Message In A Bottle

Wishing Makes It So

The Washington Post reported yesterday that researchers have scientific evidence that political leanings are related to unspoken biases. (registration may be required) In other words, "partisans stubbornly discount any information that challenges their preexisting beliefs."

This shouldn't come as a shock to anyone who's been paying attention. What's new is that the researchers hooked up self-described Republicans and Democrats to brain scan devices. The test subjects were then presented with negative information about their chosen preferences. Unsurprisingly, they filter out anything that conflicts with their pre-existing beliefs. Rush Limbaugh knew this long before science got involved.

However, there's another link to dittohead thinking:

"When presented with negative information about the candidates they liked, partisans of all stripes found ways to discount it, Westen said. When the unpalatable information was rejected, furthermore, the brain scans showed that volunteers gave themselves feel-good pats -- the scans showed that "reward centers" in volunteers' brains were activated. The psychologist observed that the way these subjects dealt with unwelcome information had curious parallels with drug addiction as addicts also reward themselves for wrong-headed behavior."

So political partisans think like drug addicts. Now it all starts to make sense.

Another less-than-stunning finding of this research was that Republicans are bigots. Duh! Yet, this being America, prejudice is part of the culture and few individuals are exempt. The research showed that:

"...substantial majorities of Americans, liberals and conservatives, found it more difficult to associate black faces with positive concepts than white faces -- evidence of implicit bias. But districts that registered higher levels of bias systematically produced more votes for Bush."

Fortunately, I am completely immune to the tendency to filter political information until it comes out the way I want it to ... so you can always trust this blog as an honest guide to the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Improbable Cause

The folks who are eavesdropping on our phones calls seem to have their wires crossed.

General Michael Hayden, the former Director of the National Security Administration insisted during a press conference that the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution establishes a "reasonableness standard" for searches of people and their property. However, he bluntly denied that "probable cause" is required by this amendment prior to obtaining a search warrant.

In fact, the Fourth Amendment says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The questioner, Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder, was actually doing a good job of exploring the underpinnings of the Bush Administration's warrantless searches -- most courts would reject their "reasonableness" argument and ask for evidence of a probable connection between the citizen and a crime, real or potential. So the Bushies simply argue that the Fourth amendment only requires warrants for UNreasonable searches and that their actions are perfectly reasonable.

Why aren't there more good guys like that in the mainstream media?

View the video at Crooks & Liars.

Evil Squirrel Must Die

Hillary Harbingers?

Recent elections in other countries have me thinking that Hillary Clinton will be trading "Senator" for "President" in 2008.

In Chile, Michelle Bachelet became the first woman president in the nation's history. Her remarkable story includes being imprisoned and tortured by Chile's military dictator -- and American ally -- Augusto Pinochet. Bachelet is a socialist who defeated the conservatives in a country long praised by American libertarians as a shining example of free market policies.

In Africa, the nation of Liberia has the continent's first elected woman president, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf.

Angela Merkel was recently sworn in as the first female Chancellor of Germany.

And in Canada, Stephen Harper and the conservatives have tossed out the ruling Liberal Party after twelve years in office.

Wait a minute, wasn't this supposed to be about the new wave of women being elected president? Not exactly. Each of these victories came about in large part because of the corruption and/or incompetence of the prior leader. Yes, being the first woman elected president in a country is significant. But to me, the real story is that voters are sick and tired of incompetent, dishonest governments -- no matter where they fall on the political spectrum.

If Hillary can develop a solid message of reform and "good government" -- no easy task in the face of the inevitable Republican onslaught of "swift boat" ads -- her gender can help bring back the difference-making percentage of female voters that the Democrats need to get into the White House.

Yes, it is true that Hillary is a "polarizing" figure. So is George W. Bush and he has been "elected" twice. The only question is whether Hillary can avoid the fate of the past two Democratic nominees. That is, can she run a competent campaign? It doesn't even have to be as good as the well-oiled Republican slime machine. Hillary's campaign just needs to be average and she will out-preform the dismal efforts of Gore and Kerry.

Some of this will depend on just who the Republicans nominate. Sen. John McCain, who has wide support among independents but much less support among Republican primary voters, would be likely to put a stop to many of the "attack ad" tactics used by the GOP. Unlike Bush, I suspect that McCain would disavow and condemn particularly nasty ads by conservative groups. It's hard to see any other GOP nominee doing that. In any event, it will be a very interesting couple of years leading up to the 2008 election.

Underground Katrina

You Can Always Buy a New One

Why do Republicans care more about your money than about your body? By that, I mean they are willing to cede you more economic freedom than personal freedom. They are far more concerned about the regulations controlling a ketchup bottle than the regulations controlling a woman's body.

I think part of it is hypocrisy. Lots of Republicans drink alcohol to excess, use illegal drugs, commit petty crimes as youths and have abortions (not all at the same time). Although their attitude is that people should be punished for such activities, when the son or daughter of a Republican gets in trouble over one of the above listed items, they usually get off without jail time.

Another component is probably class-based. If you don't feel threatened or constrained by conservative, middle-class white people's beliefs; you find it hard to understand what the fuss is all about. In law school, during a discussion of search-and-seizure cases, a conservative student observed that "if you haven't done anything wrong why should you care if they search" your car, home or person? That attitude is in evidence during the debate over President Bush's extra-constitutional eavesdropping.

Poor people can't get basic medical care? They should get a job. Oh, they have a job but it doesn't include health insurance? Change the subject. But god forbid that government should tax your cigarettes or the inherited fortune you worked so hard to earn. Conservative godfather William F. Buckley once observed that no one cowers in their home home at night because they are afraid of being embezzled. There's some truth in that. But that doesn't mean you should discount economic crimes that can devastate families (think Enron, Worldcom, etc.) while spending vast sums to incarcerate marijuana smokers.

Republicans have used "tough on crime" campaigns successfully for decades. Yet they often set odd priorities in their pursuit of justice. The recent announcement that the Bush Administration has declared "Eco-Terrorists" the number 1 domestic terror threat -- even though they have never killed anyone, unlike the anti-abortionists, the neo-nazis, the homophobic bombers, etc. -- reminds us how much Republicans value "property" over privacy. This is despite the fact that, since the Oklahoma City bombing (a far-right terrorist act that killed 168 people, including babies) at least 15 law enforcement officers have been murdered by right-wing extremists. The Southern Poverty Law Center even has a helpful map that lists the number of hate groups resident in each state. I guess between imposing "democracy" on the Middle East and rounding up arson-inclined hippies, there just hasn't been time left to go after right-wing threats.

The trail of destruction left by these defendants across the western United States caused millions of dollars in damage to public and private facilities.

Alberto Gonzales,
US Attorney General

How Much Is That Official In The Window?

Political Money Line is a great source of Federal Election Commission info on your favorite politician, along with articles about various other political animals.

Here's Looking At You, Kid

Abramoff Fatigue

(Via Talking Points) Ed Rogers, (GOP activist and co-founder of Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour’s lobbying firm) on MSNBC’s Hardball:

"Look, this is going to come out. Nobody is going to keep it a secret. Jack Abramoff is so radioactive—I've got Jack Abramoff fatigue already. I mean, good grief, he didn't kill anybody. Maybe that one guy in Florida."

Osama "W" Laden?

OK, let me get this straight. Osama Bin Laden releases a taped threat against the United States that just happens to coincide with serious trouble for Republicans on the home front (or should I say "in the Homeland"?). In fact, every time this adminstration's poll numbers drop, Al Qaeda supposedly does something to frighten us back into line.

Has anyone ever seen Bush and Bin Laden in the same room together? I didn't think so. Can Bush prove that they aren't the same person?


By the way, this photo (and many others) are available at The Propaganda Remix Project.

Political Malpractice

Senator Bill Frist, MD has announced yet another remarkable diagnosis at a distance. The Senate Republican Majority Leader and future presidential candidate has little time to practice medicine in the traditional manner, what with all the fundraising to be done. So, instead, Frist has perfected the ability to make shit up about critically ill patients. This morning, after conferring with fellow physician Sen. Tom Coburn, Dr. Frist declared comatose Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to be in peak physical and mental condition based on his conversations with an old woman at the local deli. Frist is planning to recruit Sharon for the Republican side of the Senate's annual Basketball Game.

"I saw some videotape of Ariel resting in bed recently. I suspect that is to protect his Achilles tendon and maintain his incredible vertical leap," Dr. Frist surmised.

Not to be outdone, indicted Congressman Tom DeLay, former Majority Leader for Republicans in the House, concurred in Frist's diagnosis but insisted that Sharon would bat lead-off for the Republicans in the Congressional Baseball Game. "The guy can still motor," DeLay noted. "I figure he can stretch a bunt into a triple against those lazy Democrats."

However, rival conduit-to-God Pat Robertson was not so sure. Apparently upset about being cut out of a recent real estate deal by Sharon, Robertson spoke sarcastically about Sharon’s athletic prowess: "He’s 77 years old for Christ's sake. Let's face it: Sharon is no Methuselah. Sharon will never hit enough homeruns to join the 700 Club like Methuselah." As an aside, Robertson bragged that "Methuselah is still coaching the ark-building team here in Virginia Beach."

Regardless of their minor differences, these three paragons of professional judgment are certain to continue their current medical practice ... as this photo indicates ... for years to come.

We Still Have A Dream

Martin Luther King, Jr. was a true American Hero. His "I have a dream speech" ranks with the Gettysburg Address as one of the greatest speeches in our history. His tireless efforts on behalf of peaceful change and racial equality were inspired by Gandhi and Christ but were uniquely American in both context and application.

It is hard to remember the controversy that his proposed national holiday stimulated. Bear in mind that this was a man of peace who was assassinated by his racist enemies. Yet conservatives tried every dishonest trick in the book to block the popular demand for a permanent honor worthy of King's life. America's ideals have been lofty since the founding. Dr. King insisted on putting them into action. What a remarkable man.

"I still have a dream. It is a dream that is deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up, live out the true meaning of its creed."

Codependent In Chief

Deleto Alito

Although I originally held out some hope for a pleasant surprise during the Samuel Alito confirmation hearings, I no longer see him as anything other than a far-right conservative activist. While there are no money-back guarantees for Supreme Court Justices, I anticipate Alito aligning most closely with Scalia, just as many have predicted all along. The Right Wing cabal that is running the country vetoed Bush's first choice (remember Harriet Miers?) because she could not be counted on to roll back the clock on civil rights. The fact that they slobber over Alito should be evidence enough to oppose him -- but I've got a little time on my hands, so here goes.

Alito's allegiance to "originalism" (an absurdly ignorant approach to applying the Constitution) and his refusal to disavow his 1985 statement that the constitution doesn't protect the right to abortion indicate that either he is still desperate for the praise of ultra-right wing conservatives or else he is one himself. Alito's musings on absolute executive powers are absolutely terrifying. They are also inconsistent. If Alito believes in "originalism" he should also accept that the Founding Fathers feared tyranny by Kings -- the executive authority of the day. That is why the Constitution grants exclusive authority to "declare war" to Congress, rather than to the "Commander in Chief." That title was bestowed upon the president to rein in the military, not to restrict Congress. Also, in the early days of the Republic, Congress met less frequently, travel was difficult and communications were slow. It made sense to place a permanent civilian authority over the military. But Congress does, and should, have the last word on all military matters. After all, only Congress can authorize expenditures and appropriate the funding for military action.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution declares that "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." Of course, to an originalist like Sam Alito, that means the president has no authority over the Air Force, right? Article II, Section 3 tells us that the president should “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Hmmm. Which section discusses impeachment? That would be the very next section: " The President ... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Do you suppose Alito considers failure to "faithfully execute the laws" an impeachable offense?

Alito seems unlikely to expand constitutional recognition of any rights other than the "right" to own a machine gun. I also found him to be dishonest -- how else to explain his extraordinarily convenient memory lapses (Sorry, I can't remember anything about joining a racist/anti-woman alumni organization that I listed as an ideological bonus point during a different job application). I have to give Sen. Schumer credit for highlighting Alito's inconsistency when he pointed out that Alito was willing to discuss particular issues that are certain to arise in future Supreme Court cases (such as the Commerce Clause) yet unwilling to discuss the right to an abortion.

That being said, Ming the Merciless, I mean Alito, is certain to be confirmed. All signs point to a future where the rights secured by Roe are nibbled away. Strategically, I would actually prefer him to vote to strike down Roe (and therefore, abortion rights) completely. At least that might wake up the threatened majority in America and finally get them to pay attention to trivial matters like elections.

Executive Über Alles

"President" Bush has dropped the pretense and now asserts a claim to unrestricted power. Whereas in the past, Congress could be counted on to rein in the reign of Imperial presidents, the Republican-controlled legislative branch refuses to investigate even the most eggregious administration misbehavior. In fact, the GOP majority actively works to build a throne for Bush.

I can vaguely remember when conservatives professed respect for American history and, especially, the Founding Fathers' fear of unchecked government power. Now conservatives believe Bill Clinton should be impeached for lying about blowjobs while Bush gets a free ride despite lying about little things like war, civilian imprisonments, wiretaps, etc., etc.

History teaches us that a small number of dedicated revolutionaries can take over an entire country. That's not quite what is happening with King George II. While there are plenty of crooks and future Abramoffs in this administration, I suspect that it is more a case of laziness and self-interest. It is easier to be a "yes man" (or woman, as in the case of Condoleeza Rice) than to vigorously defend other people's rights and interests. So a small conspiracy of cronies is able to run things because there is no counterbalancing force in America: not the Congress, not the Courts, and not the Mainstream Media.

It's only a matter of time before the Conservatively Correct crowd revives their chant of a few years ago: America, love it or leave it!

Gone But Not Forgotten

Are you just dying to know more about Dearly Departed celebrities? Me neither. But if you have a friend who is, send 'em to FindADeath.com. If you want an instant email to alert you to the demise of yet another famous person, you can sign up for the Celebrity Death Beeper.

Of course, you can satisfy two addictions simultaneously by betting on who will go next. And if you are convinced that you were the illegitimate love-child of a Hollywood star, you can check out their Last Will here.

Virginia Is For Haters

Virginia's legislature is sure to pass a proposed constitutional amendment this session that would prohibit legal recognition of gay marriage in the state. Interestingly, Virginia is applying the same logic rejected by Gov. Girly Man in California (where the legislature asserted a distinction between performing gay marriages in the state and and merely recognizing legal marriages performed outside the state). Of course, California's legislature was attempting to recognize in-state marriages while the Commonwealth of Bigots (aka Virginia) is reenacting a battle from 1864. They do take pride in their charming history down in Richmond.

The very name of the state -- Virginia -- implies the absence of sex. Which raises the question of why those shrewish scolds would have the motto, "Virginia is for Lovers"? Maybe they should add a few footnotes to clarify the rules for "lovers." And what is it with the state flag showing a bare breasted woman soldier dominating a man? How kinky is that?

Sled Dogs

Say "Nay" to Ney

Hold your nose and read more about Congressman Bob Ney (Republican -- of course -- from Ohio) at BradBlog.


Rep. Ney has been a key reason why Republicans have been able to rig elections. The strongly pro-Republican and Ohio-based Diebold Company makes many of the voting machines used in precincts across America. Rational human beings argue that electronic voting machines should produce a paper record of the actual vote as insurance against fraud or in case of a recount. Prodded by Diebold, the Republican leadership, led by Bob Ney, has blocked attempts to require a paper record in federal elections.

Yet once you've dipped your toe into the waters of corruption it's only a matter of time before you dive right in. Rep. Ney seems to have enjoyed the life of a high roller while being lobbied by his former staffers on behalf of Diebold and another, shall we say, "interesting" client:

In addition to lobbying in favor of Electronic Voting, DiStefano and Coffee were also paid thousands to lobby Ney on behalf of an obscure firm by the name of FN Aviation, which later became known as FAZ Aviation. FN/FAZ Aviation, the Columbus Dispatch reported last December, paid for Ney's 2003 trip to England. On that trip, Ney met at a casino with FN Aviation's director, Nigel Winfield, a three-time convicted felon, and Fouad al-Zayat, the Syrian-born head of FN Aviation. Zayat, as reported by NBC News, is known as "one of London's biggest gamblers."

As has also been reported by NBC and others, the apparently once-very lucky Ney reported winning some $34,000 a few months later at that same London casino, after an initial $100 bet "on two hands of a three-card game of chance," according to his spokesperson Brian Walsh. Ney, who coincidentally carried at least $30,000 in credit card debt in 2002, was fortunate to be able to report that the debt was paid off in full by the end of 2003.

Show Me The Money!

It would be easier to list who wasn't getting moola from the DeLay Money Machine.

From the Daily DeLay:

229 Members of the 109th Congress took $2,381,328 from Tom DeLay’s ARMPAC.

65 Members of the 109th Congress took $99,500 from Tom DeLay’s campaign.

77 Members of the 109th Congress contributed $321,500 to Tom DeLay’s Legal Defense Fund.

175 Members of the 109th Congress have voted with Tom DeLay more than 90% of the time.

I Feel The Need For Sleaze

Time magazine is reporting that bribe-taking former Congressman Duke Cunningham (R-CA) wore a wire as part of his plea agreement negotiations with the FBI. It is currently unknown just who was targeted or who Cunningham might have talked with while secretly recording the conversation. Most likely they were seeking to catch additional private sector defense contractors with their hands in Cunningham's pants. Yet wouldn't it be wonderful if he was able to get fellow Appropriations Committee members to incriminate themselves?

Duke Cunningham was a decorated war hero whose exploits reportedly inspired the movie Top Gun. Now his saga reads like an improbable movie script. Of course, given the fact that the Bush Administration has had us all wiretapped for years, it seems that turnabout is fair play.

Year Of The Dog

I suppose it was inevitable -- this being the Year of the Dog. Welcome to the world, Magnolia. Maggie. The Magster. The Divine Miss M.

As you can see, little Maggie is a chip off the old block. She's MAGGIEnificent.