Crooks and Liars

Why Aren't Republicans Listening To Catholic Bishops on Unemployment Benefits?

Susie Madrak — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:00:41 +0000

Isn't it interesting, how Republicans pick and choose which moral positions they decide they want to support? Too bad they don't knuckle under to pressure from the Catholic church on policies like this - and that the church doesn't work quite as strenuously to push social justice issues as it does with those having to do with reproduction:

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has been quietly lobbying Congress to keep extended unemployment insurance for the long-term jobless. It's common for faith groups to lobby Congress on economic issues. Catholics, however, are better known politically for their strong opposition to abortion.

On Monday, Bishop Stephen E. Blaire sent a letter to members of the House of Representatives urging them to focus on the economic security of workers at year's end.

"When the economy fails to generate sufficient jobs, there is a moral obligation to help protect the life and dignity of unemployed workers and their families," Blaire wrote. "Therefore, I strongly urge you and your colleagues to find effective ways to assure continuing Unemployment Insurance and Emergency Unemployment Compensation to protect jobless workers and their families."

Democrats and Republicans are battling over legislation that would reauthorize federal unemployment insurance for people who exhaust six months of state benefits. Since 2008 the federal government has provided extra weeks of benefits, eventually totaling 73 in some states. Democrats have said they want to keep the extra weeks, while Republicans have pushed a plan to cut extended compensation down to 33 weeks. Both sides say want a reauthorization; without an agreement of some kind, as many as 1.8 million workers will be left hanging in January.

Blaire's letter doesn't specifically endorse either approach, though it does note that the average jobless spell duration topped 10 months in November.

Rev. Paul Sherry, director of the Washington office of a religious labor advocacy nonprofit known as Interfaith Worker Justice, said his group opposed the Republican approach, which in addition to shortening benefits would allow states to drug test the jobless.

Mike's Blog Round Up

Bluegal aka Fran — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:00:00 +0000

If Rick Santorum becomes president, the best thing for secular atheistic Americans to do will be to move up here to Canada. Discuss.

Kiko's House: Looking back at Romney's most awful day off.

Bark Bark Woof Woof: Reading the ruling on California's Prop 8.

All Things Democrat: Considering the un-populism of Rick Santorum.

Human Voices: Wondering how every sperm could be a baby.

Hannah's Blog: Deconstructing Clint's Chrysler ad.

Round-up by Michael J.W. Stickings of The Reaction. I'll be here all week.

Send tips to mbru@crooksandliars.com.

Open Thread

Bluegal aka Fran — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 04:30:23 +0000

enlarge

Credit: If Fox News Was Around Facebook Page

h/t Jamie. Open Thread Below....

C&L's Late Night Music Club With The Band

Jared Shade Reynolds — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 04:00:00 +0000

Title: When I Paint My Masterpiece

Artist: The Band

If I had to name my top 3 favorite bands, The Band would definitely be on that list. Clapton claims that he broke up Cream when he heard them, and you can hear their influence in everything fromThe Beatles' Two Of Us to albums such as Who's Next. Here they are covering their old boss Bob Dylan. How many songs can you find from the period when everybody wanted to be The Band?

PS. Our sister site Newstalgia has a really fun number from Joni James, 1952.

The Band
	Price: $9.49 (As of 02/09/12 05:58 am details)

The Real Komen Lesson: Charities Can Be 'Too Big to Fail' Too

Richard RJ Eskow — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 03:00:10 +0000

The Susan G. Komen breast cancer fund reversed its Planned Parenthood action and the right wing anti-choice politician it hired has resigned. But the real lesson of this incident is broader than one decision or one person.

Our society is permeated with a culture of corporate greed, aggression, and power that reaches from the boardrooms of New York to the meeting rooms of Washington, and from ______ to the hospital rooms of the sick and suffering.

The Susan G. Komen foundation has raised millions to support vitally important work, but it has also reinforced some of the worst tendencies in our society. It has leveraged big-company resources so that it could dominate its "marketplace," usually by serving as a marketing arm for a client list that includes some very poorly-behaved corporate citizens. Then it has used its market dominance to bully other organizations, push its own political agenda, and try to reshape the course of U.S. cancer research in dangerous ways.

Just like its most prominent sponsor, the Susan G. Komen foundation has become too big to fail.

The Players

Karen Handel had some bitter words for her critics as she stepped down from her post as Komen's vice president for public policy. "I am deeply disappointed by the gross mischaracterizations of the strategy, its rationale, and my involvement in it," Handel wrote.

But there was no "strategy," which Handel and others have defined as denying funding to any group that is under federal investigation. As we noted, and others reported as well, a number of other Komen grant recipients were under real federal investigation and were left untouched, while Planned Parenthood was to be cut for being the subject of a trumped-up, one-person investigation conducted by a right-wing member of Congress.

Nancy Brinker, Komen's founder and CEO, served in a number of positions under George W. Bush, while Handel was a Sarah Palin-endorsed gubernatorial candidate. Political affiliations shouldn't disqualify anyone from serving in a charitable role, of course. Like many people, I've often enjoyed working with ideological opponents on charitable issues of common interest. That kind of cause-based allegiance can help bind our society together.

But Brinker brings her ideology into her Komen work, and has done it so effectively that she's transformed the world of charitable giving ... for the worse. There isn't just the matter of her personal compensation, which the foundation reported as $531,924 as of 2010. Or the fact that she's the only employee who flies first class at the charity's expense, according to the fund's IRS financial filing. (See Komen's form 8453-EO for 2010.)

There's an argument to be made that highly effective fundraisers and executives should receive good, if not excessive, salaries and perks. We won't have that argument here. And for all we know, Ms. Brinker may donate her entire salary to charity. She did choose this career over corporate life, after all, which seems like an altruistic move.

Nor will we argue that Nancy Brinker hasn't been effective at her job. But how has she been effective?

Lids and Buckets

Brinker is a brilliant marketer. She didn't build her charity one donor at a time, but by channeling the power of the nation's ultra-large corporations. As we reported earlier, the foundation advertises itself to corporations this way: "Americans believe it's more important than ever for companies to be socially responsible ... In fact, 83 percent of Americans wish more of the products, services and retailers they use would support causes ..."

Corporate executives understand the power of idealism—and how to sell their products with it. The result means far less bang for your charity buck, but a lot more sales for Komen's corporate clients. Consider Yoplait. In 2005 it was able to move a lot more units of yogurt by attaching Komen's pink-ribbon logo, and by promising to donate ten cents for every Yoplait lid that buyers mailed in.

The problem? A stamp cost 37 cents in 2005, which means that the charity received slightly more than one-fourth of what people paid—and that's not including the cost of the yogurt itself. The charity only received ten cents. But Komen also received massive marketing visibility, with its logo on display in the dairy counter of almost every supermarket in the country.

Yoplait sold yogurt, Komen pushed its brand, and people spent dollars of their hard-earned money to donate ten cents—and to feel they'd done their good deed for the day. That crowds out other forms of giving that are more effective, and which don't build up a monopolistic charity. As the San Francisco Business Times reported, the range of products sporting Komen's pink ribbons soon included "golf balls, umbrellas, pencil sharpeners, grills, watches, wine, jewelry, paint, candy, soda, pens, iPod cases, shower gel, mixers and even pink-colored Tic-Tacs."

Observers noted the irony when Komen teamed with KFC (Kentucky Fried Chicken) to promote "Buckets for the Cure." Komen was able to raise more than $4 million by teaming with KFC to promote itself and unhealthy food at the same time.

Bank of America, which is currently the target of multiple state and federal investigations, is prominently featured on the Komen website. Although it was allowed to settle these multiple offenses while "neither admitting nor denying wrongdoing," the evidence—and the many millions it has spent to avoid being charged—form a compelling picture of a serial corporate fraudster.

There's nothing quite like the power of pink to fight a record like that.

The real question is: Do we really want our charities to be marketing arms for the country's largest corporations?

Never Enough

And do we want our charities behaving like our worst corporations? The Komen fund has been ruthless and relentless in its drive to dominate its brand. It hasn't hesitated to deploy flotillas of lawyers against anyone it sees as a threat.

The group has directed its firepower most aggressively against anyone who uses the words "for the cure" in their promotional materials. Komen seems to feel that this common phrase is now its own intellectual property, and by fighting this fight it’s leading the charge to seize, monetize, and capitalize one of the last commons left in our society: language.

It hasn't directed its attacks against for-profit entities, either, but has pursued high-dollar litigation and intimidation tactics against other charities. Uniting Against Lung Cancer was targeted for the offense of holding a "Kites For the Cure" event. They've also attacked "Par for the Cure," "Surfing for a Cure," "Cupcakes for a Cure" and "Mush for the Cure."

Komen has even threatened other charities with legal action if they use the color pink in their materials. Pink is, as every Aerosmith fan knows, "like red but not quite." The band also describes the color as "not even a question," which seems to be Komen's view of their ownership of it.

Here's a thought: If Komen's going to sue people for using "for the cure" in their materials, then guess who should sue Komen? The Cure. The British band was formed in 1976, six years before Susan G. Komen for the Cure was formed. I think Robert Smith and company have a compelling case.

In the meantime, Komen marches on relentlessly, leveraging its corporate money and political firepower to crush anyone in its way. As the old Cure song says, "However big I feel, it's never enough."

Too Big to Fail

Komen has made itself the dominant player in private breast cancer funding. What does that mean? For one thing, major research institutes have to think twice before crossing it. When Komen announces that it will no longer fund stem-cell research, researchers all across the country have to rethink their priorities. And if a promising avenue is closed off, we may lose a tool that could save millions of lives.

It can apply the same forms of intimidation to other organizations in the charitable sphere. And it can use its visibility and financial resources to throw its weight around in the corridors of political power, both in Washington and in state capitols around the country.

In the wake of Ms. Handel's departure, it's worth asking why an organization like this needs a vice president of public policy. That title is usual reserved for researchers—or for lobbyists. Ms. Handel's biography and job description make it clear she's not a researcher.

What's more, the Komen foundation has been giving money to Ari Fleischer and other highly political consultants. How many Komen donors knew they were subsidizing right-wing political groups? And do we know whether Ms. Handel will continue to receive a salary from Komen? A review of that 2010 IRS documents suggests that two former executives were receiving six-figure annual salaries while dong no work. Are Komen donors funding right-wing ideologues?

The Cure for the Race

The solution for too-big-to-fail charities isn't all that different from the banking solution. But banks are more highly regulated than charities, which is appropriate. But the public can still decide whether, to paraphrase Alan Greenspan, "too big to fail is too big to exist" in the world of charitable giving. If it feels that way about the Susan G. Komen fund, then it can and should contribute elsewhere.

Brinker and her colleagues can't object to that, can they? That's just the free market at work.

People can even use the pink-ribbon as a reminder: When they see it they can remember to donate to another charity. That's thinking, not marketing, and no one—including Nancy Brinker—has figured out how to sue people for their thoughts.

At least, not yet.

Stupid Right-Wing Tweets: Kathryn Jean Lopez Edition

Blue Texan — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 02:00:59 +0000

enlarge

Ay-yi-yi.

While it's certainly true that almost anything is possible in the Circus Geek and Clown Tour otherwise known as the 2012 GOP primary, Santorum is currently just a hair above 9 percent on Intrade and against President Obama, he's currently down 49-41 in the RCP poll of polls.

Of course, K-Lo only believes Rasmussen, which has Santorum up 1 on Obama nationally. And we all know how reliable Rasmussen is.

But K-Lo's in good company. El Rushbo thinks Ricky's got a shot, too.

Fox News Launches Campaign To Fire UN Ambassador Susan Rice

karoli — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:00:56 +0000

Click here to view this media

Well. This is interesting. Fox News launched a full-scale assault on Susan Rice this morning, calling for her to be fired as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Former Bushie Richard Grenell led the charge on Megyn Kelly's show this morning after posting an op-ed on the Fox News website calling for her to step down.

As far as I can tell, Grenell's reasons are as follows:

She isn't strong enough.
She isn't effective enough.
She didn't speak out against the violence in Syria soon enough.
She (allegedly) skipped Security Council meetings when "Israel needed defending."
She didn't show up at first two UN Security Council meetings "on the unfolding Arab revolution."
She hasn't passed enough resolutions on Iran.

All of this seems to be a proxy war on President Obama over differences of opinion between the neocons and the President on the subject of Iran. Fox News has been a key player in the "stoke fears over Iran" story unfolding this year, spending a minimum of an hour per day on it across daytime and nighttime TV. Back in November, Grenell launched this shot over the bow, via the Wall Street Journal:

Two views are emerging in response to the International Atomic Energy Agency's latest report on Iran's nuclear weapons. While one camp believes the Iranians are close to obtaining nuclear weapons, the other side believes they haven't mastered the technology and that time still remains to work out a diplomatic, non-military solution.

The Obama team falls in the second camp. It is calling for more diplomacy and more international pressure—as if U.S. diplomats haven't tried to convince Iran or its neighbors that its pursuit of a nuclear weapon is not a good idea.

And that's what's so dangerous about the president's spin. His administration professes that the world is unified in pressuring Iran, but what the international community is really unified about is doing nothing.

The pronouncements from the White House that unity from the international community is its priority are naïve and treacherous excuse-making. And if consensus is the mandate, then the Obama team has already failed that test with the divided-support for their only resolution. More importantly, the Russians and the Chinese, with their complaints about another round of sanctions, have scared off the Obama team from calling for a vote on another resolution.

Mr. Obama's gamble that we have time before Iran gets a nuclear weapon is perilous. Those calling for more pressure on Russia and China to comply with current sanctions miss the reality of Iran's pursuit and the weakness of the Obama team. If Russia and China can vote for multiple Iran sanctions resolutions but ignore them—and then resist subsequent demands to comply with previous resolutions or produce new ones—then giving them more time to realize the errors of their ways is foolish.

Grenell's opinion, short version: It is a sign of weakness to use diplomatic pressure and negotiations to deal with the nuclear threat from Iran. Which of course begs the question: What would Grenell recommend? Oh, wait. Grenell doesn't have any recommendations, and his service under the prior four UN Ambassadors (ending with John Bolton), was limited to communications. In other words, spin.

So what heinous sin has Susan Rice committed, exactly? Telling Assad his days are numbered? Or is it condemning neocons' BFFs Russia and China for vetoing a UN resolution calling for Assad to step down? Or, is it that he doesn't feel the Obama administration has looked after US interests in Syria to his satisfaction?

Here is what Grenell wishes Rice would do:

But why not push our friends toward reform and our enemies toward regime change? White House and State Department officials should be able to have adult conversations with our allies that include multifaceted approaches to the policies we disagree with. Certainly U.S. allies that receive vast amounts of US taxpayer dollars are able to accept our aid but stand strongly against some of our policies (Pakistan comes to mind).

And he has specific friends and enemies in mind, too:

If we want to pressure Iran to give up its illegal pursuit of nuclear weapons then we better find enough resolve to support the overthrow of Iran's closest ally, Syria.

In Grenell's view, the only worthwhile strategy is a scorched-earth strategy, whether it's Susan Rice or Iran. Perhaps there is a different way, but for now, Fox News has embraced Grenell's strategies wholeheartedly, whether Iran or the Obama administration.

TEPCO Trying to Prevent Chain Reaction At Fukushima. Expert: 'Nobody Is Sure About The Location Of The Melted Fuel'

Susie Madrak — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:00:33 +0000

If you're going to use nuclear energy, it's a very, very bad idea to rely on for-profit companies who have every incentive to cut corners and cover up. Can anyone honestly say they still believe anything TEPCO says? Not a great position for Japan to be in:

Tokyo Electric Power Co. injected boric acid into a reactor at its crippled Fukushima nuclear plant to prevent an accidental chain reaction known as re-criticality after temperatures rose in the past week.

The temperature of the No. 2 reactor was 70.1 degrees Celsius (158 degrees Fahrenheit) as of 6 a.m. today, according to preliminary data, Akitsuka Kobayashi, a spokesman for the utility, said by phone. The reading fell from 72.2 degrees at 5 a.m. this morning, and is below the 93 degrees that’s used to define a cold shutdown, or safe state, of the reactor.

Since Feb. 1, temperatures at the bottom of the No. 2 reactor vessel have risen by more than 20 degrees Celsius, according to the company’s data. Tepco, as the utility is known, and the government announced that the Fukushima plant reached a cold shutdown on Dec. 16, nine months after the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami wrecked the nuclear station, and caused three reactors to meltdown and release radiation.

“It was too early to say the plant is safe in December. They declared cold shutdown even though nobody is sure about the location of melted fuel,” Tetsuo Ito, the head of the Atomic Energy Research Institute at Kinki University in western Japan. “A similar incident will probably occur again.”

Elderly Civil Rights Activist Faces Foreclosure, Eviction

Diane Sweet — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:00:37 +0000

I've lost count of the number of reports I've read in recent years of an elderly person facing the trauma of losing their home to foreclosure and being taken by ambulance to the hospital on eviction day due to the effects of stress on their physical health. Or those who would rather end their own lives rather than face the possibility of being put out on the streets in their senior years.

The story of 78-year-old Helen Bailey is especially poignant this Black History Month, as she was active in the civil rights movement and marched with Martin Luther King.

Change.org has started a petition calling on Chase Bank to make a settlement with Ms. Bailey, and cancel any scheduled foreclosure auction:

Helen Bailey is a 78-year-old grandmother who participated in the civil rights movement, worked as a childcare provider for autistic children, and was a community volunteer. She has paid her mortgage since 1999, but now she can't keep up the payments. All she wants is to stay in her home until she dies, in the neighborhood where she feels safe and has lived for nearly quarter of a century. She could have refinanced with a company willing to let her live in the house for free until her death, but Chase Bank would not reduce her principal by $9,000. She's been paying 7% interest, well above most rates, so Chase could have decided they had made enough. Instead, they have started foreclosure and Ms. Bailey could end on the street.

Since then, Ms. Bailey's lawyer has found an alternate buyer for her home. This sale would provide Ms Bailey with an exit from her current mortgage and allow her to pursue other options for housing. We request that Chase:

· accept the offer of $85,000
· write off any deficiency between the loan balance and the offer
· waive all interest, legal fees and penalties accrued since the initial refinance offer
· cancel any foreclosure auction scheduled

It has been estimated that at foreclosure, Chase may lose over $30,000 compared to this settlement offer. Therefore this option makes the most sense financially for Chase and given Ms Bailey's specific circumstances, there is little moral hazard in this solution.

If you'd like to add your name to the petition calling on Chase to keep Ms. Bailey in her home, you may do so online here.

SC Republican Organization Accused of Not Paying $228,000 Bill While Hosting Candidates

Andrew Metcalf — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:00:28 +0000

enlarge

Credit: Charleston Place Hotel

Multiple stories have broken recently in Charleston, South Carolina about the Southern Republican Leadership Conference failing to pay a $227,872 bill at the luxury Charleston Place hotel, which it had rented out as part of its efforts to showcase presidential candidates before the South Carolina primary.

The hotel has sued the SRLC and its signatory, South Carolina political operative Robert C. Cahaly over the money dispute. The Charleston City Paper wrote a long feature about the issue.

In its federal complaint, the hotel says in March it originally entered into an agreement for the booking which ran from Thurs. Jan. 19 through Sun. Jan. 22. South Carolina political operative Robert C. Cahaly, who is named as co-defendant in the lawsuit, served as the group's signatory. The contract was amended on Dec. 20, 2011.

In the complaint filed in the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, the hotel says it has come to believe that the SRLC "was grossly undercapitalized, failed to observe corporate formalities, was insolvent, and was mere[ly] used as a façade for the operations of the defendant Cahaly." In addition it says, "Cahaly, an individual businessman, has sought to hide from the normal consequences of carefree entrepenuring by doing so through a corporate shell.

"Due to their incompetence, the defendants failed to properly plan or manage the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, and it was poorly attended," the hotel says. "The conference was so poorly attended as to cause one Republican candidate, Newt Gingrich, to cancel his appearance.

"Poor attendance caused many of the conference sponsors to leave the conference," it continues. "Poor attendance left the defendants responsible for a significant payment to the plaintiff under the terms of the contract."

The article continues by saying, "at 3:01 p.m., the time when the defendants were due to check out of the hotel, the defendants emailed [hotel] management and cancelled the meeting at which they were supposed to settle the bill." In the email, the SRLC allegedly accused the hotel of difficulties with refunds or adjustments, poor overall treatment and a hotel manager instructing an SRLC staffer to engage in illegal activity, according to the City Paper article.

Sounds more like bitterness over the poor attendance of their conference than mismanagement by the hotel.

I attended some of the events at the SRLC and I can assure you they were not well attended. The Conference held multiple events at a large basketball arena on the College of Charleston's campus. The arena was cut in half with a drop-cloth to make it smaller, but even with this addition it seemed like the people inside had gathered for a City Council meeting, not presidential candidates. Of the speeches I attended, there were no more than 100 people there, including one by Rick Santorum.

The AP/ABC4 News in Charleston managed to get a statement from the SRLC over the dispute:

After prepaying over $235,000 to the Charleston Place Hotel, we at SRLC 2012 had an unprofessional experience that directly and indirectly breached our contract causing great harm and distraction to our attendees, sponsors, and staff. The Charleston Place's attempt to mischaracterized this legitimate dispute as the SRLC's walking away from a bill is in keeping with the pattern of deception and misrepresentation that is a significant part of our ongoing disagreement.

Naturally, the Republicans have blamed the issue on a "pattern of deception and misrepresentation." Never heard that one before.

The City Paper story, which is worth a read, reported that Calahy is described as an advisor to Gov. Nikki Haley and had previously worked with Lee Atwater, Carroll Campbell and Strom Thurmond. According to the SRLC website, the group hosted breakfasts, a banquet and multiple panel discussions at Charleston Place.

With this story, South Carolina is proving to be a front-runner for weirdest Republican primary state. They voted for Newt Gingrich. They held a raucous debate in which they booed John King of CNN for asking Gingrich about his adultery. And now, one of their Republican organizations may have failed to pay their bills.

All this from the party of fiscal responsibility and moral values.