the blow to the oil markets," Matt Piotrowski, an oil market analyst at the Oil Daily, told Mother Jones.

Cal. Dem Seeks Repeal of Statute of Limitations on Sex Crimes

Democratic California Assemblywoman Sally Lieber has introduced a bill to eliminate California's statute of limitations on rape and child molestation. The state now has a 10 year limit, which it unsuccessfully tried to shed in 2003 during the priest child molestation scandal. (That attempt was shot down by the Supreme Court because it would have applied retroactively.)

The state's defense lawyers wasted no time speaking out against the measure, arguing that it would be unfairly difficult to prove an alibi for a crime that took place more than 10 years previously. But isn't it equally difficult to prove guilt in those cases? Particularly in instances of child molestation--where the child him or herself cannot press charges--it seems unfair to allow the statute of limitations to expire before the child reaches 18.

But this tough-on-crime measure ought to be accompanied by a rethinking of the lack of limitations on how much and how often sex offenders can be punished for the same crime, once found guilty.

How NYPD Blocked Anti-Bush Protest at 2004 Convention

The New York Civil Liberties Union has released documents showing the NYPD deliberately set out to quash protests at the 2004 Republican National convention in New York with a plan to arrest and jail protesters. More than 1800 people were arrested during the four-day convention. Since the NYPD was acting in tandem with federal law enforcement officials, such as Secret Service and FBI to name but two, this then raises the question whether the Bush Administration itself actually ordered the smack down,or knew about it in advance.

"The NYPD documents indicate that as early as May 2004, the Department planned to arrest protestors at the August convention as opposed to issuing summonses. The NYCLU says as a result people were jailed for as long as three days," reports WNYC, the New York radio station. You got to a judge in New York faster during the convention than you would have had you robbed a bank.

The documents show the cops themselves agreed with the protestors in that 40 officers filed occupational health forms complaining about environmental conditions at the 57th Street pier, a former MTA bus depot, that served as a holding and processing facility. The officers said they were exposed to asbestos, carbon monoxide, sludge, oil, fumes and toxic materials.

The Manhattan District Attorney’s office is investigating the situation as is the Justice Department, but these have the earmarks of superficial pro forma paper shuffling exercises. The city says the makeshift jail was adequate.

Pace, Gates Finally Admit Troops Smart Enough to Understand Debate Over Iraq

We all know the common line the Bush Administration, military leaders, and Republicans in Congress have used to stifle debate on Iraq: Questioning the president's policies undermines the troops, who think they are being sent to war without the support of the American public.

When John McCain made this argument on Face the Nation in mid-January by saying, "if we voice disapproval and send our young troops on their way... what message does it send to the troops? That we disapprove of what they're doing but we still support them, but not their mission?" I wrote the following:

I think the troops get it. They aren't dumb. They have the mental capacity to understand the following: The war is over. We've lost. We didn't lose because of them. We don't blame them. We support them in what they are doing. If that means killing bad guys, fine. We don't think that helps anything anymore, but if they must perform well on the battlefield to avoid being hurt or killed, godspeed. But most of all, we want them all to be safe, and home as soon as possible. We know and they know that what they are doing isn't helping anything.

I don't think that's an overly complex set of beliefs or emotions. To say that it confuses the troops is an insult to their intelligence.

Turns out that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Peter Pace see things my way.

Gates to the House Armed Services Committee: "I think [the troops are] sophisticated enough to understand that [finding the best way to win the war is] what the debate's really about."

Pace to the same Committee: "As long as this Congress continues to do what it has done, which is to provide the resources for the mission, the dialogue will be the dialogue, and the troops will feel supported."

Pace again: "There's no doubt in my mind that the dialogue here in Washington strengthens our democracy. Period."

Yes, of course. The most important point here is Gates'. The troops aren't stupid, they know their country can debate the value of their actions while still supporting them. To assume they can't is patronizing. Besides, they know better than anyone in this country that things aren't working in Iraq. I'm amazed that Democrats' haven't made this point more forcefully the last few years.

Obama's New Spending Proposal, and Possible Motivations

Barack Obama has a new proposal that could shake up the 2008 presidential election. He wants to limit fundraising and spending in the general election to public financing limits, which are hundreds of millions lower than what the candidates are expected to raise. Obama says that his justification is saving the public financing system, which is on the verge of death due to the fact that several high-profile candidates -- McCain, Clinton, and Edwards -- have all started raising money outside of the system, knowing they'll easily exceed the system's limits. Other candidates -- Obama, Giuliani, Romney, Gingrich, Gore? -- would likely exceed the limits as well, if they raised money unbridled.

But Obama's explanation is hard to believe, because the public financing system is clearly inadequate for today's campaigns and not much worth saving: while the public financing limits are $150 million, current speculation says that the major party nominees will likely raise and spend over $500 million. Any system that is that badly outdated needs to be revamped, not protected. Especially because even if Obama alters the fundraising dynamics of this race, the public financing system will be even more outdated in 2012. The market simply won't allow the limits as they currently exist.

The New York Times gets at the easy explanation -- targeting Hillary:

Mr. Obama’s inquiry appears to be a pointed response to Mrs. Clinton, whose campaign was the first to announce that it would forgo public financing for both the primary and general elections.

Now that doesn't make sense, if I read the Times article correctly and the Times is reporting Obama's proposal in full. Obama is suggesting that candidates go through the primary spending as much as they please, and after the party conventions the nominees would come together and agree to limit spending from that point forward.

This pretty clearly hurts Obama, because Clinton has the biggest war chest and has proven to have the strongest fundraising abilities. She could outspend Obama in the primary and then face another fundraising behemoth in the general. To be frank, it's impossible to tell what would happen in the general, because McCain's popularity could go in any number of directions, and the Republican base's reaction to Giuliani and Romney -- while initially not positive -- hasn't been fully seen. Clinton could face someone with the same amount of money as her, or significantly less.

The real explanation, in my eyes, is that this move burnishes Obama's image as the savior-cleanser of modern politics. In the video released on his website declaring his intention to form a presidential exploratory committee, Obama said he is more concerned with the "smallness of our politics" than anything else. This is a way to act on that rhetoric. It feels disingenuous to me, a purely political, image-based move, because the proposal is likely to go nowhere (it's asking the heavy-hitters to give up wayyy too much money), but I wonder if we can expect more of these sorts of drain-the-Washington-swamp ideas from the Barack Obama campaign.

February 7, 2007

Right-Wingers Lambast Edwards' Liberal Bloggers, Campaign Caves

If this is any indication of what the 2008 presidential campaign will look like, we are in for some netroots drama. Tim Grieve from the War Room on Salon reports that John Edwards has indeed fired two liberal bloggers he hired to reach the progressive online audience. Right-wingers dug their teeth into Amanda Marcotte (Pandagon) and Melissa McEwan (Shakespeare's Sister) due to "anti-catholic" comments they had both made on their own blogs.

An article in the New York Times, this morning, reported that Edwards was asked by Catholic League president Bill Donohue to fire the two women, calling them "anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots." I can only imagine Amanda and Melissa's comments were less offensive. There is even a news release on the Catholic League site demanding the two women be fired. It seemed according to the Times, the two had not yet been let go, but Salon claims they have been. Over at Pandagon, they are discussing how Edwards caved and the fact that depending on where you are surfing, the two liberal bloggers have either been fired, have not been fired or have been fired and now rehired.

Regardless of the outcome, this is not the first web blunder for Edwards. Must we recall his eloquent presidential candidacy announcement that was scooped by his website. But all web jokes aside, if Edwards wants to realistically utilize the powerful tool of netroots, he surely needs to grow a thicker skin.

Well, It's Definitely Not Disney World

"'Run!' Mr. Santiago shouted, frantically directing us toward a concrete bridge at the bottom of the sloping road. 'Shut off that light, they're coming. Fast, fast. Damn it, shut off that light!'"

"Poncho shooed us into a thicket of bush. We'd nearly been discovered by the Border Patrol. We hid as men with flashlights roamed the field in front of us, taunting us in Spanish and accented English."

Just an account of an immigrant's arduous journey across the U.S.- Mexico border? Nope. It's the latest in the tourism industry. In the Hñahñu Indian's Parque EcoAlberto, a communally owned eco-park in Mexico, women, men and children can embark on a make-believe trek across the Rio Grande River, a journey many real immigrants make everyday. Kind of makes you scratch your head, right? But like the New York Times reports in this article, it's not the first time that groups have tried to raise awareness through "reality tourism." (I just made that up, but it works, right?)

Over 3,000 tourists, mostly Mexicans, have paid $18 to set out across the Rio Grande in groups with guides from Parque EcoAlberto. One of the guides says, "They learn to value the liberty they have in their own countries, that they don't have to run and be chased in their own lives." 800,000 Mexicans cross the U.S.-Mexico border every year. I guess this is one way for them to know what their fellow citizens have endured.

Shots Exchanged on Israel-Lebanon Border

The BBC reports that Israeli troops searching for explosives over the Lebanese border (as they have continued to do since the August ceasefire) came under fire on Monday. The troops returned fire, but no casualties were reported. Lebanon remains a hotspot, with "domestic" problems (as much as anything is truly domestic in Lebanon, which serves as a tug-of-war rope for its neighbors) and continued friction with Israel. If you haven't read Mother Jones' article on the summer conflict and its after-effects, better catch up before the next battle breaks out!

Bush DOJ Has Orders to Sic Dems

Not only has the Bush administration been purging out-of-favor U.S. attorneys across the nation, it has also been using its DOJ to investigate Democrats far more frequently than Republicans, according to TPMmuckraker. From 2001 to 2006, when Democrats made up just half of all elected officials (local and national) in the country, 79 percent of the DOJ's investigations targeted Dems. The data comes from a study by two retired professors, Dr. Donald C. Shields of University of Missouri-St. Louis and Dr. John F. Cragan of Illinois State University. "The chance of such a heavy Democratic-Republican imbalance occurring at random is 1 in 10,000," reported the study's authors.

Biden Should Seek Treatment for His (Obvious!) Alcoholism

Mark Foley had e-sex with underage pages for years. Blame alcohol!

Mel Gibson went on a crazy misogynistic and anti-Semitic tirade when pulled over for drunk driving. Seek alcohol treatment, and some counseling from Jews!

Isaiah Washington of "Grey's Anatomy" called his co-star T.R. Knight a "faggot." Seek therapy!

San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom banged his campaign manager's wife. Blame alcohol!

It's obvious, Joe. You have an alcohol problem. Seek therapy!

Hello Petroleum, Goodbye Forests, Species, Amtrak...

The President’s $2.9 trillion budget includes nearly $500 million to fund a nuclear waste dump and $400 million fewer dollars for our poor (literally) national rail service, Amtrak. Oh, and he plans to sell off $800 million worth of National Forest land. More gory details here.

—Jen Phillips

Baghdad's Missing Billions Rediscovered

After former CPA head Paul Bremer got grilled by Henry Waxman yesterday, the press has rediscovered the story of the billions of dollars in reconstruction money that went missing during the heady days after the fall of Baghdad. In particular, it's glommed onto the nifty fact that the U.S. government shipped 363 tons of Benjamins (and maybe some Ulysseses, too) to Iraq—much of which was spread around like play money. In his defense, Bremer explained, "We were in the middle of a war, working in very difficult conditions, and we had to move quickly to get this Iraqi money working for the Iraqi people." Apparently democracy is a lot easier to export than standard accounting practices.

The revealing tale of the cash airlift isn't new, however—we wrote about it in September 2005. It's good to see it being picked up again, though. And it gives me an excuse to post this great photo of CPA officials giddily posing with $2 million in cash, which was given to the security contractor Custer Battles, which was accused ofdefrauding the government.

Update: Post amended in light of Custer Battles' fraud conviction being overturned later today.

Vote: Best/Worst Senators

There are several reasons to take a look at (and maybe even vote in) this "Best Senator" poll.

First, you can see where your senators rank.

Second, you can actually see what these people look like. (The answer, of course: white, male.)

Third, there's the fact that of the first 49 senators ranked by "integrity, honor, dignity and character" only one is a Republican: Chuck Hagel.

Fourth, there's the fact that of all the Democrats, the only two to not crack the top 50 are Hillary Clinton and Mary Landrieu, of Katrina fame.

Fifth, there's the parade of crooks and crazy men who do better than Joe Lieberman and John McCain, Nos. 98 and 99 respectively.

Spotted on a now outdated Wonkette post.

Oh No! Obama Quitting Smoking!

Word comes from the Chicago Tribune that Barack Obama is… quitting smoking! (Can't resist: "Up Next! Hillary Cuts Her Toenails!")

The real issue is, what happens to Obama's smoking advantage?!? You know, the one that was ridiculously overblown, never actually existed, and was just a product of over-caffeinated political junkies looking for any angle at all to write a counter-intuitive story.

DHS, Dysfunctional as Usual

With news that Dick Cheney's son-in-law is the primary culprit in a Department of Homeland Security effort to block any oversight, I thought I'd point you all to this chart we drew up last year. Follow the link and you'll find that many DHS workers are so unhappy with their jobs, they'd probably rather be working fast-food.

I Hope the Articulate Bill O'Reilly Reads This

Bill O'Reilly and Glen Beck are still covering the Biden/Obama/"articulate" flap that I think a lot of people -- including me -- wish would just go away. O'Reilly and Beck are highlighting it because they feel the whole situation illustrates the plight of beleaguered white people who can't have black friends (honest, this is their argument) because they are afraid they might slip up and say something, maybe even a compliment, that unbeknownst to them is insulting to the black person in the room. The subtext here, of course, is this: "Well, gosh, us white people just try to say nice things about black people, and sometimes black people get all worked up, and we just don't know why, and man, white people just can't get a break."

Look. Just don't be stupid. Is that really so hard? Here's what the New York Times wrote about the issue: "When whites use the word [articulate] in reference to blacks, it often carries a subtext of amazement, even bewilderment." Okay, yes, exactly. Barack Obama is a man of many talents, who has accomplished more in his life than most Americans ever will: If the most you can say about the man is that he doesn't sound like some gang-banger, you're not giving him much of a chance. And you're damning by faint praise. Bill O'Reilly must understand this, and if he doesn't, he would if thought about it for a half-second. As a commenter on this blog wrote in response to one of our previous posts, "When was the last time someone said Chuck Schumer was "articulate"? Or Bill Clinton, or Chuck Hagel? They all are, but people have moved beyond how they talk and onto their other qualities."

The Times continued, "Such a subtext is inherently offensive because it suggests that the recipient of the ‘compliment’ is notably different from other black people." Again, this should be obvious. If you are amazed that one black man doesn't sounds like a gang-banger, you're letting your assumptions show: You assume that all black men speak Ebonics (or, as I suspect Glen Beck would call it, "jive"). Anyone who doesn't is the "exceptional Negro." (Link again goes to the NYT article, which is well worth reading.)

Allow me to requote a passage I quoted earlier from the Chicago Tribune:

Well-spoken black people hate it when white people call them "articulate." It’s the modern-day version of what white people used to say back in the day when they thought that by saying "He’s a credit to his race" they were saying something that a black person would welcome hearing.

Those dated words, like Biden’s comments, were patronizing at the very least. And they also appeared to carry some pretty negative assumptions about the majority of the race.

The smart, accomplished, and successful Bill O'Reilly is bright enough to understand this, and I suspect he's just playing a dumb-like-a-fox routine. But if he keeps pretending like he's an idiot, I'm going to run out of adjectives to use when blogging about him. I guess the only thing that would left would be...

February 6, 2007

If Chris Rock Says It, It's Funny; If Sarah Silverman Says It, It's Tasteless

A lot has been written about how women are perceived to be either "not funny" or "not as funny as men." Now that there are a number of respected women comics, that paradigm has changed somewhat in that women can be funny as long as their humor is not aggressive. Ellen DeGeneres, for example, is generally considered funny by anyone who is not a hopeless homophobe, partly because her humor is not at all aggressive (this is not a criticism, by the way--I think DeGeneres is hilarious). Margaret Cho is another story: She says bad words, and she talks about sex in great (and hysterically funny) detail. She not only makes people uncomfortable--she is a woman, she is Asian-American, and she is a member of the LGBT community, to boot.

Perhaps no one, though, has fueled the "women are funny as long as they are 'feminine'" fire as much as Sarah Silverman, whose television series debuted last Thursday night. Both men and women have walked out of her shows, and I have heard many supposedly liberal people call her humor "tasteless" and "disgusting." But the fact of the matter is that Silverman, and other female comics like her, do not push the envelope any farther than a Chris Rock or a Dave Chappelle, whom these same critics admire.

Silverman's humor is not everyone's cup of tea, to be sure. I am not making a case for whether she is a good comic; I am just pointing out that the "shocking" things that come out of her mouth would be considered "badass" if they came out of the mouth of a male comic. Drew Carey says it well: "Comedy is about aggression and confrontation and power. As a culture we just don't allow women to do all that stuff."

Christopher Hitchens, writing for Vanity Fair, recently acknowledged that there are some funny women comics around, but "Most of them, though, when you come to review the situation, are hefty or dykey or Jewish, or some combo of the three." One might just as well say that most of the really funny male comics are black or Jewish (forgive me, those who think Robin Williams is still funny).

Hitchens, to his credit, also says:

Precisely because humor is a sign of intelligence (and many women believe, or were taught by their mothers, that they become threatening to men if they appear too bright), it could be that in some way men do not want women to be funny. They want them as an audience, not as rivals. And there is a huge, brimming reservoir of male unease, which it would be too easy for women to exploit.

The Duke Cunningham of Iraq

Well, maybe slightly worse than Duke Cunningham. He bombed a U.S. embassy, and a French embassy, and maybe killed a Kuwaiti police officer and is maybe spying for Iran. And yep, Jamal Jafaar Mohammed is an elected member of Iraq's parliment. Let's hear it for Iraqi Democracy. Makin' us proud!

Is a Deal with Dingell a Deal with the Devil?

Over the past month, the biggest threat to climate change legislation seems not to come from Exxon Mobil-sponsored think-tanks nor Texas Republicans; rather, it has been infighting between Democrats. Since becoming Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has done everything but challenge John Dingell to a bout of mud-wrestling in order to take control of climate change legislation away from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce the Michigan Democrat chairs.

That's because Dingell is infamous for being in the pocket of the Auto Industry: He has long opposed tougher CAFE standards and his wife is currently a senior executive at GM. Many see him as an obstructionist to action on climate change. (See this interview with Grist, where Dingell expresses Inhofe-esque views on global warming.)

Dingell has been outspoken in his opposition to a new committee, telling the AP in January: "We're just empowering a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs to go around and make speeches and make commitments that will be very difficult to honor."

Bygones may not yet be bygones, but Pelosi and Dingell seem to have come to a compromise, clearing the way for the new committee--albeit a weaker one than Pelosi would probably have liked. In a letter sent to the Speaker yesterday, Dingell agreed not to challenge a new committee on climate change in exchange for Pelosi's concession that the new committee will not be granted legislative authority and will expire in October of 2008. U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, chair of the Oversight and Government Reform committee, co-signed the letter, agreeing not to challenge the formation of the select committee. You're not alone if you're not sure whether to chalk this one up as a win or a defeat for the planet.

--Koshlan Mayer-Blackwell

"Economic Man" = Boring Old White Man

In another last-one-to-say-"Not me"-when-somebody-farts move, George Bush announced last week that income inequality was a problem in the United States. (Mother Jones has reported on the problem here, here, and here to take but a few examples.) Today, the Washington Post reports, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke also acknowledged the income-inequality problem. Like Bush, he blamed the increasing value of education.

Bush and his Fed chief don't want to admit that tax breaks for the wealthy might have something to do with the increasing income gap. But the education claim is not just an excuse; it's a big fat lie. It's false even if all kinds of education are lumped together; breaking education down by field (i.e., business or science vs. anything in the humanities) reveals even more clearly that education itself is no passkey into the upper, upper class to which the concept of "income inequality" refers.

Bernanke's proposed solutions are fascinating, because they suggest that the Fed chief knows that a true free market screws the poor. He concedes that

the U.S. economy "creates painful dislocations," such as factory closings and layoffs of workers with obsolete skills. "If we did not place some limits on the downside risks to individuals affected by economic change, the public at large might become less willing to accept the dynamism that is so essential to economic progress."

There have been some very revealing articles lately about the assumptions that economists make to be able to argue that the free market is best for everyone. Bascially, they assume everyone is the same. They call that everyone "Economic Man," and assume that he is informed and rational in all of his economic decisions. Nobel-winning economist George A. Akerlof argued recently that Friedman's free market approach, which champions Economic Man, rather oversimplifies human behavior. As Louis Uchitelle reported in the NYT:

For example, [Akerlof] says, people don't automatically insist on raises that keep their pay on par with inflation. They often are happy with smaller raises, considering them a compliment from the boss for valued work. That makes pressure for higher pay less inflationary than the Friedman approach would assume.

Has there ever been a better example of how a bunch of affluent white men sitting around pontificating will completely block out what real life is like for real people?

Last week, Salon's Andrew Leonard profiled the emerging field of neuroeconomics, which, it turns out, explores the same oversights Akerlof is talking about by way of brain scan. Leonard worries that brain scans, too, will become standardized. On the up side, maybe they'll have to use poor people as guinea pigs and the assumptions will begin favor the needy.

Specter Remorseful About Role in U.S. Attorney Purge

We've written in the past about the Bush Administration's purge of trouble-making U.S. Attorneys nationwide. In you don't know the story, read up, because it is some legitimately scary stuff. Talking Points Memo, who has been following the story more closely than anyone, uncovered the fact that Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) enabled the purge by slipping a small provision into the Patriot Act reauthorization at the Bush Administration's request that gave the administration increased control over Attorney hirings and firings.

Democrats have pressed the White House on this and in a hearing on the subject today, Specter defended his action as having reasonable intentions and unintended results.