Bill's Big Diamond Blog

Malkin Terrorizes Dunkin Donuts, Takes Rachel Ray's Scarf Hostage

I’ve always enjoyed Dunkin Donuts coffee, but this morning the taste is a little bitter. The AP is running a story about Dunkin Donuts pulling an advertisement featuring Rachel Ray, the Food Network’s ‘gal next door,’ because her attire features a kaffiyeh, the Palestinian scarf that has become chic in American and European metrowear. More specifically, DD caved to a rant in Michelle Malkin’s column about the fashion statement being a code for terrorist sympathies.

Despite what folks at the more expensive Starbucks chain might think, Dunkin Donuts has never had a secret agenda, unless knocking off high priced lattes qualifies as subversive. But the ever-hysterical Malkin set her sights on instructing the coffee and breakfast fat kings in her own brand of conspiratorial paranoia, ranting that, ''The kaffiyeh, for the clueless, is the traditional scarf of Arab men that has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad.''

Wearing the kaffiyeh, of course, has nothing to do with politics for millions of wearers, Middle Eastern or American. The AP quotes Amahl Bishara, a Middle East specialist from the University of Chicago, who points out what most sane people know, “that a right-wing blogger making an association between a kaffiyeh and terrorism is just an example of how so much of the complexity of Arab culture has been reduced to a very narrow vision of the Arab world on the part of some people in the U.S."

Bishara continued, "Kaffiyehs are worn every day on the street by Palestinians and other people in the Middle East - by people going to work, going to school, taking care of their families, and just trying to keep warm."

One has to hope that the management at Dunkin Donuts gets a grip on reality and realizes that caving to Malkin only leads to more of her brand of thought-terrorism. It also won’t make it any easier to sell an old-fashioned donut.

Bush Personally Leaked Iraq NIE— and Plame Identity?

Scotty McClellan’s revelations in the press tour for his book, What Happened, include his Today Show retelling of an incident aboard Air Force One between Scotty and the President about the leaking of the Iraq NIE. This morning, Scotty said that the President admitted to authorizing the leak himself in a conversation with him during a flight. The interesting part of this, as Emptwheel points out today, is that the ‘NIE’ leak they were discussing included classified information Scooter Libby used to leak Valerie Plame’s identity to Judy Miller at the Times.

At the time, the President said publicly and repeatedly that he would have anyone involved with leaking this information fired— and that he would cooperate with the special prosecutor’s inquiry into the leak of Plame’s identity. Since then, he reversed course on his promise and commuted Libby’s sentence.

See Emptywheel’s post for the details, which lead to the fairly inescapable conclusion that the President was, shall we say, consciously and initially deceptive on the little matter of outing a covert CIA officer as political retaliation against her husband.

Memorial Day

I’ve often been asked by people unfamiliar with the traditions of Memorial Day to explain the history and origins of the observance. Usually, my answers are off the cuff and anecdotal. My personal understanding of the holiday comes from my parents and their tradition of visiting the graves of family members who have passed on. It stems from growing up in a small town, where our Memorial Day parade was a fixture, resplendent with the carefully preserved uniforms of veterans marching, from the First World War through the Vietnam conflict then ongoing.

I usually thought of the holiday’s importance to working class families, whose members have filled the ranks of our military in wars and conflicts throughout American generations. What I didn’t yet do was to track the history of Memorial Day to its origins in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War.

If we trace the holiday back to its first observance, we learn more about history’s habit of being co-opted by the powerful at the expense of the powerless— and we must think again about the role of race and America’s ‘peculiar institution’ of slavery in this particular narrative.

The first observance of what became Memorial Day occurred in Charleston, South Carolina in 1865. The occasion was the convergence on the historic race track there by former slaves and abolitionists. They gathered to honor the Union dead buried there by the Confederacy in a mass grave at what had been the site of a prison camp during the war. The former slaves and their abolitionist brethren “reinterred the dead Union soldiers from the mass grave to individual graves, fenced in the graveyard & built an entry arch declaring it a Union graveyard; a very daring thing to do in the South shortly after (the) North's victory.”

It was three years later, when the same former slaves came back with flowers from the countryside to decorate those individual graves that the first “Decoration Day” was celebrated in 1868. The association with abolition and with the Union’s bitter struggle was basic to the observance. This was so much so that there evolved a separate holiday in the South, a Confederate Memorial Day.

In Pennsylvania, a separate Memorial Day sprung up in 1866, on April 29, to honor the Union dead. It’s clear, however, that the matter of slavery and abolition was still thought to be of importance in the observation until the end of Reconstruction, when the holiday in New York City was declared to be “forward looking,” over the objections of abolitionist heroes like Frederick Douglass. No doubt the relative weight given to the many conscripted white soldiers remembrances ran heavier in the public mind of the moment than the original impulses of the courageous southern blacks who began the tradition.

Over time, the tradition of Memorial Day has been molded into a more general remembrance of soldiers’ sacrifice. The role of equality and freedom for all races has been almost lost in that historical reinvention of the holiday. The additional elements of recreation, of personal and familial memorials, and of the coming of summer have become even more prominent than the holiday’s transformed military honors.

Today, however, let’s also remember the cause for which men and women of color stood up, in a hostile and dangerous atmosphere, to reinter Union soldiers with dignity. As we remember our recent dead, we also remember those Americans who fought not just for American ideals, but to create an America in which the ideal of freedom even existed for all. It’s a battle we must renew constantly as there will always be the impulse to forget the truth when it is convenient.

Sources: Race and Reunion, by David Blight, Adam Cohen, NYT Times, Wikipedia

Rove on Siegelman— Stumbling, Clearly Dissembling Performance on 'This Week'

Today, Karl Rove appeared on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. When asked about his involvement in the prosecution of Don Siegelman, the former architect of Bush's political rise and reign gave himself away. He wouldn’t answer a direct question about whether he’d spoken to anyone in the Justice Department about prosecuting Siegelman. Instead, he made several other points, skirting around the issue.

When Stephanopoulos pointed out that his comments and his assertion that he’d read about the prosecution in the newspaper didn’t amount to a denial, Rove wouldn’t budge off script, but couldn’t pull it together to make it sound offhand or real.

Rove’s inability to properly choke out his scripted non-denial, “I learned about the prosecution in the newspaper,” is as damning an indictment of his involvement as we’re likely to see without putting Rove under oath. It’s hard to imagine what was more important about keeping to airtime that Stephanopoulos felt he should simply let Rove off the show at that moment. The former puppeteer was teetering so close to the edge of total unreality that it was incredible to see Stephanopoulos simply say, “Thank you.”

See for yourself. See Memorandum for more.

Obama at Wesleyan on Service and Kennedy

Barack Obama’s comments today at Wesleyan University are a call to service to the graduates of 2008. It’s not unusual to hear these calls at commencement ceremonies each May, but to hear a Presidential candidate recall his own community organizing experience as an example of what a young person might contribute is unique— and gives specific meaning to the options available to those who would make change in our culture and society.

One hopes young people will see the opportunity to be of service as personally fulfilling— a chance to make a positive impact on the larger world. Obama quoted RFK in his speech about the “tiny ripples of hope” that each act of idealism sends out into the larger currents of the world. On this Memorial Day weekend, it’s fitting that against the forces of oppression and violence, young people and all of us who would encourage them, should send out some of those tiny ripples.

The reception among the crowd appeared to be overwhelmingly positive and excited. Not only is the Wesleyan student and parent body a progressive bunch, but they were also delighted to have Obama put them more firmly on the map. Even Obama made reference to the frequent name confusion outsiders make when hearing about the liberal arts college. In his opening remarks, Obama noted how glad he was to be at 'Wellesleyan,' a smiling nod to the often-made inversion of Wellesley College with Wesleyan. A student speaker preceeding Obama ended her remarks with "Wes We Can!"

It was also heartening to hear Obama read a brief message from Senator Ted Kennedy, who was originally scheduled to deliver the Wesleyan address today, encouraging those who wish for his recovery— and serving notice on those who would hope for a different result— that he’s not done yet. If a better example of courage and service was more immediately available to the Wesleyan graduates today, it’s hard to know who it would be besides Senator Kennedy, not just for the fight still in him, but for all the battles he’s already fought over long hard years of conservative ascendancy.

Obama made note of the changes Senator Kennedy has fought hard for and won in America, in civil rights, in healthcare, in education and in the workplace. The speech was a tribute to the ways one man can, has, and will continue to make a dramatic difference, despite many losses and setbacks. It was a high point in the crowd reaction as Obama paid homage to Kennedy lighting a way for young people starting down a long road as people and citizens. It was easy to see the graduates were happy to hear about Kennedy's service also from a young and vigorous leader, who has been inspired by Ted's example and has come a piece down the same road himself.

UPDATE— Here are some other posts of note on the Obama public service speech at Wesleyan, at Political Radar, another pair by James Fallows and by Matt Yglesias at the Atlantic.com. I would argue that the speech is of more interest than the average commencement address in that Obama combines his soaring rhetoric with a promise to double the U.S. commitment to the Peace Corps and to begin an international cooperation effort in volunteer development work.

Herbert on Kennedy: "Hang in there, Ted"

Today’s column by Bob Herbert about Ted Kennedy, his own father, Chester Herbert, about the 1960’s, when we all hoped for a better America, and his wish that Ted will hang in there put me in mind of hope we still hold.

Leave it to Herbert to write openly about hope in the most unlikely way, by remembering his father’s throat cancer diagnosis. It’s a loving and poignant piece.

We’ll listen tomorrow to Kennedy’s surrogate at Wesleyan University’s commencement, Barack Obama. It should be a good moment for some more thoughts about Massachusetts' lion of progressive politics from his endorsee for the Presidency.

Ted Kennedy is a fighter, who has made a legacy after hope, great losses, failures— who's made progressive change happen, and often held back the tide, with hard work and commitment. It's fitting that Obama should be standing in for him—with great hope.

'Pre-emption' and the Foreclosure Crisis

Today’s NY Times editorial page carries an interesting observation, gleaned from none other than Eliot Spitzer (remember him?).

Spitzer wrote an Op-Ed piece for the WaPo in February about how various states, including New York, originally tried to put a stop to predatory lending practices that led to the now-uncontrolled mortgage forclosure crisis.

When the states tried to rein in abusive
mortgage lenders, the Bush administration
finally did something. The Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency issued rules
nullifying state predatory lending laws over the
objection of all 50 state banking
superintendents.

The clampdown, which paved the way for the
subprime mortgage crisis, was done by “pre-
emption,” a little-understood doctrine that
allows the federal government to wipe away state
laws. The Constitution’s supremacy clause says
federal law can trump state law. But the federal
rule should be a floor, not a ceiling. It should set
a minimum level of rights, not stop states from
doing more to protect their citizens.

Read the entire editorial (What Ever Happened to (The Good Kind of) States Rights?) for a look at the neocon approach to “preemption,” which used to superceed, not diminish states’ legislation granting citizens their rights.

UPDATE— I’m curious about the facts regarding both the general use of preemption by the Bush Administration and the particular facts about the use of it by the Comptroller of the Currency in response to state predatory lending laws, which were more strict than federal law in mortgage lending. I’ve received a comment which directs me to WaPo responses by two Comptrollers of the Currency, both of whom claim that, while they did preempt state laws regulating national banks, that the lion’s share of abuses were accomplished through state-regulated banks. The preemption in this case, apparently did not affect state-regulated banks, only national banks.

On its surface this appears to be an argument that might be summarized as, “We did preempt, but it didn’t hurt too many people, since our jurisdiction was limited.” Perhaps there’s more to it— and I’d love to be instructed as to why preemption of state predatory lending laws is a good thing.

The New "Enemies List'— Bush's Main Core

Those of us reaching a certain age remember President Nixon’s “Enemies List,” a database of hundreds of names, including prominent journalists and political figures who might be rounded up by the Executive in a time of crisis. NPR’s Daniel Schorr frequently points with pride to his status as an “enemy,” at least according to one of our most paranoid Presidents.

Well, move over in your crypt, Mr. Nixon. It appears that our present Administration puts you to shame in the spying-and-plotting-against-Americans Department. Apparently, James Comey, acting as Attorney General in 2004 when John Ashcroft was undergoing surgery, wasn’t resisting only on signing off on “data mining.” He and Ashcroft, no friend himself to civil liberties himself, were gravely concerned that the White House was engaged in something far more sinister.

Check out this chilling article about the “Main Core” list in Radar Magazine:

(excerpts)

…The bureaucrat was James Comey, John
Ashcroft's second-in-command at the Department
of Justice during Bush's first term. Comey had been
a loyal political foot soldier of the Republican Party
for many years. Yet in his testimony before the
Senate Judiciary Committee, he described how he
had grown increasingly uneasy reviewing the Bush
administration's various domestic surveillance and
spying programs. Much of his testimony centered
on an operation so clandestine he wasn't allowed to
name it or even describe what it did…

According to a senior government official who
served with high-level security clearances in five
administrations, "There exists a database of
Americans, who, often for the slightest and most
trivial reason, are considered unfriendly, and who, in
a time of panic, might be incarcerated. The
database can identify and locate perceived
'enemies of the state' almost instantaneously." He
and other sources tell Radar that the database is
sometimes referred to by the code name Main Core.
One knowledgeable source claims that 8 million
Americans are now listed in Main Core as
potentially suspect. In the event of a national
emergency, these people could be subject to
everything from heightened surveillance and
tracking to direct questioning and possibly even
detention…

If previous FEMA and FBI lists are any
indication, the Main Core database includes
dissidents and activists of various stripes,
political and tax protesters, lawyers and
professors, publishers and journalists, gun
owners, illegal aliens, foreign nationals, and a
great many other harmless, average people.

A veteran CIA intelligence analyst who
maintains active high-level clearances and
serves as an advisor to the Department of
Defense in the field of emerging technology tells
Radar that during the 2004 hospital room drama,
James Comey expressed concern over how this
secret database was being used "to accumulate
otherwise private data on non-targeted U.S.
citizens for use at a future time." Though not
specifically familiar with the name Main Core, he
adds, "What was being requested of Comey for
legal approval was exactly what a Main Core
story would be." A source regularly briefed by
people inside the intelligence community adds:
"Comey had discovered that President Bush
had authorized NSA to use a highly classified

and compartmentalized Continuity of
Government database on Americans in
computerized searches of its domestic
intercepts. [Comey] had concluded that the use
of that 'Main Core' database compromised the
legality of the overall NSA domestic surveillance
project."…

"In the event of a national emergency, the
executive branch simply assumes these
powers"—the powers to collect domestic
intelligence and draw up detention lists, for
example—"if Congress doesn't explicitly
prohibit it. It's really up to Congress to put these
things to rest, and Congress has not done so."
Fein adds that it is virtually impossible to
contest the legality of these kinds of data
collection and spy programs in court "when
there are no criminal prosecutions and [there is]
no notice to persons on the president's
'enemies list.' That means if Congress remains
invertebrate, the law will be whatever the
president says it is—even in secret. He will be
the judge on his own powers and invariably rule
in his own favor."

Could be time to renew your letters to Congress about their lack of interest in our civil liberties, no?

h/t Will Bunch and Digby

Another Year Further from Brown v. Board... What Will Next Year Bring?

Yesterday was the anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision, rendered May 17, 1954. The date reminds us of the attributes that the lawyer who argued the case brought to the highest court as a litigant and as a Supreme Court Justice. Thurgood Marshall showed the determination, vision, and the moral courage so sorely lacking in recent anemic decisions on civil rights matters.

It would be a horror for to Marshall to see the landmark case he fought for so many years to position and win stood on its head this past year in the Louisville decision. But that we had another Marshall, or anyone close to him, on the Court today— to provide some resistance against the segregationist slant of today’s Supreme majority.

A civil rights lawyer I know said last year that any potential nominee to the Court should be immediately passed over if, when asked to name the greatest justices in history, Marshall’s name didn’t pass their lips without hesitation. One has to hope that the next President will feel the same.

This country can’t wait another decade— or two or three— to rectify the miserable residential and educational divide that exists in so many places still in our country. Poor people, always disproportionately people of color, live and school their children in neighborhoods served by poorer schools, housed away from middle class and wealthy communities, where most Americans can’t see the lack of access available to the things they take for granted.

If Marshall were still alive, he’d be kicking and screaming about the Court’s backsliding into a defense of White’s Rights and the priority it gives capital over human rights today. We’d know it was over his dead body that anyone could use Brown v. Board as a precedent to overrule itself.

This comes to mind when one thinks about the kind of justice we might see continued in the coming years. John McCain recently went to Memphis on the anniversary of Martin Luther King's assassination to speak at the National Civil Rights Museum— about how he was wrong to have opposed a national holiday in King's honor. But when it comes to describing his judicial vision, McCain recently posited that his choice for the next nominee to the Supreme Court would be in the mold of Justice Rehnquist, John Roberts, and Sam Alito.

Rehnquist argued for segregated accomodations, Roberts, who clerked for Rehnquist, argued for narrowing voting rights laws under President Reagan, and Alito long opposed affirmative action. Should we therefore believe that McCain would choose to stage the theatrics of supporting civil rights history, while his true intentions are to undermine equal justice under the law? Let's hope this campaign brings focus to what the candidates really believe when it comes to civil rights.

Corruption Reports by HUD Staffers Were Swept Aside by Jackson

Carol Leonnig at the Wa Po reports today on staffers at HUD who questioned work claims by contractors favored by now-resigned HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson. The staffers often ended up being transferred or resigning. The contractors, often plucked from obscurity by higher-ups at HUD who rewarded political pals, seem frequently to have little or no qualifications for a meteoric rise. One company, National Housing Group of Miami (NHG), parlayed tens of thousands in campaign contributions to Republican candidates into millions in HUD business before finally being held to account:

(NHG) …grew from a 10-employee firm with
$490,000 in sales in 1997 to a multimillion-dollar
HUD contractor by 2003. Since then, it has won
HUD contracts worth $50 million to manage
multifamily properties in default, with $41 million of
that amount closed to any competition.

When lower-echelon HUD contract employee Wayne Girovasi began scrutinizing NHG’s work, he concluded the company had grossly exaggerated it’s work claims. He was reassigned. High-level interest in the the contractor’s well-being apparently led to Girovasi's replacement by another reviewer. The second reviewer came to the same conclusion about NHG. In February, the FBI charged NHG principal Wynee Joyner with falsifying claims for HUD reimbursement.

UPDATE— If readers want to get into the backstory of the Jackson scandal, I recommend blogger E’s series on it at We Could Be Famous.
Part 4 has links to the previous three posts and when you’ve caught them all, you might still be in the mood to learn more about New Orleans housing crisis. so go on to Part 5 here.