Starboard Broadside

During a trip to Israel, Barack Obama's handy attack dog, Joe Biden, ripped into Israeli plans to approve a new expansion of illegal settlements in contested East Jerusalem:

US Vice-President Joe Biden has condemned Israel's approval of 1,600 new homes for ultra-Orthodox Jews in East Jerusalem.

Mr Biden, in Israel as part of US attempts to kick-start the peace process, said it was "the kind of step that undermines the trust we need".

From his statement:

"I condemn the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units in east Jerusalem.

"The substance and timing of the announcement, particularly with the launching of proximity talks, is precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now and runs counter to the constructive discussions that I've had here in Israel."

He said the Israelis and Palestinians needed to build an atmosphere to support negotiations, not complicate them, adding: "This announcement underscores the need to get negotiations under way that can resolve all the outstanding issues of the conflict."

It's damn good somebody high in the US government finally said this to their faces, and I hope the Administration sticks by him, which looks likely since this was a prepared statement. Basically, the settlements issue, which we've looked at several times on this blog, will be the the make-or-break issue for the peace process. The Israeli government knows exactly what it's doing here, and unless they stop all settlement expansions, there won't be a peace process for much longer -- or at least not one involving Israel (there's been talk of Europe recognizing a unilateral Palestinian declaration of independence within a year or two).

For more on the actual inhabitants of the ultra-Orthodox settlements, see this post I did last July, on the similarities and differences between them and the non-Orthodox settlers.

Utah's anti-abortion bill, the one with the ambiguous wording that could make all miscarriage murder, is being revised to take out the possibility of women being prosecuted for unintended miscarriages. Although the latest version of the bill hasn't been completed, it's still going to say that miscarriage is murder, if it's induced or "deliberate."

State Representative Wimmer intends to remove language that makes any "reckless acts" by women that induce miscarriage eligible for homicide prosecution

So it's not just ANY reckless acts, but since the entire point of the bill is to criminalize miscarriage, I don't really see how it changes anything, because whether or not the miscarriage was unintentional is ultimately up to the court.

Now, one question remains: if a lawmaker miscarries justice, can he be charged with homicide?

Consistent with the political doomsday message of the show, advertising during Glenn Beck's program on FOX News now includes "crisis garden" "survival seeds," to help you survive the coming totalitarian world government. They're pretty shady, too, since apparently there's an emerging field of these survival seeds and you really have to sort the wheat from the chaff (double pun intended).

What I don't understand is how it would be good to have non-hybrid/non-genetically-modified seeds when the World Government's Black Helicopters could use their chemtrails to dump Monsanto's roundup-ready seeds across the land until all conventional crops cross-bred into World Government-approved genetically engineered crops that require you to purchase State-Produced Pesticides.

See how many conspiracy theories I managed to jam in there? Next time, I'll try to work in water fluoridation and the hidden descendants of Jesus, with some Masons for fun.

Wow. This is regressive:

Movies and TV shows with gay characters could be ineligible for a "family-friendly" tax credit in Florida under a little-noticed provision tucked into a $75 million incentive package that Republican House leaders hope will attract film and entertainment jobs to the state.

The bill would prohibit productions with "nontraditional family values" from receiving a so-called family-friendly tax credit. But it doesn't define what "nontraditional family values" are, something the bill's sponsor had a hard time doing, too.

"Think of it as like Mayberry," state Rep. Stephen Precourt, R-Orlando, said, referring to The Andy Griffith Show. "That's when I grew up — the '60s. That's what life was like. I want Florida to be known for making those kinds of movies: Disney movies for kids and all that stuff. Like it used to be, you know?"

Yes, America, when Mr. Precourt grew up, life did not include gays because they simply did not exist until the "Liberal Elite in Hollywood"® invented them. If he had an uncle who was a "confirmed bachelor," that's probably exactly what he was, so don't try to make him read between the lines, please and thank you. So, if we stop showing them on TV, they'll simply cease to exist in real life as well.

Gay rights activists understandably reacted with scorn and anger, labeling it "1950s-style movie censorship" among other things. Fortunately, they will almost certainly find an ally in ABC/Disney, which has several shows with gay characters.

This would be a fairly big change in the state law regarding the existing tax credit:

State tax laws allow for a tax credit worth 2 percent of a movie's production costs if it is "family friendly." That is defined as a movie suitable for a 5-year-old: It has "cross-generational appeal" and includes "a responsible resolution of issues." Smoking, sex, nudity and profane language are prohibited, as are "obscene" productions as defined by the state's sex crime laws.

Precourt's proposal would boost the credit from 2 percent to 5 percent and expand the list of taboos to include any "exhibit or implied act" of nontraditional family values and gratuitous violence.

Florida Family Policy Council President John Stemberger said nontraditional family values could include anything from "drug abuse to excessive drunkenness to homosexual families."

I'll grant you that it's understandable that you'd not want to give a tax credit to films or shows featuring drug abuse and excessive drunkenness, but generic "homosexual families" aren't comparable. In fact, the language in the bill seems pretty vague by all accounts. The closeted gay Governor of Florida, Charlie Crist (R), who is currently fending off a strong right-wing primary opponent in his Senate bid this year, has urged them to define "traditional family" precisely instead of using "nontraditional family," and he suggested the one-man-one-woman definition. Most Democrats and some moderate Republicans seemed entirely unaware in subsequent interviews that Rep. Precourt had slipped in the change in the rule before the moved it out of committee, so it will have to be revised at a later point, whichever direction. We can only hope 21st century heads prevail.

Thanks to a friend for tipping me off to this article.

I have a feeling this might become the big story of the week... in a speech in Calgary, Sarah Palin admits she used to go across into Canada to receive health care (despite not paying into the system as a non-citizen user), even though Anchorage health care facilities were much closer. She calls this "ironic."

Last year, Nate put up an Oscars discussion thread which was very popular (104 comments by the end, though some of it wasn't awards-related). It's a break from the heavy politics and it's a chance for all our readers to talk about whatever they're thinking in real time. He's busy tonight, but he did do a short post on the expanded Best Picture list a month ago, so I've decided to post it again and see what happens. Note: I am not watching, and I've never watched them; so if I comment, it will largely be on the movies themselves, of the ones I've seen.

Anyway, here you go. Comment away.

PS: To reply directly to a comment, I think you can just type @[name of commenter], update: except without the brackets and just the name.

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ken.) last weekend made waves by blocking the interim extension of a small spending bill including funding for Dept. of Transportation project inspectors (who were furloughed immediately, thus halting countless projects nationwide) and continuing unemployment benefits (which were cut off for over 1 million Americans immediately) and Medicare payouts to Doctors (which stopped flowing immediately). Conservative pundits everywhere applauded. Several days after the expiration of the funding due to a lack of extension, Bunning finally gave in with some deal with the Democratic leadership.

Even so, this deficit control obsession is really worrying a lot of economists, including many conservative ones. Aside from deficit spending, which this extension was (that's why Bunning blocked it), the big source of growing budget deficits during a recession is the declining tax revenue to the government, so that recurring budget items once paid for temporarily aren't covered by the usual taxes. Long-term unpaid-for items are structural deficits, but these recession-related deficits are just temporary and will largely resolve themselves (the debt will still be there, but not the deficits). So if you really want to control the deficit, you have to work toward a recovery.

If you want to kill a recovery in its early stages, a great idea would be to force the elimination of up to 90,000 jobs, the furloughing of thousands of DOT inspectors, and elimination of unemployment benefits for people living on the edge who would otherwise spend the money right into the economy. Mike Lillis of The Washington Independent has more:

The message from the experts is clear: If you think adding $10 billion to the deficit is dangerous to future economic growth, wait ‘til you see what happens when millions of unemployed folks, denied access to a government safety net, slash their consumption (at best) and foreclose on their homes (at worst).

No matter. On the issue of deficit spending to address the hovering downturn, Republican leaders in both chambers are all but united in opposition, as is much of their caucus. Thirty Republicans, for example, voted to block the Democrats’ $15 billion jobs package that passed the upper-chamber last week. More recently, 39 Republicans voted with Bunning against the Democrats’ plan to tap deficit spending to pay for a $10 billion temporary extension of COBRA benefits, funding for doctors who treat Medicare patients, federal highway programs and the filing deadline for unemployment insurance.

So, in the end, this might have been a) a stupid move by Republicans (primarily the Kintuck Coot) who actually think this is the way to rein in the deficit and don't get the consequences, b) it was a very nasty move by rich Republicans showing their true colors, or c) a brilliant political move at the expense of the American people to harm Democrats by continuing recession... and I'm inclined to think it was probably just stupidity. But cynics can make a pretty good case for the second option that they're just hypocrites and rich jerks:

Ironically for this debate, the legislation causing much greater strain than stimulus bills on the the country’s fiscal health are measures passed under the Bush administration with the blessing of GOP leaders in Congress. The Bush tax cuts, for example — if extended this year, as expected — stand to whisk hundreds of billions of dollars from the federal coffers over the next decade. And the Medicare prescription drug benefit — an unfunded entitlement expansion that Republicans rammed through Congress in 2003 — is estimated to add $550 billion to the debt by 2017.

Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist and former advisor to Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), hasn’t overlooked the hypocrisy coming from GOP leaders who suddenly want to be recognized as champions of fiscal restraint.

“It astonishes me that a party enacting anything like the drug benefit would have the chutzpah to view itself as fiscally responsible in any sense of the term,” Bartlett wrote in Forbes recently. “As far as I am concerned, any Republican who voted for the Medicare drug benefit has no right to criticize anything the Democrats have done in terms of adding to the national debt.”

I thought this was an interesting and thoughtful discussion on The Colbert Report this week. The author, Gary Wills, argues in his book Bomb Power that the national security apparatus that grew up around the executive branch in the nuclear age has given the president far too much military power (even in conventional war).

He makes a lot of great points, but the discussion is excellent because Colbert pushes back on some of his contentions (in a serious way), so that Willis digs deeper to clarify or provide nuance and shows he's thought this through. He's no pushover guest, but Colbert doesn't let his arguments slide, even if he might agree with some of them. For example, Colbert points out that the US Senate hasn't shown itself able to agree on simple things, let alone war, so if Congress re-asserts its constitutional role, there could be problems: "If you ask the Senate to push The Button, Richard Shelby will put a hold on, until the button is manufactured in Alabama."

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Garry Wills
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Skate Expectations

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), who several years ago boldly said that (simple) majority rule was sufficient for everything in the Senate, whether budget-related or not, recently tried to argue Democrats can't use budget reconciliation to pass health reform with 51 votes because our "Founding Fathers" established a 60-vote filibuster requirement and rejected the parliamentary system consciously.

I can only imagine he believes the Founding Fathers were in the Senate in the 1970s... which is when the not-Constitutionally-based filibuster power was reduced from 67 votes to 60 votes, and when they would have been far enough into the age of the Westminster parliamentary system's modern application around the world to be able to reject it (if that were a good idea). Steve Benen of The Washington Monthly sums up the problems with Gregg's claim:

It's hard to overstate how truly ridiculous Gregg's analysis is. It simply has no foundation in reality. The Senate wasn't "structured" to require supermajorities on literally every bill, nomination, and resolution -- that's the exact opposite of the truth [the Constitution grants tiebreaking authority to the Vice President, thus the Founding Fathers cannot have anticipated a supermajority requirement that would render a tie impossible]. This isn't a subjective question open to interpretation; Gregg is just lying.

And when Gregg says the framers of the Constitution "saw the parliamentary system" and rejected it, he's just making things up. Matt Yglesias, who refers to Gregg as "an idiot," explained, "There were no countries operating on a modern parliamentary system when the constitution was written. And why doesn't it work? It seems to work in Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, India, Japan, Korea, etc."

Update: While I'm on the subject...on Thursday, Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) submitted a proposal to change Senate rules (mostly) to make a motion to proceed non-debatable -- thus eliminating one opportunity for obstructionists to stall and delay until 60+ Senators vote to stop debate and get on with it -- while preserving the opportunity to filibuster cloture (end of debate) on actual debate. Basically, Senators would get one less chance to filibuster, and there would be an immediate up or down vote on whether or not to proceed, without creating a debate-within-a-debate on that motion. If that makes sense.

This is not news in the general sense of the word, but it was news to me when I found out about it a few weeks ago, and I think most of our readers aren't familiar with it either, so I figured it would be educational to discuss it anyway.

You've heard of Rev. Pat Robertson's hateful comments about the Haitian earthquake being the result of a "pact with the devil," and you may be familiar with his similar comments about 9/11 made right after the 2001 attacks. If you've followed politics, you'll know about his Christianist media strength and his presidential campaigns and his involvement in building Christian Conservativism. But this is mostly his horrible words, without extending to truly horrible deeds.

Well, while doing research on Virginia politics (where he is based) I recently learned that for over a decade, Pat Robertson has been deeply involved in illegal and now dubiously legal diamond mining in Liberia, with close ties to notorious transnational West African warlord Charles Taylor, currently rotting in The Hague on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Since the current Wikipedia summary is consistent with my research and sources (and thus probably reliable) and is fairly concise, I'll include it here:

According to a 2 June 1999, article in The Virginian-Pilot,^[19] Robertson had extensive business dealings with Liberian president Charles Taylor. According to the article, Taylor gave Robertson the rights to mine for diamonds in Liberia's mineral-rich countryside. According to two Operation Blessing pilots who reported this incident to the state of Virginia for investigation in 1994, Robertson used his Operation Blessing planes to haul diamond-mining equipment to Robertson's mines in Liberia, despite the fact that Robertson was telling his 700 Club viewers that the planes were sending relief supplies to the victims of the genocide in Rwanda. In response to Taylor's alleged crimes against humanity the United States Congress passed a bill In November 2003 that offered two million dollars for his capture. Robertson accused President Bush of "undermining a Christian, Baptist president to bring in Muslim rebels to take over the country." At the time Taylor was harboring Al Qaeda operatives who were funding their operations through the illegal diamond trade.^[20] On February 4, 2010, at his war crimes trial in the Hague, Charles Taylor testified that Robertson was his main political ally in the U.S., and that he had volunteered to make Liberia's case before U.S. administration officials in exchange for concessions to Robertson's Freedom Gold, Ltd., to which Taylor gave a contract to mine gold in southeast Liberia.^[21]

In 2010, a spokesman for Robertson said that the company's arrangements - the Liberian government got a 10 percent equity interest in the company and Liberians could purchase at least 15 percent of the shares after the exploration period - was similar to many American companies doing business in Africa at the time.^[22]

I find it jaw-dropping that this aspect of Robertson's past and present doesn't get more coverage. He has consorted with war criminals, diverted resources from genocide relief to extract conflict diamonds, exploited a civil war and almost certainly child soldier-miners to make money, and he has tried to protect his horrible warlord pals who have ripped apart Liberia and Sierra Leone in two civil wars and financed al Qaeda. He has bought key political allies such as Mark Earley (see below) to protect himself from investigations into these dealings. I mean, it's not nice of him to say Haiti made a pact with the devil, but that doesn't begin to cover how evil this unchristian 'reverend' truly is.

In a 2005 article in The Nation focusing on Robertson's enrichment scheme exploiting Hurricane Katrina (which he also blamed on voodoo and decadent culture in New Orleans), his dealings were explained thusly:

Far from the media's gaze, Robertson has used the tax-exempt, nonprofit Operation Blessing as a front for his shadowy financial schemes, while exerting his influence within the GOP to cover his tracks. In 1994 he made an emotional plea on The 700 Club for cash donations to Operation Blessing to support airlifts of refugees from the Rwandan civil war to Zaire (now Congo). Reporter Bill Sizemore of The Virginian Pilot later discovered that Operation Blessing's planes were transporting diamond-mining equipment for the African Development Corporation, a Robertson-owned venture initiated with the cooperation of Zaire's then-dictator Mobutu Sese Seko.

So he was also trying to link up with Mobutu in the Congo, which suggests he might still be involved in blood diamond mining there, too.

After a lengthy investigation, Virginia's Office of Consumer Affairs determined that Robertson "willfully induced contributions from the public through the use of misleading statements and other implications." Yet when the office called for legal action against Robertson in 1999, Virginia Attorney General Mark Earley, a Republican, intervened with his own report, agreeing that Robertson had made deceptive appeals but overruling the recommendation for his prosecution. Two years earlier, while Virginia's investigation was gathering steam, Robertson donated $35,000 to Earley's campaign--Earley's largest contribution. With Earley's report came a sense of vindication. "From the very beginning," Robertson claimed, "we were trying to provide help and assistance to those who were facing disease and death in the war-torn, chaotic nation of Zaire."

It's disgusting that somebody as corrupt morally bankrupt as Pat Robertson can claim to be a Christian and hold sway over so many, and it's disgusting that he's treated as anything legitimate. For example, Alliance for Climate Protection (which I usually support) did an ad campaign showing unlikely left-right pairings of people who believe we have to act on global warming, and Robertson was included in one ad with the Rev. Al Sharpton. I don't want Robertson associated with Repower America, even if he is so influential over his sheeple. Especially since he used the ad to say "I'm ususally right," instead of "I'm usually on the Right." Urgh. But somehow, there he was.


To sum up: Pat Robertson directly supports blood diamond mining and violent civil war in Africa. This is a fact, not an opinion. We need to start bringing this up every time he's in the news. As they say in the trailer for the 2006 film Blood Diamond, "all who touch it are left with blood on their hands." He shouldn't be able to wash out the damned spot so easily.

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), the longest-serving member of Congress in history, and the inventor of much of the current Senate procedures -- including the law concerning budget reconciliation -- smacked down The Daily Mail, from his home state, for misleading its readers on reconciliation... here's an excerpt from after his thorough explanation of the process and how it works in the current health reform situation:

With all due respect, the Daily Mail's hyperbole about "imposing government control," acts of "disrespect to the American people" and "corruption" of Senate procedures resembles more the barkings from the nether regions of Glennbeckistan than the "sober and second thought" of one of West Virginia's oldest and most respected daily newspapers.

My commitment to protecting the best interests of all West Virginians and the American people remains as firm and consistent as my devotion to observing the necessary and essential Senate rules and procedures intended to guarantee debate and the airing of diverse views.

Owned. 

With less than half of Republicans believing climate change is a man-made event and strong minority denying its existence outright (see link), Mitt Romney's views on climate change could seriously jeopardize his 2012 chances:

In “No Apology,” Mitt Romney sets himself up in the shrinking “climate change is happening but we don’t need a carbon tax” camp.

I believe that climate change is occurring — the reduction in the size of global ice caps is hard to ignore. I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor.

Again, this issue is evolving so fast, with people like Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) becoming Tea Party folk heroes and sites like Pajamas Media demanding that Al Gore return his Academy Award, that by the time Iowa caucus-goers come out, Romney might be in the deep minority of GOPers.

I'm also wondering what he thinks we should do about it, since he acknowledges "climate change is occurring." I just re-watched An Inconvenient Truth last night, and Al Gore argued in it that politicians don't want to acknowledge the reality because it would force them to do something about it... but I guess maybe Romney's trying the approach of acknowledging and still doing nothing.

Just earlier this week, the abrupt resignation of a Georgia Republican to focus on his gubernatorial campaign this year made the math easier for House Democrats to pass the health reform legislation. With supporting Reps. Robert Wexler (D-FL) and Daniel Akaka (D-HI) having resigned already, with the sudden death of supporting Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), and with the decision of Rep. Anh Joseph Cao (R-LA) not to support the health reform bill the second time around, Democrats were trying to determine how to come up with the required number of votes... until Rep. Deal (R-GA) resigned, bringing the number down to 216, instead of the usual 218.

Facing serious ethics charges and life-threatening health problems (allegedly), Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) has announced his sudden resignation as well. The math doesn't change, however, because he voted no last year on the bill anyway, and the House will still need 216 for a majority. (435-5=430, half is 215, majority is 216).

The previous vote in favor was 220, and will now be 216 if no other changes happen (and nobody changes their votes).


UPDATE @ 1:20 AM, 3/6/10: Actually, I've just read that Deal now won't resign until the end of the month, so Massa's immediate resignation does help Democrats. 

Some excellent news today: with Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) declaring his support for budget reconciliation to make some small fixes (via a 'sidecar' bill) to the Senate health reform bill so that the House will pass it and the Senate will pass the changes with a simple majority, we've now reached 50 US Senators definitely supporting this maneuver. With one more Senator, we should be set to pass health reform at last. This is something that should have happened last year, but I'll take it now, if Senate Dems come through.

No thanks to the current administration (as with previous administrations), we have some good news again from the House Foreign Affairs Committee:

The House Foreign Affairs Committee voted narrowly [23-22] on Thursday to condemn as genocide the mass killings of Armenians early in the last century, defying a last-minute plea from the Obama administration to forgo a vote that seemed sure to offend Turkey and jeopardize delicate efforts at Turkish-Armenian reconciliation.

Bush convinced the leadership in 2007 not to let it come to a floor vote, when it passed before, so it remains to be seen what happens this time. Turkey immediately started the blackmail ball rolling by recalling its ambassador to the US.

This resolution, which would label the Armenian genocide as such, always faces resistance from the powerful Turkish lobby (the US has been a longtime military partner with Turkey, which is a NATO member) and from the Anti-Defamation League and the Israel lobby out of a ridiculous and selfish that claim that identifying the 1915-1918 events - the massacre of 1.5 million ethnic Armenians in the crumbling Ottoman Empire - as genocide will somehow diminish the significance of the Holocaust. The Obama Administration is currently claiming that this move will jeopardize recent progress in Turkish-Armenian relations. This is an unfortunate change of heart from his previous boldness on the issue (he also used to call it a genocide as Senator).

Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA-28) noted that despite the importance of US-Turkish alliance, “nothing justifies Turkey’s turning a blind eye to the reality of the Armenian genocide. He also said, “The Turks say passing this resolution could have terrible consequences for our bilateral relationship, but I believe that Turkey values its relations with the United States at least as much as we value our relations with Turkey.” I think that's a good perspective. Turkey needs to grow up and accept their past. For them to have successfully imposed their legal system's gag rule on this issue onto the US government for so long is outrageous.