...
In our first show, we discussed House Resolution 888, Robert G. Ingersoll, the discovery of a transitional fossil, and an interview with Richard Dawkins (also includes a short interview with PZ Myers).
Visit their new website at:http://mnatheists.org
This happened in a blur late yesterday, so it seems worth a quick revisit to clarify what happened. Yesterday the Hillary and Obama campaigns were battling over who actually won the most delegates, with the Obama campaign and the Associated Press saying the real tally was 13 for the Illinois Senator, and 12 for Hillary.And what will the McCain win in SC mean?
...
For my part, I would have vastly preferred to see Mike Huckabee win this thing tonight. But McCain's victory tonight does set us up to get an answer to an important question: just how much enmity is there for John McCain among base Republican voters?
A few days ago, Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show that "we" find John McCain "unacceptable." Yesterday the disgraced former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said that "McCain has done more to hurt the Republican party than any elected official I know of."
I don't know how much juice DeLay has among Republicans these days. But as big a buffoon as he may be, I think having Rush Limbaugh saying you're unacceptable on the radio every day is a real obstacle to consolidating the support of the Republican party. Nor is it just Limbaugh; there's a deep enmity toward McCain, especially among a lot of the right-wing national press.
But how deep does that really cut? Especially if polls show, as I suspect they will, that McCain is the strongest general election opponent? I don't know the answer to that question. I don't have the cite. But a poll that came out soon after his New Hampshire win seemed to show that there wasn't much of a core of opposition to McCain among Republicans nationwide.
...
Bill Moyers gives his perspective on the “tempest in a teapot” of the Hillary vs. Obama media brawl over LBJ and MLK:As the pressure intensified on each side, Johnson wanted King to wait a little longer and give him a chance to bring Congress around by hook or crook. But Martin Luther King said his people had already waited too long. He talked about the murders and lynchings, the churches set on fire, children brutalized, the law defied, men and women humiliated, their lives exhausted, their hearts broken. LBJ listened, as intently as I ever saw him listen. He listened, and then he put his hand on Martin Luther King’s shoulder, and said, in effect: “OK. You go out there Dr. King and keep doing what you’re doing, and make it possible for me to do the right thing.” Lyndon Johnson was no racist but he had not been a civil rights hero, either. Now, as president, he came down on the side of civil disobedience, believing it might quicken America’s conscience until the cry for justice became irresistible, enabling him to turn Congress. So King marched and Johnson maneuvered and Congress folded.
...
1.) What's interesting about this whole affair is that neither Clinton nor Barack are delivering knockout blows. Hillary will likely emerge with a couple more delegates than Barack, but nothing to essentially knock him out of the race. He's got plenty of cash to go on. She certainly does. This race can drag out for a long time.
Two brokered convetions in the same year? Wouldn't that be something!
2.) Edwards did poorly in a state that was once supposed to be a stronghold because of its strong labor presence. His numbers were better than 4% -- the caucus rules forced his supporters to pick one of the other candidates because of a lack of viability. But still, this isn't going to do much for his stalling effort. And with polling in the teens in his home state of South Carolina, this may be the last week of his campaign.
3.) Who is running with the most progressive rhetoric? Edwards, first. Then Clinton. And then Obama, who is still trying to be a palatable general election candidate rather than close the deal in the primary. So riddle me this -- in a Democratic primary, where will many Edwards supporters go? Don't assume it'll be Obama if they're looking for the strongest Democratic voice in the race.
Obama's path to the nomination at this point runs through Democratic voters. And ultimately, while my absentee ballot will be mailed out Monday with his name checked off, I'm pessimistic that he can win. He has shown no proclivity for speaking in unambiguous progressive tones, and it could cost him the election.
4.) Remember those who mocked Jerome Armstrong's predictions that Obama wouldn't win the nomination? Remember how I said, "it's a solid theory" and people laughed at my stupidity for taking it seriously? Well, his theories don't look so stupid anymore, do they? Yet some of you acted like insane freaks. Pretty darn shameful.
There is one caveat -- Jerome argued that Obama would lose the nomination even if he won New Hampshire, which he expected Obama to do. I still maintain that would've been tough as shit, since Hillary was starting to experience money problems. Losing both Iowa and NH would've dried up her cash. But who knows? Jerome and I will never be able to settle that "bet".
But I never dismissed his theories that Obama's fundamental weakness -- his refusal to run as a Democrat in a Democratic primary -- would ultimately prove his undoing. Of course it's not too late, and much can and will happen. Jerome may yet be wrong. But his core argument was never wrong, and subsequent contests have proven that.
Dear Clinton partisans celebrating Hillary's nomination today,
Didn't you learn a lesson from New Hampshire?
Hugs and kisses,
kos
Dear Obama partisans,
If Edwards were to drop out of the race, there's no reason to assume that all his supporters would become Obama supporters. Not everyone that supports a non-Hillary candidate is "anti-Hillary".
And insulting them for remaining Edwards supporters won't win any converts.
Hugs and kisses,
kos
...
A group called Ansar al-Mahdi (Supporters of the Promised One), which may or may not be the same as or related to the Army of Heaven cult that attacked Najaf in January of 2007, engaged Iraqi police and army forces in two major southern cities. The disturbances are said to have affected 75% of Basra neighborhoods and to have left some 50 dead and dozens wounded. Basra, population 1.5 million, is Iraq's major port and the place from which its petroleum is exported. A security collapse there would deeply affect the whole country.
Al-Qabas reports in Arabic that the Supporters of the Promised One attacked and took control of a police checkpoint in Basra, then set it ablaze. Eyewitnesses told the Kuwait News Agency (KUNA)that the checkpoint stood at the Jumhuriya intersection in downtown Baghdad. The cultists killed three Iraqi soldiers and several civilian bystanders.
In the nearby al-Janinah neighborhood in Jumhuriya district, the zealots wounded two policemen and then took over their checkpoint, burning it down.
Sawt al-Iraq reports in Arabic that Basra police chief Abdul Jalil Khalaf said that fighting also broke out in al-Andalus quarter in central Basra. He maintained that Iraqi police had killed Abu Mustafa al-Ansari, the alleged leader of the Basra uprising. Khalaf had ordered an assault on the sect's headquarters. After that, the disturbances spread to other districts of the city, including Jumuhuriya, Janinah and Jabaliya.
Eyewitnesses in Jabaliya who participated in processions honoring Imam Husayn said that the Supporters of the Promised One killed two traffic cops and kidnapped a third who had been wounded in a police car in a confrontation with the cultists near the Gulf Flour Co. They reported that the Supporters then commandeered six emergency rescue vehicles and two police cars.
The cultists occupied the Oil Institute building and a hospital in Zahra district. Iraqi troops (presumably of the 14th Division) then deployed attack helicopters to strike at the Husayniya (Shiite Mourning Center) in Zahra District where the Supporters of the Promised One were holed up. A woman was killed by a sniper's bullet in Ma`qal District, 7 miles north of Basra.
The Supporters of the Promised One also attacked and killed members of the Sadr movement in Basra. After that, the Sadrist paramilitary, the Mahdi Army, joined the fray against them on the side of the government forces. Sadrist spokesman Salah al-Ubaydi said in Najaf that the Mahdi Army had no connection to the disturbances in Basra, and that the JAM was uninvolved in this outbreak of violence.
Iraqi government sources maintained that they had reestablished control by Friday evening, setting up inspection checkpoints in most major intersections. The LAT reports 50 killed in the Basra fighting, at least.
Nasiriya is a smaller city than Basra, lying to its north in Dhi Qar Province. The Supporters of the Promised One or Ansar al-Mahdi also came into conflict with Iraqi security forces in that city. The LAT reports 20 killed and 25 wounded. A sniper from among the Supporters killed Col. Naji al-Jabiri (commander of the city's Special Forces brigade). They also killed the Director of the Police Operations Office.
A police spokesman in Nasiriya said, "A group of millenarians attacked the HQ of police investigations in Nasiriya with light and medium arms. Clashes broke out that led to the death of Col. Zamil Ramid, the assistant director of investigations." He added, "Army troops arrived at the place and succeeded in expelling the gunmen." The local authorities announced a curfew in Nasiriya "until further notice."
According to eyewitnesses, Supporters had come to the mosque to pray while carrying firearms. They refused to disarm when the police accosted them. A policemen is said to have told them, "We do not wish to prevent you from praying, but we do not want to see the brandishing of weapons."
The Supporters refused to relinquish their weapons, saying "The Imam Mahdi will appear today and we want to fight the apostates alongside him."
Al-Qabas says that a big battle broke out in Salihiya District in north Nasiriya between the Supporters and security forces. A spokesman for the millenarians, Abd al-Imam Jabbar, is quoted as saying that they had launched into action on the basis of a fatwa given by Sayyid Ahmad b. al-Hasan [al-Basri al-Yamani], in hopes that if they could disrupt security it would provoke the appearance of the Imam Mahdi or Promised One.
Another police officer said that the sectarians were waving yellow standards and wearing yellow headbands, and were shooting indiscriminately in north Nasiriya. He added that the Supporters had rocket propelled grenades. When an Army rapid reaction force intervened against them, they waged a fierce battle with it, and badly wounded its commander, Capt. Abd al-Amir Jabbar al-Munadi. They also killed 4 other policemen and wounded 9. Nasiriya's morgue said that among the dead was a woman, in addition to the 4 policemen.
The sectarians were said to have been bent on disrupting the Shiite processions on behalf of Imam Husayn, in hopes that by creating chaos, they would bring about the advent of the promised one.
Special Police Commandos from the Interior Minister arrested 8 members of the group.
Western wire services and newspapers quote Iraqis from Nasiriya as saying that machine gun fire and explosions could still be heard into the night, unlike the case with Basra, where order appears to have been restored.
Some will say that it is good news that the Iraqi security forces were able to put down the uprising by themselves. This is true, though how much help the US gave, exactly, is shrouded in mystery on these shores. But it is also true that the cultists were able to kill one high ranking army officer and to wound two others, and to kill several police and military troops. And it is further true that this group is relatively tiny, whereas if the Mahdi Army really did launch a challenge to the government, it is not clear whether it could survive.
...
Our neighbor to the north had added the United States to its list of nations that torture:In Canada, the United States has joined a notorious group of countries -- Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Afghanistan and China, among others -- as a place where foreigners risk torture and abuse, according to a training manual for Canadian diplomats that was accidentally given this week to Amnesty International lawyers....
The manual is intended to create "greater awareness among consular officials to the possibility of Canadians detained abroad being tortured." Part of the workshop is devoted to teaching diplomats how to identify people who have been tortured. It features a section on "U.S. interrogation techniques," including forced nudity, hooding and isolation.
Outside of Sarkozy, Blair doesn't appear to be very popular. The Bush boot-licking and pro-war position isn't helping his ascension to EU president.Hence the alarmed reaction of M. Giscard and M. Balladur. M. Giscard, 81, told a committee of the French National Assembly he would not be a candidate but added that the job must go only to a politician from a country which "respected all Europe's commitments" and whose public opinion was whole-heartedly European. In other words, no Tony Blair and no Brits.
M. Balladur, who was prime minister from 2003 to 2005, said in the newspaper Le Monde: "To be accepted by all, the president of the Union must come from a country... determined to build European independence, especially in defence and foreign affairs.
"How could Mr Blair embody this ambition when, in the disastrous episode in Iraq, he always clung zealously to the views of the US or even incited them? Mr Blair is, for sure, a remarkable person but he cannot be the symbol of a Europe which wants to exist."
John Zogby has his final numbers out for South Carolina. And things are looking really good for Mike Huckabee. As I noted last night, John McCain has been leading all the polls since New Hampshire. But the final few days have shown a swing back toward Huckabee. And this final survey shows the same trend. Zogby's poll yesterday had McCain at 29% and Huckabee at 22%. Today's has it McCain 27% and Huckabee 26%.
Needless to say that still has McCain slightly ahead. And these movements are within the margin of error. However, this same trend has shown up in several separate surveys. And the two final ones both show Huck either pulling even or moving ahead.
The pattern in each of these races has been for the candidate with the momentum at the end to overshoot his or her numbers. So, as I said, this could be a good night for Huckabee. And if Huckabee wins it'll leave the Republican race in even more of a mess than it already is
...
BANKS: (Reading a question ) "I am a lesbian and my partner of 20 years is sick. She can't afford her medical expenses and because we are not legally married, my policy won't cover her. How can you help us?"Nice to hear about her stand on benefits for partners. I hope to hear like from Obama and Edwards soon.
HRC: I believe that if you are in a committed relationship, you ought to be able to have your benefits go to that person, or to anyone else. Suppose you are living with your brother and you want him to have your benefits. He wants you to have your benefits. Suppose you are taking care of and living with your mother. If you are in a committed relationship, no matter what that relationship is.
BANKS: Woman, woman, man, man, it doesn't matter.
HRC: That's right. I believe the benefits are yours and you ought to be able to give them and pass them on to whomever you choose. Also, as we begin to see different states making these decisions, civil unions, domestic partners and, marriage, the federal government ought to make all of the benefits through Social Security and other programs available to any legally recognized relationship and I intend to do that.
When I heard a long segment reporting on the recent UFO sighting over Stephenville, Texas on NPR I knew this was one UFO story that was getting a lot of media play. Such sightings are common, and often make a small splash in local media, but for some reason this story was making the mainstream media rounds.
...
...
The skeptics circle is a good way to learn about skeptical blogs and catch the flavor of the various bloggers out there. So click on over.
...
Bush just announced his plans to rescue the economy in a statement covered live on CNN. He wants a "growth package." Less than a month ago, in the December 29, 2007 radio address, Bush was singing the praises of the ecomony he's foisted upon us.
You have to wonder just how bad the Bush people think the economy is if they're willing to compromise on the centerpiece of Bush's presidency: The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.
...
Bush never compromises. But, now, he's going to compromise on his tax cuts. In his remarks, Bush did say the tax cuts need to become permanent -- but apparently he's not going to hold up the stimulus package over them. That says a lot about the state of our economy.
So, how did you spend that 300.00 rebate check you got from long ago? I doubt individuals will give it back to the economy. The reason—Bills, bills, bills…. Anyway, all you economists please comment on the Bush economy speech…
Kevin Drum picks up on the tax cut point and says:
Bernanke is saying, as clearly as he can, that a temporary economic downturn shouldn’t be used as a cynical excuse to pass new long-term tax cuts or to make existing tax cuts permanent. Not only would that have no effect on the economy right now, but it would likely make future economic problems even more intractable.
Getting Us Out Of Iraq Can Get Us Out Of The RecessionThink of how much money we’d save…
...
First, I can appreciate the fact that McCain is vulnerable on the issue. Before the 2000 campaign, McCain didn’t support the Confederate flag. Before the South Carolina primary, he switched, endorsing the flag. After the primary, he switched back, saying his pre-primary position was an “act of political cowardice.” If Huckabee wants to point that out, it’s certainly fair game, but that clearly wasn’t the message yesterday.
Second, Huckabee certainly has a unique approach to federalism. On the one hand, the federal government should have minimal input on state laws. On the other, Huckabee wants to redo the Constitution to bring it in line with “God’s standards,” limiting states’ rights on marriage equality and reproductive rights.
And third, in the 21st century, do we still need to use a Civil War battle flag as red meat for far-right Republicans?
There were a lot of humorous and/or ridiculous campaign moments this week, so we've started a new weekly Friday roundup of all the choicest clips of the week past. Squirrel eating, candidate constipation and how Rudy has become like the Black Knight from Monty Python's Holy Grail ...
The publication of our January/February issue saw the coronation of Dinesh D'Souza as 2007's most scurrilous enemy of reason, after he walked away with our prestigious Bad Faith Award having scooped an astonishing 22% of the public vote.
In a field crowded by heavyweights like the Bishop of Carlisle, Chuck Norris and Pope Benedict XVI, D'Souza came from nowhere to seize the award ahead of many of the world's leading bigots, charlatans and proselytisers.
...
A pro-Confederate Flag third-party group is running new radio ads in South Carolina praising Mike Huckabee's pro-state's-rights stance on the flag issue -- and slamming John McCain over his repeated criticism of the controversial symbol.
"Mike Huckabee's stand is a breath of fresh air," say the ads, which are paid for by the Americans for the Preservation of American Culture. "Gov. Huckabee understands that all the average guy with a Confederate Flag on his pickup truck is saying is: He's proud to be a Southerner."
McCain has been dogged by the flag issue in South Carolina since his 2000 Presidential run; he's repeatedly denounced it, calling it a "racist symbol." There are two versions of the ad, one attacking McCain, the other attacking Romney, who's also condemned the flag. Listen to them both (the second starts roughly at the one-minute mark):
...
Remember when stopping opium production in Afghanistan was one of the numerous talking points? That didn't work out very well in Afghanistan and now it's moving into Iraq.
The speed with which farmers are turning to poppies is confirmed by the Iraqi news agency al-Malaf Press, which says that opium is now being produced around the towns of Khalis, Sa'adiya, Dain'ya and south of Baladruz, pointing out that these are all areas where al-Qa'ida is strong....Now opiates are expanding in Iraq...Great. I doubt this will end up funding violence, like in Afghanistan, Colombia, Burma...Great.
...
Jonah Goldberg has been complaining since before the release of his book, Liberal Fascism: How To Smear Liberals With Classic Right-Wing Projection, that there just weren't any liberals who took it seriously. And it's been a steady patter ever after, joyfully dismissing liberal critics either for being too scatological, or for not having read the book, or for just not being "serious."
And then there's me.
I did read the book, and wrote a review for The American Prospect that was, frankly, quite scathing, but otherwise perfectly serious in its examination of Goldberg's arguments and evidence. Jonah responded, kind of: as I promptly pointed out, that while Goldberg expends a great deal of time excoriating and dismissing various details within the review, he utterly neglected to address its central point. Which seemed to me a reasonable expectation.
Since then, Goldberg simply hasn't responded himself, except for a brief dismissal. But hey, the fans keep sending in those cards and letters! And those nasty liberals still won't talk about his book seriously! Meanwhile, I published a detailed counter to his response last Sunday -- but so far, Goldberg has neglected to acknowledge its existence.
I've also e-mailed and asked if he could at least let me know if he'd be responding, and have heard nothing back.
So it now appears that Goldberg is more than happy to respond to right-wingers like his NRO cohort Michael Ledeen because, well, they're "serious" -- which is to say, they don't attack his central thesis. The left? Oh, they're just not "serious". OK, even when they are "serious" -- that is, they read the book, published their review in a national venue, and the critical issues raised are by any standard serious points, they're not really serious because they're not on subjects that Jonah wants to talk about (i.e., subjects that undermine the entirety of his enterprise).
Now, I know being raised in a place like Idaho makes me something of a crude bumpkin, manners-wise, but where I came from, there was just one word for this kind of nonsense: chickenshit.
We "liberal fascists" want to know: Is Goldberg sincere about having a serious dialogue about the real problems with his thesis? Or is he just playing a deeply cynical game? I think the answer is becoming clearer daily.
Perhaps it would help if Jonah explained what he means by "serious." I know that I'm being deadly serious, because Goldberg's book, in my view, wreaks havoc with the public's understanding of the very real phenomenon of fascism -- a subject I've been involved in trying to educate the public about for years.
...
Posts
All Comments
