Meet the Press for Idiots

This is old but I'm seeing it for the first time. Regardless, it's too funny to not post...

Read more...

Fox News STILL Smearing Obama

Fox News is a complete joke.

Nearly a month after CNN thoroughly debunked its preposterous "madrasa" smear of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, Fox News, amazingly, is still peddling revised versions of this steaming loaf of journalistic dung. I quote none other than the former journalist, Brit Hume, directly:

New Information on Whether Barack Obama Was Once a Practicing Muslim

Never a Muslim?

Barack Obama's chief spokesman has been saying since January that the Democratic presidential candidate has never been a practicing Muslim. Now the Los Angeles Times is reporting that Obama was registered as a Muslim when he attended primary school in Indonesia.

The Times quotes friends and teachers as saying Obama took Muslim religious classes in school and went to prayers at a local mosque. The Obama campaign reacted to the story this morning by reiterating its position that the senator "has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim and is a committed Christian."

You know, I don't even have to write this one. A buddy of mine wrote it for me when this was sent to me:

"Would it make me a MOTO to point out that he most likely didn't fill out his own registration for primary school, and that it was most likely completed by his MUSLIM father? What 5 year-old actually "practices" any religion? Can any of us honestly say that we were "practicing Christians" at that age?"

Indeed...

Now, back to Fox News. Their apologists may argue that since they used the LA Times as their source they shouldn't be blamed for this shoddy reporting and that my problem is really caused by the notoriously "liberally biased" west coast daily. But given the recent changes at that paper, that claim is even more dubious than it otherwise would have been.

Furthermore, if one were to take the time to look up the actual Times story Fox cited, one would find that it wasn't quite as cut-and-dried as they implied. He attended Catholic schools, Muslim schools and secular public schools, for instance. All of this, of course, was reflective of his mixed parentage:

His former Roman Catholic and Muslim teachers, along with two people who were identified by Obama's grade-school teacher as childhood friends, say Obama was registered by his family as a Muslim at both of the schools he attended...

[Snip]

In 1968, Obama began first grade at St. Francis Assisi Foundation School, just around the corner from his home...

[Snip]

"At that time, Barry was also praying in a Catholic way, but Barry was Muslim," Dharmawan said in Obama's old classroom, where she still teaches 39 years later. "He was registered as a Muslim because his father, Lolo Soetoro, was Muslim."

Now, isn't that what I just said. Shouldn't this obvious fact have occurred to the learned Brit Hume before he filed his report? If not, shouldn't he have have read it in the LA Times story he cited?

Fox News: They distort. I deride.

Read more...

The "Right to Exist"

As alluded to in previous posts, much is made of the state of Israel's "right to exist" and I have called into the question whether it really is Israel whose "right to exist" is genuinely threatened. But there's another weakness in this framing of the conflict that I neglected. The entire argument is nonsensical on its face. In a piece in the Los Angeles Times today entitled, Why Does The Times Recognize Israel's 'Right to Exist'?, Saree Makdisi thrashes the nail soundly about the head:

First, the formal diplomatic language of "recognition" is traditionally used by one state with respect to another state. It is literally meaningless for a non-state to "recognize" a state. Moreover, in diplomacy, such recognition is supposed to be mutual. In order to earn its own recognition, Israel would have to simultaneously recognize the state of Palestine. This it steadfastly refuses to do (and for some reason, there are no high-minded newspaper editorials demanding that it do so).

Second, which Israel, precisely, are the Palestinians being asked to "recognize?" Israel has stubbornly refused to declare its own borders. So, territorially speaking, "Israel" is an open-ended concept. Are the Palestinians to recognize the Israel that ends at the lines proposed by the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan? Or the one that extends to the 1949 Armistice Line (the de facto border that resulted from the 1948 war)? Or does Israel include the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which it has occupied in violation of international law for 40 years — and which maps in its school textbooks show as part of "Israel"?

For that matter, why should the Palestinians recognize an Israel that refuses to accept international law, submit to U.N. resolutions or readmit the Palestinians wrongfully expelled from their homes in 1948 and barred from returning ever since?

If none of these questions are easy to answer, why are such demands being made of the Palestinians? And why is nothing demanded of Israel in turn?

Orwell was right. It is much easier to recycle meaningless phrases than to ask — let alone to answer — difficult questions. But recycling these empty phrases serves a purpose. Endlessly repeating the mantra that the Palestinians don't recognize Israel helps paint Israel as an innocent victim, politely asking to be recognized but being rebuffed by its cruel enemies.

Actually, it asks even more. Israel wants the Palestinians, half of whom were driven from their homeland so that a Jewish state could be created in 1948, to recognize not merely that it exists (which is undeniable) but that it is "right" that it exists — that it was right for them to have been dispossessed of their homes, their property and their livelihoods so that a Jewish state could be created on their land. The Palestinians are not the world's first dispossessed people, but they are the first to be asked to legitimize what happened to them.

Imagine that. Palestinians are being asked to "recognize" an entity that wont return the favor and wont even go so far as to fully define what it is they wish to have recognized -- it's own borders. Meanwhile it's teaching its children that the land Palestinians are standing on is already part of Israel. I suppose that explains what we see in this map and this one. Nice.

Whose right to exist is really in danger here?

Read more...

Iraq: The Hidden Story

A British news team explores the underreported side of the conflict in Iraq.



I've added this one to the side bar as a Web Gem.

Read more...

Rule By Decree

I quote him again:

---

"As anyone who studies the behavior of the U.S. empire during the last century discovers a common factor; every time the US are going to attack someone, they don’t do it right away, they start by preparing the terrain of their internal public opinion, one of the things that worries them the most....That way, when they launch the attack, they obtain the support of a big part of their internal public opinion. Almost all media in the country support them... they look for allies in Europe, from the U.N., they start preparing the terrain..."

Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela
February 20, 2005

---

I was scanning news stories on the internet a couple of days ago when I ran across the following headline:

Chavez Gains Free Rein In Venezuela

The report describes how the Venezuelan congress has ostensibly given it's President, Huge Chavez Frias, dictatorial powers to "rule by decree". Well, that certainly does sound like an alarming development when it's put that way. As if to ensure your alarm, the reporter begins as follows:

Convening in a downtown plaza in a session that resembled a political rally, lawmakers unanimously gave Chavez sweeping powers to legislate by decree and impose his radical vision of a more egalitarian socialist state.

"Long live the sovereign people! Long live President Hugo Chavez! Long live socialism!" said National Assembly President Cilia Flores as she proclaimed the "enabling law" approved by a show of hands. "Fatherland, socialism or death! We will prevail!"

The law gives Chavez, who is beginning a fresh six-year term, more power than he has ever had in eight years as president, and he plans to use it during the next 18 months to transform broad areas of public life, from the economy and the oil industry in particular, to "social matters" and the very structure of the state.

His critics call it a radical lurch toward authoritarianism by a leader with unchecked power — similar to how Fidel Castro monopolized leadership years ago in Cuba.

"If you have all the power, why do you need more power?" said Luis Gonzalez, a high school teacher who paused to watch in the plaza, calling it a "media show" intended to give legitimacy to a repugnant move. "We're headed toward a dictatorship, disguised as a democracy."

Oh, things certainly seem dire down there for each and every American trapped inside a Venezuelans body, screaming to get out, doesn't it? "It's the end of democracy", we're led to believe.

Of course, buried near the bottom of the story is this surprisingly reasonable statement from one State Department official in nearby Columbia:

"It's something valid under the constitution," said Shannon, the assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, told reporters in Colombia. "As with any tool of democracy, it depends how it is used," he added. "At the end of the day, it's not a question for the United States or for other countries, but for Venezuela."

What happened here? Did someone forget to fax the day's theme to this guy? What does he mean it's "valid under the constitution?" How are we supposed to paint Chavez as an anti-constitutional tyrant if we've got this guy down there citing facts about the Venezuelan constitution? Isn't he "emboldening the enemy"?

Let's delve further into this because I think we may be on to something. Eric Wingerter has penned what seems to be the definitive breakdown of what's behind this "enabling law" in Venezuela and the shrieking "rule by decree" headlines we're seeing in the US news media.

Mr. Wingerter, what say ye?

Did you hear that President Chavez is going to Rule by Decree for the next 18 months? The very idea evokes a picture of a not-too-distant South American past, one in which all-powerful executives live out their capricious whims and mete out brutal retribution against political enemies. It's all so dramatic and perverse and larger than life. Somewhere Andrew Lloyd Webber is already mapping out the musical score.

But in this case, it's just not true. Of course, if you've been reading the newspapers lately, you'd have a hard time figuring that out. The Miami Herald headline blares: "Chavez Granted Power to Rule by Decree." Time Magazine asks "Is Chavez Becoming Castro?" And those are the restrained ones. The right-wing rags have headlines like "A Dictatorship Rises," and "Hugo Chavez Kills Democracy." So you'd be forgiven for not getting the nuances in this storyline.

Here's what's actually happening: The Venezuelan assembly is poised to pass a law that will give the executive branch greater leeway to establish norms on a certain range of issues. Most of these involve guidelines for the president's own cabinet-level agencies. In other words, the Venezuelan version of the IRS will map out the country's tax structure; the Transportation department will devise its own strategic plan for public transit nationwide, etc. This represents a shift of certain powers from the legislative branch to the executive, to be sure, but on paper they don't seem to stray too far from the powers that the executive branch in the United States already has. Venezuelanaysis.com has a full listing of the ten issue areas that are affected.

It is important to note that this type of power-transfer is allowed under the Venezuelan constitution of 1999, which expressly permits the President to issue executive orders specifically within these issue areas. Of course, the constitution continues to guide the country's overall legal framework, which is to say that no "decree" can supercede constitutional law.

What's more, this "enabling law" is not new to the current constitution. Venezuela's previous constitution allowed for similar powers shifts to the executive, and you can be sure that past presidents took advantage of this authority on multiple occasions throughout the 70's, 80's and 90's.

OK, so it's not anything new and, contrary to rumor, Chavez hasn't been granted the power to "rule by decree" at all. Yet here we are being subjected to these screaming headlines described above in virtually every corner of the US media if not the world.

I find that particularly interesting because the nature of these new powers -- i.e. executive branch agencies being granted the right to write the rules governing their particular area of responsibility independent of legislative approval -- sounds eerily familiar.

Bush Directive Increases Sway on Regulation
[Registration req'd; Alternative link]
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: January 30, 2007 [New York Times]

WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 — President Bush has signed a directive that gives the White House much greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy.

In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president’s priorities.

This strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts. It suggests that the administration still has ways to exert its power after the takeover of Congress by the Democrats.

[Snip]

Consumer, labor and environmental groups denounced the executive order, saying it gave too much control to the White House and would hinder agencies’ efforts to protect the public.

Typically, agencies issue regulations under authority granted to them in laws enacted by Congress. In many cases, the statute does not say precisely what agencies should do, giving them considerable latitude in interpreting the law and developing regulations.

The directive issued by Mr. Bush says that, in deciding whether to issue regulations, federal agencies must identify “the specific market failure” or problem that justifies government intervention.

Besides placing political appointees in charge of rule making, Mr. Bush said agencies must give the White House an opportunity to review “any significant guidance documents” before they are issued.

[Snip]

Peter L. Strauss, a professor at Columbia Law School, said the executive order “achieves a major increase in White House control over domestic government.”

“Having lost control of Congress,” Mr. Strauss said, “the president is doing what he can to increase his control of the executive branch.”

So, in what way does this differ from what is being done in Venezuela, one might ask. Allow me to suggest some important distinctions:

1) In Venezuela the measure is temporary, with the powers set to expire after 18 months. Not so in the US where the change is permanent.

2) In Venezuela the measure was adopted after a vote of the duly-elected representatives in that nation's legislature. In the US it happened by Executive Order, quietly and without the consultation of any other branch of government -- a decree, if you will.

3) In Venezuela the measure applies to a President who does not subscribe to a Unitary Executive Theory, unlike the President of the United States.

One can only wonder why a temporary legislative measure in the distant land of Venezuela sets off more alarm bells and feigned concern for the state of democracy than does the odious Unitary Executive Theory, the avowed philosophy of its own President, in the American news media.

Is that sulfur I smell?


More:

Bush Seizes Power While Media Fixates on Chavez
Eric Wingeter on Chavez' "Rule by Decree"

Read more...

The Battle for Haifa Street

This is being posted, if for no other reason, because CBS refuses to air it and all the sad and sorry truths about our media that their refusal symbolizes.

The segment in question -- "Battle for Haifa Street" -- is a piece of first-rate journalism but one that appears only on the CBS News website -- and has never been broadcast. It is a gritty, realistic look at life on the very mean streets of Baghdad and includes interviews with civilians who complain that the U.S. military presence is only making their lives worse and the situation more deadly.
"They told us they would bring democracy, they promised life would be better than it was under Saddam," one told Logan. "But they brought us nothing but death and killing. They brought mass destruction to Baghdad."

Several bodies are shown in the two-minute segment, "some with obvious signs of torture," as Logan points out. She also notes that her crew had to flee for their lives when they we were warned of an impending attack. While fleeing, another civilian was killed before their eyes.

Logan's email, with the one-word subject line of "help," was sent to friends and colleagues imploring them to lobby CBS to highlight that people are interested in seeing the piece. In it, Logan argues that the story is "not too gruesome to air, but rather too important to ignore … It should be seen. And people should know about this."

Read more...

Olbermann's Commentary on Presidential Lying

Once again, I'm late with this one. Once again, better late than never.

Keith Olbermann lays it all out...

No further commentary necessary.

Read more...

Leading the Witness

This just in. The most recent USA Today/Gallup Poll, taken September 15 -17, revealed, among other things that an astonishing 55% of Americans approve of President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program.

Well... actually not quite. It seems the respondants do approve of the program that was described in the question. Unfortunately, that program doesn't exist. It's too bad too because it sounds a lot better than Bush's actual NSA program. Here's the question:

"As you may know, the Bush Administration has been wiretapping telephone conversations between U.S. citizens living in the United States and suspected terrorists living in other countries without getting a court order allowing it to do so. Do you think the Bush Administration was right or wrong in wiretapping these conversations without obtaining a court order?"

Do we really know all that? Are you quite sure? Let's keep score.

1) Correct me if I'm wrong here (I have a comments section) but what I thought was going here was a massive data-mining operation. That means they aren't selectively surveilling calls to and from individuals identified as "suspected terrorists". Oh, no. They're mining and scanning everyone's voice and data communications. That information comes straight from USA Today itself. Don't they read their own news stories before they write these questions?

The fact that this is a program targeted at the entire US population -- not specific individuals, numbers or addresses and not based on probable cause -- is an established fact. Unless the attacks of 9/11 made each and every one of us a "suspected terrorist" this framing of the question is incomplete at best and deliberately misleading at worst.

2) This program doesn't stop at international phone calls. Sure, President Bush said it was only limited international calls when the story first broke. But Mr. Bush says a lot of things, doesn't he?

We remember when he said, "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires - a wiretap requires a court order." That turned out to be very misleading to say the least.

We remember when he then admitted this was untrue but went on to insist that the program was limited to "terrorists suspects". I quote...

The NSA program is one that listens to a few numbers, called from the outside of the United States and of known al Qaeda or affiliate people. In other words, the enemy is calling somebody and we want to know who they're calling and why."

That turned out to be false as well.

We remember that he then he promised us that "the program applies only to international communications". That too turned out to be a flat-out lie.

So, you can't really trust the characterization this questio is based on, can you? This has been known for months. Could this have possibly been unknown to the pollsters?

3) If the program is too classified to be fully disclosed to congress or the courts how can we ever call ourselves certain that they are only using it to track terrorists. Throwing everything we already know aside, even if never knew any of that, how could we say with any certainty that this power wasn't being used to spy on political enemies, to track the activities of reporters, for example. You know, real police-state, "1984" type stuff. Oh, wait. They did that already too? Well, then you see what I mean.

So, the question is, why can't we get a poll questions that ask whether the American public approves of what's really going on, information that has been in the public domain for months now? Ask them if the government is right to invest in the president the power to tap, intercept, store and possibly listen on any American's calls and data communications; international or domestic; terror-related or not without a warrant and without congressional or judicial oversight. That is the real question because that is what is truly happening in the United States today. Yet this questions remains unasked.

As follow up, for the people silly enough to answer 'yes', ask them if they'd like to see a Democratic president with this power. Would they trust, say, Hillary Clinton with these "unitary" powers too? Then listen as their head explodes.

Read more...