Hypocritical Wanker Of The Day: Jane Harman

Image credit: Official Congressional portrait

Occasionally, I've written phrases of the form, "you don't have to be an expert to understand this, just a human being". What I always assume when I write such things is that the people I'm addressing have the imagination and self-knowledge to understand how they would feel or react in a given circumstance. Often, I'm disappointed to find out that there are many people who don't understand. These are the sorts of people who think, for instance, that the Palestinians will calm down if Israel just gets tough on them. What they fail to realize, of course, is that the problem is that Israel has been tough on them, by creating the conditions that put them in small, densely populated areas, and then bombing or invading them whenever they feel the need. Anyone who thinks people will calm down in such circumstances has to be an emotional idiot - someone not the least bit aware of how he reacts to stress and fear.

It appears that Rep. Jane Harman (CA-36) is such a person, as Glenn Greenwald writes today:

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about one of the most shameless and absurd spectacles to appear in Washington in some time: the self-righteous, self-obsessed rage expressed by Blue Dog Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) -- leading defender of Bush's illegal domestic eavesdropping programs -- upon learning that one of her conversations had been legally eavesdropped upon as part of a criminal investigation into the actions of a suspected Israeli agent. Over the weekend, Harman (along with half of the U.S. Congress) appeared at the AIPAC conference and continued her new anti-eavesdropping crusade, actually vowing to lead an investigation into potential eavesdropping abuses to assure that it would never happen again. Atrios notes just some of the points that makes her behavior incomparably shameless.

Someone Needs To Give Jane Harman An Award For This

As one of the articles Glenn referred to states:

[Y]ou are told that under orders from the president, the National Security Agency set up “unique access points inside the U.S. telecommunications infrastructure.” You are assured that this is legal. You are a trained lawyer.

What do you do?

Well, if you are one particular Congresswoman, you don’t think that’s its highly suspicious that the NSA is operating inside the United States. You don’t find a way to research the legality of the program, by getting hypothetical answers from constitutional and intelligence experts. You don’t read the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to see if the program sounds legal.

Harman: It’s Not My Fault I Couldn’t Figure Out Domestic Wiretapping Was Illegal

Now, of course, Harman is up in arms, because the government was wiretapping her. Someone leaked this fact to the press, along with what that wiretap allegedly exposed, which was Harman at least considering trading support for AIPAC for campaign contributions. In any event, the hypocrisy of one of the biggest champions of illegal wiretapping protesting her being exposed by a legal wiretap is rich, to say the least.

So, as the title of Glenn's article suggests, Harman is, indeed, receiving an award for this. Around here, we have the perfect award. There's no monetary value to this award, but then Ms. Harman ranks as one of the richest members of Congress. It's the perfect award for someone who has everything.

Congratulations to Jane Harman for becoming our new Hypocritical Wanker Of The Day. The best thing about this award is that, if history proves to be any guide, she'll be able to keep it for some time.

Hypocritical Wanker Of The Day Award: John Boehner

It took almost a year, but someone finally managed to knock Rahm Emmanuel off his perch. Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) is quoted as having said this last Sunday:

House Minority Leader John Boehner said that struggling American families "don't see government tightening its belt," and argued for a spending freeze because government, he said, should "lead by example."

Boehner: Government Needs To Tighten Its Belt

What happened to the party of "go shopping"? They were happy enough to expand government spending when they were in power. The libertarian Reason Online wrote this about Bush's spending back in October, 2005:

"After 11 years of Republican majority we've pared [the budget] down pretty good," Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) crowed a few weeks back during ongoing budget deliberations. But nothing could be farther from the truth, at least since the GOP gained the White House in 2001. During his five years at the helm of the nation's budget, the president has expanded a wide array of "compassionate" welfare-state, defense, and nondefense programs. When it comes to spending, Bush is no Reagan. Alas, he is also no Clinton and not even Nixon. The recent president he most resembles is in fact fellow Texan and legendary spendthrift Lyndon Baines Johnson—except that Bush is in many ways even more profligate with the public till.

Bush the Budget Buster

Am I to believe they suddenly got religion now? If there was ever a time for extra government spending, it's now. As Paul Krugman explains, the GOP is so far out of its mind it's having an out-of-body experience:

What’s insane about Boehner’s remark? He’s talking about the current economic crisis as if it were a harvest failure — as if we faced a shortage of goods, so that the more you consume the less is left for me. In reality — even most conservatives understand this, when they think about it — we’re in a world desperately short of demand. If you consume more, that’s GOOD for me, because it helps create jobs and raise incomes. It’s in my personal disinterest to have you tighten your belt — and that’s just as true if you’re “the government” as if you’re my neighbor.

Can America be saved?

Krugman's question is a good one. Can America be saved? I really doubt it at times. When the people who run one of the major parties alternate between spewing nonsense like this, and openly hoping the Obama Administration, however hamfistedly it might be trying, fails to fix the economic crisis we are in, you really have to wonder. What's worse, the changes the GOP insisted on so it wouldn't filibuster the bill made it far less effective than it might have been otherwise.

Boehners' efforts have managed to acheive something I thought would be impossible: make the Democrats in Congress look good in comparison.

If these are the kind of leaders we come up with, you have to wonder if we're worth saving. One thing's for sure, John Boehner's constituents should be ashamed of him. If they're not, then they sure aren't worth saving.

Hypocritical Wanker of the Day Award: Rahm Emmanuel

Image credit: UNHCR [These are Iraqi refugees. Apparently, Rahm Emmanuel doesn't think they're trying hard enough.]

It took almost six months, but someone finally managed to knock Clear Channel off their perch ...

Rahm Emmanuel, as quoted by the Washington Post:

We've put about $45 billion into Iraq's reconstruction . . . and they have not spent their own resources," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.). "They have got to have some skin in the game."

Bush to Cut Army Tours to 12 Months

This turd has been one of the leading cheerleaders for this war on the Democratic side. Given the utter absurdity of this conflict, I suppose I should expect nothing more out of him. Unfortunately, he still walks upright, so I do.

I'll just quote someone else for a moment, with some expository links added:

So this is a game? Over a million Iraqis dead, 4-5 million refugees? How much skin does Rahm think Iraqis should put up for his war? Does he wish more Iraqi children to die?
...
Now the U.S. Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, want Iraqi's to pay for the bullets that kill them.

Monsters in Congress - "Skin in the Game"

Now, I'll quote me:

Nevertheless, a pattern is obvious. Since the war began, refugee influx to the most likely destination countries, particularly the United States, has slowed to a trickle. If anything, it should have changed by orders of magnitude in the opposite direction given the number of refugees the war has created.

Iraq's Refugees

I suggest that if Rahmy wants more skin in this game, maybe he should set a good example. Fight to have more refugees resettled here, instead of fewer.

Bet he doesn't have the courage to do less than he expects Iraqis to do.

UPDATE (Apr. 16): Added illustration and caption.

The "Hypocritical Wanker(s) Of The Day Award" Goes To ...

(Artist's conception by Cujo359)

A few weeks ago, I wrote about Bruce Springsteen's appearance on Today. I wrote:

It's a speech, which is often a tiresome thing at a rock concert, but songs and the occasional line in a TV show is the only way we get to explain what's happening in this country nowadays. Do you think neocon spokesmodel Matt Lauer will be chatting with anyone who talks about these things? Not bloody likely.

Apparently, even this little rebellion is too much for Clear Channel, as Howie Klein explains:

Another friend of mine distinctly recalls the Senate hearings on radio consolidation in light of the Dixie Chicks boycott where Barbara Boxer and John McCain heard testimony including an internal Clear Channel memo threatening "Just wait and see what happens if Springsteen tries this." I guess we're seeing that right now.

Of course, Clear Channel hasn't publicly said they are boycotting Springsteen's music. But they are. Fox News, hardly a hotbed of liberal alarmists, reports that "Clear Channel has sent an edict to its classic rock stations not to play tracks from Magic... no new songs by Springsteen, even though it’s likely many radio listeners already own the album and would like to hear it mixed in with the junk offered on radio."

Clear Channel, Republican Propaganda Network, Out To Kill Springsteen's Magic?

Springsteen's album, which includes both "Living In The Past", and the not-so ironically named "Radio Nowhere", is selling like crazy, according to Billboard:

A couple weeks ago the new album was #1 on the Billboard album chart. Kid Rock's new album knocked it down a peg and this week, Springsteen disposed on Kid Rock and is back at #1. The album is already gold and headed right towards platinum and he's got a great shot to win a Grammy for Best Album of the Year.

Clear Channel, Republican Propaganda Network, Out To Kill Springsteen's Magic?

As John Amato points out, this is what happened to the Dixie Chicks.

Why do we think Clear Channel is Republican owned? Howie explains:

In 2006 Clear Channel Communications ponied up almost $800,000 in legal campaign contributions, 65% of which went to Republicans. The two top dogs at the company are long-time Bush family retainers and cronies, Tom Hicks and Lowry Mays. Mays has donated tens of thousands of dollars to Republican candidates for office over the years. A few: $69,500 for the Republican National Committee, $21,000 for the NRCC, $14,200 for Michael McCaul (TX), $2,500 for James Sensenbrenner (WI), $2,300 for Duncan Hunter (CA), $16,300 for Lamar Smith (TX), $6,500 for Kay Bailey Hutchinson (TX), $3,000 for Tom DeLay (TX), $13,000 for Henry Bonilla (TX), $10,250 for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, $2,500 for Heather Wilson (NM), $6,000 for John Cornyn (TX), and $2,100 for Flip Flop Mitt and grudging grand for Giuliani (NY).

Clear Channel, Republican Propaganda Network, Out To Kill Springsteen's Magic?

Ironically, a couple of months ago, Clear Channel were all about free speech, at least in one city. Tacoma, Washington had enacted an ordinance that banned large billboards in residential areas:

The ban takes aim at billboards that are bigger than 300 square feet or within 250 feet of a residential area, church, school, historic district or park. The City Council passed it in 1997 in response to the erection of a 600-square-foot billboard at South Union Avenue and Center Street, as well as an increasing number of billboards popping up on roadside property under tribal jurisdiction.

The council granted billboard owners a 10-year amortization period to recoup their investments before the ban would be imposed. In the lawsuit filed Thursday, however, Clear Channel Outdoor said the amortization period doesn’t count as just compensation under the Fifth Amendment.

New twist in sign battle

Even though this ordinance was to take effect over the course of ten years, Clear Channel did nothing about their billboards until the day they were supposed to either take them down or restrict what was advertised on them to - get this - political or other issue ads. Instead, they started plastering red, white, and blue signs on them that said "Constitutions Matter".

So, to summarize, Constitutions matter when they affect profits. Otherwise, not so much.

For their naked hypocrisy and arrogance, Clear Channel wins the inaugural "Hypocritical Wanker(s) Of The Day" award. There's no material value to this award, not even the tasty morsels other awardees get. Considering Clear Channel's priorities, I think that's poetic justice.

UPDATE: Forgot a h/t to Christy at Firedoglake, who started all this today.