Something to Remember on the Fourth of July

We interrupt your ongoing Sanford sex coverage for this public service announcement:

The American officials who, in the name of our precious Constitution, justified, approved and committed torture against human beings continue to roam free, desecrating our claim to civilization and democracy with every unprosecuted breath they take.

The interrogation and detention regime implemented by the U.S. resulted in the deaths of over 100 detainees in U.S. custody -- at least.  While some of those deaths were the result of "rogue" interrogators and agents, many were caused by the methods authorized at the highest levels of the Bush White House, including extreme stress positions, hypothermia, sleep deprivation and others.  Aside from the fact that they cause immense pain, that's one reason we've always considered those tactics to be "torture" when used by others -- because they inflict serious harm, and can even kill people.  Those arguing against investigations and prosecutions -- that we Look to the Future, not the Past -- are thus literally advocating that numerous people get away with murder.

The record could not be clearer regarding the fact that we caused numerous detainee deaths, many of which have gone completely uninvestigated and thus unpunished.  Instead, the media and political class have misleadingly caused the debate to consist of the myth that these tactics were limited and confined.  As Gen. Barry McCaffrey recently put it:

We should never, as a policy, maltreat people under our control, detainees. We tortured people unmercifully. We probably murdered dozens of them during the course of that, both the armed forces and the C.I.A.

Journalist and Human Rights Watch researcher John Sifton similarly documented that "approximately 100 detainees, including CIA-held detainees, have died during U.S. interrogations, and some are known to have been tortured to death."

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Welcome to the Jobless Recovery

Every job created in the last ten years is not gone; and with the unstimulating package we got, it doesn't look like we're going to have any new ones either.[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/6083

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

McCain Draws A Blank When Asked About Arizona
Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Yesterday in an interview with Phoenix’s KTVK 3TV, the local news anchor asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to play a quick word association game. McCain was left tongue-tied and speechless when the reporter asked him to give a one-word response to what he thinks about the controversial Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio:

HOST: Health care.
MCCAIN: Needs reform.
HOST: That?s two words. [weird laugh] Iraq.
MCCAIN: Success.
HOST: Arizona.
MCCAIN: The best.
HOST: US-Mexico Border.
McCain: Cartels.
HOST: GOP.
MCCAIN: Transition.
HOST: Sheriff Joe Arpaio:
MCCAIN: Umm?

Watch it:

video details and more

Though McCain — who is up for re-election — failed to provide his own constituents with a clear answer last night, he offered CNN’s national news anchor John King a much more extensive reaction when asked about Arpaio back in February:

KING: You have had a roller-coaster relationship with this sheriff [Joe Arpaio]. He says he is just simply enforcing the law. He goes into businesses, he?s rounding up people. John Conyers, others in Congress say racial profiling. Is the sheriff in line or out of line in your view?

MCCAIN: Having been engaged in the presidential campaign, I haven?t paid as close attention. I?ve disagreed with the sheriff fundamentally about the fact that we need to have a comprehensive approach to illegal immigration.

Watch it:

video details and more

Here’s some one-word responses McCain could offer next time when asked about Arpaio: dangerous, unconstitutional, racist, wasteful, stubborn, self-promoting, media-whore.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Saddam Hussein Talks to the FBI

After Freedom of Information Act requests were made by the independent NGO, The National Security Archive, transcripts of 20 formal interviews and at least 5 "casual conversations" the FBI held with Saddam Hussein are made available, held after his capture by U.S.

Read The Full Article:
http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/7840

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

After reporting on CBO analysis of partial
health reform bill, ABC and CBS ignore analysis of full bill

During June evening news broadcasts, both ABC and CBS reported on the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) June 15 preliminary analysis of an incomplete version of the Senate health committee's draft health care reform bill. Both the CBS Evening News and ABC's World News highlighted claims that the bill cost too much for the number of Americans it insured. However, on the July 2 edition of the programs, neither reported on the release of CBO's July 1 preliminary score of what the committee's chair referred to as the "complete bill," which included both a public health insurance option and an employer mandate requiring businesses with over 25 employees to either insure their workers or pay a fee per uninsured worker. The CBO calculated that the updated bill would cover more of the uninsured for a lower cost than it had estimated the earlier version of the bill would.

According to CBO's July 1 score of the Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee's (HELP) bill, under the legislation, 21 million fewer Americans would be uninsured in 2019 than under current law. In a July 1 letter to members of the HELP committee, publicly released the following day, committee Chairman Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), Kennedy's chief deputy on health care reform, wrote that the "Congressional Budget Office has carefully reviewed our complete bill, and we are pleased to report that the CBO has scored it at $611.4 billion over 10 years, with the new coverage provisions scored at $597 billion" -- a cost they noted was a "significant reduction from earlier estimates." The preliminary score of the complete bill that the committee released stated that Title I of the bill would increase the deficit by $597 billion over 10 years.

By contrast, CBO's June 15 score of an incomplete version of the HELP bill -- which CBO director Douglas W. Elmendorf made clear did not include a public option or an employer mandate -- found that under the legislation, 17 million fewer Americans would be uninsured in 2019 than under current law, at a cost of approximately $1 trillion over 10 years.

Indeed, President Obama said in a July 2 statement that "[t]he Congressional Budget Office has now issued a more complete review of this bill, concluding that it will cost less and cover more Americans than originally estimated." Obama also stated that the bill "reflects many of the principles I've laid out."

Additionally, Obama noted, as did Kennedy and Dodd, that "[w]hen merged with the Senate Finance Committee's companion pieces, the Senate will be prepared to vote for health reform legislation that does not add to the deficit, reduces health care costs and covers 97% of Americans." Addressing this point, washingtonpost.com blogger Ezra Klein explained in a July 2 post that Medicaid expansion is under the Senate Finance Committee's jurisdiction and thus could not be included in the HELP bill. From Klein's post:

The short version is this: CBO estimates that by 2019 the bill will cover 21 million people at a cost of $597 billion. But -- and this is important -- the HELP Committee's bill doesn't include the Medicaid expansion, because Medicaid is under the sole jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. But if Medicaid is expanded to 150 percent, it will cover an additional 20 million at a cost of about $1 trillion. Add in the savings that Finance is expected to get from reforming Medicare and you're looking at a bill that will cost $1 trillion to $1.3 trillion and cover 42 million people (which would mean 97 percent of the legal population in 2019 would have health insurance) by 2019.

On the June 15 edition of ABC's World News, Jake Tapper reported that "this evening the Congressional Budget Office has offered an analysis" of the HELP bill and "concluded that the plan would cost at least $1 trillion over the course of 10 years with a net increase of 16 million people insured." George Stephanopoulos then stated that "Republicans are already weighing in on that report. They're doing some back-of-the-envelope math saying it's going to be $62,500 for every new person covered." As Media Matters for America noted, Tapper did not point out that the CBO had stated that its assessment was incomplete.

Similarly, on the June 16 edition of the CBS Evening News, Wyatt Andrews reported, "The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, said Senator Ted Kennedy's health care proposal could cost $1 trillion over 10 years and 36 million Americans would still be uninsured." Andrews also aired a clip of House Minority Whip Eric Cantor's assertion, "The news yesterday from CBO is the turning point in the healthcare debate."

From the June 15 edition of ABC News' World News with Charles Gibson (transcript from the Nexis database):

TAPPER: And George [Stephanopoulos, guest anchor], this evening the Congressional Budget Office has offered an analysis of a different Senate Democrat's plan -- that of Senator Ted Kennedy. They concluded that the plan would cost at least $1 trillion over the course of 10 years with a net increase of 16 million people insured. George.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And Jake, Republicans are already weighing in on that report. They're doing some back-of-the-envelope math saying it's going to be $62,500 for every new person covered. What's the White House saying about the report?

TAPPER: Well, they're saying, first of all, that the president is insisting that any plan be deficit-neutral, that it be paid for, and they're also saying that there are a lot of different plans on Capitol Hill, they're all going through the legislative process, and they have not seen the Congressional Budget Office report yet, so they cannot officially comment.

From the June 16 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric (transcript from the Nexis database):

JEFF GLOR (guest anchor): Still ahead on the CBS Evening News, health care reform. The president says he knows how to pay for it, but can he really afford the bills? A reality check.

[...]

GLOR: We always knew overhauling our health care system would not be cheap, but today we learned more about the staggering sums involved. At least a trillion dollars over the next ten years according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. And there are growing concerns that President Obama lacks a realistic plan to pay for this sweeping reform. Details now from Wyatt Andrews in tonight's "Reality Check."

[begin video clip]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How are we going to pay for that, Mr. President?

ANDREWS: That one question, how the nation really pays for a health reform, just got a shocking wakeup call. The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, said Senator Ted Kennedy's health care proposal could cost $1 trillion over 10 years and 36 million Americans would still be uninsured.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's a preliminary set of numbers.

ANDREWS: Democrats called the numbers inconclusive. Even the CBO called its own report incomplete. But the sheer magnitude of what Congress is considering is undeniable.

REP. ERIC CANTOR (House minority whip): The news yesterday from CBO is the turning point in the health care debate.

ANDREWS: So what will health reform cost? The president has also estimated $1 trillion.

OBAMA: And will be deficit neutral.

ANDREWS: And claims he can achieve reform without raising the deficit. The fact is, this means raising taxes. And where the president claims he can raise $267 billion by limiting the tax deductions of high-income wage earners, the fact is most of Congress opposes this idea.

JONATHAN OBERLANDER (University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill): And if they're unwilling to do that, they`re going to have to pick an option that has other political difficulties. And so the question is which kind of poison do they want to drink?

ANDREWS: The president has also outlined more than 600 billion worth of spending cuts, some of which cut Medicare payments to hospitals. Last month, the hospitals claimed at the White House they would support billions in savings, the fact is they now say they never meant cuts, that payment cuts are not reform.

[end video clip]

ANDREWS: What's coming and very soon is a dog fight over that trillion dollars and every interest group that promised to compromise to achieve health care reform will be arguing someone else should go first. Wyatt Andrews, CBS News, Washington.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Does Minuteman Senate Candidate Have Eye on
Presidency

Chris Simcox
Candidate for US Senate

Dear Mr. Simcox,

At first, I couldn't understand why a Republican candidate for the US Senate would beg for twitter followers by signing up for a number of "Get Followers Fast" groups (see here, here, here, and here). I mean, hey, it doesn't say much about your ability to rally supporters with your message. If anything, it opens you up for endless mockery from those who oppose your candidacy.

But after looking at the people you follow on twitter, I've come to the conclusion that it's all part of a strategy to get your name mentioned as a presidential candidate along with Mark Sanford and John Ensign.

I mean look at the people you are following and read their tweets. I'm right, aren't I.

1. Holly_n_Howard - We really don't know what she thinks, because she's never posted a tweet. She just put up her picture..
2. EveEspitia - Eva is a little more communicative. She has 1 update: "sat at my computer typing in the What are you doing box."
3. sbutler010 has this to say: "No Message exist in your message list."
4. Mica_ excites us with : "Running errands meet thunderstorm. I'm soaked..! :o"
5. msashtontaylor offers up her policy experience, "I am the "Hot Chick" of the day on Minnesota's 93xRocks! :-)"
6. cupycake03 makes a fundraising event suggestion, "cant wait for your hanna montana the moviie to be shown here :)"

More heterosexually yours than ever,

Gen. JC Christian, patriot

Read The Full Article:
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2009/07/does-minutman-senate-candidate-have-eye.ht
ml

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Late Afternoon/Early Evening Open Thread

Jon Stewart smackdown on Beck’s “bin Laden needs to attack America”:

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

The Amazing Laura Flanders

Can you give $5 to help keep GritTV going? (Though I'm sure she wouldn't refuse more.)Enjoy a special edition of GritTV with our good friend Joel Silberman.  [...]

Read The Full Article:
http://firedoglake.com/2009/07/02/the-amazing-laura-flanders/

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Washington Post Sells Access To Obama, Others To
Lobbyists

Apparently the Very Serious People? in the Village have a very different idea of journalism than they led us to believe. After their own columnist Dana Milbank lost his marbles and dignity over a DFH blogger asking a question, the Washington Post hits an all new low:

For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post has offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to "those powerful few": Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and ? at first ? even the paper?s own reporters and editors.

The astonishing offer was detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he felt it was a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its ?health care reporting and editorial staff."

With the newsroom in an uproar after POLITICO reported the solicitation, Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli said in a staffwide e-mail that the newsroom would not participate in the first of the planned events ? a dinner scheduled July 21 at the home of Publisher and Chief Executive Officer Katharine Weymouth.

The offer ? which essentially turns a news organization into a facilitator for private lobbyist-official encounters ? was a new sign of the lengths to which news organizations will go to find revenue at a time when most newspapers are struggling for survival.

And it's a turn of the times that a lobbyist is scolding The Washington Post for its ethical practices.

So they're decided that the new business models for newspapers is to effectively pimp their access and reputation to the highest bidder. No wonder they got so pissy about Nico's question. They figured they could hit up some Iranian for some serious scratch to ask their question.

Apparently red-faced at being caught with their metaphoric pants down, WaPo announced this morning that they were canceling these pay-for-access salons.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

This Post Brought to You by Poker

I'll be boarding a plane in the next few minutes headed to Las Vegas, where I'll be for the next several days to conduct some research (yes, really!) for my book and to play in the World Series of Poker.

I haven't played cards for 18 months or so, should you probably be happy if I happen to appear at your table. Nevertheless, for a period of about two and a half years starting in 2004, when the poker craze was at its peak and it was easy to find poor opponents, I was playing quite a bit and relied on poker as a secondary source of income, without which I probably would not have been able to quit my consulting job.

Most of my play was online, which is certainly much duller than playing in person, but has the advantage of allowing you to play many more hands per hour: you don't have to wait for the dealer to physically shuffle the cards, or the players to handle their chips. And if you like, you can play on multiple tables at once -- this is not as impossible as it sounds since you should be folding most of your hands anyway, although there were days when I felt like a meth-addled air traffic controller. Since poker is a volume business -- even winning players earn a very small amount of money on a per-hand basis -- this was essential to many player's ability to earn a living from the game.

All of that changed in September, 2006 when the outgoing Republican Congress passed the conference report to the SAFE Port Act, a perfectly admirable port security bill to which the Congress added a rider called the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 or UIGEA. The UIGEA did not make online gambling illegal (although its legality was and remains somewhat ambiguous), but instead sought to prohibit people from depositing money into online casinos, all of which are based offshore. Without money, of course, there can't be any game, and -- further frightened by some aggressive enforcement actions by the Department of Justice -- many leading poker sites such as PartyPoker shuttered their doors to Americans.

Other sites, discovering that the UIGEA was a sloppily-written piece of law, developed workarounds and remain open to Americans to this day. But the games weren't the same. The competitive ecology of poker is very fragile: winning players usually earn almost all of their profits from the presence of one or two suckers at the table. Once those suckers ran out of money (as suckers are wont to do), and found it was simply too cumbersome to get any additional funds in, a lot of the winners became the suckers -- including me. So I got most of my profits out while it was still safe to do so, and lost most of the rest.

In the long run, this turned out to be a good thing: poker, as they say, is a hard way to make an easy living, and trying to moonlight as a poker player while running a sports business was physically and mentally exhausting. I'm having much more fun now than I was back then, and get go to bed feeling like maybe, just maybe, I've contributed something insightful to the world that will make people's lives better.

But following the debate over the UIGEA was one of the primary motivators that got me into politics. It took a "dirty trick" -- attaching it to an unrelated conference report that couldn't possibly be voted down -- to get the UIGEA to become law, although then again, this was undertaken partly in response to another "dirty trick", which was the process of anonymous holds that was preventing the bill from coming to a floor vote in the Senate (where it would probably have passed on its own merits). I found the whole process of watching the sausage getting made alarming -- but also utterly fascinating. Without poker -- and without that bill -- there probably wouldn't have been any FiveThirtyEight.

The UIGEA, intended as a way to bolster their family values credentials, didn't turn out so well for the Republicans. The bill's principal sponsor in the House, a very moderate Iowa Republican named Jim Leach, lost his seat after 30 years to an unknown political science professor, a Democrat named Dave Loebsack. I was one of thousands of poker players who gave money to Loebsack -- he was the first political candidate I'd ever donated to -- and considering that he won by only 6,000 votes in a race that wasn't even on many observer's radar screens, it may have been those extra funds that put him into the Congress. Meanwhile, the primary driver of the bill in the Senate, the then-majority leader Bill Frist, retired and has barely been heard from since, his Presidential aspirations dashed by the landslide losses that Republicans took all over the country that year.

There are now efforts being led mostly by Barney Frank and Ron Paul -- politics makes for strange bedfellows -- to either overturn the UIGEA or to explicitly legalize online poker, which would allow American casinos to take money from American taxpayers, with Uncle Sam getting a share of their earnings. I am not terribly optimistic about the prospects for passage of any of these bills -- gambling is opposed by many paternalist Democrats as well as most Republicans -- but as the government is forced to rely on increasingly "creative" mechanisms to collect revenues and pay down the debt, they may gain some traction.

In the meantime, you'll have to wish me luck, and I'll try to spare you guys the bad beat stories.

Read The Full Article:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/07/this-post-brought-to-you-by-poker.html

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!