nirmalm.com -

Rothenberg's Beat Sweetener

Nirmal — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:09:05 -0400

Now that the beat sweetener has entered our lexicon, let's look at a piece typical of its form. Stu Rothenberg ran a shockingly sycophantic editorial in last week's Roll Call brown-nosing Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank, and Rahm Emanuel:

Democrats simply have smarter, tougher, more cold-blooded voices in government at the moment. That hasn’t always been the case, and it’s certainly not inevitable. But right now, it’s true.

...I’m referring to a trio of Democrats in Washington, D.C., who epitomize the party’s current advantage — Rep. Barney Frank (Mass.), Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who until recently served in the House as the third-ranking party leader.

Read the entire thing if you can stomach it. First, you'll notice that Rothenberg doesn't cite any evidence beyond that he saw Barney Frank on TV once. Why is Frank so much more impressive than his Democratic colleagues? How do we know that Schumer and Emanuel were the "architects" of 2006 Democratic Congressional victories, and that those victories didn't happen because of other factors? Is there an objective measure that we can use to determine what makes a particular political player "savvy"? If there are answers to these questions, they aren't contained in Rothenberg's piece.

Broadly, his underlying logic is flawed: Rothenberg sees Democrats prevailing in our discourse, and attributes that success to "savvy" political actors like Frank/Schumer/Emanuel. This doesn't hold up because Frank, Schumer, and Emanuel have been prominent public figures for years, and Rothenberg doesn't explain why their supposed political skill is only now leading to success. It's far more likely that current Democratic success is due to 1) power change that comes with an election, particularly the bully pulpit of the Presidency, and 2) actual change in public opinion that comes from an increased understanding of the consequences of discredited public policy. Rothenberg's piece is from the perspective of day-to-day games and strategy rather than policy choices that have consequences in elections.

It's also probably not a coincidence that the actors he chooses to glorify are some of the biggest corporate sellouts of the Democratic party. Schumer lobbied heavily for deregulation of the financial industry. Barney Frank was one of the primary authors of the weak bailout bill, which we're now feeling the consequences of (incidentally, not very "savvy"). And Rahm Emanuel... where do we even start? By fawning over these actors, Rothenberg continues a tradition where "pragmatists" are considered "smarter" or more "serious" than their "ideological" counterparts. These stories in insider publications give them credibility, and amplify their voices at the expense of progressive alternatives (ex. where are the fawning profiles of Chris Van Hollen or Howard Dean, and why aren't electoral victories attributed to them?)

Ultimately, the beat sweetener is a collective action problem among journalists. Journalism loses credibility when reporters write beat sweeteners, because it violates public trust in work that's supposed to be written in good faith. On the other hand, individual journalists have an incentive to write beat sweeteners if they feel it gets them better long-term access to information, and better stories. When political commentators like Rothenberg write illogical, unsubstantiated pieces glorifying public figures for personal gain, they need to be publicly shamed so they're less likely to do it again.

Backpedaling in Real-Time

Nirmal — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 11:02:19 -0500

Claire McCaskill, part of the bipartisan group of Senators gutting the stimulus, sent out the following update on Twitter: "Proud we cut over 100 billion out of recov bill.Many Ds don't like it, but needed to be done.The silly stuff Rs keep talking about is OUT." Elsewhere, she told reporters that the cuts eliminated the "junk" in the bill. Her communications director Adrianne Marsh said "So glad that Claire was part of this moderate team Nelson is calling "the jobs squad". Very cool. Hopefully the others will see this is best". Here McCaskill is taking pride in her role in the cuts and dismissing the shortchanged programs.

The "silly stuff" cut included $40 billion for state government, $98 million for school nutrition, $1 billion for Head Start, and $2 billion for increased broadband access. As D-Day points out, since states are constitutionally required to balance their budgets, state budget cuts undermine the effects of the federal stimulus. Many of the other affected programs both put people to work and are important long-term investments. Take Head Start: funding the program means hiring more teachers and other staff, and the parents of participating children have increased opportunity to find work themselves (not to mention the benefit of providing education to low-income kids). Instead, the centrists have ensured that we will employ 600,000 to 900,000 fewer Americans than had their changes not been implemented.

Responding to critics from the left, McCaskill backpedaled, arguing that "Compromise had to happen or we would NOT have 60 votes. Period." To Krugman, she responded "Just saw Krugman's comments on reduction in recov act. Question for him. Would no stimulus act be better than one thats 800 B instead of 900." This is a different argument. First, she defended the cuts on their merits. Later, she justified the cuts as a necessary step to getting the bill passed. Interestingly, she shifted from first-person in the first tweet to passive voice in the later ones, with the effect of obscuring her involvement in the "compromise."

I'm glad McCaskill is addressing criticism from the left, and I'm even sympathetic to her political argument: Deficit spending requires 60 votes to pass in the Senate, and the bill has to pass. The problem is her shifting rationalizations for the cuts -- her argument that all of the programs she cut weren't worthwhile and wouldn't help to get us out of this mess is troubling. Politicians embracing Twitter is great, but in this case it just means we get to see the backpedaling in real-time.

RNC Chair

Nirmal — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:44:27 -0500

It's worth noting that the RNC had no choice but to appoint Michael Steele as chair of their party -- Katon Dawson, the number two vote getter, had to quit his all-white country club before getting in the race. That wouldn't have been a good look for the Republican party, especially in the current environment. Still, make no mistake: the selection of Steele as the figurehead of the GOP continues a tradition of appropriating the symbols of civil rights to pursue regressive policies. He's another tool to perpetuate the white conservative establishment.

This clip illustrates how meaningless this symbolism is:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Black Domination

Daily Show Full Episodes
Funny Political Videos

Important Things With Demetri Martin
More Funny Videos

Weekend Link Roundup

Nirmal — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 22:01:04 -0500

We round up some of the most important news and commentary released over the weekend (Jan. 24 and 25).

AMERICAblog: There will not be a recession, flashback to 2006/2007 - Chris from AMERICAblog digs up a compilation of clips from Fox News and CNBC that illustrates how economic commentators who predicted the recession were ridiculed. This is yet another example of how media figures change the costs and benefits of supporting a particular position by creating an artificial consensus. The cable news networks have created an environment where commentators who were wrong about the recession and shouted down the pessimists face no accountability.

Slashdot: Monster.com Data Stolen, Won't Email Users - Hackers once again breached Monster.com's user database, stealing personal information such as names, e-mail addresses, and passwords. Even worse, Monster isn't notifying their users about the breach. As a society we habitually give up our privacy without an understanding of the consequences. Cable companies don't need our social security numbers, but we give it to them without thinking. There is no system of accountability for companies that lose or abuse this data.

NYT: Republicans Are Resistant to Obama’s Stimulus Plan - Congressional Republicans have no intention of supporting Obama's stimulus plan as it currently exists. Of course, if the stimulus passes and fails to work, they benefit politically, so they have an incentive to pass a less effective bill. Todd Beeton thinks that the political pressure will be too much for some Congressional Republicans to resist, and Atrios argues that the focus should be on creating the best bill possible regardless of Republican support.

Russ Feingold: Constitutional Amendment Ending Gubernatorial Appointments to Senate Vacancies - The process that governors have employed to fill Senate vacancies has been unquestionably disastrous. Russ Feingold wants to push a constitutional amendment to end this undemocratic practice. A constitutional amendment honestly seems unlikely to pass given the work involved and votes needed, but at least Feingold's move keeps the flaws of gubernatorial appointments in the spotlight. Will have more commentary on this later in the week.

Larissa MacFarquhar: Ms. Kennedy Regrets - Relatedly, the New Yorker published a sympathetic profile of Caroline Kennedy told largely from the perspective of her friends. It argues that she's a smart and well-meaning person, but just not cut out for politics. My response would be that although she may have had problems as a candidate, the broader issue is the fundamentally undemocratic process of Governors appointing Senate vacancies. What if she hadn't realized that she wasn't prepared to be a Senator and accepted an offer from Patterson? One conclusion from the piece is that elections weed out people who don't realize they aren't suited for high-profile politics, not just in terms of talent but also lifestyle change.

Firedoglake: Sunlight is to Lobbyists as Garlic is to Vampires - Banks that benefited from the bailout are using taxpayer money to work against our collective interest. I don't think all lobbying is bad, but a lot of the collective action problems we face seem to be exacerbated by the lack of transparency in lobbying.

Think Progress: Obama’s Right-Wing Dinner Friends Rip His Stimulus Package: Worst Bill In ‘Galactic History’ - The conservative pundits that Obama embraced and legitimized are already trashing his stimulus plan. Big surprise.

Zack Exley at Revolution in Jesusland explains why "evangelical" Christians are worth taking the effort to understand. The Gaiman quote from “A Game of You” he references encapsulates why the story one of my favorite Sandman arcs. Gaiman took what most readers earlier dismissed as a throwaway character, developed her, and showed us this fascinating and complex fantasy world inside her mind. The story makes a compelling case that everyone is worth understanding regardless of the initial impression they convey, and the principle of equal worth of all people as Exley points out.

Amanda Marcotte at pandagon dissects the most recent episode of Battlestar Galactica, particularly its attempted parallels to U.S. politics, if you're into that sort of thing.

I'm sure I missed a lot of good stuff -- what've you been reading?

The GOP and Civil Rights: Symbolism vs. Reality

Nirmal — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 03:25:23 -0500

Saul Anuzis, one of the candidates for RNC chair, made the following comment on Twitter a couple weeks ago:

First woman in the U.S.Senate...Republican. First woman in the U.S. House...Republican. Same for African-Americans...GOP's history strong.

He implies that because the first black and women representatives in both houses of Congress were Republicans, the GOP is somehow inoculated from criticism of their record on civil rights issues. This doesn't come out of nowhere: Republicans make these kinds of statements because they feel the need to defend themselves.

First, if the facts Saul cites are the standard for a strong civil rights record, his argument doesn't hold up today the way it may have historically. Let's take a look at the balance in the 110th Congress: There are 42 black Democratic Representatives in the House vs. no black Republicans. 53 Democratic women Representatives in the House vs. 20 Republican women. While meaningful, the GOP having the "first" black or women representatives is no longer relevant to our modern political discourse.

Of course, the notion that the GOP, which absorbed the Dixiecrats, has a strong history on civil rights because of these "firsts" is absurd. The broader problem with Saul's statement is that it reflects the GOP's tendency co-opt progressive civil rights symbols for the purpose of justifying regressive policies.

Take Sarah Palin: by self-identifying as a feminist, invoking Hillary Clinton in her first campaign speeches, and as potentially the first woman Vice President of the United States, she adopted many of the symbols of women's empowerment. Although she claimed the symbols of feminism, her actual purpose on the campaign trail was to reinforce existing gender roles. Culturally, she reinforced these existing gender norms by masking her ambition and "putting a skirt on," as conservative commentators put it. In terms of public policy, she's virulently anti-choice, opposes birth control and emergency contraception even in extreme cases, believes in abstinence-only education, and wouldn't take a position on equal pay. She portrayed herself as a figure of women's empowerment while undermining feminism as a movement.

Much like their attempt at subverting feminism in the 2008 campaign, conservatives use black politicians to advance regressive policies on civil rights issues. Ken Blackwell pushed to disenfranchise minorities as Secretary of State of the most critical swing state in 2004. Ward Connerly is the most prominent figurehead of the anti-affirmative action movement. As someone who supports policies that will lead to discrimination in the guise of advancing equality, he's one of the best examples of appropriating the symbolism of civil rights for the purpose of undermining them. But as long as the GOP continues to blame black families for the financial crisis, engage in race baiting, oppose legislation to promote equality like affirmative action, actively antagonize the black community with discriminatory voter ID laws, and blame the victims of Katrina, these tactics shouldn't be taken seriously.

Saul Anuzis' comment neatly fits into this pattern -- a superficial acknowledgment of progress that hides, and is even meant to legitimize, a much more disturbing value system. The next time you see the GOP using the symbols or language of civil rights, remember that they're selling something very different than what they claim.

UPDATE: Jim Moss adds:

I call major B.S. on Anuzis. The first African-American Congressmen served during Reconstruction in the 1870’s. You simply cannot compare the Republicans and Democrats today to the parties back then. They have changed completely. Also, the blacks in Congress then were only able to serve because of the strict restrictions of Reconstruction. Missippippi, then or now, would never come close to actually electing a black Senator.

Also, the first female Senator was a gimmick, an 87-year old woman named Rebecca Latimer Felton from Georgia who was appointed and served for just 24 hours. The first elected Senator was a Democrat - Hattie Caraway of Arkansas, who served from 1931-1945.

The only one of those four the Republicans should brag about should be the first female Representaive, Jeanette Rankin, elected in Montana in 1916.

I guess Anuzis, as Republicans often do, is counting on people to be ignorant.

GAR and Our Lack of Progressive Foreign Policy Infrastructure

Nirmal — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 03:17:30 -0500

I admittedly don't know enough about Afghanistan to blog about it as an issue, but here's something I've noticed about the "Get Afghanistan Right" effort from an organizing perspective: outside of groups that are centered around a specific conflict, such as Iraq or Israel/Palestine, we don't have a progressive foreign policy infrastructure. As Alex often points out, arguing that we need to pull out of Iraq to escalate in Afghanistan might be a strong argument for withdrawal from Iraq, but it doesn't fit as well as a component of a comprehensive progressive foreign policy strategy.

We need progressive foreign policy institutions that formulate policy, lobby, blog, take electoral action, and work the media. Labor and environmental groups, despite all their faults, are good at this. They create arguments, give them credibility among a wider audience, and ultimately see them turned into real public policy. We might not know what environmental or workers rights fights are going to look like in 10 years, but we know that we're going to have them. Progressive institutions that comprehensively address these groups of issues are almost always key players in individual issue fights, even without knowing what these fights will be in advance.

How "credibility" is determined in the foreign policy world is deeply flawed -- there's a tendency in our discourse, even on the progressive side, to fetishize "manly" individuals and positions. That's fine for individual issue fights or elections, but bowing to these narratives doesn't work as a long-term strategy. Although "chickenhawks" is a useful term that has helped us identify hypocrisy and win elections, the underlying attitude behind the concept can easily be turned against progressives (i.e. weak whiny liberals who aren't serious). This isn't to say that "tough" positions don't have merit, but if we consistently turn to them for validation it skews our thinking and ultimately affects our policy views. We need institutions that understand how to shift the consensus and give progressive foreign policy positions credibility without needing to seek legitimacy from "tough" individuals.

The lack of such an institution is part of what makes organizing opposition to escalation in Afghanistan difficult. I'm in no position to argue whether escalation in Afghanistan is the right thing to do, but I do know that there's a large portion of the base that opposes escalation and isn't represented institutionally. Although existing progressive foreign policy orgs are excellent at what they do, they either have too narrow of a focus, come from a mindset that is incompatible with the progressive base, or are too afraid to come out strongly against the incoming administration.

The Political Case for a Strong Stimulus Bill

Nirmal — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:06:36 -0500

Although Obama's proposed stimulus plan is better than what Bush would have devised, his own economic team admits it doesn't do enough to reduce unemployment:

“Full employment” clearly means an unemployment rate near 5 — the CBO says 5.2 for the NAIRU, which seems high to me. Unemployment is currently about 7 percent, and heading much higher; Obama himself says that absent stimulus it could go into double digits. Suppose that we’re looking at an economy that, absent stimulus, would have an average unemployment rate of 9 percent over the next two years; this plan would cut that to 7.3 percent, which would be a help but could easily be spun by critics as a failure.

Why? Rather than focusing on creating jobs, Obama added massive tax cuts to the plan in order to achieve broad bipartisan support for the bill. House Republicans responded by demanding an all tax-cut, no spending version of the stimulus plan. Predictably, bipartisan support for the bill appears to have crumbled:

Obama's stimulus package is on track to pass before the Presidents Day recess in mid-February. But it is increasingly doubtful that he will pick up the 80 Senate votes he had hoped to win in the first major legislative test of his presidency. Instead, the bill is likely to pass on the strength of the Democrats' majority.

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said Wednesday that prospects for bipartisanship in the stimulus debate rapidly were eroding.

Obama started by compromising, to make his offer palatable to Congressional Republicans. Given his experience in Congress, one would hope he'd realize that this is not good negotiation strategy. There are two ways this can go: 1) A watered down bill that won't be effective, but will burden us with greater debt as we plunge deeper into recession. This bill will have the support of Congressional Republicans, but when it doesn't work Obama will take the blame. Or 2) A bill without "bipartisan" cover that actually has a chance at working.

Aside from the long-term strategy, a strong stimulus bill is politically useful now. An NBC/WSJ poll released today (q. 28) shows that the public prefers "government spending that creates jobs" over "tax cuts" by 63 percent to 33 percent. Do people really want bipartisanship on this issue, or is that desire driven by elite consensus?

UPDATE: Stimulus bill is now online.

The Village, Pt. 2: Changing Elite Opinion

Nirmal — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:44:18 -0500

Here's why it's important to understand how "The Village" operates: When journalists define the consensus on a particular issue, that changes the costs and benefits for elites to support their preferred position. This in turn compels them to move toward that consensus position rather than acting on their principles.

In an ideal world, people who are correct about the implications of a public policy would be rewarded, and people who are wrong get penalized. Elites who correctly predicted the effects of the Iraq war, for example, would be booked as commentators on TV more often. The President-elect would value the advice of economists who had successfully predicted the financial crisis over the "serious" ones who got us into this mess. And the list goes on.

"The Village" describes what happens in reality -- an environment where being misinformed, but adhering to the consensus of the group, is less costly than breaking from the herd. Consider an elite deciding whether to publicly oppose going to war with Iraq in 2002: Opposing the war meant being cast into what Daniel Hallin described as the "sphere of deviance," which is what journalists perceive as the fringe of a public policy debate. On the other hand, staying silent or supporting the war meant avoiding being ostracized from the in-group. If the war turned out to be a bad idea, at least everyone was wrong together. In other words, even considering all of the possible outcomes of the Iraq war, "The Village" creates an atmosphere for elites where being wrong is less costly than being right, even when the person suspects their position is wrong. On Wall Street, similar group pressure discouraged people from acknowledging the housing bubble. Again, being wrong was less costly than breaking with the consensus opinion. This dynamic changes the tone of our public policy debates.

Initiatives like "Get Afghanistan Right" are effective because they challenge conventional wisdom by pointing out that dissenting views exist. Moving viewpoints from the "sphere of deviance" to the "sphere of legitimate debate", or shifting the Overton window, can have a tremendous impact on public policy by lowering the cost for elites to change their publicly stated opinion. When elites move toward a consensus position it strengthens that consensus, causing a self-reinforcing loop. On issues where we don't agree with journalist-created consensus, we need to break it.

Deficits and Stimulus

Nirmal — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:10:28 -0500

Some reddit commenters argue that 1) All deficits are bad, and 2) I'm similarly hypocritical for not supporting deficit spending during the war, but supporting them now that Democrats are in power.

Generally I think deficits should be avoided, but I wouldn’t agree that they are always "bad." Plenty of evidence shows that when governments invest in infrastructure, they can offset some of the effects of depression.

Look at state governments, which are required to have balanced budgets. The times when states most desperately need to be spending is also when revenue is down — their hands are tied when they need to spend the most.

Republican Bloggers Suddenly Concerned about Fiscal Responsibility

Nirmal — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:14:06 -0500

I mentioned this in the weekend link roundup, but the hypocrisy of conservative bloggers is worth calling out. Right on cue, top conservative bloggers are coming out against the stimulus, arguing that we can't afford it because of the federal deficit.

Red State:

But bipartisan bonhomie notwithstanding, there’s no more reason to embrace Barack Obama’s stimulus plan today than there was a week ago. It is still a tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars, will do nothing to help the economy, and will blow an even bigger hole in a deficit that has risen from $162 billion to $1.2 trillion annually since Democrats took control of Congress.

Power Line:

The Congressional Budget Office projected today that the federal budget deficit for FY 2009 will be $1.2 trillion, over 8 percent of anticipated GDP. And this is before Congress enacts Barack Obama's "stimulus" package, which would add hundreds of billions of dollars more to the deficit.

Instapundit:

A DEFICIT SPENDING “BLOWOUT:” The looming red ink is unlike anything in U.S. peacetime history. Stimulus, or looting the treasury?

These people supported the Iraq war and consistently opposed withdrawal, which is going to cost us three trillion dollars. That they're suddenly concerned about deficit spending after six years of neglect is disappointing, but predictable.

This is a pretty standard tactic from the conservative playbook. When they're in power, they rack up debt by cutting revenue and giving handouts to their cronies. When political power shifts hands, this allows them to argue that we can't afford to spend on social programs.

...speaking of conservative bloggers, I can't wait to join the Red State STRIKE FORCE!!!!!111111

Weekend Link Roundup

Nirmal — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:04:17 -0500

We read stuff so you don't have to.

John Cole: At What Point Will She Shoulder Some Blame? - Sarah Palin refuses to accept responsibility for her unpopularity, and comes off looking even worse than she did before. It's getting to the point where she's complaining about how her complaining is portrayed in the media. Very meta.

ABC's This Week - Following up on our discussion about holding Bush accountable, Obama indicated to George Stephanopoulos that he was hesitant to prosecute the Bush administration for illegal torture and wiretapping. Even though it's the most popular question on change.gov. Go people power!

NYT: White House Loses Legal Fight on Visitor Logs - Also on the subject of Bush accountability, a federal judge ruled against the Bush administration's attempt to keep its visitor logs secret. Knowing who visited the White House expands our understanding of improper influence in politics.

Dean Baker: The Washington Post, Which Said the Economy Was Just Fine, Says That We Can't Fix Health Care - The Washington Post, putting it down for the status quo since 1877, argues that we can't do much about rising health care expenses. Of course, their op-ed completely ignores that the United States pays more per capita on healthcare than any other Western country, with considerably worse life expectancy.

MyDD: A Drupal-based DailyKos - Shai Sachs argues for the development of a Drupal-based Daily Kos clone that progressive bloggers can adapt when building their sites. Saving SoapBlox is an admirable endeavor, and the service is a key piece of progressive infrastructure. Still, it's not safe to put so much power in the hands of one individual or even institution, or a proprietary platform that few people use. An open-source solution would be a powerful alternative.

Digby: Fiscal Madness - Remember how CNN unfairly attacked a stimulus proposal from the U.S. Conference of Mayors? They're at it again. This time, they're airing propaganda that uses the size of the federal deficit to argue against social investment. Of course the deficit is worrisome, but these stories skew our sense of budget priorities and unfairly undermine the case for a desperately needed stimulus package.

Politico: Sen. Voinovich to announce retirement - This makes four Republican retirement announcements -- it's no fun being in the minority. Barring a massive public shift toward Republicans (which is absolutely within the realm of possibility), the 2010 Senate map looks great for Democrats.

California’s Proposition 8: What Happened, and What Does the Future Hold? - This report dispels some of the myths about black support for Prop 8 in California. It points out that the NEP's figure for black support conflicted with other post-election surveys, and that much of the difference in support for Prop 8 across race can probably actually be attributed to religiosity. I was going to look at the same thing once the NEP released the actual survey data, but always happy when someone does the work for me.

Firedoglake: LGBT Hosts on SNL - We need more of them. Neil Patrick Harris is hilariously awesome.

Tom Raum: GOP urging restraint in stimulus debate - When Republicans were in power, they started with a surplus and ended with a $1.2 trillion deficit. Now that Obama is President-elect, they're suddenly urging restraint.

Jay Rosen: Audience Atomization Overcome: Why the Internet Weakens the Authority of the Press - He explains, "Jon Stewart exploits for laughs what I called 'the difference between making news and making sense.'"

Plus there was an argument between Nate Silver and Greg Mankiw over the stimulus.

Finally, Obama hits up the legendary Ben's Chili Bowl.

I'm sure I missed a lot of interesting stuff -- what have you been reading?

Joe the Plumber: The Media Shouldn't Report on War

Nirmal — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:41:03 -0500

Wow, I hadn't thought of it like that before... excellent point.

Country first!

This is so cool

Nirmal — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:35:32 -0500

Awesome.

More on Holding Bush Accountable

Nirmal — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 14:17:23 -0500

Just wanted to respond to commenters on reddit and current, who responded to my original post about Bush's approval — I'll admit that “Bush must be held accountable” is a pretty vague statement.

Bush did a lot of awful stuff, with torture and warrantless wiretapping being one of many offenses. Some of these are crimes and some are just bad policy. As a result, he’s pretty unpopular. Like all people, Bush has an ego and wants to be regarded more highly by the public. He probably notes that Jimmy Carter is more liked than he was at the end of his term, and wants to follow a similar course.

My point was that we can’t let him resuscitate his image. Bush failed because his ideology is flawed. It isn’t as much about prosecuting him as it is keeping him unpopular, disincentiveizing future presidents from doing the same thing. We can do that by making sure that in 20 years his image is as toxic as it is now.

The Obama administration is in a position to do this. They’re inevitably going to find more appalling shit that Bush was doing. At best, of course I’d like to see Bush and his cronies prosecuted. As Lance rightly points out, the Obama administration probably isn’t going to go that far because of political reasons. Still, all they need to do is leak what they’ve found, and the media and public will continue to ensure that Bush has a tough time redeeming his image.

John Cherry

Nirmal — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:29:25 -0500

John Cherry is apparently running for Michigan governor -- I wish him the best. A couple years ago I was an intern on the Granholm campaign and ran into him a lot. He and his wife were both really... normal. Just funny, nice, down-to-earth people. I've met a lot of politicians who were a lot less "important" but far more full of themselves. He might not be flashy, but he's very likeable.

It's going to be tough for any Democrat in this environment, but particularly Cherry. A lot of people (unfairly) blame Granholm for the mess that Michigan is in. Any Republican nominee is obviously going to link Cherry by extension.

Low Bush Approval, and Why We Need to Keep it There

Nirmal — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:56:53 -0500

Gallup recently released the results of a survey assessing the performance of the Bush administration on a range of issues. Bush is poorly regarded among the public on virtually every topic:

Given his administration's vast array of failures, this is hardly surprising. People are undeniably worse off than they were eight years ago. Unemployment has risen, as has income inequality. The number of Americans without health insurance has drastically increased. We're stuck in two hopeless wars, and in trillions of dollars of debt.

The Bush administration has rolled out an extensive PR effort to resuscitate his image and establish a positive legacy. It's no coincidence that Bush is highlighting his work to fight AIDS, his most favorable attribute. He's going out of his way to appear accommodating to the Obama transition team. Not wanting to be held responsible for plunging the country further into recession, the administration seemed desperate to push through an auto bailout. Bush moved to protect 335,000 square miles of territorial water, making a direct comparison between himself and Teddy Roosevelt. Finally, his most ardent supporters are hording money for his Presidential library in order to shape his legacy.

The Obama team has shown some willingness to sweep many of the excesses of the Bush administration under the rug, allowing them to get away with their failures. This is a grave mistake.

Bush's failures are the byproduct of his administration's mistrust toward government. Consolidation of executive power comes from a lack of trust that government as it currently exists can keep us safe. The rollback of almost every regulation imaginable -- everything from labor, to environmental, to economic -- implies that government can't be trusted to engage in oversight. Attacks on programs like public health care and Social Security are based on the assumption that government shouldn't perform these functions, or can't perform them well. The administration's failures aren't the result of incompetence, they're the realization of conservative ideology's goals: the destruction of government.

Future presidents need to understand that they can't systematically dismantle government and get away with it. Bush must be held accountable.

Two Clips

Nirmal — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 23:09:29 -0500

I know this has been covered many times, but definitely worth emphasizing:

This is what they're selling us.

This is reality.

Just another example of the public absorbing the costs while an industry runs away with the profits.

Starcraft 2 is going to ruin my life

Nirmal — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 19:33:09 -0500

Narrators are a bit annoying, but wow.

More on Rick Warren

Nirmal — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 01:52:53 -0500

More on the Rick Warren controversy. Glenn Greenwald and a piece he links to by Michelle Goldberg are worth reading. Although I don't entirely agree with the thrust of their arguments, Jim (twice), Chuck , and Alex are also worth reading.

I had the following e-mail exchange with one of my best friends from college. I usually don't post this sort of thing (in part because posting potentially colors future e-mail exchanges), but in this case I think it illuminates some of the differences between Obama supporters who are upset about Rick Warren and Obama supporters who are not:

From: Friend
Date: Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 8:46 AM
To: Nirmal

Curious what your response is:

http://www.philosophyetc.net/2008/12/obama-warren-and-civic-inclusion.html

----------
From: Nirmal
Date: Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 12:57 PM
To: Friend

1) I agree with his point that progressives shouldn't be surprised, this is what Obama promised all along. It's possible to have a complicated view of Obama (mostly happy, but disappointed by some things).
2) My primary objection is political strategy, elevating him is going to give his attacks against us (progressives/gay rights advocates/feminists) more heft in the future.
3) By his logic, does that mean that Obama should include racists in his inauguration too? Where are they?
----------
From: Friend
Date: Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 2:06 PM
To: Nirmal

Interesting response. Three points.

1) I agree that elevating Warren as a political strategy could backfire on Obama if it legitimizes his attacks later. That said, I think the calcuation depends on how likely Warren is to challenge Obama, whether such an attack will matter, and how it will weigh against the potential benefits of inclusiveness. I think we can disagree upon those variables, but I think that's where the argument has to be.

2) I think we can draw a clear line between racists and Warren based upon the fact that Warren is willing to be to be pragmatic whereas racists lack this common ground. I think this presumes that the left is willing to be pragmatic and is willing to acknowledge pragmatism in those who disagree with them, which may not be the case though I hope/believe it is.

3) I think the question really turns on how we feel about inclusiveness. Under your logic it doesn't seem like Obama would include anyone who would need including under a philosophy of "inclusiveness". That is Obama would always play it safe, never picking people he would be afraid of legitimizing, even if part of their policy (namely their pragmatism) was worth legitimizing. As a result it seems like your position implicitly rejects inclusiveness where as a matter of political strategy there is at least some value to including non-fundamentalists.

Just throughts. I'd be interested in your reply. I don't think there's a right answer but the strategy is interesting.

Best,
-Friend
----------
From: Nirmal
Date: Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 11:13 PM
To: friend

1) The gay community is used to being shitted on by Democratic presidents/politicians, so they're very aware of patterns that indicate they're being triangulated against. See Bill Clinton's involvement with DOMA, don't ask don't tell, etc. Obama's record on those issues has been good so far, but his symbolism hasn't: his views were accurately represented for an influential ad in favor of prop 8 in California, he embraced Donnie McClurkin in the primary, and embraced Rick Warren now. That may be indicative of things to come. Of course, if Obama achieves results on gay rights / equality issues then Rick Warren is going to matter a lot less. Until then, the gay community has every reason to be suspicious.

2) I do think elevating Rick Warren is the same as elevating a racist. This is someone who calls same-sex marriage the same as pedophilia/incest, doesn't allow gays into his church, calls christians who work for social justice marxists, claims abortion is like the holocaust, supports harmful abstinence-only programs (even in places that really need safe-sex programs like Africa), believes a wife should be subservient to a husband, etc. He is intolerant and uses his power to promote intolerance. This goes beyond mere disagreement on policy positions -- it's not the same as, say, differing views on economic policy. Whatever outreach he does to Democratic politicians doesn't change that he's harmful to gays/women in unconscionable ways.

3) In that vein, it is bad political strategy to elevate him. Even if he doesn't turn on Obama (and I think he will), his views and past behavior indicate that he's going to be attacking other progressive candidates and causes. When he does, given his "bipartisan" street-cred his attacks are going to carry a lot more weight with the media and public. Even if Obama isn't hurting himself, he is damaging the pro-choice and gay rights movements. That justifies being upset at Obama.

4) Just to clarify, what does "pragmatism" mean?

5) At this point it's probably too late to drop Rick Warren, but pressuring Obama is going to make him more sensitive to these concerns in the future, particularly as he begins to govern.

I liked Obama ever since I saw him in 2004 -- backed him in the primary and the general. As a progressive I have a complicated relationship with him, though. I want him to do well, but he is going to do things I don't agree with and I need to pressure him. That's one of the great things about participating in politics.

----------
From: Friend
Date: Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 12:33 AM
To: Nirmal

0) My definition of pragmatism comes pretty close to the comments in this post. Basically it's a willingness to move in small steps, far short of ideological goals. I think this is good for presidents (as distinct from congressmen) since they represent a much broader and more diverse constituency and where governing by a 51% majority is possible, I believe it ultimately corrupts the institutions, both political and social, of the country. Now, the us vs. them mentallity may inherently be a part of politics, and at times a very useful, but the past 8 years of the politics of division have left me weary and concerned for the country's future if we can't find some common ground to move forward on.

1) Good point. Gays have every reason to be worried particularly since Obama doesn't need them to get elected (remember they originally supported Clinton). My only response is a general point about pragmatism and the need for small steps over big ones (civil unions, equal tax treatment before gay marriage) which I think Obama is particularly situated to achieve since he doesn't polarize moderate forces. But yea, until there's proof gays can worry (although it presumes a certain hypersensitivity to politics and an assumption of the worst, though I think some of this is driven by the fact that there (A) aren't more relevant things to talk about (B) the blogosphere is generally hypersensitive, and (C) there's a lack of information to offset it so far.)

2) That's a pretty uncomplicated view of the man considering the level of demonization. I think taken to extremes you can say that anyone who takes a traditional view of the bible is bad for gays and women, but I think it's more of a spectrum. For example, I know some priests within orthodoxy who are openly traditional, but don't enforce or discriminate based upon those positions. Now I don't think Rick Warren fits that mold. That said, I don't think Rick Warren is a Southern Baptist preaching fire and brimstone. I think there's a difference between having a position and centering your work around that position.

2.5) Also, how are his views relevant to the invocation? From what I understand the invocation is just the invocation of god's blessing at the inauguration. Please correct me if I'm wrong since I couldn't find a source to explain what it is.

3) Again, I think you're only looking at one side of the calculation. Obama gains a lot of street cred with conservatives because of this move and in a fight Obama would win out over Warren. That said I think the real issue is that Obama isn't really a progressive and thus this move helps him but hurts progressives (whom you represent). But that raises the issue of what makes Obama not a progressive but a liberal. And I think it comes down to pragmatism. Obama is willing to make small sacrifices so that he'll be able to push for small gains, rather than mandating large ones.

5) I think that's one role for bloggers. I'm more concered about the boy who cried wolf, but I never want to suggest that there isn't a role for bloggers to play in making sure the administration is aware. If no one raises their voice, then Obama would presume to consent and act as he has, which you disagree with on principled grounds. So I think you're on solid footing.

I think our differences boil down to two things. First I think we have different roles, particularly with you being a blogger and me being a private citizen. Second, I think we have different political philosophies, somewhat informed by our roles, but also likely driven by other things. It's probably too far afrield from our current conversation to talk about what informs our sensitivity to intolerance, but I think that's the fault line. I'd be curious to know if you agree with me on this point or think it's somewhere else.

Best,
-Friend

----------
From: Friend
Date: Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 12:44 AM
To: Nirmal

also, given my definition of pragmatism, would you be willing to call yourself one? I.e. would you sacrifice part of your principles for a small step?
----------
From: Nirmal
Date: Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 1:14 AM
To: Friend

Yeah I think the areas of disagreement are:

- Perception/understanding of political world: we disagree on strategic significance of gaining street cred with conservatives vs. probability of meaningfully getting bitten in the ass, rick warren as evildoer vs. nuanced figure, whether his views are relevant (your 2.5), etc

- Pragmatism/Ideology: i'm uncomfortable with viewing being "pragmatic" and "ideological" as a dichotomy, or even two sides of a continuum, but somewhere there's a disagreement about to what degree sacrificing principles is tolerable for gains. in this case, as you point out this relates to our sensitivity levels for intolerance.

So I think we disagree on both what the magnitudes of gain/loss are in this particular situation, and what levels of gain/loss are tolerable in general.

CNN's Lack of Perspective

Nirmal — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 23:46:03 -0500

Here's another pattern to watch out for. A "Situation Room" segment that aired yesterday highlighted 11,391 infrastructure proposals from the U.S. Conference of Mayors intended as part of the economic stimulus. CNN examined the document and found proposals for a $4.8 million polar bear exhibit, $1.5 million water ride, $20 million minor league baseball museum, etc. Self-described fiscal conservatives the National Taxpayers Union said "It's impossible for any normal taxpaying American to read this and not come away scratching your head and saying, wait a minute, this isn't about infrastructure. This is about political power grabs, money grabs."

Some of these criticisms are true. I'll grant that this is bad politics for the group of mayors, and in many cases bad policy. This is because individual mayors are faced with a bad incentive system: They have every reason to make ludicrous proposals, and little reason to hold back. Mayors want to take credit for "free" projects that their constituents like, to increase their chances of being re-elected.

It's important for the press to shame politicians for proposing such egregious projects because it helps reduce the incentive to make similar proposals in the future. The problem with this story is that, without context, it's used as a bludgeon to sway public opinion against any progressive investment programs at all.

In fact, Congressional Republicans are already using this as an example to argue against all stimulus. Scanning the report, the vast majority of projects actually do seem to both create jobs and provide legitimate value to the city as development (ex. public transit, alternative energy, public education). The "National Taxpayers Union" opposes all investment programs, but highlighted a few irresponsible ones to make their argument. The tone of CNN's coverage completely loses sight of this.

What's most striking to me is CNN's lack of perspective. They propagate a "drown government in a bathtub" group's argument against a stimulus program unchallenged, and express incredulity at its proponents without putting their cherry-picked objections into context. However, the three trillion dollar cost of the Iraq war dwarfs any proposed investment program, yet it's hardly put up to the same scrutiny. The choice and tone of each of these stories affects what kind of spending considered "acceptable" in our political culture.

We're going to start seeing more of these stories pop up. With Bush's irresponsible fiscal policies unchallenged by a complacent Congress and media, we racked up a massive federal deficit. Now that Democrats are back in charge, conservatives have found their principles of fiscal responsibility again. For them, it's time to starve the beast.

Here's the segment's transcript:

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BOUDREAU (voice-over): You usually don't think a nearly $5 million polar bear exhibit in Rhode Island would help turn around the economy. But the U.S. Conference of Mayors sure thinks so. It's one of more than 11,300 ready-to-go infrastructure projects proposed by 427 cities, at a total cost of $73 billion.

SEPP: To the people supporting them, these proposals aren't a joke, but, to the taxpayers funding them, yes, it will be a joke to them. Only, they won't be laughing.

BOUDREAU: Just this month, Miami Mayor Manny Diaz, the president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and other big-city leaders went to Capitol to make the call for their list of critical projects.

MANNY DIAZ, MAYOR OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Our plan calls for investments that will stimulate our economy by quickly creating jobs.

BOUDREAU: Mayor Diaz even held up the report, saying the projects weren't a bailout, but a build-out to put Americans back to work.

(on camera): Did you have a chance to even read through the report?

DIAZ: Well, I read through -- I read through a lot of it. Obviously, I didn't sit there and look at all 11,300 projects that were submitted.

BOUDREAU: Why is that?

DIAZ: Why is that? I didn't have time.

BOUDREAU (voice-over): If he made the time, he would have found projects like a $20 million minor league baseball museum, $42 million for improvements to zoos, $3 million for murals, and even $1.5 million for a new water park ride.

DIAZ: You can't simply just say that because something like that it isn't right, that it isn't in fact right.

BOUDREAU (on camera): A new ride at a water park?

DIAZ: Well, you know, again, I would have to -- I would have to look that the particular project and try to understand why that city feels that it's an important project. But, again, we're talking about 11,300 projects, not just one.

BOUDREAU: The new ride at the water park is in your city. DIAZ: Mm-hmm.

BOUDREAU: So, what is your response? I mean, I'm asking you as a mayor. I'm surprised that you didn't know about the new ride at the water park.

DIAZ: Well, we have a number of projects, and I don't know which one you're referring to. But we just built a new water park. And it may be related to that water park, or it may be outside the city. I'm not sure.

BOUDREAU: A million-and-a-half dollars for a new ride at a water park.

DIAZ: But -- but the point is that part of investing in infrastructure also includes parks.

BOUDREAU (voice-over): While there were plenty of roads and bridges and water treatment projects on the list, we also found plenty of other interesting multimillion-dollar projects, like skateboard parks, museum and zoo renovations, aquatic centers, bike and horse paths, a dog park, even programs beyond infrastructure, to help prostitutes get off the street, and buy thousands of Tasers for police departments.

The total cost? More than $300 million. And many of the proposals in the report don't create jobs.

Pete Sepp of the National Taxpayers Union says, it smells like pork.

SEPP: It's impossible for any normal taxpaying American to read this and not come away scratching your head and saying, wait a minute, this isn't about infrastructure. This is about political power grabs, money grabs.

BOUDREAU (on camera): To the average American, doesn't this sound like pork?

DIAZ: I don't know. You would have to ask the average American.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BOUDREAU: Mayor Diaz says he would hope that members of Congress would read the entire list of projects his group submitted to make sure that they are legitimate before handing over billions of dollars. He also tells us there will be even more proposed projects from other cities by the end of the year -- Wolf.

BLITZER: I know that states are coming up with all sorts of lists. And you will probably be going through those as well.

Abbie, thank you.

BOUDREAU: No problem.

BLITZER: Abbie Boudreau of CNN's Special Investigations Unit reporting.

UPDATE: Actually, I missed that Bill Scher raised the same issue yesterday. He points out that 1) 99.5% of the proposal consists of solid requests, 2) knee-jerk reactions to one-line descriptions of of these projects overlook the benefit that they provide to communities (by making them more livable etc), 3) the only perspective (NTU) was hardly credible, and 4) these attacks fall into a pattern of picking a few bad pieces of proposed government spending to undermine the whole thing.

Harry Reid in 2010

Nirmal — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:29:22 -0500

In the past two election cycles, progressives targeted current and potential Republican leaders in the Senate, like George Allen and Mitch McConnell. In 2004, Republicans successfully ousted Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle. They're looking for a repeat with Harry Reid in 2010:

But Republicans already have Reid in their sights.
...
“There’s an inherent tension between his role here and representing your constituents back home,” Cornyn said. “I do think — from what I’ve seen of his ratings, his poll numbers — he’s got some work to do on his hands, and obviously we’d like to rebuild our party in 2010 and 2012 and win every seat we can.”

The article goes on to quote Reid's spokesman, "Everything that Sen. Reid does in Washington, he does with Nevada in mind." Reid himself says "Western voters, we all know, reject extreme political ideologies." The CQ article also emphasizes that he'll be focusing on issues specific to Nevada. Some of these, like expanding investment in alternative energy, are progressive. Other issues, like support of "gun rights," may be less so.

That's all fine, as long as it doesn't impact the way that he runs the caucus. I'm not making judgments, but this is worth flagging for the future.

Alan Colmes, Don't Let The Door Hit You On The Way Out

Nirmal — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 01:03:50 -0500

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Hall & Oates Pay Tribute to Alan Colmes

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

So, Alan Colmes is leaving Fox News. Colmes was an embarassment who did not do progressives any favors. Here's why we should be wary of figures like him:

1) The clips assembled above from the Daily Show illustrate what an ineffective punching bag Colmes was. Hannity was able to dominate the discussion in the guise of a "balanced" show.

2) By portraying Colmes as weak, mousy, and elitist, Fox was able to perpetuate negative stereotypes about progressives to their audience.

3) Colmes as the token "liberal" on the network often agrees with the conservative position, validating it. Their viewers take away the message, "even liberal Colmes agrees with Bush administration policy X." For example,

Good riddance.

Point and Click Activism

Nirmal — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 23:04:10 -0500

Jim Moss touches on something I struggle with all the time:

Right now on my Facebook account, I have offers from friends to accept virtual plants that will fight global warming, to decorate virtual Christmas Trees that will help cure cancer, and to sign a petition that seeks to end human trafficking. Who knew I could do so much good for the world by simply pointing and clicking?

And this laziness masquerading as activism is everywhere, even among those who consider themselves to be informed and passionate about politics and society.

Is joining a Facebook group or signing an online petition “real” activism? These superficial actions certainly don’t have the same meaning or impact as canvassing or shutting a building down through protest. In the past, politicians looked at groups that raised 500,000 signatures and were in awe. Now, I think it has much less impact on policy because they are aware of how easy it is to amass actions of little cost.

However, some of these online actions do have value. They can be useful for volunteer acquisition: signing an online petition is a low barrier to entry, then the volunteer continues by canvassing or phonebanking or whatever. It also reinforces the belief of the person who takes the action: they’re probably much more likely to remember and care about the issue having taken the time to sign the petition. Finally, these things still do have value to the media in critical mass: claiming X number of signatures can be an important component of a publicity campaign.

None of that, however, detracts from Jim's main point: clicking our mouses doesn’t substantively address the issues we face.

WTF is Obama Thinking, Part 2: Rick Warren

Nirmal — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:24:46 -0500

As Josh mentioned, Obama's choice of bigoted pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration is a major letdown to anyone who cares about equality or social justice. Ann at Feministing best explained why this is a slap in the face to Obama's pro-choice, gay, and progressive Christian supporters:

What?! Surely Obama could have found a non-bigoted religious leader to give the invocation. Warren, despite being considered a nicer-and-friendlier "new evangelical," equates same-sex marriage with incest, says Christians who work for social justice are basically Marxists, and is staunchly anti-choice. (He recently told Steven Waldman of Beliefnet that he believes he is obligated to lobby the president to end abortion rights, but not to stop the use of torture.)

Now, this is morally wrong, period. But since Obama's defenders from critics on the left often use "strategy talk" to justify his behavior, let's get into that.

Rick Warren is never going to support progressive causes or candidates on a regular basis. Even if he embraces Obama, he's not going to tone down his opposition to choice, gay rights, or social justice. Rick Warren already invoked Obama's name in his ad against Prop 8 in California, imagine the damage he can do in upcoming issue fights with the added credibility of delivering Obama's inagural invocation. The media has a boner for these kinds of "bipartisan" figures -- when Warren inevitably attacks the next Democratic presidential candidate (or even Obama), it's going to carry far more weight than your typical right-wing pastor. Giving him credibility is not great long-term political strategy.

We are not going to win people who believe abortion is like the Holocaust. On the other hand, we can do plenty of damage to our own coalition. Although we can't definitively make claims about causality, Obama was less than sensitive to gay issues during the primary. The result? Vs. 2004, Obama underperformed among gays more than any other demographic group, and they were one of the few groups where he actually did worse than Kerry in the national popular vote:

I think that speaks for itself.

Weekend Link Roundup

Nirmal — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 00:46:17 -0500

Lot of great articles and op-eds this weekend. Among others:

Chris Hayes: The Pragmatist - Chris Hayes deconstructs the DC press' portrayal of Obama as a "pragmatist" vs. an "ideologue." To me, one of the most disappointing features of the Democratic communications strategy over the past four years has been their tendency to characterize Bush administration failures as the result of incompetence rather than fundamental flaws in conservative ideology. For the most part, they didn't argue that conservative principles themselves caused the botched response to Katrina, the economic crisis, Iraq, and so on. Instead, by asserting that Bush was "incompetent," they leave room for the press to contrast the difference between Obama and Bush as pragmatism vs. ideology, rather than a triumph of progressive ideas over conservative ones.

Frank Rich: A Champion of Wall Street Reaps Benefits - Frank Rich points out that Fitzgerald's prosecution of Scooter Libby revealed an offense far worse than Blago's -- aiding the propaganda effort that took us to war with Iraq. I think what Blago did is disgusting, incredibly stupid, and deserves punishment. However, it's important to put into context -- the usual influence trading that occurs in politics unchallenged is only slightly worse. Our political culture is structured to encourage such behavior, Blagojevich just took it to the extreme. Merely taking him down is not going to fix a broken system where activity that normal people would consider corruption is incentivized.

NYT: A Champion of Wall Street Reaps Benefits - Related to the point above: Chuck Schumer, who excels at raising money from the finance industry, pushed for its deregulation and was one of the first proponents of the Wall Street bailout. Shocking.

WSJ: Google Wants Its Own Fast Track on the Web - If true, so much for "don't be evil." Google is apparently backtracking on their commitment to net neutrality, in favor of an agreement with ISPs to give priority to Google's content. Google's term for their proposed arrangement with the ISPs, "OpenEdge," is as cynical as Fox News calling themselves "Fair and Balanced" -- any arrangement that undermines network neutrality is contrary to the very concept of openness.

Michael Isikoff: The Fed Who Blew the Whistle - Newsweek's profile of one of the warrantless wiretapping whistleblowers is pretty frightening. This is a must-read.

And of course, an Iraqi journalist threw a shoe at President Bush and Evan Bayh is working to formalize a Senate "Blue Dog" Caucus.

I'm sure I missed a lot of interesting stuff -- what have you been reading?