Monday, October 05, 2009

Why do conservatives hate America? (part II)

During the Bush era, Republicans from Karl Rove to Joe Wilson questioned — in ways both veiled and overt — the patriotism of Democrats who challenged the administration’s Iraq policy, pre-war intelligence and surveillance programs.

But the joyous reaction in some GOP quarters to the International Olympics Committee's snub of Chicago — coupled with the party’s rapid-fire reaction to bad economic data – has some Democrats turning the tables and asking if Republicans are the ones cheering against America now.

Many Democrats saw the outbursts following the IOC decision – the merry Tweets, videos of cheering conservatives and chest-thumping by party leaders like Newt Gingrich — as part of larger pattern that includes the flirtation of right-wing Texans like Gov. Rick Perry with secession and the caustic tone of right-wing talk radio, embodied by Rush Limbaugh’s “I want him to fail” comment about Obama in January.

“Some of these people are starting to put politics first and country second,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, taking particular issue with Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

“The American people are starting to wonder if they are rooting against America,” he added.


Remember "freedom fries" instead of French fries in the Congressional cafeteria? Yeah, even Walter Jones knows now how stupid that was.

That was a long time ago -- before teabag parties, before Orly Taitz and the "birthers", before disruptive town halls, before Barack Hussein Obama not placing his hand over his heart during the national anthem, before Sarah Palin and "death panels", before the scapegoating of Van Jones for calling them assholes, before "You lie", before Rick Perry's secessionist adventure, and certainly before last week's celebrating over Chicago losing the Olympics.

A young organizer at the conservative “Defending the American Dream Summit” interrupted a panel discussion last Friday to reads the news from a BlackBerry.

A tracker attending the event caught the crowd’s reaction in the Arlington, Va. hotel ballroom on video: The place erupted in hooting and wild applause, a scene perversely reminiscent of the exultation that followed the U.S. Olympic hockey team’s “Miracle on Ice” victory against the Soviets in 1980.

“[Chicago lost] on the very first vote! They did not have any chance…” the woman said to an ovation, according to the video, which was recorded by a National Journal tracker and blasted to reporters by Think Progress, an offshoot of the liberal Center for American Progress.

A blogger with the right-wing Weekly Standard reported: “Chicago loses! Chicago loses!... Cheers erupt at WEEKLY STANDARD world headquarters,” before hastily pulling down the post and replacing it with an item that omitted the newsroom reaction.

RedState's Erick Erickson ditched loftier prose and punched out the letters "Hahahahaha,” while former House Speaker Newt Gingrich combined the loss with Friday’s dreadful unemployment report to conclude "President Obama fails to get the Olympics while unemployment goes to 9.8% …America needs focused leadership," on his Twitter account.


So obviously this is supposed to be about taking Obama down a notch or two and winning a few seats back in Congress next year, and then the White House in 2012. But it has metastisized in something quite a bit more ridiculous, unstable, and deranged than just political points on a scoreboard.


And that's just the locals -- who are, naturally, representative of the last bastion of ultra-conservatism in the country, good ol' Deep-In-The-Hearta. Look who's going to be the next chairwoman of the RPT, after all:

Texas Eagle Forum’s Cathie Adams shows once again how extreme and unhinged the far right has become. In an e-mail to far-right activists sent out late Saturday night, Ms. Adams — who is also a Republican National Committeewoman and has endorsed Gov. Rick Perry for re-election next year — compares President Obama to Adolf Hitler and twists the purpose of his planned speech to students about the importance of staying in school and getting a good education:

“(The president) has NO AUTHORITY to intrude into our children’s classrooms and simultaneously address every child in every state.

If parents want their children to view the president, then they have ample opportunities at home without taking time away from their studies. This is eerily like Hitler’s youth movement. . . .

IF your child’s school is allowing this intrusion, then you can either ask that your child be sent to study hall during the showing AND that NO study guide be used to ask your child to “serve the president.” Or you can ask that your child be granted an excused absence from school. . . . “

That’s just shameful. One need not be a supporter of President Obama to agree that comparing our country’s duly elected leader to one of history’s most evil men — someone who ruthlessly presided over the murder of millions of people — is vile. Moreover, no suggested study guide asks students to “serve the president.” Ms. Adams’ claim is simply untrue. And the president has not asserted that he has the authority to demand that school officials have students listen to his speech. The administration has simply invited students and educators to do so. Ms. Adams is dishonestly and cynically trying to stir up anger and hostility toward a president who won an election despite her militant opposition.

Christ, how could I have forgotten all about that whole "Obama isn't speaking to MY children" bullshit.

Personally I don't see this lunacy winning any independent voters back over to the GOP -- quite the contrary -- and I'd like to let them just keep on with their bigotry and ignorance and fear and loathing, but the truth is the last time there was this much crazy going on among the extreme right a president got shot in the streets of Dallas.

And if anything close to that happens again, there will be a lot more than any kind of typical hell to be paid.

First Monday in October and five SCOTUS cases to watch

Excerpt summaries courtesy TIME; links are mine.

Salazar v. Buono
At issue: Whether the government can permit the display of a crucifix on public land as per the Establishment Clause.

Maryland v. Shatzer
At issue: The scope of the rights of police suspects, as given in the court's landmark 1966 decision, Miranda v. Arizona.

Graham v. Florida / Sullivan v. Florida
At issue: Whether life imprisonment for juveniles on non-homicide charges constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

The Eighth Amendment precludes cruel and unusual punishment, but it has long been left to the Supreme Court to define exactly what that term means. This court will be asked to consider it again in a pair of cases on the docket.

National Rifle Association v. Chicago / McDonald v. Chicago
At issue: Second Amendment rights to gun ownership.

A pair of cases challenge Chicago's 27-year-old ban on handgun sales within the city limits. Originally designed to curb violence in the city, the ban has long irked Second Amendment advocates, who take an expansive view of the amendment's wording that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But the Supreme Court had long held that the Second Amendment pertained only to federal laws, until a 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller struck down a ban on handguns and automatic weapons in Washington, D.C. The ruling marked the first time the Supreme Court acknowledged an individual right to bear arms, and it opened the door for these challenges to the Chicago regulation.

American Needle v. National Football League
At issue: Whether sporting leagues should be exempt from antitrust regulations.

Experts say American Needle may turn out to be the most important legal decision in sporting history. The sportswear manufacturer contracted with NFL teams to produce hats and headgear with official team logos. But the NFL decided to give an exclusive leaguewide license to Reebok in 2000, leading American Needle to sue, claiming the NFL's action violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by limiting the market for who could produce team-branded merchandise.

The fundamental question for the court to decide is whether the NFL should be considered a single entity or a collection of 32 individual businesses. The answer to this question has repercussions beyond the production of licensed merchandise. If the NFL is considered a single entity, it would largely be exempt from antitrust laws, giving the league not only continued right to grant exclusive licenses for team apparel but also the ability to make decisions on a leaguewide basis. This opens the door to the NFL - rather than individual teams - determining things like ticket prices and player salaries. Indeed, the bargaining power of the NFL Players Union is based on antitrust legislation that the league would largely be immune to if it receives a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court.

Friday, October 02, 2009

Top ten reasons not to sleep with David Letterman

10. There's no proven correlation between longevity as a late-night host and stamina in bed.

9.
There are sexier guys from Indiana. Pick anyone.

8.
Conan O'Brien is funnier.

7.
"Not now, honey, I'm watching myself on TV" is headache-inducing.

6.
Drooling over Drew Barrymore is best done in private. On national TV, it's just sick.

5.
He's married. Not to mention a dad.

4.
He's also broke, in case Mrs. Letterman is feeling in a divorcing mood today.

3.
He sucks at saying sorry.

2.
Before a grand jury, a guy has to name names.

(drumroll)

And the No. 1 reason not to sleep with David Letterman:


1.
Who wants to hear Sarah Palin say, "I told you so"?

(thanks to Andy Olin at the Chron's "Peep" blog)

Update
: This Daily Mail article has a photo of one of the co-workers, Stephanie Birkitt, along with a picture of Letterman's wife, Regina Lasko.

Why do conservatives hate America?

"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."

-- George W. Bush, January 7, 2008

(via kos and Steve Benen)

Governor Perry's sociopathy

I have avoided the topic of Todd Willingham's murder by the state of Texas, mostly because it makes me so teeth-grindingly furious that it was affecting my health. So in the wake of this week's developments I will just link to the outrage of others. First, last month's horrifying New Yorker piece, recounting the events of the tragic deaths of Willingham's children, then the twists and turns of the legal case, and finally the bizarre contradictions of the fire forensics by the experts, concluding with this ...

In 2005, Texas established a government commission to investigate allegations of error and misconduct by forensic scientists. The first cases that are being reviewed by the commission are those of Willingham and Willis. In mid-August (2009), the noted fire scientist Craig Beyler, who was hired by the commission, completed his investigation. In a scathing report, he concluded that investigators in the Willingham case had no scientific basis for claiming that the fire was arson, ignored evidence that contradicted their theory, had no comprehension of flashover and fire dynamics, relied on discredited folklore, and failed to eliminate potential accidental or alternative causes of the fire. He said that Vasquez’s approach seemed to deny “rational reasoning” and was more “characteristic of mystics or psychics.” What’s more, Beyler determined that the investigation violated, as he put it to me, “not only the standards of today but even of the time period.” The commission is reviewing his findings, and plans to release its own report next year. Some legal scholars believe that the commission may narrowly assess the reliability of the scientific evidence. There is a chance, however, that Texas could become the first state to acknowledge officially that, since the advent of the modern judicial system, it had carried out the “execution of a legally and factually innocent person.”

And the initial response from our illustrious chief executive of the state of Texas:

“I’m familiar with the latter-day supposed experts on the arson side of it,” Perry said, making quotation marks with his fingers to underscore his skepticism.

And his most recent response (via Grits for Breakfast):

Perry has ousted the head of the Texas Forensic Science Commission, which had displeased him by soliciting what turned out to be damning expert opinion regarding the Cameron Todd Willingham case (in which supposedly expert arson testimony used to convict Willingham and justify his execution was later debunked by modern science). ... As the new chair, Perry chose (of all people) Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley, who prides himself on being one of the most outspoken proponents among Texas prosecutors of a sort of neoconservative, tough on crime philosophy. The Statesman called Bradley "a tough-on-crime politically connected conservative." ...

Bradley's first act as chair? To cancel a hearing (scheduled for today) where the Commission was scheduled to hear a report from experts they've paid tens of thousands of dollars to analyze the science behind Todd Willingham's conviction. No word on whether or if the public hearing might be rescheduled.

Response to the Wednesday Night Massacre from all quarters has been swift and as merciful as the governor always is himself. Paul Burka of Texas Monthly:

That image of Perry mocking the investigation of his own commission, making quotation marks in the air, is such inappropriate behavior for the subject matter. Couldn’t he just say that a special commission is taking steps to review the case and he intends to see that the evidence will get a full and complete hearing? It’s the same personality trait that we saw on the videotape about the recession.

Let’s call this what it is: a cover-up. The new chairman, Williamson County district attorney John Bradley, is a political ally of Perry’s (see below) who famously tough on crime. It would be a conversion of mythic proportions if he were to agree with the investigators’ criticism. He now controls when the commission will meet, and you can bet that the report will not be heard or discussed in a public forum before the March 2 primary.

The DMN editorial board:

Perry looks like a desperate man with his decision to jettison the chairman of the state's forensic science panel.

The panel's post-mortem look at the Cameron Todd Willingham arson-murder case goes to the heart of Texas justice – including the governor's role in it – and whether an innocent man was railroaded into the death chamber at Huntsville.

Since Perry signed off on the Willingham execution in 2004, his own accountability is at stake. So perhaps it's no surprise that two days before the Texas Forensic Science Commission was to proceed with the case this week, Perry replaced the chairman and set things back.

This has the stink of avoidance for political reasons. It sends the message – intentional or not – that the governor was displeased with the speed and direction of the inquiry.


Rick Casey of the Houston Chronicle:

The politico-scientific hypothesis is simple: Gov. Rick Perry scuttled today's scheduled meeting in Dallas of the Texas Forensic Science Commission because it was sure to produce headlines claiming that in 2004 he authorized the execution of an innocent man.

The Anderson Cooper show from CNN was expected, as well as just about every major news outlet in Texas.

The commission would not have found Cameron Todd Willingham was wrongfully convicted in 1991 of killing his children. The commission is authorized to investigate only whether law enforcement officials and laboratories use science properly.

But it's what the headlines would have said, and Perry is in the middle of a tough re-election campaign.

Still, it's a scary hypothesis. If true, the governor of the state that conducts about half the nation's executions deliberately sabotaged a new agency tasked by the Legislature with investigating allegations of faulty science in the state's criminal justice system.

And lastly, Ta-Nehisi Coates at The Atlantic ...

I'm not even surprised. Again, it's very hard for people to admit error. They will lie, cover evidence, kill the messenger before admitting that they're wrong. The higher the stakes, the harder the heart, and the deader the mind.


That's our governor, all right.

Malfeasance of this degree goes far, far beyond Rick Perry's usual hunting grounds: pandering to the teabaggers, advocating for secession, decrying stimulus money only to take it and spend it, whining about hacked webstreams and paying volunteers in his re-election campaign to recruit other volunteers in some weird pyramid scheme.

No, this is not incompetence or hypocrisy. This is sociopathology, and it needs to be excised from our state government like the malignant tumor it has grown into. No later than March 2, 2009.

Charles Kuffner and Eye on Williamson and Burnt Orange have more.