home

Friday Open Thread

I forgot to do an open thread earlier this week, and I'll be at the jail most of the day, so here's a place for you to weigh in.

< The "Just Win, Baby" Caucus | Now Who's Being Naive? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The War On Thinking explained (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Edger on Fri May 04, 2007 at 11:06:26 AM EST
    Al Gore has a new book being released on May 22: "The Assault on Reason"

    BuzzFlash has a good review here.

    "A visionary analysis of how the politics of fear, secrecy, cronyism, and blind faith has combined with the degration of the public sphere to create an environment dangerously hostile to reason."

    At the time George W. Bush ordered American forces to invade Iraq, 70 percent of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was linked to 9/11. Voters in Ohio, when asked by pollsters to list what stuck in their minds about the campaign, most frequently named two Bush television ads that played to fears of terrorism.

    We live in an age when the thirty-second television spot is the most powerful force shaping the electorate's thinking, and America is in the hands of an administration less interested than any previous administration in sharing the truth with the citizenry.

    Amazon's page is here.

    Hope you are not contributing (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by oculus on Fri May 04, 2007 at 12:22:12 PM EST
    to the demise of book reviews in the print media.  Big protest in Atlanta today!

    Parent
    I hope not. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Fri May 04, 2007 at 12:58:43 PM EST
    I spent a good part of my life selling books. Although anything that will cut down the revenue of mainstream media might be a good idea... hmmm... ;-)

    Parent
    Can't agree--too devoted to the NY Times (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by oculus on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:25:58 PM EST
    hitting my driveway each morning.

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#10)
    by Slado on Fri May 04, 2007 at 02:01:40 PM EST
    The man who has made a fortune by claiming the debate is over...Planet Gore...is publishing a book about the assault on Reason.

    Al Gore's claims about climate change and his buying of CO2 offsets sounds no better then the priests of the middle ages forcing religous dogma down our throat and rewarding rich lords with indulgences.

    Now he's going to tell us that everyone else is using fear to attack reason.

    I'm confused.   Mr. Gore if it's not fear then how are you attacking reason?

    Parent

    No wonder you're confused. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:35:32 PM EST
    Your comment makes no sense.

    Parent
    Or is it the other way around? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edger on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:39:46 PM EST
    Now Edgar (1.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Slado on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:26:32 PM EST
    You know what I mean.

    Sir Gore will not listen nor even consider the scientific argument that man made CO2 isn't responsible for Global Warming but he will write a book about the state of Reason.

    I find that Ironic.

    If he can get people to buy books good for him.  I just take what he preaches with a grain of salt.

    Parent

    As you should, but.... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:33:33 PM EST
     the ultimate point (not necessarily the one he is making)  is that waiting for "proof positive" of the causes of GW  and the degree to which various causes may be contributing is not a good excuse  not to  take remedial actions to reduce the potential causes over which man can exercise control.

       If I am walking blind in the woods and know a cliff might be on my path, I won't simply sprint along the same course even if I don't know for sure there is a cliff. Failing to take precautions merely because of lack of certainty the threat exists is foolish.

       If people would make that sort of argument about the terorist threat would you advocate doing nothing in the way of precautions due to the lack of certainty involved?

    Parent

    Ignoring the facts (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Sailor on Fri May 04, 2007 at 05:17:49 PM EST
    Sir Gore will not listen nor even consider the scientific argument
    There is no scientific argument against global warming. There are no peer reviewed arguments against it. Even the WH has acknowledged it exists and is man made.

    And the last bastion of the wrongwing is that 'it is too expensive' (tho what could be more expensive than the results of global warming is hard to fathom) has fallen by the wayside.

    Parent

    Aw hell (none / 0) (#24)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 04, 2007 at 05:28:22 PM EST
    we're about due for a major volcano eruption anytime now. Welcome to the next ice age!

    Parent
    Deconstructionist (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 04, 2007 at 09:36:06 PM EST
    Failing to take precautions merely because of lack of certainty the threat exists is foolish.

    Then I assume you have no problems with the various things that the Bush administrations has pushed in the name of protecting us from a terrorist attack.

    We have numerous confirmed instances of attacks, and attempts of attacks.

    We don't have that when it comes to the CAUSE of GW.

    Parent

    Slado & jim (none / 0) (#33)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat May 05, 2007 at 07:59:41 AM EST
      Slado:

      What we know about the "terrorism threat" in general  is that terrorirts exist and that certain of their possible specific actions would cause roughly predictable harms. We don't know which if any of those specific possible actions might occur nor can we really rank the pronble likellihood of the possibilites in more than a very speculative manner. Obviously, if we learn of a specific threat a t a specific target we should ahve a specific preventive response but the broader threat requires a diffused response to a non-specific threat.

      You may have read me here criticize people for stating positions that are tantamount to advocating doing nothing about terrorism because those writers do no accept the existence of a threat requiring response. those folks claiming the "terrrorist threat" is an ooverblown  false propaganda creation of the Administration and decrying all reponses othetr than "understanding" them and drastically diminishing our role in world affairs scare the Hell out of me.

       So do people who claim that the possibility that climate change is linked to the activities of man is overblown  false propaganda. I will conceded that the "terrorist threat" is more imminent and the probable results are easier to establish. but, the logic is still the same -- unless you simply deny the possible existence of a threar due to ideology not facts or reason, you should advocate reasonable precautionary and remedial actions.

      Jim:

       There is a difference between supporting some of the things done to combat terrorism or the doing of other things that are not being doner and supporting everything we have done simply because they are justified as a response to the terrorist threat. my point is i would not support doing nothing or far too little in response to the terrorist threat.

       The same is true of GW. I support reasonable measures to reduce emissions but I would not support everything advocated by some as a required in response to potential climate change. I am willing to accept measures that I know will make energey much more expensive than its current artificially low cost which is achieved, in part, by ignoring long term environmental costs (and even if we assume no GW there are still HUGE environmental costs which are not reflected in prices).

      Such actions WILL lower the standard of living; it is dishonest to suggest otherwise, but I think a certain level of reduced standard of living is acceptable to address what I do think are likely enough possibilities to require strong response.

      However, I don't advocate banning the use of fossil fuels or making cars and gasoline cost prohibitive to all but the wealthy, or generaly taking actions that would cause a global depression and starve the poor of the world and make the middle classes poor.

      That's similar to how I would not advocate making the USA an authorirarian police state or waging total war to rid the planet of all  muslim power in response to the terrorist threat.

       

    Parent

    I hear ya but... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Slado on Fri May 04, 2007 at 05:17:42 PM EST
    We all know what a bomb will do to a building and what happens when you cut off someone's head.

    While I agree we can over estimate the terror threat or chances of an attack the result of terrorist actions is known.

    We do not know what will happen if the earth warms up.  We don't know how much it will warm up or how soon.

    The problems with Gore's argument are too many to list hear but simply put we don't know that CO2 made by man is the cause and even if we did know we don't know whats going to happen if it goes unregulated.

    Maybe he's right but there are real problems right now on earth, AIDS, starvation, poverty, injustice etc... that deserve all the money being dumped into proving a theory that's already supposed to be true.

    Parent

    Of course not. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Edger on Fri May 04, 2007 at 05:35:51 PM EST
    There isn't one.

    Parent
    it would be more ironic if (none / 0) (#29)
    by gollo on Fri May 04, 2007 at 08:10:58 PM EST
    the book has a section in it explaining 'poisoning the well'.

    Parent
    Karl Rove, witness coach (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by scribe on Fri May 04, 2007 at 12:53:53 PM EST
    Per the leaked testimony of a couple high DoJ aides, Rove participated in a strategy session in which he coached the DoJ witnesses to get their stories straight about the firing of US attorneys:  

    At the March 5, 2007, meeting, White House aides, including counsel Fred Fielding and deputy counsel William Kelley, sought to shape testimony that Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General William Moschella was to give the next day before the House Judiciary Committee.

    Although the existence of the White House meeting had been previously disclosed by the Justice Department, Rove's attendance at the strategy session was not--until both Moschella and Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty talked about it in confidential testimony with congressional investigators last week.

    Funny, my reading of the relevant rules of attorney ethics seems to indicate that a lawyer helping to "shape" testimony no longer gets to be the lawyer in the saga, but rather becomes disqualified because he's a (likely or potential) witness.

    From the McClatchy version of this story:

    According to a congressional aide, McNulty said he attended a White House meeting with Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, and other officials on March 5, the day before McNulty's deputy William Moschella was to testify to Congress about the firings.

    White House officials told the Justice Department group that they needed to agree on clear reasons why each prosecutor was fired and explain them to Congress, McNulty said, according to the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the transcript of McNulty's interview hasn't been made public.

    McNulty said that White House officials never revealed during the meeting that they'd been discussing plans to replace some prosecutors with Gonzales aides, the congressional aide said.

    Now, why the DoJ all had to make sure to get their stories straight if they were telling the truth, tells me they were never telling the truth.

    The best part from Isikoff's story - it may well be that the WH no longer has any executive privilege claim over Rover's (older) emails - the ones they might have thought to have been destroyed:

    This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee subpoeanaed the Justice Department to turn over all e-mails in its possession from Rove--including his computer hard drive, which was turned over to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald in the Valerie Plame CIA leak case.

    Of course, what seems to be the case is that the WH and DoJ were far more interested in beating political "enemies" than in actually doing justice.  For example, it appears the US Attorney for W.D.Washington - McKay - was fired for (a) not pushing bogus voter fraud cases against Dems (especially in the 2004 governor's election), which offended Washington state Repugs, and (b) pushing too hard for more assets to investigate the murder of a pro-gun-control AUSA in his district (which investigation doubtless offended the pro-gun wingnuts in the same Washington Repug party).

    I guess punishing the disloyal-to-the-party-platform by letting their murders go uninvestigated is not beyond the pale where Repugs and their base voters are the parties offended by the victim's disloyalty.

    You know, I stand with TL on being generally opposed to the prosecution and so forth - there's a lot of wrong the government does in its prosecutions and especially in the criminalization of things like low-level drug offenses.  But, the US Attorney case is not susceptible of reduction to "prosecutor enemy of defendant, therefore 'bad'.  Anything bad happens to prosecutor therefore 'good'."  Nor is it susceptible of reduction to "prosecutor still prosecuting defendants, therefore shenaningans in D.C. irrelevant to local, individual prosecutions".  

    Rather, we need to step back for a second and take a breath.  It needs be remembered that, regardless of whether one is pro-prosecution or pro-defense, when prosecuting the government must always be bound and forced to use less power than it could have at its call.  The idea of limitation on the government's power is at the core of the Bill of Rights, and that hard core of limits is (or at least has been) surrounded by a galaxy of other limiting doctrines, not the least of which has been the idea that the politics of the victim and the politics of the (prospective) defendant should have nothing to do with whether the prosecution is begun, waived, or continued.

    In other words, an objective theory of prosecutorial discretion.

    The central pollution which Rove, Miers, Gonzo, Goodling, Sampson and so on have p*ssed into this well (see infra) is the substitution of the subjective criteria of "loyalty to Bushie" into the prosecutor's calculus.  Not "revamp the office's priorities to encourage bringing more cases which are in line with the administration's policy goals", but rather to promote and protect loyal Republicans and to damage and destroy Democrats

    A friend told me about the Democratic mayor in a town nearby his, who was prosecuted and pled guilty to accepting many thousands of dollars in bribes from city contractors.  Everyone in that town knew he was corrupt - he'd demand to be comped in restaurants with the implicit threat of sudden and vigorous health code enforcement, and his wife made lots of money brokering realty in developments which needed approvals to be built. And, he was corrupt.  He's still in prison.  No one (save his family) quibbled about the prosecution or alleged it was part of a partisan vendetta, and very few wept when he was convicted.  Given the conduct of this administration, though, every political corruption case will have to surmount the hurdle of "partisan witch-hunt", even when the officeholder is blatantly, thoroughly corrupt.  And, by depriving Americans of (more or less) objective prosecutorial discretion and injecting subjective partisanship, Rove and his lackeys have done serious damage - possibly worse and longer lasting than Iraq or even Guantanamo.

    I deliberately used the scatological image above because, frankly, I think it is about the most trenchant one available.  Once the taint of partisan politics is introduced into prosecutions - such that every political corruption case can rightly (or wrongly) be questioned as to whether it's a partisan attack by the "ins" against the "outs" - it is impossible to remove that taint.  As Comey testified yesterday in response to a question on that topic and how to heal the issue:  "I don't know how to put that genie back into the bottle."

    I suggest that, when someone pees into your well, the only way to fix it is to both pump out all the water and let it run for a while.

    Nice work, scribe! (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Edger on Fri May 04, 2007 at 01:09:37 PM EST
    Thanks - now note the interesting part of this (none / 0) (#8)
    by scribe on Fri May 04, 2007 at 01:31:42 PM EST
    article:

    LSU student arrested for threatening to kill Hillary Clinton.

    It's buried deep inside - the arresting agency was state, not federal police-types.  The arraigning court was the state court.

    See my point - how easily could it be argued that if a student had made the kind of statements about Bushie or Deadeye (or even, say, McCain - to draw a more precise analogue to Hillary), how long do you think it would have taken for the feds to step in and Gonzo to have a news conference, or for that student to be on a one-way flight to the Naval Brig in Charleston for a little "alone time"?

    Once prosecutions are (seen to be) infected with even a little bit of partisanship, there is no escaping the claim - by someone - that it's all partisan politics.  

    And, cf. Tom Delay and his bleating have taught us that....

    Parent

    Or... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri May 04, 2007 at 01:58:20 PM EST
     since the threat was relayed to a local campus cop it was decided the fastest way to get him into custody was the state warrant and there would be plenty of time for the Feds to act while he sits on jail with a million dollar bail.

      It is extremely common for the first jurisdction to obtain a waaant and get a person off the street when there is believed to be a possibly imminent threat.

    Parent

    The operative letter in LSU (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:29:38 PM EST
    here is the "S."  State police had jurisdiction.

    Parent
    and what, pray tell, have the feds done (none / 0) (#15)
    by scribe on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:35:41 PM EST
    so far?

    Nothing anyone's heard of, I suspect....

    Parent

    Scribe (1.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:07:55 PM EST
     do you have even the slightest familiarity with the crimnal justice syste?

      Are you really so freaking clueless that you do not understand that since he is in custody the feds need act with no haste unlee there is any possibility his release is imminent?

      do you not know it is very common for people to spend long periods of time in state detention and then get indicted on federal charges?

      Or do you know all that and playing shallow, cynical games to mislead people?

      Or are you just freaking nuts and really believe that the fedsa are deliberately not doing anything because clinton is the target and they don't care if she lives?

      What's the deal?


    Parent

    Next Week Waxman (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by squeaky on Fri May 04, 2007 at 08:00:50 PM EST
    Looks like we are going to see some developments regarding the Niger Forgeries and why they made it to into SOTU.

    emptywheel:

    But then Waxman decides to call the guy who debunked the documents right when they came into State, Simon Dodge. Dodge, of course, realized that the forgeries had a funky seal. He implied, in fact, that the person who made the forgeries used the funky seal to make it look more authentic.....

    ....Dodge is going to get right to the core of the hoax, to the way WINPAC served as a filter for any efforts to debunk the forgeries--or any other crappy intelligence claims. And once we get into that scheme, we could blow the whole lid off this thing....

    ....Me, I'll take any and all evidence relating to Simon Dodge. Damn--anyone want to send me to DC next week?

    And judging from the comments, looks like there are plenty of commenters willing to chip in to send Marcy to DC.  Should be a good show and she is the one to cover it.

    Looks Like (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by squeaky on Fri May 04, 2007 at 08:07:55 PM EST
    Tenet's testimony has been postponed. And since State is fighting  against Dodge's testimony eventhough he is willing, this all may get set back a few weeks.

     

    Parent

    Karma: what goes around comes around (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edger on Sat May 05, 2007 at 08:40:06 AM EST
    Wanted to share here what our (none / 0) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 04, 2007 at 12:09:19 PM EST
    seven year old said last night.  He is smitten with the movie "V for Vendetta" so I DVRed it and we watch it whenever we want right now.  He was asking dad and I pointed questions about what happened to "the people" that they needed to overcome.  I started out with how afraid they were when all of the horrible tragedies took place and then was at a loss for words, he finished it for me, he said that they became afraid and "let go of the hand of God".  I know that atheists may not find that charming, we are a spiritual family though and my husband and I sat staring at each and giggling because our seven year old summed up what we struggle to fully understand right now.

    Tracy - People should never ask kids (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 04, 2007 at 10:50:19 PM EST
    what they think.

    Because they will get exactly that.

    Your son is a treasure. Enjoy him now because he will not always be there.

    Parent

    Vote suppression, not vote fraud (none / 0) (#3)
    by Sailor on Fri May 04, 2007 at 12:21:46 PM EST
    Before the 2006 mid-term elections, Republicans in Missouri talked a lot about voter fraud.

    They filed voter-registration lawsuits, passed a law in Jefferson City requiring voters to show ID cards and fretted that dead people might vote.

    Even White House political guru Karl Rove weighed in, telling a talk-show host a couple of days before the election that he had just visited Missouri, where GOP strategists said they were "well aware of" the threat of voter fraud.

    The threat to the integrity of the election was seen as so grave that Bradley Schlozman, the acting chief of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division and later the U.S. attorney in Kansas City, wielded the power of the federal government to protect the ballot.

    Now, disclosures in the wake of the firings of eight U.S. attorneys have led to allegations that that Republican campaign was not as it appeared.

    The preoccupation with Missouri was part of a wider effort in several states, critics charge, aimed at protecting the GOP hold on Congress by dampening Democratic turnout. That effort included purges of names from lists of registered voters and tight policing of get-out-the-vote drives by Democrats.

    The Bush administration denies those claims. But they've gotten traction recently because three of the U.S. attorneys ousted by the Justice Department say they lost their jobs because they failed to prove voter fraud allegations.



    Spider Man (none / 0) (#13)
    by Slado on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:33:48 PM EST
    I must admit I'm excited to see number 3 this weekend.

    Anyone seen it yet?  I'd love a review.

    Duke Cocah cashes in (none / 0) (#19)
    by Slado on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:28:39 PM EST
    Good for him.

    Lots of mud on people's faces including the president and faculty of Duke University.

    ESPN

    Kentucky Derby Day tomorrow..... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Fri May 04, 2007 at 05:11:05 PM EST
    I like Nobiz like Showbiz w/ Cowtown Cat, Tiago, and Dominican as the live longshots.

    Plus what many are saying may be the last great fight...I like Mayweather.

    Trickle Down Torture (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Fri May 04, 2007 at 07:25:18 PM EST
    WELL over a third of US combat troops deployed in Iraq condone torture to obtain information from an insurgent and nearly one in 10 acknowledge mistreating civilians, said a survey released today.....

    .......The team surveyed 1320 soldiers and 447 marines between August and October 2006 in Iraq.

    Although the report was completed in November, it was only released today in censored form after its findings began to leak to the press.

    On whether torture should be allowed to save the life of a soldier or marine, 44 per cent of the marines surveyed said it should, as did 41 per cent of the soldiers.

    When asked if torture should be allowed to gather important information about insurgents, 39 per cent of marines and 36 per cent of soldiers surveyed said it should.

    Link

    Okay... so I was tired (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 04, 2007 at 11:18:34 PM EST
    after a long flight and a miserable session at the tables I broke my vow and had three glasses of wine and bar nibbles for dinner and watched the 9 Repubs be attacked by the worst voice on TV and his helpers on the screens looking for worthless questions..

    So what did I learn??

    Romney said he had universl health care in MA. Who knew?? I gotta check that..

    Tancredo is to be questioned only about Mexican illegals.. Boy, talk about being type cast..

    Some guy from Texas thinks the Repubs are Libertarian... Who's gonna pop his bubble??

    "Tommy" Thompson believes it is okay to fire Gays..

    Huckabee is worth watching further..

    Gilmore balanced budgets and got rid of the car tax... he also straightened things out in VA on 9/11..

    Duncan, like Reagan, has been elected in CA... Now I admit that's no easy task.

    McCain is gonna make the big spenders national figures...

    Rudy says he doesn't like Roe v Wade but wouldn't try and change it...

    Score.....(after a fourth glass of Kenall Jackson, always a dangerous thing.. but I'm not changing it 24 hours or so later...)

    Fred Thompson, Rudy, McCain and Romney... with Huckabee to help keep the south....

    Oh. FRED Thompson wasn't there? He didn't need to be...

    Two Japanese guys told me they couldn't understand the out sourcing problem... they had been doing it for years...

    I was gonna have a fifth glass, but the Franklin had disappeared...

    I love hotel bars.  Yeah, a couple of guys had wanted to see sports, but we explained this was the play offs...

    That bar is in violation of the.... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Sun May 06, 2007 at 09:19:49 AM EST
    International Pub Code....no religion, no politics:) Better call in an inspector.....

    Parent
    kdog (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 06, 2007 at 02:04:50 PM EST
    uh.... Read the last sentence...

    Parent