Getting off on the right foot:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Friday sent a message to Democrats that Republicans are not prepared to bend to a stronger majority.

In letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), McConnell urged Reid to adopt a more conciliatory tone and warned him that Republicans will unite against Democrats if he does not. The letter was signed by all 40 GOP senators and two Republican incumbents who are awaiting the results of elections in Georgia and Minnesota.

Funny that ol’ Mitch is so testy here. It wasn’t but three years ago when he was doing this:

Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell said yesterday that Republicans have enough votes to invoke the “nuclear option” to limit Democrats’ ability to stall by filibuster consideration of President Bush’s nominees for federal appeals courts.

From Fox News late-night host Greg Gutfeld:

Back in 2002, [John] Podesta formed a group called the Coalition for Freedom of Information, which demanded access to secret government records on UFOs.

So right after 9/11, the worst attack on American soil ever, thank God there was someone in D.C. who had their priorities in order. I mean, maybe Martians did bomb the World Trade Center.

Look, I don’t dispute that aliens exist, but there are more urgent matters to deal with, other than wrinkly creatures with a knack for anal probing.

But enough about Barney Frank.

From JimLarkinsGhost (quoting the APA):

Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 nonhomophobic men as measured by the Index of Homophobia scale. All the participants selected for the study described themselves as exclusively heterosexual both in terms of sexual arousal and experience.

Each participant was exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual and lesbian videotapes (but not necessarily in that order). Their degree of sexual arousal was measured by penile plethysmography, which precisely measures and records male tumescence.

Men in both groups were aroused by about the same degree by the video depicting heterosexual sexual behavior and by the video showing two women engaged in sexual behavior. The only significant difference in degree of arousal between the two groups occurred when they viewed the video depicting male homosexual sex: ‘The homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual video, but the control [nonhomophobic] men did not.’

Just sayin’.

(Photo by David Shankbone - http://shankbone.org/)

The results of California’s Proposition 8 vote were deeply disheartening.   But the following is from the Good News Department here at IHWYJS:  people are making their voices heard.  Americans from coast to coast - gay, straight, young, and old - are speaking out on behalf of tolerance, decency, diversity, and equality.

One might have expected pro-gay rights demonstrations on Saturday in San Francisco, or in other California cities like San Diego and Sacramento.

But people also spoke out on Saturday in favor of marriage equality in New York.  And Boston.  And Pittsburgh.  And Charlotte.  And Honolulu.  And Orlando.  And Indianapolis.  And Seattle.  And Houston.  And Portland.  And Kansas City.  And Cincinnati.  And Providence.  And Atlanta.  And D.C.  And Baton Rouge.  And Phoenix.  And Detroit.  And Nashville.  And St. Louis.  And Chicago.  And Denver.  And Fargo.  And Des Moines.  And Oklahoma City.

And Salt Lake City.

And Idaho Falls.

Get the idea?

The AP reports that Obama insiders have stated that there will be no criminal investigations of Bush administration officials for human rights abuses or war crimes.

Instead, it seems that the president-elect favors something in line with a truth-and-reconciliation model:

Obama has committed to reviewing interrogations on al-Qaida and other terror suspects. After he takes office in January, Obama is expected to create a panel modeled after the 9/11 Commission to study interrogations, including those using waterboarding and other tactics that critics call torture. The panel’s findings would be used to ensure that future interrogations are undisputedly legal.

The article quotes Robert Litt, a former Clinton official in the Justice Department, offering the reasoning that is likely to win the day:

“Both for policy and political reasons, it would not be beneficial to spend a lot of time hauling people up before Congress or before grand juries and going over what went on,” Litt said at a Brookings Institution discussion about Obama’s legal policy. “To as great of an extent we can say, the last eight years are over, now we can move forward — that would be beneficial both to the country and the president, politically.”

Opposing this logic is Michael Rater, a professor at Columbia Law school, who argues that

“The only way to prevent this from happening again is to make sure that those who were responsible for the torture program pay the price for it,” Ratner said. “I don’t see how we regain our moral stature by allowing those who were intimately involved in the torture programs to simply walk off the stage and lead lives where they are not held accountable.”

It is a certainty that Litt’s argument will prevail. However, if I were Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Yoo, or Addington, I would not step foot outside of the United States for the rest of my lifetime.

What a great country we have. We’ve decided that it is acceptable that a single person has the ability to order the capture of individuals wherever they might be on the globe, hold them prisoner indefinitely with no access to a legitimate court, and subject them to torture. There is no other word for this than absolute and abject tyranny.

I was really hoping for a war-crimes trial so that I could see Dick Cheney deliver this line from the witness chair:

You can’t handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. . . . And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall! You need me on that wall! We use words like Honor, Code, Loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline! I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said “Thank you” and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled too!

Obama’s FCC transition team suggests that big changes are coming for telecommunications legislation. Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach, both active defenders of net neutrality and diversity in media ownership:

The choice of the duo strongly signals an entirely different approach to the incumbent-friendly telecom policymaking that’s characterized most of the past eight-years at the FCC.

This March at a telecom policy conference in Hollywood, for example, Crawford bluntly told Ambassador Richard Russell, the White House’ associate director on science and technology policy, that he lived in a fantasyland when he asserted that the United States’ roll-out of broadband is going well.

“I think it’s magical thinking to imagine that we’re somehow doing fine here, and I just want to make sure that we recognize that even the [International Telecommunications Union] says that between 1999 and 2006 we skipped form third to 20th place in penetration,” she noted acidly at the annual Tech Policy Summit, a gathering of top officials in the world of tech policy (of which Wired.com was a participant and sponsor.)

“We’re not doing at all well for reasons that mostly have to do with the fact that we failed to have a US industrial policy pushing forward high-speed internet access penetration, and there’s been completely inadequate competition in this country for high speed internet access,” she said.

And in a final introductory statement during her talk (that’s likely to send shivers down the spines of telecom company executives) she said that she believes internet access is a “utility.”

“This is like water, electricity, sewage systems: Something that each and all Americans need to succeed in the modern era. We’re doing very badly, and we’re in a dismal state,” she said at the time.

You can listen to Crawford discuss telecom policy here, and read Werbach’s columns on tech policy at internet-infrastructure journal Circle-ID.

Wired

These choices seem to echo the Obama plan for Technology and Innovation:

A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of
network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet. Users must be free to access content, to use applications, and to attach personal devices…

Barack Obama believes that the nation’s rules ensuring diversity of media ownership are critical to the public interest. Unfortunately, over the past several years, the Federal Communications Commission has promoted the concept of consolidation over diversity. Barack Obama believes that providing opportunities for minority-owned businesses to own radio and television stations is
fundamental to creating the diverse media environment that federal law requires and the country deserves and demands. As president, he will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum. An Obama presidency will promote greater coverage of local issues and better responsiveness by broadcasters to the communities they serve.

The NY Times with a fascinating look at one of the central architects of our financial crisis: free-market fundamentalist, Phil Gramm.

This interview clip is heartening.  President-elect Obama has put himself on record - he will “close Guantanamo” and he will “make sure that we don’t torture.”

The contrast between Obama’s remarks and the moral decay of the Bush administration is striking, and it is just one of the many reasons that November 4 marked a new era of hope for America.

In January, we can all celebrate our new President’s inauguration. And then we must do our job - we must hold him to his words.

I know that Obama seems to have decided to use Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals as some kind of template for his presidency, but I wonder: is it wise to bring Hillary Clinton into the fold as Secretary of State?

It is true that Hillary has been making all the right moves of late to allay any concerns that she might take a Machiavellian path that undermines the administration. And I suppose there is something to that old adage about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer. While the president-elect may see this as an opportunity to neutralize a potentially powerful, recalcitrant foe, it carries some significant risk.

Perhaps most significant of those risks is Mr. Clinton. It seems pretty plain that Bill still holds a grudge from the campaign. I could see him going off the reservation, disruptively opening up back channels and using his proximity to Hillary to try and get back into the game. It’s a sure bet that he’ll meddle.

But maybe Obama will pull a rabbit out of a stovepipe hat and then magically transform Hillary Clinton into William Henry Seward. But I dunno — seems fraught.

Team of Rivals

Dramatis personæ:

Barack Obama …………….President Abraham Lincoln

Hillary Clinton ……………..Senator William Henry Seward

Bill Clinton ………………….Salmon P. Chase

UPDATE:

See what I mean?

The Dick in Question (click on thumbnail for a larger Dick)

FOR FAR TOO LONG, Congress has almost completely ignored its responsibility to hold the executive branch accountable for its actions.  In particular, Dick Cheney appears to have worked outside the law nearly since the day of his inauguration as V.P., and he has gotten away with every bit of it.  (See Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s Articles of Impeachment against The Dick by clicking here).

Perhaps a strong showing on election day will embolden Congressional Democrats.  A small, but not insignificant peice of good news appeared today:

Democrats from the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees last week sent a letter to the White House demanding that it preserve all records produced by the Bush administration. The letter, obtained by the Associated Press, expressed particular concern that the office of Vice President Cheney would not comply with the law.

The letter, sent by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Sen. John D. Rockefeller of West Virginia and Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, asks White House counsel Fred Fielding to detail steps being taken to preserve White House documents and hand them over to the National Archives and Records Administration.

I urge all IHWYJS readers to write to your representatives in Congress  - let them know that no Dick is above the law.  Hold that Dick accountable.  Also, feel free to use the word “Dick” gratuitously when you write.

Dick.

Greta Van Susteren with a Fox News exclusive interview of “First Dude,” Todd Palin. Imagine Greta 200 pounds heavier and this would be an episode of The Chris Farley Show.

Is it just me or is Greta is hot for the Dude? Their exchanges sound like the worst, most cringe-worthy first date conversation you’ve ever experienced:

I imagine it has been a tough week in the halls and offices of Fox News.  Those poor bastards seemed determined to do their best to keep a Republican in the White House; alas, good sense prevailed on November 4th.  Big time.

Harold Myerson’s WAPO column today is a letter - a letter of thanks - to Roger Ailes and his team of ghouls at Fox.  Myerson writes:

During the campaign just completed, you guys [at Fox News] focused on Barack Obama’s allegedly Muslim and alien roots and socialist ideology; meanwhile, in the real world, unemployment rose, foreclosures soared and Wall Street went flooey. Over the past eight years, you beat drums for such causes as state intervention in the Terri Schiavo case. You demonized undocumented immigrants (okay, CNN’s Lou Dobbs gave you a run for your money on that one). You fed the Republican base with a steady diet of bile — and now that bilious base is the biggest impediment to the Republicans’ repositioning themselves so that they can win elections again.

Reach out to Latinos — the inescapably growing segment of the American electorate that voted overwhelmingly for Obama after four years of GOP immigrant-bashing? Not if Fox viewers have anything to say about it. Not after you’ve drummed into their heads that the Latino immigrant population is some looming terrorist threat.

Modify that opposition to stem-cell research? Tone down the ridicule of people in public life who have advanced degrees? Call off the Republican war on science that kicks in whenever science runs counter to right-wing fundamentalism in religion or economics? Not if the Hannity faithful can help it.

You’re not alone in reinforcing those beliefs that marginalize the Republican right, of course. You’ve got plenty of help from Rush and all the little Limbaughs who dominate talk radio. But together with your allies, you haul truckloads of troglodyte garbage to your flock.

Given Obama’s landslide victory, it would appear that Fox and its most enthusiastic viewers are moving farther from the mainstream of American political life.  Perhaps the lesson for future Republican leaders is this:  instead of trying to tap into the Weltanschauung of “Hannity’s America,” you might want to focus on the real problems that real voters care about.  Like this guy did.

Wow, these were the good old days.