MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: February 25, 2007

« February 18, 2007 - February 24, 2007 | Main | March 4, 2007 - March 10, 2007 »

March 3, 2007

Ann Coulter, on a Roll

At the annual American Conservative Union meeting—attended by the V.P. and all the 2008 Republican candidates but McCain—Ann Coulter gave her latest gaydar reading. John Edwards, like Bill Clinton and Al Gore before him, is a "faggot."

Age-Old Tradition Felled by Climate Change

Today's New York Times reports that sugar makers in Vermont—maple syrup farmers, that is—can no longer rely on generations-old traditions to tell them when to tap the trees. Maple season has moved up at least a month and become shorter, sugar makers say. The U.S. used to make 80 percent of the world's maple syrup and Canada, 20. Their roles have now reversed as the maples thrive in the northernmost reaches of their traditional range.

Maple trees not only produce the sweet, delicious sap; they also provide the most exquisite of fall foliage.

What the Bush Administration is Doing About It (Climate Change)

Short answer: Nothing. Actually, that's not fair: Less than nothing. The Department of Energy predicts that, if nothing were done to restrict greenhouse gas emissions, the U.S. would produce just under 9 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year by 2020. The Administration claims that if nothing were done, emissions in that year would be closer to 10 billion tons. With Bush's all-voluntary restrictions, emissions will be exactly what the DOE says they would be, anyway. Addressing Bush's plan, David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council told the New York Times, "If you set the hurdle one inch above the ground, you can't fail to clear it." But the better metaphor is digging a one inch trench then setting the hurdle an inch above the ground.

The estimates come from the draft of the United States Climate Action Report, a final version of which was promised for the summer of 2005. Explaining the delay, officials blamed "the recent departures of several senior staff members running the administration's climate research program." (Don't you wonder why they'd quit?) The officials also said "no replacements had been named." Survival of the species on the line and the Bush administration is too busy firing nonpartisan U.S. attorneys to staff the climate research program.

Portion Of Ryan White Act Could Remove $60 Million From Prevention Budget

Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, according to his offiicial biography, is dedicated to "improving health care access and affordability, protecting the sanctity of all human life...." Not quite, if you consider his hat trick that could wipe $60 million of the HIV/AIDS prevention program. Coburn added a provision to the recently renewed Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Act that will divert $60 million from the Centers for Disease Control's HIV/AIDS prevention budget over the next three years into a fund for which no state qualifies.

The HIV Early Diagnosis Grant initiative mandates that $30 million of the CDC's prevention budget be set aside each year for states that meet a particular set of guidelines for HIV testing. The problem is that not one state meets these specific guidelines. However, the $30 million will be taken out of the CDC's budget, regardless.

Under the Early Diagnosis Grant program, states could receive money if they provide voluntary HIV testing of pregnant women and universal testing of newborns, and voluntary HIV testing at sexually transmitted infections clinics and at substance abuse treatment centers.

In anticipation of a loss of funds, the CDC has requested an additional $30 million in its 2008 budget. George W. Bush has already cut state and local prevention grants by $21 million since 2003. Laura Hanen, Director of Government Relations for the National Association of State and Territorial AIDS Directors, reports that HIV/AIDS advocates had asked Coburn for a compromise that would allow any unused portion of the $30 million to return to the CDC’s prevention budget each year, but he will not budge.

Diana Bruce of the AIDS Alliance for Children, Youth & Families defends Coburn as "a senator who cares a lot about HIV/AIDS” issues, but says that his initiative is misguided. "There already is a massive effort to prevent mother to child transmission ...the CDC has its own prenatal transmission programs,” Bruce said.

March 2, 2007

It Was Just a Matter of Time Until the Rudy Flip-Flops Began

I think the Republican strategy in the 2008 election is to flip-flop so many times, the public becomes completely immune to it. It'll be a massive paradigm shift in which people go from seeing flip-flops as indicative of weakness in character (see Kerry, John) to seeing flip-flops as politics as usual. (I'm only half kidding.)

MoJoBlog has documented McCain and Romney's flip-flopping and pandering over and over and over. So very many times, I'm starting to doubt I have the stomach for it. Not to be outdone, Rudy Giuliani is getting in on the act.

A top Rudy advisor has told the conservative National Review that Rudy opposes public funding for abortions. That's very different from Rudy's position in the 90s, when he ran for office touting his support for public funding.

This isn't the first time Rudy has pulled a U-turn on abortion. Earlier this month, he told Sean Hannity that he opposes late-term abortions, which is funny because once in 1999 and once in 2000 Rudy said very clearly he supports a woman's right to a late-term abortion. And when asked about the issue again in 2000, he said, "All of my positions are firm. I have strong viewpoints. I express them. And I--I do not think that it makes sense to be changing your position."

Hey! It's Another Democratic Plan for Iraq!

Well, what do you know! The Dems have another plan for Iraq.

House Democratic leaders have coalesced around legislation that would require troops to come home from Iraq within six months if that country's leaders fail to meet promises to help reduce violence there, party officials said Thursday.

The plan retains some of the Murtha plan -- readiness standards for about-to-be-deployed troops and the like, read more here -- and hits on some other goals as well.

As of Thursday, the proposal was on track to add an extra $1 billion to step up efforts in Afghanistan. Money also would be added to improve health care for veterans and help wounded active-duty troops, as well as provide relief for hurricane victims.

The legislation also would require Bush to seek congressional approval for any military operations in Iran.

Excuse me if I'm underwhelmed. In the last month alone we've seen a bunch of Democratic plans for Iraq go by the wayside because of lack of support or party infighting. I do give the Democrats some credit, however. On the campaign trail in the fall of 2006, Republicans hammered them for criticizing Bush's plans for Iraq without offering any of their own. Now, in an extremely bumbling fashion, they're hashing it all out. I just wish someone had done the heavy lifting before the new Congress convened in January, so we wouldn't have all this back and forth.

2006 Congressional Vote Ratings Released

I'm going to spoil the big surprise up front: Barack Obama is more liberal than Dennis Kucinich.

Now the context. National Journal has put out a series of lists in which they rate every lawmaker in the House and Senate on how they voted in 2006. (There's a link on the Mother Jones News and Politics page, your home for 2008 presidential coverage and general Washington news.) You can see the most liberal and most conservative members of Congress. You can see where Lieberman stands (not the most conservative Dem). And perhaps most interestingly, you can see where the presidential candidates fall.

The New York Times political blog dug a little deeper and found lifetime ratings. The results?

On a scale of one to 100, with 100 being the most liberal, here are the Dems:

Senator Barack Obama: 84.3
Representative Dennis Kucinich: 79.4
Senator Christopher J. Dodd: 79.2
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton: 78.8
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr.: 76.8

On a scale of one to 100, with 100 being the most conservative, here are the Republicans:

Representative Duncan Hunter: 82.5
Senator Sam Brownback: 81
Representative Tom Tancredo: 75.9
Senator John McCain: 71.8
Senator Chuck Hagel: 71.5
Representative Ron Paul: 51.7

Due to lack of votes in Congress, certain contenders for the nominations are left off.

Without Question, the Best Story of the Day

Headline spotted on Wonkette:

"Swiss Accidentally Invade Liechtenstein"

Classic. From the story itself:

What began as a routine training exercise almost ended in an embarrassing diplomatic incident after a company of Swiss soldiers got lost at night and marched into neighboring Liechtenstein.

...

Interior ministry spokesman Markus Amman said nobody in Liechtenstein had even noticed the soldiers, who were carrying assault rifles but no ammunition. "It's not like they stormed over here with attack helicopters or something," he said.

Liechtenstein, which has about 34,000 inhabitants and is slightly smaller than Washington DC, doesn't have an army.

Man, can you imagine being a PR guy and getting a call in the middle of the night from some military official who says, "Listen, we just accidentally invaded a defenseless little postage stamp of a country; go explain it to the press." You know you're in for a rough day.

Widespread Support for Universal Health Care Amongst American Voters: Poll

Yesterday I blogged about a new health care plan from Oregon senator Ron Wyden. He's helping push along the universal health care trend by proving that coverage for all is economically feasible and morally necessary.

And it looks like more and more Americans are seeing it that way, too. A new poll from the New York Times says that 84 percent of Americans support expanding a government program to make sure all children have health care -- universal health care jr., as it were. Support lags just slightly on the subject of adults. "Sixty percent, including 62 percent of independents and 46 percent of Republicans, said they would be willing to pay more in taxes" to pay for universal health care for every American. "Half said they would be willing to pay as much as $500 a year more."

Americans are even willing to forego future tax cuts. "Nearly 8 in 10 said they thought it was more important to provide universal access to health insurance than to extend the tax cuts of recent years; 18 percent said the tax cuts were more important." That 18 percent really loves their money. And I'm assuming they already have some pretty decent health care.

By the way, the fact that Obama, Clinton, and Edwards have all expressed support for universal health care while the Republicans have remained silent has really made this the Democrats' issue. If you remember, in Bush's State of the Union he had a fairly reasonable health care proposal. That seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

Only 24 percent said they were satisfied with President Bush’s handling of the health insurance issue, despite his recent initiatives, and 62 percent said the Democrats were more likely to improve the health care system.

Also, it's worth pointing out that Romney helped state Democrats pass a form of universal health care in Massachusetts, but because of his recent rightward shift that he thinks is necessary to attract the Republican base, he has dropped any mention of the effort from his campaign. Might want to rethink that one, Mitt.

March 1, 2007

New in Mother Jones: Don't Blame the Internet for Killing Newspapers

Here's one of the mysteries of the media world: Newspaper chains routinely make profits that Fortune 500 companies only dream of—we're talking 20% plus here—and yet everyone says newspapers are about to go the way of the horse and buggy. What's up with that? As Eric Klinenberg explains in "Breaking the News," in our current issue, there's actually no disconnect between fat profits and the demise of the great American newspaper. In fact, the cutting back on reporting and content to wring more money from newspapers is what's killing them. Nope, the Internet isn't to blame. (Though newspapers—and magazines [ahem]—still have a thing or two to learn about making money online.) Klinenberg, the author of the just-published Fighting for Air, takes a close look at the ongoing Los Angeles Times debacle, a case study in how to turn a world-class newspaper into a shadow of its former self, all in the name of satisfying shareholders and equity-chasing investors.

Klinenberg's article is worth checking out even if your fingers haven't been smudged with newsprint for years. Because even if you're an online-only, blog-reading, indy media type, you still need newspapers whether you realize it or not. Love 'em or hate 'em, they're doing the kind of reporting that blogs can't. Or as Kevin Drum explains in his companion piece, "Why Bloggers Need the MSM":

In fact, blogs and the MSM [mainstream media] are symbiotic. Blogs at their best improve on MSM reporting both by holding reporters to account and by latching onto complex topics and talking about them in a conversational style that professional reporters just can't match. But the blogosphere would shrivel and die without a steady diet of news reporting from paid professionals.

Even if newspapers printed on dead trees disappear, we're still going to have to get our daily news somewhere. Back to Klinenberg:

"What's really at risk here is not the future of newspapers but of the news itself. While our democratic culture could survive the loss of the daily paper as we know it, it would be endangered without the kinds of reporting that it provides. It's the journalism, not the newsprint, that matters."

These stories are just part of a larger package that includes Sridhar Pappu's look at the implosion of the LA Times, plus an interview with former LAT editor Dean Baquet, and a nifty chart [PDF] of media mergers and acquisitions from AOL-TimeWarner to Google-YouTube. Check it all out here.

Largo, Florida Moves To Dismiss Transsexual City Manager

On Tuesday, the city commissioners in Largo, Florida voted to dismiss City Manager Steve Stanton because he is in the process of changing from a man to a woman. The mayor of Largo and one commissioner voted to retain Stanton, but the other five commissioners voted to fire him. According to the Human Rights Campaign, this move is in direct violation of the city's own non-discrimination policy, which prohibits discrimination based on gender identity and expression.

Stanton has served as City Manager for fourteen years, and was apparently a respected employee. Pam's House Blend points out that the leader of the campaign to get Stanton dismissed was Pastor Charlie Martin of the First Baptist Church of Indian Rocks. First Baptist brags about being racially diverse, but obviously draws the line at other types of diversity. It's mission statement includes "We are all made in the spiritual image of God," but maybe that needs to be modified just a tad.

Martin believes that if his congregants have to call Steve "Susan" (were they really calling him "Steve"?), the religious freedoms of Christians will be compromised. Another minister said, "If Jesus was here tonight, I can guarantee you he'd want him terminated. Make no mistake about it." These members of the clergy have company among Largo's citizens. Or, as one person said, "As a resident of Largo for over 40 years, I'm very disturbed that our city manager is planning a sex change. In my view this would be disruptive to Steve Stanton's ability to conduct city business."

You figure it out. He was fine when he was Steve, but as Susan, he will not be competent. Of course, all women are accustomed to hearing they are not as competent as men, but this particular case is as extreme as it can get.

No news yet as to whether Stanton will take action against the Largo city commission.

U.S. Attorney Says Firing Was Politically Motivated

The Bush Dept. of Justice finds itself in even deeper doo-doo today, as Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias has charged that weeks before the November election, members of the New Mexico congressional delegation asked him to turn up the heat on the investigation of a Democrat for corruption. Iglesias declined and was fired, effective yesterday. (The reasons given include frequent absence, to which Iglesias responded that he serves in the Navy Reserve.)

Iglesias won't name the members of Congress unless subpoenaed, but the only New Mexico delegates who haven't categorically denied involvement are Rep. Heather Wilson and Sen. Pete Domenici, both Republicans. Domenici is, moreover, the White House's state contact for the U.S. attorney in the state.

Congressional Democrats have indicated that they will issue subpoenas.

Enticing New Health Care Plan from Little Known Corner of Congress

A new Slate article by Jacob Weisberg examines that state of American health care, from the status quo to Bush's plan to John Edwards' plan to... Ron Wyden's plan?

Yup. The Democratic senator from Oregon has a plan, and it sounds mighty attractive. Imagine if the giant, Byzantine mess that is the current health care system in this country was reduced to this:

Under Wyden's plan, employers would no longer provide health coverage, as they have since World War II. Instead, they'd convert the current cost of coverage into additional salary for employees. Individuals would use this money to buy insurance, which they would be required to have. Private insurance plans would compete on features and price but would have to offer benefits at least equivalent to the Blue Cross "standard" option.

And Wyden is serious about the "universal" aspect of universal health insurance. From a summary of his plan: "Every time an individual interacts with state, local and federal government — registering their car, enrolling their children in school, applying for a driver’s license or paying their taxes — they can be required to verify their enrollment in a private health insurance plan." Also, I'm sure this is music to some people's ears: "Previous and existing health problems, occupation, genetic information, gender and age will no longer be allowed to impact eligibility or the price paid for insurance."

Now you might say, "That's very well and good, but what about the unemployed, low-wage workers, and freelance bloggers? If they can't afford private health insurance now, why would they be able to afford it under the Wyden plan?" Wyden's website is stocked with information on the subject, and in all the "Before Wyden Plan"/"Under Wyden Plan" scenarios you can find there, previously uninsured individuals pay for private insurance at affordable rates. But how? From the same summary:

Employers who do not currently provide health benefits will be required to begin making phased in "Employer Shared Responsibility Payments." These payments will be used to ensure that everyone can afford their health plans by funding premium reductions.

After two years, all employers will pay these "Employer Shared Responsibility Payments," driving down the cost of premiums for employees across the country, the semi-employed, and the unemployed.

Now it's just a matter of getting this thing off the ground. As Weisberg writes in Slate, it might actually have a chance to succeed because Wyden is building support methodically and effectively.

He has support from CEOs, labor leaders, and even one maverick health-insurance executive. And instead of trying to flatten the opposition, as the Clintons did in 1994, Wyden is courting Republicans. He recently got five of the most conservative men in the Senate to join him and four other Democrats as co-signers of a letter to Bush responding to the White House proposal. The letter endorses the principles of universal coverage and cost containment, and proposes that they all work together on a compromise.

Godspeed.

Seriously Mixed Signals from the Commanders in Baghdad

About a week ago I highlighted an important story in Newsweek that explained how completely different the discussion about Iraq in America is from the reality on the ground. Congress may be debating (kind of) how to end the war, but over in Baghdad, Gen. Petraeus is embedding our troops with the Iraqi citizenry and "putting down roots." We're in it for the long haul, said Newsweek. Petraeus is trying to fight the war over again from scratch.

But today the Guardian reports that Petraeus and the Brainy Bunch are giving themselves six months to turn things around.

An elite team of officers advising the US commander, General David Petraeus, in Baghdad has concluded that they have six months to win the war in Iraq - or face a Vietnam-style collapse in political and public support that could force the military into a hasty retreat.

This could mean several things. (1) That Petraeus really does have a long-term strategy but he will scrap it if there is no discernable progress in the next six months. (2) This Guardian story is just a bit of masterful PR by the Army to show that the new commander is aware of the war's failing support back home, and the long-term strategy moves forward unimpeded. Or (3) one of the two stories is wrong.

I'm guessing some combination of all three. But Petraeus -- who was basically set up to fail -- appears to have an even more impossible situation.

What Doug Feith Left Off His New Website

Doug Feith, the former undersecretary of defense who helped set up the Pentagon operation that stovepiped bad intel about WMD and Saddam-Al Qaeda links to the White House, has been trying to clear his name recently. Now he says he was just asking "tough questions" about the CIA's work, not trying to peddle bogus theories to justify an invasion of Iraq. Just a skeptical public servant holding those in power accountable. And if you believe that, I have a war to sell you. Feith's latest effort in name-clearing is a website that promises to challenge the "media myths" and offers glowing quotes about his character from Donald Rumsfeld and General Peter Pace. Funny, but Feith has conspicuously left off what's probably the most memorable quote about him by a military man he used to work with. Here, let us fix that:

Democrats Will End War in Iraq with... Pork?

With John Murtha's plan to slowly end the war in Iraq mired in controversy and unable to get broad support, and the Democratic leadership's plan to rewrite the 2002 authorization for war going nowhere, the Democrats have turned to a different tactic.

Loading a war spending bill with pork.

Seriously, that's the best the Dems, who control both houses of Congress, can do. From today's Washington Post:

While Democrats try to restrict how President Bush can spend the $100 billion he wants for Iraq, they also hope to load his measure up with $10 billion in add-ons...

Lawmakers from the Great Plains are pressing for about $4 billion in disaster aid for farmers suffering under drought conditions.

The California delegation is demanding help for citrus, avocado and other Central Valley farmers facing $1.2 billion in losses from a devastating January freeze.

And so on and so on. Mind you, the idea here isn't to pump the bill so full of special interest spending that Bush has to veto it. No, the idea is to take advantage of the fact that Bush and Congressional Republicans would never have the cojones to stop a war spending bill, and thus push through a lot of favorite projects.

What? Seriously, what? Talk about having a tin ear. Didn't the Democrats ride into Congress promising to end the march of bills swollen on earmarks and Republican pork barrel projects? Are they seriously proposing this right now?

February 28, 2007

AsianWeek Columnist Had a Penchant for Hate Speech

The San Francisco weekly, AsianWeek, which calls itself "The Voice of Asian America," has come under fire for a column last week titled "Why I Hate Blacks."

The column (since deleted from AsianWeek's site but reprinted here) lists, among other things, four reasons why "we should discriminate against Blacks." Yikes.

In response, the newspaper issued this apology:

AsianWeek sincerely regrets and apologizes for publishing New York-based contributor Kenneth Eng's column in the issue of February 23, 2007. AsianWeek rejects Eng's biased views on a critical segment of American society, African Americans. While AsianWeek continues to truly believe in diversity of opinion and freedom of the press, we are also very aware that the promotion of hate speech is not appropriate, nor should it be encouraged.

Given that the genesis of the American civil rights movement was borne primarily by the African American community through blood and perseverance, the failing of our editorial process in allowing this opinion piece to go forward, was an insensitive and callous mistake that should never have been made by our publication. Readers of AsianWeek over the past 27-year history clearly know that we reject any racist agenda. On the contrary, our editorial policy has led the way in interracial and multicultural strength and diversity.

As a publication whose motto is the "voice of the Asian American community," we are humbled and overwhelmed at reader response not only chastising our editorial process, but strongly urging our paper to sever all ties to this contributor. We have heard the call and Mr. Eng has been terminated from writing for the paper.

That's a pretty egregious slip past the editors. And here's the thing: Kenneth Eng, a self described "Asian supramicist" wrote two previous columns for AsianWeek titled, "Why I Hate Asians" last month, and "Proof that Whites Inherently Hate Us" in November.

I'm curious to know why the editors didn't feel impelled to reject his "hate speech" and "racial agenda" back when they published these other columns? If his aim was to get people thinking, enraged, but thinking, and they stood behind that premise before, why not stand behind him now? Instead they fired him, and they look irresponsible on the national stage.

And if publishing this column was indeed a mistake, then so were the others, and they've let a few too many mistakes slip on by.

— Neha Inamdar

Desperate Evangelicals

The American Prospect is calling Romney a joke of a candidate—all hair. But, meanwhile, in Newsweek's version of the "The Evangelicals Have No Candidate" story, we find this:

The Bush family seems to be moving its chips to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Several of Jeb’s gubernatorial staffers have signed on with Romney, and Jeb's sister, Doro Bush Koch, is cohosting a fund-raiser for him. Mom and Dad are reportedly telling friends he’s a fine man and the class act in the race. With front runner John McCain faltering and Rudy Giuliani an unlikely fit with Republican primary voters, Romney looks like the Bush Dynasty's best bet.

Suddenly it's the Republicans floundering for a half decent candidate! And in another echo of bad Democratic moments past, evangelicals are threatening to throw the vote. Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, told Rolling Stone in its "The Evangelicals Have No Candidate" story, "It's true we have nowhere else to go, except to stay home. [But] we would rather go down on our principles. We lose? You lose!"

Predictably, the evangelical groups are blaming the media (these guys actually compare the influence of the liberal media to slavery!) for making a deal out of Romney's Mormonism. But The Nation documents some instances of religious groups calling Mormonism a cult.

The truth is, and I've said this before, Romney made his own bed by running on a holier-than-thou platform. And then there's the simple fact that it's really cool to watch the religious right Goliath fall.

Right and Feminist Groups in "Not Me" Contest over Gay Rights

What with Mother Jones being referred to as a "liberal stalwart" (Chicago Tribune) and a "porno-political remnant of the nineteen sixties" (the NRA), you'd think that our readers would be leftist--and, err, sex-positive--enough to support gay rights. But nobody seems willing to support the gay cause. Check out a couple of comments from one of my recent blog posts on GLBT issues:

I, personally, am not anti-gay BUT...if one owns a small business then one's views count. If you can't stand flaming queens then why would you employ one? Laws aren't going to force you to hire one, your personal tastes will sort out who gets the job. My point in general is that, as OWNER of a business, who the fu*k is going to tell me how to run it?

Homosexuality is a perversion and no one should be forced to hire perverts.

Well, some feminists don't want to help the queers any more than these Mother Jones readers do. The Maryland Court of Appeals is currently considering a claim that banning gay marriage constitutes a violation of the state's Equal Rights Amendment. (The Massachusetts gay marriage decision partially relied on that state's ERA.) Die-hard supporters still trying to win a national ERA are pissed, the American Prospect reports:

Idella Moore of 4ERA, penned a Women's E-News column titled "The ERA has nothing to do with Gay Marriage" in which she wrote, "...[T]oday we must battle not only long-time opponents of the amendment, but defend this amendment against misinterpretation by those whom most would consider our natural allies."

Meanwhile, the die-hard opponents of the ERA to whom Moore refers are simultaneously accusing her of being the gay-lover. An article in the National Review gloated, "Mrs. Schlafly not only had the right idea when she fought the Equal Rights Amendment during the 70s, but predictions she made back then are still accurate today." Schlafly had predicted that the "ERA would legalize the granting of marriage licenses to same-sex couples and generally implement the gay and lesbian agenda."

And we all know that granting the 4 percent of Americans who are openly gay the right to marry will bring this country to its knees even faster than the journalism of this "pro-terrorist rag" (Lyndon LaRouche).

Global Warming...Are You Ready?

Diesel shoppers surely are. I can't believe I missed this. Diesel's new ad campaign for their Spring/Summer '07 collection, is out, and my oh my, just wait until you see what they have in store. The campaign is based on the premise of whether or not you (their client) are ready (Read: Do you have the right clothing and accessories?) for the hot temps of global warming. Yes, this is for real. There is even a video which warns of the dangers associated with a warming climate, but urges fashion lovers not to distress, and instead take action (of course, in the form of bolstering your wardrobe with warm-weather essentials). You really have to see it for yourself.

Keep up on the latest news about global warming at the MoJo science and health blog, The Blue Marble.

Details Emerge About Padilla's Treatment in Confinement

As you likely know, the trial of Chicago gang member and alleged terrorist Jose Padilla is going on now.

On Tuesday, his jailers were forced to testify about the conditions of Padilla's secretive three-year-eight-month confinement in a naval brig as part of a hearing on whether or not Padilla is fit to stand trial; it is significant testimony because it's the first time any of Padilla's captors have been forced to speak publicly.

What was revealed:

- Padilla sometimes slept on a steel bunk without a mattress.

- The windows in Padilla's 80-square-foot cell were blackened so no natural light was able to enter the cell.

- Padilla was given no timepiece, leading to an almost complete inability to tell time.

- The electric light in Padilla's cell could only be activated by jailers and was frequently unavailable for unspecified reasons.

Padilla has alleged he was tortured while in military captivity. That has yet to be proven true or false. In fact, the hearing was limited in scope, and didn't cover most aspects of Padilla's detention, for example, how he was fed, how he was interrogated, etc.

In the hearing on Padilla's competency to stand trial, government doctors and defense doctors differed on their evaluations of the Padilla's mental health. Read the opinions in this New York Times story.

Mother Jones covered Padilla's indictment after more than three years of detainment here, wondered if Padilla is anything more than the government's perfect fall guy here, and discussed the plight of Padilla's lawyer here.

What's Wrong with "Slow Bleed"?

A couple weeks ago, political news website Politico used the phrase "slow bleed" to describe John Murtha's plan to end the war in Iraq by making war-fighting virtually impossible for George W. Bush. (See the first sentence of that link for the usage.) Murtha wanted to pass a bill requiring things like higher readiness standards for troops and longer leave times between deployments that would essentially cut off the flow of troops available to make war -- in time, the war would have to come to a grinding stop.

So, okay. It's a plan to slowly kill the war in Iraq. Immediately after the Politico story was released, the Washington Post, CNN, the Wall Street Journal, and other news outlets used the phrase "slow bleed." What was the problem -- after all, it seems like a fitting description of the plan? Republicans started using the phrase to highlight its morbid qualities, pounding away with it over and over on the floor of the House and going so far as to say that Democrats were using "slow bleed" as a title for the plan (which was false; Politico's story was the first usage). The whole situation just looked insensitive (and bumbling) on the part of the Dems: how could they name a plan that potentially endangers the troops, so the argument goes, with a phrase that evokes a wounded or dying soldier?

Eventually, after left-wing groups started hammering Politico for creating the mess, an editor at the website came clean, saying that he had thrown in the phrase to punch up the prose and that the Democrats and the writer of the story had nothing to do with it. Here are his feelings on the subject:

Please note the context: What is slowly bleeding away is the administration's political support to keep fighting the war. Republicans pounced on the phrase because of the ease with which that context could be shorn away, to give the impression that what Democrats were slow-bleeding were the bodies of troops in Iraq.

That willingness to wrest words from context -- and to attribute the phrase to Democrats even though it was not theirs -- was demagogic on the part of Republican operatives. But it was never my plan to make their work so easy.

I would agree that blame for the situation rests with the Republicans if I felt that blame deserved to be assigned. I see no problem with the phrase. I'm not scared off by the fact that it might bring to mind the image of a bleeding soldier; we've been at war for four years and tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people are dead. Are we so squeamish? And are Americans such nit-wits that their attention to the Iraq debate can be short-circuited by a poorly chosen turn of phrase? Highlighting the words "slow bleed" instead of debating the plan on its merits was a cheap trick by the Republicans, I agree, but what everyone should have done was ignored their attempts to derail serious debate on a serious topic and instead push ahead with the plan -- which most Americans support.

Murtha was finding new and innovative ways to end the war in Iraq. A prefectly descriptive label with unfortunate connotations was applied to it. Are we really so immature that we focus on the latter and can't see the former?

Well, That Should Put an End to "Is Obama Black Enough?" Stories

"Blacks Shift to Obama, Poll Finds," Washington Post, February 28, 2007. Let's dig in, shall we?

The Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama vs. John Edwards numbers have gone from:

41% for Clinton
17% for Obama
11% for Edwards

36% for Clinton
24% for Obama
12% for Edwards

Hillary's lead over Barack has halved in little over a month! Why the shift? It's a change among black respondents. Here's the Post:

Clinton's and Obama's support among white voters changed little since December, but the shifts among black Democrats were dramatic. In December and January Post-ABC News polls, Clinton led Obama among African Americans by 60 percent to 20 percent. In the new poll, Obama held a narrow advantage among blacks, 44 percent to 33 percent.

By the way, here's some stunning info about the Republican side of things.

In the Republican race, former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who recently made clear his intentions to seek the presidency, has expanded his lead over Sen. John McCain of Arizona. Giuliani holds a 2 to 1 advantage over McCain among Republicans, according to the poll, more than tripling his margin of a month ago.

The principal reason was a shift among white evangelical Protestants, who now clearly favor Giuliani over McCain. Giuliani is doing well among this group of Americans despite his support of abortion rights and gay rights, two issues of great importance to religious conservatives. McCain opposes abortion rights.

The real question on the Republican side is whether the conservative base simply doesn't know about Rudy's social positions (in which case a Republican primary will not treat Rudy well), or if it chooses to overlook them because of the heroism he displayed on 9/11. A really good discussion of that issue, and an illustration of how Rudy still flogs 9/11 to death on the campaign trail, can be found in the cover story of the most recent issue of New York magazine.

And PS - I know that this is silly horserace coverage. You're bound to find some of it here on MoJoBlog over the next months/years, but you'll find a lot more on the Mother Jones News and Politics page. That's our designated place for delicious coverage of the 2008 campaigns; the magazine and the homepage of the website will always be the place for serious, weighty, (BORING!) issue-based journalism.

February 27, 2007

Burma Struggles For Help, Headlines

It’s not really clear when Bush plans to “speak out for the cause of freedom” in long-oppressed Burma, as he promised in this year's State of the Union address. But with all that warring in Iraq and Afghanistan and perhaps soon Iran, Burma is likely to remain on a remote backburner of the administration's – and the MSM’s – agenda.

So it's worth noting that yesterday the BBC started a series of articles looking at 200,000+ Burmese refugees and migrant workers in Thailand, just one of many stories of struggle in this insurgency-rocked country.

Last month, the UN came damn close to passing a resolution on Burma, and activist groups hope that more coverage of the country’s plight will help bring about international action against fifty years of military rule.

— Nicole McClelland

Edwards Zings Clinton On Iraq: Voters Want An Apology

I know, I know, it's too soon. Everyone is already sick of hearing about what Obama's finance chair said about Bill and Hillary and what Romney, the flip-flop maniac, had to say about McCain's only seemingly inconsistent stance on abortion. But is it really too early? Judging from the many comments on my posts covering the Edwards netroots drama, some of you are quite interested in the early, and excessive, election gossip, er... coverage. (TomDispatch has a great essay on why you care.)

Without further ado, more election gossip: Edwards seems to, once again, be calling Clinton out on her inability to apologize for her vote to authorize the war. He had this to say at a press conference this morning in response to a question as to why he is so insistent on apologizing for his vote to authorize the war:

"They [the voters] want you to tell the truth when you believe you have made a mistake and they want you to change course when something is not working."

Edwards' campaign has not made clear, either way, if these comments were or were not directed at the New York senator, but one can only assume. Seems everyone wants Clinton to apologize -- Salon has actually written an apology speech for her. Pretty funny and definitely worth a read.

Sisters Are Doin' It To Themselves

It began when a DePauw University psychology professor distributed a survey, and students described one sorority as "Daddy's little princesses" and another, Delta Zeta, as "socially awkward." Speaking for myself, I would rather eat rocks than be part of a group of Daddy's little princesses, but apparently, not everyone feels that way. The Delta Zeta membership at DePauw had declined, so some important DZs from the national office in Ohio went to Indiana to help. They interviewed 35 members of the DePauw DZ chapter, and concluded that 23 of them were "insufficiently committed" to the sorority. Those women were asked to leave the sorority house.

Every one of the 23 women just happened to not pass the American standard of weight normalcy, i.e., they were considered overweight. The group also included the only Korean woman, the only black woman, and the only Vietnamese woman in the sorority.

And then there were twelve--all slender, all popular with frat men--and six of those were so angry about what had occurred that they quit Delta Zeta. Other students staged protests, parents wrote angry letters, and a faculty petition declared the house-cleansing "unethical."

The executive director of Delta Zeta denies that the 23 women were evicted from the sorority house. Here is the text of the letter those women received:

"The membership review team has recommended you for alumna status. Chapter members receiving alumnae status should plan to relocate from the chapter house no later than Jan. 29, 2007."

There really isn't much room for interpretation there. Nice having you, your time is up, get out. Delta Zeta at DePauw has a bit of a mixed record when it comes to diversity, but overall, seems to have done very well, and now is "paying for it" by having members who are not the average girl from your video. In September of 2006, the women were told that national representatives were coming to interview them about their "commitment," and that they should "look their best." Four women with especially good instincts withdrew from the chapter right away, bringing the total victim count to 33.

Debbie Raziano, national president of Delta Zeta, in a letter written yesterday, denies the occurence described in the "unfortunate New York Times article." "The article," she said, "is inaccurate and grossly mischaracterizes the situation." She said that the chapter was supposed to close at the end of the 2006-2007 school year because of declining membership, and reorganize later, but the reorganization request was denied by the university. The university asked the sorority to do a membership review, and only those women who were willing to do day-to-day recruiting were chosen to continue to be active members.

Raziano's version of events is even more outrageous than what a reading of the Times article would lead one to conclude: that the women who were not model-thin just weren't up to doing the recruiting, and all the slim white women enthusiastically jumped on the recruiting bandwagon. What a coincidence.

Jill, writing for Feministe, says:

It’s easy to demonize the Delta Zeta leadership for their (obviously abhorrent) actions here. But even they were only reacting to a greater social consensus among other members of campus--that a “worthy” sorority is one which is made up of traditionally attractive women who will be attractive to fraternity men. This kind of stuff is par for the course when it comes to sorority and fraternity selection processes. And while it helps to call out the bad behavior of one sorority, that hardly solves the larger problem. Until women are valued for more than their physical appearance, and until attractiveness and social status are less dependent on perceived economic status, we won’t be getting anywhere.

I have a suggestion for the 23 banished DZ members: Start a chapter of Sigma Rho. When I was in college, a number of women were kicked out of their sororities for the most absurd reasons (including passing pizza out of a dormitory window). They formed their own sorority, Sigma Rho (Sorority Rejects), threw their own parties and dances, and held their own fundraisers. Their sister group, Delta Mu (Discontented Members)--which would already have 10 members at DePauw--did the same thing, and enjoyed many joint activities with Sigma Rho. Being invited to a Sigma Rho/Delta Mu event was a hell of a lot more hip than being invited to a regular sorority bash, and also a hell of a lot more fun.