This week’s debunkers —

The filibuster deal
What’s the fallout? What will happen when – not if, when – Bush nominates an over-the-top wingnut to the Supreme Court later this year, when Rehnquist retires? Will Democrats successfully block the nominee under the “extraordinary circumstances” clause, while complaining that the president failed to seek their “advice"? Or will Republicans repeat the play-acting of the last few months and accuse Democrats of “unprecedented abuse” of the process?

Nobody knows. Those who wish to continue the nuclear threat, like most of the conservative commentariat, have to keep insisting on their old myths in order for it to work.

Foreign policy: Public diplomacy edition
Moral authority: putting our best foot in our mouth with torture & Bolton. In the foreign policy arena, the right wing kook patrol spent the week residing on a foreign planet. For all their religious musings, it seems right wingers always forget the golden rule. Instead they operate under a different modus operandi: two wrongs make a right.

Newsweek and torture
The old liberal media myth strikes again. Funny how the right wing smear machine wasn’t up in arms when Bill O’Reilly lied about Jane Fonda (saying she gave notes from Americans POWs to the North Vietnamese), when O’Reilly “admitted misquoting and mischaracterizing a Houston Chronicle edtorial” or when Sean Hannity “left viewers with the false impression that illegal immigrants cannot be prosecuted for murder, only deported.”

Yet, when right wingers see a chance to score political points by repeating the discredited liberal bias myth, they all fancy themselves as media critics extraordinaire.

PBS and “propaganda”
The real propaganda threat comes from the conservative operative now heading the CPB. Are American households the equivalent of freedom-starved East Berliners? Could Tomlinson be the one, ironically, to bring “state-sponsored propaganda” to PBS?

Politics
Down on Dean. Plus: a Christian college protests Bush.

Fringe bytes
Amnesty International: a terrorist group? So says Bill O’Reilly…

“Now the problem, as we pointed out last night, is that Amnesty International works with the International Red Cross and the left wing American media to subvert the Bush administration’s terror war strategies. Everybody should know that. […]

“But let’s stop the nonsense. Amnesty International isn’t an objective human rights group. It’s a far left outfit that sympathizes with people who kill Americans. That’s what it is. The evidence is irrefutable.”

Does that mean we can invade them? Plus: Rush, Boortz, and a Double-Date with the Doles!

Visit the home page!

Conservatives (still) pushing for the nuclear option on judges depend on two basic falsehoods which prop up their putsch: that the filibuster is “unprecedented” (it is not, and even that only represents a fraction of judicial nominees blocked by other means) and that liberals somehow dominate the courts (in fact, the opposite is true – the vast majority of the federal bench has been appointed by Republicans). When we’re feeling generous, we imagine that Republicans persist in these myths because they believe them to be “noble lies,” or something. Then they come along and belt out a real howler.

Pat Buchanan, the former Nixon aide, three-time presidential candidate, and crypto-racist whose reputation has been rehabilitated by the exceptionally low standards of cable TV, fancies himself a traditionalist and an independent old-guard conservative, and yet here he is, off in Rove-land about the recent compromise:

What ought Frist to do?

Hold a press conference and declare to the party and country that, while the McCain Compromise may bind the seven, it does not bind the Senate, and, as majority leader, he intends to give every nominee to come out of the Judiciary Committee a floor vote. Should any nominee be filibustered, he will move to invoke cloture and shut off debate.

If McCain’s Gang of Seven wishes to vote with 45 Democrats to let judicial nominees be filibuster-vetoed, that is their right. But they will have to vote with Reid, Barbara Boxer and Kennedy, and against their fellow Republicans and President Bush.

So aside from parroting the false Republican talking points on Bush’s judicial nominees, Buchanan’s grand conclusion is a grand blunder.

Frist will call for a cloture vote to end debate – that was never the question. Nor was it ever in question whether McCain, Graham, or any other Republican senator would vote for cloture. In all of these cloture votes, not a single Republican has strayed from their caucus.

The nuclear option, on the other hand, is a different matter. In violation of procedure, Frist wants to have Cheney unilaterally declare that the rules of cloture don’t apply anymore. He’s not even trying to change the rules – just to suspend them, indefinitely, by edict. The consequences of such a baldly authoritarian seizure of power are unknown, and potentially toxic to the republic.

McCain, along with Chafee, Snowe, Collins, and Warner, opposed the nuclear option from the beginning – even while they joined in the play-acting over Democratic “abuse” and what-not, even while they voted for cloture again and again. That’s because there is a difference between ends and their means. Bush could send in the Marines to install his nominees on the bench, and mow down any Democrats in the way – he would get his nominees through, but the means might have some negative side-effects.

It was never clear that Frist had the votes to pull this off, even with his exceptionally whipped caucus – and he would have looked pretty stupid trying and failing. Since the compromise ensures the failure of a nuclear vote today – in exchange for a weakened Democratic position – Frist would look extraordinarily stupid trying now. As the public’s view of the Congress grows increasingly sour, a bitter, doctrinaire move like that would sink his leadership.

So yeah, uh, great advice, Buchanan. I sure hope Frist follows it.

During recent Senate Committee hearings, senior FBI and ATF officials suggested that they’ve gotten over that whole Al Qaeda thing (it’s so 2002). Apparently all the hip kids these days are instead training their institutionally paranoid sights on – get this – animal rights activists and environmental groups in the U.S., whom they say are terrorists, every bit as much as the Osama Boys. Hard to believe? Yeh, especially because it’s ridiculous. Not only is Al Qaeda still a bigger bully than current scapegoats Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front (we promise!), but even when we limit the scope to just our own country, it’s not these left liberals and their orgs – ultra-sassy, edgy, and occasionally explosive as they are – who are doing the most damage. Not by a longshot.

Senators Jeffords and Lautenberg wisely reined in hearing attendees by reminding them that protesting is not terrorism and that, actually, ALF and ELF haven’t hurt anybody, ever. The FBI and ATF have to admit this is true. The March 2005 edition of the CQ Homeland Security, an online publication of that beltway fave Congressional Quarterly, reportedly notes that a draft of Homeland Security’s Integrated Planning Guidance for this year says that these groups have only “attacked scientific laboratories using animals for experimentation, as well as construction sites,” and that actually, they’re just worried because “[even though] publicly ALF and ELF promote nonviolence toward human life . . . some members may escalate their attacks.” Really? Well, we know that “may” means “maybe, maybe not,” and/or “it hasn’t happened yet, and quite possibly never will.”

The real clincher, though, is what and who the Feds aren’t worried about, much less even bothering to mention at Senate hearings. Statistically, it happens to be the pro-lifers, anti-environmentalists, white supremists, and gay-bashers (read: Bush voters) who are the real domestic terrorists here, the really super-violent ones. The damage they inflict far outweighs that of the tree and whale huggers. Duh. The Christian Science Monitor got this one so right:

It is remarkable that there is no mention of the anti-abortion, militia, racist and homophobic groups that do not “publicly … promote nonviolence,” but rather openly advocate the killing of blacks, gays, abortion providers and government workers. Moreover, these groups have acted on their words.

Fascist, racist and anti-abortion groups are responsible for nearly all the terrorist attacks in the United States—with the exception of September 11, 2001—over the past two decades. These include the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, which killed 168 people, as well as bombings of abortion clinics and assassination of abortion providers, and multiple cases of individual rampages, like that of Benjamin Smith, who went on a killing spree directed at blacks, Jews and immigrants in 1999.

In several of the mass shootings at US high schools, including the two worst cases, at Columbine High School in 2000 and at Red Lake High School in rural Minnesota last month, the youth who carried out the murder-suicides were influenced by neo-Nazi propaganda which they accessed on the Internet.

The existence of a sizeable support network for right-wing terrorists is indicated by the ability of Eric Rudolph, who carried out bombings at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta and at abortion clinics in Atlanta and Birmingham, Alabama, to stay on the loose for more than five years. Captured in 2003 in rural North Carolina, Rudolph accepted a plea bargain last month which lifted the threat of execution and allowed him to remain silent on how and by whom he was sustained during his years on the run.

A right-wing terrorist is also believed responsible for the 2001 anthrax mailings which killed five people and terrorized the US capital for several months. No one has been arrested, but the choice of targets—several media outlets and two leading Senate Democrats—and the method of attack strongly suggest an ultra-rightist. Only a relative handful of biological warfare specialists, closely tied to military and intelligence circles, could have had both the skills and the access to anthrax required for those attacks.

Anthrax mailings—all of them spurious so far—have been used frequently as terror threats against abortion clinics. A Pennsylvania anti-abortion activist was convicted of making hundreds of such fake mailings in 2003.

Also in 2003, a Texas white supremacist, William J. Krar, was arrested and pleaded guilty to charges of possessing chemical weapons of mass destruction—sodium cyanide bombs, which could have killed hundreds—as well as a huge stockpile of conventional arms.

It’s interesting to note the difference in intent and motivation, as well as outcome, between right and left extreme activism. Rescuing beagles without hurting anyone doesn’t really compare to racial persecution that destroys and ends lives and spreads hate and fear. Blowing up an empty building because it threatens a wildlife habitat doesn’t really belong in the same category as setting off a bomb in a crowd to make a point about a religious opinion, does it? Once again, Feds, some perspective please.

The big problem with the president’s judicial nominations is that they are sent down without consultation ("advice") and pushed through the Senate without scrutiny by the Republican leadership, making the whole process a formality. Members of Congress, elected by large numbers of people whom they supposedly represent, are willingly taking part in a political syndicate that leaves them little to no influence over policy – only the slim chance to rise through the ranks.

Jim VandeHei reports in today’s Washington Post on the top-down consolidation of government power by Republicans. Note this quote:

“I think we have used the legislative and executive branch as well as anybody to achieve our policy aims,” said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.). “It is a remarkable governing instrument.”

See, most of us still think of the legislative and executive as separate branches, but under Republican rule, they are a single branch – and pretty useful at that.

Read the rest – it’s a strange world we live in.

James Glassman, the armchair economist who in 1999 predicted the Dow would reach 36,000, right before the bubble burst and the market tanked, is now trying to work his magic on the housing bubble: “But while such signs of speculation are troubling, there is little solid evidence that a real estate bubble is puffing up. “

Talk about a bad omen.

Well, they’ve done it. A group of swingers, seven brides for seven brothers – er, seven Dems and seven Republicans joined hands and effectively siezed power by this opportunity for leverage. Technically they only needed six each – to reduce pro-nuclear forces to 49 from the 55-member Republican caucus, and to reduce the filibuster force to 39 from the 44+1 Dems ‘n’ Jeffords caucus.

The group: Democrats Ben Nelson (hanging on to his seat by a hair), Ken Salazar (who has to streetfight James Dobson back in Colorado), old-timers Byrd and Inouye, and Dixiecrats Mary Landrieu and Mark Pryor. Republicans McCain, Chafee, Snowe, and Collins were already against the nuclear option; add in conservatives John Warner ("Virginia ham") and Lindsey Graham, who have a bit of self-respect, and swing-state Ohio’s Mike DeWine. And representing the “other” party: Joe Lieberman. Way to go Joe. (Notably absent were Arlen Specter, who opposed what he called either the “nuclear constitutional option” or the “constitutional nuclear option,” and Chuck Hagel, John Sununu, and Lisa Murkowski, who were thought to be the swing votes.)

The deal: Dems agree not to filibuster except under “extraordinary circumstances.” Republicans agree not to go nuclear unless they disagree on “extraordinary circumstances” (like the current situation, really). The White House, which didn’t sign the agreement, is encouraged to seek the advice of the Senate before requesting its consent.

Dems stop filibustering Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and William Pryor, and Republicans yield on William Myers and Henry Saad.

The spin

Howard Dean: “I would be hesitant to say it’s a win for the Democratic Party. [… That won’t become clear until] we find out if the president consults with the Democrats” on future judicial nominees.

Sen. George Allen (R-wants-to-be-president): “This so-called deal is disappointing for all of us who believe in the principle that persons should be accorded the fairness and due process of an up or down vote. Everyone should also clearly see that ultimately, nothing has been settled when a vacancy arises on the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Sen. Harry Reid: “There is good news for every American in this agreement. The so-called ‘nuclear option’ is off the table. This is a significant victory for our country, for democracy, and for all Americans. Checks and balances in our government have been preserved…. I offered Senator Frist several options similar to this compromise, and while he was not able to agree, I am pleased that some responsible Republicans and my colleagues were able to put aside their differences and work from the center.”

Sen. Bill Frist (R-never-gonna-be-president-now): “[T]his agreement announced tonight falls short of that principle [of up-or-down votes]. It falls short. It has some good news, and has some disappointing news, and will require careful monitoring…. I have made it clear from the outset that I haven’t wanted to use the constitutional option, I do not want to use the constitutional option, but bad faith and return to bad behavior during my tenure as Majority Leader will bring the Senate back to the point where all 100 members will be asked to decide whether judicial nominees deserve a fair up or down vote. “

The Moonie Times news report – headline “7 Republicans abandon GOP on filibuster”: “The deal leaves [Frist] essentially powerless to ban filibusters against judicial nominees before a fight over a Supreme Court nomination – at least one of which is expected this summer. “

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-hope-he-runs-for-president): “Confirming unacceptable judicial nominations is simply a green light for the Bush administration to send more nominees who lack the judicial temperament or record to serve in these lifetime positions.”

James Dobson, Focus on the Family: ” “This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats…. We are grateful to Majority Leader Frist for courageously fighting to defend the vital principle.”

People for the American Way: “The unprincipled nuclear option has been averted. This is a major defeat for the radical right…. It is a rejection of White House demands for virtually unlimited power to undermine the independence of the courts. Nonetheless… We are deeply concerned that it could lead to confirmation of appeals court judges who would undermine Americans’ rights and freedoms.”

Gary Bauer, American Values: “This is a sad day for our nation. The desire of millions of Americans to restore balance to our federal courts has been thwarted behind closed doors by 14 senators. Only three of President Bush’s appointees are guaranteed an up or down vote under this sell out…. The Republicans who lent their names to this travesty have undercut their President as well as millions of their most loyal voters. Shame on them all.”

Alliance for Justice: “While Alliance for Justice has no interest in seeing the Senate break down, we are very disappointed with the decision to move these extremist nominees one step closer to confirmation.”

What to make of it

A large part of this administration’s political power comes from a kind of total war procedure: never admit mistakes, push for absolute victory (annihilation, as Clausewitz called it), and quietly but firmly invoke the infallibility of God. As we noted in this week’s debunker, the “nuclear option” depended how much apocalyptic fervor Republicans could whip up over Senate rules. Now, their momentum has stalled. They can no longer credibly say Democrats are way out of line – since prominent Republicans have managed to find some common ground.

But the agreement, while stopping the current putsch and horse-trading the current set of nominees, leaves the whole framework of the showdown perfectly intact for the main event, the Supreme Court confirmation battle(s) ahead. The American attention span will lapse, and when the time comes, the right will attempt the same damn “crisis” mode.

Question 1 is what precedents will be set for “extraordinary circumstances.” Brown, Owen, and Pryor all got a bye and will almost certainly be confirmed. I have a difficult time imagining someone more “extraordinarily” radical and inappropriate than Janice Rogers Brown, she of Social-Security-is-socialist-revolution fame. This was the worry of Mark Schmitt at the Decembrist, although he has since changed his mind.

Question 2 is what will happen to the power-hold the far right has over the Republican caucus today. Bill Frist, who has been brown-nosing them like mad in order to build his Bush-like presidential bid, has lost in an important way. Even if Dobson kindly salutes his sticking to his guns, the far right may conclude he bungled the whole thing by waiting so long.

And the emergence of this crew of self-styled moderates might just signal a reorganization of Senate power. In particular, South Carolina’s cherubic bachelor Lindsey Graham hinted that these same senators might have a Social Security deal in the works. (Ugh.) Graham is a solid Gingrich-revolution conservative with a reputation for honesty and deal-making, deserved or not. He and McCain might – just might – wrest substantial control from the Frist / Santorum / Allen wing.

But that’s as much wishful thinking as dreaming that any Republicans would risk voting down in their precious “up-or-down votes,” another hint dropped by Graham.

In reality – this is closer to a defeat for the independent judiciary than a victory. As one T.A. Frank writes in the New Republic (via the American Prospect), we have succumbed to the #1 overriding myth of this whole farce. (Number 2 was the “liberal activist judge” crisis.) We admitted that there was something unprecendented about objecting to ten out of over 200 judges. I haven’t seen a really good analysis of all the numbers of all historical nominees who were stalled, blue-slipped, blocked, voted down, filibustered, or whatever – but this has got to be the luckiest president in a long time. His men and women get a walk from the Senate; now, they’ve magnanimously allowed us – 45% of the Senate and about half the country – some sway on just two?

Give me a break. The farce continues.

Judges & the filibuster
For all the bratty complaints of Republican senators – no matter how hollow and devoid of historical context – however unfair they choose to believe the Senate rules are being to them, they should realize that their naked power-play runs against the very idea that a humble republic can withstand an emergency, real or fake.

Social Security
With all the attention being heaped on the nuclear option this week, it seems the privatization effort has been given short shrift, even by its usually indefatigable cheerleaders. It is a good time to revisit some of the major themes of the campaign.

Hillary and the culture war
The Terri Schiavo case exposed just how influential religious right wackos are in today’s Republican party. These extremists have turned the GOP into the “Goofball Oaf Party.” But the Schiavo case also illustrated something else about American politics: the American people aren’t as stupid as Karl Rove thinks. They saw the Schiavo case for what it was: a disgusting political ploy by politicians who have no shame. Hopefully, this will forever put to rest the notion that Americans’ believe in the radical right wing’s fundamentalist, fringe, freak agenda.

Newsweek and torture
What’s truly sad about this whole affair is that Newsweek’s poor reporting skills have made it the perfect smokescreen. Instead of taking another look at American torture – a blight on our reputation that may outlive the war itself – we are instead treated to an object lesson in media compliance from Scott McClellan and Donald Rumsfeld. The fact that these charges are probably true is lost, thanks to Newsweek’s lousy, insiderish reporting and an effective witch-hunt from the commentariat on the right.

The economy
The budget’s a flop, and Wal-Mart is trouble.. .

Debunker: Foreign policy
Bad news is good news…

Fringe bytes - Select morsels from the lunatic right
Here’s a drinking game: every time anti-government ideologue Stephen Moore compares government spending to something ridiculous, take a shot…

“Let’s not mince words here: This is a path toward socialism–albeit in slow motion. Walter Williams, the brilliant economist at George Mason University, has a special talent for putting these foggy numbers in terms we can all easily understand. He says if slavery meant someone else owning all another man’s output, 50 percent government as a share of GDP means all Americans ae half slaves and half free. Depressing but true.”

Visit the home page!

In fact, Republicans at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting are transforming him as we speak. Unfortunately, they’re performing all kinds of other Frankensteinian experiments with public television as well, and Bill Moyers described just how to a rapt crowd during his irrepressibly sensible and yet poetic closing address to The National Conference on Media Reform in St. Louis last week. He discussed, in no uncertain terms, the increasing right wing politicization (annexation?) of one of those very last bastions of integrity in major American journalism, the Public Broadcasting Service.

Moyers retired from PBS last year, but not before his own integrity was called into question by some Repugs over at the CPB. Board Chairman Kenneth Tomlinson had already been doing a lot of hiring of conservatives and firing of liberals there, under the aegis, he might say, of achieving political balance in public media. But when a six-figure donor to PBS complained that Moyers’ show, “NOW with Bill Moyers,” was too left-leaning and liberally biased, he decided to get involved in influencing programming, too. Something that, by the way, he was hired specifically not to do.

To me and many other supporters of public broadcasting the image of the left-wing bias of “NOW” – unchallenged by a balancing point of view on public broadcasting’s Friday evening lineup – was unhealthy. Indeed, it jeopardized essential support for public TV.

This was brought home to me in November 2003 by a phone call from an old friend complaining about Mr. Moyers’ bias and the lack of balance on the Friday evening lineup. He explained the foundation he heads made a six-figure contribution to his local public television station for digital conversion. But he declared there would be no more contributions until something was done about the network’s bias.

He also explained it was my responsibility as CPB chairman to preserve public support for public broadcasting by doing something about the bias. On reflection, I decided he was right.

So, Tomlinson decided to be responsible by secretly paying a consultant $10,000 to secretly watch episodes of NOW and secretly report to him about whether the show was biased and unbalanced. Not exactly an approach based on the “integrity” he claims to care so much about. He also refused, forever, to discuss his concerns with Bill Moyers. Tomlinson denied all three requests by Bill to meet with him. Moyer’s speech unfortunately includes all kinds of other bad and scary news about Tomlinson, including his history of blacklisting journalists and political commentators and his nearly erotic affection for “The O"Reilly Factor.”

House Democrats, thank God, are now calling for an investigation into what appears to be all manner of Party pushing by these new right wing leaders in public television, whose new job descriptions apparently include ignoring the tenets of The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. The Inspector General for the CPB is also getting involved. But while they do that, let’s get down to some basics here: what’s the definition of journalistic “balance,” the purpose of public television, and the role of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?

Journalistic standards in America are met by adhering to certain core professional values: truthfulness, objectivity, impartiality, fairness, accountability, and accuracy. And it’s terms like “objectivity,” “impartiality,” and “fairness,” that speak to the need for balance, not bias. Journalists accomplish this by doing thorough research, refusing to be invested in one outcome over another of that research, giving adequate airtime to opposing views, etc. However, lots and lots of smart people agree that after following these guiding principles, a reporter is also responsible for reaching conclusions about what the truth is. Because that’s where truthfulness and accountability come in. Wiki says it well:

Critics of [a narrow] understanding of objectivity argue that it does a disservice to the public because it fails to attempt to find the truth. They also argue that the concept is near impossible to apply in practice – newspapers inevitably take a point of view in deciding what stories to cover, which to feature on the front page, what sources they quote, and other things. Media critics such as Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky have described a propaganda model which they use to show how in practice such a notion of objectivity ends up heavily favoring the viewpoint of those in power, namely the government and powerful corporations.

Another serious example of the flaws of objectivity was, according to communication scholar David Mindich, the coverage that the major papers (most notably the New York Times) gave to the lynching of thousands of African Americans during the 1890s. News stories of the period often described with stark detachment the hanging, immolation, castration and other mutilation of men, women and children at the hands of mobs. Under the regimen of objectivity, news writers often attempted to depict “balance” in these accounts by recounting the alleged transgressions of the victims that provoked the lynch mobs to fury. Altogether, this had the effect of normalizing and even tacitly condoning the practice of lynching.

As the Society for Professional Journalists puts it, right in their Code of Ethics document, a journalist’s duty is to seek truth and report it, and that furthermore, “(j)ournalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.”

Interpreting information…

Bill Moyers is one of those smart people who figured this out. During his remarkably lengthy tenure as one of the country’s most respected and sought-after news professionals,

His view of objectivity changed over the years, he says, as he learned “the hard way that reality as defined by officials is often not the same as what’s actually happening.” He now believes that “objectivity means being true to your own reading of the record and your own analytical processes of reasoning and conclusion and logic,” he told Texas Monthly earlier this year. “There’s a truth behind the news that is the journalist’s obligation to discover as fairly and responsibly as possible…I came out of the two-sides school…[b]ut for some stories,” he says, “there aren’t necessarily two sides. Very often it’s the case that the evidence is unarguable.”

Okay then; Bill wins that debate. But how about those allegations that Tomlinson made regarding the need for PBS, not just Bill, to maintain political balance in its overall programming?

William Hoynes, a professor at Vassar and author of two independent adademic studies on public affairs programming at PBS, as well as two books on public media, talks about the founding mission of the public broadcasting system, which is namely to

“provide a voice for groups in the community that may otherwise be unheard,” serve as “a forum for controversy and debate,” and broadcast programs that “help us see America whole, in all its diversity.”

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting describes it this way:

The notion that public broadcasting should find ways to balance itself is odd, and accepts at face value the right-wing critique that PBS is biased to the left. If anything, PBS (and public broadcasting in general) is theoretically designed to balance the voices that dominate the commercial media. As the 1967 Public Broadcasting Act proposed, public broadcasting should have “instructional, educational and cultural purposes” and should address “the needs of unserved and underserved audiences, particularly children and minorities.”

Well, if this is the PBS mission, Tomlinson needs first to acquaint himself with it, and then set up that meeting with Moyers, get down on bended knee, and beg him back. Because as it turns out, Moyers was one of the few people, even at PBS, who was fulfilling it. That Hoynes study just mentioned found that there is very much not a liberal bias in PBS public affairs programming, any way you look at it, and that in fact

Instead of wide-ranging discussions and debates, the kinds that might engage viewers as citizens, not simply as audiences, public television provides programs that are populated by the standard set of elite news sources. This insider orientation makes it hard to define what, outside of the one-hour length of the evening news and the documentary format, defines public television as innovative, independent or alternative.

And after Tomlinson’s liberal witch hunting, it’s worse than ever. Way worse. Over the last year, NOW lost Moyers and gained a less innovative, less independent host, as well as a new half-hour time slot (instead of an hour). And PBS got two new politically conservative shows, neither of which even remotely create an alternative to already-available media. Tucker Carlson (son of former president and CEO of, you got it, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, hmmm…), is as commercial as they come. (Not only that, his sucky attitude will hardly further PBS’ cultural purposes and efforts at inclusion. Last year, Carlson described the Democratic National Convention’s diversity goals as “a new affirmative action plan for gays, lesbians and cross-dressers.” He also referred to Indian evangelist Dr. K.A. Paul as “spiritual advisor to the scum of the Earth.” Nice, huh? Hey Tucker - some advice: cut it out with the foppish bow ties and get down to some real work. And try putting your makeup on with something other than a potato chip.)

As for the Wall Street Journal-based “The Journal Editorial Report,” their editorial page is already rampantly available, and their readership hardly consists of unvoiced and underserved minorities. It’s actually made up of about 60% top-level management employees, who have an average income of $191,000, an average household net worth of $2.1 million, and an average age of about 55.

So. What should Kenneth Tomlinson have been doing, instead of committing political hegemony at PBS? What should he be doing now?

Well, according to The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, a big, big part of CPB’s role is “to afford maximum protection [to PBS] from extraneous interference and control.” That means protection from Big Brother. That means protection from interference in programming by Republicans, Democrats, anyone with an agenda. They are to be told no at the door by the CPB, not programmers at PBS. In other words, CPB should be a “heat shield” for PBS.

Unfortunately, Tomlinson has become a principle source of that heat – in spite of his job description, in spite of the Public Broadcasting Act, and even despite the results of several polls of PBS viewers who, it turns out, thought PBS was fair and balanced just the way it was.

So, Tomlinson’s most basic job requirement at this point is probably to examine his conscience. That may or may not happen. But perhaps in the meantime we can help PBS out here. In fact, we can. Because we believe, as Bill Moyers told the crowd in St. Louis

[that] the real hope “lies within the Internet with its 2 billion or more Web sites providing a wealth of information drawn from almost unlimited resources that span the globe. … If knowledge is power, one’s capacity to increase that power increases exponentially through navigation of the Internet for news and information.”

When confronted about his vote to up hold the the filibuster of Judge Richard Paez (Courtesy of TPM) by Chuck Schumer on the Senate floor earlier today, Bill Frist became tongue twisted, and lashed back at Schumer:

The president, the um, in response, uh, the Paez nomination - we’ll come back and discuss this further. … Actually I’d like to, and it really brings to what I believe - a point - and it really brings to, oddly, a point, what is the issue. The issue is we have leadership-led partisan filibusters that have, um, obstructed, not one nominee, but two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, in a routine way.

The issue is not cloture votes per se, it’s the partisan, leadership-led use of cloture votes to kill - to defeat - to assassinate these nominees. That’s the difference. Cloture has been used in the past on this floor to postpone, to get more info, to ask further questions.

Enjoy the video.

And Rumsfeld, Darth Vadar?

Judges & the filibuster
Our Dear Leader requires his every wish to be fulfilled. There’s a name for that form of government… The high-strung rhetoric marches on, however, with pro-nuclear forces insisting that the filibuster is “unprecedented” and that Democrats are pulling some kind of drastic power play. On both counts, the opposite is true.

Social Security
Bush’s big cuts live on, confounding thinkers on the right and the left. Plus: how “progressive price indexing” with private accounts will eliminate traditional benefits for most people. Conservatives are still reeling from Bush’s endorsement of “progressive price indexing,” a massive blow to the middle class which doesn’t really kick in until after the supposed crisis. While many oppose the idea, the majority of Privateers have already drunk the Kool Aid.

Get Hillary Clinton
The bottom line: Republicans have a perverse obsession with blasting the junior Senator from New York. Anytime they can find some lame excuse to pounce, these fools are on her case like fat on Rush.

Hammered to the Max
A loony journal touts a bogus poll. While it should not make major headlines that 92% of a loony right wing website do not want Tom Delay to resign as Majority Leader, “America’s News Page” boasts that “NewsMax will provide the results of this poll to major media, and share them with every major radio talk show host in America.” No doubt newsrooms across America wait with baited breath for the release of this major story. It can only be a matter of time before television stations interrupt their regularly scheduled programs to report on this explosive news. Perhaps newspapers will print special editions. People will remember where they were when they first heard the news that 92% of NewsMax readers support Tom Delay – proof once and for all he’s innocent.

The “L” Word
Pat Sajak spins his wheel. Alex Trebek, he ain’t. If Pat wants to make ridiculous, disgusting, distasteful, foolish comments like this, he should stick to selling vowels and then go buy a clue. Questioning the patriotism of Democrats and liberals is an ugly conservative tactic reminiscent of McCarthyism.

Mass Puff
Why a Nation Review puff piece on Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is all wrong.

Fringe bytes - Select morsels from the lunatic right
CBS News cannot be trusted, because CBS News is not news. It’s CBS commentary and editorializing under the guise of news. They are having to still make things up, take things out of context, basically lie about what people have said, in order to further an agenda, and the agenda in this case is, as usual at CBS, to harm Republicans and conservatives. (Rush Limbaugh, May 12, 2005)

The Los Angeles Times has an interesting news analysis on the Bolton committee hearing:

In that way, the vote demonstrated again Bush’s willingness to live on the political edge – to accept achingly narrow margins in Congress and at the ballot box to pursue ambitious changes that sharply divide the country.

“This is their style of governing,” said Marshall Wittmann, a former aide to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), now serving as a fellow at the Democratic Leadership Council. “You build upon the base and pressure the middle and you ignore the other side. You push across the finish line and you move on. In their mind a win is a win, regardless of how narrow or polarizing it is.”

So far, this hardheaded approach has allowed Bush to move more of his agenda into law than appeared possible for a president twice elected with narrow majorities. But it has also bitterly divided the country over his presidency and so alienated congressional Democrats that Bush often needs virtually lock-step Republican support to pass his key priorities.

The next few weeks will severely test Bush’s ability to maintain that partisan unity, as Congress approaches explosive battles over ending judicial filibusters and restructuring Social Security – as well as the Senate vote on Bolton himself.

Via Steve Clemons, who has the best coverage of the Bolton process. A month back, Steve also passed along this perspective, from the Nelson Report:

What we are seeing is a fight for the political soul of the nation. We’ve had these before, in the existential sense. . .in my political lifetime, the civil rights movement, the anti-Vietnam war movement, the women’s rights versus, to a certain extent, the right to life movement. But this time it’s totally and completely a fight about God. . . specifically, whether God is going to rule in the United States….

This is what the Bolton fight is really about: you can’t dump him, because that lets the Democrats win on both the facts and principle. . . fatal notions to a desire to pack the courts with religious and secular policy extremists.

The American Conservative Union is putting on “tribute” to Tom DeLay right now. Bob Livingston, who resigned from House leadership for his own scandal way back when they had pretentions of ethics, ended his speech by shouting to the audience, “Don’t let THEM get him!!” Of course, them wasn’t exactly defined. Brent Bozell of Dan Rather Research Center made sure we understood: liberal media. Boogedy boogedy! And Phyllis Schlafly called us liberals all “paranoid.” And so on.

It’s bizarre — it’s like a celebrity roast, except the butt of their “jokes” isn’t Tom DeLay, but those who might question the Bugman’s absolute rule.

As for their apparently universal view that DeLay’s critics do not present any evidence or charges, please refer to our DeLay debunker.

Sometimes it seems like the entirety of the government bureaucracy is slowly being politicized. The politicization of the day is the judiciary, who are being rammed through on a bitter, party-line basis, but think about the Social Security Trustees who took good news and made it bad news, the president’s bioethics panel, and the FDA, which has combined the deregulation instincts of the corporate wing of the GOP (mad cow? how about “zesty cow"!) with the moral authoritarian instincts of the theocratic wing (sorry girls, no contraceptives – but have a free Viagra).

I expect that the Postal Service will soon be issuing new “Social Security: Bankrupt in ‘41″ stamps.

But back to the FDA, a key figure in the controversy over Plan B, the emergency contraceptive, is Dr. David Hager, an FDA advisor appointed by Bush. A disturbing report in The Nation on Dr. Hager’s Family Values should give us pause when we consider who is lecturing us: a government doctor, or a compromised moralist.

Many modern, well-meaning journalists follow the principle of “balance” – a little bit of this, a little bit of that. That can help illuminate both sides of a story, but all too often the easily-practiced ideal of “balance” overrules the more difficult jobs of fairness and accuracy, leaving the truth somewhere in the dark.

Annenberg Political Fact Check at the University of Pennsylvania – famously name-dropped by Dick Cheney in the VP debate, although instead of “dot org” he said “dot com,” which might as well have been a porn site – claims to be a “‘consumer advocate’ for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics.” Last night, they sent out an email to their no-doubt massive list indicating some “deception and confusion” going on:

Millions are being spent on rival ads supporting and opposing two of President Bush’s most controversial judicial selections. Neither ad is completely accurate.

An ad by the pro-Bush group Progress for America implies that Texas judge Priscilla Owen has been endorsed by a newspaper that actually says she’s biased in favor of large corporations and “often contorts her rulings” to conform with her conservative outlook.

A rival ad by the liberal People for the American Way quotes Texas [sic – California] judge Janice Rogers Brown as saying seniors “are cannibalizing their grandchildren,” without making clear she was speaking metaphorically of debt being passed on to future generations by entitlement programs.

Now, you don’t even have to read their article on “duelling, distorted ads” to see something is wrong. On the one hand, a conservative group is running an ad that claims newspapers endorsed one of these judicial nominees, when in fact they didn’t. On the other hand, a liberal group is running an ad which quotes an another one of these nominees, but fails to explain the obvious.

You can see the People for the America Way ad here. It shows a picture of Janice Rogers Brown with the narration, “Her? She’s so radical that she says, with programs like Social Security and Medicare, seniors are cannibalizing their grandchildren!”

Now, these ads are being placed, according to FactCheck, in “Alaska, Arkansas, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota, [and] Rhode Island.” I don’t know precisely how dumb FactCheck thinks people in Arkansas are, but do these self-appointed guardians of “balance” really think that some poor sop is out there picturing grandma literally eating her baby grandchild? You would have to be insane to think that is literal. And the dangerous, misleading, failing-to-painstakingly-explain-metaphor party isn’t even PFAW, it’s Brown herself.

This isn’t the first “report” by FactCheck, mimicking the hard-nosed style of a disinterested centrist, to come up wildly distorted. In fact, each “report” since the election – when the “voters” went home – has been kind of weirdly wrongheaded. For example, their “report” on Bush’s “progressive price indexing” plan for Social Security is completely and utterly bogus, both in premise and in execution. It seems to be reading directly from the president’s talking points. I don’t blame Brooks Jackson, the ex-journalist who runs the operation, for not understanding very much about Social Security. I do blame him for being a pompous ass who touts his ignorance as superior truth, above the “deception.”

Why does FactCheck tilt so far to the right? It could be over-compensation for perceived self-bias, or it could be riding the crest of credibility from the Dick Cheney endorsement. More likely it’s just that, for some reason, the site only wants to look at advertisements, completely ignoring the disinformation coming from the White House and the press itself. That model might have worked in a way for the “balance” of a two-man presidential campaign, but it is simply broken for the media environment we have right now.

“If you vote for John Kerry this year, you need to repent or resign. You have been holding back God’s church way too long. And I know I may get in trouble for saying that, but just pour it on.”

That was Pastor Chan Chandler of East Waynesville (NC) Baptist Church, speaking on an audiotape in October of last year, as reported by Associated Baptist Press.

On Friday we wrote about Chandler, who had apparently evicted nine members of his church for refusing to repent for voting for John Kerry.

Yesterday, Chandler resigned himself, saying, “For me to remain now would only cause more hurt for me and my family.”

Waylon Owens, a former seminary instructor of Chandler, claims this is all the doing of media bias:

But what is the real story? The media has refused to do the work necessary to find out the truth. Dogging Chan, who understandably has refused to talk so far, the media has ignored all of the members of the church who actually did the voting. Why have we only heard from those voted out or from their supporters? Why are there no quotes from the members who said, “enough is enough?”

Many facts have gone unreported or obscured in the media’s efforts to scandalize a young minister who has taken a stand for biblical morality and the life of a baby resting in her mother’s womb.

(See also Agape Press.) Meanwhile, Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (quite a title), tried to clear things up:

“If a person is living in a homosexual lifestyle, then they are going against the clear teachings of Scripture and they should be disciplined in order to keep the witness of the church pure and hopefully to help them understand the gravity of their situation with the Lord,” he said. “But there’s a massive difference between living a lifestyle – either in homosexuality or adultery or the drug culture – that is clearly contradictory to Scripture and exercising a voting decision that may be erroneous or poor judgment. But erroneous and poor judgment should never lead to being removed from church membership.”

And there’s much more – you can try to decipher what went on from Chandler’s interview with Baptist Press (if such a tape does reveal he made an overt political endorsement, then such a tape “would have been doctored” or the endorsement was “completely unintentional”), or the more illuminating coverage from the Biblical Recorder, an NC Baptist newsletter:

Church member Bill Rash, who has been attending the church for about 29 years, said he stayed through the meeting, but has since resigned from his positions and decided to leave the church. He said another church member initially asked if all church members could come to the altar, pray together, forgive each other and get on with the Lord’s business.

Chandler responded by saying if those who disagreed with him would repent, then they could get on with the Lord’s work, Rash said. The pastor said if they weren’t going to repent they should leave, Rash said.

That’s when [ousted deacon Frank] Lowe and the others left.

After they left, the remaining members voted to take their names off the roll, Rash said everyone voted for the measure except he and his wife, who didn’t vote.

The remaining members agreed that if another church wrote for the letters of those who left, East Waynesville would reply saying they had left in bad standing.

During the last presidential election, the pastor said that anyone who was supporting John Kerry should repent or resign from the church, Rash and Lowe said. The pastor offered to hold the door for them to leave, Lowe said.

(With a touch of class, Lowe added: “[Chandler] says my political views support abortion and homosexuality, therefore that would be enough to turn me out of the church. I am not - positively not - for either one.") See also the Recorder account of Chandler’s final appearance (a tale of longtime members versus Chandler’s dozens of politicized converts), and the town newspaper’s coverage: church and state, faith and politics, members voted out, and the tax question.

From the latter article, here’s the IRS: “religious organizations, must abide by certain rules … they must not devote a substantial part of their activities to attempting to influence legislation…. they must not participate in, or intervene in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office ..”

Which brings us to a curious coincidence. Congressman Walter Jones, with the help of the religious right, has been pushing a bill called “Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act,” which would eliminate those pesky tax laws.

Direct, explicit pulpit politicking – way beyond “Justice Sunday” – would become the norm, and believers would be told, as they practically were in North Carolina, to vote for one candidate or burn in hell.

Welcome to the Party of God.

1968 Abe Fortas, for Chief Justice.
1971 William Rehnquist, for Associate Justice.
1980 Stephen G. Breyer, for circuit judge.
1984 J. Harvie Wilkinson, for circuit judge.
1986 Sidney Fitzwater, for district judge.
1986 Daniel Manion, for circuit judge.
1986 William Rehnquist, for Chief Justice.
1992 Edward Earl Carnes, Jr., for circuit judge.
1994 H. Lee Sarokin, for circuit judge.
1999 Brian Theadore Stewart, for district judge.
2000 Marsha Berzon, for circuit judge
2000 Richard Paez, for circuit judge.

(From a People For the American Way report.)

And that’s just the filibuster on the floor, the votes for cloture. As Al Gore observed, there are lots of ways to block a nominee, or at least there used to be.

[U]nder the procedures used by Republicans during the Clinton/ Gore Administration, far fewer than the 41 Senators necessary to sustain a filibuster were able to routinely block the Senate from voting on judges nominated by the president. They allowed Republican Senators to wage shadow filibusters to prevent some nominees from even getting a hearing before the Judiciary Committee. Other nominees were victims of shadow filibusters after receiving a hearing and were not allowed a committee vote. Still others were reported out of committee, and not allowed a vote on the Senate floor.

The rules enforcing a respectable compromise in the Judiciary Committee have all been eliminated. Instead of operating with some measure of independent spirit and deliberation, the Senate has become simply another vehicle for top-down exercise of power by the Republican Party.

Former Senate majority leader George Mitchell has an op-ed in the New York Times, giving a little bit more historical perspective. Blocking judges, by filibuster or other means, is quite precedented, and rightly so. The power grab is not, nor the politicization of the nominees that followed.

Big news! Banner exchange is on between Polianna.com and Air America Radio! Stay tuned for more big news to come, including a site redesign in the near future.

Debunker: Judges & the filibuster
Do Republicans and the religious right have any idea how extreme and wacky these nominees actually are? The “nuclear option” to upend the filibuster and push through seven of the most ideological judicial nominees is still being threatened, and so the rhetoric from the right keeps a-coming. We normally wouldn’t be quite so excited about a change in parliamentary procedure, but then again, this isn’t a normal Senate majority. Read On!

Debunker: Tom DeLay
Republicans circle the wagons around their corrupt leader. Despite the claims billowing forth from lunatic right, most Members of Congress have not been accused of money laundering. Note to Ann Coulter: If you read this, you will in fact know a law Tom DeLay’s “supposed to have broken.” Note to Ann Coulter II: Lying under oath is against the law. Read On!

Debunker: Social Security
More on the president’s new, massive benefit cuts. Last week we explained how the president’s dramatic Social Security news – important enough to preempt “The O.C.” on prime-time television – amounted to an unsurprising statement of what we pretty much knew already: that his big plan for Social Security’s solvency is just a big benefit cut for the middle class. Now come the predictable attacks from his “amen corner” of Privateers and professional blowhards. Let’s see, because Bush used the word “progressive,” we’re supposed to be swooning all over it? Not so fast – his indexing is a pitiful halfway attempt which is objectively worse than doing nothing for the vast majority of Americans – and most likely, worse for everybody. Read On!

Debunker: John Bolton
Why a wingnut neocon is unfit to represent this great nation. Despite what conservatives haves have written, the charges against John Bolton are severe. For starters, he’s been accused of hiding information from Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice. And then of course, there’s the NSA intercepts. Read On!

Debunker: Al Gore
When Vice-President Al Gore gave a rousing speech in Washington a week and a half ago, he drove the audience to its feet for a standing ovation. His defense of Senate tradition, an independent judiciary, and a politics free from religious demagoguery provided a welcome antidote to those of us who feel poisoned by the vitriolic power grab taking place today. But before he left the auditorium, you could hear the pitter-patter of little minds dusting off their Al Gore Talking Points. Read On!

Debunker: Torture
Torturous rightwing writings advocate torture. Read On!

Debunker: Kofi Annan
Baseless and malicious rightwing attacks against an accomplished world leader. Read On!

Debunker: General Motors
It’s the healthcare, stupid! Read On!

Fringe bytes
Select morsels from the lunatic right. Pat Boone weighs in on religion, Rush says more stupid stuff, and a double shot from Crazy Ann Coulter. Read On!

Visit the home page…

Lincoln Caplan writes an excellent article the Washington Post on the new conservative jurisprudence and the whole idea of judicial independence:

[T]he legal right is increasingly divided between those who practice what the politicians preach and others keen to pursue their own agendas through the courts. Some, like Stanley Birch, adhere to traditional concepts of judicial restraint. Others, including Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, in the name of applying what they regard as the original intent of the Constitution’s framers, have no compunction about aggressively striking down acts of Congress in ways that conservatives once called activist.

There are others on the right more activist still, and avowedly so. Judge Douglas Ginsburg of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia gave a name to the concept of the “Constitution-in-exile,” the interpretation of our fundamental law that dominated legal thinking 75 years ago, before the Supreme Court embraced the New Deal. Recent attention to those who favor a return to this “Constitution” as a potent movement has stirred denials that such a movement exists. Whatever they call themselves, though, there are scholars, lawyers and judges promoting legal ideas that would jeopardize the Federal Reserve Board, the Social Security program, environmental protection and many other safeguards of modern governance – with judicial activism recognized as a tool necessary for limiting the power of the state and federal governments.

Concerned about the admixture of religion and politics these days, the resurgence of an influential political wing of church slash church wing of politics, from the post-election bullying to the recent putsch against the judiciary?

Now, a new low. According to WLOS-TV in Asheville, NC, the East Waynesville Baptist Church excommunicated nine members who voted for John Kerry:

Religion and politics clash over a local church’s declaration that Democrats are not welcome.

East Waynesville Baptist asked nine members to leave. Now 40 more have left the church in protest. Former members say Pastor Chan Chandler gave them the ultimatum, saying if they didn’t support George Bush, they should resign or repent. The minister declined an interview with News 13. But he did say “the actions were not politically motivated.” There are questions about whether the bi-laws were followed when the members were thrown out.

That’s just the teaser on their web site, which understates it. You can find much more, including the WLOS video, over at Daily Kos.

Or maybe he’s getting high again. He sure sounded tanked last week when he spewed around on his show about what is, in his mind, an evil institution: Earth Day. And then he just started making stuff up.

For those who don’t know, Earth Day was started in January 1970 by a Democratic Senator, Gaylord Nelson, who believes that our planet’s rare and fragile beauty is a cause for celebration, and in part that celebration can be a vehicle for raising public awareness about urgent environmental issues. Earth Day has been going strong ever since, with millions of citizens coming together every April 22 to participate in Earth Day activities all over the world. And notable supporters of Earth Day’s mission over the years have included, to name just a few, Margaret Mead, Buzz Aldrin, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Bucky Fuller. A smart bunch, to say the least.

On this Earth Day, however, Rush insulted all of us who care about the planet, are concerned about its future, and actually know something about environmental science. He started by calling Earth Day a “communist” celebration, before moving on to slur Jesse Jackson and characterize environmental activists as being motivated by business interests, rather than concern. Well, I encourage readers to ask anyone who’s ever been involved: progressive activism of pretty much any kind is definitely not a world defined by huge profit margins.

Rush also painted pretty pictures with numbers to try to convince us that environmental conditions around the globe have actually improved in recent years. I don’t think so. To get a real shot at the truth, check out Grist Magazine’s article, “You’ve Come a Long Way, Maybe.”

But it’s Rush’s blatant skewing of federal budget numbers that reeks the most of propagandist maneuverings. He (intentionally?) botched a reference to something Paul Taylor wrote regarding federal spending on environmental protection, by stating that we spend 5% of our Gross Domestic Product on it, or as much as we spend on defense and homeland security. What? Is he kidding? You don’t have to be a Sierra Club member, much less a Ph.D. in environmental studies, to know that ain’t true in Bush’s strange new millenium.
What Paul Taylor actually said is that federal, state, local and private spending combined equals what the U.S. is spending on defense and homeland security. Now that’s a different story.

Fortunately, the folks at Counterspin (a program of the media watchdog group FAIR, or Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) got ahold of Rush’s absurd fables and found out how we’re really spending our money. They refer to an article at Media Matters, for which their writer did real research – at the White House Office of Management and Budget. Reality is, in 2004 we spent over $400 billion on defense and homeland security, and only $19 billion at the EPA and Department of the Interior. That’s a difference of over 20 times.

You know, rehabilitation for an addict generally involves attempts to get honest with the world, to stop lieing and manipulating, and to make amends to people who have been harmed along the way. Funny how we’ve yet to see any of these true signs of recovery in Rush, and how reminiscent this lack of change is of his favorite, supposedly-recovered alcoholic, George W. Bush.

Bruce Bartlett wrote last week in the Moonie Times about the importance of looking beyond the 75-year Social Security Trustees’ projection. Way beyond:

Last year, the actuaries, who actually write the trustees reports, made an important methodological change. Historically, they presented financial data for 75 years out. But some trustees felt it would be more informative if perpetual costs could be summarized in present value terms…. Starting with Social Security, which President Bush repeatedly says is in precarious financial condition, we see the present value of all the program’s future costs minus expected taxes in perpetuity is estimated at $13.7 trillion.

Now, we have mocked this “infinite horizon” number many times, and for good reason. Even the 75-year projection locks in certain economic variables, like Depression-era wage growth and Buchanan-style immigration, at absurdly dour levels. (A slight improvement in growth over the pessimistic projection at any time in the future can ensure full scheduled benefits.) The “infinite horizon” projection locks in these numbers forever. Yeah, eternity.

Of course, this doesn’t take into account the effects on our economy when the sun turns into a “red giant” in approximately five billion years. And I’m shocked that this document attacks “people of faith” by ignoring the workforce consequences of rapture. The American Academy of Actuaries have called the number almost meaningless.

But those flaws aside, using the “infinite horizon” does lend itself to an almost painless “solution” to the infinite shortfall. Take that number – $11 trillion or $13.7 trillion, or whatever, it doesn’t really matter. Now, my plan is that every year, we pay a dollar towards financing full benefits. We should have that number paid off in just 13.7 trillion years – well within the “infinite horizon"!

The Revealer, a new online magazine about religion and the press, has an interesting article by Kathryn Joyce on pharmacists withholding the pill, the abortion language war, and some of the eager young centrists out there.

There’s a special weariness I feel, reading the punditry of amateur centrist-Democratic strategists fond of telling liberals which of their principles or issues can be saved – are politically viable – and which must be sacrificed for the greater good. This fatigue is matched by hearing grown-up Democratic strategists and politicians following the same jaded game-plan. It’s not just the soul-sadness of seeing a young generation of would-be players who have already traded a sense of justice for the perceived maturity of practicality, or more bluntly, ideals for ambition, but the more general anemia of moral imagination that presupposes the worst in people, and thus guarantees that the worst is what they’ll receive; the self-reflexive, and self-fulfilling, assumption that, because they aren’t willing to take a risk over mere questions of right and wrong, over beliefs, no one else can be capable of such a leap of faith.

Politics is an insider’s game that some people enjoy (not me), but she’s right – we shouldn’t sacrifice fundamental principles in the name of reaching out to the far right. The the Beltway version of the “center” has moved so far that reactionary televangelists seem to MC the political debate, but who says the public has followed?

And as for the “pharmacists’ right to refuse”, well, maybe there is a compromise: a woman gets to have her prescriptions filled by a qualified pharmacist, and the amateur moralist gets to find a new job – say, mopping the floor at the baby carriage factory.

… a new music video from rapper MC Hawking.

Debunker: Bolton & intelligence
Yes, Bush won the election. We would advise our conservative friends to read the parts in the Constitution (that they desire to see so strictly interpreted) about advice and consent in a deliberative body. Bolton’s inability to get along with people and his apoplectic temperament are obviously relevant to a diplomatic post. And a hardcore neocon foreign policy ideology should be that big a selling point right now. Consider the serious damage done by neocon policies to America’s standing among nations, while the real threats (read Iran and North Korea) facing us have increased tremendously. But those aren’t even the main reasons why this rejection should be a slam dunk. . . Read on!

Debunker: Judges
“Judicial activism” is merely another front in the right’s ongoing culture war. As Republican leaders in our nation’s capital join the religious right and the business elite in a three-part harmony over “liberal judges,” it’s easy to forget that there’s nothing liberal about the predominantly Republican judiciary. It just doesn’t attend the party strategy meetings, is all.. Read on!

Bonus debunker: The filibuster
Another week, more Republican distortions about the filibuster. And, as usual, right wing pundits like Robert Novak refuse, as the old saying goes, to the let the facts get in the way of a good story. Read on!

Debunker: Social Security
The facts about “progressive price indexing.” This past Thursday, President George W. Bush, Privateer-in-Chief, finally deigned to put something “on the table” for his side of the privatization debate. The surprising part of this performance was that the president, for the first time, spoke directly on a proposal to actually address the phony “bankruptcy” “crisis” he has been drumming up non-stop for the last few months. Read on!

Debunker: Howard Dean
Why do conservative’s insist on throwing bowling balls around their big glass houses? New from the people who brought you the “politics of personal destruction:” Jim Wright; the assaults on Dukakis’s patriotism; the bogus Clintongates; and the Swift Boat attacks;- the ongoing demonization of Howard Dean. Read on!

Debunker: The Pope and media bias
Just when you thought the Right couldn’t get any more tasteless, the conservative hate squad decided to insert their political agenda into the sad, solemn time surrounding the passing of Pope John Paul II.  Rather than taking the high road ­ talking about how the Pope had reached out to people of all faiths, or how he was being mourned across political, religious, racial, and international boundaries ­ the right wing punditocracy chose to exploit the Pope’s passing by making crass, outrageous accusations about anti-Catholic biases in the mainstream media.  Read on!

Fringe bytes: They really do say this stuff…
Jerry Falwell loves gays - as long as they’re not really gay, the 700 Club loves Suzanne Sommers, and everybody loves Tom DeLay. Can you feel the love? But who do they hate? Why, Al Gore, global warming, and the independent judiciary, of course!

PAT ROBERTSON: What is the agenda of the radical Left? They talk about - aren’t environmental concerns sort of like a god to them?

SEN. INHOFE: It is. Look, Pat, I don’t have to tell you about reading the Scriptures, but one of mine that I’ve always enjoyed is Romans 1, 22 and 23. You quit worshipping God and start worshipping the creation – the creeping things, the four-legged beasts, the birds and all that. That’s their god. That’s what they worship. ("The growing threat of far-left environmentalism,” CBN News )

Read on!

As we monitor and debunk right wing BS, a constant theme we find is that global warming is a hoax perpetuated by leftwing lunatics because we hate America. Another constant theme is a zealous disregard for facts, evidence and reality. Once again, right wing zealotry is dangerous and wrong.

A recent study released by NASA last week is pretty conclusive:

Scientists Confirm Earth’s Energy is Out of Balance

Scientists have concluded more energy is being absorbed from the sun than is emitted back to space, throwing the Earth’s energy “out of balance” and warming the globe.

Scientists from NASA, Columbia University, New York, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, Calif. used satellites, data from buoys and computer models to study the Earth’s oceans. They confirmed the energy imbalance by using precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years.

The study reveals Earth’s energy imbalance is large by standards of the planet’s history. The imbalance is 0.85 watts per meter squared. That will cause an additional warming of 0.6 degrees Celsius (1 degree Fahrenheit) by the end of this century.

To understand the difference, think of a one-watt light bulb shining over an area of one square meter (10.76 square feet). Although it doesn’t seem like much, adding up the number of feet around the world creates a big effect. To put this number into perspective, an imbalance of one-watt per square meter, maintained for the past 10,000 years is enough to melt ice equivalent to one kilometer (.6 mile) of sea level, if there were that much ice.

Three months ago we marked the passing of an ideologue, the anti-government swinger Stephen Moore, from penthouse-level leadership of Le Club for Growth in some kind of “power struggle.”

Mr. Moore, of course, hasn’t shut up since then — the Privateer has shown up frequently on our Social Security pages. From Washington Monthly, here’s the backstory, and it’s a real rockstar epic:

The very qualities that had initially made Moore an ideal spokesman and leader of the organization—his take-no-prisoners, blustery manner, and particularly his spotlight-hogging ways—had begun to grate on his fellow Club members.

[…] But his critics say that Moore became star-struck by major donors and party bigwigs and lost his ideological way, abandoning their original vision for the Club and letting relationships affect his decision-making about which candidates the organization should support.

[…] Now, Steve Moore has gone off to pursue a solo career, starting a new group of his own, the Free Enterprise Fund — the Wings of conservative fundraising, to the Club’s Beatles. The Club, meanwhile, continues to rake in dollars and stir up controversy — most recently with a television ad campaign attacking Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) for being insufficiently supportive of President Bush’s plans to privatize Social Security. It’s too early to assess the damage done to the Club and to Moore as a result of the split, but Moore is sure that his former organization will never be the same without him, becoming like the Police without Sting or Bon Jovi without Jon. “It is kind of a tragedy,” he says. “Everyone agrees the Club will never be the political powerhouse it once was.”

(Just skip the reunion tour, please…)

If you’ve been following our Social Security coverage, you know by now that the 1983 Greenspan commission raised the payroll tax rate to build up a trust fund to cover the retirement of the baby boom generation – the “pig in the python” of population growth. And yet, many Privateers make their case by appealing to the inevitability of “bankruptcy” due to the march of demographics – i.e., a demographic trend we have known about and taken into account for at least 22 years. The baby-boom generation didn’t get any larger in the last two decades – what has changed?

Economic Policy Institute’s Josh Bivens finally answers that question.

Two of the most striking trends characterizing the U.S. economy from 1983 to 1996 were historically sluggish growth in real wages and a pronounced increase in the inequality of labor earnings. This section details the effects these two trends have had on the Social Security financing gap. The bottom line is that, if the 1983 assumptions regarding these two economic variables alone were adopted today, the 75-year funding shortfall facing Social Security would be cut by 60%.

(Via MaxSpeak.)