At Grist, Randy Rieland writes:

Ready for your morning bowl of crazy? Five years ago, Congress set aside millions of acres of public land in the Southwest for the development of solar farms. This was primo real estate for solar, considered one of the best spots in the world. So far not one solar panel has been erected.

Oh, you want us to build something? This discouraging news comes courtesy of the AP's Jason Dearen, whose investigation shows that the understaffed U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) focused almost all its time on approving oil and gas projects and leased the land on a first-come, first-served basis, often to outfits with little or no experience in actually building solar farms.

Case in point: Cogentrix Solar Services, a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs. Cogentrix had zero solar experience, but holds leases on nearly half the Nevada acreage for which applications have been filed. Another sickening stat: In the last five years, the BLM has approved more than 73,000 oil and gas leases on public land, but hasn't given final approval to one solar lease. Not a one. Writes Dearen:

BLM's solar leasing system ended up allowing developers to lay claim to prime sites -- many located in the deserts that span California, Nevada, and Arizona. All developers had to do was fill out an application, pay a fee and file development plans. But many were so vague that it was difficult for BLM to separate the serious projects from the speculative ones.

• • • • •

Green diary rescue appears Thursdays and Sundays. Inclusion of a particular diary does not necessarily indicate my agreement with it. The rescue begins below and continues in the jump.

• • • • •

Haole in Hawaii posted another photo diary of Hawai'i Underwater: "These photos were taken during a handful of dives over the past two weekends including a night dive last night at Pupukea Marine Reserve. I hope you enjoy your visit."

Deep Harm had looked at rotten eggs in Rodents, maggots and steaming piles of hypocrisy at egg farms:  "The inspectors found manure piles up to 8 feet high, holding doors open and giving wildlife access. "Wildlife" included live rodents, wild birds and a plague of flies, live and dead, including their larvae (maggots). 'Additional problems included overflowing manure pits, improper worker sanitation and wild birds [a potential source of avian influenza] roosting around feed bins,' reports The New York Times. The investigators also found salmonella bacteria in chicken feed and in barn and walkway areas, and in water used to wash eggs at a Hillandale facility.  It isn't clear, yet, which came first:  the salmonella or the egg."

Tonight's Diary Rescue comes to you courtesy of the hard work and diligence of the following Rescue Rangers: Louisiana1976, ItsJessMe, YatPundit, sunspark says and srkp23. dadanation is thought to have done double duty both rescuing and editing, but we all have our doubts...

thE rescueD diarieS

• Young diarist Earley Post tells us that regarding corporate influence in politics, "What if...?" iis the Wrong Question. (Louisiana 1976)
• amybdean graces us with an eloquent essay steeped in memory all the while looking towards the future: Labor Day’s Legacy: A More Inclusive America. (dadanation)
• Ojibwa keeps on teaching: Indians 101: The Tuscarora & the Iroquois League. (srkp23)
• faithfull brings to light a most unsettling reality in West Virginia due to Nike in Mountaintop Removal - JUST DO IT! (dadanation)
• americandad provides a Wisconsin congressman with a Wisconsin (and American) history lesson in May God smite us with Rep. Paul Ryan's "cancer"! (sunspark says)

thE usuaL suspectS

jotter has High Impact Diaries: September 1, 2010.

sardonyx brings us tonight's Top Comments: Blameless Edition.

thE requisitE disclaimeR

Please use this as an Open Thread as well as your chance to promote your favorite diaries of the day. Respectful engagement is most welcome here. Please keep in mind that each Diary Rescue's daily purview extends from 3pm PST yesterday to 3pm PST today

There is a lot of polling in the Thursday edition of the Wrap, and little-to-none of it is bound to make Democrats terribly optimistic about the direction in which the 2010 election cycle is heading.

Sure, a lot of the less-than-charitable data comes from partisan sources. But even a couple of independent sources come up with data that shows Democrats in considerably bleaker positions than earlier data would seem to indicate.

That warning offered in advance, let's trudge forward with the Thursday edition of the Wrap....

THE U.S. SENATE

FL-Sen: Crist internal gives him (narrow lead), as he gains Dem nod
Given where public polling was on this race as recently as three weeks ago, it is hard to get a lot of confidence for Independent Charlie Crist based on the release of his own internal polling by Keith Fredrick. The new poll gives Crist a lead of just a single point, with Crist at 35%, Rubio at 34%, and Kendrick Meek well behind the pack at 17%. Crist did get some welcome news today, as he locked in a surprising endorsement in the form of state senator Al Lawson. Lawson just finished with a closer-than-expected primary challenge to Congressman Allen Boyd, one in which he challenged Boyd to his left. Lawson's defection is particularly notable, given that he is an African-American Democrat who is choosing Crist over Kendrick Meek, who is seeking to be the first African-American member of the U.S. Senate ever from the state of Florida.

KY-Sen: New Braun Research poll puts Paul back in the lead
Braun Research is back with their semi-regular survey of Kentucky on behalf of CN|2, and their assessment of the race has changed quite a bit in the past few weeks. After giving Democrat Jack Conway a one-point lead in their last survey, the pollster moves Republican Rand Paul back into the lead. The new numbers put Paul at 42% and Conway at 37%. The poll also decides to look ahead to 2011, where they find Democratic Governor Steve Beshear in position to get re-elected narrowly, as he leads Republican challenger David Williams by six points.

NY-Sen: Primary poll puts undecided in the lead...by a lot
In a sign of how pedestrian the Republican primary to challenge Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has been, half of the GOP electorate is still undecided with less than two weeks to go, according to the latest Quinnipiac poll of the Empire State. Former Congressman Joe DioGuardi paces the field with 28% of the vote, with David Malpass trailing at 12% and Bruce Blakeman in the third spot at 10% of the vote.

OH-Sen: PPP poll gives Portman a solid edge over Fisher
PPP's new poll out of the Buckeye State is a reversal of fortune from the previous PPP survey in the state. Republican Rob Portman has pulled out to a seven-point lead over Democrat Lee Fisher (45-38). Tom Jensen of PPP points to an interesting dichotomy among the undecideds: they voted for Obama in 2008 by a two-to-one margin, but have a net disapproval (40-46) of the President at this point. What direction will those folks head in November? This pattern could be repeated in races all over the country.

THE U.S. HOUSE

IA-03: Boswell gets key endorsement as Dems hammer Zaun
In agricultural Iowa, incumbent Democrat Leonard Boswell got a key endorsement in his dangerously close battle with Republican Brad Zaun in the swing 3rd district. Boswell won the endorsement of the Iowa Corn Growers yesterday. Meanwhile, Iowa Democrats have launched a hard hitting ad on Brad Zaun that goes after the Republican for a domestic incident in 2001 that recently came to light (for what it's worth, DMR columnist Kathie Obradovich is not a fan of the ad).

NY-23: Hoffman vows to fight until November
For those hoping for some delicious Republican infighting saving a tough seat for the Dems, you are about to get some love from a very familiar source. Doug Hoffman has now made it clear--if he does not win the Republican primary in a couple of weeks, he will continue onward to the general election as the nominee of the Conservative Party. Interestingly, the Tea Party that launched Hoffman to prominence in 2009 is making it clear that they may not go along for the ride in November if Hoffman decides to split the conservative vote yet again.

PA-12: GOP internal predicts GOP to snag Murtha seat in November
Democrat Mark Critz might have won the special election to replace John Murtha in May, but a new internal poll out from Public Opinion Strategies is claiming that Republican Tim Burns will claim the district on his second attempt in November. An internal poll from the NRCC claims that Burns is at 48%, with the newly-minted incumbent Critz five points back at 43%. The district is a swing district, one carried by both John Kerry in 2004 and John McCain in 2008 (a rarity, to be sure).

VA-05: The ugliest poll on Earth just got...uglier
Republicans crowed, and Democrats blanched, when a summer poll in the 5th district held by Democrat Tom Perriello from SurveyUSA showed the incumbent trailed by twenty-three points to Republican Rob Hurt. SurveyUSA is back in the Fifth, and the results are even worse. The pollster, which has been unrelentingly negative in its assessment of Democratic House candidates this year, has Hurt now at 61% of the vote, with Perriello well behind at 35%.

RACE FOR THE HOUSE: Ayers McHenry heads west, and the ugly continues
Consider the source (Republican pollster, partisan sponsor), but the third wave of House polls from GOP number-crunchers Ayers McHenry looks at the West, and the numbers for the Democrats there are almost universally awful. The pollster, looking at ten Democratic-held districts, has the GOP going 6-3-1 in trial heats for November. The standard caveats apply for internal polls, but the Colorado blog ColoradoPols uncovered another potential issue: the fact that the firm did not appear to poll more than the two major party candidates. In races with active teabagger candidates, that could actually matter in a close race.

AZ-01: Paul Gosar (R) 47%, Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D) 41%
AZ-05: Dave Schweikert (R) 50%, Rep. Harry Mitchell (D) 44%
AZ-08: Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) 46%, Jesse Kelly (R) 46%
CA-11: David Harmer (R) 45%, Rep. Jerry McNerney (D) 44%
CA-47: Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D) 45%, Van Tran (R) 43%
CO-03: Scott Tipton (R) 51%, Rep. John Salazar (D) 43%
CO-04: Cory Gardner (R) 50%, Rep. Betsy Markey (D) 39%
NM-01: Rep. Martin Heinrich (D) 49%, Jon Barela (D) 42%
NV-03: Joe Heck (R) 48%, Rep. Dina Titus (D) 45%
OR-05: Rep. Kurt Schrader (D) 44%, Scott Bruun (R) 36%

THE GUBERNATORIAL RACES

FL-Gov: Scott selects running mate for November
Rick Scott made an interesting selection today, giving the nod to African American Republican state legislator Jennifer Carroll as his choice for Lt. Governor. Besides the obvious gender and racial balance represented by Carroll is a potentially more important political consideration: Carroll had been a supporter of Bill McCollum during the recently concluded primary. The thaw between Scott and supporters of McCollum could be a long time in coming, as the vanquished foe is still very reluctant to support his fellow Republican.

MD-Gov: Dems pounce on Ehrlich union endorsement
It has become common practice for Republicans to pooh-pooh union endorsements of Democrats, arguing that such endorsements are the work of the "bosses" and not good rank-and-file teachers/officers/etc. Therefore, it is a tad ironic that a rare union endorsement of a Republican candidate has such transparent evidence of such top-driven influence. The Democrats are pouncing on the endorsement of Republican Robert Ehrlich by the Maryland Classified Employees Association. Democrats were lightning-quick to point out that the union's executive director is a former Republican state legislator, who is running for office as a Republican this year (and could probably use some love from the top of the ticket).

NY-Gov: Republican primary poll shows race still in the air
Rick Lazio has been the frontrunner for the GOP gubernatorial nomination throughout the 2010 election, but that might be changing at the last, according to the new poll from Quinnipiac. Lazio's lead is down to twelve points (47-35) over businessman Carl Paladino. Lazio is probably close enough to 50% to be comfortable, but his days of having a two-to-one lead over Paladino are pretty much over.

OR-Gov: Labor comes in big for Democrat John Kitzhaber
Oregon is one of those states where donors can drop big coin on their favored candidates: at one point earlier in the cycle, the majority of Republican Chris Dudley's take came from just two donors. Labor is starting to weigh in on the race. The latest example: the AFSCME, which dropped six figures ($100K) during August into the coffers of Democratic gubernatorial nominee John Kitzhaber.

TX-Gov: Even GOP internal polls have Perry sitting at 50%
As a sign of how potentially vulnerable incumbent Republican Rick Perry truly is, even internal polling for the GOP cannot put the incumbent over 50% in his re-election bid. That said, the poll conducted by Wilson Research Strategies for GOPAC does give Perry a sizeable edge, with Perry at 50% and Democratic challenger Bill White at 38%.

THE RAS-A-POLL-OOZA

Not a ton of data from the House of Ras today, but it joins the rest of the numbers from their day in that unremittingly negative tone. Team Ras-sie put both Rick Scott (FL-Gov) and Dino Rossi (WA-Sen) out in front today. The only poll that can come close to being construed as positive for Dems is the relatively small lead for GOP incumbent Sean Parnell in Alaska.

AK-Gov: Gov. Sean Parnell (R) 53%, Ethan Berkowitz (D) 43%
FL-Gov: Rick Scott (R) 45%, Alex Sink (D) 44%
WA-Sen: Dino Rossi (R) 48%, Sen. Patty Murray (D) 46%

Not ironically, this "completely honest job interview" from The Second City Network is...not safe for work.

Open thread below...

After a two-week absence, the Senate Snapshot is back. The charts are a lot cooler, but the news is grim:

Senate Snapshot, September 2nd, With Rasmussen Polls

Thanks to user Dbug, the snapshot now comes with a chart displaying the odds of each possible seat outcome:

The chances of 50 and 51 Democratic seats are almost identical, with 50 Democratic seats slightly more likely (and those totals include Sanders and Lieberman). Republicans have an 18.7% of taking control of the chamber.

Senate Snapshot, September 2nd, Without Rasmussen Polls

Without Rasmussen polls included in the averages, the picture is not much better. In fact, it is only about as good as the snapshot was one month ago, with Rasmussen polling included. A narrow Democratic majority of 52 seats is the most likely outcome:

Looking desperately for good news? President Obama's job approval is back in positive territory, according to Gallup. If the situation is going to turn around for Democrats, that positive trend will have to be more than a blip.

Notes
--This forecast is a snapshot, not a forecast. All of the odds presented here are based on if the election were held today. It is not a prediction of future trends.

--If a campaign isn't listed here, then it is not currently as close as any of the campaigns listed here.

--Charlie Crist's chances of victory are not included in the overall Democratic, or Republican, chances of victory.

--A * indicates that the candidate has a primary challenger, but is the favorite to win the nomination.

--All polls used in the averages are taken from Pollster.com.

--A complete description of the methodology behind this forecast, along with all the research and a FAQ, can be found here.

Genre: The KinksTitle: A Long Way From Home

I've been listening to this song a whole lot lately and I find the critique of the music business on 1970's Lola Versus Powerman And The Moneyground, Part One to be pretty spot on, even 40 years later.

I'm headed to the mountains this weekend, so the honorable Max Bernstein will be back at the helm here for a few days. Have a great holiday!

Lola versus Powerman and the Money-Go-Round, Part One Artist: Kinks Price: $8.13 (As of 09/02/10 08:12 pm details)

Add VoteVets to the growing list of organizations calling for Simpson's ouster from the catfood commission. You'll recall that this week Simpson aimed his fire at disabled veterans who are "not helping us to save the country in this fiscal mess." See, the benefits they receive in return for having sacrificed their health to defend the country cost too much.

One veterans' group, VoteVets, is demanding Simpson's removal on behalf of the millions of veterans who receive Social Security and the millions of disabled vets Simpson blames for the deficit. Via e-mail:

Washington DC – The nation’s largest progressive veterans organization, VoteVets.org, is calling on President Obama to relieve former Senator Alan Simpson from his chairmanship of a deficit reduction commission for defamatory comments about veterans.

In a letter to the President, Jon Soltz, Iraq War Veteran and Chairman of VoteVets.org, wrote, "On Tuesday, Senator Simpson actually put veteran's benefits on the chopping block... blaming disabled veterans for the country's fiscal situation. And for us, that is the final straw."

Soltz says, "President Obama, this week you called for all Americans to honor and thank our troops. I know you agree that honoring our troops can't just be lip service. And the best way to honor those who serve our country is to make sure that we take care of them once they return home. That means strengthening the vital programs we rely on, including Social Security and veterans' health care, not undermining them as Senator Simpson seems intent on doing."

The full letter is below the fold.

Click here to view this media

Carly Fiorina... just looking out for the little people out there who pay too much in taxes. If this wasn't a made for the teabaggers ending argument on why the voters of California should vote for her, I've never heard one. Every one of the dog whistles was there. I was glad to see Barbara Boxer call her right back out for sending jobs overseas and her record as an HP CEO after this "man of the people" speech by Fiorina during their first debate for the California Senate.

The video above includes both Fiorina and Boxer's closing remarks from their debate tonight.

I took the time to transcribe Fiorina's remarks. They're begging for some Bobblespeak Translations which I sadly did not have time for, but maybe some of the commenters will have the time for instead.

FIORINA: Thank you so much for the privilege of truly to be here and to have a great debate with you Sen. Boxer. I have traveled up and down this wonderful state and I have been struck by the beauty and by the spirit of Californians. But I must say I am also struck by the anger, the frustration and yes, even fear. I remember meeting the immigrant who had built his small business from the ground up only to see it ruined with too much taxation and too much regulation and I remember him looking me and saying “This is not the country I came to. My own government is destroying my livelihood.”

I remember speaking to the city councilman who talked about his struggles to keep his community together while they struggled with almost 40% unemployment. And I remember as well the woman who looked me in the eye and grasped my hand and said I have never voted before, but I am voting for you because I am afraid for my children’s future.

Promise me this, when you get to Washington, you will not forget us. We can turn our nation around. We can get it back on the right track. We can get our state on the right track. We can grow or economy. We can control government spending.

But to do all these things, we must start by changing the people we send to Washington. I ask for your support. I ask for your vote. And I pledge to you this. I will go to the U.S. Senate and I will fight for the millions of Californians who love their country, who go about their business, who pay their dues, who serve their communities. You don’t ask for frills or favors. You give a lot and you expect little. You are asking for one simple thing now, that we take our government back, make it listen and make it work.

Again, facts get in the way of scary wingnut hate rhetoric.

The number of illegal immigrants entering the United States has plunged by almost two-thirds in the past decade, a dramatic shift after years of growth in the population, according to a new report by the Pew Hispanic Center.

Between 2000 and 2005, an average of 850,000 people a year entered the United States without authorization, according to the report released Wednesday. As the economy plunged into recession between 2007 and 2009, that number fell to 300,000.

Undocumented immigration is not on the rise. Crime is not up in border areas. Immigrants do not fuel what crime exists. Dishwashers and landscapers have nothing to do with the drug cartels. Etc.

The entire xenophobic case is built on a foundation of lies and fear mongering.

Click here to view this media

Glenn Beck is a busy man.

Just in the past week, Beck has held his "Restoring Honor" rally and launched a new website. So maybe it shouldn't be a surprise that Fox News host has just gotten around to being outraged at a story first reported almost a year ago.

Last December, AOL News first reported that a professor at the University of California, San Diego developed a GPS cell phone application to help immigrants illegally cross the border into the United States.

Ricardo Dominguez describes himself an "artivist" -- a cross between an artist and activist -- and he calls his newest act of civil disobedience a "Transborder Immigrant Tool."

It's a cheap Motorola cell phone retrofitted with GPS technology. Dominguez, an associate professor of new media arts at the University of California, San Diego, hopes to get the tool into the hands of people making the treacherous crossing of the U.S.-Mexico border on the so-called Devil's Highway.

[..]

The Transborder Immigrant Tool was inspired by a university colleague of Dominguez's who developed a Virtual Hiker Tool to help him keep his bearings during desert hikes. The Transborder Immigrant Tool will give the user basic orientation, distance from destination, and the location of water. (It will also be loaded with short, haiku-like poems written by poet Amy Carroll. "We wanted to have a hospitality tool," Dominguez says of the poems. "At the core of the poems is a rethinking of the idea that good fences make good neighbors. Borders do not make good neighbors. We should be welcoming.")

The tool, which will cost less than $30 per unit, is undergoing field testing and tweaking. Dominguez has so far collected $15,000 in grants to fund its development and rollout, and by next summer, his plan is to have churches and groups like Border Angels and No Mas Muertes distribute the phones and train users on their features.

For the August 31 rollout of his new website, The Blaze, Beck's team produced a video highlighting Professor Dominguez's 2009 comments about the GPS phones.

Beck took to the air on his Fox News show Wednesday to express his outrage over the year-old story.

The segment began with a quote from Dominguez. "It is a tool that not only allows the safety, but also creates kind of this deeply poetic centering of hospitality," said the professor. "In a certain sense, we think of it as the Statue of Liberty that one carries along as one walks."

"So they have the GPS cell phone paid for with your tax dollars coming in across the border at night illegally," noted Beck.

"You can teach whatever you want, but not with tax dollars. I would also tell you I think these people should be fired," said Beck.

"Let me ask you, there was a time not long ago in this country we walked you through walls of fire to make sure we weren't funding Hamas or Hezbollah. I have news for you. There are a lot of universities that are as dangerous with the indoctrination of the children as terrorists are in Iran or North Korea," said Beck.

It's clear that Beck probably wasn't talking about his own university.

We'd be even more fucked.

Nothing is more important to Republican politicians these days than jobs and the deficit—at least according to Republican politicians. As House Minority Leader John Boehner put it in a "major economic address" on Tuesday, President Obama is "doing everything possible to prevent jobs from being created" while refusing to do anything at all "about bringing down the deficits that threaten our economy." Elect Republicans in November, Boehner assured his audience, and we will put an end to this insanity.

There's only one problem with Boehner's message: so far, the things that Republicans have said they want to do won't actually boost employment or reduce deficits. In fact, much the opposite. By combing through a variety of studies and projections from nonpartisan economic sources, we here at Gaggle headquarters have found that if Republicans were in charge from January 2009 onward—and if they were now given carte blanche to enact the proposals they want to—the projected 2010–2020 deficits would be larger than they are under Obama, and fewer people would probably be employed.  

Follow the link to the math, but the synopsis is this -- the stimulus created or saved between 1.4 and 3.3 million jobs. While the health care reform bill and letting tax cuts lapse for the wealthiest Americans actually lower the deficit.

Republicans opposed all those things, hence, we'd have fewer people employed, and we'd be suffering from even higher deficits.

Not that Republicans care. All the talk about "deficits" is empty rhetoric.

It's time Republican candidates are pressed on exactly how they'll balance the budget. Because given the reality of their proposals (like Boehner's), it's clear the math simply doesn't add up.

So our troops are fighting and dying for child rapists in a warped fundamentalist theocracy. And we're protecting them? This is too much for my mind to comprehend (h/t Matt Osbourne):

For centuries, Afghan men have taken boys, roughly 9 to 15 years old, as lovers. Some research suggests that half the Pashtun tribal members in Kandahar and other southern towns are bacha baz, the term for an older man with a boy lover. Literally it means "boy player." The men like to boast about it.

"Having a boy has become a custom for us," Enayatullah, a 42-year-old in Baghlan province, told a Reuters reporter. "Whoever wants to show off should have a boy."

Baghlan province is in the northeast, but Afghans say pedophilia is most prevalent among Pashtun men in the south. The Pashtun are Afghanistan's most important tribe. For centuries, the nation's leaders have been Pashtun.

President Hamid Karzai is Pashtun, from a village near Kandahar, and he has six brothers. So the natural question arises: Has anyone in the Karzai family been bacha baz? Two Afghans with close connections to the Karzai family told me they know that at least one family member and perhaps two were bacha baz. Afraid of retribution, both declined to be identified and would not be more specific for publication.

As for Karzai, an American who worked in and around his palace in an official capacity for many months told me that homosexual behavior "was rampant" among "soldiers and guys on the security detail. They talked about boys all the time."

He added, "I didn't see Karzai with anyone. He was in his palace most of the time." He, too, declined to be identified.

In Kandahar, population about 500,000, and other towns, dance parties are a popular, often weekly, pastime. Young boys dress up as girls, wearing makeup and bells on their feet, and dance for a dozen or more leering middle-aged men who throw money at them and then take them home. A recent State Department report called "dancing boys" a "widespread, culturally sanctioned form of male rape."

So, why are American and NATO forces fighting and dying to defend tens of thousands of proud pedophiles, certainly more per capita than any other place on Earth? And how did Afghanistan become the pedophilia capital of Asia?

Sociologists and anthropologists say the problem results from perverse interpretation of Islamic law. Women are simply unapproachable. Afghan men cannot talk to an unrelated woman until after proposing marriage. Before then, they can't even look at a woman, except perhaps her feet. Otherwise she is covered, head to ankle.

"How can you fall in love if you can't see her face," 29-year-old Mohammed Daud told reporters. "We can see the boys, so we can tell which are beautiful."

Even after marriage, many men keep their boys, suggesting a loveless life at home. A favored Afghan expression goes: "Women are for children, boys are for pleasure." Fundamentalist imams, exaggerating a biblical passage on menstruation, teach that women are "unclean" and therefore distasteful. One married man even asked Cardinalli's team "how his wife could become pregnant," her report said. When that was explained, he "reacted with disgust" and asked, "How could one feel desire to be with a woman, who God has made unclean?"

That helps explain why women are hidden away - and stoned to death if they are perceived to have misbehaved. Islamic law also forbids homosexuality. But the pedophiles explain that away. It's not homosexuality, they aver, because they aren't in love with their boys.

Addressing the loathsome mistreatment of Afghan women remains a primary goal for coalition governments, as it should be.

But what about the boys, thousands upon thousands of little boys who are victims of serial rape over many years, destroying their lives - and Afghan society.

"There's no issue more horrifying and more deserving of our attention than this," Cardinalli said. "I'm continually haunted by what I saw."

Let's not kid ourselves that this is some foreign disease, though. The fact is, whenever you add extreme religious fundamentalism and sexual repression, you get a toxic stew -- as members of extreme cults of all kinds, including many right here in the United States, can testify.

House Democrats, led by Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Raul Grijalva, are pledging to stand against any recommendation from the catfood commission to cut Social Security.

In a letter obtained by TPM's Brian Beutler, they write:

We write today to express our strong support for Social Security and our view that it should be strengthened. We oppose any cuts to Social Security benefits, including raising the retirement age. We also oppose any effort to privatize Social Security, in whole or in part.

You have charged the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform with proposing recommendations that improve the long-term fiscal outlook and address the growth of entitlement spending. It is our view that Social Security--which is prohibited by law from adding to the national budget deficit--does not belong as part of those recommendations....

If any of the Commission's recommendations cut or diminish Social Security in any way, we will stand firmly against them. We urge you to join us in protecting and strengthening Social Security rather than letting it fall victim to a misguided attempt to reduce budget deficits on the backs of working families.

The full text of the letter is below the fold. The original co-signers of the letter are Grijalva, John Conyers (D-MI), Dan Maffei (D-NY), Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH), Chellie Pingree (D-ME), and CPC co-chair Lynn Woolsey (D-CA). Beutler reports that "Democrats and advocates are rounding up signers, and will deliver the letter to Obama once the numbers climb, likely after Congress returns later this month." As Beutler notes, the CPC has drawn such lines in the sand previously, most notably with the public option in health reform.

This time is different, though, in that it's not pushing uphill to establish a new policy but in defense of the most popular and effective long-standing programs in the nation's history, with a massive constituency, and it's probably not just going to be the CPC in this fight. If you have a Democratic representative, call (the Capitol Switchboard number is (202) 224-3121) or write and ask them to sign on to the letter.

Click here to view this media

If these Bushies want to come on the air to attempt some turd polishing about why the Bush administration chose to invade Iraq, a country that was not a threat to us, then they should be treated the way Paul Begala treated lying propagandist Ari Fleischer on Anderson Cooper's AC360.

COOPER: Out of Iraq by the end of next year, that was the promise from President Obama. He said the combat mission's over, but America and will provide support for the Iraqi people as both a friend and a partner.

Ari, you were obviously working for George W. Bush. I'm curious to what you thought as you listened to this. And obviously, not a great speech but a historic moment.

FLEISCHER: Well, my first thought was 7 1/2 years ago I was in the Oval Office when the president gave a speech committing us to Iraq. And it's appropriate. Americans don't like to commit troop abroad. And when we do, we want to win, and we want come to come. And the president -- I think President Bush has won because of the surge.

And then, in December of 2008, remember when the shoe was thrown at him? That was actually the announcement of a security agreement with the Iraqi government to bring our troops hope at the end of 2011.

The day had to come. So I'm glad the day was able to come and that President Obama gave a speech where he could thank the troops who also made this possible who really deserve all the credit for making it possible.

COOPER: Do you think he should have said more about President Bush?

FLEISCHER: You know, I think it would have been gracious of him if he'd mentioned the surge, but the problem he has, for President Obama to put the words "President Bush," "Iraq" and anything good in the same sentence, the Democrat base, which already doesn't want to show up in November -- what will Nancy Pelosi see if he starts talking like that?

So I understand -- I wish he was more gracious about it, but he has his own Democratic political imperatives, and he has -- he followed those tonight.

COOPER: Paul, what did you think of the speech? We haven't heard from you tonight.

BEGALA: Well, I think it was -- first, he was trying to do three different things, right? Say we're going to withdraw from Iraq, but we're going to surge into Afghanistan, but we're going to withdraw from there, too. But then, we're going to take care of folks here at home. I want to pick up, though, on this point that Ari makes about the surge, because it is staggering to me. First off, the surge was only necessary because President Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld went to war with too few troops, because they wanted to prove General Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, wrong. That's why we needed it in the first place.

Second, it could have never succeeded without the preceding Sunni awakening. Iraqis themselves had to decide. It wasn't the American surge and then -- that cured it. It was the Sunni awakening.

But I'll make a deal with President Bush. We'll give you all the credit for the surge if you take half of the blame for the lies that got us into the war, by which I mean Iraq -- excuse me, Ari, by which I mean...

FLEISCHER: No, Paul, it's not right.

BEGALA: ... by which I mean Ari himself saying Iraq was an imminent threat to America, by which the president of the United States saying it was a mushroom cloud that could become a smoking gun, by which I mean the threat of unmanned aerial drones that Saddam supposedly had that would gas America, the connections that they allege which were false between al Qaeda and -- and Saddam's regime.

So, you know, there was so much they got wrong about this. Some of it just was botched, and some of it was deeply dishonest. And the notion that somehow George Bush is owed any moment of grace here is appalling to the history.

FLEISCHER: Neither you nor anybody else, including your old boss, Bill Clinton, challenged George Bush when he said that, because the intelligence that they all saw, too, led them to the same conclusion. So I think seven years...

BEGALA: You know they didn't see...

(CROSSTALK)

FLEISCHER: First off...

BEGALA: They didn't see all the intelligence, because you guys weren't sharing it.

FLEISCHER: This is the night that President Obama said thanks to the military; our troops are coming home. I was gracious enough to praise President Obama for saying that. It's an appropriate moment for our country to bring them home and to welcome them home.

But for you to say that President Bush lied about this, Paul, that is exactly the type of divisiveness we're trying move beyond in this country. When you know as well as I do he followed the intelligence that he was given by the CIA.

BEGALA: He manipulated -- he manipulated and cherry picked the intelligence...

FLEISCHER: No.

BEGALA: ... as did Mr. Cheney, as did Mr. Rumsfeld, and that's why 4,427 Americans are dead.

(CROSSTALK)

FLEISCHER: It was nothing to cherry pick. That's everything we needed to know.

BEGALA: When Dick Cheney said, as he did, that Saddam has long- established ties with al Qaeda, the evidence is overwhelming, you know, the Iraq study group said no that wasn't true.

FLEISCHER: The 9/11 Commission report said Saddam had ties to al Qaeda.

BEGALA: It's just incredible.

FLEISCHER: The 9/11 Commission Report, it said they weren't operational. Our point of view is never let them become operational.

BEGALA: This is -- this is the thing: he was no threat to America. Ari, himself...

FLEISCHER: Now you're changing your tune because you're recognizing the 9/11 Commission report agreed with the president...

BEGALA: They said there were no operational links. There were none.

FLEISCHER: That's correct. We didn't want them to become one.

BEGALA: Well, we don't want Canada to have operational links either. How about we go -- how about we go have Operation Canadian Freedom?

No, look, this was from the beginning, it was a war of choice. It was Mr. Bush's choice, and it was a tragic choice; 4,427 Americans are dead. Thirty-five thousand Americans are wounded, plus those suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, plus those suffering from traumatic brain injury. This has been a catastrophe for America, a catastrophe for our armed services who served with such heroism. And for Mr. Fleischer to sit here and expect a pat on the back, it is appalling. It is, as we would say in Texas, I guess it's chutzpah.

FLEISCHER: In Paul Begala's view of the world, we'd all be better off and safer off if Saddam Hussein was still running Iraq.

BEGALA: And those 4,427 Americans were alive.

FLEISCHER: Any time anybody loses their lives in the military, our nation suffers for it. Any one individual, anywhere.

But the point is we now have a new Iraq, an Iraq that has a chance to become a bastion of freedom and, hopefully, an Iraq that can change the Arab Middle East, so it's a more peaceful area where wars don't start. That's what Iraq now gives us a chance to do. And that's why I hope, now with the 50,000 remaining troops, we will be successful, and they don't lose the peace in Iraq, which is...

BEGALA: And we have -- we have a diminished America, a depleted America. We have a divided America. And we have, tragically, military cemeteries that are filling up. That is a hell of a price to pay to get rid of a guy who was no threat to America.

FLEISCHER: No threat to America?

BEGALA: Zero.

COOPER: I want to bring in other panelists in just a second. We've got to take a quick break, though.

At the risk of sounding too shrill about the extremism of the Republicans nominated to run for Senate this year, let's take a look at Alaska's Joe Miller

Washington (CNN) - Joe Miller calls President Obama "bad for America" and suggests he is leading the nation on a path to socialism. But the newly minted GOP Senate nominee from Alaska also has a message for the Republican Leadership. Not to mention unapologetic views on cutting federal spending and even possibly phasing out Social Security....

"There is an opportunity to lead this country out of the crisis its in and I believe the Republican Party is well suited to take up that mantle," Miller said in an interview for Wednesday's "John King, USA." which will air at 7pm. "The question is whether or not there's the courage and leadership in that party to seize the moment and to recognize that the only way out of this is to get out of the age of the entitlement state to return power back to the states and recognize that central government is broken and see what we can do about fixing things and getting the government focused on those areas the enumerated powers that it should be doing. And the Republican Party can do it but it does require courage."

....

KING: "It is an issue that you well know can be easily demagogued, so I want to deliver a statement. You tell me if it's fair or not: That anybody in the [Social Security] system or close to the system is fine. We won't do anything significant to change your benefits. But how about an American born tomorrow or born the day after Joe Miller was sworn in in Washington? Would that person perhaps grow up in an America where there is not a federal Social Security program if you got your way?

MILLER: "Absolutely."

KING: "That's a fair statement?"

MILLER: "No demagoguery there at all."

Miller, like Rand Paul before he was advised to keep his mouth shut, is saying out loud what the Republican ethos is. Returning "power back to the states" and limiting the "central" government (with that hint of creeping socialism) to its "enumerated powers" is the quiet fight in which the Republicans have been engaged since the New Deal. When I wrote that post about Paul, I included this from a 2004 post by DavidNYC:

I'm hardly the first person to make this point, but it's one that bears repeating: While conservatives are preparing to pack the Supreme Court and the rest of the federal judiciary with right-wing judges who will seek to overturn Roe v. Wade, their real aim is a stealth campaign against the New Deal interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause (ICC).

Don't get me wrong: Roe and other hot-button social issues matter a great deal. But the power to destroy the ICC has much more far-reaching consequences....

Every time someone like this comes up for a nomination, we need to say that they want to make Social Security illegal. Not get rid of it - make it illegal. They want to make the minimum wage illegal. They want to make clean water laws illegal. This is not a mis-statement or exaggeration of their position. This is exactly what they propose.

That was in the context of Supreme Court nominations, but it's what Joe Miller is articulating as the conservative governing philosophy.

by Jake Bernstein and Jesse Eisinger

Last week, in partnership with NPR's "Planet Money," we published an investigation about how Wall Street banks created fake demand in the run-up to the housing meltdown, increasing their bonuses -- and ultimately making the crisis worse. We asked for your questions, and now here are our reporters' answers.

Q. As a bank, aside from the short-term gain of bonuses, why would you invest in your own CDOs? If your aim is to get rid of the liabilities and manage risk, why would you buy CDOs based on your CDO? Wouldn't you want to get rid of your liability altogether?

A. It was a catastrophic error. There were several reasons why they would do it. They wanted to complete deals, to keep their mortgage securities assembly lines going. So if they had to take a bit of the CDOs to keep their deals flowing and the year-end bonuses coming, they would. (Or, more precisely, they would "sell" it to another part of the bank.)

In some cases, they were doing the proverbial "picking up nickels in front of the steamroller" trade. They would retain the top part of the CDO and hedge it, sometimes with a fragile insurer. They would make a little bit of money because the CDO threw off more money than it cost to hedge. But when the CDOs failed, the insurers (like MBIA and Ambac) collapsed and the banks were stuck with the virtually worthless CDOs.

Q. What balance sheet benefit resulted when one bank's CDO bought another CDO's lower-valued tranches?

A. If one bank bought a piece of another bank's CDO, then that was truly off the first bank's books.

However, in the late stages of the CDO boom, CDOs were essentially swapping pieces with each other in apparent quid-pro-quos.

Here's a hypothetical: Merrill sponsors "CDO Jesse" and Citigroup sponsors "CDO Jake." Jesse buys a mezzanine (or middle) slice of Jake and Jake buys a piece of Jesse.

Since each CDO owns something that owns itself, it has a less diversified set of assets. Those two CDOs are inherently weaker than they would have been.

If Merrill had retained the top portion -- or super-senior -- of Jesse, and Citi had done the same with Jake, then both banks were more exposed to the risk of losses than they would have been if they had sold the pieces of the CDOs outright to outside investors.

Q. The crux of the article is that banks with unsold CDOs on their books put them into pools of bonds to back new CDOs. I just don't see what is nefarious about that, since the composition of the pool is disclosed to the CDO buyers, who are all professional investors, who can look out for themselves. And it's only natural that banks would try to get risky assets off their books. Isn't that what we want them to do? Wasn't the problem that some banks had too many risky assets on their books, not too few?

A. The problem was, as our piece points out, that the assets weren't really off the books. They only looked that way. When a bank pushed unsold assets into a new CDO, but retained the top 80 percent or so (called the super-senior), it was still exposed to the majority of the new CDO.

Since the new CDO was filled with lousy assets, it was more fragile. So the banks were on the hook for losses that they wouldn't have been if they had really sold the assets or made the deals more solid.

Further, to the idea of what investors knew or could have known: One surprise for us was that investors didn't necessarily know all the assets that the manager selected when they invested. Deals often closed without being fully completed. Investors would know that the remaining 10 or 20 percent would be filled with CDO pieces, but they wouldn't know which ones.

But to the larger point, you are right. Much of this was disclosed in the prospectuses, although buried in hundreds of pages of legalese and nonspecific caveats.

The parties in the transactions that might be in the most legal jeopardy are the CDO managers. They had a fiduciary responsibility to manage the CDO properly and that their role was accurately represented to the investor.

Q. So who's paying those fees? I sell you something and earn a fee and then you sell me something and earn a fee. Where's the net income?

A. The income generated by the CDO itself provides the fees for the manager and the bank. In that respect, it's a bit like mutual funds, where the fees get taken out of your returns. Normally, there was some actual, or as they say on Wall Street, real money, in the deal. This would be used to pay the fees.

Q. Weren't these CDOs rated by "independent" ratings agencies?

A. I think you already know the answer to this question! Like the managers, the rating agencies depended on the banks for their income. As one rating agency official told us, agencies couldn't say no to a deal and the banks knew it.

In devising their ratings on managers, the rating agencies chose to look at the wrong things. As one executive at a CDO manager told us, the agencies "did heavy, heavy due diligence on managers but they were looking for the wrong things: how you processed a ticket or how your surveillance systems worked," adding, "They didn't check whether you were buying good bonds."

Q. Why wasn't this self-dealing fraud?

A. In some cases, it may have been. That's up to the SEC -- which is aggressively investigating the CDO business and, especially, banks' relationships to managers -- and ultimately to the courts.

However, some of the questionable behavior may have been perfectly legal. For instance, banks had agreements to own the assets that CDO managers selected before those assets were placed into the CDO. That gave the banks the right to veto managers' selections. As our story showed, in late 2006, banks began to routinely use this veto. Was this perfectly appropriate behavior? It may have been, at least on the banks' side.

The managers, however, have fiduciary duties. They cannot misrepresent that they were selecting assets if indeed they weren't. And they cannot do things that aren't good for the CDO. That could be illegal.

But these cases are challenging. The subject matter is complicated. The investigations are resource-intensive and time-consuming. And the legal disclosures on the deals themselves were extensive.

There's a lot of despair in these parts lately and it's perfectly understandable. The country is going to hell in a handbasket and the forces of corporatism and know-nothingism are dominating the political culture while the Democrats seem to be in a state of suspended animation. It's very tempting to just tune it all out and watch TV. But we can't. Not as long as there are progressive politicians like David Segal out there on the campaign trail fighting to change things every day. If don't support real progressive leaders with a track record of success, we are basically giving up.

David is running in a primary for the Democratic nomination for Patrick Kennedy's seat against two doctrinaire establishment hacks and an anti-choice zealot and he needs our help in the home stretch. (The election is September 14th.) His most formidable rival, the mayor of Providence is using his money advantage to run a deceptive ad and David needs our help to run this rebuttal to remind people who the real progressive in the race is:

I know it's hard to get excited about politics right now. But it would be foolish for us to fail to support a young, smart progressive with a proven track record in his run for congress. Unless we are prepared to simply surrender to the forces gathering around us we need to nurture future progressive leaders who understand this political environment and have ideas about how to prevail in it. David is one of those future leaders.

Here's what Howie wrote about him when Blue America endorsed him:

David Segal is one of us. He was elected to the Providence City Council in 2002 as a Green, and is now a lefty Democratic state Rep for Providence and East Providence. He has a very clear path to victory and he can win-- and if he does, he'll be among the strongest voices for progressives in the halls of the Capitol.

David's worked on the meat-and-potato issues: Jobs, the environment, housing, progressive taxes, all with success. He's successfully pushed for expanded renewable energy, more affordable housing, against predatory lending, and for foreclosure prevention measures.

But he's never shied away from the really controversial issues: He's been a vocal leader on criminal justice reform, standing up for the rights of immigrants and for gay rights, and has pushed as hard as one can from the state level against war spending. He's an ardent supporter of gay marriage, and was the sponsor of the last year's bill, which was passed over the Governor's veto, to allow gay partners to plan each other's funerals.

He's a co-sponsor of marijuana decriminalization, and just convinced the Governor-- after two years of vetoes-- to allow a bill to become law that ensures due process for people on probation.

He's sponsored the "Bring the Guard Home" legislation, and his first act on the City Council was to pass a resolution against the war in Iraq.

But, most importantly, he's an organizer at heart, who is committed to joining the Progressive Caucus-- and making it function better. Here's an excerpt from an interview with David:

"[I]n Rhode Island I've tried to develop alternative structures for legislators to lean on when the leadership makes such threats. I am the lead organizer for our progressive caucus. I founded a political action committee to support members of our progressive caucus so that if funding from sources dries up at leadership's request because something was done to offend them, that we would have at least some, some degree of money to fall back on to help fund our campaigns nonetheless. We funded ten, twelve races relatively modestly in the last cycle and hopefully we'll be able to do something in the forthcoming cycle."

That's the kind of inside political organizing we desperately need in the US Congress. If you can help with a few dollars today the campaign can keep its ads on the air and compete. If he wins the primary, there's almost no doubt that he will win the seat. It could be one of the few progressive victories in this midterm election.

by Marian Wang

5:45 pm: This post has been updated.

The Coast Guard reported today that a mile-long oil sheen is spreading in the Gulf after an offshore oil rig exploded and caught fire earlier today, about 200 miles west of BP’s ruptured Deepwater Horizon well.

The rig is owned by a company called Mariner Energy, which has been involved in at least 13 accidents in the Gulf of Mexico since 2006, “including a blowout and four fires,” reported the Houston Chronicle.

No one was killed in this latest incident and the 13 workers aboard the rig were rescued. The platform, however, is still ablaze, and Mariner Energy’s early report of no leak has been cast into doubt. (The company also said in its press release that no injuries have been reported, although one person was reported injured.)

"Mariner has notified and is working with regulatory authorities in response to this incident. The cause is not known, and an investigation will be undertaken," the company said in a statement.

In April, Apache Corp., another petroleum company, announced it was acquiring Mariner, but according to the Associated Press, that deal is pending. More from the AP:

Apache spokesman Bob Dye said the platform is in shallow water. Responding to any oil spill in shallow water would be much easier than in deep water, where crews depend on remote-operated vehicles access equipment on the sea floor.

ThinkProgress points out that both Mariner Energy and Apache Corp. were at a rally just yesterday to protest the Obama administration’s temporary moratorium on offshore drilling. ThinkProgress pulled the following from the Financial Times:

Companies ranging from Chevron to Apache bussed in up to 5,000 employees to the Houston convention centre to underline to Washington the industry’s contribution to the country. ...

“I have been in the oil and gas industry for 40 years, and this administration is trying to break us,” said Barbara Dianne Hagood, senior landman for Mariner Energy, a small company. “The moratorium they imposed is going to be a financial disaster for the gulf coast, gulf coast employees and gulf coast residents.”

Mariner is one of the smaller players in the Gulf: The rig that exploded produced, on average, about 1,400 barrels of oil a day during the last week of August, the company said. By comparison, some of BP's smaller wells produce more than 60,000 barrels a day.

While not nearly on the scale of the BP’s Deepwater Horizon disaster, the latest accident still probably doesn’t help bolster the industry’s argument that the risks of offshore drilling are overblown.

Update: The Coast Guard has backed off its earlier report of an oil sheen, and is now reporting that there are no signs of a spill.

Failure to act on Comprehensive Immigration Reform, despite overwhelming (and all-partisan) public support, isn't just bad policy, it's terrible politics for Democrats.

More than a third of Latino voters blame both parties in Congress for not trying hard enough to pass immigration reform, and Latino enthusiasm for voting in this year's mid-term elections is down, a new poll shows.

Those findings of an election-year tracking poll by Latino Decisions -- released this week and to be updated weekly -- underscore Latino voter dismay over the lack of progress on immigration, an issue that ranks second in importance to them, behind the economy, says one analyst.

"They are frustrated with both parties, and it would appear from the goings-on in D.C. that they are right - both parties are ignoring or avoiding the issue," said Matt Barreto, director of the poll and a political science professor at the University of Washington, Seattle.

The telephone poll of Latino registered voters in 21 states -- which comprised 94% of the Latino electorate in '08 -- was conducted from Aug. 13 to Aug. 26, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 5%.

Given that Latinos are now a 2-1 Democratic constituency, and a fast-growing one at that, the lack of action and anti-Democratic blowback will be deadly at the polls.

Right now, most of the voters surveyed said they planned to vote Democratic. But a high percent remain uncommitted two months out, even though about 64% described themselves as Democrat, and only 24% said they were Republican.

Still, right now, only 52% said they planned to vote for Democrats in the upcoming House and Senate races, 23% plan to vote Republican, and 25% say they remain undecided.

Spanish-language media has been brutal against Obama and the Dems. They have pointed to the 60-vote Senate threshold as an excuse for inaction, but that has been an empty excuse. Had they put forward a bill, it would show a commitment to Latinos to the issue. And if it was defeated? So what? It would then be clear to Latinos who stood in the way of progress, and who was their real enemy. Dithering and inaction are the GOP's best friends.

But here's the thing -- there are several Democrats who also didn't want to see this bill introduced. Whether it's genuine electoral fear (even though the issue polls at over 60% for Republicans, Democrats, and Independents), or whether it's substantive hostility toward reform, the fact is that both internal and external pressures paralyzed Dems on the issue.

That weakness isn't going unnoticed by Latinos. And for a party struggling to survive what is shaping up to be a cataclysmic year, that inaction will only compound their problems.