My Real Politik

News? More like Snooze

When I work from home, I generally have either CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News on my TV in the background (I like to get a diverse perspective). However, I find myself continually frustrated by these networks. While there's a stark difference in presentation from Fox to MSNBC... they're all reporting the same benign content.

The top stories rounding the news circuit right now are:

• ad nauseum coverage of Michael Jackson's final minutes; "his chef speaks out;" "his doctor is on the loose;" "half his brain is being kept on ice (wtf?)"
• tanning beds cause cancer (how is this even news? I thought this was a given)
• the President is having a beer with a cop and a black man (that's a start to a joke, I know it...)
• varying analysis of the Blue-dog Dems reaching a concensus on medical reform (one of the few news worthy stories)
• Michale Phelps lost a race (noooooooooo!)
• some 7 year old drove a car!

That's essentially it- I watched all three networks almost all day yesterday, and these fives stories were on repeat every hour. Meanwhile, here's a list of actul news events that are happening:

• US regulators cited false speculation as the cause of inflated oil prives in 2008 (as opposed to demand as reported by the Bush administration)
• Watchdog group delivers a petition to ABC and other news affiliates demanding they report on single payer health policy (as of yet, there have been zero stories on single payer)
• efforts to reduce home foreclosures by reducing payments have failed to curb foreclosure rates
• Tennessee Valley Authority ignored 20 years of warnings before coal ash disaster
• violence continues in Iraq (18 Iraqis dead; 27 wounded Tuesday)
• MIlitary concedes that Iraq airspace will remain under US control beyond 2011
• Colombia (the top recipient of US aid in the Americas despite one of the worst human rights abuses) joins the US forces in Afghanistan
• Poll: most Brits favor Afghan withdraw
• Btw, did you know there was a Coup in Honduras going on?
• Iran frees 140 prisoners, closes jail amidst allegations of torture
• Nigerian clashes continues b/w Muslim fighters and government forces

And the list goes on...

So, you have a 24-hour news cycle, and you can only report on a handful of stories- all of which have little to no substantial significance??? Why bother?

McCotter! You're on my Shit List!

Congressman Thaddeus McCotter has introduced a resolution to Congress that would force Obama to apologize to the Cambridge Police Department for the comments he made last week regarding the Lewis Gates arrest.

McCotter says "[President Obama] prejudged a private citizen, Officer Crowley's actions as being inappropriate. And then he reaffirmed it two days later. I don't think a President should have the power to do that. I think it's unfair to the private citizen."

First off, an Officer of the law is not a private citizen you moron. He is a public official acting on behalf of the public and the laws of the state.

Second off... you do realize that the first amendment actually gives the president the power to speak his mind? You think we should repeal the first amendment?

How about we introduce a resolution to force President Bush (who is now a public citizen) to apolagize to the American people for saying Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, or claiming "mission accomplished," or illegally spying on countless Americans.

GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS AND QUIT WASTING THE GOVERNMENT'S TIME!

WHAT?? Bill Kristol admits Gov't Run Health Care is Superior

This has been all over the news a bit lately, but on Monday July 26th, John Stewart had Republican Bill Kristol on his show. Kristol, a very outspoken opponent of government run health care, blatantly admitted that the government is perfectly capable of running a superior health program.

Bill Kristol- "The military has a different health system then the rest of Americans."
John Stewart- "It's a government run system is it not?"
Bill Kristol- "First of all its expensive...I think they deserve it."
John Stewart- "And the American public do not?"
Bill Kristol- "No, the American public do not deserve the same quiality of health care...since they're risking their lives, we give them first class health care..."
John Stewart- "So you just said that the government can run a first class health care system?"
Bill Kristol- "Sure it can."
John Stewart- "And that it's better then the insurance system..."
Bill Kristol- "I don't know if it's better."
John Stewart- "You just said it was better."

OOPS!

Obama's Doctor Supports Health Reform; Opposed Obama Plan

Here is an excerpt from a Democracy Now! interview of David Scheiner, Obama's doctor for 22 years. Scheiner was scheduled to appear on Obama's ABC Health Reform special a few weeks ago, but was disinvited only days before the event. He is a major proponent of "single-payer" health care.

Here are some highlights:

• Medicaid- a publicly funded health care plan- is far less restrictive than insurance plans
• People are told the American Health system is the best in the world- in fact, it is ranked 37th in the world
• People are largely uninformed about the health industry
• The insurance industry inflates costs and limits a patient's ability to receive proper care
• Malpractice insurance forces doctors to recommend treatment/preventative measures that are ultimately futile, costly, and unnecessary

THE FOG OF TORTURE

"''The worst thing in the world is different for everyone...for everyone there is something unendurable...

 It is merely an instinct which can not be disobeyed...''

The mask was closing on his face. The wire brushed his cheek. And then- no, it was not relief, only hope, a tiny fragment of hope.

'Do it to Julia! Do it to Julia~ Not me! Julia! I don't care what you do to her.

Tear her face off, strip her to the bones. Not me!'"

-George Orwell, 1984

Sadly, this excerpt from 1984 of betrayal could easily have been lifted from CIA documents describing the "harsh interrogation techniques (torture)" used on detainees in the War on Terror. It is almost exactly what was done to Abu Zubaydah after being waterboarded "at least 83 times."

The defenders of these techniques claim that they have provided significant intell, prevented further attacks on Americans, and lead to new insight into the world of Al Qadea that helped to save American lives. Furthermore, forcing someone to stand for a few hours (as former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield pointed out^[1]), simulating drowning, or occasionally roughing someone up seems to be rather tame when contrasted to the murder of thousands of Americans on 9/11.

"When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry.... These are evil people..."

Former Vice President Dick Cheney, February 4, 2009^[2]

Yet, as Attorney General Eric Holder grows ever closer to appointing a special prosecutor to investigate these interrogations, it is becoming apparent that the issue is not as simple as Cheney et al. would have us believe. Taking a look at recently declassified documents and legal opinions, lets see if we can cut through the ambiguity and gain a better understanding of what really happened.

Video Testimony from Two Terrorism Suspects

I'm reposting two videos that I produced while working for Boing Boing Video. They were a collaboration with Witness and various human rights groups around the globe. Here, two detainees describe their experinece while being in US custody. I warn you- some of this testimony is graphic:

State Dept Pleading to use Firefox!

Have you ever tried to help someone having difficulty with their internet browser only to realize they're using Internet Explorer instead of Firefox? "Silly noob" we all laugh!

Perhaps we should let the U.S. State Department in on our superior internet expertise...

During a recent Q & A with Secretary Hillary Clinton and Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy, State Dept. employee Jim Finkle pleaded for the Dept. to be able to use Firefox instead of Internet Explorer:

Finkle: Can you please let the staff use an alternative Web browser called Firefox? (applause)... It was approved for the entire intelligence community, so I don't understand why State can't use it. It's a much safer program. Thank you. (Applause.)

Clinton: Well, apparently, there's a lot of support for this suggestion. (Laughter.) I don't know the answer. Pat, do you know the answer? (Laughter.)

Kennedy: The answer is, at the moment, it's an expense question. We can --

Finkle: It's free. (Laughter.)

Kennedy: Nothing is free... (Laughter.)

Common people, lets step into the 21st Century together! Yes we can! Right?

Source: CNet News

HOW BA-CZAR

According to some estimates, there are currently 32 appointed Czars of various sectors within the Obama Administration. So just what the heck does that mean? Who are these people, and should we be concerned about their accountability?

A What-a-czar-us?

Almost every major blog has cited ad nauseum the Wikipedia listing for Czar (actually Tsar). The only part of this article that is relevant to the discussion is the very last section entitled "Metaphorical Uses." The term "czar" is noted as first popping into American politics in reference to the 17th President Andrew Johnson.

Semantically, Czar is really just a informal term used to describe high-level officials. "Czar" seems to have been first popularly used in a Time Magazine article in December 1973, referring to William E. Simon's appointment as the head of the Federal Energy Administration. The term "Czar" was affirmed in 1982 by current Vice President Joe Biden when referring to the congressional establishment of a "drug czar."

It is important to remember that the term "czar" is merely an informal term used by the media, and propagated by members of the government. (An interesting letter from the United States Government Accountability Office to the House of Representatives that discusses whether the term 'czar' is a form of illegal self-aggrandization can be found here.) It is NOT an official title, but an abridged version of titles like the Head of White House Office of Nation Drug Control Policy. (By this logic, Michael Steel could be thought of as the Republican Czar.)

I have to point out that the conservative criticism of Obama's czars is about eight years too late- former President Bush had the second largest number of Czar appointments in presidential history.

Here's just a few of our current "czars":

• Energy czar Carol Browner
• Urban czar Adolfo Carrion, Jr.
• Infotech czar Vivek Kundra
• Drug czar Gil Kerlikowske
• Terrorism czar John Brennan
• Stimulus accountability czar Earl Devaney
• Health reform czar Nancy-Ann DeParle
• Intelligence czar Dennis Blai
• Border czar Alan Bersin

CZARing Above Accountability?

It's important to note that many of these appointments must be approved by Congress (eight in total), and some are even mandated by Congress (including the Drug Czar and Energy Czar).

The debate of the use of "czars" goes back to the Andrew Jackson presidency when he was accused of running a "kitchen cabinet" rather then a constitutional cabinet. The concern is that these appointed individuals could potentially have access to the White House and it's powers without any official oversight. It runs the risk of giving the Executive Branch a significant amount of power to push forward an agenda without any opposition or accountability.

Yet, very few of these individuals actually report directly to the President- most actually have to report to their respective Cabinet Chiefs.

The "czar" position is really just the point man- someone the President can essentially dump all responsibility on to achieve a certain goal- be it boarder security, TARP accountability, or Congressional oversight. It's a lot easier to get things done when one person has one major goal then to expect your Cabinet members to juggle a number of crucial tasks at once.

Why not have them all approved by Congress?

I think the answer to this is simple- have you seen how long it takes to get something or someone through Congress? Every appointment, regardless of left or right, ends up being heavily politicized. Recently, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke out against the Administrations vetting process, citing that getting positions in the government filled is a virtual "nightmare." People have even declined jobs within the government simply because they choose not to deal with the process being approved. With Obama's agenda attempting to attack a number of different problems- all of which need immediate attention- perhaps he feels we can't afford to allow these issues to get bogged down by a bunch of beurocratic red tape. Moreover, I think one has to ask- does Congressional approval really guarantee any sense of legitimacy?

Czar-ry,  No Cigar

In the end, the debate over "czars" is one played out in the media by those looking to make something of nothing. It's a scary name that incites feelings of dictatorship and facism, and generally when political debates start to become emotional, it's time to back up and reevaluate. 

So the President appointed people tasked with taking on specific issues. Isn't that his job?

For More:
Think Progress
Politico
Open Salon (read the comments for a well rounded debate)

BUZZ ALDRIN: A CERTIFIABLE ICON

In light of the recently restored Moon footage circulating the airwaves, I wanted to repost this interview I shot of Buzz Aldrin during my time at Boing Boing TV. It was really only after we got back from the shoot and rewatched this footage that we realized that Buzz, for all his heroicism, is pretty much a kook. Don't get me wrong- a piece of American history and iconography, but he is pretty damn certifiable.

My favorite headline from when this circulated around the blogosphere was a posting on WIRED: "Xeni Jardin interviews Buzz Aldrin. Buzz fails to notice."

We love you Buzz.

THE BIRTH OF A FANTA

I was recently watching "The Corporation," an extremely influential documentary on the history of corporate influence in American life- I'd strongly recommended the film if you haven't seen it- you can watch almost the whole thing on Youtube. In the film, there is a section in which they talk about the American corporate collusion with Nazi Germany during WWII and the above commercial was thusly inspired.

Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia on the history of Fanta:

"Fanta has its origins in Germany,^[1] when a trading ban was placed on that nation by the Allies during World War II.^[1] The Coca-Cola company therefore was not able to import the syrup needed to produce Coca-Cola in Germany.^[1] As a result, Max Keith, the man in charge of Coca-Cola's operations in Germany during the second World War, decided to create a new product for the German market created using only ingredients available in Germany.^[1] The Coca-Cola company called the new product Fanta, derived from "Fantasie" (German for "fantasy" or "imagination")."

There are many parodies and accusations of how Coca Cola was somehow intimately involved with the Nazis and they are largely fallacious and they detract from the real lessons that can be learned from the birth of Fanta. What should disturb you about Coca Cola's production in Germany is that they essentially were dealing with what we would call now a "terrorist state." The trend continues today with corporate involvement with Iran, Syria, North Korea, Columbia, Sudan, etc.

When former President Bush announced “If you do business with terrorists, if you support or sponsor them, you will not do business with the United States of America,” there should be an asterisk that cites exemption for the American corporation. The US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control is responsible for assessing fines to corporations who deal countries the State Department considers to be sponsors of terrorism. These fines were originally kept secret by the OFAC, but after a 2002 Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, the OFAC agreed to post monthly reports on who has been fined. These reports are posted as "Release of Civil Penalties Information," and can be downloaded via the website. The list of companies that have been fined for sponsoring terrorism include Amazon.com, Caterpillar, Chevron/Texaco, Citibank, Exon/Mobile, Wal-Mart, Wells Fargo, and the list goes on. Yet, ironically, the severity of the fines facing companies were virutally cut in half on average after 9/11.

So... what to do about this? I suppose the bleeding heart liberal in me would say "boycot all companies that sponsor terrorism (or would that be the die-hard conservative War on Terror supporter?)." But unless I plan on living a celebate life on a farm in the middle of Utah, I don't see that happening. At the very least, as long as we know- it's a step in the right direction.