This (flag-waving) evening's Rescue Rangers are YatPundit, grog, Unitary Moonbat, Got a Grip, & Claude; while jlms qkw drove the editmobile on the parade route.

Please consider leaving a comment or rec (where possible) for these under-noticed diarists.

jm214 saw a bumper sticker asking for A Fourth Helping of "Freedom Fries," please---, which inspired him to reflect on what he'd actually been fighting for back in Vietnam. (Unitary Moonbat)

GreyHawk explains the power of patriotism through progressive eyes in Founded, Not Forsaken: A Republic (if you can keep it). (Got a Grip)

RDemocrat looks at how far we haven't come over 234 years in On Independence Day... (grog)

zenbassoon offers us a sample of what the Fourth of July is all about in We The People. (YatPundit)

Carol Hoernlein wants to know How long must our disabled veterans wait for help? (Got a Grip)

ban nock tells of a trek on The Trail to Nambo (with photos) and takes us on a nature walk through the flora and fauna of Laos. (Unitary Moonbat)

srsjones attends a July 4th parade and offers up these Reflections of Two Streets in Silver City, New Mexico. (grog)

jotter keeps the data on its toes in both High Impact Diaries: July 3, 2010 and Week's High Impact Diaries: June 26 - July 2, 2010.

sardonyx shares Top Comments: Taking a Holiday Edition.

Enjoy the balm for the meta-burned soul, and share your favorite diaries, holiday stories, or other news in this open thread.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) was formerly adopted by the UN General Assembly on September 13, 2007. Out of 159 votes (or abstentions), the United States and Canada remain the sole "no" votes on record. Both nations are now considering either endorsement (in the case of Canada) or a review of the Declaration (United States).

I cannot understand why so many chiefs are allowed to talk so many different ways, and promise so many different things. I have seen the Great Father Chief (President Hayes); the Next Great Chief (Secretary of the Interior); the Commissioner Chief; the Law Chief; and many other law chiefs (Congressmen) and they all say they are my friends, and that I shall have justice, but while all their mouths talk right I do not understand why nothing is done for my people. I have heard talk and talk but nothing is done. Good words do not last long unless they amount to something.

Chief Joseph, 1879, Washington D.C.

You have until July 15th, if you want input into the process, to send email or write to the US Department of State.

All interested parties...

The U.S. Government looks forward to hearing from all interested parties as it undertakes its review of the Declaration. The U.S. Department of State, together with other Federal agencies, will be holding consultations with federally recognized Indian tribes and meetings with interested nongovernmental organizations and other stakeholders on the review of the Declaration. Exact dates and locations will be announced on this website. Anyone unable to participate in these consultations or meetings in person can send comments by email to declaration@state.gov or by mail to S/SR Global Intergovernmental Affairs, U.S. Department of State, 2201 C Street NW., Suite 1317, Washington, DC 20520. Please send written comments by July 15, 2010 to ensure that they can be given due consideration in the review.

On September 13, 2007, 144 nations voted in favor of the resolution, eleven nations abstained (Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Samoa and Ukraine), and four nations voted against the resolution – Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States.

In the interim years, Australia (2009) and New Zealand (2010) have changed their votes to favorable support. In addition, Colombia and Samoa removed their abstention and now endorse the Declaration.

Earlier this year, Canada’s Governor General, Michaëlle Jean indicated that Canada will move towards endorsement of the Declaration; this appears to be a "qualified" endorsement.

"A growing number of states have given qualified recognition to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Our Government will take steps to endorse this aspirational document in a manner fully consistent with Canada’s Constitution and laws."
Speech from the Throne
March 3, 2010
 

A little more than a month later on April 20th, the US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, announced the upcoming US review of the Declaration:

...I am pleased to announce that the United States has decided to review our position regarding the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We recognize that, for many around the world, this Declaration provides a framework for addressing indigenous issues. During President Obama’s first year in office, tribal leaders encouraged the United States to reexamine its position on the Declaration — an important recommendation that directly complements our commitment to work together with the international community on the many challenges that indigenous peoples face. We will be conducting a formal review of the Declaration and the U.S. position on it. And as we move ahead, we look forward to consulting extensively with our valued and experienced colleagues in the federally recognized Indian tribes and interested nongovernmental organizations.  

Is the tide changing? Will the United States and Canada climb to higher moral ground?  Two nations still on the wrong side of history, neighbor nations with large populations of indigenous peoples, nations with long histories of collective indigenous abuse.

The US objections to the Declaration in 2007 during the Bush administration were several. The central disagreements were focused on both the use of the term "indigenous" (too broad, too undefined) and the perceived lack of specific procedures and actions that could be taken in the event of dispute over interpretation of the Articles in the Declaration. Note:  I’m loosely and simplistically interpreting the core wording in the objection, a summary of which can be found here - Position of the United States on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

There are extensive counter arguments to these objections – enough to write a book. For those interested in further research, I’ve included some annotated links below.

It’s imperative to remember that this Declaration, even as a Resolution passed in the General Assembly, is a nonbinding resolution. This fact makes the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples no less important as an underpinning of policy for indigenous rights across nations, across boundaries, over resources, and in the international interests of preserving cultures, languages, and the existentially threatened populations on every continent.

The birth and subsequent development of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has been decades in the making.  The process technically began in 1982, when the first Working Group on Indigenous Populations was formed. The initial draft of the Declaration was created in 1985.

However, in reality, the foundations of this Declaration were laid much earlier.

From a purely national, United States parochial point of view, the rights of indigenous peoples have been raised, debated, and trampled under most treaties negotiated between the indigenous and those on the other side of the bargaining table.

Through the lens of history, elevating the rights of indigenous peoples was apparently first attempted at a global level in 1923 during the short life of the ill-fated League of Nations. (See ojibwa’s  Indians 101: American Indians & the United Nations,  February 11, 2010.)

Levi General (also known as "Deskaheh", Haudenosaunee Chief Deskaheh), a Cayuga of the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy, traveled to Geneva, Switzerland as Six Nations spokesman in an attempt to gain sovereign nation support and recognition from the League of Nations. In the early 1920’s after WWI, the Canadian government moved towards dissolution of the previously recognized sovereign rights of the Six Nations. Government officials and troops seized land and artifacts, and performed other actions in abrogation of long-standing treaties between the Six Nations Confederacy and both US and Canadian governments.

Deskaheh was inevitably rejected by the majority body of the League of Nations, though some nations verbally supported his cause.  His efforts to be heard by the League were exhaustive, but ultimately unsuccessful over many months.

Before returning to North America, Deskaheh and George Decker, the lawyer from New York State who traveled with him, scheduled an appearance that many of the European press attended  (a press conference in today’s terms). Aloys Derso, a well-known journalist of the time whose established press "beat" covered the League of Nations, related the following:

...he (Deskaheh) repeated a passage from the Treaty of 1784, as worded by Sir Frederick Haldimand, governor-in-chief of Quebec and territories depending hereon:

"I do hereby in his Majesty's name, authorize and permit the said Mohawk nation and such other of the Six Nations Indians as wish to settle in that quarter to take possession of and settle upon the banks of the river commonly called Ouse or Grand River...which them and their posterity are to enjoy forever."

Then he recited the tale of the broken pledge, the raid of the Royal Mounted Police, the rummaging of his own house, the building of the police barracks, the seizure of the sacred wampum. The story would be incredible without evidence, he said. But he had foreseen this and had the proofs with him. Then he lifted the lid of the suitcase and with care and reverence drew from within the old headed wampum on which might be read the sworn agreements of' white governments with his people. Speaking with deep feeling, translating these documents slowly and impressively, stopping now and then to make clear the meanings of the bead colors and of the representations of the symbols, he made his entranced listeners feel that this was not the narration of the grievances of a small racial unit, but the story of all minority peoples - the tragedy of every small nation that is a neighbor to a larger one.

When he finished, there was a moment of silence - then a roar of a tremendous ovation. Thousands rose to their feet to cheer him and the great hall echoed and re-echoed with their applause. Straight, unsmiling, impassive, he waited until after many minutes the sound began to wane. Then, still expressionless he left the platform.

Iroquois Patriot's Fight for International Recognition

Once again, if you want input into the process, you have until July 15th.

It’s long past time to be on the right side of history, on the better road to the future, Uncle Sam.

For the full text of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, click here.

Additional references

UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
– Eighteen page PDF file containing text of the Declaration.

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Towards Re-empowerment   - Two law professors, discussion of counter arguments to the objections raised by the US in 2007.

Time to adopt the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
– Offers a reasonably concise, bulleted list of reasons why the Declaration should be endorsed by the US, including points on which US law already follows the policies advocated in the Declaration.

2010 White House Tribal Nations Conference Progress Report
– This is what it says it is. The report covers many issues also enumerated in the UN Declaration document.

The work and process beyond the final adoption  (140 pages)
– Fascinating 180+ page document that details a lot of the process of drafting the Declaration and the obstacles and objections individual indigenous stakeholders had to overcome (or not) during the drafting. This is related from the point of view of the Norwegian indigenous delegation. The document is from the Norwegian Ministry of Culture-supported Indigenous Peoples website.

Position of the United States on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
– This is the text of the summary of the objections presented by the US representative at the September 13, 2007 General Assembly vote on the Declaration. I searched and searched and have not been able to find the actual Objection document. It is no longer on the UN site or the US State Department site.

The Declaration's Discussion at the General Assembly
– More documentation of the discussion apparently on the floor of the General Assembly.

General Assembly Adopts Declaration On Rights Of Indigenous Peoples
– UN press release.

Implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights Of Indigenous Peoples
– Example of an organization that is currently working on policy decisions based around the adoption of the Declaration, including the importance of inclusion of indigenous groups on global issues like climate change and allocation of natural resources.

A New Dawn for Indigenous Peoples Rights
– An interesting graduate paper that discusses whether, and how, the content and Articles of the Declaration fit tenets of "customary international law or general principles of international law". These concepts are manipulated in the 2007 objections put forth by the US, with the US implication being that the Declaration is basically not "sound enough" (my emphasis) to stand as an international policy-making instrument.

Chief Joseph, Hin-mah-too-yah-lat-kekt, 1879, Washington D.C.

At last I was granted permission to come to Washington and bring my friend Yellow Bull and our interpreter with me. I am glad I came. I have shaken hands with a good many friends, but there are some things I want to know which no one seems able to explain. I cannot understand how the Government sends a man out to fight us, as it did General Miles, and then breaks his word. Such a government has something wrong about it. I cannot understand why so many chiefs are allowed to talk so many different ways, and promise so many different things. I have seen the Great Father Chief (President Hayes); the Next Great Chief (Secretary of the Interior); the Commissioner Chief; the Law Chief; and many other law chiefs (Congressmen) and they all say they are my friends, and that I shall have justice, but while all their mouths talk right I do not understand why nothing is done for my people. I have heard talk and talk but nothing is done. Good words do not last long unless they amount to something. Words do not pay for my dead people. They do not pay for my country now overrun by white men. They do not protect my father's grave. They do not pay for my horses and cattle. Good words do not give me back my children. Good words will not make good the promise of your war chief, General Miles. Good words will not give my people a home where they can live in peace and take care of themselves. I am tired of talk that comes to nothing. It makes my heart sick when I remember all the good words and all the broken promises. There has been too much talking by men who had no right to talk. Too many misinterpretations have been made; too many misunderstandings have come up between the white men and the Indians. If the white man wants to live in peace with the Indian he can live in peace. There need be no trouble. Treat all men alike. Give them the same laws. Give them all an even chance to live and grow. All men were made by the same Great Spirit Chief. They are all brothers. The earth is the mother of all people, and all people should have equal rights upon it.

********

Whenever the white man treats the Indian as they treat each other then we shall have no more wars. We shall be all alike -- brothers of one father and mother, with one sky above us and one country around us and one government for all. Then the Great Spirit Chief who rules above will smile upon this land and send rain to wash out the bloody spots made by brothers' hands upon the face of the earth. For this time the Indian race is waiting and praying.

Hin-mah-too-yah-lat-kekht has spoken for his people.

"They're snuffing out the America that I grew up in"

Rep. John Boehner, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 6/29/10

I don't know the America John Boehner grew up in.

I don't know what it's like for a high school graduate to be able to get a union job at a factory and earn enough money to support a wife and kids. I don't know what it's like to be born at a hospital and have my parents rejoice at my birth rather than cower in fear of the bill. I don't know what it's like to have food, clothing and housing expenses constitute reasonable percentage of household income.

I don't know what it's like to grow up as child without fear of gangs, crooked police, and a proliferation of guns and ammo. I don't know what it's like to get a job as a paperboy or delivery boy because those jobs are done by adults. I don't know what it's like to come home to momma or poppa every day because one wage earner can support a family. I don't know what it's like to attend well-financed public schools with well-paid teachers that are the envy of the world. I certainly don't know what it's like to attend an inexpensive private school like John Boehner did because today only the wealthy can afford private school.

I don't know what it's like to have shop class in high school or apprentice programs to learn a trade. I don't know what it's like to be able to simply pick a college, write them a letter, and then attend. One has to hire a consultant these days and I couldn't afford that. I don't know what it's like to have no worries about my parents mortgaging their home to finance my education. I don't know what it's like to get through college without amassing a mountain of debt and ruined credit. I don't know what it's like to have multiple job prospects upon graduation.

I don't know what it's like to look forward to 30 years at one company. I don't even know what it's like to have one profession! I can't even begin to fathom what it must have been like to have an inexpensive, reliable vehicle to go from place to place. Good roads to go from place to place. Inexpensive gas to get from place to place. Public transportation that didn't take 15 percent of a paycheck. I don't know what it's like never having to choose between food and gas to get to work every day.

I don't know what it's like to go to a bank and be offered one type of 30-year fixed rate mortgage. I don't know what it's like not to have to worry about bank fees that cost more than small household appliances. Usury laws. Boy, those must have been nice! There were all those heavy regulations on banks that were in place since the 1930's. John Boehner didn't have to worry about financial crashes during his first 37 years of life because there weren't any. Since deregulation began in 1982, I've had three.

I don't know what it's like to live under a government that looked out for ordinary people. Never have. I don't know what it's like to have a government that did great things like build national highway systems or explore the heavens. Or alleviate poverty in city centers and far-away mountains. I don't know what it's like to never have to worry about the national debt. That's because in John Boehner's America rich people paid taxes. I bet it was really awesome to live in an America that was a net exporter rather than importer. A nation that was a creditor and not a debtor. A nation where the brightest minds and best salaries went into science and engineering rather than banking and advertising.

I don't know what it's like to know there is a pension waiting for me when I retire. I've got to risk it on the stock market or else I'm surely screwed, assuming I'll have any money to save. Maybe if I can overcome 29.9 percent credit card rates, disappearing private sector unions, $100,000 student loans, 15-year adjustable-rate-mortgages, kids at underfunded, inadequate public schools, health insurance that costs more than food, the saving up of the 401(k) and then cashing in of the 401(k) and then saving up of the 401(k) again, maybe I'll just barely have some inkling of the America John Boehner grew up in.

I do know what it's like to have very low taxes. Hooray.

John Boehner grew up in an America ruled by FDR's Democratic majority. I grew up in an America ruled by Ronald Reagan's Republican majority. The America he grew up is already "snuffed out." I doubt he will ever realize that it was people like him who did the snuffing.

It's quite a rare thing for what is widely accepted as the more moderate position to actually be the more sinister. But nowhere is that more true than in the politics of choice. To examine this more closely, let's take a look at the candidate who managed to escape from the insane asylum that is the Nevada GOP and challenge Harry Reid for his Senate seat: Sharron Angle.

In a recent wide-ranging interview that fully demonstrated the depths of her extremism, Angle had this to say about the right to an abortion:

   Manders: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?

   Angle: Not in my book.

   Manders: So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?

   Angle: You know, I’m a Christian and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.

Yes, Sharron Angle believes that if you are a woman and you are impregnated by a rapist or an abusive family member, that your ill treatment was all part of God's plan, and to be fair to it, you really ought to let your rapist's child come to full term. If you don't, then you are interfering with God's plan for you and your ill-begotten child. And keep in mind as well that this child's life began at conception, according to Angle--which means that even if you did decide to interfere with God's plan, you shouldn't legally be able to because it would constitute murder.

Now, those of us who favor reproductive rights in this country are fortunate: Angle's position is in a distinct minority, according to the most recent polling available, supported by only about 15 percent of the population. The fact that 15 out of every 100 people in this country support theocracy is a sobering thought, but at least it is an intellectually consistent one.

After all, if you were firmly convinced that God breathes a soul into a union of zygotes the moment sperm meets egg and the result divides from one cell into two, and it's the termination of this soul that makes murder the crime it is, then it stands to reason that you would, in your belief system, consider abortion to be murder--and that the resultant murder (in your view, of course) of millions of children every year would obviously be your main public policy concern. No other issue would loom as large, and no alternative could possibly be brooked besides a complete elimination of murder as viable public policy.

So much for that.

But now, let's take a look at the more "moderate" position: those who favor some restrictions on a woman's right to choose. According to the polling referenced above, this position holds a plurality with regard to American opinion on this issue, with 44 percent favoring it. Now, it's hard to know where that near-majority breaks down. Technically speaking, the ideas "I don't think an elective third-trimester abortion should be permissible" and "I don't think it should be legal except in cases of rape" would likely both be counted in polling as favoring "some restrictions" even though there's a large philosophical difference between the two. But for the sake of argument, let us consider the "middle ground" on this issue: the idea that abortion should be acceptable in case of rape, incest and medical emergencies, but illegal in other cases.

This may seem like a more moderate position, but let's consider one fact. First, the mere granting of any exemptions whatsoever is proof that the fetus is not the overriding concern. After all: a life created through a violent act of rape is no less innocent than one consciously created through the physical act of a married couple very much in love. That, of course, only leaves one notion as the overriding concern: Blame.

The issue here is simple: those in the category who would permit an abortion only in the circumstances of crime view the fetus not as a person, but rather as an inconvenience. They support a concrete punishment involving the supposed shame of pregnancy, the pain of childbirth, and lastly, a choice between either the expense and difficulty of raising a child or the emotional turmoil of giving one up for adoption. This attitude is not one that respects life, but one that seeks to use it as a bargaining chip in exchange for the social engineering of female sexual and economic repression.

When we take a look at the positions of a candidate like Sharron Angle, we should call them exactly what they are: extremist; theocratic; far outside the mainstream; dangerous. But we would make a mistake to assume that the position that seems more immediately toward the center is in fact inherently less dangerous. On the contrary, it promotes an ideology and a view of the world that is actually more sexist, less respectful of life, and equally as unpalatable.

It was the scandal that never was, which was the true scandal. It was one of the most shameful episodes in the annals of climate change denialism, and given the desperate efforts of the corporate interests that profit so mightily off such staggering irresponsibility, that's no mean feat. But so many traditional media outlets have become little more than propaganda arms of their corporate owners that their obscuring, obfuscating and sometimes just plain lying about the scientific facts is just more of the same. It's only the most dangerous crisis humanity has ever faced, but to them that's less important than their rapacious greed. It's time for a bloggers' ethics conference. 

The real story was that thieves hacked the private emails of respected climate scientists. That's a crime. That should have been at least part of the focus of the reporting: a false scandal was being concocted by people who were, at face value, criminals. But the larger part of the story was that it was a deliberate effort to distort and distract from the scientific facts. That, too, should have been at least part of the reporting. Instead, so many major media outlets played along, ignoring the criminality, and propagating the distortions and lies exactly as the criminals wanted. Even though the distortions and lies were easily debunked. All it took was intelligence and integrity, rarely found in the major media, although they could be found, elsewhere.

One of the best concise refutations of the false scandal came from our own DarkSyde, one of those lowly blogger types. Brian Angliss of Scholars & Rogues provided one of the best comprehensive refutations, in a series of posts: here, here, here, and here. Another of those bloggers. And a couple weeks back, Salon's Alex Pareene had what should be, but certainly won't be, the false scandal's death knell:

It was obvious to anyone who actually bothered to read the stolen "climategate" emails that they didn't actually contain anything particularly scandalous, and they certainly didn't contain anything at all that remotely called into the question the legitimacy of years of science demonstrating the effect of human activity on climate change.

But once the name "climategate" was affixed to the trumped-up non-scandal and printed in large type in a major newspaper, it didn't matter what the emails said. Not a whit. Emails, scandal, "-gate" -- there must be something to this!

There wasn't.

He points to a Newsweek article by Sharon Begley:

A lie can get halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on, as Mark Twain said (or “before the truth gets a chance to put its pants on,” in Winston Churchill’s version), and nowhere has that been more true than in "climategate." In that highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal, e-mails hacked from computers at the University of East Anglia’s climate-research group were spread around the Web by activists who deny that human activity is altering the world’s climate in a dangerous way, and spun so as to suggest that the scientists had been lying, cheating, and generally cooking the books.

But not only did British investigators clear the East Anglia scientist at the center of it all, Phil Jones, of scientific impropriety and dishonesty in April, an investigation at Penn State cleared PSU climatologist Michael Mann of “falsifying or suppressing data, intending to delete or conceal e-mails and information, and misusing privileged or confidential information” in February. In perhaps the biggest backpedaling, The Sunday Times of London, which led the media pack in charging that IPCC reports were full of egregious (and probably intentional) errors, retracted its central claim—namely, that the IPCC statement that up to 40 percent of the Amazonian rainforest could be vulnerable to climate change was “unsubstantiated.” The Times also admitted that it had totally twisted the remarks of one forest expert to make it sound as if he agreed that the IPCC had screwed up, when he said no such thing.

And she quotes the retraction:

The article also quoted criticism of the IPCC’s use of the WWF report by Dr Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow at the University of Leeds and leading specialist in tropical forest ecology. We accept that, in his quoted remarks, Dr Lewis was making the general point that both the IPCC and WWF should have cited the appropriate peer-reviewed scientific research literature. As he made clear to us at the time, including by sending us some of the research literature, Dr Lewis does not dispute the scientific basis for both the IPCC and the WWF reports’ statements on the potential vulnerability of the Amazon rainforest to droughts caused by climate change. . . .  A version of our article that had been checked with Dr Lewis underwent significant late editing and so did not give a fair or accurate account of his views on these points. We apologise for this.

That last section is astonishing, and demands clarification. Who was responsible for that late editing, and to what purpose? At the very least, it sounds like a case of profoundly incompetent journalism. But it seems at least as likely to have been a deliberate attempt to sabotage the truth, to concoct a false narrative, and to undermine efforts to raise the public awareness about climate change that might create the political climate necessary to deal with it. The retraction doesn't come close to going far enough, but it is a start.

The science of the issue long has been overwhelming. The international consensus of scientists leaves no doubt. But that rarely dents public consciousness the way this false scandal did. And the traditional media very much are to blame. The name "Climategate" went viral, whereas those scientific facts are pretty much ignored. Now that the truth is known, and the lies are revealed, will the traditional media begin to pay more attention to those scientific facts? We all know that the question answers itself. 

On the most important issue humanity has ever faced, one of the world's best-known newspapers was complicit in promoting lies and obfuscating the truth, becoming the Judith Millers of climate change. Many powerful media outlets played right along. Meanwhile, it was mostly left to lowly bloggers to investigate and report the reality. On this most important of issues, the difference between old media and new could not have been more explicitly delineated. In a word, it's called credibility. And despite its lack of credibility, the power of old media was revealed in Pareene's closing question:

Anyway now that The Times has corrected the record, everyone will agree to do something about carbon emissions, right?

Of course, if new media were as powerful as old, it would be impossible for politicians to avoid that question. Because the public, worldwide, wouldn't allow them to. 

• With her Senate seat in jeopardy, the White House came to the aid of Blanche Lincoln. This was how she repaid the debt:

  Sen. Blanche Lincoln, one of the chief architects of the financial-regulation overhaul nearing completion in Congress, is pushing for a change that would benefit a bank in her home state of Arkansas.

  The bank, Arvest Bank Group Inc., of Bentonville, Ark., is predominantly owned by the Walton family, of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. fame, perhaps the most influential family in the state and one of the richest in the U.S.

  Unions bad; Wal-Mart Waltons good.

  White House officials have said they don't want changes that benefit specific companies, leery of the horse-trading that nearly sank their health-care overhaul. But the administration also can't afford to alienate Ms. Lincoln, head of the Senate Agriculture Committee, whose support on the broader overhaul is vital to its success.

  Perhaps, next year she will be working for Wal-Mart on their dime, rather than ours.

• Paul Krugman says Alan Simpson is a liar, and calls the Deficit Commission Simpson co-chairs a farce.
• Another surprise:

  In its long struggle to grapple with sexual abuse, the Vatican often cites as a major turning point the decision in 2001 to give the office led by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger the authority to cut through a morass of bureaucracy and handle abuse cases directly.

  The decision, in an apostolic letter from Pope John Paul II, earned Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, a reputation as the Vatican insider who most clearly recognized the threat the spreading sexual abuse scandals posed to the Roman Catholic Church.

  But church documents and interviews with canon lawyers and bishops cast that 2001 decision and the future pope’s track record in a new and less flattering light.

• Science Daily:

  In a report published online in Genome Research, researchers have found that the diversity of the first Americans has been significantly underestimated, underscoring the importance of comprehensive sampling for accurate analysis of human migrations....

  These findings raise the number of founding maternal lineages in North America to fifteen. Furthermore, this work emphasizes the critical need for comprehensive analysis of relevant populations to gather a complete picture of migratory events.

  Alessandro Achilli of the University of Perugia, a coauthor of the report, suggests that the number of distinct mitochondrial genomes that passed from Asian into North America is probably much higher.

• Having been scathingly critical of soon-to-be retired General Stanley McChrystal, it's only fair to point out that he is a social liberal who voted for President Obama, favored allowing gays to serve openly on the military, and disdained Faux News. His insubordination made it necessary for him to be removed from command, but life is never as simple as it sometimes seems.
• On the other hand, Arnold Schwarzenegger is still an ass.
• Starchild has died of cancer, which is sad enough, but there's also this:

  Benefit concerts to help pay Mr. Shider’s medical bills have been scheduled for July 10 in Plainfield and July 11 in Manhattan.

  People take for granted that legendary musicians have plenty of money, but the reality is far different. Despite its stature, P-Funk didn't have a lot of hits; and once again underscoring the depth of disaster that is our health care system, a man who brought so much joy to so many people died unable to pay his medical bills.

• With her Senate seat in jeopardy, the White House came to the aid of Blanche Lincoln. This was how she repaid the debt:

  Sen. Blanche Lincoln, one of the chief architects of the financial-regulation overhaul nearing completion in Congress, is pushing for a change that would benefit a bank in her home state of Arkansas.

  The bank, Arvest Bank Group Inc., of Bentonville, Ark., is predominantly owned by the Walton family, of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. fame, perhaps the most influential family in the state and one of the richest in the U.S.

  Unions bad; Wal-Mart Waltons good.

  White House officials have said they don't want changes that benefit specific companies, leery of the horse-trading that nearly sank their health-care overhaul. But the administration also can't afford to alienate Ms. Lincoln, head of the Senate Agriculture Committee, whose support on the broader overhaul is vital to its success.

  Perhaps, next year she will be working for Wal-Mart on their dime, rather than ours.

• Paul Krugman says Alan Simpson is a liar, and calls the Deficit Commission Simpson co-chairs a farce.
• Another surprise:

  In its long struggle to grapple with sexual abuse, the Vatican often cites as a major turning point the decision in 2001 to give the office led by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger the authority to cut through a morass of bureaucracy and handle abuse cases directly.

  The decision, in an apostolic letter from Pope John Paul II, earned Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, a reputation as the Vatican insider who most clearly recognized the threat the spreading sexual abuse scandals posed to the Roman Catholic Church.

  But church documents and interviews with canon lawyers and bishops cast that 2001 decision and the future pope’s track record in a new and less flattering light.

• Science Daily:

  In a report published online in Genome Research, researchers have found that the diversity of the first Americans has been significantly underestimated, underscoring the importance of comprehensive sampling for accurate analysis of human migrations....

  These findings raise the number of founding maternal lineages in North America to fifteen. Furthermore, this work emphasizes the critical need for comprehensive analysis of relevant populations to gather a complete picture of migratory events.

  Alessandro Achilli of the University of Perugia, a coauthor of the report, suggests that the number of distinct mitochondrial genomes that passed from Asian into North America is probably much higher.

• Having been scathingly critical of soon-to-be retired General Stanley McChrystal, it's only fair to point out that he is a social liberal who voted for President Obama, favored allowing gays to serve openly on the military, and disdained Faux News. His insubordination made it necessary for him to be removed from command, but life is never as simple as it sometimes seems.
• On the other hand, Arnold Schwarzenegger is still an ass.
• Starchild has died of cancer, which is sad enough, but there's also this:

  Benefit concerts to help pay Mr. Shider’s medical bills have been scheduled for July 10 in Plainfield and July 11 in Manhattan.

  People take for granted that legendary musicians have plenty of money, but the reality is far different. Despite its stature, P-Funk didn't have a lot of hits; and once again underscoring the depth of disaster that is our health care system, a man who brought so much joy to so many people died unable to pay his medical bills.

Liberals love the Constitution.

Ask anyone on the street. They'll tell you the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a liberal organization. During the dark days of the Bush Administration, membership doubled because so many Americans feared increasing restrictions on their civil liberties. If you were to ask liberals to list their top five complaints about the Bush Administration, and they would invariably say the words "shredding" and "Constitution" in the same sentence. They might also add "Fourth Amendment" and "due process."  It's possible they'll talk about "free speech zones" and "habeus corpus."

There's a good chance they will mention, probably in combination with several FCC-prohibited adjectives, former Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales.

And while liberals certainly do not argue for lawlessness, and will acknowledge the necessity of certain restrictions, it is generally understood that liberals fight to broadly interpret and expand our rights and to question the necessity and wisdom of any restrictions of them.  

Liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founders. They can argue at length against the tyranny of the government. And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.

Except for one: the right to keep and bear arms.

When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check rational thought at the door. They dismiss approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns, and those who fight to protect the Second Amendment, as "gun nuts." They argue for greater restrictions. And they pursue these policies at the risk of alienating voters who might otherwise vote for Democrats.

And they do so in a way that is wholly inconsistent with their approach to all of our other civil liberties.

Those who fight against Second Amendment rights cite statistics about gun violence, as if such numbers are evidence enough that our rights should be restricted. But Chicago and Washington DC, the two cities from which came the most recent Supreme Court decisions on Second Amendment rights, had some of the most restrictive laws in the nation, and also some of the highest rates of violent crime. Clearly, such restrictions do not correlate with preventing crime.

So rather than continuing to fight for greater restrictions on Second Amendment rights, it is time for liberals to defend Second Amendment rights as vigorously as they fight to protect all of our other rights. Because it is by fighting to protect each right that we protect all rights.

And this is why:

(Reasons below the fold)

For the second year in a row, Time has dropped Daily Kos onto their list of most overrated blogs (actually they've listed a blog called "The Daily Kos," so perhaps I'm wrong to be offended).

The complaint the real-deal journalists at Time have with DK?

...nothing, not even the oil spill or the faltering war in Afghanistan, has really catapulted anything on the Daily Kos into the national consciousness.

It's nice that traditional outlets can simultaneously complain about those ill-informed bloggers in their PJs, and moan that the same bloggers are failing to drive the national conversation. However, there's a very good reason that these outlets are now rarely featuring ideas that originate on this site. It's not because the writing here is any less consequential. I can say without any doubt that the writing on Daily Kos over the last two years has been better, sharper, more insightful, better researched, and more important than at any time in the history of the site. The decline has not been on this side of the aisle.

The difference is that much of the "mainstream" media has become so severely self-censoring that they wet their collective pants at the thought of offending conservatives. Once upon a time they used to at least hint that maybe, just maybe, there was something wrong in Dick Cheney's confident statements that he knew where the weapons of mass destruction were located. There was an occasional rumor that wearing a snug flight suit might possibly not mean the war was over. Sure, the slightest challenge was enough to cause them to retreat behind the false objectivity of "showing both sides." For example, when the New York Times was faced with those who defended the use of torture, their decision is not to call them on it, but to dodge the issue by displaying all the backbone of a sponge. It's no wonder that anti-science forces shout that we should "teach the controversy" between reason and nonsense, when this is the official position of the most influential paper in the nation.

These days, even that level of discourse would seem daring. Why has nothing that surfaced on DK in the last couple of years really "launched" into the big media? Because the big media has decided that conservatives must be treated like mountain gorillas: give the silverbacks plenty of room, try to fit in with the troop, don't look them in the eyes. Above all, don't make any moves that might get them even the slightest bit upset.

These days there's no such thing as too conservative. It's a media where a lifelong conservative and former editor-in-chief of a conservative paper can immediately be fired from the Washington Post for daring to point out that the current crop of conservatives are completely disconnected from reality. And a media where the "consumer ombudsman" at the Post reacts to aggression by the right by suggesting that the proper thing to do is replace their conservative-but-not-blind writer with a couple of even more conservative writers who will do a better job of picking lice, being differential, and grunting along with the troop.

Every outlet might not be privy to Roger Ailes' morning talking points, but they're following the script just the same. Fox creates a faux-movement, down to scheduling the time and date for events, advertises their little wingding for weeks, provides the banners and secures the location. And then Fox posts a complaint that other media isn't celebrating the event they created. Results? Rather than telling Rupert to faux off, the rest of the media scurries to prove that they are too giving this extra-special episode of Blossom Beck all the attention it so richly deserves. Look at us, Mr. Murdoch. See how we're devoting far, far, far more time and ink to your skit than to genuine grass roots events of vastly greater import? See how well we pretend that this is a "populist uprising," rather than the most extreme members of the Republican right driven completely off their already fragile rockers by fantasies bawled out between ads for gold schemes and luxury doomsday bunkers?

It's a media where, confronted with the uncomfortable proof that Sarah Palin is a buffoon incapable of answering a question more complex than "what's your favorite color," Time solves the problem by just not asking her any more questions and snapping lots of pictures instead. That way the media can take two word snippets from her latest paid appearance (here's a guess for next week: some toothy animal + "moms") act as if her statement makes sense, and carry on with the story on how inspirational Palin is to other women. Presumably other women who would also like to command a six figure payday for showing up, grinning, and babbling like a deranged Chatty Kathy.

It's a media that can dutifully report on John Boehner's dismissal of the May jobs report because "it included too many census workers," and then cover Boehner's claim that the June job's report spells doom, without mentioning the minority leader's earlier statements. Where Republicans can blast Obama for "dithering" in Afghanistan, then hit him again for moving too precipitously, and know they won't be called on it. They rest confident in the knowledge that the media will treat the public as if we have the short term memory of the main character in Memento. Obama has always been responsible for the massive cost run up by two wars, the stock market crash, the bailout of the banks, and the massive national debt, signed Teddy.

To keep these stories intact, the media has to avoid any substance whatsoever. They can't so much as demand one actual fact from Palin, or Rove, or Cheney, or (God help us) Liz Cheney, or any other brilliant light of the right. They have to ignore their own writing to hold out any pretense of consistency. They can't possibly point out the daily -- hourly -- contradiction between conservatives railing against every watered-down action of the government as socialism, and conservatives railing against the government's inability to right every wrong. Hell, Bobby Jindal is rewriting himself so fast he has to carry a pencil in one hand and an eraser in the other. But don't worry, folks, you can still make him look good if you keep your story short and hope that no one watching recalls what was said at breakfast. By next year, you'll still figure out a way to get together that "doesn't he look presidential" highlight reel. Time surely has all the pictures ready of Jindal looking highly concerned and serious.

Why does the media so chastely tiptoe around the absolute, incontrovertible fact that the GOP is daily peddling bullshit to the American public? Because they fell down and can't figure out how to get up again. News media from television to newspapers saw that the audience being generated by drooling pundits was out-pulling straight news, so between bouts of blaming bloggers for media's misfortune, they gathered all the actual vipers right into their beds. Just a little. Just a few hours. Just a few columns. Just every day. And don't you worry, a network, paper, or magazine won't have any problem pointing out the pants-free nature of a raving lunatic once that lunatic is their biggest revenue generator. Of course they won't.

Above all, the one thing the media dare not do is demonstrate the clear link between conservative policies and the economic collapse. A media with the guts of a gnat would warn people that on our way to becoming one nation under Ayn Rand (with Ronald Reagan as her prophet) conservatism has failed in every measurable way. They'd devote the airtime and glossy pages to show that conservatism has always made things worse, always led to greater instability, always resulted in more concentration of wealth, and always brought on greater national and personal debt. They'd report on the Republican Party's endless fight to wreck the country out of spite.

Maybe they would, but we don't have that media. We have the one that places the superficial ahead of the substantive, and values controversy over resolution. We have the one that continues to stand by, letting Roger and Rush dictate their schedule, "teaching the controversy" and wondering why they don't get any more juicy stories from those footie-wearers in the blogs.

Sadly enough, I think Daily Kos will have to go on being overrated, stuck in it's niche of reporting facts and pointing out issues even when they don't fit the predefined narrative. In the meantime, Newsweek goes up for sale, US News and World Report becomes a monthly, and Time sees a 35% drop in sales. All of them sinking gentle into that long night, without a drop of rage.

For the second year in a row, Time has dropped Daily Kos onto their list of most overrated blogs (actually they've listed a blog called "The Daily Kos," so perhaps I'm wrong to be offended).

The complaint the real-deal journalists at Time have with DK?

...nothing, not even the oil spill or the faltering war in Afghanistan, has really catapulted anything on the Daily Kos into the national consciousness.

It's nice that traditional outlets can simultaneously complain about those ill-informed bloggers in their PJs, and moan that the same bloggers are failing to drive the national conversation. However, there's a very good reason that these outlets are now rarely featuring ideas that originate on this site. It's not because the writing here is any less consequential. I can say without any doubt that the writing on Daily Kos over the last two years has been better, sharper, more insightful, better researched, and more important than at any time in the history of the site. The decline has not been on this side of the aisle.

The difference is that much of the "mainstream" media has become so severely self-censoring that they wet their collective pants at the thought of offending conservatives. Once upon a time they used to at least hint that maybe, just maybe, there was something wrong in Dick Cheney's confident statements that he knew where the weapons of mass destruction were located. There was an occasional rumor that wearing a snug flight suit might possibly not mean the war was over. Sure, the slightest challenge was enough to cause them to retreat behind the false objectivity of "showing both sides." For example, when the New York Times was faced with those who defended the use of torture, their decision is not to call them on it, but to dodge the issue by displaying all the backbone of a sponge. It's no wonder that anti-science forces shout that we should "teach the controversy" between reason and nonsense, when this is the official position of the most influential paper in the nation.

These days, even that level of discourse would seem daring. Why has nothing that surfaced on DK in the last couple of years really "launched" into the big media? Because the big media has decided that conservatives must be treated like mountain gorillas: give the silverbacks plenty of room, try to fit in with the troop, don't look them in the eyes. Above all, don't make any moves that might get them even the slightest bit upset.

These days there's no such thing as too conservative. It's a media where a lifelong conservative and former editor-in-chief of a conservative paper can immediately be fired from the Washington Post for daring to point out that the current crop of conservatives are completely disconnected from reality. And a media where the "consumer ombudsman" at the Post reacts to aggression by the right by suggesting that the proper thing to do is replace their conservative-but-not-blind writer with a couple of even more conservative writers who will do a better job of picking lice, being differential, and grunting along with the troop.

Every outlet might not be privy to Roger Ailes' morning talking points, but they're following the script just the same. Fox creates a faux-movement, down to scheduling the time and date for events, advertises their little wingding for weeks, provides the banners and secures the location. And then Fox posts a complaint that other media isn't celebrating the event they created. Results? Rather than telling Rupert to faux off, the rest of the media scurries to prove that they are too giving this extra-special episode of Blossom Beck all the attention it so richly deserves. Look at us, Mr. Murdoch. See how we're devoting far, far, far more time and ink to your skit than to genuine grass roots events of vastly greater import? See how well we pretend that this is a "populist uprising," rather than the most extreme members of the Republican right driven completely off their already fragile rockers by fantasies bawled out between ads for gold schemes and luxury doomsday bunkers?

It's a media where, confronted with the uncomfortable proof that Sarah Palin is a buffoon incapable of answering a question more complex than "what's your favorite color," Time solves the problem by just not asking her any more questions and snapping lots of pictures instead. That way the media can take two word snippets from her latest paid appearance (here's a guess for next week: some toothy animal + "moms") act as if her statement makes sense, and carry on with the story on how inspirational Palin is to other women. Presumably other women who would also like to command a six figure payday for showing up, grinning, and babbling like a deranged Chatty Kathy.

It's a media that can dutifully report on John Boehner's dismissal of the May jobs report because "it included too many census workers," and then cover Boehner's claim that the June job's report spells doom, without mentioning the minority leader's earlier statements. Where Republicans can blast Obama for "dithering" in Afghanistan, then hit him again for moving too precipitously, and know they won't be called on it. They rest confident in the knowledge that the media will treat the public as if we have the short term memory of the main character in Memento. Obama has always been responsible for the massive cost run up by two wars, the stock market crash, the bailout of the banks, and the massive national debt, signed Teddy.

To keep these stories intact, the media has to avoid any substance whatsoever. They can't so much as demand one actual fact from Palin, or Rove, or Cheney, or (God help us) Liz Cheney, or any other brilliant light of the right. They have to ignore their own writing to hold out any pretense of consistency. They can't possibly point out the daily -- hourly -- contradiction between conservatives railing against every watered-down action of the government as socialism, and conservatives railing against the government's inability to right every wrong. Hell, Bobby Jindal is rewriting himself so fast he has to carry a pencil in one hand and an eraser in the other. But don't worry, folks, you can still make him look good if you keep your story short and hope that no one watching recalls what was said at breakfast. By next year, you'll still figure out a way to get together that "doesn't he look presidential" highlight reel. Time surely has all the pictures ready of Jindal looking highly concerned and serious.

Why does the media so chastely tiptoe around the absolute, incontrovertible fact that the GOP is daily peddling bullshit to the American public? Because they fell down and can't figure out how to get up again. News media from television to newspapers saw that the audience being generated by drooling pundits was out-pulling straight news, so between bouts of blaming bloggers for media's misfortune, they gathered all the actual vipers right into their beds. Just a little. Just a few hours. Just a few columns. Just every day. And don't you worry, a network, paper, or magazine won't have any problem pointing out the pants-free nature of a raving lunatic once that lunatic is their biggest revenue generator. Of course they won't.

Above all, the one thing the media dare not do is demonstrate the clear link between conservative policies and the economic collapse. A media with the guts of a gnat would warn people that on our way to becoming one nation under Ayn Rand (with Ronald Reagan as her prophet) conservatism has failed in every measurable way. They'd devote the airtime and glossy pages to show that conservatism has always made things worse, always led to greater instability, always resulted in more concentration of wealth, and always brought on greater national and personal debt. They'd report on the Republican Party's endless fight to wreck the country out of spite.

Maybe they would, but we don't have that media. We have the one that places the superficial ahead of the substantive, and values controversy over resolution. We have the one that continues to stand by, letting Roger and Rush dictate their schedule, "teaching the controversy" and wondering why they don't get any more juicy stories from those footie-wearers in the blogs.

Sadly enough, I think Daily Kos will have to go on being overrated, stuck in it's niche of reporting facts and pointing out issues even when they don't fit the predefined narrative. In the meantime, Newsweek goes up for sale, US News and World Report becomes a monthly, and Time sees a 35% drop in sales. All of them sinking gentle into that long night, without a drop of rage.