Wednesday’s Mini-Report

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* Oh my: “Merrill Lynch economist David Rosenberg, one of the most bearish Wall Street economists, says to look past the 1990-91 recession as a guide to the current downturn. The key difference: the depth of home-price declines…. The mid-1970s recession ‘not only saw a sharp and sustained rise in food and energy prices, as is the case today, but also saw a very similar consumer balance sheet squeeze from a simultaneous deflation in residential real estate and equity assets, which never happened in the 2001 recession, the 1990-91 recession or the recessions of the early 1980s for that matter,’ he writes. ‘The last time we had more than one quarter of outright contraction in the value of both asset classes on the household balance sheet was in the 1973-75 recession.'”

* Bloodshed in Baghdad: “A U.S. military spokesman said three American soldiers were killed in a rocket attack on their combat outpost south of Baghdad on Wednesday. The deaths bring to 12 the number of U.S. troops killed in three days…. Two other American soldiers were injured in the rocket attack. Eight American soldiers died in separate attacks on Monday and one was killed Tuesday.”

* I remember, in 2000, when Bush talked all the time about the importance of a balanced budget: “The Treasury Department says the federal deficit swelled to $263.3 billion in the first five months of this budget year as record spending during the period outpaced record revenues. The department’s latest snapshot of the government’s balance sheets, released Wednesday, shows that the deficit for the budget year that began Oct. 1 was up a whopping 62 percent from the red ink of $162.2 billion for the corresponding five-month period last year. The latest year-to-date budget deficit of $263.3 billion was an all-time high, the government said.”

* A major step on ethics reform: “The House voted Tuesday night to impose a new layer of outside ethics scrutiny on itself after two weeks of open rancor on both sides of the aisle and more than a year of wrangling over the proposal. The final 229 to 182 vote was preceded by plenty of fireworks, despite the comfortable margin. Democratic leaders first had to overcome a procedural hurdle that threatened to kill the measure. They also held the vote open for 15 minutes while leaders pressed several Democratic members to change their no votes to yes.” (Let me just mention, for the record, that I abhor keeping votes open like this.)

* Speaking of the House, lawmakers tried to override Bush’s veto of the intelligence authorization bill (over torture and use of the Army Field Manual in interrogations). It didn’t even come close — Dems came about 60 votes shy of a two-thirds majority.

* When it comes to domestic NSA dragnets, I think the ACLU is onto something.

* What an awful story: “Mehdi Kazemi, a gay Iranian teenager fighting to stay in Europe after his boyfriend was reportedly executed in Iran, has lost a plea for asylum in the Netherlands and will be sent back to Britain, where he could face deportation to Iran, the teen’s uncle told ABC News…. Kazemi, 19, came to Britain to study in 2005. He has said he intended to return to his country until he learned that his boyfriend in Tehran, whom he had been dating secretly since he was 15 years old, had been arrested for sodomy and hanged, according to Kazemi’s lawyer.” Kazemi believes he will be executed upon his return, but a British court denied Kazemi’s request in 2006 on the grounds that Iran does not systematically persecute homosexuals (a conclusion disputed by human rights organizations).

* I’m glad CREW is still on the case: “It’s the burning question of the Bush Administration: malfeasance or incompetence? Did the White House just lose an untold number of emails because of their “primitive” archiving setup? Or is there something worse at play — something criminal? CREW, which has been pursuing a lawsuit over the lost emails, wants to know. And today the group wrote FBI Director Robert Mueller to request that he investigate whether White House officials deleted emails relevant to the Valerie Plame investigation.”

* Keith Olbermann is slated to do another “special comment” tonight, and for the first time, the target of his ire will be a Democrat.

* Really? “Be careful who you frag. Having eliminated all terrorism in the real world, the U.S. intelligence community is working to develop software that will detect violent extremists infiltrating World of Warcraft and other massive multiplayer games, according to a data-mining report from the Director of National Intelligence.”

* What do you know, the EPA’s political leadership has overruled its professional staff again: “The Environmental Protection Agency has decided to lower the allowable amount of smog-forming ozone in the air to 75 parts per billion, a level significantly higher than what the agency’s scientific advisers urged for this key component of unhealthy air pollution, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.”

* And finally, former U.S. attorney Kendall Coffey appeared on CNN yesterday to discuss Eliot Spitzer’s sex scandal. Coffey, of course, is best known for having been forced to resign for “allegedly biting a stripper.” CNN later conceded that Coffey was “probably not the right one for this story.” No, probably not.

Anything to add? Consider this an end-of-the-day open thread.

Dems came about 60 votes shy of a two-thirds majority.

Wow, it doesn’t get much more along party lines than that. If any of the Obama hating Democrats need a reason to vote for him in November, it’s stuff like this.

  • “Merrill Lynch economist David Rosenberg, one of the most bearish Wall Street economists, says to look past the 1990-91 recession as a guide to the current downturn. The key difference: the depth of home-price declines…. The mid-1970s recession ‘not only saw a sharp and sustained rise in food and energy prices, as is the case today, but also saw a very similar consumer balance sheet squeeze from a simultaneous deflation in residential real estate and equity assets, which never happened in the 2001 recession, the 1990-91 recession or the recessions of the early 1980s for that matter,’ he writes. ‘The last time we had more than one quarter of outright contraction in the value of both asset classes on the household balance sheet was in the 1973-75 recession.’”

    I was wondering when some of you kids who were either still in plastic pants then or perhaps a bit of a gleam in mommy and daddy’s eye would get around to studying this “ancient history.”

    For those too young to remember, people I knew who had experienced The Great Depression were seriously worried about that happening again. This was when Nixon of all people imposed wage and price controls, which not even FDR had done in the Depression.

    For those just starting out (I had my first “post-college” job that paid enough to think of buying a house, and we put it off due to the uncertainty) it was a scary time indeed. I in fact went back to grad school to “hide out” till it was over.

  • Kazemi believes he will be executed upon his return, but a British court denied Kazemi’s request in 2006 on the grounds that Iran does not systematically persecute homosexuals…

    Riiiiiiiight. They flip a coin, best two out of three, and watch the victim piss himself as he watches. “It is entirely coincidental, excellency, which way the coins land.”

    I can’t believe the country that created The Rule of Law and the concept of equity (that the law is not allowed to generate an unjust verdict) could do this. The High Tory on the bench making this decision was probably thinking “just another wog…”

  • Leave Kendall Coffey alone! Who among us has never bitten a stripper? Time to move on.

  • Searching for terrorists on World of Warcraft? Well, what can you expect from people who thought the “24” show was a solid basis for determining acceptable interrogation procedures?

    Now if they can just get rid of that damn Dwarf Paladin who keeps ganking me in Hellfire Penninsula every time….. 😉

  • I’d like to blame GW for all of the spending, but it takes two to tango. Who was in charge in congress when the budget bill was passed?

  • Gee, so glad the spying agencies have so little to do. I feel safer already! All those damned GAMERS!

    I thought I would share this article on a speech given by Bush regarding the Fairness Doctrine.

    I am quoting the entire text because it’s pretty amazing to me.

    In Nashville today, during a speech to the National Religious Broadcasters Convention, President Bush said there’s nothing fair about the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” that once required broadcasters to offer air time for competing ideologies.

    The FCC got rid of it about 20 years ago. Now, some Democrats in Congress – long the target of popular conservative radio talk-show hosts – think it’s time to bring it back.
    Perish the thought, Bush told the religious broadcasters in the following passage that ends with a veto promise.

    “This organization has had many important missions, but none more important than ensuring our airways – America’s airways – stay open to those who preach the ‘Good News.’ The very first amendment to our Constitution includes the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. Founders believed these unalienable rights were endowed to us by our Creator. They are vital to a healthy democracy, and we must never let anyone take those freedoms away.”

    ”I mention this because there’s an effort afoot that would jeopardize your right to express your views on public airways. Some members of Congress want to reinstate a regulation that was repealed 20 years ago. It has the Orwellian name called the Fairness Doctrine. Supporters of this regulation say we need to mandate that any discussion of so-called controversial issues on the public airwaves includes equal time for all sides. This means that many programs wanting to stay on the air would have to meet Washington’s definition of balance. Of course, for some in Washington, the only opinions that require balancing are the ones they don’t like.”

    “We know who these advocates of so-called balance really have in their sights: shows hosted by people like Rush Limbaugh or James Dobson, or many of you here today. By insisting on so-called balance, they want to silence those they don’t agree with. The truth of the matter is, they know they cannot prevail in the public debate of ideas. They don’t acknowledge that you are the balance … The country should not be afraid of the diversity of opinions. After all, we’re strengthened by diversity of opinions.”

    “If Congress truly supports the free and open exchange of ideas, then there is a way they can demonstrate that right now. Republicans have drafted legislation that would ban reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Unfortunately, Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives have blocked action on this bill. So in response, nearly every Republican in the House has signed onto what’s called a ‘discharge petition,’ that would require Congress to hold an up or down vote on the ban. Supporters of this petition are only 24 signatures away.”

    “I do want to thank (Indiana Rep.) Mike Pence, who is with us today, and Congressman Greg Walden (of Oregon), for pressing this effort and defending the right for people to express themselves freely. And I urge other members to join in this discharge petition. But I’ll tell you this: If Congress should ever pass any legislation that stifles your right to express your views, I’m going to veto it.”

    If you go to the original article, be sure to read what I consider to be some very off the wall comments. It’s sad that so many people buy into whatever this moronic, corrupt, sociopath of a president says. And vigorously, at that! It’s a shame that most of the commenters there seem to forget that these are public airwaves and lies should not be allowed (let alone endorsed by the courts!) to spew forth freely as if they were truth or fact.

    There are days I just want to give up. Either people are too greedy or gullible, or both, to understand or give a shit.

    And while I am outraged, I wonder why no one at the FCC is looking into Rush’s little games with our election process.

    Cross posted on TPZoo.

  • Someone quoted Kissinger’s “Power is the greatest aphrodisiac.” (explainign how he attracted a hot wife)in relation to Spitzer. But the prostitutes weren’t enamored of power so much as of money. They were just doing their jobs. Now if you interpreted “Power is the greatest aphrodisiac.” to mean it makes the powerful horny that would make sense.

  • And while I am outraged, I wonder why no one at the FCC is looking into Rush’s little games with our election process.

    MsJoanne,

    Are you going to turn the Carpetbagger over to the FCC for encouraging exactly the same kind of behavior by Democrats in the Michigan primary? http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14204.html. I’m sure you’re just as “outraged” by Steve’s “little games,” right?

  • #11-12, if you think it’s the same thing, you’re a fucking idiot. Oh, right. I read your post. You are.

    And I meant FCC. But I’ll add the FEC, too. Not that much could be done because Bush basically gutted it because he couldn’t get his puppet installed.

  • At the risk of being called a fucking idiot on the Internet, I’ll have to ask: how is encouraging Democrats to cast crossover votes in an open Republican primary for a candidate whom Democrats believe would be more easily defeated in the general election appreciably different than encouraging Republicans to cast crossover votes in an open Democratic primary for a candidate whom Republicans believe would be more easily defeated in the general election? Ah, right, the parties are different– how silly of me not to notice that.

  • And there’s no difference between a blog and a nationally syndicated radio show which goes on and on about this day after day after day? Not once does Steve tell people to go do it, let alone over and over ad naseum like Rush does. Right, this is exactly the same thing.

    I do believe they call it a rhetorical question (Google it, learn something).

    And, yeah, you are a fucking idiot. Sorry. Shoe fitting and all.

  • More math…
    Just so you understand what the Clintons are about now:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/12/12839/7964/922/475044

    Juiciest quote:

    Even if Senator Clinton won the remaining nine contests with landslide victories, she wouldn’t even get to within a 100 pledged delegates of Obama. Even if they re-voted in Michigan and Florida and she won by overwhelming majorities in those states, she still wouldn’t be anywhere near Obama’s numbers.

  • ‘The last time we had more than one quarter of outright contraction in the value of both asset classes on the household balance sheet was in the 1973-75 recession.’”

    An economy so bad that Nicholas von Hoffmann speculated in The Fireside Watergate that Wall Street would have hung Nixon if Congress hadn’t impeached him — or nearly so — first.

  • Well, Steve did tell people to do it– it’s right there in the link I posted, perhaps you should look at it again? And I hardly see what the fact that Rush has a larger audience than Steve has to do with anything– if what he did was wrong, it would be wrong regardless of the number of people listening, wouldn’t it? Or are you saying that Steve is less wrong simply because he has less influence than Rush? That, I think it’s fair to say, doesn’t make a lot of sense.

    How about just facing your hypocrisy and getting over it? Either Steve Benen did something unethical or Rush Limbaugh did not. My vote is for the latter; there’s nothing even slightly inappropriate about a political commentator encouraging his audience to vote for a particular candidate, whatever his motives may be. Your “outrage” is nothing more than blind partisanship, and all the ad hominems you care to sling at me don’t change that.

  • #18, apparently your reading ability and comprehension is at par with your ability to think. Non existent.

    I did read it. And Steve did not, in any way, say people should do it.

    You’re embarrassing yourself. And I’m done feeding this troll. Crawl back under your rock, I’m not responding again.

  • Note to the Obama campaign people:

    Given the math I suggest you declare vociferously that you are going to contest all the 9 contests to the very end. That you want a re-do in Florida and Michigan, and that you are willing to share costs of it with the Clinton campaign, the two states, and the DNC.

    Why this strategy?
    Because most Americans are innumerate. They don’t understand that numbers can accurately lasso the future. So just win this thing straight out. Screw the numbers. At the very end, you will have more votes and more delegates and at that point in time… it is yours. Because here is the thing: Americans won’t tolerate someone with more votes and more delegates coming in second. No how. No way.

    So get it done. Make the Clintons’s blink. Grind that big dog-snake into the dust. Kill it for all to see and then raise it high in the air… dangling ugly. A majority of Americans will applaud, and the country will be yours in November.

  • Now… where’s my Keith O link?
    Got a feeling that is going to set a record in going from broadcast to youtube-enabled.

  • Ms.Joanne, your argument is equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “I can’t hear you!” at the top of your lungs. Let’s review: In a post entitled “Michigan mischief with Mitt” posted on this blog on January 11, 2008, Steve Benen quoted at length an article from DailyKos which stated in part: “Michigan Democrats should vote for Mitt Romney, because if Mitt wins, Democrats win.” Steve later quoted another part of the Kos article which explained the rationale: “And we want Romney in, because the more Republican candidates we have fighting it out, trashing each other with negative ads and spending tons of money, the better it is for us. We want Mitt to stay in the race, and to do that, we need him to win in Michigan.”

    After a bit more analysis, Steve added, writing in his own voice here and not quoting, “Helping [Romney] win in Michigan certainly sounds like a good idea to me. Romney is putting it all on the line in Michigan, scaling back in Florida and South Carolina so he can get this win under his belt and parlay it into future success. Why shouldn’t Dems give him a hand?” He also stated earlier in the post that “I’m on record saying that I sincerely hope Mitt Romney gets the Republican nomination, because of the credible GOP candidates, he seems the easiest to beat.”

    Now, in what world do those words not constitute encouraging Michigan Democrats to vote for Romney for the purpose of complicating the Republican primary and helping a candidate whom Steve believed would be easy to beat in the general election? You can ignore all you want; if you haven’t the grace or dignity to admit that you are a brazen hypocrite that’s probably the best course open to you at this point. But it changes nothing.

  • Re: 22,

    One thing that is different about the two situations (and for the record, i didn’t like the idea at the time…and i am a Michigan voter) is that for MI Democratic voters, they’re votes didn’t count unless they voted Republican.

    This does not excuse or make it right. In Texas, Republican voters didn’t need to vote for John McCain or Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul, because the nomination was secure; none-the-less, their votes would have counted for something.

    In Michigan, it didn’t matter who you voted for on the Dem ballot…we were told over and over again that our vote didn’t count. And keep in mind that the MDP made it clear that writing in led to throwing away.

    Like i said, i didn’t like the idea from the get go. I felt that upset MI voters should vote “uncommitted”, because it was a clear signal to the party/legislative elite who made the decision. But it is not the same thing as a nationally syndicate radio host campaigning (and even trying to raise funds) for a member of the opposing party. And it sure as shit isn’t even close to Bill Clinton going on the Rush Limbaugh show to ask people to vote for Hillary.

    The two situations are similar; they are not the same.

  • Grrr…I am breaking my personal Troll Denunciation Act…you quoted the text of what Steve wrote yourself. Where did he explicitly say GO DO IT? Rush is actively and aggressively telling people in no uncertain terms to do just that. Where is Steve saying this?

    He’s not.

    Not once.

    Nowhere.

    It is not there.

    Why shouldn’t Dems give him a hand? That’s where the rhetorical question comes in. Again, Google it.

    And with that, I am done and will not respond even if you tell me my mother is ugly and dresses me funny.

    Olbermann was BRILLIANT!

    Pat Buchanan just told someone to SHUT UP! as she was trying to speak. OUCH! Steve, would love that exchange on the Mini-Report tomorrow!

  • Sorry, “their” not “they’re” in the first run-on sentence in that post…so sorry twice.

  • Really, Ms.Joanne, now who’s embarrassing themselves? If you really want to contend that Steve’s post was not an exhortation for Michigan Democrats to vote for Romney in the Republican primary, you go right ahead and believe that. I’m not really so interested in convicing you at this point as I am in exposing your hypocrisy to the more reasonable persons in the audience. And on that note…

    Lex,
    You’re right, there are some (minor) differences in the two situations, but I don’t really see how the differences you point out are relevant to the debate I’m having with Ms.Joanne. Certainly the Michigan Democratic primary was a disaster on all fronts, but the relevant point here, I think, is that Ms.Joanne is feigning shock and outrage at Limbaugh for adopting a tactic that our side started! Again, I don’t think there’s anything particularly wrong with either instance– legally exploiting a vulnerability in the primary rules for the benefit of your own side is well within the bounds of legitimate political hardball. But I get annoyed, to put it mildly, at the kind of hypocrisy with which I took issue initially.

  • Aw, Lex…doesn’t it kill you when you make mistakes like that? You (and I and anyone else who reads you regularly) know that you know what’s proper…but I know that when I see that I have made a mistake like that, I cringe inside. Bad fingers, bad, bad fingers! 😀

    Gotta love someone who knows the difference between their, there, and they’re though, eh? 😀

  • I just read a news story that a woman had sat on a toilet for two years and her skin actually grafted to the seat. This, somehow, reminds me of Rush doing his show all these years.

  • Regarding Keith:

    Oh my god…
    The democratic party actually has a moral compass.
    Not Kennedy,
    Not Clinton, Carter, or Gore…
    Not Edwards and his redundant Daddy worked in the Mill bullshit…
    Not Kerry and his cheesy salute on national teevee…

    All of those folks are:

    (nothing) · (nothing) = 0

    None of the above stood up and told it like it is.
    N-O-N-E
    As in: Not one of them!
    Not one of the so-called Democratic leaders! Not one!

    Nope.
    The moral compass of the party belongs to Keith Olbermann….
    A former football guy…
    Basketball guy…
    Baseball guy…

    Oh my god….
    Who would have thought it?

  • Trolls come in all shapes, sizes, and genders. Just a gentle reminder to those on this forum that insist on calling people something they, in fact, are. Glass houses and all that.

  • Agreed RE: Keith. Hillary isn’t the first dem he’s taken on and THAT is what the so called journalists are supposed to be doing. The concept of right and wrong escapes most of them these days. And it’s their job to help bring to light government wrongs.

    They are failing miserably.

    Keith Olbermann, Amy Goodman and the few others who are left are the only ones speaking truth.

  • Kazemi believes he will be executed upon his return, but a British court denied Kazemi’s request in 2006 on the grounds that Iran does not systematically persecute homosexuals (a conclusion disputed by human rights organizations).

    As an addendum to this post, I offer the following. While the article linked is specifically about Iraq, the ties between the Iranian leadership and certain factions of the Iraqi insurrection (Badr, anyone?) seem pretty conclusive.

    Group Says Iraq Video Proves Claims Of Increasing Violence Against Gays

  • Surprising nobody so much as myself, I have to agree with much of James Dillon’s argument. Not to suggest I am sympathetic to the aims of the corpulent pusbag that is Rush Limbaugh, because although the Democratic party does not exist in this country, I am most in sync with Democratic goals and policies. However, James is correct to point out that the number of listeners reached by an argument that suggests deliberately influencing election results – with a vote that you do not intend to be representative of your actual wish – is irrelevant.

    Regardless whether there was a naked directive to go out and vote for a Republican so that a candidate who would be easier to beat might secure the nomination, the intent was there and could not be reasonably disputed. Steve just made it sound more like tactics, where Rush made it sound like he was being an arsehole as usual.

    James is also right to imply that Democrats and their supporters look hypocritical when they condemn interference they might applaud under different circumstances. I’d also have to submit the argument was made reasonably and eloquently. I wouldn’t go so far as to say “unethical”, that seems like too strong a word, but I’d agree it was behaviour everyone would feel more comfortable not seeing in elections. Indulging in behaviour you would otherwise condemn if it were used by the opposition is a blueprint for ceding the moral high ground.

    I’m as weary as anyone to see Democrats stick to the high road, only to be sideswiped by dirty tactics for which there is no punishment, and to receive no reward for playing fair. But I can’t think of a good argument that they should do otherwise.

    Pretty good diplomacy from Lex, as well.

  • For anyone who might still be reading this, I will semi-apologize for my lack of diplomacy. Lex, as well as others, are often more diplomatic than I. Perhaps they are less angry than I (doubtful), or they handle their anger better than I, or what have you. It is what it is.

    I read Steve’s original post and did not see one place where he said that any dem should go out and interfere in a GOP primary. If I missed that explicit direction, please do quote it.

    Rush has done just that.

    Let’s turn this around a little. Let’s say Olbermann had repeatedly offered that same advice, for dems to go out and purposefully interfere with the will of the gooper voters. Do you not think that there would be outrage from every commentator on the right? Would the right not be completely indignant and vocally call for his firing, his resignation, his crucifiction?

    Without a doubt. And rightfully so.

    But Rush does it and it’s okie dokie.

    Steve did no such thing, neither implicitly or explicitly. He asked a rhetorical question as to why dems shouldn’t do that. He did not say do it. Not once. If you see that as in implicit direction, that’s how you see it. I, however, do not.

    And that makes for comparisons of apples to olives.

    To say it is the same thing, to me, is absolutely silly.

    I could ask “would our country be better off if Bush was assassinated?” but that is neither asking for or expecting anyone to do so (vs. the right wing who has expressly done so re: Obama. For as angry as I am, I am not asking someone to kill a sitting president. Asking a rhetorical question like that is not asking someone to murder another.

    Asking why we should not interfere with GOP primary elections is not the same as saying GO VOTE FOR HILLARY because we want to keep seeing the democratic dog and pony show.

    I am sorry if you don’t agree or don’t see it. I see it quite clearly.

    And I am angry. VERY angry.

  • MsJoanne,

    Again, you are just wrong. Steve’s post, which included but was in no way limited to the rhetorical question that you keep coming back to, was quite clearly an encouragement for Michigan Democrats to vote for Romney in the Republican primary for the express purpose of affecting the outcome of that vote. There really is nothing ambiguous in that post; there is only one reasonable, good-faith interpretation of it, and yours is not it. If you don’t believe me, why don’t you try asking Steve about it yourself? So all your talk about what the right would or would not do in a counterfactual situation in which Olbermann said something similar is just transparent nonsense; we do have a virtually identical situation already, yet you seem perfectly content to lambast Rush while giving Steve a pass.

    As I’ve said several times already, I don’t think there was anything wrong with Steve’s post, nor do I think there’s anything wrong with what Rush has done. To reiterate: legally taking advantage of a vulnerability in the rules of an election to gain an advantage for your side is so far within the bounds of acceptable political competition that it really shouldn’t even be controversial. The fact that Rush’s, and Steve’s, method of exploting this vulnerability was political speech makes my point all the more valid: your hysterical appeals to the FCC/FEC completely misunderstand the value and purpose of the First Amendment as a necessary component of our republican form of government. Briefly put, there is never anything wrong with a political commentator encouraging his audience to vote for a particular candidate for public office, no matter what his reason for making that recommendation is. This is an instance of pure political speech which lies at the very heart of the First Amendment. However unseemly you may think it is for Rush Limbaugh to encourage Republicans to vote for Clinton in an open Democratic primary (or however unseemly it may have been for Kos or Benen to encourage Democrats to vote for Romney in an open Republican primary, whether you prefer to acknowledge that reality or not), the solution to this problem is for the party to change the primary rules, not for political speech to be prohibited or criminalized. No amount of ad hominem attacks, capital letters, or wilful blindness about the content of the Carpetbagger’s statements changes any of that.

  • Again, you provide rhetoric and no direct quotes.

    I disagree.

    Nothing else to add.

  • I have already quoted the relevant portions of the post, MsJoanne. There is nothing I need to add that hasn’t already been said. And again, if you disagree, why don’t you ask Steve yourself what the intent of his post was? I have no doubt that he’ll be honest with you– but that would put you in a terribly awkward position, wouldn’t it?

  • the ties between the Iranian leadership and certain factions of the Iraqi insurrection (Badr, anyone?) seem pretty conclusive.

    I assume you’re actually referring to al Sadr there. But the call to persecute gays in Iraq was already clearly made by that “moderate” cleric Sistani who the neocons were all so enamoured with early on in the war. The esteemed Sistani was asked about gays and declared that they should all be killed “in the worst way possible.” Now, in Iraq, that’s saying a lot! There’ve been plenty of people killed in pretty nasty ways these last few years, what with torture and drilling holes in heads. That any supposedly enlightened western government would deny asylum to a gay person and send him back to either Iran or Iraq is simply beyond the pale. Hopefully some MP will step in and throw some bars in the wheels of that process before this guy is sent back to his execution.

  • Comments are closed.