Thieves in the Temple.

penny rants for the day of December 26, 2007.

So Ron Paul goes on Fox and Friends, ostensibly to talk about yet another record day of internet fundraising, and Steve Doocy asks him about Mike Huckabee's Christmas ad. So when Mr. Paul unexpectedly cites Sinclair Lewis's famous statement -- that when fascism comes to the United States, it'll be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross -- what does Steve Doocy do? Ask Ron Paul what he means by "fascism" as it relates to Mike Huckabee's domestic policy? Why, no -- he just defends Mike Huckabee, saying that "he's simply sending out a Christmas message," and then cuts-and-runs to a commercial. Way to be fair and balanced, Stevo. After watching the second part of this segment, in which Gretchen Carlson asks Mr. Paul for one-word reactions to "Iraq," "mainstream media," "illegal immigration," and "war on terror," you might just come away thinking that Fox and Friends is even worse than Pravda TV's nighttime lineup.

The Concord Monitor takes the unusual step of anti-endorsing Mitt Romney for President. Read the editorial and you'd think the Monitor finds Mr. Romney untrustworthy because of the changes in his philosophy over the last year or so. Read the campaign's reply, however, and you'd think the Monitor criticized Mr. Romney because he's so "conservative." You know, because they're so "liberal." Remember, kids: if you can't win an argument, just pretend you're having a different argument, and try to win that. It works for (insert name of right-wing windbag) and it can work for you, too! And, as always, be sure to visit the Mitt Romney campaign website at nochance2008.org.

Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times, that putative bastion of "liberal" "bias," gives us a very balanced report on Mike Huckabee's support for the National Sales Tax, a.k.a. the "Fair Tax." I say "balanced" because the report uses anaylsis from, by my count, one center-left source (at Brookings), one conservative source (Bruce Bartlett) and two far-right sources (Messrs. Norquist and Hoagland), and two out of these four sources think the "Fair Tax" is a bad idea. But if they'd talked to an actual liberal -- like, say, someone at Citizens for Tax Justice -- the Times might have learned that its headline was inaccurate: the "Fair Tax" isn't a 23% tax, but a 30% tax. 30 cents is 30% of a buck, but Americans for Fair Taxation calls it a 23% tax because 30 cents is 23% of $1.30. A fifth grader would know that's cheating, but not our "liberal" media. (Incidentally, the report also gets the year of Jim DeMint's Senate election wrong -- it was 2004, not 2006 -- and, frankly, a double-digit victory in an open-seat election is not a "cliffhanger." But maybe I'm just piling on.)

William F. Buckley, Jr. weighs in against the writers in the writers' strike. He's cagey about it, though, and one part of his strategy, apparently, is turgid prose: I had to read the opening sentence three times before understanding it. Remember, kids: split infinitives can really gum up a sentence. Of course, Mr. Buckley doesn't come out and say he's against the writers, but says that the whole idea of collective bargaining hurts "the public interest." "Whichever side comes out the winner, the public loses," he says -- so why don't you writers stop striking? A good culture needs good TV! Our consciences grow more leaden by the day! But the public would lose more if the writers caved, and thus taught corporations (again) how far they could go in their greed for profit.

Finally, to mark the PBS broadcast of An Unreasonable Man, Eric Alterman vents yet more of his bottomless hatred for Ralph Nader. How can he complain that "70s liberals" "(tried) to win in the courts what they could not win at the ballot box," when the slew of consumer protection laws passed by Congress during the '70s (which Mr. Alterman would know about if he'd seen that part of An Unreasonable Man he wouldn't see when he had the opportunity) suggests that those '70s liberals were "winning at the ballot box"? And no, I would certainly not blame America's greatest citizen for everything Mr. Bush has done. I would blame Mr. Bush, his administration, a cowardly Congress, a corporate and corpulent media, Mr. Bush's many emptiest-wagon supporters, and -- yes -- cowardly and enabling liberals for everything Mr. Bush has done. You want to talk about "the great mistakes liberals make"? How about blaming the wrong people and excusing the real villains? Or can't George W. Bush help himself, boo hoo? In short, Mr. Alterman's essay is one of the worst pieces of prose I've read all year.

UPDATE. Two "meanwhiles" in five paragraphs? Unforgivable. Error corrected.

with my mind on my Friday and my Friday on my mind.

It just wouldn't be Christmas anymore without the government calling me terrorist. H.R. 1955/S. 1959, the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007," widens the definition of so many words that, well, anyone who expresses an opinion about anything at any time on the internet could be found guilty of aiding and abetting terrorism. The House of Representatives already passed this monstrosity with only six dissenting votes (among Presidential candidates, Kucinich voted no and Paul didn't vote). Read more about it here, and then call your Senator using the tools in the upper left-hand corner.

The recently-passed energy bill includes a relatively strong renewable energy standard, but the Food and Farm Bill includes a weaker one, and the Food and Farm Bill needs to be passed, so it's (sigh) altogether likely that Congress will get the weaker renewable standard it obviously wants. But should we be held hostage to must-pass bills? Hell to tha no! Communicate your will to your representatives from this location.

Finally, satisfy your tax-law jones with the Citizens for Tax Justice's entire December 21 digest. It's comprehensive, and not a little disheartening -- quite a few things we worked on this year didn't get done in Congress. And many Republicans will read it and accuse CTJ of liberal bias. I'd suggest if Republicans want to avoid being criticized by everybody and their grandmother, then maybe they ought to actually fight for the little guy, instead of fighting for the fat cat and saying they're fighting for the little guy.

the world we know.

Not long ago, we opposed "binding arbitration" clauses in credit card contracts -- but how about such clauses in employment contracts? Kellogg-Brown-Root worker Jamie Leigh Jones told ABC that she was gang-raped while working in Iraq and, afterwards, was confined to a shipping container with a bed and told she'd be fired if she tried to get help. Moreover, KBR, which used to be a Halliburton subsidiary, says that Ms. Jones has a "binding arbitration" clause in her employment contract, which would pre-empt her from seeking justice in the criminal or civil courts. Once again: do we want corporations having their own little court systems, ones in which they rarely lose, and which supersede our court system? I think not.

In other news, Sadly, No! reports that the new Jonah Goldberg book, Liberal Fascism: How Complexity Equals Hypocrisy, is as bad as you'd expect. The book sounds like the kind of book you'd like if a) you hate liberals and b) if you treasure the moment you first understood irony more than you treasure your first love. This liberal doesn't need Jonah Goldberg to remind him of the 19th-century abolitionists who believed blacks were dumber than whites or the 20th-century Southern Democratic Senators who hated bankers as much as they hated blacks. That's because this liberal lives in a bigger world than Horatio Goldberg does -- a world in which you can admit your mistakes and overcome them, even if you don't forgive yourself for them.

you need a busload of faith to get by.

The FCC had its media consolidation vote yesterday, and evil won, despite the bajillion comments opposing the result. Can you say "fewer independent voices"? How about "fewer minority voices"? How about "fewer local voices"? The "liberal" media already strangulates the will to speak truth to power, and Kevin Martin just made them even more powerful. Thanks, Mr. Bold Thinker. Here's FreePress's open letter to Congress, demanding action they already seem quite inclined to take. You know what to do. And you know to keep doing it until we win.

Meanwhile, Army Sergeant Darren Manzella, an out gay man still serving in the military despite his out-gayness, spoke out on 60 Minutes last Sunday night, and you can watch him do that here. Almost 15 years have passed since Bill Clinton cowed to political pressure and implemented "don't ask, don't tell," and it's taken two wars at once for the military to see that maybe being bigoted isn't compatible with winning wars. As they say in church, thank God for George W. Bush! After you watch, help stick a fork in don't-ask-don't-tell by urging your Rep to co-sponsor the Military Readiness Enhancement Act.

all in one day, part three.

Senator Dodd's filibuster failed, but he plans to introduce an amendment to Intelligence's FISA bill that would strip it of telecom immunity. With the Democratic Majority Leader doing his damndest to inflict this FISA monstrosity on the people, the other Senators may never get to vote on it. But that's no reason not to contact them. In your discussion with your Senators, you may want to mention some of the items the New York Times summarized over the weekend. These include: the NSA warrantless wiretapping program beginning before 9.11, Qwest balking at collecting domestic communications, and government discussions with AT&T about vast dragnet operations. None of these will surprise you if you've been paying any attention, or are not an idiot.

Meanwhile, we managed to get nuclear industry loan guarantees stripped from the most recent energy bill, but rogue Congressfolk have added it to the Omnibus Appropriations bill. It's gotta pass, because it has everything Mr. Bush was going to veto, and the Democrats have already caved on Mr. Bush's "spending" "priorities," and now this. We. Are. Not. Handing. Out. Welfare. To. The. Nuclear. Industry. Or the coal industry, which also got a handout. Folks who don't deserve welfare handouts shouldn't get welfare handouts. They should get this.

UPDATE. Senator Reid has pulled the FISA bill from the floor until January. Call those Senators anyway, because we'll still have to put up with Senator Reid's shenanigans again in January, plus we'll have to put up with all that ranting from the right that the Democrats are putting the nation at risk -- by which they really mean you and I are putting the country at risk, not that any of them have the guts to come out and say so.

all in one day, part two.

Senator Feingold's statement excoriating the FISA bill destroys pro-Bush arguments more thoroughly than I've done. Use it when you call your Senators today about FISA. Furthermore, Atrios, Firedoglake, and Hullabaloo all provide phone numbers for Senators who have pledged to filibuster the Intelligence Committee's FISA bill today. Those Senators will also need your support -- I'm sure they sincerely oppose the bill, but how many can be convinced that they'll be able to fight more effectively at some indeterminate future point? They won't. The fight is now. This is not one of Karl Rove's "ground games." It's a four-down goal-line stand.

Also, the FCC's vote on loosening media consolidation rules is tomorrow. Not that Kevin Martin cares what you think, but FreePress hopes that each of 100 U.S. Senators will get 100 phone calls asking them to a) pressure the FCC to delay tomorrow's vote and b) support S. 2332, the Media Ownership Act of 2007, a Byron Dorgan-Trent Lott production. You do not need to refer to S. 2332 as "a Byron Dorgan-Trent Lott production" in your call. After you call (you can use the tools in the upper left-hand corner to get your Senators' phone numbers), you can record your call here.

all in one day.

Just as I feared, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) moved the Intelligence Committee's FISA bill to the full Senate, not the Judiciary Committee's bill. Judiciary's bill rejects big telecom amnesty, but Intelligence's bill has all the big corporate goodies, so Harry Reid did the wrong thing, again. But Mr. Reid's up for re-election in 2010, and all the water he's carrying now for Tha Bush Mobb won't prevent his defeat. You heard it here first! In the meantime, the ACLU helps you call your Senators so you can give them a hard time about it.

Meanwhile, the House Energy and Commerce Committee agreed on a toy safety bill that does not do most of the things we told them last week to make it do. However, they're going to take up the matter again on Tuesday. I don't know what procedural arcanity they employed to take the matter up again, but right now I'm grateful. Here's our second chance.

Finally, I notice that the Energy Bill that passed the Senate retains the phased-in 35mph standard, and rejects the "cost-benefit analysis" loophole, but doesn't shift oil/gas tax breaks to renewable energy producers, as originally intended, because (dig this) Mr. Bush would have vetoed the bill. How many times must I tell these pimps! Make him veto the bill, and then make him defend it, and then make him veto the bill ten thousand times if you have to, so he has to defend keeping tax breaks for his oil buddies and not for folks who'll befoul the planet less. A "Democratic" "Congress" -- what a stupid thing to have faith in.

here come the drums.

Mr. Bush still wants amnesty for big telecoms who helped him in his warrantless wiretapping efforts, but he's going about it a bit differently now: he wants to make the federal government the defendant in pending wiretapping suits. Sounds like Accountability One is finally going to be accountable, doesn't it? Not so fast. If the suit proceeds against the federal government, it'll just claim "state secrets" or "national security" or some such rubbish and shut down the suit. You can tell your Senator to support Senator Dodd's filibuster threat against any FISA bill with any big telecom amnesty clause right here.

putting the Christ back in Christmas.

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce debates H.R. 4040, which would ostensibly protect consumers from dangerous toys, but so far (per Consumers Union) it's a weak bill. Consumers Union advocates calling House Energy and Commerce Committee members and demanding the following: lowering "acceptable" levels of lead in toys, empowering the CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission) to inspect and block imported toys, passing tough civil and criminal penalties for corporations that break the law, improving public access to warnings on recalls and defects, and mandating that third-party labs, not corporate labs, test products. You can find Committee Democrats at 202.225.2927 and Committee Republicans at 202.225.3641, or, alternately, you can use this form. You may want to remind them that letting corporations police themselves convinces just about none of their constituents, though it seems to convince the bold thinkers in the "liberal" media.

The Food and Farm Bill is finally moving -- but Senator Christopher "Kit" Bond (R-MO) has proposed an amendment that would essentially tie up any Food and Farm Bill-related regulatory process in red tape. I thought conservatives hated red tape. I thought conservatives simplified processes; I didn't think conservatives made processes more complex in order to benefit corporations. You suppose that means Kit Bond is not a real conservative? Hard to believe, Harry! Hand out the beatdowns from this location.

Finally, from the "how do they always find someone worse?" file: new Bush Mobb press hack Dana Perino confesses, on NPR, that she didn't know, exactly, what the Cuban Missile Crisis was. Apparently I remember more from high school history class than Mr. Bush's press secretary does, but then bold thinkers dare to ignore history as they make history! Seriously, though, it's hard to imagine that right-wingers, who tend to pride themselves on their knowledge of history, would defend a Bush Mobber for her ignorance of that time in 1962 when it looked like we were all going to blow ourselves to kingdom come. Then again, the world is a pretty big place.

don't you think this outlaw bit's done got out of hand.

Tha Bush Mobb rides again! CIA head Michael Hayden announced last week that his agency had destroyed tapes of a "harsh interrogation," in order to protect agency operatives from prosecution. Law-and-order types would call that "obstruction of justice." But law-and-order types who don't think clearly these days would say that it's only an itty bit of law-breaking that we did in order to protect our nation from another terrorist attack. But if we cast aside our laws, what will be left to protect? You know, besides the emotional cripples who, because they lash out at their real defenders, deserve neither safety nor liberty? The ACLU helps you demand that Mr. Mukasey appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate the matter. Like the rest of Tha Bush Mobb, he doesn't care what you think, but I don't care whether he cares about what I think. I only care about my duty.

What's the big difference between former FCC Chair Michael "the Lesser" Powell and current FCC Chair Kevin "you will never be Governor of South Carolina as long as I draw breath" Martin? They're equally stubborn, but Mr. Martin just doesn't talk about it. It's like I said: they always find someone worse -- which never means we shouldn't force them to find someone worse. Anyway, last week the Senate Commerce Committee passed the Media Ownership Act of 2007 (S. 2332, a Byron Dorgan/Trent Lott production), and you can encourage your Senator to co-sponsor the bill. (My Senators are Bob Casey the Younger and Arlen Specter. One of my Senators is a co-sponsor, and the other is not. Bet you just can't guess which is which. Hint: the anti-abortion Senator is a co-sponsor.)

The Food and Farm Bill, which must be renewed every five years, is finally moving through the Senate, thanks in part to a few Republican Senators (Grassley, Thune, et al) who've realized that their first responsibility is representing their constituents and not serving the ideological whims of George W. Bush. Cynics would say "it's because they're from farm states," but that's how it's supposed to work -- if you represent a farm state, you're supposed to represent farmers more than the people who don't represent farm states. Cynics are stupid. Don't be a cynic. Union for Concerned Scientists still provides a contact tool with which you may promote healthy farming practices.

Finally, the not-liberal media watchdog factcheck.org has just introduced a new self-explanatory feature, "ask factcheck." So far, they've answered five questions, putatively asked by folks just like you and I, and though sometimes I've found factcheck.org a little too inclined to miss the forest for the trees, I generally think they do valuable work. I just hope they don't get inundated with questions by far right-wingers posing as dumb people. I mean, I wouldn't wish that on anybody.

I'm bringing sexy back!

Public Citizen informs me that the House of Representatives has cobbled together a new energy bill which doesn't include the odious cost-benefit analysis provision. I don't see Mr. Cheney's pet "sliding-scale" fuel economy provision, either, though the bill doesn't classify SUVs as "passenger" vehicles. The bill also lets the Secretary of Energy establish a credit-trading program (in Sec. 104), whereas I prefer good old-fashioned regulation. But overall, this is an improvement, and your efforts helped bring it about. The contact tool for the new bill is here. Let Mr. Bush try to claim that the cost-benefit analysis for American automobiles is vital to national security. Because that will persuade everyone -- the phrase "cost-benefit analysis" being so, so damn sexy.

Yes, I read Romneytron 3000's speech, and of course, I have a few objections. One, after Mr. Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative" and governed as neither, no candidate's nebulous claims hold that much persuasive power. Two, I never expected that any one church would exert influence over a Romney Administration, but no one church holds as much power over Republicans as the Religious Right does, and none of Mitt Romney's platitudes convinces me he'll be any different from Mr. Bush in that regard. Three, Mr. Romney goes well out of his way to exclude atheists from his little America, and thus "(f)reedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom" is pretty lousy chiasmus. Four, the statement "Americans do not respect believers of convenience" should be extended to include the phrase "like Mitt Romney." Five, secularism! Is! Not! I said! Not! A! Religion! Obviously! Be sure to visit Mitt Romney's campaign website at www.nochance2008.org.

the "declaration of principles for graft and cronyism."

The Senate still hasn't voted on FISA legislation, so the ACLU asks that you write your Senators one more time to ask them to oppose any FISA legislation that immunizes big telecoms from being sued about their participation in Mr. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program. After you write them, you may want to call them; once you send off the email, the ACLU website will take you to a page where you can get your Senators' phone numbers easily. Ask them if they really think that immunizing big telecoms from being sued for illegal conduct really makes this country safe.

Meanwhile, Mr. Bush aims to commit the United States to a "long-term" relationship with Iraq so that it doesn't matter who the voters select as President next year. Though Mr. Bush won't submit his "Declaration of Principles for Friendship and Cooperation" to Congress, frankly this is not Mr. Bush's decision to make. It's ours, and so we must tell our representatives in Congress what to do. I know Mr. Bush doesn't care what anyone thinks, but the Constitution demands that, for as long as he occupies the Oval office, he adhere to the wishes of the people as expressed by their Representatives. And one day, when he's on trial for war crimes, he might wish he'd done a little better at that.

Finally, happy Hannukah, everybody!

National Intelligence Estimate: Iran not making nukes.

Crow sandwich, Mr. Bush? To go along with your crow soup and your crow salad and your tall glass of iced crow?

Obviously, I don't interpret the NIE to mean that Iran will never, ever pursue nuclear weapons. I interpret the NIE to mean that Iran is not the imminent threat to world security Mr. Bush and his corporate cronies want us to think it is, and, moreover, that any desire Iran has for nukes could be contained by, you know, multilateral disarmament treaties and the like. And if rage-addled Bush supporters, in the face of this report, continue to attack the rest of us as "weak" or "reality-addled," I will continue to interpret their behavior as projection.

penny rants for the day of December 2, 2007: special "Republicans Gone Wild" edition!

I was going to rant about Karl Rove having the nerve to tell Charlie Rose that Mr. Bush didn't really want that war resolution before the 2002 midterms, and then I was going to rant about the "liberal" media's spinelessness in challenging Mr. Rove's obvious lie -- but instead, while I was at work last night, I suddenly thought of Monty Python's cheese shop sketch, and it cracked me up. Karl Rove telling us that Congress, not Mr. Bush, wanted that war vote early is like Michael Palin telling John Cleese that his shop "(didn't) get much call" for cheddar cheese "around (those) parts." "Not much call?" Cleese yells back. "It's the single most popular cheese in the world!" So watch, and enjoy. It's a lot better than bursting a blood vessel over a guy who won't change his ways until it's too late.

Also comic, but without the intellectual playfulness of a Python sketch: Rep. Tom Tancredo hired illegal immigrants to renovate his really big house. Back in 2002, no less, and the Denver Post reported it, back then! And Rep. Tancredo admitted it, back then -- before, you know, changing the subject to, wait, let me go down the long, long list of things Tom Tancredo talks about, wait a minute, I'll find it, ah yes, the scourge of illegal immigration! I guess I should have seen this coming, right? Or, at the very least, I should have added "Republican" and "yells about illegal immigrants" and come up with "there's got to be some hypocrisy in there somewhere."

Rudy Giuliani apparently billed a lot of his then-mistress's expenses to obscure city departments while he was mayor, but you don't think his base cares about that, do you? His "terrified voter" base thinks: why are we hearing about that at a time like this? We're at war! Those Islamofascists want us dead! And the "liberal" media will be the terrified voter's villain once again, even as they go to great lengths to avoid the story. I mean, we don't think of TPM Muckraker as part of the "liberal" media, do we? TPM Muckraker can't be part of the "liberal" media, because they do actual reporting. And that putative bastion of "liberal" "bias," the Washington Post, farmed this story out to The Politico, instead of breaking it themselves.

Mike Huckabee, who's about to replace the Romneytron 3000 in the Republican top tier, sure did deflect that debate question about "what Jesus would do about the death penalty" real funny-like -- but that may only be because, ten years ago, he screwed up a similar question like you wouldn't believe: "(i)nterestingly enough," Mr. Huckabee intoned, "if there was ever an occasion for someone to have argued aginst the death penalty, I think Jesus could have done so on the cross and said, 'This is an unjust punishment and I deserve clemency.'" Right -- because, as we know, from reading the Gospels, Jesus didn't have anything else on His mind at that moment, like, say, forgiving His attackers or feeling abandoned by God. Why, if Jesus were truly against the death penalty, He would have anticipated and answered all of Mike Huckabee's counter-arguments two millenia hence as He was nailed to the cross! I feel compelled to add that if Jesus had argued His case successfully, He couldn't have died for Mike Huckabee's sins, or made Mike Huckabee's redemption possible. You think maybe such deep thinking by folks like Mike Huckabee is why Jesus used to have such trouble with the priestly class?