Thursday, October 02, 2014
Back to the elections board
by Tom Sullivan
Local Boards of Elections in North Carolina were scrambling yesterday to rework election instruction documents after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an order blocking enforcement of two provisions of the state's new election law in this November's election.
But for NC Governor Pat McCrory and Republican colleagues, that's not the end of it:
The Republicans plan to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, leaving questions about whether North Carolinians will be allowed to vote the same day that they register during the early voting period this year as well as whether provisional ballots cast outside a voter’s proper precinct will be counted.
The NAACP, the ACLU, and other groups have sued to have the law ruled unconstitutional. That case will not be heard until July. The photo identity card requirement in the law does not got into effect until 2016.
The Voter Information Verification Act (VIVA) had been a 15-page voter ID bill winding its way through the GOP-controlled legislature last year. Then in June, the Shelby v. Holder decision by the U.S. Court set aside of two preclearance provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Winston-Salem's Camel City Dispatch explains:
Once that happened, the North Carolina State Senate dumped in a laundry list of voter suppression provisions that ballooned HB 589 into a 57 page collection of the most restrictive voter suppression regulations since the Jim Crow era. All of this while at the same loosening campaign finance restrictions on politicians. Apparently the Republican Supermajority felt that the voters of North Carolina needed to be regulated, but for politicians to be kept under the government thumb was just too much.
Millions of voter guides have already gone out with information contradicted by yesterday's court ruling. It's going to be a wild ride.
Undercover Blue 10/02/2014 07:30:00 AM
Wednesday, October 01, 2014
This time it's personal
One of the things we've learned as activists over the past few years is how hard it is for good people to run for office. It's tremendously draining, both in energy and money and you don't get a lot of thanks from the people for trying. I'm always in awe of anyone who puts himself or herself out there to do the hard work of retail politics.
So imagine the thrill Mr Digby and I felt when Adam Wool, one of our closest friends, decided to throw his hat into the ring and run for the State House in Alaska. And yes, of course he's a liberal Democrat. He's also a business owner (restaurant, nightclub and movie theatre) a musician, a family man and an all around great guy.
If there's one thing Alaska needs it's some sanity in its politics, particularly at the state level. And some honesty. (I can guarantee that Adam Wool won't be joining any new versions of the infamous Alaskan Corrupt Bastards Club. )
Adam, like his potential constituents, was in favor of repealing the current oil tax plan which is bankrupting the state government by giving massive giveaways to their unctuous patrons. The Republicans, needless to say, blocked all attempts to rein them in. The Democrats will keep trying. Meanwhile, people in Fairbanks are paying gargantuan monthly heating bills --- so much for energy independence, eh?
Anyway, we're very proud of Adam here at Digby headquarters and we're rooting for him all the way. And if you feel like contributing to the career of a potential Democratic leader in Alaska, you can do so here.
Here's his first ad:
digby 10/01/2014 05:30:00 PM
Yes, Jodi Ernst is an extremist, thank you
Elias Isquith makes note of some extremist GOP candidates' slicker rhetoric in this campaign:
The Senate campaigns dominating the politics of Colorado and Iowa right now both feature Republican nominees who ideologically come from their party’s hard right. Colorado’s got Rep. Cory Gardner, a photogenic and talented young politician who happens to hold extreme views on all of the Christianists’ biggest issues — abortion, contraception, “religious liberty” and same-sex marriage — but is nevertheless slightly ahead in his neck-and-neck race. Iowa, meanwhile, has state Sen. Joni Ernst, who is similarly radical, similarly able to mask her extremism with a smile and similarly ahead in her Senate campaign.
Yet there’s one more similarity between these two respective Republicans, and it’s one that may tell us a lot about the future of Christianism in the GOP: Both have previously supported — and are now desperately trying to disown — initiatives pushed by Christianist activists to add so-called personhood amendments to the constitutions of their states.
The question is whether they will be able to hide from their fringe-dwelling recent past. From the looks of it they will have no problem. Iowa's Jodi Ernst, who will make a lovely addition to the Ted Cruz faction, voted for a "personhood" amendment to the state constitution. When confronted about by her Democratic opponent Bruce Braley in a recent debate she offered up a nice anodyne response she had clearly been fed by the DC strategists: "That amendment is simply a statement that I support life." Uh huh.
Anyway, the Washington Post decided to do a fact check and this is what they vomited up:
Braley goes too far with his scary scenarios, especially because he repeatedly said the amendment “would” have the impact he described. Ernst is on record of not opposing contraception—though she also favors punishing doctors who perform abortions. We concede that the legal terrain in murky, and the impact uncertain. But that’s all the more reason not to speak with such certainty. Braley thus earns Two Pinocchios.
That's right. Braley is the big liar because he can't prove to a certainty that a constitutional amendment that would declare a fertilized egg a full human being will lead to the banning of abortion and many kinds of birth control. So she gets to say she's "fer life!" and Braley is portrayed as the extremist.
Kevin Drum says:
Ed Kilgore is dumbfounded by this kind of treatment, and so am I. I just don't get it. Kessler is not some babe in the woulds. He knows perfectly well exactly what the goal of this amendment is. It's possible, of course, that Democrats in Iowa will prevent Republicans from enacting enabling legislation. Or that the US Supreme Court will stand in the way. But why does that matter when the intent is so clear? Ernst may say that "I will always stand with our women on affordable access to contraception," but that's plain and simple weaseling. And it doesn't even matter. Republicans in the legislature can keep their hands completely clean and simply let activists take things to court. With an amendment like that in place, no judge could turn away a suit that asked for a ban on abortions or in-vitro fertilization or certain forms of contraception.
I get it. Unlike the local fact check which rated Braley's accusations true, Kessler doesn't want to bring on the flying harpies if he doesn't absolutely have to. So he can give this one to them by employing a literalism so stringent that he'd need to see some kind of testimony that this personhood amendment was intended to ban abortion.
Perhaps he should have asked the fellow who proposed it:
More than 20 Iowa state senators have signed a resolution intended to outlaw abortion in the state, but even a key supporter said Friday it likely won't get a vote.
To pretend that Ernst did not intend to ban certain kinds of contraception and outlaw abortion is simply ridiculous. But with the help of the Washington press nobody will know about it. So that's good. For her.
Republican Sen. Dennis Guth of Klemme said the resolution he sponsored would make abortion illegal by amending the state constitution to define life as beginning at conception.
"This would send a message to the Supreme Court of Iowa that the people of Iowa want to defend life at all stages," he said.
Also signing the resolution were: Republican Sens. Ken Rozenboom, Kent Sorenson, Amy Sinclair, Nancy Boettger, David Johnson, Jake Chapman, Mark Segebart, Bill Anderson, Joni Ernst, Rick Bertrand, Tim Kapucian, Hubert Houser, Jack Whitver, Mark Chelgren, Michael Breitbrach, Jerry Behn, Brad Zaun, Randy Feenstra, Roby Smith and Democrat Sen. Joe Seng.
digby 10/01/2014 04:00:00 PM
Here's another nominee for worst ad of the season:
This college Republican ad is supposed to be millenial outreach. Let's just say that most millenials (most people) woul tune that out by the 20 second mark because it's so incredibly boring. Even the weirdness isn't enough to make you stick with it all the way to the end.
Here's what the typically snotty little twits who always join the College Republicans have to say about it:
“We’ve seen an overwhelming positive response from college students and a small negative response on twitter from scared liberal activists and confused old men, which means the ad is accomplishing exactly what we wanted,” said digital director Stefanie Petropoulos.
And then she did this:
Marcotte has more.
digby 10/01/2014 02:30:00 PM
Hysterical Fox News celebrities fomenting panic among their fragile elderly followers
Apparently the Obama administration is actively trying to kill Americans with Ebola. No one knows why they want to do this. It's hard to see the political advantage in it --- it's pretty random and will probably kill as many Democrats as Republicans. There's really no hiding it.
But that's what the right wing apparently suspects:
So even the CDC is now just another political hack operation and all those hysterical Fox viewers who are already convinced that ISIS is coming over the Mexican border any day now to kill them all in their beds now believe that the Obama administration is hiding the extent of an American Ebola epidemic.
Has there ever been a bigger bunch of cynical bastards in American history? And the sad thing is that they are undoubtedly spreading fear throughout their audience of elderly white folk who are already on the verge of a nervous breakdown. At this point they probably think that Obama had ISIS terrorists sneak into America to spread Ebola by beheading journalists. Sad...
digby 10/01/2014 12:34:00 PM
Shocker 'o the day
It turns out that when you cut taxes on the rich their incomes go up. Who would have guessed?
That's from a week-long series at Mother Jones about the effects of income inequality.
I thought this one was particularly interesting:
That proverbial rising tide is really a giant wave. The wealthy are comfortably riding it on their multi-million dollar yachts while the rest of us are strapped to the keel. Sure, you could say we rise with that wave too but we're still under the water.
digby 10/01/2014 10:30:00 AM
The patriarchal lizard brain is only resting
It always comes back to this:
We need to be careful that we are never, ever throwing the baby out with the bath water as far as the best person always has to get the job," [Deutch] said. "As we kind of go through her resume, you go 'Obviously, coming off the prostitute scandal, okay, yeah, women on top makes sense, good for the brand, if you will.' But the brand doesn’t work if it’s not competent."
"In positions of national security, quota second, competency first," he added.
Co-host Joe Scarborough then turned the conversation to the female agent who was guarding the White House's front door when an intruder entered the building last month and managed to overpower her.
"Now, if a woman, 6' 4", can tackle a big guy or a big woman that's intruding, that's one thing," he said. "But we can't have people standing between the President of the United States and a terrorist that can get knocked down and that's there for politically correct reasons."
Scarborough echoed conservative pundit Laura Ingraham with his comments. Speaking Tuesday on "Fox and Friends," Ingraham blamed a desire for "political correctness" in the Secret Service following the agency's 2012 prostitution scandal for the fact that a female agent was guarding the door when the White House jumper entered the residence.
They've had female Secret Service agents for a long time. And no president has been assassinated since they put them in the job. In fact, the only presidents who've ever been assassinated were guarded only by men. Therefore, we should get rid of all the male Secret Service agents. End of story. At least if you're a moron like these people.
It's a mistake to get too complacent. The patriarchal lizard brain is just as powerful as it ever was. Sure, you can have equality ladies: until we decide you can't.
digby 10/01/2014 09:00:00 AM
Dark money and leitmotif
by Tom Sullivan
We're all pretty tired about now of the fundraising emails. Even without opening them [DELETE], the familiar, red-flashing, DEFCON 1 subject lines from brand-name politicos introduce what's inside the way Wagner introduced recurring characters as they walked on stage.
I know they are crafted by dedicated, hard-working campaign stiffs just poorly paid to do their jobs. And maybe the mailings "work," if raising as much money as fast as possible for your team is your sole focus. Still, it feels like democracy's death spiral. "Look Honey, there’s a fella in a thousand dollar suit who wants to fight for me!" quipped joe shikspack at Firedoglake.
Thomas Edsall takes on the larger money chase in a piece for the New York Times. Comparing and contrasting conservative and liberal "dark money" donors, Edsall reviews a leaked tape of an speech by Mark Holden, general counsel at Koch Industries. Dark money on the left and right are not so different, Holden explains.
Edsall seems not so sure. Although "dark money tilts decisively to the right," the left's Democracy Alliance is at least willing to talk about more transparency. The Kochs? Not so much. Still, the influence of money -- big and small, light and dark -- on politics is troubling as well as an email nuisance.
In the long run, the relatively modest (but growing) dependence of Democrats on dark money, mega-dollar contributors to “super PACs” and other funding mechanisms is corrupting, even as it comes alongside the party’s parallel success in building a powerful small donor base. On issues of taxes, regulation, spending and campaign finance, the Republican Party has established itself as the advocate of the wealthiest Americans. Insofar as the Democratic Party moves in the same direction, it will be unable to act as a counterbalance to the right.
Fine. But instead of just wringing our hands over the corrupting nature of political fundraising, the tactics and vectors for it -- and before we start receiving begs from the president's dog -- could we think just a tad about getting that corrupting money out of politics? That's a light theme we could stand to hear a bit more of, thank you.
Undercover Blue 10/01/2014 07:30:00 AM
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
When Corporate Sponsors Leave ALEC and Rush. What We Learn by Spocko
The other day Google announced it will be leaving ALEC. "Google becomes latest company to abandon right-wing ALEC."
This is a big deal. It comes on the heels of a number of other corporations like Microsoft, Google, Facebook and Yahoo! having left ALEC.
These things don't just happen magically. There are a lot of people who have worked very hard to make that happen. Here is a list of just some of them from the letter they sent to the Google folks earlier this month.
I don't know all the people behind those groups, although I can personally point to my friends at both the Center for Media and Democracy for their steller Alex Exposed
work, and my friends at Color of Change, who earlier got corporations to peel off ALEC following the Trayvon Martin shooting
I think it's important to acknowledge this success and see what we can learn from it. Like the actions used to get advertisers to leave Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and other RW radio hosts, part of this is educating sponsors and advertisers about the person or entity's comments and actions so people can decide they don't want to taint their brand with the association.
We often think that if we just give people the facts they will make the right decision. That does apply in some cases, especially when dealing with Vulcans. Other times we think people only make decisions to maximize revenue, and that's true when dealing with Ferengi. But humans are more complex, and we need to look at and combine multiple methods to persuade, convince or pressure.
I listened to the Diane Rhem show
where Eric Schmidt talked about ALEC. Here is his actual ALEC comment: (emphasis mine)
I'm curious to know if Google is still supporting ALEC, which is that fund lobbyist in D.C. that are funding climate change deniers.
We funded them as part of a political game for something unrelated. I think the consensus within the company was that that was sort of a mistake. And so we're trying to not do that in the future.
And how did you get involved with them in the first place? And were you then disappointed in what you saw?
Well, the company has a very strong view that we should make decisions in politics based on facts. What a shock. And the facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring. And the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people. They're just literally lying.
This comment is great, but for us to learn something about why efforts to use the Spocko Method to alert advertisers and sponsors works, it helps to listen to other parts of the show.
That’s great. Is it different when you're thinking about millennials? Are they perhaps more open to the kinds of ideas that Google has come to stand for?
Certainly, the millennials that we recruit, hire and so forth, in every way, they seem better than my generation. They're better prepared, they're better educated, they're more collaborative than my generation and they're more socially conscious. They don't want to spend their time working for the man in some cog in a wheel doing one task. They want to feel that there's a social purpose to what they're doing, that they're improving the world in some way.
And, indeed, you'll look in tech companies, many of them have very sophisticated corporate responsibility programs or branding around trying to help. And that's as much to keep the employees motivated as it is for good customer relationships.
Now I know Eric, and have worked with him and Google before, so I know that what he is saying is accurate for Google. But it also applies to people in lots of other companies.
What tipped Google over the edge into leaving ALEC? I don't know exactly, but his answers give us clues. The lying, the hurting children and grandchildren are a big part of it. Then the key phrase, "we should not be aligned with such people."
The lying part goes against the "fact-based decision making" model you might expect from a science/engineering/computer company. But you also see how personal, emotional and other values come into the decision.
If you did some reading (or listen to NPR) you would know that Eric and Wendy Schmidt started the Schmidt Family Foundation
whose webpage says,
Our vision is a heralthy, vibrant society that values functioning ecosystems, active civic engagement and equity for all.
In addition, Wendy was a founding member of Climate Central
"... an organization that combines an expert media team with the work of experts using the newest science to measure and describe climate change."
CEOs aren't always the final decider, but when you can line up multiple reasons ranging from financial through emotional and into brand image they can be convinced to take a different course of action.
ALEC and Rush appeal to people's most selfish impulses. They use greed, fear and ignorance to get what they want. They want us to believe that everyone thinks like they do, when in fact it is a self-selected minority that holds these beliefs. They say if you only believe them, you will be among society's winners.
But when we go to the interested third parties and educate them, many of those real winners are disgusted with what they hear. Combining that education with appeals to both personal and stated corporate values systems and you have a solid package to help them decide to walk away.
If you want to convince people
within the corporate form to walk away from a right wing media personality or a right wing legislation bill mill, learn who they are, what they say their company is about and ALL the things that they care about. We have lots of ways to find that out now, just Google them.
Spocko 9/30/2014 05:30:00 PM
Billo has a little tantrum
One would be tempted to think he has realized that he's making a total fool of himself which is why he's being so defensive. But he's always like this:
“Mr. Colbert and others of his ilk have no bleepin' clue how to fight the jihad. They don’t know anything," the Fox News host said on "The O'Reilly Factor." "And when somebody gets beheaded, their reaction is ‘Oh, that’s bad!’ But by being completely vacant, it doesn’t stop these people from mocking ideas that might have some value, might solve some complex problems.”
Point, set match. Or in other words:
"Because in the world of the ideologue, where Colbert lives, solutions don't really matter," he added.
O'Reilly has boasted that both Erik Prince, the former CEO of the notorious Blackwater USA security firm, and Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger endorsed his plan.
If you missed the Colbert bit, it's priceless:
Colbert whipped out his elementary school notebook last week on "The Colbert Report" to share his own plan for a team in O'Reilly's "fantasy warfare league," arguing that the "mutant double ninja super soldiers with laser nunchucks" he drew in fourth grade would be more efficient than the Fox host's mercenary army.
"As long as we're pretending there's a way to fight a war that doesn't involve sacrifice and that the American people and politicians don't have to feel any responsibility for, we need to think bigger -- like maybe my invisible bomb that blows up only bad guys," he said.
Sadly there are people who think that already exists:
The answer to those questions may well involve the use of force on a limited but immediate basis, in both countries. Enough force to remind all parties that we can, from the air, see and retaliate against not only Al Qaeda members, whom our drones track for months, but also any individuals guilty of mass atrocities and crimes against humanity. Enough force to compel governments and rebels alike to the negotiating table. And enough force to create a breathing space in which decent leaders can begin to consolidate power.
digby 9/30/2014 04:30:00 PM
Now I'm worried about the president's safety #secretservicewingnuts
Ok, I'll admit I haven't been as freaked out about the incursion into the White House as some people. But if the fellow who wrote this op-ed for the Washington Post is indicative of the sort of people who are protecting the president, I am now truly afraid for him:
Pierson should be replaced and the next director should come from outside the Secret Service, with the deputy director remaining an agent. In this role, a true leader, not a bureaucrat, is needed. Someone like Florida congressman and retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Allen West would be perfect for the role. West has successfully demonstrated that he possesses the leadership skills of a combat officer as well as managerial and diplomatic skills of a congressman, exactly the traits needed in the next director. Highly competent and beholden to no one in the Secret Service, he would be a superb director.
This means this ex Secret Service (and CIA???) agent is a fringe right wing nutball.
Allen West has said more than once that Generals “have to be very careful about blindly following a commander in chief that really does not have the best intent for our military.” I don't think he'd be an especially reliable person to put in charge of protecting the President he calls a "socialist" and whose voters he thinks should "get out" of the United States.
But that will never happen. Allen West will spend the rest of his days among the Tea Partiers making big money ripping off the sad sacks who like what he has to say. But it is somewhat concerning that right wing extremists would be among the people protecting any president. We already knew about Gary Aldrich, the lunatic FBI agent who made a tidy living after retirement claiming the Clintons put condoms and hash pipes on the White house Christmas tree. And now we have another one.
How many are there?
digby 9/30/2014 03:30:00 PM
Working themselves into an early grave
Here are some statistics on the lazy American worker who could get rich if she only worked as hard as Mitt Romney:
American workers are putting in more and more hours each week, as the supposedly 40-hour workweek has stretched to 47 hours. At the same time, they’re getting very little paid time off of work to recharge:
As you can see, it's going the wrong way. That's the beauty of keeping unemployment high. Makes the workers nice and docile when you take away pay and benefits.
digby 9/30/2014 02:00:00 PM
It's not a religion problem it's a species problem
There's an awful lot of talk these days about religions of peace vs religions of war and how some are intrinsically violent and others aren't. It's all nonsense. Right now, for a variety of reasons, Islam features some violent extremism on the fringe which happens to be in a part of the world where everyone has an interest. But you only have to look at history to see that all religions have their moments of violence. Even Buddhism, which I think we all would assume is one of the most peaceful religions in the modern world, can be drawn into violence:
Of all the moral precepts instilled in Buddhist monks the promise not to kill comes first, and the principle of non-violence is arguably more central to Buddhism than any other major religion. So why have monks been using hate speech against Muslims and joining mobs that have left dozens dead?
I don't think the point is that because these Buddhists are acting violent that Buddhism is a violent religion. Obviously. But it does happen even to the most peaceful of them. All you have to do is look at what was done in the name of Christ the prince of peace to understand that.
This is happening in two countries separated by well over 1,000 miles of Indian Ocean - Burma and Sri Lanka. It is puzzling because neither country is facing an Islamist militant threat. Muslims in both places are a generally peaceable and small minority.
In Sri Lanka, the issue of halal slaughter has been a flashpoint. Led by monks, members of the Bodu Bala Sena - the Buddhist Brigade - hold rallies, call for direct action and the boycotting of Muslim businesses, and rail against the size of Muslim families.
While no Muslims have been killed in Sri Lanka, the Burmese situation is far more serious. Here the antagonism is spearheaded by the 969 group, led by a monk, Ashin Wirathu, who was jailed in 2003 for inciting religious hatred. Released in 2012, he has referred to himself bizarrely as "the Burmese Bin Laden".
March saw an outbreak of mob violence directed against Muslims in the town of Meiktila, in central Burma, which left at least 40 dead.
Tellingly, the violence began in a gold shop. The movements in both countries exploit a sense of economic grievance - a religious minority is used as the scapegoat for the frustrated aspirations of the majority.
On Tuesday, Buddhist mobs attacked mosques and burned more than 70 homes in Oakkan, north of Rangoon, after a Muslim girl on a bicycle collided with a monk. One person died and nine were injured.
Last night on CNN, I saw one of the most disturbingly obtuse interviews I've ever seen on cable TV (and that's saying something.) It featured Don Lemon, Alisyn Camerota and Reza Aslan, who tried in vain to make the point I just made above and was met by a brick wall of stupidity:
Alisyn CAMEROTA: Defenders of Islam insist it is a peaceful religion. Others disagree and point to the primitive treatment in Muslim countries of women and other minorities.
I thought he was going to come through the screen and I don't blame him. Being interviewed by Beavis and Butthead had to be frustrating.
LEMON: So let's discuss this now.
We're joined now by Reza Aslan, a scholar of religions, a professor at University of California, Riverside, and the author of "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth."
Let's talk about this because it's a very interesting conversation every time we have it. Before we get into this discussion, I want to play with you this clip from Bill Maher's show just this Friday night. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAHER: President Obama keeps insisting that ISIS is not Islamic. Well, maybe they don't practice the Muslim faith the same way he does.
MAHER: But if vast numbers of Muslims across the world believe, and they do, that humans deserve to die for merely holding a different idea or drawing a cartoon or writing a book or eloping with the wrong person, not only does the Muslim world have something in common with ISIS; it has too much in common with ISIS. There's so much talk -- you can applaud. Sure.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: He went on for a good five or six minutes about that, talking about how women are -- circumcision for women, not respecting the rights of women, not respecting the rights of gay people. And what's your reaction? And then we will talk.
REZA ASLAN, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE: Well, I like Bill Maher. I have been on his show a bunch of times. He's a comedian.
But, you know, frankly, when it comes to the topic of religion, he's not very sophisticated in the way that he thinks. I mean, the argument about the female genital mutilation being an Islamic problem is a perfect example of that. It's not an Islamic problem. It's an African problem.
CAMEROTA: Well, wait, wait, wait.
CAMEROTA: Hold on. Hold on a second Reza, because he says it's a Muslim country problem. He says that, in Somalia...
ASLAN: Yes, but that's -- yes. And that's actually empirically factually incorrect.
It's a Central African problem. Eritrea has almost 90 percent female genital mutilation. It's a Christian country. Ethiopia has 75 percent female genital mutilation. It's a Christian country. Nowhere else in the Muslim, Muslim-majority states is female genital mutilation an issue.
But, again, this is the problem, is that you make these facile arguments that women are somehow mistreated in the Muslim world -- well, that's certainly true in many Muslim-majority countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia. Do you know that Muslims have elected seven women as their heads of state in those Muslim-majority countries?
How many women do we have as states in the United States?
LEMON: Reza, be honest, though. For the most part, it is not a free and open society for women in those states.
ASLAN: Well, it's not in Iran. It's not in Saudi Arabia.
It certainly is in Indonesia and Malaysia. It certainly is in Bangladesh. It certainly is in Turkey. I mean, again, this is the problem is that you're talking about a religion of 1.5 billion people and certainly it becomes very easy to just simply paint them all with a single brush by saying, well, in Saudi Arabia, they can't drive and so therefore that is somehow representative of Islam.
It's representative of Saudi Arabia.
CAMEROTA: But hold on. I think that Bill Maher's point is that these aren't extremists. We often talk about extremists and that we should crack down on extremists and why aren't Muslims speaking out about extremists?
In Saudi Arabia, when women can't vote and they can't drive and they need permission from their husband, that's not extremists. Why aren't we talking more about what...
CAMEROTA: That's not extremist. That's commonplace. Why don't we talk more about the commonplace wrongs that are happening in some of these countries?
ASLAN: It's extremist when compared to the rights and responsibilities of women, Muslim women around the world. It's an extremist way of dealing with it.
LEMON: But it's not extremist in that country, in Saudi Arabia. That's the norm.
LEMON: That's what she is saying.
ASLAN: Oh, no, it's not.
I mean, look, Saudi Arabia is one of the most, if not the most, extremist Muslim country in the world. In the month that we have been talking about ISIS and their terrible actions in Iraq and Syria, Saudi Arabia, our closest ally, has beheaded 19 people. Nobody seems to care about that because Saudi Arabia sort of preserves our national interests.
ASLAN: You know, but this is the problem, is that these kinds of conversations that we're having aren't really being had in any kind of legitimate way. We're not talking about women in the Muslim world. We're using two or three examples to justify a generalization. That's actually the definition of bigotry.
LEMON: All right, fair enough.
Let's listen to Benjamin Netanyahu at the United Nations today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: So when it comes to their ultimate goals, Hamas is ISIS, and ISIS is Hamas. And what they share in common, all militant Islamists share in common.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: So, Reza, the question at the bottom of the screen that everyone is looking at, does Islam promote violence?
ASLAN: Islam doesn't promote violence or peace. Islam is just a religion, and like every religion in the world, it depends on what you bring to it. If you're a violent person, your Islam, your Judaism, your Christianity, your Hinduism is going to be violent. There are Buddhist -- marauding Buddhist monks in Myanmar slaughtering women and children. Does Buddhism promote violence? Of course not. People are violent or peaceful. And that depends on their politics, their social world, the way that they see their communities, the way they see themselves.
CAMEROTA: So, Reza, you don't think that there's anything more -- there's -- the justice system in Muslim countries you don't think is somehow more primitive or subjugates women more than in other countries?
ASLAN: Did you hear what you just said? You said in Muslim countries.
I just told you that, Indonesia, women are absolutely 100 percent equal to men. In Turkey, they have had more female representatives, more female heads of state in Turkey than we have in the United States.
LEMON: Yes, but in Pakistan...
ASLAN: Stop saying things like "Muslim countries."
LEMON: In Pakistan, women are still being stoned to death.
ASLAN: And that's a problem for Pakistan. You're right. So, let's criticize Pakistan.
LEMON: I just want to be clear on what your point is, because I thought you and Bill Maher were saying the same thing. Your point is that Muslim countries are not to blame.
There is nothing particular, there's no common thread in Muslim countries, you can't paint with a broad brush that somehow their justice system or Sharia law or what they're doing in terms of stoning and female mutilation is different than in other countries like Western countries?
ASLAN: Stoning and mutilation and those barbaric practices should be condemned and criticized by everyone. The actions of individuals and societies and countries like Iran, like Pakistan, like Saudi Arabia must be condemned, because they don't belong in the 21st century.
But to say Muslim countries, as though Pakistan and Turkey are the same, as though Indonesia and Saudi Arabia are the same, as though somehow what is happening in the most extreme forms of these repressive countries, these autocratic countries, is representative of what's happening in every other Muslim country, is, frankly -- and I use this word seriously -- stupid. So let's stop doing that.
LEMON: OK, Reza. Let's -- I want you to listen to Benjamin Netanyahu again. This is actually the one I wanted you to hear.
ASLAN: Yes, the ISIS.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NETANYAHU: But our hopes and the world's hopes for peace are in danger, because everywhere we look, militant Islam is on the march. It's not militants. It's not Islam. It's militant Islam. And, typically, its first victims are other Muslims, but it spares no one.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: He's making a clear distinction there. He says it's not militants, it's not Islam; it's militant Islam. Do you understand his distinction there? Is he correct?
ASLAN: Well, he's correct in talking about militant Islam being a problem.
He is absolutely incorrect in talking about ISIS equaling Hamas. That's just ridiculous. No one takes him seriously when he says things like that. And, frankly, it's precisely why, under his leadership, Israel has become so incredibly isolated from the rest of the global community.
Those kinds of statements are illogical, they're irrational, they're so obviously propagandistic. In fact, he went so far as to then bring up the Nazis, which has become kind of a verbal tick for him whenever he brings up either Hamas or ISIS.
Again, these kinds of oversimplifications I think only cause more danger. There is a very real problem. ISIS is a problem. Al Qaeda is a problem. These militant Islamic groups like Hamas, like Hezbollah, like the Taliban have to be dealt with. But it doesn't actually help us to deal with them when, instead of talking about rational conflicts, rational criticisms of a particular religion, we instead so easily slip into bigotry by simply painting everyone with a single brush, as we have been doing in this conversation, mind you.
LEMON: Well, we're just asking the questions, Reza. And you're answering. And I think you answered very fairly, and we appreciate it.
Thank you, Reza Aslan.
CAMEROTA: We appreciate your perspective...
ASLAN: My pleasure.
CAMEROTA: ... and helping everyone understand your perspective.
I'm not a religious person myself and really don't have a stake in defending any of them. I find an awful lot of allegedly religious behavior to be hypocritical and somewhat obscure. However, it's clear to me that the underlying problem of religious wars of the past or the violent religious extremism of the present cannot be attributed to one religion or another. This is a species problem --- the human species. We will always find a reason to fight one way or another if that's what we want to do. Religion is just one of many reasons we come up with to justify it.
You can see the interview here
digby 9/30/2014 12:30:00 PM
David Corn reports on Mitt Romney's ongoing flirtation with another losing presidential race and notes that Romney continues to flail about trying to explain why he said that 47% of Americans (all 145 million of 'em) are a bunch of moochers and looters. He goes over all the explanations, quasi-apologies, rationalizations and mea culpas he's made over the years. And then reveals a new one courtesy of Mark Liebovich who quotes him saying this:
Romney told me that the statement came out wrong, because it was an attempt to placate a rambling supporter who was saying that Obama voters were essentially deadbeats.
Liebovich says he can't ever remember Romney saying this before and Corn can find no record of it. Corn concludes:
"My mistake was that I was speaking in a way that reflected back to the man," Romney said. "If I had been able to see the camera, I would have remembered that I was talking to the whole world, not just the man." I had never heard Romney say that he was prompted into the "47 percent" line by a ranting supporter.
To recap: Romney has gone from side-stepping the remark, to owning the thrust of this comment (though noting it was not well articulated), to saying he was wrong, to denying he said what he said (and contending his words were distorted), to claiming he was only mirroring the rambling remarks of a big-money backer. This last explanation is certainly not fair to the 1-percenter who merely expressed his very 1-percentish opinion. Does this mean that Romney was thrown off his game by a simple question—or that he was trying to suck up to a donor?
In the two years since Romney was caught on tape, he just cannot come up with a clear explanation of an easy-to-understand short series of sentences that were responsive to the question presented. But there is one possible explanation he hasn't yet put forward: He said what he believed.
Actually, I think he did admit it. He just said that if he had known that what he was saying would be seen by whole world he wouldn't have said what he said. It's possible that Mitt is less honest in private than in public but that would make him a unique person indeed.
I'd guess that the only part of it he doesn't agree with is the number --- I'm sure he believes it's much higher. He's rich so therefore anyone can become rich so if you aren't rich it's because you just don't apply yourself and work as hard. That's how conservative rich people think.
Oh, and in case you're wondering, Corn provides the "rambling" question for you to judge:
"For the last three years, all everybody's been told is, 'Don't worry, we'll take care of you.' How are you going to do it, in two months before the elections, to convince everybody you've got to take care of yourself?"
Nothing rambling about that. There are dozens of ways Mitt could have answered that question even if he were "reflecting back" the man's attitude. There was nothing there about the 47% or the ignorant trope that almost half the country is a bunch of freeloaders who have no stake in the nation because they allegedly pay no taxes. Mitt brought that into it all by himself:
"There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what ... who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... and so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
And Mitt has a funny way of "reflecting back" this man's attitude. He was asked how he was going to convince voters that they would have to fend for themselves. Presumably even this man felt that they were part of the body politic and should be convinced. Mitt basically said, "to hell with them --- they're a bunch of losers an there's no point in even talking to them." That was as much a problem as the 47% comment itself --- the fact that he thought they weren't even worth his time to try to convince.
I hope Mitt runs. The 1% should have someone who personally embodies their concerns fighting it out among everyone else. It's clarifying.
digby 9/30/2014 10:15:00 AM
They won't be dissed, Mr President
After all President Obama has done to rehab the reputations of the intelligence services and make them feel secure, this is how they treat him:
By late last year, classified American intelligence reports painted an increasingly ominous picture of a growing threat from Sunni extremists in Syria, according to senior intelligence and military officials. Just as worrisome, they said, were reports of deteriorating readiness and morale among troops next door in Iraq.
But the reports, they said, generated little attention in a White House consumed with multiple brush fires and reluctant to be drawn back into Iraq. “Some of us were pushing the reporting, but the White House just didn’t pay attention to it,” said a senior American intelligence official. “They were preoccupied with other crises,” the official added. “This just wasn’t a big priority.”
He obviously made the foolish mistake of telling a truth so obvious that he didn't realize it could possibly offend the honor of the Deep State officials. This nonsense explains why Obama has recently been sounding like a cheap Vin Diesel impersonator.
Here's the thing: people are trying to make this the equivalent of Bush blowing off the intelligence that said BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE THE UNITED STATES, even telling the fellow who delivered it, "fine, you've covered your ass..." The difference is that ISIS has not attacked the United States and neither is it likely to any time soon. It attacked cities in Iraq. Surely anyone should be able to see the difference.
The article goes on to show just how confused the intelligence was along with all the geo-political complications. Ask yourself: would anyone in the United States have endorsed Obama going back to Iraq or invading Syria or even responding to any of this with a sense of emergency a year ago? Please. Even if they were monitoring every communication (which I assume they are ... ahem) the US really couldn't do a damn thing about it to prevent it. They had to succeed to some extent to get the kind of attention that would show Republicans that they finally have the foreign policy hook they've needed since the Iraq debacle. Without that, they weren't going to be on board and getting Democrats on board isn't much easier. And then came the execution videos, which kicked it into high gear.
I still believe that Obama was reluctant to get into this.(And yes, I know that makes me a naive Obamabot, blah, blah,blah.) Say what you will about him but he has not been one to get all excited about war plans. (He's more of a covert, clandestine kind of guy.) But, as with all presidents regardless of their party, once the war machine gears start moving there's only so much you can do. And then the playbook clearly requires that you start flagwaving and saying a bunch of jingoistic nonsense. It doesn't strike me as particularly natural for Obama so I suspect he said what he said about the intelligence underestimating the threat of ISIS simply because the crap he was spewing was so foreign to him.
Seriously, he's got many flaws as I've endlessly documented on this blog. But being a jigoistic fool isn't usually one of them. It just goes to show you that no good deed goes unpunished: he let the CIA off the hook for a lot of nefarious BS. And yet all he had to do was say they made one mistake and they are running to press to stab him in the back. A lot of good it did him.
digby 9/30/2014 08:30:00 AM
First they came for the air traffic controllers ...
by Tom Sullivan
"Nothing makes people more stupid and foolish than money and fear,” the creator of The Wire told the Guardian. David Simon spoke about what drives him, and about his new mini-series, Show Me a Hero.
Set in the 1980s, the show examines a community split over a plan to build public housing in the upscale -- predominantly white -- east side of Yonkers, NY. It was a breakdown driven not only by race, but by fear and money.
Simon sees the dispute as allegorical of the political dysfunction in an America that no longer knows how to solve its problems. The period coincides, he believes, with the breakdown of the social contract in America, the triumph of capital over labor and the unpairing of tides and boats that had risen together in a postwar America we had come to believe was normal.
This is a point forcefully made by ex-Clinton labour secretary Robert Reich in his recent film, Inequality for All. He dates the busting of the labour unions and the rupture of the social compact to Ronald Reagan’s firing of 11,000 air traffic controllers in 1981. From then on, the idea that a market-driven society would mutually benefit those who held the capital and those who provided the labour was no longer in place, he says. For Simon, this is the point at which the shared community of interests that walked side by side as the American economy surged after the second world war came apart. The collective will that bound together communities, cities and, ultimately, America started to erode.
“What was required in Yonkers was to ask: ‘Are we all in this together or are we not all in this together?’ Is there a society or is there no society, because if there is no society, well, that’s the approach that says ‘Fuck ’em, I got mine’. And Yonkers coincides with the rise of ‘Fuck ’em I got mine’ in America.
A guy I knew in the T-party once insisted that there is no society, just as Simon describes. And if there is none, by that logic how could he bear any responsibility for it? T-party members may clasp copies of the U.S. Constitution to their breasts, but they've lost its spirit after rejecting the document's first three words. There is no we in their America, just I and me. And community? Sounds too much like communism. And an excuse for low-caste Irresponsibles to collect a government check for not working.
“That’s the notion that the markets will solve everything. Leave me alone. I want maximum liberty, I want maximum freedom. Those words have such power in America. On the other hand ‘responsibility’ or ‘society’ or ‘community’ are words that are increasingly held in disfavour in the United States. And that’s a recipe for cooking up a second-rate society, one that does not engage with the notion of collective responsibility. We’re only as good a society as how we treat those who are most vulnerable and nobody’s more vulnerable than our poor. To be poor is not a crime, except in America.”
The view portends a grim, decidedly unexceptional American future in which doomsday preppers barricade and arm themselves against their neighbors while the rich retreat to lush, gated sanctuaries protected from both by armed security.
The thing is, as more Americans slip out of the middle class and find themselves struggling to get by, they are catching on to the barrenness of that future. The Moral Monday movement caught on by bringing together a diverse community to call out the depravity of the ‘Fuck ’em I got mine’ culture of Wall Street's Jordan Belforts, and among ALEC corporations out to strip America for parts.
But David Simon doesn't believe We the People are quite there yet.
“I think in some ways the cancer is going to have to go a little higher. It’s going to start crawling up above the knee and people are going to have to start looking around and thinking ‘I thought I was exempt. I didn’t know they were coming for me’.
“It’s happened to the manufacturing class, it’s happened to the poor. Now it’s happening to reporters and schoolteachers and firefighters and cops and social workers and state employees and even certain levels of academics. And that’s new. That’s not the American dream.”
First they came for the air traffic controllers, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not an air traffic controller.
Then they came for the factory workers, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a factory worker.
Then they came for the schoolteachers, the firefighters, the cops, the academics ... .
Undercover Blue 9/30/2014 07:30:00 AM
Monday, September 29, 2014
Headline 'o the day
digby 9/29/2014 06:00:00 PM
Rand Paul, moderate centrist
Ryan Lizza has published a fascinating profile of Senator Paul that includes quite a bit of interesting info. I thought I'd just start with what the political media thinks is most important about it, using Chris Cilizza's rundown of the five most important quotes in the article. I'll just pick two.
Here's a note on Rand's position within the party these days, starting with this quote:
"I’ve seen him grow and I’ve seen him mature and I’ve seen him become more centrist. I know that if he were President or a nominee I could influence him, particularly some of his views and positions on national security. He trusts me particularly on the military side of things, so I could easily work with him. It wouldn’t be a problem.” -- Arizona Sen. John McCain
Chris Cilizza says:
Rand Paul has spent much of his first four years in the Senate -- and especially the last two as it became clearer and clearer he was running for president -- trying to reduce some of the heat directed toward him (and his father) by the Republican establishment. He knows people like McCain are ever going to endorse him for president. (My guess on a McCain endorsement? Rubio.) But, Rand also believes that having people like McCain -- and McConnell -- actively working either behind the scenes or in front of them against you is a recipe to lose. (Ted Cruz, on the other hand, views this antagonistic relationship as a key to victory for him.) This McCain quote suggests that Paul's effort have paid off; he's never going to be McCain's guy but neither will the Arizona Republican go out of his way to say or do things to try and keep the nomination from Paul if it seems obvious the race is headed that way.
Well that's a relief. Cilizza is also convinced that Paul is not a libertarian ideologue and is more of a pragmatic conservative --- or at least is smart enough to hide his "true beliefs" in order to win. (At which point I guess his followers are supposed to believe he'll take off the mask and become the one true libertarian they voted for. Sure he will.)
“Ron was always content to tell the truth as best he understood it, and he saw that as the point of his politics. Rand is the guy who is committed to winning.” -- Paul family strategist Jesse Benton
This gets to the core of the difference between Rand and Ron Paul. It's not -- as Lizza correctly notes in his piece -- fundamentally about their policy views on which there is considerable overlap. "They don’t really have differences," Carol Paul, wife of Ron and mother of Rand, told Ryan. "They might have fractional differences about how to do things, but the press always want to make it into some kind of story that isn’t there.” The real difference between the two men is stylistic and focus-oriented. Many Republican strategists admit that if Ron Paul had simply refused to go down the rabbit hole of his foreign policy views (over and over again) during nationally televised debates, he might well have won a primary or caucus in 2012. Rand Paul, by contrast, understands the need to pivot off of topics where his views are not entirely aligned with the people he is trying to woo.
And apparently he also understands the total lack of professionalism on the part of the political press which will allow him to hide from his own record, a tactic Cilizza interestingly sees as a matter of style and focus rather than character. (Whether other Republicans will allow it is another question.)
I happen to think there's very little difference between Paul and the average Tea Party Republican which means that he will slash domestic government programs to the bone if he can, he will end as many regulations as he can, he will end as much taxation for the "job creators" as he can --- all good libertarian/conservative economic ideals. He will speak of religious "freedom" as it's now defined, which means that he will support the notions that the government has no ability to create or enforce laws that offend someone's religion while religion, on the other hand, has the "freedom" to insist that others abide by their beliefs. (Because otherwise they aren't free to practice their religion which requires them to compel others to follow their beliefs --- duh.) And he will also do whatever the national security state deems necessary because all presidents do that, regardless of party. There will not be any substantial advantage to voting for President Paul over President Cruz. (Well, maybe he would be less terrible on marijuana prosecutions.)
But from the looks of things, he's being positioned as the pragmatic centrist of the GOP presidential club. Which would be hilarious if it weren't so scary. It appears that in today's Village, any Republican who doesn't advocate capital punishment for pot smoking is now a moderate. Those goal posts just keep a-moving.
digby 9/29/2014 04:30:00 PM
Can John Oliver Writer Scott Sherman Help Expose Gen. Zinni's Raytheon Connection?
I'd love you to do a segment for John Oliver about how the network TV shows aren't telling the public that the retired generals selling the Syrian bombing and ISIS war actually work for the military contractors who profit from the war.
UPDATE: Cost of U.S. campaign against the Islamic State likely closing in on $1 billion
You might be thinking, "Didn't the New York Times already write this story after the Iraq war?" You are correct sir! It was written in 2008. Link It was about the last war. Now there are all new retired generals for this war.
Here's the TLDR of Dan Bastow's Pulitzer winning article:
All the networks got busted for their military analysts having financial conflicts of interest.
Then why does Last Week Tonight need to do a segment? Because they are at it again. And they are ignoring the people calling them on it. That's why we need you.
Two weeks ago Lee Fang of The Nation wrote Who’s Paying the Pro-War Pundits? The retired generals going on the TV networks pushing for ISIS and Syrian bombing, drone strikes and more "boots on the ground." In most cases the networks didn't tell viewers that they actual worked for General Dynamics, Raytheon and whatever name Blackwater is calling itself this week.
Fang's piece built on an extensive 2013 report, Conflicts of Interest in the Syria Debate by the Public Accountability Initiative. I wrote to Fang and asked what the media response was. Nada. The TV media ignore journalism critics because they can. "Ohh what are they going to do? Shame us in print? Ohhh I'm so scared." As you learned at the Daily show, it's harder for them to ignore comedy TV shows. That's why we need you.
They even tried to avoid the New York Times piece. My favorite comment from that piece was, "A spokeswoman for Fox News said executives 'refused to participate' in this article."
They had to deal with the Times piece because there was a financial conflict issue. Therefore the network lawyers, accountants and HR people were forced to act, even though the spokespeople didn't. And that is another reason we need you, not only will everyone at the networks watch the show, it now has a reputation of doing journalism and getting your viewers to act. (BTW, the FCC sends its hate.)
So how did the network's lawyers, accountants and HR people avoid the financial conflict of interest problems? Easy, they simply don't hire the generals to be their military analysts anymore! Clever boots eh?
Networks accountants love it, they save money and don't need to send out all those pesky 1099 forms! Plus, since the generals aren't employees, they don't have to follow any annoying HR internal guidelines, corporate ethics rules or SEC reporting rules for a publicly traded company. The retired generals are now just 'guests' with opinions!
What this tells us is that unless the TV networks have some sort of legal or financial pressure, they'll continue to cover for the people making money on this war.
But does it really matter if everyone knows? When I tell savvy news consumers this they say, 'Well duh, of course they work for a military contractor. So what? What general ISN'T for more war?"
It might be different if during this run up to the bombing and war the TV networks did even the minimal, "both sides" game. Did we hear from veterans against the war or historians talking about the disastrous blow back consequences of war?
Every time they talked about those ISIS beheadings did they 'balance' it with heart breaking videos of innocent children being killed by US drone strikes?
Why not? Because there is no money in peace for the network. Plus it might upset the former military guests, who count on the media to let them tell their story to the public like one big infomercial.
(Side note: If these "news" shows were classified as an infomercial or as a celebrity endorsement, the FTC would be overseeing it. Fox News' own FTC Standards and Practices rules make it clear the lack of disclosure would not be allowed. See pages 6, 10, 11, 20 and 21)
For example, look at retired General Jack Keane. He's a Director of General Dynamics. He is paid in stock. More war, more product sold, stock goes up -- he makes more money.
TV journalists aren't identifying these connections even though:
They'll blow off the journalists, the FCC and ignore their own admission of blowing it last time. They follow FTC regulations for now because if they don't it costs them money.
But they won't blow off you guys. The next day all the internet will be aflame with the video, 'John Oliver Eviscerates TV Journalists' Excuses" or "Watch John Oliver Destroy Network News Divisions" And your readers will all be tweeting to the TV networks things like:
@ABC @GStephanopoulos When talking about #syriaairstrikes why don't you tell viewers Gen Zinni works for .@Raytheon, the missile's maker?
I'd like to think that massive public attention of their complacency would help because it would give the public something specific to ask the TV network journalists, producers and bookers to do, since, 'Do your fucking job!" isn't working.
As your old boss once said to the hosts on Crossfire, "Stop. You are hurting America." They are at it again. It's your turn now.
Spocko 9/29/2014 03:00:00 PM
Who ya gonna call? (We ain't afraid 'o no terrorists)
Despite the authentic thrill of electing the first African American president, I was never a big believer in President Obama's liberalism. He always struck me as a slightly left of center, middle of the road guy whose paeans to "hope" and "change" in 2008 were meaningless slogans that did not add up to the progressive utopia so many assumed. I was hostile from the beginning to his persistence in believing he could transcend partisanship and his willingness to strike "grand bargains." I thought his unwillingness to pursue justice in the torture cases and his zeal to prosecute a covert war were indefensible.
But I always thought he was at least sensible in his rhetoric when it came to geo-politics and America's place in the world. He certainly didn't seem eager to throw his big, swinging, American hegemony all over the place. Unfortunately, that's changed. This administration is now employing the worst Hollywood dialog we've seen since Bush was babbling about "smokin' 'em outta their caves" and Cheney was droning on about torture being a "no-brainer."
This is from the 60 Minutes interview where Steve Kroft pointed out that, once again, the US seems to be bearing the majority of the burden in the latest war:
“Steve, that’s always the case. That’s always the case. America leads. We are the indispensable nation; we have capacity no one else has; our military is the best in the history of the world. When trouble comes up anywhere in the world,they don’t call Beijing, they don’t call Moscow — they call us.”
Groan. As Elias Isquith quipped:
Having reduced geopolitics to the level of “Ghostbusters” (because when there’s sectarian killing born from a centuries-long ethnic and cultural conflict in your neighborhood, who ya gonna call?) Obama continued, “When there’s a typhoon in the Philippines, take a look at who’s helping the Philippines deal with that situation. When there’s an earthquake in Haiti, take a look at who’s leading the charge, making sure Haiti can rebuild.”
And then, (oh.my.dear.God) the president concluded with a flourish:
“That’s how we roll. That’s what makes us America."
Huh. I used to think that what made us America was our belief in the inalienable rights of every human being, our welcome of immigrants from around the world and the dream of a decent life for yourself and a chance for your children to do better than you did, democracy ...
But really, we're just a big old global first responder. With guns. A lot of guns.
digby 9/29/2014 01:34:00 PM
Global solidarity on authoritarianism
I love this so much:
Those are protesters in Hong Kong using the same hands up sign used by the Ferguson protesters.
According to Vox it's unclear if these protesters are deliberately doing this as a sign of solidarity but even if the message, the message, whether in Ferguson or Hong Kong is exactly the same. Is it possible we are seeing the beginning of a global protest against authoritarian tactics?
digby 9/29/2014 12:30:00 PM
The Obama Doctrine: We hit bad dudes
I asked my husband a week or so ago what thought about Khoresan and he said he'd never heard of them and wondered what kind of music they played. (True story.) He's well-informed about current events, reads the papers and everything. My point being that this is a very new phenomenon, one which we all first heard about just two weeks ago.
I've been writing about the oddness of this sudden revelation since I first heard about it:
So al Qaeda is actually the group that we must keep from killing us all in our beds, not ISIS? Just like we've been keeping them from killing us in our beds for 13 years?
I'm being facetious and it's probably inappropriate. But many of us have been pointing out for months the reason Al Qaeda split with ISIS was because it was being too brutal to fellow Muslims when al Qaeda's mission was to take on the Great Satan --- just as it has been for a decade and a half. In other words, little had changed for Americans in the threat department. Al Qaeda still wants to kill us but we've been pretty successful at keeping them from doing that. For some reason we needed a new boogeyman. I wonder why?
We've spent trillions on Homeland Security, outfitted every Barney Fife in the nation with robo-cop gear and allowed the government to spy on Americans at will. I don't know about you but I kind of expect that all of that should actually be worth something. If we're going to run around tearing our hair out every time somebody puts out a scary video maybe it's time to re-evaluate that strategy.
This is not to say that there isn't a threat for the people in the Middle East and there is a legitimate argument to be made that it requires intervention from outside the region lest the whole place blows up even further. (I'm not sure we won't make things worse --- we usually do -- but I understand the arguments for it.) What is galling is the fact that they continue to treat us like children and tell us spooky bedtime stories so they can scare us into supporting their commercial/geopolitical goals. Maybe those goals are worth pursuing but we'll never know because we're chasing evil Ninjas who are allegedly coming over the border to unleash mushroom clouds on American cities.
I'm serious. This is what Fox News reporter Todd Starnes said on Hannity last night:
And frankly, I'm almost as disgusted that the American people continue to be thrilled at the prospect of kicking ass over some trumped up threat --- and yes, I do believe that a whole lot of us are anxious to get back to the business of ass-kicking. It's much more exciting than thinking about the wealthy elites stealing more and more of your meager earnings. But it's a dangerous and nasty way to entertain ourselves out of a nasty malaise.
Al Qaeda has a strategy to create dramatic terrorist attacks on the West. We've known this for a long, long time and have been spending trillions to protect ourselves from it for well over a decade. That has not changed. ISIS is a different problem. The fact that the war hawks pimped this line about ISIS being worse than Al Qaeda should make everyone skeptical of what they are hearing about this whole thing --- and skeptical of the motivations behind it.
How many times do we have to be lied to?
An then there was this:
Several of Mr. Obama’s aides said Tuesday that the airstrikes against the Khorasan operatives were launched to thwart an “imminent” terrorist attack, possibly using concealed explosives to blow up airplanes. But other American officials said that the plot was far from mature, and that there was no indication that Khorasan had settled on a time or location for the attack — or even on the exact method of carrying out the plot.
Some experts said it was more likely that American spy agencies had developed specific intelligence about the location of Mr. Fadhli and others, and that Mr. Obama had ordered the strike to kill the Khorasan operatives before they could scatter.
One senior American official on Wednesday described the Khorasan plotting as “aspirational” and said that there did not yet seem to be a concrete plan in the works.
Something is very,very off about all of this. In this Intercept piece, Glenn Greenwald documents how this new threat exploded into the ether and it's fascinating. This really struck me:
Late last week, Associated Press’ Ken Dilanian — the first to unveil the new Khorasan Product in mid-September — published a new story explaining that just days after bombing “Khorasan” targets in Syria, high-ranking U.S. officials seemingly backed off all their previous claims of an “imminent” threat from the group. Headlined “U.S. Officials Offer More Nuanced Take on Khorasan Threat,” it noted that “several U.S. officials told reporters this week that the group was in the final stages of planning an attack on the West, leaving the impression that such an attack was about to happen.” But now:
"Bad dudes?" Really? Is that all it takes? The government reveals they've been tracking some "bad dudes" and decided to "hit them"? That wouldn't pass muster in a Screenwriting 101 class. In fact, it's right up there with the most puerile nonsense that ever came out of George W. Bush's mouth.
Senior U.S. officials offered a more nuanced picture Thursday of the threat they believe is posed by an al-Qaida cell in Syria targeted in military strikes this week, even as they defended the decision to attack the militants.
James Comey, the FBI director, and Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, each acknowledged that the U.S. did not have precise intelligence about where or when the cell, known as the Khorasan Group, would attempt to strike a Western target. . . .
Kirby, briefing reporters at the Pentagon, said, “I don’t know that we can pin that down to a day or month or week or six months….We can have this debate about whether it was valid to hit them or not, or whether it was too soon or too late…We hit them. And I don’t think we need to throw up a dossier here to prove that these are bad dudes.”
Regarding claims that an attack was “imminent,” Comey said: “I don’t know exactly what that word means…’imminent’” — a rather consequential admission given that said imminence was used as the justification for launching military action in the first place.
And James Comey doesn't know what the word "imminent" means which is kind of depressing. It's not as though we didn't recently have an arduous debate over this definition when the Bush administration stretched it to its limits it justify the invasion of Iraq. (Here's a bucket of lukewarm water Michael O'Hanlon on the subject if you don't believe me.) Or, as the Obama administration put it in their memo justifying the extra-juducial assassination of people overseas:
Certain aspects of this legal framework require additional explication. First, the condition that an operational leader present an "imminent" threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons will take place in the immediate future.
Yes, that's from an official legal document prepared by the Obama administration. We have always been at war with Oceania.
It appears that the Obama administration has adopted a new doctrine that says "Don't worry your pretty little heads about this, we don't need no stinking dossiers, if they're a bad dude we hit 'em". So that's clear enough. They "hit" whomever they want to hit simply because they could do something bad someday. They are, after all, bad dudes.
Greenwald thinks the US has been flogging the "imminent" Khoresan threat in order to get people riled up to support this bombing campaign. But I think it may be a bit more complicated.
Setting aside the propaganda purpose, which I agree is a big part of this, resting this Syrian operation on that "imminent" legal doctrine is a bit precarious. This is a bombing campaign not an assassination. And it wouldn't have been a problem if the government hadn't spent weeks touting the fact that ISIS was so uniquely evil that it was even expelled from al Qaeda, (who were, by contrast, not such "bad dudes" after all.) If ISIS had still been painted as an offshoot of al Qaeda they could have just cited the 2001 AUMF and said they were chasing those familiar al-Qaeda bad dudes. And citing the Iraq war AUMF is also a stretch for bombing Syria. So, it seems logical that they might have wanted to gin up the threat of Khoresan --- which they clearly tie to al Qaeda --- as an alternative to cover their legal options.
This doesn't explain why they felt the need to call the threat "imminent" but the inconsistent statements among administration officials suggests that this was more a case of one hand not knowing what the other hand was justifying. The fog of quasi-war and all that ...
None of us can know what really went on and we probably won't know for some time until enough people write their memoirs and tell us. But we have been lied to so many times about this terrorist threat that we have a right --- a responsibility --- to look at these situations with skepticism and demand something more than a glib dismissal like this:
We can have this debate about whether it was valid to hit them or not, or whether it was too soon or too late…We hit them. And I don’t think we need to throw up a dossier here to prove that these are bad dudes.
Basically, that Pentagon spokesman said this to the American people:
You are in what we call the reality-based community,people who believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.
plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose ...
digby 9/29/2014 11:08:00 AM
The progressive future: Shenna Bellows
Blue America sent this out to our members today. We're getting down to the wire and there are some candidates really worth supporting in this final stretch. Shenna Bellows is one of them:
It's almost the end of the quarter-- and you know what that means-- hundreds of e-mails from the DCCC and DSCC and their careerist candidates begging for money.
Please tell them you already gave-- through Blue America-- to individual candidates whose agendas you believe in and values you share.
As you probably know, we’ve supported Shenna Bellows' entirely grassroots campaign for Senate in Maine this cycle more than any other candidate, and now we’re asking you to step up again. She’s running as an outspoken, unapologetic progressive in a blue state that voted for President Obama twice.
Her opponent, Susan Collins, is out of step with Maine’s economic needs and won’t tell voters where she stands on the big issues. It’s time for Shenna to join progressive champions like Elizabeth Warren, Jeff Merkley, Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders in the U.S. Senate and give Maine a big upgrade in representation.
Shenna is running the kind of campaign that makes progressives stand up and cheer. She’s outraising Collins more than three to one in small-dollar donations, according to OpenSecrets, and she hasn’t taken a nickel of corporate PAC money.
She walked 350 miles across the state this summer to hear from real Mainers and bring their stories to Washington where they need to be heard. She’s running full steam ahead on universal health care, investing in our economy, a higher minimum wage, student loan reform, and a national Human Rights Act that extends Maine’s strong LGBT protections to every American man, woman and child.
In other words, as a first-time candidate, Shenna Bellows is setting a standard a lot of incumbents should be trying to meet.
Shenna’s a strong candidate because of her values and her background-- she’s the working class daughter of a carpenter and a home health care nurse-- but also because of her experience fighting for privacy and civil rights.
Those fights are hardly over in Washington, and we need her there fighting to restore our liberties. As the head of the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine for eight years, Shenna worked hard to protect the people of her state from law enforcement overreach. Her own website tells you everything you need to know:
Abuses of power like the Patriot Act, REAL ID, the NDAA, NSA spying, and domestic drone surveillance threaten our democracy. When the government spies on its own people, we, the people, lose trust in our government. We can restore trust and a sense of community by restoring our constitutional freedoms.
In Maine, I led a coalition to pass groundbreaking privacy laws to require warrants before law enforcement accesses email or phone communications. As United States Senator, I will work with Republicans and Democrats alike to repeal the Patriot Act and restore checks and balances on government spying. I’m proud to have been called “the Elizabeth Warren of civil liberties,” and that’s exactly the kind of senator I intend to be.
Needless to say, you don’t find a record like that every day. We need Shenna Bellows in the Senate, standing with our most dependable leaders and bringing her passion and principles to a legislative body that’s short on both right now.
One last thing about this race you need to know: Susan Collins is nervous. When she started running a recent television ad trying to claim credit for ending the government shutdown, Shenna didn’t let it pass. She put out a web video telling voters the other half of the story-- the half where Susan Collins voted with the tea party to hold the government hostage and hurt businesses in her own state.
Now Susan Collins is backpedaling and trying to convince reporters her votes meant the opposite of what they meant. She can’t defend her record, so she’s trying to ignore it. Voters aren’t buying it, and we need to help Shenna hold her accountable for voting against her own state.
Shenna Bellows is the future of the U.S. Senate. She’s the future of progressive politics. There’s no one we’re more excited to support this year, and we hope you’ll join us-- right here and right now.
digby 9/29/2014 09:00:00 AM