February 2013 archive

On Sept. 11, 2001, Marine Lt. Col. Stuart Couch’s friend died co-piloting the second plane to hit the World Trade Center. Soon after, Couch became one of the first military prosecutors assigned to the U.S. military base at Guantánamo Bay to prosecute men alleged to have carried out the terrorist plot. He ultimately would refuse to prosecute one detainee: Mohamedou Ould Slahi. “It became clear that what had been done to Slahi amounted to torture,” Couch says. “Specifically, he had been subjected to a mock execution. He had sensory deprivation. He had environmental manipulation; that is, cell is too cold, or the cell is too hot. … He was presented with a ruse that the United States had taken custody of his mother and his brother and that they were being brought to Guantánamo.” Couch says he concluded Slahi’s treatment amounted to illegal torture. “I came to the conclusion we had knowingly set him up for mental suffering in order for him to provide information,” Couch said. “We might very well have a significant problem with the body of evidence that we were able to present as to his guilt.”

“Just pass a one sentence bill that repeals sequestration” an idea that was posed by Up with Chris Hayes host Chris Hayes in the last segment of his Sunday show. So why isn’t that “on the table?”

Sequestration, when it was proposed, was supposed to be such a terrible economic idea that it would force Democrats and Republicans to come to “reasonable” agreement about the economy and implementing sound economic policies that would stimulate economic growth, create jobs and, in the long term reduce the deficit/debt that our elected officials and the traditional main stream media are agonizing over. The truth of the matter is, that regardless who is to blame (my opinion both parties are equally responsible), neither side wants to just end this insanity, not even Pres. Barack Obama, who “refuses to kill sequestration“, as William K. Black, former bank regulator and professor of law and economics, points out:

President Obama has revealed his real preferences in the current blame game by not calling for a clean bill eliminating the Sequester. It is striking that as far as I know (1) neither Obama nor any administration official has called for the elimination of the Sequester and (2) we have a fairly silly blame game about how the Sequester was created without discussing the implications of Obama’s continuing failure to call for the elimination of the Sequester despite his knowledge that it is highly self-destructive.

The only logical inference that can be drawn is that Obama remains committed to inflicting the “Grand Bargain” (really, the Grand Betrayal) on the Nation in his quest for a “legacy” and continues to believe that the Sequester provides him the essential leverage he feels he needs to coerce Senate progressives to adopt austerity, make deep cuts in vital social programs, and to begin to unravel the safety net. Obama’s newest budget offer includes cuts to the safety net and provides that 2/3 of the austerity inflicted would consist of spending cuts instead of tax increases. When that package is one’s starting position the end result of any deal will be far worse.

In any event, there is a clear answer to how to help our Nation. Both Parties should agree tomorrow to do a clean deal eliminating the Sequester without any conditions. By doing so, Obama would demonstrate that he had no desire to inflict the Grand Betrayal.

digby noticed Hayes’ comment, too:

As I’ve said a thousand times, this was not written in stone, it did not come down from Mt Sinai, it was an agreement that was struck to save face in the moment and it can be unstruck at any time. There is nothing absolutely requiring the congress to go through with this. There is some discussion that the only way this can happen is if the people see that government services they need are being affected and then put pressure on the government to end this game of chicken. Maybe that’s true. But let’s not kid ourselves that it isn’t a purely political bind these people have gotten themselves into. This goes back to the ill-fated 2011 Grand Bargain negotiations in which both the White House and the Republicans in the House bungled things so badly that we are still dealing with the fallout.

H/T Atrios

Joining Chris and Prof. Black for a lively panel discussion of “the anatomy of the sequester” were Neera Tanden, president and CEO for Center for American Progress; Steve Ellis,  vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense; and Phyllis Bennis, director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies.

Welcome to the Live Blog of the 85th Academy Awards from fabulous downtown Hollywood or, in my case, on the couch in the family room with my lap top, a pitcher of martinis and Parmesan popcorn, Oh, and lots of napkins. Feel free to critique the couture, I am sure there will be plenty of tastefully “coutured” ladies and gentlemen in designer gowns and tuxedos,  as well as, well as the faux pas, unintentional and otherwise. I always look for Helena Bonham Carter, who although not nominated this year, gave a memorable performance as Madame Thénardier in Les Misérables, along with Sacha Baron Cohen as her swindling innkeeper husband. She is the epitome of bizarre fashion. I’m looking forward to seeing her in this Summer’s Lone Ranger along with Johnny Depp as Tonto, The Lone Ranger‘s “faithful companion.”

My picks for the top four awards are:

Best Picture:Les Misérables because I’m French;

Best Director: Ang Lee for Life of Pi becuase he’s been nominated 11 times and never won;

Best Actor: Hugh Jackman – Les Misérables. He won this year’s Golden Globe Best Actor for his role as Jean Valjean and this is his first Oscar nomination.

Best Actress: Jessica Chastain – Zero Dark Thirty because I think the Academy voters are just dumb enough to believe she “nailed” Osama bin Laden.

My other favorites to win awards are Brave for Best Animated Feature; Mirror Mirror for Best Costume Design (disclaimer: I know someone who has a friend with a family member in the cast); and The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey for Best Visual Effects.

So, let’s go on with the show and the nominees are:

Best Picture:

Again this year, following the original format, there are nine nominees for the award:

• Amour – Margaret Menegoz, Stefan Arndt, Veit Heiduschka, and Michael Katz
• Argo – Grant Heslov, Ben Affleck, and George Clooney
• Beasts of the Southern Wild – Dan Janvey, Josh Penn, and Michael Gottwald
• Django Unchained – Stacey Sher, Reginald Hudlin, and Pilar Savone
• Les Misérables – Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Debra Hayward, and Cameron Mackintosh
• Life of Pi – Gil Netter, Ang Lee, and David Womark
• Lincoln – Steven Spielberg and Kathleen Kennedy
• Silver Linings Playbook – Donna Gigliotti, Bruce Cohen, and Jonathan Gordon
• Zero Dark Thirty – Mark Boal, Kathryn Bigelow, and Megan Ellison

Best Director:

• Michael Haneke – Amour
• Ang Lee – Life of Pi
• David O. Russell – Silver Linings Playbook
• Steven Spielberg – Lincoln
• Benh Zeitlin – Beasts of the Southern Wild

Best Actor:

• Bradley Cooper – Silver Linings Playbook
• Daniel Day-Lewis – Lincoln
• Hugh Jackman – Les Misérables
• Joaquin Phoenix – The Master
• Denzel Washington – Flight

Best Actress:

• Jessica Chastain – Zero Dark Thirty
• Jennifer Lawrence – Silver Linings Playbook
• Emmanuelle Riva – Amour
• Quvenzhané Wallis – Beasts of the Southern Wild
• Naomi Watts – The Impossible

The other nominations are below the fold.

No one man can be more corrupt than soccer can be boring.

This is your morning Open Thread. Pour your favorite beverage and review the past and comment on the future.

Find the past “On This Day in History” here.

February 24 is the 55th day of the year in the Gregorian calendar. There are 310 days remaining until the end of the year (311 in leap years).

On this day in 1803, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, decides the landmark case of William Marbury versus James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States and confirms the legal principle of judicial review–the ability of the Supreme Court to limit Congressional power by declaring legislation unconstitutional–in the new nation.

Marbury v. Madison is a landmark case in United States law and in the history of law worldwide. It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. It was also the first time in the world that a court invalidated a law by declaring it “unconstitutional.”

This case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed by President John Adams as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia but whose commission was not subsequently delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to force Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the documents, but the court, with John Marshall as Chief Justice, denied Marbury’s petition, holding that the part of the statute upon which he based his claim, the Judiciary Act of 1789, was unconstitutional.

Marbury v. Madison was the first time the Supreme Court declared something “unconstitutional,” and established the concept of judicial review in the U.S. (the idea that courts may oversee and nullify the actions of another branch of government). The landmark decision helped define the “checks and balances” of the American form of government.

The Issue

There are three ways a case can be heard in the Supreme Court: (1) filing directly in the Supreme Court; (2) filing in a lower federal court, such as a district court, and appealing all the way up to the Supreme Court; (3) filing in a state court, appealing all the way up through the state’s highest courts, and then appealing to the Supreme Court on an issue of federal law. The first is an exercise of the Court’s original jurisdiction; the second and third are exercises of the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction.

Because Marbury filed his petition for the writ of mandamus directly in the Supreme Court, the Court needed to be able to exercise original jurisdiction over the case in order to have the power to hear it.

Marbury’s argument is that in the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over petitions for writs of mandamus. This raises several issues that the Supreme Court had to address:

Does Article III of the Constitution create a “floor” for original jurisdiction, which Congress can add to, or does it create an exhaustive list that Congress can’t modify at all?

If Article III’s original jurisdiction is an exhaustive list, but Congress tries to modify it anyway, who wins that conflict, Congress or the Constitution?

And, more importantly, who is supposed to decide who wins?

In its answer to this last question, the Supreme Court formalizes the notion of judicial review. In short, the constitutional issue on which Marbury v. Madison was decided was whether Congress could expand the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Faithful readers already know what I think about Turn Left.

In the Roman form of chariot racing, teams represented different groups of financial backers and sometimes competed for the services of particularly skilled drivers. These teams became the focus of intense support among spectators, and occasional disturbances broke out between followers of different factions. The conflicts sometimes became politicized, as the sport began to transcend the races themselves and started to affect society overall.

Those who have worn the crown should never survive its loss.  Purple makes a fine winding sheet.

It’s hard to blame the technology, the cars and tracks can hardly be safer than they are.  It’s high speed bumper cars and the rules that create an environment where you can take out 12 of them at a time; and though 33 were injured, some critically, nobody died… yet.

To me the sport’s biggest sin is that it’s boring.  BORING!

Yup, that’s right, more boring than having Vettel dive into the front and drive off into the distance with Mark Webber in tow.

And that’s because nothing matters until the last 5 laps except for the accidents.

You know, like the whole track falling apart.

So let’s talk instead about Danica Patrick’s love life.

Patrick Was Leading Way Even Before Winning Pole

By VIV BERNSTEIN, The New York Times

Published: February 18, 2013

On the first day that drivers arrived at Daytona International Speedway for Speedweeks, the Daytona 500 and the celebrated start of Nascar’s 2013 Sprint Cup season, the story making headlines was Danica Patrick’s romantic relationship with the driver Ricky Stenhouse, Jr.

…

Her relationship with Stenhouse, an up-and-coming driver who will also be a rookie in the Sprint Cup this season, has only served to intensify the interest in everything she does on and off the track.

…

“I don’t mind answering questions about the other stuff,” she added. “But I get that it’s not about racing. It’s nice to change the tone of the questions because of what’s going on, on the track. That is a really good sign, and I like that.”

Either way, it’s all good for Nascar. Patrick made the rounds of many of the major television talk shows Monday morning, giving the sport some much needed publicity. Nascar has had a drop in attendance and television ratings in recent years. The marketing game plan is to focus on drivers, and nobody does a better job of self-marketing than the 30-year-old Patrick.

“Driver star power is something we’re going to bang on from a marketing perspective in ’13 and in ’14, ’15, ’16,” said Steve Phelps, Nascar’s senior vice president and chief marketing officer. “It will all be about the drivers.

…

“Listen, she is a marketing phenomenon,” Phelps said. “I think putting her on the biggest stage that we have, the Sprint Cup, and have her run a full season, will only help her.”

He asked rhetorically: “Do I believe that she needs to win in order to continue that momentum that she has seen so far? I don’t. Would it add to it? Would it kind of plus-up the whole thing? I do.”

To be continued, as Patrick moves through the week and heads to the pole Sunday, with 500 miles in front of her and the remaining skeptics in the rear.

ek, are you implying that we’re living in the decadent final days of empire with bread and circuses to placate the proletariat?

Ahem, let me clear my throat.

WE ARE LIVING IN THE DECADENT FINAL DAYS OF EMPIRE WITH BREAD AND CIRCUSES TO PLACATE THE PROLETARIAT!!!

Enjoy the race, I’ll be back for the last 5 laps to see how things turned out.

“Punting the Pundits” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from around the news medium and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.

Thanks to ek hornbeck, click on the link and you can access all the past “Punting the Pundits”.

Follow us on Twitter @StarsHollowGzt

The Sunday Talking Heads:

Up with Chris Hayes: Joining Chris will be: David Sanger (@SangerNYT), chief Washington correspondent for The New York Times; Robert Gibbs (@PressSecGibbs), former White House press secretary and senior campaign adviser to President Obama’s re-election campaign; Neera Tanden, president and CEO for Center for American Progress; Michael Hastings (@mmhastings), BuzzFeed correspondent, Rolling Stone contributing editor; Ana Marie Cox (@anamariecox), founded the political blog Wonkette and columnist for The Guardian; Brandon Valeriano (@drbvaler), lecturer at the University of Glasgow in the Social and Political Sciences; Steve Ellis,  vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense; Phyllis Bennis, director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies; Bill Black, associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, former litigation director of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board; Oscar Joyner, president and chief operating officer of Reach Media, Inc and Kimberly Peretti, partner in Alston’s White Collar Crime Group and co-chair of their security incident management and response team, former director of PriceWaterHouseCooper’s cyber forensic service.

This Week with George Stephanopolis: There are two roundtables on this Sunday’s “This Week.”

House Intelligence Committee Chair Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and Foreign Affairs Committee ranking member Rep. Eliot Engel, D-NY, join ABC News’ George Will and ABC News Global Affairs Anchor Christiane Amanpour to debate how the U.S. should respond to the cyber threat from China, and the latest challenges in Syria and Iran.

Then, the political roundtable debates all the week’s politics, with George Will; Democratic strategist and ABC News contributor Donna Brazile; TIME Magazine contributor Steven Brill, author of this week’s cover story “Bitter Pill” on rising health care costs; former Lead Auto Adviser and Counselor to the Treasury Secretary Steven Rattner; and Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel.

Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer: Mr. Schieffer’s guests will be Secretary of Education Arne Duncan; Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R- NH); Gov. Martin O’Malley (D-MD); Gov. Robert McDonnell (R-VA); Gov. John Hickenlooper (D-CO); and Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ).

His panel guest Mental Illness Executive Director Michael Fitzpatrick; Parents Television Council President Tim Winter; former FBI profiler Mary Ellen O’Toole and Texas A&M International’s Chris Ferguson will discuss mental health, video games and gun violence.

The Chris Matthews Show: This week’s guests are Howard Fineman, The Huffington Post Senior Political Editor; Katty Kay, BBC Washington Correspondent; Kelly O’Donnell, NBC News Capitol Hill Correspondent; and Errol Louis, NY1 Inside City Hall.

Meet the Press with David Gregory: Sunday’s guests on MTP are Gov. Deval Patrick (D-MA;) Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA); and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

The roundtable guests are former Democratic Congressman Harold Ford; Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan; Host of NPR’s Morning Edition, Steve Inskeep; and CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo and Jim Cramer.

State of the Union with Candy Crowley: Ms. Crowley’s guests are Sen. John McCain (R-AZ; Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT); Gov. Dan Malloy (D-CT), former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, Gwen Ifill from PBS, and Jackie Calmes of the New York Times.

 France’s military operation in Mali in ‘final phase’

BBC 24 February 2013 Last updated at 00:02 GMT

French President Francois Hollande has said his country’s forces are engaged in the “final phase” of the fight against militants in northern Mali.

He said there had been heavy fighting in the Ifoghas mountains, where members of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) were thought to be hiding.

Mr Hollande also praised Chadian troops for their efforts in the same area.

Thirteen Chadian soldiers and some 65 militants were killed in clashes on Friday, according to the Chadian army.

Chad’s government has promised to deploy 2,000 troops as part of the African-led International Support Mission to Mali (Afisma).

US drones

Speaking in Paris on Saturday, President Hollande said “heavy fighting” was taking place in the far north of Mali, near the Algerian border

In this Saturday’s final segment of Up with Chris Hayes, host Chris Hayes and his panel guests share what they have learned this week. Chris’ guests are John McWhorter, professor of Linguistics and American Studies at Columbia University and New York Daily News columnist; Michelle Goldberg, senior contributing writer to Newsweek/Daily Beast; Avik Roy, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, former member of Mitt Romney’s health care policy advisory group; and John Nichols, senior editor at The Nation.

Steinem’s Support for Quinn as Mayor Depends on Sick-Leave Bill

Gloria Steinem, the feminist author and activist, said this week that she would withdraw her support for Christine C. Quinn in the New York City mayor’s race if Ms. Quinn, speaker of the City Council, did not allow a vote on sick-leave legislation that is a cherished cause of liberal groups. [..]

Underscoring the depth of the disappointment with Ms. Quinn among some left-leaning activists, Ms. Steinem said in a statement that she viewed passage of the sick-leave legislation as more significant than electing the first female mayor of New York City.

China to introduce carbon tax: official

BEIJING, Feb. 19 (Xinhua) — China will proactively introduce a set of new taxation policies designed to preserve the environment, including a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, according to a senior official with the Ministry of Finance (MOF).

The government will collect the environmental protection tax instead of pollutant discharge fees, as well as levy a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, Jia Chen, head of the ministry’s tax policy division, wrote in an article published on the MOF’s website.

It will be the local taxation authority, rather than the environmental protection department, that will collect the taxes.

The government is also looking into the possibility of taxing energy-intensive products such as batteries, as well as luxury goods such as aircraft that are not used for public transportation, according to Jia.

Missouri City, Texas, To Impose ‘Crash Tax’ On Drivers

Missouri City, Texas, will impose what’s being called a “crash tax” on drivers that are at fault in accidents in order to pay for the cost of first responders, KHOU 11 reports. The fine will range from $500 to $2,000 depending on the severity of the crash.

Missouri City plans to bill insurance companies for the fine, according to KHOU 11, but some drivers are worried that insurance companies won’t pay for it.

Florida Atlantic Football Stadium Will Be Named For Private Prison Company

The public university on Tuesday announced an unconventional partner: the nation’s second-largest operator of for-profit prisons, the GEO Group Inc. The newly christened GEO Group Stadium came as part of a $6 million donation from the prison company’s charitable foundation, which will be paid out to Florida Atlantic over 12 years. [..]

“It appears to be a charitable gift that is trying to be a marketing vehicle, and it just doesn’t make a lot of sense,” said Paul Swangard, managing director of the Warsaw Sports Marketing Center at the University of Oregon’s business school. “To link themselves with an athletic department when their business is locking people up, it just doesn’t connect to me really well.”

Critics of the private prison industry said the donation to a public university in Florida falls in line with efforts to gain influence with state and local public officials who decide whether to hand out contracts.