Daily Kos

Ah yes, the holiday season, time to be merry, joyful, peaceful, and a raging asshole! Lots of holiday cheer below the fold!

As we now all know, Republicans are terribly concerned about keeping Social Security sound. House Speaker John Boehner even listed protecting Social Security first in the talking points for his bill.

Given this newfound concern for protecting this program, progressives have made a few suggestions for Democrats to take advantage. For example, they could combine the payroll tax cut with lifting the payroll tax cap.

Robert Escow has a suggestion that's much easier to achieve.

Nearly one American in six over the age of 65 lives in poverty. A newly progressivized Barack Obama is rocking the populist bandwagon from Osawatomieto the Oval Office.  And the Republicans have started attacking Democrats on Social Security—from the left.

This would be a good time for the President and other 'centrist' Democrats to offer the country a firm pledge not to cut Social Security benefits in any way, now or in the future. [...]

The Dems are on fire with progressive passion from the White House on down. We're loving the new, tough, populist rhetoric:  First the Teddy Roosevelt speech, now today's fiery press conference. Great stuff. Now all the Democrats need to do is put this newfound populist spirit into action. Teddy Roosevelt's commitment to economic justice and Franklin Roosevelt's vision of Social Security are both urgently needed right now.

Polls show that Social Security cuts are enormously unpopular, even among Republicans and Tea Party members. So why not take a stand on the subject, once and for all? We propose a simple pledge which the President and all Democrats could sign, and which they could urge Republicans to sign too (they won't, which will help them at the polls.)

Sounds like a solid plan, and one that really shouldn't be much of a stretch for a Democrat.

Reposted from Daily Kos Labor by Laura Clawson Heidi Shierholz explains:

The figure shows the average monthly unemployment rate and the over-the-year unemployment rate. Using the ratio of the over-the-year unemployment rate to the average monthly unemployment rate in 2010 (the latest data available), the over-the-year unemployment rate for 2011 and 2012 are projected. According to the data, we can expect that 14.9 percent of the workforce – more than one in seven workers – will be unemployed at some point next year.

Last year, 15.9 percent of the workforce was unemployed at some point, while the average monthly employment was 9.6 percent.

And as we know, the official unemployment rate dramatically understates the number of people who would like full-time work and don't have it. Never mind the people stuck in jobs that don't pay enough to live on. But forget all that. Clearly the problem is that unemployed people are lazy.

We've all read a lot about the $2.5M defamation verdict against "Investigative Blogger" Crystal Cox who was declared to not be a journalist as part of her case. But most of the reporting has missed the mark; here's what you actually need to know.

First off, the Citizen Media Law Project has compiled many of the case documents. I rely on them heavily here, and will link a bunch.

1. Crystal Cox wasn't doing journalism; at best, it's a close call.

This post is representative of what's at issue here:

Hey Kevin Padrick - Just a Reminder I ain't going anywhere.. Regardless of What you do to Summit..

My Investigative Blogging Team will Always Be ON YOUR ASS.

You are a Cruel, Evil, Discriminating Liar. And I intend to Expose every Dirty deed you have ever or will ever participate in.. So don't be thinking I have give [sic] up on EXPOSING you. You are a Corrupt Attorney, you Create Victims, you take money from real estate consumers, you are abusive and controlling, you pay off media, you pay of [sic] politicians and well.. I intend to prove all of that in great detail over the next..DECADE...

Stay Tuned..

In a pretrial ruling, the judge actually threw out most of the claims against her because, as he wrote:

The majority of the statements made by defendant are not sufficiently factual to be proved true or false.  The statements accusing  plaintiffs of being "thugs," or "evil," or "greedy," are evaluative, subjective expressions not subject to proof.  As to those statements that might suggest a sufficient factual basis to be provable, for the reasons explained in the preceding paragraph, the context in which those statements were made dispels a reader's understanding that they are assertions of fact.   Additionally, while, as noted above, the use of a question mark is not an absolute protection from liability as a provable statement of fact, it is a commonly recognized rhetorical device which can create an impression for the reader that the author is supposing facts rather than stating provable facts.  Moreover, defendant regularly states she "will" prove her allegations or that information and facts are "coming soon."  While this might suggest that she actually possesses facts but simply has not posted them yet, in this case any reasonable reader would view the promise of future proof and defendant's failure to contemporaneously post the relevant facts as one more reason why the posts do not constitute provable assertions of fact.

I recognize that simply because statements are posted on the Internet, or contain a
question mark, does not immunize the statements from being actionable in a defamation claim.  But, here, none of the statements quoted above create liability for defamation because when the totality of the circumstances are considered, no reasonable juror could conclude that the statements contain provable assertions of fact.

One commentator has referred to this as the ALL CAPS defense; if your posts don't look credible and people don't expect to find assertions of fact in your writing, you won't be taken seriously enough to be found liable. (This "sliding scale" came up in the Tucker Max/Anthony DiMeo litigation about which I've written.) Accordingly, this one post on a separate site was the only one he deemed sufficiently fact-ish to be subject to liability.

More importantly, in terms of whether this was "journalism": Cox was engaging in search engine optimization practices by setting up a bunch of sites dedicated to trashing this guy ... and then sent his attorney an email saying "So I want to let you know that I am now offering PR services and search engine management services starting at $2,500 a month." Which, I hope we can agree, isn't something journalists do for their subjects, but Cox has denied that this was attempted extortion/blackmail.

2. Even if she were deemed a "journalist," it wouldn't have mattered.

Whether she was a journalist was of legal relevance for two arguments. One, as to whether a "media shield" applied to protect her sources. On that, everyone's in agreement on two things—that the fault lies on Oregon's dated statute, not with the judge; and even with a more tech-friendly statute, it still wouldn't have helped her, because the shield affords no protection for any journalist from having to disclose her source when she’s claiming that the source would help her prove that what she wrote was true.

The second place where this issue arose is on the mens rea test of how wrong Cox had to be to be liable here. On this, Cox argued that as "media" she had to be deemed negligent, and not merely wrong. Here's what the judge said:

Defendant fails to bring forth any evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist. For example, there is no evidence of (1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; (6) creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others; or (7) contacting "the other side" to get both sides of a story. Without evidence of this nature, defendant is not "media."

The important thing about this standard is that it's not dependent on the medium, but rather on the individual's alleged journalistic practices.

3. The verdict seems excessive.

The jury awarded damages in the amounts of $1M to the guy's company and $1.5M to him personally based on the harms to their respective reputations that Cox caused. According to one article:

Padrick said Obsidian Finance’s advisory business is off 80 to 90 percent this year, forcing it to cut jobs. He attributed the drop in business to the barrage of accusations from Cox.

“The damage to me is forever,” Padrick said. “The Internet is not capable of being undone. Google ‘Kevin Padrick’ and you’ll see the first 10 pages are from Crystal Cox.”

That may well be the case. Regardless, if the judge has already ruled that only one post of Cox's was potentially defamatory—as opposed to her entire course of conduct—then I'm not seeing the linkage between that one post and all the damages claimed. From the outside—without having sat through the trial and heard all the evidence, and certainly the jury is entitled to much deference—but from the outside it's hard to understand how that much in damages can be attributed to the one legally defamatory post, as opposed to a verdict based on a general assessment of Cox's practices.  

I can imagine that number being reduced on appeal or reconsideration, and I welcome your thoughts and questions.

You know how fucked up the GOP is, and the country with it, when you hear this, not just from a Republican, but from a Reagan adviser. Here's Bruce Bartlett:

"Basically we're still stuck in the situation we were three years ago and we haven't made any progress at all except that our problems are much worse because of political reasons, because we now have a crazy party in charge of one of the Houses of our Congress and they won't allow anything to happen because it's in their vested interest to make things worse," Bartlett explained in his typically exasperated way. "Plus they have a theory that is completely nuts…. I'm very depressed. [...] The most we can hope for is that a complete crazy person like Newt Gingrich gets the Republican nomination, the Republicans lose so badly that they lose control of the House and don't get control of the Senate and then maybe in a year we can finally talk about doing something rational. [...]"

Total implosion of the GOP, 2012's version of hope.

From Gallup:

About three-quarters of registered voters (76%) say most members of Congress do not deserve re-election, the highest such percentage Gallup has measured in its 19-year history of asking this question. The 20% who say most members deserve to be re-elected is also a record low, by one percentage point.

Note that those numbers are even higher than in 2010, a year of extremely stark anti-incumbent sentiment. It almost makes me wonder whether we could see a complete flip in Congress: The House revering to Democrats, and Republicans picking up the Senate. With trends like these, I wouldn't want to rule it out.

I refuse to take “no” for an answer. Financial institutions have plenty of high-powered lawyers and lobbyists looking out for them. It’s time consumers had someone on their side.

A combative President Barack Obama, hot off the fire of his rousing Kansas speech deploring income inequality earlier this week, used his weekly address this morning to challenge Senate Republicans on their refusal to name a consumer watchdog to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

First he laid out the case:

See, for too long, the rules weren’t the same on Wall Street as they were on Main Street. Risky bets were made with other people’s money. Some folks made a lot of money taking advantage of consumers. It was wrong. And this irresponsible behavior on the part of some contributed to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Then he got specific about one measure that could fix the problem, and who's responsible for the hold-up:

As the former Attorney General of Ohio, Richard helped recover billions of dollars on behalf of retirees and stood up to dishonest lending practices. He has the support of most Attorneys General across the country, both Democrats and Republicans. Members of Congress from both parties say he’s more than qualified for the job. And yet on Thursday, Republicans blocked his nomination. They refused to even allow it to come up for a vote.

That doesn’t make any sense. Do Republicans in Congress think our financial crisis was caused by too much oversight of mortgage lenders or debt collectors? Of course not. And every day America has to wait for a new consumer protection watchdog is another day that dishonest businesses can target and take advantage of students, seniors, and service members.

Taking a quick swipe at Republicans for also blocking payroll tax relief for the middle class, he closed his address with a little seasonally themed declaration:

Now is not the time for playing politics. Now is the time to do what’s right for the American people.

No one should go home for the holidays until we get this done. So tell your Members of Congress, don’t be a Grinch. Tell them to do the right thing for you and for our economy.

The full transcript can be found beneath the fold and on the White House website.

This week rumors swirled that ... something ... was found in the LHC data. There's plenty of inside baseball players saying it's likely to be tentative evidence that the search for the Higgs Boson is nearing a phase transition. So, what is the Higgs Boson you ask? The LHC rap above with intro by MC Hawking does a decent job of reviewing the basics; I wish could explain the Higgs in one graf. Because it's only the most important particle in science right now, and -- depending on its properties or its very existence -- could even help illuminate the elusive bridge between two great fields of physics that explain our universe from quark to quasar, but don't play well together at all: General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. But that's a post for another day. For now, Cosmic Variance does an admirable job of summing up the science of detection, and this link explains the Higgs by gentle analogy for the non atom-smashing pro.

• Anti-science marches on! This week Jon Huntsman ran with the banner, making a play for the critical for the know-nothing vote by backpeddling away on human induced climate change with a subtle dog-whistle shout-out to the climate conspiracy clowns. Meanwhile, climate talks are at a virtual standstill without strong US leadership and cooperation from India and China.
• If somehow you missed it, Kepler bags a low mass, possibly earth-like planet circling in the habitable zone of a twin sun-like star. The Bad Astronomer has some great science insights on Kepler's first big find, and this planet could the first of many with terrestrial potential we discover over the next several years.
• The Mars Science Lab is on its way to Mars, where the Opportunity rover has found lead-pipe cinch evidence for flowing water. There's a sense the decade of the naughts could see the universe give up some long-held secrets, near and far, at every level.
• The lunar eclipse has begun: beautiful images abound, and for those of you in Eastern and Central Standard Time, where the moon is being drowned out by a rising sun, Cosmic Log and Wired Mag both offer great online viewing.

Visual source: Newseum

LA Times:

As Gingrich continues to surge in polls, Republicans on Capitol Hill are grappling with their attitude toward their former leader. Few in Washington have more baggage than Gingrich, and most in Washington know what's in it. The question of whether Gingrich can convince his party that he's evolved may determine whether his support grows or falls back.

Gingrich's four-year term was tumultuous, marked by ethical lapses, a botched political strategy and palace intrigue.

Ezra Klein:

There are eight weeks between the New Hampshire primary and Super Tuesday, and almost six months between Super Tuesday and the Republican National Convention. Gingrich might generate sufficient momentum to win a few primaries. But he can’t survive seven months as the frontrunner. The more interesting question is whether he could damage Romney badly enough that the GOP needs to find a new candidate to serve as their nominee.

Mark Blumenthal:

In short, while these voters were more enthusiastic about Gingrich, it was also clear that they remain in the process of making a decision and are far from decided. When Hart asked whose vote was still "up for grabs," half raised their hands. At the same time, many indicated they had already narrowed their choices to some degree. Most, for example, said they had already ruled out supporting Herman Cain -- who dropped out of the race two days later -- and others had ruled out Paul or Perry, or even Gingrich or Romney.

Please let it be Newt. And for all those voicing dire warnings about how Democrats wanted to face Ronald Reagan: this isn't 1980, and Osama bin Laden is dead.

Kathleen Parker:

The GOP’s death wish

But no one other than Callista Gingrich thinks her husband can prevail in a general election. No. One. The consensus on Gingrich is so overwhelming that conventional wisdom has taken a holiday. That is, no one in Washington thinks he can win, and Washington is where Gingrich is known best. Instead of rallying to support him, former colleagues are going out of their way to politely say, “He can’t lead.”

Um... like I said.

Dana Milbank:

Nearly two decades ago, Gingrich’s political action committee, with the help of GOP wordsmith Frank Luntz, issued a now-famous memo telling Republican candidates which words they should use to describe their opponents. Among them: “anti,” “betray,” “bizarre,” “corrupt,” “destructive,” “disgrace,” “shame,” “lie,” “pathetic,” “radical,” “self-serving,” “selfish,” “shallow,” “shame,” “sick,” “traitors.”

“These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understood contrast,” this Gingrich-endorsed memo explained. “Remember that creating a difference helps you. Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party.”

Miami Herald:

When Florida moved its presidential primary to Jan. 31, political leaders thought the state would greatly influence the nomination process. But the state now seems more a pit stop rather than the finish line.

See GOP contest may be a marathon, not a sprint.

The Hill:

The House payroll tax bill will add $25.3 billion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Back in 2007, James Lovelock wrote in Rolling Stone:

By 2020, droughts and other extreme weather will be commonplace. By 2040, the Sahara will be moving into Europe, and Berlin will be as hot as Baghdad. Atlanta will end up a kudzu jungle. Phoenix will become uninhabitable, as will parts of Beijing (desert), Miami (rising seas) and London (floods). Food shortages will drive millions of people north, raising political tensions. "The Chinese have nowhere to go but up into Siberia," Lovelock says. "How will the Russians feel about that? I fear that war between Russia and China is probably inevitable." With hardship and mass migrations will come epidemics, which are likely to kill millions. By 2100, Lovelock believes, the Earth's population will be culled from today's 6.6 billion to as few as 500 million, with most of the survivors living in the far latitudes—Canada, Iceland, Scandinavia, the Arctic Basin.

He was excoriated as a hyperbolic, gloom-and-doomer with a perception distorted from peering through green-colored glasses.

Now, four years later at the end of yet another international gathering of negotiators from most of the nations on the planet, Andrew Light writes that this nonsense is still going on:

The expected endgame of the international climate talks in Durban is shaping up to be a fierce standoff.

A showdown has emerged between the E.U. and other parties over their conditions for agreeing to a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. The first commitment period will expire in 2012. If it is not renewed, the fate of the instruments that support the world's fragile carbon market is uncertain.

Perito-Moreno Glacier, Patagonia, Argentina
(Yellow Magpie)

Japan, Russia, and Canada have all signaled that they are unwilling to continue with a second commitment of binding emissions cuts for the treaty, leaving only the E.U. ready to move forward.

But the conditions the E.U. has asked for at this meeting to preserve the Kyoto Protocol are steep. In exchange for their commitment, they expect everyone else—in particular the other large greenhouse-gas emitters like the U.S., China, and India—to begin a road map for a process that will create a binding agreement on reducing emissions later in the decade. What we now know as the "mandate" debate has pulled everyone into a discussion over the fate of the Kyoto Protocol—including the U.S., which is not a party to it. ...

But so far there is little indication that the U.S., China, India, and several other parties like the idea of signing onto this package. While no serious objections have been voiced about authorizing a road map to come out of this meeting that will continue work on a new agreement in a stipulated amount of time, parties disagree on the idea of agreeing ahead of time to a legally binding outcome for this process. ...

This week several parties, such as the U.S. and India, expressed reservations that they can enter into a process that guarantees an agreement a legally binding outcome when they don't yet know what the content of the agreement would be. The U.S. has also repeatedly demanded an all-inclusive binding target in order to craft a workable climate agreement. According to our lead climate negotiator Todd Stern, the U.S. is not necessarily opposed to a legally binding outcome, but rather to an outcome that, like the Kyoto Protocol, is binding only to some parties and not to others—of the size, scale, and growth of their emissions.

We laugh at the climate-change deniers. But delay is the worst form of denial. Worst, since the delayers agree with the fundamental premise of global warming and still drag their feet. Not the greatest idea since Lovelock doesn't sound all that hyperbolic these days.

Some coverage of the climate-change talks can be found in the Daily Kos group The Daily Durban.

---

On this date at Daily Kos in 2005:

If the illegality of torture and the immorality of torture and extraordinary rendition are not sufficient for the rejection of these inhuman and barbaric practices, perhaps the American People might consider the fact that the use of torture and extraordinary rendition was a direct cause of the United States making the biggest strategic blunder since Vietnam.

It is mindboggling that, knowing this, the Bush Administration has fought tooth and nail against banning torture by the United States.
The worst Administration in history.

---

High Impact Posts are here. Top Comments are here.

Reposted from Daily Kos Elections by Steve Singiser

Before we hit the numbers, a quick programming note. The polling Wrap returns on Monday night, while the normal weekend digest will remain in its now-customary position on Saturday evenings.

Now, for those GOP primary numbers:

NATIONAL (Fox News): Gingrich 36, Romney 23, Paul 12, Perry 8, Bachmann 5, Santorum 4, Huntsman 2

NATIONAL (Gallup): Gingrich 37, Romney 23, Paul 9, Bachmann 6, Perry 6, Santorum 2, Huntsman 1

GEORGIA (Insider Advantage): Gingrich 54, Romney 12, Paul 6, Bachmann 4, Perry 3, Huntsman 2, Santorum 2

MICHIGAN (Strategic National--R): Gingrich 31, Romney 29, Paul 7, Bachmann 6, Huntsman 4, Perry 3, Santorum 3

And on the general election front, the "electability gap" continues onward, with the notable exception of West Virginia. Nationally though there is an interesting potential trend that might be bad news for the GOP. Hit the "continue reading" button underneath for that nugget of analysis:

NATIONAL (Fox News): Obama d. Romney (44-42); Obama d. Gingrich (46-40)

PENNSYLVANIA (Muhlenberg College): Obama d. Romney (45-41); Obama d. Gingrich (52-35); Obama d. Perry (48-30); Obama d. Cain (55-28)

WEST VIRGINIA (Blankenship Enterprises): Romney d. Obama (45-38); Gingrich d. Obama (54-35)

Reposted from Daily Kos Labor by Laura Clawson As expected, following the contract agreement between Boeing and its union workers, the National Labor Relations Board has dropped its complaint against Boeing. Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon issued a statement stressing both the frequency with which such cases are settled and the ways in which the complaint against Boeing fit the mission of the NLRB:

The union asked to withdraw the charge following the ratification of a four-year collective bargaining agreement between its members and Boeing earlier this week. Based on that request, the administrative law judge presiding over the case dismissed the complaint and remanded the case to our regional office in Seattle for further processing. This morning, Regional Director Richard Ahearn approved the union’s written request to withdraw the charge, and the case is now closed.

This is the outcome we have always preferred, and one that is typical for our agency. About 90% of meritorious NLRB cases are resolved as a result of agreements between the parties or settlements with the agency before the conclusion of litigation.

One of the stated goals of the National Labor Relations Act is to foster collective bargaining and productive labor-management relations. From the beginning of this case, and at every step in the process, we have encouraged the parties to find a mutually-acceptable resolution that protects the rights of workers under federal labor law.  The parties’ collective bargaining agreement, ratified this week, does just that.

After we issued complaint in April, and as the trial began in June, the parties came to realize that their mutual success required a new approach. The result is a contract that helps guarantee their success and creates job security for workers. I am pleased that the collective bargaining process has succeeded and that the parties have begun a promising new chapter in their relationship.

This result is generally believed to be excellent for Barack Obama, taking an issue aggressively politicized by Republicans off the table for 2012. Steven Greenhouse also notes that it may have implications for the NLRB's ability to function, as South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham had threatened to block any future nominees to the labor board, which will be unable to function if Craig Becker's recess appointment expires without him being replaced. It remains unlikely that Senate Republicans will confirm any Obama nominees, but theoretically there's now a chance.

12:31 PM PT: I spoke too soon: Boeing and the NLRB may be happy, but congressional Republicans are determined to press this non-issue:  

Congressional Republicans are still on the attack against the National Labor Relations Board – even though the agency dropped a case against Boeing that had become a rallying cry for conservatives.

A clearly unsatisfied Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the loudest congressional critics of the NLRB, on Friday called for an investigation into the labor board. And Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who had subpoenaed the board for information on the NLRB-Boeing fight, said Friday that his House Oversight and Government Reform Committee wouldn’t halt the investigation and instead continue to seek information into the labor board’s actions.

At this point, every step Republicans take against the NLRB is a reminder that their outrage wasn't mostly about Boeing, but about the general idea that a government agency would support the legal rights of workers to organize without retaliation. Or, you know, any workers rights at all.