CommonPrejudice

Tom Selleck is an Idiot

Just heard Tom Selleck on CNN note how "Obama didn't get a mandate from the left-wing of the Democratic Party," implying that this is how Obama is running his government.

Really. So which of Obama's policies have come from the Feingold wing? Universal healthcare? Pulling out of Iraq immediately? Not going into Afghanistan? Trials for war criminals? The end of telecom immunity? Bank nationalization? Higher taxes for the most wealthy (there were no new taxes, Obama just let Bush's preposterous tax cuts expire). Raising the minimum wage? Change to the bankruptcy law? Change to the welfare?

Obama is a centrist....even worse, an American centrist, which in Canada would put him squarely in the middle of the Conservative Party.

Of course, with Blitzer giving the interview there was absolutely zero chance that Selleck's statement would be challenged.

The whole notion is a ridiculous republican talking point that can only exist because the mainstream media have only the most passing familiarity with what their role is in a democracy as well as the fact that, politically speaking, the United States is a very conservative country.

(btw Unlike some of those on the right, I don't deny Selleck - because he's famous - the right to opine. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Problem is you just can't make shit up)

Dr. Z still recovering

One of my favorite sports columnists is Paul Zimmerman - Dr. Z - of S.I. He had a stroke a couple of months ago and is still in the hospital recovering. In an update on his condition, Peter King wrote this:

... as of now, he cannot speak, has difficulty reading because of the effects of the strokes on his eyes, and does not have full use of his right side, including his arm and leg. He gets about three hours of therapy per day and is being trained to speak and walk again. It is probably going to be a long haul back to normalcy for Dr. Z -- and now we have to hope that the insurance company will see that his case needs more time in rehab. That's the thing Linda, aka The Flaming Redhead [Dr.Z's wife], is battling now.

They hope his insurance company will see he needs more rehab time. Well at least the bureaucrats in Washington aren't make decisions regarding someone's health (which, of course, never happens in a socialized system anyway). We can be certain that insurance companies always have the best interest of the patient in mind.

May Dr. Z. get better real soon.

Franken/Coleman Update

(update below): The legal proceedings continue in Minnesota. A few days ago Michael Stokes Paulson writing in (what else could it be) the Wall Street Journal makes the argument that the recount in Minnesota, due to the irregularities, was unconstitutional and therefore there should be a re-vote.

In the process Paulson rehashes much of  the same old nonsense that has been definitively debunked.

Consider the inconsistencies: One county "found" 100 new votes for Mr. Franken, due to an asserted clerical error. Decision? Add them. Ramsey County (St. Paul) ended up with 177 more votes than were recorded election day. Decision? Count them. Hennepin County (Minneapolis, where I voted -- once, to my knowledge) came up with 133 fewer votes than were recorded by the machines. Decision? Go with the machines' tally. All told, the recount in 25 precincts ended up producing more votes than voters who signed in that day.

There are NO inconsistencies here (see my link above) and the last sentence is embarrassingly dim for someone who apparently is a law professor and a former associate dean of a law school (actually it is embarrassingly dim for anyone, never mind a law professor). The absentee ballots quite obviously are the cause of more votes than voters who signed in on election day and for the countless time, there has been no evidence or claim that that there are counties where the vote totals exceeeded the number of people who legally voted.

 The following, as I have explained, is the only justifiable complaint. Paulson says:

...Then there's Minnesota's (first, so far) state Supreme Court decision, Coleman v. Ritchie, decided by a vote of 3-2 on Dec. 18. (Two justices recused themselves because they were members of the state canvassing board.) While not as bad as Florida's interventions, the Minnesota Supreme Court ordered local boards to count some previously excluded absentee ballots but not others. Astonishingly, the court left the decision as to which votes to count to the two competing campaigns and forbade local election officials to correct errors on their own.

No. That is not an accurate portrayal of what happened. The total number of falsely rejected absentee ballots were identified by local campaign officials independently (over 1300) which, subsequently campaigns got the right to veto due to a very unwise wise decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court. BUT the local election officials absolutely had the chance to correct the errors (going through some ballots that Coleman disputed 3 times). Not at all astonishingly Paulson gets it completely wrong. He continues:

The standards for evaluating rejected absentee ballots likewise must be uniform, with decisions made according to legal standards, not by partisan campaigns.

The standards were uniform and very clear (see my previous post). The problem was that originally Coleman didn't want any falsely rejected absentee ballots * (he thought he was winning then) and went to court to prevent it, which in turn led to the indefensible decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court to allow campaigns the right to veto ballots. (There is of course a very easy remedy if the Court does rule that, consistent with Bush vs. Gore, that standards must be applied uniformly to the ballots. Count the 400 odd ballots that were identified as falsely rejected by the local campaign officials but were vetoed by the campaigns. (And Franken will almost certainly still win)

*[On the absentee ballot question Coleman has showed a remarkable ability as a contortionist. From not wanting any counted (claiming there were NO falsely rejected absentee ballots) to desperately trying to limit the number counted via the courts to today's position of, can you believe this?, wanting all 12000 rejected absentee ballots counted. Classic]

Paulson concludes:

And what if there is no reliable way to determine in a recount who won, consistent with Bush v. Gore's requirements?

The Constitution's answer is a do-over.

Actually as has been painstakingly explained by me and many others, the recount in Minnesota has been as reliable as humanly possible.  Nate Silver adds, "there is certainly no sense in the Constitution that the Senate is supposed to say "Ehh... it's pretty close -- let's have a do-over!"."

Two Hail Marys are going on here. Count all the absentee ballots or redo the election. Neither are close to being warranted.

--------

Earlier today Franken's attempt to have Coleman's challenge summarily dismissed is in limbo with the court currently considering the motion. Tomorrow they will consider Coleman's counter-motion to have the court rule for a "summary judgement."

Maybe, though, Coleman finally sees the writing on the wall.

Norm Coleman (R) has taken a job with the Republican Jewish Coalition while contesting Democrat Al Franken’s lead in the Minnesota Senate race, his campaign confirmed Thursday.

In what could be seen as a sign that Coleman thinks his bid to return to the Senate may be lost, he has signed on to do consulting work for the group, which is comprised of a number GOP leaders.

Let's hope so anyways.

Update:

I think Brad at Bradblog has it exactly right on Reid's announcement today that the Democrats will probably try and seat Franken next week.

Myths of the Franken/Coleman Recount

People are going to stop thinking about themselves and start thinking about me, Al Franken. That's right. I believe we're entering the Al Franken decade....you see a news report you'll be thinking "I wonder what Al Franken thinks about this?" "I wonder how this inflation thing is hurting Al Franken?" And you women will be thinking "What can I wear that will please Al Franken?" or "What can I not wear?" A lot of you are probally thinking "Why Al Franken?" Well, because I thought of it, and I'm on TV. -Al Franken (Saturday Night Live)

I've been following the Franken/Coleman recount quite closely. In fact I've followed Franken's attempt to become a senator for some time. Besides liking his style of comedy very much I am also a fan of his politically. He's very smart, determined and, I believe more than anything, exceedingly honest. Now does this make me bias? Because of my preference am I unable to separate fact from fiction? Is that what bias means?

In the next while I hope to do an extended piece on bias and the ability to argue logically and consistently for a position regardless of your bias. Fundamentally of course the argument must be factual, providing evidence and reasoning to bolster whatever claim you are making.

Evidence and reasoning. That's what I intend to use here. The idea behind this article is to put together one piece that outlines all of the common charges of irregularities in the Minnesota election for Senator in 2008 and dispenses of them. Probably the most egregious examples of misinforming come from Fox's John Lott and the editorial staff at the Wall Street Journal. They will be referred to throughout.

Sometime it feels, as you plough through the comment thread of an article on the Minnesota election, that it is pointless to engage the right. You rarely get substantive arguments. Usually it's rather like this:

There is no use arguing with members of the far left. They are so filled with propaganda, they wouldn't know the truth or accept it regardless of how the facts were presented to them.

You hear reference to 'far left' by the wingnuts all the time. It's hard to understand what "far left" exactly means to them but it is safe to assume that it actually has little to do with what most would term ideology. Nevertheless, let's present some facts and see how close we can get to the 'truth.'

So let's begin with the irrational. And nothing says irrationality like Sean Hannity. Here he is with Dick  Morris.

{This is a very long article. The rest is continued on the jump}

Quote of the Day

IOZ at Whoisioz:

...What do we want? Revolution! When do we want it? Eh, whenever's good for you. Just send me a text, man, when you're, like, leaving the party, and maybe I'll come meet you, but I might fall asleep first.

Actually the post is on McCain's recent proposed budget plan, the one that

"... would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction.”

As IOZ says - and functioning adults realize :

[MCain's] He's gonna kick ass, and once it's been kicked all up and down the Silk Road, he's going to--get this!--take the money saved by no longer fighting these wars, or something, and use it to balance the budget and also fund a ginormous tax cut. Now this is not unlike my plan to cut up my VISA and then use my outstanding balance and interest obligations to buy a new TV, i.e.,it makes no fucking sense,...

Then again I heard Obama might be a Muslim.

Gritty Gravity

From an article at BBC on Obama's challenges:

.. an excess of academic aloofness in times of gritty gravity.

This seems straight from Fox's talking points. I mean, what the hell does this even mean in terms of all the enormously serious issues at stake in the US presidential election?  These are times of "gritty gravity?" My god that is stupid.

On this Earth Day I Have Only One Worry ...

Are we going to be able to put enough people to death if the Democrats win the presidency?

So today is earth day.

We've got global food crises certain to get worse as will shortages of water.  The best and brightest scientists around the world warn that we may be past the point of no return in regards to climate change and the devastating effects this will bring about. We've got record temperatures - both high and low - all across the planet. There are record levels of storms and droughts. We've got a man-child heading what has been historically the world's leading polluter and he has only made things much worse. And we've got legions of flat-earthers decrying the uncertainty of the phenonmenon and still, unbeleiveably, referring to it as the "global warming controversy,"

There's also  a very important Democratic primary today in Pennesylvania, which if people could pull attention away from flag pins, might indicate where the United States will be going in terms of its environmental policy.

So what has LA Times columnist and certified nut Jonah Goldberg "melting away into real anxiety, even panic?" Simply that one of the justices of the Supreme Court believes that the death penalty is unconstitutional based on his life experience.

This is why we are screwed.

Now if I were to overhear drivel like this at a bar I initially would feel like mentioning to this person how deluded they were and how, while the U.S. faces wars, a devastated economy, environmental catastrophe and torture and eavesdropping scandals among other things, you decide to focus on this makes you a moron. But alas, I would probably just take a big drink of my beer and admit it's not worth it. The fact that it is a nationally syndicated columnist saying that this is what causes him great anxiety heading into the election makes this something you can't ignore no matter how much it deserves to be. If there a reasonable society an immediate court order would be issued keeping Goldberg from within a hundred yards of a keyboard.

But we know Goldberg has a national forum not likely to get taken away any time soon.

And this is why we are screwed.

At US Today another brilliant mind has this to say.

Earth Day is a Holiday for Liars

....There are several common attributes of environmentalism. High on the list is its barely hidden contempt for the human race...

Once more time:
This is why we are screwed.

As long as people so inarguably dim play an important role in the political discourse of the United States - a country that absolutely must be on board if we are to accomplish anything regarding climate change -  we can be assured that very little will be done to significantly counteract the severe damage we have already done to the planet. To be clear; their views and comments are so far beyond the pale that their mere inclusion in acceptable mainstream debate on climate change means we're screwed.

Label me a Cassandra if you'd like but for those who toss about the term without actually knowing the story you should be aware that in the end she was right.

Happy Earth Day.

The Speech

As much as it doesn't surprise me, the apparent fact that the Wright controversy, and moreover the reaction from Obama's speech on this and on race in America in general, has hurt Obama's candidacy (especially regarding a potential McCain match-up), is profoundly depressing. I'm as cynical as anyone yet I was truly amazed by Obama's candor and straightforwardness. It was also tremendously courageous for a politician to take on so bluntly an issue such as this, especially a politician who's so very close to the U.S. presidency.

I mean, when a candidate honestly confronts such a controversial  issue and deals with it in a mature, intellectual, and sincere way and somehow this hurts them you kinda have to ask, what's the f***ing point?

The Most Trusted Name in News ....

..... by government officials looking for an easy interview.

It is well-known that Fox News is a bastion of lunacy and lies. However there is a perception that CNN is somewhere in the middle, and - contrary to reality -  a reputable news organization. Someone the other day asked me to explain the difference between Fox and CNN and I had to talk about slants and narratives and built-in assumptions - more subtle instruments in the propaganda machines today's mainstream media organizations are. But really examples are where it's at. From Greenwald once again:

[CNN's John Roberts interviewing CIA chief Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, discussing the retroactive impunity for telecommunication companies who assisted the Bush administration in breaking the law after the Bush administration failed to get the required warrants before initiating a wiretapping program.]

[CNN] ROBERTS: Mr. McConnell, first of all, why the urgent need for retroactive immunity for these telecommunications companies?

MIKE MCCONNELL, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Good morning, John. The primary reason for retroactive immunity or liability protection from the carriers is to obtain their assistance. Quite frankly we cannot do the job we have to do without the cooperation of the private sector. So the situation we're in now with private sector companies being subjected to huge suits, they're not inclined to give us assistance. So there is varying arguments about having the bill expire, extending it or continuing it in its current form. In either case, all three of those, we are losing and will continue to lose significant amounts of information because we can't do this mission without the cooperation and participation of the private sector.

ROBERTS: So you say it is important to protect these telecommunications companies from liability so that they continue to help in the program. But is it also important from your perspective to keep the prying eyes of attorneys who are launching these lawsuits away from uncovering information about the program as they go through the discovery process?

MCCONNELL: Well, certainly, John. That's a part of it. This is a classified program.....

[Greenwald]......Roberts' argument is self-evidently moronic. It would mean -- as many, many political and media elites have come to believe -- that nothing the President and his aides do in a classified setting can be or should be subjected to oversight or to judicial proceedings -- no matter how illegal -- because the imperative of keeping everything Secret vastly outweighs the imperative of living under the rule of law. But the fact that it's a "journalist" -- someone who ought to be intrinsically hostile to government secrecy and instincitively adversarial in his questions -- feeding such authoritarian reasoning to our government leaders speaks volumes about where we are as a country.

At least it's not a major news organization where millions get their basic information from. Then there'd be problems, like murderous wars and environmental catastrophes because of a government not held accountable by the fourth estate.

Good News

I'm a big Washington Redskins fan and yesterday's game, despite the score, must be considered a victory. Sure the score indicated that the Seahawks prevailed but I still like our chances this season. Wait, wait. I'm sorry. It was a devastating loss and the season is over. The problem was that I am still in my "no matter how ridiculously obvious the defeat is, it is good news for John McCain" mode.

(Yglesias captured it best a couple of days ago: "I think Kansas will beat Virginia Tech, but the real winner of the Orange Bowl will be John McCain ..."