On Saturday, D.C. NPR station WAMU-FM promoted a segment of its weekend "Animal House" talk show with a dramatic twist on the Constitution. The show promoted a lawsuit by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to end "animal slavery" at marine parks.

As WAMU put it, The 13th Amendment "was intended to abolish domestic slavery and involuntary servitude. The authors would probably be surprised to learn 146 years later that same mandate is being used to justify constitutional rights for 5 killer whales who 'perform' at Sea World in San Diego and Orlando." Host Sam Litzinger interviewed Jeff Kerr, a PETA vice president, who claimed as his inspiration one ultraliberal named Laurence Tribe:

KERR: The idea originated from Professor Laurence Tribe who is a Harvard constitutional law scholar, and is based very simply on the notion that the 13th Amendment is worded broadly, and the plain text of the amendment does not limit it to a particular class of victims, nor does it use the word person, and so the lawsuit stands for the very simple proposition that slavery should not depend upon the species of the animal, which is why the five plaintiffs in the case are the five wild captured orcas at Sea World San Diego and Sea World Orlando.

…By any definition, they're enslaved. First, they were all violently ripped from their families decades ago. They would spend their entire lives with their families in nature, males up to 60 years, females 90 years. They are denied everything natural to them. They are kept in the equivalent of concrete bathtubs that make them aggressive and stress them out greatly. They're forced to perform for Sea World's profit, and they're turned into virtual breeding machines to churn out more performers for Sea World's tawdry shows.

LITZINGER: Talk about the 13th Amendment in particular now, because that's the — I think for legal scholars in particular, that is the fascinating aspect of this. Are we not dealing specifically with human beings in the 13th Amendment?

KERR: This historical context, as you related to earlier, is undeniable, and is very well known, but that's the beauty of our Constitution. It's a living document. As our society evolves, it is constantly interpreted and applied to different situations. The plain language of the amendment is not limited to any particular group or individual victims, and does not use the word person, and the amendment outlaws the condition of slavery in all of its forms. It is a condition that is so abhorrent that the amendment declares it illegal anywhere in the United States, period.

The interview aired originally in mid-November, a few weeks after PETA filed its suit in San Diego. The whole concept grew more ridiculous as the interview wrapped up:

LITZINGER: I would think your attorney-client meetings must be fascinating. Have you had any?

KERR: [Laughter] Well, that's where the next friends come in. Obviously the orcas cannot go to court themselves, and so they're represented in this case by what the law refers to as next friends which are PETA, we have three international orca experts, and two former Sea World trainers, and next friends in the legal context are simply parties who will represent the best interests of the plaintiffs throughout the litigation.

Fox News reported when the lawsuit was filed:

The plaintiffs are the five orcas, Tilikum and Katina based at SeaWorld in Orlando, Fla., and Corky, Kasatka and Ulises at SeaWorld San Diego. Tilikum, a six-ton male, made national news in February 2010 when he grabbed a trainer at the close of a performance and dragged her underwater until she drowned.

Captured nearly 30 years ago off Iceland, Tilikum has enormous value as a stud and has fathered many of the calves born at SeaWorld parks. The lawsuit asks the court to order the orcas released to the custody of a legal guardian who would find a "suitable habitat" for them.

"By any definition, these orcas are slaves — kidnapped from their homes, kept confined, denied everything that's natural to them and forced to perform tricks for SeaWorld's profit," said Kerr. "The males have their sperm collected, the females are artificially inseminated and forced to bear young which are sometimes shipped away."

SeaWorld said any effort to extend the 13th Amendment's protections beyond humans "is baseless and in many ways offensive."

"SeaWorld is among the world's most respected zoological institutions," the company said. "There is no higher priority than the welfare of the animals entrusted to our care and no facility sets higher standards in husbandry, veterinary care and enrichment."

On Thursday's The Early Show, CBS hosted a guest who implicated climate change as one of the factors contributing to many weather disasters in 2011, and he ended up warning of more droughts in the future. After asserting that 2011 was an unusually active year for natural disasters, Dr. M. Sanjayan of the Nature Conservancy including climate change in the list of influences:

There's a perfect storm of events. We had a La Nina year, we had this thing called Arctic oscillation that drifted further South, but then we also have this underlying factor of climate change that makes everything warmer and supercharges the atmosphere, plus people today are living in places that sometimes puts them in harm's way.

As he recounted the heat waves of July, he intoned: "You only have to say Texas, 100 days of above 100 degrees in Texas. Can you imagine living through that? And that wasn't just a U.S. phenomenon. That was a global phenomenon. That's only going to get worse."

As he dismissed the likelihood of more tornadoes in 2012, he ended up predicting that there would be more droughts caused by climate change in 2012:

It's not going to be as bad because it's a La Nina year again, but a weak La Nina year. That's what people are saying. Now, that said, climate change is continuing, so you're going to continue to see droughts, but I don't think we're going to suffer from as many tornadoes and things like that like last year. So that's the positive news. Droughts are going to continue probably.

Below are complete video and a transcript of a portion of the segment from the Thursday, December 29, The Early Show on CBS:

DEBBYE TURNER BELL: But first, this is a record year for extreme weather – 96 declared disasters in the U.S., costing billions of dollars and killing more than 1,000 people.

JEFF GLOR: Here to look at the top five weather events of 2011 is M. Sanjayan, lead scientist at the Nature Conservancy. … So, 2011, how bad was it, relatively speaking, weather-wise?

DOCTOR M. SANJAYAN, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: So this is not the media hyping something. It really was a lot worse, about three to four times worse in terms of big disasters than we've ever seen before.

GLOR: And why?

SANJAYAN: That's a harder question. There's a perfect storm of events. We had a La Nina year, we had this thing called Arctic oscillation that drifted further South, but then we also have this underlying factor of climate change that makes everything warmer and supercharges the atmosphere, plus people today are living in places that sometimes puts them in harm's way.

..

SANJAYAN: You only have to say Texas, 100 days of above 100 degrees in Texas. Can you imagine living through that? And that wasn't just a U.S. phenomenon. That was a global phenomenon. That's only going to get worse.

…

GLOR: And looking at it 2012, more tornadoes? Any predictions on what happens here?

SANJAYAN: It's not going to be as bad because it's a La Nina year again, but a weak La Nina year. That's what people are saying. Now, that said, climate change is continuing, so you're going to continue to see droughts, but I don't think we're going to suffer from as many tornadoes and things like that like last year. So that's the positive news. Droughts are going to continue probably.
 

On December 31, 2003, looking ahead to the upcoming 2004 election year, an Associated Press reporter — I think it would have been Jennifer Loven at the time — wrote about how George W. Bush was going to spend as much of the next 10-plus months as possible figuring that "he no longer needs Congress to promote his agenda." Therfore, he would use "aggressive campaign fundraising and use executive action to try to boost the economy." Thus, his "re-election year will focus almost exclusively on executive action" at the rate of "at least two or three directives per week." Sadly, this meant that Bush's "election year retreat from legislative fights means" that his "term will end without significant progress on two of his … campaign promises."

Oops, I'm sorry. That AP report never happened. The high-handed, non-governing, non-legislating, campaign-driven agenda is what Barack Obama, his White House apparatchiks, and his reelection campaign have said they will do in 2012 — and Julie Pace at the Associated Press seems to heartily approve (bolds repeating what was quoted in the first paragraph above are mine):

---

In 2012, Obama to press ahead without Congress

Leaving behind a year of bruising legislative battles, President Barack Obama enters his fourth year in office having calculated that he no longer needs Congress to promote his agenda and may even benefit in his re-election campaign if lawmakers accomplish little in 2012.

Absent any major policy pushes, much of the year will focus on winning a second term. The president will keep up a robust domestic travel schedule and aggressive campaign fundraising and use executive action to try to boost the economy.

… Aides say the president will not turn his back on Congress completely in the new year. He is expected to once again push lawmakers to pass elements of his jobs bill that were blocked by Republicans last fall.

If those efforts fail, the White House says, Obama's re-election year will focus almost exclusively on executive action.

(White House deputy press secretary Josh) Earnest said Obama will come out with at least two or three directives per week, continuing the "We Can't Wait" campaign the administration began this fall, and try to define Republicans in Congress as gridlocked and dysfunctional.

Obama's election year retreat from legislative fights means this term will end without significant progress on two of his 2008 campaign promises, an immigration overhaul and closing the military prison for terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

It would appear that Julie Pace, the Associated Press, and probably almost everyone else in the establishment press has resolved that in 2012 they will not raise the specter of the "imperial presidency" which was raised largely without justification during the two terms of Bush 43 (and frequently by candidate Barack Obama in 2007 and 2008), even though the "We Can't Wait" campaign may be the most obviously brazen attempt at one-sided unilateral use of executive branch power the nation has seen since the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

All the while, the national debt will continue climbing to over $16 trillion by Election Day, while the administration blithely assumes that the nation won't hit an interally or externally triggered financial wall in the meantime. Somehow, "derelict" doesn't even begin to adequately describe this.

Happy New Year to all. Monitoring the establishment media in 2012 will clearly require more effort and intensity than ever before.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Not just fuzzy math, shabby too.

Chris Hayes, guest hosting on "The Rachel Maddow Show" Thursday, opened a segment with the words, "From the Department of Shameless Schadenfraude." Department of Feeble Attempts at Moral Equivalence would be more accurate. (video after page break)

The ever-perky Hayes, MSNBC's answer to Katie Couric, lip-smacked his way through a description of Newt Gingrich condemning the now-deservedly defunct ACORN in a September 2009 op-ed.

In the op-ed, titled "The real ACORN scandal: Its enablers," Gingrich wrote, as quoted by Hayes –

… this is not ACORN's first documented violation of the law. ACORN has a long history of engaging in voter fraud. Seventy ACORN staffers in 12 states have been convicted of voter registration fraud by adding such notables as Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck to the voter rolls.

… ACORN is in fact the political dirty tricks muscle of liberal Democrats. …

Republicans should propose and Democrats should support a thorough, independent investigation of ACORN'S octopuslike structure, including all of its associations with organized labor and its sources of federal funding.

To which Hayes added, "Because obviously any politician who funnels money to an enterprise that commits voter fraud needs to be scrutinized. Heck, penalized. So, hmm, interesting. I wonder what Gingrich of 2009 would say about this admission by Gingrich of 2011," Hayes asked, followed by a clip of Gingrich interviewed a day earlier –

Oh, it was just a mistake. We hired somebody who turned in false signatures. I mean, we turned in 11,100, we needed 10,000, but 1,500 were turned in by one guy who frankly committed fraud.

Gingrich was referring to his failure to qualify for the Virginia primary ballot, which he blamed on a paid signature collector turning in 1,500 fake signatures. "So, when it's ACORN," Hayes responded, "call in the federal government to investigate the political dirty tricks muscle of liberal Democrats. When it's Newt's own campaign (Gingrich's remarks heard again), oh, is that all? Well then, never mind."

And if 70 people from the Gingrich campaign end up convicted of voter fraud, by all means, call in the feds. Heck, even a fraction of that might be evidence of a pattern — unless you're an MSNBC host still smitten with the voter-fraud felons and child-prostitution enablers at ACORN.

Also worth noting from Thursday's Maddow show was a tongue-tied Hayes struggling to describe scientists discovering the cause of the winged frenzy that inspired Hitchcock's "The Birds." In particular, Hayes' imaginative take on the word "foggy" (1:24 in a clip I placed on YouTube) is worth a gander, one of several verbal challenges he encountered.

Hayes was one of four former members of the notorious lefty JournoList to appear on the show that night, along with Ezra Klein, Spencer Ackerman and Dave Weigel. Surprisingly, Ackerman refrained from making baseless accusations of racism against conservatives, nor did he urge that any be shoved through a plate-glass window, if only rhetorically.

Is there anything more ridiculous than being accused of saying “despicable and ugly things” by…Al Sharpton? On Thursday’s Morning Joe, MSNBC brought in Sharpton as part of a tag-team interview with presidential candidate Rick Santorum. Isn't Sharpton a little too sharp-elbowed for the so-called civility squad at Morning Joe?

“I could argue with you about some of your ugly statements on the president and all of that, but that would probably help you in the primary if you and I got into an argument this morning,” Sharpton blustered. “Go ahead, Al. Give it to me, Al,” Santorum replied with a jovial smile.

“Well, you said some despicable and ugly things, but we‘ll do that on ’Politics Nation’ one night, don’t let me help you win the caucus,” Sharpton said. There were no specifics. But it couldn't have matched Sharpton's historic, despicable lows. (I'd bet on Santorum hitting Obama with how it's "remarkable for a black man" to support abortion.)

Like any liberal, Sharpton had to try and pin Santorum for being too anti-government to be allowed to serve in government. It's an "Only socialists need apply" principle. Santorum had spoken about a less federalized education policy. Sharpton asked, “When you get through talking, how do you do it if the federal government is not going to do it? And I might remind you, you’re running to be the head of the federal government. So how are you against something that you’re running to be in charge of? Isn’t that a little schizo?”

“Yeah, that’s the difference between you and me, Al,” Santorum said.

“Yeah, there’s a lot of differences but go ahead,” Sharpton responded.

As the pair’s brief debate wrapped up, Sharpton said, “I didn’t even tell him how I really feel about him.”

“Remember, you’re a reverend, Reverend,” fellow interviewer and former RNC Chairman Michael Steele insisted. That title has never restrained Sharpton's tongue.

Mediaite's Nando Di Fino reports President Obama has played at least two rounds of golf in Hawaii with a high school buddy, Robert “Bobby” Titcomb, was arrested as part of a prostitution sting, after he allegedly approached an undercover police officer for sex in downtown Hawaii.

"What seems particularly interesting (“refreshing”?) here isn’t that President Obama would still hang out with a friend who had been arrested; it’s how many media outlets have either made no reference to Titcomb’s arrest, or simply stated it in passing," he wrote. "Both The New York Times and The Washington Post briefly made a note of Titcomb’s past in reporting the vacation stories. In this day and age of 'gotcha!' controversy-driven political coverage, is it surprising not to see more of a big deal being made?"

And maybe even more surprising, there doesn’t seem to be a purely political divide within the media. FoxNews.com, for example, in a story about Obama’s golfing on Christmas Eve, didn’t even mention Titcomb’s arrest when reporting on his participation.

In fact, it seems it was a British paper, The Daily Mail, that made the biggest deal out of Titcomb’s inclusion, blasting it across its headline: A five-course meal at Honolulu’s priciest restaurant after golf with his hooker-loving buddy… Obama faces another tough day in Hawaii

The Mail story also reported:

After several hours on the course with Titcomb and two others, the president kicked back with the First Lady, his sister Maya Soetoro-Ng, and several other friends at one of Honolulu’s priciest restaurants.

The presidential motorcade made a stop last night at Alan Wong’s Restaurant, located close to the Honolulu area where Obama spent his teenage years.

The Obamas sat down to a five-course dinner that include such menu items as the 'sassy salad' and a bacon-wrapped pork loin – for $75 each ($110 for wine pairings with each course).

The restaurant confirmed to MailOnline that the President's daughters Malia and Sasha did not join their parents for dinner…

While the Obamas may be away, that hasn’t stopped criticism about their expensive tastes while the rest of the country struggles to escape an economic downturn.

Michelle Obama came under the microscope yesterday after stepping out earlier this week in a dress worth $2,000.

Later that day, she appeared in a $950 skirt at a meet-and-greet with service members and their families.

There are quite a few problems with Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar's December 28 coverage ("New fee coming for medical effectiveness research") concerning a new fee (i.e., tax) which will imposed on health insurance companies for each person they cover starting tomorrow.

Several times (twice in the body and once as seen above in the headline), the story refers to the assessment as a "medical effectiveness research" fee (without quotes). Just once, in the eleventh paragraph, does Alonso-Zaldivar call it by its far more widely-known name (written as indicated): "comparative effectiveness" research. But the item which stuck out like a sore thumb with me, and should also do so for anyone else who closely followed how the stimulus bill got enacted into law as well as the Obamacare discussions later that year,, was the following paragraph (bolds are mine):

---

The 2009 economic stimulus bill included $1.1 billion for medical effectiveness research, mainly through the National Institutes of Health. It was not considered particularly controversial. But things changed during the congressional health care debate, after former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin made the claim, now widely debunked, that Obama and the Democrats were setting up "death panels" to ration care.

First of all, the idea was described as "comparative effectiveness" in the actual stimulus bill — 17 times.

Second, Alonso-Zaldivar is wrong in contending that the idea of comparative effectiveness "was not considered particularly controversial."

Of course it wasn't controversial in the run-up to the stimulus bill's passage because, as House Republican Leader John Boehner emphatically pointed out on the day of the vote, no one was given time to read the 1,100-page, 186,000-word bill before they voted on it.

Once the provision was discovered and vetted, it became quite controversial, as AP's weak-sister brethren at UPI pointed out on February 24, 2009, just over a week after President Obama signed the bill (presented in full because of its brevity):

Obscure healthcare measure ignites furor

An obscure healthcare provision tucked into the $787 billion economic stimulus bill has caused a firestorm of controversy, analysts say.

U.S. President Barack Obama's bill included $1.1 billion for "comparative effectiveness," which backers contend would establish a better system for tracking the performances of drugs, medical devices and surgical procedures. They say it would improve quality of care and ultimately save billions of dollars, the Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday.

But conservatives and healthcare industry supporters quickly pounced by saying the effort promotes socialized medicine — providing a sobering preview of fierce ideological battles to come should Obama move forcefully to reform the healthcare system, analysts said.

Congressional Republicans began labeling the comparative-effectiveness research provision as a step toward "government-run healthcare." And liberals fought back, with left-wing bloggers excoriating what they called inaccurate and misleading comments from conservative healthcare commentator Betsy McCaughey, the Times said.

The LA Times article to which the UPI report refers is incredibly biased, claiming that McCaughey's efforts to call out the statist and patient preference-ignoring aspects of HillaryCare in the early 1990s were "largely discredited" (they weren't, which is largely why HIllaryCare never became law).

The Times article mentions (without linking) McCaughey's February 9, 2009 Bloomberg op-ed, where she authoritatively raised the specter of what Sarah Palin in August 2009 figuratively (by using quote marks around the words in her Facebook post) characterized (correctly, Ricardo, despite what the propagandists at Politifact think) as "death panels" (bolded words justify Palin's characterization):

Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan

Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.

Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health.

… One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective.

… Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time.”

… What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book (“Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis” — Ed.), Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.

… The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

… Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

… This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.

Sarah Palin's figurative claim (which never had the words "setting up" in it) was never "widely debunked" on substance, except in the fevered minds of leftists and the press apparatchiks like Ricardo Alonso-Zalidivar. In fact, subsequent events and other things we have learned about how Obamacare will really operate show that "Sarah Palin is Owed a Huge Apology" and is turning out to be literally correct.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Times Watch’s end-of-year awards issue celebrates the best of the worst quotes that appeared in the paper or were uttered by Times reporters and columnists during 2011.

The New York Times spent much of the year in pro-Obama defense mode, excoriating the Tea Party and conservative opposition to Obama's agenda. Yet the paper found one movement it could embrace wholeheartedly – the leftist campouts known as Occupy Wall Street. And sometimes – as when China-loving columnist Tom Friedman spouted, "If this were China they would have walked to the game in the snow, and doing calculus along the way," Times journalism was just too ridiculous to take seriously. Paul Krugman made his usual sterling showing as well, using the tragedies of 9-11 and the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords to attack conservatives.

This year there were three categories of bias:

• Occupy Wall Street’s “Athenian Democracy” vs. Tea Party “Terrorists”

• Blaming Conservatism, not the Shooter, for the Rampage in Arizona

• Just Plain Bizarre

Ira Stoll is our guest judge. The editor of newstransparency.com and futureofcapitalism.com, Stoll offered his take on the“best” quotes from the Times for the 2011 edition.

His “winner” in the category, Occupy Wall Street’s “Athenian Democracy” vs. Tea Party “Terrorists,” was this poison dart from columnist Joe Nocera on August 2:

“You know what they say: Never negotiate with terrorists. It only encourages them. These last few months, much of the country has watched in horror as the Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people. Their intransigent demands for deep spending cuts, coupled with their almost gleeful willingness to destroy one of America’s most invaluable assets, its full faith and credit, were incredibly irresponsible. But they didn’t care. Their goal, they believed, was worth blowing up the country for, if that’s what it took….For now, the Tea Party Republicans can put aside their suicide vests.”
 

Stoll notes: “Even Nocera, on reflection, thought this was too much, writing, ‘The words I chose were intemperate and offensive to many, and I’ve been roundly criticized. I was a hypocrite, the critics said, for using such language when on other occasions I’ve called for a more civil politics. In the cool light of day, I agree with them. I apologize.’”

For the category, Blaming Conservatism, not the Shooter, for the Rampage in Arizona, Stoll picked this double, or perhaps quadruple standard, from the Times editorial board:

It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge. Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats. They seem to have persuaded many Americans that the government is not just misguided, but the enemy of the people.” – From a January 10 editorial on the shootings in Tucson.

vs.

“In the aftermath of this unforgivable attack, it will be important to avoid drawing prejudicial conclusions from the fact that Major Hasan is an American Muslim whose parents came from the Middle East….There were reports that some soldiers said they had heard him shout “God is Great” in Arabic before he started firing. But until investigations are complete, no one can begin to imagine what could possibly have motivated this latest appalling rampage.” – From a November 7, 2009 editorial after a radical Muslim Army officer killed a dozen people at Fort Hood, Texas.

Stoll writes: “This is a blatant double standard, times two (or Times two), which may be a quadruple standard. First, there's the double standard on rushing to judgment, in which it's okay to blame Republicans for violence before investigations are complete, but it's not okay to blame radical Muslims. Second, there's the double standard in which Republicans are to blame for ‘arguments of division’ and demonization when they criticize immigrants, welfare recipients, or bureaucrats, but the Times isn't demonizing or dividing anyone when it criticizes Republicans, Tea Party members, bankers, or members of the ‘one percent.’”

Stoll’s winner in the category Just Plain Bizarre was this revealing gem from Times economics writer (now Washington Bureau chief) David Leonhardt, in a front-page economics column on April 13:
 

In reality, finding a way to raise taxes may well be the central political problem facing the United States.

Stoll replies: “Maybe in Mr. Leonhardt's reality. At the Times this sort of opinion-column writing gets you a promotion to Washington bureau chief, which is Mr. Leonhardt's new job overseeing politics and policy coverage.”

Thanks to judge Ira Stoll, and enjoy the full collection of quotes at TimesWatch.
 

It's hard to say what caused it (spiked eggnog? Panama Red? a few too many bowl games?) but Kossacks hit unusually high peaks of wackiness during the holidays. One actually mounted a defense of the indefensible North Korean government, while another argued that some of the most bloodthirsty left-wing dictators of the 20th century would be at home in today's GOP.

As usual, each headline is preceded by the blogger's name or pseudonym. Happy New Year!

Niccolo Caldararo: North Korea's just another flawed nation, like the U.S.
 
…While North Korea may behave in a strange fashion at times, its political history is no less responsible toward its own citizens than the history of [South Korea], especially the recent history that was dominated in the 1960s to 1980s by dictatorial regimes that practiced torture and mass arrest. While we hear of starvation and torture in North Korea, these are far less well documented than the recent history of the South. As for the nuclear weapons issue, we should also recall that the USA has been the only country to use nuclear weapons, and we used them on civilians.  If the world is to be afraid of the use of these weapons by a renegade nation, one should look at the definition of the word in the context of the Bush Administration waging war in violation of international law and by the use of evidence it knew was tainted. We cannot expect a world of law and respect after such behavior…
 
politicjock: The rich want a medieval society, or maybe a banana republic
 
…[I]n America there are people, the 1%, who would have no qualms to return this country to the middle-ages or even earlier, more brutal forms of slavery…
 
…[M]any Americans still seem unable to accept that given the chance, the 1% will gladly turn this country into a Honduran style republic where a tiny oligarchy which controls most of the wealth uses the government and death squads as a tool to repress a population of mostly peasants. Yet, the signs of this coming reality are all around us if one only cares to look…
 
chaunceydevega: Obama inspires Confederate dreams
 
…[T]he literal white washing of the history of a traitorous Confederacy…loom[s] large in the Conservative political imagination. Those dreams are amplified and made more imminent when a black man is President of the United States, because for the populist conservative, neo-Confederate crowd, nothing could be more of an abomination…
 
…Adults who dress up in Colonial era period clothing, believe that the Constitution is divinely inspired, and take the metaphor of "a shining city on the hill" as a get out of jail pass for America's shortcomings both at home and abroad, have little use for such facts. Selection bias, Fox News, and an embrace of a fantastical view of political and social reality, protects the Tea Party GOP faithful from any experience of cognitive dissonance…
 
Jon Stafford: American exceptionalism is a stupid religion
 
…[I]t's no surprise that a broad swath of Americans believe in the myth of American exceptionalism. Who doesn't want to feel special? And let's face it, a large majority of Americans believe in the existence of a magical being who created the universe, so a MENSA meeting they ain't…
 
I imagine there are a lot of people out there who pity the poor people around the globe who lack American leadership. I bet they picture emaciated African children lying in a hut, reaching out their bony arms and gasping "America" with their dying breath. If only Obama and the Democrats would let us help these poor people!

These are the people that then-candidate Obama described not incorrectly as clinging to guns and religion. Patriotism is a religion. These people believe. They believe in America's right to rule the world, and reshape it in our glorious image. These are people who do not want any immigrants to come here, yet have no problem with US forces occupying their territory there. These are the core constituency of the Republican electorate…

plf515: Hitler, Mao were Republicans in all but name

Recently, there has been lamenting that conservatives do not have their "A-team" in the race for POTUS…

But who would be the conservative A-Team?

…[T]he current meaning [of conservatism] seems to include a few variations: 1) Anti-government 2) Pro-fundamentalist Christianity (and anti all other religions) and 3) Anti-science, anti-urban, pro-"small town" value type of thing…

The anti-intellectualism, anti-urbanism, anti-rights, nativist positions are those that were most loudly professed by Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, etc, but none of these capture the anti-government fervor.  However, they were an "a-team" in that they captured whole nations…

Extremist religious views have been common in many times, but Christians who hold these views have been less successful lately. For this A-team, we have to go back a bit in time, to the likes of Torquemada [and] Cotton Mather…For modern successful groups of this ilk, we could do no better than the leaders of Saudi Arabia, who hold with one of the most extreme forms of Islam: Wahhabism…

I am not saying that any of the current crop of Republicans are the people I list above; rather, I am saying that the people I list above are the natural exemplars of Republican attitudes, only more "successful" than the current crop of Republicans are, or, I certainly hope, ever will be.

Saturday's NBC Nightly News hyped a poll finding that 64 percent of Californians would be willing to pay more taxes "if the money went to public schools." (Video below)

Substitute anchor Kate Snow included a plug for the report in the opening teaser: "Tax hike. Why people in one state are saying 'Bring it on.' Tonight, why they're willing to pay more."

Before a commercial break, she plugged the segment again:

When Nightly News continues on this Saturday evening, why some people are saying: Go ahead, raise my taxes.

As she introduced the story, after noting that in California the state is "struggling to live within its means," Snow added:

But something unusual is happening in California. The cuts have been so severe that some people are actually saying they could live with higher taxes.

After a clip of a school teacher complaining about the budget cuts, correspondent George Lewis declared:

And now, Californians are contemplating something that would have been unthinkable previously. In a poll conducted by the Los Angeles Times and the University of Southern California, 64 percent of Californians said they would pay more taxes if the money went to public schools.

After a soundbite of former Assembly Speaker Robert Hertzberg arguing that Californians would be willing to support an increase in some taxes if they believe the money is not wasted, Lewis warned that anti-tax sentiment may yet thwart plans to raise taxes:

GEORGE LEWIS: But this is the state where a guy named Howard Jarvis led a taxpayer revolt in 1978, passing an initiative called Proposition 13, dramatically slashing property taxes. His legacy lives on with organized opposition to any new proposed tax hikes.

JON COUPAL, HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION: I think the public reaction would be very negative. California voters have rejected the last seven proposed state-wide tax increases.

Lewis concluded:

California has been hit harder by budget cuts than most other states. And the looming battle will test  whether the people here have had a change of heart about taxes and the value of government services.

Below are both video and a complete transcript of the report from the Saturday, December 31, NBC Nightly News:

KATE SNOW, IN OPENING TEASER: Tax hike: Why people in one state are saying bring it on. Tonight, why they're willing to pay more.

…

SNOW, BEFORE COMMERCIAL BREAK: When Nightly News continues on this Saturday evening, why some people are saying: Go ahead, raise my taxes.

…

KATE SNOW: Starting tomorrow, a big new round of budget cuts will take place in California, which, like so many other states, is struggling to live within its means. But something unusual is happening in California. The cuts have been so severe that some people are actually saying they could live with higher taxes. More tonight from NBC's George Lewis.

GEORGE LEWIS: A lot of glitter has gone out of the Golden State. A tough economy and high unemployment have left the public coffers empty and the governor announcing $1 billion in painful cuts.

GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN (D-CA): This is not the way we'd like to run California, but we have to live within our means.

LEWIS: Everything from welfare programs to libraries to education, one of the areas hardest hit. With widespread protests over tuition hikes at state universities, and elementary schools cutting the number of teaching days.

TRACY OUTMAN, CALIFORNIA TEACHER: These are the kids that are going to be running our country someday. Are they really going to be ready?

LEWIS: And now, Californians are contemplating something that would have been unthinkable previously. In a poll conducted by the Los Angeles Times and the University of Southern California, 64 percent of Californians said they would pay more taxes if the money went to public schools. To help the schools and other vital services, Californians will get to vote on at least one initiative next year to raise state taxes. Governor Brown has filed an initiative that would increase sales taxes one-half cent and hike income taxes on millionaires by as much as two percent.

ROBERT HERTZBERG, FORMER CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY SPEAKER: What we know is folks are willing to pay for the bills as long as they know their money's not being wasted.

LEWIS: But this is the state where a guy named Howard Jarvis led a taxpayer revolt in 1978, passing an initiative called Proposition 13, dramatically slashing property taxes. His legacy lives on with organized opposition to any new proposed tax hikes.

JON COUPAL, HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION: I think the public reaction would be very negative. California voters have rejected the last seven proposed state-wide tax increases.

LEWIS: California has been hit harder by budget cuts than most other states. And the looming battle will test  whether the people here have had a change of heart about taxes and the value of government services. George Lewis, NBC News, Los Angeles.