Those torture photos ... a final edition?

Signed, sealed, delivered by President Obama.

President Obama signed legislation Thursday that blocks the release of photos that depict the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody. The new law is expected to thwart any chance the Supreme Court will hear the case over whether the photos should be disclosed to the public.

The Homeland Security Appropriations bill Obama signed grants the Department of Defense authority to withhold the photos.

Now that the bill is signed into law, it likely makes the long-fought battle over the torture photos moot. The Supreme Court twice this month postponed whether it would hear the government's appeal to the ACLU’s Freedom of Information Act suit that sought access to the photos, pending the enactment of the law. Solicitor General Elena Kagan sent a letter today apprising the Supreme Court of the legislation and stating the government would file a supplemental brief regarding its effect likely before the Court's conference Nov. 6.

We may never see this evidence of torture and some of the most egregious human rights abuses in modern American history.

Iconic

365 Photo: Some memorable photos here, of President Obama saluting caskets of American soliders coming home via Dover Air Force Base from Afghanistan. This is around 3 a.m., but it was 18 people, I think.

Next day update: Iconic in the sense that these powerful photos will be a symbol for so much of our modern era.

Does jock culture dominate?

John Hodgman makes some fantastic, thought-stimulating points on baseball and jock culture in his interview with The Pitch.

Baseball is the only sport I am capable of tolerating, because of its historicity and its fundamental weirdness and slowness. And its fondness for large, sedentary men. It is essentially a vehicle for nostalgia, which is the most toxic of impulses.

[...]

Well, I don't hate sports -- I completely appreciate the passion people feel for sports, and indeed, as I say in the new book, there's a lot more in common with your average baseball stats nerd as there is with a guy swinging a foam sword around than there is not. There's a lot of geekery surrounding sports that I actually get and appreciate.

And I appreciate that it's market driven, but what I don't need is for sports to dominate every single part of the culture, including even high education. It has a disproportionate representation in the culture, but let the invisible hand of commerce guide us -- the invisible hand is apparently always adjusting its jock strap and not rolling a twelve-sided die. But that will change.

The Pitch: In what way?

I think that we are necessarily moving toward a geek culture. The health of our society is going to rely on information technology. It's going to rely on a familiarity with math and science and technology. Geekery in general is founded on questioning and proof via analysis of the actual world and not the world as we wish it to be. By contrast, jockdom -- not sports -- jock culture proceeds from a certainty you create in your mind: 'My town is the best because the incredibly wealthy owners decided to keep the team for now.' Or, 'My political team is the best because it was my dad's and they best stoke my primitive fears,' as opposed to 'They have the best policies for me and my family.'

Jockdom is very noble. It's not deliberative. It's certainly the best way to win wars. It's the best way to motivate teams of people to fulfill a goal -- not just war, but getting things done. The most important way to motivate a factory floor. But as you know, we're not as much of a manufacturing society as we were before. China and other big industrial nations are rewarding their nerds and technicians rather than creating a culture that makes fun of them -- it would be wise for us to embrace the book-smart as much as our culture has traditionally embraced the street-smart, the jock-smart. I'm not saying nerds must have their revenge; I'm just saying the time for wedgies is at an end.

Beautiful skies

365 Photo

This could be the beginning of an epic struggle

The rabid Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin crew vs. the establishment power structure of the crony-cultured Republican Party. (via Andrew Sullivan)

"I just find it fascinating that my many friends who claim to be against Washington having too much power, they claim to be in favor of the 10th Amendment giving states back their rights, they claim to favor local control and local authority, now they suddenly get local control and local authority in upstate New York, they don’t like the outcome. [...] So I say to my many conservative friends who suddenly decided that whether they’re from Minnesota or Alaska or Texas, they know more than the upstate New York Republicans? I don’t think so. And I don’t think it’s a good precedent. [...]

And so this idea that we’re suddenly going to establish litmus tests, and all across the country, we’re going to purge the party of anybody who doesn’t agree with us 100 percent — that guarantees Obama’s reelection. That guarantees Pelosi is Speaker for life. I mean, I think that is a very destructive model for the Republican Party," - Newt Gingrich, on Palin and others supporting Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.

They created this monster. Good luck Newt. They're going to set their sites on him at some point before 2012, if not in 2010. This seems to be brewing as the most vivid example inner-Republican backlash in some time ... dare I say since Newt's own party-rebound effort from George H.W. Bush's turnover to Clinton. His Contract with America. Ironic.

The stuff that wins an Emmy Award

Stephen Colbert's episode on the Senate Finance Committee's health care bill is amazing.

Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts takes it pretty hard.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Pat Roberts Warns Against Health Care Box Canyon
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Religion

Officials say 'more troops'

The New York Times reports that Obama's pending decision on Afghanistan -- likely to be announced around Nov. 7, according to Jake Tapper -- will definitely include a troop increase.

Mr. Obama has yet to make a decision and has other options available to him, but as officials described it, the debate is no longer over whether to send more troops, but how many more will be needed. The question of how much of the country should fall under the direct protection of American and NATO forces will be central to deciding how many troops will be sent.

At the moment, the administration is looking at protecting Kabul, Kandahar, Mazar-i-Sharif, Kunduz, Herat, Jalalabad and a few other village clusters, officials said. The first of any new troops sent to Afghanistan would be assigned to Kandahar, the Taliban’s spiritual capital, seen as a center of gravity in pushing back insurgent advances.

Two things: One, I guess we already assumed there would be more troops going. The White House has been consistent about one thing in this debate, and that is that de-escalating is not option. And two, these are purely anonymous sources. We know how that goes. So, take it with a grain of salt or not. Call it obvious or not. But it still hurts to see those words.

Note to the White House

I think I'll start what is sure to be a much-anticipated daily feature: Note to the White House.

In the inaugural installment, the White House hears some difficult truths.

Note to the White House:

Stop crying about Fox News. We all get it, they're bogus. But, A) you're playing right into their hands, mostly because B) just about all of the comments about Fox I've heard made by the WH have come off highly impetuous, indignant and, yes, whiny. You're not succeeding in really calling them out. Does it suck to watch your friends be slandered by a bunch of hacks? I would bet so. But, come on, you're the White House for fuck's sake; you're the most powerful entity in the world. Let Glenn Beck and friends dig their own grave.

This message was brought to you by Note to White House. "Note to the White House: America's least favorite commentary."

White House/Fox addendum: As usual, Thomas Frank nails it.

But no journalistic operation is better prepared to sing the tragedy of its own martyrdom than Fox News. To all the usual journalistic instincts it adds its grand narrative of Middle America's disrespectful treatment by the liberal elite. Persecution fantasy is Fox News's lifeblood; give it the faintest whiff of the real thing and look out for a gale-force hissy fit.

As the Obama administration has discovered by now. A few weeks ago, after Fox had scored a number of points against administration figures and policies, administration spokesmen decided it was time to start fighting back. Communications Director Anita Dunn called the network "a wing of the Republican Party," while Obama himself reportedly dismissed it for following "a talk radio format."

The network's moaners swung instantly into self-pitying action likening the administration's combative attitude to Richard Nixon's famous "enemies list."

He goes on to document some of the prime double standards at play here, including G. Gordon Liddy's insidiousness, Fox chairman Roger Ailes' hit jobs and, worst of all, Fox's silence on the Pentagon Pundits program courtesy of the Bushies. Nice. And even nicer considering Frank writes his weekly column in the Wall Street Journal, which is owned, along with Fox, by Rupert Murdoch.

Combating private mercenary armies

365 Photo: From left, Vince Warren (Exec. Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights), Jeremy Scahill (journalist and author of Blackwater: Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army), Emira Woods (Co-Director of Foreign Policy in Focus) and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) at a panel discussion of the private military industry in Iraq, Afghanistan and Africa at the True Reformer Building.

Protest earlier in the day decrying defense contractors, who are meeting outside DC this week in a major conference to drum up more war business.

Giving Credit

Throughout the emotional gauntlet that is health-care reform in 2009, I have been hard on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nevada), and rightfully so. He never seemed ready to step up to the plate for progressives and liberals, plus he had a tough election coming soon. But he came through (it looks so far) with a opt-out public option in their version of the bill that now must be merged with the similar House bill. He deserves credit, but I certainly reserve the right to judge him again if bails on other key proposals that may yet materialize.

I've been mostly negative on him, and then with the opt-out news yesterday, I was skeptical that this was so simple all of the sudden with the Senate, House and a White House that behaved somewhat oddly this entire process (or maybe oddly as in kowtowing to industries at risk). And I was disappointed that people in some red states won't get much-needed care.

But Anonymous Liberal, who lays out perfectly the entire scenario of the next few years, and how the opt-out may work better than the all-out national option, since this will be the envy of many denied red-staters. They'll see their friends and family in other states getting care they need and at a better price.

Acknowledging that some Republican leaders and legislators that are against it will grandstand and make the argument that nothing's changed by more debt. But they're not seeing big picture. AL writes:

Indeed, it's possible (likely even) that Republicans will point to the lack of any significant premium disparity between opt-out states and public option states as evidence that the public option doesn't work (even if it is working on a national level to control prices). Fortunately, while this might score rhetoric points, it is very unlikely to lead any additional states to opt-out. Once the national public plan is up and running, state legislatures will be loathe to opt-out of it because such a move would necessarily deprive many of their citizens of their existing health insurance (which could be disastrous politically). Thus, it's a smart bet that the universe of opt-out states will only get smaller as the years go on, not bigger.

Though ideally I wouldn't have to be surprised, I'll give credit to the White House and Congressional Democratic leadership. Maybe this is the right strategy, at the end at least. The first several months weren't just uncoordinated, they were models in cluelessness it seemed. Again, more details will come out, and there will be more battles to spin, but this feels nice right now ... just being in this moment and knowing those initial care assurances will be available for most, and hopefully soon all, Americans.

We have to have compassion; Push hard on Obama

This is a great interview. Prof. Cornell West on 'The Colbert Report.' It's the master intellect of Stephen Colbert and some amazing insight from West. I could listen to West all day. And I'd definitely watch these two talk for awhile. They should have a buddy show. Or West should just be a regular guest on the show to spar with Stephen.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Cornel West
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Religion

DirectTV uses Farley, Spade helps

I definitely cringed when I saw this DirectTV ad featuring David Spade in which Spade interacts with his "Tommy Boy" co-star, the deceased Chris Farley, in the movie. It was the scene where Farley's character is trying to cheer up the uptight, know-it-all character Spade played. It's the famous "fat guy in a little coat" scene. Looks like others have noticed as well.

Some viewers are upset with DirecTV's newest commercial, a recreation of a scene in "Tommy Boy" that combines new footage of David Spade interacting with Chris Farley, who died of a drug overdose in 1997. In the classic scene from the 1995 comedy, a present-day Spade dismisses Farley's antics with the sarcastic remark, "Never gets old." Viewers on YouTube called the spot "distasteful" and a "stupid idea."

I feel this is particularly in poor taste given the way Farley tragically died: in the throes of depression, obesity and substance abuse. Cashing in on his fat-boy routine seems awfully opportunistic and obtuse.

I'm not saying Farley can't be laughed at if one is targeting his physical presence. That heft and the way he flowed with it so athletically and so nimbly was part of the marvel. But resurrecting this blatant dumb, fat guy clip to sell more DirectTV doesn't seem necessary.

Strike!

365 Photo: Mid Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters strike on 2nd and E St. NW

Details, details, details

Jane Hamsher agrees: The devil is in the details. She reminds us what is still at stake:

The good news: Pressure on Reid from progressives when his poll numbers are flagging made him defy the White House. More importantly, he ratted them out to the press. Rahm thought he could continue to push for triggers in the background and satisfy the base by mouthing gibberish about “the President supports a public option” until it was too late. It didn’t work out so well.

The bad news: Having a state opt-out that will make corporatist Democrats happy is quite likely not to be “available nationwide from day one,” and thus does not meet the the definition of a “robust public option” by anyone’s terms.

Regardless of what kind of opt out Reid selects, many people will be refused a chance at the option. Opt out by a governor? State legislature? Both? (Jane has all the numbers.) Many states have both a Republican governor and legislature. They're out. Some states have a mix. If a state like Missouri, which has a Democratic governor (Jay Nixon) and a Republican legislature, is forced let the legislature only decide, then no way. They won't think twice about opting out, unless people really make their voice heard. Some stalwart Republicans will be tested. I'll predict a state or two may buck the trend at the beginning. It's hard to predict after that.

I hope these conservative Democrats, like Mary Landrieu (La.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.), that oppose a public option, claiming it's on principle to our "free market values," realize what they're a part of in resisting further reform and relief for their constituents.

Harry Reid goes with opt-out public option

But is the devil in the details?

Okay, I'll give him a break for one minute. But I'll withhold any more judgement on the matter until I can see the entire scope of this health-care bill in the Senate, presumably more conservative than the House version.

TPMDC:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced what we've been reporting today - the merged health care bill will include a public option allowing states to opt-out.

"Under this concept states will be able to determine whether the public option works best for them," Reid told reporters. He said it was the "fairest" way to go.

Reid (D-NV) said after "countless hours" of talking to his caucus, there is a "strong consensus" for this plan. He said he will not submit a plan with a triggered public option to the Congressional Budget Office.

"As we've gone through this process, I've concluded, with the support of the White House and Senators. Dodd and Baucus, that the best way to move forward is to include a public option with an opt out provision for states," Reid said.

And TPM's David Kurtz has that the White House congratulated Reid on the bill, no ifs, and or buts.

Robert Gibbs just issued a statement on behalf of President Obama congratulating Harry Reid for settling on a Senate bill -- and notably expressing his pleasure that a public option was included: The President is "pleased that the Senate has decided to include a public option for health coverage, in this case with an allowance for states to opt out."

Warren in '12? It's not impossible.

Matt Taibbi said it first, the clever suggestion that it was: Elizabeth Warren for President.

The Democrats feel safe in leaving you and me out of that room for two big reasons. One, our main electoral alternative is the party that put George W. Bush in office. Two, the last time significant quantities of Democrats decided to buck and send the party a message, they helped get George Bush elected by giving Ralph Nader the deciding votes of what turned out to be the tightest of elections. Or at least that’s the storyline that’s been popular since that incident. The Nader “debacle” forever closed the notion of third-party progressive challenges to mainstream Democrats, at least in the minds of the Democratic Party bigwigs, anyway.

It seems to me then that the only hope of getting any of these problems is to get ourselves a national candidate who on the one hand is a mainstream politician and on the other is willing to embrace the notion of an open protest against the Democratic Party doctrine. We need for someone who has some legitimacy with both the media and the Democratic Party constituents themselves to come out and publicly campaign to re-seize the Party from the Wall Street interests that have come to dominate it. We need someone who understands the finance stuff (which automatically reduces the pool of possible applicants to a small handful), will know the difference between real regulatory reform and a dog-and-pony show, and will not be likely to fill a cabinet with bankers from Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.

The question I have lately is, why not draft Elizabeth Warren to run for president? And I don’t mean in 2016, I mean in 2012.

Now he goes on to acknowledge that, among the many other things that are dubious about this idea, challenging Obama in the primary or as a third-party could both undercut the Democratic president juuuust enough to let a Republican in the White House.

But he makes sense:

I think someone needs to put a scare into the Democratic Party leaders. Someone needs to make it clear that the progressives in the House might really kill the Health Care bill if it comes out of the Reid-Pelosi consult sucking as much as we expect it to, but even more importantly, someone needs to let Barack Obama know that someone else’s face is going to start being silk-screened on t-shirts at political rallies if he doesn’t get real on the finance stuff.

I've been thinking of Elizabeth Warren (Chairman of the Congressional Oversight Committee for TARP, compliments of Harry Reid ... how about that?) the past few days. I remembered the interview the Washington Post did with her recently. She discussed two things quite passionately: Where's the TARP money? And what happened to the middle class? This is connected -- I believe she knows. The look in her eyes at the end of this video is no bluff. The Washington Post's Voice of Power series:



That's intense. For what reason would she have to ape this for us? She sees it, the blatant malfeasance at the hands of the affluent and powerful, enabled by the government. And, somehow since she's been so vigilant, she made it to her level in government. Sure, she's not THAT powerful, but she is in a visible role.

For slaphappy skullduggery, let's pretend she was running for president at some point in the future as an independent. Could she do any damage? Risk being called Nader-esque? Would we be surprised by the people that would voice at least some support for her candidacy? Obviously, she isn't extremely well known; even the president isn't completely well-known in America much less the Chairman of the Congressional Oversight Committee for TARP. But I don't see why a cult following blossoming into a nuisance for the Democratic Party couldn't happen, then maybe some youth support, possibly some deficit-hawk conservatives. An odd Ron Paul-like mix of voters (Was that not an obvious connection?....) looking for something else. That's what I admire about Ron Paul backers. They don't care how dumb you think they are for "throwing their vote away" because they're supporting the man they feel is right (I like Paul's anti-war, anti-bailout civil-libertarianism way, but I don't want to completely gut the federal government.). That's admirable, I think.

And of course, I know nothing about her other than her stance on financial regulation and such. She could be a Christian conservative that happens to believe in protecting people and not corporations. But I think she did come from Harvard. So, you know. I think I can just tell with her though. We know her intentions are there for everyone, regardless of political party. Warren for president. Think about it.

(And media savvy. Here on The Daily Show.)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Elizabeth Warren Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

White House hockey

(365 Photo: Hockey in front of the Treasury Dept. and White House.)

God is here to stay

Karen Armstrong stands up for God amid the new atheists (h/t Sullivan):

So-called new atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens have denounced religious belief as not only retrograde but evil; they regard themselves as the vanguard of a campaign to expunge it from human consciousness. Religion, they claim, creates divisions, strife, and warfare; it imprisons women and brainwashes children; its doctrines are primitive, unscientific, and irrational, essentially the preserve of the unsophisticated and gullible.

These writers are wrong -- not only about religion, but also about politics -- because they are wrong about human nature. Homo sapiens is also Homo religiosus. As soon as we became recognizably human, men and women started to create religions. We are meaning-seeking creatures. While dogs, as far as we know, do not worry about the canine condition or agonize about their mortality, humans fall very easily into despair if we don’t find some significance in our lives. Theological ideas come and go, but the quest for meaning continues. So God isn’t going anywhere. And when we treat religion as something to be derided, dismissed, or destroyed, we risk amplifying its worst faults. Whether we like it or not, God is here to stay, and it’s time we found a way to live with him in a balanced, compassionate manner.

I do agree that it's seemingly in our DNA to believe in a higher power. But that doesn't mean we actually should believe, if that's her argument.

"I Will Survive"

Internatonal Day of Climate Action march: It was a bit of an adventure, with some very hard rain for a large part. (See all of them here. )



(365 Photo: March from Meridian Hill to the White House on 16th. Umbrella or not, we were drenched. Is the rain a good or bad omen?)

Sun Setting on a Relic of America

A strip mall in Gaithersburg, Md.

Yes, that's a Ski Chalet on the end of a long strip mall.









Wells Fargo (ironic) and a Sushi Chalet, all in one place.... By the way, the Ski Chalet and the Sushi Chalet bookend the strip mall. What's with the "chalets"? And why are they bookends? Coincidence?

365 Photos, 10/22-23/09

Obama wants the trigger. Will Reid give in?

After months of stated support for a public option in health-care reform legislation, President Obama looks to have come out on what he wants in the bill: the trigger option touted by Sen. Olympia Snowe ... a Republican and our de facto president. Politico:

Obama told Senate Democratic leadership at the White House Thursday evening that his preference is for the trigger championed by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) — a plan that would allow a public plan to kick in if private insurers don’t expand coverage fast enough, a top administration official told POLITICO. It’s also sign Obama is interested in maintaining a sense of bipartisanship around the health reform plan.

At that meeting, Obama did not sign on to a plan being floated by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to include a different variation of the public option in the Senate bill — a plan that would create a national public plan but allow states to “opt out.” Reid now believes he can get 60 votes to bring a bill with that plan to the floor by breaking an expected GOP filibuster — and then secure the 51 votes needed to pass it.

To that last paragraph, then do it Reid. Harry, you are the majority leader of the Senate. Lead! But Reid needs Obama's support in his upcoming reelection campaign, so it's whatever his cash cow wants.

One step closer to the disappearance of those detainee photos

The Senate passed the Homeland Security appropriations bill (with the Lieberman amendment that will usurp Congress's power to hold prerogative over detainee abuse photos, giving it to the Defense secretary.) by a margin of 79 to 19 yesterday.

And of course, I have to read about this on the Web site of The Reporters Committee of Freedom of the Press. No disrespect for them, but when RCFP and the ACLU are the only voices pushing against this, it's a sad state of affairs in the press. RCFP:

In a letter to Department of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the ACLU urged him to "not invoke your new and discretionary authority to suppress images of abuse."

[...]

"We are deeply disappointed that Congress has voted to give the Defense Department the authority to hide evidence of its own misconduct,” said the ACLU's Jameel Jaffer in a release. “Secretary Gates should be guided by the importance of transparency to the democratic process, the extraordinary importance of these photos to the ongoing debate about the treatment of prisoners and the likelihood that the suppression of these photos would ultimately be far more damaging to national security than their disclosure.”

I wonder what Republicans think of such executive power, something they suddenly rail about after supporting unprecedented presidential power for George W. Bush? I wonder how Democrats feel, being the majority and all, exposing themselves once again as frauds and hypocrites after railing against Bush's similar excesses while they were a minority? I can't imagine Gates doing what Obama doesn't want. And Obama seems to want to suppress this proof of American war crimes. Torture and murder of detainees is not America. But Dick Cheney made it the centerpiece of our global policy. Or at least that's how our "friends and enemies" see it. Now Barack Obama covers it up. I don't know how the Cheneyites could have it any better than complicity, cover up and a blind eye.

Protest of the day

(Photo: 365 Project, Day Forty-six, 10/21/09 - In front of the Supreme Court building. I saw the woman on the left walk up, set her bag at her feet and stand at attention, all with very little communication between her and the guy next to her. It looked as if they all were praying by themselves. Make your own inferences as to why people pray in front of the Supreme Court building. But they all had their own way of praying and/or meditating, whether bowing or swaying or raised arms or stillness. It was lunch hour.)

Protest of the day

(Photo: 365 Project, Day Forty-five, 10/20/09 - Help the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka.)


Look at that juxtaposition. Those women don't care. They don't have to. It's America.

Ban on photos of the war-dead lifted

Speaking of photos, here's some good news.

The U.S. military command in eastern Afghanistan has rescinded a ban on the publication of photos depicting slain U.S. military personnel, a Pentagon spokesman said Tuesday.

The month-old ban had triggered concerns among lawmakers as well as from several media organizations.

"I am relieved that this short-lived attempt to control the media and the public's right to know has come to an end," Louise M. Slaughter, D-N.Y., chairwoman of the House Rules Committee, said in a written response to a query. "Prior restraint on photography is not a good policy for the Pentagon. It's always been my belief that the American people should see the hard reality of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

A Pentagon official said the decision to undo the ban was internally driven and not caused by pressure from Congress. Some in the Defense Department expressed concern to the brass in Afghanistan that they had gone too far in censoring the press and urged reconsideration of the new policy, the official said.

Common sense, but take the victories where you can.

Part marketing, part vainglory

Here's some powerful sentiments from Carrie Brownstein on the commidifying of art and the powerful self ego, even with babies involved....

The folks over at Rockabye Baby! -- who turn everything from Queen to Aerosmith into child-friendly lullabies -- are aiming to infantilize Guns N' Roses next. Hard-rocking, balls-to-the-wall, guitar-laden tracks such as "Sweet Child O' Mine" and "Welcome to the Jungle" will soon be reinterpreted with harps, bells and xylophones.

As far as I'm concerned, these efforts to expose children to reggae-less versions of Bob Marley and cocaine-free versions of The Eagles has much more to do with the parents than with the kids themselves. I mean, do The Beatles and The Beach Boys really need to be more kid-friendly than they already are? Perhaps it's the adults who want things quieter and softer, who need the guitar turned down and the harp turned up, who need to be soothed after a long day of work and would rather stay home and watch Parks and Recreation than go to a rock show. And now, thanks to Rockabye, they can listen to benign, enervated versions of their old favorites and claim it was their kids who made them do it.

I completely agree with her (as someone that has no art output like Ms. Brownstein's). But I'm entitled to an opinion regardless. It's partly due to what can be called ... vainglory! (Cool word, right?)

Those pesky detainee photos....

Elmer Fudd Lieberman's horrendous bow-to-executive-power amendment passed the House last Thursday. The Senate will take it up soon, almost definitely this week (and almost definitely pass it). The amendment, tacked onto a Homeland Security appropriations bill (Joe Lieberman is the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee) would give the Defense secretary (Robert Gates presently) final authority to classify or conceal photos or other kind of media that proved America tortured and killed men held for dubious reasons in jails all over the world. It takes away oversight power of the Congress and basically hands it to the president. I mean, the secretary of Defense is a Cabinet member of the president. Of course what his commander-in-chief wants is a concealment of "further embarrassments to the tune of Abu Ghraib. These presidents, these parties are complicit in it now. Just maintain the status quo.

Jameel Jaffer of the ACLU on a large collection of detainee abuse photos, some additional Abu Ghraib images and the rest from Bagram in Afghanistan, being shut from public eye, in the Los Angeles Times today:

Their release would allow the public to understand better what took place in the military's detention centers, and why. They might show patterns that have until now gone unnoticed, and they would surely convey, better than mere text ever could, the cruelty of such practices as stress positions, hooding and mock executions. And disclosure of the photos might also spur calls for a more thorough investigation into prisoner abuse than has been conducted thus far.

The fear that the country's enemies will use the photos as propaganda is not baseless, but it is a mistake to give violent extremists a veto over the FOIA. The argument that the government has made in court -- and that animates the proposed legislation -- would give the greatest protection from disclosure to records that relate to the worst governmental misconduct, because it is those records that are most likely to be inflammatory. Suppressing such records might deprive the country's enemies of propaganda, but it would also deprive the American public of information that is crucial to the democratic process.

I think our credibility hangs in the balance here. But it's not a hot topic....

Why is no one in the Washington media picking up on this? It's too 'been there, done that' for them? "Oh, those messy detainee photos ... ah, gee, I don't know if I wanna cover that one boss," say those celebri-anchors and lazy correspondents that litter our nation's press. Not sexy enough. And they're tired of dragging the Cheneys on their air to defend torture. Maybe.

And no offense to the LA Times, but why were they the ones to run this? Why wouldn't the NY Times snatch this one (assuming the ACLU offered)? And why wouldn't the Washington Post hop at the chance to stack Jaffer's common sense alongside the likes of one of their Opinion pieces today by AHIP execu-lobbyist Karen Ignagni to plead for the sparing of the poor insurance companies?

Oh yeah, with them it's NO soft-on-terror drivel about detainee photos and shielding the poor little public from our wise executive and commander in chief. Bush or Obama.

Our mainstream media is failing us. Stuff like the refusal to cover this monumental issue -- the proof of sheer depravity and sinister behavior sanctioned by our leaders -- is shameful. It won't "put enough eyes on the tube" for them.

So then the ACLU is left alone to challenge these detentions and work their butt off to uphold the rule of law in this country. That shouldn't be on the ACLU to do. That's the press corps's job. When was the last time Chip Reid or Chuck Todd told you anything you needed to know?

From Italy, 1949

(Photo: 365 Project, Day Forty-four, 10/19/09 - I always thought these statues -- four like these in all -- were so ominous at night when I had to ride by them to get to work. They sit just beyond the Lincoln Memorial welcoming cars to the Memorial Bridge headed to the the cemetery, or to the drive along the Potomac.)

Who we are

Good essay/blog post by Carrie Brownstein, formerly of Sleater-Kinney and current blogger for NPR. It's about music and costumes we wear and our sense of self.

That's all.

Update: Check out this reader comment on that Brownstein post:

Adam Vazquez (Sm00th1) wrote:

Thank you Carrie, an article with relevance. I always secretly liked you but don't tell anyone even though the cats out of the bag. I'm assuming no one will read this. Any way, I would highly appreciate it if you can change your cover picture to reflect a more modern Carrie; a more womanly sexly-kind of kitten that reflects you warm stories. Thanks again Carrie until the next blog. Keep writing; write on!

Classy!

How would I know that this could be my fate? (Glenn Beck version)

This is one of the better, most acute assessments of Glenn Beck's masquerade I've read, by davenoon, on Beck and his latest tear-jerker:

In any event, the entire clip is standard gauge Beck -- chalkboard, photos of administration officials hastily slapped up next to portraits of dictators, silences by turns reverential and mournful, the fake tears and the rest of it -- but by far the weirdest part comes about three and a half minutes in, as he uses Coke's old Mean Joe Greene spot along with one of Kodak's "Times of Your Life" ads to remind his (apparently middle-aged) viewers of a "simpler time" in the nation's history. Which is obviously a multiple tiers of bat-shit, given (a) the implied assumption that television advertising's generic nostalgia was somehow more sociologically accurate way back when, and (b) the fact that, in this case, "way back when" happened to be 1979 and 1975, respectively. I realize that Beck spends most of his time dreaming about kissing George Washington on the mouth, so more recent historical reference points might have veered away from true North, but seriously -- 1979? The annus horribilis of the Carter era? And 1975? The year that witnessed the collapse of South Vietnam and the beginnings of the Cambodian genocide? The year the Weather Underground bombed the State Department?

Zing! What fairy tale land does Beck think he grew up in? And how much of an indelible impact did advertising leave on young Glenn-boy? It's almost as if he wants to go back to having no real responsibility in life ... as if he were 12 or 13 years old eating ice cream on his adoring Gram-Gram's couch in the Summer heat as Gram-Gram shielded him from the "unpleasantries" and realities of the world. She filled his head with this yearning-for-simpler-times mindset. The odd resentment and paranoid insecurity of this hate-mongering set make me believe they feel left out for some reason. Especially now that the president's black and they're positive the Mexican illegal immigrants are coming for their jobs, women and political power.

The Aftermath

(Photo: 365 Project, Day Forty-three, 10/18/09 - In the puddle.)

A Smattering of Links

- This piece on ABC World News was pretty pathetic:

Is Obama 'Too Nice' to Make Tough Decisions?

With problems for the president in Afghanistan, health care and unemployment, some critics on both the left and right are asking: Is the president essentially "too nice" to make the important decisions?

The National Journal magazine asks in a just-out edition, "Is He Tough Enough?"

"Be decisive," says Tom Tradewell, the commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Even liberal New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd says the president will have to "break some eggs" to cook up a more perfect union.

[...]

"I think he has been plenty tough. I think people want toughness, but they also want to have thoughtful leadership. And that -- and that requires reviewing these issues, thinking them through clearly, and bringing people along, and that's what he's doing," senior adviser David Axelrod said.

But the White House is angering its own party by declaring today a public option is not a necessity in a health care bill.

"He's not demanding that it's in there," said senior adviser Valerie Jarrett. "He thinks it's the best possible choice."

White House officials say all this talk about "is he tough enough" is only a matter of style -- the president is trying to build consensus. But that effort is also leading to the criticism, they say.

[...]

"The president has reached a tipping point whether deliberation is starting to look like hesitation," said Republican strategist Kevin Madden. "One of the biggest risks there, the American public begins to question whether or not you have the leadership skills."

I'm not one to shelter Obama, but this is typical mainstream media bullshit. He doesn't express joy in sending troops into a sinkhole war, so all of the sudden he's a pussy. I agree with them that showing little resolve in demanding a robust public option in health care is pretty spineless, but I question whether it means he's not tough or whether he ever really wanted to spend that rotten, vanity-laced thing we call political capital on a public option. I hope he can end up in the right place. Nevertheless, this storyline from Washington media is typical and sad journalism.

(And I loved how this ABC World News broadcast ended with this teaser for tomorrow: "And coming up tomorrow: What if the U.S. doesn't have enough swine flu vaccine? Tune in tomorrow for that." Your modern media.)

- Speaking of unfair assessments of President Obama, here's another one, via HBO documentary, though this one is more outdated than unfair. It has a Nobel Prize eight months later feel to it. It's called "By the People." I just saw a preview, but it looks to be about an array of campaign workers and volunteers throughout the country busting their ass to get him elected. Why they stood behind I'm sure is a fascinating study from person to person. It was a great moment that I'm glad is being documented, now frozen in time for history to revisit.

But seeing anything like that right now is pretty bitter to me. Again, it feels highly outdated and completely at odds with what many on the Left feel about him right now. I get it, it's a year later. But still....

I'm sure I'll watch if given the chance, but I probably should wait for a few years. I think it will sting right now. (I'll give my usual disclaimer: I never believed he would live up to the lofty hype surrounding him at times during the campaign. But I never expected him to be the George W. Bush Jr. Varsity squad.) It might lessen the real impact and sense of relief-turned-joy of November 4, 2008.

- Apparently the DC rap scene is up and coming. I had no idea. But it's a fascinating read for anyone interested in how a scene -- for any kind of music I imagine -- originates and lasts somewhere. DC's rap banner-carrier? A guy named Wale. I wish them luck.

- I'm morbidly excited for Washington Redskins hand-wringing the next few days. I caught some of the postgame from today's loss to the awful KC Chiefs. One commentator named Doc Walker, supposedly a Redskin great, looked directly into the camera and said, "Either you get it done or you surrender!" about head coach Jim Zorn. I then pissed myself. And I think former player Brian Mitchell was near tears rambling about how the current Redskins roster is tarnishing the storied history of the team, including Mitchell's many ... kick returns. They're serious around here.

U.S. Military in Afghanistan Isn't Going Anywhere

Somebody tell Barack Obama that they started without him. Ladies and gentlemen, your military industrial complex:

While the Obama administration weighs whether to send additional troops to Afghanistan, the U.S. military is spending billions of dollars on construction projects to ensure the country's infrastructure can support American and coalition personnel in 2010 and years beyond.

The military has already spent roughly $2.7 billion on construction over the past three fiscal years. Now, if its request is approved as part of the fiscal 2010 defense appropriations bill, it would spend another $1.3 billion on more than 100 projects at 40 sites across the country, according to a Senate report on the legislation.

At the main U.S. base in Afghanistan, Bagram, the military is planning to build a $30 million passenger terminal and adjacent cargo facility to handle the flow of troops, many of whom arrive at the base north of Kabul before moving onto other sites. Under the proposed schedule, those facilities will not be completed until late 2010 and go into operation early in 2011, according to military sources.

This as reported by Walter Pincus in today's Washington Post. And yes, that's Gitmo Jr., Bagram Air Force Base getting the facelift. Further along in the story:

Pittman (Rear Adm. Hal Pittman, director of communications for U.S. Central Command)recalled that Bagram Air Base had cement block buildings constructed by the Soviets in the 1970s and '80s. When U.S. forces began to arrive in December 2001, most had to be put up in tents. While some troops are still housed in the Soviet-constructed buildings, close to $500 million has been spent to upgrade the base, which has 32 acres of ramp space, four large hangars, new barracks and an improvised terminal.

Now, there's a touch of America at the base, including fast-food options including Burger King and Pizza Hut.

Oh the irony. Our soldiers are staying in old Soviet-constructed barracks and we're upgrading them. The last empire to bog itself down in Afghanistan left the light on for us. What else are we using? British reinforcements? Oh. (My favorite part of that story about 500 British troops going to Afghanistan: Sir Peter Tapsell, a member of the Conservative opposition, said, “Anybody who believes that an Afghan army composed of different ethnic groups is going to defeat the Taliban is living in a political cloud-cuckoo-land.”) And they have Burker Hut! It's like they never left home.

Mirror on the Wall, Show Me Where Those Bombs Will Fall

I'm so proud of the congressman in my native district in Missouri. Rep. Ike Skelton has teamed up with fellow hawkish Democrat Joe "Elmer Fudd" Lieberman (By the way, that Elmer Fudd nickname is fucking nice compared to what liberals should call him.) to write an impressive, if not predictable, drumbeat column calling for WAR! WAR! WAR! in today's Washington Post. The pair argue that Obama should give McChrystal whatever he wants so we can "win" and control extremism. The new Republicans:

Don't Settle for a Stalemate

Other critics justify opposition to a properly resourced counterinsurgency by pointing to other problems and priorities in the region that also require attention. But exactly how would sending fewer forces to Afghanistan put us in a stronger position to persuade the Afghan government to crack down on corruption and reform? Or persuade reconcilable elements of the Taliban to abandon insurgency and come over to our side? Or get nuclear-armed Pakistan to tackle the extremist threat on its own territory?

Failure to provide Gen. McChrystal with the military resources he needs to reverse the insurgency's momentum would make all these challenges harder to manage by reinforcing doubts throughout the region about our commitment to this fight and our capacity to prevail in it. But if we can roll back the Taliban and establish basic security in key population centers, as a properly resourced counterinsurgency will allow us to do, it will put us in a position of far greater strength and credibility from which to convince Afghans and others throughout the region that it is in their interest and worth the risk to work with us.

[...[

Here at home, we must stabilize public support by convincing an increasingly skeptical American people that the Afghan war is in fact winnable. This will happen when Americans begin to see the kind of visible gains that only a properly resourced counterinsurgency campaign can achieve through the use of additional troops to establish security and additional civilian resources to aid governmental reform and economic growth. On the other hand, if we send too few troops to regain the initiative from the insurgency and too few civilian resources to help cement those hard-won gains, public support will likely collapse.

There should be no confusion about what is at stake in this fight. The last time they were in power, the Taliban not only brutally suppressed the human rights of their own people, they also welcomed Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network into Afghanistan, refusing to give them up even after Sept. 11, 2001. Allowing the Taliban to return to power would represent a major victory for extremist forces throughout the world, tilt the balance of power in South Asia in their favor and further endanger America's homeland security from terrorists trained there.

The president was right to call the war in Afghanistan "a war of necessity." Now it is time to treat it as such and commit the decisive force that will allow Gen. McChrystal to break the Taliban's momentum as quickly as possible.

(Emphasis mine)

To sum up: Cracking down militarily is the only way victory, whatever that is or whatever we say it is, can be attained. The Afghan people should help us, not help themselves. The American public should be convinced that we can win, as if winning is the end all be all, and this war is worth American and Afghan lives. "Beating" the Taliban and extremism is the way we can stay safe; a re-examination, or reflection, of our foreign policy is not needed.

I know Skelton gets by being a Democrat only because he's ready to play the military card pretty quickly. He has a major base, Ft. Leonard Wood, plus Whiteman Air Force Base in his district. The district is ripe for a warmongering conservative Republican to set up shop for decades, just as Skelton has.

Different party, same lines.

Not a Hall of Famer

Announcer (Ian Eagle?) for CBS at the end of the awful field goal-laden, error-riddled Chief-Redskins game: "They won't be sending this tape to Canton ... in fact, they'll probably burn it."

Update: Chiefs up 9-6 on a ... field goal! 3:36 left in the game. I'm crying blood.

Another update: The Chiefs' kicker was Mr. Irrelevant of the draft! He's a success story!

NFL Genius or Incoherent Schizophrenia?

I can't decide if the CBS football halftime show, or NFL Today, is brilliance in modern sports marketing/infotainment? Or is the biggest load of forced-emotion, just-regular-guys-bullshitting drivel in the world?

Update: It gets worse: First Pearl Jam song (the laughable new single, The Fixer) on an NFL broadcast that I've ever seen/heard. Shit.

Another update: I love when the CBS (or any other group of) announcers all act like a game (Chiefs vs. Redskins) is the most sad, pathetic putrid joke of professional football (they being all former pretty good pros) imaginable. And the one non-former player announcer ends the "highlight" reel with a, "Ohhhhh, not pretty" send-off. That's when you know the teams (Chiefs vs. Redskins) are pretty bleak.

Another another update: Todd Collins is in! The Washington Savior! The cagey, wily veteran! And a field goal! Coronate him! Sorry Jason Campbell. Barring a Todd Collins ACL sever, you're on the bench. You have to hang out with Colt Brennan.

You Do Know There Are Ramifications to Racism, Right?

Remember those witch-hunting four members of the House GOP accusing a Muslim political advocacy group of trying to plant Muslim spies, or "interns," into Hill staff positions?

Former Bush official Suhail Khan, a Muslim-American, told TPMMuckraker a few things that the Republicans should think about pretty seriously. Do they want to continue down the avenues that only narrow the core of the party and scare off anyone on the fence (independents they are lauded as)?

Now the Fellow for Christian-Muslim Understanding at the Institute for Global Engagement, Khan says he thinks the types of charges made by the four Republicans this week could have a chilling effect on young Muslims considering careers in Washington.

And the high-profile charges have an effect on the other side of the job equation, too. "Really what they're trying to do here is to scare otherwise thoughtful members and chiefs of staff from hiring Muslims."

This doesn't seem like a party really trying to look forward and compete with new ideas, does it?

Day for the Rain

(Photo: 365 Project, Day forty-two, 10/17/09 - Eastern Market rooster.)




All photos around a neighborhood park, Union Station, Capitol Hill, Pennsylvania Ave., Eastern Market, 8th St. SE and North Carolina Ave. SE today. Many were with Cameron. (That guy on the Segueway thought I was a tourist taking his picture. He said, "Just another day on Capitol Hill...." It's storming and this guy's speeding around on a Segueway with an umbrella, like a Capitol Hill Mary Poppins.) Here's the Flickr link to all of them.

The United States of Goldman Sachs

The Obama administration invites another fox to guard the henhouse:

The Securities and Exchange Commission has hired a 29-year-old Goldman Sachs alumnus as managing executive of its enforcement division.

Adam Storch, who joined the securities watchdog this week, was a vice-president in the Business Intelligence Group at Goldman, a division that checks trades and investment banking deals for signs of fraud or reputational risk.

[...]

His hiring comes after a week in which Goldman has produced hand-wringing in Washington for its healthy bonus payments and amid long-standing concerns over the “revolving door” between the bank and government agencies.

“I am honoured to join the SEC at this crucial time,” said Mr Storch in a statement released by the commission. “I look forward to working with the talented and dedicated staff of the SEC.”

The managing executive role is a new job in a division that is going through extensive restructuring and is still reeling from its failure to spot frauds, including the Ponzi scheme of Bernard Madoff.

Allowing former Goldman Sachs executives to clean up a mess that Goldman Sachs was explicitly involved in creating is ludicrous and criminal in my mind. This is nothing new of course: former Bush adm. Treasury secretary Hank Paulson was a Goldman Sachs executive. He was on the phone with them constantly a year ago, when the financial crisis came to a head and institutions like Goldman were begging -- or ordering -- their boy Paulson to bail them out, as they were "too big to fail."

It's no better these days. The AP got access to Sec. Tim Geithner's phone records, via a FOIA request.

The calendars, obtained by the AP under the Freedom of Information Act, offer a behind-the-scenes glimpse at the continued influence of three companies — Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. — whose executives can reach the nation's most powerful economic official on the phone, sometimes several times a day.

[...]

What the calendars show, however, is that only a select few can call the treasury secretary.

After one hectic week in May in which the U.S. faced the looming bankruptcy of General Motors and the prospect that the government would take over the automaker, Geithner wrapped up his night with a series of phone calls.

First he called Lloyd Blankfein, the chairman and CEO at Goldman. Then he called Jamie Dimon, the boss at JPMorgan. Obama called next, and as soon as they hung up, Geithner was back on the phone with Dimon.

Glenn Greenwald has more, including a reminder that Goldman was the top contributor to Obama's presidential campaign. Round and round we go.

Loch Ness! Loch Ness Yeah!

(Photo: 365 Project, Day Forty-one, 10/16/09 - Godzilla on Massachusetts and 2nd St. NE)

(Photo: 365 Project, Day Forty, 10/15/09 - For Rent: This piece of shit.)

Whose Cult of Personality?

How will historians look back upon the exploitative vitriol of Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck era of American political and societal discourse? Not kindly, is my prediction.

I just read Conor Friedersdorf's article on why Rush Limbaugh is actually not a proven racist. But he is the worst kind of race-baiter. He calls everyone a racist. He accuses what he clams to abhor: immediate guilt of racism.

Limbaugh knows every dog whistle in the book of the Right Wing: Republicans, Libertarians, Fiscal conservatives, Christian conservatives, White Power zealots. He knows the resentful feeling many of these people share. They think the world perceives them as racists and they're afraid of being labeled the dreaded "racist" tag. So they turn to Rush to be their voice. They think they don't have anyone but Rush and Beck to speak up for them. But all these two do is play on the age-old stereotypical fears and preach the politics of resentment. Really, I think either of these two could go quite a long way with this schtick. They are the modern day charlatans of religion and racial button-pushing. They have few boundaries they won't touch. And they have major platforms.

Last Ditch Attempt at Hate

McCarthyism is back, from the minority party!

The Hill:

Republican members of the Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus said the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) have tried to plant “spies” within key national-security committees in order to shape legislative policy.

Reps. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.), John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), Paul Broun (R-Ga.) and Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), citing the book Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America, called for the House sergeant at arms to investigate whether CAIR had been successful in placing interns on key panels. The lawmakers are specifically focused on the House Homeland Security Committee, Intelligence Committee and Judiciary Committee.

I love this guy, the CAIR spokeman:

“God forbid American Muslims take part in the political process and exercise their rights,” said Ibrahim Hooper, a CAIR spokesman, in a telephone interview. “I suppose they’re going to investigate the Muslim Staffers Association next.

“If these people weren’t so hate-filled, it would be laughable, but unfortunately they have an audience and, given their positions, it’s going to get picked up by the hate blogs.”

This is a desperate grasp at some kind of primal racist, neo-con voice for the Republican Party, plain and simple. These representatives, if they actually go through with it, will be responsible for history: A landmark of hate and paranoid rage that fueled human beings in the early 21st century American democracy. Fomenting hate is the strategy.

Update: The question is whether Fox will pick up with it and run or pull back. If it's too crazy for Fox to get behind and push to its millions, you'll see some real cracks in the conservative ranks. Who will the party want to side with? I can't wait to hear what Michael Steele has to say about this. Wow. I'm imagining now, the denial-while-supporting answers. This is Steele's moment. Action!

Mushroom and Stilton Galette ... or Pizza

(Photos: 365 Project, Day thirty-nine, 10/14/09 - Mushroom and Stilton Galette, courtesy of Emily's recipe that I probably butchered -- it looks like a crude pizza. Good nonetheless.)

Desperation, the Preferred Human Emotion of the Cheneys

I like how the Cheney name has become synonymous with "dark fatalistic scowl."

A new non-profit org, Keep America Safe, is the brainchild of Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol that attempts to drive home the idea that Obama has made us less safe (when in actuality, he's not de-escalated much of anything George W. Bush's military did ... troops have left Iraq, but more have and will go to Afghanistan).

Scott Horton from Harper's:

I’d reduce the real purpose of Keep America Safe to this: “Please don’t prosecute my father!” It’s increasingly clear that Dick Cheney was the author of the Bush-era torture policies, and my hunch is that when the Justice Department releases the OPR report on the torture memos, we’re going to find more evidence of the invisible hand of Dick Cheney behind the whole project. Any fair-minded federal prosecutor looking into the matter would shortly be preparing to do what Patrick Fitzgerald probably wishes now he had done: indict Dick Cheney.

Again, this is some monumental scrambling on the family's part. Liz is the most passionate (or just most comfortable with a camera), though the rest are probably working their own preferred back channels underground and in assorted sinister places the Cheneys go at night.