Jason Linkins is a Political Reporter at the Huffington Post, covering media and politics. He's based in Washington, DC. Previously, he wrote for HuffPo's Eat The Press, and has also contributed to DCist and Wonkette.
Are they talking about the mounting household debt that's rising across America as the unemployed and discouraged job-seekers among us struggle to figure out how to stay in shelter and have enough food to eat? Of course not! Rather it's the nattering of the Post's Sudden Deficit Hawks, screeching about how "It's time to stop worrying about the deficit -- and start panicking about the debt." They've arrived in their panicked state far too late and pimp a solution that won't work.
Consider: In the space of a single fiscal year, 2009, the debt soared from 41 percent of the gross domestic product to 53 percent.
Well, hey, "consider" what events transpired during that past year! Take it away, Mr. Baker:
Yes, the debt rose from 41 percent of GDP to 53 percent, but the reason was not profligate spending by Congress or even irresponsible tax cuts. The reason for the surge in the debt was the economic crisis brought about by the collapse of the housing bubble.
The Post could not be bothered to write about the housing bubble as the danger was mounting, only giving attention to the likes of Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke, who told us everything was fine, or even better, presenting readers with the assessment of David Lereah, the chief economist of the National Realtors Association and the author of the 2006 bestseller, Why the Real Estate Boom Will Not Bust and How You Can Profit From It.
Naturally, the only thing that will save us is a bipartisan effort to gut Social Security and Medicare, and the Post's editors tout the "new version" of the "fiscal task force" floated by Senators Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) to do it. Support for such a task force comes from a group of senators, any of whom could propose their own deficit reduction measures right now, if it weren't for the fact that signing their name to such a choice might put their seat in jeopardy. The main goal of this task force is to shield such lawmakers from responsibility.
I'll remind you that the version of the "task force" that the Post's editors now support to the point of fear-mongering, would require a task force super-majority to make any recommendation, and that such recommendations would subsequently require another super-majority to pass into law. This basically means that this task force won't accomplish anything, except provide the spectacle of lawmakers pretending to get tough on deficits. It's possible that the editors of the Washington Post haven't a clue as to how Congress has become gridlocked lately, but I think this is an example of how they're not able to distinguish activity from achievement.
Naturally, if they manage to get what they want, you won't catch these editors taking any responsibility for promoting this doomed enterprise and selling it as a means to assuage "panic."
UPDATE (5:55 P.M. EST): Huffington Post Green Editor Katherine Goldstein, who is in Copenhagen at the COP15 Climate Change Summit, spoke to Andy Bichlbaum of The Yes Men earlier this evening about today's prank -- and Bichlbaum confirms that the Yes Men, were behind it. Asked about whether he thought he might be sued for today's stunt, Bichlbaum quipped, "Yes. I think Stephen Harper is so mad that he will personally sue us. And yes, so will the Wall Street Journal."
---------------------
So, did you hear the one about Canada making a huge splash at the COP15 Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen by completely reversing its climate change policy and setting aggressive new carbon reduction targets?
Well, then you've heard about a high-concept prank, which seems to have been perpetrated by someone willing and capable of going to dizzying lengths to show policymakers what they should be doing to combat climate change.
We're guessing this is probably the work of the Yes Men, obviously!
This time, the world was fooled by a well-timed press release and a well-constructed facsimile of a Wall Street Journal online article.
The fun began this morning when the Yes Men put out the following release, purporting to come from the Assistant Press Secretary, of the Canadian Office of the Minister of the Environment. Here it is in full:
CANADA ANNOUNCES NEW AGENDA FOR CLIMATE AND WORLD DEVELOPMENT
Plan includes stricter emissions reductions and immediate "climate debt" bailouts for most affected countries
COPENHAGEN, Denmark -- In a major development coming three days before the final round of UN climate change negotiations in Copenhagen, and responding to the recent concerns expressed by the G77 bloc of countries, Canada's Attache for Environment and Planning announced today an ambitious plan for a new climate change framework that answers vital concerns voiced by developing nations.
Dubbed "Agenda 2020," the plan sets strict new emissions-reductions guidelines for Canada and fast-tracks financing for vulnerable countries beginning in 2010.
"Today the G77 has again made their voice very clear," said Jim Prentice, Canada's Minister for the Environment. "This policy is our answer. Long in discussion, and slated for release later this week, Agenda 2020 is Canada's commitment to a science-based approach to climate change, and our way to assert our partnership with the developing world."
Agenda 2020 sets binding emissions reductions targets of 40% below 1990 levels by 2020 and at least 80% by 2050, in line with the recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and approaching the levels demanded by the African Group (link). The plan also introduces a new instrument, known as the "Climate Debt Mechanism" (CDM), committing Canada to much-needed funding to those developing countries facing the most dire consequences of climate change. CDM payments will begin with 1% and rise to the equivalent of 5% of Canada's GDP annually by 2030.
"We believe all people will benefit from an equitable climate deal that truly energizes the world economy," said Prentice.
The initial 2010 CDM outlay (representing 1% of Canada's GDP, or $13 billion) will be allocated to the African countries for emissions-reduction strategies and alternative-energy development programs. Payments will also finance resilience-building projects in specific communities already facing the results of climate change or threatened with its most dire consequences.
The CDM is the world's first financial mechanism that truly addresses the rising costs of climate change in developing countries. It follows a November announcement from Canada and its Commonwealth partners committing $10 billion to climate change adaptation for vulnerable countries (link). By providing quick access to adaptation finance, the CDM builds on this commitment and takes the global lead in supporting vulnerable countries. CDM payments will be completely separate from pre-existing development assistance and will be considered to be payments in a balance of trade.
"Canada is taking the long view on the world economy," said Prentice. "Nobody benefits from a world in peril. Contributing to the development of other nations and taking full responsibilities for our emissions is simple Canadian good sense. We want to show the world that Canada is a leader on climate change."
The full details of the CDM framework will be released when Prime Minister Stephen Harper attends the high-level session of the Copenhagen climate talks this Wednesday.
Canadian delegates to the United Nation Climate Summit in Copenhagen announced a significant shift in the country's climate stance today.
The announcement, in part seemingly prompted by today's walkout of the G77 bloc of nations, represents a major change in tone and substance for the large energy-producing nation. The new plan, dubbed "Agenda 2020," details an aggressive new commitment to curtailing carbon emissions, and lays out the guidelines for a new climate adaptation fund for developing nations.
"This agreement tackles the core drivers of social and ecological vulnerability," said Matthew Delane, Canada's Attache for Environment and Planning in Copenhagen. "It's nothing less than a new vision of international responsibility."
Since then, Canadian officials have been forced to walk this all back. In a press release from Frederic Baril, the actual press secretary of the Office of the Minister of the Environment, he combats the "spoof press release":
UPDATE: And now, we've been punked! This press release, which appears to walk back the original fake press release is ALSO A FAKE. This is a tangled web being woven!
Canadian Government Deplores Spoof Releases, False Hopes
OTTAWA, Ont. -- December 14, 2009 -- One hour ago, a spoof press release targeted Canada in order to generate hurtful rumors and mislead the Conference of Parties on Canada's positions on climate change, and to damage Canada's standing with the international business community.
The release, from "press@enviro-canada.ca," alleges Canada's acceptance of unrealistic emissions-reduction targets, as well as a so-called "Climate Debt Mechanism," a bilateral agreement between Canada and Africa to furnish that continent with enormous sums in "reparation" for climate damage and to "offset" adaptation.
UPDATE #2: Yet another spoof press release, this one apologizing for all the confusion:
Tragic Ugandan Reaction to False "Canada" Announcement. Passionate response highlights cruelty of thoughtless pranksters
OTTAWA, Ont. -- December 14, 2009 -- We at Environment Canada wish to thank the international press community for their measured and understanding response to the hoax that struck our agency earlier this afternoon, while expressing our condolences to the Ugandan delegation who were swept up in the excitement of this false future "vision."
This sophisticated operation was reported in the Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, and a number of other outlets as the irresponsible spoof that it was.
Environment Canada wishes to stress that the Ugandan delegation's impassioned response to the announcement is a dramatic tragedy for those who stand to suffer the most.
"It is the height of cruelty, hypocrisy, and immorality to infuse with false hopes the spirit of people who are already, and will additionally, bear the brunt of climate change's terrible human effects," said Jim Prentice, Canada's Minister for the Environment.
Signs point to the Yes Men, whose primary way of pranking-the-world-in-order-to-save-it is to pass themselves off as representatives of an organization and make big splashy announcements about major policy changes. Recently, the Yes Men posed as representatives of the United States Chamber of Commerce, and staged a press conference at which they announced that the Chamber was adopting a more progressive stance on climate change policy. The Yes Men have also previously pulled off remarkably well-built newspaperfacsimiles.
Last week, the Yes Men attempted to use projectors to turn the Hopenhagen Globe that sits in the middle of Copenhagen's City Hall Square, into a massive anti-Coca Cola billboard. Their attempt was quickly ferreted out by Danish police.
The Huffington Post's Green Editor, Katherine Goldstein, who is on the ground in Copenhagen, reports that sources close to The Yes Men were acting very coy, "smiling," while saying, "Who said it was the Yes Men?"
We hope to be able to say so soon!
UPDATE: For the moment, if the Yes Men had anything to do with this, they are remaining coy:
It's not clear who is behind all this but the suspicion is that it is the work of an American group called the Yes Men. They have pulled these sorts of stunts before, attacking the corporate world and globalization through their spoofs, which include making websites look authentic. The Yes Men, according to their spokespeople in the United States, are in Copenhagen and they are tweeting about the spoof.
"Yes, we have heard a bit about this hoax, we are investigating," Joseph Huff-Hannon, who works with the group, told The Globe in an email. "Word has it that more will be revealed tomorrow at 13:00 pm Copenhagen time. I hear that those responsible can't speak about it tonight though."
Any minute now, I expect a call from Copenhagen, or Ottawa, or Uganda, telling us that this report is a hoax, also.
Good morning and welcome and I hope the weather is more pleasant wherever you are because out my window is nothing but an intensely, overcast world of blah. Luckily I have the entrancing charisma of our Sunday morning hosts and panelists and guests to look forward to watching. My name is Jason, and I'll be hosting this semi-live blog of Sunday blather, hoping that maybe, today, someone will lose their minds, like this dude, in Ireland:
YEAH, THINGS GOT A LITTLE TOO REAL, THERE, DIDN'T THEY? Well, that's okay, let's get back into the Christmas Spirit, THE HARD WAY, courtesy of Fucked Up, Vampire Weekend, David Cross, Yo La Tengo, Broken Social Scene, Bob Mould, Andrew W.K., Tegan and Sara, GZA, and TV On The Radio
Okay. Let's start this, and hopefully, having started this, end this. As always, you may leave a comment, or send an email, or just sit there contemplatively. There's no need to make a big deal about what's on your mind. Sometimes, a silent rumination will draw people unto you. Who knows? Maybe you'll make some friends that way! You can also follow me on Twitter, a social networking service for the friendless.
FOX NEWS SUNDAY
If you wanted to, I could switch over and start liveblogging Paula Deen's Cookie Swap, at any time. Just let me know, okay?
OK, so, Fox News will be making Claire McCaskill and Judd Gregg give us jobs, and Jim Inhofe will be "debating" Ed Markey today on climate change. And, Paula Deen is probably making snickerdoodles? Anyone? Anyone?
Okay, Claire McCaskill matches the army of on-set poinsettas. She says that everyone is "on hold" until the Reid Plan comes back from the CBO. She's optimistic that it will bring down deficits and health care costs. Judd Gregg says he is "suspicious" and doesn't want to put more people into Medicare, because eventually he'll support destroying it once this fad of Republicans wanting to save Medicare passes.
This discussion on a bill that neither has read and which the CBO hasn't scored continues for some time. Guess what? McCaskill is sort of for-ish, and Gregg is sort of against-esque. Some government actuary says costs will go up, but Wallace doesn't say for how long. Wallace also is maybe mistaking "bending the cost curve" with "lowering costs." But McCaskill says that "the actuarial analysis was incomplete" and that they are "up to their elbows in sausage making." And Gregg says that the actuarial analysis says it will be a disaster.
Really, what we have now is this weird situation where CBO scores and actuarial analysis says whatever the party of the speaker has told the speaker to say it says. Meanwhile, this intense, crushing obsession with pretending to be interested in actuaries and cost curves and CBO scores.will disappear as soon as attention turns back to Afghanistan.
Judd Gregg, weirdly, tells McCaskill, "I know you guys want to filibuster our amendments." Hey, uhm...and so do you?
Meanwhile, can we spend TARP money on small business. Gregg says, no, we'll have to borrow that money, so suck it, small business, get too big to fail and interconnect yourselves in such a way that you can hold us hostage to massive systemic failure, and maybe we'll do something.
Now McCaskill and Gregg are talking up their vastly dumb deficit commission. WHY DON'T YOU TWO JUST BE YOUR OWN GODDAMN DEFICIT COMMISSION? "This nation is on an unsustainable path," Gregg says. And that unsustainability calls for Senators to chicken out of their reponsibilities, in lieu of a commission that will never be able to come to a consensus.
And now, here's your Markey-Inhofe climate change debate. IT IS AN INTENSE MYSTERY, BY CRACKEE, WHAT THESE TWO MEN WILL SAY ABOUT THIS.
Inhofe says that the President doesn't have the authority to unilaterally pass treaties and that environmental legislation will never pass the Senate. Markey says that Obama has the authority to commit to carbon targets based on the EPA's endangerment finding. He adds that the Senate committee has passed out of the committee, with similar reductions, and that it has plenty of conservatives support it. Inhofe says it doesn't have the support on the floor.
How much money should the U.S. commit to solving this crisis, and what security is there? Markey says something about how the money will not go to China and that rainforests will be preserved, and that doesn't really answer Wallace's question, which he restates as, "How do we assure that the money doesn't get wasted?" Markey says WE'LL DO SOME REAGANY TRUST BUT VERIFY STUFF.
Inhofe says that China and India and Mexico are hoping we pass this bill because it means that American jobs will go there, but the joke's on Inhofe: ALL THOSE JOBS ARE ALREADY THERE.
Inhofe is really trying to get CRAZY ON THE TEEVEE, and Wallace keeps taking the ball away. Anyway, Markey is still pretty confident that some sort of environmental legislation is going to happen.
Meanwhile, climate-gate. Wallace and the panel sort of shut this down last week, and he pulls it up in small bore, here's a couple of weird emails. He gives Markey a chance to plug the Climate Change compendium, and tout the fact that the emails are explained. Inhofe complains about getting filibustered, and Wallace makes him work from the defensive position, which apparently involves reading the Daily Telegraph and visiting his website, which I am sure is magical.
Today we have Kristol and Liasson and Cheney and Williams. Cheney and Kristol are the avatars of what Obama called, "the satisfying purity of indignation." Bear that in mind!
Anyway, Kristol wants to believe that Obama shifted his footing vastly, instead of this being a guy who had to try to put a nice face on an award he didn't want and didn't think he deserved. Liasson thinks he is "more fully inhabiting his role" now that he's "sent people into battle," but she needs to get up on current events, I'm afraid: Obama had already ramped up, in Afghanistan.
Liz Cheney liked the parts of the Nobel speech that she was able to convert into a hot gas which could billow up her own ass and sustain her. WILL COPENHAGEN BE ABLE TO STOP THIS? Anyway, she likes torture and rendition. Remember that when an American soldier gets tortured!
Wallace points out that Obama is all about the Predator drones, and with them, he managed to take out a "top al Qaeda operative." The number three al Qaeda! Again! It's like we've gotten very good at killing Spinal Tap's drummer.
Williams says that Obama gave a speech in which he had to justify war at a time where he really would have rather not won the award.
Kristol thinks it's bad that Obama "pulled his punches" in Iran when protesters against Ahmadinejad, despite the fact that those same protesters were saying, "Please do not get crazily involved in this, America, and give them an excuse to kill all of us."
Liasson mentions "the satisfying purity of indignation," and so Wallace has to take a break so that Kristol and Cheney can put out their prayer rugs and bow five times in the direction of the American Enterprise Institute.
Okay, religious masturbatory scenarios having ended, it's time to take up health care. Kristol doesn't think Reid's plan will get the votes, but he's been saying that about health care all along this year, and he sounds strangely unsure, at least at first. He eventually warms up to predicting its failure. Liasson, however, says we have to wait until the CBO numbers come back, there's a small group of Senators in play. Nelson is a "special case," which is apparent on its face, isn't it! But compromise continues apace.
Liz Cheney notes that polling has shown dwindling support for health care, but fails to note that this is because the bill keeps getting further and further away from the strong public option that people want. Juan Williams, unfortunately, knows actual facts about Medicare, but Liz Cheney is louder and will torture you. And now everyone is yelling at each other. Cheney and Williams should probably just go into the green room and angerbang one another, for the sake of the Earth's molten core.
THE CHRIS MATTHEWS SHOW
Hey, let's reach for something ridiculously formulaic, shall we?
Oh, hey, this looks like it could get pretty shirty today. Panel includes Kelly O'Donnell, Dan Rather, Helene Coopr, and Andrew Ross Sorkin, who has to be feeling like, "YES. THESE ARE THE REWARDS. A SPOT ON THIS SHOW."
Oh, but, hey, Obama went to give a speech for the Nobel Peace Prize and talked about WAR. WOW. Such ironicalism! Rather says that Obama "didn't square the circle," which means that he'll probably be prematurely awarded the Nobel Prize for Circle Squaring, and he'll have to go to Oslo again, and he'll make a speech about TRIANGLES, and it will be ironic, and then Dan Rather will say, "Well, Obama really hasn't OBLONGED the TRAPEZOID yet."
O'Donnell thinks what's fascinating is the "contradiction between surge and withdrawal." She just can't get her head around it! Sending troops on one day? Bringing them home on another? TOO MUCH FOR KELLY, TELL YOU WHAT. (Hey, Kelly, here's a fun fact! The original "Surge?" You know LOLSURGE CLASSIC in Iraq? It was actually even a more temporary buildup than the one they plan for Afghanistan. It's true!)
The enemy of my contradiction is my Facebook friend! Or is it?
Meanwhile Sorkin says people are out of work! And will be for a while. OMFG: ARE WE IN AN EMPLOYMENT CRISIS? People are hiring folks to only work 35 hours a week! This would be outrageous if it hadn't been going on all decade!
Rather says that the "perception" is that Obama has taken care of the bankers and hasn't done much for workers. That's also sort of the reality, too! Chris Matthews observes that "Geithner and those people around him...they seem like Wall Street guys." WHAT? HOLY SHIZZLES. THEY DO SEEM, EXACTLY LIKE THAT? Heavens to Murgatroyd! Why didn't anyone notice this before and write profiles on Geithner in several leading magazines? Geithner is a "well off New Yorker?" SAY IT ISN'T SO! Next thing you'll tell me is that he was handpicked to head up the New York Fed by fatcat bankers or something crazy like that!
Cooper notes that companies don't hire people when they can maintain productivity with the same number of workers. WE ARE LEARNING ALL SORTS OF NEW THINGS, ON THE TEEVEE TODAY.
Oh, Kelly O'Donnell, stop trying to sympathize with the out-of-work youngs. Quiet, now.
Will health care reform be a historic accomplishment? Sorkin says, "No. I can't believe you asked the question that way." Really, Andrew? Have you heard of this show you agreed to appear on? Cooper says, "No one at the New York Times can agree with each other." Ha, ha, yes, true. Take the topic of: "Where did the reportage in the book, TOO BIG TO FAIL, come from?" No one at the Times can agree! It's a robust debate!
Anyway, Cooper says it will be historical, and Rather says something about a train, that reeks of compromise, like the Vermonter when you'd rather take the Acela.
Only one person on the "Matthews meter" says there will be a public option in the bill. Rather says that will erode the base.
Chris Matthews wants everyone to reassure him the Obama will be great, despite the fact that there are contradictions. Everyone sort of says yes, whatever, shut up, Chris Matthews.
Chris Matthews things it's hilarious that Golf Digest put Obama and Tiger Woods on the same cover. CONTRADICTION! But just you wait! When Tiger Woods wins the Nobel Prize for having sex with all the ladies in the world at least once, that's going to be even more redolent with ironic sauce!
Okay! Climate change! Why is it so controversial and stuff? Sorkin says that "in the boardroom," it's not good to have Al Gore as the spokesman, for reasons that I guess he will articulate as soon as his colleagues report it out for him? Rather says that "contrarians will always jump up from time to time and say 'no the world isn't round,' and from time to time they are right." Well, not about the earth not being round? Anyway, people would rather have jobs now than a planet tomorrow.
Cooper says Obama will go to Copenhagen and return even more fired up than he was before. This is exactly how Denmark's tourism bureau sells Copenhagen to the world. COPENHAGEN: EUROPE'S AMPHETAMINE ORGASM. STROKE OUT TO OUR FINGER PLAN. EVERY DAY IS LIKE THE ROSKILDE FESTIVAL OR SOMETHING, EXCEPT FOR THE DAY OF THE ROSKILDE FESTIVAL, WHICH IS LIKE TWO ROSKILDE FESTIVALS.
Things Matthews doesn't know. O'Donnell says "the potent issue of abortion may not be gone." DAMN, I PUT DOWN A TWENTY DOLLAR BET THAT ABORTION WAS DUNZO. Rather says there's corruption in the truck driving school business. Are they training drivers, or loan sharks? Well, the economy is pretty awful, and people need usurious loans more than they need goods shipped across the country to not be bought.
Helene Cooper says, "Stanley McChrystal was in Washington this week." COME ON, HELENE, I'm sure Matthews heard about that! Oh, she's expanding: We'll see the effects of the surge in February, she says. Oooh. Someone read the transcript of the hearing and dug out a single statement!
Sorkin says Citigroup will give back all their TARP money in 12-18 months.
The entire end of this episode is Matthews, telling people how much he liked Invictus. His huge meta-point: Nelson Mandela has accomplished more than the Teabaggers. In fairness, I've never seen the teabaggers play rugby.
MEET THE PRESS
MEET THE PRESS was tops in the ratings again last week. YOU'RE WELCOME, DAVID GREGORY. But man, I will really have to break out some serious turd polish on this week's show. Guests include Christina Romer, who is like a parakeet of positivity. Alan Greenspan is also here, with Jim Cramer, Jennifer Granholm, and Mitt Romney. That's an impressive roster of people I anticipate meeting in hell.
Anyway, the economy, with Xtina Romer. Obama's been yelling at the bankers! Who are irresponsible! Xtina says that there is "a lot of blame to go around," which doesn't mean a lot of punishment, I guess. But news flash! The economy is bad, and unemployment is bad. But the rate of bad is lessening. Which is good unless you'd like the rate of bad to embiggen.
But Xtina is trying, people! They are trying to make new rules of the road, and they will be better. She says there is a "fundamental disconnect" between Main street and Wall Street in that Wall Streeters are still having fun, and need to be told that they are mental.
Gregory wonders, "Is the goal simply to punish Wall Street?" Because what did they do wrong, right? Xtina says that the White House wants them to return to profitability, and lending, and maybe not a return to, say, evil, or stupidity.
When will employment get good again? Xtina says, UHH MAYBE THE FUTURE? There will be bounces and bumps, and it could go up again before going down. When is the recession over? Xtina thinks "we've reached that point in terms of GDP" but not in terms of jobs, so the White House doesn't consider it over.
Gregory takes a quote from Jared Bernstein and an article in Kiplinger's, both written LONG AFTER the economic collapse, and says, "The warnings were there." They were! But those weren't the effing warnings, brah! Tell your research intern that they need to do better with the Gathering of the Gotcha.
Gregory wants to know why the Obama administration didn't "attack unemployment sooner." The Bernstein quote Gregory is fueling this line of questioning with was from December 2008! The Obama administration would have had to ATTACK THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and remove them from office by force before they could have attacked unemployment. Does no one at NBC ever sit down and talk to the people who make this show, and explain how scintillatingly dumb it is, on a weekly basis?
Gregory wants to know from Xtina if it was a mistake that the stimulus was too small. You know, after months of concern-trolling that it was too big! Anyway, Romer is confident that they got the best package through Congress, but that's because she's just breezily confident about everything.
More reading newspapers to people, on the teevee. At least Romer notices that the unemployment problem is actually closer to a decade long. Most people believe America's employment problem is a recent thing.
Romer attempts to explain how spending money while bringing the deficit down is a "parallel process." That's about as far as you can get with Gregory. I can't imagine what would happen if you tried to explain that this is a good time to run a short term deficit! Or that a spending freeze would entrench stagnant cycles in the economy.
I remain mystified that the Obama White House believes that Romer is a good teevee spokesman. She is terrible. Have you ever gotten through an on air segment with her and thought, "Oh, good. I am reasonably confident that the Obama administration has a handle on this stuff?" Because, I haven't! And, hey, maybe they do! I bet that if we could somehow monetize Romer's intense flopsweat, we'd all be on Easy Street.
And now, it's time for another edition of MEET THE PRESS playhouse, because I am not going to get through this dreadful panel otherwise.
MEET THE PRESS presents:
"Sartre's Antechamber," a tableau of intense regret in one act.
DRAMATIS PERSONAE:
David Gregory: porter at the Gates of Hell
Jim Cramer: Eros and Thanatos in shouty, addlebrained form
Jennifer Granholm: can move back to Canada whenever she wants to
Alan Greenspan: frog-like prince of economic ruination
Mitt Romney: android of pure fraud
Me: in the bleak mid-Meet The Press
-----------------
GREGORY: OMGZ! TEH JOBS! TEH RECESSIONZ!
GREENSPAN: Jobs and the economy are two separate concepts. Recessions ends, and then the economy is restored, later. But we're past the bottom.
ME: Yes. I am getting used to dragging along that bottom!
GRANHOLM: I went to the roll-out of the Volt! And it's awesome, thanks to Obama, who have just shoveled money at Volt, because its manufacturers are really well connected. DRIVE A VOLT!
GREGORY: OMGZ! WHY IS NO ONE HIRING?
ROMNEY: BLEEP BLORP! Obama grew the government, not the economy. BLEEP BLORP! Remember how I went to Michigan and PROMISED TO BRING BACK THE AUTO INDUSTRY, BY MAGIC? BLORP! Somehow this wouldn't have been through government intervention? My keeping of this insane promise?
CRAMER: RRRRAAAHHHH! I TALK TO CEOs, BECAUSE WE WORSHIP THEM AT CNBC. THEY HAVE NOT GOTTEN ANY MONEY, FROM STIMULUS. I AM IGNORING THE KABILLIONS THAT CEOs GOT FROM TARP.
GREGORY: OMGZ. Look at this chart! Why isn't employment recovering, compared to another recession I'll pull out at random.
GREENSPAN: We have a level of employment right now, that's barely able to keep up with output. But we need to add lots of jobs to just stay even. Plus people who are discouraged job seekers will become encouraged job seekers again, and that's going to be a hiccup. I'm also worried that people won't come back to jobs as productive as they would normally be.
GRANHOLM: Yeah, look, the traditional manufacturing jobs are all offshore now. People may have to use skillsets in different ways, or they may need to be trained to work in emerging fields.
ME: Which is awesome, if you aren't fifty years old!
ROMNEY: BLEEP! BLORP! Stimulus failed. Not at all because it was watered down by Congress! We need to cut more taxes, before the Klingons invade. BLORP.
GREGORY: OMGZ! But the economy, she must grow! Before deficit shrinks!
CRAMER: RRRAHHH. I LOVE HEALTHCARE BUT NOT NOW! PEOPLE ARE HIRING IN BRAZIL AND CHINA! COMMUNISTS ARE NOW MORE RELIABLE THAN CAPITALISTS.
ME: I simply have no idea, ever, what that man is talking about, and that's probably a good thing.
GREENSPAN: It's very critical that we get the uncertainties out of the system! Everyone should be happy and amazed by how well the stock market is doing! WHY IS NOBODY HAPPY ABOUT THIS. Everyone spend five minutes today, worshipping the NASDAQ.
ME: CLAP YOUR HANDS, BECAUSE TINKERBELL WILL COME BACK TO LIFE!
GREENSPAN: Really, it's just the poor people who aren't doing well. The good news is that rich people are doing great. Would you hold on for a minute? I need to get on my prayer rug and pray five times in the direction of JP Morgan!
GREGORY: OMGZ! TEH LENDINGZ!
ROMNEY: BLEEP BLORP! We have fear, of the government control! They will take over everything! My gears need money to run! BLORP! FART!
ME: Seriously, dude, you are worried about inflation at a time like this?
GREGORY: Why are so many countries so sad and not like us anymore? Jim Cramer, you should probably answer this, for some reason.
CRAMER: Guns and butter and paralysis and we need to raise taxes to pay for wars!
ME: Okay. That last part actually made sense.
ROMNEY: BLEEP BLORP! NO, America can be great as long as we have greatness! But we cannot be paying government more than our awesome private sector, which no longer makes anything and destroys the economy with credit derivatives.
ME: I'm all for raising private sector wages, but unfortunately, that's precisely what makes India's labor force so attractive. And really, weren't we yelling about how terrible it was the union auto workers made money a few months ago? And everyone was touting the non-union shops in the South? Well, those private sector jobs pay less money.
GRANHOLM: People are angry, and frustrated. Leaders need to project confidence.
ME: Well, now you're no better then Mitt Romney.
GREGORY: We'll leave it there.
ME: Ugh, yes, let's.
[Exeunt, chased by a bear.]
This is pretty funny, I got an email from someone asking me to stop doing the Sunday shows in this fashion and instead do a "simple composite of each show," outlining the "main topics, each character's responses [and] hosts [sic] questions."
My promise to you all this Chrismakwanzahukkahwhatever, is that I will never do something as stupid or as boring as that. But here's the bad news! Next week, I shall be liveblogging the Sunday Morning Sack Of Goat Slop from lovely Astoria, Queens, where I shall be DVR-less. This complicates things a little bit, because I'll be even more on the fly than I usually am. So please feel free to leave comments, with your observation and commentary, to offset my even more frenzied typing.
It's been a long time since I've done this without the benefit of the pause button! So...it could get very weird. In fact, I have half a mind to just let it get weird! If anyone knows some awesome New York City Sunday morning cable access programming that we can add to the liveblog, send me an email with the subject, "CHECK OUT THIS HIGH WEIRDNESS ON NEW YORK CITY TEEVEE NEXT WEEK."
Okay, in that spirit, here's the greatest Christmas carol in the world:
One of the more amusing contentions to be made as a fearmongery talking point on the decision to put Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on trial in a New York City federal court is that the courthouse will turn into a "platform" for terrorists to project their warped ideas.
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) recently said that a federal trial venue would do nothing more than provide suspects with "a megaphone to speak to the planet." Which in Franks's estimation, immediately leads to a nuclear attack by terrorists. In the same way, I suppose this is how traffic court gives rise to so many incidents of vehicular homicide.
The weird thing about this whole line of reasoning is that you can only support it if you pretend to have no idea how criminal trials work. Far from being a dramatic venue for criminals to engage in long-form monologues about their empty philosophies, trials are actually pretty boring displays of legal process -- evidence is presented, witnesses are questioned and arguments are mounted with tedious professionalism. It's hard to conceive of a situation that would require, let alone allow, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to get up in front of a jury and just start straight-up promoting the destruction of the Western world. But I have to imagine that any sensible prosecutor would be only too happy to let him shoot himself in the foot by doing so.
Of course, one of the problems with this argument is that the trial is not set up as a megaphone of any kind. Not that Franks cares:
When a reporter pointed out that federal trials aren't televised, perhaps making the "megaphone" a little less likely, Republicans said there were other ways for terror suspects to peddle their propoganda from a U.S. courtroom -- for example, sketch artists.
"What we've seen happen is artists draw pictures and this will be written up and there are interviews outside the courtroom everyday and there will be defense attorneys taking the global stage," King said. "We are in an electronic era where they Internet and all these other media that we have will create a real time look at what's going on in New York."
So, courtroom sketches on the interwebs and 10-second media soundbites with defense attorneys are going to foment terrorism? That would be interesting, to say the least, because I can't think of a single example of this ever happening before.
But look, it's important to remember that Eric Holder is not seeking to stage the jihadist version of "Spring Awakening" at the Eugene O'Neill Theatre. This is a trial, and whatever "megaphone" the terrorists will be provided will also be available to those who are prosecuting these men for their barbaric crimes. They'll be in those courtroom sketches too! And it's hard to imagine a circumstance in which our media doesn't privilege the prosecution in this case, in terms of coverage.
Against the nihilistic bleatings of KSM and his henchies, I am ultimately confident that the Argument Against Terrorism will sound more loudly in the minimal megaphone that's on offer. That's enough to make me want to ensure that those limited opportunities don't decline to zero if this trial is shoved into an out-of-sight tribunal.
UPDATE: WaPo ombudsman Andrew Alexander reveals that the original 9-1-1 to 9/11 error was not the fault of the reporter. Rather, it was a swing and a miss from the copy editor on the pieve. Complete story here, check it out.
--------
Last week, we related the incredibly true story of a correction that the Washington Post had to run after they published an article reporting rap legends Public Enemy referred to September 11th as "a joke," when in reality they were referring to emergency number 9-1-1 -- a mistake that could have been avoided if anyone had bothered to know what they were talking about. Happily, something is being done about it!
Then along came @phontigallo. That's the Twitter account of Phonte (Phonte Coleman), a member of the Grammy-nominated hip hop group Little Brother. Just after 11 p.m. on Sunday, he tweeted a link to the Post correction and noted, "This inspired my next trending topic." From there, he unveiled the #washingtonpostcorrections hashtag, which invited people to come up with amusing imagined corrections related to famous hip hop songs and artists.
You can take a look at Coleman's initial public offering, here. As of right now, people are running with this, to hilarious effect:
A Christian civil liberties organization on Thursday asked centrist Virginia Rep. Tom Perriello (D) to move his home district office to a location more favorable to protesters.
The Rutherford Institute, which was founded by conservative constitutional lawyer John W. Whitehead, penned a letter to the freshman Perriello citing the concerns of a local tea party group and the University of Virginia College Republicans that the location of his Charlottesville office interferes with their right to protest there.
"Unfortunately, it is your choice of office location that has hindered the ability of citizens to effectively communicate concerning issues of the utmost importance to you, Congress and the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia," wrote Whitehead.
Basically, what's going on here is that Perriello's office is in the Glass Building, in downtown Charlottesville, Virginia, which houses "several private businesses," all of which apparently share a common parking lot with limited space. And while Perriello's office has "hosted tea party protesters and other concerned constituents inside the office," they'll be considered trespassers if they start carrying on in the parking lot. It's a bit striking to hear that people who were once all het up to burn Periello in effigy are now whining about the inadequacies of the on-site parking lot, but everybody needs a handout, I guess! And in this case, Perriello needs to be more accomodating so that people can harangue him, forever.
Anyway, Perriello has signed a lease to occupy the office in the Glass Building until January 2011, so, suck it, I guess?
In case you haven't heard, the latest spectacle that Tea Party protesters are planning is a massive performance art piece that will be coming soon to the halls of the Senate office buildings, presumably because they missed the deadline for the 2010 Whitney Biennial.
So here's the plan. On Tuesday, December 15 at 8:45 AM thousands of us will meet in Washington, DC at the fountain in Upper Senate Park. From there we will march to the Senate offices, go inside, and demonstrate our opposition to the government takeover of health care. We call this plan "Government Waiting Rooms". The intention is to go inside the Senate offices and hallways, and play out the role of patients waiting for treatment in government controlled medical facilities. As the day goes on some of us will pretend to die from our untreated illnesses and collapse on the floor. Many of us plan to stay there until they force us to leave. A backup location for this demonstration will be announced if they block us from entering the offices.
I'd better see a high degree of detail and exacting verisimilitude, people. If you're going to pretend to go into end-stage renal failure outside the offices of Kirsten Gillibrand, you'd better browse WebMD and read up on sepsis and "flank pain." Rehearse your performance, and warm up your voice for all the moaning you'll be doing. Breathe from your diaphragm: I cannot stress this enough! And extra points to anyone who goes the extra mile and gets into some of that deep medical obscuriana that you see on House, M.D..
Of course, the irony of going to Congress to stage the August: Osage County of health care rationing and treatment denials is that you'll be accurately depicting the current conditions of health care in the United States, where people are already dying at a brisk clip. So, look for Health Care For America Now to put out a press release saying, "Thanks, Tea Partiers, for proving our point for us!"
Over at The Plum Line, Greg Sargent reports that Sarah Palin's recent climate change op-ed is off-the-charts popular, "coming in 21st in page views out of literally hundreds of opinion articles." He also notes that the piece "has been widely criticized as riddled with falsehoods." So, in case you missed this -- wide criticism results in page views.
That's how this "link economy" works:
A lot of this is probably driven by heavy outside linkage. But still, the fact that Sarah Palin, of all people, is able to command such attention for her views on the science of climate change, of all things, is kind of amazing.
Well, I'm not so sure it's "amazing." I'm not a search engine optimization guru by any stretch of the imagination, but outside of that time that Michael Jackson's untimely death nearly destroyed the Internet, Sarah Palin seems to be the best thing going when it comes to garnering clicks in 2009.
And every time she updates her Facebook page, the Angel of Page Views accumulates mad frequent-flyer miles. When Sarah speaks, an army of detractors and an army of supporters get on their perches, link back to the source and send traffic merrily on its way.
This is what's so ironic about her self-styled "me against the media" pose: the very worst thing she could do to the media is to stop reminding her of her existence.
But don't worry, media. That's not likely to happen anytime soon. If there's any slight cause for alarm, it's that Sarah Palin's previous op-ed column has thus far outperformed her more recent one, despite the fact that this latest piece garnered more coverage. As Sargent notes: "An earlier Palin Op ed in the paper on the same topic was the third most read of the year." Maybe the law of diminishing returns has taken effect. But maybe she just has yet to accumulate the requisite number of page views.
If there's anything I wonder about, it's this: why did the Washington Post hold a punditry contest, requiring them to pay a stipend to an obscure writer, when they can get Sarah Palin for free? Seems awfully shortsighted now.
That said, on behalf of the media, I'd like to send my appreciation to former-sometime Governor Palin for doing everything she can to keep us all in business.
The poll is headlined, thusly: "Does Obama Deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?" That tends to set up the conceit that respondents will be answering that question, straight up or down. Now, if your eyes don't immediately jump down to the interactive poll module, you might catch this text:
As he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in Norway on Thursday, President Obama acknowledged that "compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize... my accomplishments are slight." After watching his speech in Norway do you agree?
So, now, you're thinking, "Okay, I will be answering, yes or no, to whether I agree with Obama that his "accomplishments are slight." And that's a fair question! But then you get to the poll itself!
Of course, the disclaimer reads: "This is not a scientific poll." Let us know, readers! Do you think this is a scientific poll?
Share your vote on Facebook so your friends can take this poll
UPDATE: And now it's changed!
I still sort of want to know about the muffins, though!
Against the backdrop of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, former Vice President Al Gore and former sometime Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin have been nipping and tucking at each other over climate change science. Gore, referring to Sarah Palin's recent Washington Post op-ed, said that denialists "persist in an air of unreality," and then Sarah Palin responded by poking Gore on Facebook, or something. On today's edition of the Laura Ingraham show, Ingraham asked Palin if some sort of great climate change debate may be brewing between the two public figures. Palin said no, for every reason she could think of in the next few minutes. ThinkProgress has the conversation:
INGRAHAM: Would you agree to a debate with Al Gore on this issue?
PALIN: Oh my goodness. You know, it depends on what the venue would be, what the forum. Because Laura, as you know, if it would be some kind of conventional, traditional debate with his friends setting it up or being the commentators I'll get clobbered because, you know, they don't want to listen to the facts. They don't want to listen to some reasonable voices in this. And that was proven with the publication of this op-ed, where they kind of got all we-weed up about it and wanted to call me and others deniers of changing weather patterns and climate conditions. Trying to make the issue into something that it is not.
INGRAHAM: But what if it's an Oxford-style, proper debate format. I mean, he's going to chicken out. I mean, if you challenge him to a debate, do you actually think he would accept it?
PALIN: I don't know, I don't know. Oh, he wouldn't want to lower himself, I think, to, you know, my level to debate little old Sarah Palin from Wasilla.
So, there you have it, if you find a venue for this debate where the odds are totally stacked in Sarah Palin's favor -- like maybe a dogsled race that you quit halfway through? -- she's game! Otherwise, she'll get clobbered. This was "proven," you know! Totally "proven!" When she was afforded the opportunity to write an op-ed in the Washington Post -- free from any editors who might normally say things like, "No, this is wrong," or "Sorry, we actually would prefer to not insult or readers intelligence because we'd like them to keep buying our newspaper" -- and when said op-ed wasn't universally showered with praise and accolades, it absolutely "proved" that the media and Al Gore's friends and "commentators" were just out to get her. Millionaire lady gadabout just can't catch a break!
This is sort of Palin's de facto setting for media appearances. May I remind you, she hasn't even bothered to go on any of the Sunday morning political talk shows. Not even Fox News Sunday! She was a candidate for vice-president!
So, per Palin, Al Gore can either agree to a debate set up according to the rules and customs of Alaska's Miss Teen Wordpower, or refuse to do so and be called an elitist who won't "debate little old Sarah Palin from Wasilla."
Meanwhile, I have to imagine that the primary reason that Al Gore will probably never agree to a debate with Sarah Palin on climate change policy, is because what would be the point? Sarah Palin does not, and will not ever, have anything at all to do with climate change policy. But hey, if Al Gore turns out to have some unrevealed, yet deeply-felt opinions on bowling, we can do this.
In a message appropriately enough posted on Romenesko, the must-read online successor to E&P, Nielsen Business Media President Greg Farrar announced that the magazine, unwanted after a massive acquisition deal, will close:
Today, we announced that Nielsen Business Media has reached an agreement with e5 Global Media Holdings, LLC, a new company formed jointly by Pluribus Capital Management and Guggenheim Partners, for the sale of eight brands in the Media and Entertainment Group, including Adweek, Brandweek, Mediaweek, The Clio Awards, Backstage, Billboard, Film Journal International and The Hollywood Reporter. e5 Global Media Holdings has also agreed to acquire our Film Expo business, which includes the ShoWest, ShowEast, Cinema Expo International and CineAsia trade shows.
In addition, we've made the decision to cease operations for Editor & Publisher and Kirkus Reviews.
This move will allow us to strengthen investment in our core businesses - those parts of our portfolio that have the greatest potential for growth - and ensure our long-term success. We remain committed to building our trade show group and affiliated brands. These assets continue to be a key part of The Nielsen Company's overall portfolio and we strongly believe they are positioned to grow as the economy recovers. In addition, we'll continue to assess the strategic fit of our remaining portfolio of publications.
As a result of these decisions, many of our friends and colleagues within these businesses will be leaving the company or will begin to transition to the new ownership immediately. These venerable brands have long been an important part of our Business Media family, and we are pleased that e5 will continue to capitalize on the brands' potential. The transition is expected to be complete by the end of the year.
One of those "friends and colleagues" that will be cut adrift is someone Huffington Post readers know pretty well -- Greg Mitchell, who has served as E&P's editor since 2002, and who readers know to be a comprehensive and prolific commentator on the news industry.
E&P has been around in one form or another since 1884, and can rightly lay claim to being the chief chronicler of the American newspaper industry. As recently as 2001 a survey of newspaper editors and copy editors conducted by the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication found E&P to be the most widely read industry journal in the newspaper industry.
These events both propel and confirm the larger worry that global terror syndicates continue to have a reach that extends to the United States, concerns that were raised by President Obama in his West Point address last week. But there's an interesting element to the story that I thought might go under-reported -- and just a few minutes ago on MSNBC, correspondent Pete Williams went on teevee and under-reported it:
Pete, you referred to them as young Americans. Do we know if they were actually all U.S. citizens?
WILLIAMS: That isn't clear. We know at least four of them were. There's some question about the fifth student. They were all going to school here in the Washington, DC area. And, of course, one of the things that makes this case unusual is that the way that the authorities got on to them was not through apparently intelligence tracking or some sort of sophisticated method, it was their parents worried that they had vanished or had left without saying where they were. And then at least one of the parents said they got a weird phone call from one of the young men. And that made them suspicious. And they ultimately, through an intermediary, went to the FBI.
And who was that intermediary? As it turns out, it was, per Spencer Ackerman, a "much-maligned American Muslim organization."
From The Washington Post today:
The men, who range in age from 19 to 25, went overseas without telling their families, who grew concerned after a family member called one of them on his cellphone and "the conversation ended abruptly," said Nihad Awad, national executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
The council got the family members in touch with the FBI last week, and the families played the 11-minute English video for agents and Muslim leaders at a lawyer's office.
Congressional creatures have been astir lately, with plans to shift the decision-making process on curbing deficits to a blue-ribbon commission that would make the tough choices our own lawmakers don't want to.
It's bad enough that this grandiose abdication of responsibility was prompted by a juvenile threat to not raise the federal budget ceiling. But now that it's apparent how this redundant layer of decision-making is going to be constructed, it's clear that this deficit commission is, as Matt Yglesias points out, "doomed to fail." Mainly because it would combine the finest traditions of legislative buck-passing with the Senate's trademarked ability to get bogged down in intractable gridlock.
Senator Kent Conrad, the North Dakota Democrat who chairs the panel, and Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican, have, according to officials, reached an agreement for an 18-member commission, with 16 of those members coming from Congress and two from the administration. The Congressional membership would be evenly divided by party.
If 14 of the 18 members of the commission could agree, their recommendations would be submitted for a vote in the House and Senate after the 2010 elections. Approval would require a supermajority.
This truly is nonsense. Why is this commission going to be comprised of Congressional members when they can, at this very moment, introduce and enact laws without the imprimatur of some external, superfluous decision-making body? The Hill reported back in November that "13 senators" were "drawing a hard line" on this. Why don't those thirteen senators just show up for this duty themselves? And how, exactly, do they imagine a body comprised of eight Democrats, eight Republicans, and two representatives from the Obama administration is supposed to work, given that they'll always have to get 14 members to sign off on any decision?
Similarly, The Hill reported earlier that the legislation would be drafted by what was to be, but now apparently isn't, an "independent commission" and would "be subject to an up-or-down vote." Now, Gregg and Conrad have outlined a plan by which "approval would require a supermajority." Been watching the Senate lately? I'm sure this is going to work out swimmingly.
To say that this procedure "is designed to get results" shows a very odd understanding of American political institutions. Conrad and Gregg seem to think that instituting major reforms in the public interest is rare because the threshold for passing legislation is too low. Thus they've designed a process that creates new and higher supermajority requirements, on an issue where getting even 51% to sign on is probably impossible. And if that fails, maybe they'll conclude the process was too easy. Next time they could also require the commission members to create a cold fusion reactor or retrieve a magical ring from inside a volcano.
All of which would be more entertaining than watching this farce unfold, in which lawmakers insist that something needs to be done about the budget crisis, just so long as they don't have to put their names on the dotted line.
This morning, the folks at the U.S. Treasury Department put out a press release announcing their "Open Government Plan," which they are touting as a "New Information Sharing Effort" that "Promotes [a] Culture of Transparency, Collaboration, Participation." The release reads, in part:
As part of a commitment to increase transparency in government and maintain accountability of taxpayer dollars, the U.S. Department of the Treasury today announced an open government effort that will increase public access to data and information. Under this initiative, Treasury has compiled and will now make available new data on tax returns, more user friendly information on transactions under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), and a new report on bank trading and derivatives.
It's new! And it's now! Except, of course, for the component of this "Open Government Plan" that's actually been available for over a decade that the Treasury is now attempting to pass off as something they've just introduced.
Quarterly Report on Bank Trading and Derivatives. This new report, made available by the Office of the Comptroller of Currency, provides information on the federal government's supervision of banks as well as the investment activities of financial institutions.
Yeah, see, that "new report" has actually been available since 1995. You can look it up! The Huffington Post's own business reporter Shahien Nasiripour tells me, "I've written many, manyarticles on derivatives, and I've been using this report for a long time."
The release cites two additional "new" innovations: new data from the Internal Revenue Service on taxpayer "migration patterns" and a new "format" for transactions being made under the Troubled Asset Relief Program. One used to be available for a fee; the other in a slightly less useful PDF format, so that's all well and good -- but as examples of "new" frontiers in government transparency, it's pretty weak tea.
So it's really no wonder that the Treasury would pad these scant offerings out with a report that financial reporters have been using very effectively, for years.
Daphne Eviatar reports that in today's Department of Homeland Security oversight hearing, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) fired a shot at Attorney General Eric Holder and a dash of obtuse fearmongering.
At issue was Holder's decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his various henchies to New York City to stand trial in Federal court. Sessions said that this decision would make Department of Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano's "mission more difficult." He added that Holder "seemed unaware of the consequences" of his decision, one of which was KSM and company "being released into the United States."
I have no idea what "being released into the United States" means, exactly -- maybe KSM will open a bodega and finance the destruction of America through sales of one-hitters or something? This does not seem plausible. And that's because it's not plausible. I refer you to Adam Serwer, of the American Prospect, who's already explored the possibility that KSM might be acquitted and released as a free man and determined those chances to be, "No. Not ever."
"They have three sources of authority that would allow him to detain [KSM], one of which is the [Authorization to Use Military Force], because it directly cites the 9/11 attacks in its language -- the people who planned the 9/11 attacks are combatants and are detainable under the AUMF," explains Ken Gude, a human-rights expert at the Center for American Progress. "Under the .000001 chance that they are acquitted, they will have that authority to detain them."
The attorney general could detain him as an "international terrorist" indefinitely, in renewable six-month periods, based on a provision in the PATRIOT Act. And if things really get desperate, they could detain him as someone who is in the United States illegally, pending deportation. Since no country is going to take a mass murdering terrorist, that detention will essentially be indefinite.
On the prospect of KSM being released, Gude shrugs, "It isn't even in the realm of possibility."
December 15, 2009