A Tip For Karl Rove

Next time you need to really bring out the base, just equate all gay people with the most graphic and extreme porn you can find. Take it away, Rick Warren's buddy, Martin Ssempa:

I want to say homosexuals eat each other's poop. Homosexuals stick their hands into their rectum. Homosexuals stick all sorts of deviant sexual things into their rectum.

I want to show you this is from their website. So the first picture that I want to show you, you can see this man has just eaten the other person's poo poo and is rubbing it on his mouth, and I'm going to ask that we print for each of you a photocopy of this story so you get it fully.

Then, of course, they are grabbing each other's gentials (sic), that is level number one, touching each other, grabbing each other. Then number three, now they are licking each other's anus and are licking poop. And they call poo poo, chocolate. You see it is a change of words. I want you to see, Sheikh please forgive me but I want these people to see, they say a picture is worth one thousand words. This is a man eating the other person's poo poo, can you see that one? Please from BBC, I want you to tell them, we know what they do.

Bill Gates, who was unaware only a year ago that the US HIV travel and immigration ban was even in existence, doesn't much care about the Ugandan bill.

The State Of The Union Address

George Packer has a tip:

The only useful purpose the State of the Union could serve is to put the President’s stamp on the agenda of the coming year. And the only way for that to happen is if he says something memorable. Very few memorable things have been said on this occasion. I can think offhand of Bush’s “axis of evil” speech in 2002, and Clinton’s “save Social Security first” line in 1998, and very little else.

I don’t buy this. What he needs to do is remind Americans of the reason they elected him: to get hard things done. I guess a rhetorical catch-phrase helps, but I think Obama needs to avoid any gimmicks of this kind. I have one simple argument I think he should make in some way at some point – directed, again, at independent voters. 

We already have a form of socialized medicine. By guaranteeing that anyone can get emergency care, even if they cannot afford it, we have a system that is already collectivist. The question is simply whether this wasteful, super-expensive, unplanned socialism – that manages to leave 40 million without insurance at all, while escalating costs for anyone with it – can be made more rational, less wasteful and more productive. 

He should argue that it would be better to get the emergency care handled up-front with cheaper preventative care by bringing all those free-riders into the system and having them contribute to it. The health reform bill is an attempt to prevent free-riding in a way that will make people already with health insurance more secure.

He also needs to make the core moral argument again. Without it, the whole purpose disintegrates. Remind people of the awful consequences of the status quo, the inability of countless individuals to get any health insurance at all because of pre-existing conditions, the caprice with which patients are suddenly denied care, the cruelty and profound insecurity that it creates. He should focus too on how the current system hurts the economy by making the labor force less mobile, because the risk of trying something new is compounded by the fear of losing health insurance. You do not want an economy where business decisions are made on those grounds.

I know it’s a lot to work into a seamless whole. But it’s his most critical speech yet. And Favreau and the gang are up to it.

The Prop 8 Trial: Day Ten

The Courage Campaign, FDL, and San Jose Mercury News live-blogged. Live-tweets here. Transcripts here. Margaret Talbot previewed the defense's case yesterday. The Mercury News describes the testimony of defense witness Kenneth Miller, a Claremont McKenna professor:

Kenneth Miller, a Claremont McKenna politics professor, is walking Judge Vaughn Walker through evidence Proposition 8 backers insist shows that gay and lesbian political clout is on the rise, contrary to an expert presented last week by lawyers for same-sex couples seeking the right to marry. Miller focused on the power of the Democratic Party in California, and testified that most of the state's leading politicians, to one degree or another, are strong supporters of gay and lesbian rights, ranging from Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer to Attorney General (and would-be governor) Jerry Brown. He said newspapersand the entertainment industry support gay rights in the state, as do labor unions.

Timothy Kincaid's summary is here. Brian Leubitz thinks that Miller has been a net loss for the defense so far.

Here Comes The Haggis, Ctd

Or not. A USDA official e-mails:

Recently, several news articles have incorrectly stated that the U.S. will be relaxing or lifting its ban on Scottish haggis. At this time, haggis is still banned in the U.S. The APHIS rule covers all ruminant imports, which includes haggis. It is currently being reviewed to incorporate the current risk and latest science related to these regulations. There is no specific time frame for the completion of this review. Please check back with APHIS periodically for updates.

Letting The Inmates Run The Article

DiA calls out the NYT:

[T]he Times, while putting this in the perspective of now and going forward, and noting voter anger several times, makes no mention of the budget situation Mr Obama inherited. Instead, it lets a spokesman for John Boehner get in a yuk-yuk line: "Given Washington Democrats' unprecedented spending binge, this is like announcing you're going on a diet after winning a pie-eating contest." This is like making fun of someone winning a pie-eating contest after you've just devoured a schoolbus full of children headed for fat camp. If, in the American newspaper's tradition of scrupulous balance, you're going to let both sides get their word in, then make sure to get both their records in too.

The amnesia of the American public seems to have infected even the NYT. And this is what is going on here. The forces of reaction are trying to psych out the forces of change and reform. And they're succeeding with this just as they succeeded in normalizing torture and forcing the sad, lost MSM into the euphemisms of war criminals.

Too Early To Call

Nate Silver says that the White House shouldn't panic:

An awful lot of things could happen between now and 2012: we could capture or kill Osama bin Laden, or get bogged down in a third front in the war on terror in Pakistan or Yemen; the economy could go into a double-dip recession, or grow at a 5 percent annual clip; a loss of a substantial number of seats at the midterms could bring out the best side of Obama, or his worst. So I don't use this to recommend (or recommend against) any particular course of policy. What I would say, however, is that if you begin to see a panicked attitude coming from the White House, it's not really called for — it's the Congress's jobs that are on the line right now, and not theirs.

The Mass Conspiracy Canard

Secret Camp Photo

Joe Carter won’t let go. And look: no one is stating for certain in every respect what happened to three Gitmo prisoners allegedly found hanging in their cells in 2006 in a bizarre triple simultaneous suicide. I find the Seton Hall study credible in exposing what appears to be a bizarre and hole-ridden “investigation” and the evidence that Scott Horton has compiled from eye-witnesses requires specific answers. The Justice Department and the Pentagon have offered no specific answers to these valid questions. They just pivot back to the report that makes no sense. The report is also full of blacked out passages, rendering it impossible to know the full details. From this, Carter assumes the censored parts back up the government! Let’s just say that after Abu Ghraib and Bagram and Camp Cropper and Camp Nama and the ICRC reports, I think skepticism is in order. As one commenter on Carter’s blog writes:

In this case, it’s the much more extraordinary claim to suggest that three men, at least one of whom was looking forward to release because he had no discernible ties to terrorism whatsoever, all committed simultaneous suicide at the behest of terror organizations they had never in their lives communicated with, as opposed to the much more prosaic claim that these men were being interrogated (as we know they did at Gitmo) under circumstances of “enhanced interrogation” (torture, which we know they were doing at Gitmo) at a CIA black site (which we know exists at Gitmo) and then died (which we know has happened during these investigations in more than one hundred other cases.)

But to see this, you have to break down the denial that simply cannot believe that the US government could be engaged in this kind of evil. I used to believe that.

When the first reports of torture at Gitmo leaked out, I dismissed them as enemy propaganda. I had no idea of the depths to which Cheney had already sunk. I now have no option but profound skepticism toward any assertion by the government that they have not tortured prisoners to death. They have. Why not another case?  A reader counters Carter’s credulity:

What is the evidence for these people dying as a result of torture at Camp No?  First, according to Horton and unrebutted by the Pentagon, there was eyewitness testimony that they were taken there and then delivered back to the clinic, dead.  Second, there was observation of the bodies by pathologists and a police officer, noting signs of torture and mistreatment, and the Swiss pathologists’ conclusions that the bodies bore signs of death inconsistent with the US theory of death by hanging. 

To this must be added the fact that contrary to law and ethics, the US pathologists removed the throat tissue essential to a verdict and refused to provide it to independent pathologists conducting examinations at the families’ request.  Third, the statement by the camp commander to the assembled guards, confirmed in four independent accounts, that the prisoners died from swallowing cloth and that the hanging story would be disseminated in the media instead. 

Fourth, the case of Shaker Aamer, that same night, describing techniques applied to him that perfectly match the condition of the bodies, including the stuffing of cloth into the mouth (obstruction of windpipe) and placing a mask over the face to hold it in place–the likely cause of death.  Fifth, the conclusion of Gen Al-Zahrani that the “suicide note” was a forgery (and NCIS’s own admission that all of the suicide notes were suspiciously similar and possibly shaped by the same person).  All of this is solid, well documented evidence–not a concoction.

As for Camp No, Carter’s view is that it doesn’t exist.  The Obama Administration, even when pressed, declines to make any such statement. Now isn’t that strange?  The CIA actually acknowledged it was running a operations at Gitmo and said it closed it down after these events, in September 2006.  JSOC’s operations at Gitmo also are the subject of lengthy, still-classified passages of the SASC report.  The CIA never acknowledged where its facility was located.  But prisoners were taken to Camp No, and one guard recalls hearing screams come out of it. The accounts of mistreatment at the hands of CIA interrogators are very numerous and are documented in US government accounts, including FBI reports.  These reports do not discuss the exact locus, as they could not if it was classified.  Neither would the prisoners know since they were transported hooded and shackled so they could not observe where they were being taken.  But of course the very idea of the CIA torturing prisoners is absurd… even though a CIA IG report documents in terrific detail that such things occurred, at CIA black sites around the world.  Carter is engaged in laughable denial here.

Why doesn’t Carter also take a look at the NCIS’s own account of how they died?  Does he think this is even marginally credible?  It’s an exercise in the absurd, which explains why 3-1/2 years after the fact they keep their file classified, refuse to give an interview to discuss it, and attempt to withhold every bit of information and evidence they have.

And if the explanation is correct, why did Bush Administration spokesmen make so many demonstrably false statements about the prisoners at the time their deaths were announced? Was that just innocent error, to say they were “front line soldiers” for the Taliban and Al Qaeda, when in fact the Administration had concluded just the opposite and had determined to set them free?  Carter doesn’t want to cope with these facts, nor the looming prospect that they had a very real reason to lie–the conventional one–to mask the truth.

For all these reasons, I believe we need an independent investigation, either by the Red Cross or a truly independent prosecutor or an international body. And I do not believe journalism should consist in justifying blanket statements by the powerful as opposed to demanding evidence that their stories are true.

And yes, that still applies to Mrs Palin.

Pass. The. Damn. Bill.

A round-up of the mound of bloggy opinion favoring passage of the Senate bill. Meanwhile Noam gets excited by a conference call with OMB Deputy Director Rob Nabors. Money Nabors quote:

I remember the president said something to me that always stuck. When we sat down to ask if both houses [of Congress] could pass health care bills, a lot of people reacted negatively [because it had never been done before]. But the president said, don’t bet against me. And we’re confident that [those health care bills] will soon go through the conference process and be on the president’s desk. So I understand the appropriators initial reaction, but there’s a lot of time [between now and the end of the appropriations process].

Know hope.

Lipstick On A War Criminal

Max Fisher crafts a comprehensive review of Yoo's recent PR campaign:

Conservative Case For Yoo  GOP strategist David Frum summarizes the standard conservative defense: he's a humble public servant. "The question he had been asked by the security arm of government was not, 'How can we torture?' but 'What can we do that isn’t torture?' Yoo is a lawyer, not an expert in interrogation. He did not recommend techniques. He tried to do something that the U.S. government had not done before: define the legal limit of the permissible."

He defined it as anything short of death or the loss of major bodily organs. Hundreds died as a result of his insane and unprecedented and legally absurd definition. A war's moral basis was destroyed. A massive recruitment of Jihadists was one of the consequences. Yoo helped put this country's security at profound risk, while undermining its core moral values.

The entire point of the Geneva Conventions and the Reagan-signed UN Convention and domestic law and centuries of precedent was never to get anywhere close to torture. The broadness of the ban was designed to stop anyone in government from doing anything like what Yoo proposed and Cheney implemented. 

And still, the Obama administration refuses to release the DOJ's report on the professional legal quality of Yoo's legal "reasoning". We do not yet have an independent judgment of whether Yoo was acting in good or bad faith or was simply too stupid and too craven to read the law correctly. Why is Holder still withholding this?