Please remember that disablist language is prohibited by the commenting policy. Just this morning, I have had to redact "moron," "spaz," and several uses of "idiot" from comments.
Variations on "crazy" when what you really mean is that someone is being unreasonable, unfair, rude, bigoted, ignorant, or just generally an asshole are also violations of the commenting policy, as is the use of "lame" as a synonym for "uncool."
I recognize it can be challenging to excise these extremely common words from your speech; I was not particularly sensitive to disablist language when I first started blogging. But to ensure this is a safe space for readers who are alienated and marginalized by disablist language, everyone needs to make a sincere effort to be vigilant while commenting.
Thanks.
[Note: This policy is not up for debate.]
Commenting Reminder
USA: Beacon of Stupid - I'd Rather Believe Rubbish Edition
You have to give one thing to Texas state senator Leo Berman. He's a man of principle. See, when you're principled, you can stand tall in the face of clear and documented facts and wave your cognitive dissonance flag high by doubling down on every piece of false information you've ever heard. And when it comes to taking issue with Obama's citizenship status, Leo Berman is gonna try to kick those facts' asses!
Enter Anderson Cooper, who repeatedly hits Berman with twin laser-beams of accuracy and reality, and makes him look like the total fuckneck that he clearly is (transcript below the fold):
[H/T to Raw Story]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Tonight the birthers are back.The Supreme Court rejects a case today about the president's citizenship but a Texas lawmaker apparently isn't listening. He has a new bill based on birther doubts about where President Obama was born. How does he reconcile his birther beliefs against the facts? We're "Keeping Them Honest." And it's an interview you don't want to miss.
Also Senator John McCain in the landmark Pentagon study due out tomorrow on "don't ask don't tell." We're going to trace Senator McCain's shifting stance on repealing "don't ask don't tell" including his newest remarks he made yesterday that the policy is working just fine. Now, agree or disagree with the policy tonight, we check the facts. Is he stretching the truth to make his case and "Keeping Him Honest" as well?
And "Crime & Punishment" the alleged terror teen caught according to authorities trying to set off what he thought was a car bomb at a Christmas-tree lighting. We've got the inside look, beat by beat, minute by minute; how the feds discovered him, played him and ultimately took him down.
We begin as always "Keeping Them Honest." In a moment you're going to hear a Republican legislator in Texas, a guy named Representative Leo Berman who once demanded that presidential candidates produce a birth certificate in Texas to get on the presidential ballot. It's a bill based on his doubts about President Obama's birth in Hawaii. It's an interview you're not going to want to miss.
Now, we should point out that the U.S. Supreme Court just today rejected another appeal challenging Mr. Obama's U.S. citizenship. Texas isn't the only state though, with this kind of legislation.
In April, the Arizona House of Representative passed similar legislation requiring a candidate to show a birth certificate in order to get on the ballot. It failed to pass in the state senate. At least two other states are considering the idea though.
We -- before we talk though, with Representative Berman I just want to walk you over the wall here and get a couple of things out of the way so we're all sort of on the same page. Take a look over here. This is an official copy of President Obama's birth certificate from the State of Hawaii. They call it a Certification of Live Birth -- that's what it says up there.
Now, the state went paperless nine years ago so the original is now in electronic form on a server in Hawaii, according to Hawaii authorities. This is what they send out when someone requests a birth certificate from the State of Hawaii.
Now, take a look on the -- first of all on the back of the official copy is a stamp from the Hawaii State Register. Doubters claim the certificate is unsigned and therefore bogus, but in fact, this stamp -- that's how they do it in Hawaii.
Now take a look at this they also claim, if you read on the Internet, that this document doesn't have a raised seal which actually as you can see even in this photograph it does. Now the photographs, the way we know that they're accurate is they were taken by the nonpartisan group, FactCheck.org. They saw the actual document. They took the photographs of it back at Obama headquarters in Chicago in 2008. The campaign had apparently requested it from the State of Hawaii the year before in 2007.
But, if you cruise the Internet, you'll find all sorts of other documents online, like this one, which purports to show Mr. Obama was actually born in Kenya. This is a faith -- fake birth certificate. Now, you wonder, how do we know this is a faith one -- fake one?
Well, take a look at this. It actually gets the name of the country wrong. It says "Republic of Kenya" right down here. But it wasn't actually called the Republic of Kenya back then. There's a lot of this kind of stuff all over the Internet.
But if you want to find the facts, it's not that hard. You just have to want to find the facts. Plenty of Americans are confused about or simply divided on this subject.
Take a look at this latest CNN poll that we have, this from July 16-21. Twenty-seven percent surveyed, more than one in four believed President Obama definitely or probably was not born in the United States. Seventy-one percent believe President Obama definitely or probably was born in the United States.
Now, look, having an opinion is one thing. And, thankfully, we live in this great country where people can think whatever they want. But creating legislation on false information, that's something we think is our job to point out.
Representative Berman, who was just re-elected, is proposing a new law in Texas. Section 1, Subsection D of his bill, HR-295, reads -- and I want to show you what it reads right here -- it says: "The secretary of state may not certify the name of a candidate for president or vice president unless the candidate has presented the candidate's original birth certificate indicating that the person is a natural-born United States citizen."
Now, there are a lot of constitutional questions about whether a state can really even make a law like this that affects a presidential race. But we wanted to talk with Mr. Berman about the basis of his proposed bill. He doesn't mention President -- President Obama, but it's clear where the idea for the bill came from.
I talked with Representative Berman earlier this evening.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: Representative Berman, you've said this bill is needed because -- and I quote -- "we have a president who the American people don't know whether he was born in Kenya or some other place." Do you personally believe that President Obama was not born in Hawaii?
LEO BERMAN (R), TEXAS STATE REPRESENTATIVE: Well, you know, I really don't know.
If you look at my white hair, you can tell I have been around for a while. And I have known everything about every president that I have come across for the last 70-some-odd years. I don't know anything about President Obama. I wish I did.
COOPER: How can you say that?
BERMAN: But there's nothing to prove.
COOPER: How can you say that, though?
BERMAN: Excuse me --
COOPER: Because, I mean, there is a -- a birth certificate. There's a certificate of live birth, which is what the State of Hawaii sends out. We're showing a picture of it to our viewers. It's got a raised seal. And it's got the stamp of the -- the -- the -- the health register from the state.
Why -- why isn't that good enough?
BERMAN: Well, because it's not an original birth certificate. It doesn't show the parents' place of birth. And, also, we know for certain that President Obama's father was born in Kenya. Since he was born in Kenya, in -- that was a British protectorate. President Obama was born in 1961.
And with his father being a British citizen, at least, President Obama, we think holds dual citizenship.
COOPER: Well, actually, technically that's not correct.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: He may have been born with dual citizenship because of the technicality of his father being under the British -- a British subject, being from Kenya, but he automatically lost that in -- in -- when he -- at the age of 23, as anybody -- anybody does.
And -- and to say that that document is not -- BERMAN: How do you lose that?
COOPER: To say -- it's just -- it's the way it happened.
To say that that document, though, is not the original birth certificate that is what the state sends out when anybody asks for a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii. And it's accepted by the U.S. State Department as valid for a U.S. passport.
And -- and the Hawaii state health director has acknowledged that, back in 2008, she has -- and I quote -- "personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Senator Obama's original birth certificate on record, in accordance with state policies and procedures."
BERMAN: Well, you mentioned the State Department. Now, let's talk about the State Department.
COOPER: But -- no, no, first, do you --
(CROSSTALK)
BERMAN: We haven't seen --
COOPER: -- do you not acknowledge that the state of Hawaii has the original birth certificate? The health director there says it. The governor of Hawaii says this is not an issue.
The governor of Hawaii, who is a Republican, was quoted as saying: "I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records at the Department of Health. We issued a news release at the time saying the president was, in fact, born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that is just a fact."
Is she lying?
BERMAN: Well, my question to you, then Anderson, is why -- did you see it? I would like to see it.
COOPER: Well, you can go --
BERMAN: And I would also like to see President --
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: You can go and see it. The nonpartisan fact-checking organization FactCheck.org, they -- they looked at it. It has a raised seal. They say it's legit.
BERMAN: A raised seal could be put on by any type of machinery.
But what I'm saying is where are the president's passports? Where are his travel documents? Where are his school records? Why don't we know anything at all about a president who has such a radical agenda? There is a radical agenda. And I would like to know something about the President of United States.
COOPER: Well, let me -- let me ask you about that --
BERMAN: The State of Hawaii --
COOPER: -- because have you seen --
BERMAN: Sure.
COOPER: -- George W. Bush's transcripts from college?
BERMAN: I could see anything I want from George W. Bush.
COOPER: Actually, sir, you couldn't.
BERMAN: I can go right online and get it, yes.
COOPER: No, actually, sir, you couldn't.
BERMAN: Yes.
COOPER: Under -- under federal law, you're not -- the -- those -- the schools cannot release that information. And President Bush refused to release that information from Andover and from his time at Yale.
Someone actually leaked the Yale records illegally, but, actually, he refused to release them.
But, sir, again, you haven't answered any of the facts on this which I have -- I have -- I have brought up to you. The state of Hawaii has --
BERMAN: You haven't answered me. You haven't -- tell me, where are his passports?
COOPER: I am answering it. The state of Hawaii, for a fact, has verified the original birth certificate is there. When you -- if you request one, as the Obama campaign did, what they are sent is the certificate of live birth. It's the short form. It's what they send out. Hawaii doesn't send out the long form.
Yet, for some reason, in this man's case, it's not acceptable to you.
BERMAN: Well, let me -- let -- let's say it is acceptable to me.
Now, let's answer -- let's get on to another point. Where are the president's passports and his travel records which got him to Pakistan in the early '90s, when no U.S. citizen could get to Pakistan at all?
COOPER: Sir, where did you hear that?
BERMAN: Where are his college records?
COOPER: Sir, where did you hear that?
BERMAN: Why can't we see anything?
COOPER: Sir, where did you hear that?
BERMAN: We can't see any personal documents about this president.
COOPER: Sir, I don't mean to contradict you.
BERMAN: I'm sorry?
COOPER: I -- I respect you. And I respect, certainly, your service to this country, but where do you get your information? Because that -- that -- what you have just said is factually incorrect.
BERMAN: I'm getting my information the same place you are getting your information.
COOPER: Ok.
BERMAN: I want to see a passport that got the president --
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: Well, how do you know the president traveled to Pakistan, what did you say, in the late '90s, late '80s?
BERMAN: I think it -- late '80s, early '90s. That's common knowledge.
COOPER: That's actually not true, sir.
BERMAN: Everybody knows he traveled to Pakistan -- he had a passport -- when --
COOPER: Right.
BERMAN: -- U.S. citizens couldn't travel to Pakistan. So, which country --
COOPER: Ok. Sir, he traveled to Pakistan --
BERMAN: -- did he --
COOPER: Sir, he traveled to Pakistan in 1981, and -- and when he was a student. And -- and, actually, Americans could travel to Pakistan then.
In fact, I -- we have an article from "The New York Times" from 1981 from the travel section about the joys of traveling in Pakistan. You needed a -- American citizens, I think they needed a 30-day visa, but American citizens could go and travel in Pakistan. That's just an Internet rumor that you're spreading.
BERMAN: No, it's -- it's not an Internet rumor that I'm spreading. I'm sorry, it's not.
COOPER: Sir --
(CROSSTALK)
BERMAN: It's not. No, it's not.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: Barack Obama went to Pakistan in 1981, when Americans could go there. It -- it is an Internet rumor that Americans couldn't travel there. And you had the dates completely wrong. You're saying the early '90s.
BERMAN: I've got a report here from the Congressional Research Service and their legislative attorney, Jack Maskill (ph). And there's a lot of good information here.
I'm not asking for a lot. I'm asking for simple information about the President of the United States. The news media, they --
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: So -- so, is his travel to Pakistan in the Congressional Research Service information there?
BERMAN: Yes. The major news -- the major news media will not answer any of these questions. Why won't you put this out factually?
COOPER: Sir, I'm asking for where you got that information.
BERMAN: Why won't you show us the long birth certificate or the passport? And why didn't the United States Congress -- we have 535 members of the United States Congress. They are the only body of the federal government in a Constitution that really should be vetting the president of the United States --
COOPER: Ok.
BERMAN: -- because they take an oath of office in which they will support and defend the Constitution against -- of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and they will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, so help me God.
COOPER: But, sir, again, just --
(CROSSTALK)
BERMAN: Not a single member of the --
(CROSSTALK)
BERMAN: -- United States Congress raised their hand when they were counting the electoral votes in 2008 --
COOPER: Ok. BERMAN: -- to say, show us. I want to see it.
COOPER: Sir, just of the points you -- of the points you have raised, the factual points to -- to -- I mean, you're basing legislation on stuff that's basically just rumors and -- and stuff that's been proven to be false.
I mean, you -- you say that -- that President Obama didn't release college records. That's true. He hasn't released college records. But, under federal law, the schools can't release them, and he doesn't want to, for whatever reason. And you know what? George W. Bush didn't want to, for whatever reason, from Andover and from Yale.
You didn't seem to object about that. You've raised medical records issue, that he didn't fully release his medical records. Well, you know what? John McCain didn't fully release his medical records either. They both did in a very limited way.
BERMAN: Am I wrong when I say that the President has employed many, many lawyers and is spending millions of dollars to keep all these records from public view?
COOPER: Well, actually, sir, we don't know exactly what -- what -- what he spent the money -- first of all, I'm not sure it's millions. I think the record I saw was one-point-something million. And we don't know that the bulk of the work that the lawyer, the law firm he has obtained is -- is directed to this.
He's certainly being sued by a couple of people, and those lawsuits have gone nowhere. And, yes, he's -- he's, you know, paying lawyers for that. But we don't know if that -- all that money has gone for that. We just -- we just factually don't know that, so we can't say what -- what exactly --
BERMAN: Have the major media actually gone into an investigative mode to see if the president --
COOPER: Sir, this has been looked at for --
BERMAN: -- is really entitled --
COOPER: -- for years and years.
BERMAN: -- to be the President of the United States?
COOPER: And -- and no court has supported this. Most legitimate, you know, observers of this, most people in the country have moved on from this and say, look, the President is a -- is a United States citizen.
BERMAN: Oh, I don't think most people have moved on.
I think either 50 percent -- even CNN polls have shown that 50 to 60 percent of the people of the United States do not believe that the President is eligible to be holding that office. COOPER: Sir, again, I'm sorry to -- to keep --
BERMAN: That's your own CNN poll, isn't it?
COOPER: All right, sir, ok, I have the CNN poll right here.
I hate to -- I hate to keep reading this stuff.
The CNN poll from July 16-21, all Americans, question, was Barack Obama born in the U.S.? The number of Americans who said definitely or probably, the percentage was 71 percent, definitely or probably no, 27 percent.
So, according to this poll, if you believe this poll, 71 percent of Americans believe probably or definitely that Barack Obama was born in the United States.
Admittedly, 30 -- 27 percent who don't believe it, that's a lot. That's a big number. But -- but, again, just factually, you haven't shown me any fact that proves he's not and -- and -- and you haven't been able to answer anything of -- any direct thing about the facts that you have brought up that have been wrong.
BERMAN: May I -- may I say that no major media has shown me any facts either?
I'll give you my public mailing address, and you can send me the facts, if you would like to. But no one will send me the facts --
COOPER: Ok.
BERMAN: -- the State Department, the public media, I mean the major media. I haven't seen anything yet. And I would like to see it. And I do extensive reading.
COOPER: But how much of this is about -- purely about politics? Because look, you -- you -- you are a good person, and you've served your country remarkably in the military, and you're a public servant now.
But you're basing legislation on things which have been disproven. And you've said -- in the past, you said -- and I quote -- "I believe that Barack Obama's God's punishment on us today."
Is this just about politics? That you don't like this guy, and, therefore, you're raising these objections about him?
BERMAN: Well, it's -- it's a lot more than politics.
Like you said, I did serve my country. And there is a lieutenant colonel who will be court-martialed in mid-December for refusing an order from a president who he believes is not the commander-in-chief of the United States military forces.
We also have a case in the U.S. Supreme Court -- I think it was started either yesterday or today -- based on the same information that we're discussing right now.
COOPER: But so far, the Supreme Court has batted down attempts to -- to get -- I mean, most -- all courts have rejected these arguments. This -- this is going nowhere, other than in a few state legislatures.
BERMAN: Well, it's in the Supreme Court today, isn't it? Have they already completed the case?
COOPER: It -- it got thrown out. It got thrown out. They're not going to take it.
BERMAN: Was that today?
COOPER: Yes, that was today.
BERMAN: Because I was listening for it.
COOPER: Yes. No, that was today.
BERMAN: Ok. I didn't hear. I will have to -- I will have to check on it.
COOPER: Yes.
Well, I -- I appreciate you coming on. If you could send us the Congressional Research Service document you have that talks about then young Mr. Obama traveling to Pakistan with the dates you gave us, I would appreciate if you would send it to us.
Leo Berman, Representative Leo Berman, I appreciate your time, sir. Thank you.
BERMAN: It's a pleasure. Thank you very much, Anderson.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: Well, Representative Berman, as we mentioned, we asked him to send us the copy of the Congressional Research Service report that he mentioned that talked about Pakistan. He didn't send us the report itself, which -- we actually found it on our own.
And, when you read through it, it actually concludes that the doubts that have been raised about the president's citizenship really don't hold water. That's what the Congressional Research Service report concluded.
Instead, what -- what Representative Berman sent us, what he was actually talking when he cited the CRS report was actually a critique of that report by a blogger. And in the critique -- critique that Mr. Berman sent us, the blog actually made no mention of President Obama's travel to Pakistan.
We did our own research. We found another article by the same blogger which did mention President -- then Barack Obama's travels to Pakistan in 1981. That much was correct. The blogger, however, said Mr. Obama couldn't have used a U.S. passport for that trip because Pakistan was on the United States' no-travel list in 1981.
That's just not true. An American could get a 30-day visa to travel in Pakistan in 1981. And that fact is easy for anyone to check.
Yikes
[Trigger warning for sex-related invasion of privacy.]
William Vasilakos, who was arrested in Stamford, Connecticut on Aug. 16, 2008 on a breach-of-peace charge and detained overnight, has filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that the arresting officer, Michael Presti, nicked Vasilakos' cell phone from the station and forwarded "racy photographs and videos" of Vasilakos and his girlfriend discovered on he phone.
According to the federal complaint, Presti kept the phone with him instead of leaving it with the police department, then forwarded eight messages to his own phone.Quite obviously, not all police officers behave in this way, but this is hardly the first time I've had occasion to post about a story like this in six years of blogging.
Vasilakos was outraged when he later saw the material had been sent to an address he did not recognize, [Vasilakos' attorney Norman Pattis] said.
The lawsuit was filed Wednesday in U.S. district court. Vasilakos is a plaintiff along with his girlfriend at the time, Maria Saltsides. The only defendant named in the suit is Presti.
Pattis said Stamford police investigated Presti's conduct and there were disciplinary proceedings, but he was not aware of the outcome.
Not long ago, someone tried to run the old "what's wrong with women who don't report being sexually harassed/assaulted" rap on me, and I was just a Wall of No. I absolutely cannot tolerate listening to that shit anymore.
Anyone who wonders why a survivor of sexual assault might be disinclined to report it need look no further than the lesson taken from this story: Because the Rape Culture is alive and well in police departments, too.
I certainly don't intend to imply that should discourage people from reporting sex crimes. It shouldn't, because there are lots of awesome cops and prosecutors who really do a great job. But should or shouldn't isn't the issue. The issue is that it does deter some people.
Because you don't know what you're going to find when you walk in the door of a precinct or dial 911.
You could find Detective Olivia Benson, or you could find a cop who treats your cell phone videos as his own private porn.
Fetch Me the Smelling Salts!
And get me to the fainting couch tout de suite! Never have I been so alarmed, nor had such a vicious case of the vapors, as upon hearing the SHOCKING news that MSNBC is not, in fact, a leftwing version of Fox News. Heavens to Murgatroyd!
Media experts and public opinion data indicate [that the two news channels are not equal ideological opposites].I eagerly await Jon Stewart's Rally to Restore the Myth That Both Sides Are Just as Bad.
Those who cover media and follow television news contend that Fox News has a clearer political bent than MSNBC, strong ties to the Republican party, and a clear conflict with the paid employment of at least five potential GOP presidential candidates.
There is also the matter of Fox's recent $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association. Add to that the leadership of Roger Ailes -- a veteran, hard-line Republican operative -- and the differences are much stronger than some would like to admit.
"Intellectually, are they more honest than Fox, I think they are," Eric Deggans, media critic for the St. Petersburg Times, said of MSNBC. "I saw that Fox was more consistent in reflecting a right wing tilt than MSNBC was in reflecting a liberal tilt. I think Fox is much more evolved in what it does than MSNBC does, in reflecting a political bent, it being right-wing."
...Alex S. Jones, executive director of the Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University, agreed. "There is no question that the affinity between Fox and the Republican Party goes all the way to Rupert Murdoch, which in my view is not a good thing," Jones said. "One is sort of unrelentingly partisan and the other is more of an equal-opportunity basher. They are not equivalent, they are both advocacy, but not equivalent."
...James Rainey, media reporter at the Los Angeles Times, said a key difference is the degree to which Fox News overlaps opinion with news. ... Rainey also pointed to Ailes' impact, adding: "There is no other news operation that I know of that has a Roger Ailes in charge, someone who is steeped in political activism and political rhetoric. His philosophy pervades everything they do at Fox. If there is someone equivalent to Roger Ailes at MSNBC, I would like to see who it is."
..."Are Fox News and MSNBC the same? The short answer is no," declared Pam Fine, journalism professor at the University of Kansas and a former managing editor at The Star-Tribune in Minneapolis and The Indianapolis Star. "Fox is run by a former political operative and the company is unabashed in its support for Republican candidates ... Another important question is which organization does a better job of providing consequential reporting on events and issues? MSNBC would have to be given the edge."
Seriously. Repeal DADT Already. This Is Ridiculous.
Most service members surveyed don't care about DADT repeal:
A majority of U.S. service members surveyed do not care if the law banning openly gay and lesbian troops from serving is repealed, according to a source knowledgeable with the results of the Pentagon study. Members of Congress are to get an advance look at the study Tuesday.Fully 70% of respondents said that lifting the ban would have positive, mixed, or no discernible results.
The number opposing lifting the ban -- known as "don't ask, don't tell" -- fearing negative results "is very small when compared to those who say it will have positive or mixed results, or no effect at all," the source explained.
Repeal! Jeezus.
Today's WikiLeaks Round-Up
New York Times—Cables Depict U.S. Haggling to Find Takers for Detainees: "American diplomats went looking for countries that were not only willing to take in former prisoners but also could be trusted to keep them under close watch. In a global bazaar of sorts, the American officials sweet-talked and haggled with their foreign counterparts in an effort to resettle the detainees who had been cleared for release but could not be repatriated for fear of mistreatment, the cables show."
Washington Post—WikiLeaks founder could be charged under Espionage Act: "Federal authorities are investigating whether WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange violated criminal laws in the group's release of government documents, including possible charges under the Espionage Act, sources familiar with the inquiry said Monday. ... Former prosecutors cautioned that prosecutions involving leaked classified information are difficult because the Espionage Act is a 1917 statute that preceded Supreme Court cases that expanded First Amendment protections. The government also would have to persuade another country to turn over Assange, who is outside the United States."
CNN—Calling leaks 'damaging,' Bush says Wikileaks will hurt U.S. relations:
Former President George W. Bush joined a chorus of U.S. officials calling any leaks of sensitive government information "very damaging," telling a forum at Facebook headquarters that Wikileaks' recent release of 250,000 documents may significantly hurt Washington's image abroad.Reminder: He does, however, like outing our own spies to get political retribution against their husbands who question the veracity of his case for wars of choice.
"It's going to be very hard to keep the trust of foreign leaders," the nation's 43rd president said of the documents on issues ranging from Iran to Honduras to Turkey. "If you have a conversation with a foreign leader and it ends up in a newspaper, you don't like it. I didn't like it."
And speaking of the Bush administration's unethical/criminal activities, it's interesting how liberals who wanted BushCo. held accountable were dismissed as ideologues and hysterics by the same media who are now calling for Hillary Clinton's scalp and demanding accountability of the Obama administration, even though, as the editors of the New York Times quite rightly note: "What struck us, and reassured us, about the latest trove of classified documents released by WikiLeaks was the absence of any real skullduggery. After years of revelations about the Bush administration's abuses — including the use of torture and kidnappings — much of the Obama administration's diplomatic wheeling and dealing is appropriate and, at times, downright skillful."
Which is not to say there's nothing objectionable or embarrassing among the documents. But still. The double-standard is breathtaking.
Discussion Thread: For the Ladies
What has someone wrongly assumed about you because you are a woman? (Or because they first wrongly assumed that you are a woman.)
Did your dad just assume you wouldn't be interested in sports? Did your mom just assume you wanted to be in a beauty pageant? Did a boyfriend just assume you love heart-shaped jewelry? Did a teacher just assume you were bad at math? Did a friend just assume you want a huge wedding with the white dress and towering cake? Did a boss just assume you were going to get married and have babies, so you didn't really want or need that promotion...?
Have you been assumed to like pink, enjoy musicals, love haircare products, get manicures, enjoy shopping, love shoes, be a good cook, be willing to do all the housework, laugh at other women, not eat, be attracted to men, be scared of spiders, not be ambitious, defer to men, want children...?
What are the stereotypes of womanhood/femininity that have been erroneously attributed to you?
[This thread is for anyone who identifies as a woman, as female/feminine/femme, or as male or androgyne but has a relevant story by virtue of having been read as female. The equivalent thread for male stories is here.]
Discussion Thread: For the Gents
What has someone wrongly assumed about you because you are a man? (Or because they first wrongly assumed that you are a man.)
Did your dad just assume you would be interested in sports? Did your mom just assume you wouldn't want to wear her wedding dress? Did a girlfriend just assume you love beer? Did a teacher just assume you were good at math? Did a friend just assume you were gay because you didn't objectify women as a pastime? Did a boss just assume you weren't gay, and told you to bring your girlfriend to the office holiday party...?
Have you been assumed to like NASCAR, hate musicals, be disinterested in grooming products, like hunting, hate shopping, be unwilling to do household chores, prefer singlehood to partnerhood, resent monogamy, eschew affection with other men, not like vegetables, be attracted to women, not be scared of spiders, not want female friends, not be feminist, not want children...?
What are the stereotypes of manhood/masculinity that have been erroneously attributed to you?
[This thread is for anyone who identifies as a man, as male/masculine/butch, or as female or androgyne but has a relevant story by virtue of having been read as male. The equivalent thread for female stories is here.]
Question of the Day
Suggested by Shaker Vetiver: What is your favorite feminist song and/or album of all time?
(Also welcome: General recommendations about feminist artists/bands.)
For me, it rarely gets better than Nina Simone declaring: "I got my hair, on my head / My brains, my ears / My eyes, nose, and my mouth / I got my smile / I got my tongue, my chin / My neck, my boobies / My heart, my soul, and my back / I got my sex / I got my arms, my hands / My fingers, my legs / My feet, my toes, and my liver / Got my blood / I got life."
Yes, ma'am.
Photo of the Day
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs speaks about the release of thousands of classified U.S. diplomatic cables by whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks during his briefing at the White House in Washington November 29, 2010. The United States deeply regrets any disclosure of classified information, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Monday in her first comment on the release of State Department cables by whistle-blower website WikiLeaks. [Reuters Pictures]That's a pretty good Brickin' It face, Gibbs, but you're still no Scott McClellan.
This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.
Actual Headline: Calling All Men! 10 Gifts Your Lady Secretly Wants.
Actual Sub-head: "Buying a gift for your wife or girlfriend doesn't have to be stressful. Here are ten ideas."
Actual Lede: "OK, so that gift card you got her last year was great because she got to pick out whatever she wanted, but here's a hint: Picking out an actual gift for her will win you more points. Sound daunting? Never fear, YourTango is here! We've got some ideas that'll please even the pickiest lady but won't make your wallet cower in fear."
I love the idea that if I don't swoon for a fucking curling rod, then I'm even worse than "even the pickiest lady." Yow.
With sites like Etsy and eBay and Amazon and pretty much everywhere else now offering a "Wish List" or "Favorites" feature, gift-buying does not have to be a mystery. If Iain hasn't managed to glean something I want using the Ladies' Ancient and Mysterious Gift-Discerning Technique I taught him (listening and paying attention), he peeks at my favorites on Etsy or wherever for inspiration or buys something straight from the list. Magic!
And it has nothing to do with trying to figure out what "women" want, and everything to do with knowing what Liss wants. Imagine that.
Random YouTubery: Ready...FIGHT!
Video Description: An epic battle between two cats and two hooded crows set to Alan Silvestri's Predator score.
[Thanks to KBlogz for passing that along.]
Today's Edition of "Conniving and Sinister"
See Deeky's archive of all previous Conniving & Sinister strips here.
[In which Liss reimagines the long-running comic "Frank & Ernest," about two old straight white guys "telling it like it is," as a fat feminist white woman (Liss) and a biracial queerbait (Deeky) telling it like it actually is from their perspectives. Hilarity ensues.]
Oh, Snap!
Shaker Lauren forwards the pdf of a real court document featuring an exchange between Bennet M. Epstein, an attorney who requested possible time off, and US District Judge Kimba Wood (whose name may be familiar from "Nannygate"). Epstein explains he may need time off to celebrate the birth of his grandchild...if it is a boy:
Should the child be a girl, not much will happen in the way of public celebration. Some may even be disappointed, but will do their best to conceal this by saying, "as long as it's a healthy baby". My wife will run to Philly immediately, but I will probably be able wait until the next weekend. There will be happiness, though muted, and this application will be mooted as well.Came Judge Wood's handwritten reply:
However, should the baby be a boy, then hoo hah! [Yiddish for "a big fuss"] Hordes of friends and family will arrive from around the globe and descend on Philadelphia for the joyous celebration mandated by the halacha [Jewish law (citation omitted)] to take place during daylight hours on the eighth day, known as the bris. [Hebrew for "covenant", for the Covenant of Abraham, i.e. ritual circumcision, joyous to everyone except, apparently, the baby.] The eighth day after December 3rd could be right in the middle of the trial. My presence at the bris is not strictly commanded, although my absence will never be forgotten by those that matter.
Mr. Epstein will be permitted to attend the bris, in the joyous event that a son is born. But the Court would like to balance the scales. If a daughter is born, there will be a public celebration in Court, with readings from poetry celebrating girls and women.Hee.
Someone Has to Care
[Lyrics available here.]
Such a great fucking song. I've been listening to it on a loop all day.
Daily Dose o' Cute
"Pleeeeeeeeease can we go to the dog park?! PLEASE!!!!" (The answer was yes.)
"Rub the big white fluffy belleh! RUB IT!"
Monitor Cat, Monitor Cat / Does whatever a Monitor Cat does...
Matilda, Queen of All She Surveys.
Priorities
So, as you may have heard, President Obama has announced a two-year pay freeze for federal workers as a partial solution to the exploding deficit—and the very first paragraph of this New York Times piece underlines two pretty ginormous problems with the policy:
President Obama announced a two-year pay freeze for civilian federal workers on Monday as he sought to address concerns over sky-high deficit spending and appeal to Republican leaders to find a common approach to restoring the nation's economic and fiscal health.Problem #1: The Republican leaders to whom he's trying to appeal are the same jackasses who got us into this mess, so their stamp of approval on any solution ought to be a red flag that it's garbage.
Problem #2: That little adjective—civilian. It means uniformed military employees are exempt, because, if they weren't, all the people who didn't give a fuck when George W. Bush zeroed out funding for soldiers with traumatic brain injury, as but one of nine gazillion examples, would start screaming about how Barack H. Obama doesn't sufficiently support the troops.
Which is not an argument in favor of freezing troops' salaries, by the way.
But it does highlight the fundamental indecency of this administration's unwillingness to even entertain the idea of cutting the defense budget—by which I mean the exorbitant funding of large-scale weaponry and mechanical beasts designed for wars we'll never fight—before it freezes the salaries of workers who are tasked primarily with keeping the country running.
Including the administration of social services currently being strained to their breaking points by desperate people who are losing their jobs and healthcare and homes and ability to be self-sufficient, because our priorities include continuing to fight
Terrorism a go go
As you may have heard, Mohamed Osman Mohamud was arrested on Friday night for attempting to detonate a dummy bomb, which he believed to be real, around Pioneer Courthouse Square here in Portland during the annual Holiday Tree Lighting. We very nearly went on Friday, only changing our minds because we didn't want to do the drive (or, rather, the drive home in the traffic).
The story, based on information released so far from the FBI affidavit, is that last August Mohamud contacted a person unknown in Pakistan discussing going there to fight. Person1 gave him contact for Person2. Person2 was apparently the person to get him overseas. He was unsuccessful in contacting Person2, though he tried for some time to do so. In June of this year, the FBI went to him pretending to be associates of Person1. Over the next few months they met regularly with him, offered him help and money, provided the bomb itself after telling him to mail them supplies, and they also offered the chance to refuse or back out--which he did not take. The Oregonian has a time line:
2009Something that's always stood out to me--and it turns out, several others--is that they went to him in June. Why? Why wasn't surveillance enough when, essentially, nothing else was happening? Why couldn't they wait for him to attempt to do something criminal on his own without their help? They did have him under surveillance after all, it's not like he would have gotten very far.
August: Mohamed Osman Mohamud e-mails unindicted associate one (UA1) in Pakistan.
December: In code UA1 and Mohamud discuss "traveling to Pakistan to prepare for violent jihad."
2010
Early months: Mohamud makes multiple attempts to contact a second unnamed associate (UA2) but uses the wrong e-mail.
June: Undercover FBI employee contacts Mohamud, posing as an affiliate of UA1.
July 30: The undercover FBI employee meets Mohamud in Portland; Mohamud says he thought of putting an explosion together but needed help doing so.
Aug. 19: Two undercover FBI operatives meet Mohamud in a Portland hotel. Mohamud says he has identified a potential bomb target: the annual Christmas-tree lighting ceremony in Pioneer Courthouse Square.
Sept. 7: The two operatives meet Mohamud again at a downtown Portland hotel. One agent tells Mohamud to do "what's in your heart." The agents ask Mohamud to buy bomb parts and find a "place to put the bomb."
Sept. 27 and 30: An undercover FBI operative receives bomb parts in the mail from Mohamud.
Oct. 3: Two FBI operatives and Mohamud meet at a Corvallis hotel and discuss logistics and the need for Mohamud to leave the country after the explosion.
Nov. 4: The three meet in Corvallis, travel to remote Lincoln County and detonate a test bomb. Mohamud gives the agents a thumb drive with maps and instructions for the attack. "I want whoever is attending that event to leave, to leave either dead or injured," Mohamud says.
Nov. 18: The operatives and Mohamud drive from Corvallis to Portland to scout the area and identify a spot Mohamud thought would inflict the most casualties.
Nov. 26: The FBI operatives show Mohamud an inert bomb in the back of a van. Mohamud says it is "beautiful." At 4:45 p.m. they leave a Portland hotel and drive the van to a parking spot designated by Mohamud. From a different location, Mohamud twice tries to detonate the inert device by dialing a cell phone. Agents arrest him.
Source: Criminal complaint filed Friday by FBI Special Agent Ryan Dwyer
I said in Saturday's Open Thread comments:
Someone asked Sam Adams (PDX mayor) on Twitter why they didn't just stop and arrest him beforehand. The answer that Adams got from the FBI was that he had to try and detonate the bomb to be charged.My skepticism, which has grown since, was written out much better by Glenn Greenwald yesterday (emphasis his):
According to NPR: "Authorities allowed the plot to proceed in order to build up enough evidence to charge the suspect with attempt."
All of this sort of bothers me in that, per the FBI, he was unsuccessful in his attempts to move forward with his plans until the FBI stepped in and offered him help to get his plans going.
Obviously he was some sort of problem (hence the surveillance--which is not yet detailed when or why he initially came under it) but he didn't appear to be going anywhere with it until he had FBI help. No, I don't think he was "set up" but it still seems...I dunno...odd. Would he have even done anything except stew in his thoughts and try and send himself overseas if the FBI hadn't intervened and now we have a terrorist setting off dummy bombs?
What's missing from all of these celebrations is an iota of questioning or skepticism. All of the information about this episode -- all of it -- comes exclusively from an FBI affidavit filed in connection with a Criminal Complaint against Mohamud. As shocking and upsetting as this may be to some, FBI claims are sometimes one-sided, unreliable and even untrue, especially when such claims -- as here -- are uncorroborated and unexamined. That's why we have what we call "trials" before assuming guilt or even before believing that we know what happened: because the government doesn't always tell the complete truth, because they often skew reality, because things often look much different once the accused is permitted to present his own facts and subject the government's claims to scrutiny. The FBI affidavit -- as well as whatever its agents are whispering into the ears of reporters -- contains only those facts the FBI chose to include, but omits the ones it chose to exclude. And even the "facts" that are included are merely assertions at this point and thus may not be facts at all.Do I think the FBI is lying? No. I'm not suspicious, I am skeptical. Skeptical that this whole ordeal didn't end up being akin something like what happened with Farooque Ahmed, who wanted to go to Afghanistan and join Taliban-allied fighters there and is now accused of wanting to bomb the metro. He didn’t get anywhere, as the guys he thought were his co-conspirators were FBI agents. From court documents it seems the plot was as much idea the agents as Ahmed. As asked in Newsweek: "If that's true, then are terrorists really planning to bomb the subway in Washington, or is that just a fantasy of the Feds?"
It may very well be that the FBI successfully and within legal limits arrested a dangerous criminal intent on carrying out a serious Terrorist plot that would have killed many innocent people, in which case they deserve praise. Court-approved surveillance and use of undercover agents to infiltrate terrorist plots are legitimate tactics when used in accordance with the law.
But it may also just as easily be the case that the FBI -- as they've done many times in the past -- found some very young, impressionable, disaffected, hapless, aimless, inept loner; created a plot it then persuaded/manipulated/entrapped him to join, essentially turning him into a Terrorist; and then patted itself on the back once it arrested him for having thwarted a "Terrorist plot" which, from start to finish, was entirely the FBI's own concoction. Having stopped a plot which it itself manufactured, the FBI then publicly touts -- and an uncritical media amplifies -- its "success" to the world, thus proving both that domestic Terrorism from Muslims is a serious threat and the Government's vast surveillance powers -- current and future new ones -- are necessary.
There are numerous claims here that merit further scrutiny and questioning. First, the FBI was monitoring the email communications of this American citizen on U.S. soil for months (at least) with what appears to be the flimsiest basis: namely, that he was in email communication with someone in Northwest Pakistan, "an area known to harbor terrorists" (para. 5 of the FBI Affidavit). Is that enough to obtain court approval to eavesdrop on someone's calls and emails? I'm glad the FBI is only eavesdropping with court approval, if that's true, but certainly more should be required for judicial authorization than that. Communicating with someone in Northwest Pakistan is hardly reasonable grounds for suspicion.
Second, in order not to be found to have entrapped someone into committing a crime, law enforcement agents want to be able to prove that, in the 1992 words of the Supreme Court, the accused was "was independently predisposed to commit the crime for which he was arrested." To prove that, undercover agents are often careful to stress that the accused has multiple choices, and they then induce him into choosing with his own volition to commit the crime. In this case, that was achieved by the undercover FBI agent's allegedly advising Mohamud that there were at least five ways he could serve the cause of Islam (including by praying, studying engineering, raising funds to send overseas, or becoming "operational"), and Mohamud replied he wanted to "be operational" by using exploding a bomb (para. 35-37).
But strangely, while all other conversations with Mohamud which the FBI summarizes were (according to the affidavit) recorded by numerous recording devices, this conversation -- the crucial one for negating Mohamud's entrapment defense -- was not. That's because, according to the FBI, the undercover agent "was equipped with audio equipment to record the meeting. However, due to technical problems, the meeting was not recorded" (para. 37).
Thus, we have only the FBI's word, and only its version, for what was said during this crucial -- potentially dispositive -- conversation. [...]
So, really, nothing about this makes me feel any better (emphasis mine):
After a week of public criticism for heightened security at airports, the White House suggested that the incident Friday in Portland may require federal action that some citizens might find objectionable.Portland, by the way, is not a member of the Joint Terrorism Task Force. City council voted to opt out of it in 2005.
"The events of the past 24 hours underscore the necessity of remaining vigilant against terrorism here and abroad," Abrams said. "The president thanks the FBI, Department of Justice and the rest of our law enforcement, intelligence and Homeland Security professionals who have once again served with extraordinary skill and resolve and with the commitment that their enormous responsibilities demand."
Today Mohamud will appear in federal court for his arraignment. He will be represented by Stephen Sady, an attorney who volunteered to defend prisoners at Guantanamo.
I am very interested in what will come out in court over the course of the trial. I hope that zealousness for Safety!™ didn't make a mountain out of a molehill, or rather, make an arrestable terrorist setting off a dummy bomb out of an otherwise disaffected (and yes, apparently angry and violence-fantasizing) young man who may not have amounted to anything in terms of actually being a terrorist otherwise.
