Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) arguing that taxpayer-funded NASA scientists are not entitled to free speech:
“Free speech is not a simple thing and is subject to and directed by policy.”
Yeah… I guess if the White House pays for the research, it gets to determine the results.
The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.
I’ll be bringing a special date who I hope to take home and get into bed at a reasonable hour, so come by early if you want to say hello.
Not in Seattle? Liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities. A full listing of Washington’s eleven Drinking Liberally chapters is available here.
This morning on KUOW’s Weekday the topic of discussion was “Who Won in Iraq?” Steve Scher’s first guest was Neocon posterchild David Frum. While Frum was discussing Iraqi deaths, he rather casually threw out the statement (at 8:14) that “the Lancet study [of Iraqi mortality] has been pretty thoroughly discredited.”
No, Mr. Frum, it hasn’t.
The Lancet study has been widely misunderstood, but not discredited. There are many batshit crazy neocons like Mr. Frum who wish, in their heart of hearts, that the grim reality uncovered by the Lancet study wasn’t so. But, if wishes were horses, neocons could ride…in a new crusade to world dominance….
The Lancet study [Burnham et al. (2006) Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq:a cross-sectional cluster sample survey, Lancet 368(9545):1421-8.] found that there were 654,965 excess Iraqi deaths (with 95% confidence that the true number falls between 392,979 to 942,636) in the post-invasion period. The study used a standard epidemiological method of cluster sampling—methods that have been used in thousands of studies without controversy.
What is largely misunderstood about the Lancet study is that the estimates reflect a change in all forms of mortality between the pre-invasion period to the post-invasion (July, 2006) period. The excess deaths are mostly violent, but they also include non-violent excess deaths, like those resulting from increases in disease or resulting from destroyed health care infrastructure, etc. Other estimates, like counting media reports of deaths (i.e. the Iraq Body Count project) are not only attempting to measuring a subset of the mortality of the Lancet paper, but the IBC project method vastly underestimates all war-related mortality, just because every fatality is not reported in the Iraqi press. (In other words, because the estimates are substantially biased downward, the IBC body count would never be considered valid scientific estimates of total mortality in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.)
Frum’s statement is just another wingnut talking point that was directly disseminated by George W. Bush the morning the Lancet article was covered by the media. Bush came out swinging: (hear it here) “Six hundred thousand or whatever they guessed at is just, it’s not credible.” And then he defined the administration-approved wingnut talking point that the study was “pretty well discredited.”
Uh-huh. A newly published paper in one of the top scientific and medical journals in the world, “pretty well discredited” within hours of publication? Not!
You see, the opinions of politicians and pundits are irrelevant—they have no bearing on the validity of a scientific study. It is scientific review by the people who are qualified to evaluate the work (you know, people with PhDs in statistics, demography, or epidemiology) that determine whether or not the science is valid.
So far, there has been little scientific controversy over the findings. Because science is a constant game of oneupsmanship, a number of skeptical scientists have probed the methods for potential flaws and biases. Scientists consider this kind of skepticism extremely healthy—no paper is above scrutiny and there are large rewards in the community of science for uncovering fundamental flaws in a published paper. As a result, every now and then flaws are found that lead to the retraction of a paper.
Not so in this case. Despite a number of spirited attempts by qualified scientists to uncover scientific flaws in the paper, nothing of substance has been demonstrated that substantially challenges the scientific findings. If and when flaws in the paper can be demonstrated, the paper will be retracted. But for now, the scientific community considers that the paper’s findings are valid.
I just thought I would help clear up Mr. Frum’s misunderstanding…even if it means kicking the legs out from under his warrior horse.
As a junior member of the minority party, and the 419th most powerful congressman in the U.S. House, Rep. Dave Reichert has a lot more opportunity these days to exercise his mighty biceps than he does his puny political influence. So on those few occasions when he is given the chance to play a role in current events, it is instructive to see what he does with it.
With the U.S. attorneys scandal metastasizing around him, the task of recommending John McKay’s replacement fell squarely on Reichert’s broad shoulders, and he responded with the kind of bold competence we’ve come to expect from the brawny “Sheriff” who had Gary Ridgeway firmly in his grasp, but on a hunch, let him continue murdering women for another 18 years. I’ve already remarked on the candidate at the top of the list, former congressman Rick White, a lapsed bankruptcy attorney with little courtroom and zero prosecutorial experience. Sure, he isn’t even eligible to practice law in Washington state (or, um, anywhere,) but he’s a loyal Republican, and that’s really all that counts, huh?
Now attention is turning to another of Reichert’s nominees, acting U.S. Attorney Jeff Sullivan, McKay’s number two, and the former longtime Yakima County Prosecutor. Scuttlebutt is that Sullivan would be the safe choice — an experienced prosecutor, (again) a loyal, machine Republican… and a man who once referred to undocumented immigrants back in Yakima as “wetbacks.”
Hmm. I wonder how that racial slur goes over with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales?
By all accounts, Sullivan has his supporters in WA’s legal community, but he has his detractors as well. He is widely disliked in the Yakima Nation for aggressively fighting their efforts to battle alcoholism by taxing or banning alcohol on their reservation. And victim-advocacy groups still cringe at a policy he started in 1979, that required rape victims to take lie-detector tests.
And while he can boast three decades of prosecutorial experience, Sullivan’s very last case as Yakima County Prosecutor didn’t go so well:
In a blistering decision, a Yakima County Superior Court judge has accused the county prosecutor’s office of misconduct and dismissed a murder-conspiracy case it was hoping to try a second time.
[…] “The state’s misconduct prejudiced the defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel,” Judge Susan Hahn wrote in her ruling.
But then, a prosecutor admonished from the bench for withholding evidence from the defense might be exactly the kind of “team player” the White House is looking for.
And then there’s Reichert’s third nominee, Mike Vaska. An experienced litigator and prosecutor widely respected on both sides of the aisle, Vasca ruffled party feathers by challenging the annointed Rob McKenna in the 2004 GOP Attorney General primary. He doesn’t stand a chance.
It wouldn’t surprise me if none of Reichert’s three candidates gets the job. Nice work Dave.
No, he isn’t, but how would you know if you heard him say this?
“Patria o muerte, venceremos”, or “Fatherland or death, we shall overcome”
It’s an old communist sign-off used by Fidel Castro for years.
Read the rest here.
“But Clinton did it too.”
That was the refrain from one caller to The David Goldstein Show last night. I was a guest for the last two hours. The firing of United States Attorneys for political reasons isn’t new, they said. After all, Clinton dumped all of them when he took office in 1993.
What the right-wing retards don’t understand is the position of US Attorney IS a political appointment. Presidents get to put just about anyone they want in those jobs. They are usually party loyalists. That said, when a person is installed in the job, you don’t get to pressure them for not going after your political enemies. You can’t bully them.
That’s what folks seem to be missing.
The Bush Administration used to be, if anything, a savvy political shop. They were incompetent, sure, but they never got caught with their pants down like this (save perhaps for Scooter Libby, who allowed his successful prosecution to distract from the involvement of Cheney and others in the Valerie Plame scandal). These guys aren’t supposed to be bad at the tactical stuff. It seems they just got greedy, and they got caught at it.
The firing of these eight GOP attorneys isn’t worth the trouble they’ve brought. The top man at the DoJ, Alberto Gonzalez, is likely out within 48 hours.
All this over eight lawyers of “insufficient loyalty.”
Bush has had a “hard basement” of about 30% in most polls. I never thought it could go any lower, but I feel the basement caving in.
I find it curious that Republican blog-parrots keep scoffing at the idea that the U.S. attorneys firings represent any sort of scandal, at the same time the key players involved keep resigning in disgrace::
Republican officials operating at the behest of the White House have begun seeking a possible successor to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, whose support among GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill has collapsed, according to party sources familiar with the discussions.
[…] Republican sources also disclosed that it is now a virtual certainty that Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty, whose incomplete and inaccurate congressional testimony about the prosecutors helped precipitate the crisis, will also resign shortly.
[…] “We have a crisis where there doesn’t need to be one, and now Democrats have an issue where they can open up the subpoena floodgates,” said an exasperated Republican aide. “Once these investigations start, there always ends up being a lot of messy collateral damage.”
“Messy collateral damage” because investigations like this tend to uncover the truth.
Here’s the headline from Huffington Post:
Dems’ Health Plans Cover More People, Cost Less Than Bush’s
To which the fellas in the office said:
Bush has a healthcare plan?
Heh heh…
We all knew that Rev. Ken Hutcherson was a documented liar. Now, thank’s once again to The Stranger’s Eli Sanders, we now know that Hutcherson still is a liar.
His hands were bleeding and his eyes filled with tears as, four years ago, he slammed a sledgehammer into the tiled plinth that held a 20ft bronze statue of Saddam Hussein. Then Kadhim al-Jubouri spoke of his joy at being the leader of the crowd that toppled the statue in Baghdad’s Firdous Square. Now, he is filled with nothing but regret.
The moment became symbolic across the world as it signalled the fall of the dictator. Wearing a black vest, Mr al-Jubouri, an Iraqi weightlifting champion, pounded through the concrete in an attempt to smash the statue and all it meant to him. Now, on the fourth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq, he says: “I really regret bringing down the statue. The Americans are worse than the dictatorship. Every day is worse than the previous day.”
Anti-war marches are scheduled for 3 PM today at both Westlake Park (4th & Pine) and the Federal Courthouse (700 Stewart St.) The two groups will eventually merge at the Henry Jackson Federal Building, 915 Second Ave.
As I reported on Saturday, a Public Disclosure Commission investigation confirmed that King County Republicans had committed major reporting violations during 2006 — the KCRCC filed 56 late reports, and failed to provide employer and occupation information for 90-percent of their big donors. In fact, the reporting violations were so numerous and so serious that PDC staff recommended referring the investigation to the state Attorney General’s office “because the remedies the Commission could impose statutorily are insufficient given the number and significance of the apparent violations.”
The Seattle Times David Postman picks up the story this morning on his blog, but I find it more than a bit surprising that our local papers have gone to press three times since the report was issued Friday afternoon, without a single column inch of coverage. Compare that to the amount of ink the Times alone devoted to similar reporting violations committed by the state Democratic Party:
And that wasn’t even an exhaustive search.
I’m just sayin’…
Still recovering from your post St. Patty’s Day hangover? Tune in for a little “hair of the blog that bit you” tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on Newsradio 710-KIRO:
7PM: Who (or what) won the Viaduct vote?
A lot of pundits and politicians say the big winner in Tuesday’s election was the one option that was not on the ballot. The Stranger’s Erica C. Barnett was the first local reporter to cover the surface-plus-transit alternative, and she’ll be joining me in the studio for an analysis of the vote, a first-hand report from the big Olympia press conference the next day, and a discussion of our region’s broader transportation issues in general.
8PM: Blogger roundup!
Fellow HA blogger Will joins me in the studio for a roundup of this week’s news.
9PM: TBA
Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).
TheHim over at EFFin’ Unsound takes Eric Earling to the woodshed for refusing to correct his statement about Valerie Plame Wilson. One of the points at issue is whether Ms. Wilson was or was not “covert” when she was outed to the press by senior administration officials.
Eric writes: “…let me amplify the original point: there is no evidence Plame was covert. ” Yeah…right.
The Republican disinformation machine has long attempted to throw up a smokescreen by disseminating the meme that Ms. Wilson was not really covert. But given the evidence uncovered in the Libby trial and evidence introduced by Plame’s testimony before the House Committee for Government Oversight and Reform, it could only be willful ignorance or unadulterated batshit crazy wingnuttery that could keep someone believing the discredited talking point.
I mean, there are really only two credible sources as to Ms. Wilson’s status. The first is the CIA. The fact is, the CIA called for the investigation in the first place. If Ms. Wilson’s status had not been classified, the CIA would have had no reason to call for an investigation.
As former CIA intelligence officer Larry C. Johnson points out, CIA director Michael Hayden approved a statement, read into the congressional record, that established Ms. Wilson as under cover, and her status at the CIA as classified when she was outed.
Even during the Libby trial, Patrick Fitzgerald made a statement confirming that Wilson was a CIA officer and that her position with the CIA was classified on the day she was outed.
The other credible source is Ms. Wilson, who obviously knows what her status was on 14 Jul 2003. She testified under oath that her status was covert and that the information about her status was classified. When asked whether she had traveled overseas as a covert operations officer within the last 5 years, she responded affirmatively. Her testimony before the committee can be seen here: Part I, Part II, and Part III.
She even pointed out that most of the individuals working in the CIA Counterproliferation Division were covert. Yeah…that includes people who went to CIA headquarters every day and worked behind a desk.
Eric apparently misunderstands the meaning of “testimony under oath” when he quipped, “Valerie Plame has her right to say whatever she’d like under oath.” Umm….no she doesn’t, Eric. The whole point of testifying under oath is that you give up your right to make untruthful or mislead statements. And, as we know from Scooter Libby’s failure to testify truthfully, the consequences for lying are severe. It defies credulity to imagine that Ms. Wilson would go before Congress and make false statements under oath—statements that were pre-screened by the CIA to avoid divulging remaining classified details—about her status at the CIA on a particular date.
Eric can close his eyes, clenched his fists, hold his breath, and wish with all his might that it ain’t so. But it is so. In fairness to Eric, I suppose we should chalk this up to willful ignorance…but, man, it sure makes Eric look no brighter than the kooky commenters over at (u)SP when he digs in on this.
Seattle City Councilman Peter Steinbrueck is taking Tuesday’s election results and he’s running with them:
The outcome of the advisory vote will likely add momentum to a third choice that politicians kept off the ballot: the so-called surface option that would tear down the viaduct and route traffic onto downtown streets along with beefed-up transit.
Seattle City Councilman Peter Steinbrueck, who favors that option, said he’ll submit legislation today to effectively kill a tunnel by shifting $8 million in city funds that had been budgeted for a tunnel to work on designs for a surface plan.
“This clearly opens the door to an alternative solution,” said Steinbrueck, who recently announced he would not seek re-election so he could dedicate more time to fighting a new viaduct.
Now that the tunnel is toast, Steinbrueck is pushing hard to make the “surface plus transit” option the city’s official preferred option. I, like Peter, am estatic that Seattle voters dumped two bad choices in favor of some new ideas.
But Seattle is not an island, politically. At the big press conference after the election with Gregoire, Sims, and Nickels, all the parties decided to work together. (Read more about this presser here, here, and here)
What Steinbrueck is doing may be good public policy, it ain’t necessarily in the spirit of a “collaborative” “consensus-based” discussion.
While us city folk can do all we want about the viaduct, there are folks like Mary Margaret Haugen who want to punish Seattle residents by tearing down the viaduct tomorrow. While Frank Chopp isn’t off the deep end in the same way. (He has to answer to Seattle voters, a great many of which are dead-set against rebuilding the viaduct)
The big fear is that Olympia decides to strip Seattle of the ability to issue permits for viaduct construction, essentially taking away our leverage. I would hope that Peter does not make the same mistake Nickels and Co. did with the tunnel by being too single-minded and not playing ball with other parties.
A longtime advisor on Al Gore:
“He has lost a few pounds, and Hillary can read into that what she wants,”
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!