US ends combat operations in Iraq
Timing of final departure closely held secret; 50,000 advisers remain
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38744453/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

The last U.S. combat troops were crossing the border into Kuwait on Thursday morning, bringing to a close the active combat phase of a 7½-year war that overthrew the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein, forever defined the presidency of George W. Bush and left more than 4,400 American service members and tens of thousands of Iraqis dead. The final convoy of the Army’s 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, based at Fort Lewis, Wash., were about to enter Kuwait shortly after 1:30 a.m. (6:30 p.m. Wednesday ET), carrying the last of the 14,000 U.S. combat forces in Iraq, said NBC’s Richard Engel, who has been traveling with the brigade as it moved out this week.

( Read more...Collapse )

(1 Comment |Comment on this)

Don't convert Ground Zero to a monument to intolerance
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/catholicamerica/2010/08/back_alley_religious_freedom.html
By Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo

Much political hay will be made about the building of an Islamic cultural center in Lower Manhattan near the site of the September 11, 2001 terrorist destruction of the World Trade Center. What might be neglected in the headlines is the resonance with Catholic history. When we Catholics were considered "papists" and "less American" in colonial America, we did not enjoy the blessings of freedom of religion. Even on July 4, 1776, tolerant and Quaker colonial Philadelphia limited us to a single Catholic Church. But that church could not be located on a main street - it had to be in a back alley.
Based on the discrimination against American Catholics in the past, we have a natural inclination to view today's issue of New York's mosque as a question of constitutionally granted freedom of religion. When the issue is framed that way, polls show that the majority of Americans defends the principle of equality along with President Obama. But when emotions reign and attention shifts away from substance to appearance, an opposing opinion emerges.

Put me down as a Catholic in favor of reason rather than feeling. I would rather align myself with the constitution than with the inevitable comparison to the Nazis by perennial candidate, Newt Gingrich, or the volatile Mrs. Palin's shrill call to "refudiate" the mosque as might William Shakespeare.

( Read more...Collapse )

(Comment on this)

About-Face: More States Accept Stimulus Funds
(Because I can't update Facebook from work...)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129246074
Remember all those governors who objected to taking $7 billion in stimulus money set aside to help the unemployed? Many of them changed their minds. Now, more than half the states are getting the federal stimulus. As the down economy drags on, some of the most conservative states have updated their laws so they, too, could get their share. Others are still holding out.

Several southern states were among the first to say they did not want to take federal stimulus funds to help the unemployed. Republican governors from Georgia to Louisiana, Texas to South Carolina were outspoken opponents of expanding unemployment benefits. Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina in 2009 said, "I was against the stimulus. I've consistently stood against the stimulus. If you take all this stimulus money and you spend it all, over the long run there will be less economic activity in South Carolina rather than more." But last week, without much fanfare, the Labor Department released $97 million to South Carolina after state legislators modernized the unemployment insurance program and Sanford signed the bill into law.

( Read more...Collapse )

(Comment on this)

Happy 220th birthday, Washington, DC! Looks like mother nature whipped up a special event, just in your honor!

3.6-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes D.C. Region: http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/36-Magnitude-Earthquake-Shakes-DC-Region-98589124.html

(Comment on this)

Regarding Double Dips
by Hale "Bonddad" Stewart
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/07/regarding-double-dips.html

There has been a tremendous amount of talk lately about a double dip recession. According to some, it is just a matter of time. The idea has even been floated that the recession never ended. Let's look at the underlying data to examine the overall economic situation in the US in order to examine the validity of these arguments. Let's break it down into service and manufacturing sectors as represented by the ISM numbers. Remember, a number above 50 indicates an expansion:

( Read more...Collapse )

At the end of last August, I wrote a price titled The Fits and Starts Expansion. I used that title specifically to illustrate the type of growth we would see: one area of the economy will lead for a few months, then another would take over as the first fell back. So instead of all parts working in harmony, parts would take turns leading. As a result, we would experience slower growth, largely in the 1%-2% range. That is still the primary scenario I see going forward. It won't be pretty, but it will be growth.

Finally, as I noted previously, interest rates are low and oil is cheap. Additionally, all this talk about double dip recessions has failed to highlight why the last one happened: a huge spike in interest rates by the Federal Reserve to tame inflation. There is no way the Fed is going to increase rates right now.

(4 Comments |Comment on this)

Robert Byrd, Longest-Serving U.S. Senator, Dies At 92
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=81190288

June 28, 2010
Robert C. Byrd, the longest-serving senator in U.S. history and an ardent defender of the chamber's traditions, died Monday. He was 92. Byrd was best known for his ardent defense of the U.S. Constitution and his love of Senate history. He was also a man who fought the 1964 Civil Rights Act — to his later regret — but who took great pride in his fight against authorizing the use of force in Iraq. He was not only the author of an award-winning four-volume history of the Senate; he was also, from the time he joined the chamber in January 1959, a major player in much of that history. He was a two-time majority leader and was chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee.

( Read more...Collapse )

(Comment on this)

Statement of Most Reverend John C. Wester
Bishop of Salt Lake City, Utah
Chairman, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Migration
April 27, 2010

On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), I join with the Catholic bishops of Arizona in strongly opposing the enactment and implementation of Arizona SB 1070. This new law, although limited to the State of Arizona, could have impact throughout the nation, in terms of how members of our immigrant communities are both perceived and treated.

SB 1070 gives law enforcement officials powers to detain and arrest individuals based on a very low legal standard, possibly leading to the profiling of individuals based upon their appearance, manner of speaking, or ethnicity. It could lead to the wrongful questioning and arrest of U.S. citizens and permanent residents as well as the division of families—parents from children and husbands from wives. It certainly would lead to the rise in fear and distrust in immigrant communities, undermining the relationships between their members and law enforcement officials.

SB 1070 is symptomatic of the absence of federal leadership on the issue of immigration. For years now, the U.S. Catholic bishops have called upon Congress and two Administrations to enact meaningful and just comprehensive immigration reform. While many of our federal elected officials have made good faith efforts to pass reform, too many still view the issue through a political lens, using it to gain political or partisan advantage. This gamesmanship must stop. Our national leaders must educate the American public on the need for reform and show courage in making it happen. Until immigration reform is passed, other States will attempt to create and enforce immigration law, with harsh and ineffective consequences.

The U.S. Catholic bishops stand in solidarity with the bishops of Arizona in opposing this draconian law. We call upon the Administration to review its impact on civil rights and liberties. We renew our call for the Administration and Congress to work in a bipartisan manner to enact comprehensive immigration reform as soon as possible.

http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2010/10-080.shtml

(Comment on this)

WTF Did Biden Just Say?
A brief history of bad language in Washington.
By John Dickerson
http://www.slate.com/id/2248689/


Joe Biden has proved that even after a year of debate over health care reform, not everything had been said. At a White House signing ceremony for the legislation, the vice president turned to the president and said, as he embraced Obama, "This is a big fucking deal." The remark was intended to be private but was picked up by the microphone at the podium.

Let us now resolve that among the unenumerated duties of the vice president is to occasionally uncork an expletive in public. This is not Biden's first time. At a ceremony announcing funding for his beloved Amtrak, he was greeted by a former colleague as "Mr. Vice President." He replied, "Give me a fucking break." Biden's predecessor famously used the same epithet in an exchange with a senator.* And Vice President George H.W. Bush, when asked how he did against Geraldine Ferraro in the vice-presidential debates in 1984, said, "We tried to kick a little ass."

( Read more...Collapse )

Nixon is perhaps the greatest prizewinner in both categories. As a presidential candidate in 1960, he made an issue of Harry Truman's use of bad words like "hell" and "son-of-a-bitch" that now hardly get a blink. "I'm very proud that President Eisenhower restored dignity and decency and, frankly, good language to the conduct of the presidency of the United States," he said. (This may have been because Truman used bad words to talk about Nixon, whom he disliked intensely.)

Behind closed doors however, he seemed to uncork a new one with every turn of his reel-to-reel tape recorder. It makes sense when you think about it. He did start out as a vice president.

*Correction, March 23, 2010: The article originally included mention of a profanity, aimed at a New York Times reporter, that the article incorrectly attributed to Dick Cheney. In fact, it was candidate Bush, not his running mate Cheney, who uttered the remark.

(Comment on this)

Looks like its Healthcare Wednesday today...
The Fourth Branch
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/03/fourth-branch.html
By Nate Silver

This is response to the numerous critics who have suggested that the Democrats were somehow unethical, anti-democratic or even tyrannical to enact their health care policy at a time when it polls poorly in most opinion surveys. I find this argument to be exceptionally weak. You can certainly argue that the health care bills are bad policy and that enacting them in spite of what seems to be substantial opposition is foolhardy -- and it absolutely is unusual for Congress to enact bills of this magnitude with such tenuous public support. But unethical? Was the "will of the electorate" breached? I think any such framing has to contend with the following 14 arguments:

1. That Obama and Democratic Congress were democratically elected by very robust majorities on a platform which expliclitly included health-care reform and has since time immemorial.

2. That the voters have almost immediate recourse in the form of midterm elections that will take place in eight months and a Presidential election that will take place in two years -- both of which come before the most substantial parts of the legislation are enacted.

( 12 more argumentsCollapse )



Constitutionality of Mandatory Insurance
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/03/constitutionality-of-mandatory.html
by Tom Schaller

A few months ago I wrote a post about the types of "constitutional chicanery" that certain political advocates utilize to confuse debate over key issues. And here we go again. This time we have state attorneys general declaring that they are going to use the courts to challenge healthcare reform as unconstitutional because it constitutes a mandatory direct tax. A short while ago on Fox News I saw a segment that included one "expert" who claimed that healthcare reform would do something "unprecedented," namely, requiring citizens to purchase some commodity. Unprecedented? Really?

Let's start with the direct part. I would encourage anyone who believes such claims to pull out his or her most recent paycheck. Someplace on there you will see FICA deductions that (in theory at least) are set aside to fund Social Security (OADSI) and Medicare programs. These are the two biggest government-sponsored insurance programs administered by the feds, and two of the largest line items in the federal budget. These paycheck deductions are not optional, and for all but the self-employed they are taken out immediately. Put another way, you are already required by law to buy the commodities we might simply call "retirement insurance" and "medical insurance." You can't opt out of either program and you can't delay the payments--which we may as well think of as "premiums"--until April 15 each year. (I suppose you can opt out of taking the benefits later.) Moreover, you only see in your paycheck the true impacts of half your premiums, because the other half is hidden by being "contributed" by your employer--although this also ought to be considered lost income and thus a mandatory direct tax because employers account for this tax obligation when setting salaries or wages. Although there's no payroll deduction for unemployment insurance, employers also must consider these "premiums" when setting those wages and salaries, so let's classify that a mandatory but indirect tax.

( Read more...Collapse )


On the Appeal of Repeal
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/03/on-appeal-of-repeal.html
By Nate Silver

This is the 160th article that we will have written on health care reform over the course of the past year. As nice as it might be to move on to another subject, the debate over health care reform isn't going away any time soon, as the bill the Democrats passed last night will undergo a variety of political and legal challenges before the bulk of its provisions go into effect in 2014. The sexiest of these challenges is the threat of repeal, which is the subject of an editorial in seemingly every conservative news outlet today. But it's also one of the least likely to threaten the bill. Repeal is not impossible -- not by a long shot -- but it's unlikely.

For starters, although repeal may certainly be an important rhetorical force in campaign-trail debates later this year, the first point at which it will be a substantive threat to the Democrats is January 20, 2013, at which point they are no longer guaranteed to control the White House. Until that time, because of the President's veto pen, it's not just figuratively but literally impossible for Republicans to amass enough manpower in the Congress to override a veto from Obama.

( Read more...Collapse )

(2 Comments |Comment on this)

The Margolies-Mezvinsky Goes To...
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/03/margolies-mezvinsky-goes-to.html
By Nate Silver

Any analysis of the political ramifications of the passage of health care reform probably needs to separate out the macro-level effects (the impact on the overall political environment for the Democrats) from the micro ones (the effect on individual races -- particularly in the context to each individual member's vote). One potential effect, for instance, is that the political environment for the Democrats will be somewhat improved nationwide versus the world in which the healthcare negotiations had collapsed, but that some individual members who voted for their bill are imperiled.

Here, in any event, is a rudimentary estimate of the Democrats that might be taking the biggest risk with their yes votes. I've built a risk index starting by taking the district's PVI -- for example, I'd score an R+3 district at 3 points, or a D+2 district at -2 points. Then, I add or subtract points based on the race ratings from Cook Political, CQ, Rothenberg, and Larry Sabato: +5 points for a toss-up (or lean Republican) race, -5 points for a likely Democratic hold, -10 points for a safe Democratic seat, and 0 points for leans Democratic, which is assumed to be the default condition. (In cases where the ratings sometimes differ from forecaster to forecaster, they are averaged together). Finally, I add 5 points if the vote is a flip from no to yes. Democrats who are retiring from electoral politics are not considered.

( chart under the cutCollapse )

The gutsiest/riskiest yes vote appears to be from Betsy Markey, who is in an R+6 district that is rated as a pure toss-up by all the forecasters, and who originally voted no before announcing her intention to switch a couple of days ago. If she loses her seat, she will probably be the most deserving of comparisons to Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, who cast the deciding vote in the Clinton budget in 1994 and lost her seat soon thereafter (and says she'd gladly do the same thing again.)

Obviously, the votes have not been cast yet, so these reflect my best guesses as to who will vote yes.

(Comment on this)

Black-Robed Legislators on the Bench?
By Tom Schaller
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/02/black-robed-legislators-on-bench.html

Well, Sam Alito and Barack Obama may have to agree-to-disagree on whether the Supreme Court has ignored a century of judicial precedents in its Citizens United ruling, but there is an unusually high level of agreement among the public about the ruling: They hate it.

A two-question ABC News/Washington Post poll on the issue revealed that 80 percent of Americans (65 percent strongly) oppose the Court's recent ruling, and 72 percent (52 percent strongly) want Congress to do something to reverse the Court. This is stunning. There are very, very few issues in American politics for which there is such lopsided and intense agreement.

ABC/WaPo polling director Gary Langer's analysis is best left unaltered:

"The bipartisan nature of these views is striking in these largely partisan times. 
The court’s ruling is opposed, respectively, by 76, 81 and 85 percent of Republicans, 
independents and Democrats; and by 73, 85 and 86 percent of conservatives, moderates 
and liberals. Majorities in all these groups, ranging from 58 to 73 percent, not only 
oppose the ruling but feel strongly about it.

Even among people who agree at least somewhat with the Tea Party movement, which 
advocates less government regulation, 73 percent oppose the high court’s rejection 
of this particular law. Among the subset who agree strongly with the Tea Party’s 
positions on the issues – 14 percent of all adults – fewer but still most, 56 
percent, oppose the high court in this case."

Take that, George Will!

Now, the Supreme Court is not supposed to be a majoritarian institution. Its greatness, in fact, is in defending constitutional protections even in the face of public majorities or pluralities opposed to such protections. The Civil Rights Movement was catalyzed by important Court rulings issues in the face of significant public opposition.

But this is a pretty dramatic poll finding. It may lend further momentum and credence to those who foresee a coming, left-right populist revolt--and may temporarily take some of the heat off Obama as a target of such sentiments coming from both of his flanks.

(Comment on this)

Debunking The 'Great Satan' Myth
Iranian officials often refer to America as the "Great Satan," the meddler constantly working to undermine their country. Host Guy Raz talks to Abbas Milani, director of Iranian studies at Stanford University, who argues in a new article that the "Great Satan" may not be as diabolical as it's been portrayed.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121954311&ps=rs


GUY RAZ, host: We begin the hour with a look at Iran and some of the other foreign policy challenges the Obama administration faces this year. In a moment, former assistant secretary of State James Rubin assesses some of those challenges, but first to Stanford University professor Abbas Milani. In a recent article in The New Republic, he wrote about what he calls the great Satan myth, the idea that the United States has been behind several conspiracies to keep Iran from developing into a modern nation-state.

In 1953, Iran's democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddeq, was ousted in a coup and replaced by the iron-fisted Shah Reza Pahlavi. The CIA played a role in that coup, but Milani argues it couldn't have happened without tacit support from Iran's own clerical establishment. And he says that the narrative about that period promoted by Iran's leadership today is simply misleading.

Dr. ABBAS MILANI (Director of Iranian Studies, Stanford University): It is wrong, first of all, in the sense that it simplifies a much more complicated role. The U.S. tried for virtually two and a half years to mediate between Mohammad Mosaddeq, who was the prime minister, and Britain, whose oil fields had been nationalized.

Britain, in fact, was all but ready to invade Iran. Truman administration stopped that invasion and tried to find a negotiated settlement. And finally when they decided, the Truman administration decided, that there is not going to be a negotiated settlement, that Dr. Mosaddeq is not willing to compromise, then they begin planning for what they call Operation Ajax.

And far more importantly, the clergy at the time were on the side of the United States. Whatever role, whatever evil role the United States played, it played it on the side of the clergy. The clergy in Iran departed from supporting Mosaddeq, became his foes and made him vulnerable to the eventual coup that overthrew him.

( Read more...Collapse )

(1 Comment |Comment on this)

Brown's Massachusetts victory fueled by frustration with Washington, poll shows
By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012203167.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

( Read more...Collapse )

Massachusetts enacted a universal health-care plan several years ago, and the survey shows that it remains highly popular. Overall, 68 percent of the voters in Tuesday's election say they support the Massachusetts plan, including slightly more than half of Brown voters.

Obama also remains highly popular in Massachusetts. More than six in 10 of those who voted approve of his job performance, with 92 percent of Coakley voters expressing satisfaction, along with 33 percent of Brown's. More than half of Brown's backers say Obama was not a factor in their vote. But the Obama administration's policies draw some fire, with nearly half of all special-election voters either dissatisfied or angry about those initiatives. Nearly three-quarters of Brown's voters expressed the negative view.

Republican policies prove even less popular, with 58 percent of Massachusetts voters saying they are dissatisfied or angry about what the Republicans in Congress are offering. Among Brown voters, 60 percent give positive marks to the policies of congressional Republicans, but a sizable number, 37 percent, offer a negative appraisal.

The Massachusetts election brought another indication that the Obama coalition from 2008 has splintered, just as the results in gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey showed two months ago. Compared with the 2008 presidential results, Coakley suffered significant erosion among whites, independents and working-class voters, according to the new survey.

In Massachusetts, independents made up about half of Tuesday's total electorate, according to the new poll, and they supported Brown by nearly a 2 to 1 margin. Obama carried Bay State independents by 17 percentage points in 2008. Among Brown voters, 29 percent said they backed Obama over Republican Sen. John McCain.

Tuesday's competitive election caught many poll-watchers by surprise, with news interest in the campaign peaking too late to organize an exit poll of voters on Election Day. The Washington Post, the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University conducted this poll to provide a more complete picture of the stated motivations of special-election voters. The poll was conducted by conventional and cellular telephone among a random sample of 880 Massachusetts residents who say they voted in the special election. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus four percentage points for the full sample.

(Comment on this)

Iran's pro-government rallies fool nobody
By Hamid Dabashi, Special to CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/07/Dabashi.iran.staged.protests/index.html

The Ahmadinejad government responded to the courageous anti-government protests throughout Iran in December by cranking up its propaganda machine to stage pro-government rallies. But that tactic won't work. The transparently staged events are the surest sign of the regime's insecurity and its awareness that it must manufacture the illusion of legitimacy. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, abusing the financial resources that belong to Iranian people, put together the spectacle on December 30, calling it a "spontaneous" show of support for the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic. Some people who saw this clumsily engineered carnival might be led to believe that Ahmadinejad's government, and by extension the Islamic Republic that he represents, is widely popular -- and that the Green Movement demanding civil liberties represents a small minority of Iranians. It does not.

Soon after the Islamic revolution of 1977-1979 in Iran, my colleague Peter Chelkowski and I began collecting an extensive archive of visual materials -- ranging from posters, graffiti, murals, elementary school textbooks, billboards, and even stamps, banknotes and chewing gum wrappers -- that were effectively used to turn a multifaceted cosmopolitan revolution into an exclusively "Islamic" one. It took us more than a decade to collect our archive and publish "Staging a Revolution: The Art of Persuasion in the Islamic Republic," in which we demonstrated how the custodians of the Islamic Republic went to excruciating lengths to make sure Iranians spent their days under an avalanche of visual propaganda.

( Read more...Collapse )

(1 Comment |Comment on this)

Iran opposition figures arrested after protests
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8432297.stm

A number of opposition figures have been arrested in Iran, a day after violent protests across the country left at least eight people dead. Those detained include senior aides to opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi. His nephew Seyed Ali Mousavi was among those killed in Sunday's violence, the worst since June's contested elections. Family members say they are being prevented from holding his funeral because his body has been taken from the hospital where it was being kept. His brother, Seyed Reza Mousavi, is quoted by the reformist website Parlemannews as saying: "Nobody accepts responsibility for taking away the body... We cannot have a funeral before we find the body." Other opposition sources say the body has been taken by government agents in order to prevent his funeral becoming a rallying point for more protests. Foreign media face severe restrictions in Iran and these reports cannot be verified.

An opposition website, Norooz, said police had fired teargas on Monday to disperse a group of Mousavi supporters who were demonstrating outside the hospital. According to Mr Mousavi's website, Seyed Ali Mousavi was shot in the back as security forces fired on demonstrators in Tehran on Sunday. BBC Tehran correspondent Jon Leyne, reporting from London, says the government's immediate response to the latest confrontation has been to arrest senior opposition figures, as it did after protests against the disputed presidential elections in June. The authorities are blaming troublemakers for the violence, our correspondent says, with the police denying that security forces are responsible for any deaths and suggesting that protesters may have shot each other. Members of the opposition believe Seyed Ali Mousavi was deliberately targeted by the government in an attempt to intimidate Mir Hossein Mousavi. But, our correspondent adds, the government will be doing itself no favours if it has taken his body because this would outrage religious conservatives, as well as the opposition.

Among those reported arrested on Monday were opposition politician Ebrahim Yazdi, a foreign minister after the 1979 revolution and now leader of the Freedom Movement of Iran, and his nephew, Lily Tavasoli. Mr Yazdi's son Khalil, who lives in the US, told the BBC's World Today programme he believed the Iranian authorities wanted to close down all opposition groups. "It is a shameless and irresponsible act," he said. "Any opposition now, they want to shut [it] down. We're going down a one-way street that's now going downhill."

The Parlemannews website reported that three aides to Mir Hossein Mousavi had been arrested. It also named two aides to reformist former President Mohammad Khatami as being among those rounded up by the authorities. Mousavi Tebrizi, a senior cleric from the holy city of Qom who is close to Mr Mousavi, is also reported to have been arrested. The protests, which began after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's controversial re-election in June, have grown into the biggest challenge to the government since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Monday's arrests follow violent clashes which broke out on Sunday after opposition supporters took to the streets as the Shia Muslim festival of Ashura reached its climax. Police fired tear gas to disperse crowds of demonstrators in various parts of the city overnight, according to reports. On Monday, state-owned English-language Press TV said eight people had died. Earlier, Persian state television had reported at least 15 people killed. The official death toll for Sunday's confrontation is the highest since June. Tehran's police chief, Azizollah Rajabzadeh, was among dozens of security force members injured in the clashes, officials said. About 300 people were detained after the protests, police said on Sunday. Unconfirmed reports said four people also died in protests in the north-western city of Tabriz and there were clashes in Isfahan and Najafabad in central Iran and Shiraz in the south.

Moderate cleric Mehdi Karoubi, who came fourth in last June's election, criticised Iran's rulers for Sunday's violence, an opposition website reported. The US, the UK, France, Germany and Canada have all condemned the violence. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said it was "particularly disturbing to hear accounts of the lack of restraint by the security forces" on a day of religious commemoration and reflection. In a strongly-worded statement, German Chancellor Angela Merkel criticised the "unacceptable actions of the security forces" and urged Tehran to respect civil rights.

Iranian security forces have been on alert since influential dissident cleric Grand Ayatollah Hoseyn Ali Montazeri died a week ago aged 87. His funeral attracted tens of thousands of pro-reform supporters, many of whom shouted anti-government slogans. Anger at last June's elections, won by incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, sparked mass protests in Tehran and other cities that led to thousands of arrests and some deaths. Mr Mousavi and other opposition leaders have said the poll was rigged.

(Comment on this)

D.C. mayor signs same-sex marriage bill
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/18/same.sex.marriage/index.html

The nation's capital city took a major step Friday toward legalizing same-sex marriage.

District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty signed a measure recognizing such marriages as legal. The district council overwhelming passed the bill Tuesday, following a similar vote December 1. Fenty signed the measure at All Souls Church, a Unitarian Universalist house of worship in the northwest part of the district that is known for its diversity and for the welcoming of same-sex couples.

The measure now goes to Congress for a 30-day review period, but it's considered unlikely that the Democratic majority on Capitol Hill would block the bill. By law, Congress has the right to review and overturn laws created by the District of Columbia's council.

If the measure becomes law, the district will join Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and Iowa in legalizing same-sex marriages. A law legalizing such marriages in New Hampshire takes effect January 1. Earlier this year, lawmakers in Maine approved a measure legalizing same-sex marriages, but voters in the state last month passed a referendum to overturn the new law. Last week, New York's state Senate defeated a bill that would legalize such marriages. A similar bill stalled last week in New Jersey's state senate.

Tuesday's vote in the nation's capital prompted approval from gay rights groups. The Human Rights Campaign called passage of the legislation "a victory for all D.C. residents."

"The legislation the council passed today reinforces the legal equality and religious freedoms to which all D.C. residents are entitled," the organization's president, Joe Solmonese, said in a written statement.

The National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage, said "the fight is not over."

"Politicians on the city council are acting as if they have the right through legislation to deprive citizens of D.C. of their core civil right to vote, but we will not let them get away with it," said Brian Brown, the organization's executive director. "We will go to Congress, we will go to the courts, we will fight for the people's right to vote," he said.

Opposition to the legislation also came from the Catholic Church's Archdiocese of Washington, which has said that the measure could restrict the church's ability to provide charity services, apparently because the church might cut back on services rather than comply with the measure's requirements.

(Comment on this)

President Obama pardons turkey
Pretty funny speech, for a professional politician. Gets serious in the middle, but the beginning and end is pretty humorous. :)

(2 Comments |Comment on this)

Constitutional Chicanery
by Tom Schaller
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/constitutional-chicanery.html

Where in the Constitution, sir, do you see it authorized 
that Congress can be involved with "health care," or fund 
"health care"? I am asking here about the Constitution, not 
any court rulings. Thank you.

This was the content, in its entirety, of an email I received last night from John Lofton, editor of TheAmericanView.com, a friend and supporter of Constitutional Party 2004 presidential candidate Michael Peroutka, and—get this—communications director for an organization called the Institute on the Constitution. We heard a lot from last summer’s protesters and people like Mr. Lofton about the sanctity of the Constitution and constitutional principles. Granting that tea partiers and people who send me silly emails should not necessarily be taken seriously as constitutional experts, there nonetheless seems to be an unusually high level of either uninformed or knowing manipulation of the Constitution in service to pre-ordained agendas.

I’m not a constitutional scholar. (N.B.: Protestors and other critics attacking the president ought to take note that he is.) Nor do I want to get into specific constitutional controversies. My aim is to rebut a few of the most absurd fallacies that seem to have gained traction--primarily but not exclusively in conservative circles--about the nature of American constitutionalism. To wit:

First, there is the fallacy that anything not specifically prescribed by the Constitution is unconstitutional. True, the Constitution doesn’t mention health care; but neither does it mention air traffic control. Is the FAA’s safeguarding of our skies from commercial crashes therefore unconstitutional? Of course not. First, there is the matter of the “necessary and proper” clause. And second, just because the Founders clearly meant to avoid the whole business of constitutionalizing specifically policies--see point #3, below--doesn't mean they didn't want the government to have any policies. If they did, why create a legislature?

Second, and conversely, there is the fallacy that anything not specifically proscribed by the Constitution is constitutionally permissible. We have one of those nutty preachers who shows up in the common areas of campus. One of his favorite claims is that because the Constitution makes no mention of the separation of church and state, we are free to infuse church into state. He’s right about the omission, but the Constitution doesn’t mention sex with minors, incest, or gay marriage, and so, by the omission-is-permission logic an adult man could consummate his marriage to his 14-year-old nephew. I mean, the Founders didn’t say anything about not doing that, so it must be OK constitutionally, right?

( Read more...Collapse )

(Comment on this)

It's [Still] The Economy, Dumbass
By Nate Silver
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/its-still-economy-dumbass.html




What we have is a comparison of Barack Obama's approval ratings on the economy to his approval ratings overall. It includes all polls in the Pollster.com database that asked about both approval of Obama on the economy and his overall job performance -- a total of 109 polls dating back to the start of his term. I've then drawn in some LOESS curves to illustrate the trend.

( Read more...Collapse )

(1 Comment |Comment on this)

Poll: Public shifting blame for recession
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/20/poll.recession/index.html

Nearly two years into the recession, opinion about which political party is responsible for the severe economic downturn is shifting, according to a new national poll. A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Friday morning indicates that 38 percent of the public blames Republicans for the country's current economic problems. In May, 53 percent blamed the GOP. According to the poll, 27 percent now blame the Democrats for the recession, up 6 points from May, and 27 percent now say both parties are responsible.

( Read more...Collapse )

(1 Comment |Comment on this)