Scalia's scant sourcing on detainee recidivism

In Aziz Huq's article, Justice Scalia's Dueling Opinions, (a sharp comparison of whether Boumediene or Heller is more likely to endanger Americans) there's a reference to Scalia's assertion that 30 former detainees have returned to the battlefield:

In Boumediene, Justice Scalia had to resort to a minority report from a Senate committee, along with some stray news clippings, for the conclusion that 30 released detainees have "returned" to the battlefield. 

A Justice of the Supreme Court is asserting that of the 200 prisoners released from Guantanamo, 30 have resumed fighting - presumably against their former captors.

Thankfully, Aziz Huq's article includes a link to a paper from Seton Hall's Prof. Denbeaux (PDF) examining the sourcing of that number. It's instructive.

Justice Scalia cites a Senate report's Minority View (Senate Report No. 110-90, pt. 7, p. 13 (June 26, 2007), Minority Views of Sens. Kyl, Sessions, Graham, Cornyn, and Coburn:)

The Minority View cites a May 14, 2007 story from CNN.

The CNN Story cites the Department of Defense, which Denbeaux narrows to the statement of one Principal Deputy General Counsel Daniel J. Dell’Orto, who said before Congress:

The general number is around—just short of thirty, I think…It’s a combination of thirty we believe have either been captured or killed on the battlefield, so some of them have actually died on the battlefield.

 What's especially instructive is that the DoD has since refuted this number, narrowing it to include persons who:

...participat[ed] in anti-US propaganda or other activities through intelligence gathering and media reports.

and "anti-US propaganda" would therefore encompass (emphasis mine):

...five...Uighur [former Gitmo detainees] who remained detained in a refugee camp in Albania but who had an editorial submitted on their behalf which was critical of the US Guantánamo policy.

I'll leave you to ponder the imminent threat posed by five prisoners in Albania who have some connection to an editorial that criticizes the country responsible for their six years of incarceration without trial.

Oh please, please, please...!

(H/t TPM)

McCain considering Romney for VP.

You'd think both of them would be smarter than that.

Then again...

Water is water

Oh, how I love this.

(H/t CJR) The Washington Post cuts through the bottled water hype:

The push to turn water into the new wine is a marketing phenomenon: The bottled-water industry is engaged in an intense effort to convince Americans that the stuff in bottles is substantially different from the stuff out of the tap.

But empirical tests have repeatedly shown that they are generally the same. In blind taste tests, many people who swear they can differentiate between bottled-water brands and tap water fail to spot the differences, and studies have shown that both are fine to drink, and both occasionally can have quality problems.

A classic example of how the marketing firehose can drown out the truth. Read the whole article. It rocks.

Only in America could government spend trillions providing cheap water to citizens who'd spurn it in favor of overpriced, unregulated hype.

Passed along without comment... II

...because, really - what could I add?

(H/t to DangerRoom)

Do yourself a favor. Have something ready to throw against the wall, hard, before you read this Times story on the botched hunt for Bin Laden. Or pour yourself a stiff drink, at least. ...trust me, you'll need it. Because our Special Forces are "still waiting for the green light" to go get Al Qaeda bigs in their mostly likely hiding places, in Pakistan.

The passive voice

Jeremy R. Hammond takes a dim view of WaPo's coverage of the Bush administration's legal manuvering:

Last week, an article in the Washington Post explained how decisions of the Bush administration with regard to detention policies have been overturned by the Supreme Court. The tone of the article is interesting. It's title is "White House Dismissed Legal Advice On Detainees".*

The "advice" in question came from lawyers who "repeatedly warned the White House that it was risking judicial scrutiny of its detention policies in Guantanamo Bay if it did not pursue a more pragmatic legal strategy that considered the likely reaction of the Supreme Court." This is the advice that was "ignored".

Hammond zeroes in on what this language means - and what is wrong with it:

The only problem with the policy decisions, then, was that they risked being overturned in court. In other words, that they would be illegal.

In fairness to the administration - being concerned that your actions will not pass judicial muster isn't quite the same thing as willfully seeking to break the law, but I think Hammond has isolated a key problem in the habitual deference of political reporting.

When your reporting of an issue uncritically accepts the language of a given point of view - you can be steered away from key points of debate.

Sure, take what they say down - put it in your paper. But don't miss the underlying question: What are they not saying?

Well, just rock me to sleep tonight...

Secrecy News, marking the centennial of a (hopefully) singular event:

Monday, June 30 marks the 100th anniversary of the Tunguska incident in 1908, in which a meteor or comet fragment entered the atmosphere over Tunguska in Siberia producing an enormous explosion.

They close with this happy thought:

Impacts such as the Tunguska incident are thought to occur about once in one hundred years based on the density of impact craters on the Moon

Oh good. Like I wasn't paranoid enough.

There's a reason they're called opinions

JB on Balkinization pegs out exactly where I'm at on the Supremes:

...the results in Boumediene and Heller demonstrate something important about the Supreme Court: No matter how much the arguments in Boumediene and Heller are dressed up in originalist garb, they show us that that living constitutionalism is alive and well. In each case the Supreme Court revises existing law to match changes in public opinion.

Boumediene reflected the public's increasing disgust with the Bush Administration's detention policies.

Despite its long and occasionally dreary originalist exegesis, the Heller majority is not really defending the values of 1791. It is enforcing the values of 2008.

Now, if we could get someone to pounce on the next blowhard who trumpets their belief in "strict construction of the Constitution" - we might get somewhere in the debate over these issues.

Scalia's Heller opinion has him justifying the right to own handguns not because of Constitutional language, but because:

It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upperbody strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.

Well, I'm glad I have the Supreme Court to figure these things out. I mean the language of the 2nd Amendment clearly states that the most popular weapon for self-defense cannot be prohibited...

-oh, that's right it doesn't:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Whatever a person's view of the 2nd amendment is - its pretty clear that single sentence is loaded with possible interpretations.

Scalia is legislating his own, namely-

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

-which is one side of the collective right (with the goal of "a well-regulated Militia") vs. individual right (stressing the "right of the people" phrase) discussion.

Scalia's touted as a conservative judge, but nobody should pretend that his opinion is anything other than legislating his viewpoint because he's got four Justices who agree with him.

That's not sour grapes - just the reality of the Court.

An activist judge is one you disagree with. A defender of the Constitution is one you agree with. Simple as that.

--

Mark Tuschert has an excellent windout on his post:

For now, it may be worth observing the rhetorical difference between Justice Breyer’s description of his job as one requiring him to exercise “legal judgment,” and Chief Justice Roberts’s description of the job as that of an umpire calling balls and strikes. As to the latter – and with implications for the question of judicial empowerment – it seems to me striking, so to speak, that, as one might put it, when Chief Justice Roberts calls the balls and strikes, it turns out that the home team’s pitchers have a truly amazing capacity to get the ball in the strike zone while the visitors’ pitchers quite frequently throw wildly. And, we really should try to figure why exactly it’s a bad thing for people we call judges to exercise judgment.

"You picked the wrong man to try to bribe"

My dad would be pleased:

Scruggs Gets 5 Years for Bribery
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 27, 2008

OXFORD, Miss. (AP) -- Richard ''Dickie'' Scruggs, who became one of the wealthiest civil lawsuit attorneys in the country by taking on tobacco, asbestos and insurance companies, was sentenced Friday to five years in prison for conspiring to bribe a judge.

Everybody loves universal health care - until the bill comes due

(Via CJR's Campaign Desk)

The Massachusetts heath care plan is a media darling. But it's a bit early to trumpet its success:

Employers balked at the idea of having to cover their workers and, instead, got away with putting $295 per worker per year into a special pot to help pay for the subsidies—a much cheaper alternative. Financing came from a variety of sources, including general revenues and money from the state’s free care pool. The state paid hospitals to treat the poor (who now theoretically had insurance), thus providing a payment stream to the hospitals, so they wouldn’t need to dip into the pool. A big chunk also came from the federal government through the Medicaid waiver program, which allows all states to expand coverage by leveraging federal dollars.

This being health care - all these funding methods aren't covering the program's costs.

Now the state has to wrangle with the Fed to keep the money flowing - and the Fed's isn't eager to spend more money on a plan that was supposed to cost the Fed less.

Its a tangled web of a story, but worth reading if you want to get a sense for the difficulties this flavor of universal is up against.

• CJR's blub
• Full story from Wicked Local

Exorcism

The march of the undead has ended:

Bastian Schweinsteiger: I just won, so who cares if I look stupid?

Scoreline – June 25, 2008
Germany: 3
Schweinsteiger 26'; Klose 79'; Lahm 90'
Turkey: 2
Uğur Boral 22'; Semih Şentürk 86'

Match of the tournament.

The best match I didn't get to see.

Turkey scores early, Germany equalizes minutes later.

Swarming, end-to-end action. Scoring chances, panicked defenders, it was awesome.

And then the TV went black.

The official story was that a lightning strike had knocked out the world feed, but I have a sinking suspicion that God was overcome by the possibility that the Turks would win again and threw something at his TV.

He apparently did this twice, because shortly after the signal was restored, it went dark again.

While we were being shown video of the crowds in Basel, Germany scored. Seven minutes of soccer-free footage later – Turkey scored.

2-2 with four minutes of regulation left.

Having denied the world two goals, God fixes the world feed in time to see the replay of Şentürk's insane equalizer.

Andy Gray summed up the moment perfectly: "…..I'm lost….I'm lost"

So was everybody else. And the game still wasn't done.

Lahm, Germany's under-achieving left back, somehow gets the ball in the 18yard box on a jail break attack – and rockets it into the Turkish goal in the last minute of regulation.

Flat out insanity. The final stake in the heart of the Turks, surely.

God, overcome by the moment – kills the world feed again. We find out that the game is ending by watching the German fans outside the stadium counting down. When they explode into celebration, Andy Gray calls it.

The Turks were a marvel, they made the tournament. And now they are done, beaten by Germany, the founding members of the undead. Pray for Spain.

---
Oh yeah, that other match.

I had high hopes for this one. Russia was on a tear, Arshavin was a monster against the Dutch, and Spain had finally conquered their nerves vs. the Italians.

Puyol mobs Fabregas after the win.

Scoreline – June 26, 2008
Russia: 0
Spain: 3
Xavi Hernández 50'; Güiza 73'; Silva 82'

A blowout.

Russia was barely there at all. Lots of scrambling, but Spain owned this one from start to finish. The only drama for me was betting how long it would be before Aragonés would put in Fabregas.

Villa got munched, so Fabregas only had to wait 36 minutes. And it was magic. He's creating, passing doing the same thing he always does.

Two assists on the night, and a danger for more every time he touches the ball.
Tell 'em who he plays for! Arsenal! Damn right.

Russia's attack was gutted in the battle for the midfield and it was just painful to watch. Arshavin was a non-entity- not even a shot on goal.

Spain has banished their national demons so far – but the chronic underachievers have yet to face the biggest obstacle yet – Germany.

It doesn't get harder than Germany. Spain pulls that one off, they're demons are long gone. They lose – and all they've done will be for nothing.

Phantom Menace

This was a refreshing blast of reality. Liz Losh over at Sivacracy
has posted a rebuttal to yet another of those panicked congressional reactions to alarmist news.

This time around it's the threat of online predators of children.

Now, bad people are out there - people should take precautions and pay attention, however -

-they might also do well to take a look at this graph:


The percentage of sexual predators who are related to the victim is 85%

Unknown, Missing or Other adds up to 9% of reported cases.

Laws should keep up with changing technology, but the idea that there is an army of abusers waiting in the tall grass is directly contradicted by these numbers.

The internet is a new threat to children - but it's nowhere close to the worst threat.

80 to 15

That was the vote spread in favor of ending debate on the FISA bill in the Senate yesterday.

Eighty senators felt that we'd discussed this issue enough to schedule a vote.

I mean, my God - they've had the bill for five whole days (including a weekend) we'd better rush that puppy through.

The people are demanding action on the FISA law! Can't you hear their demands for telecom immunity?

Don't think, vote! Vote damn you!!!

Sen. Dodd gets it

(H/t to Glenn Greenwald)

Sen. Dodd's saying the right things: (emphasis added)

This bill does not say, “Trust the American people; Trust the courts and judges and juries to come to just decisions.” Retroactive immunity sends a message that is crystal clear:

“Trust me.”

And that message comes straight from the mouth of this President. “Trust me.”

[snip]

“Trust me” government is government that asks that we concentrate our hopes and dreams on one man; that we trust him to do what’s best for us. My view of government places trust not in one person or one party, but in those values that transcend persons and parties.

Those words were not spoken by someone who took our nation’s security lightly, Mr. President. They were spoken by Ronald Reagan -- in 1980. They are every bit as true today, even if times of threat and fear blur our concept of transcendent values. Even if those who would exploit those times urge us to save our skins at any cost.

[snip]

There is only one issue here. Only one: the law issue.

Does the president serve the law, or does the law serve the president? Each insult to our Constitution comes from the same source; each springs from the same mindset; and if we attack this contempt for the law at any point, we will wound it at all points.

That is why I’m here today: Retroactive immunity is on the table today; but also at issue is the entire ideology that justifies it, the same ideology that defends torture and executive lawlessness. Immunity is a disgrace in itself, but it is far worse in what it represents. It tells us that some believe in the courts only so long as their verdict goes their way. That some only believe in the rule of law, so long as exceptions are made at their desire. It puts secrecy above sunshine and fiat above law.

Did the telecoms break the law? That, I don’t know.

But pass immunity…and we will never know. A handful of favored corporations will remain unchallenged. Their arguments will never be heard in a court of law. The truth behind this unprecedented domestic spying will never see light. And the cases will be closed forever.

[snip]

Here’s how Mike McConnell put it: “If you play out the suits at the value they’re claimed, it would bankrupt these companies. So…we have to provide liability protection to these private sector entities.”

[snip]

It’s much more troubling, though, that our Director of National Intelligence even bothers to speak to “liability protection for private sector entities.”

This isn’t the Secretary of Commerce we’re talking about, but the head of our nation’s intelligence efforts.

For that matter, how does that even begin to be relevant to letting this case go forward? Since when did we throw entire suits out because the defendant stood to lose too much?

It astounds me that some can speak in the same breath about national security and bottom lines. Approve immunity, and Congress will state clearly: The richer you are, the more successful you are, the more lawless you are entitled to be. A suit against you is a danger to the Republic!

And so, at the rock-bottom of its justifications, the telecoms’ advocates are essentially arguing that immunity can be bought.

The truth is exactly the opposite—and it should be obvious:

The larger the corporation, the greater the potential for abuse.

-you have to wonder are any of his Senate colleagues listening?

I'm looking at you, Reid.

Pick up the phone

Firedoglake has posted a list of US Senators who need to be bothered about FISA.

If you give a rip about FISA: Call. Be polite, but firm.

Emptywheel's take on the bill points out some items that are not bad, but there's still plenty to hate.

My own view is that immunity is not deserved, absent full disclosure of what took place before elected representatives (outside of the executive) who are empowered to take action if they see wrongdoing. It's like the Truth and Reconciliation Commission: we'll let you off, conditioned on you telling us the truth - all of it.

This bill leaves oversight of minimization procedures [i.e. we only collect what we should] in the hands of the Executive. Somebody needs to keep an eye on the people doing the spying - and this bill says the spies will police themselves.

Information that is collected and later found to have been improperly collected can be retained by the government. They can't use it in a hearing or a prosecution, but that's small consolation.

It may shock people to learn that (as it exists now) FISA allows the government to listen in to all international communications (to and from the US).

I'll explain:

FISA does not cover transmissions that don't travel by wire. Microwave transmissions to satellites are not covered by FISA (nor are radio transmissions - that cell phone you have is a radio transmitter).

Further, FISA only applies to wire transmissions where the intercept takes place within the United States. The reverse of that means that FISA does not apply when the wiretap takes place outside of the United States (i.e. on a US fiber optic line that has just crossed into Canada - or into international waters).

BTW: Email travels by wire. Soon as it leaves the country, it's fair game.

The caveat to this is that the government is not allowed to target an individual when they do this: they must do what is called "drift net" eavesdropping: they listen to everything and then have computers perform searches for keywords like "bomb" "White House" or "Olbermann."

But they can collect everything leaving the country without needing a FISA warrant. This is what is going on now.

(I should point out that there may well be other regulations that apply to these communications, but FISA does not and has not)

The idea that the government has been scanning our international conversations for keywords it finds threatening is nowhere near as disturbing as the notion that they get to keep this information in perpetuity. Just because there are legal safeguards to protect us from having the aggregate recordings distilled down to an individual - doesn't mean this will always be the case.

4th Amendment procedures that restrict exactly how and when such a distillation is permitted need to be in the hands of people who do not work for the Executive. They need to be in the hands of people who the Executive is actively afraid of.

I can accept a government that sifts through aggregate data, so long as making the next jump - -using aggregate to find targets for individual surveillance - has brutal 4th amendment safeguards.

Likewise, I can accept a government that collects aggregate data, so long as the aggregate data is not retained in the hopes of a freer regulatory environment in the future. The kind of keyword searches performed on aggregate data should be subject to outside review.

Frankly, once you have the right targeting and aggregate safeguards in place, you can drop the geographic requirement of FISA - since it's essentially meaningless anyway. When they can listen to everything if they're in Canada, what's the difference if they are listening inside the US?

But they have to be subject to oversight.

A self-regulating surveillance program is just a greased slope into abuse.

Who holds back the electric car?

...it sure as hell ain't the Stonecutters Lodge. The brutal realities of modern science are bad enough. Even so, I'm so hoping that Chevy pulls this one off. The Chevy Volt:

If it meets specifications, it will charge up overnight from any standard electrical socket. It will go 40 miles on a charge. Then a small gasoline engine will ignite. The engine’s sole job will be to drive a generator, whose sole job will be to maintain the battery’s charge—not to drive the wheels, which will never see anything but electricity. In generator mode, the car will drive hundreds of miles on a tank of gas, at about 50 miles per gallon. But about three-fourths of Americans commute less than 40 miles a day, so on most days most Volt drivers would use no gas at all.

As a commuter who goes 20 miles one way, every day - even a lifelong driver of imports - I'd buy a Chevy to not use gas.

The article in the Atlantic is an unabashed part of GM's media barrage for the Volt, but it's a great narrative.

They're taking insane risks to do this:

The pencil pushers had done none of the marketing and cost studies that typically precede a product launch, but no matter. Normally, Bob Lutz says, “you basically define the whole future of the car on paper before you give the go-ahead to start spending some serious engineering and design money on it. And in this case it was completely backwards. We saw that we had a smash hit that hugely resonated with the public, and we just decided: let’s go to work. No business case, but let’s get this thing into production-ready form, and we’ll worry about the cost and investment and the profitability later.

And they're pulling out the stops:

Early on, word had come down from Bob Lutz and Jon Lauckner that standard procedure was suspended where the Volt was concerned. “You guys are not going to be held to the normal GM bureaucracy,” Lutz recalls saying. “You guys spend money when you need to spend it. You have a problem, call us on the phone.” Engineers, designers, and executives were told to trust their instincts and make decisions on the spot. If a larger issue crops up, it is taken to a special Volt steering committee, and Lutz, Lauckner, and the key company vice presidents settle it before leaving the room.

I know, I know - too early to get excited - it's GM, after all - but hey-

Just think of it - being proud of American innovation for a change...!

(H/t TPM)

Mr. Erickson, that's quite a skeleton you've got there...

Mike Erickson is running for Congress in Oregon.

He's pro-life - and an ex-girlfriend has surfaced to accuse him of.... oh just guess...

(H/t TPM, of course)

The worst of the worst. Well, except for him...

(H/t to Mary, commenting on the Balkinization blog)

Wow. That was quick.

Appeals Court Rules for Chinese Guantanamo Detainee
A federal appeals court announced Monday that it has overturned the Pentagon's classification of a Guantanamo Bay detainee as an enemy combatant.
In the first Guantanamo Bay case to be reviewed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of Huzaifa Parhat, a Chinese Muslim known as a Uighur, undermining the basis for his more than six years in detention.

The Uighurs are a group that has conservative backing - and if This American Life's (PDF) version of events is to be believed, this country will be deeply embarrassed by how we've treated them.

Edited:
No Habeas... what the hell were those four Justices thinking....?!

Ah, now I see - this was an appeal based on the DTA, not the recent Boumediene decision.

Edited again: This ruling is just over his classification - not his detention. Boumediene will allow him to appeal his detention as well.

Oh, so that's what they got

I've been trying like mad to see what the upside of the FISA "deal" is for progressives.

What pelt are the Democrats proudly nailing to the wall?

The NYT spells it out:

Perhaps the most important concession that Democratic leaders claimed was an affirmation that the intelligence restrictions were the "exclusive" means for the executive branch to conduct wiretapping operations in terrorism and espionage cases. Speaker Nancy Pelosi had insisted on that element, and Democratic staff members asserted that the language would prevent Mr. Bush, or any future president, from circumventing the law. The proposal asserts "that the law is the exclusive authority and not the whim of the president of the United States," Ms. Pelosi said.

Slate's David Barron is not impressed:

That was the New York Times [saying that], by the way. Not the Onion.

Late edit:

Balkinization's Marty Lederman has a great quote on the exclusivity that was "won" by the Dems (emphasis added):

In other words: The President will only violate the law when he thinks it's too restrictive, and this law is not restrictive at all, so there's nothing to worry about. The "balance that was struck," to which [frmr Deputy Attorney General under Bush I, George] Terwilliger refers, is that the White House acceded to the exclusivity provision, in exchange for substantive standards so permissive as to ensure that the exclusivity provision will never be pertinent.

Underachievers of the world, rejoice!

Cesc Fàbregas scores the winning PK.

After a PK record that could rival England's - Spain finally puts one in the win column.

Vs Italy of all teams. Spain's attack founders on Italy's brilliant defense. Italy's attack didn't get going until extra time and never managed to dominate.

Spain pulled Torres and kept in Villa (who I thought was making terrible decisions) and they waited a full hour before bringing in Fàbregas. But they were clearly running the show.

A two hour shell game and it all ends in PKs.

Poetically, both Italian 'missed' PKs were saves by Casillas.

Even better, the winner was bashed in by Fàbregas.
Tell ‘em who he plays for! Arsenal!! Damn right.

Bummer for Italy (and you, too, Penguin) but Span was the better attacking side. If Italy ever gets tired of penalty kicks, they might try using their boundless talent in attacking for a change.

---

The sad bit of this is that the semis will pit the two exciting teams against each other - and have pretty much paved the way for Germany to make the final.

Germany vs. a depleted Turkey (yes, they're the undead - but they've lost so many starters. Plus, the Germans were undead long before Turkey joined up).

Span v Russia. This would make a great final, I think. Two dynamic attacking teams and lots of new talent.

Russia's Arshavin? Stud. Fear him. He treating his last match like a personal audition for footballer of the year - and treated the Dutch defense like his personal toilet.

Offensively, both sides have stars, but only Spain has start quality defenders like Puyol.

It's a shame one of these teams has to lose.

Obama sells out

The Obama campaign's statement on FISA is about as transparent as it gets.

He's avoiding the issue by saying "I'll make a show of fighting this - but nothing that will ruffle feathers."

If people are going to scream at their Senators over this (and his campaign), they need to understand the issue.

Balkinization's David Kris has a primer on the FISA bill.

You wanna know? They'll tell you what's what. It's a big issue with lots to know (and Kris is doing this in installments) but he's breaking it down for you.

Good stuff.

Unbelievable! Unbelievable!! UNBELIEVABLE!!!

Ivan Klasnić puts Croatia in front in the 29th minute of extra time.

Euro 2008.
Knockout round.

Turkey vs. Croatia

Two teams that have a history of confounding expectations.
Both are fresh off wins in the group play that cost a lot of people a lot of money.

Turkey - Their last two matches: They beat Switzerland on a goal in the 92nd minute. Then, in the next match, 2-0 down vs the Czech Republic with fifteen minutes to go - they come back and win 3-2, including two goals in the final three minutes. People are starting to think they cannot be killed.

Croatia - oh nothing much, they just managed to BEAT GERMANY 2-1 - the perennial champion of Europe. The Germans only managed a late goal, and Croatia outplayed them the whole match. Fierce, double fierce.

Croatia's looked wobbly at the back - but Turkey's only got 15 players available for the match due to injuries and suspensions - and they're playing with a backup keeper, since their starter pulled a Zidane in the last match and is banned for two matches. The backup is a veteran, but hasn't played at all in the tournament.

So it's game on.

Croatia comes out and looks like the better side - but not by much. There's a lot of give and take, but even possession for the first half. Croatia misses a number of chances, clanging one off the bar, shooting high - they just can't close the deal.

Turkey (usually an impossibly physical team) looks to be worn out from their prior match. They attack in fits but spend most of their good opportunities sniping from long distance.

0-0 at the half. I'm not optimistic.

The second half repeats the pattern. Croatia's Modrić does great work getting in, and then either his pass or his teammate blows it.

Turkey's backup keeper, Rüştü - is looking bad, but he manages to step up at just the right moments. The games having all the indicators of going into extra time.

It does.

Extra time in soccer does not have sudden death. You play the full 30 minutes, no matter what happens. Two fifteen minute periods, back to back - no rest.

Suddenly, it's like the Turks have woken up. They're pissed. This game should have ended already. They surge into the attack and now Croatia is looking weak.

The Croat defense frustrates the Turks, over and over and its like they've switch roles. Now Croatia's flailing and managing to stop the Turks who are clearly having a better time of it.

First extra time ends, only fifteen minutes left and the Turks look to have lost their spark. Croatia is coming back, gets a few nice ones -

and - Nothing.

The Turks are starting to foul often. The Croatian fans are freaking out. It can't last. Surely something will go in-

Still nothing.

For 14 minutes. Sixty seconds from penalties.

And then Rüştü screws up - overpursues a ball and doesn't get it. The soccer gods decree that the ball should fall to Luka Modrić who breaks free and curls in a cross. To Ivan Klasnić, who heads it past Rüştü as he streaks back into his net.

He's too late and it's in.

Pandemonium.

Croatia's coaches mob the field, the fans are insane - the Turks are dead. They've got a minute of regulation and maybe a minute of extra time.

Not just dead, dead and buried.

The game restarts and regulation runs out. We're at 120 minutes of play and the Turks have managed only one shot on goal.

Croatia's Cinderella run will take them to face Germany, a team they've already beaten handily.

Croatia gets the ball at midfield, the ref's going for his whistle. And there it-

No, Petrić was offside. Rüştü sets up the ball and punts a no-hoper towards the Croatian net.
The ref's looking for a lull to blow the whistle, and-

[Pause]

Two things you should know:

1) The soccer gods are assholes.
2) You should never turn your back on a dead Turk. Put him in a lead-lined coffin and post a guard. Then leave the country under an assumed name.

[Resume]

-Rüştü's kick drops in a herd of players. Turkey's Semih Şentürk gets the ball in the box, turns and rockets one into the net.

Reality itself stops for a second. It turns towards God and asks: Did that just happen..?

Pandemonium!

It's the 122nd minute of the game! The goal was literally the last kick. The whistle blows.

The Turks are going ape! The Croats are openly weeping in the stands.

It's down to PKs

• Modrić starts it off. He's the star. He set up Croatia's goal. And he misses.
• Turkey scores.
• Then Croatia scores
  
• Then Turkey
• Then Croatia's Rakitić hooks his wide.
• Then Turkey scores

-and it's all on the shoulders of the sub, Petrić.

The new guy, Petrić vs. the old guy, Rüştü.

And Rüştü stuffs him. Game over.

Croatia - praying for a swift end to the universe.

It's Turkey. Against all odds.

Scoreline - June 20, 2008
Turkey: 1
Şentürk 122'
Croatia: 1
Klasnić 119'
Turkey win (3-1) on penalties

The Turks carry the still-beating heart of Croatia off the field.

Memo to Germany: bring your garlic and wooden stakes, for the Turks cannot be killed.

Unbelievable.

Call them out - the FISA turncoats

Final Vote Results for Roll Call 437
H R 6304 YEA-AND-NAY 20-Jun-2008 12:48 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: FISA Amendments Act of 2008

FISA amendments pass in the House 293-129.

Here's the list of people who sold you out. The names not in italics are the Democrats.

Hoyer and Pelosi are among them.

All eyes on the Senate - and the Presidential candidates.

Late edit:
Speaking of which - Emptywheel has heard from the Obama campaign on this issue. Looks like Sen. Obama is trying to split the difference.

There are more things going on in this bill than just immunity - a lot more.

If Sen. Obama is truly resigned to the existing bill - that's pretty weak. Sen. McCain will of course endorse this decision - so he's even less help, but we deserve better than that.

Fear of Flying

Flying has never bothered me. The airborne part, I mean. Sure, airlines bother me - cordwood seating, Byzantine pricing, Orwellian pleasantries. But actually sitting in a machine, six miles in the air, going 600 miles an hour doesn't bother me in the slightest.

E's not so big on air travel. Mid-flight bumps and thumps are mortal threats. Takeoff is just another reason to focus on leaving the ground.

Today E's going to visit Begobug in LA - with the kids. I totally screwed up my vacation for last year, so I won't have any vacation days until the end of July. So I'm home.

And I'm all out of stoicism.

---

That first Christmas after Katrina - mom was doing great. I'd told everyone she had it together and was focused on the things she needed to do. During our visit mom had plenty to do - four grandkids, two in-laws and both kids. She fed us and entertained us for the whole week. No hint of anything.

Seamless.

Until we had to go. We're getting in the car and suddenly mom's a wreck. The boy's giving her a hug and he stops and puts his finger on one of her lenses. "Water," he says. Mom laughs, "I'm just not good at goodbyes anymore."

---

I'm not either. The thought of putting my entire family on a plane and walking back to my car has never seemed so ominous. It's stupid and irrational - but with stakes like that, rational is a pipe dream.

I watch them walk down the security ramp - they don't look back, and that's probably a good thing. E's focused on getting the kids through the screening. The boy's got his shoes off and helpfully flings them into the bin.

It's just torture to watch them and I give up before I make a spectacle out of myself. I have visions of people thinking this is some sort of marital dissolution. Her with the kids - me with the car.

Again, stupid. But that's where it is. The three most important people in the world are now at the mercy of an industry that can best be described as a necessary evil.

The radio offers nothing - too loud or worse, too quiet. I medicate with a podcast and go to work.

And I get nothing done.
The curse of real-time information makes sure of it.

Until the phone emits a tinny bit of music:

Landed
-E

Exhale.

And - to work.

Reality filter

One topic stood out in yesterday's nightly news for ABC and NBC: the FISA deal.

A major issue where both parties were in disagreement. The Wall Street Journal announces a deal has been made.

ABC's coverage of the issue:

.....

NBC's coverage of the issue:

.....

As in - they didn't cover it. Doubtless they were waiting until today when they can announce a vote, rather than inform us that a vote would take place tomorrow.

(I didn't TiVO CBS because their news is more than even I can stomach - if they covered FISA yesterday, they deserve praise.)

True, NBC did devote some time to the hula hoop, so the evening wasn't a total loss. I mean, obviously they've only got 22 minutes to cover the day's news - but why isn't FISA an issue to them? Why the hell is a new medical procedure that is years away from hitting the market more important than a vote in Congress that will end public inquiry into corporate violations of the FISA law?

Before their non-coverage of the Military-Expert scandal, I might have given the networks the benefit of the doubt on their editing choices, but when all three ignore something (to this very day) - it is abundantly clear that their filter is intentional.

I'm glad people are going after the Democrats who have sold out their base - but I wish there were better means for exposing the failure of our network news.

Emptywheel, my hero...

I just love EmptyWheel.

Out there - live blogging the torture hearings - getting information out to the public.

If anyone wonders if there is a point to blogging - this is it. Publicizing information that has traditionally been public-in-name-only.

Really- If a hearing happens and it is not televised (and edited, screened, and deemed news-worthy) - did it even happen?

Sure - there would have been some coverage - but getting access to raw data is not something we could expect in any sort of timely fashion. Blogs are not perfect - but at least they are decentralized. Dedicated writers can really provide a service.

Rock on, Emptywheel.

Check your math

I love this.

Dear Sen. Obama

Regarding the breaking news in the Wall Street Journal:

Lawmakers Reach Deal To Expand Surveillance

Specifically, Section 802(a) which will provide retroactive immunity to the telecommunication industry.

The Democratic members of congress are trumpeting this as a bipartisan compromise.

I can see that the Democrats have clearly made compromises - as telecoms will enjoy immunity from civil suits, so long as they can provide a certification from the US Attorney general that the activity "was (i) authorized by the President; and (ii) determined to be lawful."

Since the Senate Intelligence committee has already seen such certifications:

Earlier this year, the Senate intelligence committee declared in a report that lawmakers and staff had examined the classified written communications between the executive branch and the telecoms who'd participated in the program. And all those letters "stated that the activities had been authorized by the President" and all said that the program was lawful.

-the Democrats are allowing a procedure that is certain to provide retroactive immunity to the telecoms.

Here's my question: The Administration, the GOP and the Telecoms get what they want - what do the Democratic members of Congress get?

Better still - what do the voters who put those Democrats in office get from this so-called compromise?

Can anyone explain that to me?

Sen. Obama has a history of advocating for transparency in government - where is he and his campaign on this issue?

As the standard bearer of the Democratic Party - is the Senator prepared to speak out against this abject capitulation of our rights as citizens?

This kind of decision should be made in the full light of day, after informed debate - not in some back room before a swift Friday night vote.

Do something.

---

These our our rights, being given away by those who claim to represent us.

Don't be shy.

• Obama Campaign
• McCain Campaign
• your US Representative
• your US Senator

Sellout

And there it is - the FISA Capitulation we've been dreading:

(H/t to TPM, and via the WSJ)

The agreement would also pave the way for companies such as AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. to shed the nearly 40 lawsuits they face for allegedly participating in a prior version of the NSA program, which have cast a shadow over their reputation on Wall Street and Main Street. To win immunity, they would have to pass review from a U.S. District Court.

[snip]

If the companies can show a federal district court judge "substantial evidence" they received a written request from the attorney general or head of an intelligence agency stating the president authorized the surveillance and determined it to be lawful, the cases against them will be dismissed.

Write your congressman, your senator, hell - anybody.

This is just wrong.

Had Russert been a soldier...

...news of his passing might have been different.

16-Jun-2008
US Private 1st Class Jason Cox    Al Hillah - Babil    Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack

13-Jun-2008
US Sergeant Timothy J. Russert    Washington   Non-hostile

12-Jun-2008
US    Sergeant John D. Aragon    Kadamiyah - Baghdad    Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack

11-Jun-2008
US    Private Eugene D. M. Kanakaole    Balad - Salah ad Din    Non-hostile
US    Lance Corporal Kelly E. C. Watters    Al Anbar Province    Hostile - hostile fire
US    Lance Corporal Javier Perales Jr.    Fallujah - Anbar    Non-hostile
US    Sergeant 1st Class Gerard M. Reed    Baghdad    Non-hostile

(H/t iCasualties)

Had any one of these soldiers been a broadcaster, news of their passing might well have been different:


I mean no disrespect to either family - but a press that devotes days of coverage to the death of a newsman can surely afford more than a few seconds for its war dead.

Lara Logan tells the truth

Only when you hear the truth do you realize how often you are patronized, or lied to outright.

CBS correspondent, Lara Logan was on the Daily Show last night and refused to mince words. (emphasis added, but just barely)

Stewart: What is...What don't we know?...Are the reports of what's really going [on] over there - getting out? You've been there since this thing started. What are we missing? We know nothing.

Logan: No, I don't, I don't think we really do have very much of an idea. We have all these armchair academics who go over for one visit. See Laura Bush saying "This is my third time in Afghanistan" she doesn't mention that she was only there for a few seconds.

[snip]

Stewart: How hard is it to get those stories [about the war] on?

Logan: It depends. It goes in cycles, y'know. This is an election year so politics, politics, politics all the time. And people are, you hear that people are tired of hearing about the war. So you have to fight against that. But generally what you have to say is that "I'm holding the armor piercing RPG. It's aimed at the bureau chief and if you don't put my story on the air I'm going to pull the trigger." That's worked.

[snip]

Stewart: ...Do you watch the news that we're watching-

Logan: No.

Stewart:-here in the United States?

Logan: No.

Stewart: Do you see what we're hearing about the war? Do you-

Logan: No

Stewart: So we might, we might actually know everything...

Logan: If I were to watch the news that you hear in the United States I would just blow my brains out, because it would drive me nuts.

Stewart: Really?

Logan: Yeah.

[snip]

Stewart: ....Are we just numb? Are we...Have we lost our humanity with this entire situation?

Logan: Yeah. We have. Y'know, I was asked once 'do you feel responsible for the American public having a bad view, a negative view of the war in Iraq?' and I looked at the reporter and I said 'Tell me the last time you saw the body of a dead American soldier. What does that look like? Who in America knows what that looks like? Because I know what that looks like.' And I feel responsible for the fact that no one else does. You know. That's what I feel responsible for.

Damn.

You can tell Jon was embarrassed by his flip questioning. The interview's windout shows a chagrined Stewart going to commercial as if he'd had his hand slapped.

Nice to see a journalist with some fire about this subject.

Watch the whole thing.

The Great Writ lives... deal with it

The two dissenting justices in Boumediene have conflicting assessments of what this ruling will mean.

Justice Roberts (from his dissent):
One cannot help but think, after surveying the modest practical results of the majority’s ambitious opinion, that this decision is not really about the detainees at all, but about control of federal policy regarding enemy combatants...

All that today’s opinion has done is shift responsibility for those sensitive foreign policy and national security decisions from the elected branches to the Federal Judiciary.

...So who has won? Not the detainees. The Court’s analysis leaves them with only the prospect of further litigation to determine the content of their new habeas right

Justice Scalia (from his):
The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed...

...most tragically, it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner.

The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.

Those would be the arbiters of this nation's laws. A "modest result" or "more Americans will be killed."

Fortunately, we have the sane voice of Newt Gingrich to fall back on (via Glenn):

This court decision is a disaster which could cost us a city. And the debate ought to be over whether or not you're prepared to risk losing an American city on behalf of five lawyers

or perhaps (Sen.) Lindsey f-ing Graham:

I will...explore the possibility, if necessary, of a constitutional amendment to blunt the effect of this decision when it comes to protecting our men and women in the military and our nation as a whole.

“The Court has conferred upon civilian judges the right to make military decisions. These judges have virtually no training in military matters yet civilian judges, in some of the most liberal district courts in the country, will have an opportunity to determine who is a threat to the United States

The fate of this nation's prisoners will be decided by someone who wasn't hand-picked by this administration? The Horror!!

Now here's George Will (via WaPO) on McCain's demagoguery over the Boumediene ruling:

The day after the Supreme Court ruled that detainees imprisoned at Guantanamo are entitled to seek habeas corpus hearings, John McCain called it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." Well.
Does it rank with Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), which concocted a constitutional right, unmentioned in the document, to own slaves and held that black people have no rights that white people are bound to respect? With Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which affirmed the constitutionality of legally enforced racial segregation? With Korematsu v. United States (1944), which affirmed the wartime right to sweep American citizens of Japanese ancestry into concentration camps?

Will doesn't think so. Of course, he's actually a conservative -so what would he know...?

Your very own Do-Not-Text list

LifeHacker snagged a good one from NYT's David Pogue:

How to Block Cellphone Spam

Shortly [after posting a rant about spam text messages] I heard from an AT&T representative who revealed the presence of an astonishing little-known cellular feature: you can block cellular spam.

Yes!

Different providers do this differently - but I was able to get signed up with AT&T in a few minutes (mymessages.wireless.att.com).

It being AT&T - I was (of course) obligated to create another log in for this service (I believe that brings my AT&T login total up to five) - but I was allowed to block all internet driven text that wasn't addressed to an alias I chose.

Nice.

Flood insurance

..here's (yet another) thing I didn't know.

Flood insurance. The best known-little known fact about flood insurance is that your homeowners insurance does not cover flood damage.

Right behind that, is the fact that flood insurance is purchased from the federal government.

And it's expensive.

Those I got.

What I didn't know - what genuinely surprised me was this little item (from Floodsmart.gov):

You must live in a community that participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to qualify for National Flood Insurance.

So, if your community hasn't decided to participate in the NFIP, you can't buy flood insurance even if you want it.

It gets worse:

Moreover, if a President declares a disaster as a result of flooding, federal financial assistance will not be available for the permanent repair or reconstruction of insurable buildings.

The good news: if your community is accepted into the NFIP within 6 months of a Presidential Disaster Declaration, you can get federal assistance.

I have to wonder though - if you want flood insurance and can't get it because your municipality hasn't signed up - what do you do if you get wiped out?

And how fast is the approval process? Can a devastated community reasonably expect to get signed up after the fact within 6 months. Do they ever wave the deadline?

Yeeg.

Honesty in advertising

(H/t to Sivacracy - and whoever made this)

Shades of the Monster ad:

I'm voting Republican

Dear Senator

I'm writing to express my exasperation with the Democratic leadership on Telecom Immunity as it relates to NSA wiretapping of US citizens.

According to The Hill

“Congressional Republicans are reviewing a Democratic proposal to break the logjam on electronic-surveillance legislation by allowing federal district courts to determine whether telephone companies seeking legal immunity received orders from the Bush administration to wiretap people’s phones.”

I realize that negotiations are still ongoing and that nothing is final – but for some reason news on this issue always seems to come in the middle of the night on a Friday.

As it stands now, it appears that the only public line of inquiry into the wiretapping program lies in the civil suits pending against the telecoms. If immunity is granted – these cases will cease and the public will be left in the dark about what happened.

Americans deserve better than that.

The idea that Congress would sidestep the discussion of immunity by allowing a court to say the telecoms had “received orders” is a stunning abdication of Congressional oversight. It isn’t a question of whether or not orders were given, but ‘*what* orders were given. More to the point: were the orders legal or not?

It doesn’t seem likely that Congress will seek answers to these questions, but they surely shouldn’t preempt court proceedings that could. As your colleagues, Sens. Dodd and Feingold have already pointed out, “existing law already immunizes telephone companies that respond in good faith to a government request, as long as that request meets certain clearly spelled-out statutory requirements.”

If they’ve done nothing wrong – they are already immune. If they have stepped over the line – we should find out where they’ve transgressed before we immunize them. In my view, civil damages against the telecoms are beside the point. It’s more important to find out what has been happening.

I know you have previously voted in favor of granting immunity to the telecom industry and while I’m disappointed – I’m more than curious to have the pro-immunity position explained to me in an intelligent fashion. The only statements that appear in news reports seem little more than transparent attempts to frighten the public. “Time is running out!” we are told. “We’ll be less safe,” and all manner of foolishness. For the sake of honest debate, separate surveillance from immunity. If there is a good reason for immunity – a public benefit – let someone explain it to the public.

The usual fear-mongering just serves to calcify the public’s skepticism of what their government has to say.

Tell us why immunity is necessary – in the full light of day. If that can’t be done – than we will all have learned something from this discussion.

Thank you.

"That fantasy is gone in Europe..."

Beegobug passed along a Harper's article by Mark Shapiro called Toxic Inaction which is the reaction I'd have had to the CJR article I'd mentioned earlier (if I were a better writer, more informed and had lots of time).

In it, Mr. Shapiro lays out the reasons that Europe has decided to be proactive about regulating chemicals in commercial use:

[in 2005,] World Wildlife Fund International tested the blood of three generations of women from twelve European countries. The largest number of chemicals—sixty-three—was found in the group of grandmothers. Given the number of years they had had to accumulate exposure, this result was perhaps not surprising. But the next-highest level was among their grandchildren, aged twelve to twenty-eight, who in their short lifetimes had amassed fifty-nine different toxic chemicals.

Now, I know - discussions of chemical safety are areas where amateurs should tread lightly. Silent Spring wasn't exactly ironclad science - and outright bans of substances may limit scientific or industrial uses that do not threaten the public or pose environmental hazards.

However-
It would seem that the model of "let's test chemicals on the public at large" is just flat out insane. Europe seems to get it:

Europeans have recently decided to do something about all the untested chemicals that are ending up in their blood. “The assumption among Americans is, ‘If it’s on the market, it’s okay,’” explained Robert Donkers, an E.U. official who was asked to review Europe’s regulatory laws after the baby-product scare. “That fantasy is gone in Europe.” Donkers’s efforts were the first steps in what became, seven years later, a new E.U. chemical regulation called REACH—Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals. REACH amounts to a revolution in how chemicals are managed, and in how production decisions around the world will be made from now on. Regulations set by the most powerful countries have quickly become, through trade, the international standard.

It goes without saying that the US chemical industry is militantly opposed to these regulations. They of course, have political backing:

The changes in Europe follow eight years of vigorous opposition from the U.S. chemical industry and the Bush administration. Four U.S. agencies -- the EPA, the Commerce Department, the State Department and the Office of the Trade Representative -- argued that the system would burden manufacturers and offer little public benefit.
In 2002, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell directed the staffs of American Embassies in Europe to oppose the measure. He cited talking points developed in consultation with the American Chemistry Council, a manufacturers trade group.

The ACC wants the status quo. You know, the one where they supply the government agencies with the science - so they can make informed decisions?

How's that working out?

Let's try a test case. Bisphenol A (or BPA). (via Bill Moyers Journal):

Bisphenol A is actually the chemical used to make polycarbonate plastic. It's the hard, clear plastic used in baby bottles, and it also is the lining of all metal cans made in the United States - beer cans, soda cans, food cans. And this chemical leaches out of all of these products into any kind of food or beverages that come in contact with it.

Okay. BPA is a chemical. It's in contact with a lot of substances we ingest. So?

Bisphenol A, BPA, is what is known as an endocrine disruptor...

The manufacturers of BPA, and their lobbyists, say it is safe. U.S. regulators agree. One team of investigative journalists decided to ask…why? Susanne Rust is a science reporter with the MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL.

[snip]

Endocrine disruptors were first identified as the cause of wildlife abnormalities in the early 90s. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration, though, repeatedly reassured the public that BPA, at least, was safe.

So, the regulators say it's safe. What's the problem? People always say things are dangerous, did anyone look into the new claims?

...prompted by an outcry from advocacy groups, President Bill Clinton signed the Food Quality Protection Act in 1996. That same year, the Safe Drinking Water Act was amended.
The combined legislation promised a chemical screening program of endocrine disruptors to be overseen by the EPA. The goal was to determine whether or not they were dangerous to human beings.
1998 - the EPA, headed by Carol Browner, sets a deadline to fast track the testing of 15,000 chemicals suspected as endocrine disruptors….
1999 - the EPA misses the deadline. The Natural Resources Defense Council sues the agency to enforce screening. 2001 - a new administration takes office; Christine Todd Whitman becomes head of the EPA.
2003 - two more suits are brought against the EPA, one by a coalition of environmentalists and advocacy groups…the other by the attorneys general of four states. The suits attempt to force the agency into compliance with the food quality protection act….
2007 - 11 years after the laws were passed…the EPA had yet to screen its first chemical.

Eleven years - that's pretty lousy. But, again - the regulators had reams of studies that demonstrated the safety of BPA. A single study citing a risk isn't exactly a reason to get all excited. I mean the companies who make this stuff have studied it to death...

In defense of the safety of Bisphenol A, the companies and the ACC cited studies they funded themselves, some paid for by the ACC, which has an annual 75 million dollar budget.
[Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reporter] SUZANNE RUST: They say the reason they get these, these results is that their studies are better than any of the academic studies, any of the government studies. They can use more animals; they have better controls in their laboratory.

See? More money = better research. Who cares what some underfunded university lab rat thinks? I mean how good can their research really be?

Reporter Suzanne Rust was given the task of looking at all the the state of BPA research.

In all, Rust evaluated 258 studies done over two decades involving lab animals with spines, the type scientists consider most relevant to human beings.
SUZANNE RUST: Right away, you could see that 80% of these studies all found that this chemical caused harm.

But, why does the government regulatory body say it's safe? How does that make sense?

More than half the studies, 168 of them, evaluated Bisphenol A at low doses. The vast majority of those - 132 of the 168 - showed harm to lab animals. And, Rust would report, "nearly three-fourths of the studies that found the chemical had no harmful effects were funded by industry." Rust's overall conclusion: an overwhelming majority of the studies found BPA to be harmful in lab animals - causing breast and testicular cancer, diabetes, hyperactivity, obesity, low sperm counts, miscarriage and other reproductive failures. Studies paid for by the chemical industry were much less likely to find damaging effects or disease.

What the...?

All of the studies Rust had evaluated were in the public domain, as available to government regulators as they were to a reporter in Milwaukee.

Yeah. The guys who make the stuff pay for their own studies. They give their studies to the regulators - who dutifully file them away in case there are questions - and the FDA never goes out and does research on their own. Nor do they keep abreast of the latest findings.

The FDA takes what it is given and asks no questions.

And they are merely the latest example of a regulatory body that has been co-opted by the industry it is supposed to be regulating.

The BPA battle is still being fought.

Arrgh!

If Europe's no longer trusting the assurances of the chemical industry - why do we? We are sure to get some benefit from overseas regulation - but stuff that can't be exported will simply be sold here.

Makes you wonder.

Euro

I've laid off on posting on Euro 2008 –because, there's not a lot for me to add – but ya can't just keep quiet about some things:

Scoreline - June 9, 2008
Netherlands: 3
Van Nistelrooy 26'; Sneijder 31'; Van Bronckhorst 79'
Italy: 0

Holy damn. Italy gets spanked. Yes, that first goal was just awful, but the next two were ample proof that Italy was totally outclassed. Pirlo's probably wondering if he should stop taking frees.

Go Orange – if today's Italy-Romania match is all Italy can muster, they deserve an exit.

----
And then there's the match from yesterday.

Now, this is pretty much the dream setup. The home team is down by one. They have to get a point out of the match or they are doomed. They've attacked like banshees for the first half but nothing went in – then the visitors bash in a goal.

Abject, the home team struggles against the tide- presses the attack and gets - nothing.

No goals – the clock shows the 92nd minute – the game is lost.

And then - there's a penalty. The home team got a free kick, and during the scrum one of the defenders pulled down his marker right in front of the ref- in the 18 yard box.

The home team puts up their veteran – the oldest man in the tournament – to take the kick. The entire stadium of home supporters goes quiet…

He misses, it's four years lost and a lifetime of shame. He makes it, he's a national hero. 80% of all penalties go in – but the 20% that don't are blamed on the shooter.

He sets up, steps up – and nukes it into the net.

The crowd goes insane. The last minute or so of the game play out, but the visitors are so shattered that the draw is written in the books even before the whistle blows.

The home team takes their victory lap, the veteran works the crowd - it's a madhouse.

Storybook ending.

Now I ask you – Why the hell did it have to happen to Austria?

Scoreline - June 12, 2008
Austria: 1
Vastic 93' (pen)
Poland: 1
Guerreiro 30'

The most aggravating, overrated bunch of undeserving wanna be footballers.

They never go anywhere, but they keep managing the late goal heroics anyway.
I mean, Ivica Vastic? – it's like Austria-Chile ten years ago!

Yo, Soccer Gods? If you're going to write a storybook ending, how's about casting a likable hero, eh?

You out there....?!!

Arrrrgh!

Making news by seeking it

Nukes & Spooks details the DoJ's scrambled reaction to the Boumediene et al v. Bush decision (that reversed attempts by the Bush administration and both houses of Congress to deny Enemy Combatants the right to judicial review in US Courts).

Justice Department media representatives set up a briefing with department lawyers, but insisted the question-and-answer session be off-the-record. They acknowledged it was an unusual demand, but said they couldn’t discuss the decision because they were still reviewing it.

That DoJ was flat-footed and heavy handed is not what surprised me - this is:

Associated Press reporter Matt Apuzzo quickly objected, saying the off-the-record rule "does nothing to help anybody understand anything."

When he said he would consider the discussion on the record, he was told he should get off the call. Apuzzo refused, saying "there’s just no reason for this to be an off-the-record call." A conference call mute button prevented 40 other reporters from chiming in.

But Justice Department officials wouldn’t budge and the call was cut short.

Right there - this is what a reporter should do. Not just take what you are given - "Oh, you want me to listen and say nothing, okay," but actually force the government official to say something on the record. Even if it is by press release, or a "no comment" comment - they are not allowed to say they've addressed the issue by swearing you to silence.

Memo to network news types - do your F-ing job, already.
(H/t Glenn, again)

Iran vs. Pakistan

Iran. Bad guys. Why?

• History of aiding terrorists (Hezbullah, Hamas, Imad Mugniyah) and suspected of involvement in terrorist acts beyond their borders (Beirut embassy bombing, Marine Barracks Bombing, TWA hijacking)
  
• History of conflict with neighboring states (Iraq)
  
• Suspected of aiding anti-US forces in Iraq
• Suspected of pursuing a nuclear weapon program.
  

Bad, bad, bad Iran.

Pakistan. Good guys.

• History of aiding terrorists (Taliban) and suspected of involvement in terrorist acts beyond their borders (India parliament attack)
• History of conflict with neighboring states (India, Afghanistan)
• Suspected of aiding anti-US forces in Afghanistan.
• Oh, and they actually have nuclear weapons

Why are they good guys again?

Listen to the right honorable gentleman...

(H/t to Glenn Greenwald)

Former UK PM John Major has written a spectacular Op-Ed opposing proposed expansions in police power to fight terrorism:

I don't believe that sacrifice of due process can be justified. If we are seen to defend our own values in a manner that does violence to them, then we run the risk of losing those values. Even worse, if our own standards fall, it will serve to recruit terrorists more effectively than their own propaganda could ever hope to.

Read Glenn, read John. Amen and Amen.

Full disclosure

Trust CJR's The Observer to point out something that has escaped scrutiny:

Which presidential candidate has been more forthright about their medical history?

Sen. McCain:

John McCain...released 1,173 pages of his medical records to the press. He did so only after a series of delays, however, and then granted a pool of about a dozen news outlets access to them for three hours, with no photocopying allowed.
(Via CJR)

or Sen. Obama:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama released a [six paragraph] health summary from his longtime physician Thursday that pronounced the Illinois senator in "excellent health" as he struggles to quit smoking.
(via ABC)

It is fair to say there are more concerns with McCain's health, but Obama's letter is not his medical records. It's a short, undated letter from his physician.

The McCain campaign is being disingenuous when it claims to release medical records - when they in fact are merely allowing a few reporters to speed skim almost 1,200 pages in three hours.

The Obama campaign is being similarly disingenuous when it releases an undated letter that says his last "medical checkup" was in January of 2007. These are smart people - and it is no great stretch to say that there is wiggle room in there for Sen. Obama to have had some medical procedure in the last year that is not addressed by this letter.

Someone should press on this issue - and see if they squirm.

Come to think of it, why haven't we always done it that way?

All too often, when you take a moment to think about how something works - it suddenly occurs to you to ask why it works that way.

In this case - there is an answer, it's just not a particularly satisfying one.

The Washington Post on A1 writes that a tough new European law regulating the chemical industry is affecting the way U.S. products will be made—and its sounds like that’s a good thing.

The new regulations will force companies to prove chemicals are safe before they start selling them, as opposed to how it is in the U.S., where “where regulators must prove that a chemical is harmful before it can be restricted or removed from the market.”

(via CJR's Opening Bell)

Yeah, why the hell is that, anyway?

And while we're on the subject - anyone care to explain this little factoid (via WaPo)?

In the United States...the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, grandfathered in about 62,000 chemicals then in commercial use. Chemicals developed after the law's passage did not have to be tested for safety. Instead, companies were asked to report toxicity information to the government, which would decide if additional tests were needed.

So the 62,000 chemicals already in use as of 1976 have not been subject to government scrutiny. After 1976, manufacturers will be asked to provide information about their dangers to the government.

So the government can follow up. If it wants to.

How's that going, so far?

In more than 30 years, the Environmental Protection Agency has required additional studies for about 200 chemicals...

So, of the 18,000 chemicals introduced into the market in the last three decades, the EPA has asked for studies of 200 of them.

*calculator sound*

1%

Okay, sure - that sounds bad, but -

The EPA has banned only five chemicals since 1976. The hurdles are so high for the agency that it has been unable to ban asbestos, which is widely acknowledged as a likely carcinogen and is barred in more than 30 countries. Instead, the EPA relies on industry to voluntarily cease production of suspect chemicals.

Well... that sucks.

Postscript:

Oddly enough - When I went looking for the five substances that the EPA has managed to ban, I came across the same WaPo article - as presented in the Seattle Times. This version spells out what got banned and adds a bonus:

Only five chemicals have been banned by the EPA since 1976: polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs; fully halogenated chlorofluroalkanes; dioxin; hexavalent chromium; and dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane, or DDT.
Asbestos was banned for a while, although the ban was overturned in 1991. Asbestos, widely acknowledged as a likely carcinogen, is barred in more than 30 countries.

-and if Truthdig is accurate, DDT was banned prior to the TSCA, which would lower the EPA's post 1976 count to a measly four:

In the three decades since the landmark Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) became law in 1976, the EPA has banned only five chemicals or chemical categories: polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), fully halogenated chlorofluroalkanes, dioxin, asbestos (though this ban was overturned in 1991), and hexavalent chromium. The pesticide DDT, which was banned in 1972 (before TSCA was enacted), is still being found in people’s bodies today.

Ahhh, good times....