Crooks and Liars

Canada Pranked By "The Yes Men" At Climate Change Summit

CSPANJunkie — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:00:51 +0000

DOWNLOADS: (91)

PLAYS: (240)

December 14, 2009 CBC The National

A group of veteran pranksters have stepped forward to say they are responsible for a series of fake news releases sent out Monday that claimed Canada had committed to drastic greenhouse gas emission cuts.

The U.S.-based Yes Men told The Associated Press they launched the complicated hoax to expose what the group feels is Canada's failure to take tough action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

A first fake announcement released around 8 a.m. ET Monday claiming to originate from Environment Canada said Canada had drastically changed its greenhouse gas emission reduction targets to levels preferred by environmentalists. The cuts in emissions cited were significantly greater than those Canada has publicly committed to.

Reporters who received the announcement at the United Nations climate change summit in Copenhagen were skeptical, however, as the stance in the email seemed particularly far off the government's public comments to date.

The broadly distributed email attributed quotes to Environment Minister Jim Prentice, who is in Copenhagen representing Canada at the summit, which the United Nations hopes will lead to a replacement agreement to the Kyoto Protocol that expires in 2012. Read more at the CBC

Mike's Blog Roundup

Mike Finnigan — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:00:00 +0000

Raw Story: 135,000 uninsured Americans will die before health reform takes effect, analysis finds. Some useless Dems will declare ‘victory’ but Dean says “kill it.”

Consortiumblog:: How banks fleece the unemployed

The Agonist: Hoyer: Bring back Glass-Steagall

Balloon Juice: Somebody hose off Vitter

Climate Progress: Gore derangement syndrome

James Wolcott is deadly...

Open Thread

Nicole Belle — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 04:30:56 +0000

Idiot bobbleheads aside, what grade do YOU give the President?

Open thread below.

C&L's Late Night Music Club With 2010 Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame Inductees

Logan Murphy — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 04:00:32 +0000

The 2010 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees have been announced:

Today, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation announced ABBA, Genesis, Jimmy Cliff, The Hollies and The Stooges as its 2010 artist inductees. Also being inducted this year as individual recipients of the Ahmet Ertegun Award will be David Geffen and songwriters Barry Mann, Cynthia Weil, Elle Greenwich, Jeff Barry, Jesse Stone, Mort Shuman and Otis Blackwell. Read on...

I chose to post videos of both Genesis (with Peter Gabriel) and The Stooges, (RIP Ron Asheton) and I'm curious to know our reader's thoughts on this year's inductees -- and your thoughts on artists you think should have made the cut.

He Is The Very Model of A Double-Dipping General. Conflict Much?

Susie Madrak — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 03:15:21 +0000

Talk about double-dipping! I wonder if it would be too much to ask that media outlets ask about such conflicts before they offer them outlets as "objective" analysts:

WASHINGTON — After retiring from the Marine Corps in December 2003, Emil "Buck" Bedard headed back to work — for both the Pentagon and defense contractors.

Two months after leaving the service as a lieutenant general, Bedard became an adviser for the Pentagon's Joint Forces Command, a job that this year paid him about $1,600 per day to help run war games and mentor high-level commanders on how to lead troops in battle. Bedard also signed on with seven defense contractors as a corporate director or consultant.

For one of those firms, Bedard marketed a video surveillance system to the Marines during the time he was getting paid by the Pentagon for mentoring, even after a general concluded that the technology "did not work as advertised," a USA TODAY investigation found.

Bedard's activities present a case study of the kinds of situations that arise when retired senior officers become paid Pentagon advisers even as they market products to the military as consultants for defense contractors. USA TODAY reported last month that roughly 130 retired generals and admirals have held taxpayer-funded military jobs as "senior mentors" while also working for defense contractors.

Bedard's case goes beyond getting paid to advise the government and industry at the same time. E-mails and interviews show that Bedard pushed for his former service branch to buy the video system, including sending e-mails while on mentoring assignments.

"In the corporate world, this ... would not be tolerated," said Kirk Hanson, director of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University in California.

"It is not uncommon for someone to consult with their former employer, but it is a major concern if they are simultaneously representing groups that sell to or try to influence their former employer."

Voices Of The Shrill - Dr. W.S. McBirnie And The Vast Leftist EPA Conspiracy - 1980s

Gordonskene — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 02:45:21 +0000

DOWNLOADS: 315

PLAYS: 320

(Dr. W.S. "Stuart" McBirnie - warnings against the all-malevolent "them")

Every time I hear about "Liberal Media", another batch of tapes fall off my shelves, always from some extreme right-wing group, or quasi-religious organization with an extreme agenda. Never fails. There are thousands of them. The airwaves have been jam-packed with them since the beginnings of broadcasting.

This particular tape comes by way of The Voice Of Americanism, a daily radio (and later TV) show hosted by William Stuart McBirnie, a wildly anti-Communist preacher who was heard on over 300 stations from the early 1960's to the 1980s.

On this broadcast, from the 1980s (no exact date) he plays host to a Gordon Browning who was Executive Assistant to California State Senator H.L. "Bill" Richardson. Not much is known about Browning (although I'm sure someone out there has a whole file someplace), but Richardson, who has since "retired" from the State Senate, is around and flying slightly under the radar.

The subject of the broadcast is how the left manipulate people through issues - this issue being Clean Air. Sound familiar?

McBirnie: “Smog is not only a product of automobiles, it is also the product of many things. Now, help us understand though, how the leftists and the Stateists, the people who want to control people, are stepping into this picture to use this problem?”

Have a listen and have at it. Should be lively.

Oh . . .and hit the button below and feel a whole lot better!

Children's Defense Fund: Forcing SCHIP Into Insurance Exchange Will Price Families Out

Susie Madrak — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 02:00:57 +0000

File this one under "Law of Unintended Consequences" and hope to God someone brings this to the attention of the relevant parties:

Where are the chips falling, so to speak, when it comes to the popular State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)? The press ought to be finding out, and fast. Last week, the Children’s Defense Fund sent me an invitation for an informational call discussing SCHIP’s future: “If the Senate doesn’t take a stand for children in the next days or weeks, our worst fears could clearly come to pass.” The dire-sounding invite piqued my interest, especially since I had read in the House bill that SCHIP would be repealed. What was going on?

It turns out that the House indeed wants to repeal the program and require kids to get coverage via the insurance exchange, the government’s soon-to-be gigantic brokerage service. Their parents, of course, would be getting subsidies to help buy coverage, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. Rep. John Dingell, a Democrat no less, touted the advantages of dumping SCHIP. One advantage: the program wouldn’t be subject to the periodic and occasionally problematic Congressional reauthorizations that threaten its existence. Dingell said kids could have the same insurance as their parents—an incentive to force parents to cover their kids. (Sometimes parents, daunted by bureaucratic red tape, don’t enroll their children even if they are eligible.)

Another reason for killing SCHIP, some believe, is to force kids into the new exchange’s risk pool. Kids are usually healthy; bringing them into the pool may help spread the risk and keep premiums somewhat lower for the sick people whom insurers would have to cover.

But in return, kids would be hurt, says Alison Buist, director of child health at the Children’s Defense Fund. She told me that if the House provision were to take effect, kids might lose some valuable and comprehensive benefits now available to kids on Medicaid and SCHIP. If parents, strapped for cash, had to shop in the exchange, they might choose low-cost insurance with skimpy benefits and pay more out-of-pocket than SCHIP currently requires them to pay. SCHIP rules limit a family’s out-of-pocket costs to five percent of their income. States don’t even impose the five percent, Buist said, because they have found parents with low incomes couldn’t pay that much. So it seems that there’s a cost shift here—making poor families pay more so that sick (and most likely older) people buying in the exchange would pay less.

The more I see of this Frankenstein plan, the more I see we need single-payer universal coverage. Period.

Dana Perino wants Obama to stop blaming Bush, since he's being so nice by staying silent

David Neiwert — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 01:00:54 +0000

DOWNLOADS: (387)

PLAYS: (823)

Ex-White House Press Secretary Dana Perino told Greta Van Susteren last night on Fox that she wished President Obama would stop making those unpleasant allusions to her old boss, George W. Bush. Because, you know, Bush has not been taking shots at Obama.

Oddly, nary a mention of Dick Cheney was heard.

Perino was upset that Obama, in his interview for 60 Minutes, referenced Bush's military triumphalism:

Obama: And one of the mistakes that was made over the last eight years is for us to have a triumphant sense about war.

There was a tendency to say, "We can go in. We can kick some tail. This is some glorious exercise." When in fact, this is a tough business.

But Van Susteren at least pointed out that when George W. Bush was president, there was no shortage of blaming the previous administration:

Van Susteren: When President Bush 43 took office, was he critical in a similar way of President Clinton, his predecessor? Because one of the things I think we all want to think about, is we want our presidents having greatness about them and not getting petty.

Perino: I wasn't there at the beginning, and I think there is a certain amount of comparison that has to go on at the beginning. But almost everyone -- the left, right, and center -- columnists, even late-night talk-show hosts, are suggesting to President Obama that he lay off.

Well, no, Dana, you weren't around in the early years of the Bush administration. So maybe you weren't there for the endless list of things that Bush blamed Clinton for -- some of which included the following:

In 2002, he blamed Clinton for the recession.

Also in 2002, for the mess in the Middle East.

In 2004, for manufacturing job losses.

Also in 2004, for a shortage of flu vaccine.

In 2005, for "running from terrorists" and generally causing 9/11.

In 2006, for Bush's own failures in containing North Korea.

In 2008, for the soaring deficit.

But the best part came when she suggested Obama should not blame Bush for anything because Bush has been nice and quiet since the election and not criticized Obama:

Perino: Look, I think the other thing that you've seen is that President Bush has been an incredibly gracious post-president during the transition, and he said, 'President Obama deserves my silence.' and I would daresay that he deserves a lot more respect than he's getting right now.

Sure, Bush has been "gracious" because all Republicans have to do is send out Bush's surrogate thug, Vice President Cheney -- who in fact probably had at least as much to do with the direction of policy matters in the Bush administration as Bush himself did -- to do the dirty work for him.

Just last week, Cheney told the nation that the Obama administration was committing treason.

Before that, Cheney accused Obama of "dithering" on Afghanistan. He attacked Obama's decision to investigate torture policies under the Bush/Cheney regime. And he criticized Obama's Iraq withdrawal plans.

Yeah, pretty freaking gracious, those Republicans.

It's important to remind the public just how we got in this mess, and to remind them that the people who got us here want us to forget that fact. Their only hope is to cover their tracks, and Dana Perino is in the business of doing that.

Right-wing "24" creator Joel Surnow will produce mini-series about the Kennedy family

John Amato — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:00:49 +0000

The man responsible for trying to make torture a moral imperative for America now gets the opportunity to produce an eight-hour miniseries about the Kennedy family.

Joel Surnow is swapping “real time” political intrigue for historical realism. The “24″ co-creator is executive producing “The Kennedys,” an eight-hour miniseries about one of America’s most iconic political families, for the History Channel. Unlike “24,” however, “The Kennedys” will be as historically accurate as possible and not feature any gimmickry.

“We’re not trying to be too clever about it,” said Surnow, who developed the project with Muse Entertainment for the Network. “We’re just telling the story on an episode by episode basis.”
Surnow says he and series writer Steve Kronish were most interested in cobbling together a dynastic story about family ambition. “That some of the most important events of the 20th century, such as the Bay of Pigs or the civil rights movement, is in the background, is almost besides the point,” he said. Focusing on the idea of a father living out his ambitions through his sons (”primarily Jack and Bobby, though Teddy was in the mix”), the series — which Surnow likens more to a season of the “Sopranos” than a traditional miniseries — will take place between the years of 1960 and 1968, but with plenty of flashbacks, such as Joe Sr. being rejected by a Harvard club.

He's not a partisan hack at all. He simply makes the case that the Kennedys are just like the Sopranos, who made sure to whack as many people after they ate their cannolis and espresso as possible.

He also decries anyone who may try to tie his conservative politics into the project. “My politics have never guided my interest in stories and movies,” he said. “I completely understand where critics are coming from, because of my creating the ‘1/2 Hour News Hour’ show for Fox News and the issue over torture on ‘24.’ But it’s honestly not going to have much play in terms of where this story comes out. Steve Kronish is politically different from me, and at the end of the day, we’re telling a story about a family. So it’s not about the politics.” (Fox News is owned by News Corp, as is the Wall Street Journal.)

Now why would we think Surnow is a right-wing hack simply for creating a TV show that had to scale back the amount of torture he depicted and a comedy show for FOX News that attacked progressives and Democrats entirely.

Using Limbaugh and Coulter as your stars was just in good fun for Joel.

How stupid are we to think his politics would ever seep into this production?

Extraordinary Rendition: The CIA's Worst-Kept Secret

Suzanne Ito — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 23:00:20 +0000

Kidnap subject. Strip off his clothes and dress him in a tracksuit. Blindfold and shackle him. Force headphones over his ears. Fly him to an unknown location to be interrogated, tortured, and imprisoned. Repeat.

This is the practice of "extraordinary rendition," and the experience of 35-year-old U.K. resident Binyam Mohamed on his journey home to London from Pakistan in July 2002. He was kidnapped to Morocco, where he was held for 18 months and tortured repeatedly. "They cut off my clothes with some kind of doctor's scalpel," he wrote in his diary. "I was totally naked…One of them took my penis in his hand and began to make a cut…He did it once, then stood still for maybe a minute, watch my reaction. It was an agony, [I was] crying, trying desperately to suppress my feelings, but I was screaming. There was blood all over."

This was just one of 20 to 30 incidents in which Mohamed was cut on his genitals while detained in Morocco. Interrogators routinely beat him, breaking bones and sometimes knocking him unconscious. He was frequently threatened with rape, electrocution and death, drugged repeatedly, and forced to listen to loud music day and night.

In January 2004, he was handcuffed and blindfolded again, placed in a van and driven to an airfield, then stripped, photographed extensively and put on a plane to a "Dark Prison" in Kabul, Afghanistan. Mohamed endured similar torture and daily interrogations in Kabul. In May, he was sent to Bagram. In September, he was sent to Guantánamo Bay. Mohamed was in Guantánamo for more than four years, and was released in February 2009. His military commission charges were dropped in October 2008.

While his case wends its way through the U.K. judicial system, which has so far agreed with Mohamed's claims that British intelligence agents were party to his rendition, Mohamed is also the lead plaintiff in our lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen DataPlan Inc., the company that provided critical logistics and travel planning services for more than 70 extraordinary rendition flights in a four-year period—including the ones to render Mohamed to Morocco and to Afghanistan.

When we filed the case against Jeppesen back in May 2007, the government immediately intervened, claiming the entire subject matter was a state secret and that allowing the case to proceed would endanger national security. The district court bought that argument in February 2008, and dismissed our case.

We know about Mohamed's ordeal, as well as similar accounts by our other clients, because the Bush administration's use of extraordinary rendition has been chronicled in magazines, newspapers, documentaries and even official U.S. government documents obtained under Freedom of Information Act litigation. So much is known about the practice, in fact, that to call it a "secret" is absurd.

We appealed the district court decision in June 2008 and, in February of this year, we argued before a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that the state secrets privilege must only be invoked with regard to specific pieces of evidence, not used to dismiss a suit at the outset. But the Department of Justice, now under President Obama, toed the Bush administration line and maintained that extraordinary rendition is still a state secret, despite the reams of information about the program already available to the public.

In April 2009, the 9th Circuit agreed with the ACLU that the government can only use the state secrets privilege to block specific pieces of evidence, not to throw out whole cases, and sent the case back to district court. The DOJ requested that the 9th Circuit re-hear the case, this time before an en banc panel of 11 judges. The 9th Circuit granted that request.

Today, for the third time in this case, we'll argue against the use of state secrets privilege. We haven't gotten anywhere near the substance of the case: whether it was illegal for Jeppesen to assist the CIA in kidnapping men like Binyam Mohamed to places like Morocco where they would be tortured.

In his speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize last Thursday, President Obama said: "Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable." We couldn't agree more.

Which is why it's galling that the Obama administration has obstructed accountability for torture and rendition at every turn. It's withheld information about the Bush administration's torture, detention and interrogation program in our Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. It refuses to release the photos depicting this torture and abuse. It even denies that torture was illegal at Guantanamo from 2002 to 2004. And it argues that the extraordinary rendition program is a state secret.

If this continues, the Obama administration will create a framework for impunity that will only embolden future administrations to ignore the rule of law. Torturers will feel free to torture, and presidents will feel free to break the law.

Another plaintiff in Jeppesen, Mohamed Farag Bashmilah, recently penned an opinion piece about his forced disappearance in the name of national security. He writes: “The American public deserves to know what was done to people like me — and I deserve to know why I lost nineteen months of my life — all in the name of protecting their security... Truth and justice are not in opposition; both are necessary, and both are the right of all Americans and the victims harmed in their name.”

Torture victims deserve their day in court. Tell President Obama to stop covering up the Bush administration’s torture program.