Dear Dr. Maddow,

Dear Dr. Maddow,

For the first time, I was disappointed in your show today. You interviewed Dan Stein, president of FAIR, on your show, pressing him about his organization's reputation for moderation. As always, I am glad when you have guests from differing points of view on your show. Your respectful but sharp interview style is always informative. You did not depart from that style in addressing Mr. Stein. You brought up important points about individuals that FAIR is associated with - that they are not as moderate as the image FAIR projects of itself. I am glad that this information was aired, but I am nonetheless disappointed. Here's why:

First of all, you took this issue way too far. Was that the best information you could get? Some of it was from 25 years ago? Much of it looked like a case, as Mr. Stein said, of "guilt by association." If indeed one is guilty by association, could you not have made a stronger case? I didn't see anything that convinced me that FAIR could not still be overall a moderate organization with a few kooks here and there or someone who said something kooky 25 years ago.

Since you have a PhD in political science, you of all people should know that political institutions like FAIR are not unified and monolithic or representative of a single point of view. Mr. Stein alluded to this when he said that his organization represents a "big umbrella" and has a diversity of opinions. You could have pressed him on this... how can a "moderate" organization include so many apparent immoderates? It would be interesting to hear how he would reply to that. It is an important political question given FAIR's moderate reputation and position as backer/writer of the new Arizona law that you are calling the "papers please" law.

Perhaps more importantly, you did not discuss with Mr. Stein, the supposed "moderate" on immigration, an important issue - the "papers please" law. Mr. Stein was presenting himself as a bipartisan, moderate spokesperson on immigration and yet he said that the Arizona law was NOT racist. I'd like to hear how he justifies that. Perhaps he'd convince me. More likely, you would simply be giving him the rope to hang himself.

You made a weak case, and in the process, came off looking overly partisan and obnoxious.

I am saying this in all sincerity, as a huge fan of your show. However, for this one time, I think you blew it.  I hope next time I will not be so disappointed.

Andy Worthington: Seven Years of War in Iraq: Still Based on Cheney's Torture and Lies

Andy Worthington: Seven Years of War in Iraq: Still Based on Cheney's Torture and Lies

Seven years later, Dick Cheney's exaggerations and untruths are still circulating, many of them unchallenged, as the impetus for war against Iraq. However, as the political leader of the screaming right's opposition to President Obama's agenda, particularly on national security, Cheney remains an outspoken supporter of the torture that brought us the misleading intelligence meant to convince the world that Saddam Hussein's regime was a threat to global security. Like a hound dog protectively gnawing a grizzled bone, Cheney refuses to let go of his delusions. Unfortunately, his delusions led to thousands of American and Iraqi deaths. When will he be brought to account?

(see Andy Worthington's excellent discussion of the torture-based evidence here.)

George W. Bush 'knew Guantánamo prisoners were innocent' - Times Online

George W. Bush 'knew Guantánamo prisoners were innocent' - Times Online

According to the Times newspaper of London, leaders in the Bush Administration, including President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, knew the vast majority of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay detention center were innocent, but estimated that it was "politically impossible" to release them. If hundreds of innocent people were swept up and detained in the effort to capture a few hard-core terrorists, then the effort was worth it. One of the justifications for the detention operations, according to the Times, was to obtain intelligence on a potential al-Qaeda link to Saddam Hussein in order to justify the impending American invasion. In the Guantanamo detention center, hundreds of prisoners have been held without legal recourse to challenging their detention. Many were subject to various forms of "enhanced interrogation" in an effort to extract "actionable intelligence" from them (whether or not they actually knew useful information or not).

Together with today's revelation that President Obama's nominee to the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department withdrew from consideration because of Republican objections to her strong criticism of Bush Administration torture policies, it is apparent that American public opinion and political power is turning away from traditional concerns for human rights and justice. A jingoistic rhetoric unconcerned with the rights of others now dominates the political landscape.

When our highest officials demonstrate a lack of concern about the rights of the innocent, it is time to re-examine the direction of American public policy.

Making Cheap Coal Safe

As should be clear by now, coal is not cheap, despite what the coal industry wants you to think. The coal industry has America convinced that coal is plentiful, cheap, and potentially clean, part of a "greener" and energy-independent America. What they are not telling you is that it is cheap and plentiful, in large part, due to the lack of "expensive" safety measures for coal mines that would keep miners safe. Tragedies like the ones currently unfolding in West Virginia usually happen because mining companies decline to properly ventilate unused portions of the mine, allowing dangerous levels of methane gas to accumulate. Yes, ventilation would be expensive, potentially raising the cost of coal. But, I would argue, that is the REAL cost of coal. Corporations are being allowed to "externalize" their costs onto others, notably the environment (climate change, destructive mining practices) and tragically, miners who lose their lives in preventable accidents.

While it is too soon to say with certainty the cause of yesterday's blast that killed 25 and left 4 missing (as of this writing), but the history of the coal industry does not inspire confidence and many are asking questions. How much longer will coal miners pay with their lives?

Mullen: Give ‘Soft Power’ a Chance

Mullen: Give ‘Soft Power’ a Chance:

Danger Room Blog Reports:

"The top U.S. general in Afghanistan has placed heavy restrictions on the use of force, limiting air strikes and artillery support. In a major speech March 3, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen had a message: This is the new American way of war, so get used to it.

But Mullen was also making a larger argument about the outsize role of the U.S. military in foreign policy. He seemed to be suggesting that the military shouldn’t continue to do the heavy lifting around the globe unless the diplomats and the development experts are willing to step up to the tasks of nation-building and stability ops.

“Secretaries Clinton and Gates [Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates] have called for more funding and more emphasis on our soft power, and I could not agree with them more,” he said. “Should we choose to exert American influence solely through our troops, we should expect to see that influence diminish in time. In fact, I would argue that in the future struggles of the asymmetric counterinsurgent variety, we ought to make it a precondition of committing our troops, that we will do so only if and when the other instruments of national power are ready to engage as well.”

It’s a remarkable speech, and worth reading in full. But reduced to a bullet point, Mullen’s seems to be arguing that avoiding wars is as important as winning them."

Could it be the beginning of a new era of cooperation between the Pentagon and Foggy Bottom? One that does not, unlike during the Bush era, require the military to dominate all aspects of foreign policy, including the traditional State Department domains of development and nation-building?

[PHOTO: U.S. Department of Defense]

Glenn Beck Urges Listeners to Leave Churches That Preach Social Justice -- Politics Daily

Glenn Beck Urges Listeners to Leave Churches That Preach Social Justice -- Politics Daily

Reason #1 why I believe many churches today have lost touch with the original teachings of the ancient christian church: conservative takeovers of many evangelical and fundamentalist churches had led to the mindset that Glenn Beck is illustrating. Forget the teachings of Jesus that emphasized taking care of the poor, forget the fact that Jesus hung out with some of the people that were among the least appreciated in his society - many of today's Christians believe that we should make war on countries without mercy and allow the poor in society to fall behind "because it's their own fault." Social justice? That's just a code word for things we don't like - communism and fascism.

Did Jesus teach that one should "sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven" (Luke 18:22)? Or, was that simply a way to slip a socialist agenda into the unsuspecting Christian flock?

The Christian right has convinced much of America that Jesus would vote Republican...
Which is exactly why I refuse to believe it. And so should you.

Rep. Paul Broun not sure if Obama is citizen - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

What my local Wingnut member of Congress is up to:

Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) said Thursday that he does not know if President Barack Obama is either a citizen or a Christian.
Broun made the claim during an interview with Sirius XM host Pete Dominick, which was first flagged by the liberal blog Think Progress.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33992.html#ixzz0hSwWGBRx