MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: November 18, 2007

« November 11, 2007 - November 17, 2007 | Main | November 25, 2007 - December 1, 2007 »

November 24, 2007

A Ron Paul Supporter Explains the "Liberty Dollar"

Ed. Note: Earlier this month, the people behind something called the "Liberty Dollar" saw their offices raided by the FBI. The Liberty Dollar bills itself as a "private voluntary barter currency," which I assumed was code for a libertarian scheme designed to bring about the downfall of the Federal Reserve, in the spirit of the fiercely anti-Fed libertarian demigod Ron Paul. (The Liberty Dollar folks have a coin with Ron Paul on it.) I reached out to a libertarian friend who writes the blog The Agnoptimists to get some hard answers. His thoughts are below. —JS

As a libertarian, I like to argue with opponents of my free market views by focusing on outcomes: simply put, the central question is whether centralized government programs are really more attractive than market outcomes.

Anyone who seeks the best solutions to society's dilemmas should embrace experiments that allow direct comparison between government projects and private enterprise. The U.S. Post Office is constantly improving its service due to competition from companies like FedEx and UPS, for example.

The Federal Reserve is a favorite target for libertarian critique, and with good reason. There is no inherent value backing the U.S. dollar; instead, a small group of powerful individuals unilaterally and undemocratically controls our nation's money supply. They are free to redistribute wealth from savers to borrowers, which they do incrementally but consistently by creating new money, and their inability to manage interest rates perfectly is at least partially responsible for the economically destructive boom/bust business cycle and the current housing crisis. Worst of all, U.S. citizens are forced to accept the U.S. dollar—the term "legal tender" means that people cannot refuse the dollar even if inflation renders it worthless. Alan Greenspan was famously skeptical of this deeply flawed system, and Americans should not be content.

The Liberty Dollar is one of perhaps 60 alternative currencies that represent a first step toward providing Americans with an option other than the current system. Most are used in small communities and intended only as supplements to the U.S. dollar, but the Liberty Dollar's creators are more ambitious. The Liberty Dollar, which boasts 20 million units in circulation, is meant to compete with the U.S. dollar on its strengths as a stable, easily identifiable, and difficult to counterfeit store of value. The company, which is run on a for-profit basis, promises to redeem its currency for gold and silver at any time, and the integrity of its systems is monitored by an independent auditor. The costs of the experiment are born exclusively by the buyers of Liberty Dollars, who continue to also pay for the Federal Reserve and U.S. Mint through taxes. Merchants are and will always be free to reject the new money, of course.

But success has been hard to come by. Last year, the government warned the public that the use of Liberty Dollars could earn a five-year prison term. On November 14th, FBI agents raided the Liberty Dollar offices, seizing gold and silver, manufacturing equipment, and customer records. The news received little coverage, and the idea of an alternative currency was quickly dismissed as a fringe movement. What the pundits fail to understand, however, is that the prohibition of completely voluntary and privately funded monetary experimentation dooms Americans to live with an unsatisfactory status quo. The government's actions in this case demonstrate the danger of overly centralized authority, and the public's complacency is worrisome. Everyone should agree that government hurts the public by prohibiting others from providing a better service than its own, but Ron Paul is the only prominent politician willing to address this critical issue.

— Nathan Labenz

A Look Back at John Howard

Today Australian Prime Minister John Howard was ousted by the Labor Party, which easily took back control of Parliament from Howard's party. The defeat was so severe Howard may even lose his own seat.

So, now is a good time to look back at something little-noticed in America: Howard's shameless lying on Iraq.

Howard's most important Iraq speech was delivered to Parliament on February 4, 2003. Here's some of what he said:

The point must clearly be understood that, following its defeat in the Gulf War, Iraq admitted to possessing chemical and biological weapons and to developing a nuclear programme. In those circumstances the overwhelming imperative is that Iraq demonstrates to the world that it has destroyed those weapons and disbanded those programmes. That, in fact, is what this debate is all about.

The world demands to know precisely what happened to Iraq’s pre-1998 weapons and material. Iraq claims to have destroyed them...

In 1995, the international community was confronted by Iraq’s massive programme for developing offensive biological weapons--one of the largest and most advanced in the world.

Despite four years of intensive inquiries and searches, the weapons inspectors did not even know of its existence until Saddam’s son-in-law, Hussein Kamal defected. Faced with its duplicity Iraq finally admitted to producing aflatoxin--which causes cancers, the paralysing poison botulinum and anthrax bacteria.

Howard is lying so enthusiastically about such a complex story it's difficult to untangle it all, but I'll try. Howard's story, rephrased slightly, goes like this:

We know Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and a nuclear program. They claim to have destroyed the unaccounted parts in secret, but if they're lying there's no reason to think UN inspections will find anything. After all, the inspectors didn't even know Iraq had a massive ongoing biological weapons program right under their noses—including aflatoxin, botulinum, and anthrax—until Saddam's son-in-law defected in 1995 and told them.

This turns reality completely on its head, and not just in today's hindsight. When Howard spoke, this is what was known with 100% certainty:

After the Gulf War in 1991, Iraq admitted to possessing chemical weapons and a nuclear weapons program. But—despite the suspicions of the UN—Iraq denied producing biological weapons. Over the next several years, as Iraq turned over its chemical weapons to the UN to be destroyed, the UN uncovered clear evidence Iraq had had a biological weapons program. When confronted with this excellent work by the inspectors, Iraq finally admitted in July, 1995 to having produced anthrax and botulinum—before the Gulf War. However, they claimed to have secretly destroyed everything long before, and, in 1995, to have nothing.

Hussein Kamel did not defect until a month later, in August, 1995. And not only was he not the reason the inspections uncovered Iraq's biological weapons program, he also emphatically said Iraq had indeed destroyed everything years previously, and since the Gulf War had had no ongoing WMD programs. As Kamel told the UN, "All weapons—biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed." (What Kamel did reveal is Iraq still had not come clean about the entire extent of its pre-91 programs, including the production of aflatoxin, and was hiding relevant documents.)

Thus, Howard's statement was truly a masterpiece of lying. It included everything humans use when they want to deceive others, from the omission of important information to misleading language to outright fabrication.

And Howard's efforts were impressively brazen. Again, it's not in hindsight they can be seen to be false. Anyone with access to the internet could have proven this within ten minutes of Howard making his speech.

Take Howard's claim about the UN only learning about the biological weapons program from Kamel's defection. Here's the timeline the US State Department had online by January, 2003:

July 1, 1995
Iraq admits for the first time existence of offensive biological weapons program

August 8, 1995
Hussein Kamal—Saddam's son-in-law and figure in charge of Iraq's WMD effort—defects

Then there are the specifics of Howard's claim—that it was only after Kamel defected that the UN learned about Iraq's anthrax and botulinum. Here's a New York Times story from July 6, 1995:

The chairman, Rolf Ekeus, told the Council that the Iraqis admitted in a meeting Saturday in Baghdad that they had produced "large quantities" of two deadly biological agents, the bacteria that cause botulism and anthrax. Iraqis maintain that the toxic agents were later destroyed...

"It is important that Iraq has finally admitted what it was denying only a week ago: that it had an offensive biological weapons program," Madeleine K. Albright, the United States representative said after the letter was circulated in the Security Council today. "This admission demonstrates again that the Council can get results when it is firm and consistent in demanding Iraqi compliance"...

"This is an important step the Government of Iraq has taken," Charles Duelfler, deputy chairman of the commission, said today.

(You may remember Charles Duelfer led the CIA's investigation nine years later into what happened to Iraq's WMD.)

Then there's Howard's omission of what Kamel said about whether or not Iraq still possessed WMD. Here's Kamel on CNN on September 21, 1995:

SADLER: Can you state here and now -- does Iraq still to this day hold weapons of mass destruction?

KAMEL: No. Iraq does not possess any weapons of mass destruction. I am being completely honest about this.

And as little-known as Howard's false claims are in America, even fewer people here are aware of something even uglier: the story of Bob Mathews, one of Australia's top WMD experts. Before the war, Matthews was warning everyone within the government (including Howard) about the weakness of the WMD evidence. Hearing this, Howard's underlings snapped into action: they immediately created a plan to smear Mathews if he went public. After the war, they punished Mathews for being correct. His security clearance was removed, his travel overseas was restricted, and they threatened to prosecute him for revealing classified information.

FINALLY: Here's Howard speaking on Australian radio in August, 1995—ironically, just after Hussein Kamel defected, and just before Howard became prime minister:

Truth is absolute, truth is supreme, truth is never disposable in national political life.

November 23, 2007

Australians Vote Today: A Turning Point for the World?

Want a sneak preview of America-2008? Australians are voting today on 11 years of John Howard's ghastly ungreen rule and Kevin Rudd is predicted to become Australia's leader—a man who's declared the fight against global warming to be his main priority. The Telegraph reports:

The Labour Party leader said that he would immediately sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, describing it as the "number one" priority. "Australia needs new leadership on climate change. Mr. Howard remains in a state of denial," he said. He would personally represent Australia at a United Nations climate change meeting next month in Bali to discuss the next stage of the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. He also promised that by 2020, a fifth of Australia's energy needs would come from renewable energy sources. Until a partial conversion this year, Mr. Howard has been a climate change skeptic [sound familiar?]. . . the latest poll indicates that Mr. Rudd is set to win with 54 per cent of the vote compared to Mr. Howard's 46 per cent.

If true. Well, halle-bloody-lujah. It will be no small victory. Aussies are the highest per capita greenhouse emitters on the planet. They're our fellow anti-Kyotoers, and likewise suffering hellacious droughts and wildfires. Where they lead, we can follow.

Julia Whitty is Mother Jones' environmental correspondent. You can read from her new book, The Fragile Edge, and other writings, here.

Wal-Mart Sues Brain Damaged Employee As Reward for Giving Her Health Insurance

Just when you think that Wal-Mart had already exhausted every last possible strategy for screwing over its employees, here comes this story in the Wall Street Journal. Deborah Shank, a Wal-Mart employee gets into an accident with a semi and ends up permanently brain-damaged a few years back. Her Wal-Mart health insurance paid her medical bills, but she also sued the trucking company for damages. She wins $700,000, which after legal fees and expenses, nets her about $400,000, which was put in a trust to pay the nursing home she now lives in.

But Wal-Mart gets wind of the settlement and turns around and sues Shank for $470,000, the money its insurance company paid for her care from the accident. Now, the woman is reliant on Medicaid and Social Security and Wal-Mart apparently got a much needed windfall.

Wal-Mart isn't alone in such behavior. Insurance companies seizing lawsuit winnings from catastrophically injured Americans is a common practice that gives lie to the notion that anyone gets rich off a personal injury lawsuit these days, as insurance companies often get first dibs on any judgment or settlement in such cases. But Wal-Mart's cruelty, as always, is extreme in this case. Not only is Shenk profoundly disabled, but while her family was fighting off the company in court, her son was killed while fighting the war in Iraq. Not even bad PR like this, apparently, can eke out a drop of compassion from the retail giant.

November 21, 2007

Publisher Softens McClellan Excerpt, But Doesn't Help Bush

The news of former White House spokesman Scott McClellan's tell-all memoir, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and What's Wrong With Washington, hit the blogosphere full force this week, with a two-paragraph excerpt generating most of the excitement. This publicity play on the part of PublicAffairs Books may have worked too well, however, and the publisher's founder and editor-in-chief, Peter Osnos, is now trying to contain the storm he helped create.

On the PublicAffairs website Monday, McClellan wrote about the Scooter Libby-Valerie Plame scandal, saying in 2003 that while exonerating Libby and Karl Rove, he had "unknowingly passed along false information.” He then goes on to specifically implicate President Bush and Vice President Cheney, saying they, along with White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and Libby and Rove, were involved in the spreading of this false information.

Osnos has told NBC, however, that McClellan isn’t saying that Bush lied and intentionally misled the public. Apparently those remarks were part of an unfinished manuscript, and McClellan is working under an April deadline. According to Osnos, Bush didn’t lie to McClellan; in fact, Bush was himself unaware that the information that he was giving McClellan, mainly that Rove and Libby had nothing to do with the Plame leak, was false.

While Osnos' clarifications may be intended to smooth things over and say that Bush didn’t lie, the unintended consequences are questions regarding who actually has the power in the White House. If Bush was giving false information to McClellan, then he must have been given false information, by Cheney, Rove, Card, or all three. So even if Bush comes out of this safe from investigation, he still ends up looking like a clueless puppet.

—Andre Sternberg

Falwell's FBI File

The Washington Post has gotten a copy of the late Jerry Falwell's FBI file. It's mostly filled with threats made against the Moral Majority founder, but it has some humorous moments, including the part where the FBI dispatches investigators to infiltrate Cincinnati's gay bars in search of one of the alleged threat-makers. Read more here.

Meet the New, Old Newt Gingrich

What to make of the former gentleman from Georgia? Newt Gingrich devolved from being an outspoken member of the Sierra Club to helming a House of Representatives renowned for its hostility toward the environment. Now Gingrich has coauthored, with conservation professor and former zoo CEO Terry Maple, A Contract with the Earth, a tome released this month that calls for an era of environmental stewardship, albeit one driven by markets, science and technology. The chapter headings quote Emerson, Jacques Cousteau, John Muir and others, including revered Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson, who wrote the book's foreward.

Is Gingrich jumping on the hottest (no pun intended) national trend to keep himself in the game? Or is he merely bouncing back to his old views now that he's unencumbered by intense political pressures? To wit, Gingrich's voting record on conservation and pro-environment measures deteriorated fairly steadily during his years in Congress, according to the annual voting scorecards of the League of Conservation Voters. When he was a newbie in 1979-80 (tail end of the Carter era), the League gave him a 44.5 percent score--pretty darn good for a Republican. Gingrich fared nearly as well during the Reagan years (1981-1988), with an average score of 39 percent.

But then something happened: His LCV scores from 1988 (Bush I) through 1994 (Clinton mid-term) fell to a dismal 11 percent on average. In '94, the year Gingrich rode his Contract with America to the speakership of the House, he was awarded a big fat zero. ...

Gingrich's transformation didn't go unnoticed by Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club. In a 1995 letter to Gingrich published in the club's Sierra magazine, he cited a questionaire Gingrich filled out while a club member from 1984 to 1990. In the questionaire, Pope noted, Gingrich opposed drilling in ANWR, calling it a "180-day quick fix" and stating that "Fuel efficiency and conservation measures have a greater potential for providing long-term energy security for our nation."

Pope also reminded Gingrich of his stated opposition to the way the nation's forests were being managed: "I oppose below-cost timber sales and uneconomic roadbuilding in our national forests, period,'" you said. "Subsidized logging operations, as well as subsidized forest roadbuilding, at the U.S. taxpayer's expense, should cease. It's unfortunate that national forest management yields too often to local special interests."

Pope further noted Gingrich's pledge to support federal programs to protect wetlands. "The ecological significance of freshwater wetlands, and the significance of the rapidly declining acreage of wetlands in the United States, cannot be overemphasized," you warned, Pope wrote, further quoting the congressman. "It is vital that our wetlands are protected."

After more such points, Pope basically asked, What gives?

Now you are Speaker of the House, and have initiated a Contract With America. While public debate on this contract has focused on other aspects, buried within it is a covert attack on the environment that is wildly at odds with the record you built up during most of your political career.
How are we to reconcile the old Newt Gingrich with the new? The old Gingrich pledged to protect the wetlands that provide us with clean water, flood protection, and abundant wildlife, while the new Gingrich would require the taxpayers to compensate any property owner, however large and wealthy, whose property value was diminished by as little as 10 percent as a result of protecting those wetlands.

Given your positive environmental record, what led you to select, as chairs of the key environmental committees in the House, members with anti-environmental voting records as extreme as Don Young's of Alaska and Thomas Bliley's of Virginia? (Both received ratings of zero from the League of Conservation Voters last year.)

Why does your Contract advocate a radical version of risk assessment, the pseudoscientific process of judging when a poison is 'safe enough' to inflict on the public? The risk assessment standards in the Contract would delay indefinitely the promulgation of those same clean-air standards you were once so eager to promote.

And why, especially as a former Sierra Club member, did you use membership in the Club as a negative litmus test in questionnaires given to potential House staff employees?

Why indeed. And why should a man who traded in his environmental credibility in pursuit of power now be given credit as part of the solution? Alas, life ain't fair. It's always the retired generals, after all, who belatedly voice their disagreements with their commander in chief. I suppose we'll take what we can get.

The Gays Have Won Republican Minds; Hearts to Follow?

The users of Conservapedia care about one thing, and one thing only.

Republicans Candidates Who Beat Cancer Would Be Terrible for Fellow Cancer Survivors

Fact of the day: Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and John McCain are all cancer survivors, but all are putting forward health care plans that would likely deny coverage to other cancer survivors who are not seeking insurance through government or job-related plans. Cancer survivors, even if they have been cancer-free for years, are regularly denied health insurance when they try to purchase it as individuals. Fact of the day 2: Republicans are jerks.

(H/T Think Progress)

Examining Mike Huckabee's Fiscal Record: It's Very Un-Republican

Mike Huckabee is the Republican in the presidential race who spends the most time talking about middle Americans—their health care needs, their lack of job security, the crumminess of the schools that educate their children, etc. His attention to these seemingly left-of-center issues—and the lengths to which he went to act on them as governor of Arkansas—has gotten him branded as an irresponsible tax-and-spender by some parts of the GOP establishment. Bob Novak, for example, called him a member of the "Christian left."

So with the help of the magnificent FactCheck.org, let's take a look at Huckabee's financial record.

Huckabee claims to have cut taxes "almost 94 times" while Governor. (An odd construction, but whatever.) He adds that he saved "the people of Arkansas almost $380 million." That's true. Huckabee cut taxes 90 times from 1997 to 2005, reducing state revenues by $378 million.

But Huckabee also presided over 21 tax increases, none of which he mentions on the stump. And those tax increases totaled much more than $378 million. According to the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration, the "net tax increase under Huckabee's tenure was an estimated $505.1 million," adjusted for inflation.

Spending did go up under the Huckabee regime—the state budget was $10.4 billion in his first year as Governor (again, adjusted for inflation), while it was $15.6 billion in 2006. So he is, technically, a tax-and-spender. But Huckabee balanced the Arkansas state budget every year he was governor (balancing the budget is a requirement under Arkansas state law) and in the end, Huckabee had a positive effect on the state ledger: He faced a $200 million deficit in 2002, but ended his term with a $844.5 million surplus. That's a billion dollar turnaround, taxing-and-spending be damned.

A bit more, after the jump.

The DNC is joining the GOP chorus and slamming Huckabee for being a tax-and-spend politician. I think that's just lame. Democrats support the sort of fiscal responsibility that Huckabee was able to demonstrate: he spent on the right things (mostly), taxed when necessary, cut taxes when possible, and managed the budget in a way that left the state's finances better off. I know the Democrats aren't going to praise a Republican, but at least they can withhold their fire on a pol with such a respectable record.

Especially here: "As Governor, Huckabee implemented an increase on everything from cigarettes, to gasoline and even on driver's licenses," a DNC spokesperson said. Democrats support taxes on cigarettes and gasoline! Can it, DNC!

Oh, and PS — Huck's not free from mistakes. Not at all.

Update: Huckabee is calling for the president to be investigated for his role in the Plame case, in light of Scott McClellan's revelations.

Fred Thompson's DIY Phone Bank

It's either a sign of severe desperation or a novel campaign innovation, but GOP candidate Fred Thompson has just debuted a do-it-yourself phone bank. "Phone for Fred" allows volunteers to download voters' phone numbers off his website, and encourages them to get the word out about their candidate. Oh, but they should be nice about it and only call in the evening. The campaign seems like a formula for disaster, but hey, at least it's cheap!

Mulling Over the Case for Hillary Clinton

If you read MoJoBlog regularly, you know I have my reservations about Hillary Clinton. But I find Princeton professor Sean Wilentz's endorsement of her compelling.

[Clinton] understands how American politics works. She understands the trajectory of American political history for the last 40 years because she's lived it in a way that the others haven't, really.

Okay, fair enough. She's most able to win the game of politics as it is currently constituted. She makes this argument on the stump. But I happen to think that game chews up good people (like Al Gore, for example) and no longer works for the benefit of everyday Americans (if it ever did). As naive as it sounds, I'd like a candidate who can think beyond that game. What do you think of Obama, Mr. Wilentz?

You cannot have a president who doesn't like politics. You will not get anything done. Period. I happen to love American politics. I think American politics is wonderful. I can understand why people don't. But one of the problems in America is that politics has been so soured, people try to be above it all. It's like Adlai Stevenson. In some ways, Barack reminds me of Stevenson.... There's always a Stevenson candidate. Bradley was one of them. Tsongas was one of them. They're the people who are kind of ambivalent about power. "Should I be in this or not... well, yes, because I'm going to represent something new." It's beautiful loserdom.

Okay, interesting...

The fact is, you can't govern without politics.

Now wait a minute. How do we know that for sure? We do know that it is very, very hard to get elected when you don't like politics, but we don't know for a fact that it is very, very hard to govern when you don't like politics. We don't have an example in recent American history of a president who tried to change Washington instead of working within it.

Keep reading, after the jump...

Clinton's willingness to play the game leads her to contortions. She will be be uncommitted on an issue until the rest of the Democratic field takes a position, and then she'll move in the same direction. Or she will be kind of for something but also kind of against it.

She does this in small and subtle ways. For example, she said recently that she opposes a "rush to war" with Iran, but then adopted the Bush Administration's position on negotiating with that country's leaders and voted to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Is this nuance or is it careful positioning? You get a hint when you see her campaign officials discuss the situation in the NYT by saying Clinton "has already shifted from primary mode, when she needs to guard against critics from the left, to general election mode, when she must guard against critics from the right."

The end result is that a small subset of progressives who pay close attention to campaigns and don't like DLC politics are irritated and distrustful, but the general public (most importantly the Dem base) doesn't see enough to get all worked up. So she's smart. Masterful, even. No one doubts that. But she's not pure. And she's not always principled.

And my expectation that a politician be pure and always principled brings us back to the idealism that makes me desire a politician who can change the game, or ignore the game, or expose the game, or leave the game behind. Idealism has a better chance in this election than ever before. Why not give it a shot? If idealism loses to technocratic pragmatism in the primary, you can always get behind technocratic pragmatism then...

How Our "Friends" Support Law and Order

The Saudi judiciary is defending its punishment of a 19-year-old rape victim--that's right, a victim--because she was in a car with a man not related to her when the crime occurred. The woman's original punishment was 90 lashes, but she has since committed another crime: She spoke with the news media. Now, her sentence is six months in prison and 200 lashes.

Islamic law forbids a woman to associate with males who are not part of her family. As for speaking with reporters, the official Saudi press agency explains that "whoever has an objection on verdicts issued, the system allows an appeal without resorting to the media." Add 110 lashes and six months in what I feel certain is not a "rehab" prison.

In the meantime, the court also doubled the sentences of the seven men who committed the rape.

It is horrific enough that rape victims are punished in Saudi Arabia, but there are other problems with the system that are just as disturbing. Individuals on trial are often not permitted to have defense attorneys present, and there are no sentencing guidelines other than the judges' discretion.

Women in Saudi Arabia have no freedom of movement and may not even drive a car. First Lady Laura Bush recently wore an abaya in Saudi Arabia and declared--to the astonishment of millions--that the garb was "traditional" and "a religious choice," without addressing the social roots of how that "choice" came to be. It is estimated that the Saudis have invested over $750 billion in the U.S., and--as we know--at least several thousand directly into the hands of George W. Bush. There has never been much enthusiasm among Western nations to support women's rights in their own countries, much less in very oppressive countries. Now the relationship between the Bush administration and Saudi Arabia--not to mention the relationship between the Bush administration and U.S. women's rights goals--makes it impossible to do anything but look the other way when a young gang-rape victim is tortured by her own government.

Introducing the Polling Project: Getting to the Bottom of the Polling Industry

Arianna Huffington has a simple question: "Are polls measuring the 2008 election or are they driving it?"

With that in mind, she's launched the Polling Project, a attempt to shine a bright light on the polling industry and its effects on the American political discourse. "We want to get to the bottom of how pollsters conduct their surveys, how they gather and build their stats, how they target who they contact, and, ultimately, how they reach their conclusions," says Arianna.

It's a worthy endeavor in part because it gets beyond what you would find in a well-researched book on the subject, through the magic of citizen participation. If you've been contacted by a pollster, the Polling Project wants to hear about your experiences. All of the project's cosponsors, which includes, in addition to Mother Jones, Talking Points Memo, Instapundit, Politico, and the Nation, are putting a button on their websites that direct you to this form.

If enough people participate, the project will be able to determine if midwesterners are being asked different questions than their coastal counterparts, if blacks and Hispanics hear questions no one else does, and if push polls are popping up around the country. Perhaps most importantly, we'll find out if polls are creating buzz instead of just reporting it.

So if you get a call from a pollster, click the link on our left sidebar the next time you visit motherjones.com. Your name and contact info won't be revealed. So help out if you can!

Trial Lawyers Still the Democrats' Deep Pockets

Lots of corporate money is making an exodus from the GOP and resurfacing in various Democratic campaign coffers this year. Yet there's still plenty of evidence that the Democratic presidential candidates are going to rely heavily on trial lawyer funding, even with a few of the old reliables either in jail, under indictment or facing other criminal charges.

The latest report comes from Mississippi, where Bill Clinton will headline a fundraiser at the home of Richard "Dickie" Scruggs, trial lawyer extrordinare and, incidentally, Trent Lott's brother-in-law. Scruggs is best known for his role in initiating the tobacco litigation in the 1990s that led to an enormous settlement between the states and the cigarette companies. The litigation also netted Scruggs several billion in legal fees and a Hollywood portrayal in the movie "The Insider."

But Scruggs is in a spot of trouble these days. He's facing criminal contempt of court charges in Alabama for allegedly violating a protective order in a case involving Katrina-related insurance claims. Apparently, though, the charges aren't serious enough to scuttle the Clinton fundraiser. No word yet on whether Scruggs' friend and fellow Mississippi trial lawyer John Grisham will make an appearance, but no doubt he's on the invite list. Last year, Grisham gave the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee nearly $27,000, and the former Mississippi state legislator was active in Democratic politics long before he was a bestselling author....

More Big Burgers for a Buck

News from the fast-food world: Burger King is about to roll out a $1 double cheeseburger. The new promotion is designed to challenge McDonald's rein over the rock-bottom food market. McDonald's has had a $1 double cheeseburger for years now on its "value menu," which according to the Wall Street Journal, accounts for nearly a quarter of its sales, but Burger King's double has sold for twice that much. Experts predict that BK's new burger-for-a-buck campaign will set off a price war. Who knows how low it could go!

This is probably good news for all you beef eaters out there, but it can't be good for the nation's collective waistline. Someday someone will study whether the race to the bottom burger pricing produced a corresponding increase in obese Americans. After all, BK will be making it even easier for people to consume more than 1,000 calories and 67 grams of fat in one sitting, for just a buck. If there was ever a good case to be made for a junk food tax, this might be it.

Reality PMC

Ever wonder what it's like to stalk poachers in Africa, spy on mobsters, or rescue hapless aid workers from Third World war zones? (Really? You have? Me, too.) For the moment, you've still got to send your resume to Erik Prince for such thrills. But soon all you'll have to do is crack open a beer and ease into your comfy chair. The History Channel has greenlighted production on a new reality show, tentatively called "Eyes on Target," which will feature "the best private military operators in the world, using the most advanced equipment conducting real missions," says one of the producers. The eight-part series will offer "unparalleled access" to private military operators in the field, depicting in detail how special operations are conducted "from start to finish."

The show's creators say it will only cover "legally sanctioned operations." I guess we'll have to subscribe to premium cable for the other stuff...

November 20, 2007

Minneapolis Prosecutors Bid Good Riddance to Rachel Paulose

When Rachel Paulose was sworn in as the U.S. Attorney in Minnesota in March, she sparked a mini-scandal with her investiture ceremony, which is usually a demure affair held at the federal courthouse. She got free use of the University of St. Thomas Law School's atrium, which usually rents for $1500. Three hundred people showed up for the event, which included a municipal choir and military color guard, and it earned her a "diva" title from law-gossip blogger David Lat. But all that pomp and circumstance now looks like an ill-fated wedding, with the couple headed to divorce court.

Paulose has been unceremoniously recalled to D.C. where she'll be working at the Department of Justice's office of legal policy, where she won't have to manage anybody, since that's apparently is not her strong suit. Newbie AG Michael Mukasey pulled Paulose out just as veteran prosecutors in Minnesota were reportedly planning a second mass resignation to protest her management. Three other managers, veteran prosecutors all, demoted themselves back to line positions back in April saying the just couldn't work with her anymore. Her dictatorial management style supposedly included quoting Bible passages and hurling racial epithets at subordinates.

Paulose is a buddy of the now-famous Monica Goodling, another DOJ employee who played a significant role in placing "loyal Bushies" in U.S. Attorney jobs and who helped place Paulose in Minnesota. Paulose, 34, had little management experience when she was tapped by Bush in 2006 as an interim replacement for Republican Thomas Heffelfinger, whom the White House had initially targeted for firing. (He resigned unexpectedly.) Paulose has been the subject of two separate investigations into her conduct over allegations that she used racist language and also threatened to retaliate against subordinate who was going to report her for mishandling classified documents. (Paulose has denied all the allegations and claims she was cleared of the chargers regarding the documents.)

But Paulose didn't help her case much when she went public last week claiming to be the victim of a witch hunt because of her membership in the conservative legal group, the Federalist Society. (Her supporters have also claimed dubiously that she was run out of town because of her major crackdown on human trafficking in Minnesota, that hot-bed of the sex trade.) People in the Minnesota U.S. Attorney's office are clearly ready for a chorus of "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead," and Mukasey has gotten some kudos for moving quickly to quiet the turmoil in Minneapolis.

But the fact that he's brought Paulose to D.C. still doesn't instill a lot of confidence that the new guy will be a whole lot different than the old. After all, Paulose held a similar position during Gonzales' tenure. Given her clear lack of judgment as U.S. Attorney, you have to wonder about what kind of legal advice she's likely to be giving her new boss.

Second Choice Info: Polling News That Is Actually Interesting

Zogby just released the first Iowa poll that redistributes the supporters of the second-tier candidates according to who their choice within the first tier is.

This is important because of the way the caucuses work. In the Iowa Democratic Party's system, a candidate must establish "viability" at the beginning of the caucus. The caucus chair in each caucus room counts the number of attendees, and then has people split into groups depending on who they support. Any group that doesn't represent a pre-set percentage of the total attendees (usually 15 percent) is declared unviable, meaning their candidate is out of the running to win delegates from that caucus. The caucus-goers in the unviable group can either stand strong in a symbolic but ultimately meaningless gesture, or they can disperse and join other groups around the room representing the viable candidates. (And yes, in caucuses people actually psyhically move around the room. In 2004, many Kucinich supporters left Kucinich after he was declared unviable to move to Edwards. Gephardt supporters largely refused to budge, and where not counted.)

Clinton, Obama, and Edwards will be viable, without question. Depending on how good his organization is at getting out supporters on caucus night, Richardson may also be viable in most places. But there is a good chance that Dodd, Biden, and Kucinich will not be viable.

So the second choice of Dodd, Biden, and Kucinich supporters is important to know. Will they go to Obama? Clinton? Edwards? Zogby redid their Iowa poll with second-tier candidates removed and found that Edwards gained six percent, Obama gained four percent, and Clinton gained two percent. Here are the numbers:

Candidate	First Choice Only	Including Second Choices of Those Who First Backed Unviables
Clinton	28%	30%
Obama	25%	29%
Edwards	21%	27%

So a tight race becomes even tighter. It will be interesting to see what other polling outfits show when they also poll with second-choicers in mind, because other polling outfits show a much closer race than Zogby's 28/25/21 split. One recent poll actually has Obama leading for the first time.

Cause? Meet Effect: Dr. King's Niece Needs a Brain to go Along With that Doctorate

Here we have a perfect example of what religion, or anyone with a hard-core, reality-be-damned agenda, can do to the discourse. Or maybe the problem here is simple nepotism. Dr. King's niece blames the undeniably high rates of abortion among blacks for their hopelessness. No, not the other way around, that the hopelessness causes a severe, cultural case of the 'fuck its', characterized by, among other disfunctions, unprotected sex and unplanned pregnancy. The abortions, and more importantly, the unprotected sex (i.e. "fuck my future. I ain't got one") just exascerbate all the other problems, but not if you're a King and untouchable black royalty. Check this logic out:

A recent Pew Research poll reported high levels of 'hopelessness' in African-American communities across the United States, a characteristic pro-life activists are linking to high abortion rates among black women.

"Children are the future. When you destroy your children, you destroy hope," Dr. Alveda King, pastoral associate of Priests for Life and the niece of the late civil rights icon Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., said in a statement.

"The incredibly high number of abortions performed on black women in this country has to take a toll not just on the women involved, but also on their families, friends, and communities," King said. "If African-Americans feel that life will not get better, I have to believe that abortion is feeding into that hopelessness."

King was referring to a study released Nov. 13 by the Pew Research Center, which reported that only 44 percent of blacks say they think life will be better for African-Americans in the future. One in five said they think life is better for blacks now than it was in 2002.

"I know from personal experience that abortion causes depression, regret, and despair," King said. "If we love and welcome our children, optimism for the future can only increase."

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health think tank named in honor of one of the former presidents of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, black women see higher rates of unintended pregnancy than the general population.

You can read the whole piece to relearn what you already know — sky high rates of back abortion; pro-choice as I fervently am, I, too, think that a needless tragedy. But it's a symptom, not the cause. There are many, but one major cause is an anti-intellectual, head in the sand, demonizing black religiosity. Another would be unqualified blacks assigned leadership roles based on pedigree. King should be asking why blacks are having loveless, possibly exploitative, unprotected sex at rates so much higher than other groups. That's where the hopelessness comes in, the grasping at a moment's fleeting, unprotected pleasure even while AIDS, herpes and all the other STDs ravage the black community. But that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, does it?

There's a lot of stupidity out there these days, but nonsense like this makes me want to slap somebody. Condemnation and holier-than-thou prancing from her exalted position, while pretending to just ooze with sympathy, makes a mockery of life on the ground for dispossessed blacks. That last name may fool some, Rev. King. But not all. Go sell your mediocrity someplace else and leave the black poor alone.

Mormons Against Romney

Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on so many of the major issues in today's politics, it's clear that his behavior isn't a series of changes-of-heart. It's a fundamental willingness to do and say anything to be president. So maybe it's not surprising that Romney is waffling in small but important ways on his own religion. Nevertheless, some Mormons are pissed.

Here's why Romney has drawn their ire, according to Josh Patashnik in TNR.

(1) In a TV interview, Romney disputed the claim that Mormonism differs from evangelical Christianity by believing that Jesus will return to America instead of the Middle East. Romney said that "the Messiah will come to Jerusalem... It's the same as the other Christian tradition." Except it's not. Mormons do believe Jesus will return to the Middle East, but they also believe that Jesus will establish a new Jerusalem in Jackson County, Missouri. From Jackson County, Jesus will rule for 1,000 years. That's a fairly significant period of time for Romney sweep under the rug.

(2) In a Newsweek interview, Romney attempted to downplay the significance of baptism for the dead, a fundamental Mormon practice that allows the deceased to enter heaven.

(3) On the campaign trail, Romney refers to Jesus as his "personal savior," in the habit of the protestant evangelicals he is attempting to woo. Mormons don't use the phrase "both because it implies a born-again experience not central to Mormonism and because church doctrine, like Catholicism but unlike evangelical Protestantism, maintains that faith in Christ must be matched with good works in order to attain salvation," according to Patashnik.

(4) Romney has said, "I can't imagine anything more awful than polygamy." Mormons recognize that polygamy is part of their history and usually treat it with more sensitivity.

And then there's the Mormons who just plain don't like Romney's pandering to the members of the Religious Right who for so long have tried to ostracize and demonize Mormons. Take this man, for example:

"I understand he has to appeal to them for political purposes, but it makes me, as a Mormon, feel very, very queasy to see him doing it," says Greg Kearney, a computer programmer in Casper, Wyoming. "These people hate us, and they are so vitriolic--they think they get to decide who's Christian. I don't know if it's worth it."

It's tough being a man with no driving force other than his own ambition, ain't it?

Breaking Campaign Laws: Crime That Does Pay

Crime does pay...when it comes to breaking campaign finance laws.

A few days ago, the Federal Elections Commission settled a case against the Media Fund, a pro-Democratic 527 group that spent more than $50 million in so-called soft money in 2004 trying to influence the presidential election that year. What was the penalty assessed? $580,000. The Media Fund--which was partly bankrolled by George Soros--will have to pay that much in a fine. It sure sounds like a lot, but it's only a wee bit more than 1 percent of the money the group, which was headed by Harold Ickes, the former White House deputy chief of staff for President Bill Clinton, pumped into the campaign.

The FEC declared that the Media Fund, which is no longer active, had violated campaign finance laws by using unlimited contributions from labor unions and other financial benefactors (soft money, that is) for ads supporting John Kerry and attacking George Bush. (Here's one critical deconstruction of a Media Fund ad.) Lawyers for the Media Fund and other 527s have argued that in 2004 such activity was believed to be legal by the folks running 527s (which take their name from the provision of the tax code that applies to them), and the FEC has stated that the Media Fund did operate in accordance with the advice it received from its attorneys. But the FEC has ruled that only political committees that register with the FEC and abide by contribution limits and public disclosure requirements can directly attempt to influence a presidential election.

The Media Fund is the latest target of the FEC's crusade against the largely unregulated 527s that were operating in 2004. It has also gone after America Coming Together, another pro-Democratic campaign group, and two pro-GOP outfits: Progress for America Voter Fund and the Swfit Boat Veterans for Truth. (After the passage of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, groups like these became major recipients of the soft money that used to flow to the political parties.) All together, these four groups spent $200 million in what the FEC has determined to be illegal soft money. All together, these four groups have to pay $2.4 million in fines.

These punishments--while historic for the FEC--will hardly serve as a deterrent. Such fines, which come long after the offending activity transpired, can easily be considered an inconvenience, the cost of doing business. They will do little to persuade political operators on both sides to throttle back.

Democracy21 and the Campaign Legal Center griped about this in a statement released on Monday:

The long delay in resolving The Media Fund case and the relatively minimal fine imposed on The Media Fund provides another powerful example of why case-by-case enforcement against 527 groups by itself will not work. It also shows why illegal activities by 527 groups will continue to undermine the nation's campaign finance laws, unless the FEC acts to issue proper regulations and impose prohibitive fines.

Unless the FEC moves quickly to make clear to political operatives that they will see much tougher enforcement by the FEC in the 2008 election, including fines commensurate with the size of the violations, we are facing huge illegal expenditures by 527 groups and other groups in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections, for the third federal election in a row.

Meanwhile, the FEC was scheduled on Tuesday to vote on rules changes related to a recent Supreme Court decision that gutted part of the McCain-Feingold law. The commission was considering two alternatives. One would allow corporations, labor unions, and nonprofit groups to pay for so-called issue ads that mention political candidates but compel this funding to be reported to the FEC. The other would permit this funding without any disclosure requirements. An issue ad supposedly concerns a policy matter and doesn't call for electing--or diselecting--anyone. But it can be directed at a candidate. (Think of a spot like this: "Hillary Clinton wants to give homosexuals special rights. Giving homosexuals special rights is wrong. Tell Hillary Clinton that giving special rights to homosexuals is wrong. By the way, did we mention that Hillary Clinton supports special rights for homosexuals?")

So a 527 free-for-all is likely to occur in 2008. Those groups prepared to do whatever it takes to win will be operating under more permissive rules and, best of all for them, will not have to fear violating the laws that do remain.

UPDATE: On Tuesday afternoon, the FEC voted 4 to 1 to approve a rule that partially preserves the ban on using soft money for campaign ads, but the new rule does create a loophole--in keeping with that recent Supreme Court decision--for ads that are deemed, wrongly or rightly, "genuine issue ads." Public Citizen, a reform group, says, "While this rule is the decent outcome from a devastating Supreme Court decision, voters should be aware that far more sham issue ads paid for by corporate interests are likely to overwhelm the airwaves in the upcoming election."

Is Your Vote Worth More Than an iPod?

Here's another story that will no doubt be dumped into the Those Apathetic Millenials file, so let me preemptively remind you that the youth turnout in 2006 was the biggest ever in a mid-term election.

That said, this is sad: A survey of NYU students finds that 20 percent would forfeit their right to vote in the 2008 election in exchange for an iPod. Two-thirds said they'd give it up in exchange for free tuition. Alright, politicians suck and higher education is exorbitantly expensive, so I understand why someone would see it as worthwhile to sit out this election in return for a four-year free ride at a great school (worth $140,000+ at current rates). But giving up your vote for a $300 piece of soon-to-be-obsolete electronics? That's nuts, yet considering that a vote once could be bought with free beer, this could be taken as evidence that the value of a vote has risen considerably. (The survey also found that half of respondents would give up voting forever for $1 million.) But the real question is, just how low would a vote-trading college kid (or Gen X-er or Boomer for that matter) go? I bet that would be truly discouraging. And likely would involve free beer.

Americans' Embarrassing Short Term Memory Loss on 9/11 Attacks

At the end of Missoula, MT, article on presidential poll numbers in Montana, I found this line:

Just 68 percent [of poll respondents] were able to identify the correct year of the 9/11 terrorist attacks (2001).

Which reminded me of these videos:

If you've watched those videos, you'll know why I'm struggling to think up any insightful commentary. Is it worth pointing out that every society has its share of blissfully uninformed citizens, or that through the dark arts of video editing anyone can be made to look stupid? Or should I point out that we now realize the "Never Forget" slogan was at once overly optimistic and incredibly naive, considering the character and attention spans of the American people?

Actually, no. You know what? These videos are a great indication that the terrorists didn't win. If the terrorists wanted to intimidate the American public or create a paradigm shift in the public's thinking, they completely and utterly failed. Terrorism is the most important issue in the upcoming election for