Support MakeThemAccountable.com

CONTRIBUTE!

Quote of the Day

Jerry Ford never apologized for his wife — not when she said that premarital sex might lower the divorce rate, not when she said stay-at-home moms should be compensated for their work, not when she compared the use of marijuana by my generation to her own cohorts’ love of beer. Best of all, the first lady said she trusted her daughter, Susan — the same age as me — to make good decisions for herself in matters concerning sex. And the president never contradicted her — at least not publicly.
 – Adele M. Stan, TAPPED, The American Prospect, 12/27/2006

Hullabaloo

Guest post by Herbert Block

It is not my intent to startle you by returning from the dead (actually, I’m still dead), but after watching the collective memory lapse of the American media, I am compelled to present excerpts from my book, Herblock Special Report, which was first published in 1974.

First, from the Foreword to the book:

After Nixon left office, the idea was still being promoted that those who believed in letting the law take its course were somehow moved by personal motives. But quite the contrary was true.

It was not Nixon who had been assaulted by government, but the government that had been assaulted by Nixon.

It was not those who believed in the American system of justice who operated on a highly personal basis, but staunch Nixon supporters like Gerald Ford.

When President Ford recommended that Congress give former President Nixon large sums of money — beyond all that was provided by law — and when he suddenly granted Nixon total and absolute pardon without even waiting for an indictment or a plea of nolo contendre, it was Ford who placed personal feeling for Nixon above his obligations to the people he was sworn to serve…

Eschaton

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

American Aristocracy

As Yglesias says, the only alternative to a full and blanket pardon wasn’t putting Nixon in chains, though that was a possibility. The important thing was to find out the truth. Our elites repeatedly redefine “getting past it” as “sweeping it under the rug” based on their apparent opinion of themselves as necessary moral and spiritual leaders for the riffraff. If they are revealed to be greatly flawed then without them as a shining beacon to light the way the riffraff will go astray and the country will collapse.

They are our betters and we need them they think, and so their class must be preserved even if the occasional unpleasantness must be swept under the rug.

-Atrios

Bag News Notes

Reuters

Saddam Hussein hanged, says Al Hurra TV station

Fri Dec 29, 2006 10:16pm ET

By Mariam Karouny

BAGHDAD (Reuters) – U.S.-backed Iraqi television station Al Hurra said Saddam Hussein had been executed by hanging shortly before 6 a.m. (0300 GMT) on Saturday.

Arabic satellite channel Arabiya also reported the execution had taken place.

The former Iraqi president ousted in April 2003 by a U.S.-led invasion was convicted in November of crimes against humanity over the killings of 148 Shi’ite villagers from Dujail after a failed assassination bid in 1982.

An appeals court upheld the death penalty on Tuesday and the government rushed through the procedures to hang him by the end of the year and before the Eid al-Adha holiday that starts on Saturday, coinciding with the haj pilgrimage to Mecca.

The government had kept details of its plans shrouded in secrecy amid concerns it could spark a violent backlash from his former supporters with Iraq on the brink of civil war…

… is moral relativity.
Matthew Yglesias

Principles

The Washington Post editorial page is mad at human rights groups for complaining about procedural flaws in Saddam Hussein’s trial since, after all, we all know Saddam is guilty. Martin Peretz is upset that death penalty opponents oppose executing Saddam Hussein since, after all, we all know Saddam’s a really bad guy.

Do these guys not understand the concept of principles? The point of the belief that all people are entitled to fair trials before receiving criminal sentences is that all people are entitled to fair trials. The point of the belief that capital punishment is immoral (not a belief I share, incidentally) is that it’s always immoral. It’s not as if Amnesty International is confused and doesn’t understand that Saddam isn’t a very sympathetic case. Rather, the point is that organizations committed to principles of human rights — fair trials, no executions — need to uphold those principles even when violating them sounds appealing. If they didn’t, the groups wouldn’t be standing for anything.

12/29/06 10:18AM

Buck Fush

… who agreed with him that an escalation is needed in Iraq was scripted.  This is what the troops REALLY think.
Associated Press

Many soldiers say troop surge a bad idea

By WILL WEISSERT, Associated Press Writer
Thu Dec 28, 12:32 PM ET

Many of the American soldiers trying to quell sectarian killings in Baghdad don’t appear to be looking for reinforcements. They say the temporary surge in troop levels some people are calling for is a bad idea…

In dozens of interviews with soldiers of the Army’s 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment as they patrolled the streets of eastern Baghdad, many said the Iraqi capital is embroiled in civil warfare between majority Shiite Muslims and Sunni Arabs that no number of American troops can stop.

Others insisted current troop levels are sufficient and said any increase in U.S. presence should focus on training Iraqi forces, not combat.

But their more troubling worry was that dispatching a new wave of soldiers would result in more U.S. casualties, and some questioned whether an increasingly muddled American mission in Baghdad is worth putting more lives on the line…

Crooks and Liars

It’s Hard Work, Prezidentin’
By: Nicole Belle @ 1:35 PM – PST

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry over this one.  Thanks to Gregory for calling my attention to it.

Forbes.com

President Bush worked nearly three hours at his Texas ranch on Thursday to design a new U.S. policy in Iraq, then emerged to say that he and his advisers need more time to craft the plan he’ll announce in the new year.

Burdened by low approval ratings on his handling of the war, the president is under mounting pressure to come up with a new blueprint for U.S. involvement in Iraq where the execution of Saddam Hussein – perhaps as early as this weekend – could incite further violence.

“We’ve got more consultation to do until I talk to the country about the plan,” Bush said, appearing outside an office building at his ranch.

NEARLY three hours?!?!?!  You know, I spent more time wrapping gifts this Christmas than Bush has spent meeting with his advisers over a war that has lost us 3,000 troops and more than half a million Iraqis.  Glad to know he’s not done consulting after those nearly three hours.

Mike Peters, Dayton Daily News

Unclaimed Territory

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

The Paradox at the Heart of Modern Politics

By Anonymous Liberal

As a political junkie and a litigator who works primarily with large corporate clients, I’ve come to appreciate that there is a fundamental disconnect between the assumptions that underlie the prevailing approach to and coverage of political issues in this country and the assumptions that drive our policies in virtually every other context.

For example, within the context of commerce and the marketplace, we long ago realized that the average consumer is generally not in a position to tell whether or not she is being lied to or misled, whether by way of an advertisement or an overzealous sales pitch. That’s why, over the years, we have put in place a complex array of overlapping laws and regulations designed to protect consumers from being misled. If a company makes a claim which is even slightly misleading, it will quickly find itself up to its eyeballs in litigation, whether in the form of government enforcement actions, lawsuits by competitors, or consumer class actions (often all three). There are also any number of tort and quasi-contractual claims that aggrieved consumers can bring against the individuals and companies who deceived them.

As a result, companies take great care to ensure that their statements are truthful, and consumers can be reasonably confident that advertisers are not lying to them.

The same is not at all true in the realm of politics, where candidates and interest groups can pretty much say whatever they want and voters are generally left to fend for themselves. Lies and misleading claims are commonplace, if not the norm. The perverse result is that most Americans are far better informed (or at least far less misinformed) when they step into the mall than when they step into the voting booth…

For reasons that I don’t understand, our mainstream journalists and media figures always seem to operate under the assumption that the average person is capable of sorting through all the political information they’re bombarded with and reaching an informed decision. This despite the fact that half of our laws are premised on the exact opposite assumption, i.e., that people are easily misinformed by those with an incentive to do so…

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Incentivizing Honesty in Politics

By Anonymous Liberal

… We live in an era where the outcomes of elections often hinge on the effectiveness of political advertising. For reasons I discussed in my previous post, however, it is simply not feasible (or advisable) to regulate the truthfulness of political advertising in the same way we regulate the truthfulness of commercial advertising.

For instance, suppose a state were to pass a law creating some sort of body—perhaps consisting of retired judges—which was empowered to review the truthfulness of political ads. It could be called the “Election Commission” or something similar. To avoid First Amendment concerns, there would be no requirement that ads be submitted to the Commission for review, but there would be a requirement that all ads disclose prominently, ala McCain-Feingold, whether or not the ad has been submitted and approved by the Election Commission (i.e. “this ad has been reviewed for truthfulness by the Election Commission” or “this ad has not been submitted to the Election Commission”).

The Commission would be instructed by law to withhold its blessing of ads which are either false or materially misleading (the same standards that govern commercial advertising). Those seeking approval of ads would submit them, along with an affidavit attesting to and supporting its truthfulness. Preliminary approval could be granted very quickly, within hours. If anyone wished to question the approval, they could submit counter-evidence, which if found to be persuasive, would result in the withdrawal of the Commission’s approval.

While politicians and interest groups would be under no obligation to submit their ads for review, there would be a strong incentive to do so. Those who wish to be taken seriously and viewed as honest would readily submit their ads to the Commission…

Hullabaloo

Friday, December 29, 2006

Daffy Duck

Mallard Fillmore:

“Once the minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status, they will have no problem socializing with the Republicans. Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they’ve been fixed, then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful. They don’t go around peeing on the furniture and such.”

american 20 education loan1988 loans chartsamoritzation schedule loan 401kloan again a naturallyactive loan dutyloan officer african americansupplies aircraft rate loansdollar payday loans 10 Map

Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire

December 27, 2006

Democrats Plan Cordial Takeover

“After chafing for years under what they saw as flagrant Republican abuse of Congressional power and procedures, the incoming [Democratic] majority has promised to restore House and Senate practices to those more closely resembling the textbook version of how a bill becomes law: daylight debate, serious amendments and minority party participation,” reports the New York Times.

“Beyond the parliamentary issues, Democrats assuming control on Jan. 4 said they also wanted to revive collegiality and civility in an institution that has been poisoned by partisanship in recent years. In a gesture duly noted by Republicans,” incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) offered current Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL), “who is remaining in Congress, the use of prime office space in the Capitol out of respect for his position.”

In addition, Pelosi has consulted with House Republican leader John Boehner (R-OH) “in developing initiatives for the year, including a task force to explore independent enforcement of ethics rules. That was in sharp contrast to two years ago, when Republicans — who only grudgingly consulted Democrats — pushed through a set of diluted ethics rules that they were later forced to rescind. Democrats also supported a severance package for senior Republican aides, but the spending was blocked in the last hours of Congress by conservative Republicans.”

AMERICAblog

The Wall Street Journal complains that blogs are too partisan
by John in DC – 12/21/2006 08:33:00 PM

Seriously. And even funnier, they “prove” their point by attacking conservative blogs, in detail, but not liberal blogs (sure, they complain about both, both only provide details about conservative blog excesses):

Because political blogs are predictable, they are excruciatingly boring. More acutely, they promote intellectual disingenuousness, with every constituency hostage to its assumptions and the party line. Thus the right-leaning blogs exhaustively pursue second-order distractions–John Kerry always providing useful material–while leaving underexamined more fundamental issues, say, Iraq. Conservatives have long taken it as self-evident that the press unfavorably distorts the war, which may be the case; but today that country is a vastation, and the unified field theory of media bias has not been altered one jot.

Yes, because the Wall Street Journal’s positions are never predictable. Actually, he raises a fair point for discussion. But not about blogs. Rather, about every partisan media – and that includes FOX, the WSJ, and blogs. All have a partisan political agenda, unlike the real media, such as the Washington Post, the New York Times, or ABC/NBC/CBS. They are real news people – whether they do their job well is another matter. But they do not exist to push a partisan agenda, which is why conservative hate them so – independent arbiters of fact are dangerous to small minds.

In any case, yeah, there’s always room to question whether you’re simply preaching to the choir. Whether you’re helping find the truth when you have a political agenda behind your words. But I’ll still put my writing and thinking above FOX News’s – or the Wall Street Journal editorial page’s – any day.