Some images may be shocking to young children. This is information you need to have.
Al Jazeera carried this report, an edited version of a report from Reuters, who somehow got video and interviews from inside North Korea, if we are to grant credence to the report.
In a hospital in Pyongyang, doctors monitor a group of weak infants, some of whom are already showing signs of malnutrition and sickness. They are the most vulnerable members of a population suffering from extreme food shortages.
According to the United Nations, one third of all children under the age of five in North Korea are malnourished, and other countries have become less interested in donating food as the “hermit kingdom” battles efforts to constrain its nuclear program.
The UN World Food Programme says public distributions are running extremely low, and they are only able to help half the people who need aid. Meanwhile, the countries rulers stage outsized military parades, and some wonder whether food donations are being siphoned off to them.
North Korea recently granted a Reuters news crew access to the country, and Al Jazeera’a Khadija Magardie reports on the plight they found.
Famine in North Korea is one more vital topic ignored by the presidential and Congressional campaigns, and conservatives in their rush to get Obama out of office.
I thought I’d posted this when I first saw it in July. Can’t find it. It deserves a wider audience, I think: “The Michelle Bachmann Song” by Hockey Mama for Obama.
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
It’s horrifyingly ironic if you think about it: Republicans opposed expanding access to the health care system with a false claim that the Democratic plan included rationing of health care in a “death panels” clause. Completely untrue. The bill barely passed.
But did you see what happened last week at the Republican Party’s event featuring their candidates for president? Here a citizen responds to the Republicans:
In their silence, Republicans appear to support rolling back current health care, foregoing “death panels” as not harsh enough, and moving on to “let ’em all die.”
Talking Points Memo billed it as a dig at Rick Perry’s not-grounded campaign platform, but we’d all do well to listen to former President Bill Clinton’s larger point here: A good economy for a great nation requires a good, working government, regulations and all.
No love lost between Hutchison and Perry. Hutchison opposed Perry for the Republican nomination for governor of Texas in 2010. Perry was brutal in his criticism of her, and he defeated her in the primary.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry should not count on the support of his state’s seniority senator (and his 2010 Republican gubernatorial rival) if he decides to run for president.
(Polaroid photo by Sarah Tung/Hearst Newspapers)
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Dallas, told NBC’s Andrea Mitchell today that she is looking for a Republican candidate with private-sector experience as her choice for the party’s 2012 presidential nomination.
Perry is a career politician who has held elective office since 1985.
“He certainly has got government experience,” Hutchison told Mitchell on MSNBC’s “The Daily Rundown” this morning, adding that “we need people who have been in the private sector, as well.”
The Republican senator’s comments hint strongly that she’d prefer one of the GOP candidates who has run a business: former Winter Olympics organizer (and venture capitalist) Mitt Romney, former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain or former chemical company executive Jon Huntsman.
Hutchison said she has no immediate plans to endorse any candidate.
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
Ezra Klein’s on-line column this morning worries me more — will any Republican stand up for America?
No, I don’t mean lip service, I don’t mean flag lapel pins. I mean, will any Republican stand up for the policies we need to steer through the shoals of economic woe we face in the next 60 months?
The most telling moment of Thursday’s GOP debate wasn’t when Michele Bachmann cooly stuck a knife between Tim Pawlenty’s ribs, or when Rick Santorum plaintively begged for more airtime, or when Mitt Romney easily slipped past questions about his record on health-care reform. It was when every single GOP candidate on the stage agreed that they would reject a budget deal that was $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. Even Fox News’s Bret Baier couldn’t quite believe what he was seeing. He asked again just to make sure the assembled candidates had understood the question.
Primary debates are usually watched for what they say about the candidates, but they’re generally important for what they say about the party. This one was no different. With the notable exceptions of Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, the candidates didn’t disagree over policy. They disagreed over fealty to policy.
Bachmann didn’t attack Pawlenty’s policy proposals. She attacked him for past statements suggesting he might believe in other policy proposals, like the individual mandate and cap-and-trade. Pawlenty’s assault on Romney took the same form. This debate wasn’t about what policies the candidates believed in. That was largely a given. This debate was about which of the candidates believed in those policies the most.
The best policy in this debate wasn’t the policy most likely to work, or the policy most likely to pass. It was the most orthodox policy. The policy least sullied by compromise. A world in which the GOP will not agree to deficit reduction with a 10:1 split between spending cuts and tax increases is a world where entitlement reform can’t happen. It’s a world where the “supercommittee” fails and the trigger is pulled, and thus a world in which $1 out of every $2 in cuts comes from the Pentagon. It’s not a world that fits what many in the GOP consider ideal policy. But it is a world in which none in the GOP need to traverse the treacherous politics of compromise.
Policies discussed weren’t mainline, capitalist economic policies, either. They’re so far out in left field they can’t even see the pitcher’s mound from where they are. Plus, they’re looking the wrong way.
Over and over again, [Michelle] Bachmann misstated basic facts. She said that Tim Pawlenty “implemented” cap-and-trade in Minnesota. He did no such thing. She said “we just heard from Standard Poor’s,” and “when they dropped our credit rating what they said was we don’t have an ability to repay our debt.” Simply not true.
S&P has never questioned our ability to repay our debt. That’s why we remain AA+. They have questioned whether political brinksmanship will stop us from paying our debt. The downgrade “was pretty much motivated by all of the debate about the raising of the debt ceiling,” said John Chambers, head of S&P’s sovereign ratings committee. That is to say, it was motivated by political brinksmanship from the likes of, well, Michele Bachmann.
It’s fitting that the candidate best able to resist compromise is the candidate who seems least able to correctly explain the policies at issue and the choices we face. It’s a lot easier to take a hard line if you don’t understand the consequences of your actions, and a lot simpler to belt out applause lines if you’re not slowed down by the messy complexities of the issues. But where Bachmann is leading, the other candidates are following. Mitt Romney knows perfectly well that a deal with $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases is a great deal for conservatives. What he probably doesn’t know is how he’s going to explain why he pretended otherwise when he was vying for the nomination.
Winners in the debate? Unclear. Losers? You, me, and every American.
Can any Republican explain where in the world they got these nightmare economic policies? Are they being made up on the spot?
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum’s reluctant grip on reality appeared to be vanishing fast in a stop in Iowa, Thursday. He said America’s schools are for indoctrination of students, and he doesn’t like the current round of indoctrination.
Geeze, this ought to be in The Onion. Is Santorum really this disconnected from America and life? Are there actually people out there who don’t look around for the guys in the white clothes with straight jackets and nets when they hear him say this stuff?
I don’t generally cite to The Huffington Post, but when the warning claxons go off, you ought to see if there’s danger before dismissing them as error:
Rick Santorum woos voters in Orange City, Iowa - Des Moines Register photo
During a stop in Iowa on Thursday, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said that “schools indoctrinate our children,” the Des Moines Registerreports.
“You wonder why young people can vote and flock for a guy like Barack Obama and say, if you look at the surveys, that socialism is better than capitalism — well, that’s because they don’t understand America,” he explained, according to the Register. “I said ‘indoctrination’ and I meant it,” he said.
What survey does he have that claims any group in America, other than the Tea Party or the American Communist Party, say socialism is better than capitalism? Since curricula in every state teach the opposite, the existence of such a poll would be powerful evidence of critical thinking powers in students that most teachers would not attest to.
Maybe more important, perhaps we should worry about just what all those thousands of nice Baptist ladies are teaching our kids in Texas, eh? Not to mention the Lutheran ladies in Iowa. Santorum is sniping at teachers, but if you look at the demographics, it makes little sense. Teachers are, like the rest of America, about 90% Christian, God-fearing, flag-waving American patriots.
Well, nothing Santorum says makes much sense, does it? Santorum lent support to the War on Education.
Santorum argued that the country’s education system is leaving students with an insufficient grasp of history. His remarks come with the widely-anticipated Ames Straw poll — a table-setter event for next year’s Iowa caucuses — less than two weeks away.
What in the hell do the schools in Ames, Iowa, look like, that Santorum can say that stuff about them?
By the way, if people learned history accurately in high school, Rick Santorum wouldn’t stand a chance in any election today. But I digress.
The Des Moines Register article adds the details that Santorum made note of recent testing that shows American kids don’t know enough about American history — always the case, by the way — and that a college prof from Kansas said he gives his students the test required of immigrants applying for citizenship, and most can’t pass the test.
I’m game: Let’s give the test to Santorum. If he doesn’t pass, though, we can’t deport him. We have no vehicles capable of getting to Mars.
HP offers information that may explain Santorum’s insanity: The same article notes he’s touring Iowa in two vans with his seven children. In this heat?
Does the Iowa division of child protective services know about this? How about the division that worries about children torturing their parents?
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
Occasionally I stumble into a discussion of whether anywhere in the U.S. a government may have executed an innocent person. Generally I note the horrible Texas case in which Texas fought for years for the point that a convicted murderer whose three allowed appeals had been exhausted should not be allowed to reopen his case simply because new evidence of his innocence had emerged. In Herrera v. Collins(506 US 390, 1993), Texas won the right to not allow evidence of innocence to get a review of the case, and the man was executed.
Ladies and gentlemen I ask you: Why would a state fight for the right to execute an innocent man, to the Supreme Court, if it did not intend to use that right?
The question rises more frequently these days as Texas Gov. Rick Perry steams toward announcing he will run for the presidency.
I point out that Herrera came down nearly eight years before Perry stumbled into the governor’s chair, his having been standing outside the door as Lieutenant Governor when George W. Bush persuaded the Supreme Court — most of the same justices — to stop both the popular vote and change the electoral vote to give him the presidency. So we can’t blame that one on Perry.
But we can blame the execution of Todd Willingham on Rick Perry, even understanding that he was relying on what he assumed to be good evidence in his naturally uncurious waltz of destruction across Texas. Perry could claim he got bad advice. Though Texas’s governer really has little more than ceremonial power and some appointments, for someone like Perry it is a big job he can barely handle. People would cut him slack on letting an innocent man die, convicted of a capital crime that as the evidence showed at the time probably did not occur, if he’d just confess it.
Instead, Perry engaged in a four-year campaign to cover up the affair — a cover up that is so far successful.
Jonathan Chait blogging at New Republic cites Politico and The New Yorker on the way to painting all Texans as morally bankrupt for allowing the coverup to go on — justifiably, I think. While the newspapers cover the story, outrage does not rise from the drought-stricken populace. New Republic’s blog explained the cover-up, and Texas’s blase attitude:
Alexander Burns and Maggie Haberman have a story for Politico about Rick Perry’s limitations as a general election candidate. It’s a really excellent piece on its own terms, but at the same time, it’s a bit of a parody of a Politico story in that it takes a vital moral question, drains it of all its moral significance, and presents it in purely electoral terms. The thesis of the piece is that Perry appeals to very conservative white southerners, but not to anybody else, making him a questionable choice to head the Republican ticket. The piece bears out that thesis pretty well. In the middle it includes a glancing reference to one episode of Perry’s gubernatorial tenure:
Perry would also have to answer for parts of his record that have either never been fully scrutinized in Texas, or that might be far more problematic before a national audience.
Veterans of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison’s unsuccessful 2010 primary challenge to Perry recalled being stunned at the way attacks bounced off the governor in a strongly conservative state gripped by tea party fever. Multiple former Hutchison advisers recalled asking a focus group about the charge that Perry may have presided over the execution of an innocent man – Cameron Todd Willingham – and got this response from a primary voter: “It takes balls to execute an innocent man.”
The Willingham case is just one episode in Perry’s gubernatorial tenure that could be revived against him in the very different context of a national race, potentially compromising him in a general election.
If you’re not familiar with this episode, David Grann wrote about in for the New Yorker in 2009 in what may be the single greatest piece of journalism I have ever read in my life. (I am biased, as David is a friend and former colleague.) The upshot is that Perry is essentially an accessory to murder. He executed an innocent man, displaying zero interest in the man’s innocence. When a commission subsequently investigated the episode, Perry fired its members.
I’m a Texan, and I’m appalled. Dear Reader, what can a Texan do? Please advise.
Surely the rest of America would be concerned and shocked, no? We can excuse goofs in the histories of our presidential candidates. Especially since Nixon, we should be doubly wary of those who work hard to cover up their errors, rather than learn from them.
By the way, in the latest action, the office of the Texas Attorney General issued a report on the duties of the commission established to investigate Texas justice to make it more fair — the commission whose members Perry fired when they got close to the Willingham case. The report says that that Willingham case is water under the bridge, that the commission may not investigatet cases that predate the commission’s creation.
It’s a gross miscarriage of justice, and an attack on the democratic form of government which relies very much on continuous improvement of governmental processes, especially the due processes of criminal justice.
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
After the Republican presidential candidates’ debate, observers of the pageant opined that Michelle Bachmann had little command of history (as usual, in her case), but a great command of turning phrases that telegraph to particular interest groups that she is one of them. For example, somewhere in the debate Bachmann sneaked in a claim that “we are the head and not the tail.” This was said to be a cryptic shout out to fundamentalist Christians, a reference to Deuteronomy 28.13.
So, if Bachmann is so thoughtful, so careful to send coded messages to her supporters, one may wonder: What group is she giving a shout out to, here, in her appearance in Waterloo, Iowa:
Oy. Wrong John Wayne to affiliate with Waterloo, or even to remind Waterloo residents about. History that is, regretfully, bogus. Or voodoo history, depending on whether one thinks Bachmann is conscious, not on drugs, and meant what she said.
Bachmann told CBS News that she’s running because “People are tired of being told things that aren’t so.” Practice what you preach, Ms. Bachmann?
Sunday I watched Bachmann vs. CBS’s veteran report Bob Schieffer. Schieffer asked her about her tendency to tell extremely tall tales — like her claim that the Obama administration had failed to approve any oil leases, when the total approved at that point was 270 leases. Bachmann went off on a tangent. Schieffer asked the question a second time. She went on another tangent. Schieffer asked a third time, a third tangent.
History challenged, veracity challenged: Every time Michelle Bachmann opens her mouth, it’s an adventure.
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
Sarah Palin's custom-painted bus, parked -- is this abandoned parking lot the last stop?
That’s rather unusual, don’t you think? Our Band of Merry History Teachers stuck to our bus tour last week until the bus wore out. I’d expect Palin to keep it up so long as the air conditioning held out.
No, I’m not running. I may be better prepared than some of the candidates, but I have a job to do, and I can’t speak Mandarin.
Ed Darrell wrestling with the Presidential Seal and a balky teleprompter.
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
I was traveling, learning about past presidents, and I missed did not see or hear the “debate” last week among Republican hopefuls for the presidency.
Old friend and commentator Pat Carrithers asked on Facebook:
What did we learn from the Republican debate last night?
We learned they all hate Obama.
We learned they have no new thoughts or ideas for economic recovery.
We learned that they still think “No” is a policy and a program.
So, I repeat, What did we learn from the Republican debate last night.
I look at the Republican field, and I worry. I may have explained before that my experience is that we should hope for, and work to obtain, the best possible candidate from each party, because circumstances well may conspire to elect the lesser of those two candidates. I cannot in good conscience hope for a clown like Bachmann or Palin to win the Republican nomination.
The Salt Lake Tribunes great, sharp-penned Pat Bagley's view of the June 2011 Republican Presidential Debates. (When is Bagley going to win a Pulitzer?)
It seems odd to me that the two candidates who rate highest on my Qualified to Lead (QTL) criteria are both Mormons, both of whom have employed people I worked with. (This contrasts sharply with Texas’s Rick Perry who is not in the campaign officially yet, but who, to my mind, has abandoned most standards of propriety in his false claims about his shepherding of Texas — remember he claimed we had a budget surplus a year ago, but this year announced deficits of nearly $30 billion, which led him to propose cutting essential functions of government; Perry would be at least a third clown in the Republican race, to me.)
I get e-mail that makes me smile on a dreary day (everything below quoted from the e-mail):
Ed —
Let me introduce you to Jerome Corsi.
This week he released a new book that the publisher says will be a bestseller “of historic proportions.”
The title is “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” — yes, really.
Corsi’s work is a greatest-hits reel of delusions, ranging from 9/11 conspiracies to claiming that there is an infinite supply of oil in the Earth’s core. In 2008, he published a book about Barack Obama claiming, among other things, that he (a) is a secret Muslim; (b) is secretly anti-military; (c) secretly dealt drugs; and (d) secretly supported terrorist actions when he was eight years old. So many secrets!
FactCheck.org called Corsi’s work “a mishmash of unsupported conjecture, half-truths, logical fallacies and outright falsehoods.”
There’s really no way to make this stuff completely go away. The only thing we can do is laugh at it — and make sure as many other people as possible are in on the joke.
Last year, the President said, “I can’t spend all of my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead.”
This is about as close as we can get.
If the facts can’t make these ridiculous smears go away, we can at least have a little fun with it.
And then we’ll get back to the important work of supporting the President as he tackles real problems like high gas prices, the deficit, and unemployment.
Thanks,
Julianna
Julianna Smoot
Deputy Campaign Manager
Obama for America
Or, until that account is unsuspended by the forces supporting Donald Trump: Follow @FillmoreWhite, the account of the Millard Fillmore White House Library
We've been soaking in the Bathtub for several months, long enough that some of the links we've used have gone to the Great Internet in the Sky.
If you find a dead link, please leave a comment to that post, and tell us what link has expired.
Thanks!
Retired teacher of law, economics, history, AP government, psychology and science. Former speechwriter, press guy and legislative aide in U.S. Senate. Former Department of Education. Former airline real estate, telecom towers, Big 6 (that old!) consultant. Lab and field research in air pollution control.
My blog, Millard Fillmore's Bathtub, is a continuing experiment to test how to use blogs to improve and speed up learning processes for students, perhaps by making some of the courses actually interesting. It is a blog for teachers, to see if we can use blogs. It is for people interested in social studies and social studies education, to see if we can learn to get it right. It's a blog for science fans, to promote good science and good science policy. It's a blog for people interested in good government and how to achieve it.
BS in Mass Communication, University of Utah
Graduate study in Rhetoric and Speech Communication, University of Arizona
JD from the National Law Center, George Washington University
Posted by Ed Darrell 
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 