Oliver Willis catches one conservative trying to backtrack without admitting the error and calls it as he sees it:

This is how a liar operates. This is your modern conservative movement, in action.

And, I heartily agree. The truth is that it’s not an Obama Administration initiative, but one begun under Ronald Reagan and Congress with ratification of the Montreal Protocol in 1987, and finalized under George W. Bush in late 2008. Prior to Obama being president of course.

If conservatives want to blame Obama for allowing the EPA ban and Montreal Protocol to proceed, that’s one thing, but that’s not the case at all. They are actually trying to blame Obama for the actual existence of the ban on certain types of asthma inhalers. It’s a great headline. But, it’s a lie.

For all you information wonks, here are the links to the 1987 letter from Ronald Reagan urging Congress to pass the Montreal Protocol and the ruling in 2008 by the Bush Administration to adhere to the Montreal Protocol and ban certain CFC emissions including Epinephrine which is a component of asthma inhalers.

Also, it’s worth nothing that both initiatives were passed when Reagan and GW Bush were lame duck presidents, in the last month of their last terms, traditionally a time when policy unpopular with the voting base is passed, thus making the potential political liability non-existent.

Spencer Lawton, the district attorney who secured Davis’ conviction in 1991, said he was embarrassed for the judicial system – not because of the execution, but because it took so long to carry out. 

“What we have had is a manufactured appearance of doubt which has taken on the quality of legitimate doubt itself. And all of it is exquisitely unfair,” said Lawton, who retired as Chatham County’s head prosecutor in 2008. “The good news is we live in a civilized society where questions like this are decided based on fact in open and transparent courts of law, and not on street corners.”

From the ACLU:

“The jury in Troy’s case was deceived, witnesses were pressured, and virtually no one who looks at the case today would claim that he could be convicted, let alone sentenced to death, for the murder. Troy’s case makes clear that the death penalty system in the United States is broken beyond repair. It is arbitrary, discriminatory and it must be ended.” – Denny LeBoeuf, Director, Capital Punishment Project

Of note, in late March the US Supreme Court ruled in Connick v. Thompson that persecutors could not be held liable for illegal or unethical behavior in cases they oversee. So, it would appear that the Troy Davis case was the icing on the cake. Slate has a good run-down on that debacle.

If a society is unable to establish basic ethical standards regarding what constitutes doubt, and in this case the obvious tampering of the case by the prosecutors places Davis’ conviction in doubt, then the justice system is broken.

This is the text book case of why the Death Penalty is a problem. Given the new information, a stay of execution should have been standard. But, people want their blood. That much is clear.

Once upon a time, political observers fretted that the free press, the government and the democratic process itself were under threat of being overwhelmed and eventually controlled by corporatism – special interests, corruption and greed. William Greider’s prescient work on the subject, Who Will Tell the People? : The Betrayal of American Democracy was published almost 20 years ago and presaged, in great detail, the economic, political and ethical morass we find ourselves drowning in today.

In the book, Greider predicted the demise of a free press and its replacement by an increasingly corporate owned press devoid of any real investigative power. He also predicted a legislative process hamstrung by gerrymandering and corporate lobbyists, an executive branch whose independence and power is made impotent by elections controlled by financial contributions from corporations and a judiciary deeply compromised by ethically problematic relationships and the appointment of justices more inclined toward ideological interpretations of the law than the rule of law.

What William Greider did not predict is equally as alarming. He could not have foreseen the extent to which the aforementioned

attacks on the foundations of our democracy would move from the dark shadows to being entirely out in the open. Nor could Greider have foreseen the always-on 24 hour instant news cycle of the internet, how it would alter the media landscape in profound ways and how the corporate owned news media would come to parrot anything and everything that trends on the internet, Twitter or Facebook, regardless of the facts. Gossip, innuendo, anonymous sources, timed leaks and even violations of privacy and blackmail have become the rule rather than the exception.

Two decades after Greider’s book, we have come to the point where legislators, politicians and justices who don’t play “by the rules” set down by those who control the purse strings are shown the door via recall elections, redistricting, retention votes, old-fashioned dirty tricks and disinformation. And, disinformation is the front line in the war for influence and power.  Media firms such as Freedom Works have created an entire political movement out of whole cloth, based upon and energized by well financed internet distributed disinformation.

The severe lack of media literacy in the general public is crucial to the equation. A society that treats information and disinformation equally is one that is not prepared to conduct business, let alone find solutions to the problems that it faces. The inability of large numbers of citizens to differentiate between propaganda and factual information is the central reason why groups such as Freedom Works are able to influence and manipulate so many. It is also why we struggle so profoundly to engage and fix the problems we face as a  society. We don’t see the forest for the trees. We get bogged down in the short game, rather than the long term ramifications.

The recent fall of Rep. Anthony Weiner (NY) is an excellent example of this process at work. Weiner resigned from his seat in the U.S. House of Representatives when it was revealed that he had shared nude photos of himself (some sexually graphic) with a female college student he communicated with via Twitter. On the surface, what happened to Weiner appears to be a version of the basic run-of-the-mill found with his pants down scandal. But, there is more to the story.

There was little discussion in the press  (or anywhere for that matter) of Anthony Weiner’s relatively harmless moral transgression. Yet, it was immediately treated as a career ending event for Weiner when other politicians have done much worse (adultery, felony crime) and remained in office. It was a singular moment of trial by media fire and political brinksmanship fueled by media illiteracy, since real facts were (and still are) hard to come by regarding the story.

An important and overlooked fact: The person who broke the Weiner story on the internet remains anonymous, and the events surrounding it are suspicious at best. As the New York Times has reported, “Fake Identities Were Used on Twitter in Effort to Get Information on Weiner” That should raise a few eyebrows, get people asking “what happened?” but it has not.

To be sure, what Weiner did was a serious moral and ethical breach. But, sharing nude photos of oneself with other adults in not a crime. No laws were broken. The simple reality is: the reaction of the media and politicians to Weiner’s mistake did not suit the problem.  It was an overreaction at best. The situation was exploited and hyped by a press more interested in sensational headlines, sex, scandal and gossip that it is in establishing facts and reporting news. And, the reaction of politicians to the event paints a picture of elected officials falling over themselves to be seen on the “right” side of the propaganda tsunami which struck fear in their hearts.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow raised a very salient point regarding Weiner’s resignation and the double standard practiced by the press and politicians. From The Huffington Post:

“Democrats have not only refused to hold Republicans accountable for the double standard, but they have joined with Republicans in piling on with the demands that Anthony Weiner had to resign even as David Vitter stays in the Senate,” Maddow said. She then went on a long monologue, listing all the Republicans and Democrats who were not forced out of office even after admitting to more serious ethical violations than Weiner.

“Anthony Weiner, who was not accused of corruption, who does not appear to have done anything illegal, who does not even appear to have had sex with any of the women with any of the people with whom he had scandalous talk and picture-taking, for him a line was drawn,” Maddow concluded, her voice bristling with anger. She then turned her focus on the media, saying that the story was actually “the media covering the media ending a man’s career.”

Maddow ended by addressing Democrats. She issued a dire warning.

“Congratulations, Democrats,” she said. “In an era of unhinged, ideological, big money conservative media that is wholly and admittedly divorced from the precepts of journalism, in hounding Anthony Weiner into resigning … you have just fed and unleashed this beast onto yourselves, probably for a generation.”

Maddow’s statement is a clarion cry to every American, a warning that we’ve crossed a line into being manipulated and controlled by people who do not care about our liberties. They care about making money. Not an entirely evil pursuit on its own, but when it comes at the expense of peoples life, liberty and happiness, we have a problem.

The lynch pin is media literacy. Citizens need to be educated in the critical analysis of the information that is presented to them in the modern era. The instant always on news cycle requires that we all have the ability to discern fiction from reality, truth from propaganda.

We must continue to correct disinformation, but we also need to bring the fight to those who would harm our liberties. As the Anthony Weiner case shows, not doing so means we do the dirty work for those who benefit from it.

Weiner’s transgression should have meant a reprimand at best. We may have been shocked at what occurred, but no crimes were committed. Yet, he was treated as if he had broken the law. Why?

The answer is important. Our democracy depends upon it.

Apparently, my post last year on Glenn Beck’s pleading to the Tea Party to leave their signs at home for the “Restoring Honor” rally struck a cord. Here’s a comment made in, of all places, a fishing forum. (Which popped up in my trackbacks.)

It’s rather revelatory, because it pretty much dances over the blatant racism in the signs I use as examples in my post. Either the author – who not surprisingly uses the anonymous moniker “Detbuch”- doesn’t see the racism, or thinks it’s not important. Either way, he pretty much proves my point.

The anonymous “Detbuch” opens up with a basic logical fallacy, using a straw man argument to essentially say: “Some great American’s were racist, should we have not listened to them?” Which misses the point entirely. He adds to it with  more apologizing for racism via the “we’re all racists” approach. He goes after me a little, not realizing that I didn’t have a problem with the stated point of the Beck rally, I was though making it clear that it was obvious why Beck was asking attendees not to bring signs, because he was afraid there would be racist signs. (As it turned out, that was the least of his worries.) Then in the middle, he gets to doing a “critique” of the photos in my post, in a rather pathetic attempt to prove the signs are not racist.

The problem with personal/anecdotal accounts is that they are all only tiny slices of reality, or versions of reality. Living in Detroit, most of my acquaintances are black. In private situiations, they are all overtly racist–unabashedly and proudly so. They are all Democrats. Is that a reason to not associate with Democrats? FDR, Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, Margaret Sanger (founder of planned parenthood), the founders of this nation, were all racists. I suppose they should not have been associated with. Maybe most, if not all of us, are or have some degree of racism, and we should all become hermits. Can’t we, even with racist tendencies, still have salutary ideas and solutions to political and economic problems? Can’t we even be constitutionalists?

As for Twang’s thang re Beck’s restoring honor rally–just another biased hit piece–and one before the rally even occurred. Speaking of some previous rally, he, as is the common practice, cherry picks a few signs that he considers racist or having racist themes, totally ignoring the host of other signs such as one minutely seen in a background–”congress works for us not the other way around”–which is the predominant animus for the tea party movement. Even most of those he chooses, though rude and crude, are not racist. One refers to religion not race. Another reversed the slavery cliche. Two compared Obamacare to voodoo, another referred to his supposed connection to Islam (Hussein), the Dixie Chicks, and his supposed non-citizenship (Kenya). Another slammed cap and trade and played on the word “trade”–to “trade” him back to his supposed lack of citizenship (Kenya). The last one actually had a racist, mispelled pejorative “niggar.” Twang totally spins and paints Glen Beck’s positive attempt to unify Americans with, at the time, an upcoming rally, into Twang’s misconceived, hateful version–”Beck’s decision to blatantly ride on the coat of Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights movement is nothing except a badly orchestrated and cynical effort to coopt the gravitas of MLK and the Rights Movement in order to replace the glaring lack of it in the Tea Party movement.” Twang’s own lack of “gravitas” is evident in his myopic, slanted, name-calling (teabaggers, tea bag party) and too easy and uncritical accusation that the tea party is a platformless group of know nothings. The actual Restoring Honor rally was of a different philosophical “color” than that which Twang tried to paint it.

Each sign that I highlighted in the post has a unique view that is blatantly racist. It’s not difficult to figure out. But “Detbuch” glosses over it with the nonchalance of one completely desensitized to racist jargon and imagery.

Let’s go over each photo with “Detbuch’s comments and see what’s what.

“Even most of those he chooses, though rude and crude, are not racist. One refers to religion not race.”

“Detbuch” misses the obvious racism here which is implied. Comparing the Christian and the Kenyan with a final “That explains a lot about you.” is a basic eliminationist tactic. It’s implying that being Christian is good and that being Kenyan is a threat in some way, or that is means something bad. It’s hard to think of any of reason why someone would think that being from Kenya is bad other than the fact that Kenyan’s are dark colored. What other reason can you think of?

“Another reversed the slavery cliche.”

Clearly, “Detbuch” is simply not honest enough to see that implying that Obama is a “massa” is using racist loaded imagery and words to make it’s point. And, of course, the idea that a black man in power would be compared to a white man in power in this regard is using racist ideas to make it’s point. “Detbuch” chooses to gloss over it.

“Two compared Obamacare to voodoo…”

Racism is always about demeaning the person. This is an attempt to present Obama as a primitive, an ignorant “witch doctor”. The term “bone in the nose” was often used – and still is – as a racist insult. Pretty cut and dry, wouldn’t you think? I suspect that “Detbuch” lacks essential compassion for blacks, so he simply can’t see the racism that is blatantly clear here. It’s meant to demean Obama and lower him. Perhaps “Detbuch” doesn’t understand the actual definition of racism?

“…another referred to his supposed connection to Islam (Hussein), the Dixie Chicks, and his supposed non-citizenship (Kenya)”

Notice how “Detbuch” glosses over the “go back to Kenya” slight. To him, it’s just a reference to Obama’s “supposed non-citizenship”. When actually, such references have a long racist history. Telling people to go back to their native land is a long time cry of Nativists and racists. ”Go back to Africa” for example. You’d think he’d brush up this stuff wouldn’t you?

“Another slammed cap and trade and played on the word “trade”–to “trade” him back to his supposed lack of citizenship (Kenya).” Here’s the photo:

Once again, “Detbuch” misses the racism here.  This one is so obvious, it’s just like the prior one. I wonder why Detuch doesn’t see it? Probably because he focuses on the “cap and trade” but not the actual racist part that says: “go back to Kenya!”. Odd that. Maybe he didn’t read it all?

The last part by “Detbuch” I won’t even go into since Detbuch simply tries to turn the tables on me, and he does such a bad job of it I’d be wasting my time. And, the term “Tea Baggers”, and “Tea Party” are commonly used on Tea Party sites to refer to themselves. Interesting how he thinks my using the term is some type of insult. Who knew. I’d suspect like most Tea Partiers, he was completely unaware of the double meaning, of the former and was not happy. That’s what you get for stealing something rather than inventing your own name.

Finally, it’s telling that “Detbuch” apparently has no idea that the Know Nothings were a real conservative political movement and that the reference to them was not a slight as in “know nothings” but a historical fact that the modern Tea Party are the philosophical and political heir to the Know Nothing party of the 1800s.

Isn’t it odd that “Detuch” doesn’t know his own political ancestry?

Here’s my list of things that should also go into Bush’s Presidential Library:

The Codpiece.

The Door.

The Presidential Briefing that warned that an attack was “imminent”.

The dress that this little girl was wearing.

“This whole TSA terrorism is nothing more than obama getting back at the American people for his “shellacking” at the polls…”

It must be utterly exhausting to contain so many bloated, incorrect and downright insipid conspiracy theories inside such a wee little brain.

It gets even better though. From the Atlanta Constitution-Journal:

On the air, Beck has asked attendees not to bring signs or come in anger, but to come in a peaceful spirit akin to the one espoused by King. “Don’t bring your signs,” he said on TV. “Bring your hearts … bring your open minds.”

Not bring signs? It’s a rally! Of course you bring signs! But, Beck is obviously concerned. It’s an admission that something went astray last time. He’s worried the same thing may occur this time. The Tea Party 9/12 rally last year was a smörgåsbord of racism and allusions to racist themes. Some examples for historical context:

The Tea Bag Party faithful brushed the documented claims of racism off as untrue, even in the face of the photographic and video evidence. Perhaps they simply can not see the racism. Perhaps they don’t want to see it. But, America knows what it saw.

To be clear, I’m not saying all Tea Baggers are racist. Yet, it can’t be denied that there is a strong racist element within the Tea Party ranks, and that a great deal of the motivation behind the entire platform (such as is is) is of a nativist, racist, hateful and eliminationist nature. Historically, fear, hate and racism have been great allies. And, they continue to be such. The Tea Party is the current day Nativist party, a modern version of the Know-Nothings. The platforms and ideas espoused are practically identical. No one disuptes that the Know-Nothings were a racist and eliminationist movement. The question remains who will claim the mantle of leadership of the Tea Party. Who will speak out against the racism?

The signs above tell the story. Will it happen again? Time will tell.

I think there’s got to be a little bit of dignity to the presidency. [...] I think there are some shows. I wouldn’t put him on “Jerry Springer,” too, right? … I think the president of the United States has to go on serious shows. And “The View” is, you can make a case that it’s a serious show, but it also rocks and rolls a little bit. I’m not sure he has to go on “The View” to be open to questions.

Right-wing Extremists have picked this up and run with it of course. But, they and Rendell miss the Big Picture. They don’t get it.

Back in 1993, President Clinton was heavily criticized for deciding to appear on MTV. It too was seen as “unpresidential”. But, at the time, and in retrospect, it was a brilliant stroke of media genius. And, through an entirely unscripted moment of unexpected “intimacy”, a new media world was born. Love it, hate it, it’s here. And, it’s important to remember, Obama is working in that world. The Museum of Television has this to say about that past media moment for Clinton, snd how it changed politics and the Presidency:

April 20, 1993 — Bill Clinton’s MTV Appearance

Not a historic date, perhaps, but a suggestive one. It was on this date that Bill Clinton discussed his underwear with the American people (briefs, not boxers, as it turned out). Why would the leader of the free world unburden himself like this? Why not? In television’s increasingly postmodern world, all texts–serious and sophomoric–swirl together in the same discontinuous field of experience. To be sure, Mr. Clinton made his disclosure because he had been asked to do so by a member of the MTV generation, not because he felt a sudden need to purge himself. But in doing so Clinton exposed several rules connected to the new phenomenology of politics: (1) because of television’s celebrity system, presidents are losing their distinctiveness as social actors and hence are often judged by standards formerly used to assess rock singers and movie stars; (2) because of television’s sense of intimacy, the American people feel they know their presidents as persons and hence no longer feel the need for party guidance; (3) because of the medium’s archly cynical worldview, those who watch politics on television are increasingly turning away from the policy sphere, years of hyper-familiarity having finally bred contempt for politics itself. For good and ill, then, presidential television grew apace between 1952 and the present. It began as a little-used, somewhat feared, medium of exchange and transformed itself into a central aspect of American political culture. In doing so, television changed almost everything about life in the White House. It changed what presidents do and how they do it. (Emphasis added)

Rendell doesn’t get it. The View is the perfect venue for Obama to communicate and reach out to the audience.

The idea that a show isn’t “presidential” enough is a matter of how the president behaves on that show. And, while I’m not a fan of The View, it’s clearly not Jerry Springer. It’s a show for moms, young women and older women. And, it’s a casual venue. As the Clinton example shows, even something potentially unpresidential can become a historical moment of presidential restraint, humor and connectedness to the people. And, a casual venue is the way to go to bring Obama to the people, give him more humanity and appeal, which media exposure tends to eat away.

I’d expect that is what many Conservatives fear.

…radical sociologist David Harvey asks if it is time to look beyond capitalism, towards a new social order that would allow us to live within a system that could be responsible, just and humane.

Very much worth watching. My comments are below the video.

The trigger to the financial mess is greed. The idea that the system is open-ended, that the sky is the limit, is simply irresponsible. All systems have limits. We’ve reached the limit of capitalsim. And, to be sure, many will simply dismiss this argument as “socialism”. But, as Harvey’s argument posits, there are important points to be gleaned from a socialist approach. You can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater on this issue. This doesn’t mean that people don’t have the right to pursue financial success. What it does mean is that the way that success should be measured needs to change. Warren Buffett has the right idea. There’s a responsibility that comes with financial success. It’s good economics. And, Buffett understands that. The problem is, it’s become a political football.

The tragedy for the USA is that the political atmosphere is super-charged with partisan political nonsense. True discussion is almost impossible. At the moment, Conservatives have shown themselves  to be more interested in refuting their core beliefs, at the expense of the stability of the country, for political power. Liberals are lost in an over reactive loop of fixing failed Conservative policies with overreaching programs that miss the big picture. The result is inconsistent economics. Add to this the polarized atmosphere of the poltics of fear that dominate, and it’s a mess.

Engaging in a coherent debate under these circumstances is impossible, let alone implementing a cogent economic plan.

I fear that something truly horrendous will have to occur for people to break free of their ideological constraints and deal with the issues at hand properly with intellect and maturity.

We shall see.

During the presidency of George W. Bush, there was a lot of melodramatic consternation on the left about Bush’s playing golf during a time of war and / or national criss. A lot of it was no doubt due to this unfortunate moment. There were even unfounded rumors of his playing golf during the Katrina disaster, as if taking personal time to golf during crisis were proof of incompetence. It was all rather silly for a number of reasons, the foremost being that living a life of constant crisis management like the presidency requires does not also require that life simply stop. Life goes on, even during wartime. Down time is important.

Ike golfs in England prior to D-Day

During World War II, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower was a well known golf enthusiast, and took as much time as he could during the war to indulge his passion for the game.

From the section “Ike and Golf” at the Eisenhower Commission website:

His problem was, of course, how to fit golf into a very busy schedule. When he went to London in May of 1942 he picked living quarters some distance from the city so he could find some peace and quiet.  The house he rented near Kingston was named Telegraph Cottage and the backyard fence luckily opened on the 13th hole at Coombe Hill Golf Club.  During his stay in England Ike never played a full round at Coombe Hill, but he often played three or four holes before going to work in the morning. After the Allied invasion of Normandy, Ike placed his offices in a school house at Reims in the Champagne region of France – but he chose the Guex Golf Course clubhouse as his living quarters.  Once again he had little time for golf, but he practiced through a few holes when he could.

Thus, it stands to reason that if it was okay for the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force – the man who planned D-Day – to golf during arguably the greatest crisis in modern history, then it’s probably okay for a president to golf during the “War on Terror” or to golf during the Gulf Spill Crisis and other presidential moments of crisis. Ike continued his love of playing golf during his presidency.

Mayor Vaughn: [to reporter] I’m pleased and happy to repeat the news that we have, in fact, caught and killed a large predator that supposedly injured some bathers. But, as you see, it’s a beautiful day, the beaches are open and people are having a wonderful time. Amity, as you know, means “friendship”. – From the movie “Jaws“.

and…

But we haven’t had, really, any impact. I mean, we haven’t had enough oil hit Mississippi’s beaches to fill up a milk jug. Now, we’re prepared and we’re prepared for the worst. But thus far, we haven’t had any kind of incursion, except the news coverage is killing our tourist business. – Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi.

More on Barbour’s links to big oil over at Think Progress.

A seven-month old baby girl survived a shot to the chest after her parents shot themselves and their two-year-old in a global warming murder-suicide pact. [...] Someone should sue Al Gore. He played on their fears and now a whole family is dead.

We’ll let it slide that if the seven-month old baby survived it would technically mean that the “whole family” was not actually dead, since it’s obvious that Jim is blinded by his grief. So, just as I was considering the warped logic of suing Al Gore for the motive and actions of two obviously mentally deranged persons, when the following came over the AP:

The leader of a household described as a religious cult was convicted of second-degree murder Tuesday along with two of her followers for starving a 1-year-old boy to death because he did not say “Amen” during a mealtime prayer.

The logic of Hoft’s thinking is laid out in all it’s bare nekkid silliness. Given that Jim believes Al Gore should be sued because he “played on their fears and now a whole family is dead” because of global warming, doesn’t it make sense that someone should be sued for the death of the little boy because he wouldn’t say “Amen”? Who inspired this cult to murder? Let’s start with Jesus Christ and end with every Christian church on the planet.

You can see where this is going.

It’s ridiculous of course, but Hoft has never been known for his intellect or integrity nor his consistency. He’s a propagandist, and a good one.
So, anything to taint Al Gore in the eyes of the true believers, even the patently ridiculous, is fair game.

His name was Al Weisel and he passed away the other day at the age of 46. Skippy has a nice write up that sums it all up amd has a list of memorials to Al.

Al became tired of blogging and his output became less and less. Two years ago he stopped suddenly and I wrote and asked if he was okay, a few of us were wondering, and he wrote back saying that he just got caught up in life and that he would be blogging again soon. And, he did for about a year, then he stopped again early in 2009. His interest waning yet again. I missed him the past year. His views were sorely missed. And, I figured that like many of us, the blog was simply becoming a burden and I simply hoped that one day he’d start again and we’d all be laughing out loud once again. Then came the sad news in an email from Brendan Keefe that Jon Swift /Al was gone.

Sometimes there are no words. Except thanks Al. You were a prince. It was a pleasure fighting the good fight with you, and sharing a laugh across the internet.

Now go read some of the best satire anywhere. You will laugh out loud. Trust me.

• Cheney: Waterboarding should have been an option for underbomber – “I was a big supporter of waterboarding. I was a big supporter of the enhanced interrogation techniques,” he said. Of course, for years the CIA has maintained that torture does not produce actionable intel. And, of course, the public practice of torture (they went public with this remember) is more PR than anything. I am of the opinion that Cheney understands that torture does not create actionable intel. But, the propaganda value is simply too great in his view. This is the discussion we should be having…
• Cheney Struggles To Explain Terror Contradictions – Dick Cheney has never been one for consistency of message, nor of adhering to the established facts. It’s unfortunate that he now feels comfortable undermining a sitting president (no matter his political affiliation) in order to secure his own personal legacy and save his ass.
• Biden: Cheney ‘not entitled to re-write history’ – See above.
• A Terrorist Tried In Federal Court: The Case Of Aafia Siddiqui – When we examine the facts, it becomes clear that the GOP is using terrorism as political fodder. So, facts such as this get brushed under the carpet. It’s bad for the coutnry and it’s bad politics. But, they are a party in decline after all…I am for trying terrorists in civilian courts. So is the Pentagon.
• Critical Mass: Dem Agenda Opens Right-Wing Doors – Mandatory reading…

…the purpose of the [Olympics] attack on July 27 was to confound, anger and embarrass the Washington government.

President George W. Bush in January 2008 on bringing the 2016 Olympics to Chicago:

They say that the Olympics will come to Chicago if we’re fortunate enough to be selected, but really it’s coming to America, and I can’t think of a better city to represent the United States than Chicago… This country supports your bid, strongly.

Conservative blogger Erik Erickson on the failed bid to bring the Olympics to Chicago which President Obama (like Bush) supported and lobbied heavily for: (via Washington Monthly)

Hahahahaha. I thought the world would love us more now that Bush was gone. I thought if we whored ourselves out to our enemies, great things would happen. Apparently not.

So Obama’s pimped us to every two bit thug and dictator in the world, made promises to half the Olympic committee, and they did not even kiss him. So much for improving America’s standing in the world, Barry O.

Karl Rove today via Twitter:

Instead of serving as pitchman for Chicago, Obama should focus on crafting a winning strategy in Afghanistan.

(One can safely assume that Rove is referring to creating a winning strategy in Afghanistan to replace the losing one he and the Bush Admin created.)

And, last but not least… upon news that the 2016 Olympics was not coming to Chicago, they cheered in the offices of the Weekly Standard and then felt the need to delete that fact from the official record.

Conservative Charles Johnson – who has of late seen that extremist lunatics run the conservative movement – has this to say:

This is where the rhetoric of “FAIL” leads — they’re openly celebrating when America loses, just because Barack Obama is President. And even though this Olympic bid was also promoted by George W. Bush.

This completely puts the lie to the excuse that those who say they want Obama to fail really mean they want his policies to fail.

No, they want Obama himself to fail, and if that means America fails too, they’re just fine with that.

In other words, conservatives, like Eric Rudolph, want to “confound, anger and embarrass the Washington government.”

Interesting….

The mother of a Kentucky high school football player is furious over the Christian baptism of her son during what he said was supposed to be a school outing to eat a steak dinner and see a “motivational speaker.”

Instead, Breckinridge County High School football coach Scott Mooney took 20 of his players on a trip to a Baptist revival, where eight or nine of the students underwent the Christian ritual of baptism, according to published reports.

Michelle Ammons, mother of 16-year-old Robert Coffee, said she’s upset that nobody ever asked her consent to take her son to the August 26 religious ceremony. She added that she’s even more upset with the school district superintendent Janet Meeks, who was at the revival and did not object to the coach including his students.

“Nobody should push their faith on anybody else,” Ammons told the Louisville Courier-Journal.

The Simpson’s:

From the New York Times:

It was a rare breach of the protocol that governs ritualistic events in the Capitol.

In an angry and very audible outburst, Representative Joe Wilson, Republican of South Carolina, interrupted President Obama’s speech Wednesday night with a shout of “You lie!”

His eruption — in response to Mr. Obama’s statement that Democratic health proposals would not cover illegal immigrants — stunned members of both parties in the House chamber.

Democrats said it showed lack of respect for the office of the presidency and was reminiscent of Republican disruptions at recent public forums on health care.

Right wing bloggers are trying to make the case that since Democrats booed loudly and shouted “No! No!” during George W. Bush’s 2005 SOTU speech, it’s okay for Rep. Joe Wilson to shout “You lie!” at Obama during his speech.

Now, it’s a real shame this has to even be clarified: there’s a huge difference between booing or yelling “No! No!” during a speech and shouting “You lie!”

Yelling “No! No!” or booing during a speech is merely an expression of disagreement with the speech itself. It’s a time honored form of disagreement in such circumstance, even within the walls of the capitol. It may be a breech of protocol, but one that is practiced nonetheless, from time to time.

But, shouting “You lie!” is more than an expression of disagreement with the speech by the president.

Shouting “You lie!” is an accusation. And, it was directed squarely at the president.

It’s a historically important moment that would have provoked riotous wailing from conservatives if done by a Democrat to a Republican president. Since when are accusations of lying okay?

The fact that conservatives simply do not get that is yet one more example of how deep down the rabbit hole they have crawled.

Rep. Wilson was right to apologize, even if he did so and then tried to immediately back pedal.

Anyway, it’s great for the cause.

Steve Benen at Washington Monthly really sums this one up nicely:

There are a few important angles to this. The first is substantive. When Wilson accused the president of lying, Wilson was, in fact, lying. Even in Congress, facts should matter, and the right-wing Republican wasn’t just obnoxious with his idiotic interruption, he was also wrong.

The second is personal. Joe Scarborough, a former Republican member of Congress, said, “Whoever shouted out that the president was lying is a dumbass.” John McCain denounced Wilson’s outburst as “totally disrespectful.” While right-wing blogs were thrilled, Republican lawmakers have been entirely unwilling to defend Wilson’s behavior.

The third is contextual. President Obama couldn’t have been more magnanimous last night, highlighting a plan that “incorporates ideas from many people in this room tonight, Democrats and Republicans.” He made frequent references to Republican lawmakers and even George W. Bush. Obama even talked up medical malpractice reform. It was in this context that Wilson decided to lash out? As Gail Collins noted this morning, “Let me go out on a limb and say that it is not a good plan to heckle the president of the United States when he’s making a speech about replacing acrimony with civility.”

The fourth is practical. While Dems have been divided of late on policy specifics, they were unified last night — they loved Obama and they hated Joe Wilson. Indeed, I’ve seen reports that Wilson’s Democratic opponent next year, Rob Miller, suddenly saw a wave of new campaign contributions in the wake of Wilson’s conduct.

It’s striking that Wilson, unable to find any support from his allies, quickly apologized. He said his emotions got the best of him, and issued a statement that said, “While I disagree with the president’s statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the president for this lack of civility.” He spoke directly to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel last night to express his regret.

But the damage has been done. Indeed, Wilson’s outburst is an almost perfect summation of 2009 — President Obama appears big, Republicans appear small. Democrat show class, Republicans act like children. One side is serious, one side is shrill. The White House says something true, Republicans lash out with falsehoods.

To be sure, Wilson is a buffoon, from whom very little is expected. He’s hosting Glenn Beck minions at his office this weekend, and is a reflexive, right-wing clown masquerading as a congressman. He embarrassed himself, his party, and his institution last night, but it’s unlikely Wilson actually cares whether he’s a disgrace or not. Bruce Bartlett noted this morning, “He’s become the new Sarah Palin of the Republican Party, where one’s popularity is in inverse proportion to one’s stupidity — the stupider a Republican is these days the more popular he or she becomes.”

What will be interesting to see if there are any real consequences. There’s been some talk of censure, or demanding that Wilson deliver a formal apology to the House itself.

Any return to civility is a good start. Whether we can carry such civility farther and get health care reform on track again, remains to be seen.