Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Tuesday Mashup (5/11/10)

  • It didn’t take Fix Noise long to try to take charge of the slowly-unfolding (and you KNEW it would) Elena Kagan corporate media circus, did it?

    As noted here, under the headline “Kagan Slobbers All Over ‘Rock Star’ Obama” (sourcing this story)…

    "[Obama has] rock star qualities. The eloquence, the magnetism, the great looks, the brilliance."
    In response, I give you this item, in which the following was said about the relationship between former Bushco education secretary Margaret Spellings and Number 43…

    “She and Bush have a special relationship, a camaraderie,” Mr. Spellings said of his wife, adding, “She trusts him, and she loves him.”
    If Kagan acted like a groupie, then Spellings acted like a “work wife” at the very least (and I’ll reserve comment on Spellings’ husband).

  • And oh noes, we have another “OMIGOD the Dems are DOOMED!” story (here)…

    Despite a slight uptick in hiring this spring, the May 7 jobs report could show an increase in unemployment among twentysomethings as the strengthening economy entices job seekers who had given up back into the labor market.

    Unemployment has been stuck at 9.7 percent since January, and for those under 25 it's a considerably higher 18.8 percent. Fewer than 60 percent of 20- to 24-year-olds had jobs in the first quarter, the lowest level since 1964.

    The bottom line: Unlike hopeful college graduates who aided Obama's 2008 campaign, grads are busy job hunting and are abandoning Democratic politics.
    Really? “Abandoning Democratic politics” you say? Even though, noted earlier in the story, we discover that “55 percent (of younger voters) leaned Democratic, vs. 37 percent Republican, according to polls conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press from October 2009 to March 2010”?

    In response, I give you the following (from here, among all voters)…

    PRINCETON, NJ -- Republican registered voters' enthusiasm about voting in this year's midterm elections has declined significantly in recent weeks. As a result, Republicans' advantage over Democrats on this measure has shrunk from 19 points in early April to 10 points in the latest weekly aggregate.
    So why do I bother to respond to stuff like this from Business Week? Because trying to drill home misinformation like this leads to the very apathy predicted in the story, to the point where Democrats decide to sit out the election and our corporate media can crow about how brilliant they supposedly are.

    When elections are based on the issues, by and large Dems win. When elections are based on extraneous “values voter” nonsense, faux teabagger umbrage and veiled threats from politicians, the media elite and their acolytes, Repugs win (and for the results of those sorrowful outcomes, see McDonnell, Bob, Christie, Chris, and too many others).

  • Also, the following letter appeared in the New York Times today (here)…

    To the Editor:

    Re “Fear Itself” (editorial, May 6):

    The Terrorist Expatriation Act, which Senators Joseph I. Lieberman and Scott Brown introduced last week, updates a 1940 law to account for the enemy we are fighting today and provides our government with additional antiterrorism tools to help prevent the type of attempted attack that occurred at Times Square in New York.

    The bill makes essential updates to Title 8 United States Code Section 1481, which has seven very clear grounds for which American citizens can lose their citizenship. It updates the law by adding an eighth category of acts: providing material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization or actively engaging in hostilities against the United States or its allies.

    The proposed legislation would not retroactively deny Americans due process. The bill is not retroactive in any way. Additionally, there is a robust administrative procedure within the State Department, including an appeal process, that permits the loss of citizenship to be challenged in American courts.

    The Terrorist Expatriation Act will enhance our ability to defeat terrorism and does not threaten our civil liberties. Those who join our enemy with the intent of waging war on America should no longer be entitled to the rights and privileges of American citizenship, including the rights and privileges of having a United States passport that can be used as a tool to wage terror against America.

    Marshall Wittmann
    Washington, May 10, 2010

    The writer is the communications director for Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut.
    In response, I give you George Washington Law Professor Jonathan Turley (here)…

    While the burden would be on the State Department and you would have access to court review, the agency process could make it difficult to contest such findings — particularly with the use of secret evidence (and barring the use of evidence by the defendant on national security grounds).

    Stripping citizens of their citizenship could also create stateless persons — a problem in international law. Moreover, this process could occur at the same time that a person is fighting criminal charges — adding to the practical and financial burden.
    I object to Lieberman’s bogus bill on principle, and also because….well, because it comes from Joe Freaking Lieberman, people, who I have no reason to trust on anything!

    Besides, as noted here, the law exempts those who would fight for Israel.

    And given the information listed here (as well as that country’s Iraq war cheerleading, which of course they’ll never admit), that exemption is both laughable and utterly insulting.
  • No comments: