« June 29, 2008 - July 5, 2008 | Main | July 13, 2008 - July 19, 2008 »

July 12, 2008

McCain's NYT Interview: Federalism, Live and In the Flesh

John McCain is famous for chatting with reporters for hours on end, but everyday folks (and even reporters from small magazines, ahem) are rarely privy to those conversations. Two reporters from the New York Times sat down with McCain and put his answers to their questions up online. They are basically unedited, and it's actually rather nice to get an unvarnished look at a candidate's thoughts.

Now, the blogosphere will almost certainly focus on McCain's further admissions of technological incompetence. In the interview, McCain says, "I am learning to get online myself" and "I’ve never felt the particular need to e-mail."

But what I want to focus on is a moment of principle. McCain is asked about gay marriage and about teaching evolution in schools — he gets the first question "right" (that is, right from a progressive perspective) and gets the second question "wrong." The reason? He takes a federalist approach to both. Here's the transcript:

Q: If California wants to legalize gay marriage, should it be permitted to do so?

Mr. McCain: I respect the rights of the states to make those decisions. I obviously am personally in favor of preserving the unique status of marriage between man and woman. And I also would point out that we passed a thing called the Defense of Marriage Act, which I know you’re familiar with, where we said that states were not required to recognize in their states the decision that other states made. In other words, if the state of Massachusetts recognized marriage between man and --- had allowed same-sex marriage, that does not mean that that decision can be imposed on the state of Arizona. The state of Arizona will make that decision."

Q: But if the state wanted to do it on the own, you would not support taking action to stop it?

Mr. McCain: If the people wanted to amend the constitution in order to support the unique status, affirm the unique status, I certainly would support that. But if they decide not to, that’s a state decision that’s made by the state.

Q: How do you feel about teaching evolution in schools?

Mr. McCain: I think, first of all, it’s up to the school boards. That’s why we have local control over education. So my personal view is that children should be exposed to as much as they possibly can so that they can make their decisions and be the best informed. But I really believe that school boards are elected in order to make a lot of those decisions, and I respect their decisions unless they are unconstitutional in some way or, you know.

So he won't take action to block the state of California from legalizing gay marriage (Focus on the Family will not be happy) and he won't take action to stop a school board from putting creationism in schools. After seeing so many of the Brownbacks of the world insist that the government doesn't have the right to intervene on teaching creationism, but does have the right to intervene on abortion, gay marriage, and Terry Schiavo, it's nice to see a conservative who displays a little principle. At least some of the time.

July 11, 2008

Comrade Obama? The Right's "Wealth Redistribution" Straw Man

In attempting to persuade voters that Obama is not American enough to be president, the right has renewed charges that he is a socialist in sheep’s clothing. Their newest claim that an Obama presidency would usher in an era of "wealth redistribution" seems a thinly veiled attempt to associate Obama with history’s socialist revolutionaries and communist dictators.

But before you start worrying that Obama will take your money and impose socialist redistribution mandates, it’s worth taking a moment to scrutinize the basis for the right’s hackneyed accusations.

According to an analysis by the technically non-partisan Tax Foundation, which has been called out in the past for propagating misleading information, Obama’s income-tax plan would "redistribute more than $131 billion per year from the top 1% of taxpayers to all other taxpayers." They conclude by asking if such policies were enacted, what would be the “consequences for our democratic system”?—a not-so-subtle insinuation that an Obama presidency could be ruinous for America’s cherished democracy.

Similarly, an op-ed in this week’s Wall Street Journal asserts that IRS data due out in a few weeks will likely show that "the richest 1% of tax filers will have paid more than 40% of the income tax burden." The WSJ argues that unfair tax increases on the wealthy will dampen economic growth as it leads to "reduced work and investment," and the "redeployment of money into tax shelters" (something McCain adviser Phil Gramm may know something about).

Yet, upon closer inspection, these analyses prove deceptive. "Focusing on income taxes alone is cheating," explains UT economics professor James K. Galbraith, a featured writer in our current issue and author of the upcoming book The Predator State. "The very rich shoulder a very small proportion of the payroll tax," Galbraith told me, "and their share of sales taxes and property taxes is much smaller, as a share of income, than it is for poorer people."

"Why are the very rich shouldering such a large part of the income tax burden?" Galbraith rhetorically asks. "Easy—they are very much richer than they ever were before. The income tax merely evens things out a bit."

Galbraith also refutes the WSJ’s argument that increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans will hinder economic growth, insisting that "there is absolutely no serious evidence that higher tax rates on the wealthy has adverse effects on investment or work effort."

As we face skyrocketing fuel costs, plunging housing prices, and a stuttering job market, it’s not the ordinary American’s who deserve to be called "whiners." But, quips Galbraith as he considers those complaining about Obama's so-called "wealth redistribution" plans, "the word certainly describes the McCain chorus at the Wall Street Journal."

—Jesse Finfrock

Photo used under Creative Commons license.

US Strike Killed 47 in Afghan Wedding Party, Investigation Says

An investigation released today by the Afghanistan goverment concludes that US forces killed 47 civilians attending a wedding on July 6 near Deh Bala in Nangarhar province. Thirty-nine of the deceased were women and children, who were walking the bride to the groom's village, as is traditional. The bride was among those killed, said the nine-man investigative team, who relied on eye-witness and relatives' accounts. "They were all civilians and had no links with Taliban or al Qaeda," the head of the investigation told Agence France Presse.

The DOD has so far maintained that there were no women or children present during the attack and that only militants were killed. US forces "killed an unknown number of militants yesterday in a precision airstrike aimed at a large group of enemy fighters on a mountain range in the Deh Bala district of Nangarhar," a DOD press release said. It is still unclear whether the US will launch its own investigation into the attack, but the Afghani team plans to formally disclose its findings to president Hamid Karzai within days.

US military officials are, however, looking into a separate incident that occured on July 4. In that attack, 17 Afghanis were killed and nine wounded. According to Afghanistan defense ministry official Mohammed Amin, all of those killed in the July 4 bombing were also civilians. "All I can say is that any loss of innocent life is tragic," a US military spokesman told Reuters. "I can assure you that civilians are never targeted in operations and that our forces go to great lengths in avoiding civilian casualties."

Sadly, this is not the first time a wedding party has been mistaken for a band of militants. An eerily similar incident occured in Iraq in 2004. Twenty-seven people in a wedding party, mostly women and children, were killed. In this case the AP had video of the wedding, and a reporter recognized some of the deceased from the wedding video and from clothes they were wearing. Despite that, US military officials maintained the deceased were insurgents.

As we've reported before, civilian casualties are nothing new to this administration. The only thing that puzzles me is how military commanders classify civilians vs. insurgents. If unarmed women and children attending a wedding are called militants, who exactly are we supposed to be protecting in Afghanistan?

Subprime: The Miami Case Study

According to RealtyTrac, a California-based firm that monitors foreclosures for
investors, a foreclosure notice was delivered last month to one in every 501 U.S. households.

Yet the housing crisis goes even deeper than those numbers suggest. While the burst of the housing-market bubble is nearly always pegged to the surge in risky subprime mortgages made to under-resourced borrowers over the course of the last decade, the bust is also affecting people who never borrowed a dime.

In Miami, the foreclosure epidemic encompasses not only single-family homes, but apartment buildings as well. And with a flood of people losing their homes now entering the rental market, rents are climbing.

Tomorrow, Floridians can join Laura Flanders and the Media Consortium to talk more about these issues at Live From Main Street in Miami's Lyric Theater: "Magic City, Hard Times: How is Miami Facing the Economic Crisis and Working
Toward a Sustainable Future?"

—Adele M. Stan

Adele M. Stan is executive
editor for The Media Consortium, a network of progressive media
organizations, including Mother Jones.

Bush's Own Version of the Bush Joke

This week at the G8 summit in Japan, George W. Bush wrapped up a meeting on climate change with the words: "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter."

"He then punched the air while grinning widely," the Telegraph reports, "as the rest of those present including Gordon Brown and Nicholas Sarkozy looked on in shock."

Bush's Napoleon Dynamite moment might have been an effort to laugh off an earlier gaffe: A White House press packet at the G8 had described Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi as one of "the most controversial leaders in the history of a country known for government corruption and vice." After furor erupted in Rome (Corriere Della Sera called it "a faux pas of unprecedented proportions"), the White House explained, candidly, that an official had simply lifted the passage from the Internet without reading it.

What to make of Bush's humor? Separating out the gaffes and the Bush Jokes, it seems divided between an ascendant strain of ironic-self-mockery and a still-going-strong Wayne & Garth aesthetic. From a recent event with German Chancellor Angela Merkel:

So Bush is a doofus, but why?

One explanation might come from the "incongruity theory" of joking. According to Mary Beard's recent New York Review of Books article on humor studies, the incongruity theory "sees humor and laughter stemming from the inappropriate mixing of categories or registers of meaning." Of course, the theory can't explain why Bush finds the incongruous mix of the German and English "hamburger" funny while most people over the age of 13 don't. But that might be where Freud's "relief theory" of humor can help, drawing a connection between "the bodily release of laughter and the release, by the joke, of inhibited thoughts and feelings." In other words, Bush goes to Europe, feels inhibited (or beset by gaffes), and releases the tension by laughing at anything he can. Hamburger!

Perhaps we should cut the Jester in Chief a break. "Like sex and eating, [laughter] is an absolutely universal human phenomenon, and at the same time something that is highly culturally specific," Beard notes. "It is often hard for the English to share a joke with their neighbors across the Channel." Then again, in Bush's case the whole world chuckled. Just not for the same reason.

What's Less Popular Than Airport Security and Alarm Clocks?

This week, Rasmussen Reports announced that for the first time in the poll's history, Congress' approval rating has sunk into the single digits. As of Tuesday, just 9 percent of Americans thought that Congress was doing an excellent or even a good job. That makes Congress less popular than airport security, the phrase "happy holidays," and alarm clocks.

These dismal numbers did not, of course, stop the legislative body from passing the FISA bill that immunizes telecommunications companies from prosecution for their complicity in the Bush administration's lawbreaking. We've covered the nuts and bolts of this legislation extensively, so I'll stick to the big question: Who exactly are the Democrats trying to impress?

Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold recently theorized that Democrats are held in check by a "constantly pulsating fear of being accused of being soft on terrorism." That's almost certainly true, but with these latest numbers, you have to wonder who they're worried is going to accuse them. A few of their Republican colleagues? So what? 91 percent of the country hates them too.

The Democrats have almost nothing to lose by taking a stand, so why not use the freedom of total disapproval to let loose a little bit? Throw a party on the Senate floor; conduct all debates with puppets. Or at least propose so much progressive legislation that the Republicans cave and pass something. I'm sure Jesse Helms would approve.

Photo used under a Creative Commons license from mahalie.

John McCain's Very Bad Week: A Cheat Sheet

I was asked to appear on Hardball on Friday to discuss John McCain's week--that is, his very bad week. It's been tough to keep track of all that's gone wrong for him--all the self-inflicted wounds--in recent days. So I made a cheat sheet. Here it is.

* McCain adviser Phil Gramm remark: Americans who worry about the economy are "whiners" and there's no problem with the economy, just a "mental recession." McCain response: Gramm doesn't speak for me. But, um, that day Gramm was speaking for McCain, explaining McCain's economic policies to the Wall Street Journal editorial board.

* Called the fundamental funding mechanism of Social Security a "disgrace," essentially attacking the whole program.

* Released list of 300 economists who supposedly support his economic plan. Guess what? Not all of them do.

* Became visibly uncomfortable when asked whether health plans that cover Viagara should also cover birth control for women (after McCain surrogate/adviser Carly Fiorina raised this issue).

* Joked about killing Iranians with cigarette imports.

* Attacked Obama for not voting for a bill designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group. Whoops--McCain didn't vote for the bill, either.

* His campaign accused Obama of flip-flopping on Iraq. Politifact.com said that's not true.

* Denied ever saying he's not an expert on the economy. Well, he said it. Memory problems?

* McCain wants to stay in Iraq for as long as it takes and routinely blasts Obama as a defeatist for proposing a timetable for withdrawal. Yet Iraqi leaders said they now want to set up a timetable. There goes that issue.

* Campaign accused of screening reporters allowed to ask questions on its conference calls for the media, and did not declare, we do not screen.

* Claimed to have a perfect voting record on veterans affairs. Veterans groups disagree. (Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave him a grade of D.)

* Pledged to cut the deficit by end of his first term. Prominent experts said not possible.

* McCain campaign ad charged that Obama voted to raise taxes on people making as little as $32,000 a year. Factcheck.org said this is false.

* Pro-McCain RNC ad said Obama has no new energy solutions. But Obama proposes $150 billion in new tax credits for alternative energy.

I might have missed a few other McCain slip-ups of this week. But the Hardball segment was only scheduled for a few minutes. McCain supporters ought to hope the guy and his entire campaign take the weekend off.

Bloggers on Blogging: Meh

You can read David Appell's takedown of blogging here; I'm not going to comment on the merits of his arguments because the virtues and sins of blogging have been debated ad nauseum and because frankly I wouldn't get anything else done today. (Buy me a beer, though, and I won't shut up about it.) I will say that in the reactions to his post, you can see the ambivalence bloggers you probably know well often have about their own craft. See Yglesias ("I started writing this blog as a hobby; I thought it would be a fun thing to do. And I not only continue to enjoy writing it, but people pay me to write it. But the mere fact that I'm writing it doesn't make it a worthwhile thing to read, which is why the overwhelming majority of Americans have never read this blog and never will.") and Zengerle. Other bloggers I've talked to in my personal life have confessed the same thing.

I think readers can see this come through in my blogging from time to time as well. Recent quotes from me:

At the end of a post about Bush and McCain both wearing crocs: "I get to blog about presidential footwear. It really is a ridiculous thing."

At the end of a long post about whether Mitt Romney's fundraising prowess makes him worthy of consideration as McCain's VP: "Listen, if you made it through this much horse race speculation, I hope you at least took a moment to check out our debate on the future of America's Iran policy."

Which is to say, I hope if you've read me, you've also read something substantive today.

Stupid but probably necessary disclaimer: The blogosphere is filled with wonderful people and wonderful outlets that combine to do wonderful things. Don't get me wrong. But you can applaud the macro while lamenting the micro.

FEC Back to Work

It ain't perfect, but it's better than nothing.

Adelson-Funded Freedom's Watch Donates to Pro-McCain Vets Group

Pro-war advocacy group Freedom's Watch has made a "significant" contribution to support a planned $10 million ad campaign by the pro-McCain Vets for Freedom, National Journal's Peter Stone reports (sub. only):

The group [Vets for Freedom] expects to spend close to $10 million on a four month advertising and grassroots drive to make the case that the Bush administration’s policies in Iraq and Afghanistan are making significant progress, says its chairman, Pete Hegseth. Vets for Freedom boasts some 25,000 members. The first part of the campaign is a two-week, $1.5 million ad buy this month in five battleground states. According to a GOP consultant familiar with the group, it received a “significant” donation from Freedom’s Watch, which is largely funded by Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson. Freedom’s Watch has also helped the veterans group find large donors to bankroll its operations, according to the consultant.

Several members of the Vets for Freedom advisory board, among them ret. US Army Lt. Col. John Nagl and the Brookings Institution's Michael O'Hanlon, recently departed the group's advisory board, because of its partisan activities.

McCain Forgeting Just How Absent He Has Been in Senate

John McCain is really pushing my buttons right now. He's slamming Obama for being weak on Iran's Revolutionary Guard by saying this:

"This is the same organization that I voted to condemn as a terrorist organization when an amendment was on the floor of the United States Senate. Senator Obama refused to vote."

Hahaha, Obama is totally screwed! He's soft on those crazy terrorist Iranians who want to kill American babies!

Oh, wait. John McCain missed that vote, too.

So (1) John McCain is soft on terror, and (2) he's too out-to-lunch to remember that he's soft on terror. What's worse?

And if you don't know McCain's history with vote-skipping (it's basically all he does), check out this and this.

Sandra Day O'Connor: Back On The Bench!

150px-O%27connor%2C_Sandra.jpg Maybe former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor just got sick of arguing with Scalia when she decided to quit her lifetime appointment in 2005. Clearly she didn't step aside because she didn't like being a judge! At 78, no one would knock O'Connor for spending more time on the links, but instead, last week, O'Connor made news in Boston when she not only heard an appeal in a federal money-laundering case, but wrote the opinion, too. Oddly enough, her ruling now allows federal prosecutors to proceed with a case against the only Republican running to fill a state legislative seat being vacated by a Democrat. (You can read more about the case here.) Even in retirement, it seems, O'Connor is redefining "judicial independence."

McCain Exploits the Steelers. Now the Man Has Gone Too Far

One thing politicians should never, ever do is disrespect storied professional sports franchises. Too many people are too invested in teams like the Cubs, the Red Sox, the Red Wings, the Packers, etc. — using them for phony political purposes deeply offends people. See an example of a true sports fan at right.

Maybe I'm just projecting. Today, I'm offended. John McCain is using the Pittsburgh Steelers, the greatest professional sports franchise in American history, for his personal gain. Also, he's exploiting his record as a POW, but I'm offended less by that.

Here's the deal. John McCain tells a story from time to time (it's in his 1999 memoir "Faith of My Fathers," for example) about how under pressure as a POW in Vietnam to give up vital information, McCain pretended to hand over the names of his squadron mates by reciting the starting lineup of the Green Bay Packers. The kicker was McCain's CO, Ray Nitschke.

It's an incredibly admirable story and it reminds you that underneath the artifice of campaigns that we spend so much time trying to peel away here at MoJoBlog, there are men and women of character who seek to lead the country.

But John McCain has thrown this story into the political ring. In an interview with KDKA-TV, a Pittsburgh CBS affiliate, McCain professed his boyhood love for the Steelers and retold the charming POW story. But this time he inserted the Steelers where the Packers had been.

Any sports fan will tell you, that's just not cool.

The McCain campaign says it was an honest mistake on the candidate's part. Maybe. He's certainly heard or told the story plenty of times — after he wrote about it in his book, A&E made a movie about his life in which the Packers story is told twice. McCain was asked to comment about the movie's retelling on CNN in 2005, and he confirmed the details. He repeated that the Packers had been the team. But who knows, maybe he just had the Steelers on his mind because he was in Pittsburgh and he reimagined the story. It's easier to accept that version of what happened, because it's kind of sickening to have this conversation at all.

But then you have to confront the fact that there have been a lot of these honest mistakes recently. On a number of occasions, McCain has gotten his facts wrong, or forgotten his position, or failed to understand how basic policy works, leaving his campaign to spin the situation away. Pretty soon we're going to have to hold the guy accountable for what he says like any other politician.

Bonus: The Packers/Steelers POW story was once part of John McCain's argument against torture:

"In my experience, abuse of prisoners often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear--whether it is true or false--if he believes it will relieve his suffering. I was once physically coerced to provide my enemies with the names of the members of my flight squadron, information that had little if any value to my enemies as actionable intelligence. But I did not refuse, or repeat my insistence that I was required under the Geneva Conventions to provide my captors only with my name, rank and serial number. Instead, I gave them the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line, knowing that providing them false information was sufficient to suspend the abuse."

Too bad that stance didn't last long.

Congress Atwitter Over Members' Use of Social Networking, Video Sites

Government isn't exactly on the leading edge of the technological revolution. The GAO reported yesterday that several federal agencies still rely on "paper and file" systems to store emails. And John McCain, devoted Luddite that he is, has admitted he doesn't know how to use a computer. But even for members of Congress who do know a thing or two about technology, their ability to use it to communicate with constituents is restricted by arcane congressional rules—rules that are now at the center of a partisan slug fest on Capitol Hill.

Suppose you're a congressman, and you'd like to post a periodic video message on your website updating constituents on your activities. You film it, post it on YouTube, and embed a link on your homepage. It's that easy, right? Wrong. By including YouTube content on your page, you'd find yourself in violation of policies that pre-date the Internet by a couple hundred years.

An obscure 6-member, bipartisan panel called the Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards (also known as the "Franking Commission"), adhering to rules established in 1789, has long regulated congressional communications, making sure that federal dollars are used only for nonpartisan purposes and not for political proselytizing, which must instead come out of individual members' campaign funds—a reasonable enough idea in an earlier time, but one that ignores dramatic changes in the way people communicate in our Twitter age of hyperconnectivity. The regulations are in desperate need of revision, and on that point members of both parties agree. But the devil is in the details... and it's those details that have ignited a breathless exchange of amped-up rhetoric between Democrats and Republicans in recent weeks.

It began with a letter (.pdf), dated June 24, from Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.), chairman of the Franking Commission, to Rep. Robert Brady (D-Penn.), who heads the Committee on House Administration. Capuano set forth a series of suggestions for changes to House rules, recommending that video be permitted, but that it "not be posted on a website or page where it may appear with commercial or political information or any other information not in compliance with the Houses's content guidelines." Translation: members of Congress would be prohibited from using YouTube unless the website creates a separate channel that meets "whatever requirements are established by the House administration committee." Capuano encouraged Brady to "view these recommendations as a first step in a process towards modernizing the regulations that govern communications."

To this, House minority leader John Boehner, Republican of Ohio, responded Tuesday with a fiery missive to "Online Community & Activists," warning that Capuano's recommendations constitute "an attack on free speech" that would bring members' ability to use ubiquitous Internet tools like YouTube "to a screeching halt." (Never mind that Capuano's letter was actually directed towards expanding the realm of tech options available to congressional web pages.) "If the proposed rule is adopted," Boehner continued, "the free flow of information over the Internet between Americans and their representatives will be significantly curtailed... This would essentially amount to new government censorship of the Internet, by a panel of federal officials that is neither neutral nor independent."

On Wednesday, the shouting match continued with a new letter from Capuano, who suggested that Boehner had so thoroughly mischaracterized his positions that he doubted the House Republican leader had read his original letter. He then restated his views in simpler terms:

Our only concern is commercialization—not imposing limits on free speech... Apparently the Republicans spreading these lies would rather operate without rules and open the House to commercialism. Maybe they don't care if an official video appears next to a political advertisement for Barack Obama or John McCain, creating the appearance of an endorsement. And I guess they don't care if constituents clicking on their videos will be treated to commercials for anything you can imagine, from the latest Hollywood blockbuster to Viagra. Certainly, advertisements are a reality in today's world and most people can distinguish. However, it is also a reality that Members of Congress who use taxpayer money to communicate with constituents should be held to the highest possible standard of independence—and the appearance of independence.

All this partisan bickering obscures the basic point. The current rules are badly antiquated and in need of updating. And open-government advocates are pushing Congress to get beyond the predictable, point-scoring back-and-forth. For example, the Sunlight Foundation, a Washington-based nonprofit that champions greater transparency in government, is trying to tear down the barriers that prevent members of Congress not only from using YouTube, but from Twittering from the House floor or using Facebook. (You can join its "Let Our Congress Tweet" campaign here.) Says Sunlight program director John Wonderlich about Capuano's cautious approach to opening House.gov to the larger Internet world:

While reconsidering or reforming these antiquated restrictions is a laudable goal, the proposed guideline reforms are only a half-measure toward modernized engagement online, and don't address the underlying problems with these unnecessary restrictions....

If Members can use whatever brand of inkpen, or any brand of paper, or buy whatever shoes they want, they should be given radically expanded freedom to use the Internet, and make the same empowering discoveries that their constituents are. Even if that same pen was once used to scribble a ransom note.

In the meantime, if you have strong views one way or the other, you may consider Twittering your member of Congress. Just know that if he's at work, he may not get the message.

Photo used under a Creative Commons license from dannysullivan.

July 10, 2008

California's Top Democrat Blames Bush (or Somebody) for His Likely Indictment

If California state Senate boss Don Perata gets indicted on federal corruption charges, it's the president's fault. Never mind that the feds have been investigating Perata for nearly five years, and muckraking reporters have dug up a treasure trove of dubious deeds on the part of the state's second most powerful pol (after The Governator). But Perata isn't ready to go quietly. He and his pals at the state Democratic Party, which just a week ago added $250,000 to the embattled senator's legal defense fund (the fund has spent more than $1.9 million to date), now are suggesting the White House is persecuting Perata.

On July 9, the East Bay Express, a weekly in Perata's Oakland district (disclosure: I used to be its managing editor), revealed that the lengthy probe of Perata and his associates was coming to a close, and that the senator would likely be indicted soon. Responding to the report today, Perata told a local TV reporter, "My own belief is nobody goes after a ranking Democrat in California unless permission has been given from on high."

"That would be the president?" asked NBC11's Mike Leury.

"Somebody," Perata replied.

Also today, a state party spokesman defended the donation to Perata's defense fund, telling the San Francisco Chronicle, "This is a Bush-appointed U.S. attorney going after one of our elected leaders."

This is one conspiracy theory that simply isn't going to fly. Most local reporters I know, in fact, have periodically wondered why the feds have been so slow to indict.

Once a public school teacher in the San Francisco Bay Area town of Alameda, Perata has spent nearly a decade in the state Senate (he'll term out at year's end), where he's widely known as a kingmaker with the clout to put loyal minions in office and crush those pols who thwart his will. (Some history here.)

Key to his power is his deft manipulation of campaign funding. Running as a powerful Democrat in a safe district, Perata rarely had a serious challenger, and yet raked in millions for his re-election coffers and other campaign committees, spending vast sums to wine and dine his friends and top donors, not to mention elevate the wealth and status of one political consultant named Sandra Polka.

His past financial dealings, particularly those involving a local lobbyist named Lily Hu, Perata's buddy Tim Staples, and his son Nick Perata, have simply reeked of possible kickbacks (there's a good synapsis here), although that will be for the federal grand jury to decide. Big W is culpable for many things, but this sure ain't one of them.

Note to Lesbian Pioneers: Avoid Wisconsin

Now that gay marriage is legal in California, a same sex marriage showdown is brewing in Wisconsin.

An obscure Wisconsin state law circa 1915 declares fraudulent any marriage performed outside the state if the couple intends to return to Wisconsin to live. I'm gonna spare myself the research and wager that this law had everything to do with anti-miscegenation impulses.

A pioneering lesbian couple has every intention of courting prosecution by traveling to LA on August 8 to marry and return home. Cue "the family values" contingent in Wisconsin.

It was almost amusing watching the spokeswoman keep a straight face while forcefully arguing that their only impetus was fending off this couple's "defrauding" of Wisconsin and not, you know, the hot girl-on-girl action.

So, come August 9th, look for a round of gay marriage prosecutions.

Jesse Jackson, Out Foxed on Obama

Yes, Jesse Jackson went off on Obama. To a reporter. But his worst mistake was talking to Fox News.

After an interview there, Rev. Jackson slipped and said what he actually thought about Obama's Cosby-esque, 'blame the black poor' tour, which is that Obama is "talking down to black people," for which the good Rev "wants to cut his nuts off."

( O'Reilly provides the video; Jackson didn't realize his whispers were being picked up by the still hot mic.)

Oh dear.

He's been apologizing ever since (and Jackson's own son felt the need to denounce his dad). But it speaks to a much needed conversation that the black community both needs and wants to have.

We have to get beyond condemning racism, relevant as it is, and deal with our problems pragmatically.

Is Obama going Sister Souljah for white folks' benefit? Yes, but he's also stimulating a conversation blacks need to have if we're to move beyond our myriad problems, whoever's fault they are at root.

Still, castration? I knew the civil rights bourgeoisie was mad at homey, but I didn't know they were that mad. Watch your back, Obama.

Black on Black Nihilism

I just read something both horrifying and so, so sad on The Root.

It happened two months ago, and this is the first, and probably only, time I'll hear about it: A young, bipolar black woman on an Atlanta bus went manic and terrorized an elderly black woman while the rest of the riders did nothing. Well, except for the ones who laughed and helped the deranged woman freestyle rap lyrics with which to terrorize all our grandmothers. And, of course, the one who was busy taking the video. The other riders didn't respond until she went after them.

As for her helpless victim—a study in dignity and courage. She said nothing, never asked for help. I guess she knew by then it would be pointless to ask. If I'd been looking for a better way to reinforce my post onheat waves, I'd never have found it.

Too bad that grandmother wasn't assaulted by a crazed white girl. Then, her fellow riders would have responded and it would have been all over the news. No, it was just someone who could have been her granddaughter, and therefore just one more instance of black-on-black nihilism that only an Uncle Tom would discuss 'in front of white folks'. Someone should track down that lovely, dignified lady and have her tell the truth on national TV, and shame the intracommunal devil that allows such things to happen.

I once came to the aide of an elderly lady being similarly terrorized by a deranged man in a crowded public place, as everyone else just gave them a wide berth. I didn't confront him—he was terrifying, ranting and raving at her—I just said "Mrs. Smith, there you are! We're late, let's go." The crazy are easily confused, and he just watched stupefied as I led her away. Both of them were white, as it happens, and I could have never slept well again if I'd walked past that poor woman, just glad he wasn't after me. I wasn't proud of myself at the time. It just seemed like something that needed doing. But now, I guess I deserve a medal.

What a pass we've come to. Shame on everyone on that bus. Shame. And one more thing: Why didn't someone call the police? Anyone can see she needed to be in a hospital. But they just laughed and egged her on to run amok in their own community, destroying herself and everyone around her.

If you're black and want to hang your head in shame, watch the video.

Should 4 Dollar Gas=4 Day Work Week?

School districts across the country, reacting to wicked high gas prices, are shifting to four-day work weeks—and in some cases asking kids to walk a little farther to catch the bus.

While the potential benefits of having kids walk a bit more are intriguing, is it really possible to cram five days of student learning into four?

No matter. The rising cost ($4 a gallon and rising) of running those big yellow diesel school buses is too much for some rural districts, like this one outside St. Paul, Minnesota, which said a month ago it would save about $65,000 by switching to a four-day week.

A North Carolina school district told reporters it would save $500 to $800 a day by chopping one day off the school week.

And it's not just schools. Even folks at a state attorney's office in McHenry County, Illinois, are getting in on the action: they've gone to a 40-hour, four-day work week, as have members of the Suffolk County legislature in New York; although in some cases reaction to these decisions isn't always positive.

South Carolina's governor signed into law $19 million for school bus fuel for the 2008-09 school year. Some Houston school employees are even getting $250 bonuses to help with commuting costs.

Some argue the personal (happier employees!) and economic/environmental benefits are worth it. Others maintain, simply, that this "half-day crap must stop".

As McCain Disavows Gramm, a Top Aide Implies Gramm Partly To Blame for the Economy

Phil Gramm is in the headlines today--being slammed by Democrats and disavowed by the McCain campaign--for complaining to The Washington Times that "we have sort of become a nation of whiners." Gramm, who chairs John McCain's campaign and who advises the presumptive Republican nominee on economic matters, pooh-poohed talk of a recession: "You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession." The former Republican Senator and current vice president of Swiss bank UBS dismissed talk of US economic woes and declared, "We've never been more dominant; we've never had more natural advantages than we have today. We have benefited greatly" from globalization.

Predictably, liberal bloggers and Democrats blasted Gramm for being out of touch with the real world. The McCain camp initially stood by their man but then distanced itself from Gramm's remarks, with a McCain spokesman saying, "Gramm's comments are not representative of John McCain's views."

But as this tempest was under way, another Gramm story went little noticed: a top McCain aide indirectly implicated Gramm in the current economic mess.

On Thursday, Portfolio magazine released an interview with Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO who is now a top adviser and surrogate for McCain. In that article interviewer Lloyd Grove asked Fiorina "who and/or what is to blame for the souring economy?" Her answer:

Well, I think there was a situation where there was greed on Wall Street, there was a lack of transparency around a new set of financial instruments, there were a whole new set of financial instruments, there were a whole new set of financial players who were less regulated than banks, and all that together created a situation, which now is rippling through the economy.

She added: "in this particular case, the financial instruments that were being used, when I say they lacked transparency, people didn't understand all the connections."

Today's economic troubles, Fiorina was saying, were caused in part by insufficient regulation and lack of transparency regarding the latest financial instruments. And who bears some responsibility for that? Phil Gramm.

It was Gramm who used a sly legislative maneuver in late 2000, when he chaired the Senate banking committee, to pass the Commodity Futures Modernization Act--to which practically no one but financial industry lobbyists were paying attention in Washington. This bill prohibited federal agencies from regulating financial products called swaps, which have been used to back up the mortgaged-based securities that caused the subprime crisis. Michael Greenberger, who directed the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's division of trading and markets in the 1990s, says these unregulated swaps have been at "the heart of the subprime meltdown." He and others point to Gramm as being chiefly culpable for their deregulation.

So here is one top McCain adviser (touted as a possible running mate for McCain) suggesting that another top McCain adviser (touted as a possible Treasury secretary in a McCain administration) is partly to blame for the current economic downslide, which is not recognized by that second top McCain adviser. Seems as if Fiorina and Gramm need to get on a conference call with McCain and work things out.

Raleigh Man Chooses To Retire Instead of Honoring Helms

A 51-year-old employee of the North Carolina Department of Agriculture chose to retire rather than lower a flag to half mast in honor of the late former senator Jesse Helms, reports the Charlotte Observer.

And it wasn't like L.F. Eason III, a registered Democrat, hadn't lowered other flags during his 29-year tenure at the lab where he worked:

...Eason said he had no problems lowering the flag for former Sen. Terry Sanford or President Ronald Reagan. But he remembers wondering whether he would be able to lower the flag after President Richard Nixon's funeral.

Wonder whether Eason had mulled this protest over beforehand, or if it was a game-time decision. Given the fact that Helms was in the senate even before Eason got his job at the lab, he certainly had time to think about it.

Heather Mac Donald: The Thinking Bigot's Ann Coulter

I warned y'all to watch Heather Mac Donald.

The rest of us bloviators may have slowed down for the summer, but not Ms. Mac Donald. While the anti-Negro crusade remains her lode star, she takes a break now and then to dog women. I mean, feminism. Thank god that all those poor, oppressed white men have her to champion the sorry state to which they have been reduced.

I certainly understand the rigors of producing columns when nothing newsworthy strikes your fancy, but she spends a whole lotta words bemoaning the whole lotta words that the Times spent on a campaign at the no doubt ritzy Phoenix Country Club to equalize the sex-segregated facilities for which members pay bazillions each year:

The struggle for women’s equality comes down to this: The men’s grill in the Phoenix Country Club has television and a bar, while the women's grill has neither of those amenities—though it soon will, following renovation.

So, let's follow the logic, such as it is: "It’s been a hard year for the cause of female victimhood, as the Times' close attention to one golf club’s eating facilities suggests."

Her proof? Sen. Clinton's robust support from white working-class men. Which, in Heather's world, proves their lack of sexism and not, I repeat not, their embrace of racism, a flaw in her reasoning that appears never to have occurred to her since she doesn't even raise the notion to summarily dismiss it.

But Miss M is nothing if not dogged—she's wearily disproving sexism here y'all, not racism—since she regularly proves the non-existence of that silly, anti-white notion. And how self-evident that discussing golf course facilities proves women have nothing left to complain about, if they ever did. I must have missed the articles in which she 'proved' the latter as well.

I dunno, Heather—maybe it's a way of talking about how the remnants of overt sexism are everywhere to be found. (By the way, the women's facilities are being upgraded, but why? Because even women paying max dollars—presumably the same hefty amount that men with their better facilities were paying—got the shaft until now. I'm betting lots of those men are bitching about the cost of the upgrades.

I'm reminded of male fliers in my USAF days bitterly blaming female fliers for the cost of retrofitting aircraft with toilets, since they'd had only urinals. Logical much?

Exhibit B that feminism is nothing but victimhood and whining (and this bit is such a doozy, I couldn't bear to truncate it):

Clinton’s popularity with working-class male voters is hardly the only obstacle to the perpetuation of the patriarchy myth. Wherever you look, pesky facts suggest that far from being hindered by their sex, women reap benefits galore. Every elite institution in the country—from Wall Street law firms to Fortune 500 companies to major media outlets—tries constantly to put as many women in prominent positions as it can, whether as partners, board directors, editors, op-ed contributors, or talking heads. Whenever the absence of remotely suitable candidates hinders this mission, the same institutions wail a mea culpa and promise to make amends. Federal and state governments pour millions of taxpayer dollars into the production of more female scientists, even though the sex ratio in a microbiology lab will have absolutely no bearing on whether it discovers the cure for cancer or for Alzheimer’s disease. Since many elementary and high schools now function as cheering squads for Grrrl Power, the idea that even more resources are required to overcome some still-unlocated bias against, say, female physicists is ludicrous. Female undergraduates now outnumber their male counterparts, which hasn’t resulted in the closing of a single college women’s center dedicated to providing girls with a “safe space” on campus.

I italicized those lines above 'cuz I just love 'em so much. This is Mother Jones; do I need to explain why?

Mac Donald misses not one trick in the ideologue's book: "Time was when liberals would have professed to care about the dishwashers in the Phoenix Country Club, not the members who send them their dirty dishes to be washed. But the narcissism of today's elites knows no bounds."

Double whammy: "Professed to care". Girlfriend will commit seppuku before she gives a liberal an inch. God forbid she should consider that the Times isn't the liberal boogeyman she's helped the right create—talk about having your cake (create a fake monster) and eating it, too (dog your faux Frankenstein). Might she have considered, again, that sexism knows no class distinctions? Those facilities were designed in the 1980s, according to her; that recently women were paying for second class digs?

No, it isn't Selma, but it's not nothing either.

'Elite narcisism'—my how I love this one, right-wing elites pretending not to be so they can front being on the little guy's side. Fake class conflict—love that one. Mac Donald thinks the poor's poverty is their own fault; who's this 'argument' for except as talking points for her less propogandistic apologetic right-wing elites?

Attagirl Ms. Mac Donald, the thinking bigot's Ann Coulter.

Rove Is a No-Show

Members of the House Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law didn't even wait until the 10 a.m. mark to declare former presidential adviser Karl Rove a no-show this morning. The committee had subpoenaed Rove to appear to discuss the politicization of the Justice Department and allegations of selective prosecution of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman. But Rove, through his lawyer, asserted that "as a close advisor to the President," he is "immune from compelled Congressional testimony."

Committee Chairwoman Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) was having none of that, saying, "I hereby rule that Mr. Rove’s claims of immunity are not legally valid, and his refusal to comply with the subpoena and appear at this hearing to answer questions cannot be properly justified." In her official statement, she pointed out that if Rove wants to assert executive privilege, he still has to show up and do it before the committee, not in some lame letter from his lawyer. Sanchez observed that the Judiciary Committee has already seen a parade of witnesses from the White House who have not made this argument, most notably, David Addington, Dick Cheney's chief of staff, who, while clearly hostile, did actually make the trip up the Hill to testify recently on the administration's torture and interrogation policies. Scott McClellan, the former press secretary, even testified without a subpoena!

Rove's arrogance has clearly irked Sanchez, who disparaged him for failing to cite a single court precedent that would back up his claim to absolute immunity from testifying. Quoting the Supreme Court, Sanchez said, “[n]o man in this country is so high that he is above the law,” and “[a]ll the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it.”

Sanchez based her ruling on the quintessential Supreme Court decision on executive privilege, United States v. Nixon, which found that executive privilege is a limited one. The Nixon reference is apt: Sanchez notes that the Bush White House's assertion of secrecy goes well beyond Nixon's. While Nixon attempted to prevent his White House Counsel John Dean and other White House from testifying before Congress, he eventually relented, she notes.

Sanchez is particularly galled that the Justice Department and Rove are claiming he has immunity even though he is now a private citizen, which makes his claims all the more extraordinary. Not a single argument made by the Justice Department, Sanchez writes, applies to Newsweek columnists or Fox News commentators; there is absolutely no precedent to extending immunity to former government officials.

Still, Rove has been down this road before, with the Senate, asserting that he is immune from testimony because he says so. As he did last fall, White House Counsel Fred Fielding also sent a letter to Rove's lawyer yesterday explaining that the White House has advised Rove not to testify based on the Justice Department's determination that he doesn't have to go.

Of course, the Justice Department is a dubious source of advice these days, given that the attorney general is facing his own subpoena from the Judiciary Committee. Michael Mukasey has repeatedly ignored requests from Sanchez and Rep. John Conyers to turn over documents related to the Siegelman prosecution and other oversight matters, so it clearly has a bias when it comes to deciding whether Rove ought to testify. But the department's opinion on the subpoena were apparently enough to fend off Senator Patrick Leahey, who caved last fall on any attempts to force Rove to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Members of the House may not be so sanguine. Conyers and Sanchez have already asked a federal court to enforce a subpoena from the committee ignored by former White House counsel Harriet Miers, a move they took after the Justice Department refused to enforce the subpoena. There's no reason to think that they won't do the same for Rove. If he persists in ignoring them, one day he may have to pen his columns from a jail cell.

Posted by Stephanie Mencimer