I doubt there is an organization that right wingers love to hate more than the American Civil Liberties Union.  The ACLU constantly challenges the government's national security powers.  The ACLU is a fierce defender of rights of women and minorities on issues that are anathema the right wing conservatives: supporting reproductive medical choice and abortion, same sex marriage and LGBT equality, and affirmative action, and opposing things like prayer in public schools.

What does not usually get through the thick membranes of the traditional media, though, is the fact that the ACLU is not a fierce defender of liberals but of liberty.  ACLU have defended the civil liberties of conservatives just as well as they have for liberals.  What do you think conservatives would be doing if the ACLU had sent a letter supporting the right of a member of the armed forces to politically openly oppose the Commander in Chief - let's say a President Reagan or a President Bush?  I reckon they wouldn't take it too lightly.  But that is exactly what has happened under President Obama.

SAN DIEGO – A Camp Pendleton Marine [Sgt. Gary Stein] has relaunched his Facebook page after taking it down briefly when his criticism of President Barack Obama grabbed the attention of his superior and fueled a free speech debate among the military.

And guess whose side the ACLU landed on?  In favor of the Democratic President's right to shut off a right wing Marine (for the record the White House did not at all intervene in the matter, the Marine's superiors did).  Think again.

The American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter urging the Marine Corps to protect Stein's rights.

Last month, a monumental step was taken in America's promise to make health care a right for every American and not a privilege for only those who can afford it.  It was but a first step, but a damned good first step.  But some, under the guise of a promise to help people fight insurance company abuses, cannot help the urge to malign the achievement of the new law.

There are several pieces of misinformation being spread here.

One of the worst is that without direct price control authority in the hands of regulators - or at least the authority to control any increases in price - insurance affordability is nothing but smoke and mirrors.  That's false.  There are several ways the new law delivers on affordability.

On Tuesday, I wrote about a CNN segment hosted by Kyra Phillips that asked the question, "Homosexuality: Is it a problem in need of a cure?"  It was a segment involving the repeal of a 60 year old California law that classified gays and lesbians as sexual deviants and directed experts to seek a 'cure.'  In the segment, Phillips brought on Richard Cohen, the discredited "ex-gay" activist who has no legitimate medical or psychological credential as sort of an expert.  She rightly got hammered for what I called a journalism deficit disorder.

So I was encouraged today when I found the headline "Kyra Phillips Aplogizes" on Think Progress.  But then I watched the video, and I couldn't for the love of the world figure out which part was a "apology."

It's looking more and more likely that the current Pope stopped a child-abuser Priest from losing his priesthood.  Today, the AP obtained a letter with the then-Cardinal Ratzinger's signature saying so.

The future Pope Benedict XVI resisted pleas to defrock a California priest with a record of sexually molesting children, citing concerns including ''the good of the universal church,'' according to a 1985 letter bearing his signature.

The good of the universal church.  Keeping a child molester as a priest is good of the universal church?  This is sickening.

But is anyone surprised?  This is the same Catholic Church leadership that ex-communicated a 9-year old girl for having an abortion after being raped, along with her mother and the doctor who performed the procedure, but did not ex-communicate the rapist.

Conservative talk show host and un-American hack Neal Boortz said in twitter feeds today that Obama voters should be fired from their jobs because they "contributed to the problem."  Media Matters picked this up today.  I'll let you read the twit's tweets first...

One...

And two.

Wouldn't you know it, those pesky the-law-applies-to-everybody people are up to no good again.  Even after the thorough tongue-lashing they received from GOP Patriotism, Inc. for reading the Miranda rights to the Christmas day underpants bomber, they're doing it again.  They're reading terrorists their rights and letting them lawyer up.  Not only are terrorists lawyering up, they are appearing in American civilian courts instead of military tribunals!!!!  And yet, we have yet to hear nary a peep from the right wing. What's going on? Well, maybe you'll understand after you see the pictures of these terrorists (Credit: Reuters):

Alright, enough debate already.  Conservatives and Republicans have been taking advantage of the poor economy to paint President Obama and Democrats - well, really, government - as the problem.  When this country is hurting economically so much, it's easy to forget that this President's team and Democrats in Congress staved off a second great depression.  It's easy to get mad.  But really, let's look at some economic indicators and see if the President and Democrats are moving us in the right director or the wrong direction.

First, the most commonly used (and however imperfect) measure of economic performance, GDP growth.  Barack Obama took office with the national Gross domestic product declining at 5.4% annual rate.  Like I said, our economy was falling off a cliff and someone had to break the fall and start to push it back up.  In the last quarter of 2009, our economy grew at a 6.4% rate, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.  Here's what the Obama recovery looks like in terms of GDP:

But CNN's journalism deficit disorder is definitely in need of serious treatment.  We all know the sad state of TV journalism in this country.  But there are instances every now and then (ok, there are instances all the time) that point a finger into your eyes and make you go WTF?  So Think Progress reported this morning about CNN's coverage of a bill in the California State Legislature that repeals a 60-year old law requiring health experts to seek a cure to homosexuality.

Titling the section "Homosexuality: Is it a problem in need of a cure?", CNN hosts a "debate" between the sponsor of the repeal bill, California Assemblymember Bonnie Lowenthall and self-proclaimed "ex-gay" psychotherapist (I think you can safely leave out the 'therapist' part when you are describing this man) Richard Cohen.  Watch:

First a few really good readings:

• If you or someone you know have been hurt by the ex-gay propaganda movement, you may have legal recourse.  This booklet published by Lambda Legal and Truth Wins Out is an essential resource.
• Michael Konczal of the Roosevelt Institute has the essentials on the current state of financial reform.
• Paul Krugman talks about fool-proofing financial reform (or, granting less leeway to regulators).

And now a couple of videos:

I wonder if for some in the GOP, the recent wave of political violence and violent rhetoric against Democratic members of Congress may be becoming a cause of genuine concern.  Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma is about as conservative as they come, but he seems to be smacking some sanity back into the GOP - at least rhetorically.  In a town hall meeting, Coburn rebuked a woman who claimed that one could be hauled off to jail for not buying health insurance if one fails to buy health insurance, and cautioned against the Fox propaganda channel.

“What we have to have is make sure we have a debate in this country so that you can see what's going on and make a determination yourself,” Coburn added and then again warned the crowd against the myths perpetrated on FOX News.

“So don't catch yourself being biased by FOX News that somebody is no good. The people in Washington are good. They just don't know what they don't know,” Coburn said.

I agree with Sen. Coburn for once.  Whatever our political differences, the culture of demonization must stop.  For the record, I very much long for a day in American politics adorned by sound, reasoned debate between conservatives and liberals - on our governing philosophies and records.

Hey, did you hear?  John McCain isn't a maverick.  No, no, not just now just because he's got a primary challenge from the right.  Not at all!  He was never a maverick.  Never ever ever.  Never.  Ever.  John McCain said so!  I mean, sure, John McCain campaigned almost exclusively on the maverick image of himself and half-term Alaska Governor Sarah Palin in 2008, but don't let what he said a year and a half ago confuse you.  As Newsweek reports:

Many of the GOP's most faithful, the kind who vote in primaries despite 115-degree heat, tired long ago of McCain the Maverick, the man who had crossed the aisle to work with Democrats on issues like immigration reform, global warming, and restricting campaign contributions. "Maverick" is a mantle McCain no longer claims; in fact, he now denies he ever was one. "I never considered myself a maverick,"

You see, Joe Biden was right to begin with when he said of John McCain "a maverick he is not."

One of the main ailments of our financial system is that currently, consumer protection functions are distributed among a hodge podge of federal agencies, none of which has consumer protection as their main function.  As a result, bank and other financial institutions have been able to take easy advantage of consumers.  The President is taking on the fight on behalf of consumers, and is supporting the creation of an independent financial protection agency, and Congress has begun work on financial regulatory reform.

The House has already passed its bill, and the Senate bill has passed the Senate Banking Committee. What is widely known is that the House bill creates an independent agency called the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA), whereas the Senate bill creates a Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP) "housed" within the Federal Reserve but explicitly barring the Feds from exercising any control over it.  Not much more than that has made it into the public lexicon.  I will try to highlight the most important parts and do a comparative analysis of the consumer protection regulatory frameworks of the two bills.

So I'm a fan of Countdown with Keith Olberman on MSNBC - what else is new?  Well, this.  I think Keith's "comment" on Thursday was the funniest and most adorable TV moment ever!  Have a look:

By now everyone knows that the House bill creates a completely independent consumer protection agency whereas the Senate bill creates a bureau "housed" within the federal reserve.  But what does that actually mean, and how exactly are they structured, and how do their powers compare?  Here it is, for those of you who want a comprehensive, side-by-side comparison.  You might want to click that 'download' button and read it.

I usually don't comment on religious things, but this has really gotten under my skin.  Pope Benedict XVI is in the middle of a brewing scandal that clearly shows that when he was a Bishop and then a Cardinal, his office was directly addressed on the matter of a Catholic priest sexually abusing 200 young boys, and subsequently, the Vatican intervened to stop a canonical trial of the perpetrator.

The response from the Vatican hasn't been one of humility or repentance.  They have done everything to protect the current pontiff, including claiming diplomatic immunity, blaming the New York Times for reporting on the story, to now equating criticisms of the Church to antisemitism.