General Alexander's Lonely Spy Club Band: no one has enjoyed the show.

With the NSA back in the news as a result of president Obama's latest NSA proposal, and  General Keith Alexander now  leaving to ride off into retirement,  its fair to say that those who are left supporting the NSA and it's meta data collection and other numbers performed on American citizens and exposed by Edward Snowden,  have been reduced to such a precious few they might  be referred to as General Alexander's Lonely Spy Club Band. Who it seems, are in the process of  breaking up since Mike Rogers, chair of the House Intelligence Committee who for the last year has been continuously beating the drums for the Lonely Spy Club Band  has also  announced he is leaving.

 The remaining band members include Dianne Feinstein, the Lady Ga Ga of congressional oversight who according to rumor, went ga ga over General Alexander and James Clapper a long time ago and in the words of Democratic congressman Alan Grayson, turned  congressional oversight into overlook, though she is now unhappy with the CIA who she believes, formed their own Spy Club Band and has been spying on her and her committee.

 And of course there is front man  James Clapper who from his first public performance showed his range is limited to falsetto. It was during his memorable solo performance in front of senator Ron Wyden's  oversight subcommittee, when Wyden asked Clapper the musical question, "does the NSA collect data on millions or tens of millions of Americans" that Clapper sang " No, Not Wittingly" in that now famous and familiar falsetto.

 "No Not Wittingly" was, in a word, perjury and, as it turns out,  it was Clapper'spoor  performance singing this little ditty  that convinced Snowden that trying to fix the problems within the NSA --  in house as Dianne Feinstein insisted he should have instead of airing the band's dirty linen in public -- would be impossible. That in turn led to Snowden's decision to go public and hand over the NSA documents he had to Glenn Greenwald and The Guardian which found them music to their ears.   The rest, as they say, is history. NSA Mania gripped the world ever since.

 Over the last year it's safe to say General Alexander's most memorable performance came in front of Senator Pat Leahy's judiciary oversight committee when he performed his memorable rendition of ( not to be confused with CIA renditions)  of " When I Foiled 54".

 Alexander's song and dance asserted that as a result of the NSA meta data collection, 54 terrorist plots were foiled including a plot to bomb the New York City Stock Exchange and a plot to attack the New York City subway system.

 Alexander's performance fell flat  almost immediately to anyone with a good ear since notably, there was no back up by then New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. Certainly, had any of what Alexander been claiming been true, Bloomberg and Kelly would have been loudly backing  up Alexander, singing the praises of the meta data collection. Instead what we heard from Bloomberg and Kelly were sounds of silence.

 Senator Pat Leahy decided to checked out Alexander's claims and poured over them for days, backwards and forwards and concluded  there was  not a shred of evidence that showed the meta data collection had foiled or even  contributed to foiling even one terrorist plot much less 54. It was after Leahy's terrible review that General Alexander's Lonely Spy Club Band began to fall apart and losing fans.

 To hold the Lonely Spy Club Band together they tried using president Obama as their lead singer and front mant  but he fell flat too and kept changing his tune so often no one could tell what he was singing.  But with his recent announcement that he wants to end the bulk data collection of phone records, he's still falling flat since his new song leaves a lot to be desired and does nothing to stop bulk collection of Americans' emails and internet use so it's still a bad performance. Which is in keeping with last year's review of Obama's civil liberties performance by the ACLU who called it "disgusting".

 Waiting in the wings to take the place of the Lonely Spy Club Band is the USA Freedom Act, put together by Republican James Sensenbrenner and  Democratic senator Pat Leahy. The Freedom Act would abolish all bulk meta data collection of American citizens including Internet communications, clearly make illegal other abuses and violations of the law and constitution  and ensure that the Lonely Spy Club Band will never get back together. But it's meeting resistance from Bohner, the retiring Mike Rogers and other NSA sycophants in congress who are trying to cancel it and get their own, bogus reform act through congress, in essence trying to put together another spy band that stinks as much as the old one did.

Which means that citizens have to pressure their own members of congress to close them down and remind them that given everything we've heard from General Alexander's Lonely Spy Club Band, no one has enjoyed the show.

CNN's Malaysia flight 370 coverage proves again it's all about money.

This isn't the first time for CNN. It's not the first time the news network has tried to milk a story for all it's worth whether it was Sandy Hook or the Boston Marathon bombing and what it's worth for CNN at the moment is ratings, not facts, not information, not journalism, but money in the form of ratings.

For CNN, the Malaysia flight 370 story is another tragedy that's being treated as a cash cow they are determined to milk.

This is not to say that CNN didnt assemble an impressive collection of well informed experts to analyze what slim data was known and to give their opinions. But three weeks later CNN is still trying to figure out ways to fill almost all their air time with Malaysia Flight 370, and it shows.

When it became clear more than three weeks ago that coverage of the missing Malaysia flight had doubled CNN's normal ( and low) ratings,(which often happens with live events)  management made a business decision to go all Malaysia all the time and they've been doing  it ever since. And in the process, becoming the news network who cried "Breaking News" when 90% of the time there wasn't any.

When there has been nothing new to report, CNN continuously  resorts to rehashing and repackaging old news, even weeks old news,  and presenting it as "Breaking News" to keep viewers watching.

Like Monday's "Breaking News. At 12,000 feet a plane is still visible on radar".

That isnt Breaking News. That is what used to be called a factoid. Note that it wasn't even specifically about 370,  just a general piece of information that at 12,000 feet any plane is still visible on radar. This is what was presented as "Breaking News".

Another item was "Breaking News: Does flight 370 search lack imagination?"

What matters about all this is once again, the pandering and low level of competence that exists in journalism on a daily basis and especially TV journalism and how it's become impossible to count on these people to do their jobs and do it well especially during any time of real crisis,usually more interested in playing to the audience than in the truth.

Speaking of playing to the audience, the most obnoxious thing CNN does is every hour turn the tragedy into a game show with  "the announcement that in 15 minutes we'll be answering  your Twitter questions from you our audience".  The questions are usually ignorant or trivial or nonsensical but treated as "really interesting" and worth discussing when they aren't. Nothing like audience participation to solve an air disaster.

The ultimate truth of what the coverage is really all about came on Monday after a news conference  by the Malaysian prime minister stating that based on new information there was certainty that the plane had gone down in the Indian Ocean and there were no survivors.

Following that announcement, Ashley Banfield and John Berman read a statement from Malaysia airlines that  asked that the news media respect the privacy of the families. As they were reading that statement  CNN was showing still photos of a grieving, wailing Chinese woman as the camera pushed in slowly to a tight close up of her anguished face and kept repeating the shot  over and over interspersed with video footage of similar scenes showing other family members collapsing and reacting to the news, making it clear how much CNN intended on respecting the privacy of the families.

This was followed by  Banfield asking a correspondent on the scene, "Can you walk us through exactly what happened with these families today"? 

Across the bottom of the screen, as the correspondent gave details, CNN streamed a red banner that said "Screams and wails from family members". You know, just so you'd know.

It wasn't journalism, it wasn't even a perverse kind of voyeurism;  it might be categorized as   journalistic pornography or sadomasochism.  But not journalism. But it was all there for your viewing pleasure. 

Afterwards, the dishonest, even perverse attempts by CNN on keeping alive the idea that the plane might have landed safely somewhere instead of crashing into the Indian Ocean is  also all about keeping the story alive because no wreckage had yet been found.

CNN's experts have already talked about Air France flight 442 many times and  pointed out it took two years to find that wreckage.  Yet no one at the time suggested that because they hadnt found the wreckage the plane never crashed. But its what you do when your're trying to fill up time so you can charge a little more next month for a 30 second commercial.

NOTE: With all the theories about what happened, and with all of them having at least one hole or major contradiction based on the available evidence, I've offered my own theory which is based on the available evidence and for which, so far, there are no contradictory facts.

It's published as a separate peice and can be found at this link.

CNN standards missing along with Malaysia flight 370.

Its no secret that CNN has been milking the missing Malaysia flight 370 story more than any other news organization. And who can blame them? Their ratings have been at a 20 year low and getting worse ( and for good reason) but since flight 370 has gone missing, they've seen their ratings almost double both for daytime and evening viewers. And that clearly has sent a signal to the executives at CNN to milk it for all its worth,  not only, by their own admission with wall to wall coverage, but also with constant rehashing of days old news, repackaged as "breaking news" and anchors asking questions so stupid some paid experts, like former chair of the NTSB Jim Francis, could barely hide his contempt, at times giving only one word answers to the more ridiculous questions of CNN anchors.

To give credit where credit is due, CNN has assembled some of the most knowledgeable and intelligent experts available from the always interesting, to the point, no nonsense Richard Quest, to former 777 pilots, accident investigators and former NSTB crash investigators and officials.

The problem, as it always is with CNN, has been with their anchors, most of them either constantly shilling for CNN's coverage as Don Lemon and Wolf Blitzer do repeatedly ( "stay tuned for our wall to wall coverage, coverage you can ONLY get here on CNN")   or asking one insipid or rehashed question after another which their guests politely try to answer as if they are worth asking ( and also because they are being paid)

Over the weekend we had the up and down voice inflections and endless emoting of Frederika Whitfield who couldn't seem to ask a question without interupting and  stepping all over the answer. She insisted on inserting days old information, possibly for the benefit of those watching who may have been in a coma and hearing about this for the first time, in the middle of a guests answer  and it seemed clear these were directions coming to her probably from some producer.

After interrupting one former 777 pilot who was making a good point so as to interject something that had nothing to do with the point the pilot was trying to make, the pilot went back to his point, then tried to add another as Whitfield  interrupted him again to go to someone else. When the pilot said he wanted to make one more point Whitefield's reply was, "Ok,  make it quick". Because, you know, the show must go on.

Taking over for Whitfield, Don Lemon anchored two hours of coverage like he was a substitute teacher for a bunch of first graders, holding up a small hobby shop replica of a Boeing 777 and pointing out how they were going to talk about every aspect of the plane,  "from the nose ( pointing to the nose) , the wings, (pointing to the wings), underneath the plane ( turning the plane and pointing underneath) and the rear" (pointing to the rear).

Then before a commercial break we were informed by Lemon just how great CNN's coverage is and how they will be covering "every angle" of this story non-stop (assume there was no pun intended).

It got even sillier when Lemon informed us the panel was now going to answer " your Twitter questions" .Lemon promised that the next hour was going to be devoted " to you, our audience". And for anyone who had any doubts CNN was turning this into a cross between a circus and a game show, Lemon actually said, " and after the break we'll be going to our "lightning round" to get to as many questions as we possible". No kidding. They did a lightning round.

Some of the questions were so stupid they defied credulity and made one wonder how CNN could actually employ producers who culled those questions to be read on the air.  Lemon tried to paint each one as "good" or "interesting". One was so stupid and convoluted that the "lightning round" expert said, " I don't really understand the question" . Lemon quickly moved to another one.

Along with rehashing old news  and asking stupid questions, there has also been CNN's pervasive abuse of "Breaking News".

Someone in the research department must have data showing people will watch longer if "Breaking News" is splashed across the bottom of the screen. Especially if they are channel hopping.   Because for CNN, "Breaking News" is everything from the fact that the plane has been missing for 12 days, to the "Breaking News" that the U.S. wants more transparancy to finding nothing on the pilot's flight simulator. They are also not above labeling news that's 3 and 4 days old as "Breaking News".

Things like,  "Breaking News. Unprecedented search underway for flight 370", which of course has been going on for 10 days.

Or: Breaking News: the capabilities of the 777" .

This showed Martin Savage in a flight simulator where it seems,  he's been glued for the last 3 days since they go to him live every hour. Hopefully they let the man get up to go to the bathroom.

But this is the level of non-journalism and pandering to which CNN has sunk  in trying to milk coverage of the missing flight and you don't need a pinging black box to find it. Especially in rehashing questions like " why are you allowed to turn off the transponder"?  That by the way, was one of the favorite Twitter questions and they are still talking about it even though it was one if the first  questions addressed and  was answered days ago ( the reason is that when the plane is on the ground, either before take off or after landing, there is no reason to clutter up an air traffic controller's screen with the plane's ID being transmitted especially at very busy airports.) But CNN still thinks this is controversial and needs to be discussed. Especially if it's a Twitter question.

CNN has managed to put together a pretty good collection of knowledgable experts to offer opinions or to shoot down opinions based on whatever the currently available data may reveal. But for anyone watching CNN,and interested in the story as so many people are, the best advice is to watch with remote control in hand so you can hit the mute button any time anyone other than a guest is talking. Which unfortunately is far too often. Skip the questions. Chris Cuomo and every other anchor at CNN takes 5 times longer to ask a question than it takes to answer it.

CNN followed up the next day by repeatedly showing footage of a distraught Chinese family member being carried out of the Malaysian briefing room while literally hundreds of cameras shot still and video footage of the scene. All for your viewing pleasure.  Giving us, as Wolf Blitzer repeatedly reminds us, " the kind of coverage only CNN can deliver!"

NOTE: CNN'sTwitter parade continues reading ridiculous Twitter questions from viewers which have absolutely no journalistic value and for the most part was answered days ago, continuing to destroy any pretense of journalism rather than continuing to use the missing flight as a cash cow.

Wolf Blitzer upheld CNN's astute standards of journalism and powers of observation when, in commenting on the possible debris found in the Indian Ocean by satellite 1500 miles off the coast of Austrailia, Blitzer told us that it was night now in Australia and reconnaisance planes would be sent in the morning to get a closer look and that Blitzer "assumes they will have a better chance of identifying what the debris might be during the day than at night". None of the experts on the set wanted to say,  "Ya think?"

Is Obama's weakness partially to blame for Ukraine? The proof is in the Putin.

The virtually universal and independent ( that is to say non-partisan, non-political) opinion, along with the predictable partisan Republican cheap shots,  is that Putin's moves into Crimea were fueled and emboldened  by Putin seeing Obama as weak and irresolute,  has no respect for him, doesn't believe Obama would take a stand or take any action that would matter, and considers everything Obama says as just empty words. Unfortunately, the truth is, who doesn't think that?

Obama caved in to Republicans on domestic issues and reneged on promises so often going as far back as the 2008 Democratic primaries,  from his dropping the public option on healthcare to breaking his promise to close Gitmo and watering down financial reform and just about every other domestic issue,  that Obama's credibility was so low that when it was extended to foreign affairs Putin was convinced that Obama was not a force to be reckoned with in taking the kind of  action he took in Crimea.

Many people point to Syria and Obama's quickly abandoning of his so called "Red Line" if Assad used chemical weapons  as being the significant  moment that re-enforced Putin's lack of respect for Obama and his calculation that Obama would do nothing to stop his planned incursion into Crimea. Ironically, it was a deal brokered by the Russians, which so far Syria has failed to live up to, that replaced  Obama's promise of a missile strike against Syria for using chemical weapons.

But Obama showed something less than resolve and resiliency long before Syria when it came to foreign policy. Obama vacillated twice in Egypt, first, waffling over whether to continue to support  Mubarak or the demonstrators in the streets who revolted against Mubarak. Obama began by supporting Mubarak then switched positions when the outcome became clear and he eventually supported new elections.  But a year after those new elections Obama vacillated once again in Egypt,  this time when Morsi, Egypt's newly elected president was also overthrown for not delivering on promises he made and the military sided with the demonstrators.Some in congress called it a coup and wanted Obama to cut off military aid to Egypt. Obama never voiced a position one way or another and did nothing.

There was Obama's waffling  over supporting the rebels in Libya until France and Britain took matters into their own hands and sent fighter jets to attack Ghadaffi  in support of the rebels and, perhaps showing a bit of contempt,  didn't even bother to notify Obama in advance.  And long before any of that, the first time Obama was forced to take a position on an issue concerning foreign policy, when hundreds of thousands of Iranian demonstrators took to the streets protesting a rigged presidential election that returned Ahmadinejad to power, Obama, embarrassingly, took a public position deciding he didn't want to take sides.

With Iranians being shot and clubbed in the streets, all  Obama could manage was that he "didn't want to meddle in Iranian affairs". When a girl named Nadia was shot in the face and killed on the streets of Tehran and became an international symbol of the fight for democratic institutions against dictatorships in the middle east, long before what is now being called the Arab Spring, Obama couldn't even bring himself to publicly stand up for and support the demonstrators and democracy. Instead he said again, he didn't want to meddle. What Obama got in return was Ahmadinejad accusing him of meddling.

So no one should be surprised that Putin has shown no concern over a meaningful response from Obama to  moving troops into Crimea under a pretext everyone knows is false.  Or, as seems inevitable, to the eventual annexation of Crimea which it which most experts say would be a violation of international law.

It was pointed out here, and also by Hillary Clinton which the news media immediately distorted for their own purposes, that Hitler used precisely the same pretext to send German troops into the Sudetenland in 1938 -- ostensibly to protect German speaking people from gang violence (of which there was no evidence) because the government in Czechoslovakia was incapable of protecting them.

This is the rationale Putin is using for invading Crimea.  Had Obama himself pointed out the same historical truth, given history and how the Nazis had killed tens of millions of Russians, that historical fact could have had a much stronger affect on Putin  than any of Obama's proposed "limited sanctions". At the very least it would put him on the defensive and force him to try and explain why it's not the same both internationally and to the Russian people.

Instead there's been virtual silence from Obama, except for the occasional political cliche like Putin "being on the wrong side of history",  while the historical truth grows more similar everyday.  Russian troops, or local militias supported by Russian troops have been acting like storm troopers, threatening unarmed civilians, shutting down Ukrainian TV stations,  replacing them with Russian propaganda, attacking and roughing up unarmed journalists, and conspicuously masking their faces,a virtual admission they are behaving like criminals.

Most recently, there was the erecting of barbed wire on the border between Crimea and eastern Ukraine by these militia, the surrounding of Ukrainian military bases and demands of surrender, and the threat that Putin might push even further into Ukraine, all of which has so far brought nothing of substance from Obama or the NATO countries the U.S. ostensibly leads.

Certainly Obama could have done more even in the war of words. Obama could have accepted Putin's claim that the military on the ground wasn't Russian (as preposterous as most observers say that claim is) and turn it against him.

By accepting Putin's claim, Obama could have  issued a warning to those "local militias" that if they provoked a military confrontation, if they attacked Ukrainian forces, or unarmed civilians,  the U.S. would have no choice but to defend Ukraine against attacks in accordance with its 1994 defense agreement with Ukraine to defend it in return for the Ukraine giving up it's nuclear arsenal. What could Putin do? Claim they are Russian soldiers after all and warn that the U.S. is risking a conflict with Russia when the U.S.could say it is only doing what Putin himself claimed to be doing,  protecting people from violence?

Obama could have even invited  Putin to join the U.S. and NATO and send in Russian forces to Crimea in a joint operation to help protect citizens from violence and help keep the peace. What could Putin say to that? No?

Instead Putin is only getting threats of limited, targeted and as yet  unannounced sanctions. No response or warning against the thuggery being carried out against unarmed Ukrainian civilians,the  military threats against the Ukrainian military and demands of surrender, or violence by so called local militias. Or Putin's intention to annex Crimea.

There is no indication Obama will have any kind of strong response to any of these things.  Which is the best reason in the world for the Russian president to have no second thoughts that he's been a hasty Putin.

White House Putin their heads together for Ukraine response and looking dazed and confused.

Although no one has mentioned it yet, (for diplomatic reasons or because it has completely escaped them?), Vladmir Putin's justification for his invasion of the Crimean peninsula is precisely the same justification given by Adolph Hitler for invading the Sudentenland inside Czechoslovakia in 1938 -- to protect the German speaking people from being oppressed by the Czech government.  He did this two years after taking the Rhineland in violation of the Versailles Treaty.

Consider this from a History of WWII:

 In 1938, Hitler ordered his generals to start to make plans for the invasion of Czechoslovakia. He also ordered Henlein and his followers to start to create trouble in the Sudetenland, therefore proving to the outside world that the Czech government was incapable of maintaining order in its own state. Hitler planned to use this chaos to put his army into the Sudetenland to restore law and order.

There has been incidents offered by Russia's UN ambassador, including a statement from the former president of the Ukraine which was clearly written for him,  of Russian speaking people and those feeling loyal to Russia in the Crimea being subjected to gang violence by pro-western Ukrainians, churches being destroyed and all civil authority breaking down,  which no journalist or anyone else on the ground  has seen or been able to substantiate. But according to Putin, Russian troops have been sent there only to restore law and order.

Whatever Putin's motives, news organizations continue to report that "the White House is scrambling for a response",  the operative word being "scrambling". Which shouldn't come as a surprise.

Obama's credibility on so many issues both foreign and domestic has taken so many hits it must be near impossible at this point to come up with a statement or policy that Russia or anyone else would take seriously. The best Obama has been able to do so far is say "there will be consequences"  and "costs" without being able to say what those costs will be. More recently Obama has said that "events in the Crimea are deeply troubling", something that comes from page 32 of the Politicians Book of Meaningless Cliches right before "Putin is on the wrong side of history".

The problem, as should be obvious by now, is that Obama, since the beginning of his presidency, has already reneged on so many declarations and backed down so many times on so many issues, not just in foreign policy but to Republicans on domestic issues, that there is little Obama can actually say that would matter which is making coming up with a response more difficult.

The most recent reminder is Obama's "red line" over Syria's use of chemical weapons and his promised missile strike if they were used, a red line that was washed away as soon as he faced even the smallest,  insignificant and politically and militarily ignorant domestic resistance  (MoveOn preposterously claimed their petition of 147,000 signatures against the missile strike  out of a membership of 8 million,  caused Obama to back down)  and instead of sticking by his own pledge, something Obama generally fails to do,  he decided to put the use of a missile strike for the killing of hundreds of civilians including children by a chemical attack, to a vote. And the vote was no.

As everyone, including,hopefully,  MoveOn,  knows by now, the result of backing down on the missile strike was that Assad continues to slaughter thousands of Syrians with an air force that would have been severely degraded by a missile strike on their air fields. On top of that Assad has not lived up to his agreement to destroy his chemical weapons since only 11% of his stockpile has been destroyed when the agreement called for all of it to have been destroyed long before now.

Which, as former Russian chess champion, activist and Putin hater, Garry Kasperov recently pointed out, led to Putin's belief that Obama could be steam rolled. Kasperov said at the time Obama reversed himself on the missile strike that there would be a price to pay in the future for Obama not standing by his "red line".  And Kasperov believes that future is now and its happening in the Ukraine.

But it wasn't just Syria. The world also saw the waffling by Obama over the upheavals in Egypt not knowing whether to back Mubarak as he first did, or side with the demonstrators and military. He was then in a quandry over whether to side with the military when the Muslim Brotherhood was overthrown. There was the same waffling over Libya which led France and Great Britain, tired of waiting for Obama to make up his mind, decided on their own to send fighter jets against Ghaddafi's forces. And they did it without even informing Obama first.

Which means it might well be up to Europe again to lead in the Ukraine and for the U.S. to follow. Because as Kasperov pointed out, Putin sees Obama as a weak opponent, and one that he can checkmate because of moves Obama didn't make in Syria and beyond. 

Many foreign policy experts say that once demonstrations and violence broke out as a result of the governments refusal to make a deal with the EU and Ukraine's president who opposed the deal was forced out by angry demonstrators, the Obama administration should have predicted or been prepared for the Russian response. Or, as some Republicans and even some Democrats charge as to the weakness of Obama foreign policy, the proof is in the Putin.

 (Note: Yesterday, after this was written,  Hillary Clinton pointed out as I did, that Putin used exactly the same justifcation, and many say pretext,  for sending troops to the Crimea as Hitler did for his invasion and eventual annexation of the Sudetenland in 1938 as noted in the excerpt I cited in the second paragraph. 

Today,  CNN, in what can only be called more sleazy, tabloid style sensationalist journalism simplemindedly exclaimed that Clinton had compared Putin to Hitler. Wolf Blitzer blared "Hillary Clinton compares Putin to Hitler! Is she right? Stay tuned. We'll discuss it after the break!". The same nonsense was delievered by the cliche ridden JD Tapper also accusing Clinton of comparing Putin to Hitler, ("did she go too far???) Of course she did not compare Putin to Hitler, which seemed to reveal the lousy reading comprehension of Blitzer and Tapper and their editors,  but pointed out the identical historical justification used by both, almost verbatim,  which was obviously too much for both Blitzer and Tapper to comprehend. 

Instead of pointing out the FACT and historical accuracy of both men using the same pretext, and whether or not it was potentially significant, CNN did what it always does -- it went for the cheap shot, ignoring the substance and importance of the comparison and ignoring the axiom that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, a  lesson obviously too sophisticated for anchors and editors at CNN which is probably why they've hit a twenty year low in their ratings.)

The weak and tepid response of gays to the new Kansas anti-gay bill.

Someone ought to remind people who call themselves progressive or believe in liberal principles that the country was founded by liberals and its constitution is a product of the most liberal thinking in the history of  human civilization. Maybe then they'll stop being so defensive, weak and timid when it comes to standing up for principles they believe in and will get tough.

The Kansas state House just passed a bill that allows anyone to refuse services of any kind to gays or same sex couples if it "is contrary to their sincere their religious beliefs".

The legislature has said the purpose of the bill is to protect businesses and individuals from having to serve or provide products and services to same sex couples who don't want to provide them on religious grounds from being sued.

The official response of a gay organization spokesperson to this is that the bill is "nothing more than a bill designed to treat gays and lesbians as second class citizens".

My response to their response is "duh".

The purpose of the bill is clearly to treat gays and same sex couples as second class citizens. Actually the purpose of the bill is to treat gays and lesbians as not being citizens at all.  But is that the best gay and lesbian organizations can do for a response?

How about getting tough?

How about pointing out that the bill violates the establishment clause of the first amendment, violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, will never pass constitutional muster, will never be upheld by any court much less the Supreme Court, and is another example of one more state thinking they can impose their religious beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be, on people who don't share them and deny an individual's constitutional rights in order to enforce them.

They could also add that  same sex couples who are denied anything based on their orientation will sue anyone they want to sue and for any amount they wish for discrimination and that any business relying on this law who thinks denying services is going to prevent them from being sued is delusional.  And if the law is ruled unconstitiutional which it almost certainly will be,  they are going to lose and its going to cost them.

They might also point out that once again, as with abortion, the Kansas legislature as has been the case with others like them, continues to waste state taxpayers time and money by passing a law that will probably be ruled unconstitutional by a lower court federal judge who will then most likely grant an injunction against the law preventing it from going into effect which will put anyone who denied services to a same sex couple behind the 8 ball in a law suit not to mention that the legislature will waste even more state tax payer money, millions probably,  trying to defend it all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary and then lose.

They could have said all that. Maybe now they will.

NOTE: Maybe no one will have respond after all. While the bill passed the Kansas House handlily the Republican led state senate has gotten nervous about the bill.

 Susan Wagle, the Republican president of the senate issued a statements saying she is "concerned about the practical impact of the bill' and went on to say she didnt think the majority of Republicans in the senate will support it.

ADDENDUM (2/21/14): The Arizona legislature has just passed a bill similar to the one passed by the Kansas House. The response to the Arizona law and its clear unconstitutionality by gays and others who support equal rights has been more vocal than Kansas. There is a good chance Governor Brewer will veto the bill as outside pressure mounts against the bill. 

NOTE: As most know by now,Governor Brewer vetoed the Arizona bill. More recently the Kentucky Attorney General has announced we will refuse to defend the ban on gay marriage passed by the Kentucky legislature and struck down by a federal judge. The Governor of Kentucky has said he will hire outside legal help to defend the ban.

 Perhaps what's needed is making the point forcefully to other state legislatures that pretend fiscal conservatism (if equal rights and the constitution isn't their cup of tea) that they are wasting their time and their tax payers money trying to pass and defend laws that will never see the light of day.

Rand Paul and wife trash Bill Clinton, Martin Luther King, JFK, Eisenhower and FDR.

Senator Rand Paul's wife caused a stir a few weeks ago when she trashed Bill Clinton in an interview in Vogue magazine over his  affair with Monica Lewinsky 21 years ago in what was apparently an orchestrated and  transparent attempt at a political hatchet job. And for two reasons: first, to lay a groundwork to  damage Hillary Clinton in a future presidential run, whom they tried to tie to the Lewinsky matter as if she had anything to do with it.  But more importantly to reduce Bill Clinton's influence both politically and in fund raising for the Kentucky senate race where Republican minority leader Mitch McConnell is trailing the Democratic challenger Allison Grimes and by a substantial margin but is leading Grimes in fundraising. Which is where Bill Clinton comes in.He plans on going to Kentucky to fund raise for Grimes.
Hence the hatchet job by reviving Lewinsky.

A few days after the interview broke Rand Paul in what seems like a tag team play, came out to defend his wife's comments and upped the ante by calling  Bill Clinton a "sexual predator" and said that, laughably, Democrats who have contributions raised by Clinton should give the money back. To which Democrats should have replied, (but haven't) "Nice try".  Paul then defined Clinton as a "sexual predator" for being " a boss who used his authority to take advantage of women" describing Lewinsky as a "female subordinate".

 But if  its morality that's motivating Paul, then based on his own definition of  Clinton as a"sexual predator" he also has to stand up, if he wants to be taken seriously,  and say the same is true about JFK, Martin Luther King, Dwight Eisenhower when he was Supreme Allied Commander during WWII, and FDR. To name just a few. He has to call them all sexual predators according to Paul's definition in his attacks against Clinton.

JFK's affairs are already well known and they weren't just with movie stars but with women who worked as secretaries in the White House. Martin Luther King had an affair with a young civil rights worker who worked for him -- "a female subordinate" -- which we know about thanks to his motel room being illegally bugged by J.Edgar Hoover. Dwight Eisenhower had an affair with Kay Summersby, a female British officer assigned to Eisenhower as his assistant and personal driver while Eisenhower was in London planning the D-Day invasion. Another female subordinate.  And it was also well known that FDR hadnt slept with Eleanor for years even before he was in the White House and had a secret amour  and confidant even if she didn't work directly at the White House.

So the only way to take Paul and his wife seriously is if they're willing to define these other men as "sexual predators" too. And say so publicly.  If they don't, that does more to define Paul and his wife than it does Bill Clinton. And exposes their comments as nothing more than more gutter politics.

Paul said two others things which seem to reveal his true motives: he displayed a staggering ignorance of the facts  surrounding the Lewinsky affair which is usually the case when people are too busy throwing stones to care that they don't know what they're talking about. According to Paul "the news media gave Bill Clinton a pass on the Lewinsky affair." This alone makes Paul look so stupid that its virtually impossible not to laugh at him or to take anything else he has to say seriously.

From the time the story first broke the news media treated the story as a journalistic gold mine. They began doing stories on Lewinsky 24/7  framing it as the beginning of the end of Clinton's presidency. That's hardly giving Clinton a pass. Sam Donaldson at ABC News predicted Clinton would have to resign "within days" (which he didnt) and that it was the end of his presidency (which it wasnt). For the record, on the day Clinton was impeached on a strict party line vote by Republicans his approval rating stood at 66%.

The news media, far from giving Clinton a pass,  wrung every last bit of political soap opera they could out of the Lewinsky story for ratings and newsstand sales. The president of MSNBC said at the time he was going to use the Lewinsky affair to put the new MSNBC start - up network on the map and said he would use the Lewinsky story the way ABC used the Iranian hostage crisis to establish Nightline.

CNN was no better. For them it was All Monica All the Time. When Lewinsky showed up for her grand jury testimony CNN showed the same 7 seconds of  footage of Lewinsky getting out of the back of an SUV 30-40  times in succession ( an obnoxious practice they still employ) during a segment on her testimony. And when Clinton testified to a grand jury conducted at the White House, CNN put up a live shot of the White House with a timer that counted the hours minutes and seconds that had passed during Clinton's testimony as Wolf Blitzer droned on in the background. To say the news media gave Clinton a pass alone invalidates anything else Paul has to say or will have to say on the subject. (It was telling that at the height of the Lewinsky frenzy Walter Cronkite invited Clinton to join him on his sloop at Martha's Vineyard for a photo-op. That one photo of Cronkite with Clinton released to the media with Cronkite's blessing neutralized every word, story,opinion and photo used by Republicans and everyone in the news media regarding the Lewinsky circus).

Doing even more damage to his credibility, Paul made statements that proved he either wasn't paying attention at the time, didn't read the Starr Report, or is just ignorant. Testimony by Lewinsky herself and her voice on  illegal wire taps by Republican stooge Linda Tripp who illegally recorded her private conversations with Lewinsky,  made it clear that she, Lewinsky was the huntress and Clinton the prey.Not the other way around as Paul tries to assert. It wasn't Clinton taking advantage of his "position of authority"  to seduce Lewinsky. It was the other way around.  Lewinsky was hardly a victim except at the hands of Linda Tripp  who betrayed their friendship for what she hoped would be political gain for the Republicans and committed 30 felonies to do it (for which she was given immunity by Starr). Lewinsky was also a victim of Ken Starr another Republican tool who so abused his authority as special counsel,  Starr's own ethics advisor quit.

For the edification of Rand Paul and his wife, Lewinsky had told people including Tripp almost as soon as she had her job at the White House that she was going to seduce Clinton. She was flirtatious, sexually suggestive in his presence and in one incident when they were alone, lifted her dress and showed Clinton her thong.

If anyone wants to accuse Clinton of  a personal weakness for letting himself get seduced in that circumstance or say he betrayed his marriage, (which, by the way, is no one else's business)  no one can argue against it. But if the moral position of Paul and his wife is that Clinton is a "sexual predator" because Lewinsky was a "female subordinate" in a work place situation,   then let them say the same about JFK, King, Eisenhower and FDR whose affairs fit the same definition. They should include them in their moral crusade.  Or they should shut up. Unless they are hoping that the news media will be as amoral as ever and use their statements to dredge up what was once their greatest golden egg.

One further note: Notice that Paul as a self appointed bastion of political and human morality has had nothing to say about Louisiana Republican senator David Vitter who was caught a couple of years ago cheating on his wife with prostitutes provided by the Washington D.C. Madam. So it seems for Paul and his wife morality is selective.Based on political party. Or agenda.  Or maybe its because Vitter paid for his liasons and Paul and his wife just see it as a business transaction. After all, we all  know how much Republicans like to support small business.