I’ll admit, I’m not the biggest fan of the idea of balance in media. Often, journalists take this as a license to present both sides as equal, no matter if one side is clearly lying. Journalism should strive to present the facts, and that sometimes means one side gets more play than the other.

Still, sometimes there is clear bias in the media, and it deserves to get called out. Take Anna Wilde Mathews’ article in today’s Wall Street Journal.

In it, Mathews discusses who wins and who loses under Barack Obama and John McCain’s health care plans. Complete with fancy graphics, the article makes the case that John McCain’s plan would save people more money, touting the statistic that 41% of families making less than $100,000 a year would save $2,500. Under Obama’s plan, Mathews says, most families would see “little effect.”

The problem is where Mathews gets her numbers. She relies almost exclusively on a report released by the Lewin Group. Kudos to Mathews for explaining the extreme conflict of interest this group represents:

Lewin Group, a unit of insurer UnitedHealth Group Inc., said its analysis of the plans was performed with no input from its parent company and wasn’t solicited by either campaign.

Let’s get this straight, shall we? Mathews relies on a report from an insurance company that comes to the conclusion McCain’s tax credits and insurance industry deregulation are better for America than Obama’s expanded coverage. Who saw that one coming?

Now, there are problems with the Lewin Group’s analysis, but that’s not quite the issue here. The real issue is that many other studies have been done on the effects of the Obama and McCain health care plans, but Mathews doesn’t mention them. The Economic Policy Institute has released a report showing state by state how much McCain’s health care plan would cost and how many people would lose coverage. The Center for American Progress Action Fund has a report detailing the cuts McCain will have to make to Medicare and Medicaid to pay for his plan, as well as the increased cost to families. Health Affairs has detailed the 20 million that would lose coverage under the McCain plan. Why did none of these reports make it into Mathews piece?

The only caveats thrown into Mathews’ Lewin Group stenography is to briefly mention that McCain’s plan is better for the young and healthy (and that the elderly or sick will have trouble). And the only outside expert quoted in the piece is from the American Enterprise Institute, so you know exactly where he stands.

It’s pretty astounding that Mathews drew almost exclusively on right-wing sources to write this hit piece. No effort was made for competing information, even when it comes from clearly non-partisan sources like Health Affairs.

It’s too bad this article gets presented as journalism. It’s not. It’s clearly biased. The American people deserve better.

Texas has gone to great lengths to remove state employees from the state payrolls, replacing them with contracts on the basis of competing bids. This is called outsourcing, and the tendency of contract awards to go to familiar names has been noted throughout the process. Most recently scandals broke out in the youth prison system, where hideous mistreatment of kids was the result of irresponsible outsourcing by our rightwing Texas government.

Now a real boner has occurred, and medicaid fraud cases may never be prosecutable because of it.

A massive computer crash that destroyed hundreds of the state attorney general’s confidential documents may prevent scores of Medicaid fraud prosecutions and has revealed serious problems with a newly expanded state outsourcing of computer services.

As much as 50 percent of the Tyler Medicaid fraud division’s files were destroyed in July when a server being repaired by a state vendor wouldn’t restart. The scope of the damage is in dispute.

In an apparent oversight, the documents lost were not backed up – meaning that evidence crucial to convicting dishonest health-care providers who ripped off the state’s health insurance program for the poor may never be recovered. E-mails and other records obtained by The Dallas Morning News indicate some Tyler investigators lost up to 90 percent of their open case files.
(snip)
There have been other highly publicized problems with big outsourcing pushes by the Health and Human Services Commission – one that created privately run call centers and maintained software to support eligibility screening for public assistance, and another that privatized payroll and hiring at 12 social services agencies.

In 2005, the Legislature and Gov. Rick Perry, building on an earlier outsourcing of state computer services and data backups, approved a measure forcing at least 15 state agencies to join a dozen that already were using an earlier vendor, Northrop Grumman Corp.

A new, expanded outsourcing deal with Team for Texas – the current provider – was struck in November 2006 and took effect in April 2007.

The deal, expected to save the state $153 million by 2013, has attracted little public attention because even though more than 500 state employees lost their jobs, about 40 percent found other state positions and the rest were guaranteed spots with IBM or its subcontractors Unisys, Xerox and Pitney Bowes.

In July, though, state Auditor John Keel criticized the information department for not riding herd on major state agencies. Though agencies were supposed to hand over to IBM their most knowledgeable and experienced computer technicians, many kept those workers by using them to fill other vacancies, Mr. Keel’s audit said.

The state’s sorry record, one it sent on to D.C. eight years ago, has resulted from domination by the right wing that so despises good government. Cronies are its object, and personal fortunes its most important product. The kind of disasters that constantly result from this ‘governing’ process are making it hard for even the hardest case to cling to their certitude that libruls are the enemy.

This election won’t be the end of rotten government in Texas, yet. It will take more thorough devastation to make that happen, but that seems very close to happening.

(This post also at http://cabdrollery.blogspot.com )

“Proposition 8 doesn’t promote or support hate,” said Rebecca Whitman, a Stockton mother of five. “We’re putting out the word of God.”

Here we go again!  I am a Minster from Austin, Texas taking a sabbatical in the San Francisco area.  Looks like I brought one thing with me against my will.  Another Gay Marriage, culture war, constitutional amendment vote.  I  suffered one in in my home state in 2005.  My freedom lovin’ fellow Texans “protected traditional marriage” by 76%.  Austin, known as the Berkeley of Texas is located in Travis county; the only one in the entire state to vote down this lunacy. 

Proposition 8 reads:  ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.  INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

As is the case nationwide “much of the financial and volunteer support for Prop. 8 has come from churches across the state. Nearly two-thirds of likely voters who identify themselves as evangelical Christians back the same-sex marriage ban.”

I was raised as a fundamentalist Christian so I know the Bible pretty darn well.  I became a religious liberal by taking the teachings of Jesus seriously.  In fact, I am disciple of Jesus now more than ever.  Previously, my eternal intent was to get salvation out of Jesus.  These days I see him as a fellow spiritual brother and pioneer dedicated “to proclaim release to the captives…to let the oppressed go free.”

The frame for those in favor of Prop. 8 is “Restoring Marriage and Protecting California Children.”  Their    website provides a section, “resources for churches.” Here is an excerpt from a downloadable pdf church bulletin. 

“God himself is the author of marriage.  Its meaning is written in the very nature of man and woman as they come from the hand of the creator.”

Let’s take an honest look at what “God himself” has revealed about marriage and protecting children from the Holy Bible.  In Genesis chapter 2 God makes woman by taking a rib from Adam.  

“And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.  Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”

This appears to be proof positive for “traditional marriage”  but we must candidly take note that woman was an afterthought created not as an independent being but she was “taken out of man.”  The “leaving and cleaving” part is good stuff and is stock and trade for marriage ceremonies.

How does God’s word continue in the practice of marriage and child rearing?

Abraham is celebrated as the father of 3 faiths, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  St. Paul exclaims that for people of faith Abraham is “the father of us all.”

Abraham married Sarah.  She was considered a holy woman because she was submissive and obedient to Abraham calling him “lord.” 

They were having trouble getting pregnant.  With Sarah’s encouragement Abraham has a son named Ishmael by her female slave Hagar.  Years later Sarah bore Abraham a son, Isaac.  Sarah had been jealous of Hagar for years.  She now demanded, “get rid of that slave woman and her son.”  This “greatly distressed” Abraham but he complied banishing them to “wander in the desert.”

In the next scene, God commands Abraham to offer Isaac as a “burnt offering.”  He built a wood altar and “took the knife to slay his son.”  Like a Hollywood thriller just in the nick of time “a ram was caught in a thicket by its horns. So Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son.”

After Sarah’s death Abraham remarried and had six sons.  He also had children by “concubines.”  “Before he died he gave gifts to the sons of his concubines and sent them away from his son Isaac to the land of the east.”

King David was honored as “a man after God’s own heart.”

He had 8 wives, and a multitude of concubines who bore him 11 sons.

David moved a man to the front lines of a war because he wanted his wife Bathsheba for himself.  When Uriah was killed David did just that.  God punished David for this abuse of power, by killing the child born of the affair.  

One of David’s favorite sons, Absolom killed his brother who had raped his sister.  He then waged a bloody political revolt against his dad King David.  The rebellious Absalom had sex in public with ten of his father’s concubines.  Eventually Absolom was killed in a battle against his father.

David and Bathsheba’s son Solomon eventually inherited the Kingship from David.  He became the richest King of his time and “the wisest person ever on earth.”

He had “seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines.”

Solomon got on the wrong side of God, not because of the polygamy but because “his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God.”

In the Torah women and children were considered inferior to men and could be treated like property.

“If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free…If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do.”

When it came to war,  “As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves.” 

In marriage a man could divorce his wife basically if he got sick of looking at her.  If she “displeased” him he could send her from his house.

Jesus challenged this teaching saying that a husband at least had to have a moral reason for divorce. 

“I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

St. Paul expressly taught against polygamy but insisted that a woman is to be in subjection to her husband. 

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.  For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.  Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”

What “Marriage and Protection of California Children” are we seeking to restore?  What is billed as “traditional marriage” may be laudable but it cannot be found in the Bible.  I doubt even the most ardent Bible believers would advocate emulating the stalwarts of faith chronicled here in regards to marriage, women and children.

The gospel truth is that marriage, family, and child rearing are evolving human institutions.  Even in my half century of life they have changed palpably.  Why cannot we continue to evolve marriage to include Gay couples?

Jesus established the principle of evolving belief and ethical conduct in the centerpiece of his teaching, the Sermon On The Mount.  He employs the marvelous rhetorical phrase.

“You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times…But I say to you.”

Here is one of these teachings. 

“You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven…For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have?” 

On Proposition 8, if Jesus were here today, what would he say to you?

The application of our Afghanistan tactics in Pakistan brings the same results:

A suspected US missile strike has killed at least eight students at a religious school in north-western Pakistan, witnesses say.

The school, in North Waziristan, is close to the residence of a fugitive Taleban leader, Jalaluddin Haqqani, witnesses told the BBC Urdu Service.

At least two missiles, reportedly fired by pilotless US drones, hit the school early on Thursday.

The Pakistani army is investigating the incident. The US has made no comment.

The attack comes hours after the Pakistani parliament unanimously adopted a resolution calling on the government to defend its sovereignty and expel foreign fighters from the region.

The resolution also called upon the government to prevent the use of Pakistani territory for attacks on another country.

There have been persistent US accusations that Pakistan is not doing enough to eliminate Taleban and al-Qaeda sanctuaries in the border region.

[snip]

In recent weeks the United States has launched many missile strikes against suspected militant targets in the Afghan border region.

Washington says the strikes are used against militant targets, but correspondents say that intelligence failures have sometimes led to civilian casualties.

Figures compiled by the BBC Urdu service show that some 80 people have been killed in a number of suspected US missile strikes in South and North Waziristan region over the past month.

Earlier in October a suspected pilotless American drone fired missiles in North Waziristan, killing at least six people, Pakistani intelligence officials said.

The United States rarely confirms or denies such attacks.

Tensions between the US and Pakistan have increased over the issue of cross-border incursions against militants by American forces based in Afghanistan.

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari has said he will not tolerate violations of his country’s territory.

The US state department has affirmed “its support for Pakistan’s sovereignty, independence, unity, and territorial integrity”.

These tactics, absent an overhaul of other components of our strategy, lead nowhere. Killing civilians without addressing underlying political distrust of foreign occupiers is actually counterproductive. And with the corrupt Karzai government in Kabul, the feckless Zardari government in Islamabad, and a resurgent Taliban feeding off of anti-US backlash and the general state of chaos, these missile strikes are sowing further anger and resentment.

(originally published at MWC News)

A citizen of Virginia named Moya Atkinson wrote to Senator John Warner to express concern over the recent violation of the Posse Comitatus Act created by the assigning of U.S. soldiers to duty within the United States, reported by the Army Times as intended for “crowd control” among other duties. This, like other changes imposed by President Bush, of course violates the Posse Comitatus Act. It also served to strengthen the threats of martial law that Congressman Brad Sherman reported the White House making to Congress members in order to win their support for the $780 billion give-away to Wall Street.

Warner sent back the following note, proposing that, rather than changing the president’s behavior to comply with the law, we should — as with warrantless spying, habeas corpus, etc. — change the law to comply with the president’s behavior:

Thank you for contacting me regarding your opposition to Northern Command dedicating a combat infantry team to work within the United States. I appreciate your thoughtful inquiry on this important matter.As you may know, the Northern Command has assigned the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry to deal with catastrophes in the United States. While the unit would not take over as the lead, the Army reports that this unit would be deployed to help local, state, or federal agencies deal with matters such as chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high-yield explosive (CBRNE) incidents. The unit will be based in Fort Stewart, Georgia, and will focus primarily on logistics and support for local police and rescue personnel.

Looking back, the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts highlighted the important role our military plays during domestic crises. From providing security in destroyed neighborhoods, to treating patients aboard naval vessels, to rebuilding damaged levees and unwatering New Orleans, the military has performed vital work that no other federal or state entity has the capacity to undertake.

Not withstanding these tremendous achievements, I am deeply concerned that the Department of Defense and the President may not have authority to use active duty personnel in the most effective manner. In our federal system, we normally, and rightly, depend upon state and local authorities to maintain order and protect the public. The National Guard, operating under Title 32 of the U.S. Code, is the primary military organization authorized to employ police powers in times of crisis. However, in a situation of the magnitude of Hurricane Katrina, the level of destruction, coupled with the difficulty in maintaining order, brings into question the prohibition on using federal active duty military personnel, operating under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, to perform law enforcement duties.

I believe we must review the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act and similar provisions that limit the role of the active duty military to ensure that every available asset is properly employed in any type of future emergency situation. Title 18, Section 1385 of the U.S. Code, commonly referred to as the Posse Comitatus Act, prevents the armed forces from becoming involved in law enforcement activities for which, in most cases, they are not specifically trained or equipped. Posse Comitatus is largely rooted in historical tradition that prohibits military involvement in civilian affairs.

To be clear, I do not believe that U.S. law pertaining to this matter needs to be entirely rewritten. I do, however, think it is necessary that we review the regulations governing use of military personnel in domestic operations in order to better understand how all of our military assets can best assist during emergency situations.

Once again, thank you for contacting me on this issue.

With kind regards, I am

Sincerely,

John Warner
United States Senator

By David Swanson

It’s your last chance to bid on the Netroots Nation auction, with all proceeds going to the wonderful Netroots Nation. Head over there and go bid!

You could buy coffee with Wes Clark. Or a signed book from Howard Dean. Or even a month of free advertising here at The Seminal! (clearly the best prize)

For a man who likes to brag about his foreign policy experience, John McCain looked like a neophyte yesterday when his campaign responded to Al Qaeda’s “endorsement”.  While the Obama campaign wisely refused to take notice, McCain’s campaign bizarrely tried to argue that this was an exercise in reverse psychology, claiming that Al Qaeda understands its “endorsement” is the kiss of death for McCain and was trying to help its true preferred candidate, Barack Obama.  The McCain campaign went on to present “evidence” claiming that terrorist groups want Obama to win.

What garbage.  When anyone claiming an association with Al Qaeda, whether on a blog ot through a video tape, tries to inject themselves into the U.S. election, no reaction is warranted.  It is easy to understand why.  If we pay any attention at all to Al Qaeda, or purported Al Qaeda spokesmen, we are giving them a say in our election.  When Al Qaeda says it prefers McCain, or doesn’t, or thinks turnout in the heartland or will be low, or opines on anything at all involving our election, the correct reaction is not to look for the best way to spin it, as the McCain campaign did.  The right thing to do is to ignore it.

The only question this non-event raises is: why does the McCain campaign want to give Al Qaeda any say in our electoral process, whether through “reverse psychology” or otherwise?

I’ve read many bloggers–mostly liberals, but some conservatives–who are upset about the direction John McCain’s campaign has taken in this election.

They usually say something like, “Where’s the real John McCain? Where’s the John McCain of 2000? The John McCain who I crossed over for and voted for in the primary? The John McCain who was so honorable? The John McCain who called Jerry Falwell and his followers ‘agents of intolerance’? Where is he?”

Well, I’ll tell ya what I think: He never really existed in the first place. The mavericky, honorable, straight talkin’, bipartisan, not so douchey John McCain who everyone idolized in 2000, and who everyone wishes would come back today, was all an act.