The News and the Politics

This bit on the Daily Dish sums up how politics have been seen in the MSM for too many years now.

Drum explains why the TV networks are obsessed with the Dow:

...nobody makes or loses money based on betting on the unemployment rate. And we don't have exciting video of traders going nuts on exchange floors when hourly wage numbers are announced. And anyway, all that stuff is only available on a monthly basis. You can hardly run a 24/7 cable show based on that, can you?

They also need winners and losers, as their treatment of politics has become indistinguishable from their treatment of sports. I'm happier online myself.

Speech!

Pres. Obama gave a hell of a speech tonight.

Here is the text of the speech.

Video here.


It is lovely to see Jindal's big shot went flat following on the president. Hmm, a future opponent's sabotage? Text for speech.

...

And you know it's bad when the folks at Fox think Jindal blew it.

...

Though I have to say this. I have started people today begin mocking Jindal through the use of his original Hindi name. Let us agree to not go there, okay? Doing to to Pres. Obama was bad. It demonstrated a nastiness and ugliness in Reps. If we go there and use his changed name (he apparently changed it out of a love for the Brady Bunch), how are we better? Cause we don't mean to be bigoted? Are we sure? He is an ass. He jumped into his faith as he got older in a creepy way (see exorcism). Let us be sure not to raise him up as a hero to conservatives and an example of how mean Dems and Liberals are. We are better than that.

There has to be a line

In the debate about religion, there has to be a lines, frontiers, points where we can't all go. All faith and lack their of, deserve scrutiny, debate, and healthy arguments. When it is too far, when it is dangerous to people, when it drives cruelty upon others, we have to stand up and say no.

But there are lines. There are plenty of problems in Islam, but not all Muslims are the same. Their are friendly neighbors, obnoxious bores, pricks, shy thinkers, doting parents, etc. The same is true of Christianity, and its sects, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, etc. When you have large and spread out populaces, you have diversity. To blindly jump at any possible opening is fraught with great risk for any honest person looking to bolster secular society. We have stories arise of atheist being threatened with being fired from jobs, but going in half cocked to find the person exaggerated a more complicated trouble cannot help but make us look bad. It is bad enough, through works like Expelled, Creationist try to spread false claims about science. We need to be better.

Which takes us to Bill Maher. Not exactly a poster boy for any positive cause. He is loud arrogant and abrasive, and more contrarian than debater. Put works like Religulous can open the questioning of religion to a few more...perhaps (Though I did really enjoy the monologues on the DVD).

But with the opening episode of this season of Real Time, he had on one Brigitte Gabriel. Who apparently sees all Muslims as a threat, and can never be trusted. That is not someone you turn to have a sane discussion on an issue, like the recent murder and beheading that have caused quite a stir. Where a Muslim husband viciously murdered his wife. Some have jumped to the assumption that it is yet another honor killing. But it does not seem so clear yet. It seems more likely that a husband was being left by his wife, and he took on the role of complete an utter fucking bastard, murdering her. It doesn't take faith to do this...ask Scott Peterson. But Maher likes to do his thing and she was the perfect choice to lay into the story. This murderer deserves scorn and punishment. But let us be sure we actually understand what happen. Let's not become Brigitte Gabriel, that helps no one. We need to be better.

Crooks and Liars:

I was wondering if Maher even realized who he was bringing on his show to comment on the beheading of a Muslim woman. Talk to Action's Chris Rodda has more on that in his post Maher Season Premiere Includes Islamophobe Who Said Muslim-Americans Shouldn't Hold Public Office:

But, while Maher was just exploiting the irony of the story, his via satellite guest for the segment, Brigitte Gabriel, was given a forum to further her fear-mongering cause. And, although as more of the facts emerge, the murder of Aasiya Hassan is looking less and less like an "honor killing," and more and more like just a horrible case of domestic violence in which the perpetrator happened to be a Muslim, this story is pure gold to someone like Gabriel, whose mission is to spread a message that no Muslim-American, no matter how "assimilated" they may appear, can be trusted. With her glee in proclaiming on Real Time that Muzzammil Hassan had called the police to "brag" that he had murdered his wife (something that is not true), Gabriel came across to the audience as a funny, personable guest joining Maher in a bit of sarcastic repartee about the story. To those of us familiar with Gabriel, however, her glee was taken as something quite different.

The real Brigitte Gabriel is a woman who has said that Muslim-Americans shouldn't be allowed to hold public office; instructs people to contact the F.B.I. if they see a mosque being built in their neighborhood; and has said that Muslim-Americans "are good at nothing but complaining about every single thing" and that "Every practicing Muslim is a radical Muslim."

...

The Post and Global Warming.

Many of us have noted the odd failure of the Washington Post to hold George Will massively inaccurate global warming pieces in check.

WaPo Loves Them Some Will-Full Deceit

But the Ombudsman of the Post has come out to make things worse.

Washington Post Ombudsman Compounds Global Warming Misinformation In Response To Reader Protests Over Will's Column

Lucky Andy Alexander. Even before he introduced himself as the new Washington Post Ombudsman, replacing the embattled Deborah Howell, he has already stepped into a rather steaming pile of dung. Sadly, instead of discerning the truth for the readers of Washington Post, Alexander opted to compound the error...

You see he claims that the ACRC report that Will quoted as supporting his position, despite the fact it doesn't, does support Will and is in line with the claims printed in the paper. What does one say when the vaunted middleman for the press and public says something like this? You call them a LIAR.

The Loyal Opposition

So what is happening among the Republicans these days?

Taking out vendettas against those that vote with the president.

Getting high level jobs at CBS News.

Trying to be hip, in the way ones parents occasionally try and fail.

Blocking another Dem from getting to the Senate by any means.

Being pissy about helicopters.

Trying to have their cake and eat it to.

Interesting note on strategy.

...

Matthew Yglesias has some thoughts on why Jindal is doing this in his post Bobby Jindal's Hostages.

My other thought is that there may be a “beggar thy neighbor” strategy going on here. If Louisiana makes its unemployment benefits less generous than what’s available in other states, then maybe unemployed citizens will leave Louisiana for Texas and other neighboring states, thus creating an artificial appearance of an improved economic situation. It would be the equivalent of Mike Bloomberg fighting poverty by demolishing all the low-income housing in New York and hoping the poor people all move elsewhere.

It's hard to say whether that might be true or not but since that was pretty well the response to Hurricane Katrina nothing would surprise me from the Republicans. The other possibility is that Ray Nagin is right and it's Jindal putting his presidential ambitions before the interest of his state. Not that I'm any fan of Ray Nagin but I'd have a lot of trouble disagreeing with him on this point and that it isn't just all politics for Jindal.

...

Making stupid comments (though that story looks exaggerated now) and claims about the presidents citizenship.

Being post-racial in the most old school ways. Thanks for reminding us Pat.

Claiming THEY are out to get them.

Relying on decades outdated strategies to knock down a president.


Ah, the Republicans. Not getting it since the 1920's.

Religious test two step

PZ Myers has taken note of a couple maneuvers across the country, involving how to treat faith and the absence.

Arkansas - Surprisingly there is a move to allow atheist in.

It's an ugly little open secret that Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas have constitutions that explicitly forbid atheists from holding state office. These laws are archaic and unenforceable in principle — they were all ruled unconstitutional in 1961 — but of course they're still in effect across all 50 states in practice, since public opinion makes it almost impossible for an atheist to get elected to high office.

Now, though, a representative in Arkansas has submitted a bill to amend the Arkansas constitution and remove the prohibition of atheists. ...

Washington - Don't disrespect my faith, and don't forget to acknowledge it.

While Arkansas takes a small step forward, a few people in my home state of Washington want to take a great leap backwards. Some crank named Kimberlie Struiksma, who is apparently associated with education, has proposed to put a remarkably clueless measure onto the ballot. Behold Initiative Measure No. 1040:

Ballot Title
Initiative Measure No. 1040 concerns a supreme ruler of the universe.

This measure would prohibit state use of public money or lands for anything that denies or attempts to refute the existence of a supreme ruler of the universe, including textbooks, instruction or research.

...

Deny? What does that mean. If a text contradicts "your beliefs", it's out? If research would bring troubling, to "your beliefs", realities of science to light, is it to be blocked? If I want to put up a Christmas display at the capitol that challenges "your beliefs, it is banned? Oh, you bet.

Iraq and Afghanistan

Informed Comment on Iraq:

McClatchy is alarmed at the rapid deterioration of relations between Kurds and Arabs in the north of Iraq. The victory of the Sunni Arab nationalist party, al-Hadba', in Ninevah Province has dealt a setback to the Kurds, who initially controlled the province's governing council and whose paramilitary, the Peshmerga, was deployed in parts of the province with Kurdish populations. The Kurdistan Regional Government has already erased the provincial divisions among Dohuk, Irbil and Sulaymaniya, and would like to absorb much of Ninevah Province, as well. The Green Line separating Kurdish territory from Arab is being redrawn and challenged, to the benefit of the Kurds.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a centralizer, has come into conflict with the Kurds over his desire to restore an effective central government.

Some of the alarmism on this issue derives from Iraqi-Kurdistan Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani, who says that Obama should intervene to settle outstanding Kurdish/ Arab disputes before the US troops draw down.

...

Informed Comment on Afghanistan:

President Barack Obama has decided to send 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, on the grounds that "the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention". Civilian deaths from political violence increased about 40% in 2008 over 2007, reaching over 2000. They will be sent to the Pushtun south and east of the country, where guerrilla fighting is expected to pick up with the advent of warm weather. The BBC says, "The deployment will be made up of 8,000 marines, and 4,000 army soldiers, plus another 5,000 support staff." The Marines will begin arriving in May.

What we saw in Iraq was that the sheer number of troops did not matter so much as how they are deployed and for what purpose. I hope that these troops are used well.

...

Michael Shermer and the Builders of the New Ark.

Interesting trip, can't help but be reminded of an episode of Johnathan Creek with a group of religious nuts building an ark in the center of Britain.

Skeptiblog:

During the first week of February, 2009, on the occasion of Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday celebrations at various locals around England (including his birthplace city of Shrewsbury — see photo montage below), my hosts Andrew Kelly (a science writer who authored a gorgeous coffee-table book entitled Darwin: For the Love of Science) and Bruce Hood (a University of Bristol cognitive psychologist and author of the forthcoming book Supersense), arranged for a visit to Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm in Bristol, run by a kindly creationist gentleman named Anthony Bush. (Yes, in addition to being a zoo for the public to tour, it is a working farm.)

...

Think positive

Daily Dish:

Britain comes up with a plan to save its economy:

For exactly two minutes on March 6th at 11.00am our consortium of psychics and healers will act as a channel for the positive thoughts of the entire country...

It is a proven scientific fact that thinking about something often causes it to happen. Some call this quantum physics.

See everything will be improving. I love Doctor Who, but England has to know better.

McCain and King celebrate a Pres. McCain victory

TPM notes a charming headline that CNN had up on its site yesterday.

Obama off to bad start...

So says Senator, and two time presidential run loser, John McCain. Yeah, getting the presidency, getting the stimulus through, passing SCHIP, etc. What a loser. YEESCH!

But not to worry. Not to worry. John King was there to help...McCain.

Crooks and Liars:

...

KING: Well, if it’s the old business as usual, didn’t President Obama promise a new way of doing things in Washington? You say it was a terrible start. Are you sitting in your office these days saying, "I told you so"?

This from the man who warned Obama about being too liberal.

Forehead, meet keyboard. What I wouldn't give to see an intellectually honest discussion of the stimulus bill...obviously, it will not be found on "State of the Union".

Yeah, thanks King and CNN. And I noticed a segment title last night on CNN. Apparently since Obama is going to Denver to sign the stimulus into law, he's "snubbing" Washington.

...snubbing? So every time a President goes out into the world to sign a bill, like a national park, they have just snubbed Washington. After the work Obama has begun to connect political Washington to that place people actually work and live...snub? CNN, how full of shit can you be?

Sex...in...Space

I know officially Valentine's Day is over. But for some of you...[wink]

So be sure to check out for your further education...


Smartaxe and Sex in Space.

Don't worry the beltway pundits are in the know.

TPM has noted the dissonance between the polls and opinions of people across the country and what pundits and the news people in Washington and NYC think. Seems the country is more than willing to trust Pres. Obama for now and let him work, and applaud his attempts at bipartisanship, and hold the Reps accountable for their actions. But that ways so lightly on the pundits and MSM.

"It's eerie -- I read the news from the Beltway, and there's this disconnect with the polls from the Midwest that I see all around me."

That's from Ann Seltzer, the Iowa pollster who's an expert on public opinion throughout the midwest, as quoted by Ben Smith.

It really is the big story of the first weeks of the Obama administration. In Washington, it was a battle royale between the new president and an emboldened Republican minority. At times they seemed to have him on the ropes. And yet in the country at large, Obama remains super popular. And the GOP is wildly unpopular.

...

But there's a very big problem with this strategy above and beyond the absurdity of the argument. "Congress" may be really unpopular. And the Democrats now control Congress. But politics is a zero sum game. At the end of the day, in almost every case, you've got to pick a Republican or a Democrat when you vote. And if you look at the numbers, congressional Democrats are pretty popular. And congressional Republicans are extremely unpopular. If you look at the number, the Dems are at about 50% or higher in most recent polls, while the GOP is down in the 30s.

The city remains wired for the GOP. Not that it's done them a great deal of good of late. But it remains a key part of understanding every part of what is happening today.

More from TPM:

So John McCain says that Obama needs to work on bipartisanship, which is about par for the course from McCain and for other Republicans these days. I just heard a reporter on MSNBC say that the Republicans have emerged from this battle with their reputation for fiscal discipline strengthened while Obama has had his reputation for bipartisanship tarnished.

As annoying as it is to hear this stuff, I can't say I'm losing a lot of sleep over it. Because in addition to being nonsensical on its face, I really don't think most people around the country are seeing any of this that way. The primary aim of this is to work the refs, the refs being DC political reporters, who are usually pretty easy to work. And they seem to be so in this case. But I don't think this is what most people see. I think the number of people who are into bipartisanship is greatly overstated. However, the number of people who are into it are heavily correlated with those who are politically gettable. So it's not nothing. But Obama has made repeated overtures to Republicans and included probably more of their goodies than I'd like in his bill. And he's been greeted by a phalanx of opposition, nonsense and trash talk.

It's true that many voters without strong partisan attachments want to see politicians 'get some things done' and not just get into political fights. I think what most people see here is one side of equation trying to put together a bill with big majorities, which means necessarily ones that wouldn't be his own parties wish list. The other party has used the overture exclusively as a vehicle for scoring political points and, more poetically put, being dicks.

For my part, I don't think there's any problem with having party line votes where both parties really fundamentally disagree on the policy question at hand. But to the extent that there's a question of who's making an effort to operate in a bipartisan manner, this one is really not even close. Reporters' idea that the entire 'bipartisan' enterprise is Obama's responsibility, as though Republicans, in their depleted state, actually get to dictate the content of bills -- I don't think people buy that. Which is probably why Obama's still really popular and congressional Republicans are extremely unpopular.

And I do love that, "I just heard a reporter on MSNBC say that the Republicans have emerged from this battle with their reputation for fiscal discipline strengthened while Obama has had his reputation for bipartisanship tarnished." Really? I love the one sided read. Global warming and evolution, they want to have both sides heard. But on the president's endeavors, they just need the talking points. Why is that?

They'll just be happy in private.

Looking at Crooks and Liars, it seems that a number of Republicans weren't as resolute in opposing the stimulus bill. They know what is best for their populace and the country, they just won't vote to do it. That is today's Republican party.

HuffPo:

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), who broke with his party to support President Obama's stimulus package last week, said before the final vote Friday that more of his colleagues would have joined were they not afraid of the political consequences.

"When I came back to the cloak room after coming to the agreement a week ago today," said Specter, "one of my colleagues said, 'Arlen, I'm proud of you.' My Republican colleague said, 'Arlen, I'm proud of you.' I said, 'Are you going to vote with me?' And he said, 'No, I might have a primary.' And I said, 'Well, you know very well I'm going to have a primary.'"

...

"I think there are a lot of people in the Republican caucus who are glad to see this action taken without their fingerprints, without their participation," he said.

...

Gutless, gutless wonders....they allegedly agree on the need for the stimulus, but are afraid to stand up for what's right. Ladies and gentlemen, once again, I give you today's GOP. Explain to me why Democrats keep expressing the need for bipartisanship...

...

Critiquing Olbermann

Orac and some others have noted a bothersome misstep from Keith Olbermann on Countdown this last week.

Now have have to disagree with Orac's opinion of Olbermann. He has been looking at him a lot like Limbaugh and now seems to have a lower opinion. Now it seems he sees Limbaugh as a fool and worth a laugh over an afternoon. I can't see it that way. Let's just say, "I hope he fails." Okay. Olbermann has been willing and eager to go after Bush and criticize, but, unlike Limbaugh, it isn't about trashing the country to just win a fight (over being more right than others). Rush is a mean fool who takes pleasure in building himself up on the misfortune of others. Ridicule of the poor, the ill, the unfortunate is par for the course. So to even trying to put him on par with Olbermann, even if you consider him all ego and bragger, is insulting and dubious. And knocking his sense of humor was cheap, though a matter of an individuals opinion.


But Olbermann has been drawn in to do anti-vacc dirty work. Last week he pointed to reports of how work of one of the main opponents of vaccination was in question, it looked to be fake. Big news. Then his people got a word that the one reporting on the story was suspect. He reported this as well. But the reality of this idea is not true. So Olbermann is in the wrong. Pushing forward a claim without merit.

Keith Olbermann: Played for a fool by the antivaccine movement

...

Too bad tonight Olbermann let himself be played like a fiddle by antivaccine propagandist David Kirby, the man who, with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., was instrumental in launching the American version of the MMR scare, namely the thimerosal/mercury scare that roared into the states in 2004 and is now maintained by Jenny McCarthy--still aided and abetted by David Kirby. No, Kirby played Olbermann like Itzhak Perlman playing a goddamned Stradivarius. Indeed, Kirby played on Olbermann's hatred of Rupert Murdoch...

Brian Deer responds to Keith Olbermann


Olbermann needs to make amends admit to the mistake and call those who played him out for yet another of the denier's games.

New Skeptics' Circle

Time for another skeptics' circle.

Skeptics’ Circle #105: The Shakespeare Edition

...

In honor of the 105th edition, we’re going to take a look at William Shakespeare’s Sonnet 105. Although of course it’s actually about the beauty, gentleness, and loyalty of one’s beloved, I think we can give it a skeptical reading if we try hard enough. And with Valentine’s Day right around the corner, a love poem seemed appropriate. So let’s get right to it!

...

Judging vaccs

Dr. Novella:

Autism Court Ruling - Vaccines Didn’t Cause Autism

The much awaited decision on the first test case of the Autism Omnibus was just announced - and it’s good news. They have found that the petitioners failed to make their case that vaccines caused their children’s autism, and that therefore compensation was not appropriate.

...

Oh no! Bipartisanship!

AMERICAblog:

I told Joe half an hour ago that some knucklehead in the media would claim that this was another sign of how not-bipartisan Obama really is. And here you go, from Politico:

New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg has abruptly withdrawn as President Barack Obama’s nominee to run the Commerce Department, another blow to an administration trying to build a bipartisan cabinet.

...

Ah, Politico. Trying so hard to be wrong.

...

Yes, after Gregg pulls out, Obama "only" has two remaining Republican members of his Cabinet. I believe that would be a historic high for opposition members serving in a presidential cabinet (the usual number is "one"). Does Obama get credit for trying to add a THIRD Republican, putting him at 300% of the usual members of the Cabinet one chooses from the other side? Hardly. And when Gregg decides to pull out, apparently because Obama wouldn't just hand the entire stimulus bill over to President Gregg, he grabs his marbles and goes home. And somehow, this is a "blow" to Obama's efforts to be bipartisan - that Judd Gregg is a spoiled brat, and as a result, President Obama is stuck with "only" 200% of the normal number of opposition members in his Cabinet. Uh huh.

And this has been a call from so many corners of the media. Republicans don't like a bill, where is Obama's promise? Obama calls Reps on be obstructive, why is he so unbipartisan? Obama won't do what Reps tell him, why's he such a meany?

Apparently trying to work with the opposition means you're always in the wrong.

Judd Gregg

Andrew Sullivan has an interest look at this affair, with the whole hockey pokey in Commerce.

Gregg Was Pwned

It gets clearer. When Judd Gregg approached the Obama administration to see if he could be a part of it, he was assuming that his own party wasn't going to adopt a policy of total warfare against the newly elected president in a time of enormous economic peril. Between that moment and the current all-out ideological assault on Obama, his position became untenable. His recusal on the stimulus package provoked fury at home (check out the comments here) and dyspepsia among the GOP who are intent on responding to an open hand with a clenched fist.

...

Gregg And The GOP's War On Obama

Ambers and I discuss the Gregg pull-out, under partisan Republican pressure not to cooperate with the president...

The Census Canard

Again, this is not a real issue. It's an issue driven by the paranoid GOP base. The census has not been removed from the Commerce Department's purview, as Ambers explains below. And past censuses have long been conducted with coordination from the White House staff...

...

This issue was championed by Republicans for the usual "the-darkies-are-taking-over!" reasons. And Gregg's broad support for the kind of stimulus bill Obama has just got through the conference is a matter of public record. So the real reason for Gregg's departure is that he simply couldn't handle the backlash from his own party for providing bipartisan cover for Obamanomics. I guess they believe that assaulting the new president as he tries to reach out is their ticket for future relevance. Hello to all this ...

So to sum.

The GOP Has Declared War On Obama

This much is now clear. Their clear and open intent is to do all they can, however they can, to sabotage the new administration (and the economy to boot). They want failure. Even now. Even after the last eight years. Even in a recession as steeply dangerous as this one. There are legitimate debates to be had; and then there is the cynicism and surrealism of total political war. We now should have even less doubt about what kind of people they are. And the mountain of partisan vitriol Obama will have to climb every day of the next four or eight years.

He said Darwin...5 points

PZ Myers was nice enough to link to the video of Pres. Obama at the Lincoln dinner last night.

One thing that was a surprise last night was that Pres. Obama was actual able to, willing to, and eager to segue for a moment to one Charles Darwin, which I can't remember other presidents doing (not segueing from Lincoln to Darwin, but just talking Darwin...I was afraid it was in that taboo area you find Taiwan and Israeli nukes).

But this is the trend following on his continued references to nonbelievers in religious conversations and comments. Atheist have been leery of getting caught up just because the president is willing to acknowledge them as citizens and relevant. Though it was interesting to see some comments that nonbelievers wasn't the ideal term, then some suggested the term humanist, which was followed a short time later when the president used that term (again, something you just never hear from presidents). It is nice to hear, and as with the mention of Darwin it was meant to acknowledge him and hive accolades to the importance of science for the nation. It seems he is eager to support it. Real science. And while he has supported faith based initiatives, the president has also made comments about the value of secular charities and their place in this process, which I hope leads to this concept being expanded to incorporate the far wider selection of charities in this program.

Perhaps we can end up with a country where the occasional shout out is unimportant, as we are inundate with good science and a more secular society. But I'm not an optimist so I won't be saying it.

ADDED:

Some video that PZ Myers is pointing to.

Oh, Dianne...

Crooks and Liars is taking note of Sen Dianne Feinstein's work to add a little something to the Stimulus package.

Is Diane Feinstein trying to sneak draconian internet control legislation into the stimulus bill? It sure looks that way.

The Register:

US Senator Dianne Feinstein hopes to update President Barack Obama's $838bn economic stimulus package so that American ISPs can deter child pornography, copyright infringement, and other unlawful activity by way of "reasonable network management."

Clearly, a lobbyist whispering in Feinstein's ear has taken Comcast's now famous euphemism even further into the realm of nonsense.

According to Public Knowledge, Feinstein's network management amendment did not find a home in the stimulus bill that landed on the Senate floor. But lobbyists speaking with the Washington DC-based internet watchdog said that California's senior Senator is now hoping to insert this language via conference committee - a House-Senate pow-wow were bill disputes are resolved.

...