No Surprise here!

Posted: February 10, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: The Media SUCKS, the villagers, Voter Ignorance, We are so F'd | Tags: , | 45 Comments

A study released in December by a non-partisan group at the University of Maryland showed an appalling lack of knowledge on a variety of topics by US voters.  One of the most interesting findings of the study was that most of the lack of knowledge and out-and-out misinformation could be sourced to the media one followed.

The survey included fairly basic questions on programs like TARP, the economy, and taxes.  Answers  were mostly a straightforward yes or no and could be easily found with a little internet research.  The surveyed voters were just sadly uninformed and missed question-after-question in large and significant numbers.  Probably the most shocking finding was that the degree to being misinformed was highly associated with the source of news followed by the participant.

The most controversial part of the study comes at the end.  MSNBC and NPR audiences were found to be least misinformed on the basic questions of fact.  The study points to Fox News as the chief misinformer among the three major cable news outlets.  The following is a list of instances in which Fox News viewers were more likely to be misinformed on a given issue:

  • most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)
  • most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)
  • the economy is getting worse (26 points)
  • most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)
  • the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)
  • their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)
  • the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)
  • when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)
  • and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)

Even more revealing, people who watched Fox News multiple times a day or everyday were found to be more misinformed than those who just watched Fox News occasionally

That’s a fairly interesting result.  The more you watch Fox, the more misinformed you’re likely to become. Now, we get this headline today from Media Matters and Eric Boehlert: “FOX NEWS INSIDER: “Stuff Is Just Made Up”.  That sure explains a lot, doesn’t it?

Indeed, a former Fox News employee who recently agreed to talk with Media Matters confirmed what critics have been saying for years about Murdoch’s cable channel. Namely, that Fox News is run as a purely partisan operation, virtually every news story is actively spun by the staff, its primary goal is to prop up Republicans and knock down Democrats, and that staffers at Fox News routinely operate without the slightest regard for fairness or fact checking.

“It is their M.O. to undermine the administration and to undermine Democrats,” says the source. “They’re a propaganda outfit but they call themselves news.”

And that’s the word from inside Fox News.

The ex-Fox employee whistle blower explains some of the ways that Fox distorts the story.  This just adds further evidence to the batch of leaked emails last year showing how a top news editor was found to have told staffers how to slant the news for the desired bias.   Here’s a sample on how Fox News insured that the Obama HCR plan was rebranded from its original roots in Romney Care and the Heritage Plan put forward in 1993 by then Republican Senator John Chaffee.

From: Sammon, Bill
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:23 AM
To: 054 -FNSunday; 169 -SPECIAL REPORT; 069 -Politics; 030 -Root (FoxNews.Com); 036 -FOX.WHU; 050 -Senior Producers; 051 -Producers
Subject: friendly reminder: let’s not slip back into calling it the “public option”

1)      Please use the term “government-run health insurance” or, when brevity is a concern, “government option,” whenever possible.

2)      When it is necessary to use the term “public option” (which is, after all, firmly ensconced in the nation’s lexicon), use the qualifier “so-called,” as in “the so-called public option.”

3)      Here’s another way to phrase it: “The public option, which is the government-run plan.”

4)      When newsmakers and sources use the term “public option” in our stories, there’s not a lot we can do about it, since quotes are of course sacrosanct.

This isn’t even the first evidence we’ve had that Fox deliberately misleads its viewers.  You may recall the 2003 study that showed Fox viewers mistakenly thought Saddam Hussein and Iraq were responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers.  There were also other mistaken perceptions about other circumstances surrounding the lead up to the Iraq invasion.

In the run-up to the war misperceptions were also highly related to support for going to war. In February, among those who believed that Iraq was directly involved in September 11, 58% said they would agree with the President’s decision to go to war without UN approval. Among those who believed that Iraq had given al Qaeda substantial support, but was not involved in September 11, approval dropped to 37%. Among those who believed that a few al Qaeda individuals had contact with Iraqi officials 32% were supportive, while among those who believed that there was no connection at all just 25% felt that way. Polled during the war, among those who incorrectly believed that world public opinion favored going to the war, 81% agreed with the President’s decision to do so, while among those who knew that the world public opinion was opposed only 28% agreed.

While it would seem that misperceptions are derived from a failure to pay attention to the news, in fact, overall, those who pay greater attention to the news are no less likely to have misperceptions. Among those who primarily watch Fox, those who pay more attention are more likely to have misperceptions. Only those who mostly get their news from print media have fewer misperceptions as they pay more attention.

The Maryland Study cited above has found more evidence that viewers of Fox News hold views on the economy based on out and out untruths.  Again, the facts and data are easily found in many other sources.

–  72% believe the economy is getting worse.

–  49% believe their taxes have gone up under President Obama.

–  63% believe the stimulus did not create any tax cuts.

–  47% believe that TARP was passed into law and signed by President Obama.

None of these things are true and can be easily fact-checked by checking government sites.   There are several things here that are extremely important.  The first is that print media is basically on the wane and followers of print media consistently score higher on knowing the facts.  The second is that Fox News consistently earns the highest rating.  There’s more people getting their news from a serious attempt at mass propaganda than an earnest daily rag.  The third is that we live in a democracy and people victimized by a propaganda outlet posing as a news source are a serious threat to our democracy. Misinformed voters make incredibly bad decisions. I have only to point to those same folks who cheered the Iraq invasion then that know better now to come up with a really good example of the true cost in lives and treasure of this kind of ignorance.

Obviously, this source is an ‘unnamed’ staffer who is no longer with Fox. These leaves the story open to the charge of unknown disgruntled worker.  However, the information jives with what we already know when examining the failed test scores of Fox News watchers and the contents of the 2010 leaked memos.  We also know that Rupert Murdoch writes millions of dollars of checks to Republican Candidates and has a large number or wannabe Republican candidates on air as experts.  Evidently, former governors of states with low populations and exceedingly low educational standards and economic performance can be cause enough to put one on the Fox payroll as some kind of expert.

There are many interesting observations offered up by the anonymous ex-staffer.

The source continues: “I don’t think people understand that it’s an organization that’s built and functions by intimidation and bullying, and its goal is to prop up and support Republicans and the GOP and to knock down Democrats. People tend think that stuff that’s on TV is real, especially under the guise of news. You’d think that people would wise up, but they don’t.”

As for the press, the former Fox News employee gives reporters and pundits low grades for refusing, over the years, to call out Fox News for being the propaganda outlet that it so clearly is. The source suggests there are a variety of reasons for the newsroom timidity.

“They don’t have enough staff or enough balls or don’t have enough money or don’t have enough interest to spend the time it takes to expose Fox News. Or it’s not worth the trouble. If you take on Fox, they’ll kick you in the ass,” says the source. “I’m sure most [journalists]  know that. It’s not worth being  Swift Boated for your effort,” a reference to  how Fox News traditionally attacks journalists who write, or are perceived to have written, anything negative things about the channel.

Indeed, the veal pen will rush to protect even the most dubious hack in the nastiest pen.  The problem is that most people believe what’s on a TV news program.  Maybe it’s because so many of us grew up with our much trusted Uncle Walter or Uncles Chet and David. Maybe it’s because it’s hard to fact check a mostly 24-7 operation reliant on pretty faces and glib voices. But, I know people that think that even Glenn Beck is a journalist and a fact checker.

We have what are supposed to be legitimate news programs as well as obvious political shock jocks on Fox that many people take seriously.    I’ve even had people tell me that the CIA Factbook site was either hacked by Cuba or not a legitimate site when I’ve used it as source of data to offset the memes of some rabid dog expert that’s blathered about US exceptionalism and how we’re number one on this or that.  You can’t spend a lot of time on the CIA World Factbook without noticing exactly how far we’ve been tumbling from a number one or even number 10 positions recently on nearly every imaginable positive measure of economic well-being.  Yet, we’re both dying under the yoke of socialist oppression while being exceptionally number one, simultaneously, according to Fox.

What’s the offset to this?  Well, I’m not sure considering the number of people that go to FOX and appear on FOX because it’s simply an echo chamber.  I do think the MSM should do more stories that point out misinformation available other places.  I also think that a few of them should try to start acting less like People Magazine and more like news magazine.  The corporatization and consolidation of Media obviously works against getting a good and decent media.  We get more coverage of Lindsey Lohen’s necklace escapades than news on Afghanistan or Gitmo these days.

A good part of living in a democracy and being committed to seeing it through is to remain vigilant against threats.  FOX News represents a clear and present danger. Perhaps the most we can do is just continue to find good sources of information in alternative media and then see that information goes out to our friends and family. I know I have to offset the Fox Effect with my Dad all the time.  It gets discouraging.

They think they own our Bodies

Posted: February 9, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: abortion rights, U.S. Politics, Violence against women, Voter Ignorance, We are so F'd, Women's Rights | Tags: , , , , | 100 Comments

Update:  Women’s Health Outrage of the moment: BREAKING: Appropriation Committee sticks gov’t-funding law that cuts $372 mil in funding for Planned Parenthood/family planning into HR358

The Republican Party is waging a war against American women and is being joined by a few bad Democratic sell outs.  Representatives like Joe Pitts are attacking the rights of women to make personal health-related decisions daily.  HR#3 is just the first of a series of bills designed to narrow definitions of rape, prevention, and what constitutes federal support of women’s reproductive health.  Any one that voted for any Republican under the guise of being pissed at Democrats should take this as a lesson.  Republicans cannot be trusted to do right by women.

This is nothing less than a crusade against the autonomy and adulthood of women. We need to take to the streets again. This is the latest affront: Under Banner of Fiscal Restraint, Republicans Plan New Abortion Bills.

All but invisible during the midterm elections, the abortion debate has returned to Congress.

Invoking the mantra of fiscal restraint that has dominated House action since lawmakers reconvened last month, Republicans began committee work this week on two bills that would greatly expand restrictions on financing for and access to abortions. Another bill, one that would cut off federal dollars to women’s health care clinics that offer abortions, is expected to surface later this year.

“This House is more pro-life than it’s ever been,” said Representative Joe Pitts, Republican of Pennsylvania and the author of one of the bills to limit money for abortions.

Democrats in both the House and Senate immediately fought back Tuesday, working closely with reproductive rights advocates. They have appropriated the Republican charge from last year that Democrats were working on a liberal policy agenda instead of on job creation and the economy, and turned it on its head.

We’re fortunate that some Democratic office holders are fighting against this religious crusade against American Women.  Others are not as reported here by StarkReports.  Is HR#3 so overreaching that it could end even the watered down abortion rights that we now know in the US?  Will Democrats like Harry Reid be complicit?  The Youtube above and the quote below cover the recent Democratic Press Conference on Republican attempts to control women.  It makes this important point.  Dozens of Democrats will probably join their crazed Republican counterparts to pass this abomination.  There is one thing in particular that I’d like to point out in bold below that will let you know why no woman that respects her own autonomy can vote Republican period.  This should also increase our skepticism of Democrats too.

Since every Representative in the Republican House majority is anti-choice, and since there are probably dozens of anti-choice Democrats that will join them, HR3 will assuredly pass the House.

In the Senate, Harry Reid is anti-choice and has been rolled by Mitch McConnell and the Republicans at every turn. Moreover, procedure in the Senate is much more amenable to minority priorities. Abortion supporters are hopeful, but nobody is saying with any degree of certitude that HR3 will die in the Senate.

With that in mind, I decided to ask the people in the room if they were willing to withhold their support from the President if he signed the bill if it reached his desk. Nadler dodged the question, saying it was premature. I pointed out that there was a reason he called the press conference: that he didn’t wan’t to see this bill become law. He stayed silent on the President.

The Republican party no longer represents a sane alternative to the Democratic Party.  Still, the Democratic Party cannot be trusted to do the right thing by women either.  Women have no choice but to ensure that any one that is willing to sell us out to religious extremists in the Democratic party does not get our vote.  PERIOD.

HR#3 and its counterparts make women second class citizens.  There is no other personal health decision that the government feels the need to make for any man.  This says that the majority of people in Congress and a good deal of them in the Senate do not think we are adult enough to make a ‘moral choice’.  It also continues the special treatment of fetus fetishists to opt out of paying taxes for women’s health while forcing the rest of us to pay for their bridges to no where, their murderous wars, and their religion-based stupidity like ‘abstinence education’.   The rape redefinition trick is still in these bills too.

One bill, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” would eliminate tax breaks for private employers who provide health coverage if their plans offer abortion services, and would forbid women who use a flexible spending plan to use pre-tax dollars for abortions. Those restrictions would go well beyond current law prohibiting the use of federal money for abortion services.

The bill, sponsored by Representative Christopher H. Smith, Republican of New Jersey, has drawn fire over language that undercuts a longstanding exemption on the ban on using federal money for abortions in the case of rape or incest; the measure narrows the definition of rape to “forcible rape,” a term that his office has never defined. Democratic lawmakers and others repeatedly hammered on the term, saying it suggested that victims of statutory rape and other crimes could not get abortions paid for with federal money.

While Mr. Smith’s staff said last week that the term “forcible rape” would be removed from the bill, the staff of Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, said that language remained intact as of Tuesday.

Another bill, sponsored by Mr. Pitts, addresses the health care overhaul head-on by prohibiting Americans who receive insurance through state exchanges from purchasing abortion coverage, even with their own money. The bill is essentially a resurrection of a provision in the House version of the health care law but was not in the Senate version.

The bill would also permit hospitals to refuse abortions to women, even in emergency situations, if such care would offend the conscience of the health care providers.

We now have senators whose narrow religious views will be used to define rape and will allow hospitals to let women die.  Many of you have heard this story before, but my daughter has already experienced some of this conscious clause bullshit during her forth year in Medical School while doing a rotation in Michigan.  A resident left my daughter–not a qualified physician at the time–and a nurse to clean up the remnants of a botched abortion that was rapidly going septic in one woman’s uterus.  That’s right.  This woman was left by a doctor to a fourth year medical student and a nurse as a result of an abortion-gone-wrong.  The doctor basically left her to die.  Thankfully, my daughter was a competent and conscientious caregiver and so was the nurse.  This last bill allows entire hospitals to walk away from dying women.

These bills would go no where with out the duplicity of Democrats like Nebraska’s wacko Senator Ben Nelson.  We need to make it loud and clear that we will not contribute to any mass campaign fund that includes support for people who believe women are not adult enough to make moral decisions for themselves.  You need to make sure that your donations do not go to Democratic Politician’s PACS that can sneak money to these culprits.  Lastly, we need a pledge that pro choice Democrats will not sell out women for any reason.  There needs to be an absolute understanding that these bills will not reach the President’s desk and if they do, the President will not sign them.

Woman’s should not be hung on a cross of bipartisanship or kumbaya centrist compromises.  It’s time to make that very clear. We do not want to return to the days of forced pregnancy or wire hangers. We need to know that we can trust each and every one of them to stand by us before they get any form of support from us.  This includes the President.

Rachel Maddow is on the forefront of this fight.  You can follow her efforts and get more information here at The Maddow Blog. Send letters to your congressman via NARAL.  Support Planned Parenthood here.  Read more Feminist bloggers on this.  We are not alone in our fear and outrage.  Here’s the latest from Shakesville:  ‘Take Your Legislation OFF  Me‘.

Dead Presidents

Posted: February 5, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Surreality, the blogosphere, The Media SUCKS, the villagers, U.S. Politics, Voter Ignorance | Tags: , | 19 Comments

Comic Book Reagan

It’s only fitting that some one who completely mangles American history, world geography, and the English language gets to deliver yet another eulogy on Reagan.  We come not to bury Caesar, but to completely reinvent the guy into something we want him to be because we have no better narrative.  Many liberal sites are rightly pointing out that we knew Ronald Reagan and he was not the Ronald Reagan we’re hearing about now.  Here’s a good list of  ‘10 Things Conservatives Don’t Want you to now about Ronald Reagan’.  I’ll hit the top four because,well, I’m an economist and these four things resonate with me the most.

1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan “signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.” “Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes,” said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is “false mythology,” Brinkley said.

2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.

3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980′s did little help them. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,” the New York Times’ David Leonhardt noted.

4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned” under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.

So, in the real world, Ronald Reagan was the archetype for the Republican much hated “tax and spend Keynesian”  if there ever was one.  Reagan’s former Budget Director David Stockman has said as much. His former economic adviser Bruce Bartlett has changed his tiger stripes too.    Now, compare that to this tripe in a speech completely missing the facts and the history. Oh, and it’s kind’ve stolen from the Gipper yet heavily revised to meet today’s modern propaganda needs.

“He saw our nation at a critical turning point. We could choose one direction or the other. Socialism or freedom and free markets. Collectivism or individualism. In his words, we can choose ‘the swamp’ or ‘the stars.'”

Take a quick look at the source of the cribbed statement and notice the difference.  It seems that not one of our political spokesmodels can originate thoughts these days.  We have a rip-it-off-then-mangle-it pol culture these days.

“We are at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it has been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening,” Reagan said.

The most dangerous enemy we have ever faced is ignorance.  The face of ignorance is the modern day Know Nothing Wing of the Republican Party.  The old Known Nothing party was rooted in nativism and anti-Catholicism.  This one is rooted in similar phobias and bigotry.  Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote:  “All history becomes subjective; in other words there is properly no history, only biography”.

Read the rest of this entry »

Dirty Little Secrets

Posted: February 2, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Corporate Crime, Team Obama, The Bonus Class, U.S. Politics, Voter Ignorance, We are so F'd | Tags: , , | 12 Comments

The overall corporate income tax was featured during the President’s SOTU address and by Republican circles.  I have mentioned that this particular rate isn’t even relevant anymore in posts and down thread comments because corporations here really don’t pay any where near the effective rate.

There are several reasons for this.  First, many of them now set up real or pseudo headquarters in tax and off shore banking havens like the Bahamas or Qatar and place a lot of their operations out of the reach of the IRS.  The second is the efficiency of lobbying efforts in getting them so many loopholes that most corporate revenues become exempt.  Despite this, corporations use public services and create social costs.  Social costs are those costs that the society gets to foot when corporations create problems they or their consumers can pass to the public.  A big example is smoking that creates incredible public health issues or pollution.  BP is definitely not taking care of the tab for its destruction down here and will most likely escape prosecution for costs the spill will continue to wreck on the environment, livings, and health of people and wildlife in the area.  Meanwhile, as an oil business, they are the beneficiary of many, many tax loopholes and direct subsidies.

I was glad to see some hard data–albeit anecdotal–on this phenomenon today in David Leonhardt’s op ed column in the NYT called ‘The Paradox of Corporate Taxes‘.  The narrative begins with the example of Carnival Cruises that has a special, extreme loophole that leaves the majority of its revenues untaxed while  it uses a number of public resources like services of the Coast Guard.  Corporations are cost minimizing and profit maximizing things.  They will employ an army of lobbyists and lawyers to help them. They even produce commercials that tout their environmental friendliness and their patriotism.  I always shake my head at the commercials of companies like GE and Boeing for whom competitive markets are imaginary and no bid government grants are major sources of revenues.  Yet, they act like they are burdened by taxes.

This is so untrue.

Carnival’s biggest government benefit of all may be the price it pays for many of those services. Over the last five years, the company has paid total corporate taxes — federal, state, local and foreign — equal to only 1.1 percent of its cumulative $11.3 billion in profits. Thanks to an obscure loophole in the tax code, Carnival can legally avoid most taxes.

It is an extreme case, but it’s hardly the only company that pays far less than the much-quoted federal corporate tax rate of 35 percent. Of the 500 big companies in the well-known Standard & Poor’s stock index, 115 paid a total corporate tax rate — both federal and otherwise — of less than 20 percent over the last five years, according to an analysis of company reports done for The New York Times by Capital IQ, a research firm. Thirty-nine of those companies paid a rate less than 10 percent.

President Obama indicated that he was willing to simplify the Corporate Tax Code and lower the overall Tax Rate for corporations.  In exchange, he asked Congress to remove all the pork, breaks, and exclusions they’ve granted many businesses–including ones that really don’t need it like the Oil Industry–over the years.  I doubt we’ll see any moves on the latter.  My fear is that will only see movement on the former thus cementing the de-funding of government by the by the very people who benefit from government largess. Many study shows that far more rich and upper middle class Americans and American Businesses use public services and public assets than the poor and working class.  After all, who uses the roads, the airways, the universities, the grants and loans, and the many tax loopholes?

While the official corporate tax rate is among the highest of developing countries, the effective rate is among the lowest of the countries that actually have economies that don’t function as tax havens or off shoring banking centers.  Even Republican economists will pony up that data.

“A dirty little secret,” Richard Clarida, a Columbia University economist and former official in the Treasury Department under President George W. Bush, has said, “is that the corporate income tax used to raise a fair amount of revenue.”

Over the last five years, on the other hand, Boeing paid a total tax rate of just 4.5 percent, according to Capital IQ. Southwest Airlines paid 6.3 percent. And the list goes on: Yahoo paid 7 percent; Prudential Financial, 7.6 percent; General Electric, 14.3 percent.

Economists have long pleaded for an overhaul of the corporate tax code, and both President Obama and Republicans now say they favor one, too. But it won’t be easy.

Indeed, it won’t be easy.  First, it’s difficult for even neutral academics to get a good look at the workings of loopholes because because tax filings are confidential.  Loopholes are everywhere and folks that support simplifying the tax code can’t even get a handle on how widespread or huge the problem.  Publicly held corporations provide for public stockholder reports but even these things are of limited use over time when studying corporate tax avoidance.  My field specializations for my doctorate is International Finance and Trade and Corporate Finance so I lot of my class work and research work is based in corporate finance as well as economics.  I know the literature, models, and theories well.

Read the rest of this entry »

TGIF Reads

Posted: January 28, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: commercial banking, Egypt, FBI raids, Foreign Affairs, morning reads, Voter Ignorance, We are so F'd | Tags: , , , , , | 10 Comments

Good Morning!

It’s finally Friday.

Rahm Emanuel was back on the ballot and part of a debate for candidates for the Mayor of Chicago last night.   The Illinois Supreme Court ruled unanimously in his favor. Evidently the case relied a lot on the ‘intent’ of Rahm whose lawyers argued that he had left books in the basement of his old house, rented the house out instead of selling it and other behaviors that showed that he was just away temporarily performing some kind of national service.   The city is now free to print its ballots.

The justices found that Emanuel never displayed an intent to permanently abandon his Chicago home, which they said would have been the trigger to render him ineligible. Instead, they said, it was clear that when he went to Washington, he always planned the move to be temporary and to return to Chicago one day.

The court said the appellate panel hung its decision on a misinterpretation of an 1867 Illinois Supreme Court case involving a judge who temporarily moved to Tennessee but always planned to come back. In essence, the Appellate Court concluded that the 19th century decision didn’t cover Emanuel and that residency should be defined as where one rests his head at night.

It seems unlikely that reform on the senate filibuster will have much of an impact.  It looks like it will be small if at all.

But Democrats never seemed able to reach an agreement on the scope or type of changes, and Reid announced a more modest set of changes on which the parties would vote Thursday afternoon.

The reforms include an end to secret holds, a reduction in the number of presidential nominations subject to the lengthy Senate confirmation process, an end to mandatory readings for amendments if they’ve been publicly available for at least three days, an agreement by Republicans to limit their filibusters of motions to begin debate, and an agreement by Democrats to limit instances in which they “fill the tree” — or limit the number of amendments Republicans can put to a given piece of legislation.

Perhaps the most significant agreement was that of changing the filibuster, the principal tool of the minority to stall or block legislation. Republicans used the tactic to great effect in the last Congress, though Democrats griped that the process had been abused at an unprecedented level.

Protests continue in Egypt as the scent of Jasmine spreads.  The Economist looks at what this could potentially mean to Arab leaders as the people in the era look for democracy.   The US is obviously nervous about any potential uptick for groups like The Muslim Brotherhood who could take the country in the opposite direction.

Mr Mubarak, like the rest of the Arab world’s autocrats, will be pondering the despot’s eternal dilemma. Is it better to loosen controls in order to satisfy their people with a whiff of freedom, or to tighten them in an effort to ensure their docility?

The fate of Tunisia’s strongman, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, suggests that an angry people will be satisfied with neither. If Mr Mubarak truly put his country’s interests first, he would immediately promise to retire before the next presidential election, due in September. At the very least he would ensure that the contest is a genuinely open one, not another farce.

The NYT looks at the possible role of religion in the Egyptian protests.

Heightening the tension, the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest organized opposition group in the country, announced Thursday that it would take part in the protest. The support of the Brotherhood could well change the calculus on the streets, tipping the numbers in favor of the protesters and away from the police, lending new strength to the demonstrations and further imperiling President Hosni Mubarak’s reign of nearly three decades.

“Tomorrow is going to be the day of the intifada,” said a spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood here in Egypt’s second largest city, who declined to give his name because he said he would be arrested if he did. The spokesman said that the group was encouraging members of its youth organization — roughly those 15 to 30 years old — to take part in protests.

But Islam is hardly homogeneous, and many religious leaders here said Thursday that they would not support the protests, for reasons including scriptural prohibitions on defying rulers and a belief that democratic change would not benefit them. “We Salafists are not going to participate in any of the demonstrations tomorrow,” said Sheik Yasir Burhami, a leading figure among the fundamentalist Salafists in Alexandria.

One troubling thing is that the Egyptian government has ‘shut down the internet‘. SMS messages have also been blocked.  The US government has called on the Egyptian authorities to stop the block.

While access directly to the Facebook and Twitter websites are inaccessible from within Egypt, protesters are circumventing the blocks in place by using mobile applications which still work. Proxy websites are also being used, as they mask the address of website, allowing those to access social networking sites.

But as the blocking measures are failing, it appears that Egypt has sanctioned measures to ’shut down’ web access, fearing the same reprisals as seen in Tunisia earlier this month where the government collapsed and the president was forced into exile.

Read the rest of this entry »

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →