Digby's Hullabaloo
2801 Ocean Park Blvd.
Box 157
Santa Monica, Ca 90405


Raw Story
New Republic
Common Dreams
Smirking Chimp
Crisis Papers


Crooks and Liars
CJR Daily
consortium news
Scoobie Davis


Political Animal
Taylor Marsh
Spocko's Brain
Talk Left
Suburban Guerrilla
Paperweight's Fair Shot
Pacific Views
Talking Points Memo
Daily Kos
Tom Tomorrow
Left Coaster
Angry Bear
Rooks Rant
The Poorman
Seeing the Forest
Cathie From Canada
Frontier River Guides
Brad DeLong
The Sideshow
Liberal Oasis
Juan Cole
Mark Kleiman
Rising Hegemon
Unqualified Offerings
Mad Kane
Alas, A Blog
Fanatical Apathy
Lean Left
Oliver Willis
Ruminate This
skippy the bush kangaroo
Crooked Timber
the talking dog
David E's Fablog
The Agonist

email address:
digbysez at gmail dot com
isnospoon at gmail dot com

01/01/2003 - 02/01/2003 02/01/2003 - 03/01/2003 03/01/2003 - 04/01/2003 04/01/2003 - 05/01/2003 05/01/2003 - 06/01/2003 06/01/2003 - 07/01/2003 07/01/2003 - 08/01/2003 08/01/2003 - 09/01/2003 09/01/2003 - 10/01/2003 10/01/2003 - 11/01/2003 11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003 12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004 01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004 02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004 03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007 05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007 06/01/2007 - 07/01/2007 07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007 08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007 09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007 10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007 11/01/2007 - 12/01/2007 12/01/2007 - 01/01/2008 01/01/2008 - 02/01/2008 02/01/2008 - 03/01/2008 03/01/2008 - 04/01/2008 04/01/2008 - 05/01/2008 05/01/2008 - 06/01/2008 06/01/2008 - 07/01/2008 07/01/2008 - 08/01/2008 08/01/2008 - 09/01/2008 09/01/2008 - 10/01/2008 10/01/2008 - 11/01/2008 11/01/2008 - 12/01/2008 12/01/2008 - 01/01/2009 01/01/2009 - 02/01/2009 02/01/2009 - 03/01/2009 03/01/2009 - 04/01/2009 04/01/2009 - 05/01/2009 05/01/2009 - 06/01/2009 06/01/2009 - 07/01/2009 07/01/2009 - 08/01/2009 08/01/2009 - 09/01/2009 09/01/2009 - 10/01/2009 10/01/2009 - 11/01/2009 11/01/2009 - 12/01/2009 12/01/2009 - 01/01/2010 01/01/2010 - 02/01/2010 02/01/2010 - 03/01/2010 03/01/2010 - 04/01/2010 04/01/2010 - 05/01/2010 05/01/2010 - 06/01/2010 06/01/2010 - 07/01/2010 07/01/2010 - 08/01/2010 08/01/2010 - 09/01/2010 09/01/2010 - 10/01/2010 10/01/2010 - 11/01/2010 11/01/2010 - 12/01/2010 12/01/2010 - 01/01/2011 01/01/2011 - 02/01/2011 02/01/2011 - 03/01/2011 03/01/2011 - 04/01/2011 04/01/2011 - 05/01/2011 05/01/2011 - 06/01/2011 06/01/2011 - 07/01/2011 07/01/2011 - 08/01/2011 08/01/2011 - 09/01/2011 09/01/2011 - 10/01/2011 10/01/2011 - 11/01/2011 11/01/2011 - 12/01/2011 12/01/2011 - 01/01/2012 01/01/2012 - 02/01/2012 02/01/2012 - 03/01/2012 03/01/2012 - 04/01/2012 04/01/2012 - 05/01/2012 05/01/2012 - 06/01/2012 06/01/2012 - 07/01/2012 07/01/2012 - 08/01/2012 08/01/2012 - 09/01/2012 09/01/2012 - 10/01/2012 10/01/2012 - 11/01/2012 11/01/2012 - 12/01/2012 12/01/2012 - 01/01/2013 01/01/2013 - 02/01/2013 02/01/2013 - 03/01/2013 03/01/2013 - 04/01/2013 04/01/2013 - 05/01/2013 05/01/2013 - 06/01/2013 06/01/2013 - 07/01/2013 07/01/2013 - 08/01/2013 08/01/2013 - 09/01/2013 09/01/2013 - 10/01/2013 10/01/2013 - 11/01/2013 11/01/2013 - 12/01/2013 12/01/2013 - 01/01/2014 01/01/2014 - 02/01/2014 02/01/2014 - 03/01/2014 03/01/2014 - 04/01/2014 04/01/2014 - 05/01/2014


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?


Saturday, April 19, 2014

Yes, the stupid is strong.

by digby

I caught this on twitter earlier today:


This piece by Paul Rosenberg on climate deniers delves into the underpinning for this fools delusion:

One of the aspects of conspiratorial thinking is — paradoxically — that it gives people a sense of control because it gives meaning to apparent randomness. It may be more comforting to some people to think that 9/11 was an “inside job” than accepting that it was a fairly random event triggered by a few fanatics.” Even more in line with Armstrong’s thinking, he added, “I also think that there is a lot of identity politics in this, e.g., if Republicans generally think that climate change is a hoax, then it becomes a ‘tribal totem’ for others to pick up on this.”

As a further refinement, I noted that conspiracist ideation thrives on creating specific malicious others as a particuarly powerful form of meaning-making. “Yes, absolutely,” Lewandowsky responded. “There is this tension between ‘victim’ and ‘hero’ within the conspiracist worldview that leads to those contradictory positions. On the one hand (the ‘hero’ frame) it is permissible to accuse scientists of fraud and harass them, but by the same token (‘victim’ frame) scientists must do nothing to cast aspersions on the accusers or to defend themselves. Arthur Koestler has referred to those people as ‘mimophants.’ It is crucial for the public to understand this.”

Unfortunately, this represents a whole lot of the public. And not just right wingers.

The most important skill necessary for success in our "meritocracy"? Brown-nosing the new aristocrats.

by digby

I have taken to telling people that if they want to make a decent living they will need to find a job that serves the rich. It's the smart move in a society such as ours. That's where the money is. And it appears that one needs to apply this principle to all issues in our society. Even the government is getting into the act:
On a crisp morning in late March, an elite group of 100 young philanthropists and heirs to billionaire family fortunes filed into a cozy auditorium at the White House.

Their name tags read like a catalog of the country’s wealthiest and most influential clans: Rockefeller, Pritzker, Marriott. They were there for a discreet, invitation-only summit hosted by the Obama administration to find common ground between the public sector and the so-called next-generation philanthropists, many of whom stand to inherit billions in private wealth.

“Moon shots!” one administration official said, kicking off the day on an inspirational note to embrace the White House as a partner and catalyst for putting their personal idealism into practice.

The well-heeled group seemed receptive. “I think it’s fantastic,” said Patrick Gage, a 19-year-old heir to the multibillion-dollar Carlson hotel and hospitality fortune. “I’ve never seen anything like this before.” Mr. Gage, physically boyish with naturally swooping Bieber bangs, wore a conservative pinstripe suit and a white oxford shirt. His family’s Carlson company, which owns Radisson hotels, Country Inns and Suites, T.G.I. Friday’s and other brands, is an industry leader in enforcing measures to combat trafficking and involuntary prostitution.

A freshman at Georgetown University, Mr. Gage was among the presenters at a breakout session, titled “Combating Human Trafficking,” that attracted a notable group of his peers. “The person two seats away from me was a Marriott,“ he said. “And when I told her about trafficking, right away she was like, ‘Uh, yeah, I want to do that.’ ”

Justin McAuliffe, a 24-year-old heir to the Hilton hotel fortune, was similarly impressed by the crowd. “Hilton, Marriott and Carlson,” he said. “That is cool.”

The daylong conference was organized by Thomas Kalil, a deputy director for technology and innovation in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, with the help of Nexus, a youth organization based in Washington that seeks to “catalyze” the next generation of billionaire philanthropists and other stakeholders.

Mr. Kalil moved nimbly among the affluent participants and through the ornate halls of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, where the summit was held. “A lot of this is not just, you know, collaborations between the administration and philanthropists,” he said, “but philanthropists finding each other, finding other philanthropists with shared interests.”

(Disclosure: Although the event was closed to the media, I was invited by the founders of Nexus, Jonah Wittkamper and Rachel Cohen Gerrol, to report on the conference as a member of the family that started the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical company.)

As in the old days of feudalism, if one wants to do something for the people one must petition the King or whomever the local noble might be to seek the funds to make it happen. It's an interesting American twist that we have the government facilitating the nobility's philanthropic hobbies, but it all adds up to the same thing.

Whenever I read something like this I like to reprise this piece from a decade ago by Phil Agre. It seemed a little bit extreme to some people at the time. I'd guess fewer people think that today:
From the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the self-regarding thugs of ancient Rome to the glorified warlords of medieval and absolutist Europe, in nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are the conservatives.

The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats.

More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.

The defenders of aristocracy represent aristocracy as a natural phenomenon, but in reality it is the most artificial thing on earth. Although one of the goals of every aristocracy is to make its preferred social order seem permanent and timeless, in reality conservatism must be reinvented in every generation. This is true for many reasons, including internal conflicts among the aristocrats; institutional shifts due to climate, markets, or warfare; and ideological gains and losses in the perpetual struggle against democracy.

In some societies the aristocracy is rigid, closed, and stratified, while in others it is more of an aspiration among various fluid and factionalized groups. The situation in the United States right now is toward the latter end of the spectrum. A main goal in life of all aristocrats, however, is to pass on their positions of privilege to their children...
It's very nice that many of these young idealistic aristocrats want to do good deeds. But this is really nothing more than good old fashioned noblesse oblige which basically leaves the betterment of man to the whims of rich people. One of the big improvements democracy was supposed to bring was that the people themselves decided how to organize society rather than depending on the kindness of aristocrats. Even great philanthropists of the gilded age like Andrew Carnegie believed in a huge confiscatory tax of great estates in order that the government of the people might make the decisions rather than the heirs of great fortunes.

But we're going the wrong way again. So if you have a good idea or want to help people or just need a job --- figure out which of the wealthy young scions of the new aristocracy might be amenable to your needs and figure out a way to kiss their asses in exactly the way they like them kissed. That's the major skill we're all going to need in our so-called  "meritocracy".

Update: More from Kathy Geier and Harold Pollack.

What's the matter with Topeka?  They haven't learned a damned thing in 60 years.

by digby

A school district in Topeka Kansas invited Michelle Obama to speak at a high school graduation. And all hell broke loose:
A furor over what the Topeka school district considers an honor has erupted after plans were announced for Obama to address a combined graduation ceremony for five area high schools next month an 8,000-seat arena. For some, it was the prospect of a tight limit on the number of seats allotted to each graduate. For others, it was the notion that Obama's speech, tied to the 60th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education outlawing segregation in schools, would overshadow the student's big day.
Well, they aren't lining up in front of the courthouse to block her entrance so I suppose they've evolved. I think we know what's really going on here don't we? Yes, the people they interviewed said they were all very upset because it took the spotlight off the kids. And that might even make sense if having guest speakers at graduations wasn't something you see all over the nation every single year. Yes, this is a high school rather than a university, but it's hardly unprecedented either. In fact, Michelle Obama spoke at this High School graduation a couple of years ago. Here's the Notre Dame basketball coach addressing a high school commencement. Here's Rudy Giuliani at a high school graduation.  Here's President Obama at one. Here's Ben Affleck. It happens all the time. And the students and parents are thrilled.

No, these people just don't want this commencement speaker, the first African American first lady, coming there to mark the 60th anniversary of the landmark supreme court decision overturning segregation in the public schools. You'd think they'd be thrilled to be a part of such a momentous occasion and would remember it forever. Instead, they're looking for reasons not to do it.

Mother (Nettie Hunt) and daughter (Nickie) sit on steps of the Supreme Court building on May 18, 1954, the day following the Court's historic decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Nettie is holding a newspaper with the headline "High Court Bans Segregation in Public Schools."

And yes, the schools are no longer segregated by law. But 60 years later, the people of Topeka still can't bring themselves to acknowledge their role in that landmark legal finding  --- and they're teaching their kids to ignore what happened. (Well, that's the most generous way of looking at it ...)  What a missed opportunity for a beautiful moment of recognition and reconciliation.

Jesus H Christ --- how long can they keep this up?

The longer we wait to act on climate change, the more it will cost

by David Atkins

Naked self-interest is by far the biggest reason for failure to act on climate change. Most major corporations don't want any short-term reductions to their bottom lines, and nation-states don't want to disrupt their political networks and take on major green energy programs.

In light of all that, the IPCC's recent report makes clear that failure to act today is already having costly consequences, and will be very bad for everyone's self-interest tomorrow:

The latest report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says the effects of a warming world are not in the far-off future, but are happening right now.

And they’re taking a toll on humans as well as natural systems. Rain and snow patterns are changing. Glaciers are melting. Water supplies appear to be shrinking, and animals on land and in the oceans are shifting their ranges.
“There’s clear evidence of climate impacts today,” said Michael Prather, a UC Irvine climate researcher and lead chapter author for the U.N. panel. “Some are really obvious, some are more subtle. The issue is what the future looks like.”
Climate change appears to be reducing crop yields in some places, and extreme weather – droughts, floods, cyclones – is exposing humanity to disruptions in food production and perhaps even increased illness or death.
While some effects of climate change may be irreversible, the report has a modest silver lining: People are beginning to adapt to the changes, with governments in many places, including North America, factoring climate change into long-range planning.

But the risks to people and nature are high, especially at the higher end of estimates of potential warming in the decades to come.
The one silver lining to rule by oligarchic elites is supposed to be the ability to turn policy on a dime and to enact long-term solutions. We're not even getting the "trains running on time" out of the bargain. The top tenth of one percent are simply living in as high a style as possible and letting the world burn in the process.


Friday, April 18, 2014

Little intruder

by digby

From the WSJ:
There's a new guest at the White House. Unlike most people who pass through the presidential residence, he wasn't invited. But in cutthroat Washington fashion, he saw weakness and took advantage. Now he rests and plays uninhibited at the seat of power.

He also has pointy ears and a bushy tail.

The little red fox, who hasn't been named, turned up on the White House grounds in the weeks before the government shutdown in October. After many White House groundskeepers were furloughed, the fox settled in. Months later, the furry little conundrum has left officials who sort through some of the world's most complex challenges scratching their heads.
They actually accompanied the story with one of these:

Luckily they have vowed not to kill the little guy. I just hope they don't catch him and send him to one of these barbaric places.
Maybe we should rethink Clinton's inevitability?

by David Atkins

Yes, it's a Fox News poll so take with a slight dose of salt (Fox News polls tend to skew to the right somewhat, but not hugely). But this is interesting:
Hillary Clinton’s favorability rating has hit a six-year low, according to a new Fox News poll.
At 49 percent, just under half of Americans view the former secretary of state favorably, while 45 percent see her unfavorably, the poll, released Thursday, said. This is the first time Clinton’s approval rating has fallen below 50 percent in a Fox survey since April 2008 — during the Democratic presidential primaries — when 47 percent viewed her favorably.

The poll’s results also mark a 7 percentage point drop within the past year for Clinton, about whose potential 2016 bid there is wide speculation. Fifty-six percent viewed the former first lady favorably in Fox News’s previous poll, conducted in June 2013.
Meanwhile, President Barack Obama’s approval ratings have remained consistent, as 45 percent view him favorably and 51 percent view him unfavorably. This is a 1 percentage point change from his 46/52 favorability split in 2013.
The biggest argument for Clinton's candidacy in 2016 is her popularity, combined with overwhelming name recognition. The idea is that since voters already know a great deal about her, her favorability won't decline after GOP attacks.

If this poll is accurate, it appears that argument may not be as valid as many thought.

Clinton tried to coast on inevitability in 2008, and her campaign failed miserably after a huge head start. Yes, she made some tactical errors shortly before the Iowa caucuses, but the election should never have been close in the first place. The Obama campaign was a juggernaut to be sure, but the race was Clinton's to lose. She lost it by assuming inevitability, and even more so by her refusal to acknowledge the error of voting for the war in Iraq.

Many of my friends on the Democratic side don't believe that Clinton will be vulnerable in 2016 because there's no Obama-like candidate on the horizon. That would be a mistake that understates Clinton's weaknesses and overstates Obama's strengths.

If Clinton doesn't fight harder for public support and do more to appeal to the progressive base, she can easily lose again in 2016.

I guess these folks don't have any cows

by digby

So I haven 't heard any big outcry about the men with guns confiscating this property under forfeiture laws. It's the State of Texas not the Federal Government so perhaps that makes the difference. It's ok if Texas does it just not Washington. But it also strikes me as something that one might expect the Christian Right to see as an intrusion into religious liberty:
The Texas Department of Public Safety, which raided the Eldorado, Texas, ranch in April of 2008, said in a statement released on Thursday that the walled compound has been entered by law enforcement officers and “the residents have agreed to vacate the property.”
Jeffs was convicted of sexual assault in 2011. 
The statement noted that the state on January 6 secured a forfeiture judgment from the 51st Judicial District Court. Efforts to seize the property were initiated in 2012 by the Attorney General’s Office. 
“Law enforcement personnel are working with the occupants of the ranch to take all reasonable actions to assist with their departure of the property, to preserve the property, and to successfully execute the court order,” the DPS said. 
The DPS didn’t say how many people were still living on the 1700-acre compound with a gleaming white temple building in the center, located about 200 miles west of Austin. At one point, Jeffs held sway over some 700 followers on the ranch, where he and other leaders of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, took young girls to be their “spiritual brides.” 
There are similar FLDS communities in Utah and Arizona. 
Jeffs, 58, is serving a sentence of life plus 20 years in the Texas prison system. He was convicted of sexual assault relating to what his sect called “celestial marriages” to two underage girls at the religious compound.
Obviously, I hold no brief for this fundamentalist religious sect. (Liberals aren't usually big defenders of such institutions and I think most of the convenient claims of "religious liberty" are a right wing crock.) But I do find it interesting that none of those who are protesting legal forfeiture when it comes to cows says a peep when the cops come and kick this congregation off their land and seize their property. And since the man who perpetrated the crimes is in jail, wouldn't you expect the religious libertarians to defend the rest of them to stay on their land?

I understand why people would find it distasteful to defend these folks. But that's what principles are supposed to be all about.


You'd just better hope that wealthy elites want the same things you want

by digby

It's a coincidence if your preferred government policies are adopted. And that's becuse the government is doing the bidding of the wealthy --- if they want what you want it's all good. If they don't, you're out of luck. That's the finding of the new Princeton study everyone's chattering about:
Asking "[w]ho really rules?" researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page argue that over the past few decades America's political system has slowly transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy, where wealthy elites wield most power.

Using data drawn from over 1,800 different policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002, the two conclude that rich, well-connected individuals on the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of or even against the will of the majority of voters.

"The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy," they write, "while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

As one illustration, Gilens and Page compare the political preferences of Americans at the 50th income percentile to preferences of Americans at the 90th percentile as well as major lobbying or business groups. They find that the government—whether Republican or Democratic—more often follows the preferences of the latter group rather than the first.
Imagine that:
"Ordinary citizens," they write, "might often be observed to 'win' (that is, to get their preferred policy outcomes) even if they had no independent effect whatsoever on policy making, if elites (with whom they often agree) actually prevail."
And, by the way, the Supreme Court's recent rulings are just making it official. This study is based on data going back to 1980.

You remember 1980, don't you? When Ronald Reagan won by telling everyone that the government wasn't the solution, the government was the problem? Yeah, that worked out for us.

Update:  Be sure to read Kathy G's informed take on all this. Fascinating.

Torquemada was not a whiner

by digby

What ever happened to the old saying "never complain, never explain?" Today manly men who believe they need to be sadists for the greater good whine like little babies because nobody understands them:

The psychologist regarded as the architect of the CIA's “enhanced interrogation” program has broken a seven-year silence to defend the use of torture techniques against al-Qaida terror suspects in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

In an uncompromising and wide-ranging interview with the Guardian, his first public remarks since he was linked to the program in 2007, James Mitchell was dismissive of a Senate intelligence committee report on CIA torture in which he features, and which is currently at the heart of an intense row between legislators and the agency.

The committee’s report found that the interrogation techniques devised by Mitchell, a retired air force psychologist, were far more brutal than disclosed at the time, and did not yield useful intelligence. These included waterboarding, stress positions, sleep deprivation for days at a time, confinement in a box and being slammed into walls.

But Mitchell, who was reported to have personally waterboarded accused 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, remains unrepentant. “The people on the ground did the best they could with the way they understood the law at the time,” he said. “You can't ask someone to put their life on the line and think and make a decision without the benefit of hindsight and then eviscerate them in the press 10 years later.”

The 6,600-page, $40m Senate report is still secret, but a summary of its 20 conclusions and findings, obtained by McClatchy News, alluded to the role Mitchell and another psychologist under contract to the CIA, Bruce Jessen, played in the torture program.

The committee's chair, Democrat Dianne Feinstein, has said the report “exposes brutality that stands in stark contrast to our values as a nation”. She added: "It chronicles a stain on our history that must never again be allowed to happen.”

Mitchell said: “I’m skeptical about the Senate report, because I do not believe that every analyst whose jobs and promotions depended upon it, who were professional intelligence experts, all them lied to protect a program? All of them were wrong? All of these [CIA] directors were wrong? All of the people who were using the intel to go get people were wrong? And 10 years later a Senate staffer was able to put it together and finally there’s clarity? I am just highly skeptical that that’s the truth.”

They were all wrong. Sorry. Just because they followed the directives of their superiors who told them torture was legal doesn't absolve them of their crimes. We had a process a long time ago and came to a conclusion about this issue. It was called the Nuremburg Trials. And one of the guiding principles was this:

Principle IV states: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him".

This principle could be paraphrased as follows: "It is not an acceptable excuse to say 'I was just following my superior's orders'".

A moral choice was available to all of these people. They could have said no and they would not have been put before a firing squad. I'm not sure they even would have lost their jobs. They could have easily walked away.

So yes, I'm sorry that they failed to listen to some top members of the FBI and others who were clear about the inefficacy of torture and walked away rather than participate. And it's a shame that they are people who have a dearth of basic human decency, but they are. There is no excuse for torture. We didn't excuse it in WWII when the entire world seemed to have gone mad and we certainly can't condone it in this situation. In fact, it's insulting that these people are even trying. 9/11 was a terrible thing but it wasn't a license cast off all civilized norms. It wasn't War of the Worlds.

Who is Eric Cantor's intellectual mentor? Ayn Rand? Milton Friedman? Nope. It's the Queen of mean, Ann Coulter.

by digby

In my piece at Salon today I took a look at Eric Cantor's shift on immigration reform. And I look at why he might have done it:
If you are curious as to whom the Republican leadership truly respects and listens to about the proper policies for the party to follow, the answer might surprise you. Certainly one would expect that they’d listen to their strategists and pollsters. And it’s well known that they grant their donors the kind of fidelity one would normally only expect of 12th century knights of the realm. But if one is to judge by their approach to immigration, they are following the advice of the great oracle of wingnuttia, Ann Coulter.

Yesterday Democrats lamented the fact that the Senate immigration bill, passed over a year ago, still languishes in the House. The president made a mild comment suggesting that the American people are “ahead of the House Republicans” in this matter and would like to move ahead. He later called House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and they had a discussion of the issue after which Cantor released a pouty press release whining that the president is a big meanie.
Read on to see Ann Coulter's counterintuitive take on immigration reform ---echoed by other right wing commentators like Laura Ingraham --- which says that the Republicans will forever be in the minority if they pass it. It's quite interesting. Whether Cantor is literally following her advice is unknown. But the effect is the same. He's using the "a" word (amnesty) again. Which is exactly what Coulter ordered.

You be the judge.


Grandma Clinton

by digby

Some of the more startling insults I read about Hillary Clinton during the 2008 campaign weren't sexist, surprisingly. They were ageist. ("Yuck. Her neck looks like a folded quilt." "She's the Joan of Arc of the dry pussy demographic." ) And no those weren't from right wingers.  Which is not to say that the right didn't join in the fun.  Rush Limbaugh was very concerned for her:
[M]en aging makes them look more authoritative, accomplished, distinguished. Sadly, it's not that way for women, and they will tell you. (interruption) Well, Snerdley, you're just sitting there thinking I'm on the precipice of the cliff here without a bungee cord. I'm not. I am trying to be... Look, if I'm on the edge of the bungee cord, then I'll take the leap. The bungee cord will save me. I'm just giving an honest assessment here of American culture. Look at all of the evidence. I mean, I've just barely scratched the surface with some of the evidence, and so: Will Americans want to watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis? And that woman, by the way, is not going to want to look like she's getting older, because it will impact poll numbers. It will impact perceptions.
It's accompanied on his website with a hideous picture of Clinton, naturally.

So now, Chelsea Clinton has announced that she's pregnant and what's the first thing people are doing? They're calling Hillary "Grandma Clinton" and launching into a big discussion of whether she can be a grandmother and a candidate at the same time. Apparently, they're serious about this:

In the Christian Science Monitor, writer Linda Feldmann quickly went all out, musing, “How, if at all, might the news affect whether Hillary Clinton runs for president in 2016?… Perhaps it’s sexist even to ask the question – how will a grandchild affect her decision – but until she announces either way, it will be out there…. As anyone who’s had children knows, there’s often nothing like the bond between mother and daughter when the first grandbaby is on the way. If we had to guess, we’d say that Hillary Clinton will be a tad less interested in running for president now that she’s about to be a grandmother.”

But the Wall Street Journal helpfully surmised that “Mrs. Clinton’s status as a new grandmother could prove helpful, softening the image of a veteran politician who is often seen through a partisan lens.” Politico mused, “The armchair thinking goes, having a grandchild may make the Iowa State Fair a less appealing place to spend the summer of 2015. Why beg donors for money at dozens of events a month when there’s a happy baby to spend time with in New York?” but speculated, “In the vernacular of cable television, becoming a grandmother can only ‘humanize’ Clinton, who has long been critiqued for her aloof demeanor and rigid personal discipline.”

Washington Monthly, meanwhile, declared “Nana for President,” and observed, “Becoming a grandmother offers another particular advantage: it will give her the space to create a new public image. One that is softer. Cuddlier. More relatable. More real. And that’s exactly what Hillary needs.”

I suppose she could ask some of the other presidential candidates who were grandparents at the time for some advice about how to handle this. There have been a boatload of them. But we know that being a "grandmother" as opposed to a "grandfather" is a very different thing, don't we? Rush explained why that is for you in gruesome detail.

Obviously, it's absurd to think that Chelsea being pregnant or Hillary being a grandmother will impact her job as candidate or president. I think everyone will be functioning as they normally do. But the subtext in all this chatter about "Grandma Clinton's" new status and how it will affect her campaign is just a more polite version of those ageist insults from 2008 --- she's an old hag who is too unpleasant to look at to be president. And yes, it's sexist as well. Was there even one story in 2012 about Mitt Romney's vast horde of grandchildren? Actually, there were passing mentions of them. I don't recall anyone wondering if old Mitt might need to spend so much time with his grandkids that he wouldn't have time for the presidency, though.

I realize that Chelsea has been in the public eye for 20 years and so it's of interest that she's pregnant. But there is no need for anything beyond a simple congratulations to Hillary Clinton since it  has no bearing on her ability or desire to run for president. It's ridiculous on its face. But it does give a bunch of commentators a hook with which to characterize her as an old woman past her prime. And that's both ageist and sexist, that special sweet spot in American life reserved for all of us women who manage to get to the other side of 50. Just ask Rush. He explains it very well.

Update: John Amato surveyed the fever swamps and found out that the right thinks this whole thing is a liberal plot. Of course it is.


Californians support reform of Proposition 13 corporate giveaways

by David Atkins

The Field Poll is one of the most reliable polls in California. One of its latest findings shows enormous support for changing California's Proposition 13 as it relates to commercial properties, a reform known as "split roll":

A majority of Californians favor tweaking Proposition 13, the state’s landmark restriction on property tax increases, as it applies to business and commercial properties, according a poll released Thursday.

The Field Poll found that 69% of registered voters favored changing tax laws to ensure that commercial and business properties are reassessed when they change ownership, which would trigger a higher property tax rate.

Prop. 13, the 1978 ballot initiative that transformed property taxes in California, restricts yearly property tax increases on homeowners – but once a home changes ownership, the tax rate is reset based on the new reassessed value.
Because of the complexities of the law, however, commercial and business properties are not always reassessed when they change ownership. The poll found strong bipartisan support for changing Prop. 13 to include those properties.
Real estate and taxation experts have estimated that the loophole costs the state tens of millions of dollars a year in revenue, and has shifted more of the state’s tax burden onto homeowners.
It's arguable that something did need to be done to prevent taxes on homes from increasing beyond the ability of people to pay. But Proposition 13 was a drastic, overreaching step that led inevitably to overinflation of real estate prices in California.

Proposition 13 also essentially constitutes a massive giveaway to baby boomers and early Xers at the expense of later generations. Houses purchased in 1985 for $50,000 are often worth ten times their original purchase price today, but the property taxes on them have barely increased. That same house if sold to a new homebuyer would have its property tax reassessed at the current value--and there is absolutely no chance that a $500,000 house today will be worth $5 million or even $1 million in twenty years, simply because wages aren't keeping pace with the rise in home values. Taxes to fund schools, infrastructure and social services decreased, home prices increased beyond reason, and a fairly narrow band of people received the benefits at the expense of their children. People like to pretend that isn't so because they're under the delusion that the home and stock price increase of 1975-2008 was anything but a perverted, unsustainable aberration created by artificial asset inflation at the expense of the public square and workers' wages. Wages and assets will find a more sustainable equilibrium, one that will inevitably lead to a well-deserved downturn in asset values.

Even worse, however, is the situation with commercial property. That situation has two key problems. First, many commercials simply never change hands. Disneyland pays little more than 1970s-era property taxes. Second, many commercial properties can be "gifted" through inheritance and other means in such a way that it doesn't constitute a "transfer" under state law.

While far too many of the Californians who actually vote continue to receive the benefits of the homeowner provisions of Proposition 13 (a situation that may change as the number of less entrenched voters who are so priced out of the real estate market that they can only afford to rent becomes ever larger), most Californians are very clear that corporations are making off like bandits off rules designed to protect homeowners.

That bodes well for California's finances, and for a greater degree of tax fairness.


Thursday, April 17, 2014

The GOP should have gone RTL instead of NRA.  Bad call.

by digby

Greg Sargent has a story about the GOP starting to have a wee problem in their districts over Obamacare:
Asked by a constituent why he thinks repealing Obamacare’s protections is a good idea, Rep. Ross replies: “I don’t.” Though Ross has repeatedly voted to repeal the law, he cites his own health reform alternative – which includes well known Republican ideas like HSAs and mechanisms for “temporary” coverage for people with preexisting conditions – and laments that the GOP has not coalesced behind a comprehensive alternative. He says:
“I think one of the most unfortunate things my party did the last three years was not offer an alternative to health care…I wish we had an alternative. For the next six months, we’re going to go into an election, knowing that we’re not going to do anything to address health care. Because we’ve gone so far in the last few years saying No, that we don’t have an alternative to say Yes to. And I think that the American public, when they go to vote, are going to look at credibility before they look at substance.”
They made a mistake. They adopted the NRA all or nothing strategy when they should have adopted the "pro-life" death-by-a-thousand-cuts strategy. If they had just chosen a few elements to deride instead of barking about 'repeal" every five minutes they'd have something to work with. After all, many elements of the reforms are things they should, by all rights, be in favor of. Since they are not required to set forth any policies or programs that make any sense or have the possibility of working the way they say they will they could have initiated a strategy of picking it apart while still being in favor of "reform."

In fact, that's undoubtedly where they will go with all this. After all, refusing the Medicaid expansion has been a huge success.  They can be the instruments that hurt poor people while telling them that it's Obamacare's fault. Win, win.

Probably the smartest thing the president's team did was adopt their pejorative "Obamacare" as their own. That made the right wingers lose their heads --- how could they accept any part of the ACA if it had Satan's name attached?


Never say they take their eyes off the ball

by digby

Bernie Sanders reminds us this little historical fact:
It is not widely known that David Koch was the Libertarian Party vice-presidential candidate in 1980. He believed that Ronald Reagan was much too liberal. Despite Mr. Koch putting a substantial sum of money into the campaign, his ticket only received 1 percent of the vote. Most Americans thought the Libertarian Party platform of 1980 was extremist and way out of touch with what the American people wanted and needed.

Fast-forward 34 years and the most significant reality of modern politics is how successful David Koch and like-minded billionaires have been in moving the Republican Party to the extreme right. Amazingly, much of what was considered "extremist" and "kooky" in 1980 has become part of today's mainstream Republican thinking.

Let me give you just a few examples:

In 1980, Libertarian vice-presidential candidate David Koch ran on a platform that called for abolishing the minimum wage. Thirty-four years ago, that was an extreme view of a fringe party that had the support of 1 percent of the American people. Today, not only does virtually every Republican in Congress oppose raising the $7.25 an hour minimum wage, many of them, including Republican leaders like Mitch McConnell and John McCain, are on record for abolishing the concept of the federal minimum wage.

In 1980, the platform of David Koch's Libertarian Party favored "the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs." Thirty-four years ago, that was an extreme view of a fringe party that had the support of one percent of the American people. Today, the mainstream view of the Republican Party, as seen in the recently passed Ryan budget, is to end Medicare as we know it, cut Medicaid by more than $1.5 trillion over the next decade, and repeal the Affordable Care Act. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Under the Ryan plan, at least 40 million people -- 1 in 8 Americans -- would lose health insurance or fail to obtain insurance by 2024. Most of them would be people with low or moderate incomes."
There's more. And it's chilling.

So is this:
Charles and David Koch hit a milestone on Wednesday, as a $1.3 billion boost to their collective fortune sent their net worth above $100 billion, according to Bloomberg News.

The brothers are majority stakeholders in Koch Industries, the second-largest privately held company in the U.S., after Cargill Inc. They are now the fifth- and sixth-wealthiest people in the world.
They had half of that --- still an obscene amount of money --- just three years ago.

They could easily spend 50 billion dollars on politics and still be among the 10 richest people in America. And they are just the kind to do it. They are radical, true believers who have only one big mission in life. I think you can see by their "platform" what that is.

The Wingnut Welfare Monarchy

by digby

Can you believe this?  It's not as if Limbaugh and company wouldn't do this for free. Or that they aren't already millionaires hundreds of times over. They're just giving them money because ... well, because:
A POLITICO review of filings with the Internal Revenue Service and Federal Election Commission, as well as interviews and reviews of radio shows, found that conservative groups spent nearly $22 million to broker and pay for involved advertising relationships known as sponsorships with a handful of influential talkers including Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh between the first talk radio deals in 2008 and the end of 2012. Since then, the sponsorship deals have grown more lucrative and tea party-oriented, with legacy groups like The Heritage Foundation ending their sponsorships and groups like the Tea Party Patriots placing big ad buys.
It's the sheer amount of money they have that always astounds me.

Atrios is holding a fundraiser and as one of the last remaining founding prog-blogs, he needs your support:
12 years ago I started this sucky little blog, mostly because this "blog" thing seemed to be taking off and it was dominated by conservative assholes and eventheliberals, like every other medium at the time. I figured I could be a liberal asshole on the internet well enough. About that time lots of other people joined in - I'm not really claiming to be a pioneer here. And of course there were the protoblogs, such as the long missing Media Horse and the sadly departed Bartcop.

I can't say this "job" is "hard" relative to the shit most people put up with, but there is something about the constant stress of having to come up with a post every couple of hours. I hit publish and immediately start thinking of what to post next. Yes I know I have a reputation for not writing anything, but writing is the easy part. Having something to say is the hard bit.

Thanks to the community for keeping it interesting. "Internet commenters" have a bad reputation - often deservedly - but they're generally the most interesting part of an interesting site. Without commenters here I would have bored myself to death years ago.

12 years ago I was 30. I am not 30 anymore. It's been a long strange trip!

Consider a wee contribution to keep this going a bit longer. Hopefully we've managed to help change things for the better, just a bit anyway.

We don't have rich assholes throwing millions at us, I can tell you that. Without you readers we will disappear. And then you can read Ann Coulter and Jonah Goldberg and listen to Joe Scarborough and Rush Limbaugh. They don't have to hold fundraisers.

Click over and throw a few bucks his way.

Update: Driftglass reminds us that the Queen of all Wingnuttery, Ayn Rand, approved the welfare back when little Paulie Ryan was a mere twinkle in her eye. (Well, that might have been the Dexies, but you know what I mean ...)

Clive Bundy needs to read the Nevada Constitution

by digby

The Atlantic had an interesting take on the latest right wing hero Clive Bundy. He claims to be a big States' rights guy, naturally:
Well, you know, my cattle is only one issue—that the United States courts has ordered that the government can seize my cattle. But what they have done is seized Nevada statehood, Nevada law, Clark County public land, access to the land, and have seized access to all of the other rights of Clark County people that like to go hunting and fishing. They've closed all those things down, and we're here to protest that action. And we are after freedom. We're after liberty. That's what we want...
In another interview he said:
"I believe this is a sovereign state of Nevada," Bundy said in a radio interview last Thursday. "I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing."
Except he doesn't abide by Nevada state laws. In fact the Nevada constitution makes a mockery of everything these "states' rights" zealots are saying today:

Here it is:
All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.

I don't think it can be any clearer. This man is defying the laws of the United States of America and the clear constitutional directives of the State of Nevada. He does not have a leg to stand on.

I'm sure he'll declare that he's following Biblical law or some such nonsense if confronted This isn't about law, it's about the right wing's conviction that the United States doesn't really exist.

Unless they want a war in which case they'll be waving the flag so hard it will cause a hurricane. Consistency isn't their strong suit.

But then, he's obviously a silly fool.
From the "who me?" fiiles

by digby

I don't know how a person goes through life with so little self-awareness:

I wonder.

That, from the fellow who  wrote this:

The Right Man is the first inside account of a historic year in the Bush White House, by the presidential speechwriter credited with the phrase axis of evil.David Frum helped make international headlines when President George W. Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address linked international terrorists to Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. But that was only one moment during a crucial time in American history, when a president, an administration, and a country were transformed.

Update: You wonder why people are always bringing up Orwell?  Check out Frum's latest piece at The Atlantic. The headline:

We Need More Secrecy

Why government transparency can be the enemy of liberty

Also too: war is peace


The Bizarro World's greatest pundit strikes again

by digby

Dick Morris is the worst pundit in America, everyone knows that. In my latest piece for Salon I examine his latest jihad against the Interstate Compact allowing states to use the national popular vote for president in the electoral college which is unwittingly hilarious. Basically, he comes right out and admits that if they allow the popular vote to determine the winner, Republicans will lose:
Morris is best understood as the top pundit in DC Comics’ The Bizarro World of Htrae, a cube shaped planet in which everything is opposite of what we know as reality here on Earth (opposite of Htrae, get it?)Take his latest offering in upside-downism: he claims that in their latest nefarious vote fraud scheme, George Soros and his Democratic minions are preparing to steal elections from Republicans by having states adopt the national popular vote to determine electors in the electoral college.

Yes, you read that right. Using the national popular vote to determine who wins the presidency would be stealing elections. Let that sink in for a minute.

Read on. It's fun.

* Correction: Marvel Comics changed to DC Comics. I regret the error. Deeply.

How many people did we torture anyway?

by digby

In case you missed this last week with all the exciting developments in the ongoing search for Amelia Earhardt, here's an update on the Torture Report from McClatchy:
A still-secret Senate Intelligence Committee report calls into question the legal foundation of the CIA’s use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques on suspected terrorists, a finding that challenges the key defense on which the agency and the Bush administration relied in arguing that the methods didn’t constitute torture.

The report also found that the spy agency failed to keep an accurate account of the number of individuals it held, and that it issued erroneous claims about how many it detained and subjected to the controversial interrogation methods. The CIA has said that about 30 detainees underwent the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques.

The CIA’s claim “is BS,” said a former U.S. official familiar with evidence underpinning the report, who asked not to be identified because the matter is still classified. “They are trying to minimize the damage. They are trying to say it was a very targeted program, but that’s not the case.”

The findings are among the report’s 20 main conclusions. Taken together, they paint a picture of an intelligence agency that seemed intent on evading or misleading nearly all of its oversight mechanisms throughout the program, which was launched under the Bush administration after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and ran until 2006.

Here's the good news. We can totally believe the secret intelligence agencies now when they assure us that they aren't doing anything illegal, unconstitutional or immoral.

So let's just settle down about all that spying on everyone. They told us they weren't using the information for any purposes beyond keeping us safe from the terrorists. We can trust them. Absolutely.


New York is the latest domino to fall on road to disempowering the Electoral College

by David Atkins

Good news:

New York has joined the campaign to effectively end the Electoral College’s role in determining winners of presidential elections.

Under the National Popular Vote Compact, which Gov. Cuomo signed off on Tuesday, the state has agreed to award its electoral college votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the national popular vote.
Currently New York’s electoral colleges votes go to the winner of the state’s popular vote.
The Senate and Assembly approved the legislation last month.

The compact only takes effect once enough states have signed on to give it the required 270 electoral college votes. With New York’s participation, the movement has 165 votes.
Unfortunately there is a long way to go. With the recent exception of the Oklahoma state senate, Republican governors and legislatures have been predictably resistant to the national popular vote. And even if Democrats controlled the statehouses and governor's mansions in presidentially blue states like Michigan Pennsylvania and Colorado, they wouldn't be terribly inclined to support it because they might see fewer campaign stops as presidential candidates started stumping more in New York and California instead.

Still, it's a fight worth pursuing. Most urban centers are totally ignored in presidential elections, and the focus on small populations of persuadable voters in a few battleground states warps American public policy on a number of fronts, including Cuba policy, coal policy and many others.

An America in which a presidential candidate could more effectively maximize the share of the vote in big blue cities than fight over tiny pockets of undecided voters in Florida or Missouri would be a more progressive nation.


Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Yoo is confused

by digby

So John Yoo is widely considered to be a brilliant legal mind?
John Yoo, a former deputy assistant attorney general and author of the 2002 memos advising the CIA’s use of enhanced interrogation techniques, said the Pulitzer committee’s decision did not vindicate Snowden.

“I’m not surprised the Pulitzer committee gave The Washington Post a prize for pursuing a sensationalist story, even when the story is a disaster for its own country,” he said. “I don’t think we need automatically read the prize as a vindication for Snowden’s crimes. Awarding a prize to a newspaper that covered a hurricane does not somehow vindicate the hurricane, [and] awarding a Pulitzer for a photo of a murder does not somehow vindicate the crime.”
Huh? The stories for which these journalists won the Pulitzer weren't about Edward Snowden or his alleged crimes. They were about the NSA's secret activities. It's the NSA that is the hurricane or the murderer in his scenario. If the award vindicates Snowden (not its intent, but rather its effect) it's because without him there would be no story not because the stories were about him. What the hell is he going on about?

I guess it makes sense that this fellow would be hostile to the NSA story. After all, if someone hadn't leaked the Bybee memo, we might never have known about the torture regime. And it's obviously a good thing he was disgraced by the exposure of his sadistic view of American power to keep him off the bench. I feel kind of sorry for his students though.

"Personhood" gains steam

by digby

In case anyone wants to tell me again that we needn't worry about the right wing "moving the goal posts" and that once a group of people have secured a basic human right, there's no going back, take a look at this from Greg Sargent:
The issue isn’t being discussed at all by Washington prognosticators these days. But you can bet that some of the most hard fought Senate races this fall will feature big fights over “Personhood” measures, which have declared that full human rights begin at the moment of fertilization. 
A number of GOP Senate candidates are on record supporting Personhood in some form. Once primary season is over, and the Senate general elections get underway in earnest, you are likely to see Democrats attack Republicans over the issue — broadening the battle for female voters beyond issues such as pay equity to include an emotionally fraught cultural argument that Dems have used to their advantage in the past. 
This has already appeared in the Colorado Senate race, but it will likely become an issue in other races, too. In Colorado, the Republican candidate, GOP Rep. Cory Gardner, renounced his previous support for Personhood after entering the contest, admitting it would “restrict contraception,” but Dems seized on the reversal to argue that Gardner only supports protecting women’s health when politically necessary. 
Gardner co-sponsored the “Life at Conception Act,” which provides for Constitutional protection of the right to life of each “preborn human person,” defined as existing from the “moment of fertilization.” The Pro-Life Alliance describes this as a “Personhood” measure.
Other GOP Senate candidates are on record in similar fashion. Co-sponsors of the Life at Conception Act include Rep. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Rep. Steve Daines of Montana, both expected general election candidates. Meanwhile, according to McClatchy, three leading GOP Senate candidates in North Carolina — Thom Tillis, Greg Brannon, and Mark Harris — all favor a “Personhood” constitutional amendment that would “grant legal protections to a fertilized human egg and possibly ban some forms of birth control.”
Read on.  There's more, a lot more. Enough to send chills down your spine.

Now I'm sure that Democrats feel they will prevail on this and it's likely that it will accrue to their benefit in many places in the upcoming election. But all these candidates and office holders taking this position means that this "personhood" atrocity is becoming a mainstream position among Republicans.

So what's the point of this latest in the incremental war against a woman's right to choose when she wants to reproduce?
The single most important goal for any personhood law is to restrict, if not make totally illegal, the right to access abortions. If the zygote is a legal person, then Roe v. Wade was found on false grounds and no longer applies. Also, the idea of "viability" as a test no longer applies. A zygote or fetus must therefore be protected from being killed, just like any other person is.

Following that, most forms of hormonal birth control can potentially be attacked. Birth control works in two ways. First, it regulates the body so an egg is normally not released. No egg, no baby. However, sometimes an egg is released, but the hormones make the uterus a hostile environment for the zygote, causing it to pass out of the body with the woman's next cycle. If you assume a "person" begins at conception, birth control would necessarily be harmful to that person. Murder, if you will. The Virgina and Oklahoma State Legislators which are pushing personhood bills, were asked by those in opposition to put a basic rider protecting a woman's right to access hormonal birth control. In both cases, they gave a resounding "no", despite claims that they are not trying to make birth control illegal.

Another serious issue that is being brought up by ob-gyn's in the states trying to pass personhood laws, is the effect this will have on risky pregnancies, specifically ectopic pregnancy, because there is not sufficient legal markers/legal language to define a pregnancy as a "healthy one", nor define the rights of the fetus if it cannot survive...

Less likely, but still possible ramifications can include drastic laws against smoking, drinking or drug use while pregnant. While most women who want to be pregnant limit or remove those from their lives during pregnancy, some women do not, and some women cannot. Especially if they do not want the child in the first place. Though likely a violation of their civil rights, women are already charged for child abuse if they use while pregnant; personhood laws only make that situation worse. One can imagine a woman addicted to drugs who is living on the streets. She cannot have an abortion, but any child she has will face extreme health problems if it survives to term. And our answer will be to put her in jail.

Any miscarriage can potentially be considered manslaughter or a murder, depending on what the woman did or did not do during her pregnancy.
I actually don't think those last are less likely. Since the point of all this is to control women, I have no doubt that any pregnant women would be subject to legal problems if busy bodies thinks she is failing to behave in what certain people believe is a properly maternal way.

This is not some hysterical fringe discussion anymore. It's going to be part of the Fall campaign. And win or lose, the anti-abortion zealots will have succeeded in making the unthinkable thinkable.


President Obama reinforces conservative economic framing

by David Atkins

The White House twitter account posted today:

Regular readers of this blog will be able to identify the problem here: businesses don't actually create jobs. In fact, the goal of a business is to be able to make as much profit as possible while employing as few people as possible.

Companies don't create jobs. Customers do. It would be nice to have a President who helped communicate that reality to the American public.


Your wingnut whine 'o the day

by digby

Courtesy the WSJ:
The choice of Mr. Colbert is a strange business model for CBS. Gallup calibrates 38% of Americans as conservatives, 34% as moderates, and 23% as liberals. Friends who know Mr. Colbert, even some conservatives, tell me he's a good human being. But if he doesn't widen his appeal beyond those who lean strongly left, CBS will be writing off a large part of its potential audience. Carson hit the advertisers' sweet spot with a broad appeal to all consumers. It's a misnomer that comedians are rebels. At least not the successful ones who reflect the views of their fans.

Politically, Mr. Letterman took a left turn in recent years. It enraged many on the right when he mocked Sarah Palin's daughter and even today continues to bash Mr. Bush. And it didn't help his ratings. Now, by picking Mr. Colbert, CBS seems to be signaling that its target demo is Democrats of a decidedly liberal stripe.

I think they'll be content to keep Letterman's audience, thank you very much.

That piece was written by Johnny Carson's longtime head writer who has become a political consultant. Gosh I wonder what party he consults for?

Big streaming event today at 6pm Eastern, 3pm Pacific: Thomas Picketty with Krugman, Stiglitz and Durlauf

by digby

Via Moyers:
On Wednesday, April 16 at 6 p.m. Eastern time, Thomas Piketty will join economists Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz and Steven Durlauf in New York to talk about his new landmark book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century.
In a review, Krugman, who will appear on Moyers & Company this week, calls the book “magnificent” in part because it will “change both the way we think about society and the way we do economics,” adding that the French economist’s influence “runs deep.”

“The big idea of Capital in the Twenty-First Century is that we haven’t just gone back to nineteenth-century levels of income inequality, we’re also on a path back to ‘patrimonial capitalism,’ in which the commanding heights of the economy are controlled not by talented individuals but by family dynasties.”
Click here to watch the livestream.

This is the book everyone's talking about. It's said to be a towering work of scholarship and a tremendous breakthrough in the way we understand how the economy works.

Krugman wrote about it here in a piece called "Why We’re in a New Gilded Age."

Those birthpangs are getting life-threatening

by digby

It looks like there are some major complications in that birthing of the democracy over in Iraq. We got them pregnant but the baby has two heads and may not survive:
[A]s Iraq prepares for its first national election in four years on April 30, it is hard to imagine democracy activists rallying weekly in Iraqi streets. For months, suicide bombers have been dynamiting themselves in crowded Shiite markets, coffee shops, and funeral tents, while Shiite militias and government security forces have terrorized Sunni communities. The Iraqi state is breaking apart again: from the west in Anbar province, where after weeks of anarchic violence more than 380,000 people have fled their homes; to the east in Diyala province, where tit-for-tat sectarian killings are rampant; to the north in Mosul, where al-Qaeda-linked militants control large swathes of territory; to the south in Basra, home to Iraq’s oil riches, where Shiite militias are once more ascendant; to Iraq’s Kurds, who warn that the country is disintegrating and contemplate full independence from Baghdad.

More than 2,500 Iraqis have been killed since the start of the year, including nearly three hundred in the first ten days of April; in the capital itself, which has become a showcase for the country’s multiplying conflicts and uncontrolled violence, there have been several brazen attacks on government buildings, and a terrifying string of car bombings, including eight on April 9 alone.

In theory, this month’s parliamentary elections, which are being contested by parties from across the political spectrum, will allow voters to take a stand against extremism. While many Iraqis say they are disillusioned with their current leaders, however, few think their vote is likely to produce major changes: Most of the candidates play to the fears of their own sects, or seem too weak to change the currently hateful mood. Across Iraq, people seek diversions through a trip to a mall or coffee shop, half-expecting a fatal explosion, or they lock themselves away at home losing themselves in American movies and video games. Others seek solace in the sectarian fantasies now promoted by the elite political parties: the stories told by many Sunnis of Iran’s domination of Iraq through militias and political figures, and by the Shiite religious parties of a plot hatched in Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Turkey to destroy the Shia communities in Syria and Iraq.
Oh, and then there's this:

Decades ago, in the years after Iraq gained independence, a tradition of child marriage persisted in its hills and plains. Upon their fathers’ orders, Iraqi girls were betrothed to strangers and rivals alike to resolve tribal disputes or incur favor.
childmarriageBut in the mid-1970s, such acts — called “fasliyah” — were prohibited as the nation moved toward secularization and modernity.

“This decree [banning fasliyah] constituted the first step toward a civilized Iraqi community,” reports the Middle East publication Al-Monitor, “which would put an end to the failures of the tribal… society.”
Now the Iraqi government is poised to legalize child marriage for the nation’s majority Shiite Muslim population. But the law, which some expect to pass before this month’s parliamentary elections, would do significantly more than that.

Called the Jaafari Personal Status Law, it would prohibit Muslim men from marrying non-Muslims, prevent women from leaving the house without their husband’s consent, automatically grant custody of children older than two to their father in divorce cases and legalize marital rape.

The law, which proponents say will save women’s “rights and dignity,” would also permit boys to marry as young as 15 and girls to marry as young as nine. Girls younger than nine would be permitted to marry with a parent’s approval.

Ayad Allawi, a former Iraqi prime minister, expressed outrage this week in an interview with the Telegraph. He said the law would legalize the abuse of women.

“It allows for girls to be married from nine years of age and even younger,” Allawi said. “There are other injustices [in the law] too.”

The legislation, which was introduced late last year, was condemned by international rights groups.

“Passage of the Jaafari law would be a disastrous and discriminatory step backward for Iraq’s women and girls,” said Joe Stork of Human Rights Watch.“This personal status law would only entrench Iraq’s divisions while the government claims to support equal rights for all.”

The irony of all this is that one of the main human rights rationales for the invasion, as it was with Afghanistan, was that it was going to free the ladies. Remember this?
"We’re getting the band together," White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett told the group on their first conference call last week.

The "Band" is made up of the people who brought you the war in Afghanistan—or at least the accompanying public-relations campaign. Their greatest hit: exposing the Taliban’s treatment of women.

Now, they’re back for a reunion tour on Iraq. The Band's instrument, of course, is information.
Karen Hughes famously toured the Middle East clumsily telling anyone who'd listen that she was "a working mom" and Laura Bush made the women of Afghanistan and Iraq her personal cause. This was mostly for domestic consumption, of course, and it worked to some extent. A lot of feminists were torn on this account --- they had been trying to alert the world about the Taliban for years.

But it's always dicey to try to fix such problems with a war against religious fanatics. Particularly when that's only a convenient humanitarian excuse for a ruthless war over resources. So, here we are, 11 years after the invasion --- Iraq is exploding and women are being driven back into medieval times. Heckuva job, Bushie.

Enlisting the ladies

by digby

“I just don’t have time for anything,” a housewife told a newsmagazine. “I’m fighting Communism three nights a week.”

The link goes to a Perlstein discussion of the Tea Party back in 2010. It's such a perfect example of the way the GOP enlists women to work on their behalf: it's just another housewife chore. Here's their 2014 version:

Signaling that the Republican Party is getting serious about wooing women, the Washington Post reported Monday that the Republican National Committee is planning to recruit an army of volunteers who will court young female voters in Democratic-leaning suburban areas.

The co-chair of the RNC, Sharon Day, is slated to launch the "14 in '14" program Monday in West Virginia, according to the Post, aiming to "sign up women who will commit 30 minutes per week in the 14 weeks before the election, making calls, recruiting other women, identifying voters and getting people to the polls."

President Barack Obama carried female voters in 2012 -- unmarried women in particular -- and winning over that voting bloc could tip tough mid-term elections in the GOP's favor.

“Women are a very important part of the electorate and the RNC is very serious about engaging,” Day told the Post. “The Democrats have relied on desperate attacks and we are going to aggressively work to correct the record and build relationships with women voters.”

I want you to look at the picture here:

There are only a couple of women there who are younger than I am. If the idea is that these women are going to be able to persuade their single granddaughters to vote for throwback patriarchs who think they're sluts if they use birth control, I suppose this might work. Otherwise, I think they have a long row to hoe. But then political strategists who declare proudly that "women are an important part of the electorate" --- as if it needs to be pointed out --- might not be as tuned into the real world as one might hope.

The GOP is one of the two major American parties and wields considerable power in our government. And their women sounds little different than that housewife back in the 60s. It's actually rather depressing.


Rand Paul, the sin-eater

by digby

My Salon piece this morning is about the Republican establishment dreaming of forming a grassroots rebellion against ... Rand Paul and the base of the Republican Party.
In a time of partisan gridlock and a political scene that’s become so dull and predictable that cable networks are devoting weeks of 24-hour news coverage to an airplane that doesn’t exist, progressive news junkies can turn to one bright spot to lift their spirits and feed their political souls: the open warfare breaking out between the various factions of the Republican coalition. The tension between the radicals and the establishment has been around for decades and the energy waxes and wanes depending on the circumstances. Even in the bright glow of the Reagan apotheosis, Newt Gingrich and his revolutionaries were making trouble from the back benches. But this time is a little different[...]

What’s new in this cycle is the rise of the agitated “moderates” who are taking to the pages of their traditional media to lash out in anger at Tea Party excesses — or at least at a certain “non-mainstream” Republican who can sit in as the far right’s all-purpose sin-eater. (You don’t want to directly confront that rabid Tea Party base. It bites.) That man is Sen. Rand Paul.
Read On ...

House conservatives STILL can't figure out what their healthcare "alternative" is

by David Atkins

This story, perhaps more than any about Wall Street, foreign policy or national security, shows just how far to the right both parties have gone:

Top House conservatives are pressuring Republican leaders to bring an ObamaCare replacement bill to a vote by the August recess.

Conservatives cheered when Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) pledged a vote during the House GOP’s annual retreat in January, viewing the commitment as a central element of the party’s vow to be “the alternative party” and not merely stand in opposition to President Obama.

Yet 10 weeks later, party leaders have given no indication when they might present a plan or what form it will take.

Conservatives like Rep. Steve Scalise (La.), chairman of the Republican Study Committee (RSC), are pushing for a vote by the time lawmakers leave town for five weeks at the end of July.
“At the end of the day, we feel it’s really important to bring a bill to the floor that is a true replacement to the president’s healthcare law,” Scalise said in a phone interview Tuesday. “Look, leadership’s come a long way in the last six months on that, and we’re continuing to talk to them to try to get to a point where we actually have a vote on the House floor by the August recess.”

Scalise wants the party to adopt a single, comprehensive replacement for ObamaCare, but party leaders have not signed off on that approach. In recent weeks, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has suggested the House might vote instead on a series of healthcare bills.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has shied away from making any commitment at all, appearing to downplay the importance of holding a floor vote within a specific timeframe.

At a press conference last week, Boehner said Cantor and other top Republicans are “trying to build a consensus over what an alternative would look like.”
Of course they can't figure out what a conservative alternative would look like. Beyond going back to the old system of basically letting people with pre-existing conditions get sicker and die, there's isn't a more conservative alternative than the ACA. The ACA was the conservative alternative. It was the Heritage Foundation's idea. It was the idea implemented by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts. It's essentially a hefty government subsidy to health insurance companies to give them millions of new customers who previously couldn't afford coverage.

That doesn't make it bad per se, and it's certainly better than what we had before. But of all the possible forward-looking solutions to the healthcare crisis in this country, the ACA was the most conservative option possible. It's most progressive aspect is the Medicaid expansion--which Republican governors are blocking out of pure spite.

Democrats adopted that conservative approach partly to keep the medical and pharmaceutical industries happy, partly because many Americans currently covered by their employers would stupidly but understandably want to stick with the devil they know instead of take a chance on a "Euro-Socialist" approach, and partly because they were hoping for a few Republican votes to make it "bipartisan."

Republicans should have been thrilled with the result. Instead, they acted like the ACA was a nefarious Communist plot, and used atrocious lies about the bill to win big in 2010. That victory in turn helped them cement what will likely be over a decade in control of the House.

But it also means there's almost nowhere left for Republicans to go on healthcare. They can't really advocate for going back to the old system. And they certainly can't come up with a solution for those with pre-existing conditions and those priced out of healthcare entirely without a solution that looks very much like the ACA. They're all the way out on the right edge of the cliff, backed against the precipice by the right-leaning ACA. To go any farther right would mean jumping off the ledge.


Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Girls up front

by digby

I'm pretty sure they feel darned clever about this:
Some allies of rancher Cliven Bundy were prepared to make as much of a media spectacle as possible if violence were to erupt, saying they would put women on the front lines in the event federal officials turned to deadly force. Former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack told Fox News Monday, as reported by the Blaze:

We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front. If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.

Mack, a self-professed Tea Partier, is one of a host of right-wing figures who stood behind Bundy and made him a conservative celebrity after he refused to pay grazing fees based on his claim that the federal government is not entitled to own land.

Mack served as sheriff for Graham County between 1988 and 1997, and is part of a group known as the “Oath Keepers” that denies the supremacy of federal law and has been deemed part of a wave of new militia groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. He was also a plaintiff in the lawsuit against the federal government that challenged the constitutionality of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.
This is actually not all that uncommon. Human shields are often used in certain kinds of conflicts. The Taliban does it, for instance. Bashar Assad does too. Saddam and Qaddafi both did it with relish.

You can certainly see who their inspirations are.

Fergawdsakes. Shoe Truthers? Really?

by digby

The right wing is staging one of the stupidest hissy fits ever. They are saying that Hillary Clinton staged that shoe throwing incident the other day. It's so dumb even Rush seems a little bit embarrassed by it and I didn't think that was possible:

Rush Limbaugh jumped on board the crazy train Monday, telling listeners that he can "totally relate" to those who believe that "everything the Clintons do is staged or choreographed." While he has not studied the incident in detail, he believes what people told him about Clinton's reaction not being "natural."

"I'm sorry, I'm ill-equipped to comment," Limbaugh said, proceding, of course to comment at some length. "Maybe it's because, in my subconscious, I think it was staged, or set up, or whatever. ... I don't know why anybody would be throwing a shoe at Hillary unless -- maybe it's an attempt to make the Benghazi people look like nuts and lunatics and wackos."

You don't need to have shoes thrown at you to make the Benghazi people look like nuts and lunatics.

The think Clinton didn't "react naturally" because in their minds she should have jumped on a broom and flown at the assailant cackling madly and screaming "I'll get you my pretty!!!!"

Jesus. Did they find that plane yet?

Sexual abuse in the quiverfull movement. Is anyone surprised?

by David Atkins

While repulsive, I don't think this should be a surprise to anyone:

A leading advocate of the patriarchal Quiverfull movement groomed a teenage girl as his “personal sex object” and then used the purity culture to shame her into silence, according to a lawsuit filed by his victim.

Douglas Phillips resigned last year from Vision Forum and Vision Forum Ministries over what he described at the time as an extramarital affair.

But the lawsuit, reported by Right Wing Watch, revealed more details about this relationship and the ways that women are treated in the Quiverfull movement – which has been popularized by the prolific Duggar family and their TLC reality show, 19 Kids and Counting.

Attorneys claim Phillips, a close friend to the Duggar family and an associate of actor Kirk Cameron, “methodically groomed” Lourdes Torres since she was 15 years old and led her to believe they would be married.

Phillips told the girl this was possible because his wife, Beall Phillips, “was going to die soon.”

Torres appeared in two Vision Forum films, “Alone But Not Alone” and the anti-feminist documentary “Return of the Daughters.”

Right Wing Watch also noted that when Torres graduated from high school in 2003, Phillips wrote a blog post commending her parents for “bringing their daughter into mature Christian womanhood.”

But at the same time, according to the lawsuit, Phillips indoctrinated Torres with the “patriarchal mindset” and “subtly began to manipulate Ms. Torres, so that he could use her for his sexual gratification.”

The suit claims Phillips repeatedly groped and touched Torres inappropriately and masturbated on her, “against her wishes and over her objections,” over a period of years.

“While Ms. Torres would have felt compelled to submit to Douglas Phillips, the purity culture would have meant at the same time, her submission made her ‘damaged goods’ in her eyes, the eyes of her family, and her community — raising the cost for her to come forward to call him to account,” the suit claims. “She was, in fact, in a ‘no-win’ situation.”
That "no-win situation" is exactly what religious patriarchs want women to be in. It's all about sexual control.


Search Digby!